Acts 18:14

And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(14) When Paul was now about to open his mouth.—The phrase always implies, as has been noticed (see Note on Acts 8:35), the beginning of a set discourse. St. Paul was about to begin a formal apologia. This, however, proved to be unnecessary.

Gallio said unto the Jews.—The proconsul could hardly have resided in Achaia for eighteen months without hearing of the new movement. He knew the Jews. He probably knew something of St. Paul. On the assumption already referred to (see Note on Acts 18:12) the knowledge may have been fuller than appears on the surface. In any case, from his standpoint, as philosopher and statesman, it was not a matter for his tribunal. He was not anxious to draw a hard and fast line as to the relligiones licitæ recognised by the State.

A matter of wrong or wicked lewdness.—Better, a matter of crime or fraud. “Lewdness,” which to us suggests a special class of crimes, is used as “lewd” had been in Acts 17:5. The Greek word is very closely connected with that translated “subtlety” in Acts 13:10. Both words were probably used in a strictly forensic sense—the first for acts of open wrong, such as robbery or assault; the second for those in which a fraudulent cunning was the chief element.

Reason would that I should bear with you.—The very turn of the phrase expresses an intense impatience. Even in the case supposed, his tolerance would have required an effort. As it was, these Jews were now altogether intolerable.

MacLaren's Expositions

Acts

GALLIO

Acts 18:14 - Acts 18:15.

There is something very touching in the immortality of fame which comes to the men who for a moment pass across the Gospel story, like shooting stars kindled for an instant as they enter our atmosphere. How little Gallio dreamed that he would live for ever in men’s mouths by reason of this one judicial dictum! He was Seneca’s brother, and was possibly leavened by his philosophy and indisposed to severity. He has been unjustly condemned. There are some striking lessons from the story.

I. The remarkable anticipation of the true doctrine as to the functions of civil magistrates.

Gallio draws a clear distinction between conduct and opinion, and excepts the whole of the latter region from his sway. It is the first case in which the civil authorities refused to take cognisance of a charge against a man on account of his opinions. Nineteen hundred years have not brought all tribunals up to that point yet. Gallio indeed was influenced mainly by philosophic contempt for the trivialities of what he thought a superstition. We are influenced by our recognition of the sanctity of individual conviction, and still more by reverence for truth and by the belief that it should depend only on its own power for progress and on itself for the defeat of its enemies.

II. The tragic mistake about the nature of the Gospel which men make.

There is something very pathetic in the erroneous estimates made by those persons mentioned in Acts who some once or twice come in contact with the preachers of Christ. How little they recognise what was before them! Their responsibility is in better hands than ours. But in Gallio there is a trace of tendencies always in operation.

We see in him the practical man’s contempt for mere ideas. The man of affairs, be he statesman or worker, is always apt to think that things are more than thoughts. Gallio, proconsul in Corinth, and his brother official, Pilate, in Jerusalem, both believed in powers that they could see. The question of the one, for an answer to which he did not wait, was not the inquiry of a searcher after truth, but the exclamation of a sceptic who thought all the contradictory answers that rang through the world to be demonstrations that the question had no answer. The impatient refusal of the other to have any concern in settling ‘such matters’ was steeped in the same characteristically Roman spirit of impatient distrust and suspicion of mere ideas. He believed in Roman force and authority, and thought that such harmless visionaries as Paul and his company might be allowed to go their own way, and he did not know that they carried with them a solvent and constructive power before which the solid-seeming structure of the Empire was destined to crumble, as surely as thick-ribbed ice before the sirocco.

And how many of us believe in wealth and material progress, and regard the region of truth as very shadowy and remote! This is a danger besetting us all. The true forces that sway the world are ideas.

We see in Gallio supercilious indifference to mere ‘theological subtleties.’ To him Paul’s preaching and the Jews’ passionate denials of it seemed only a squabble about ‘words and names.’ Probably he had gathered his impression from Paul’s eager accusers, who would charge him with giving the name of ‘Christ’ to Jesus.

Gallio’s attitude was partly Stoical contempt for all superstitions, partly, perhaps, an eclectic belief that all these warring religions were really saying the same thing and differed only in words and names; and partly sheer indifference to the whole subject. Thus Christianity appears to many in this day.

What is it in reality? Not words but power: a Name, indeed, but a Name which is life. Alas for us, who by our jangling have given colour to this misconception!

We see in Gallio the mistake that the Gospel has little relation to conduct. Gallio drew a broad distinction between conduct and opinion, and there he was right. But he imagined that this opinion had nothing to do with conduct, and how wrong he was there we need not elaborate.

The Gospel is the mightiest power for shaping conduct.

III. The ignorant levity with which men pass the crisis of their lives.

How little Gallio knew of what a possibility was opened out before him! Angels were hovering unseen. We seldom recognise the fateful moments of our lives till they are past.

