Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 18:17

Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat [him] before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

17. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue ] The conjunction is too strongly rendered in the A.V. The oldest MSS. omit “the Greeks” which is very like a marginal gloss that has been introduced into the text by some scribe. Here as before (Act 18:8) omit “chief.” Render (with R. V.), And they all laid hold on Sosthenes the ruler of the synagogue. The verb is used (Act 21:30) of the violent action of the mob at Jerusalem, and just afterwards (Act 21:33) of the chief captain’s conduct when he rescued Paul. Neither would be very gentle measures. And we may understand something of the same kind here. The surrounding crowd, of whom no doubt most would be Greeks, catching the tone of the magistrate, prepared to follow up his decision by a lesson of their own, of a rather rough kind. Sosthenes had probably been the spokesman of the Jews, and Paul would not improbably have some sympathizers among the Gentiles. And “Jew-baiting” was not unknown in those days. So with impunity the crowd could wreak their own vengeance on these interrupters of the proper business of the court, and beat Sosthenes before he was out of the magistrate’s presence. The name Sosthenes was a very common one, and we need not identify this man with the Sosthenes mentioned in 1Co 1:1.

And Gallio cared for none of those things ] Neither for the questions raised nor for those who raised them. How little Jewish life was regarded by the Romans is shewn in many places in their literature (see Farrar’s St Paul, vol. 1. Exc. xiv.). Tiberius banished four thousand of them to Sardinia, saying that if the unhealthy climate killed them off “it would be a cheap loss” (Tac. Ann. ii. 85). Coming from Rome where such feeling was universal, the lives and limbs of a few Jews would appear of small importance, and like the Emperor just named he may have thought it mattered little what became of them.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Then all the Greeks – The Greeks who had witnessed the persecution of Paul by the Jews, and who had seen the tumult which they had excited.

Took Sosthenes … – As he was the chief ruler of the synagogue, he had probably been a leader in the opposition to Paul, and in the prosecution. Indignant at the Jews; at their bringing such questions before the tribunal; at their bigotry, and rage, and contentious spirit, they probably fell upon him in a tumultuous and disorderly manner as he was leaving the tribunal. The Greeks would feel no small measure of indignation at these disturbers of the public peace, and they took this opportunity to express their rage.

And beat him – etupton. This word is not what is commonly used to denote a judicial act of scourging. It probably means that they fell upon him and beat him with their fists, or with whatever was at band,

Before the judgment seat – Probably while leaving the tribunal. Instead of Greeks in this verse, some mss. read Jews, but the former is probably the true reading. The Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic read it the Gentiles. It is probable that this Sosthenes afterward became a convert to the Christian faith, and a preacher of the gospel. See 1Co 1:1-2, Paul, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth.

And Gallio cared … – This has been usually charged on Gallio as a matter of reproach, as if he were wholly indifferent to religion. But the charge is unjustly made, and his name is often most improperly used to represent the indifferent, the worldly, the careless, and the skeptical. By the testimony of ancient writers he was a most mild and amiable man, arid an upright and just judge. There is not the least evidence that he was indifferent to the religion of his country, or that he was of a thoughtless and skeptical turn of mind. All that this passage implies is:

(1) That he did not deem it to be his duty, or a part of his office, to settle questions of a theological nature that were started among the Jews.

(2) That he was unwilling to make this subject a matter of legal discussion and investigation.

(3) That he would not interfere, either on one side or the other, in the question about proselytes either to or from Judaism. So far, certainly, his conduct was exemplary and proper.

(4) That he did not choose to interpose, and rescue Sosthenes from the hands of the mob. From some cause he was willing that he should feel the effects of the public indignation. Perhaps it was not easy to quell the riot; perhaps he was not unwilling that he who had joined in a furious and unprovoked persecution should feel the effect of it in the excited passions of the people. At all events, he was but following the common practice among the Romans, which was to regard the Jews with contempt, and to care little how much they were exposed to popular fury and rage. In this he was wrong; and it is certain, also, that he was indifferent to the disputes between Jews and Christians; but there is no propriety in defaming his name, and making him the type and representative of all the thought less and indifferent on the subject of religion in subsequent times. Nor is there propriety in using this passage as a text as applicable to this class of people.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 18:12; Act 18:17

And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection.

Gallio and Paul

The proconsul of Achaia had ended his term of office, and the proconsul appointed by the emperor was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, who, having been adopted by the friendly rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, had taken the name of Lucius Junius Antaeus Gallio. Very different was the estimate of his contemporaries from that which has made his name since proverbial for indifferentism. The brother of Seneca and the uncle of Luean, he was the most; universally popular member of that distinguished family. No mortal man is so sweet to any single person as he is to all mankind; Even those who love my brother Gallio to the utmost yet do not love him enough, wrote Seneca of him. He was the very flower of pagan courtesy and culture. A Roman with all a Romans dignity and seriousness, and yet with all the grace and versatility of a polished Greek. Whatever the former proconsul had been, he had not been one with whom the Jews could venture to trifle, nor had they ventured to hand Paul over to the secular arm. But now that a new proconsul, well known for his mildness, had arrived, who was perhaps unfamiliar with the duties of his office, and whose desire for popularity might have made him complaisant to prosperous Jews, they thought they could with impunity excite a tumult. Though Claudius had expelled the Jews from Rome, their religion was a religio licita; but the religion of this fellow, they urged, was a spurious counterfeit of Judaism which had become a religio illicita by running counter to its Mosaic Law. Such was the charge urged by a hubbub of voices, and as soon as it had become intelligible, Paul was on the point of making his defence. But Gallio was not going to trouble himself by listening to any defence. He took no notice whatever of Paul. With a thorough knowledge of, and respect for, the established laws, but with a genuinely Roman indifference for conciliatory language, he quashed the indictment and ordered his lictors to clear the court. But while we regret this unphilosophic disregard, let us at least do justice to Roman impartiality. In Gallio, in Lycrias, in Felix, in Festus, in the centurion Julius, and even in Pilate, different as were their degrees of rectitude, we cannot but admire the trained judicial insight with which they saw through the subterranean injustice and virulent animosity of the Jews in bringing false charges against innocent men. But the superficiality which judges only by externals always brings its own retribution. The haughty, distinguished and cultivated proconsul would have been to the last degree amazed had anyone told him that so paltry an occurrence would be for ever recorded in history; that it would be the only scene in his life in which posterity would feel a moments interest; that he would owe to it any immortality he possesses; that he had flung away the greatest opportunity of his life when he closed the lips of the Jewish prisoner; that it would be believed for centuries that that prisoner had converted his great brother Seneca to his own execrable superstition; that the parcel of questions about a mere opinion, and names, and a matter of the Jewish law, which he had so disdainfully refused to hear, should hereafter become the most prominent of all questions to the whole civilised world. And Paul may have suspected many of these facts as little as the sweet Gallio did. (Archdeacon Farrar.)

Gallio

In this fragment of apostolic history, notice–

I. Religious intolerance (Act 18:12) is seen in three things–

1. In the reason of their opposition to Paul. Was it because he had violated any law, invaded any human rights, broken the public peace, or insulted the public morals? No, but simply because he had persuaded men to worship God in a way not exactly agreeable to their own views.

2. In the spirit of their opposition. They made insurrection with one accord.

3. In the means of their opposition. Bigotry substitutes abuse for argument and in this case bigots sought to crush by invoking the arm of civil authority.

II. Magisterial propriety. Did Gallio, like Pilate, bow to public wish? No, he would not even entertain the case (Act 18:14-15). He meant that the question of religious differences came not within the authority of a civil magistrate. On this principle the Roman government generally acted. Gallio, as a magistrate, acted justly–

1. Towards himself. The magistrate who interferes with the religious opinions of the people incurs a responsibility too great for any man to bear.

2. To his fellow subjects. Look ye to it. Religion is not to be settled in courts of law, but in courts of conscience.

III. Social retribution. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, and beat him before the judgment seat. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. This case develops–

1. The natural sense of justice in humanity. These Greeks had witnessed Sosthenes wicked endeavours to crush a righteous man, and their sense of justice was outraged; and now their opportunity occurred for vengeance. This sense of justice is a spark from Divinity, and a pledge that one day justice will be done to all.

2. The reproductiveness of evil in man. Sosthenes had dealt out vengeance to Paul, and now it came back to him in a rich harvest. Violence begets violence, etc. The propagating power of evil is immense. Satan cannot cast out Satan. Christ has taught the true theory of this moral expulsion.

3. The power of the gospel. It is more than probable that this is the Sosthenes referred to in 1Co 1:2. So that over this fierce persecutor Pauls gospel so triumphed, that he became a brother in the holy cause.

IV. Lamentable indifference. He cared for none of these things. This can scarcely be nothing more than mere magisterial unconcernedness about religious disputes. As an educated Roman, he regarded the religion of Paul as beneath his notice. Religious indifferentism is one of the greatest and most prevalent evils of this age too, and it is infidelity in its worst form. Mere theoretical infidelity you can put down by argument. But this is beyond the reach of all logic. Religious indifference is–

1. Unreasonable. No question is of such transcendent moment to man as religion, and therefore it is madness on his part to neglect it.

2. Criminal. It is contrary to the wishes and the labours of the holiest men; it involves the abuse of all the means of spiritual improvement; and it is a practical disregard to all the commands of God.

