Bible Study series: Acts 5:33:39. God communicates to people who are open and rescues them from an early death when they have a mission to complete.
Friendly greetings and a warm welcome to this Bible study! I write to learn. Let’s learn together and apply these truths to our lives.
I also translate to learn. The translations are mine, unless otherwise noted. If you would like to see many others, please click on this link:
At the link to the original post, next, I write more commentary and dig a little deeper into the Greek. I also offer a section titled Observations for Discipleship at the end. Check it out!
In this post, links are provided in the commentary section for further study.
Let’s begin.
Scripture: Acts 5:33-39
33 When they heard this, they were infuriated and intended to kill them. 34 But a certain man, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, rose in the council and ordered the men to go outside a little while. 35 He said to them, “Men of Israel, watch yourselves in regard to these men and what you are about to do! 36 For some time ago Theudas, claiming to be somebody, followed by about 400 men, was killed, and everyone who was convinced by him was dispersed and came to nothing. 37 After this, Judas the Galilean led the people in a revolt after him, during the census. He too perished, and everyone who was convinced by him was scattered. 38 In the present case, I tell you, stay away from these men and release them! If this plan or action is of human impetus, it shall come to ruin. 39 But if it is of God, you will not be able to destroy it. Perhaps you will be found to be fighters against God!” They were convinced by him. (Acts 5:33-39)
Comments:
33:
“infuriated”: It could be translated literally as “sawn in two.” It shows the hearts and consciences were stung and cut. The apostles did not hold back before priests and especially the mighty Sanhedrin. This boldness is a theme in Acts 2-7.
Who intended to kill them? Was Saul / Paul the first to rush them or shout for their deaths? We will never know for sure, but if he were inside or even outside the council chamber, then why not conclude that he did push hard for their executions? However, in Acts 7:58, he is seen standing coolly off to the side, but then soon after Stephen is stoned to death he will aggressively drag people away (8:3).
34:
“Gamaliel”: He was Saul’s rabbinic teacher, under whom he was thoroughly trained (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel seemed to be moderate. If he had not spoken up, the apostles were going to die, though the movement would not have died out because Jesus was behind it. “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). But it would have been hampered and leaderless for a while. Somehow God read Gamaliel’s softer heart and nudged him to defend the twelve. God can work with a soft or moderate heart, but he has a tough time reaching fanatics and the stubborn. Yes, human free will is a powerful gift of God.
35-37:
“Watch yourselves”: It is a strong warning that must have stopped the calls for the apostles’ deaths.
God was not behind the movements of Theudas and Judas. They led small movements of violence. So Gamaliel’s statement is a general observation because plenty of massive movements last but are not God-endorsed.
There appears, at first glance, to be a discrepancy in Luke and his account of Theudas. Gamaliel here, in about AD 34, refers to an uprising of Theudas, which did not occur until about a decade later (AD 44). Critics say therefore that Luke cannot be trusted throughout his entire history—throw everything out.
Longenecker, however, has an explanation:
And despite the caustic comment about “special pleading,” usually leveled against the proposal, it remains true that (1) the Theudas whom Gamaliel cites in Acts 5:36 may have been one of many insurgent leaders who arose in Palestine at the time of Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC and Judas of the Galilean of AD 6, whereas Josephus focused an another Theudas of AD 44. Our problem with these verses, therefore, may result as much from our own ignorance of the situation as much from our own ignorance of the situation as from what we believe we know based on Josephus. (comment on vv. 36-37)
Bruce cuts the Gordian knot in this way:
The most reasonable conclusion is that Gamaliel was referring to another Theudas, who flourished before AD 6. While it is usually precarious to cut this kind of Gordian knot by assuming that the person in question is someone else of the same name, the assumption is acceptable here (1) because Luke is as credit-worthy a historian as Josephus, (2) because Theudas is a common name (it is a contraction of Theodorus, Theodotus, Theodosius, etc.), occurring also in inscriptions [Bruce references the inscriptions] … and (3) because there were many such risings under similar tumults and disorders in Judea after Herod’s death (4 BC), and this rising may have been one of these.
Bruce implies in his second explanation that Josephus could also be wrong, as some commentators believe, for he is the one who situates the revolt in AD 44.
38-39:
The English is a little awkward: “If this plan or action is of human impetus”: in Greek, not reflected in the translation, Luke uses a construction that doubts it is of human impetus. But if it may be of God.
In v. 38, “plan”: BDAG is the authoritative Greek lexicon, and it defines the term thus: (1) “that which one thinks about as possibility for action, plan, purpose, intention”; (2) “that which one decides, resolution, decision”; (3) it can even be a council that takes up proposals and deliberates, council meeting. Here it is the first definition. It is used 12 times, and 9 times in Luke-Acts. He favors this word.
“But if it is of God”: The Greek signifies that Luke believes it is of God.
“God-fighters”: It is a compound noun.
Don’t thwart God’s plan in your life. Stop fighting him and his plan! He knows what will make you content and fulfilled in him.
So why didn’t Saul (later Paul) take Gamaliel’s advice of moderation? Saul ravaged the church (Acts 8:1-3), yet he was Gamaliel’s pupil, after all. Longenecker has a solid explanation:
Between Gamaliel’s advice and Saul’s action, however, there arose within Christian preaching something that could only be viewed by the Jewish leaders as a real threat of Jewish apostasy. In Acts 6-7, Stephen is portrayed as beginning to apply the doctrines of Jesus’ messiahship and lordship to traditional Jewish views regarding the land, the Law, and the temple. Moreover, he is seen as beginning to reach the conclusion that related to the primacy of Jesus’ messiahship and lordship and the secondary nature of Jewish views about the land, the Law, and the temple. (comment on vv. 38-39).
Longenecker goes on to say that Stephen tread on a dangerous path—“a path that even the apostles seemed unwilling to take at that time.” Stephen will criticize the temple.
I add: in v. 33 the Sanhedrin was infuriated and were determined to kill them, so they did not need a strong nudge to persecute them, despite Gamaliel’s speech advocating caution.
For more information about communicating to unbelievers, see this post:
Yes, God Communicated to People Outside Ancient Israel
GrowApp for Acts 5:33-39
1. If God backs your personal mission, nothing will stop it. How can you be sure God backs your mission and not go out in your own desire and ambitions?
RELATED
The Historical Reliability of the Book of Acts
Book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles: Match Made in Heaven?
SOURCES
For the bibliography, please click on this link and scroll down to the very bottom:
Dr. Jim's Essential Bible Teaching 