Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 5:27 - 5:42
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
B.—THE APOSTLES BOLDLY DEFEND THEMSELVES BEFORE THE GREAT COUNCIL: THEY ARE ULTIMATELY RELEASED, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE INTERVENTION OF GAMALIEL, AFTER THEY HAD BEEN SHAMEFULLY BEATEN
Act_5:28. (a) Did not we straitly command [We strictly commanded] you, etc.—The high priest refers with great circumspection to Jesus, and avoids the actual mention of his name, as if it were inconsistent with his dignity to pronounce it; he merely says: ôῷ ὀíüì . ôïýôῷ ; ôïῦ ἀíèñ . ôïýôïõ . But Peter, on the contrary, is not ashamed of the name of Jesus; he names him with the utmost freedom and boldness, and ascribes all honor and glory to him, Act_5:30 ff.
(b) And, behold, ye have filled.—The high priest alleges, as the most serious charge which he can produce against the apostles, that they had wished ἐðáãáãåῖí ἐö ʼ ἡìᾶò the blood of Jesus. Meyer thus interprets the verb: to cause that the blood of this man which was shed, should be avenged by a popular insurrection. Such a fulness of meaning can, however, scarcely be ascribed to it. It is more probable that the high priest accused the apostles only of an attempt to fix the responsibility and guilt of having shed that blood; on him and his associates. The reproach which he utters, betrays the secret trouble of his conscience, which was oppressed by a dread of well-merited punishment. The charge which he brings is not entirely unfounded, for Peter had, without the least reserve, said to the Sanhedrists: Ye slew Jesus—ye slew him with your own hands ( äéå÷åéñßóáóèå ,) Act_5:30. Still, the odious, revengeful, and hostile sentiments which the high priest ascribes to the apostles, had not controlled them; the language in Act_5:31, on the contrary, contains an indirect offer even to the Sanhedrists of the divine gift of repentance and forgiveness with respect to the sin committed by them.
Act_5:29. We ought to obey God rather than men.—This truth, which had once before been expressed, Act_4:19, is repeated on this occasion in a far more emphatic manner. Peter had introduced it, in the former case, only at the close of the proceedings, but here he at once commences his defence with a distinct, statement of it. He may be said to have, on the former occasion, addressed himself to the members of the Sanhedrin personally, and appealed to their own conscience: åἰ äßêáéüí ἐóôéí — êñßíáôå ; but he now repeats the sentiment in terse and absolute terms, as an incontestable truth, without inquiring whether it would receive the assent of his judges, or be unconditionally rejected by them.
Act_5:30-32. The God of our fathers.—Meyer, who adopts the view of Erasmus and others, supposes that the phrase: ὁ èåüò — ἤãåéñåí Ἰçóïῦí refers to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; but when ἐãåßñåéí has this sense in the Acts, it is always connected with ἐê íåêñῶí [Act_3:15; Act_4:10; Act_13:30; or the context indicates that sense, Act_10:40; Act_13:37]. Besides, the sequence of the clauses beginning with ἤãåéñåí — äéå÷åéñßóáóèå ,— ὕøùóå , indicates that the succession of events, in the order in which they really occurred, was intended to be set forth. Hence, ἤãåéñåí cannot refer to any other event than the public appearance of Jesus as the messenger of God [“raised up, sent into the world.” Hack.]. In accordance with this interpretation, ὕøùóå in Act_5:31, includes both the resurrection, and the ascension.
Act_5:33. When they heard that, etc.; äéåðñßïíôï , literally, they were sawed through; dissecabantur (Vulg.); findebantur; it cut them through the heart, they became violently enraged: many of the members, accordingly, conceived the thought of putting these men to death, and secretly consulted with one another respecting the mode; they cannot, however, have openly discussed this subject, since the apostles were only afterwards, (Act_5:34), directed to withdraw.
