When they heard this, they entered into the temple about daybreak and taught. But the high priest came, and those who were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. But the officers who came didn’t find them in the prison. They returned and reported, “We found the prison shut and locked, and the guards standing before the doors, but when we opened them, we found no one inside!”
Now when the high priest, the captain of the temple, and the chief priests heard these words, they were very perplexed about them and what might become of this. One came and told them, “Behold, the men whom you put in prison are in the temple, standing and teaching the people.” Then the captain went with the officers, and brought them without violence, for they were afraid that the people might stone them.
When they had brought them, they set them before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “Didn’t we strictly command you not to teach in this name? Behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and intend to bring this man’s blood on us.”
But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, hanging him on a tree. God exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. We are his witnesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart, and were determined to kill them. But one stood up in the council, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, and commanded to put the apostles out for a little while. He said to them, “You men of Israel, be careful concerning these men, what you are about to do. For before these days Theudas rose up, making himself out to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves. He was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed, and came to nothing. After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the enrollment, and drew away some people after him. He also perished, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad. Now I tell you, withdraw from these men, and leave them alone. For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will be overthrown. But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it, and you would be found even to be fighting against God!”
They agreed with him. Summoning the apostles, they beat them and commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. They therefore departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for Jesus’ name.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 40, 41 21. And when the chief priest came. The chief…
21. And when the chief priest came. The chief priest calleth all the council together now, lest, if giving the honor to his own sect, he omit others, and be not able to bear the burden; therefore, he is enforced by fear to call the multitude together, notwithstanding they observe diligently and straitly the form of law. The elders are called who did govern, that nothing may be done but according to the sentence and authority of the council. Who would not have hoped for a moderate end, seeing they began thus? and surely they pretend what color they can, lest they seem to oppress the truth violently and tyrannously; but when they hear that the apostles teach in the temple, howsoever they know that they came not out by deceit of man, but miraculously, yet they hold on still in their purpose; where appeareth, together with the ungodliness of behavior and contempt of God, horrible fury and want of reason. Therefore, the beautiful colors of right and equity do never so cover hypocrites, but that they do at length betray their wickedness. They must need certainly gather by all circumstances, that it is the work of God that the prison was opened, yet they do not doubt openly to rage against God.
These things are also meet for our time. We know how proudly the Papists boast of that maxim of theirs, that lawful councils must be obeyed, because they represent the Church. Moreover, they call those lawful councils, and they will have them so accounted, wherein nothing is wanting touching the external form, and such a council was this whereof Luke speaketh in this place; and yet, notwithstanding, we know that it was gathered to put out the name of Christ; for although the priests did then creep in unto honor by subtlety, or by inordinate suit, to win the favor of men, or by other wicked policies, or whether they burst in unto the same by bribery, or murder, yet the dignity of the priesthood did continue as yet until Christ was revealed. There was in the assembly of the elders a representing of the Church; but where the truth of God is not sought, all outward appearance is nothing else but a mere visor. Therefore, it is in vain for the Papists to cover their abominations with the shadow of this buckler, because it is not sufficient for those to be gathered together who are rulers of the Church, unless they do this in the name of Christ, otherwise forasmuch as it is an usual policy of Satan to transform himself into an angel of light, (2 Corinthians 11:14,) we will grant him as fit a covert under the title of the Church as he can wish.
Read full note →
He brought them without violence. We have spoken somewhat before of the captain of the temple. For I do not think that it was lawful for the Jews to set and appoint whom they would to rule the temple, but that the president of the province did appoint one to have the government of the temple. And he saith, that they were brought without violence, that is, that they were not drawn violently, lest any tumult should arise, so that, whereas they neither fear nor reverence God, they are afraid of men. The apostles also do show their modesty in that, that whereas they are guided with a great number of men, yet do they suffer themselves to be led away by the officers, lest they should be authors of any tumult.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv21, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41 God mocketh his enemies’ attempts from above.
God mocketh his enemies’ attempts from above.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv21–41 21 And when they heard that, they entered into…
21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Ver. 21. They entered into the temple early, &c.] True obedience is prompt and present, ready and speedy, without delays and consults, Psa 119:60; Mar 1:18; Zec 5:9, they had wings and wind in their wings, to note, as Junius observes, their ready obedience.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv21–41 When they heard that; having received a command from…
When they heard that; having received a command from God, they resolved to obey him rather than man.
Early in the morning; taking the first opportunity, though they could not but be sensible of the danger they ran into.
Read full note →
The council; the sanhedrim, or great council.
The senate; the judges of their inferior courts, or the chief amongst the priests or senators; either living in the city, or coming thither upon that festival occasion.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv21, 29, 34 Observe here, 1. No sooner were the apostles out…
Observe here, 1. No sooner were the apostles out of prison, but they enter into the temple and preach, with a redoubled zeal and diligence; no doubt, Satan had better have let these holy men alone, than have cast them into prison; for the cold blasts of persecution and imprisonment beating upon their outward man, by a spiritual anitiperistasis, augmented the heat of grace within. There is no such way to be even with the devil and his instruments, for all their spite and malice against us, as by doing all the good we can to the souls of men.
Observe, 2. How the deliverance which God wrought for the apostles, in bringing them miraculously out of prison by the conduct of an angel, did confound the council which laid them in: They were nonplussed and horribly perplexed at it: They doubted whereunto this would grow. They stood amused and amazed, and knew not what measures to take; but were at their wits-end, Sin oft-times brings men into straits, but straits do not always bring men off from their sins.
Read full note →
Thus here, notwithstanding their present perplexity of spirit, they spur on, and bring them again before the council, Then went the captain with the officers of the temple, and brought them without violence. Act 5:26
Observe, 3. The crimes which the holy apostles were unjustly accused of; namely, obstinacy and sedition. They are charged with obstinacy for persisting to preach the gospel, when they had strictly (but very wickedly) forbidden them: And they are accused of sedition, as if they endeavoured to stir up the people to avenge the blood of Christ upon the rulers, as being unjustly shed by them. The greatest innocency cannot protect the holiest persons from slander and false accusation. The best of men have sometimes been charged withe the blackest crimes. No wonder that the Sanhedrin, or great counsel, which charged Christ himself with imposture and blasphemy, did accuse the apostles of sedition and contumacy; The disciple is not above his Master.
Observe, 4. The contumelious reflection which they had made upon our Lord Jesus Christ himself: You intend, says the council, to bring this man’s blood upon us: As if the holy Jesus had not been worthy the naming by them. Christ told his disciples, Luk 6:22. that the world should cast out their name as evil. Behold! his own is used no better: He is homo nullius nominis. This man, this fellow, this deceiver, were the opprobrious titles which the learned Rabbies thought fit to impose upon the best man that ever the world had. Lord! how can we be abased enough for thee, who wast so degraded and debased for us?
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v26 We are not told what it was that the…
We are not told what it was that the apostles preached to the people; no doubt it was according to the direction of the angel - the words of this life; but what passed between them and the council we have here an account of; for in their sufferings there appeared more of a divine power and energy than even in their preaching. Now here we have,
I. The seizing of the apostles a second time. We may think, if God designed this, "Why were they rescued from their first imprisonment?" But this was designed to humble the pride, and check the fury, of their persecutors; and now he would show that they were discharged, not because they feared a trial, for they were ready to surrender themselves and make their appearance before the greatest of their enemies. 1. They brought them without violence, with all the respect and tenderness that could be: did not pull them out of the pulpit, nor bind them, nor drag them along, but accosted them respectfully; and one would think they had reason to do so, in reverence to the temple, that holy place, and for fear of the apostles, lest they should strike them, as they did Ananias, or call for fire from heaven upon them, as Elias did; but all that restrained their violence was their fear of the people, who had such a veneration for the apostles that they would have stoned the officers if they had offered them any abuse. 2. Yet they brought them to those who, they knew, were violent against them, and were resolved to take violent courses with them (Act 5:27): They brought them, to set them before the council, as delinquents. Thus the powers that should have been a terror to evil works and workers became so to the good.
Read full note →
II. Their examination. Being brought before this august assembly, the high priest, as the mouth of the court, told them what it was they had to lay to their charge, Act 5:28. 1. That they had disobeyed the commands of authority, and would not submit to the injunctions and prohibitions given them (Act 5:28), "Did not we, by virtue of our authority, strictly charge and command you, upon pain of our highest displeasure, that you should not teach in this name? But you have disobeyed our commands, and gone on to preach not only without our licence, but against our express order." Thus those who make void the commandments of God are commonly very strict in binding on their own commandments, and insisting upon their own power: Did not we command you? Yes, they did; but did not Peter at the same time tell them that God's authority was superior to theirs, and his commands must take place of theirs? And they had forgotten this. 2. That they had spread false doctrine among the people, or at least a singular doctrine, which was not allowed by the Jewish church, nor agreed with what was delivered form Moses's chair. "You have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and thereby have disturbed the public peace, and drawn people from the public establishment." Some take this for a haughty scornful word: "This silly senseless doctrine of yours, that is not worth taking notice of, you have made such a noise with, that even Jerusalem, the great and holy city, is become full of it, and it is all the talk of the town." They are angry that men, whom they look upon as despicable, should make themselves thus considerable. 3. That they had a malicious design against the government, and aimed to stir up the people against it, by representing it as wicked and tyrannical, and as having made itself justly odious both to God and man: "You intend to bring this man's blood, the guilt of it before God, the shame of it before men, upon us." Thus they charge them not only with contumacy and contempt of the court, but with sedition and faction, and a plot both to set the people against them, for having persecuted even to death not only so innocent but so good and great a man as this Jesus, and also the Romans, for having drawn them into it. See here how those who with a great del of presumption will do an evil thing yet cannot bear to hear of it afterwards, nor to have it charged upon them. When they were in the heat of the persecution they could cry daringly enough, "His blood be upon us and upon our children; let us bear the blame for ever." But now that they have time for a cooler thought they take it as a great affront to have his blood laid at their door. Thus are they convicted and condemned by their own consciences, and dread lying under that guilt in which they were not afraid to involve themselves.
III. Their answer to the charge exhibited against them: Peter and the other apostles all spoke to the same purport; whether severally examined, or answering jointly, they spoke as one and the same Spirit gave them utterance, depending upon the promise their Master had made them, that, when they were brought before councils, it should be given them in that same hour what they should speak, and courage to speak it.
1. They justified themselves in their disobedience to the commands of the great sanhedrim, great as it was (Act 5:29): We ought to obey God rather than men. They do not plead the power they had to work miracles (this spoke sufficiently for them, and therefore they humbly decline mentioning it themselves), but they appeal to a maxim universally owned, which even natural conscience subscribes to, and which comes home to their case. God had commanded them to teach in the name of Christ, and therefore they ought to do it, though the chief priests forbade them. Note, Those rulers set up in opposition to God, and have a great deal to answer for, who punish men for disobedience to them in that which is their duty to God.
2. They justified themselves in doing what they could to fill Jerusalem with the doctrine of Christ, though, in preaching him up, they did indeed reflect upon those that maliciously ran him down, and if they thereby bring his blood upon them they may thank themselves. It is charged upon them as a crime that they preached Christ and his gospel. "Now," say they, "we will tell you who this Christ is, and what his gospel is, and then do you judge whether we ought not to preach it; nay, and we shall take this opportunity to preach it to you, whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear."
(1.) The chief priests are told to their faces the indignities they did to this Jesus: "You slew him and hanged him on a tree, you cannot deny it." The apostles, instead of making an excuse, or begging their pardon, for bringing the guilt of this man's blood upon them, repeat the charge, and stand to it: "It was you that slew him; it was your act and deed," Note, People's being unwilling to hear of their faults is no good reason why they should not be faithfully told of them. It is a common excuse made for not reproving sin that the times will not bear it. But those whose office it is to reprove must not be awed by this; the times must bear it, and shall bear it. Cry aloud and spare not; cry aloud and fear not.
