Tag: Corinth

Posted in Exposition

THOUGHTS ON 3 JOHN

Posted on by writtenexposition

INTRODUCTION

Consisting of just 219 Greek words 3 John is the shortest book in the New Testament. With 245 Greek words, 2 John is the next shortest. These two books by the same author share some similarities. They both appear to be personal letters addressed to individuals, from someone calling himself ‘the elder.’ 2 John is addressed to an anonymous lady and her children and 3 John to a man called Gaius. In each case, however, the content seems to be aimed at a wider readership. They have the same structure, similar conclusions and have ‘truth’ and ‘love’ as key words.

Neither letter records the writer’s name and date of writing but authorship has traditionally been ascribed to the Apostle John and the date of writing thought to be between 80 and 95 CE. Scholars also reckon that John was based in Ephesus at that time and, as the last of the twelve apostles still living, was a senior figure in the fellowship of Christian assemblies in Asia Minor.

Both epistles deal with the topic of hospitality, but from a different angle. On the one hand, 2 John forbids extending hospitality to visiting teachers who hold faulty teaching about Jesus Christ whereas, on the other hand, 3 John encourages the provision of hospitality and material supplies to itinerant Christian workers who have ‘gone out in the Name.’ The key verse in 3 John is v. 8 as it sums up John’s message to Gaius: ‘So we ourselves should support them so that we can be their partners as they teach the truth.’ 3 John 1:8 NLT

In 2 John the emphasis is more on the home whereas in 3 John the emphasis is on the church. Indeed, it is the only one of the Johannine writings, except the Revelation, that refers to ‘church’. 2 John, with its mention of deceivers, antichrist and teaching is more concerned with doctrine. 3 John mentions three men, at least one of whom is a church leader, and focuses more on personalities.

The occasion that inspired the writing of 3 John is unknown but may perhaps be reconstructed as follows from the sparse information in the epistle. John writes a personal note to a close friend called Gaius about a serious situation that has arisen in one of the Christian assemblies in Asia Minor. Gaius is an influential and hospitable member either of that assembly or of another one nearby. By sheer force of personality a man called Diotrephes has assumed leadership of the church, is refusing to receive itinerant Christian workers and has excommunicated other members of the church who opposed or disobeyed him. John has written to the assembly about these issues but Diotrephes has rejected his communication, made it clear that John is not welcome and has been spreading malicious rumours about him. John writes to encourage Gaius in his faith and exhort him to continue to extend hospitality to Christian workers. John himself will travel to the church urgently and will sort out the problem of Diotrephes.

Third John may be divided as follows:

1-2 SALUTATION
3- 8 PROSPEROUS GAIUS – WALKING IN THE TRUTH
9-11 PREEMINENT DIOTREPHES – WITHOUT TRUTH
12 PRAISEWORTHY DEMETRIUS – WELL-REPORTED OF THE TRUTH
13-14 CONCLUSION

SALUTATION (1-2)

(1) Like any first century Greek letter, 3 John begins with a salutation. As in 2 John, the writer identifies himself as ‘the presbyter (elder).’ This word can refer to an older man, which John certainly was at the time of writing, but in the early church it also referred to a church leader; of which there would have been a plurality in every assembly location (Ac 14:23; 20:17; Titus 1:5).

The elder addresses the letter to one person, a certain Gaius, whom he describes as ‘well-beloved’ in v.1 and also in vv. 2, 5 and 11. There are three references to love in the first two verses. The elder loves Gaius in truth i.e. he truly or genuinely loves him. Even though there is no definite article (‘the’) it may mean that the elder loves Gaius ‘in the truth’ i.e. they are fellow-believers in the truth about Jesus Christ. There are six references to truth in the epistle: vv.1, 3 twice, 4, 8, 12.

