Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 18:14
And when Paul was now about to open [his] mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O [ye] Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:
14. And ( But) when Paul was now about to open his mouth ] There is nothing in the Gk. which requires the word “now.” The Roman has too much contempt for the whole matter and all who are concerned in it to listen to any defence. For the law of the Jews, its breach or its observance, he has no care, and will not be used by either party.
Gallio said unto the Jews ] He does not need to hear both sides of a question about which he will give no opinion.
If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked lewdness ( villany)] The old word “lewdness” has grown to have a different meaning from that which it had when the A. V. was made. The two things of which the magistrate would take account are (1) any evil doing (cp. Act 24:20), an act of injustice, or (2) any unscrupulous conduct involving moral wrong. He would be, that is, a minister of law and equity, for that was his duty.
reason would that I should bear with you ] He shews by his language how far he feels the Roman citizen above the tolerated Jews. But if their case called for its exercise they should have the benefit of toleration and he would inquire into matters that were the business of his office.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
About to open his mouth – In self-defense, ever ready to vindicate his conduct.
A matter of wrong – Injustice, or crime, such as could be properly brought before a court of justice.
Or wicked lewdness – Any flagrant and gross offence. The word used here occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes properly an act committed by him who is skilled, facile, or an adept in iniquity an act of a veteran offender. Such crimes Gallio was willing to take cognizance of.
Reason would … – Greek: I would bear with you according to reason. There would be propriety or fitness in my hearing and trying the case. Thai is, it would fall within the sphere of my duty, as appointed to guard the peace, and to punish crimes.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. Paul was now about to open his mouth] He was about to enter on his defense; but Gallio, perceiving that the prosecution was through envy and malice, would not put Paul to any farther trouble, but determined the matter as follows.
If it were a matter of wrong] , Of injustice; any thing contrary to the rights of the subject.
Or wicked lewdness] , Destructive mischief. (See Clarke on Ac 13:10, where the word is explained.) Something by which the subject is grievously wronged; were it any crime against society or against the state.
Reason would that I should bear with you.] , According to reason, or the merit of the case, I should patiently hear you.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
To open his mouth; to make his apology, and to speak in his own defence.
A matter of wrong; as murder, theft, or any such injury, which judges do usually determine of.
Reason would that I should bear with you; I would endure any trouble to hear and understand it, I should think it my duty to suffer you to say as much as you would in your case.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. If it were a matter of wrong orwicked lewdnessany offense punishable by the magistrate.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And when Paul was now about to open his mouth,…. In his own defence, and plead his own cause, and answer to the charge exhibited against him:
Gallio said unto the Jews, if it was matter of wrong; of injury to any man’s person or property, as murder, theft, c.
or wicked lewdness as fraud, forgery, perjury, treason, c.
O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: his sense is, that it would be according to right reason, and agreeably to his office as a judge, to admit them and their cause, and try it, and hear them patiently, and what was to be said on both sides of the question, what the charges were, and the proof of them, and what the defendant had to say for himself. The Vulgate Latin version reads, “O men Jews” and so Beza’s ancient copy.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When Paul was about to open his mouth ( ). Genitive absolute again. Before Paul could speak, Gallio cut in and ended the whole matter. According to their own statement Paul needed no defence.
Wrong (). Injuria. Old word, a wrong done one. In N.T. only here, Acts 24:20; Rev 18:5. Here it may mean a legal wrong to the state.
Wicked villainy (). A crime, act of a criminal, from (, easy, , work), one who does a thing with ease, adroitly, a “slick citizen.”
Reason would that I should bear with you ( ). Literally, “according to reason I should have put up with you (or held myself back from you).” This condition is the second class (determined as unfulfilled) and means that the Jews had no case against Paul in a Roman court. The verb in the conclusion () is second aorist middle indicative and means with the ablative “I should have held myself back (direct middle) from you (ablative). The use of makes the form of the condition plain.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Lewdness [] . See on mischief, ch. 13 10. Rev., villainy.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And when Paul was now about to open his mouth,” (mellontes de tou Paulou anoigein to stoma) “Then as Paul was about to open his mouth,” to make his defense against the insinuations of the charges that he had broken the civil law, to respond to the truthful charges, that “he persuaded men to worship God contrary to the law,” not the Roman or Grecian law, but the law of Moses.