(2.) They are told also what honours God put upon this Jesus, and then let them judge who was in the right, the persecutors of his doctrine or the preachers of it. He calls God the God of our fathers, not only ours, but yours, to show that in preaching Christ they did not preach a new god, nor entice people to come and worship other gods; not did they set up an institution contrary to that of Moses and the prophets, but they adhered to the God of the Jewish fathers; and that name of Christ which they preached answered the promises made to the fathers, and the covenant God entered into with them, and the types and figures of the law he gave them. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; see what honour he did him. [1.] He raised him up; he qualified him for, and called him to, his great undertaking. It seems to refer to the promise God made by Moses, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you. God raised him up out of obscurity, and made him great. Or, it may be meant of his raising him up from the grave: "You put him to death, but God has restored him to life, so that God and you are manifestly contesting about this Jesus; and which must we side with?" [2.] He exalted him with his right hand, hupsōse - hath lifted him up. "You loaded him with disgrace, but God has crowned him with honour; and ought we not to honour him whom God honours?" God has exalted him, tē dexia autou - with his right hand, that is, by his power put forth; Christ is said to live by the power of God. Or, to his right hand, to sit there, to rest there, to rule there. "He has invested him with the highest authority, and therefore we must teach in his name, for God has given him a name above every name." [3.] "He has appointed him to be a prince and a Saviour, and therefore we ought to preach in his name, and to publish the laws of his government as he is a prince, and the offers of his grace as he is a Saviour." Observe, There is no having Christ to be our Saviour, unless we be willing to take him for our prince. We cannot expect to be redeemed and healed by him, unless we give up ourselves to be ruled by him. The judges of old were saviours. Christ's ruling is in order to his saving, and faith takes an entire Christ, that came, not to save us in our sins, but to save us from our sins. [4.] He is appointed, as a prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins. Therefore they must preach in his name to the people of Israel, for his favours were designed primarily and principally for them; and none that truly loved their country could be against this. Why should the rulers and elders of Israel oppose one who came with no less a blessing to Israel than repentance and pardon? Had he been exalted to give deliverance to Israel from the Roman yoke, and dominion over the neighbouring nations, the chief priests would have welcomed him with all their hearts. But repentance and remission of sins are blessings they neither value nor see their need of, and therefore they can by no means admit his doctrine. Observe here, First, Repentance and remission go together; wherever repentance is wrought, remission is without fail granted, and the favour is given to all those to whom is given the qualification for it. On the other hand, no remission without repentance; none are freed from the guilt and punishment of sin but those that are freed from the power and dominion of sin, that are turned from it and turned against it. Secondly, It is Jesus Christ that gives, and is authorized to give, both repentance and remission. Whatsoever is required in the gospel-covenant is promised. Are we appointed to repent? Christ is appointed to give repentance, by his Spirit working with the word, to awaken the conscience, to work contrition for sin, and an effectual change in the heart and life. The new heart is his work, and the broken spirit a sacrifice of his providing; and, when he has given repentance, if he should not give remission he would forsake the work of his own hands. See how necessary it is that we repent, and that we apply ourselves to Christ by faith for his grace to work repentance in us. [5.] All this is well attested, First, by the apostles themselves; they are ready to testify upon oath, if required, that they saw him alive after his resurrection, and saw him ascend into heaven; and also that they experienced the power of his grace upon their hearts, raising them up to that which was far above their natural capacities: "We are his witnesses, appointed by him to publish this to the world; and if we should be silent, as you would have us, we should betray a trust, and be false to it." When a cause is trying, witnesses, of all men, ought not to be silenced, for the issue of the cause depends on their testimony. Secondly, By the Spirit of God: "We are witnesses, competent ones, and whose testimony is sufficient before any human judicature." But this is not all: The Holy Ghost is witness, a witness from heaven; for God hath given his gifts and graces to those that obey Christ. Therefore we must preach in this name, because for this end the Holy Ghost is given us, whose operations we cannot stifle. Note, The giving of the Holy Ghost to obedient believers, not only to bring them to the obedience of faith, but to make them eminently useful therein, is a very strong proof of the truth of Christianity. God gave the Holy Ghost by his Son and in his name (Joh 14:26), and in answer to his prayer (Joh 14:16), nay, it was Christ that sent him from the Father (Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7), and this proves the glory to which the Father has exalted him. The great work of the Spirit being not only to justify Christ (Ti1 3:16), but to glorify him, and all his gifts having a direct tendency to exalt his name, prove that his doctrine is divine, else it would not be carried on thus by divine power. And, Lastly, The giving of the Holy Ghost to those that obey Christ, both for their assistance in their obedience and as a present recompence for their obedience, is a plain evidence that it is the will of God that Christ should be obeyed; "judge then whether we ought to obey you in opposition to him."
IV. The impression which the apostles' defence of themselves made upon the court. It was contrary to what one would have expected from men that pretended to reason, learning, and sanctity. Surely such fair reasoning could not but clear the prisoners, and convert the judges. No, instead of yielding to it, they raged against it, and were filled, 1. With indignation at what the apostles said: They were cut to the heart, angry to see their own sin set in order before them; stark mad to find that the gospel of Christ had so much to say for itself, and consequently was likely to get ground. When a sermon was preached to the people to this purport, they were pricked to the heart, in remorse and godly sorrow, Act 2:37. These here were cut to the heart with rage and indignation. Thus the same gospel is to some a savour of life unto life, to others of death unto death. The enemies of the gospel not only deprive themselves of its comforts, but fill themselves with terrors, and are their own tormentors. 2. With malice against the apostles themselves. Since they see they cannot stop their mouths any other way than by stopping their breath, they take counsel to slay them, hoping that so they shall cause the work to cease. While the apostles went on in the service of Christ, with a holy security and serenity of mind, perfectly composed, and in a sweet enjoyment of themselves, their persecutors went on in their opposition to Christ, with a constant perplexity and perturbation of mind, and vexation to themselves.
V. The grave advice which Gamaliel, a leading man in the council, gave upon this occasion, the scope of which was to moderate the fury of these bigots, and check the violence of the prosecution. This Gamaliel is here said to be a Pharisee by his profession and sect, and by office a doctor of the law, one that studied the scriptures of the Old Testament, read lectures upon the sacred authors, and trained up pupils in the knowledge of them. Paul was brought up at his feet (Act 22:3), and tradition says that so were Stephen and Barnabas. Some say he was the son of that Simeon that took up Christ in his arms, when he was presented in the temple, and grandson of the famous Hillel. He is here said to be in reputation among all the people for his wisdom and conduct, it appearing by this passage that he was a moderate man, and not apt to go in with furious measures. Men of temper and charity are justly had in reputation, for checking the incendiaries that otherwise would set the world on fire. Now observe here,
1. The necessary caution he gives to the council, with reference to the case before them: He commanded to put the apostles forth a little while, that he might speak the more freely, and be the more freely answered (it was fit that the prisoners should withdraw when their case was to be debated); and then put the house in mind of the importance of this matter, which in their heat they were not capable of considering as they ought: You men of Israel, saith he, take heed to yourselves, consider what you do, or intend to do, as touching these men, Act 5:35. It is not a common case, and therefore should not be hastily determined. He calls them men of Israel, to enforce this caution: "You are men, that should be governed by reason, be not then as the horse and the mule that have no understanding; you are men of Israel, that should be governed by revelation, be not then as strangers and heathens, that have no regard to God and his word. Take heed to yourselves now that you are angry with these men, lest you meddle to your own hurt." Note, The persecutors of God's people had best look to themselves, lest they fall into the pit which they dig. We have need to be cautious whom we give trouble to, lest we be found making the hearts of the righteous sad. 2. The cases he cites, to pave the way to his opinion. Two instances he gives of factious seditious men (such as they would have the apostles thought to be), whose attempts came to nothing of themselves; whence he infers that if these men were indeed such as they represented them the cause would sink with its own weight, and Providence would infatuate and defeat them, and then they needed not persecute them. (1.) There was one Theudas, that made a mighty noise for awhile, as one sent of God, boasting himself to be somebody, some great one (so the word is), either a teacher or a prince, with a divine commission to effect some great revolution in the church or in the state; and he observes here (Act 5:36) concerning him, [1.] How far he prevailed: "A number of men, about four hundred in all, joined themselves to him, that knew not what to do with themselves, or hoped to better themselves; and they seemed then a formidable body." [2.] How soon his pretensions were all dashed: "When he was slain" (probably in war) "there needed no more ado, all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and melted away like snow before the sun. Now compare that case with this. You have slain Jesus, the ringleader of this faction; you have taken him off. Now if he was, as you say he was, an impostor and pretender, his death, like that of Theudas, will be the death of his cause, and the final dispersion of his followers." From what has been we may infer what will be in a like case; the smiting of the shepherd will be the scattering of the sheep: and, if the God of peace had not brought again from the dead that great Shepherd, the dispersion of the sheep, at his death, had been total and final. (2.) The case was the same with Judas of Galilee, Act 5:37. Observe, [1.] The attempt he made. It is said to be after this, which some read, besides this, or, Let me mention, after this, - supposing that Judas's insurrection was long before that of Theudas; for it was in the time of the taxation, namely, that at our Saviour's birth (Luk 2:1), and that of Theudas, whom Josephus speaks of, that mutinied, in the time of Cuspius Fadus; but this was in the days of Claudius Caesar, some years after Gamaliel spoke this, and therefore could not be the same. It is not easy to determine particularly when these events happened, nor whether this taxing was the same with that at our Saviour's birth or one of a later date. Some think this Judas of Galilee was the same with Judas Gaulonites, whom Josephus speaks of, others not. It is probable that they were cases which lately happened, and were fresh in memory. This Judas drew away much people after him, who gave credit to his pretensions. But, [2.] Here is the defeat of his attempt, and that without any interposal of the great sanhedrim, or any decree of theirs against him (it did not need it); he also perished, and all, even as many as obeyed him, or were persuaded by him, were dispersed. Many have foolishly thrown away their lives, and brought others into the same snares, by a jealousy for their liberties, in the days of the taxing, who had better have been content, when Providence had so determined, to serve the king of Babylon.
3. His opinion upon the whole matter.
(1.) That they should not persecute the apostles (Act 5:38): Now I say unto you, ta nun - for the present, as the matter now stands, my advice is, "Refrain from these men; 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." It is uncertain whether he spoke this out of policy, for fear of offending either the people or the Romans and making further mischief. The apostles did not attempt any thing by outward force. The weapons of their warfare were not carnal; and therefore why should any outward force be used against them? Or, whether he was under any present convictions, at least of the probability of the truth of the Christian doctrine, and thought it deserved better treatment, at least a fair trial. Or, whether it was only the language of a mild quiet spirit, that was against persecution for conscience' sake. Or, whether God put this word into his mouth beyond his own intention, for the deliverance of the apostles at this time. We are sure there was an overruling Providence in it, that the servants of Christ might not only come off, but come off honourably.
