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: 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:
When Paul was about to defend himself before the judgment-seat at Corinth, Gallio stopped him as having no need to answer, ruling that actual wrongdoing would deserve a hearing but a dispute over words and names and Jewish religious law did not, so he refused to be judge of it and drove the accusers away.
The unbelieving Jews had brought him there with tumult expecting Rome to side with them and hand him over for punishment as they chose, even death, for persuading men to worship contrary to the law.
By dismissing the charge as no Roman offense and of no public interest, Gallio thwarted that plan, left Paul free to continue his work under Roman protection, and gave Christianity a signal public victory that baffled the accusers and kept the converts from great danger.
He thus stands as a just and discerning heathen magistrate who proclaimed Paul innocent and would not do him injustice to gratify bigotry and intrigue or to win favor, in contrast to Pilate and to Jewish tribunals that condemned without proof.
Corinth Setting and Ruling
Acts 18:14 belongs to Paul's work in Corinth, a city marked by idolatry and notorious immorality. Gallio was deputy of Achaia sitting on the judgment-seat when a body of unbelieving Jews with tumult and loud angry voices brought Paul before him, expecting the authorities to side with them on the complaint that he persuaded men to worship God contrary to the law. As Paul was about to open his mouth in self-defense, Gallio stopped him and told him it was not necessary to answer.
Gallio distinguished a matter of actual wrongdoing or serious misconduct, which reason would require him to hear, from a question of words and names and of Jewish religious law, which he ruled did not concern such an offense and required no Roman action. He judged that the accusation as presented concerned no wrong or serious crime requiring Roman action, but only a religious dispute over Paul's teaching.
He therefore refused to be a judge of such religious matters, telling the accusers they must look to their law themselves. He refused to let the accusers use Roman authority to prosecute Paul over their law, and drove them from the judgment-seat. He dismissed the charge as having no bearing on the public interest and as involving no Roman offense.
Just Protection and Witness
Gallio regarded Paul as innocent and refused to do him injustice, and with integrity he would not become the dupe of the jealous and intriguing Jews who pressed the case. Disgusted with their bigotry and self-righteousness, he refused to take notice of the charge rather than be swayed by them. Unlike Pilate, he would not condemn a man he knew to be innocent. The Jews had hoped that by fastening on Paul a violation of their religion, which stood under the protection of Roman power, he would be given into their hands for such punishment as they chose, even death. By dismissing the case as having no bearing on the public interest, Gallio thwarted that plan and protected Paul and the whole community of converts at Corinth from the danger of being driven out or exterminated. His ruling left Paul free to continue his work under Roman protection, and it stood as a signal public victory for Christianity that baffled and angered the accusers as the crowd's response turned against them.
The failure to get Gallio to condemn Paul at Corinth foiled the effort to put an end to his work. For about five years afterward, until his last journey toward Jerusalem, the Jews were unable to arouse the people or the rulers against him, while he remained under the protection of the Roman authorities. Gallio thus stands among the heathen magistrates who proclaimed Paul's innocence. This stands in contrast with Jewish tribunals, which condemned him without proving his guilt.
He serves as an example of a just ruler with a higher sense of responsibility who would not sacrifice justice to gain popularity or to win favor with the Jews. Festus likewise would not sacrifice justice to win favor, following the same course. With keen insight Gallio penetrated the motive behind the accusations and courteously refused to use Roman law to gratify the accusers. This was unlike Felix, who accepted bribes and yielded to clamor. He did not simply yield to the Jews' demands, but judged the case by whether it involved a genuine wrong or serious offense requiring Roman action.