I believe God used Gamaliel to fulfill part of his plan and to get the disciples out of that situation. When the leaders in the Sanhedrin began to stir with anger, Gamaliel stepped in to calm the people down.
Although his message was quite good, his original intentions may have been to simply distract the Sadducees and give them something to think about to divert their anger from the disciples. His choice to have the disciples put outside for a time, Acts was also a good decision that helped the leaders in the Sanhedrin calm down and think more clearly about the situation.
In Acts , Gamaliel advices the counsel to leave the disciples alone. He tells them that, because the disciples are speaking the truth, the counsel is fighting against God, not the the disciples. I think Gamaliel gave his advice in effort to save the disciples lives. Some interesting points are brought up in this blog.
They were specifically put outside before he spoke this defense to the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless it could have been just a political statement for the council to hear. But I like to think he was inspired by the Hold Spirit and spoke not of his own accord.
This same thing happened to Annas, the father of the high priest, when they were going to crucify Jesus John It also sounds like he may have sincerely wanted the will of God to be done, knowing what was said of him after he died and his influence in keeping the word of God at such a high place in the lives of the people of his time. Really, these disciples were probably not a threatening force in his eyes — or maybe he saw that there was something different about the way these disciples followed Christ, even to the ultimate loss of everything earthly.
Whatever the case, it does seem that Gamaliel shrewdly placed himself into the conversation enough to make the council look bad if they ignored him, or look good from his reasoning. From his presence here in Acts , I would tend to believe that he believed that the apostles and disciples would not fail. It is duly noted on my part that the council listened to Gamaliel — which they likely would not have done if he had chosen to stand up for the two previous examples as well.
It appears to me that God used Gamaliel well, and he was well rewarded by being remembered in Scripture, as part of how the Gospel began to spread. I also would argue that this is where people and churches can be very apathetic in our day and age — by arguing that things will succeed if they are from God, or fail if they are of man. Would that then suggest that Christianity is then false, because it does not appear to be winning?
Maybe Gamaliel was simply a politician, I would say we really do not know one way or the either. But God still used him.
The same way God can use us, if we willing listen and obey — even if it is simply shrewd thinking to the world. I think it is important to note that Gamaliel was a respected teacher of the Law, which would have been both a religious and political role. It seems that, regardless of his own thoughts on who Jesus was, he had a desire for the truth to be known. If the truth was that Jesus was just another messianic pretender, then so be it.
But if Jesus was indeed who He said He was, then Gamaliel thought it important not to try to hide that. As a teacher of the Law, it is fitting that Gamaliel would have a high enough view of God that he thought God capable of preserving truth, even in the light of a would-be Messiah. If the disciples of Jesus were right, Gamaliel wisely advised that no Jewish leader should dare fight against them.
But if the disciples were wrong, they would dissolve on their own. To fight against the plan of God is a sure fire way to fail. So you see, God is with us. He is our leader. His priests blow their trumpets and lead us into battle against you. O people of Israel, do not fight against the Lord, the God of your ancestors, for you will not succeed!
There are a number of fascinating points about this reported incident. Bruce Chilton would be just one of a great many scholars and commentators who point out many similar points that are often not just questionable as to even general accuracy, but evidence of purposeful manipulation of events and situations.
Why does Gamaliel even make such a speech, suggesting ongoing observation to see if the movement is of God? In a city as geographically small as Jerusalem and as centered on the Temple, on Jewish religion, prophesy, etc.
Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God. He must have seen something in Peter and James to have stopped the other Rabbis.
That is my guess. Nobody here has addressed my points of Feb. However, it IS important to face what the NT texts present us… not just isolate highlights. And all this followed by:. Why does neither he nor Gamaliel address all these signs, especially the pivotal symbol if it happened of the Temple veil… cited by all 4 gospel-writers and Hebrews?
You saw this all a few weeks [or whenever recently] ago. What more do you have to see to be convinced??? Nor could Gamaliel have said what he did without at least offering a decent explanation, before going blithely on to suggest a wait-and-see posture!
Or one can question them both, of course. Howard, sorry I did not address your concerns! I do think it is remarkable you would likely say the signs surrounding the Crucifixion were created by the evangelists, but also then expect Peter to cite them as evidence for the resurrection. To a certain extent this is wanting to have your cake and eat it too! Most modern Christians would have used a different strategy than Peter maybe set up some focus groups, form a few deacon committees, etc.
You do however bring up a serious problem, since Peter does not in the story Luke is telling refer to the spectacular events you list above nor does Gamalliel seem to know them or care about them.