(2.) That they should refer this matter to Providence: "Wait the issue, and see what it will come to. If it be of men, it will come to nought of itself; if of God, it will stand, in spite of all your powers and policies." That which is apparently wicked and immoral must be suppressed, else the magistrate bears the sword in vain; but that which has a show of good, and it is doubtful whether it be of God or men, it is best to let it alone, and let it take its fate, not to use any external force for the suppressing of it. Christ rules by the power of truth, not of the sword. What Christ asked concerning John's baptism, Was it from heaven or of men? was a question proper to be asked concerning the apostles' doctrine and baptism, which followed Christ, as John Baptist's went before him. Now they, having owned, concerning the former, that they could not tell whether it was from heaven or of men, ought not to be too confident concerning the latter. But, take it which way you will, it is a reason why they should not be persecuted. [1.] "If this counsel, and this work, this forming of a society, and incorporating it in the name of Jesus, be of men, it will come to nothing. If it be the counsel and work of foolish crack-brained men that know not what they do, let them alone awhile, and they will run themselves out of breath, and their folly will be manifest before all men, and they will make themselves ridiculous. If it be the counsel and work of politic and designing men, who under colour of religion are setting up a secular interest, let them alone awhile, and they will throw off the mask, and their knavery will be manifest to all men, and they will make themselves odious; Providence will never countenance it. It will come to nothing in a little time; and, if so, your persecuting and opposing it is very needless; there is no occasion for giving yourselves so much trouble, and bringing such an odium upon yourselves, to kill that which, if you give it a little time, will die of itself. The unnecessary use of power is an abuse of it. But," [2.] "If it should prove (and as wise men as you have been mistaken) that this counsel and this work is of God, that these preachers have their commissions and instructions from him, that they are as truly his messengers to the world as the Old Testament prophets were, then what do you think of persecuting them, of this attempt of yours (Act 5:33) to slay them? You must conclude it to be," First, "A fruitless attempt against them: If it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; for there is no wisdom nor counsel against the Lord; he that sits in heaven laughs at you." It may be the comfort of all who are sincerely on God's side, who have a single eye to his will as their rule and his glory as their end, that whatsoever is of God cannot be overthrown totally and finally, though it may be very vigorously opposed; it may be run upon, but cannot be run down. Secondly, "A dangerous attempt to yourselves. Pray let it alone, lest haply you be found even to fight against God; and I need not tell you who will come off by the worse in that contest." Woe unto him that strives with his Maker; for he will not only be overcome as an impotent enemy, but severely reckoned with as a rebel and traitor against his rightful prince. Those that hate and abuse God's faithful people, that restrain and silence his faithful ministers, fight against God, for he takes what is done against them as done against himself. Whoso touches them, touches the apple of his eye. Well, this was the advice of Gamaliel: we wish it were duly considered by those that persecute for conscience' sake, for it was a good thought, and natural enough, though we are uncertain what the man was. The tradition of the Jewish writers is that, for all this, he lived and died an inveterate enemy to Christ and his gospel; and though (now at least) he was not for persecuting the followers of Christ, yet he was the man who composed that prayer which the Jews use to this day for the extirpating of Christians and Christianity. On the contrary, the tradition of the Papists is that he turned Christian, and became an eminent patron of Christianity and a follower of Paul, who had formerly sat at his feet. If it had been so, it is very probable that we should have heard of him somewhere in the Acts or Epistles.
VI. The determination of the council upon the whole matter, v. 40. 1. Thus far they agreed with Gamaliel that they let fall the design of putting the apostles to death. They saw a great deal of reason in what Gamaliel said, and, for the present, it gave some check to their fury, and a reminder of their wrath was restrained by it. 2. Yet they could not forbear giving some vent to their rage (so outrageous was it) contrary to the convictions of their judgments and consciences; for, though they were advised to let them alone, yet, (1.) They beat them, scourged them as malefactors, stripped them, and whipped them, as they used to do in the synagogues, and notice is taken (v. 41) of the ignominy of it. Thus they thought to make them ashamed of preaching, and the people ashamed of hearing them; as Pilate scourged our Saviour to expose him, when yet he declared he found no fault in him. (2.) They commanded them that they should not speak any more in the name of Jesus, that, if they could find no other fault with their preaching, they might have this ground to reproach it, that it was against law, and not only without the permissions, but against the express order of their superiors.
VII. The wonderful courage and constancy of the apostles in the midst of all these injuries and indignities done them. When they were dismissed they departed from the council, and we do not find one word they said by way of reflection upon the court and the unjust treatment given them. When they were reviled they reviled not again; and when they suffered they threatened not; but committed their cause to him to whom Gamaliel had referred it, even to a God who judgeth righteously. All their business was to preserve the possession of their own souls, and to make full proof of their ministry, notwithstanding the opposition given them; and both these they did to admiration.
1. They bore their sufferings with an invincible cheerfulness (v. 41): When they went out, perhaps with the marks of the lashes given them on their arms and hands appearing, hissed at by the servants and rabble, it may be, or public notice given of the infamous punishment they had undergone, instead of being ashamed of Christ, and their relation to him, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. They were men, and men in reputation, that had never done any thing to make themselves vile, and therefore could not but have a sense of the shame they suffered, which, it should seem, was more grievous to them than the smart, as it usually is to ingenuous minds; but they considered that it was for the name of Christ that they were thus abused, because they belonged to him and served his interest, and their sufferings should be made to contribute to the further advancement of his name; and therefore, (1.) They reckoned it an honour, looked upon it that they were counted worthy to suffer shame, katēxiōthēsan atimasthēnai - that they were honoured to be dishonoured for Christ. Reproach for Christ is true preferment, as it makes us conformable to his pattern and serviceable to his interest. (2.) They rejoiced in it, remembering what their Master had said to them at their first setting out (Mat 5:11, Mat 5:12): When men shall revile you, and persecute you, rejoice and be exceedingly glad. They rejoiced, not only though they suffered shame (their troubles did not diminish their joy), but that they suffered shame; their troubles increased their joy, and added to it. If we suffer ill for doing well, provided we suffer it well, and as we should, we ought to rejoice in that grace which enables us so to do.
2. They went on in their work with indefatigable diligence (v. 41): They were punished for preaching, and were commanded not to preach, and yet they ceased not to teach and preach; they omitted no opportunity, nor abated any thing of their zeal or forwardness. Observe, (1.) When they preached - daily; not only on sabbath days, or on Lord's days, but every day, as duly as the day came, without intermitting any day, as their Master did (Mat 26:55, Luk 19:47), not fearing that they should either kill themselves or cloy their hearers. (2.) Where they preached - both publicly in the temple, and privately in every house; in promiscuous assemblies, to which all resorted, and in the select assemblies of Christians for special ordinances. They did not think that either one would excuse them from the other, for the word must be preached in season and out of season. Though in the temple they were more exposed, and under the eye of their enemies, yet they did not confine themselves to their little oratories in their own houses, but ventured into the post of danger; and though they had the liberty of the temple, a consecrated place, yet they made no difficulty of preaching in houses, in every house, even the poorest cottage. They visited the families of those that were under their charge, and gave particular instructions to them according as their case required, even to the children and servants. (3.) What was the subject matter of their preaching: They preached Jesus Christ; they preached concerning him; and this was not all, they preached him up, they proposed him to those who heard them, to be their prince and Saviour. They did not preach themselves, but Christ, as faithful friends to the bridegroom, making it their business to advance his interest. This was the preaching that gave most offence to the priests, who were willing they should preach any thing but Christ; but they would not alter their subject to please them. It ought to be the constant business of gospel ministers to preach Christ; Christ, and him crucified; Christ, and him glorified; nothing besides this but what is reducible to it.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv21–41 But when the officers came,.... The Arabic version adds,…
But when the officers came,.... The Arabic version adds, "to it"; that is, to the prison;
and found them not in the prison. The Vulgate Latin version reads, "the prison being opened they found them not"; when they came to the prison, they opened the doors of it, or the keepers for them; for though the angel had opened them for the apostles, yet he shut them again, as he brought them out; for these men found the doors shut, as the following verse shows, and who upon opening them and searching the prison, for the apostles, could find none of them in it; wherefore they returned; the Arabic version reads, "to them"; to the sanhedrim:
Read full note →
and told; that is, them, as both the Arabic and Ethiopic versions read.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 41 We found the prison shut - The angel probably…
We found the prison shut - The angel probably had shut the doors again.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 Verse 21. Called the council together] συνεδριον The sanhedrin,…
Verse 21. Called the council together] συνεδριον The sanhedrin, all the senate; την γερουσιαν, the elders, or what we would call the aldermen. How these differed from the πρεσβυτεριον, presbytery, if they did differ, is not now known.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 38, 40, 41 Act 5:24-25. When the high-priest, &c., heard these things…
Act 5:24-25. When the high-priest, &c., heard these things — So perfectly unexpected; they doubted of them — They were extremely perplexed, and even at their wit’s end, having never been so disappointed before of a thing they were so sure of. They doubted, τι αν γενοιτο τουτο, what this thing might be — That is, whether they had procured their liberty by corrupting the keepers, or whether there might not be something miraculous in the deliverance of persons, whom such extraordinary circumstances had attended; and in that case, what this affair might import, and what the issue of it might be. Thus the world, in persecuting the children of God, entangle themselves in numberless difficulties. Then came one — Who knew their disappointment, and the uneasiness it gave them; saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison — And have commanded to be brought to your bar; are standing in the temple — Here, however they came thither; and teaching the people — With as much freedom and confidence as ever. Now this confounded them more than any thing. Prisoners, who had broken prison, used to abscond for fear of being retaken; but these prisoners, after they had made their escape, durst show their faces even there where their prosecutors had the greatest influence.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 Early in the morning - Greek: at the break…
Early in the morning - Greek: at the break of day. Compare Luk 24:1; Joh 8:2.
Called the council together - The Sanhedrin, or the Great Council of the nation. This was clearly for the purpose of “trying” the apostles for disregarding their commandments.
Read full note →
And all the senate - Greek: “eldership.” Probably these were not a part of the Sanhedrin, but were people of age and experience, who in Act 4:8; Act 25:15, are called “elders of the Jews,” and who were present for the sake of counsel Canal advice in a case of emergency.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 39, 41 Then went the magistrate;[4] which by the Greek was…
Then went the magistrate;[4] which by the Greek was a military officer. But he did not bind them like prisoners, for fear of a tumult, but desired them to go along with them to the sanhedrim. (Witham) --- Without violence. They persuaded them to appear willingly before the sanhedrim, thinking, perhaps moreover, that they could not bind them, whom the walls of the prison could not confine. The apostles here, and on all other occasions, shew the most astonishing examples of patience, constancy, and obedience to the laws of the country. (Menochius) --- O Jews! who do you shut your eyes against the light? why so blindly mad? You say the apostles took Christ from the tomb. Tell me, then, who stole the apostles from under your locks and bolts? Who conveyed them from your prison through the midst of your guards, without alarming them? Shall the evidence of the miracle serve only to make you the less open to conviction? (Ven. Bede; Denis the Carthusian)
===============================
Read full note →
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Magistratus, Greek: o strategos.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v27 27And when they had brought them, they set them…
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_5:27-42.
