Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ

by David Francis Bacon

For some time after the writing of the first epistle to the Thessalonians, with these triumphs and other encouragements, Paul and his faithful helpers appear to have gone on steadily in their apostolic labors, with no special obstacle or difficulty, that is commemorated in the sacred record. But at last their old difficulties began to manifest themselves in the gradually awakened enmity of the Jews, who, though at his first distinct public ministrations they had expressed a decided and scornful opposition to the doctrine of a crucified Savior, yet suffered the new teachers to go on, without opposing them any farther than by scornful verbal hostility, blasphemy and abuse. But when they saw the despised heresy making such rapid advances, notwithstanding the contempt with which it was visited, they immediately determined to let it no longer take advantage of their inefficiency in resisting its progress. Of course, deprived themselves, of all political power, they had not the means of meeting the evil by physical violence, and they well knew that any attempt on their part to raise an illegal commotion against the strangers, would only bring down on the exciters of the disturbance, the whole vengeance of their Roman rulers, who were unsparing in their vengeance on those that undertook to defy the forms of their laws, for the sake of persecution, or any private ends; and least of all would a class of people so peculiar and so disliked as the Jews, be allowed to take any such treasonable steps, without insuring them a most dreadful punishment. These circumstances therefore compelled them to proceed, as usual, under the forms of law; and their first step against Paul therefore, was to apprehend him, and take him, as a violator of religious order, before the highest Roman tribunal,——that of the proconsul.

The proconsul of Achaia, holding his supreme seat of justice in Corinth, the capital of that Roman province, was Lucius Junius Gallio, a man well known to the readers of one of the classic Latin writers of that age,——Seneca,——as one of the most remarkable exemplifications of those noble virtues which were the great theme of this philosopher’s pen. Out of many beautiful illustrations which may be drawn from Roman and Jewish writers, to explain and amplify the honest and faithful apostolic history of Luke, there is none more striking and gratifying than the aid here drawn from this fine philosophical classic, on the character of the noble proconsul, who by his upright, wise, and clement decision, against the mean persecutors of Paul,——and by his indignant refusal to pervert and degrade his vice-regal power to the base ends of private abuse, has acquired the grateful regard and admiring respect of all Christian readers of apostolic history. The name of Lucius Junius Gallio, by which he is known to Roman writers as well as in apostolic history, was not his original family designation, and therefore gives the reader no idea of his interesting relationship to one of the finest moralists of the whole period of the Roman empire. His original family name was Marcus Annaeus Novatus Seneca,——which appellation he exchanged for his later one, on being adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, a noble Roman, who being destitute of children, adopted, according to a very common custom of the imperial city, one of a family that had already given promise of a fine reward to those who should take its offspring as theirs. The famous philosopher before mentioned,——Lucius Annaeus Seneca,——was his own brother; both of them being the sons of Marcus Annaeus Seneca, a distinguished orator and rhetorician of the Augustan age. A strong and truly fraternal affection always continued to hold the two brothers together, even after they had been separated in name by the adoption of the older into the family of Gallio; and the philosopher often commemorates his noble brother, in terms of high respect; and dedicated to him one of the most perfect of those moral treatises which have immortalized the name of Seneca.

