One can hardly conceive an answer more direct than this of the apostles. Israelitish authority was for them a judged system; for were the chiefs not convicted of deadly opposition to the God of their fathers? They might again and again command the apostles to be silent about Him whom they had hanged, though God had sent Him as Leader and Savior; nor was it their testimony only, but of the Holy Spirit also, whom the Jews could not pretend to have. How awful and terrible their position!
“ And when they heard, they were cut to the heart [lit., sawn asunder] and took counsel (ti 1) H P and the bulk of cursives, the Vulgate, Syriac versions, &c.) to slay them.” (Acts 5:3333When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. (Acts 5:33).) It is always dangerous to oppose the truth, and the more so in proportion to the importance of that in question. Here it was the foundation of all, and so estimated by those whom the Lord called to proclaim it; and as the adversaries were resolved to reject the testimony, they all naturally betook themselves to designs of blood. Convicted yet rebellious, and abhorring the witnesses whom they could not gainsay, they were chagrined to the utmost, and consulted to slay those before them. No compunction, still less self-judgment, as in chap. ii., but they were torn with rage. But the God, who by His angel had just brought them out of prison, was pleased to shield His exposed servants from these more and more guilty murderers, and wrought after another sort of providential interference, not now angelic but human. The hearts of all are in His keeping.
“But there stood up one in the council, a Pharisee, by name Gamaliel, a law-teacher, in honor with all the people, and commanded to put the men [or, apostles] out a little while, and said unto them, Ye men of Israel [or, Israelites], take heed to yourselves as to these men what ye are about to do. For before these days rose up Theudas, saying that he himself was somebody, with whom a number of men, about four hundred, took sides; who was slain, and all as many as obeyed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him rose up Judas the Galilean, in the days of the census, and drew into revolt people after him; and he perished, and all as many as obeyed him were scattered abroad. And now I say to you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or if this work be of men, it will be overthrown, but if it is of God, ye will not be [or, are] able to overthrow them [N A B C co"• D E, at least a dozen cursives, the later Syriac, &c. as against H P, most cursives, versions, &c. which support “it “] lest ye be found [ even ] fighting against God” (ver. 34-39).
From such a quarter these words of sobriety, as opposed to Sadducean violence, were irresistible. There seems no just reason to doubt that it is the same celebrated man, son of Rabbi Simeon, grandson of the more famous Hillel, who presided over the Sanhedrim during the reign of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius, whose son succeeded to the same chief place, and perished during the Beige. Under Gamaliel we are told in chap. xxii., Paul studied the law, of which he was styled “the glory,” as he was the first to bear the title of Rabban. That he was a Christian publicly, or even secretly, is only the assertion of unscrupulous legendmongers. Scripture gives us not only a perfectly reliable but a most graphic account of the man and of his character, as well as of the way in which he was providentially used at this critical moment.
This intervention exactly fits in with the entire context, where God is tracing for our instruction how He watches over His own on earth to His glory. There was the manifestation of. the Spirit's presence where they were all assembled, and all filled with Him (Acts 4:3131And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:31)), lights in the world, holding forth the word of life, living to the forgetfulness of all selfish interests, whilst the apostles with ereat power testified of the Lord's resurrection (iv. 32-37). Then follows the display of the energy of the Holy Ghost in judgment of hypocritical deception and covetousness within (chap. v. 1-11), but along with it the renewed activity of miraculous power through the apostles in grace (chap. v. 12-16); next, the Jews growingly opposing themselves to the testimony of Christ, but their power manifestly frustrated by divine power through the angel which set free the prisoners on their mission of grace and truth (v. 17 -25). Lastly, when the exasperated will of men would proceed to deeds of blood, God interferes in the ordinary way of His providence to protect Hi`s faithful servants by a grave and wise man even in the enemy's camp. The voice of moderation and wisdom, though only natural, prevailed over the rash impulses of pride and passion intermingled with fear. God would still provide a further space for truth to awaken consciences and win hearts among His ancient people, guilty though they were. It was the day of grace, when He would save to the praise of the Lord Jesus. “Ye Israelites, take heed to yourselves as to these men what things ye are about to do.” (Ver. 35.)
