The Counsel of Gamaliel – Acts 5:33-42

Imagine that you are on board a ship headed toward some specific destination.

On this particular morning you awake to thick fog, so that you can’t see more than six feet over the side,

But you are confident that your captain has all of the technology needed to keep you safe.

Then about mid-morning the fog lifts and you can see a single island far off in the distance.

But because of the morning fog, you are not at all sure of your location.

There is only one island that you can see, even though you know that there must be thousands scattered across this vast ocean.

The captain doesn’t announce the presence of that island so you don’t even know it’s name.

For the sake of this journey, it’s not really important.

And then there might be gulls swimming in the water between you and that island, but you can’t see them.

There might even been a small boat or two out there,

But all that you can see is that tiny spot of land on the edge of the horizon.

There could be hundreds of things between you and that landfall, but you are blind to them all.

This island, however mysterious to you, stands out on the surface of the ocean because of its size,

And it demands your attention for a little while, until something else comes your way.

This man Gamaliel is one the human islands of the Word of God.

He’s somewhat mysterious, and relatively unimportant, but our eye catches on him nevertheless.

How much do you know about him?

How important is he in the grand scheme of Christianity?

Despite knowing very little about him, he did have some influence upon the early church.

Let’s think about three things in regard to this man: his character, his counsel, and his ultimate conclusion.

First, his history and CHARACTER.

Gamaliel is mentioned twice in the Word of God and this is the most extended reference,

So we don’t have very much Holy Spirit inspired information about him.

But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t other sources of information – both good and bad.

For example, while it is true that he was the son of a man named Simeon,

There is a tradition which says that this was the elderly Simeon who greeted the infant Jesus.

For this last idea, there isn’t a shred of real evidence.

But there are secular histories which supply us with a few pieces of reliable biographical information

For example Gamaliel was a Pharisee; in fact he was a Pharisee of the Pharisees.

As you know the Jewish religion in that day was divided into 2 major segments: Sadducees & Pharisees.

There were a few others such as the Essenes, but most people were either Sadducees or Pharisees.

Perhaps you didn’t know that the Pharisees were divided into two camps:

There were the followers of Shammai,

Who took a very hard-nose, “pharisaical” approach to the scriptures,

And there were the disciples of Hillel who were a little more kind and a little more spiritual.

History tells us that Gamaliel was the son of Simeon, who was the son of this Rabbi Hillel.

Those same histories say that Gamaliel taught that kindness and mercy, hospitality and generosity were more God-like than to be censorious and condemning.

For example he taught that there was nothing wrong with bidding “shalom” to an idolatrous Roman.

And he even encouraged his disciples to read some of the Greek philosophers in order to learn how best to bring them to the Truth.

The way that he treated people made Gamaliel highly respected and loved in Israel.

Verse 34 says that he was “had in reputation among all the people.”

Some histories say that he was the President of the Sanhedrin;

In fact he may have been the leader of the council in Acts 5.

The histories tell us that he was so thoroughly taught in the Word of God that he was one of only seven men in the history of Israel to be given the supreme title of “Rabban.”

He lived to a ripe old age and died about 18 years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

I said that he was mentioned twice in the Word of God.

I hope that you know about the second reference.

In Acts 22, when Paul was defending himself before the murderous mob at the temple he said,

“Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia,

Yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel,

And taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,

And was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.”

The most famous student that Gamaliel ever had was Saul of Tarsus.

Saul may have emigrated to Jerusalem for the primary purpose of sitting at the feet of this Gamaliel.

I think that we can learn a little about this teacher by studying his most famous student.

These are some of things that we can learn about Gamaliel from other sources, but what about this scripture?

Well, we see the respect that he had among the counselors.

When he rose to speak everyone became quiet, even the High Priest and his cohorts.

“He was had in reputation among ALL the people.”

I think that we can see that he was observant and reflective.

He wasn’t the first to speak the way a lot of self-important people tend to be.

He wasn’t shallow and filled with himself the way that Caiaphas seemed to be.

And he counseled patience, and he displayed it, which is a rare commodity especially among powerful people.

History tells us that Gamaliel was well-educated and his education included history.

He spoke of Judas of Galilee and Theudas, using them as illustrations to make his point.

All in all, I’d say that Gamaliel would have been a man you and I could have learned from and gotten along with quite well.

To be this kind of Pharisee could have been a good thing:

He had respect for the Word of God and was probably a religious if not a godly man.

He probably could have greatly helped us to learn the Old Testament.

And he could have taught us how to get along with people, especially those with whom we disagreed.

And coming from a Pharisee, that was really something.

But now lets think about HIS COUNSEL.

In some ways it was very good and wise.

He stood, “and said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.”

The first thing that he suggested was that carnal zeal was unwise.

He suggested that they act in patience and wisdom rather than haste and fervor.

