Acts 18:14Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

And see how prudent he was. In his answer he did not say directly, "This is not my affair." What did he say? "Jews, if it were a matter of wrong or wicked crime, I would have reason to hear you. But if it is a dispute about teaching and names and your law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge of these things." A splendid victory!

But the proconsul, a man of tender heart, dulcis Gallio, showed no inclination whatever to involve himself in the religious disputes of the Jews. To a Roman statesman, these could seem empty wranglings over words.

The Gentiles did not miss the opportunity to express their own displeasure against the accusers. They rushed upon Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat itself.

After this, the apostle could continue his activity in these places, and throughout all Achaia, with still greater peace. See 1 Thess 1:8; 2 Thess 1:4; 2 Cor 1:1.

He ended the whole matter by declaring their accusation against Paul extremely groundless. They had accused him as a violator of the Mosaic law, or in general of any law Gallio could recognize. "If there were some civil crime here, or some immoral act, I would have reason to examine the matter and hear you. But if the matter concerns teaching, mere names, and your law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge of these things."

"If it were a matter of some wrong or wicked crime": if there were a violation of the rights of some person protected by law, or a wicked design against someone or against the laws of the state, this would fall within the judicial duties of proconsular authority. It would then be subject to the proconsul's examination.

Gallio drove all the accusers away from the judgment seat as foolish people. They did not understand that courts judge wrongs and evil deeds, not teaching, especially good teaching. "See," says Saint John Chrysostom, "how prudent he was, Gallio; this man was gentle."

"Paul had not yet managed to open his mouth when Gallio had already decided the case against the accusers. He judged that this matter did not fall under his jurisdiction as a political administrator, and left both sides to settle it themselves. The Jews, through their own proceedings, could not sentence Paul to any punishment dangerous to the life and honor of the accused."

"No mortal is so dear to any one person as Gallio is to all people," wrote Seneca. "Even those who love my brother Gallio most of all do not love him enough." In general, Gallio was the flower of pagan culture. He was Roman in nobility and seriousness, Greek in courtesy and evasiveness.

Inclined by nature to leave things to their own course, and perhaps already feeling some contempt for the crowd standing before him, Gallio did not even listen to the Apostle Paul when he opened his mouth for his defense.

Despite the categorical order to leave the judgment seat, the Jews did not leave it. Then Gallio ordered the lictors to clear the court.

In pausing over this event, one cannot fail to appreciate Gallio's modesty in declaring himself incompetent to decide religious questions. Nor can one fail to value his sound legal judgment, which discerned in the demands of the Jews an unjust accusation against an innocent man.

Yet while rendering justice to the best of Roman officials, one cannot pass without censure over his personal indifference, even disdain, toward the essence of the movement that had opened before him. He judged it from a purely formal point of view.

Gallio thought it best for himself to display the fullest imperturbability, purely Jovian, as the Stoics say. He could not even imagine that before him stood the bearer of divine teaching. When received by mind and heart, that teaching opens to man the path to high spiritual blessings. To possess such blessings was, for Gallio, an unrealizable dream.

He did not allow the accused to say anything. Therefore his meeting with the apostle left no trace, and he ended his life by suicide.