Of Theudas, who is in the first instance named by Gamaliel, we know no more than Luke records. “For before these days rose up Theudas, saying that he was somebody, with whom a number of men, about four hundred, took sides; who was slain, and all as many as obeyed him were scattered and brought to nothing” (ver. 36). It is not likely that the Theudas, who, according to Josephus, appeared at least a dozen years after Gamaliel's speech in the fourth par of Claudius (A.D. 44), can have been so seriously misplaced even by an historian abounding in inaccuracies, as all competent men acknowledge. If Luke had been only an ordinary godly Christian, is it conceivable that he would put into the mouth of a prominent and respected Jew like Gamaliel a falsehood so egregious as antedating the story of Theudas. If he be an inspired writer, it is needless to assert his immaculate exactness: God who knows all and cannot lie is the true source of inspiration, whoever may be the instrument. The fact is that, on the one hand, the historical accuracy, as tested by the minutest shades of knowledge in the varying conditions and circumstances of which he writes freely in his Gospel, and even more amply in this book of the Acts, is too well known generally by the most competent to need proof here; and, on the other, the name of Theudas was too common (Cf. Cic. ad Fain. vi. 10 ed. Orell. iii. 41, Galeni Opp. xiii. 925 ed. Kuhn), to provoke the least well-grounded surprise that more than one so called could rise up among the many insurgent chiefs who agitated the Jews either before or since the death of Herod the Great. Josephus himself alludes to many, of whom he names but three; the Theudas, whose defeat by Fadus he places a dozen years later, seems to have had a far larger following than the 400 of whom our Evangelist writes.
To the believer it is certain that the revolt of Judas the Galilean was subsequent to that of the Theudas of whom Gamaliel spoke. Josephus entirely agrees with the Acts that it was in the time of the census under Quirinus, A.D. 6. (Antt. xviii. sub. init.) And it is remarkable that the Jewish historian, though describing him there as a Gaulonite of the city of Gamala. susequently (6) speaks of him, just as Gamaliel does in our chapter, as “the Galilean Judas.” Had this later mention been withheld, the impugners of revelation would have become loud in decrying Luke as they are absurd in their disposition to treat Josephus as infallible. But short as is the inspired report of Gamaliel's speech, we have strikingly accurate information of Judas perishing, as to which the historian is silent, and of the mere but thorough scattering of his most numerous supporters, who did not come to naught like Theudas, but again and again reappeared, till this last and for a time successful effort terminated in the death of his younger son Menahem, A.D. 66. “After him rose up Judas the Galilean in the days of the census, and drew into revolt people after him; and he perished, and all as many as obeyed him were scattered abroad.” Whether Origen (Homil. in Luc. xxv.) had authority to say that this Judas really pretended to be Messiah may be doubtful; bu't he drew his vast crowds with the cry, “We have God as our only leader and Lord.” The uprising was fanatical as well as revolutionary. But how did it end? pleaded Gamaliel.
Then follows his advice of patient waiting for results. “And now I say to you, Refrain from those men, and let them alone: for if this council or if this work be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them lest ye be found also [or, even] fighting against God” (ver. 38, 32). It 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.