The name Gaius (meaning ‘rejoicing’) was popular in the Roman Empire at that time which would suggest that this man was a Gentile convert. There are three other men named Gaius in the New Testament:

  • Gaius of Macedonia Acts 19:29
  • Gaius of Derbe Acts 20:4
  • Gaius of Corinth Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 1:14

Some commentators speculate that Gaius of Corinth may have been the hospitable Gaius of 3 John since Paul says that he was his ‘host’ (Rom 16:23). That is unlikely because the Gaius in 3 John is one of the Apostle John’s converts (3 Jn 4) whereas the other three are closely associated with Paul. It would therefore seem that the Gaius of 3 John is a fourth Gaius, especially since there is no ancient tradition that links the epistle 3 John with Corinth.

(2) As in any secular letter of the time there follows a wish for the recipient’s good health and wellbeing. The verb eúchomai can mean ‘wish’ or ‘pray;’ perhaps the latter translation is more appropriate in this case. The elder addresses Gaius as ‘beloved’ (something like ‘dear friend’) and prays that Gaius may prosper (lit. be led along a good road; cp. Rom 1:10; 1 Cor 16:2) and be well even as his psyche (soul or life) is prosperous. This wish that Gaius might be as well off physically as he is spiritually may suggest that Gaius had some ongoing health problem(s).

PROSPEROUS GAIUS – WALKING IN THE TRUTH (3- 8)

(3) Having stated in v.2b that Gaius’ soul prospers, the elder proceeds to give his reasons for that confident assertion. He says that he rejoiced greatly when some of the brothers (see also vv.5, 10) came to him with a good report about Gaius’ faithfulness and adherence to the truth. The present participle in ‘coming’ and ‘testifying’ implies that these occurred more than once (‘the brothers coming and testifying’). Possibly the same ‘brothers’ who brought the good news about Gaius are those who also reported negatively on Diotrephes (v.10). ‘Even as’ – that the truth is in Gaius is exemplified by the fact that he always ‘walks (i.e. lives) in the truth.’

(4) Lit. ‘Greater than these I do not have joy that I hear.’ Referring to the occasions when he had heard good reports about Gaius the elder expands upon ‘rejoiced greatly’ (v.3) to say that nothing causes him greater joy than hearing reports like these about his ‘children’ (téknon). Presumably his children refers to converts who have come to faith in Jesus Christ through his ministry. The Apostle Paul uses téknon in this sense in 1 Cor 4:14; Gal 4:19; Phil 2:22. The joy that the elder experiences reflects his deep pastoral concern for the spiritual growth of his converts.

(5) Once again addressing Gaius as ‘beloved’ (vv. 1, 2, see also 11) the elder commends him for all his efforts for the brothers, even though they are strangers. What he does for them (i.e. his hospitality) is ‘a faithful thing’ – he is acting as a believer should. ‘And to strangers’ means ‘even to strangers.’ The strangers are the brothers, not a different group of people. They are fellow-believers, most likely itinerant preachers, unknown to Gaius.

‘You do the faithful thing’ is present tense but may also refer to future actions as if already accomplished. All that Gaius has done, currently does and will do for the brothers is an expression of his Christian faith.

(6) The brothers had testified to the truth that was in Gaius (v.3) but here it is said that they also testified to his love, speaking highly of him in the presence of the church. Most likely this means the presbyter’s assembly rather than Gaius’ assembly or the church at large. In the gospel and epistles of John ‘church’ only occurs here and in vv. 9 and 10 of this letter.

‘Whom if thou bring forward on their journey… thou shalt do well.’ To ‘bring them forward’ means to ‘send them on their way;’ the idea is that after extending hospitality Gaius would send them off equipped with enough food and money to last them until they reached their next destination (Acts 15:3; Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6,11; 2 Cor 1:16; Tit 3:13). To send them on their journey like this would be ‘in a manner worthy of God. ‘Thou shalt do well’ is future which suggests that although the travelling workers had visited Gaius and then returned to the elder (v.3) they were about to go out again and would require hospitality from Gaius once more.