3. Perilous. The danger is great, increasing, but still, thank God, at present avoidable. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The nature and extent of the office of the civil magistrate

If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews–if you would accuse this man of any injustice whereby he had invaded anyones right and property, or could lay to his charge any other villainous action done with a mischievous design, and whereby he had disturbed the public peace–reason would that I should bear with you. I should then be obliged by the duty of my place to take cognisance of your matter. But if it be a question of words, and names, and of your law; if the controversy, as it seems to me, be not about civil but religious matters, as about the Word which Paul preached, and the truth of that Word, and whether it be agreeable to your law–it is none of my business to determine such disputes. And this was a wise answer, and showed that he was well acquainted with the nature and extent of his office; and he was too good a man to lift himself in any party, and to abuse the power which was lodged in his hands by applying it to purposes foreign to the original design of it. The words thus opened, naturally lead me to treat of the nature and extent of the office of the civil magistrate.

I. Then let us consider the end and design of civil government. It is plain that civil government was instituted for the preservation and advancement of mens civil interests, for the better security of their lives and liberties and external possessions. Men soon became sensible of the necessity of civil government for these ends, from the inconveniences they suffered by a private life independent on each other. The proper business of the magistrate is to preserve the external peace and the temporal good of the community; to protect every man in his just right and property (1Th 4:6). But then it is to be considered that these transgressions are subject to be punished by the civil magistrate in a civil capacity only, and not in a religious one. They fall under his cognisance, as they are injurious to mens civil interests, and not as they have an inherent turpitude in them, and are transgressions of the Divine law; for in that capacity, I conceive, they are out of the magistrates power, and not cognisable before any courts of human judicature. The not observing this distinction has introduced no small confusion in this subject. But because those vices which are so many transgressions of Gods laws have also a natural tendency to injure our neighbour in his civil interests, and to disturb the good order and government of the world, therefore it unavoidably happens that the magistrate, in the due execution of his office, does indirectly intermeddle with religion. But though we cannot actually separate the ill influence any vice has upon the society we live in, from its being a transgression of some Divine law, yet in our minds we may make this separation, and consider every vice as a mixed action, as a transgression of the laws of man, and of the laws of God, In the first capacity only it is subject to human judicatures; in the second, it is cognisable only before the tribunal of heaven. For this reason, because vice and wickedness are punishable by the civil magistrate only upon a civil account, sins are differently estimated and differently punished by human and by Divine laws. Human laws make an estimate of sins from the damage they do to private persons, or to the public good, and inflict the greatest punishment upon those sins which are most injurious in this respect. And, therefore, if there be any sins wherein society is no way concerned, which it neither feels nor is affected with, the magistrate has nothing to do with punishing them. Consequently, secret intentions and designs of wickedness, treasonable thoughts, rebellious wishes, and seditious purposes, if they never break out into acts, can never be liable to civil punishments. But with regard to the laws of God the case is far otherwise. He takes an estimate of our sins by other measures, from those degrees of light and knowledge against which the offence was committed, and often punishes those sins most which are least, or not at all, censured by the civil power. Thus anger and revenge with Him is murder, and lustful thoughts and desires, adultery. And other actions there are which, though justly punishable by the civil power, are in their own nature guiltless, and do not displease God, but by being trangressions of that general law, of paying all due obedience to those whom He has set over us.

II. The end and design of religion. Though religion is a great friend to civil government, and the practice of the duties which that enjoins tends very much to our present happiness, and makes this world a much more easy place than it would be without it, yet all this is but remotely the effect of religion, and makes no part of its main and principal design. Religion, in a true sense, and as the word itself imports, is an obligation upon us to God. And, therefore, though men formed themselves into societies for civil reasons, they did not do it upon any religious account; because religion as it relates to God is transacted between a mans self and God, and is what nobody else is concerned in. So that it is neither necessary in itself nor essential to true religion that great numbers of men should meet together and be incorporated in societies for the better discovery, or the more due exercise of it. Hence it is that they who lived before the institution of civil governments, or the foundation of commonwealths, were as famous for their piety and religion as any who have been since. In this state of nature, I mean before the institution of civil government, religion, as it related to God alone, had no other hold upon men but from the fear and reverence of God, and was a perfect stranger to all human power and outward force. In this state no man whatever could require me to conform to his judgment on religious matters, nor could I require him to conform to mine. This was the case of religion in a state of nature. Let us next see whether any alteration was made in this case by the institution of civil government. Now since those wrongs which men daily received from one another, and which first moved them to eater into societies, did not affect their religion, but their lives, and liberty, and goods, it follows that when they waived their natural freedom, and combined together, they did not at all submit themselves in religious matters to the will of the civil magistrate, as they submitted their persons and properties to be disposed of by him for the obtaining the end of society, the mutual defence and preservation of one another. Men cannot abandon the care of their souls as they may that of their bodies and estates, and blindly leave it to the magistrate to prescribe what faith or worship they shall embrace. And therefore the magistrate ought not to insist upon terms of purely a religious nature with those who are under his government, or exercise his power and authority over them in this respect. This will quickly appear by taking a view of the chief and principal parts of religion. To begin, then, with morality and virtue, which, though unhappily distinguished from religion, are the chief and main things wherein it consists. These are founded in the eternal nature of things, whereby some things are evidently fit, and others as evidently unfit to be done whatever the consequence of them be here. This being plainly the nature of things, we justly conclude it to be the will of God who made us what we are, and put this difference between some things and others, that we should observe this difference in oar actions. And herein we are to be directed by our own reason or conscience: we are accountable to God alone. But what if anyone upon pretence of conscience, and to show his liberty, should commit any matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, invade anyones property, or disturb the public peace? Why, then, I say, no pretence of religion or conscience can screen him from the civil power. He ought to be restrained and punished. But then he does not suffer upon a religious, but upon a civil account. If we place religion in the belief of any set of doctrines, here, too, every man must judge for himself. The magistrate has nothing to do to interpose in this case, to apply force of any kind to bring men over to any particular persuasion. The peace and good order of society are the only points which he is to take care of, and since these are as consistent with mens holding different opinions in religion, as they are with their being of different sentiments in other matters, the magistrate is no more concerned to intermeddle in religious disputes than he is in those of philosophy, law, or physic. Indeed, if men hold any opinions in religion which are destructive of the peace and quiet of the world, and act in persuance of these opinions, their actions then are of a civil and not of a religious nature, and they render themselves obnoxious to the civil power. For the magistrate to interpose and make himself a judge and an avenger in affairs which are purely of a religious nature is to trangress the bounds of his duty and to invade the prerogative of God; it is to judge and misuse the servants of another master who are not at all- accountable to him. For nothing can be more clear and certain than that as religion has God only for its Author, so it is properly His care and concern only. But such attempts as these are not only wicked and unjust, but very foolish and fruitless, as will appear if we consider that the nature and the virtue too of all religion consists in a free choice, in the consent of our minds, in the sincerity of our hearts, in our being fully persuaded of the truth of what we believe, and of the goodness of what we practise. But of what use can human laws, enforced by civil penalties, be in all this? They may make me do things which are in my power, and depend upon my will; but to believe this or that to be true is not in my power, nor depends upon my will, but upon the light and evidence and information which I have. And will civil discouragements, fines, stripes and imprisonment enlighten the understanding, convince mens minds of error, and inform them of the truth? Can they have any such efficacy as to make men change the inward judgment they have framed of things? Nothing can do this but reason and argument. And therefore if the magistrate interposes here, and either chooses a religion for me, or forces me to practise that which I have chosen with temporal rewards and punishments, he destroys my religion and spoils the virtue of whatever I do under that name. But, further, as religion consists in such a belief and practice, as we in our consciences are persuaded to be best and most acceptable to God, as it lies in the integrity of the heart, so it can be subject only to the judgment of the great God whose prerogative it is to be a searcher of the heart and a fryer of the reins; who sees the secret springs of our actions and knows our thoughts and intentions afar off. Upon which account no man upon earth can be a judge in religious matters, nor take upon him the cognisance of this cause. By this time I hope it appears that Gallio acted wise and conscientious part in this affair. For most certain it is, that the duty of the magistrate is confined to the care of the civil and temporal good of his people, and does not extend to their spiritual and eternal affairs. It is nothing to him what false and erroneous opinions men hold, what ridiculous and absurd doctrines they profess, or, in a word, what they believe or disbelieve in religion, so long as hereby they do no prejudice to their neighbour, nor make any alteration in mens civil rights, nor disturb the public peace and quiet. But here it may be objected, Is the magistrate to show no zeal for the honour of God and the authority of His laws? To this I answer, that since God, who is most certainly the properest Judge in this case, and best knows what are the fittest means to be made use of for these ends, has not thought fit to enforce His laws with any other sanctions but the rewards and punishments of a future and invisible state, nor to promote His honour and true religion by any other motives but these, what authority has any man to make any alteration in what God has established, and to enforce His laws with any other sanctions than what He Himself has appointed? And as to true religion and a right belief, every man is orthodox to himself, and thinks his own religion to be true; and, therefore, if this be any argument why the magistrate should use force in promoting his own religion, it will plead as strongly for false religions as for the true one. As for Gods honour, He Himself is the best guardian of it, and will most certainly take care of it in His own time and way, for He is a jealous God. But then I add, that for men to be restrained from these vices by the power and authority of the civil magistrate, and out of fear of his sword, is no honour to God whatever it may be to Caesar. To conclude: Since religion and civil government are, in their original, and business, and in everything else belonging to them, thus perfectly distinct and entirely different from each other, it would put an end to many controversies, and make very much for the peace and quiet both of Church and State, if men would observe this distinction, and each party would keep within their respective bounds. This would hinder them from clashing and interfering with one another, and would prevent those heats and animosities, those acts of violence and rapine, cruelty and oppression that have abounded in the Christian world upon account of religion. And let the magistrate, too, confine himself to his own proper business and attend to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, and instead of exercising his power in binding other mens consciences by human laws, let him take care to conform his own conscience to the laws of God, and direct all his counsels and endeavours to promote universally the civil welfare of all his subjects. And let him not think that he bears the sword in vain unless he employs it in the cause of God and religion. It was not put into his hands for this use, nor can it be applied to this purpose with any good effect. (B. Ibbot, D. D.)

