Acts 18:17

DISCOURSE: 1792
THE CHARACTER OF GALLIO

Acts 18:17. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

WE are assured that not one jot or tittle of God’s word has ever failed, or ever can fail. But, for the trial of our faith, and for the more abundant manifestation of his own truth and faithfulness, God is often pleased to let events of so dark a nature arise, that it shall appear almost impossible for his word to receive its accomplishment. Thus he did in relation to the Israelites in Egypt. He had promised to Abraham, that before the expiration of four hundred and thirty years, he would bring his posterity out of Egypt. The time appointed had just arrived, when he sent his servants, Moses and Aaron, to lead them forth; but, so far from succeeding in their efforts, they only augmented the labours and sufferings of their oppressed countrymen: and, when the very last day had arrived, they were plainly warned by Pharaoh, that, if they attempted to come into his presence again, they should die. What now must become of the veracity of God? Did his word fall to the ground? No: that very night did God send a judgment, which caused the Egyptians to thrust them out. In like manner did the Lord Jesus act towards the Apostle Paul. It should seem that Paul had felt discouraged at the little success of his labours during his long stay of a year and six months at Corinth; and that he had begun to yield to some desponding fears. Our blessed Lord, for his encouragement, appeared to him in a vision, and told him, he should be successful in planting a large Church there, and that “none should set on him to hurt him.” But behold, “when Gallic was deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment-seat, saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.” Here it is manifest that they did “set on him,” and that too with the most brutal ferocity: but did they “hurt him?” No: the Governor would not listen to their complaints. This occasioned a great tumult in the court, insomuch that the Greeks took Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat. Why did they not, in their rage, beat Paul? Why did they wreak their vengeance on a friend of Paul’s, and not on Paul himself? God’s word had been pledged for Paul; and therefore not a hair of his head could be touched. Gallic, who should have been Paul’s protector, “cared for none of those things:” but God cared for Paul; and it was impossible for man to “hurt him.” The indifference of Gallio left Paul entirely at the mercy of his enemies: but “the word of God could not be broken;” and therefore Paul was as safe from injury, as he would have been even in heaven itself.

The account here given of Gallio is deserving of particular consideration; and the rather, as very different opinions have been formed respecting it. We propose therefore,

I. To form an estimate of his character—

It is not so much from a single expression that we are to form our judgment, as from a view of all the circumstances under which he acted, and all the persons with whom he had to do. It will be proper to notice his character,

1. As exhibited in his conduct on this occasion—

[Gallio acted in a double capacity, as a man, and as a magistrate. In his official character, whilst we applaud his moderation, we think him highly deserving of blame. As a Governor, even if no reference had been made to him, he should have endeavoured to prevent an innocent man from being oppressed by an enraged multitude, and should have required the criminality of Paul to be established before any punishment should be inflicted on him: but when a direct reference was made to him for judgment, he should on no account have left him at the mercy of his enemies. What though he did not feel himself competent to decide the points at issue between them; he might easily see whether the points at issue were of such importance to the public welfare as to demand a judicial examination: and, if necessary, he might have appointed a commission of persons qualified to examine it under his sanction and authority. At all events, he should not have left the people to take the law into their own hands. In relation to Sosthenes also he was highly criminal: for a magistrate ought on no account to suffer such an open and flagrant violation of the law, as that which took place in the very seat of judgment. A magistrate should “not bear the sword in vain: he is God’s representative and vicegerent upon earth; and he ought to be both “a terror to evil-doers, and a praise to them that do well.” In shrinking from the execution of his office, whether through indolence or fear, he violates his duty both to God and man.

Nor do we more approve of him in his personal conduct, as a man. He had long heard of Paul, and of the wonderful exertions he made in propagating what he professed to be a revelation from heaven. We can make some allowance for a Governor, circumstanced as Gallio was, not sending to Paul to get information from him respecting the doctrines he preached: but now God had sent the man into his very presence; and Paul was actually about to declare those very truths, which Gallio should have earnestly desired to hear: yet when “God had given him this price to get wisdom, he knew not how to use it.” Here then we blame him exceedingly: his indifference here betrayed a total want of all religion, and an utter disregard of all that should have been interesting to an immortal being. The historian evidently intends to fix a stigma upon him; and Gallio well deserved it; and, as long as the world shall stand, he will be the representative of all who are regardless of their eternal interests.]

2. As compared with the other characters with whom he had to do—

[We pass over Sosthenes and his persecutors, because we cannot absolutely determine who they were: but we think that Sosthenes had shewn himself desirous of screening Paul; and that the Greeks were instigated by the Jews to vent their rage on him, because he, who, as ruler of their synagogue, might have been expected most warmly to espouse their cause, had now begun to take part against them.