Act_5:34. Gamaliel.—Three facts connected with the personal history of this man, are stated: (1) he was a member of the Sanhedrin; (2) he belonged to the party of the Pharisees; (3) he was a scribe [ íïìïäéäÜóêáëïò , a teacher of the law, equivalent to ãñáììáôåýò , scribe, Robinson: Lex. ad verb.]. The second and third are more fully illustrated in Act_22:3, where Paul, who evidently describes himself as having been originally a Pharisee ( ἄêñßâåéá ôïῦ ðáôñῴïõ íüìïõ ), states that he had sat at the feet of Gamaliel as a pupil. As to the fact first stated, some writers have supposed that he was the President of the Council, but the terms ôéò ἐí ôῷ óõíåäñ . cannot possibly describe the presiding officer; they simply state that he was one of the members.—Two learned men, who both receive the same name, are mentioned in Jewish history: Gamaliel I. or, the Old [the Elder] ( çַæָ÷ֵï ), a son of Rabbi Simeon, and grandson of the celebrated Hillel, and Gamaliel II., or Gamaliel of Jabne [the Jamnia of the Books of the Maccabees and Josephus, situated between Diospolis (Lydda) and Ashdod (von Raumer: Palæstina, p. 203.—Tr.]. Each receives the honorable appellation of Rabban in the Talmud, and is described as having been the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. The younger or second Gamaliel cannot be the individual meant in the text, as the period in which he flourished did not begin until A. D. 80, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and continued to the year 118. But no chronological difficulties interfere with the interpretation which identifies the Gamaliel of the text with the older, or the first of that name. The period in which he labored, coincides, according to the Talmud, with the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius, and he is said to have died eighteen years after the destruction of Jerusalem. This interpretation encounters no internal difficulty, unless we assume that the ancient Christian tradition (Recognit. Clem. I. 55; Photius, Cod. 171) is really more than a mere conjecture suggested by the present text; according to that tradition, Gamaliel had secretly become a Christian, and had, at a later period, in conjunction with his son Abib and with Nicodemus, been baptized by the apostles Peter and John. But this account is altogether inconsistent with the strict Pharisaic and national character of Gamaliel I., as he is described in Jewish writings, and it is by no means sustained by the opinion which he expresses in Act_5:35-39.
Act_5:35. Ye men of Israel.—Gamaliel advises the council to exercise prudence and to wait, rather than hastily adopt measures that might produce results which they would regret, ðñïòÝ÷åôå ἑáõôïῖò , Act_5:35; he therefore proposes that the apostles should be temporarily released, without the infliction of any punishment, ἀðüóôçôå — êáὶ ἐÜóáôå áὐôïýò , Act_5:38. He appeals, in confirmation of his views, to the lessons which experience teaches, and asserts that if the whole affair proceeded solely from a human source, it would come to an end without any interference on their part, but that if it had really been ordered and sustained by God himself, it could not possibly be opposed with success. The opinion which the speaker himself entertained respecting the human or divine source of the proceedings of the apostles, cannot be ascertained from his words. Meyer, who follows Bengel’s example [“ ἐὰí ῇ ̓, si fit—conditionaliter; åἰ ἔóôéí , si est—categorice.” (Gnom. ad loc.)—Tr.], compares åἰ with the Indic. pres., at the beginning of Act_5:39, with ἐÜí followed by the Subj. in the preceding verse, and thence concludes that Gamaliel himself considered it probable that the Christian religion proceeded from a divine rather than from a human source. It may here be remarked, in general, that åἰ with the Indic, pres. is by far more objective than ἐÜí with the Subj., that is, the latter construction supposes that a certain case occurs, while the former, without any reference to actual occurrences, simply states the condition under which any case will occur; comp. Bæumlein: Gr. Schulgr. 2d ed. § 604, 606. [Kuehner, transl. by Edwards and Taylor, on åἰ , § 339, 2, I. (a); on ἐÜí , II. (b); Matthiæ, transl. by Blomfield, §§ 508, 523.—“ ἐÜí and åἰ are sometimes combined in two parallel propositions: Act_5:38-39. ἐὰí ᾖ ἐî ê . ô . ë (if it should be of men, which the result will show), åἰ äὲ ἐê è . ἐóôéí , ê . ô . ë (if it is of God, a case which I suppose),” Winer: Gr. N. T. § 41, 2, near the end.—Tr]. Gamaliel undoubtedly assumes that the cause of the apostles may possibly be the cause of God, and that, accordingly, any opposition to them would be sinful, resistance offered to God himself ( èåïìÜ÷ïé , Act_5:39). The two instances, however, which he adduces, Act_5:36-37, indicate, that, as a consistent and decided Pharisee, he nevertheless expected that this new effort, like many similar innovations, would soon terminate in an entire failure. And on this account, also, the present address is quite consistent with the character which Gamaliel I. bears in history.
