SEV Biblia, Chapter 18:17
Entonces todos los griegos tomando a Sstenes, principal de la sinagoga, le herían delante del tribunal; y a Galin nada se le daba de ello.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Acts 18:17
Verse 17. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes] As this man is termed the chief ruler of the synagogue, it is probable that he had lately succeeded Crispus in that office; see ver. 8; and that he was known either to have embraced Christianity, or to have favoured the cause of St. Paul. He is supposed to be the same person whom St. Paul associates with himself in the first epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. i. 1. Crispus might have been removed from his presidency in the synagogue as soon as the Jews found he had embraced Christianity, and Sosthenes appointed in his place. And, as he seems to have speedily embraced the same doctrine, the Jews would be the more enraged, and their malice be directed strongly against him, when they found that the proconsul would not support them in their opposition to Paul.
But why should the Greeks beat Sosthenes? I have in the above note proceeded on the supposition that this outrage was committed by the Jews; and my reason for it is this: oi ellhnev, the Greeks, is omitted by AB, two of the oldest and most authentic MSS. in the world: they are omitted also by the Coptic and Vulgate, Chrysostom, and Bede. Instead of oi ellhnev, three MSS., one of the eleventh, and two of the thirteenth century, have ioudaioi, the Jews; and it is much more likely that the Jews beat one of their own rulers, through envy at his conversion, than that the Greeks should do so; unless we allow, which is very probable, (if ellhnev, Greeks, be the true reading,) that these Hellenes were Jews, born in a Greek country, and speaking the Greek language.
And Gallio cared for none of those things.] kai ouden toutwn qw galliwni emelen. And Gallio did not concern himself, did not intermeddle with any of these things. As he found that it was a business that concerned their own religion, and that the contention was among themselves, and that they were abusing one of their own sect only, he did not choose to interfere. He, like the rest of the Romans, considered the Jews a most despicable people, and worthy of no regard; and their present conduct had no tendency to cause him to form a different opinion of them from that which he and his countrymen had previously entertained. It is not very likely, however, that Gallio saw this outrage; for, though it was before the judgment seat, it probably did not take place till Gallio had left the court; and, though he might be told of it, he left the matter to the lictors, and would not interfere.
The conduct of Gallio has been, in this case, greatly censured; and I think with manifest injustice. In the business brought before his tribunal, no man could have followed a more prudent or equitable course. His whole conduct showed that it was his opinion, that the civil magistrate had nothing to do with religious opinions or the concerns of conscience, in matters where the safety of the state was not implicated. He therefore refused to make the subject a matter of legal discussion. Nay, he went much farther; he would not even interfere to prevent either the Jews or the apostles from making proselytes. Though the complaint against the apostles was, that they were teaching men to worship God contrary to the law; see the note on ver. 15, yet, even in this case, he did not think it right to exert the secular power to restrain the free discussion and teaching of matters which concerned the rights of conscience in things pertaining to the worship of the gods. As to his not preventing the tumult which took place, we may sag, if he did see it, which is not quite evident, that he well knew that this could rise to no serious amount; and the lictors, and other minor officers, were there in sufficient force to prevent any serious riot, and it was their business to see that the public peace was not broken, besides, as a heathen, he might have no objection to permit this people to pursue a line of conduct by which they were sure to bring themselves and their religion into contempt. These wicked Jews could not disprove the apostle's doctrine, either by argument or Scripture; and they had recourse to manual logic, which was an indisputable proof of the badness of their own cause, and the strength of that of their opponents.
But in consequence of this conduct Gallio has been represented as a man perfectly careless and unconcerned about religion in general; and therefore has been considered as a proper type or representative of even professed Christians, who are not decided in their religious opinions or conduct. As a heathen, Gallio certainly was careless about both Judaism and Christianity.
The latter he had probably never heard of but by the cause now before his judgment seat; and, from any thing he could see of the other, through the medium of its professors, he certainly could entertain no favourable opinion of it: therefore in neither case was he to blame. But the words, cared for none of those things, are both misunderstood and misapplied: we have already seen that they only mean that he would not intermeddle in a controversy which did not belong to has province and sufficient reasons have been alleged why he should act as he did. It is granted that many preachers take this for a text, and preach useful sermons for the conviction of the undecided and lukewarm; and it is to be deplored that there are so many undecided and careless people in the world, and especially in reference to what concerns their eternal interests. But is it not to be lamented, also, thy there should be preachers of God's holy word who attempt to explain passages of Scripture which they do not understand.