(7) ‘Because they have set out on behalf of the Name.’ ‘ Set out’ (exérchomai) is used of missionaries in Acts 14:20; 15:40. ‘The Name’ could refer to God but is more likely to refer to Jesus, as it does elsewhere in the New Testament (Jn 15:21; Acts 4:12, 17; 5:41; 9:16; 15:26; 21:13; Rom 1:5; Phil 2:9; 1 Pet 4:14). The reasons John gives for supporting the brothers are a) they are Christian missionaries, and b) they have no other means of support.

Perhaps to contrast with the begging activities of itinerant philosophers and representatives of pagan cults the Christian missionaries did not seek support (received nothing) from the Gentiles. Note that Jews used the word ‘Gentiles’ to refer to non-Jews whereas in this verse we have an example of its use by Christians to refer to non-believers.

(8) ‘We’ (i.e. Christian believers as distinct from non-believing Gentiles) are to receive such (i.e. those that match the criteria in v.7). Notice the word play: those who ‘receive’ (lambánō) nothing from the Gentiles ought to be ‘fully received’ (apolambánō) by the church. By receiving such people Gaius would prove to be a co-worker (sunergós, see also Rom 16:3; 2 Cor 6:1; Phil 2:25; Col 4:11) for the truth (the gospel message).

PREEMINENT DIOTREPHES – WITHOUT TRUTH (9-11)

(9) John now refers to the case of Diotrephes (his name means ‘God-nurtured’). This may have been his main motivation for writing to Gaius. He says ‘I wrote to the church’ which would suggest that in a letter that is no longer extant John wrote, perhaps to commend a worker or provide some teaching for the assembly, but the message was rejected by Diotrephes. This church where Diotrephes holds sway may be Gaius’ assembly also but since John seems to be informing Gaius of the situation it seems more likely that it is an assembly near Gaius.

John states that Diotrephes does not ‘receive’ him personally; i.e. he does not accept John’s apostolic authority. John notes that Diotrephes is someone who ‘loves to have first place.’ The present tense (‘loves’) denotes ongoing and habitual action. Egotistical and ambitious as he is, Diotrephes seems to have appointed himself as leader of the assembly and for some reason, whether doctrinal or personal, spurns the authority of the apostle John.

(10) In v.10 John lists four specific allegations about Diotrephes behaviour. ‘Which he doth’ is present tense. Diotrephes’ actions are continuous and ongoing.

  • He slanders John.
  • He refuses to accept the brothers (itinerant Christian workers).
  • He prevents others church members from extending hospitality to the brothers.
  • He expels those who disobey him and give hospitality to the brothers.

John says ‘wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds.’ This statement does not imply doubt about John’s arrival. He is promising to visit the assembly and publicly denounce Diotrephes (‘I will bring up, remind’). He will address Diotrephes’ deplorable behaviour when he visits.

(11) Once again calling Gaius ‘beloved’ John encourages him to imitate good and avoid evil. One who is good shows that he is of God whilst one who is evil has not seen God. The perfect tense of ‘has seen’ references a past event. ‘To see God’ is to have intimate knowledge of God (Jn 6:46; 14:9). John would not wish Gaius to imitate Diotrephes but in the next verse he mentions someone whom Gaius would do well to imitate.

PRAISEWORTHY DEMETRIUS – WELL-REPORTED OF THE TRUTH (12)

Implicit in the text is the suggestion that Gaius ought to imitate the life of Demetrius, who is a good person. His name meaning ‘belonging to Demeter’ (Demeter was a Greek fertility goddess) would suggest that he is a converted pagan. That he is ‘well spoken of by everyone and by the truth itself’ means that he has a good testimony and lives a life of truth. He is of good character and has a good reputation. Demetrius may have been the one who carried the letter to Gaius because John then adds a further endorsement: ‘we (pl) bear witness.’ John and his associates also vouch for Demetrius. John may have in mind the Old Testament requirement for three witnesses (Dt 19:15, cp. 1 Jn 5:7-8). The witness to Demetrius’ life and character was from a) everyone b) the truth, and c) John and his associates.

