Monthly Bible Study

Southern Cross Evangelical Church

Bible Study

The Book of Acts

  [6]

Chapters 5:22 - 42 
Gamaliel 
        (AD 33-39)

    Last time we left the passage with the Apostles having been released from prison by an angel. On their release the angel instructed them to go "stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life" [5;20]  

This life we saw referred to eternal life through Christ Jesus.       

    In this study we pick up where we left off last time.The officers of the Temple guard came to the prison but didn’t find any one there; they had gone.        They reported back to the High Priest and those with him and then it was told them that these men were again in the Temple teaching the people.

         It appeared you couldn’t stop them, no amount of threats seemed to avail. Again they were arrested and brought before the council, only to re-enact the same scenario as we considered last time.

The High Priest questioned them regarding the restriction they placed on them previously when Peter and John had been brought before them after the lame man had been healed in the Temple.                     "Did we not strictly command you   not to teach in this name? And look you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrines, and intended to bring this man’s blood on us." [5:28]

The High Priest questions them, but doesn’t seem interested in how they escaped from prison, maybe he’s given up, after all Jerusalem had seen some remarkable events recently perhaps this was just one more. Whatever he thought about this, he concentrated on their teaching.

 Here they were an intimidating semicircle, the Apostles standing in the middle of them, Peter and John had been here before, but to the other ten it was a first time experience.

They had previously threatened Peter and John if they continued to teach in Jesus name, but because of the high esteem in which the public held the apostles they could do nothing.

He doesn’t mentioned the previous threats they were hollow with no substance. The more they tried to suppress the name of Jesus the more Jerusalem was filled with His doctrine.

 At first glance it is the Apostles who were on trial, in reality it was the council who were. They were on trial for shedding innocent blood, the High Priest all but admits their guilt. "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrines, and intended to bring this man’s blood on us." [5:28]

 When Pilate declared Jesus to be innocent and desired to set Him free he told the Jews to see to Jesus’ execution, declaring himself innocent of His blood. The Jews replied "His blood be on us and on our children" {Matthew 27:25]

Now it seemed that this had come back on them, the council must take responsibility for the shedding of innocent blood. In trying to silence the Apostles they tried to cover their deed. With the popularity of the Apostles and the teaching of Jesus filling Jerusalem the council could be looking at a major civil disobedience in the making. And if it was considered that the council were responsible for the blood of an innocent man their blood could be required of them.

Under the Law of Moses if a man gave false testimony that resulted in a man being executed, and it was subsequently discovered then that person would suffer the same penalty. . [cf. Deuteronony 19:15-19a] "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother;

Could the High Priest be concerned for his own safety? It’s more than a possibility. He knew that he could at best lose his priesthood.

 The Council had to make a decision to obey or to refute the teachings of Christ.

 Having argued with the Apostles that they were trying to bring Jesus blood upon their heads, Peter answers clearly that what they did in crucifying Jesus was not a judicial execution of a criminal that was supported by the Law, but rather it was the murder of an innocent man.

"But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree." [29,30]

But not only had they defiled their office, not only had they spilt innocent blood, but God Himself had testified against them. He raised up Jesus from the grave and He has now exalted Him at His right hand. It was only through faith in Him that the Jews, [and Gentiles] could find salvation.

The Apostles were witnesses of these things, and moreover the Holy Spirit Himself also witnessed of this truth.

The council was not only opposing this new teaching, they were not only in conflict with these 12 Apostles, but they were in danger of being in conflict with God Himself.

One of the Council members a man named Gamaliel, a respected teacher of the law, could see this dilemma and came forward to voice it.

Gamaliel was called ‘Gamaliel the Elder’ in Rabbinic literature, and was the grandson of Rabbi Hillel, the founder of one of the main branches of the Pharisees. Saul of Tarsus was one of his most famous students. [cf.. Acts 22:3]

This influential man speaks up as the Council furious at Peter’s teaching was prepared to kill them.

Now before we consider Gamaliel’s advice let us look at some points that maybe we’ve over looked thus far.

Whilst Jesus was alive the main opponents to His teaching were the Pharisees. Now we hear little of them, the High Priest is allied by the Sadducees. [cf. 4:1; 5:17]

 Why the switch, what has caused the Pharisees to sink into the background, and what has caused the Sadducees to come to the fore?

 In some ways the Pharisees could consider this new movement, this ‘Way’ as an ally as they were preaching the resurrection of Jesus. It was the Sadducees who denounced the doctrine of the resurrection, hence the reason they hated the Apostles teaching so vehemently.

 The Apostles were put out and the Pharisee Gamaliel offered council.

Gamaliel was a tolerant cautious man unlike his student Saul who was neither tolerant or cautious when it came to the Church, and as we shall see in the next chapter Saul was consenting to the death of the first martyr of the Church, Stephen, and then undertook a campaign of terror against the Church itself. Gamaliel on the other hand was a much wiser man, and exhorted the council to follow him in caution regarding this new movement.

He highlights a number of previous cases where men sought to draw a following unto themselves but in due course came to nothing.

His advice is simple. If this is a movement of man it will come to nothing, if however it is of God, to oppose it will be to oppose God Himself. As indeed Gamaliel’s own disciple Saul would discover on the Damascus Road, when Jesus Himself appeared to him and equated his persecuting the church with persecution of Christ Himself. [cf. 9:4]

It would appear from his plea that in all probability Gamaliel believed that this movement was of God, and indeed chapter 6 verse 7 tells us that many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Gamaliel’s advice is received and accepted by the Sanhedrin. They realise they are powerless to stop this new movement, but want to try to limit the success of the Apostles so they forbid them to speak in the name of Jesus and then they have the Twelve marked as law breakers by flogging them.

Under the Mosaic Law a man who is guilty of a crime can be given a beating not exceeding 40 lashes. [Deuteronomy 25:1-3] Paul wrote how he had been beaten five times and had received 39 lashes. [cf.. 2 Corinthians 11:24]

In all probability it was thought that if the Apostles carried these marks of shame, the sign of a law breaker, then the common people would be hesitant to listen to them.

What were designed to be signs of shame the Apostles took to be an honour.

They do not leave the Council downcast, forlorn doubting their call, rather they leave rejoicing because they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ.

What a difference to the way we often face criticism and persecution for our faith.

The Apostles went forth from the Council and as it were without a moments hesitation were back in the temple, and went from house to house preaching Jesus.

There was no sense of self pity, doubting their calling. Rather they were bold, proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

O that we might learn from their example and despite the minor set backs we endure, may we know what it is to have our confidence in our God.

All Scripture references are taken from the New King James Version, unless otherwise state

   The Book of Acts   

    Worksheet

      [1]

Gamaliel spoke with wisdom regarding this new movement, that the Jewish leaders proceed with caution lest they find themselves opposing God.

i] Should we look at the plethora of new religions appearing today in the same way, saying perhaps they have some validity?

ii] If not why not? What was there about the revelation that God had given the Jews that ought to have made them aware that the Church was of God?

[2]

The Apostles received the lash and departed from the council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus. 

i] In what ways [if any] are we called upon to suffer for the name of Jesus?

ii] a) How do we react in such situations?

b) How does our reaction compare with that of the Apostles?

6