Gallio

illustrates–

I. The laudable administration of justice in his treatment of the point of complaint (verse 12-15). He rejects it because it referred to a purely religious matter.

II. The censurable administration of justice in his conduct at the violence of the Greeks (verse 16, 17). Here he shows himself indifferent and unfair. Magistrates have in ecclesiastical controversies to distinguish between what is above law and what is against the law, and have to resent what is unlawful on whatever side it happens. (Lisco.)

Reports of Christian service

1. The report which is given of Pauls work in verse 13 is exactly the report which is being given today by hostile journalists and critics. Do not take any bad or worldly mans report of any Christian service he may have attended. They lack the one thing needful–sympathy. No man is qualified to report a religious meeting who is not himself religious. He can tell who spoke and give an abstract of what was said; but there will be wanting from it the aroma, the heavenliness, which gave it all its gracious power. This has a wide bearing upon all matters religious and theological. The Jews heard Paul speak and they said, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law–that is, contrary to their reading of the law. The law is one thing, and my reading of it another. So with the Bible: the Bible is one thing, and the preachers reading of it is another. Have no fear of perverting Jews misrepresenting inspired apostles and bringing Gods doctrine to ruin. The form will change; and yet when all the words have been rearranged we shall find the inner, holy doctrine untouched.

2. The Jews were unanimous in their insurrection. Unanimity is nothing; sincerity is nothing. Sincerity is only good when rightly directed, and unanimity is worthless if moving not in the direction of truth. Paul stood alone, so far as men were concerned, on more occasions than one. Said he, in one instance, No man stood with me notwithstanding the Lord stood with me. Let us take care, then, lest we mistake human unanimity for Divine counsel.

3. And now Gallio, much maligned by those who do not know him, comes into the story. He has been set up as a type of the careless man. And base creatures have been told that they were Gallios! They never were so honoured in their lives! Gallio would not touch them with the tip of his fingers! Gallio simply knew his business and attended to it, and limited himself by it; and his carelessness was a distinct evidence of his high qualification for his office. Yet I would chide even Gallio for the unintentional injury he has done (verse 14) in depriving the Church of another speech by the greatest speaker that ever served the cause of Christ. What he would have said to that sweet Gallio who can tell? The substance of his speech we have in all the other speeches; but we do wonder with what accidental beauty and subtlety of allusion he would have addressed the sweetest heart that ever listened to him.

4. Gallio used a phrase which brought him within lines which we wish could have enclosed him forever. Speaking from his point of view, he said, But if it be a question of words and names. Could Gallio have heard Paul upon the Word, who can tell what would have occurred? But are we not always putting away from ourselves great opportunities? Do we not feel weary just when the discourse is sharpening itself into the eloquence that would touch our mind like light, and our heart like a wand of love? The next sentence might have saved you, but just then your ears waxed heavy and you did not hear! There may be careless people notwithstanding the misapplication of the name of Gallio. Is it true that you care for none of those things? Then for what do you care? (J. Parker, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Act 18:17

And Gallio cared for none of those things.

The indifferentism of Gallio

Gallio is one of the most unfortunate characters in all history. It has been his fate to suffer at the hands of foes and friends. It was once the fashion to regard him in the light of this single incident, and to condemn him as selfishly indifferent to all interests but his own. Since he has been studied in the light of his history and character as described by other pens, the verdict has been reversed, and this incident has been interpreted as the action of an impartial, upright judge. The truth, as usual, lies between the two extremes. Gallio is neither so bad as his enemies would make him, nor so good as his friends would have him to be. He is simply a man of the world at his best, and has many modern representatives.

I. What Gallio did not care for.

1. Judaism; as is plain from his judgment. Whether right or wrong, it is quite evident, it was a matter of indifference to him, not only as a magistrate, but, if the spirit of his speech is to be taken into account, as a man.

2. Christianity; for he closed Pauls mouth. This was not the case with Pilate, or Felix, or Festus, each of whom manifested some interest in the subject, and allowed its advocates to state their case.

3. Truth. Precisely the same issue was raised here as before other Roman tribunals, and, except at Philippi, was impartially discussed; but Gallio gagged the representative of Christianity, and allowed the Greeks to assault the representative of Judaism. Gallio neither knew nor cared on which side, if on either, lay the truth. And there are many Gallios today. The established order of things in religion, morals, politics, society, may remain for aught they care. On the whole, perhaps, it is better that they should remain; but if this order is disturbed by some bold revolutionist, it will not much matter, so long as he does not trouble them. They will be mixed up with neither. The parties may fight it out; and if a third party intervenes and crushes one, so much the better–there is one nuisance the less.

II. What Gallio did care for. What he was sent to Achaia to do. He was responsible to the home government for two things, and about these he was solely solicitous.

1. To administer justice. This he did with perfect impartiality, and in a way that warrants the encomiums passed upon him by his contemporaries. As a Roman judge, he knew nothing of Judaism, and so dismissed the charge against Paul as soon as he heard it, and refused to listen to his defence as superfluous, for he had been guilty of no offence against Roman law. If the mob assaulted Sosthenes that was his look-out; for the future he would mind his own business. And so our modern Gallios are simply men of one idea. That may be business, pleasure, politics, literature. Everything outside is a matter of indifference. Let them fight it out amongst themselves.

2. To maintain the supremacy of Roman rule. If Jews persecute Christians; if Greeks maltreat Jews–so much the better. The empire will have fewer malcontents to trouble it while they are trying to exterminate each other. Divide and rule. And so our modern Gallios view with equanimity controversies outside their sphere. In politics the one thing that gladdens the heart of the statesman is dissension among his opponents. The Christian advocate is calm in view of the utter want of unanimity on the part of the adversaries of the Cross; but so is the infidel as he contemplates the antagonism of Christian sects. If union is strength, dissension is weakness; and the best thing that Gallio can wish for is division among his foes.

III. By what motives Gallio was actuated.

1. Scepticism. Gallio was neither better nor worse than the cultivated gentlemen of his age. And we know that the culture of the first century was saturated with unbelief. Faith in Jupiter was gone, and no arguments had reached Gallio likely to replace Jupiter by either the Jehovah of Sosthenes or the Jesus of Paul. The thought of the nineteenth century is in this respect like that of the first, and it would be hard to find a mere exact parallel than between Matthew Arnold and Gallio.

2. Love of ease. To have subjected Sosthenes and Paul to a rigid cross-examination, to have pondered the evidence, and to have pronounced accordingly, would have sorely troubled the sweet Gallio. He wanted to be troubled neither in the government of his province nor in the government of himself. Sedition he would quell by driving it out, and social disturbers he would treat in a no less drastic fashion. Dont trouble us; settle these matters amongst yourselves is the dictum of Gallios latest successors.

IV. The consequences which Gallio reaped.

1. Immediate success.

(1) Insurrection was put down, and the tranquillity of the province restored. Sosthenes was not likely to repeat the experiment.

(2) Paul was silenced, and so Gallios mind was left at ease, and neither Paul nor any other Christian advocate was ever likely again to trouble the proconsul.

2. Everlasting loss. Who can tell what might have happened had Gallio embraced the same opportunity as Felix or Festus? He might not have been able to save himself from death at the hands of Nero, with which one account credits him; but he would undoubtedly have saved himself from self-destruction, with which he is credited by another. And our modern Gallios may be able to silence reason and stifle conscience, and live above intellectual and moral care; but this will not annihilate the hereafter. Conclusion:

1. Face the truth, whatever it may be.

2. Side with the truth, whatever it may involve.

3. Follow the truth, wherever it may lead. (J. W. Burn.)

Indifference

1. To be named in the Bible is to be immortal. It is the misfortune of some names that they have found their way into the sacred book. All other records spoke well of them, living and dead, save this. What is this but to say that it is the misfortune of some lives to face an ordeal? Such was the case with Gallio. He refused, indeed, to condemn; but in escaping Scylla he incurs Charybdis, and becomes for all time the type of Indifference. The sweetness for which his friends love him in Gods sight is feebleness.

2. In this particular instance he was not to blame. The Jews are trading upon toleration to invoke intolerance. Orthodoxy? Yes. Nonconformity? No. It is a question, not of crime, but of words and names. He will have nothing to do with it; and when the Gentile mob retaliate, he will have nothing to do with that.

3. The decision was right, but not the motive, which was not justice, but indifference to right and wrong. Thus Gallio passes from the stage in which for a moment he has stood with the gospel to enjoy his highly-gained favour with the Corinthians, to his pleasures, to Rome, and to suicide.

I. Excuses for indifference.

1. Is not indifference a synonym for impartiality?

2. Look at the evil brought upon the world by that earnestness which is the opposite of indifference! When we see the harshness with which earnestness runs down opponents, it is almost refreshing to be in the presence of one who says, We are all imperfect; live and let live.

3. To all this we may reply that indifference in some matters may be harmless, and even advantageous. We are not called upon to be earnest about everything. Nevertheless, there is a vice called indifference, which is only too common in our age.