CONCLUSION (13-14)

The concluding words of 3 John are similar to those of 2 John 12-13. The elder ends on a personal note, saying that he looks forward to seeing Gaius, whom he asks to convey his greetings to other believers.

(13) John has been using the plural ‘we’ in v.12 but now changes to the singular ‘I’ in vv.13 and 14. He has told Gaius that he is coming to visit ‘shortly’ therefore he will not write more with a reed pen and ink (lit. black) but will talk to Gaius in person (lit, ‘mouth to mouth’).

(14) ‘Shortly’ is ‘immediately’ or ‘very soon’ and may reflect the urgency with which John needs to deal with the problem of Diotrephes. The letter closes with a three-fold greeting:

1. ‘Peace be to thee.’ John wishes a blessing upon Gaius (cp. Num 6:26).

2. ‘Our friends salute thee.’ John’s associates send their greetings as well.

3. ‘Greet the friends by name’ John asks Gaius to to pass on his greetings to each person individually rather than just as a group. This is the one and only time Christians are directly addressed as ‘friends’ in the New Testament.

SUMMATION

3 John highlights the topics of truth, hospitality and church leadership. It contrasts the behaviour of faithful and helpful believers like Gaius and Demetrius with the self-serving and divisive actions of Diotrephes and thus serves as both encouragement and warning.

Posted in Latin loanwords

MACELLUM

Posted on by writtenexposition



‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.’ 1 Corinthians 10:25-26


Greek: μάκελλον (mákellon)
Latin: macellum
English: food market (shambles)


The city of Corinth, strategically located near an isthmus that linked Northern Greece and the Peloponnese, was one of the most important cities in the ancient world. Situated at a ‘crossroads’ it grew wealthy and politically influential through trade and by taxing and imposing tolls on goods moving through the area. It controlled four harbours: Kenchreai, Lechaion, Schoenus and Poseidona. Kenchreai on the Saronic Gulf was convenient for ships from Asia and the Aegean Sea and Lechaion on the Gulf of Corinth for ships from Italy and the Adriatic Sea. Rather than risk treacherous Cape Malea at the southern tip of Greece merchant ships would sail into Schoenus or Poseidona to be dragged overland on wheeled oxcarts to the opposite coast via a paved trackway called the Diolkos. The city was overlooked by an elevated citadel known as the Acrocorinth which had its own water supply and could be defended if under attack.


From about 600 BCE Corinth was one of the wealthiest and most powerful of the independent Greek city-states. These states went to war with Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great), were defeated by him at the battle of Chaeronea in 338 and united into one kingdom called the League of Corinth or Hellenic League. Corinth later joined an anti-Macedonian Achaean League and, in 243, broke free from Macedonian authority.

From about 230 the Achaean League tried to counteract growing Roman influence on Greek political affairs until finally, in 147, the Romans sent a delegation to Corinth demanding the immediate disbandment of the League. The refusal to obey resulted in the Achaean War. In 146 the Roman forces, under Lucius Mummius, defeated the Corinthian army and dealt harshly with the losers. They destroyed the city; killing all the men and enslaving the women and children. This ended the period known as Greek Corinth.

The city lay almost deserted until, just before his assassination in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar issued a decree that Corinth be rebuilt as a Roman colony (Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis). It was the largest city in Greece and, as capital of Achaea from 27 BCE, was the headquarters of the Roman administration. The population size is unknown but thought to have been about 80,000. Although a Greek city, Corinth was Roman in its urban design, legal system, culture and religion. Many gods were worshipped there but Corinth was famous in the ancient world as the ‘City of Aphrodite.’ Due, however, to its status as capital of the Roman province of Achaea, emperor worship was the most prominent cult of all, dominating every aspect of life.


