CRITICAL REMARKS
Acts 5:33. Cut to the heart.—Lit. sawn asunder, torn in pieces, sc. in their hearts. Compare Acts 7:54—a much stronger expression than that used in Acts 4:2 or Acts 16:18, and closely resembling that employed in Acts 2:37.
Acts 5:34. A pharisee.—A member of one of the principal religious sects in Jerusalem, the others being Sadducees and Essenes. See further on Acts 15:5. Gamaliel = “Benefit of God” (see Numbers 1:10; Numbers 2:20). Probably Gamaliel the elder, one of the seven to whom the Jews gave the title Rabbi. In the Talmud he appears as a zealous Pharisee and distinguished teacher of the law.
Acts 5:35. Take heed to yourselves.—Either with respect to these men, what ye intend to do (Hackett), or what ye intend to do with respect to these men (Holtzmann).
Acts 5:36-37. Theudas and Judas.—Concerning the supposed chronological difficulty connected with these names see “Homiletical Analysis.”
Acts 5:39. In ye cannot overthrow it read for “it” them. Lest haply, etc., may be connected either with “let them alone,” or with a supplied thought such as “and ye ought not to attempt to overthrow them,” or “take heed to yourselves.”
Acts 5:40. And when they had called the apostles, sc. unto them, so as to preserve the force of the preposition πρός—the apostles having been removed a little space apart from the council during the progress of the deliberations (Acts 5:34).
Acts 5:41. Worthy to suffer shame.—Or, worthy to be disgraced; a bold oxymoron. For His name should be for the name—i.e., of Jesus, which is here omitted, either because it had just been mentioned (Acts 5:40), or because “the name” had already come to be a term in familiar use among the disciples. (Compare Acts 9:16.)
Acts 5:42. In every house.—Better, at home, or from house to house, as in Acts 2:46.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 5:33-42
Gamaliel and his Colleagues; or, a Friend at Court
I. The person of Gamaliel.—
1. His name. Borne by more than one celebrated scribe of the first and second centuries after Christ, this name—meaning “Benefit of God” (Numbers 1:10; Numbers 2:20; Numbers 7:54)—belonged first to Rabbi Gamaliel, the elder Hillel’s grandson; Gamaliel the younger flourished about 80–118 A.D. The former, in all probability, the individual referred to by Luke 2. His profession.
(1) A member of the Sanhedrim—“one in the council”; hardly its president (the Talmud).
(2) A Pharisee, one of the straitest sects of religionists in Jerusalem, who differed from the Sadducees in holding the doctrine of a resurrection, and outdid these in extravagant adherence to the letter of the Mosaic Law.
(3) A scribe or doctor of the law, virtually a professor of theology like his grandfather Hillel and his father Simon (said to be, but hardly likely, the Simeon of Luke 2:25), whom he succeeded. He is reported to have had one thousand scholars, of whom five hundred studied the law, and five hundred Greek wisdom (Talmud)—a statement which, if it could be depended on, would shed an interesting light on Paul’s knowledge of the Greek poets. (See Riehm’s Handwörterbuch des Biblischen Altertums, art. Gamaliel).
3. His renown. “Had in reputation among all the people,” also among his colleagues, for his zeal as a Pharisee, his learning as a teacher, and his charity as a man. In corroboration of the first may be mentioned that when he died men said reverence for the law, purity, and continence had perished; the best certificates of the second were his brilliant scholars, Onkelos the Targumist and Saul of Tarsus (Acts 22:3); the third his counsel to the Sanhedrists attested.
4. His history. According to Christian tradition he embraced Christianity, and, along with his son Ahib and Nicodemus, was baptised by Peter and John, the Clementine Recognitions even affirming that at this time he was a secret disciple. This statement, however, Jewish tradition declines to verify, making him die a Pharisee eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
II. The advice of Gamaliel.—
1. His recommendations. Two things he urged upon his colleagues.
(1) Caution. To “take heed to themselves with regard to the apostles what they intended to do.” Always commendable, even in a right course, circumspection and prudence are specially desirable when the path inviting entrance is dubious and dangerous, not to say wrong. To look well before one leaps is a safe maxim.
(2) Tolerance. To hold their hands and let the apostles alone. If they could not help their prisoners’ cause, at least they should not hinder it. “Neither punish them for what they have done nor restrain them for the future. Connive at them—let them take their course—let not our hand be upon them” (Henry). This, the least the truth has a right to expect and receive at the hands of men.
