Religious Indifference

[Acts 18:12-17…. If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, ..., reason would that I should bear with you: But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters.] This is a great story and I see a message in it, so I chose to search it out to bring it to life of true understanding. The Romans comprehended, under the name of Achaia, all that part of Greece which lay between Thessaly and the southernmost coasts of Peloponnesus. The Romans comprehended, under the name of Achaia, all that part of Greece which lay between Thessaly and the southernmost coasts of Peloponnesus. The Romans were accustomed to send a governor into that country, and that they called him the governor of Achaia, not of Greece; because the Achaeans, when they subdued Greece, were the leaders in all the Grecian affairs. The Jews had no power to punish any person in the Roman provinces, and therefore were obliged to bring their complaint before the Roman governor. The powers that be are ordained of G-d. Had the Jews possessed the power here, Paul had been put to death! This fellow persuadeth men to worship G-d contrary to the law. This accusation was very dangerous. The Jews had permission by the Romans to worship their own G-d in their own way: this the laws allowed. The Roman worship was also established by the law. The Jews probably intended to accuse Paul of acting contrary to both laws. "He is not a Jew, for he does not admit of circumcision; he is not a Gentile, for he preaches against the worship of the idols. He is setting up a worship of his own, in opposition to all laws, and persuading many people to join with him: he is therefore a most dangerous man, and should be put to death." When Paul was about to open his mouth, He was about to enter on his defense; but Gallio, perceiving that the prosecution was through envy and malice, would not put Paul to any farther trouble, but determined the matter as follows. If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, any offense punishable by the magistrate. Wrong would have been of injustice; any thing contrary to the rights of the subject. Lewdness was something by which the subject is grievously wronged; were it any crime against society or against the state. Gallio stated it was according to reason, or the merit of the case, he would patiently hear it. Question of words and names, and of your law . . . I will be no judge, in this only laying down the proper limits of his office. A better answer could not be given by man; and it was highly becoming the acknowledged meekness, gentleness, and benevolence of this amiable man. He concluded that the state had no right to control any man's religious opinion; that was between the object of his worship and his own conscience; and therefore he was not authorized to intermeddle with subjects of this nature, which the law left to every man's private judgment. Had all the rulers of the people in every country acted as this sensible and benevolent Roman, laws against liberty of conscience, concerning religious persecution, would not be found to be, as they not are, blots and disgraces on the statute books of almost all the civilized nations of Europe. State and religion have always been separated, but it is now slowly changing to where if ‘certain things’ that are written in Scripture, and if a speaker mentions it could be imprisoned., such as ‘gay’ rights. Such as a time is this! What happen to liberty of conscience? Gallio, drave them being annoyed at such a case. He saw that their accusation was both frivolous and vexatious, and he ordered them to depart, and the assembly to disperse. The word to which we translate he drave, does not signify here any act of violence on the part of Gallio or the Roman officers, but simply an authoritative dismission. All the Greeks were the Gentile spectators, that these Hellenes were Jews, born in a Greek country, and speaking the Greek language. They took Sosthenes, it is very improbable that this was the same Sosthenes as the missionary afterwards calls "his brother" (1 Cor. 1:1). 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. And beat him before the judgment-seat, 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.Gallio’s brother praise his loving and lovable manners. Religious indifference, under the influence of an easy and amiable temper, reappears from age to age, and not a stranger in our day. 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. 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 missionary’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. 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 G-d'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. Mob setting is when people join one side or another calling out words and names being wrong and lewdness loosing the liberty of conscience, in the war of Religious Indifference. Would we have religious indifference if ALL studied the Word to get its full meaning, than followed it without bending comprising with the world?