Read full note →
27And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the highpriest asked them, 28Saying, Did not15 we straitly command [We strictly commanded] you that ye should not teach in this name? [; note of interrog. om., and placed at end of verse], and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend [wish]to bring this man’s blood upon us [?]. 29Then Peter and the other [om. other] apostlesanswered and said, We ought to [must] obey God rather than men. 30The God of our fathers [has] raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [the wood,ξύλου]. 31Him [This (one)] hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince anda Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32And we are his16 witnesses of these things [words]; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hathgiven to them that obey him. 33When they heard that, they were cut to the heart17,and took counsel18 to slay them. 34Then stood there [But (δέ) there stood] up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law [a scribe], had in reputation [highly esteemed] among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles19 [the men] forth a little space20; 35And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed toyourselves what ye intend to do as touching [with respect to] these men. 36For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be [and alleged (λέγων) that he was] somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined21 themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed22 him, were scattered and brought to nought.37After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much23 people after him; he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.38And now I say unto you, Refrain [Stand off] from these men, and let them alone:for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39But if it be of God, ye cannot24 [will not be able to] overthrow it25 [them]; lest haply ye be found even to [that ye be not even found as those who] fight against God. 40And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [scourged] them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41And they [They now, οἱ μὲν οὖν] departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing thatthey were counted worthy to suffer shame for his26 name. 42And daily in the temple, and in every house [here and there in houses, χατʼ οἶκον], they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ [ceased not to proclaim the gospel concerning Jesus the (τὸν) Messiah].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act_5:27. And the high priest asked them.—The word ἐπηρώτησεν, certainly seems to indicate that the words of the presiding judge, which are now reported, had assumed the form of a direct question, although this is not really the case, as οὐ is spurious. Still, the whole tenor of the high priest’s language, in which the apostles are charged with having promulgated their doctrine, notwithstanding the prohibition [in Act_4:18], shows that he demanded, at least indirectly, an explanation of their conduct. [See note 1 above, appended to the text.—Tr.]
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: τῷ ὀνόμ. τούτῷ; τοῦ ἀνθρ. τούτου. 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 ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς 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 (διεχειρίσασθε,) 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: εἰ δίκαιόν ἐστιν—κρίνατε; 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 θεός—ἤγειρεν Ἰησοῦν refers to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead; but when ἐγείρειν has this sense in the Acts, it is always connected with ἐκ νεκρῶν [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 ἤγειρεν—διεχειρίσασθε,—ὕψωσε, indicates that the succession of events, in the order in which they really occurred, was intended to be set forth. Hence, ἤγειρεν 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, ὕψωσε in Act_5:31, includes both the resurrection, and the ascension.
Act_5:33. When they heard that, etc.; διεπρίοντο, 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 [νομοδιδάσκαλος, a teacher of the law, equivalent to γραμματεύς, 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 (ἄκρίβεια τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου), 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 τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρ. 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] (חַזָקֵן), 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, προςέχετε ἑαυτοῖς, Act_5:35; he therefore proposes that the apostles should be temporarily released, without the infliction of any punishment, ἀπόστητε—καὶ ἐάσατε αὐτούς, 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 [“ἐὰν ῇ̓, si fit—conditionaliter; εἰ ἔστιν, si est—categorice.” (Gnom. ad loc.)—Tr.], compares εἰ with the Indic. pres., at the beginning of Act_5:39, with ἐάν 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 εἰ with the Indic, pres. is by far more objective than ἐάν 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 εἰ, § 339, 2, I. (a); on ἐάν, II. (b); Matthiæ, transl. by Blomfield, §§ 508, 523.—“ἐάν and εἰ are sometimes combined in two parallel propositions: Act_5:38-39. ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ κ. τ. λ (if it should be of men, which the result will show), εἰ δὲ ἐκ θ. ἐστιν, κ. τ. λ (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 (θεομάχοι, 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; ἐν ταῖς ἡμ. τῆς ἀπογραφῆς, 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: μόνον ἡγεμόνα καὶ δεσπότην τόν θεὸν εἶναι. 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 (διεσκορπίσθησαν), 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 (λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτον); 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 (μετὰ τοῦτον, Act_5:37), and the latter was, of course, anterior to the delivery of this address (πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, 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 πρόληψις 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 Θευδᾶς=Θεοδᾶς=Θεοδώρος. 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; [δέρω, 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.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Jesus, a Prince and a Saviour, Act_5:31; he is called ἀρχηγός, since he is our leader; he is not only the chief, “the author [Greek: άρχηγ. Heb_12:2] and finisher of our faith,” but also the ruler who claims obedience. (The office of Christ as our King, is here indicated). Christ, as ἀρχηγός, commands an army which obeys him, a kingdom which belongs to him.—But he is also termed σωτήρ. He saves us from the greatest evil, the most imminent danger—namely, from sin and its wages, from the wrath of God and eternal destruction. It is his great object, as our ruler, to deliver, to minister, and to save; he seeks the salvation of the souls of men, and not his own honor, might and glory.—God has exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour; it was by the resurrection and ascension to heaven that God, in his omnipotence, exalted him (ὕψωσε τῇ δεξιᾷ αὑτοῦ, Act_5:30); it was then that he was invested with the dignity of an ἀρχηγός and σωτήρ. He was such, it is true, already in the state of humiliation, as the Son of God, and the Son of man; but it was this subsequent exaltation which so plainly assigned such a position to him, that he now claims the reverence of all, and that his power to lead, to deliver, and to save, can be universally recognized.
2. The apostles had testified from the beginning, that no one could be saved through Christ without a change of mind [μετάνοια, 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 (δοῦναι μετάν. καί ἄφ. ἁμ.). 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.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act_5:28. Ye intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.—The wolf always accuses the innocent lamb of Christ of having mingled the mud and the clear water. (Starke).—The kingdom of this world betrays in its hostile movements against the kingdom of God, that it consists, in part, of clay, in part of iron [Dan_2:33; Dan_2:43]—of clay, for its fears proceed from a consciousness of its own weakness—of iron, for it obstinately refuses to yield to the truth. This obstinacy it attempts to extenuate or justify, by confessing any truth, the power of which it has deeply felt. These men complain: “Ye intend, etc.,” but they pass over the offer of forgiveness in entire silence.—And still does the world complain of the mode in which the truth is proclaimed; it alleges that the condemnation of the sinner is constantly set forth, but never alludes to the invitations to seek the mercy of God, which are addressed to sinners. For the world deems it to be disreputable to seek for grace at the foot of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (K. H. Rieger).—We unquestionably do intend to bring the blood of Christ upon you, when we preach Him crucified, but it is unto your salvation, not your damnation!—The preaching of the doctrine concerning the blood of Christ: I. It is a loud call to repentance, Act_5:30; II. It affords the richest consolations, Act_5:31.
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:
[15]Act_5:28. οὐ [of the text. rec. before παραγ., 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 ἐπηρώτησε 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.]
[16]Act_5:32.—αὐτοῦ [of text. rec.] after ἐσμέν seemed to be superfluous, as μάρτυρες was followed by another genitive depending on it, and was therefore omitted in some MSS. [A. D. Cod. Sin.] and versions [Syr., Vulg.], or ἐν αὐτῷ 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.]
[17]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.]
[18]Act_5:33. b. ἐβουλεύοντο is not better attested, it is true, than ἐβούλοντο, but should be preferred, as the shorter form could more easily have proceeded from the longer than vice versa. [ἐβουλεύοντο, of D. H., and also Cod. Sin., is preferred by Tisch. and Alf. to ἐβούλοντο of A. B. E., which latter Lach. adopts.—Tr.]
[19]Act_5:34. a. τ. ἀνθρώπους was exchanged in some MSS. for the explanatory ἀποστόλους, but it is sufficiently attested, and, even, in sermone obliquo, may be the term actually employed by Gamaliel. [Alford, with D. E. H. reads ἀποστ.; Lach. and Tisch. with A. B. Cod. Sin. Vulg., etc., read ἀνθρώπ.; de Wette regards the latter as a correction to suit Act_5:35; Act_5:38.—Tr.]
[20]Act_5:34. b. τι after βραχύ [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.]
[21]Act_5:36. a. The reading προςεκλίθη 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: προςεκλήθη [C.], προςεκολλήθη [text. rec.] and also προςετέθη) [the two latter only in minuscules.—Tr.]
[22]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.]
[23]Act_5:37. [ἱκανὸν 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 πολύν.—Tr.]
[24]Act_5:39. a. The fut. δυνήσεσθε has by far the stronger testimony in its favor [found in B. C. D. E.; Vulg. etc.]; the pres. δύνασθε [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, καταλ., and the conditional εἰ. Lach. and Tisch. adopt the fut. Cod. Sin. exhibits δυνησεσθαι.—Tr.]
[25]Act_5:39 b. αὐτούς is supported by many MSS. and versions [A. B. C. D. E. and Cod. Sin.], while αὐτό is but feebly attested [by Vulg., etc., and adopted in text. rec.]; it seems to be a correction to suit τὸ ἔργον, as an easier sense. [αὐτούς, Lach. Tisch. Alf.]
[26]Act_5:41. τοῦ ὀνόματος without the appended αὐτοῦ [of text. rec.] is, unquestionably, the original reading; the following explanatory additions occur:αὐτοῦ; Ιησου[Vulg.]; τοῦ χριστοῦ, τοῦ κυρίυ, etc. [αὐτοῦ is omitted by later critics, in accordance with A. B. C. D. H. and Cod. Sin.—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 entered into the temple, &c.--How self-possessed! the indwelling Spirit…
entered into the temple, &c.--How self-possessed! the indwelling Spirit raising them above fear.
called . . . all the senate, &c.--an unusually general convention, though hastily summoned.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 21. Early in the morning—Literally, at daybreak. (See note…
21. Early in the morning—Literally, at daybreak. (See note on Luk_21:38.)
High priest came—Came not to the temple, but to Gazith, the hall of the Sanhedrin at the southwest corner of the Court of Israel.
Read full note →
With him—Probably the parties named in Act_4:6.
The council—The Sanhedrin.
Senate—The Greek word for senate here used is γερουσια, (derived from γερων, an old man, as the Latin word senatus is derived from a word of the same meaning, senex,) and is equivalent etymologically to eldership. This word is in the Apocrypha applied to the Sanhedrin itself, and perhaps even here it is but a magnifying phrase for the council or Sanhedrin already mentioned.
All the senate—The most imposing body possible to the Jewish state was summoned together on this occasion; not solely because a most solemn question under the old Mosaic law was to be tried, namely, whether the workers of certain miracles were prophets of God or agents of Beelzebub. It was also because the contest now was with the people, who were largely on the side of the apostles, endangering the predominancy, as was feared, of the ruling Sadducean powers.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv21–41 21. early in the morning] The words indicate a…
21. early in the morning] The words indicate a time as soon as possible after day dawn. They lost no time in obeying the command. How early it was possible for them to come to the Temple we find from the directions in the Talmud concerning the morning sacrifice. It is said (Mishna Joma iii. 1), “The Memunneh (see note on Act_4:1) said to them: Go ye out (on to the Temple wall or roof) and see whether the time for killing the sacrifice has arrived. If it had arrived, the out-looker said, ‘It has flashed forth’ (i.e. day has dawned). Matthia ben Shemuel said [that the form of question was] ‘Has the whole face of the east become lit up as far as to Hebron? And the man answered, Yes.’ So that the first sacrifice took place at the very peep of day.” A like explanation is found Mishna Tamid iii. 2.
But the high priest came] i.e. into the council chamber, to consult on what should be done with the prisoners, of whose release they had as yet heard nothing.
Read full note →
called the council together] This was evidently deemed a case of the utmost consequence, and all pains are bestowed to gather to the hearing the combined wisdom of the whole authorities, for now, as is seen from Gamaliel’s presence, not Sadducees alone were called. The word here rendered council means probably the smaller Sanhedrin.
and all the senate of the children of Israel] Senate is here used in its original sense = the older men, and is a literal rendering of the Greek gerousia, meaning the great Sanhedrin of 71 elders. The name indicates that these were assessors added to the council by reason of their age and weight of character. We find from the Jewish literature that such assessors were often appointed. In the extract Mishna Joma i. 1, quoted on Act_4:6, the word for “assessors” is parhedrin, i.e. the Greek πάρεδροι, and the adoption of such a word into the Jewish vocabulary shews that the office was not Jewish in origin but had become so firmly grafted among them as to justify the adoption of a foreign expression to describe it.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 (21) Early in the morning.—Probably at day-break, when the…
(21) Early in the morning.—Probably at day-break, when the worshippers would be going up to the Temple for their early devotions, or, though less probable, at the third hour, the time of the morning sacrifice.