The Romans repopulated the city with a mix of former prisoners, traders and retired army veterans but the bulk of the settlers were emancipated slaves (see 7:22 for the only NT use of the technical term ‘freedman’ – apeleutheros). Latin was the official language and Corinthian coins bore Latin inscriptions. Koine Greek, as in the rest of the empire, was the common language; that is why Paul’s letters to the assembly were written in Greek.

Paul arrived at Corinth in the year 50 CE and began to preach the gospel in this ‘boom town’ devoted to pleasure, sport (every two years the Isthmian games took place at the temple of Poseidon), idolatry and commerce. According to Luke’s account in Acts 18:1-17 Paul began his evangelistic work among the Jews but, after some initial success, encountered strong opposition from that quarter. During his eighteen-month stay (Acts 18:11), he also preached to Gentiles (1 Cor 6:9-11; 12:2) and subsequently gathered converted Jews and Gentiles together to form ‘the assembly (ekklēsia) of God at Corinth’ (1 Cor1:2), and another one at nearby Kenchreai (Acts 18:18; Rom 16:1).


After moving on from Corinth Paul maintained an interest in the spiritual progress of the new Christians, but eventually some serious issues did arise in the assembly. These he tried to handle by a combination of letters and visits; 1 and 2 Corinthians mention several other letters (1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3-9; 7:8-12; 10:10) and possible visits (1 Cor 4:19-21; 11:34; 16:5-7; 2 Cor 1:15 – 2:1; 12:21; 13:1-2) by the apostle Paul. The epistle we know as 1 Corinthians addresses various difficulties, about which the assembly had sent representatives to Paul (1 Cor 16:17) and had written asking for his advice (1
Cor 7:1). Matters had also been reported to Paul by concerned individuals (1 Cor 1:11). The major problems were:


• An emphasis on eloquence and philosophy which elevated human reasoning above Paul’s teaching.


• Factions and divisions in the assembly.


• Christians suing one another in the civil law-courts.


• Relationship issues: virginity, marriage, divorce, fornication and gross sexual immorality.


• Wrong attitudes to money.


• Disorder in the assembly.


• Misunderstandings about spiritual gifts.


• Beliefs about (the) resurrection.


• The consumption of idol food.


We hear little about the latter problem in western churches today, probably because it is not relevant to our everyday social situation. In our secular society, polytheistic religion, although present, does not impinge upon the lives of most people. Such was not the case in first-century Corinth where idolatry was visible everywhere: in temples, statues, images, inscriptions, coins, etc. Paul understood, as in fact he told the believers in 5:10, that there was no way the Corinthian Christians could avoid contact with idolaters.


Artisans and traders in Corinth were members of craft or merchant guilds. These associations held social gatherings in pagan temples and hosted communal meals in the attached dining halls (1 Cor 8:10). Temple facilities would also have been used for family get-togethers such as parties and funerals and inevitably an animal that had been sacrificed for the event would feature on the menu. In chapter 8 Paul opposes the idea of a Christian attending celebrations in a temple precinct and knowingly eating idol food. In 10:20 he again opposes eating such food, maintaining that in sacrificing to idols the Gentiles worship demonic spirits. However, in the short section 10:25-29, Paul takes a more pragmatic and open-minded approach.


Our interest lies in 10:25-26 in which he addresses the problem of goods sold in the food market (shambles). This reference is probably to meat rather than other types of food and relevant to the less well-off members of the assembly whose daily diet, on account of poverty, would have been pescatarian. Meat was expensive at that time, but they may occasionally have been able to afford small portions of salted hams, donkey meat, sausages, blood puddings or tripe. An opportunity to purchase quality cuts (at bargain prices) from animals approved for sacrifice would have been attractive.

The believers would not have known the source of the food; as not everything that was for sale in the macellum would have been offered to idols. In light of that, Paul told the Corinthian believers not to question the food’s provenance for the sake of conscience but to go ahead and eat it: ‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles (mákellon), that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.’ What was a mákellon?