The offer of salvation in Christ is ever a crisis. It may never be repeated. Was Gallio ever again brought into contact with Paul or Paul’s Lord? We know not. He passes out of sight, the search-light is turned in another direction, and we lose him in the darkness. The extent of his criminality is in better hands than ours, though we cannot but let our thoughts go forward to the time when he, like us all, will stand at the judgment bar of Jesus, no longer a judge but judged. Let us hope that before he passed hence, he learned how full of spirit and of life the message was, which he once took for a mere squabble about ‘words and names,’ and thought too trivial to occupy his court. And let us remember that the Jesus, whom we are sometimes tempted to judge as of little importance to us, will one day judge us, and that His judgment will settle our fate for evermore.

Benson Commentary

Acts 18:14-16. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth — To speak in his own defence; Gallio — Sensible of the futility of the charge; said to the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong, or wicked lewdness — With which you charged the person you have now brought before me: that is, If you accused this man of any injury done to particular persons, or of wantonly disturbing the peace of society; reason would — That is, it were reasonable; that I should bear with you — In this prosecution; and even that I should exert the power with which I am invested, to punish the offender in proportion to his crime. But if it be a question of words —

Greek, περι λογου, concerning discourse, or doctrine; and of names, and of your law — If your accusation respect opinions taught by Paul, which ye think heretical; and whether the names of the Christ, and the Son of God, which he hath given to any one, ought to be given to that person; and whether all who worship the God of the Jews, are bound to worship him according to the rites of your law; look ye to it — These are matters which belong to yourselves, and with which, as a magistrate, I have no concern. I will be no judge of such matters — Matters so foreign to my office. The apparent coolness and contempt with which Gallio speaks of the matters in debate between Paul and the Jews does not merit commendation, but the severest censure. The names of the heathen gods, and the institutions concerning their worship and service, were fables, shadows, and deceits; but the question concerning the name of Jesus, his person, character, and offices, and the worship and service of the living and true God, is of more importance than all things else under heaven. Yet, there is this singularity (among a thousand others) in the Christian religion, that human reason, curious as it is in all other things, abhors to inquire into it. And he drave them from the judgment-seat — Not regarding their clamorous importunity.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

18:12-17 Paul was about to show that he did not teach men to worship God contrary to law; but the judge would not allow the Jews to complain to him of what was not within his office. It was right in Gallio that he left the Jews to themselves in matters relating to their religion, but yet would not let them, under pretence of that, persecute another. But it was wrong to speak slightly of a law and religion which he might have known to be of God, and which he ought to have acquainted himself with. In what way God is to be worshipped, whether Jesus be the Messiah, and whether the gospel be a Divine revelation, are not questions of words and names, they are questions of vast importance. Gallio spoke as if he boasted of his ignorance of the Scriptures, as if the law of God was beneath his notice. Gallio cared for none of these things. If he cared not for the affronts of bad men, it was commendable; but if he concerned not himself for the abuses done to good men, his indifference was carried too far. And those who see and hear of the sufferings of God's people, and have no feeling with them, or care for them, who do not pity and pray for them, are of the same spirit as Gallio, who cared for none of these things.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

About to open his mouth - In self-defense, ever ready to vindicate his conduct.

A matter of wrong - Injustice, or crime, such as could be properly brought before a court of justice.

Or wicked lewdness - Any flagrant and gross offence. The word used here occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It denotes properly an act committed by him who is skilled, facile, or an adept in iniquity an act of a veteran offender. Such crimes Gallio was willing to take cognizance of.

Reason would ... - Greek: "I would bear with you according to reason." There would be propriety or fitness in my hearing and trying the case. Thai is, it would fall within the sphere of my duty, as appointed to guard the peace, and to punish crimes.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

14. If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness—any offense punishable by the magistrate.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

To open his mouth; to make his apology, and to speak in his own defence.

A matter of wrong; as murder, theft, or any such injury, which judges do usually determine of.

Reason would that I should bear with you; I would endure any trouble to hear and understand it, I should think it my duty to suffer you to say as much as you would in your case.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And when Paul was now about to open his mouth,.... In his own defence, and plead his own cause, and answer to the charge exhibited against him:

Gallio said unto the Jews, if it was matter of wrong; of injury to any man's person or property, as murder, theft, &c.

or wicked lewdness; as fraud, forgery, perjury, treason, &c.

O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: his sense is, that it would be according to right reason, and agreeably to his office as a judge, to admit them and their cause, and try it, and hear them patiently, and what was to be said on both sides of the question, what the charges were, and the proof of them, and what the defendant had to say for himself. The Vulgate Latin version reads, "O men Jews"; and so Beza's ancient copy.