They that were with him.—Probably those named in Act_4:6, who seem to have acted as a kind of cabinet or committee.
Read full note →
All the senate. . . .—Literally the word means, like senate, the assembly of old men, or elders. They are here distinguished from the Sanhedrin, which itself included elders, in the official sense of the word, and were probably a body of assessors—how chosen we do not know—specially qualified by age and experience, called in on special occasions. They may have been identical with the “whole estate of the elders” of Act_22:5.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 This for that, A.V.; about day. break for early…
This for that, A.V.; about day. break for early in the morning, A.V.; prison-house for prison, A.V About daybreak. In the hot climate of Jerusalem people are about very early in the meriting. (comp. Mat_26:57, Mat_26:75) But the high priest, etc. The narrative would run more clearly if the passage were translated more literally, Now when the high priest and they that were with him were come (to the council-chamber the next day) they called together, etc. The narrative is taken up from vers. 17, 18. Having (ver. 18) put the apostles in prison, they met the next morning to decide how to punish them. The council (todrion); i.e. in the Hebraeo-Greek, the Sanhedrim, the great council of the nation, consisting of seventy-two members, usually presided over by the high priest. It is frequently mentioned in the New Testament. (Mat_5:22 Mat_26:59; Mar_14:55, etc.; and Act_22:30 Act_23:1, etc.; above Act_4:15) On the present occasion, besides the members of the Sanhedrim, there were gathered together all the senate (gerousia) of the children of Israel, an expression which occurs only here, but which seems to comprise all the elders of the Jews, even though they were not members of the Sanhedrim. But some (Schleusner, Heinrich, etc.) understand it as merely another phrase for the Sanhedrim, added for explanation and amplification. The council, of course, were ignorant of the escape of the prisoners. The prison-house (desmwthrion); "prison" (A.V) represents fulakh in the next verse.
Vers. 21-24. The hopelessness of fighting against God.
Read full note →
The narrative indicates that the Sanhedrim had fully entered on the work of checking and crushing the party of Christ"s disciples. Gamaliel expressed what the nature of their action might possibly prove to be it might be even a "fighting against God." Some effort should be made to realize what they thought about their work, and how they deluded themselves with the notion that they alone were guardians of the truth of God, and in opposing the Christian party were really fighting for God. It is one of the saddest effects of cherished exclusiveness and self-confidence that these things actually blind men, and make it impossible for them to receive truth as newly presented to them. A little self-criticism, a little skill in testing their own motives, would have revealed to these men the low and unworthy passions and prejudices by which they were permitting themselves to be ruled. So often we need to "see ourselves as others see us," and may thankfully welcome any light that reveals ourselves to ourselves. These men were really "fighting against God.
I IN FIGHTING AGAINST GOD MAN MAY WIN APPARENT AND TEMPORARY SUCCESSES. Only apparent, because they always lead men on to attempt further schemes, which involve them in utter ruin. Only temporary, because God has the long ages in which to secure the outworking of his purposes. Illustrate by the success of the Sanhedrim in the conviction and death of our Lord, and in the imprisonment of the apostles.
II IN FIGHTING AGAINST GOD MAN DEALS WITH FORCES BEYOND HIS REACH. And they are sure to master him. Compare man"s range of power with God"s. Illustrate from the treatment of Christ; death was man"s limit, resurrection was in God"s power. So with apostles; imprisonment was man"s limit, angel-deliverance was in God"s power. God"s miracles then, God"s providences and overrulings now, surely mate and master man"s utmost antagonism. This is true of persecutions, infidelity, or other forms of attack on Christian men, the Christian faith, or the spread of the Redeemer"s kingdom. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv21, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 41 And when they heard that they entered into the…
Act_5:21-26
And when they heard that they entered into the temple … But the high priest … called the council together.
Read full note →
The characteristics of opposition to the truth
The contrast is very graphic. The apostles in public disseminating the truth: the Jewish authorities at the same moment plotting in private for its suppression. The conference suggests at once the characteristics which mark opposition to the truth, and the motives by which the opponents are actuated. Sometimes, in a given conflict, the characteristics are displayed in the same natural order of development as here. At other times each mark distinguishes some individual or movement.
I. Confidence (Act_5:21). The apostles were locked up and therefore safe. It only remained to summon and sentence them. Then all would be over: the position of the authorities secured, and Christianity a thing of the past. So, in effect, have persecutors argued all through time. Christ was a babe at Bethlehem. All the babes at Bethlehem were murdered; therefore Herod was safe. Diocletian inscribed on pillars that the name of Christian was everywhere destroyed. Intellectual opponents have argued in the same way. How many times has Christianity been killed and buried from the time of Celsas and Porphyry to those of Voltaire and Tom Paine.
II. Disappointment. The prison doors were locked, and the sentries were at their posts, but the prisoners were gone, So, in effect, has it ever been found. Doors do not always open and close at an angels bidding to set the prisoner free; but his influence and his message finds its way somehow through the thickest walls. Paul was not less effective in a dungeon, nor was Bunyan. And though opponents may be permitted to wreak their full vengeance on their prisoner, martyrdom only enhances power. John the Baptists influence is all the greater for his tragic death, and Christ lifted up on the Cross is drawing all men unto Him. Bishop Tunstall may burn Tyndales Bibles, but that only provides Tyndale with the means of publishing more.
III. Bafflement (Act_5:23-24). The authorities felt themselves fairly brought to bay, and began to cherish the secret suspicion that these Galilean peasants would in the long run be too strong for them. And no wonder. The possibilities of the men for whom prison doors would open were boundless, and so they doubted whereunto these things would grow. And now the information comes that they were not only at liberty, but were doing in the most public place the very thing for which they had been imprisoned. This would only increase the bafflement. It was the same in the great persecutions of the early Church. The doubt whereunto these things would grow made even the philosophic Hadrian a persecutor, but eventually made the politic Constantine a Christian. The same doubt agitates the heathen as he sees his cherished convictions and constitutions crumbling and Christianity slowly but surely rising on their ruins. The same doubt agitates the sceptic as he sees his books dwindling in circulation and Bibles multiplying.
IV. Fear.
1. Seen in the method of arrest (Act_5:26).
2. But more powerfully in the dread lest their own imprecation, His blood be upon us, should be fulfilled (Act_5:28). Conscience makes cowards of us all. Nor can it be denied that a large share of the anti-Christian attack all through the centuries is due to the fear of consequences. This will explain a good deal of its virulence.
Conclusion:
1. Christians must expect the truth to be opposed. What concord hath Christ with Belial.
2. In spite of opposition Christians must maintain the truth. It is a sacred deposit to be defended at all costs.
3. Let Christians be animated by the thought that truth is mighty and will prevail. (J. W. Burn.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v38 Chapter 12
Chapter 12
GAMALIEL AND HIS PRUDENT ADVICE.
Read full note →
Act_5:38-40
WE have set forth in these verses an incident in the second appearance before the council of the Apostle Peter and the other Apostles, conspicuous among whom must have been James the brother of John. It is almost certain that James the son of Zebedee was at this time very prominent in the public work of the Church, for we are told in the opening of the twelfth chapter that when Herod would vex and harass and specially weaken the Church, it was neither Peter nor John he first arrested, but he laid hands on James, and placed on him the honour of being the earliest martyr from amongst the sacred band of the Apostles. Peter we may, however, be sure was the centre of Sadducean hate at this period, and one of the most conspicuous members of the Church. We should at the same time beware of exaggeration, and strive to estimate the events of these earliest days of the Church, not as we behold them now, but as they must have then appeared unto the members of the Sanhedrin. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira seem now to us extraordinary and awe-inspiring, and sufficient to strike terror into the hearts of all unbelievers; but probably the story of them had never reached the ears of the authorities. Human life was but little accounted of among the Romans who ruled Palestine. A Roman master might slay or torture his slaves just as he pleased; and the Romans, scorning the Jews as a conquered race, would trouble themselves but little concerning quarrels or deaths among them, so long as public order and the stated business of society were not interfered with. The public miracles which St. Peter wrought, these were the things which brought matters to a crisis, and called afresh the attention of the Sanhedrin, charged as they were with all religious authority, as the miracle of healing wrought upon the impotent man had led to the arrest of the Apostles on a previous occasion. It is a mistake often made, in studying the history of the past, to imagine that events which we now see to have been important and epoch-making must have been so regarded by persons living at the time when they happened. Men are never worse judges of the true value of current history than when they are placed in the midst of it. It is always the on-lookers who see most of the play. Our minds are so limited, our thoughts are so completely filled up with the present, that it is not till we have got away from the events, and can view them in their due proportion and symmetry, surrounded with all their circumstances, that we can hope to form a just appreciation of their relative importance. I have often seen a hill of a few hundred feet in height occupying a far more commanding position in mens eyes than a really lofty mountain, simply because the one was near, the other far off. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira are recorded therefore at full length, because they bring eternal lessons of justice, judgment, and truth along with them. The numerous public miracles wrought by Peter when "multitudes came together from the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folk and them that were vexed with unclean spirits, and they were healed every one," seemed to the Sanhedrin and the religious public of Jerusalem the all-important topics, though they are passed wholly over in the Scriptures as matters of no spiritual interest. If it requires a vast exercise of patience and wisdom to estimate events aright in their mere worldly aspect, it requires the operation and guidance of the Holy Ghost to form a sound judgment upon the relative spiritual value of events falling within the sphere of Church history; and there indeed it is most true that matters which seem all-important and striking to man are judged by God as insignificant and unworthy of notice. So contradictory are ofttimes the ways of God and the opinions of man.
The public miracles wrought by St. Peter had this effect, - the only one noted at length by the sacred writer: they led to the fresh arrest of Peter and the other Apostles by the High Priest and the sect of the Sadducees, and to their incarceration in the public prison attached to the temple. Thence they were delivered by an angel and sent to speak publicly in the temple, where their adversaries officially assembled; just as on a later occasion Peter, when imprisoned by himself, was released by angelic interference. Men looking back upon the history of the primitive Church, and judging of it as if it were the history of an ordinary time and age, have objected to the angelic interventions narrated here and in a few other places in the New Testament. They object because they do not realise the circumstances of the time. Dr. Jortin was a shrewd writer of the last century, now too much neglected. He remarked in one place that, suppose we admit that a special revelation of the good powers of the heavenly world was made in Christ, it was natural and fair that a special manifestation of the powers of evil should have been permitted at the time of Christs Incarnation, in order that the triumph of good might be the greater; and thus we would account for the diabolical possessions which play such an important part in the New Testament. The principle thus laid down extends much farther indeed. The great miracle of the Incarnation, the great manifestation of God in Christ, naturally brought with it lesser heavenly manifestations in its train. The Incarnation raises for a believer the whole level of the age when it occurred, and makes it an exceptional time. The eternal gates were for a moment lifted up, and angels went in and out for a little; and therefore we accept without endeavouring to explain the words of the narrative which tells us that an angel opened the prison doors for the Apostles, bidding them go and speak in the temple all the words of this life. And then from the temple, where they were teaching early in the morning, about daybreak of the day following their arrest, they are led by the officers before the Sanhedrin which was sitting in the city. Here let us pause to note the marvellous accuracy of detail in St. Lukes narrative. The Sanhedrin used to sit in the temple, but, a few years before the period at which we have arrived, four or five at most, they removed from the temple into the city, a fact which is just hinted at in the fifth verse of the fourth chapter, where we are told that the rulers, and elders, and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem, that is, in the city, not in the temple; while again in this passage we read that when the High Priest came and convened the council and all the senate of the children of Israel, they sent their officers to bring the prisoners before them. These officers after a while returned with the information that the Apostles were preaching in the temple. If the Sanhedrin were meeting in the temple, they would doubtless have learned this fact as soon as they assembled, especially as they did not sit till after the morning sacrifice, several hours after the Apostles appeared in the temple. When brought before the council the Apostles boldly proclaimed their intention to disregard all human threats, and persevere in preaching the death and resurrection of Christ. The majority would then have proceeded to extreme measures against the Apostles, and in doing so would only have acted after their usual manner.