Act_5:36-37. For before these days, etc.—The two historical events to which Gamaliel appeals, are connected with the Galilean Judas and with Theudas. The former is repeatedly mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 1, 1; xx. 5, 2; Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 1). This Judas was born in Gamala, in Lower Gaulonitis, and is, on this account, once termed a Gaulonite by Josephus, but also twice a Galilean, as in this place, [having subsequently lived in Galilee. (de W.)—Tr.]. The fact that he instigated the people to rebel, at the time when Augustus directed Quirinus to take the census (Jos. Ant xviii. 1, 1), fully agrees with the present statement; ἐí ôáῖò ἡì . ôῆò ἀðïãñáöῆò , etc.; he represented this measure as the means by which a yoke was to be put upon the people, and appealed to the established principle: ìüíïí ἡãåìüíá êáὶ äåóðüôçí ôüí èåὸí åἶíáé . Luke informs us that Judas himself perished, while Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 2) records the death of his sons; the two statements are complementary to one another. And the remark of Josephus that the band of Judas afterwards re-appeared during the Jewish war, may be easily reconciled with the text before us, which simply mentions the dispersion ( äéåóêïñðßóèçóáí ), but not the entire extinction of that band.
But while the narrative of Luke fully agrees with that of Josephus, as far as Judas is concerned, (although it is obvious that the former was not derived from the latter), the case of Theudas presents an entirely different aspect. The general facts which Josephus relates concerning a certain Theudas, perfectly agree with those recorded by Luke, but the chronological data are totally different. The leading facts presented in Act_5:36, and those narrated by Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 1) precisely agree in the following particulars: 1. Theudas incited the people to revolt, and found numerous adherents; 2. He professed to be a person of special importance ( ëÝãùí åἶíáß ôéíá ἑáõôïí ); for instance, he styled himself a prophet, and promised to divide the waters of the Jordan by his word (Jos.); 3. He himself was slain, and his party became extinct. Josephus relates that he was captured and beheaded, and that his adherents were, partly killed, and partly taken prisoners by the cavalry which had been sent in pursuit of them.—But the dates of the events of the two narratives differ in a surprising manner. According to Luke, the insurrection of Judas was posterior to that of Theudas ( ìåôὰ ôïῦôïí , Act_5:37), and the latter was, of course, anterior to the delivery of this address ( ðñὸ ôïýôùí ôῶí ἡìåñῶí , Act_5:36). Josephus, on the other hand, distinctly states that this Theudas appeared as an insurgent when Cuspius Fadus was the Procurator, that is, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, and, consequently, not before A. D. 44, whereas the address of Gamaliel was delivered during the reign of Tiberius, who died A. D. 37. Now as Judas, according to the concurrent testimony of Josephus and Luke, began his movements at the time when the census was taken, the Theudas mentioned in Act_5:36, must have come forward about fifty years before that Theudas, of whom Josephus speaks, acted as an insurrectionist. [Augustus, during whose reign Judas appeared, as stated above, died A. D. 14; the Theudas of Josephus appeared during the reign of Claudius, which began A. D. 41.—Tr.]. It is, therefore, usually assumed that the Theudas of Luke was a different person from the one who bears the same name in Josephus (Ant. xx. 5, 11); this is the opinion of Bengel, Baumgarten, and many others [e. g. Origen, Beza, Grotius, Rosenm., Kuin., Ols., Lardner, Guericke, Ebrard, Jost, J. A. Alexander, Hackett.—Tr.]. These writers are influenced by the following considerations: 1. The name Theudas, was not rare among the Jews (Lightfoot); 2. Insurrections frequently occurred among the Jews at that period; 3. Josephus does not furnish a full historical account, and may have easily omitted all mention of an earlier Theudas who was at the head of a party during the age of Herod the Great. That such an omission may have occurred, cannot be denied in abstracto. Still, the agreement between Act_5:36 and the narrative of Josephus in the three particulars mentioned above, is so striking, that an unbiassed reader would involuntarily receive the impression that the same individual, and the same events were meant by both writers, particularly as not every leader of an insurgent band would presume to assert that he possessed a super-human authority. But if this supposition is correct, an erroneous chronological statement—a ðñüëçøéò attributed by Luke to Gamaliel—must be admitted (de Wette, Neander, Meyer). [A recent writer, A. Köhler, in Herzog’s Real-Encyk. Vol. 16, p. 40, states a theory which originated with Wieseler, and which, adopting as a basis the statements found in Josephus, Ant. xvii. 6, 2-4; ch. ix, 1–3; xix. 6, 4; Bell. Jud. i. 33, 2–4, presents the following features:—About the close of Herod’s reign, Matthias and another zealot, named Judas, commenced proceedings on religious grounds, which resulted in a popular tumult. It was suppressed, and Matthias was ultimately burned alive by order of Herod. This Matthias—Köhler proceeds—was Gamaliel’s Theudas. For Matthias is simply the Grecized form of the Hebrew name Mattaniah, (found in 2Ki_24:17, and elsewhere frequently, and signifying gift of Jehovah); when translated into Greek, it assumes the form of Èåõäᾶò = Èåïäᾶò = Èåïäþñïò . Either Luke here translates the name in writing to Theophilus, or else Matthias, in accordance with the Jewish custom at the time, substituted for his Hebrew name, one in Greek of similar import.