II. To what indifference is due.

1. Affectation. The man does feel. The indifference is a pretence.

2. Early forcing. The modern tendency is to precipitate manhood, and the result of juvenile precocity is adult apathy.

3. Reaction. Earnestness meets with a check, or wears itself out.

4. Suspense. There is an impression abroad that in this transitional period intelligent minds can find no rest, and the honest doubter is the hero of the hour.

5. Sorrow. Some affliction has been taken amiss, there has been a nursing of the loss, and so life has lost its zest; or, without this, there may be an unhappiness, vague and all pervading, which strangles every energy of being.

6. Sin. How listless towards duty, etc., the man who carries everywhere with him a guilty conscience.

III. The duty of interesting ourselves in something.

1. God has constituted us differently, and set us in a world fertile in choices. He is not indifferent who cultivates this taste, study, occupation, or that. But in something which is first pure, then vigorous, wholesome, and of good report. God expects each one to interest himself, and with his might.

2. And while He leaves us a wide choice, He sets before us two objects concerning which He offers no choice. He who says, I love God, and hateth his brother, is a Gallio; and so is he who says, I cannot love God, but I will promote the welfare of society. (Dean Vaughan.)

Religious indifference

I. The character of those things for which our Gallios do not care. Things–

1. For which the Creator cares.

2. Which receive their saving significance from the life and death of the Redeemer.

3. Into which angels desire to look.

4. In behalf of which our ancestors were willing to shed their blood.

5. In which our best friends are most deeply interested.

II. Some of the causes of this indifference.

1. A shallow misapprehension of the nature of religion.

2. Mental sloth.

3. Love of ease.

III. Its effect.

1. At death.

2. At judgment. (Biblical Museum.)

The social indifferentist

1. The things for which Gallio cared nothing were in one sense none of his business. He was the Roman proconsul of Achaia. As elsewhere, so at Corinth, the Greeks heard Paul, and were attracted to him. The Hebrews heard him, hated him, and dragged him before Gallio. But the question being one with which he had nothing to do, Gallio promptly dismissed it. But this was not the end. The Greeks on this occasion believed in the right of free speech, and, like a great many other champions of free speech, they proceeded to proclaim their sympathies by an act of personal violence (verse 17). And though it was without the smallest legal warrant, though it was even a more gross and disorderly breach of the peace than that which had preceded it, Gallio cared for none of those things. These dogs of Jews and these emasculated Corinthians, so long as the peace of the empire was undisturbed, what mattered it how much they quarrelled?

2. This is a picture of an amiable and cultivated indifferentism. Its conspicuous characteristic lay in this, that it betrayed an utter insensibility to the simplest principles of justice. Sosthenes and his co-religionists had undoubtedly done St. Paul a wrong; but they had done it under legal forms, and had appealed to the proconsul for their authority. The Greeks, on the other hand, had deliberately taken the law into their own hands. Undoubtedly, in a technical sense, this was no concern of Gallios; but, in another and very real sense, his indifference was neither wise, nor loyal, nor manly. If Gallio had really cared to win for the empire the trust and loyalty of her conquered peoples, he would have seen to is that no blow should be unjustly struck, nor any meanest citizen of Corinth, whether Jew or Greek, lightly or lawlessly wronged. But to have done this would have been to break through the crust of that passionless indifference which was the mark of culture in those days.

3. But that, we say, was a pagan culture, and its fruit was worthy of the tree. We are not pagans, but Christians, and are bound inflexibly to repudiate the principles of such a man. But what are the facts? One distinguishing mark of our Christian civilisation is a development of individual reserve. We learn to conceal emotions, or at least to chasten their expressions. Tell someone a story of wrong, or want, or sorrow, and the chances are you will get the answer, Really, how very unpleasant. Can you not find something more agreeable to talk about than that? Nor is this wholly surprising or without excuse. My neighbour is thrown into a spasm of torture by a musical discord, which my less tutored faculty scarce perceives. It hurts him; and, to leave that fact out of account in judging of the way in which he endures a series of discords, is neither just nor kindly. Now then, it is a result of culture that it makes the sensibilities infinitely more susceptible to external impressions. And therefore it is not unnatural that some natures should be unwilling to hear of the miseries that are torturing so many of their fellow men, nor that, refusing to know about such things, they cease, before long, to care about them. It is the old picture of Gallio watching through the parted drapery the scourging of Sosthenes in the street. It is not an engaging spectacle. Here at hand is the last chronicle of the busy and brilliant life of Rome. Here is the last roll that has come from the pen of Seneca. How much pleasanter to lose ones self in the pages of Ovid or Lucullus or Martial, instead of going out into the hot sun to stop a street fight between a herd of fanatical Israelites and Corinthians! And so, today, there is a large class that finds it far pleasanter to draw the curtains upon the crime and sorrow that are without, while they have the freshest voice in song or story to beguile them.

4. And yet how utterly is this to miss the noblest end of culture, whose function is not merely to train the powers for enjoyment, but first and supremely for helpful service. And then what is the religion of Jesus Christ but to bring Christ into our common life, and so ennoble that life by the sweetness and sanctity which He alone can shed upon it? Shall we selfishly turn to Him to comfort us, and catch no impulse from His life to reach out and comfort our brethren? Did He come only to teach us how to build handsome churches and keep them for ourselves? Oh, no; it was not merely for you and me that Christ died, but for humanity. Into the culture of that elder time He came to put the one ingredient that it needed supremely to ennoble it–a Divine unselfishness. He came to kill out that torpid indifference that could see cruelty and injustice, and care for none of those things, and to supplant it with an inextinguishable and self-forgetting love. Every now and then our ears are startled by some brutal deed, that makes us shudder for our kind. And, reading of it amid our own safe and comfortable surroundings, we cry out, How shocking! How barbarous! Where were the police? At best a municipal discipline, however admirable, can only repress and punish the outward manifestations of our social evils. The medicine that shall heal them must be drawn from the Cross. And Christians must be the channels through which the throbbing tide of sympathy shall reach and heal the sorrows and the sins of our fellows. The other day, in Wales, the waters broke out in a colliery. There were four hundred men at work below the surface, and, panic stricken, they rushed to the mouth of the pit and touched the telegraph, when, to their horror, they remembered that that morning the signal wire had parted, and had not yet been mended. With the energy of despair, one of them, trained at sea, flung himself against the rugged sides of the shaft, and, with a grasp that seemed a superhuman endowment given him for the moment, scaled the perpendicular wall until he came to the break in the wire. The parted ends hung within a few inches of each other, but how was he to join them together? To let go his hands and strive to reach them thus was death to himself and death to those below him. Suddenly, with an inspiration born of the dire peril, he grasped one end in his mouth, and reaching then with agonising effort for the other, caught the two between his lips, reunited thus the parted wire, and re-established the electric current that told to those above the danger and signalled swiftly back again the coming of deliverance. What he climbed up to do you and I must climb down to do. There is a vast multitude below us that our lips and hands and feet must bring into living and saving relations with the Son of God.

5. Not to care when others, no matter how obscure or remote from us, are going down to hell, is not Christianity, but paganism blank and heartless; and such paganism is very full of peril. The social problem now confronting us is one of the gravest and most threatening problems of our time. The labourer does not love the capitalist, and the capitalist does not always understand the labourer. But we shall not finally silence the heresies of the communist with the bullets of the militia. Over against the unreason of the working man we must rear something better than the stern front of a stony indifference. If his misfortunes are not our fault, none the less he himself is our brother. And somehow–anyhow–we must make him feel that we account him so. (Bp. H. C. Potter, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 17. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes] As this man is termed the chief ruler of the synagogue, it is probable that he had lately succeeded Crispus in that office; see Ac 18:8; and that he was known either to have embraced Christianity, or to have favoured the cause of St. Paul. He is supposed to be the same person whom St. Paul associates with himself in the first epistle to the Corinthians, 1Co 1:1. Crispus might have been removed from his presidency in the synagogue as soon as the Jews found he had embraced Christianity, and Sosthenes appointed in his place. And, as he seems to have speedily embraced the same doctrine, the Jews would be the more enraged, and their malice be directed strongly against him, when they found that the proconsul would not support them in their opposition to Paul.

But why should the Greeks beat Sosthenes? I have in the above note proceeded on the supposition that this outrage was committed by the Jews; and my reason for it is this: , the Greeks, is omitted by AB, two of the oldest and most authentic MSS. in the world: they are omitted also by the Coptic and Vulgate, Chrysostom, and Bede. Instead of , three MSS., one of the eleventh, and two of the thirteenth century, have , the Jews; and it is much more likely that the Jews beat one of their own rulers, through envy at his conversion, than that the Greeks should do so; unless we allow, which is very probable, (if , Greeks, be the true reading,) that these Hellenes were Jews, born in a Greek country, and speaking the Greek language.

And Gallio cared for none of those things.] . And Gallio did not concern himself, did not intermeddle with any of these things. As he found that it was a business that concerned their own religion, and that the contention was among themselves, and that they were abusing one of their own sect only, he did not choose to interfere. He, like the rest of the Romans, considered the Jews a most despicable people, and worthy of no regard; and their present conduct had no tendency to cause him to form a different opinion of them from that which he and his countrymen had previously entertained. It is not very likely, however, that Gallio saw this outrage; for, though it was before the judgment seat, it probably did not take place till Gallio had left the court; and, though he might be told of it, he left the matter to the lictors, and would not interfere.