The philosopher Seneca, after having been for many years banished from Rome by Claudius, was at length recalled by that emperor in the ninth year of his reign, corresponding to A. D. 49. He was immediately made a senator, and was still further honored by being intrusted with the education of Domitius, the son of Agrippina, afterwards adopted by Claudius as heir to the throne, to which he succeeded on the emperor’s death, under the name of Nero, by which he has now become so infamous wherever the Roman name is known. Being thus elevated to authority and great influence with the emperor, Seneca made use of his power, to procure for his brother Gallio such official honors as his talents and character justly claimed. In the eleventh year of Claudius he was made consul, as is recorded in the Fasti Consulares; and was soon after sent into Greece, as proconsul of Achaia. Arriving at Corinth in the year 53, he was immediately addressed by the Jewish citizens of that place in behalf of their plot against Paul; for they naturally supposed that this would be the best time for the attempt to bend the new governor to their purposes, when he was just commencing his administration, and would be anxious to please the subjects of his power by his opening acts. But Gallio had no disposition to acquire popularity with any class of citizens, by any such abuse of power, and by his conduct on this occasion very fairly justifies the high character given him by his brother Seneca. When the Jews came dragging Paul before the proconsular tribunal, with the accusation——“This fellow persuades men to worship God in a manner contrary to the ritual,”——before Paul could open his mouth in reply, Gallio carelessly answered——“If it were a matter of crime or misdemeanor, ye Jews! it would be reasonable that I should bear with you; but if it be a question of words and names, and of your ritual, look ye to it; for I do not wish to be a judge of those things.” With this contemptuous reply, he cleared the court of them. The Jews thus found their fine scheme of abusing Paul under the sanction of the Roman tribunal, perfectly frustrated; nor was their calamity confined to this disappointment; for all the Greeks who were present at the trial,——indignant at the scandalous character of the proceeding,——took Sosthenes, the ruling elder of the synagogue, who had probably been most active in the persecution of Paul, as he was the regular legal chief of the Jews, and gave him a sound threshing in the court, before he could obey the orders of the Proconsul, and move off from the tribunal. Gallio was so far from being displeased at this very irregular and improper outbreak of public feeling, that he took no notice of the action whatever, though it was a shameful violation of the dignity of his tribunal; and it may therefore be reasonably concluded that he was very much provoked against the Jews, and was disposed to sympathize with Paul; otherwise he would have been apt to have punished the outrage of the Greeks upon Sosthenes.

“The name of this proconsul was Marcus Annaeus Novatus, but being adopted by Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of his adopted father; he was brother to the famous Seneca, tutor to Nero. That philosopher dedicated to Gallio his book, ‘De Vita Beata.’ The Roman historians concur in giving him the character of a sweet disposition, an enemy to all vice, and particularly a hater of flattery. He was twice made proconsul of Achaia, first by Claudius, and afterwards by Nero. As he was the sharer of his brother’s prosperity, so he was of his misfortunes, when he fell under Nero’s displeasure, and was at length put to death by the tyrant, as well as his brother.” (Calmet’s Commentary. Poole’s Annotations. Williams on Pearson.)

“In Acts xviii. 12–16, we find Paul is brought before Gallio by the Jews, but this proconsul refused to judge any such matters, as not coming within his jurisdiction. The character for justice, impartiality, prudence, and mildness of disposition, which this passage gives to Gallio, is confirmed by Seneca, his brother, in these words:——[a]Solebam tibi dicere, Gallionem fratrem meum (quem nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest,) alia vitia non nosse, hoc etiam, (i. e. adulationem,) odisse.——Nemo enim mortalium uni tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus. Hoc quoque loco blanditiis tuis restitit, ut exclamares invenisse te inexpugnabilem virum adversus insidias, quas nemo non in sinum recipit.] (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Natural Questions, lib. iv. in preface, op. tom. iv. p. 267, edited by Bipont.) In our translation Gallio is styled the deputy, but the real Greek word is Ανθυπατευοντος, proconsul. The accuracy of Luke in this instance is very remarkable. In the partition of the provinces of the Roman empire, Macedonia and Achaia were assigned to the people and Senate of Rome. In the reign of Tiberius they were, at their own request, made over to the emperor. In the reign of Claudius, (A. U. C. 797. A. D. 44,) they were again restored to the Senate, after which time proconsuls were sent into this country. Nero afterwards made the Achaians a free people. The Senate therefore lost this province again. However, that they might not be sufferers, the emperor gave them the island of Sardinia, in the room of it. Vespasian made Achaia a province again. There is likewise a peculiar propriety in the name of the province of which Gallio was proconsul. The country subject to him was all Greece; but the proper name of the province among the Romans was Achaia, as appears from various passages of the Roman historians, and especially from the testimony of Pausanias. Καλουσι δε ουχ’ Ἑλλαδος, αλλα’ [♦]Αχαιας ἡγεμονα οἱ Ῥωμαιοι διοτι εχειρωσαντο Ἑλληνας δε Αχαιων, τοτε του Ἑλληνικου προεστηκοτων. (Pausanias Description of Greece. lib. vii. p. 563. Lardner’s Works, 4to. vol. I. p. 19.)