2) “Gallio said to the Jews,” (eipen ho Gallion pros tous loudaious) “Gallio (the proconsul or deputy) responded to the rabble Jews.”
3) “If it were a matter of wrong,” (ei men en adikemati)
“If it (your charge or complaint) “was some specific crime,” a violation of the civil law that I adjudicate; If it were related to personal injury or injustice.
4) “Or wicked lewdness, o ye Jews,” (e hradiourgerna poneron 0 loudaioi) “Or (even) some specific villanous evil of wickedness, 0 ye Jews,” if it were a matter of specific wrong against the state, something that was my business, without my becoming a meddler, Pro 20:3.
5) “Reason would that I should bear with you:” (kata logon an aneschomen humon) “I would of my own accord, rightly, logically endure you all,” your complaints and charges against Paul, and the brethren he represents, would then be a matter of my business as a Roman magistrate. Gallio simply told them that he was not intending to meddle into their religious prejudices and hatred against Paul, the missionary laborers with him, and believers of the Corinthian church. Much trouble comes from meddling in affairs of others, Pro 24:21-23.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(14) When Paul was now about to open his mouth.The phrase always implies, as has been noticed (see Note on Act. 8:35), the beginning of a set discourse. St. Paul was about to begin a formal apologia. This, however, proved to be unnecessary.
Gallio said unto the Jews.The proconsul could hardly have resided in Achaia for eighteen months without hearing of the new movement. He knew the Jews. He probably knew something of St. Paul. On the assumption already referred to (see Note on Act. 18:12) the knowledge may have been fuller than appears on the surface. In any case, from his standpoint, as philosopher and statesman, it was not a matter for his tribunal. He was not anxious to draw a hard and fast line as to the relligiones licit recognised by the State.
A matter of wrong or wicked lewdness.Better, a matter of crime or fraud. Lewdness, which to us suggests a special class of crimes, is used as lewd had been in Act. 17:5. The Greek word is very closely connected with that translated subtlety in Act. 13:10. Both words were probably used in a strictly forensic sensethe first for acts of open wrong, such as robbery or assault; the second for those in which a fraudulent cunning was the chief element.
Reason would that I should bear with you.The very turn of the phrase expresses an intense impatience. Even in the case supposed, his tolerance would have required an effort. As it was, these Jews were now altogether intolerable.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. Paul mouth Paul was not allowed a defence, because there was no charge.
Wrong Positive crime.
Lewdness Rather, laxity; misconduct from easy carelessness, yet often arising to presumption and recklessness.
O ye Jews The repugnance of the easy and graceful literary philosopher appears in every clause.
Bear with you However severe the endurance.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked villainy, O you Jews, reason would that I should bear with you, but if they are questions about words and names and your own law, look to it yourselves. I am not minded to be a judge of these matters.” ’
Gallio was a discerning and wise ruler and having looked over their case he immediately came to the conclusion that both sides were simply disagreeing about the interpretation of the same religion. He drew the proceedings to a close before Paul had even had an opportunity to speak and pointed out to the plaintiffs, that is, the Jews, that interpreting their religion was not the purpose for which he had been appointed. If they could produce evidence of Paul breaking the law, or committing some villainy then he would be quite happy to act. But when it came to such things as interpretations of what ‘the word’ was, and disagreements about particular names connected with it, such as ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christos’, and whether their Instruction (Torah) should be observed by certain people or not, that was a matter for them to decide between themselves. He was not prepared to judge such matters. They must argue it out among them.
We may presume that in building up their case in order to demonstrate that Paul was not preaching Judaism, they had distinguished their Scriptures from ‘the word’ preached by Paul, had distinguished their idea of the Messiah from Jesus Christos, and had pointed out that contrary to Judaism Paul taught that Gentiles did not have to keep the Law of Moses. Gallio simply saw both sides as interpreting the same religious ideas in different ways. Interestingly both were right. It simply depended on how it was seen.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 18:14. If it were a matter of wrong, &c. If it were a matter of injustice, or mischievous licentiousness. Heylin reads the passage, If your accusation were for some act of injustice, or other immorality, I would hear you patiently, as reason requires I should.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 18:14-15 . The mild and humane Gallio (Stat. Silv . ii. 7, 32; Seneca, Q. Nat . 4 praef.) refuses to examine into the complaint, and hands it over, as simply concerning doctrine, to the decision of the accusers themselves to the Jewish tribunal without permitting Paul, who was about to begin his defence, to speak.