The greater part of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees, and they, as Josephus tells us, were men of a bloodthirsty character, ever ready to proceed to punish in the most cruel manner. The simple fact is this, the Sadducees were materialists. They looked upon man as a mere animated machine, and therefore, like the pagans of the same period, they were utterly regardless of human sufferings, or of the value of human life. We little recognise, reared up as we have been in an atmosphere saturated with Christian principles, how much of our merciful spirit, of our tender care for human suffering, of our reverent respect for human life, is owing to the spiritual ideas of the New Testament, teaching as it does the awful importance of time, the sanctity of the body, and the tremendous issues which depend upon life. Sadducees and pagans knew nothing of these things, because they knew nothing of the inestimable treasure lodged in every human form. Life and time would have been very different for mankind had not the spiritual principles inculcated by Pharisee and by Christian alike triumphed over the cold stern creed which strove on this occasion to stifle the religion of the Cross in its very infancy. When the Sadducees would have adopted extreme measures, the words of one man restrained them and saved the Apostles, and that one man was Gamaliel, whose name and career will again come before us. Now let us apply ourselves to the consideration of his address to the Sanhedrim. Gamaliel saw that the large public gathering to whom he was speaking were thoroughly excited and full of cruel purposes. He therefore, like a true orator, adopts the historical method as the fittest one for dealing with them. He points out how other pretenders had arisen, trading on the Messianic expectations which then existed all over Palestine, and specially in Galilee, and how they had been all destroyed without any action on the part of the Sanhedrim. He instances two cases: Judas, who lived in the days of Cyrenius and the taxing under Augustus Caesar; and Theudas, who some time previous to that event had arisen, working upon the religious and national hopes of the Jews, as the persons now accused before them seemed also to be doing. He points to the fate of the pretenders he had mentioned, and advises the Sanhedrin to leave the Apostles to the same test of Divine Providence, confident that if mere impostors, like the others, they will meet with the same death at the hands of the Romans, without any interference on their part.
It is evident that Gamaliel must have had some special reason for selecting the risings of Theudas and Judas, beyond the fact that they were rebels against established authority. The closing years of the kingdom of Herod the Great were times when numberless rebellions took place. Josephus gives us the names of several leaders who took part in them, but, as he tells us ("Antiqq." 17, 10:4), there were then "ten thousand other disorders," into the details of which he did not enter. All these risings had, however, these distinguishing features, they were all unsuccessful, and they were all quenched in blood. Gamaliel must have seen some feature common to the Christian movement and to those headed by Theudas and Judas some thirty years earlier, leading him to adduce these examples. That common feature was their Messianic character. They all alike proclaimed new hopes for Israel, and appealed to the religious expectations which then excited the people, and still are embodied in works like the book of Enoch, produced about that period; while all the other attempts were animated by a mere spirit of plunder or of personal ambition. But here we are met with a difficulty. The rationalistic commentators of Germany have urged that St. Luke composed a fancy speech and put it into the mouth of Gamaliel, and in doing so made a great historic mistake. They appeal to Josephus as their authority. He states that a Theudas arose about A.D. 44, some ten years later than this meeting of the Sanhedrin, and drew a large number of adherents after him, but was defeated by the Roman governor. On the other hand, the words of Gamaliel refer to the case of a Theudas who lived half a century earlier, and preceded Judas the Galilean. To put the matter plainly, St. Luke is accused of having composed a speech for Gamaliel, and, when doing so, of having committed a great blunder, representing Gamaliel as appealing to an incident which did not happen till ten years later.
This circumstance has long attracted the notice of commentators, and has been explained in different ways. Some maintain that there was an older Theudas, who headed an abortive Messianic rebellion previous to the time of Cyrenius and the days of the taxing. This is a very possible explanation, and the identity of names constitutes no valid objection. The same names often occur in connection with the same movements, political or religious. In the third century, for instance, the Novatian heresy arose at Carthage, and thence was transferred to Rome. It was headed by two men, Novatus and Novatian, the former a Carthaginian, the latter a Roman presbyter. What a fine subject for a mythical theory, were not the facts too indisputably historical! How a German critic would revel in depicting the impossibility of two men with names so like holding precisely the same office and supporting exactly the same views in two cities so widely separated as Rome and Carthage! Or let us take two modern instances. The Tractarian movement is not yet quite sixty years old. It has not therefore yet passed out of the sphere of personal experience. It started in Oxford during the thirties, and there in Oxford we find at that very period two divines named William Palmer, both favouring the Tractarian views, both eminent writers and scholars, but yet tending finally in different directions, for one William Palmer became a Roman Catholic, while the other remained a devoted son of the Reformation. Or to come to still more modern times. There was an Irish movement in 1848 which numbered amongst its most prominent leaders a William Smith OBrien, and there is now an Irish movement of the same character, and it also numbers a William OBrien amongst its most prominent leaders. A Parnell leads a movement for the repeal of the Union in 1890. Ninety years earlier, a Parnell resigned high office sooner than consent to the consummation of the same legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland. We might indeed produce parallel cases without number from the range of history, specially of English history, showing how political and religious tendencies run in families, and reproduce exactly the same names, and that at no distant intervals. But the very passage before us, the speech of Gamaliel and its historic argument, affords a sufficient instance. Gamaliel adduced the case of Judas the Galilean as an illustration of an unsuccessful religious movement. Every one admits that here at least Josephus and the Acts of the Apostles are at one. Judas the Gaulonite, as Josephus styles him in one place, or the Galilean as he calls him in another place, was the founder of the sect of Zealots, who "have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only ruler and Lord" (Josephus, "Antiqq.," 18, 1:6). Judas was defeated at the time of the taxing under Cyrenius, and yet more than forty-five years later we find his sons Simon and James suffering crucifixion under the Romans because they were following their fathers example.
Another explanation has also been offered. It has been suggested that Theudas was simply another name for one of the many rebels whom Josephus mentions, -for Simon, for instance, who had been a slave of Herod the Great, and had upon his death headed a revolt against authority. Either explanation is quite tenable, as opposed to the view which represents St. Luke as committing a gross historical error. And we are the more justified in offering these suggestions when we reflect upon the numberless instances where modern research has confirmed, and is every year confirming the minute accuracy of this writer, who doubtless derived his information concerning what passed in the Sanhedrin, on this occasion, from St. Paul, who either as a member of the council or a favourite pupil of Gamaliel may have been present listening to the debates, or even sharing in the final decisions.
Let us now turn from the purely historical side of Gamaliels speech, and view it from a spiritual standpoint.
The address of Gamaliel was so favourable to the Apostles that it has helped to surround his name and memory with much legendary lore. It was the tradition of the ancient Greek Church from the fifth century that he was converted to Christianity and baptised, along with his son Abibus and Nicodemus, by St. Peter and St. John. The story of Gamaliels secret adherence to Christianity goes even much farther back. There is a curious Christian novel or romance, which dates back to close upon the year 200, called the "Clementine Recognitions." We find the same tradition in the sixty-fifth chapter of the first book of these "Recognitions." But the sacred narrative itself gives us no hint of all this, contenting itself with setting forth the prudent advice which Gamaliel gave to the assembled council. It was wise advice, and well would it have been for the world if influential religious and political teachers in all ages had given similar counsel. Gamaliel was a man of large scholarship, combined with a wide mind, but he had learned that time is a great solvent, and the greatest of tests. Beneath its influence the most pretentious schemes, the most promising of structures, fade away if built upon the sand of human wisdom, while opposition only tends to consolidate and develop those that are built upon the foundation of Divine strength and power. The policy of patience recommended by Gamaliel is a wise one, either for the Church or for the state, in things spiritual and things secular alike. And yet it is one from which the natural man recoils with an instinctive repugnance. It speaks well for the Jewish Sanhedrin that on this occasion they yielded accord to the advice of their president. We are glad to recognise this spirit in these men, where we so often have to find matter for blame. Well would it have been for the Church and for the credit of Christianity had the spirit which moved even the Sadducean majority in the Jewish council been allowed to prevail; and yet how little have the men of tolerant mind been regarded in moments of temporary triumph such as the Sanhedrin just then enjoyed. Gamaliels advice, "Refrain from these men and let them alone. If the work be of man it will be overthrown; if of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them," strikes a blow at the policy of persecution, which is essentially a policy of impatience. The intolerant man is an impatient man, not willing to imitate the Divine gentleness and long-suffering, which waits, endures, and bears with the sins and ignorance of the children of men. And the Church of Christ, when she became intolerant, as she did as soon as ever Constantine placed within her reach the sword of human power, forgot the lesson of the Divine patience, and reaped within herself, in a shallow religion, in a poorer life, in a restrained intellectual and spiritual grasp, the due reward of those who had fallen away from an imitation of the Divine example to a mere human level. It is sad to see, for instance, in the case of a man so thoroughly spiritual as St. Augustine was, how easily he fell into this human infirmity, how quickly he became intolerant when the secular arm was ranged on the side of his own opinions. The Church in his own boyhood, during the days of Julian, had to strive against the intolerance of the pagans; the orthodox, who upheld the Catholic view of the nature of the Godhead and the scriptural doctrine of the Holy Trinity, had to struggle against the intolerance of the Arians. Yet as soon as power was placed in St. Augustines own hand he thought it right to exercise compulsion against those who differed from him.
It was exactly the same in later days. Men may take up commentators of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike. There they will find many remarks, acute, devout, heart-searching, but very few of them will be found to have arrived at the mental fairness and balance involved in those words, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone." Cornelius a Lapide was a Jesuit commentator of those times. He wrote many valuable expositions of Holy Scripture, including one dealing with this book of the Acts, filled with thoughts suggesting and stimulating. It is, however, almost ludicrous to notice how he strives to evade the force of Gamaliels words, and to escape the application of them to his own Protestant opponents. The Sanhedrin were quite right, he thinks, in adopting Gamaliels advice, and in showing themselves tolerant of the apostolic preaching because the Apostles worked miracles; and so, though they were unconvinced, still they had just reason to suspend their judgment. But as for the Protestants of his time, they were heretics; they were the opponents of the Church, the bride of Christ, and therefore Gamaliels words had no application to them; as if the very question that was raised by the Protestants was not this-whether Cornelius a Lapide himself and his Jesuit brethren did not represent Antichrist, and whether the Protestants were not the true Church of God, who therefore on his own principles were quite justified in persecuting their Romish opponents. It is very difficult to get men to acknowledge their own fallibility. Every party, when triumphant, believes that it has a monopoly of truth, and has a Divine right of persecution; and every party when downcast and m adversity sees and admires the beauties of toleration. Verily, societies, churches, families, as well as individuals, have good right diligently to pray, "In all time of our wealth, good Lord, deliver us," for never are men in greater spiritual danger than when prosperity leads them to vote themselves infallible, and to practise intolerance towards their fellow-men on account of their intellectual or religious opinions.