For he who preaches on Gallio cared for none of those things, in the way in which the passage has, through mismanagement, been popularly understood, either does not understand it, or he willing perverts the meaning.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 17. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes , etc.] These were not the Greeks or Gentiles that were devout persons, or converted to Christianity, and were on the side of Paul, and fell foul on Sosthenes, as being his chief accuser; for this is not agreeably to the spirit and character of such persons, but the profane and unconverted Greeks, who observing that Gallio sent the Jews away, with some resentment and contempt, were encouraged to fall upon the principal of them, and use him in a very ill manner; it is very likely that this person was afterwards converted, and is the same that is mentioned in ( 1 Corinthians 1:1). The name is Greek, and there is one of this name mentioned among the executors of Platos will f934 . This man was now chief ruler of the synagogue ; chosen in, very likely, upon Crispus becoming a Christian, and being baptized: and beat him before the judgment seat ; of Gallio; before he and his friends could get out of court: and Gallio cared for none of these things ; which might not be owing to any sluggishness in him, but to an ill opinion he had of the Jews, as being a turbulent and uneasy people, and therefore he connived at some of the insolencies of the people towards them; though it did not become him, as a magistrate, to act such a part, whose business it was to keep the public peace, to quell disorders, to protect mens persons, and property, and prevent abuse and mischief, and to correct and punish for it. The Arabic version renders it, and no man made any account of Gallio; they did not fear his resentment, he having drove the Jews from the judgment seat.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 12-17 - Paul was about to show that he did not teach men to worship God contrary to law; but the judge would not allow the Jews to complain to him of what was not within his office. It was right in Gallio that he left the Jews to themselves in matters relating to their religion, but yet would not let them, under pretence of that, persecute another. But it was wrong to speak slightly of a law and religion which he migh have known to be of God, and which he ought to have acquainted himsel with. In what way God is to be worshipped, whether Jesus be the Messiah, and whether the gospel be a Divine revelation, are no questions of words and names, they are questions of vast importance Gallio spoke as if he boasted of his ignorance of the Scriptures, as in the law of God was beneath his notice. Gallio cared for none of thes things. If he cared not for the affronts of bad men, it wa commendable; but if he concerned not himself for the abuses done to good men, his indifference was carried too far. And those who see an hear of the sufferings of God's people, and have no feeling with them or care for them, who do not pity and pray for them, are of the sam spirit as Gallio, who cared for none of these things.
Greek Textus Receptus
επιλαβομενοι 1949 5637 V-2ADP-NPM δε 1161 CONJ παντες 3956 A-NPM οι 3588 T-NPM ελληνες 1672 N-NPM σωσθενην 4988 N-ASM τον 3588 T-ASM αρχισυναγωγον 752 N-ASM ετυπτον 5180 5707 V-IAI-3P εμπροσθεν 1715 PREP του 3588 T-GSN βηματος 968 N-GSN και 2532 CONJ ουδεν 3762 A-NSN τουτων 5130 D-GPN τω 3588 T-DSM γαλλιωνι 1058 N-DSM εμελεν 3199 5707 V-IAI-3S
Vincent's NT Word Studies
17. Cared for none of these things. Not said to indicate his indifference to religion, but simply that he did not choose to interfere in this case.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
18:17 {They all laid hold on Sosthenes} (epilabomenoi pantes swsqenen). See #16:19; 17:19 for the same form. Here is violent hostile reaction against their leader who had failed so miserably. {Beat him} (etupton). Inchoative imperfect active, began to beat him, even if they could not beat Paul. Sosthenes succeeded Crispus (verse #8) when he went over to Paul. The beating did Sosthenes good for he too finally is a Christian (#1Co 1:1), a co-worker with Paul whom he had sought to persecute. {And Gallio cared for none of these things} (kai ouden toutwn twi galliwni emelen). Literally, "no one of these things was a care to Gallio." The usually impersonal verb (melei, emelen, imperfect active) here has the nominative as in #Lu 10:40. These words have been often misunderstood as a description of Gallio's lack of interest in Christianity, a religious indifferentist. But that is quite beside the mark. Gallio looked the other way with a blind eye while Sosthenes got the beating which he richly deserved. That was a small detail for the police court, not for the proconsul's concern. Gallio shows up well in Luke's narrative as a clear headed judge who would not be led astray by Jewish subterfuges and with the courage to dismiss a mob.