] namely, in pursuance of your accusation.
. ] I should with reason (see Plat. Rep . p. 366 B; Wetstein in loc.; Bernhardy, p. 241) bear with you, i.e . according to the context: give you a patient hearing. Comp. Plat. Phil . p. 13 B; Rep . p. 367 D. “Judaeos Gallion sibi molestos innuit,” Bengel.
] but if (as your complaint shows) there are questions in dispute (Act 15:2 ) concerning doctrine and names ( plural of category; Paul’s assertion that the name of Messiah belonged to Jesus, was the essential matter of fact in the case, see Act 18:5 ), and of your (and so not of Roman) law .
] See on Act 17:28 .
. . .] Observe the order of the words, judge will I for my part , etc. Thus Gallio speaks in the consciousness of his political official position; and his wise judgment which Calovius too harshly designates as atheistica is after a corresponding manner to be borne in mind in determining the limits of the ecclesiastical power of princes as bearing on the separation of the secular and spiritual government, with due attention, however, to the circumstance that Gallio was outside the pale of the Jewish religious community.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
14 And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:
Ver. 14. Or wicked lewdness ] The Greek word, , doth elegantly set forth the disposition of a lewd man; which is to be easily drawn to any wicked way. If the devil do but hold up his finger, he may have him at his beck and obedience; he is the devil’s clay and wax, and may be wrought to anything with a wet finger.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14. ] Though manuscript authority is so strong against the , I have retained it, as also has Tischdf. (Exo 7 [not Exo 8 ]). Its omission may be easily accounted for, from the copyists finding it unnecessary and seemingly out of place: but on no supposition can its insertion be rendered probable. It stands very appropriately here, referring to the complaint of the Jews, either as uttered by them, or perhaps recapitulated by Gallio: ‘ Ye have charged this man with lawless conduct . If now this had really been so.’
] See reff. We have the opposite in 2Ma 4:36 .
. . ] I should have borne with (patiently heard) you .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 18:14 . : Lucan; see Burton, p. 71, on , see critical note and Alford, in loco , for its retention. , cf. Act 24:20 , only once elsewhere in N.T., Rev 18:5 , here it may perhaps mark a legal wrong, a wrong against the state the word is used in classical Greek of a breach of law . , Dem., 586, 11, while marks rather the moral wrong. ., cf. Act 13:10 , not elsewhere either in classical Greek or LXX, but cf. Plut., Pyrrh. , 6, “if a misdemeanour or a crime”: so Ramsay. : ut par est, merito; cf. use of the phrase in Polyb. and Mal 3:14Mal 3:14 ( ., 2Ma 4:46 , 3Ma 7:8 ). without perhaps in contempt (so Knabenbauer), but see critical note. , cf. Luk 9:41 , and so several times in St. Paul’s Epistles, 2Co 11:1 ; 2Co 11:4 ; on the augment and construction see Blass, Gram. , pp. 39, 102, Simcox, Language of the New Testament , p. 34, note, and Burton, p. 103.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts
GALLIO
Act 18:14 – Act 18:15
There is something very touching in the immortality of fame which comes to the men who for a moment pass across the Gospel story, like shooting stars kindled for an instant as they enter our atmosphere. How little Gallio dreamed that he would live for ever in men’s mouths by reason of this one judicial dictum! He was Seneca’s brother, and was possibly leavened by his philosophy and indisposed to severity. He has been unjustly condemned. There are some striking lessons from the story.
I. The remarkable anticipation of the true doctrine as to the functions of civil magistrates.
II. The tragic mistake about the nature of the Gospel which men make.
We see in him the practical man’s contempt for mere ideas. The man of affairs, be he statesman or worker, is always apt to think that things are more than thoughts. Gallio, proconsul in Corinth, and his brother official, Pilate, in Jerusalem, both believed in powers that they could see. The question of the one, for an answer to which he did not wait, was not the inquiry of a searcher after truth, but the exclamation of a sceptic who thought all the contradictory answers that rang through the world to be demonstrations that the question had no answer. The impatient refusal of the other to have any concern in settling ‘such matters’ was steeped in the same characteristically Roman spirit of impatient distrust and suspicion of mere ideas. He believed in Roman force and authority, and thought that such harmless visionaries as Paul and his company might be allowed to go their own way, and he did not know that they carried with them a solvent and constructive power before which the solid-seeming structure of the Empire was destined to crumble, as surely as thick-ribbed ice before the sirocco.