The conduct of Gallio has been, in this case, greatly censured; and I think with manifest injustice. In the business brought before his tribunal, no man could have followed a more prudent or equitable course. His whole conduct showed that it was his opinion, that the civil magistrate had nothing to do with religious opinions or the concerns of conscience, in matters where the safety of the state was not implicated. He therefore refused to make the subject a matter of legal discussion. Nay, he went much farther; he would not even interfere to prevent either the Jews or the apostles from making proselytes. Though the complaint against the apostles was, that they were teaching men to worship God contrary to the law; See Clarke on Ac 18:15, yet, even in this case, he did not think it right to exert the secular power to restrain the free discussion and teaching of matters which concerned the rights of conscience in things pertaining to the worship of the gods. As to his not preventing the tumult which took place, we may sag, if he did see it, which is not quite evident, that he well knew that this could rise to no serious amount; and the lictors, and other minor officers, were there in sufficient force to prevent any serious riot, and it was their business to see that the public peace was not broken, besides, as a heathen, he might have no objection to permit this people to pursue a line of conduct by which they were sure to bring themselves and their religion into contempt. These wicked Jews could not disprove the apostle’s doctrine, either by argument or Scripture; and they had recourse to manual logic, which was an indisputable proof of the badness of their own cause, and the strength of that of their opponents.

But in consequence of this conduct Gallio has been represented as a man perfectly careless and unconcerned about religion in general; and therefore has been considered as a proper type or representative of even professed Christians, who are not decided in their religious opinions or conduct. As a heathen, Gallio certainly was careless about both Judaism and Christianity. The latter he had probably never heard of but by the cause now before his judgment seat; and, from any thing he could see of the other, through the medium of its professors, he certainly could entertain no favourable opinion of it: therefore in neither case was he to blame. But the words, cared for none of those things, are both misunderstood and misapplied: we have already seen that they only mean that he would not intermeddle in a controversy which did not belong to has province and sufficient reasons have been alleged why he should act as he did. It is granted that many preachers take this for a text, and preach useful sermons for the conviction of the undecided and lukewarm; and it is to be deplored that there are so many undecided and careless people in the world, and especially in reference to what concerns their eternal interests. But is it not to be lamented, also, thy there should be preachers of God’s holy word who attempt to explain passages of Scripture which they do not understand. For he who preaches on Gallio cared for none of those things, in the way in which the passage has, through mismanagement, been popularly understood, either does not understand it, or he willing perverts the meaning.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

All the Greeks; not the converted Greeks, though St. Austin thought they beat Sosthenes, as an enemy to Paul, (yet surely they had not so learned Christ), but the unbelieving or Gentile Greeks, who cared for neither Paul nor Jews, but favoured Gallio, who would have them driven away.

Sosthenes; some think him to have been the same with Crispus, Act 18:8; others, to have succeeded him in that office; and some think that he was chief ruler of another synagogue (for in great cities there might be more than one); and others, that there might be several called chief rulers over one and the same synagogue.

Gallio cared for none of those things; either slighting the Jews and all their controversies, or prudently declined intermeddling with them.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

17. all the Greeksthe Gentilespectators.

took Sosthenesperhapsthe successor of Crispus, and certainly the head of the accusingparty. It is very improbable that this was the same Sosthenes as theapostle afterwards calls “his brother” (1Co1:1).

and beat him before thejudgment-seatunder the very eye of the judge.

And Gallio cared for none ofthose thingsnothing loath, perhaps, to see these turbulentJews, for whom probably he felt contempt, themselves getting whatthey hoped to inflict on another, and indifferent to whatever wasbeyond the range of his office and case. His brother eulogizes hisloving and lovable manners. Religious indifference, under theinfluence of an easy and amiable temper, reappears from age to age.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes,…. These were not the Greeks or Gentiles that were devout persons, or converted to Christianity, and were on the side of Paul, and fell foul on Sosthenes, as being his chief accuser; for this is not agreeably to the spirit and character of such persons, but the profane and unconverted Greeks, who observing that Gallio sent the Jews away, with some resentment and contempt, were encouraged to fall upon the principal of them, and use him in a very ill manner; it is very likely that this person was afterwards converted, and is the same that is mentioned in 1Co 1:1. The name is Greek, and there is one of this name mentioned among the executors of Plato’s will w. This man was now

chief ruler of the synagogue; chosen in, very likely, upon Crispus becoming a Christian, and being baptized:

and beat him before the judgment seat; of Gallio; before he and his friends could get out of court:

and Gallio cared for none of these things; which might not be owing to any sluggishness in him, but to an ill opinion he had of the Jews, as being a turbulent and uneasy people, and therefore he connived at some of the insolencies of the people towards them; though it did not become him, as a magistrate, to act such a part, whose business it was to keep the public peace, to quell disorders, to protect men’s persons, and property, and prevent abuse and mischief, and to correct and punish for it. The Arabic version renders it, “and no man made any account of Gallio”; they did not fear his resentment, he having drove the Jews from the judgment seat.

w Laert. l. 3. in Vita Platon.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

They all laid hold on Sosthenes ( ). See Acts 16:19; Acts 17:19 for the same form. Here is violent hostile reaction against their leader who had failed so miserably.

Beat him (). Inchoative imperfect active, began to beat him, even if they could not beat Paul. Sosthenes succeeded Crispus (verse 8) when he went over to Paul. The beating did Sosthenes good for he too finally is a Christian (1Co 1:1), a co-worker with Paul whom he had sought to persecute.

And Gallio cared for none of these things ( ). Literally, “no one of these things was a care to Gallio.” The usually impersonal verb (, , imperfect active) here has the nominative as in Lu 10:40. These words have been often misunderstood as a description of Gallio’s lack of interest in Christianity, a religious indifferentist. But that is quite beside the mark. Gallio looked the other way with a blind eye while Sosthenes got the beating which he richly deserved. That was a small detail for the police court, not for the proconsul’s concern. Gallio shows up well in Luke’s narrative as a clear headed judge who would not be led astray by Jewish subterfuges and with the courage to dismiss a mob.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Cared for none of these things. Not said to indicate his indifference to religion, but simply that he did not choose to interfere in this case.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes,” (epolabomenoi de pantes Sosthenen) “Then all the (Greeks) seizing (laying hold on) Sosthenes,” 1Co 1:1, the belligerent mob leader of the Jews, who had apparently led the incitement against Paul, because he did not require that the Greek Proselytes had to be circumcised before they could enter the Jewish synagogue, among those who believed in the one true God, Act 15:24-29; Act 16:4.

2) “The chief ruler of the Synagogue,” (ton archisunagogon) “The synagogue ruler,” chief administrator of the synagogue of the Jews, those who had brought malicious charges against Paul. Sosthenes had followed Crispus as chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue in Corinth, after Crispus had been saved and soon thereafter also became a beloved brother in the Corinth church, 1Co 1:1.

3) “And beat him before the judgement seat.” (etupton emposthen tou Bematos) “They beat him (struck him) in front of the tribunal place,” before the eyes of the judge, Gallio, or out in front of the Bema, where the Jews had led Paul for accusations against him. The Jews had (were granted) civil rights to discipline their own members for what they considered to be immoral or unethical conduct based on their own laws, as they related to religious rites, worship, and service, Gal 6:7-8. Chickens do come home to roost, Rom 2:6; Hos 8:7; Hos 10:13.

4) “And Gallio cared for none of those things,” (kai ouden touton to Gallioni emelen) “And not one of these things mattered to Gallio,” as far as his jurisdictional care, riot necessarily human care, was concerned. It is a Divine axiom (rule), even in religious matters that, “your sins will find you out,” or overtake you, in life or at the judgement bar of God, Gen 44:16; Num 32:23; Isa 59:12; Luk 16:25; Ecc 12:13-14.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

−

17. All the Grecians having taken Sosthenes. This is that Sosthenes whom Paul doth honorably couple with himself as his companion in the beginning of the former Epistle to the Corinthians. And though there be no mention made of him before among the faithful, yet it is to be thought that he was then one of Paul’s companions and advocates. And what fury did enforce the Grecians to run headlong upon him, save only because it is allotted to all the children of God to have the world set against them, and offended with them and their cause, though unknown? Wherefore, there is no cause why such unjust dealing should trouble us at this day when we see the miserable Church oppugned on every side. Moreover, the frowardness of man’s nature is depainted out unto us as in a table, [picture.] Admit we grant that the Jews were hated everywhere for good causes, yet why are the Grecians rather displeased with Sosthenes, a modest man, than with the authors of the tumult, who troubled Paul without any cause? Namely, this is the reason, because, when men are not governed with the Spirit of God, they are carried headlong unto evil, as it were, by the secret inspiration of nature, notwithstanding it may be that they bare Sosthenes such hatred, thinking he had lodged wicked men to raise sedition. −

Neither did Gallio care for any of these things. This looseness − (329) must be imputed not so much to the sluggishness of the deputy as to the hatred of the Jewish religion. The Romans could have wished that the remembrance of the true God had been buried. And, therefore, when as it was lawful for them to vow their vows, and to pay them to all the idols of Asia and Greece, it was a deadly fact − (330) to do sacrifice to the God of Israel. Finally, in the common liberty − (331) of all manner [of] superstition, only true religion was accepted. This is the cause that Gallio winketh at the injury done to Sosthenes. He professed of late that he would punish injuries if any were done; now he suffereth a guiltless man to be beaten before the judgment-seat. Whence cometh this sufferance, save only because he did in heart desire that the Jews might one slay another, that their religion might be put out − (332) with them? But forasmuch as, by the mouth of Luke, the Spirit condemneth Gallio’s carelessness, because he did not aid a man who was unjustly punished, − (333) let our magistrates know that they be far more inexcusable if they wink at injuries and wicked facts, if they bridle not the wantonness of the wicked, if they reach not forth their hand to the oppressed. But and if the sluggish are to look for just damnation, what terrible judgment hangeth over the heads of those who are unfaithful and wicked, − (334) who, by favoring evil causes, and bearing with wicked facts, set up, as it were, a banner of want of punishment, − (335) and are fans to kindle boldness to do hurt?