The other two parties are the persecuting Jews, and the persecuted Apostle. In comparison of the former, Gallio appears to advantage: for they were seeking to destroy a man merely for his opinions, and for endeavouring, in a peaceful way, to disseminate those opinions; whereas he was tolerant, and refused to sanction so unreasonable a proceeding. He justly distinguished between gross violations of the law, which no government should tolerate, and certain differences of opinion which might consist with the undiminished welfare of society. As a friend to toleration therefore, he merits our applause: and we regret that those who professed themselves the people of God, were so inferior to a heathen in appreciating and upholding the rights of man.

But if we compare him with the persecuted Apostle, he sinks to the lowest state of degradation. Behold the Apostle! it was his “care for these things” that involved him in all his trouble: had he been content to go to heaven alone, he might have avoided all these bitter persecutions. But he knew the value of an immortal soul; and was “willing to endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they might obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” He went everywhere to find out men whom he might instruct in the way to heaven: whereas Gallio, with that very instructor in his presence, would not even trouble himself so much as to hear what he had to say. He accounted Christianity as no other than a strife about words, and therefore undeserving his notice. Unhappy man, to have so little concern for thine immortal soul, and such a brutish indifference about thine eternal welfare! The ox and the ass will condemn thee for thy stupidity and folly.]
Such being our estimate of Gallio’s character, we proceed,

II.

To deduce from it some lessons of instruction—

His character not being wholly destitute of what, in a comparative view at least, may be approved, we shall deduce our lessons,

1. From the better part of his character—

[Two things we may learn from this; namely, not to indulge a spirit of intolerance; and, not to be carried away by popular resentment.

That a political necessity may exist for withholding certain privileges from some, is beyond a doubt: but nothing can justify the inflicting of pains and penalties upon any, on account of their religious sentiments. Man is, not only at liberty, but bound, to worship God according to his conscience: nor is any man in the universe authorized to obstruct him, unless there be something in his conduct contrary to good morals, or to the public peace. In the nation at large, this is well understood and practised: but amongst individuals there are many who would be as intolerant as the Jews of old, if the laws did not protect the persons who differ from them. This however is a hateful spirit, and on no account to be countenanced or indulged.

On the other hand, there are many who are too easily influenced by popular opinion; and who would rather consent to the oppressing of a religious character, than withstand the public voice in his support. But if we suffer the cause of Christ and his people to be run down, because we have not courage to defend it, we are more guilty far than Gallio: we are like to Pilate, who, to pacify the Jews, and save his own credit with the Roman emperor, delivered up Jesus to the will of his blood-thirsty enemies. True indeed, we ought not to proceed in the violent and haughty manner that Gallio did: there are different ways of doing the same thing: we may act with suavity, though we comply not with the requisitions made to us: and this is the way in which we should act, whenever any attempts are made to prejudice our minds against God and his people: we should resolutely withstand the efforts of ungodly men, and maintain against all opposition the immutable laws of equity and love.]

2. From that part of his character which is unquestionably bad—

[Here also we will mention two things; namely, not to be indifferent about the concerns of others, and not to be lukewarm in the concerns of our own souls.

Doubtless we are not to be “busy-bodies in other men’s matters;” but, on the other hand, we are not to say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” We are told “not to look every man on his own things; but every man also on the things of others [Note: Philippians 2:4.].” If in temporal matters we can benefit our fellow-creatures, we are “debtors to them,” to do them all the good in our power. And, if we may advance their spiritual interests, we should account no labours too great, nor any sufferings too heavy to be encountered in so good a cause. This sentiment has of late gained a currency in this kingdom, beyond all that could ever have been expected. What exertions have not been made in sending missions to the heathen; in disseminating the Holy Scriptures throughout the world; and in educating the children of the poor, that they may be able to read the words of life! For the children of Abraham also, that debased, but highly interesting people, are efforts now used; and, we trust, will be used to a yet greater extent amongst us. The concern expressed also through the land for our fellow-subjects in India is highly creditable to the nation. But still there is abundant room for the display of our benevolence in every place where our lot is cast: and we cannot but earnestly pray, that it may no longer be said of any amongst us, “They mind every man his own things, and not the things that are Jesus Christ’s [Note: Philippians 2:21.].”

But, in order to maintain a zeal for the good of others, we must begin at home, and cherish a concern for our own souls. To keep the garden of others will be of little avail, if we neglect to cultivate our own [Note: Song of Solomon 1:6.]. The salvation of our own souls must be our first and great concern: in comparison of this, the whole world should be of no value in our eyes. Let us then regard the Lord Jesus Christ, and an interest in him, as “the pearl of great price,” for which we are readily to part with all that we possess. “Whatever our hand findeth to do in reference to our eternal state, let us do it with all our might.” Let us “strive to enter in at the strait gate;” remembering, that “many seek to enter in, but are not able.” Let us bear in mind, that no rank or station of life can exempt us from the duty of “caring for these things.” About the things of this world we may relax our care: there are few who do not run into a criminal excess in their attention to them: in reference to them, we think no anxiety too great, no labour too abundant: whilst the interests of the soul are deemed unworthy of any care. We mean not that worldly things are to be neglected; but that, whilst we are “not slothful in business, we should be fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.”]