And how many of us believe in wealth and material progress, and regard the region of truth as very shadowy and remote! This is a danger besetting us all. The true forces that sway the world are ideas.
We see in Gallio supercilious indifference to mere ‘theological subtleties.’ To him Paul’s preaching and the Jews’ passionate denials of it seemed only a squabble about ‘words and names.’ Probably he had gathered his impression from Paul’s eager accusers, who would charge him with giving the name of ‘Christ’ to Jesus.
Gallio’s attitude was partly Stoical contempt for all superstitions, partly, perhaps, an eclectic belief that all these warring religions were really saying the same thing and differed only in words and names; and partly sheer indifference to the whole subject. Thus Christianity appears to many in this day.
What is it in reality? Not words but power: a Name, indeed, but a Name which is life. Alas for us, who by our jangling have given colour to this misconception!
We see in Gallio the mistake that the Gospel has little relation to conduct. Gallio drew a broad distinction between conduct and opinion, and there he was right. But he imagined that this opinion had nothing to do with conduct, and how wrong he was there we need not elaborate.
The Gospel is the mightiest power for shaping conduct.
III. The ignorant levity with which men pass the crisis of their lives.
The offer of salvation in Christ is ever a crisis. It may never be repeated. Was Gallio ever again brought into contact with Paul or Paul’s Lord? We know not. He passes out of sight, the search-light is turned in another direction, and we lose him in the darkness. The extent of his criminality is in better hands than ours, though we cannot but let our thoughts go forward to the time when he, like us all, will stand at the judgment bar of Jesus, no longer a judge but judged. Let us hope that before he passed hence, he learned how full of spirit and of life the message was, which he once took for a mere squabble about ‘words and names,’ and thought too trivial to occupy his court. And let us remember that the Jesus, whom we are sometimes tempted to judge as of little importance to us, will one day judge us, and that His judgment will settle our fate for evermore.
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
now. Omit.
open his mouth. Figure of speech Idioma. App-6. A Hebraism.
If = If indeed. Greek. ei. App-118.
a matter of wrong = an injustice. Greek. adikema. App-128.
wicked. Greek. poneros. App-128.
lewdness = recklessness. Greek. radiourgema. Only here. Compare Act 13:10.
reason would = according to (Greek. kata. App-104.) reason (Greek. logos. App-121.)
that I should = I would.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
14.] Though manuscript authority is so strong against the , I have retained it, as also has Tischdf. (ed. 7 [not ed. 8]). Its omission may be easily accounted for, from the copyists finding it unnecessary and seemingly out of place: but on no supposition can its insertion be rendered probable. It stands very appropriately here, referring to the complaint of the Jews, either as uttered by them, or perhaps recapitulated by Gallio:-Ye have charged this man with lawless conduct. If now this had really been so.
] See reff. We have the opposite in 2Ma 4:36.
. .] I should have borne with (patiently heard) you.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 18:14. , said) Either because he was favourable to Paul, or because he despised the Jews.-, a matter of wrong) demanding a civil action.-, wanton wickedness) worthy of a criminal action.-, I would bear with you) Certainly , forbearance, is becoming in a judge, if he is rightly to discharge the duties of his office. Gallio implies that the Jews were troublesome (an annoyance) to him.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
when: Act 21:39, Act 21:40, Act 22:1, Act 22:2, Act 26:1, Act 26:2, Luk 21:12-15, 1Pe 3:14, 1Pe 3:15
If: Act 23:27-29, Act 25:11, Act 25:18-20, Act 25:26
bear: Act 13:18, Mar 9:19, Rom 13:3, 2Co 11:1, 2Co 11:4, Heb 5:2
Reciprocal: Exo 18:16 – a matter Est 1:16 – done wrong Mat 5:2 – General Mar 4:15 – these Joh 10:20 – why Joh 18:35 – Amos I Act 19:38 – have Act 25:5 – if 1Co 6:1 – having
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
Act 18:14. Paul could and would have answered the false charge; but the “judge on the bench” interrupted him. He told the Jews that he would hear their complaints on any matter that pertained to lawlessness against the laws of the land.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 18:14. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews. There is little doubt but that Gallio knew something about the Christian sect then becoming numerous in several of the cities of the Empire. One so high in favour as the proconsul of Achaia, who had been necessarily thrown in contact with so many of the chief personages of the Empire, was, of course, well acquainted with the outlines of the history of these Christians; and Gallio, in common with other noble Romans, regarded them simply as an offshoot of the great Jewish race,as dissenters, perhaps, from some of the ancestral superstitions, but fairly entitled, in common with their co-religionists, to the contemptuous toleration and even protection of Rome.