[♦] “Ααχιων” replaced with “Αχαιων”

“The words Γαλλίωνος δε ἀνθυπατεύοντος ought to be rendered, with Heumann, Walch, Antiquities, Corinth, p. 35., and Reichard, (as indeed is required by the context,) ‘when Gallio had been made Proconsul,’ or ‘on Gallio’s entering on the Proconsulship.’ (Kuinoel.) In the same sense it was also taken by Beza and Piscator; and this appears to be the true one. The Jews, it seems, waited for the arrival of a new Proconsul to make their request, as thinking that they should then be less likely to meet with a refusal.” (Bloomfield’s Annotations, Vol. IV. p. 600.)

“‘Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogues.’ verse 17. In the 8th verse we read that Crispus was the chief ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. And from this we may suppose that there were more than one synagogue in that city, or that there might be more than one ruler in the same synagogue; or that Crispus, after his conversion to Christianity, might have been succeeded by Sosthenes; but then we are at a loss to know who the people are that thus beat and misused him; the Greek printed copies tell us that they were the Gentiles; and those that read the text imagine, that when they perceived the neglect and disregard wherewith the proconsul received the Jews, they, to insult them more, fell upon the ruler of their synagogue, whether out of hatred to them, or friendship to St. Paul, it makes no matter. But others think, that Sosthenes, however head of the synagogue, was nevertheless the friend of St. Paul, and that the other Jews, seeing themselves slighted by Gallio, might vent their malice upon him; for they suppose that this was the same Sosthenes, whose name St. Paul, in the beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, written about three years after this time, joins with his own. This opinion, however, was not universally received, since, in the time of Eusebius, it was thought the Sosthenes mentioned in the epistle was one of the seventy disciples, and, consequently, could not be the chief of the synagogue at Corinth, twenty years after the death of Jesus Christ.” (Beausobre’s Annotations. Calmet’s Commentary and Dictionary.)

“‘xviii. 17. ἐπιλαβόμενοι δὲ πάντες οἱ Ἕλληνες There is here some variation of reading, and no little question raised as to the true one; which consequently leaves the interpretation unsettled. Two ancient MSS. and versions omit οἱ Ἕλληνες, and others read οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. As to the latter reading, it cannot be tolerated; for why should the Jews have beaten him? Neither is it likely that they would have taken such a liberty before so solemn a tribunal. The words οἱ Ἕλληνες are thought by many critics, as Grotius, Mill, Pierce, Bengel, and Kuinoel, to be derived from the margin, like the last. Now those were Gentiles (say they) who beat Sosthenes; and hence some one wrote οἱ Ἕλληνες. As to the reason for the beating, it was to make the Jews go away the faster; and to this they were actuated partly by their hatred towards the Jews, and partly by a desire to please the Procurator.’ But this appears to be pressing too much on the word ἀπήλασεν, which has by no means any such meaning. Besides, it is strange that the words Ἕλληνες should have crept into nearly all the MSS; even into so many early ones. And, supposing Ἕλληνες to be removed, what sense is to be given to παντες? None (I think) satisfactory, or agreeable to the style of the New Testament. It must therefore be retained: and then the sense of πάντες will be as follows: ‘all the Greeks, both Gentiles and Christians:’ which is so evident, that I am surprised the commentators should not have seen it. Some explain it of the Gentiles, and others of the Gentile Christians. Both indeed had reason to take umbrage at the intolerance and bitter animosity of the Jews. It is not likely that any should have joined in the beating, merely to please the Proconsul, who was not a man to be gratified by such a procedure. So that the gnomes brought forward by Grotius on the base assentatio of courtiers, are not here applicable.

“By ἔτυπτον is merely to be understood beating, or thumping him with their fists, as he passed along. Anything more than that, we cannot suppose they would have ventured upon, or the Proconsul have tolerated.”