From earliest times, along with other types of goods, foodstuffs were bought and sold in wooden huts in open spaces or along busy streets near the centre of Mediterranean towns. This was haphazard, unhygienic and difficult to control. During the Late Classical (400-300 BCE) and Hellenistic (323-30 BCE) periods commercial activity moved to large indoor markets situated near the public square (Greek agora or Roman forum), which was the centre of civic life. During the second century BCE (200-101), however, references to a structure called a ‘macellum’ occur in Latin literature. The Romans began to build one in new towns, and the trend caught on in Greece also, where it was called a ‘mákellon.’ This was a building designed specifically for the sale of food. All of them had a similar basic layout consisting of a large open courtyard (usually rectangular or circular) surrounded by columns (peristyle) and having two entrances. Each macellum housed a series of shops and sometimes had a second floor. As a specialized food market, hygiene was paramount, so it had a water supply and paved floors for ease of cleaning. There were grooves or pipes for drainage. The macellum also housed the offices of magistrates (aediles) who enforced trading standards such as weights and measures.


Some of the macellae, including the one excavated at the site of ancient Corinth, have foundations for a circular room. Some think that this was a facility for cleaning and selling fish, others that it was a small temple. No-one knows if the macellum at Corinth served any religious function; it is only from Paul’s instruction to Christians in 1 Corinthians 10:25 that we are even aware that sacrificial meat was sold in the food market.


In verse 26 Paul backed up his advice to the believers by directing them to the Old Testament scriptures (Psa 24:1; 50:12; 89:11). He reminded them that everything on earth belongs to the Lord; therefore, it was permissible to eat the meat sold in the macellum, even if previously offered to an idol.

Posted in Roman names

GALLIO

Posted on by writtenexposition

‘And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat.’ Acts 18:12

Name: Gallio

Full Roman Name: Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus

Position: Proconsul of the senatorial Province of Achaea

The casual reader of the Book of Acts might view Paul’s appearance before Gallio, the Roman governor of Achaea, as just another interesting detail that Luke has included about the apostle’s stay in Corinth. It is, however, one of the major incidents recorded in the New Testament and the most significant as regards the early history and expansion of Christianity. The historical details given in Acts 18, along with external sources, provide us with a fixed date in the career of the apostle Paul and shed light on Jewish hostility and Roman indifference (as exemplified by Gallio) towards the increasingly popular new religious movement.

In 50 CE Paul arrived in Corinth and began his evangelistic activity in the Jewish synagogue, aiming to convince Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah (Acts 18:4). This must have continued for several months (‘every sabbath’ 18:4) but, following heated discussions, disagreements, and rejection of his message by the Jews, Paul turned his attention towards the local Gentiles and moved his operational base to a building next door to the synagogue. Its owner was Justus (some manuscripts say Titius Justus) who in 18:7 is termed a ‘God-fearer’ (a Gentile believer in God who had not (yet) fully converted to Judaism).

Relations between the two groups of next-door neighbours got worse. Tension must have increased greatly when the president of the synagogue, Crispus, ‘believed on the Lord’ and, as it were, moved to the other side of the fence. Also, the Jews cannot have been happy with the ongoing success of Paul’s mission because ‘many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized’ (18:8). Eventually,the Jewish leaders brought Paul before Gallio; the proconsul of the Roman province of Achaea.

Gallio was born about 5 BCE at Cordua in Spain, into a high-ranking Roman family which had close ties with the imperial household. His father was Seneca the Elder (Lucius Annaeus Seneca), a well-known writer, historian, and rhetorician who, with his wife Helvia, had three sons; of whom Gallio was the eldest. Another son was Seneca the Younger, a Stoic philosopher and writer who was tutor to the future emperor Nero. The third was Marcus Annaeus Mela, father of the poet Lucan. During his reign Nero suspected Gallio and his brothers of involvement in various plots against him and eventually, at different times and probably on Nero’s orders, all three ended their lives by suicide.