Perhaps it may not be amiss here to give a specimen of the famous John Calvin's skill in handling the word of God. In his comment on the passage he first of all shows little favor to the sober speech with which Gamalial swayed the council and extinguished the fiery zeal of those inclined to extremities. “But if any one weigh all duly, his opinion is unworthy of a prudent man. I know indeed that by many it is held as an oracle; but that they judge badly appears with sufficient clearness even from this, because in such a way one must abstain from all punishments, neither were any wickedness to be corrected longer: yea, one must refuse all helps of life, which not even for one moment is it in our disposal to prolong. Both things indeed are said truly: what is of God cannot be destroyed by any efforts of men; what is of men is too weak to stand. But it is a bad inference that meanwhile we must do nothing. Rather should we see what God enjoins: and his will is that wickedness be restrained by us.” (I. Calvini. 0)7p. vi. in loc. Amstel. 1667.) Here breaks out the inflexible rigor which insisted on the burning of the unhappy Servetus, and the severe punishment of others. Their evil doctrines are not questioned; but what have servants of Christ to do with measures of the kind? We have not so learned Him. The church has no doubt its own responsibility in the spiritual domain; as the world in what pertains to this life. Calvin has confounded all this in the opinion which censures Gamaliel; who meant nothing less than to deny the duty of the powers that be, but rightly urged that men should await the manifestation of that which was doubtful, instead of yielding to the hasty measures of passion and prejudice. To dissuade from extreme violence where the work might prove to be of God was certainly wiser than punishing to the utmost where they knew of no adequate reason. Calvin's logic seems as precarious as his confusion is evident of things spiritual and worldly. But this is not so extraordinary as his judgment that when Luke says “After him [Theudas] rose up Judas,” he does not mark the order of time, as if Judas were the latter; that Gamaliel brought in his two examples promiscuoucly “in disregard of time,” and that “after” means no more than “besides” or “moreover!” He had said before, “If we credit Josephus, Gamaliel here inverts the true series of history.” Not so; unless we assume there could be only one insurrectionary Theudas. Now Josephus tells us of four men named Judas in 10 years, who broke out in rebellion, and of three named Simon in 40 years; and he in no way professes to name all, but on the contrary implies many more as unnamed. The assumption of Calvin is of all the least rational and least reverent possible.
As usual one wrong step leads to many. For Calvin is led thereby into the truly absurd consequence that, if we reckon the time, we shall find that it was at least twelve years since the death of Christ before the apostles were beaten! This blundering computation is founded entirely on confounding the Theudas of Gamaliel's speech with him who, as Josephus tells us, was dealt with by Cuspius Fadus in the reign of Claudius. “Therefore that space of time of which I spoke is complete, and so the more excellent the constancy of the apostles, who, though ill-requited for the long pains they endured, are in no way discouraged, nor cease to hold the even tenour of their way.” Calvin was a great and good man, I doubt not; but the more striking and instructive is the lesson of boldness and folly when a man, no matter who, abandons the sure meaning of the written word for his own reasoning, which in such a case will ever betray its weak and worthless, not to say presumptuous, character. For what is man when he lifts up his voice against God? I do not dwell on other remarks of the commentator, which let out singular unfairness toward Gamaliel, as I have no desire to defend the latter nor expose the former beyond that measure which seems to me profitable for the reader. But I give his actual words:—
“Ergo conficitur illud quod dixi temporis spatium. Quo praestantior fuit Apostolorum constantia, qui quum post diuturnos labores obitos tam indignam mercedem reportent, non tamen franguntur, neque desinunt cursum suum persoqui.”
“And to him they yielded, and, having called the apostles, they beat and charged [them] not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. They therefore went their way from the presence of [the] council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to be dishonored for the name. And every day in the temple and at home they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus the Christ.” (ver. 40-32).
Thus, though plucked from death, the apostles suffered the indignity of stripes at the hands of Jews, as Paul was afterward to experience at least five times. “The unjust man knoweth no shame.” If the Roman judge scourged the Lord of glory, the disciples were not above their Master, and must bear from Jew or Gentile to be treated as wicked men worthy to be beaten, Deut. 25:22And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. (Deuteronomy 25:2). Doubtless it was for their alleged disobedience; and they are dismissed with a fresh command not to speak in the name of Jesus. How senseless is the will of unbelief! Impossible for one who knew His glory and His grace to be silent: God is concerned in it supremely, and not man only or chiefly because he is otherwise lost forever. And what is due to Him who so humbled Himself, and suffered for our sins, and glorified God as nothing else could? “They therefore went their way from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to be dishonored for the name.” Who can doubt the deep and divinely sprung joy of hearts that answered in their little measure to Him whose delight is in His Son above all? What an impulse, not discouragement, to their testimony “in the temple” to all comers (for of course no proper assemblies would have been permitted there), “and at home,” where the saints broke bread, prayed, edified one another, &c.! But every where and every day there was but one theme: teaching or evangelizing, it was Jesus the Christ.