A Pharisee, named Gamaliel. — We are brought into contact here with one of the heroes of Rabbinic history. The part he now played in the opening of the great drama, and not less his position as the instructor of St. Paul, demand attention. We have to think of him as the grandson of the great Hillel the representative of the best school of Pharisaism, the tolerant and large-hearted rival of the narrow and fanatic Shammai, whose precepts — such, e.g., as, Do nothing to another which thou wouldest not that he should do to thee — remind us of the Sermon on the Mount. The fame of Hillel won for him the highest honour of Judaism: the title of Rabban (the Rabboni of Mark 10:51; John 20:16), and the office of President of the Council. For the first time, there seemed likely to be a dynasty of scribes, and the office of chief of the Jewish schools, what we might almost call their Professorship of Theology, was transmitted through four generations. Hillel was succeeded by his son Simeon, whom some have identified with the Simeon of Luke 2:25 (see Note there), and he by Gamaliel. He, too, was known as the Rabban, and he rose now, with all the weight of years and authority, to counsel moderation. Various motives may have influenced him. He was old enough to remember the wisdom and grace of the child Jesus when, twenty-eight years before, He had sat in the midst of the doctors (Luke 2:46). He may have welcomed, during our Lord’s ministry, the teaching with so much of which Hillel would have sympathised, and been as the scribe who was not far from the kingdom of God (Mark 12:32-34), rejoicing in the new proof that had been brought forward of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As being himself of the house and lineage of David, he may have sympathised with the claims of One who was welcomed as the Son of David. One who was so prominent as a teacher could not fail to be acquainted with a brother-teacher like Nicodemus, and may well have been influenced by the example of his gradual conversion and the counsels of caution which he had given (John 7:50-51). The tone in which he speaks now might almost lead us to class him with the “many” of the chief rulers who secretly believed in Christ, but shrank from confessing Him (John 12:42-43). It seems probable that he, like Joseph of Arimathæa, had “not consented to the counsel and deed” of the Sanhedrin which Caiaphas had hastily convened for our Lord’s trial, and had contented himself with a policy of absence and expectation. If, as seems probable, Saul of Tarsus was at this time one of his disciples (Acts 22:3), the words of warning, though addressed generally to the Council, may well have been intended specially to restrain his fiery and impetuous zeal.
Commanded to put the apostles forth a little space. — The practice of thus deliberating in the absence of the accused seems to have been common. (Comp. Acts 4:15.) The report of the speech that follows may have come to St. Luke from some member of the Council, or, probably enough, from St. Paul himself. The occasional coincidences of language with the writings of that Apostle tend to confirm the antecedent likelihood of the conjecture.