Biblion Bible Commentary
Read the introduction to Acts · About this commentary
Gamaliel's advice, and men who rejoiced at a flogging
Acts 5:33-42
33 But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart, and were determined to kill them. · WEB
A cautious Pharisee saves their lives with an argument that is only half reliable, and the men he saves walk out glad to have been beaten.
The council was cut to the heart — the same phrase used of the crowd at Pentecost, with the opposite result. There it produced the question what shall we do; here it produces a determination to kill. The identical conviction runs two ways depending on what the convicted person does with it.
Gamaliel is introduced with unusual care: a Pharisee, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people. A Pharisee in a Sadducean court is already a minority voice, and on this issue he has a doctrinal reason to be less alarmed than the presiding party, since Pharisees held the resurrection. He clears the room before speaking, which is the conduct of a man who intends to say something the accused should not hear.
His argument is from precedent. Theudas rose up, gathered four hundred, was killed, and his following came to nothing. Judas of Galilee rose in the days of the enrollment, drew people after him, perished, and his followers scattered. Both examples are drawn from the recent memory of everyone in the room. The identification of the first is not certain — the name was common in that period, and risings under it are recorded outside Scripture at more than one date — and nothing in the argument depends on which man is meant.
The conclusion is the famous one: withdraw 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.
The second half of that is unanswerable and the first half is not. It is simply true that no one can overturn what God is doing, and true that a court risks finding itself on the wrong side of a work it cannot identify. But the inference that a movement's survival proves its origin does not follow, and history since has provided abundant counter-examples; endurance is a poor test, since error can be patient. What Gamaliel actually supplies is not a criterion for truth but a counsel of prudence for men who do not know what they are dealing with, and as such it is wise. The book treats it that way — it saves the apostles' lives and settles nothing.
The court agrees and then does not quite follow the advice. It leaves them alive and beats them first, which is a flogging of thirty-nine strokes, and repeats the prohibition. Gamaliel's leave them alone is honored in the part that costs the council nothing.
What the apostles do with the beating is the chapter's last surprise. They left rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for Jesus' name. The word is dishonor rather than pain — a public flogging was designed to humiliate, and the humiliation is what they treat as the honor. The category has been inverted entirely. Their master's name, which the high priest could not bring himself to pronounce, is the thing they were disgraced for, and they walk out of the chamber counting the disgrace as a credential.
And the chapter's last verse says the prohibition failed completely: every day, in the temple and at home, they never stopped teaching and preaching Jesus, the Christ.
held with reason What this mark means