—In allusion to the opinion apparently adopted by the author above, viz.: that Luke represents Gamaliel as speaking proleptically of Theudas, Alford (ad loc.) remarks: “We are plainly in no position (setting all other considerations aside) to charge St. Luke with having put into the mouth of Gamaliel words which he could not have uttered.… All we can say is, that such impostors are too frequent, for any one to be able to say that there was not one of this name at the time specified. It is exceedingly improbable, considering the time and circumstances of the writing of the Acts, and the evident supervision of them by St. Paul, the pupil of Gamaliel, that a gross historical mistake should have been here put into his mouth.”—Tr.]
Act_5:38-42. Refrain from these men.—The opinion of Gamaliel, whose calmness, thoughtfulness, and apparent impartiality, contrast strikingly with the heated fanaticism and passionate language of others, especially of the Sadducees, was adopted to a certain extent; the council resolved to abandon the murderous plan which they had entertained, Act_5:33, and to release the apostles. Nevertheless, they decided to inflict corporeal punishment on the latter, and that sentence was carried into effect, Act_5:40; [ äÝñù , to flay, excoriate by scourging]. They had a twofold object in view: they desired, on the one hand, to avoid the appearance of having causelessly instituted proceedings, and, on the other, to punish the disobedience of the apostles; comp. Act_5:28; their own dignity and consistency seemed to demand that their previous threats (Act_4:17; Act_4:21) should be executed. But the apostles are not intimidated either by bodily punishments or by repeated and stern prohibitions; they leave the spot, on the contrary, with the animating and happy consciousness that they are honored when they suffer shame for the sake of the name of Jesus. And they continue to testify daily that Jesus is the Christ, both publicly in the temple, and also privately in the houses of believers.
2. The apostles had testified from the beginning, that no one could be saved through Christ without a change of mind [ ìåôÜíïéá , Mar_6:12]; they also taught that all who repented of their sins, should obtain forgiveness and grace through Jesus Christ. But Peter here intimates that repentance and forgiveness of sins are to be viewed as the grace or gift of God ( äïῦíáé ìåôÜí . êáß ἄö . ἁì .). That forgiveness of sins is a gift of the grace of God, that man cannot atone for his sins in his own person, and cleanse himself from guilt by his own means, are obvious truths, to which the Old Testament also bears witness, e. g. Psa_32:1-2; Psa_32:5. But that the change of mind itself is a gift of God, imparted through the Spirit and his gracious influences, is here distinctly declared. This doctrine by no means involves a denial of the freedom of the will, but implies that no true change of mind and no true conversion can take place without the previous action of grace, or without the converting grace of God. And, again, this action of converting grace could be manifested in a full measure and in a wider sphere, only as a result of the exaltation of Jesus. God exalted him in order to give repentance (a change of mind) and forgiveness to Israel.
3. The apostles and also the Holy Ghost, are witnesses of Jesus, according to Act_5:32, that is to say, the Holy Ghost dwelling in those who receive the word of the apostles, who obey God and believe in Jesus. The apostles represent their own testimony as merely that of men, but, nevertheless, of men who had personally heard and seen all that they declare, and who are, accordingly, credible and trustworthy witnesses. But in order that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established,” their testimony, which is human and transitory, is sustained by other testimony, which is divine and of eternal efficacy; the Holy Ghost was a witness as well as the apostles. Every one who receives with faith the word of the Gospel, when it is proclaimed, and submits to it with an obedient spirit, receives the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost bears witness in man, that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Redeemer; and he who receives this witness, becomes at length fully persuaded in his own mind respecting the truth.—The testimony of the apostles is recorded in the Holy Scriptures for us and for all succeeding generations; the word and the Spirit are now the two witnesses that testify to us concerning Christ. But the word becomes a living power, is made intelligible, convinces and moves us through the presence of the Spirit, so that ultimately a divinely-wrought reliance on our redemption through Christ, and on the power of God which resides in the Gospel, secures the peace of the soul.