(329) −

“

Cessatio,” non-interference.

(330) −

“

Capitale erat,” it was a capital offence.

(331) −

“

In communi… licentia,” while there was a common license.

(332) −

“

Extingueretur,” might be extinguished.

(333) −

“

Afflictum,” afflicted, oppressed.

(334) −

“

Perfidis et malignis,” malignant and perfidious.

(335) −

“

Impunitatis,” of impudity.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(17) Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue.The better MSS. omit the word Greeks, which was probably inserted as an explanatory interpolation by some one who thought it more likely that a ruler of the synagogue should have been assaulted by the Greek bystanders than by those of his own race. Taking the better reading, and assuming the natural construction of the sentence to be all of them (sc., the Jews) took Sosthenes and beat him, we have to ask for an explanation of conduct which seems so strange. This is probably found in the appearance of the same name in 1Co. 1:1, as associated with St. Paul in the Epistle to the Church of Corinth. It is a natural inference that Sosthenes, like his predecessor or partner in office (it does not necessarily follow that he succeeded him) became a convert to the new faith. If so, it is probable that he was already suspected of tendencies in that direction, and when the Jews at Corinth found their plans frustrated, it was natural that they should impute their failure to the lukewarmness or treachery of the man who ought to have carried them to a successful issue. They did not shrink from giving vent to their rage even before the tribunal of the proconsul.

And Gallio cared for none of those things.More accurately, And Gallio cared nothing for these things. The words have become almost proverbial for the indifference of mere politicians and men of the world to religious truth. We speak of one who is tolerant because he is sceptical, as a Gallio. It may be questioned, however, whether this was the thought prominent in St. Lukes mind as he thus wrote. What he apparently meant was that the proconsul was clear sighted enough to pay no regard to the clamours of St. Pauls accusers. If they chose, after failing in their attack on Paul, to quarrel among themselves, what was that to him? Laissez faire, laissez alter might well be his motto in dealing with such a people. The general impression, however, as to his character is not without its truth. The easy-going gentleness of his character ill fitted him to resist the temptations of Neros court, and after retiring from Achaia in consequence of an attack of fever (Sen. Ep. 104), he returned to Rome, and, to the distress of Burrhus and his own brother, Seneca, he took part in ministering to the emperors vices (Dio. lxi. 20). He finally fell under the tyrants displeasure, and, according to one tradition, was put to death by him. Another represents him as anticipating his fate by suicide; Tacitus, however (Ann. xv. 73), only speaks of him as terrified by his brothers death, and supplicating Nero for his own life.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

17. All the Greeks All the Greeks present at the court. The Greeks of this degenerate age had learned to watch their Roman arbiter’s eye with servile adulation, and to take the cue from his words. When, therefore, Gallio ordered the Jews out of his presence, these Greeks seem, without rebuke from Gallio, to have caught their ringleader and chastised him for having come into the judicial presence. But, in addition to the present unpopularity of the Jewish race, this set of Greeks here present had, probably, taken some interest in this case. They knew that the quarrel between the Jews and Paul was a Jew and Gentile strife. Without any deep sympathy with Paul’s religion, they were at any rate against the Jews in the contest.

Cared for none From the sound of the words, this seems a fine text from which to preach down indifference in religion. And, in fact, this amiable Roman philosopher, this brother of Seneca, did have before him the story of the crucified Jesus, and from indifference, nay, effeminate indifference, rejected it from examination! Still the those things of the present verse refers not so much to the religious topics as to the lawless castigation of Sosthenes by the Greeks. It was not a religious, but an official carelessness; and the text is rather a good whip for negligent magistrates who allow disorders and turbulence to go unchecked.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And they all laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat. And Gallio cared for none of these things.’

‘They all’ here probably refers to the officials responsible for overseeing the bringing of the case to court and the subsequent proceedings. They would mainly be Gentiles among whom there was quite probably some anti-Semitism, which would possibly be the result of jealousy over the Jews’ proverbial success in business. Observing Gallio’s attitude and contempt for the bringing of the case they proceeded to beat Sosthenes, the current ruler of the synagogue, (who had presumably replaced Crispus in the position). This would probably be on the basis that he had brought a false charge. Beatings were quite a common occurrence in those days (compare Act 22:24), and it would appear here that it was because it was considered that by bringing an unreasonable case he had wasted everyone’s time. It was intended as a warning to all not to bring up false matters. People had to learn not to misuse the court. That is why Gallio would ignore it. To him it was irrelevant and in fact deserved. In those days going to law always brought the possibility of reprisals if the case was not won.

Gallio’s view in general would be that as long as the people caused no trouble they could sort out minor matters between themselves. We must remember that the giving of such beatings was not unusual. They were seen as quite commonplace affairs. They were, for example, allowed on the authority of the synagogue elders for breaches in synagogue rules. Synagogues would regularly administer beatings for misbehaviour. As long as the person was not seriously injured they would not be seen as a serious matter, and would be allowed. After all fathers regularly beat their sons and masters their slaves. Beatings were seen as good for people. It was only Roman citizens who were not supposed to be beaten without first being examined.

‘Gallio cared for none of these things.’ This is not saying that Gallio did not perform his duty. It is saying that he refused to get involved in things to do with religious interpretation. Gallio in other words was saying that they had nothing to do with Roman Law. His attitude was thus in favour of Christians. Luke is saying to all who read his work, ‘see, Gallio was unconcerned about it’.

This decision by a pro-consul would have widespread effects. It was basically a decision that Christians were to be seen as included with Jews in a Licit Religion. It would require someone of comparative or higher status to reverse its effects.

Thus Luke is stressing that as with the pro-consul in Cyprus (Act 13:12), here was another pro-consul who had examined Christianity and declared it to be a Licit Religion. Neither had seen in it anything that was illegal or to be condemned. Paul’s ministry to this point ended as it had begun, with the approval of Rome.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Act 18:17. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, The Jews did not pay a proper regard to Gallio’s orders: they had indeed the power of scourging in their synagogues whom they thought proper, of their own nation and religion: but they were at present so enraged and insolent, as to seize upon Sosthenes, who had been one of the chief rulers of their synagogue, but was now, it is most likely, become a convert to Christianity, and tobeat him, , even before the tribunal. However, Gallio regarded none of these things; all their insolence could not provoke him to inter-meddle, as long as they beat only one of their own people; and though it was not in the synagogue, but before the tribunal, he chose rather to let it pass, as considering, very probably, the mutinous temper of the Jews, which rather increased by opposition.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

DISCOURSE: 1792
THE CHARACTER OF GALLIO

Act 18:17. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

WE are assured that not one jot or tittle of Gods word has ever failed, or ever can fail. But, for the trial of our faith, and for the more abundant manifestation of his own truth and faithfulness, God is often pleased to let events of so dark a nature arise, that it shall appear almost impossible for his word to receive its accomplishment. Thus he did in relation to the Israelites in Egypt. He had promised to Abraham, that before the expiration of four hundred and thirty years, he would bring his posterity out of Egypt. The time appointed had just arrived, when he sent his servants, Moses and Aaron, to lead them forth; but, so far from succeeding in their efforts, they only augmented the labours and sufferings of their oppressed countrymen: and, when the very last day had arrived, they were plainly warned by Pharaoh, that, if they attempted to come into his presence again, they should die. What now must become of the veracity of God? Did his word fall to the ground? No: that very night did God send a judgment, which caused the Egyptians to thrust them out. In like manner did the Lord Jesus act towards the Apostle Paul. It should seem that Paul had felt discouraged at the little success of his labours during his long stay of a year and six months at Corinth; and that he had begun to yield to some desponding fears. Our blessed Lord, for his encouragement, appeared to him in a vision, and told him, he should be successful in planting a large Church there, and that none should set on him to hurt him. But behold, when Gallic was deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment-seat, saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. Here it is manifest that they did set on him, and that too with the most brutal ferocity: but did they hurt him? No: the Governor would not listen to their complaints. This occasioned a great tumult in the court, insomuch that the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat. Why did they not, in their rage, beat Paul? Why did they wreak their vengeance on a friend of Pauls, and not on Paul himself? Gods word had been pledged for Paul; and therefore not a hair of his head could be touched. Gallic, who should have been Pauls protector, cared for none of those things: but God cared for Paul; and it was impossible for man to hurt him. The indifference of Gallio left Paul entirely at the mercy of his enemies: but the word of God could not be broken; and therefore Paul was as safe from injury, as he would have been even in heaven itself.

The account here given of Gallio is deserving of particular consideration; and the rather, as very different opinions have been formed respecting it. We propose therefore,

I.

To form an estimate of his character

It is not so much from a single expression that we are to form our judgment, as from a view of all the circumstances under which he acted, and all the persons with whom he had to do. It will be proper to notice his character,

1.