The sentiment of Gamaliel on this occasion may, however, be pushed to a mischievous extreme. He advised the Sanhedrin to exercise patience and self-control, but he did not apparently go any farther. He did not recommend them to adopt the noblest course, which would have been unprejudiced examination into the claims put forward by the Christian teachers. Gamaliels advice was good, it was perhaps the best he could have given, or at least which could have been expected under the circumstances, but it was not the highest or noblest conceivable. It was the kind of advice always given by men who do not wish to commit themselves untimely, but who are waiters upon Providence, postponing their decision as to which side they shall join until they first see which side will win. Opportunists, the French call them; men who are sitting upon the fence, we in homelier phrase designate them. It is well to be prudent in our actions, because true prudence is only Christian wisdom, and such wisdom will always lead us to take the most effectual ways of doing good. But then prudence may be pushed to the extreme of moral cowardice, or at least the name of prudence may be used as a cloak for a contemptible desire to stand well with all parties, and thereby advance our own selfish interests. Prudence should be united with moral courage; it should be ready to take the unpopular side, and to champion truth and righteousness even when in a depressed and lowly condition. It was easy enough to side with Christ when the multitude cried, "Hosanna in the Highest." But the test of deepest love and unfailing devotion was-when the women stood by the cross, and when the Magdalen sought out the grave in the garden that she might anoint the dead body of her loved Lord.
Finally, let us just notice the conduct of the Apostles under those circumstances. The Apostles were freed from the pressing danger of death, but they did not entirely escape. The Sanhedrin were logically inconsistent. They refrained from putting the Apostles to death, as Gamaliel advised, but they flogged them as Roman laws permitted; and a Jewish disciplinary flogging, when forty stripes save one were inflicted, was. so severe that death sometimes resulted from it. Man is a curiously inconsistent being, and the Sanhedrin showed on this occasion that they had their own share of this weakness. Gamaliel advised not to kill the Apostles, but let time work out the Divine purposes either of success or failure. They adopt the first part of his advice, but are not willing to allow Providence to develop His designs without their interference, and so by their stripes endeavour to secure that failure shall attend the apostolic efforts. But it was all in vain. The Apostles were living under a realised sense of heavenly things. The love of Christ, and communion with Christ and the Spirit of Christ, so raised them above all earthly surroundings that what things seemed toss and shame and grief to others were by them counted highest joy, because they looked at them from the side of God and eternity. Human threats availed nothing with men animated by such a spirit, -nay, rather as proofs of the opposition of the evil one, they only quickened their zeal, so that "every day, in the temple and at home, they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ." How wondrously, life would be transformed for us all did we view its changes and chances, its sorrows and its pains, as the Apostles regarded them. Poverty and disgrace, undeserved loss and suffering, all alike would be transfigured into surpassing glory when endured for Christs sake, while our powers of labour and work, and our active zeal in the holiest of causes, would be quickened, because, like them, we should walk and live and toil in the loved presence of One who is invisible.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 40, 41 21. Called the council. The Sanhedrim, for the trial…
21. Called the council. The Sanhedrim, for the trial of the apostles, supposing them still in prison. All the senate. Many think that a body of elders and other influential leaders were called to assist in the deliberations.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v33 Act_5:33. Cut to the heart.—Lit. sawn asunder, torn in…
CRITICAL REMARKS
Act_5:33. Cut to the heart.—Lit. sawn asunder, torn in pieces, sc. in their hearts. Compare Act_7:54—a much stronger expression than that used in Act_4:2 or Act_16:18, and closely resembling that employed in Act_2:37.
Read full note →
Act_5:34. A pharisee.—A member of one of the principal religious sects in Jerusalem, the others being Sadducees and Essenes. See further on Act_15:5. Gamaliel = “Benefit of God” (see Num_1:10; Num_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.
Act_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).
Act_5:36-37. Theudas and Judas.—Concerning the supposed chronological difficulty connected with these names see “Homiletical Analysis.”
Act_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.”
Act_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 (Act_5:34).
Act_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 (Act_5:40), or because “the name” had already come to be a term in familiar use among the disciples. (Compare Act_9:16.)
Act_5:42. In every house.—Better, at home, or from house to house, as in Act_2:46.
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Act_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” (Num_1:10; Num_2:20; Num_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 Luk_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 (Act_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. Act_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 Mat_10:3; Luk_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 Act_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 (Luk_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” (Act_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 (Luk_2:46).
(3) A perceptible leaning to the sentiments of his two colleagues, Nicodemus who once advised that Christ should be let alone (Joh_7:50-51), and Joseph of Arimathea, who consented not to the counsel and deed of Caiaphas (Luk_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 (Act_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 (Joh_19:1), and as Paul afterwards was scourged on five occasions (2Co_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 (Act_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 (Isa_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 (Mat_5:10; 1Pe_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
Act_5:36. The World’s Somebodies.—Are not unfrequently.—
1. Pretentious nobodies.
2. Worthless impostors.
3. Arrogant deceivers.
4. Disastrous leaders.
Act_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.
Act_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.
Act_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.
Act_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 (Joh_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.
Act_5:40. The Way of the Holy Cross.
I. Threatening (Act_4:21).
II. Imprisonment (Act_5:18).
III. Scourging (Act_5:40).
IV. Martyrdom (Act_7:60).
Act_5:41. Suffering Shame for the Name.
I. Comfort in it. That what one suffers for is Christ’s name (1Pe_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 (2Ti_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.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On vv29, 31, 32, 33, 41 29. “Peter and John, responding, said, It behooveth us…
CONFLICT OF DIVINE AND HUMAN RULE
29. “Peter and John, responding, said, It behooveth us to obey God rather than man.” This is the salient point. When there is a conflict between the authorities, human and divine, we must “obey God rather than man.” If we do not, hell is our doom. God help us. That has been the battlefield in all ages. Two hundred millions of martyrs have sealed their faith with their blood. They all died rather than be untrue to God. The truest saints on the globe today are brought face to face with this very issue: “Will you obey God or man?” When men want you to disobey God, you may know they are not in harmony with God. If they were, there could be no conflict. I charge you, reader, as I shall meet you at the judgment bar, dare to be like the apostles, “Obey God rather than men.” God’s will is revealed by His Word, Spirit and providence to your intellect, spirit and conscience. Jesus says: “He that willeth to do his will shall know the doctrine.” If you are really fully consecrated to God, He will see that you have all needed light. When they were burnt, the priest, i. e., their own pastor, went out to the burning with Bible in hand, exhorting the martyr to give up heresy and live. The ignorant, illiterate saint, with radiant face and eloquent lips, nobly resisted and shouted in the flame. You must remember that the man who opposes the discharge of your conscientious duty to God is not with God. We must, like the apostles and martyrs, be true to God at any cost.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv31, 32, 38
Acts
WHOM TO OBEY,-ANNAS OR ANGEL?
Read full note →
OUR CAPTAIN
Act 5:31.
The word rendered ‘Prince’ is a rather infrequent designation of our Lord in Scripture. It is only employed in all four times-twice in Peter’s earlier sermons recorded in this Book of the Acts; and twice in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In a former discourse of the Apostle’s he had spoken of the crime of the Jews in killing ‘the Prince of life.’ Here he uses the word without any appended epithet. In the Epistle to the Hebrews we read once of the ‘Captain of Salvation,’ and once of the ‘Author of Faith.’
Now these three renderings ‘Prince,’ ‘Captain,’ ‘Author,’ seem singularly unlike. But the explanation of their being all substantially equivalent to the original word is not difficult to find. It seems to mean properly a Beginner, or Originator, who takes the lead in anything, and hence the notions of chieftainship and priority are easily deduced from it. Then, very naturally, it comes to mean something very much like cause; with only this difference, that it implies that the person who is the Originator is Himself the Possessor of that of which He is the Cause to others. So the two ideas of a Leader, and of a Possessor who imparts, are both included in the word.
My intention in this sermon is to deal with the various forms of this expression, in order to try to bring out the fulness of the notion which Scripture attaches to this leadership of Jesus Christ. He is first of all, generally, as our text sets Him forth, the Leader, absolutely. Then there are the specific aspects, expressed by the other three passages, in which He is set forth as the Leader through death to life; the Leader through suffering to salvation; and the Leader in the path of faith. Let us look, then, at these points in succession.
I. First, we have the general notion of Christ the Leader.
Now I suppose we are all acquainted with the fact that the names ‘Joshua’ and ‘Jesus’ are, in the original, one. It is further to be noticed that, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was familiar to Peter’s hearers, the word of our text is that employed to describe the office of the military leaders of Israel. It is still further to be observed that, in all the instances in the New Testament, it is employed in immediate connection with the name of Jesus. Now, putting all these things together, remembering to whom Peter was speaking, remembering the familiarity which many of his audience must have had with the Old Testament in its Greek translation, remembering the identity of the two names Joshua and Jesus, it is difficult to avoid the supposition that the expression of our text is coloured by a reference to the bold soldier who successfully led his brethren into the Promised Land. Joshua was the ‘Captain of the Lord’s host’ to lead them to Canaan; the second Joshua is the Captain of the Host of the Lord to lead them to a better rest. Of all the Old Testament heroes perhaps there is none, at first sight, less like the second Joshua than the first was. He is only a rough, plain, prompt, and bold soldier. No prophet was he, no word of wisdom ever fell from his lips, no trace of tenderness was in anything that he did; meekness was alien from his character, he was no sage, he was no saint, but decisive, swift, merciless when necessary, full of resource, sharp and hard as his own sword. And yet a parallel may be drawn.
The second Joshua is the Captain of the Lord’s host, as was typified to the first one, in that strange scene outside the walls of Jericho, where the earthly commander, sunk in thought, was brooding upon the hard nut which he had to crack, when suddenly he lifted up his eyes, and beheld a man with a drawn sword. With the instinctive alertness of his profession and character, his immediate question was, ‘Art thou for us or for our enemies?’ And he got the answer ‘No! I am not on thy side, nor on the other side, but thou art on Mine. As Captain of the Lord’s host am I come up.’
So Jesus Christ, the ‘Strong Son of God,’ is set forth by this military emblem as being Himself the first Soldier in the army of God, and the Leader of all the host. We forget far too much the militant character of Jesus Christ. We think of His meekness, His gentleness, His patience, His tenderness, His humility, and we cannot think of these too much, too lovingly, too wonderingly, too adoringly, but we too often forget the strength which underlay the gentleness, and that His life, all gracious as it was, when looked at from the outside, had beneath it a continual conflict, and was in effect the warfare of God against all the evils and the sorrows of humanity. We forget the courage that went to make the gentleness of Jesus, the daring that underlay His lowliness; and it does us good to remember that all the so-called heroic virtues were set forth in supreme form, not in some vulgar type of excellence, such as a conqueror, whom the world recognises, but in that meek King whose weapon was love, yet was wielded with a soldier’s hand.
This general thought of Jesus Christ as the first Soldier and Captain of the Lord’s army not only opens for us a side of His character which we too often pass by, but it also says something to us as to what our duties ought to be. He stands to us in the relation of General and Commander-in-Chief; then we stand to Him in the relation of private soldiers, whose first duty is unhesitating obedience, and who in doing their Master’s will must put forth a bravery far higher than the vulgar courage that is crowned with wreathed laurels on the bloody battlefield, even the bravery that is caught from Him who ‘set His face as a flint’ to do His work.
Joshua’s career has in it a great stumbling-block to many people, in that merciless destruction of the Canaanite sinners, which can only be vindicated by remembering, first, that it was a divine appointment, and that God has the right to punish; and, second, that those old days were under a different law, or at least a less manifestly developed law of loving-kindness and mercy than, thank God! we live in. But whilst we look with wonder on these awful scenes of destruction, may there not lie in them the lesson for us that antagonism and righteous wrath against evil in all its forms is the duty of the soldiers of Christ? There are many causes to-day which to further and fight for is the bounden duty of every Christian, and to further and fight for which will tax all the courage that any of us can muster. Remember that the leadership of Christ is no mere pretty metaphor, but a solemn fact, which brings with it the soldier’s responsibilities. When our Centurion says to us, ‘Come!’ we must come. When He says to us, ‘Go!’ we must go. When He says to us ‘Do this!’ we must do it, though heart and flesh should shrink and fail. Unhesitating obedience to His authoritative command will deliver us from many of the miseries of self-will; and brave effort at Christ’s side is as much the privilege as the duty of His servants and soldiers.
