Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadGreater Men and Women of the Bible by James Hastings: 656. Gallio in St. Luke's Narrative
Subjects in this Topic:
Gallio in St. Luke's Narrative
The charge against St. Paul was that he was “teaching men to worship God contrary to the law.” Now, as Judaism was a religio licita, this accusation might be regarded as serious. It was a charge similar to that brought against Christ before Pilate's tribunal. The two judges were very different in character. Pilate was apt to be severe: at times he was ruthless, and prone to shed blood. Yet the Jewish priests had their way with him. After alternate bluster and conciliation, he gave way. A much more easy victory might be expected before the mild Gallio.
But they had miscalculated. Gallio could be firm when occasion required.
We infer, from his reply to the plaintiffs, that he made a preliminary examination; and finding that no crime or civil wrong (ἀδίκημα), nor even a misdemeanour or reckless act of levity (ῥᾳδιούργημα πονηρὸν), had been committed by the defendant, he came without hesitation to the conclusion that it was a comparatively trifling question of their own law, relating to words and names, and interpretation of the utterances of the Jewish prophets. It was a matter with which the Roman law had nothing to do. Paul may have given enough offence to the Jews, but he had kept within the law of the Empire; no breach of Roman law could be brought against him. It was purely a Jewish question, and Gallio peremptorily refused to deal with it. He would not even listen to the defence. None was needed. And when the accused was about to open his mouth, he bade him be silent. He would not be a judge in such matters. The Jews must look to it themselves. His decision, in fact, is precisely the same as that at which Pilate first arrived, when he said, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.” Pilate was overborne by the clamours of the priests; but Gallio refused to alter his decision, and drove the accusers from his judgment-seat.
We see Cicero resigning his high station to Cato, who, with half his abilities, little foresight, and no address, possessed that first requisite for a statesman-firmness.1 [Note: A. Whyte, Newman: An Appreciation, 228.]
“The most valuable thing I learnt at Rossall,” said Edmund Garrett, “was sticking to my guns.”2 [Note: E. T. Cook, Edmund Garrett, 10.]
You may love warmly, but what is your love worth if you presently forget all about it, and do the very thing which will wound the one whom you profess to love? What is your love worth, if when you are away you are at the mercy of every sharp temptation that assails you? What is your love worth in best, if it cannot be trusted as soon as you have been out of sight for a little while? You may repent with much sorrow; but what is your sorrow or your repentance worth if the fault is presently to be repeated? You may resolve nobly and enthusiastically; but what is your enthusiasm and your resolution worth, if it cannot uphold you when you come to action? The one thing which all men will ask of you before they can have much to do with you will be, where and how far you may be trusted. Till they know that, they cannot admit you to any confidence at all. As far as they know that, they can be on friendly terms, perhaps more, on terms of friendship. If you cannot be trusted at all, you are worse to your fellow-creatures than a wild beast. So, too, is it in our relations with God. If you are to be His in any sense, you must learn to be trustworthy. You must learn to obey the bidding of duty even when you are left entirely to yourself. You must learn to care for His will even when you are strongly tempted to disregard it, and when no punishment seems likely to follow your disregard. You must learn to think about His will even when it seems quite impossible that disobedience should be detected. You must learn to obey in little trifles which no one will notice, and all the more because no one will notice them.1 [Note: Archbishop Temple.]
2. But this was not the end. The Greeks had sympathized with Paul. Whether they accepted his teachings or not, they seem on this occasion to have 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. “And they all laid hold on Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgement-seat.” Sosthenes was presumably the leading man among Paul's opponents, and the Corinthian idlers present were so delighted to see him baffled that they could not refrain from mobbing him, with kicks and cuffs, in the very presence of the judge. And it is at this point in his narrative that St. Luke chooses to insert the memorable remark, “And Gallio cared for none of these things.”