As exhibited in his conduct on this occasion

[Gallio acted in a double capacity, as a man, and as a magistrate. In his official character, whilst we applaud his moderation, we think him highly deserving of blame. As a Governor, even if no reference had been made to him, he should have endeavoured to prevent an innocent man from being oppressed by an enraged multitude, and should have required the criminality of Paul to be established before any punishment should be inflicted on him: but when a direct reference was made to him for judgment, he should on no account have left him at the mercy of his enemies. What though he did not feel himself competent to decide the points at issue between them; he might easily see whether the points at issue were of such importance to the public welfare as to demand a judicial examination: and, if necessary, he might have appointed a commission of persons qualified to examine it under his sanction and authority. At all events, he should not have left the people to take the law into their own hands. In relation to Sosthenes also he was highly criminal: for a magistrate ought on no account to suffer such an open and flagrant violation of the law, as that which took place in the very seat of judgment. A magistrate should not bear the sword in vain: he is Gods representative and vicegerent upon earth; and he ought to be both a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well. In shrinking from the execution of his office, whether through indolence or fear, he violates his duty both to God and man.

Nor do we more approve of him in his personal conduct, as a man. He had long heard of Paul, and of the wonderful exertions he made in propagating what he professed to be a revelation from heaven. We can make some allowance for a Governor, circumstanced as Gallio was, not sending to Paul to get information from him respecting the doctrines he preached: but now God had sent the man into his very presence; and Paul was actually about to declare those very truths, which Gallio should have earnestly desired to hear: yet when God had given him this price to get wisdom, he knew not how to use it. Here then we blame him exceedingly: his indifference here betrayed a total want of all religion, and an utter disregard of all that should have been interesting to an immortal being. The historian evidently intends to fix a stigma upon him; and Gallio well deserved it; and, as long as the world shall stand, he will be the representative of all who are regardless of their eternal interests.]

2.

As compared with the other characters with whom he had to do

[We pass over Sosthenes and his persecutors, because we cannot absolutely determine who they were: but we think that Sosthenes had shewn himself desirous of screening Paul; and that the Greeks were instigated by the Jews to vent their rage on him, because he, who, as ruler of their synagogue, might have been expected most warmly to espouse their cause, had now begun to take part against them.

The other two parties are the persecuting Jews, and the persecuted Apostle. In comparison of the former, Gallio appears to advantage: for they were seeking to destroy a man merely for his opinions, and for endeavouring, in a peaceful way, to disseminate those opinions; whereas he was tolerant, and refused to sanction so unreasonable a proceeding. He justly distinguished between gross violations of the law, which no government should tolerate, and certain differences of opinion which might consist with the undiminished welfare of society. As a friend to toleration therefore, he merits our applause: and we regret that those who professed themselves the people of God, were so inferior to a heathen in appreciating and upholding the rights of man.

But if we compare him with the persecuted Apostle, he sinks to the lowest state of degradation. Behold the Apostle! it was his care for these things that involved him in all his trouble: had he been content to go to heaven alone, he might have avoided all these bitter persecutions. But he knew the value of an immortal soul; and was willing to endure all things for the elects sake, that they might obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. He went everywhere to find out men whom he might instruct in the way to heaven: whereas Gallio, with that very instructor in his presence, would not even trouble himself so much as to hear what he had to say. He accounted Christianity as no other than a strife about words, and therefore undeserving his notice. Unhappy man, to have so little concern for thine immortal soul, and such a brutish indifference about thine eternal welfare! The ox and the ass will condemn thee for thy stupidity and folly.]
Such being our estimate of Gallios character, we proceed,

II.

To deduce from it some lessons of instruction

His character not being wholly destitute of what, in a comparative view at least, may be approved, we shall deduce our lessons,

1.

From the better part of his character

[Two things we may learn from this; namely, not to indulge a spirit of intolerance; and, not to be carried away by popular resentment.

That a political necessity may exist for withholding certain privileges from some, is beyond a doubt: but nothing can justify the inflicting of pains and penalties upon any, on account of their religious sentiments. Man is, not only at liberty, but bound, to worship God according to his conscience: nor is any man in the universe authorized to obstruct him, unless there be something in his conduct contrary to good morals, or to the public peace. In the nation at large, this is well understood and practised: but amongst individuals there are many who would be as intolerant as the Jews of old, if the laws did not protect the persons who differ from them. This however is a hateful spirit, and on no account to be countenanced or indulged.

On the other hand, there are many who are too easily influenced by popular opinion; and who would rather consent to the oppressing of a religious character, than withstand the public voice in his support. But if we suffer the cause of Christ and his people to be run down, because we have not courage to defend it, we are more guilty far than Gallio: we are like to Pilate, who, to pacify the Jews, and save his own credit with the Roman emperor, delivered up Jesus to the will of his blood-thirsty enemies. True indeed, we ought not to proceed in the violent and haughty manner that Gallio did: there are different ways of doing the same thing: we may act with suavity, though we comply not with the requisitions made to us: and this is the way in which we should act, whenever any attempts are made to prejudice our minds against God and his people: we should resolutely withstand the efforts of ungodly men, and maintain against all opposition the immutable laws of equity and love.]

2.

From that part of his character which is unquestionably bad

[Here also we will mention two things; namely, not to be indifferent about the concerns of others, and not to be lukewarm in the concerns of our own souls.

Doubtless we are not to be busy-bodies in other mens matters; but, on the other hand, we are not to say, Am I my brothers keeper? We are told not to look every man on his own things; but every man also on the things of others [Note: Php 2:4.]. If in temporal matters we can benefit our fellow-creatures, we are debtors to them, to do them all the good in our power. And, if we may advance their spiritual interests, we should account no labours too great, nor any sufferings too heavy to be encountered in so good a cause. This sentiment has of late gained a currency in this kingdom, beyond all that could ever have been expected. What exertions have not been made in sending missions to the heathen; in disseminating the Holy Scriptures throughout the world; and in educating the children of the poor, that they may be able to read the words of life! For the children of Abraham also, that debased, but highly interesting people, are efforts now used; and, we trust, will be used to a yet greater extent amongst us. The concern expressed also through the land for our fellow-subjects in India is highly creditable to the nation. But still there is abundant room for the display of our benevolence in every place where our lot is cast: and we cannot but earnestly pray, that it may no longer be said of any amongst us, They mind every man his own things, and not the things that are Jesus Christs [Note: Php 2:21.].

But, in order to maintain a zeal for the good of others, we must begin at home, and cherish a concern for our own souls. To keep the garden of others will be of little avail, if we neglect to cultivate our own [Note: Son 1:6.]. The salvation of our own souls must be our first and great concern: in comparison of this, the whole world should be of no value in our eyes. Let us then regard the Lord Jesus Christ, and an interest in him, as the pearl of great price, for which we are readily to part with all that we possess. Whatever our hand findeth to do in reference to our eternal state, let us do it with all our might. Let us strive to enter in at the strait gate; remembering, that many seek to enter in, but are not able. Let us bear in mind, that no rank or station of life can exempt us from the duty of caring for these things. About the things of this world we may relax our care: there are few who do not run into a criminal excess in their attention to them: in reference to them, we think no anxiety too great, no labour too abundant: whilst the interests of the soul are deemed unworthy of any care. We mean not that worldly things are to be neglected; but that, whilst we are not slothful in business, we should be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

17 Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

Ver. 17. Took Sosthenes ] A beloved brother of St Paul’s, 1Co 1:1 ;

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

17. ] Apparently, all the mob , i.e. the Gentile population present. Sosthenes, as the ruler of the synagogue ( . = either the ruler, or one of the rulers; perhaps he had succeeded Crispus), had been the chief of the complainant Jews, and therefore, on their cause being rejected, and themselves ignominiously dismissed, was roughly treated by the mob. From this, certainly the right explanation, has arisen the gloss . The other gloss, , has sprung from the notion that this Sosthenes was the same person with the Sosthenes of 1Co 1:1 , a Christian and a companion of Paul. But, not to insist on the improbability of the party driven from the tribunal having beaten one of their antagonists in front of the tribunal, why did they not beat Paul himself ? There is no ground for supposing the two persons to be the same, Sosthenes being no uncommon name. If they were, this man must have been converted afterwards; but he is not among those who accompanied Paul into Asia, either in Act 18:18 , or ch. Act 20:4 .