4. The facts connected with the case before us, demonstrate in the clearest manner, that Jesus Christ, whom the Father exalted, rules even in the midst of his enemies. He has a kingdom, and he protects and enlarges it, but no compulsory measures interfere with the liberty of man. For no one is compelled by an irresistible operation of God either to put faith in his word and the testimony of the apostles, or to render obedience. He who does not voluntarily receive the word, unto his own salvation, is not constrained to do so. He may experience its power when it pierces him as a sword, but he may also discard it; he may even devise murderous plans against the servants of God, Act_5:33. But “man proposes; God disposes.” The Lord is able to frustrate every evil counsel. When he deems it wise and necessary, he can so direct an individual, even in the ranks of the enemies of his word, and so influence the conscience, that this individual, prompted by the fear of God, will arise and oppose that evil counsel. And he can so control the minds of men, that they give heed to the warning and refrain from adopting violent measures against the witnesses of the truth.
Act_5:29. We ought to obey, etc.; see Act_4:19.
Act_5:30 ff. Whom ye slew.—The hatred with which the world regards some Gospel truths, cannot justify us in being alarmed and therefore suppressing them; festering wounds and sores must be exposed and probed, before they can be healed. (Ap. Past.).—Jesus Christ, a Prince and a Saviour: I. A Prince, in view of (a) his celestial origin, (b) his divine testimonials, even when he appeared in the form of a servant, (c) his glorious exaltation to the right hand of the Father; II. A Saviour, (a) in the manger (by making himself of no reputation), (b) on the cross (by dying as a sacrifice, in order to give repentance, etc.), (c) on his throne (by becoming our advocate with the Father [1Jn_2:1]—a merciful high priest); III. Both Prince and Saviour; (a) he would not be a Prince, if he were not a Saviour (his most glorious and princely ornament is the crown of thorns); he became a Prince, when his love prompted him to sacrifice himself; (b) he would not be a Saviour, if he were not a Prince (the value and power of his sacrifice proceed from his divine dignity); (c) in order to obtain salvation through him, we must honor and obey him as a Prince, and love and confide in him as a Saviour.—Salvation in Christ: I. Offered by him as a Prince and Saviour; II. Accepted by us, in connection with repentance and forgiveness of sins.
Act_5:33. When they heard that, they were cut to the heart.—When the truth is not voluntarily received, let it cut to the heart; that, too, is a victory. (Starke.)—And took counsel to slay them.—It is an evidence of the powerlessness of the enemies of the truth, that they silence those who confess it, not by adducing arguments, but by applying a gag, and by attempts to slay them. (Ap. Past.).
Act_5:34. Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee.—God can find an advocate of his cause, even in the midst of his enemies. (Starke).—Named Gamaliel.—Pfaff says: “Gamaliel is only a moving figure on the stage, but no Christian; he is guided by the light of reason, but Christ does not own him. Such is the judgment of over-wise men, who do not wish to incur the enmity of any party. The Pentecostal miracle should have conducted him to a decision. Beware of worldly wisdom; as Gamaliel advances in years, his heart grows colder.” But a different view is presented in Apost. Pastorale: “It is true that Gamaliel did not sincerely love the Saviour, and we should not unreasonably extol his course. Still, he was not guided merely by the common rules of prudence. His heart may have previously often been deeply moved, and he was in so far influenced by that grace which seeks men, and anticipates their call, that he at least feared to commit an act which might involve him in danger.” And Schleiermacher says: “To him, if ever to any one, the Lord would have said: ‘Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.’ ”
Act_5:36-37. For before these days rose up Theudas, etc.—The false and the true prophet: I. The former “rises up” by his own impulse, as Theudas and Judas; the latter is raised up by God (Act_3:22); II. The former “boasts himself to be somebody;” the latter gives the honor to God alone (Act_3:12); III. The former “draws away much people after him;” the latter conducts men to the Lord; IV. The former falls from heaven like a wandering star (Jude, Act_5:13); Theudas and Judas both “perish,” and their adherents are “slain” or “scattered;” the latter will shine as the brightness of the firmament, and as the stars, for ever and ever. (Dan_12:3.—A number of men—joined themselves.—Men who will not take up the cross of Christ, are willing to bear the yoke imposed by Satan’s prophets. And the Lord still abandons many who defy and despise him, to the influence of lying prophets, in order that they may ultimately be put to shame with their leaders.—Unbelief conducts men to the embraces of superstition. (Leonh. and Sp.).