2. His arguments. Also two: one for each recommendation.
(1) One for the caution, this, drawn from past experience, that possibly need would not arise for action in the matter, as the present movement would most likely run the course of other popular agitations which in former times had suddenly sprung up, flourished for a season, and eventually subsid d. One such had been the insurrection of Theudas. (Note. This Theudas was not the revolutionary of that name in the reign of Claudius, and under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus A.D. 44, ten or twelve years after this speech of Gamaliel (Jos., Ant., XX. Acts 5:1), but either another of the same name, which was common, who had figured in the public gaze shortly before; or the Judas, who, after Herod’s death, led a robber band against the palace of Sepphoris in Galilee (Jos., Ant., XVII. x. 5), Judas, according to Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:16, being interchangeable with Thaddeus or Theudas; or the Simon (Jos., Ant., XVII. x. 6), one of Herod’s slaves, who got himself proclaimed king, burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, with others of the king’s houses throughout the land, but eventually was captured and beheaded—it being supposed (Sonntag, see Hackett) that Theudas was a title Simon had assumed on pretending to royal dignity). Another of these abortive insurrections was that headed by Judas of Galilee (Jos., Ant., XX Acts 5:2; Wars, II. viii. 1), called also a Gaulonite—i.e., an inhabitant of the district east of Galilee (Jos., Ant., XVIII. i. 1), who, in the days of the taxing, or enrolment—i.e., registration of persons and property with a view to taxation, conducted under Cyrenius (Luke 2:2), raised a revolt against Rome which attracted numerous supporters, but terminated in failure, he himself getting killed and his followers dispersed. One of these followers is believed (but without foundation) to have been Simon the Canaanite, or Simon Zelotes, the apostle.
(2) For the tolerance this, derived from reflection, that “resistance was either needless or hopeless” (Plumptre), that the movement, if of men, would sooner or later collapse, while if of God, it would defy all attempts at overthrow, while those who opposed it would be guilty of fighting against God. If the first part of this argument sprang from timidity, the second was the outcome of sober judgment. If God was behind the apostles it would be fruitless and dangerous to stand before them.
3. His motives. Various have been suggested.
(1) A secret conviction that the movement was of God, though as yet not prepared to act on this conviction and espouse it boldly. According to this view (which, however, is pure conjecture), Gamaliel was a secret disciple like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, probably one of “the great company of priests” who soon after “became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).
(2) A latent sympathy with the apostle’s doctrine concerning Jesus, arising from the fact of his being a Pharisee, and therefore a believer in the resurrection, and from the probable circumstance of His having sat among the doctors whom Jesus, when a boy, questioned in the temple (Luke 2:46).
(3) A perceptible leaning to the sentiments of his two colleagues, Nicodemus who once advised that Christ should be let alone (John 7:50-51), and Joseph of Arimathea, who consented not to the counsel and deed of Caiaphas (Luke 23:51).
(4) Discernment to perceive that if the movement was purely fanatical, it would not be suppressed but only rendered more violent by opposition.
III. The success of Gamaliel.—His advice prevailed.
1. To all appearance unanimously. At least no opposition was offered to his cautious counsel. Having a majority in their favour, his sentiments were accepted without a division, and became the finding of the court. Yet
2. Not altogether wholly. Though persuaded to depart from their murderous intention (Acts 5:33) and to spare their prisoners’ lives, his colleagues could not appease their rage without inflicting on the apostles some punishment. Perhaps, also, they felt that something must be done on the one hand to justify their interference with the apostles’ liberty, and on the other hand to express their displeasure at the apostles’ disobedience. Accordingly they beat or scourged the apostles as Christ had been (John 19:1), and as Paul afterwards was scourged on five occasions (2 Corinthians 11:24). The scourge was a whip of two lashes, “knotted with bones or heavy indented circles of bronze, or terminated by hooks, in which case it was aptly denominated a scorpion” (quoted by Hackett). Still,
3. To all intents effectually. Charged not to speak in the name of Jesus—a useless rehearsal of a useless interdict which they could not obey (Acts 4:20), the apostles were forthwith dismissed, no doubt reluctantly, their judges inwardly feeling they would rather have incarcerated permanently, or killed off finally such obnoxious persons as the apostles were supposed to be, but yet really so that they “departed from the presence of the council,” and on their part triumphantly, rejoicing they had been counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name of Him whom they served, in whom they believed, and of whom they witnessed, and permanently so that “every day in the temple and at home they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ.”
Learn.—
1. That God can raise up champions to speak for His people and defend His cause in the most unlikely places and at the most unlikely times. Examples: Moses at the court of Pharaoh; Elijah in the days of Ahab; John the Baptist in the reign of Herod. Luther, Latimer, Knox.
2. That good men generally carry with them an influence for good which weighs with and tells upon their contemporaries. Witness Samuel and Daniel in Old Testament times; Nicodemus and Gamaliel in the Sanhedrim.
3. That God’s servants may always comfort themselves with the reflection that His cause is invincible. Emblem: the bush burning yet not consumed.