If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you. The Roman judges answer to the Jewish accusation against the Christian Paul was: If what you allege this stranger to have done partook of the nature either of wrong (, an act of injustice, fraud, dishonesty) or of wicked lewdness ( , a wicked crime), then I would have gravely considered the charge; but, by your own showing, nothing of the nature of crime is involved in your accusation.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Act 18:14-16. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth To speak in his own defence; Gallio Sensible of the futility of the charge; said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness With which you charged the person you have now brought before me: that is, If you accused this man of any injury done to particular persons, or of wantonly disturbing the peace of society; reason would That is, it were reasonable; that I should bear with you In this prosecution; and even that I should exert the power with which I am invested, to punish the offender in proportion to his crime. But if it be a question of words
Greek, , concerning discourse, or doctrine; and of names, and of your law If your accusation respect opinions taught by Paul, which ye think heretical; and whether the names of the Christ, and the Son of God, which he hath given to any one, ought to be given to that person; and whether all who worship the God of the Jews, are bound to worship him according to the rites of your law; look ye to it These are matters which belong to yourselves, and with which, as a magistrate, I have no concern. I will be no judge of such matters Matters so foreign to my office. The apparent coolness and contempt with which Gallio speaks of the matters in debate between Paul and the Jews does not merit commendation, but the severest censure. The names of the heathen gods, and the institutions concerning their worship and service, were fables, shadows, and deceits; but the question concerning the name of Jesus, his person, character, and offices, and the worship and service of the living and true God, is of more importance than all things else under heaven. Yet, there is this singularity (among a thousand others) in the Christian religion, that human reason, curious as it is in all other things, abhors to inquire into it. And he drave them from the judgment-seat Not regarding their clamorous importunity.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
14-16. In this case, however, they had to deal with a man of far different character from the magistrates of Philippi, or the city rulers of Thessalonica. Gallio was a brother of Seneca, the famous Roman moralist, who describes him as a man of admirable integrity, amiable, and popular. Such was the character which he exhibited on this occasion. Instead of yielding to popular clamor, as did so many provincial and municipal officers, before whom the apostles were arraigned, he examined carefully the accusation, and seeing that it had reference, not to any infraction of the Roman law, but to questions in regard to their own law, he determined at once to dismiss the case. (14) “But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, If it were a matter of injustice or wicked recklessness, Jews, it would be reasonable that I should bear with you. (15) But since it is a question concerning a doctrine and words, and your own law, do you see to it; for I do not intend to be a judge of these matters. (16) And he drove them from the judgment-seat.” This is the only instance, in all the persecutions of Paul, in which his accusers were dealt with summarily and justly. The incident reflects great credit upon Gallio.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
18:14 And when Paul was now about to open [his] mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O [ye] Jews, {g} reason would that I should bear with you:
(g) As much as I rightly could.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
To Gallio the accusations of these Jews seemed to involve matters of religious controversy that entailed no violation of Roman law. He was responsible to judge criminal cases, not theological disputations. Consequently he refused to hear the case and ordered the Jews to settle it themselves. The AV translation, "Gallio cared for none of these things," is misleading. It implies that Gallio had no interest in spiritual matters. That may have been true, but it is not what the text means. Really he was absolutely impartial and refused to involve himself in a dispute over which he had no jurisdiction. He refused to mix church and state matters. [Note: See McGee, 4:594.] Gallio’s verdict effectively made Christianity legitimate in the Roman Empire. However it is going too far to say that Gallio’s decision made Christianity an officially recognized religion in the Roman Empire. [Note: Witherington, p. 555.] Officially hereafter for many years the Romans regarded Christianity as a sect within Judaism even though the Jews were coming to see that it was a separate faith. As a proconsul, Gallio’s decision in Paul’s case was much more important than the judgments that the local magistrates in Philippi and elsewhere had rendered.