Act_5:38-39. Gamaliel’s counsel.—It is not always wise to wait passively for the issue; that course would encourage spiritual sloth and a doubting spirit. But when the occasion presents features which are above our comprehension, we rightly wait, and submit the result to God; Psa_39:9. We cannot adopt the principle that those things are not of God, which have no stability, for then it would follow that the Christian congregations which the apostles established in Asia Minor, and which have long since passed away, were also not of God. Neither can we adopt the principle, that those things which firmly endure, are of God, for in that case the religion of the Turks, which has so long sustained itself, or that of pagans, is also of God. (Starke).—He who cannot decide until Christ and his Church are completely victorious, will remain in doubt until the day of judgment arrives. Hence the neutral policy of waiting is not recognized in the kingdom of Christ. (Leonh. and Sp.).—Gamaliel’s counsel is both prudent and devout; but he did not practically follow it himself, and here lies his error. For he who cautiously abstains from fighting against God, ought certainly to consider it a solemn duty to fight for God, and firmly hold the standard of the truth, even when the heathen rage, and the world combines in offering resistance. Gamaliel’s counsel was the voice of God, speaking in his heart, and the evil which he committed, consisted in his refusal to obey that voice, to trust the Lord’s word implicitly, and to test the truth of the saying: ‘If any man will do the will of him that sent me, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.’ Joh_7:17. (Rudelbach).—Gamaliel’s whole counsel proceeded on the false principle that the temporal and visible results of any testimony or undertaking, decide conclusively respecting its divine or human character. Is not this a total misconception of the cross? He whose heart as well as whose understanding has been influenced by the Holy Ghost, as little waits for the issue before he decides, as the genuine supporters of missions wait for glowing missionary reports; on the contrary, he is added to the company of believers, and avows his faith in the Gospel, even when that Gospel seems to have reached the moment of its entire extinction; thus the blood of martyrs, which was shed during the persecutions, attracted new adherents. We cannot fight against God—this is the view of the halting, feeble prudence of calculating and worldly-minded men; we must believe and obey God’s word, even before his work is actually crowned with victory—this is the true wisdom of repenting souls. Still, Gamaliel’s opinion, as expressed in that council of ungodly men, will always possess a highly significant character; it may be regarded as the representative of the conscience of the Sanhedrin, or of that voice which bears witness in every enemy of God, and which prompts the reason even of such men to cry aloud: “Take heed.” We unite therefore willingly with Luther in appealing to Gamaliel’s sentiments, as far as these exist in enemies or worldly-minded men, since they encourage us to hope; but let us not ourselves, in the spirit of Thomas, first ask for ocular evidence, but believe at once. (Stier).—Gamaliel is a believer living under the old covenant, even if the light within him is feeble; he adheres to the principle that God cannot permanently leave himself without a witness among his people, and that, consequently, false prophets who come forward, will, sooner or later, receive their merited punishment. (Gerlach).—Two points are presented in the advice of Gamaliel. He holds, in the first place, that no violent measures should be employed in any affair, which can be only spiritually discerned, even if it be a work of man; he does not, however, dissuade the council from opposing it by spiritual force, and would, indeed, have been himself prepared to adopt such a course. The second point he presents in the following form: “If it really be a work of God, you will, in no case, be able to suppress it, but you will yourselves be found to be men who fight against God.” Can we conceive of greater anguish of soul than that to which Gamaliel alludes? Such an individual learns, perhaps at the close of his career, when he cannot possibly retrace his steps, that he had deviated far from the right way, and employed noble, great and glorious powers with which God had endowed him, in direct opposition to his Maker’s will! When the scales fall from his eyes, he himself rejoices that the entire work on which he had expended his whole life, has come to nought! As long, therefore, as we are in doubt whether any counsel or work is of men or of God, so long we can adopt no wiser course than that which Gamaliel recommends—none that will more effectually withhold the upright from entering on the way that leads to destruction, and preserve them from sacrificing their life in fruitless efforts—none that could more successfully furnish man with the true light in his path, or qualify him for receiving a knowledge of the truth. (Schleiermacher).