If Luke were creating the story himself, perhaps he would have worked harder to connect the two parts of the book. Since they are short extracts used as models, a great deal is left aside, and not everything said two months after the resurrection would have been wholly relevant two years later, let along twenty years later when Luke writes. I think I would have mentioned the apocalyptic events — but was Peter a witness to all of those things?
Who knew the Veil of the Temple was torn? Imagine if Peter did mention the earthquake or the darkness, the High Priest could simply remind Peter he was not a witness at all of the events, he was hiding for fear of being arrested himself. Still, the non-allusion to the events of the crucifixion in Acts is something I had not considered before…I need to think more about this. And as you say, who would have actually seen the torn veil?
I think the latter is much more credible and likely. They were mainly meant for persuasion and impressive reading. Similarly often with Acts. I think Gamaliel was seeing a trend in the deaths of leaders. He figured the apostles leader was already dead so they would not have as much motivation to continue to teach for much longer.
In Acts Gamaliel brings up other leaders that had been greatly esteemed and once they died their followers dispersed. This post talks about the wisdom of Gamaliel. The post also brings up how if the apostles were being truthful God would have his way no matter what. I think Gamaliel realized this and was not going to encourage punishment from God.
Part of this could be politics in the fact that he knew how to quickly appease the Sanhedrin without too much dispute. This question is not specifically on topic, and may have been answered elsewhere, but why was Gamaliel not present at the interrogation of Stephen?
Just one chapter before Gamaliel had taken control of the Sanhedrin and prevented Peter and the Apostles from being killed. Anyone have any thoughts on that? That is a good question, and I am not sure I have really considered it before. My first thought is that the controversy with Stephen took place in the Synagogue of the Freedmen Acts and the accusations came from diaspora Jews men of Cilicia and Asia. Although Acts says he was brought before the Sanhedrin, that does not necessarily mean every member was present.
Perhaps the accusers were able to limit the invitation for the interrogation to exclude people who might sympathize with Stephen. They used false witnesses, and will execute Stephen in an act of mob violence it is really a lynching. I see no reason why they would make much of an effort to make sure Gamaliel knew about the meeting! Another possibility is Gamaliel was less inclined to defend Greek-speaking Christians who were attacking the Temple in a diaspora synagogue.
Although the Sadducean leaders of the Sanhedrin want to sentence the apostles to death, they cannot take action without the support of so prominent a religious leader as Gamaliel. Though the Pharisees are in the minority in the Sanhedrin, they command much more public support than the Sadducees.
Gamaliel tells the council to reconsider its desire to have the apostles executed and to let them go If their movement is of purely human origin, it will fail, said Gamaliel.
Gamaliel refers to two Jewish revolutionaries — Theudas and Judas — who were killed by the Romans, and their followers scattered His implication is that if the Christian movement is another attempted revolution, the Roman military will kill its leaders and crush the movement. After all, the Pharisees were frequent debate opponents of Jesus, as Luke noted in his Gospel.
Also, Gamaliel must have been on the council when it condemned Jesus and handed him over to the Roman authority for crucifixion Luke ; Matthew There is no indication that Gamaliel defended Jesus. Why come to the defense of his followers now? Some commentators point out that Jesus was not necessarily hated by all the Pharisees. He was often invited to their homes for a meal Luke ; ; Jesus appeared to have some support among this sect, as the case of Nicodemus indicates John ; ; Later, many of the Pharisees became Christians Acts ; While Pharisees would have been on the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, the Gospels do not name Gamaliel specifically, so we do not know how Gamaliel felt about Jesus and what the Sanhedrin did with Jesus.
William Neil says:. Peter testifies of this in 2 Peter Even Festus said that Paul was very learned, Acts Paul demonstrates a deep understanding of the old testament prophecies, especially those relating to Jesus. He explained the subject of the law and grace like no other writer. From Gamaliel, we see the importance of being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Gamaliel was open to the influence of the Holy Spirit, even though he was a Pharisee and an expert of the law. We also learn from him the importance of being firm. His firm efforts to defend the truth preserved the early church.
We also need to equip ourselves with knowledge. In our defence of the truth, we must be wise, knowledgeable and convincing. And beyond being knowledgeable, we need to present the truth in a reasonable manner so that even those who are against it will see the sense of it and have no way to oppose it.
We should mentor other people just like Gamaliel trained Paul. He equipped Paul with the knowledge of the law that enabled him to teach the truths of the old testament in the light of Jesus Christ. Languages Study in More Languages.
Who was Gamaliel? Gamaliel and the early Christians Gamaliel is mostly remembered for intervening and defending Peter and the other apostles before the Jewish council who intended to kill them Acts This is what happened: The Sanhedrin had commanded the apostles not to preach in the name of Jesus Acts So they proposed to kill the apostles.
0コメント