4. That those who fight against God are engaged in a losing battle (Isaiah 27:4).
5. That God’s servants and Christ’s followers may suffer wrong, and yet the cause for which they suffer win the day.
6. That to suffer for righteousness’ sake is the highest honour a Christian can enjoy on earth (Matthew 5:10; 1 Peter 4:16).
7. That always and everywhere Christians should publish the name of Jesus as the Christ, or Anointed King and Saviour of mankind.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Acts 5:36. The World’s Somebodies.—Are not unfrequently.—
1. Pretentious nobodies.
2. Worthless impostors.
3. Arrogant deceivers.
4. Disastrous leaders.
Acts 5:38-39. Gamaliel’s counsel.
I. The good advice it contained.
1. To abstain from injuring the apostles or hindering the cause they advocated. This was practically a dissuasive against persecution.
2. To wait with patience for the decision which Providence would ultimately give on this as on every other movement. “Time tries all.”
3. To beware of doing anything that might seem like fighting against God.
II. The doubtful doctrine it preached.
1. That the goodness of a cause may always be judged by its success.
2. That men should regulate their conduct by the bearing it will have upon their own interests.
3. That man’s responsibilities towards the cause of God and Christ are discharged by simply letting it alone.
Acts 5:39. Fighting against God.
I. An old sin.
II. A common practice.
III. A hopeless enterprise.
IV. A perilous warfare.
V. A heinous wickedness.
Acts 5:35-39. Gamaliel’s Counsel.
I. A convenient counsel for the spiritually idle and for the politicians of the world.
II. A true counsel in opposition to senseless zeal.
III. A half counsel, when it concerns us to recognize, decide, and act at once.—Beck in Lange.
Acts 5:38-39. Of men or of God; or, the Origin of Christianity.
I. Christianity must be either of men or of God.—Either it is a creation or evolution of the human mind or a production and revelation of the divine Spirit. Either one, it may be the best, of ordinary nature religions, like those of paganism which it supplanted, like Buddhism, Confucianism, and Mohammedanism, or a distinctly supernatural religion, as Christ (John 7:16) and His apostles affirmed that it was, and as its adherents believed it to be. No middle alternative is possible.
II. If Christianity be of men it will assuredly come to nought.—It may seem for a time to be possessed of vitality, to manifest growth and to be productive of beneficial results, but these appearances will only be temporary. It will not succeed in lifting men much higher than other nature religions; it will not extend its dominion over a much greater territory than these; it will not exhibit qualities of permanence beyond what are displayed by these.
III. Thus far Christianity has not come to nought.—It has survived the assaults of paganism, and even overthrown paganism wherever it has spread. It has resisted the still more dangerous onsets of philosophy and science, and in a large measure Christianised these. It has stood up against the combinations of world empires, and reduced these, in name at least, to subjection beneath the sceptre of Christ. It has maintained its vitality and influence notwithstanding the corruptions of its purity that have arisen within its own burdens and from the midst of its own adherents. It has met the deepest spiritual wants of the individual soul and of the world in a way that no other religion has done. It has extended its sway to almost every country under heaven. After nineteen centuries it evinces no sign of decrepitude and decay. Other religions are waxing old and vanishing away; it is with the passing years increasing in vigour and acceptance.
IV. Hence Christianity can only be of heavenly origin.—This a necessary inference from the propositions laid down by Gamaliel. “By its fruits ye shall know it.” These are such as can be explained only on the hypothesis of its divine origin. This renders it certain that Christianity will prove itself to be successful—i.e., serving the ends of a religion—i.e., saving; universal, ultimately embracing the globe; and permanent, enduring till the close of time.
V. No combination of forces can hinder Christianity from eventually accomplishing its mission.—“Ye will not be able to overthrow it,” said Gamaliel. Gamaliel was right. If God be for it who can be against it? Who can fight successfully against God? “No weapon that is formed against it shall prosper”; “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Lessons.—
1. The claims which Christianity as a supernatural religion has on the minds and hearts of men.
2. The duty of Christians doing everything to further its triumph.
3. The folly of attempting to overthrow or even hinder it.
Acts 5:40. The Way of the Holy Cross.
I. Threatening (Acts 4:21).
II. Imprisonment (Acts 5:18).
III. Scourging (Acts 5:40).
IV. Martyrdom (Acts 7:60).
Acts 5:41. Suffering Shame for the Name.
I. Comfort in it. That what one suffers for is Christ’s name (1 Peter 4:14).
II. Honour in it. That by means of suffering one can help on the triumph of that name.
III. Glory in it. Since if one suffers with Christ here, he shall reign with Christ hereafter (2 Timothy 2:12).
Four Classes in the School of Suffering.
I. Obliged to suffer.
II. Willing to suffer.
III. Able to suffer.
IV. Permitted to suffer.—Hartman in Lange.