Gallio’s name from birth was Lucius Annaeus Novatus but, when he was a young adult, a wealthy family that did not have a male heir adopted him; as was customary among Roman aristocrats. He took the name of his adoptive father, senator Lucius Iunius Gallio, and became known as Lucius Iunius Gallio Annaeus. Gallio became an expert on Roman law, and had a reputation for hard work, fairness, and a polite but no-nonsense approach in court. He became a senator in 37 CE and was later appointed proconsul of Achaea by the emperor Claudius.

One can deduce the date of his term of office in Achaea from what is usually called the Gallio (or Delphic) Inscription. In 1905 four fragments of this inscription were found in temple ruins at Delphi in Greece. In 1910 three more were found and a further two in 1967. The following is reconstructed from these nine fragments:

‘Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 12th year of tribunician power, acclaimed emperor for the 26th time, father of the country, sends greetings to… For long have I been well-disposed to the city of Delphi and solicitous for its prosperity, and I have always observed the cult of the Pythian Apollo. Now since it is said to be destitute of citizens, as my friend and pro consul L. Iunius Gallio recently reported to me, and desiring that Delphi should regain its former splendour, I command you to invite well-born people also from other cities to come to Delphi as new inhabitants, and to accord them and their children all the privileges of the Delphians as being citizens on like and equal terms…’

This is a copy of a letter from the emperor Claudius in which he refers to a report from ‘my friend and proconsul L. Iunius Gallio’ about depopulation in Delphi and recommends future resettlement of the city. In the letter Claudius says that he has been ‘acclaimed emperor for the 26th time’ which dates the letter to between 25th January and 1st August 52. Claudius had recently received the report; therefore Gallio’s appointment to Achaea was probably from 01 July 51 until 30 June 52.

Unlike Claudius, who was an admirer of everything Greek, Gallio disliked Greece and did not serve out his full term of office; possibly leaving before shipping finished for the winter months at the end of October 51 CE. His brother Seneca wrote:

‘When in Achaia, he [Gallio] began to feel feverish, he immediately took ship, claiming that it was not a malady of the body but of the place’ (Seneca, Epistle 1 04.1)

Under Nero, Gallio was appointed a ‘consul suffectus’ (a replacement who took over when a consul died, resigned or was removed from office) in 56 CE and later served as the emperor’s herald.

As an eminent legal expert, a man of integrity who enjoyed the confidence of two Roman emperors, and someone who reached the highest levels of office in the Roman empire, Gallio was no fool. The Jews at Corinth were to discover this fact when he immediately saw through the deception that was behind the charge that they tried to level against the apostle Paul.

The Jewish leaders brought Paul before the Corinthian tribunal over which Gallio, as proconsul, was presiding. The Greek word for tribunal is bema. The name comes from the raised platform (bema) which stood in the main square of a Greek or Roman city and from which orators addressed the public at civic ceremonies.

The Bema (KJV ‘judgement seat’) was also used for legal purposes; the supreme authority of the presiding judge was signified by his elevated position while seated on it. The word bema could refer to any elevated platform, a step or even the length of a footstep (Acts 7:5) but the Bema in Corinth was not a simple rostrum. It was an impressive building built of marble, decorated with intricate carvings, and prominently situated in the city forum. A site guide to ancient Corinth published in 2018 by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens describes the architecture of the Bema as follows:


‘The Bema was a complex marble structure dating from the middle of the 1st century A.D. that dominated this part of the Forum at Corinth. It took the form of an open propylon with a Π-shaped ground plan, which stood on a rectangular podium measuring 15.6 × 7.2 m. This podium had a krepidoma with two steps and it projected 3 m above the level of the Forum to the north. Its superstructure consisted of eight pillars, three at each corner linked by walls lined with benches, and two across the front. The podium was flanked at a lower level by two unroofed exedras with benches on two of their three sides. Beside each exedra was a marble staircase leading up to the terrace to the south. Parts of the Bema’s walls and steps, as well as the floors of the exedras, have been restored.’