The threefold attitude which men may assume in view of the progress of the kingdom of God: it may be marked, I. By open hostility, Act_5:33; II. By a calculating prudence, Act_5:34; III. By humble and zealous coöperation, Act_5:42. (Ahlfeld).—Gamaliel’s counsel: I. Convenient—for those who yield to spiritual sloth—for those who are governed by policy rather than religious principle; II. Judicious—as opposed to an inconsiderate zeal; III. Faltering—at a time which demanded immediate decision and prompt action—when the highest interests are concerned. (C. Beck: Homilet. Repert.).—By what principles are we to be governed, when we are required to choose between things that are old, and things that are new, in the kingdom of God? (id.).—Gamaliel’s counsel: it is, I. Judicious, (a) as a guide for our judgment, when the issue of the ways of God is considered; for the words of the Lord will always apply: “Every plant, etc.,” Mat_15:13; (b) as a guide for our conduct: (1) when a carnal zeal would prompt us to employ carnal weapons in a spiritual contest; (2) when we are not yet enabled to decide whether a work be of God or of men. (In this aspect Luther presented the counsel of Gamaliel to the Elector of Treves, while the mind of the latter was still undecided); II. Injudicious, (a) as a guide for our judgment, if it should lead us to pronounce on the good or evil character of any work in accordance with its external and temporal results, before the whole course of human events is completed; (b) as a guide for our conduct, if we should avail ourselves of it as an excuse, (1) for deferring our own decision, even when God’s word speaks unequivocally, and his Spirit bears direct witness, or, (2) for evading the duty of acting with vigor, and bearing witness with boldness, even when we are fully convinced in our own minds.—The counsel of Gamaliel: it is, I. Wise, in so far as it recommends (a) humility in the presence of God, the sovereign Judge; (b) gentle treatment of those who differ from us, even if they should judge erroneously; (c) a watchful control of our passions; II. Unwise, in so far as it recommends (a) the principle of judging merely according to external results; (b) the toleration even of that which is evil; (c) a neutrality proceeding from irresolution or indifference.—Better by far than the counsel of Gamaliel are the actions of the disciples!—The extension of the kingdom of God depends on the counsel of God and the work of man (Act_5:38-39); I. The counsel of God; let us, therefore, do nothing against God, or without God, as Gamaliel advises; II. The work of man; let us, therefore, do all for God, and with God, as the Apostles teach.—The Reformation triumphantly demonstrated to be a work of the living God: I. By the choice of the instruments which he employed; II. By the sure and lasting foundation on which this work was established; III. By the weapons which the agents employed in this warfare [2Co_10:4]; IV. By the fruits which it has produced. (Sermon on the Reformation, by W. Hofacker).
Act_5:40. When they had … beaten them.—The gradation in the afflictions of the servants of the cross, an illustration of the divine mode of training them: I. Threats, Act_4:21; II. Imprisonment, Act_5:18; III. Scourging, Act_5:40; IV. Martyrdom, Act_7:60.
Act_5:41. And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing.—The servants and children of God are indeed a mystery in the eyes of the world. What philosophy was it that taught them to rejoice under such circumstances? (Apost. Past.).—Of all who were assembled, none departed rejoicing, except the men who had been scourged. He who suffers, not for evil doing [1Pe_3:17], but for Christ’s sake, and in his service encounters shame, stripes, and bonds, is indeed truly united with Christ, and has reason to rejoice. (Ahlfeld).—Four classes in the school of affliction: I. I am called to suffer; II. I am willing to suffer; III. I am able to suffer; IV. I am permitted to suffer. (K. F. Hartmann).
