Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadGreater Men and Women of the Bible by James Hastings: 657. Gallio's Character
Subjects in this Topic:
Gallio's Character
1. With regard to the first charge we must remember that Gallio was present in that court merely as a judge, and that as a judge he is to be commended for his alertness of mind and loftiness of principle. Gallio as an example of unstained honour in the discharge of public duty is not unworthy of a place in the pages of the New Testament. He would not pander to prejudice, neither would he stoop to meanness nor swerve from right. And when expediency clashed with principle, and when to be unjust was all too easy, he would not willingly commit a wrong.
The virtue of impartiality is not immediately or easily acquired. To do justly between man and man can appear a simple matter only to an unsophisticated intelligence. Once perceive the intricacy of social connexions, and the difficulty of the task becomes obvious. Solomon's drastic solution of a complicated situation may commend itself to those who prefer the method of the bludgeon when confronted with rival claimants to a disputed property, but can hardly be recommended for general observance. Nor may we take refuge in the decision of the worthy magistrate who declared that he would be guilty neither of partiality nor impartiality in the conduct of his office.1 [Note: A. C. Hill, The Sword of the Lord, 110.]
2. And yet we often err in our judgments of character by supposing that only one class of motives is at work in certain circumstances. It may be the case with Gallio that he honestly fulfilled his judicial duty in these circumstances, and that at the same time he did not pretend to conceal his contempt for the whole class of questions brought under his notice. He may have been an upright judge as to the merits of the case before him, and yet have been a notable instance of sceptical indifferentism. Perhaps he was both, and St. Luke may have wished to accentuate both.
We cannot help feeling it is a thousand pities that, as a man, Gallio did not allow St. Paul to speak. As a man of affairs, familiar with the religious controversies of his time, he must have known about the disputed claims of Jesus. It was twenty-two years since the crucifixion, yet the dispute concerning the Man of Nazareth had gone on continuously ever since. Would His spectre never be laid? Never! This question must be confronted and settled by every man.
The blame of Gallio in refusing to consider the claims of Jesus as the Christ must be measured by circumstances. He probably regarded this as a matter of mere provincial importance, not knowing that his own salvation was in the balance. He had doubtless discussed many questions in the forum and in philosophic halls, but never one so intensely personal as this: “Is Jesus the Christ?” To him St. Paul's preaching and the Jews' passionate denials of it seemed only a squabble about “words and names.” How little Gallio knew of what a possibility was opened out before him! Angels were hovering unseen, and he was unaware of their presence. He was a man who lost his opportunity.
If thou hadst known in those far-distant days,
Which now lie buried with the long-dead past;
If thou hadst known how wistful was the gaze
Love turn'd on thee, oh! wouldst thou then have cast
One swift responsive glance, and thus have seen
Life's possibility?-It might have been!
If thou hadst known how, through the long, long years,
One aching heart would yearn for thee in vain,
Wouldst thou in that far time have dried the tears
With tender answering touch, had all been plain?
Ah, who can tell! Thy lonely grave is green;
Thy memory still lives on. It might have been!
It might have been! and yet, perchance, may be,
In some glad day, when nought shall be concealed;
The cramp'd and longing spirit will be free,
And all its hidden beauty be revealed;
Then drawn aside, the once-dividing screen-
No more life's dreary moan-It might have been!1 [Note: Una, In Life's Garden, 68.]
3. There seems to be some foundation for the other charge, that Gallio was indifferent to the concerns of others. He was a Stoic and had no doubt the Stoic's philosophic contempt for the outside world and its business, the sayings and doings, the joys and the sorrows of the puny mortals who fume and strut and fret their lives away upon this earthly stage. Moreover, the position of St. Luke's words, even more than the words themselves, does seem to give colour to the popular view of Gallio. In the first place, it seems to follow the mention of the violence of the Gentile crowd, as if some explanation would be expected as to why Gallio did not interfere to protect the Jewish prosecutor. It seems as much as to say, “The mob used Sosthenes very roughly, but the proconsul took no notice.” And perhaps this was the case.
And why did Gallio not interfere? Many people are of the opinion that as the representative of law and order he ought to have intervened. There are two possible reasons for his line of conduct.
(1) He was probably not altogether displeased that the Jews, fanatical and troublesome here as in other places, should be taught a rough and ready lesson by the operation of a kind of lynch law.
(2) He was a man of amiable character and he probably disliked fuss. It was no concern of his. Let them fight it out among themselves. May it not have been his contempt for petty squabbles that influenced him here as well as at the judgment-seat? He would take no part in the machinations of the Jews, neither would he mix himself up with the brawlings of a mob.
Gallio may have been indifferent; he may even, in this case, have been culpably indifferent; but his indifference was rather the noble indifference of the man who has schooled himself to rise superior to the little frets and quarrels of daily life than the selfish apathy of one who heartlessly ignores the troubles of his fellows because he is too much bound up in his own concerns to care about them.
We cannot indeed overcome our affections, nor ought we if we could, but we may repress them within due bounds, and avoid coaxing them to make fools of those who should be their masters.1 [Note: Sir Walter Scott's Journal, 34.]
I touch my strings
To melodies rare;
Whether God looks after things
I know not, neither care;
I never think of the black pit,
Or if I do, I laugh at it.
My notes are borne
Through infinite space,-
Are your limbs all bruised and torn?
And in a losing race?
I take no heed of all your pain-
My fingers of the harp are fain.
Though all men be
Full stricken in grief,
What are little men to me?-
Their days and woes are brief;-
But I for ever touch my strings,
Remote from perishable things.1 [Note: J. Drinkwater, Poems of Men and Hours, 3.]
4. It is interesting to note that Gallio's decision seems to have greatly influenced St. Paul's future line of conduct.
Gallio being governor of Achaia, his judgment would become a precedent and would have far-reaching influence. It gave St. Paul a new idea of the protection he could gain from the Roman law. Although Judaism was a religio licita, evidently the Imperial Government did not consider Christian preaching illegal. This amounted to a declaration of freedom in religion of immense value to Christians. From this point of view, Gallio's treatment of the Jewish complaint was a landmark in St. Paul's missionary labour, and did a great deal to confirm his confidence in Roman protection for his preaching.
My conviction is, that this great subject of religious freedom is not to be dealt with as one of the ordinary matters in which you may, with safety or with honour, do to-day and undo to-morrow. This great people, whom we have the honour to represent, moves slowly in politics and legislation; but, although it moves slowly, it moves steadily. The principle of religious freedom, its adaptation to our modern state, and its compatibility with ancient institutions, was a principle which you did not adopt in haste. It was a principle well tried in struggle and conflict. It was a principle which gained the assent of one public man after another. It was a principle which ultimately triumphed, after you had spent upon it half a century of agonising struggle.… Show, I beseech you-have the courage to show that England too, as well as Rome, has her semper eadem; and that when she has once adopted some great principle of legislation, which is destined to influence the national character, to draw the dividing lines of her policy for ages to come, and to affect the whole nature of her influence and her standing among the nations of the world-show that when she has done this slowly, and done it deliberately, she has done it once for all; and that she will then no more retrace her steps than the river that bathes this giant city can flow back upon its source.1 [Note: Speech against the “Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,” in Morley's Life of Gladstone, i. 412.]