Luk 13:14, Act 18:8, 17 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 14. Answered with indignation, because , &c, He considered this a violation of the Sabbath, doing work contrary to the fourth commandment. If he had reasoned aright, he would have seen that he who could perform such a miracle could not be a violator of the law of God. From this conduct of the ruler we learn-- 1st. That men are often opposed to good being done, because it is not done in their own way and according to their own views . 2nd. That they are more apt to look at what they consider a violation of the law in others, than at the good which others may do. 3rd. That this opposition is manifested not only against those who do good , but also against those who are benefited . The ruler of the synagogue seemed particularly indignant that the people would come to Christ to be healed. 4th. That this conduct is often the result of envy. In this case it was rather hatred that the people should follow Christ instead of the Jewish rulers, and therefore envy at the popularity of Jesus, than any real regard for religion. 5th. That opposition to the work of Jesus may put on the appearance of great professed regard for religion. Many men oppose revivals, missions, Bible societies, and Sunday-schools--strange as it may seem --from professed regard to the purity of religion. They, like the ruler here, have formed their notions of religion as consisting in something very different from doing good, and they oppose those who are attempting to spread the gospel throughout the world. (m) "healed on the sabath-day" (n) "There are six days"

Luke 13:14

Verse 14. Answered with indignation, because, &c, He considered this a violation of the Sabbath, doing work contrary to the fourth commandment. If he had reasoned aright, he would have seen that he who could perform such a miracle could not be a violator of the law of God. From this conduct of the ruler we learn--

1st. That men are often opposed to good being done, because it is not done in their own way and according to their own views.

2nd. That they are more apt to look at what they consider a violation of the law in others, than at the good which others may do.

3rd. That this opposition is manifested not only against those who do good, but also against those who are benefited. The ruler of the synagogue seemed particularly indignant that the people would come to Christ to be healed.

4th. That this conduct is often the result of envy. In this case it was rather hatred that the people should follow Christ instead of the Jewish rulers, and therefore envy at the popularity of Jesus, than any real regard for religion.

5th. That opposition to the work of Jesus may put on the appearance of great professed regard for religion. Many men oppose revivals, missions, Bible societies, and Sunday-schools--strange as it may seem --from professed regard to the purity of religion. They, like the ruler here, have formed their notions of religion as consisting in something very different from doing good, and they oppose those who are attempting to spread the gospel throughout the world.

(m) "healed on the sabath-day" Mt 12:10, Mk 3:2, Lk 6:7, 14:3, Jn 5:16 (n) "There are six days" Ex 20:9

Acts 18:8

Verse 8. And Crispus. He is mentioned, in 1Cor 1:14, as having been one of the few whom Paul baptized with his own hands. The conversion of such a man must have tended greatly to exasperate the other Jews, and to further the progress of the Christian faith among the Corinthians.

With all his house. With all his family, Acts 10:2.

And many of the Corinthians. Many even in this voluptuous and wicked city. Perhaps the power of the gospel was never more signal than in converting sinners in Corinth, and rearing a Christian church in a place so dissolute and abandoned. If it was adapted to such a place as Corinth --if a church, under the power of Christian truth, could be organized there--it is adapted to any city; and there is none so corrupt that the gospel cannot change and purify it.

(f) "Crispus" 1Cor 1:14 (+) "with all his house" "with his hold household"

Acts 18:17

Verse 17. Then all the Greeks. The Greeks who had witnessed the persecution of Paul by the Jews, and who had seen the tumult which they had excited.

Took Sosthenes, etc. As he was the chief ruler of the synagogue, he had probably been a leader in the opposition to Paul, and in the prosecution. Indignant at the Jews--at their bringing such questions before the tribunal--at their bigotry, and rage, and contentious spirit--they probably fell upon him in a tumultuous and disorderly manner as he was leaving the tribunal. The Greeks would feel no small measure of indignation at these disturbers of the public peace, and they took this opportunity to express their rage.

And beat him. ετυπτον. This word is not that which is commonly used to denote a judicial act of scourging. It probably means that they fell upon him, and beat him with their fists, or with whatever was at hand.

Before the judgment seat. Probably while leaving the tribunal. Instead of "Greeks" in this verse, some Mss. read "Jews," but the former is probably the true reading. The Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic read it "the Gentiles." It is probable that this Sosthenes afterwards became a convert to the Christian faith, and a preacher of the gospel. See 1Cor 1:1,2: "Paul, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth."

And Gallio cared, etc. This has been usually charged on Gallio as a matter of reproach, as if he were wholly indifferent to religion. But the charge is unjustly made; and his name is often most improperly used to represent the indifferent, the worldly, the careless, and the skeptical. But by the testimony of ancient writers, he was a most mild and amiable man; and an upright and just judge. Nor is there the least evidence that he was indifferent to the religion of his country, or that he was of a thoughtless and skeptical turn of mind. All that this passage implies is,

(1.) that he did not deem it to be his duty, or a part of his office, to settle questions of a theological nature that were started among the Jews.

(2.) That he was unwilling to make this subject a matter of legal discussion and investigation.

(3.) That he would not interfere, either on one side or the other, in the question about making proselytes either to or from Judaism. So far certainly his conduct was exemplary and proper.

(4.) That he did not choose to interpose, and rescue Sosthenes from the hands of the mob. From some cause he was willing that he should feel the effects of the public indignation. Perhaps it was not easy to quell the riot; perhaps he was not unwilling that he who had joined in a furious and unprovoked persecution should feel the effect of it in the excited passions of the people. At all events, he was but following the common practice among the Romans, which was to regard the Jews with contempt, and to care little how much they were exposed to popular fury and rage. In this he was wrong; and it is certain also that he was indifferent to the disputes between Jews and Christians; but there is no propriety in defaming his name, and making him the type and representative of all the thoughtless and indifferent men on the subject of religion in subsequent times. Nor is there propriety in using this passage as a text applicable to this class of men.

(d) "Sosthenes" 1Cor 1:1