The grandeur of the physical Bema in Corinth and his appearance before Gallio seems to have impressed Paul so much that he used the word bema figuratively in a letter to the Corinthians (2 Cor 5:10) to describe a future tribunal, with Christ presiding, at which the life and service of every Christian will be reviewed (see also Rom 14:10).


We read in Acts 18:4 that Paul ‘persuaded’ (peíthō) Jews and the Greeks in the synagogue every sabbath.’ According to Acts 18:13, the Jews attempted to have Paul tried on the following charge: ‘this man persuades (anapeíthō) the men to worship God contrary to the law.’ In verse 13, however, ‘persuade’ means ‘persuade earnestly’ and has the idea of ‘seduce’ or ‘incite.’ The Jews accused Paul of misleading ‘the men.’ This term may indicate just the Jews and Greeks of verse 4 but is more likely a general reference to all the residents of Corinth. Paul, according to the Jews, was dishonestly encouraging men to ‘worship God contrary to the law.’ They did not specify whether they meant Jewish or Roman law. Gallio was astute enough to realize that their charge was deliberately ambiguous.

The relevant Roman law would have been that which governed the meetings of associations (collegium or sodalitates). The Romans were always wary of the possibility of sedition in conquered territories so they ensured that religious cults, political societies, and trade guilds were licensed by the state and allowed to meet no more than once a month. However, since they had great respect for ancestral religions, they granted Jewish synagogue meetings exemption from this restriction. The Jews were therefore maintaining, although both groups were studying the same scriptures, that the gathering in the house of Justus next door to them was not a Jewish synagogue meeting and ought to be regarded as an illegal and unlicensed religious cult led by Paul.

Gallio saw that their accusation was not essentially religious but that they were playing politics. He ruled (Acts 18:14-15) that if the Jews could back up their charge that Paul was guilty of a ‘criminal act’ or a ‘wicked plot’ he would proceed with a trial, but, in his opinion, the matter had to do with (1) ‘words’ (debate), (2) names (disputes over the meaning of words or terms), and (3) ‘your own (i.e. Jewish) law’.

Gallio thus dismissed the charge (under Roman law) that Paul was involved in political disturbance, and he also refused to judge Paul on matters relating to Jewish law. He had no interest in these. As Luke comments in verse 17: ‘Gallio cared for none of those things’.

Some (mis)apply this comment by Luke and suggest that Gallio was indifferent to the preaching of the gospel and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. This, of course, is not what Luke is saying. In fact, it is unlikely that Gallio ever heard the gospel because in verse 14 Luke emphasizes the fact that Paul did not get a chance to open his mouth. The plural ‘those things’ refers to the three points in Gallio’s ruling(v.15). He refused to pronounce judgement upon what he regarded as internal differences of opinion within the Jewish religion. Gallio was an honest and upright Roman official who did not give in to and conspire with the Jews; unlike Pilate and Felix.


Governors and judges in other locations throughout the empire would have looked to this ruling by such a distinguished jurist and have likewise adopted a tolerant attitude towards Christianity. Thus, having the luxury of minimal interference from the Roman government, the new religion spread swiftly throughout the empire. Thanks to Gallio’s assessment of Christianity as just a sect within Judaism, Christians could legally meet weekly for worship and to celebrate the Lord’s supper. For the early church the positive effects of Gallio’s ruling lasted more than a decade.

Even at the end of Acts, while Paul awaited trial for two years at Rome, the authorities did not curtail his religious activities. Luke could therefore bring the book of Acts to a close by observing (Acts 28:30-31 ESV) that, right in the very capital of the empire, Christian work was permitted to continue ‘without hindrance.’