The carelessness of Gallio about the matter clearly seems to be a further instance of his contempt for the Jews, and indisposition to favour them or their persecution of Paul. Had this been otherwise meant, certainly would not have been the copula. ‘So little did the information against Paul prosper, that the informers themselves were beaten without interference of the judge.’ Meyer.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 18:17 . . : of hostile action, Act 17:19 , Act 16:19 . , see critical note. If alone is read it seems clear from the context that only the Jews could be meant, and Weiss supposes that when they had failed so ignominiously they vented their rage on their own leader, Sosthenes, who as head of the synagogue would naturally have been prominent in presenting the complaint to Gallio. Some of the later MSS. insert after to make the meaning clearer. Probably confusion arose in the MSS. from identifying Sosthenes either rightly or wrongly with the Sosthenes in 1Co 1:1 , and therefore was omitted on the supposition that the Jews were allowed to console themselves by beating a Christian. But not only is it difficult to conceive that Gallio would have allowed them to do this, but there is no occasion to suppose that the Sosthenes here is the same as in 1Co 1:1 (for the name was common), and even if so, he may have become a Christian at a later date. It is much more conceivable that the Corinthians in their hatred of the Jews proceeded to second as it were the supercilious treatment dealt out to them by Gallio, and they would naturally fix upon Sosthenes as the leading spirit in the Jewish community. So far as he cared at all, Gallio may have been pleased rather than otherwise at the rough and ready approval of his decision by the populace, see Ramsay, St. Paul , p. 250, and “Corinth,” Hastings’ B.D. 1 , p. 482; Plumptre, in loco , and Wendt (1809). The whole of the section, Act 18:12-17 , is regarded by Clemen, p. 126, Jngst, p. 165, as an interpolation, but Hilgenfeld puts aside their varying grounds of rejection as unconvincing, and finds it very conceivable that the Jews attempted to hinder the preaching of Paul as is here described (1Th 2:16 ). With regard to the whole narrative of Paul at Corinth, Act 18:1-17 , Spitta, p. 244, concludes, as against Weizscker’s attack on its historical character, that we may regard it as scanty or even one-sided, but that there is no valid reason to regard it as unhistorical. : Hackett interprets the imperfect as showing how thorough a beating Sosthenes received; but “exitus rei qu depingitur (imperf.) non indicatur, quia nihil gravius secutum est,” Blass; the imperfect may simply mean “began to strike”. , cf. Luk 10:40 , a Gallio has become a proverbial name for one indifferent to religion, but there is nothing in St. Luke’s statement to support such a view. All the words show is that Gallio was so little influenced by the accusations of the Jews against Paul that he took no notice of the conduct of the Greeks (?) in beating Sosthenes. And if the beating was administered by the Jews, Gallio might well overlook it, as he would regard it as the outcome of some question which only concerned their religion (Weiss).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

all the Greeks. The texts read, “they all”.

Sosthenes. He had apparently succeeded Crispus (Act 18:8). Compare 1Co 1:1.

bsat. The crowd, to whom the Jews were obnoxious, would be glad to second the work of the lictors.

Gallio, &c. Literally none (ouden) of these things was a concern to Gallio. He refused to interfere in behalf of such troublesome litigants.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

17. ] Apparently, all the mob, i.e. the Gentile population present. Sosthenes, as the ruler of the synagogue (. = either the ruler, or one of the rulers; perhaps he had succeeded Crispus), had been the chief of the complainant Jews, and therefore, on their cause being rejected, and themselves ignominiously dismissed, was roughly treated by the mob. From this, certainly the right explanation, has arisen the gloss . The other gloss, , has sprung from the notion that this Sosthenes was the same person with the Sosthenes of 1Co 1:1, a Christian and a companion of Paul. But, not to insist on the improbability of the party driven from the tribunal having beaten one of their antagonists in front of the tribunal,-why did they not beat Paul himself? There is no ground for supposing the two persons to be the same, Sosthenes being no uncommon name. If they were, this man must have been converted afterwards; but he is not among those who accompanied Paul into Asia, either in Act 18:18, or ch. Act 20:4.

The carelessness of Gallio about the matter clearly seems to be a further instance of his contempt for the Jews, and indisposition to favour them or their persecution of Paul. Had this been otherwise meant, certainly would not have been the copula. So little did the information against Paul prosper, that the informers themselves were beaten without interference of the judge. Meyer.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 18:17. , having laid hold of) in compliment to Gallio.-, Sosthenes) the successor of Crispus [who was converted], Act 18:8 : with this comp. ch. Act 13:15, note. This Sosthenes headed the accusation against Paul: he was afterwards converted: 1Co 1:1, Paul-and Sosthenes our brother-to the church in Corinth, etc.-, none) although an act of wrong arose out of the question.- , to Gallio) who connived at the act of the Greeks against the Jews.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

cared for

Contra. Joh 19:13-16; Act 24:26; Act 24:27.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

Sosthenes: 1Co 1:1

the chief: Act 18:8

And Gallio: Act 17:32, Amo 6:6, 1Co 1:23

Reciprocal: Pro 24:11 – General Mar 5:22 – rulers Luk 8:41 – a ruler Luk 10:32 – General Luk 13:14 – the ruler Joh 10:13 – careth not Act 13:15 – the rulers Act 18:12 – the judgment Act 21:32 – beating

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

7

Act 18:17. The Greeks were the Gentile spectators in the court of Gallio and had heard the remarks to the Jews that he made in answer to their complaint. Sosthenes was a Jew and doubtless was a leader in the uprising against Paul. Their sympathy would naturally be for the apostles and against the Jews who had not always shown a favorable attitude toward the Gentiles. Hearing the declaration of Gallio, that he would not interfere with any dispute of the Jews concerning their religion, they decided to take the opportunity of showing their feeling against this would-be persecutor of Paul by this personal attack. While this action was one pertaining to “law and order,” yet Gallio knew it was caused by religious agitation, and, being disgusted by the attempt of the Jews to invade his court with an improper issue, took some satisfaction out of seeing them thus punished, hence he cared for none of those things.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 18:17. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat. The better MSS. simply read, Then all took, etc.; the Greeks was a later interpolation. There is little doubt that all refers here to the Gentile or Greek populace, who, ever ready to show their hatred to the Jews dwelling among them, took this opportunity, when the despised people were being driven ignominiously out of court, of venting their dislike upon the Jewish leader. Some commentators have, however, supposed that the all refers not to the Greek populace, but to the Jews themselves, who, angry at finding their designs against Paul frustrated, fell upon their own leader, to whose want of skill or perhaps to whose treachery in the cause they ascribed their present failure before Gallio. This supposition is based in great measure on the possible identification of this Sosthenes with the Sosthenes mentioned in 1Co 1:1, and upon the hypothesis that he was already a secret friend of Pauls, and at heart a Christian.

And Gallio cared for none of those things. The utter indifference of these great Roman officials to all religion is well painted in these few words. Such questions as had been brought before his tribunal that day were, to one trained in Gallios cheerless school, having, as he thought, no bearing direct or indirect on the present life, entirely without interest. Like Pilate, when One greater than Paul stood before him similarly accused, this Roman seemed to favour the accused, possibly owing to the popular dislike of the Jewish race. Pilates celebrated words, What is truth? betray the same utter carelessness and indifference to religion and religious truth.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Act 18:17. Then all the Greeks Who were present, perceiving how little favour the Jews found from the court, and displeased with them for their turbulent, persecuting spirit, perhaps, thinking that Paul was thus insulted for the regards he had expressed for the Gentiles; took Sosthenes The successor of Crispus, as chief ruler of the synagogue And probably Pauls chief accuser; and beat him It seems, because he had occasioned them so much trouble to no purpose; before the judgment-seat While Gallio looked an without hindering them. But though this was certainly a very irregular proceeding, Gallio cared for none of those things Did not concern himself at all to interpose in the affair. Probably he was pleased with the indignity done by the Greeks to the chief magistrate of the Jews, whose bigoted and persecuting spirit he disliked. It seems what Sosthenes now suffered had a happy effect on him; for he afterward became a Christian.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

17. Prompt and energetic vindication of the right, on the part of a public functionary, will nearly always meet the approbation of the masses, and will sometimes even turn the tide of popular prejudice. Whether the disinterested public were favorable or unfavorable to Paul before the decision, we are not informed; but when the case was dismissed, the spectators were highly gratified at the result. (17) “Then all the Greeks seized Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat; and Gallio cared for none of these things.” For once, the heart of the unconverted multitude was with the apostle, and so indignant were they at the unprovoked attempt to injure him, that when it was fully exposed, they visited upon the head of the chief persecutor the very beating which he had laid up for Paul. Sosthenes was most probably the successor of Crispus, as chief ruler of the synagogue, and may have been selected for that position on account of his zeal in opposing the course which Crispus had pursued. The beating which the Greeks gave him was a riotous proceeding, which Gallio, in strict discharge of his duty, should have suppressed. That he did not do so, and that Luke says, “Gallio cared for none of these things,” has been generally understood to indicate an easy and yielding disposition, which was averse to the strict enforcement of the law. This, however, is inconsistent with the promptness of his vindication of Paul, and his indignant dismissal of the accusers. I would rather understand it as indicating a secret delight at seeing the tables so handsomely turned upon the persecutors, prompting him to let pass unnoticed a riot, which, under other circumstances, he would have rebuked severely. The rage and disappointment of the Jews must have been intense; but the rough handling which their leaders experienced admonished them to keep quiet for a time.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 17

Sosthenes; he having been probably a prominent actor in the tumult. It is a remarkable instance of the revolutions in personal character and position, which Christianity often effects, that Sosthenes, who appears on this occasion as the representative of so violent a hostility to the Christian name, and who, we should have supposed, would have been rendered, by this public beating, exasperate and irreconcilable, afterwards has his name joined with that of Paul, in one of the Epistles, as his fellow-Christian, companion, and friend. (1 Corinthians 1:1.)

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

"They all" evidently refers to the Gentile audience at this trial. Encouraged by Gallio’s impatience with the Jews, they vented their own anti-Semitic feelings. They beat up Sosthenes who had either succeeded Crispus as leader of the synagogue (Act 18:8) or served with him in this capacity (cf. Act 13:15). This Sosthenes may have become a Christian later and served as Paul’s amanuensis when the apostle wrote 1 Corinthians (1Co 1:1), or he may have been a different Sosthenes. Gallio did not interfere, probably concluding that this demonstration might discourage the Jews from bothering him with their religious differences in the future.

Gallio’s decision resulted in the official toleration of Christianity that continued in the empire until A.D. 64 when Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome. It may also have encouraged Paul to appeal to Caesar when he felt the Jews in Palestine were influencing the Palestinian Roman officials against him too much (Act 25:11).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)