Acts 18:12 - Meaning and Application

Here we have an account of some trouble that came to Paul and his friends in Corinth. Yet it did not do much harm, and it did not hinder Christ’s work there for long.

Paul is first accused by the Jews before the Roman governor, Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, which was a Roman province. Gallio was the older brother of the well-known Seneca. In his younger years he was called Novatus, but later took the name Gallio when he was adopted into the family of Julius Gallio. Seneca described him as honest, fair, and very gentle in temper. He was even nicknamed “Sweet Gallio” because of his pleasant nature.

Notice first how roughly Paul was seized and brought before Gallio. The Jews acted together against him with one mind. They were the leaders in all the trouble against Paul, and they formed a plan to hurt him. They came at him with violence and fury, and dragged him to the judgment seat, with no sign that they gave him time to prepare his defense.

Notice also how falsely they accused him before Gallio. They said, “This man persuades people to worship God contrary to the law” (Acts 18:13). They could not accuse him of turning people away from God altogether, or of leading them to worship false gods (Deuteronomy 13:2). Their complaint was only that he taught a different way of worshiping God. The Romans allowed Jews in their provinces to follow their own law, but that did not mean they could force everyone else under that law. Their charge was unfair, because their own law promised a prophet whom God would raise up, and they were to listen to him. Paul was urging them to believe in that promised prophet, who had now come, and to hear him. That was in line with the law, because Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.

The temple rules the Jews at Corinth could not keep in full, because they lived far from Jerusalem. And Paul did not contradict anything in their synagogue worship. So when people are taught to worship God through Christ and by the Spirit, they often complain as if this were against the law. In truth, it brings the law to completion.

Gallio, after the first hearing, or really without hearing the case at all, dismissed it and refused to deal with it. Paul was about to defend himself and show that he had not taught anything against the law, but Gallio had already decided he would not judge the matter. He said to the Jews, if the case had been about wrong, crime, theft, fraud, murder, or violence, he would have listened patiently, even if they were loud and rude. A ruler should protect the injured and judge the guilty, and he should still hear a complaint even if it is not presented with perfect manners.

But Gallio would not let them bring him a matter that was outside his authority. He told them that if the dispute was only about words, names, and their own law, they should settle it themselves. He would not burden his patience by hearing it, or his conscience by judging it. When they kept pressing him, he drove them from the judgment seat and called for another case (Acts 18:16).

There was something right in Gallio’s conduct. He would not pretend to judge what he did not understand. He left the Jews alone in matters belonging to their own religion, and he would not let them use religion as a cover for attacking Paul. He also refused to become the tool of their malice. Since he believed the matter was outside his jurisdiction, he would not meddle in it.

Yet he was also wrong to speak so lightly of a law and religion that he might have known came from God, and that he should have studied. The questions of how God should be worshiped, whether Jesus is the Messiah, and whether the gospel is from God, were not mere questions of words and names, as he carelessly called them. These are weighty matters, and if he had understood them better, he would have seen that they concerned him deeply. He spoke as if he were proud of not knowing the Scriptures, as if it were beneath him to pay attention to God’s law or ask serious questions about it.

Then came the abuse done to Sosthenes, and Gallio’s lack of concern about it. The crowd showed great contempt for the court when they seized Sosthenes and beat him before the judgment seat. There is some uncertainty about who this Sosthenes was, and who the Greeks were who attacked him. It seems most likely that Sosthenes was a Christian and a close friend of Paul. He may have stood up for Paul on this occasion and likely helped get him safely away when Gallio dismissed the case. So when they could not reach Paul, they turned on the man who had protected him.

There was certainly a Sosthenes known at Corinth who was a friend of Paul. Paul calls him his brother and includes him with himself in the letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:1). That makes it likely this was the same man. He may also have been a minister. Some think he was a ruler of the synagogue, either together with Crispus (Acts 18:8), or over one synagogue while Crispus ruled another.

As for the Greeks who beat him, they were likely either Hellenistic Jews, that is, Greek-speaking Jews, or Jews of Greek background who had joined in opposing the gospel (Acts 18:4, Acts 18:6). The native Jews may have pushed them into it, thinking their anger would seem less serious. They were so enraged against Paul that they beat Sosthenes instead. They were also angry with Gallio because he would not support their case, and they beat Sosthenes before the judgment seat, showing their contempt for the governor. In effect, they were telling him they did not care for his authority. If he would not serve as their judge, they would act as judges for themselves.

The court treated the case, and the people involved, with deep contempt. But Gallio cared for none of these things. If this means he did not worry about insults from wicked men, that was right and proper. As long as he held to justice and fair rules, he could ignore their scorn.

But if it means, as I think it does, that he did not care about the wrong done to good men, then his indifference went too far. That gives us a very poor picture of him. Wickedness was happening in a place where justice should have ruled (Ecclesiastes 3:16), and nothing was done to stop it.

As a judge, Gallio should have protected Sosthenes and restrained and punished the Greeks who attacked him. If a man is attacked in the street or market, that may be hard to prevent. But to have it happen in a court, while the judge sits there and does nothing, shows a failure of justice. It is like the words in Isaiah 59:14-15, where truth falls in the public square and justice cannot enter, and the one who turns from evil is treated like a target.

Those who hear or see the sufferings of God’s people, and feel no concern for them, are in the spirit of Gallio here. They do not pity them or pray for them. They act as if it makes no difference whether religion thrives or fails. They are like those who were comfortable in Zion and were not troubled by Joseph’s troubles (Amos 6:6), and like the king and Haman, who sat down to drink while the city of Shushan was in distress (Esther 3:15).