Act_5:42. They ceased not, etc.—When the apostles were released, and addressed the people, they did not complain of their enemies, did not boast of their own firmness, did not defend their character, which had been sullied by the scourge, but simply preached the Gospel concerning Jesus Christ. (Apost. Past.).—[The spiritual state of the persecutors of the apostles: I. Described; (a) total misapprehension of the meaning of the Scriptures; (b) entire want of love to God; (c) complete subjection to human passions, Act_5:33. II. Causes; (a) traced to the original corruption of the heart; (b) confirmed by their spiritual sloth; (c) established by their worldly-mindedness. III. Results; (a) abject fear, Act_5:28; (b) vain opposition to God; (c) eternal loss of their souls.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
Act_5:28. ïὐ [of the text. rec. before ðáñáã ., giving the whole an interrogative form] is wanting in A. B., in some ancient versions, and in some of the fathers; it is undoubtedly spurious; for if it had been originally in the text, no one would have cancelled it, whereas its insertion on account of ἐðçñþôçóå could easily occur. [Found in D. E., but omitted in A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg. etc., and cancelled by recent editors; it was inserted by a later hand (C) in Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
Act_5:32.— áὐôïῦ [of text. rec.] after ἐóìÝí seemed to be superfluous, as ìÜñôõñåò was followed by another genitive depending on it, and was therefore omitted in some MSS. [A. D. Cod. Sin.] and versions [Syr., Vulg.], or ἐí áὐôῷ was substituted [B., and adopted by Lach.]; but, as the more difficult reading, it is, without doubt, genuine. [Found in E., and retained by Tisch. and Alf.]
Act_5:33. a. [The Italicized words of the Engl. version: to the heart, are supplied from Act_7:54, where they are connected in the Greek with precisely the same verb; see the exegetical note on this verse.—Tr.]
Act_5:33. b. ἐâïõëåýïíôï is not better attested, it is true, than ἐâïýëïíôï , but should be preferred, as the shorter form could more easily have proceeded from the longer than vice versa. [ ἐâïõëåýïíôï , of D. H., and also Cod. Sin., is preferred by Tisch. and Alf. to ἐâïýëïíôï of A. B. E., which latter Lach. adopts.—Tr.]
Act_5:34. a. ô . ἀíèñþðïõò was exchanged in some MSS. for the explanatory ἀðïóôüëïõò , but it is sufficiently attested, and, even, in sermone obliquo, may be the term actually employed by Gamaliel. [Alford, with D. E. H. reads ἀðïóô .; Lach. and Tisch. with A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg., etc., read ἀíèñþð .; de Wette regards the latter as a correction to suit Act_5:35; Act_5:38.—Tr.]
Act_5:34. b. ôé after âñá÷ý [in H. and text. rec.] is not genuine, as external evidence demonstrates, and is clearly a later addition. [Rejected by recent critics, in accordance with A. B. D. E. Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
Act_5:36. a. The reading ðñïòåêëßèç is sufficiently attested [by A. B. Cod. Sin., and adopted by later editors], but does not occur elsewhere in the New Test.; for this more difficult reading other terms were substituted: ðñïòåêëÞèç [C.], ðñïòåêïëëÞèç [text. rec.] and also ðñïòåôÝèç ) [the two latter only in minuscules.—Tr.]
Act_5:36. b. [The word obeyed (or, followed, lit. were persuaded by) in the text of the Engl. version (Geneva), is preferable to believed (Wiclif; Tynd.; Cranmer) in the margin. (Robinson; J. A. Alexander.)—Tr.]
Act_5:37. [ ἱêáíὸí of text. rec., found in E. H., is omitted in A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg., etc., and cancelled by Lach. Tisch. and Alf. with whom Meyer and de Wette concur; C. and D. substitute ðïëýí .—Tr.]
Act_5:39. a. The fut. äõíÞóåóèå has by far the stronger testimony in its favor [found in B. C. D. E.; Vulg. etc.]; the pres. äýíáóèå [of text. rec.] was substituted, in order to give the strongest possible emphasis to Gamaliel’s opinion. [Alford, who retains the pres., (found in A. H.) regards the fut. as an alteration to agree with the foregoing future, êáôáë ., and the conditional åἰ . Lach. and Tisch. adopt the fut. Cod. Sin. exhibits äõíçóåóèáé .—Tr.]
Act_5:39 b. áὐôïýò is supported by many MSS. and versions [A. B. C. D. E. and Cod. Sin.], while áὐôü is but feebly attested [by Vulg., etc., and adopted in text. rec.]; it seems to be a correction to suit ôὸ ἔñãïí , as an easier sense. [ áὐôïýò , Lach. Tisch. Alf.]
Act_5:41. ôïῦ ὀíüìáôïò without the appended áὐôïῦ [of text. rec.] is, unquestionably, the original reading; the following explanatory additions occur: áὐôïῦ ; Éçóïõ [Vulg.]; ôïῦ ÷ñéóôïῦ , ôïῦ êõñßõ , etc. [ áὐôïῦ is omitted by later critics, in accordance with A. B. C. D. H. and Cod. Sin.—Tr.]