Geneva Study Bible

And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, {g} reason would that I should bear with you:

(g) As much as I rightly could.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Acts 18:14-15. The mild and humane Gallio (Stat. Silv. ii. 7, 32; Seneca, Q. Nat. 4 praef.) refuses to examine into the complaint, and hands it over, as simply concerning doctrine, to the decision of the accusers themselves—to the Jewish tribunal—without permitting Paul, who was about to begin his defence, to speak.

οὖν] namely, in pursuance of your accusation.

ῥᾳδιούργ. ὑμῶν] I should with reason (see Plat. Rep. p. 366 B; Wetstein in loc.; Bernhardy, p. 241) bear with you, i.e. according to the context: give you a patient hearing. Comp. Plat. Phil. p. 13 B; Rep. p. 367 D. “Judaeos Gallion sibi molestos innuit,” Bengel.

εἰ δὲ ζητήματα … ὑμᾶς] but if (as your complaint shows) there are questions in dispute (Acts 15:2) concerning doctrine and names (plural of category; Paul’s assertion that the name of Messiah belonged to Jesus, was the essential matter of fact in the case, see Acts 18:5), and of your (and so not of Roman) law.

τοῦ καθʼ ὑμᾶς] See on Acts 17:28.

κριτὴς κ.τ.λ.] Observe the order of the words, judge will I for my part, etc. Thus Gallio speaks in the consciousness of his political official position; and his wise judgment—which Calovius too harshly designates as ἀμέλεια atheistica—is after a corresponding manner to be borne in mind in determining the limits of the ecclesiastical power of princes as bearing on the separation of the secular and spiritual government, with due attention, however, to the circumstance that Gallio was outside the pale of the Jewish religious community.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Acts 18:14. μέλλοντος: Lucan; see Burton, p. 71, on οὖν, see critical note and Alford, in loco, for its retention.—ἀδίκημα, cf. Acts 24:20, only once elsewhere in N.T., Revelation 18:5, here it may perhaps mark a legal wrong, a wrong against the state—the word is used in classical Greek of a breach of law ἀδίκ. τῶν νόμων, Dem., 586, 11, while ῥᾳδιούργημα marks rather the moral wrong. ῥᾳδ., cf. Acts 13:10, not elsewhere either in classical Greek or LXX, but cf. Plut., Pyrrh., 6, “if a misdemeanour or a crime”: so Ramsay.—κατὰ λόγον: ut par est, merito; cf. use of the phrase in Polyb. and 3Ma 3:14 (παρὰ λ., 2Ma 4:46, 3Ma 7:8).—Ἰουδαῖοι without ἄνδρες perhaps in contempt (so Knabenbauer), but see critical note.—ἠνεσχόμην, cf. Luke 9:41, and so several times in St. Paul’s Epistles, 2 Corinthians 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:4; on the augment and construction see Blass, Gram., pp. 39, 102, Simcox, Language of the New Testament, p. 34, note, and Burton, p. 103.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

14. And (But) when Paul was now about to open his mouth] There is nothing in the Gk. which requires the word “now.” The Roman has too much contempt for the whole matter and all who are concerned in it to listen to any defence. For the law of the Jews, its breach or its observance, he has no care, and will not be used by either party.

Gallio said unto the Jews] He does not need to hear both sides of a question about which he will give no opinion.

If indeed it were a matter of wrong or of wicked lewdness (villany)] The old word “lewdness” has grown to have a different meaning from that which it had when the A. V. was made. The two things of which the magistrate would take account are (1) any evil doing (cp. Acts 24:20), an act of injustice, or (2) any unscrupulous conduct involving moral wrong. He would be, that is, a minister of law and equity, for that was his duty.

reason would that I should bear with you] He shews by his language how far he feels the Roman citizen above the tolerated Jews. But if their case called for its exercise they should have the benefit of toleration and he would inquire into matters that were the business of his office.

Bengel's Gnomen

Acts 18:14. Εἶπεν, said) Either because he was favourable to Paul, or because he despised the Jews.—ἀδίκημα, a matter of wrong) demanding a civil action.—ῥᾳδιούργημα, wanton wickedness) worthy of a criminal action.—ἠνεσχόμην, I would bear with you) Certainly ἀνοχὴ, forbearance, is becoming in a judge, if he is rightly to discharge the duties of his office. Gallio implies that the Jews were troublesome (an annoyance) to him.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 14. - But for and, A.V.; about for now about, A.V.; if indeed for if, A.V.; of wicked villainy for wicked lewdness, A.V. The Greek ῤᾳδιούργημα occurs only here in the New Testament or elsewhere; ῤᾳδιουργία, which is not uncommon in Greek writers, occurs in Acts 13:10. Acts 18:14

Vincent's Word Studies

Lewdness (ῥᾳδιούργημα)

See on mischief, Acts 13:10. Rev., villany.