Caiaphas and his friends felt threatened by the influence of the church,

And they were filled with indignation.

As we said last week the word “indignation” in verse 17 speaks of furious jealousy.

These men were almost blind with rage.

Verse 33 says “When they heard that, they were cut to the heart.”

The words “cut to the heart” literally implies that they were sawn asunder.

Whereas the people in Acts 2 were “pricked in their hearts,” these were “cut to the heart.”

One refers to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, but the other of uncontrollable wrath.

Being true to his own nature, Gamaliel urged restraint and wisdom.

“Sleep on it; think about it; give it some time; count to ten.”

Haste not only makes waste, but it can shed a lot of innocent blood as well.

The first thing that Gamaliel suggested was that carnal zeal was unwise.

And isn’t it interesting that Paul made reference to the zeal of these people.

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.”

Is this something that he learned in class with Gamaliel?

Then the teacher went on to say that this movement needed to be examined and tested.

He said, “Remember Theudas and the ruckus that he created?”

We don’t know anything for sure about this man.

But Josephus refers to a man by this name, who claimed to be a prophet of God.

He gathered a number of people around him and encouraged them to move to the wilderness with him.

He told his people that he would divide the Jordan river the way that Joshua did,

But when the Roman governor heard about it he ambushed them,

And Theudas never got a chance to prove his claim.

And of course the Sanhedrin didn’t like him anyway.

Judas, the Galilean on the other hand, lead a revolt against the tax that Cyrenias imposed on the Jews.

This Judas would have been warmly welcomed by the Sanhedrin.

But the Romans quashed that little rebellion just as easily.

So, among other things, Gamaliel was suggesting that if they gave the Christians a little time,

Then the Romans would take care of the problem.

But if, it was really of God, as the Apostles were saying,

Then the Sanhedrin would be foolish to fight against it.

This was not really bad counsel, but there was more to it than this and the rest was not really good.

First, just because a movement stands the test of time, didn’t prove that it is of God.

All they had to do was look around them.

Gamaliel was a Pharisee, but the High priest and his party were Sadducees.

There was a great difference between these two religious sects.

One group took the Bible literally, while the other made the words of God useless.

One group was conservative even to a fault, while the others were liberals and definitely at fault.

The differences between these groups were as wide as those between fundamental Baptists and Roman Catholics.

And both were firmly entrenched in Jewish society; only the destruction of the nation was going to remove either of them and neither of them foresaw that coming.

How long have the Mormons been around now?

Does that prove that Mormonism is a true branch of Bible Christianity?

And how long have we had the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church of Christ – the Russelites and the Campbellites?

For that matter, does the age of the Roman Catholic church legitimatize it?

Mr. Gamaliel, you are correct in thinking that if this movement is destroyed it is not of God.

But you are incorrect in saying that if it lasts for a while that it IS of God.

And secondly, it was not necessary to look for additional evidence.

We’ve said a couple of times already that Nicodemus may have been in the council chamber at this time.

It was about three years earlier, as the ministry of Christ was gaining speed, that Nicodemus went to personally investigate the Lord Jesus.

And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was convinced of the truth of Christ.

He became a disciple of the Lord, howbeit not as openly as he should have been.

And weren’t the miracles of Christ and of the Apostles convincing the average citizens of Jerusalem that this was for real?

Weren’t the officially uneducated Apostles expounding the scriptures in convincing fashion, proving that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?

Weren’t there thousands of lives being transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit?

What more evidence do you really need Gamaliel?

Rather than recommending patience, this teacher of teachers should have been recommending humble submission.

His manner was smooth and soothing, but he was still a pawn of Satan.

He should have been reviewing the evidence and expounding the scriptures which proved that Jesus was the Christ.

And that leads me to my last point – HIS CONCLUSION.

I wish that I could tell you that I have confidence that Gamaliel is in Heaven today, but I don’t have that confidence.

I wish that I could tell you that I think that he is in Heaven, but I don’t have any reason to think so.

I wish that I could tell you that I hope that he is; and I do hope so, but I’m not convinced that he is.

As I’ve already suggested, Gamaliel is mentioned only twice in the Bible, here and in Paul’s biography.

In other words, we don’t read of him coming to Peter at night asking about Jesus.

We don’t read of him coming to his most famous student and confessing that he too was a Christian.

In fact, the fact that Paul was the most zealous and fervent persecutor of the early churches, indicates to me that Gamaliel never counseled him to be anything less.

What I am saying is that as smart as he was…..

As filled with knowledge about the Scripture as he was……..

As honoured as he was and as revered by the people as he was………

Even though he didn’t directly suggest that the Sanhedrin stamp out the church in Jerusalem ………

These things did not buy him salvation or honor before God.

This man needed to be born again, like any other sinner.

But there is no proof that it ever happened.