II. So note, secondly, the Leader through death to life.
Peter, in the sermon which is found in the third chapter of this Book of the Acts, has his mind and heart filled with the astounding fact of the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, and in the same breath as he gives forth the paradoxical indictment of the Jewish sin, ‘You have killed the Prince of Life’-the Leader of Life-he also says, ‘And God hath raised Him from the dead.’ So that the connection seems to point to the risen and glorified life into which Christ Himself passed, and by passing became capable of imparting it to others. The same idea is here as in Paul’s other metaphor: ‘Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept’-the first sheaf of the harvest, which was carried into the Temple and consecrated to God, and was the pledge and prophecy of the reaping in due season of all the miles of golden grain that waved in the autumn sunshine. ‘So,’ says Peter, ‘He is the Leader of Life, who Himself has passed through the darkness, for “you killed Him”; mystery of mysteries as it is that you should have been able to do it, deeper mystery still that you should have been willing to do it, deepest mystery of all that you did it not when you did it, but that “He became dead and is alive for evermore.” You killed the Prince of Life, and God raised Him from the dead.’
He has gone before us. He is ‘the first that should rise from the dead.’ For, although the partial power of His communicated life did breathe for a moment resuscitation into two dead men and one dead maiden, these shared in no resurrection-life, but only came back again into mortality, and were quickened for a time, but to die at last the common death of all. But Jesus Christ is the first that has gone into the darkness and come back again to live for ever. Across the untrodden wild there is one track marked, and the footprints upon it point both ways-to the darkness and from the darkness. So the dreary waste is not pathless any more. The broad road that all the generations have trodden on their way into the everlasting darkness is left now, and the ‘travellers pass by the byway’ which Jesus Christ has made by the touch of His risen feet.
Thus, not only does this thought teach us the priority of His resurrection-life, but it also declares to us that Jesus Christ, possessing the risen life, possesses it to impart it. For, as I remarked in my introductory observations, the conception of this word includes not only the idea of a Leader, but that of One who, Himself possessing or experiencing something, gives it to others. All men rise again. Yes, ‘but every man in his own order.’ There are two principles at work in the resurrection of all men. They are raised on different grounds, and they are raised to different issues. They that are Christ’s are brought again from the dead, because the life of Christ is in them; and it is as ‘impossible’ that they, as that ‘He, should be holden of it.’ Union with Jesus Christ by simple faith is the means, and the only means revealed to us, whereby men shall be raised from the dead at the last by a resurrection which is anything else than a prolonged death. As for others, ‘some shall rise unto shame and everlasting contempt,’ rising dead, and dead after they are risen-dead as long as they live. There be two resurrections, whether simultaneous in time or not is of no moment, and all of us must have our part in the one or the other; and faith in Jesus Christ is the only means by which we can take a place in the great army and procession that He leads down into the valley and up to the sunny heights.
If He be the Leader through death unto life, then it is certain that all who follow in His train shall attain to His side and shall share in His glory. The General wears no order which the humblest private in the ranks may not receive likewise, and whomsoever He leads, His leading will not end till He has led them close to His side, if they trust Him. So, calmly, confidently, we may each of us look forward to that dark journey waiting for us all. All our friends will leave us at the tunnel’s mouth, but He will go with us through the gloom, and bring us out into the sunny lands on the southern side of the icy white mountains. The Leader of our souls will be our Guide, not only unto death, but far beyond it, into His own life.
III. So, thirdly, note the Leader through suffering to salvation.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews it is written, ‘It became Him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain’-or the Leader-’of their salvation perfect through sufferings.’ That expression might seem at first to shut Jesus Christ out from any participation in the thing which He gives. For salvation is His gift, but not that which He Himself possesses and enjoys; but it is to be noticed that in the context of the words which I have quoted, ‘glory’ is put as substantially synonymous with salvation, and that the whole is suffused with the idea of a long procession, as shown by the phrase, ‘bringing many sons.’ Of this procession Jesus Christ Himself is the Leader.
So, clearly, the notion in the context now under consideration is that the life of Jesus Christ is the type to which all His servants are to be conformed. He is the Representative Man, who Himself passes through the conditions through which we are to pass, and Himself reaches the glory which, given to us, becomes salvation.
‘Christ is perfected through sufferings.’ So must we be. Perfected through sufferings? you say. Then did His humanity need perfecting? Yes, and No. There needed nothing to be hewn away from that white marble. There was nothing to be purged by fire out of that pure life. But I suppose that Jesus Christ’s human nature needed to be unfolded by life; as the Epistle to the Hebrews says, ‘He learned obedience, though He were a Son, through the things which He suffered.’ And fitness for His office of leading us to glory required to be reached through the sufferings which were the condition of our forgiveness and of our acceptance with God. So, whether we regard the word as expressing the agony of suffering in unfolding His humanity, or in fitting Him for His redeeming work, it remains true that He was perfected by His sufferings.
So must we be. Our characters will never reach the refinement, the delicacy, the unworldliness, the dependence upon God, which they require for their completion, unless we have been passed through many a sorrow. There are plants which require a touch of frost to perfect them, and we all need the discipline of a Father’s hand. The sorrows that come to us all are far more easily borne when we think that Christ bore them all before us. It is but a blunted sword which sorrow wields against any of us; it was blunted on His armour. It is but a spent ball that strikes us; its force was exhausted upon Him. Sorrow, if we keep close to Him, may become solemn joy, and knit us more thoroughly to Himself. Ah, brother! we can better spare our joys than we can spare our sorrows. Only let us cleave to Him when they fall upon us.
Christ’s sufferings led Him to His glory, so will ours if we keep by His side-and only if we do. There is nothing in the mere fact of being tortured and annoyed here on earth, which has in itself any direct and necessary tendency to prepare us for the enjoyment, or to secure to us the possession, of future blessedness. You often hear superficial people saying, ‘Oh! he has been very much troubled here, but there will be amends for it hereafter.’ Yes; God would wish to make amends for it hereafter, but He cannot do so unless we comply with the conditions. And it needs that we should keep close to Jesus Christ in sorrow, in order that it should work for us ‘the peaceable fruit of righteousness.’ The glory will come if the patient endurance has preceded, and has been patience drawn from Jesus.
‘I wondered at the beauteous hours, The slow result of winter showers, You scarce could see the grass for flowers.’
The sorrows that have wounded any man’s head like a crown of thorns will be covered with the diadem of Heaven, if they are sorrows borne with Christ.
IV. Lastly, we have Jesus, the Leader in the path of faith.
‘The Author of faith,’ says the verse in the Epistle to the Hebrews. ‘Author’ does not cover all the ground, though it does part of it. We must include the other ideas which I have been trying to set forth He is ‘Possessor’ first and ‘Giver’ afterwards. For Jesus Christ Himself is both the Pattern and the Inspirer of our faith. It would unduly protract my remarks to dwell adequately upon this; but let me just briefly hint some thoughts connected with it.
Jesus Christ Himself walked by continual faith. His manhood depended upon God, just as ours has to depend upon Jesus. He lived in the continued reception of continual strength from above by reason of His faith, just as our faith is the condition of our reception of His strength. We are sometimes afraid to recognise the fact that the Man Jesus, who is our pattern in all things, is our pattern in this, the most special and peculiarly human aspect of the religious life. But if Christ was not the first of believers, His pattern is wofully defective in its adaptation to our need. Rather let us rejoice in the thought that all that great muster-roll of the heroes of the faith, which the Epistle to the Hebrews has been dealing with, have for their Leader-though, chronologically, He marches in the centre- Jesus Christ, of whose humanity this is the document and proof that He says, in the Prophet’s words: ‘I will put My trust in Him.’
Remember, too, that the same Jesus who is the Pattern is the Object and the Inspirer of our faith; and that if we fulfil the conditions in the text now under consideration, ‘looking off’ from all others, stimulating and beautiful as their example may be, sweet and tender as their love may be, and ‘looking unto Jesus,’ He will be in us, and above us-in us to inspire, and above us to receive and to reward our humble confidence.
So, dear friends, it all comes to this, ‘Follow thou Me!’ In that commandment all duty is summed, and in obeying it all blessedness and peace are ensured. If we will take Christ for our Captain, He will teach our fingers to fight. If we obey Him we shall not want guidance, and be saved from perplexities born of self-will. If we keep close to Him and turn our eyes to Him, away from all the false and fleeting joys and things of earth, we shall not walk in darkness, howsoever earthly lights may be quenched, but the gloomiest path will be illuminated by His presence, and the roughest made smooth by His bleeding feet that passed along it. If we follow Him, He will lead us down into the dark valley, and up into the blessed sunshine, where participation in His own eternal life and glory will be salvation. If we march in His ranks on earth, then shall we
‘With joy upon our heads arise
And meet our Captain in the skies.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv21–41 See notes on verse 19
See notes on verse 19
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv31, 33 Saviour (See Scofield "Rom 1:16").
Saviour (See Scofield "Rom 1:16").
repentance Repentance. Act 8:22; Act 17:30; Mat 3:2.
Read full note →
forgiveness (See Scofield "Mat 26:28").
sins Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv21, 26, 29, 33, 38 The Sadducees receive a surprise:
The Sadducees receive a surprise:
v. 21. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the Council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Read full note →
v. 22. But when the officers came and found them not in the prison, they returned and told,
v. 23. saying, the prison, truly, found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors; but when we had opened, we found no man within.
v. 24. Now when the high priest and the captain of the Temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them where unto this would grow.
v. 25. Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the Temple and teaching the people.
The next morning the high priest was stirring betimes. Having come to the place where the Sadducees met, he and his henchmen called a meeting, not only of the entire Sanhedrin, the highest ecclesiastical court of the Jews, but also the presbytery of the children of Israel, the old and experienced teachers of the nation that were no members of the Council. But when they now, after all this formal and impressive introduction, sent servants over to the prison to get the prisoners, the latter were not in evidence. The servants returned with the information that they had found the prison locked up and made secure in approved fashion, that the guards had been occupying their accustomed places, but when they had opened the doors, there had been no prisoners. The angel of the Lord had therefore not only smitten the keepers of the prison with temporary blindness, but he had also relocked the doors to remove all evidence of the miraculous deliverance of the apostles. This message produced a great deal of consternation in the Sanhedrin. And it perplexed not only the members of the Council themselves, but also the "man of the Temple mount," the chief of the Temple police. Clearly the hand of God had here intervened, as they admitted indirectly in their perplexity, not knowing whereunto this might grow, where it would all end at the present rate of progress. Meanwhile a man came and announced to them that the men whom they had thrown into prison were standing in the Temple, openly and boldly engaged in teaching the people. Thus many an enemy of the Lord and His Word has found himself baffled by the manner in which the Lord protects them that are His, and takes care of His own interests. It is a good plan, a safe plan, to put all trust in Him.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv22, 24, 26, 29, 33, 35, 38, 40 we found no one inside
we found no one inside
The words "no one" refer to the apostles. This implies that there was no one else in the jail cell besides the apostles. AT: "we did not find them inside" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Read full note →
translationWords
prison
report
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv29, 30, 33, 34, 36 5:29 See study note on 4:19-20.
5:29 See study note on 4:19-20.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.