WHEN Pilate took his seat upon the “bema,” before which stood the “Holy and the Just,” a message arrived from his wife: “Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.” An extraordinary message truly, and from an unlikely quarter. We know absolutely nothing more than this of the Roman governor’s wife; but we cannot conceal our surprise that such a message should have been received from her.
Many portentous events accompanied the death of the Lord Jesus. “The earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves were opened.” The centurion commissioned to carry out the crucifixion of Jesus, when he witnessed these things, exclaimed with awe, “Truly this was the Son of God.” We are surprised that such a true testimony should have been rendered by this Roman officer.
The apostles were again before the Jewish council (Acts 5), charged with disobeying its commands not to speak at all, nor preach in the name of Jesus. Maddened by this disregard of their authority, and by the undisturbed demeanor of men who knew they were obeying God though disobeying the high priest, the judges confer instantly with each other to put them to death.
At this juncture one of their number stands forth and checks the rising tide of excitement and passion by his words of caution and prudence, advising that the apostles should be let alone. We are surprised that such sound advice should have been given under such circumstances by a man occupying the very eminent place in the Sanhedrin that Gamaliel did.
Indeed the fact has occasioned such surprise to some persons that they have displayed considerable ingenuity in their efforts to account for it. As perhaps the readiest means of doing so, it has been assumed that Gamaliel was a Christian in disguise, a sort of Hushai opposing the counsels of Ahithophel. And the case of Nicodemus is alleged as being a parallel one (John 7:50, 5150Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 51Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? (John 7:50‑51)). But we have evidence with regard to Nicodemus that leaves no doubt as to His discipleship of Jesus. He came forth at a crisis when even the apostles had vanished (John 19:3939And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. (John 19:39)). Of Gamaliel, hover, nothing more definite or trustworthy can be said as to his conversion to Christianity than of the conversion either of Pilate’s wife or of the Roman centurion. In short, there is no evidence whatever that any one of these three was a believer in the Lord.
The true significance of the several incidents appears to be that God can use any, — “whomsoever He will”— to testify for Him. The Roman governor’s wife witnessed that Jesus was a “just man;” the soldier, that the nation had crucified the Son of God; while Gamaliel rebuked the folly of attempting to overthrow the work of the apostles, if it were of God. We thus learn that the same One Who sent His angel to open the doors of the prison-house where the apostles were confined, raised up this famous law-teacher to protest against any extreme measures of the senate of Israel against the servants of Christ. Nor need we be surprised at this. If the fury and hate of Jew and Gentile concentrating and culminating in the crucifixion of Jesus, did but accomplish the “determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” as we are expressly told was the case (Acts 2:23; 4:25-2823Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2:23)
25Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? 26The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. 27For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. (Acts 4:25‑28)), we can well understand Him using the mild temperament and moderate spirit of a highly influential Jewish rabbi to prevent the outbreak of persecution unto death before its due time. He Who makes the wrath of man to praise Him (Psa. 76:1010Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain. (Psalm 76:10)), can certainly utilize the reason of man in the accomplishment of His own designs.
“Rabban” Gamaliel was a celebrated law-teacher whose name is famous in Jewish records apart from scripture. Luke tells us he was a Pharisee (and thus not of the particularly enraged Sadducean party) and that he was “in reputation among all the people.”
He appears to have remained cool and collected, while the majority of the council was carried away by the heat and excitement of the moment, and, forgetful of all judicial decorum and even of coon decency, were clamoring one against another for the blood of the accused in their very presence. Gamaliel asked that the apostles might be removed fora while. He then brought before the Sanhedrin his sober, cautious words of counsel.
He submitted that they should beware of the rash judgment upon the apostles which they contemplated. Let them remember that humanly-devised schemes of self-aggrandizement, such as they feared, carried their own eventual destruction with them, and needed not that brute force under the guise of religious zeal should be brought to bear upon them.
He quoted two recent examples of this very thing.
Theudas was possessed with very inflated notions of his own vast importance to the world generally, which notions he distributed gratuitously with an ardour only equaled by his conceit. He gathered around him four hundred dupes who believed him to be the “somebody” he said he was. Theudas was slain; and it was a matter of history that his band of followers came to naught. Again: Judas of Galilee gathered a crowd about him in the days of the census. But, upon his death, those who had flocked to his banner were dispersed.
The natural prudence of Gamaliel probably withheld him from carrying on the analogy, and declaring that, as the deaths of Theudas and Judas resulted in the break-up of their respective supporters, so the death of Jesus must inevitably result, sooner or later, in the dispersion of His disciples. He did however point out, with a logic which was irresistible, that the apostles’ preaching was either of men or of God. If it were of men, it must assuredly come to naught without such interference of the Jewish Sanhedrin. On that hypothesis, therefore, his advice was, “Refrain from these men.” If, on the contrary, their preaching was of God, the council, by opposing it, were fighting against God: and all their efforts would fail to overthrow it. On this hypothesis, also, his advice was “Let them alone.” In brief, they had better wait and see how matters would shape themselves.
This advice of Gamaliel’s was “the form of toleration which a grave Jew might feel, impressed with recent facts, the character of the accused, and the state of public opinion. But there is far more reference to the issue under God than in the modern doctrine of toleration, which is in general a mere homage to the rights of man, ignoring God and the truth. He may have felt that persecution is a sorry means of subverting error or maintaining truth. Whatever the value or the motives of his judgment, it commended itself to the council, and saved the apostles from a death that seemed imminent.”