Session 2.12: December 22, 2023

Scripture Reading: Acts 5:17-42

17 Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. 18 They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, 20 “Go and stand in the temple courts and proclaim to the people all the words of this life.” 21 When they heard this, they entered the temple courts at daybreak and began teaching.

Now when the high priest and those who were with him arrived, they summoned the Sanhedrin—that is, the whole high council of the Israelites—and sent to the jail to have the apostles brought before them. 22 But the officers who came for them did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported, 23 “We found the jail locked securely and the guards standing at the doors, but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 Now when the commander of the temple guard and the chief priests heard this report, they were greatly puzzled concerning it, wondering what this could be. 25 But someone came and reported to them, “Look! The men you put in prison are standing in the temple courts and teaching the people!” 26 Then the commander of the temple guard went with the officers and brought the apostles without the use of force (for they were afraid of being stoned by the people).

27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the council, and the high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!” 29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than people. 30 The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these events, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”

33 Now when they heard this, they became furious and wanted to execute them. 34 But a Pharisee whose name was Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was respected by all the people, stood up in the council and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. 35 Then he said to the council, “Men of Israel, pay close attention to what you are about to do to these men. 36 For sometime ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about 400 men joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and nothing came of it. 37 After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and incited people to follow him in revolt. He too was killed, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in this case I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, 39 but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God.” He convinced them, 40 and they summoned the apostles and had them beaten. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them. 41 So they left the council rejoicing because they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. 42 And every day both in the temple courts and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ.

Main Themes

Introduction—Setting the Scene

Today’s text narrates the apostles’ second arrest. The scene begins with the high priest “rising up.” Remember that this “high priest” was introduced in Acts 4:6 as Annas, although historically Caiaphas was high priest at this time. We have good reason to believes that Annas (Caiaphas’ father-in-law) was the de facto head of the high-priestly family. Thus, Annas seems to lead the trial.

The Sadducees are also mentioned. We have discussed them at length, so I will only remind you that this is the party that claims to believe in the Old Testament but that denies life after death and miraculous interventions by God.

The high priest and Sadducees are described as being filled with “jealousy.” This is a strong word that in Judaism was generally reserved for religiously motivated rage. Ironically, it conveys a zeal motivated by a desire to maintain the purity of the faith.

Moreover, envy is a strong, motivating emotion in an honor-shame society. Within a competitive limited honor culture the popularity of the apostles’ ministry diminishes the honor (i.e., support) of the ruling elite. This is particularly the case given the apostles’ claim that the leaders had unjustly crucified an innocent Jew who was anointed by God.

The apostles’ popularity and peaceful behavior had protected them from trouble with the authorities. But now (after the trial in chapter 4), they are defying a direct order from the authorities. Allowing the apostles to continue in their disobedience threatens the authority and power of the ruling council. They must act.

I mentioned this before, but the arrests in chapter 4 and 5 work as a redemptive arc in Peter’s story. When Jesus was arrested, Peter claimed that he was willing to face “both prison and death” for Jesus (Luke 22:33)—but he failed (22:34, 57-61). In Acts, Peter finally follows through.

Miraculous Prison Break

The apostles’ miraculous release from prison works in two levels: on the literal level, it is a miraculous sign that validates their mission from God; on the literary level, it fulfills prophecy. Jesus’s mission includes release of captives.

The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me, because the Lord has chosen me. He has commissioned me to encourage the poor, to help the brokenhearted, to decree the release of captives and the freeing of prisoners, . . . Isaiah 61:1

In chapter 12, we will read of another miraculous escape at the hands of the Angel of the Lord. Many scholars note that miraculous escapes are a frequent motif in ancient literature. Perhaps the best known story would have been that of Euripides. Some try to show narrative parallels between Euripides’ Bacchae and Acts. You can review them here, but in my opinion it is a stretch at best. Moreover, one could grant that a popular story such as that of Euripides could impact how Luke told the story of Peter’s escape without in any way affecting the substance of the story. For example, I could begin a story about my childhood with the phrase, “once upon a time,” and then tell a true and factual tale. I would be copying how classic children stories are told, not the events they narrate.

We must also keep in mind that Luke generally employs Jewish stories as his models and background, not Greek or Roman mythology. The Old Testament lacks a tradition of angels aiding in prison escapes, but it does contain stories of the Angel of the Lord helping people while imprisoned (see, e.g., Dan 6: 22).

Perhaps the most important question we should ask is: Why does God release the apostles from prison? For proclamation (Acts 5:20). More specifically, the command is to go speak at the temple. This makes sense for several reasons. The apostles could address large crowds there. It is also reminiscent of Old Testament prophets tasked with addressing all Israelites. Recall, for example, Jeremiah 7.

The Lord said to Jeremiah: “Stand in the gate of the Lord’s temple and proclaim this message: ‘Listen to the Lord’s message, all you people of Judah who have passed through these gates to worship the Lord. The Lord of Heaven’s Armies, the God of Israel, says: Change the way you have been living and do what is right. If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land. Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, “We are safe! The temple of the Lord is here! The temple of the Lord is here! The temple of the Lord is here!” You must change the way you have been living and do what is right. You must treat one another fairly. Stop oppressing resident foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands. Stop killing innocent people in this land. Stop paying allegiance to other gods. That will only bring about your ruin. If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in this land that I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession. Jeremiah 7:1-7

The apostles are tasked with proclaiming the “words of this life” (Acts 5:20). This could refer to wisdom—the behavior that leads to a better life. Given Jesus’ emphasis on eternal life (Luke 10:25; 18:18, 30), and Peter’s earlier preaching about “the prince of life” (Acts 3:15), the more likely conclusion is that the words of life are about Jesus being the way to eternal life.

Preaching at the Temple

The apostles are specifically tasked with preaching in the temple. By proclaiming the true message of the true God in the temple, this is a sort of reconsecration—a recurring theme in Jewish history.

Notice that the angel’s command puts God and the authorities in direct conflict. God says proclaim the message of Jesus in the temple. The authorities say do not speak in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:21, 29), which would certainly include doing so in the most religiously significant and very densely populated place—the temple. In the narrative, the apostles have made it clear already, and will do so again, that they must obey God over people.

The apostles began teaching immediately at daybreak. This is the same time at which the Sanhedrin would have gathered. Public life in the ancient Mediterranean world began at daybreak. Moreover, Jewish people offered morning prayers before work at sunrise. The priests would have already been working on the customary daybreak sacrifice. So the apostles would find a ready-made crowd to teach at that time.

We should note the subtle jab at the rulers when we are told the rulers had to be informed of the apostles’ preaching. “Someone” came and informed them. None of them were at the temple for early morning prayers. An outsider to the group had to tell them. In contrast to the apostles, the mostly priestly city leaders are depicted as further removed from the liturgical life of the temple and the Jerusalemites who worshiped there.

The Discovery

We are told that the guards were at the jail. This implies that the guards had not abandoned their post and presumably also had not participated in a conspiracy. The facts clearly point towards a miracle. The Sadducees, however, who denied miracles, are not amazed—they are puzzled. As I have highlighted in the past, they never stop to wonder whether they are wrong. As the meme goes, they do not ask, “Are we the baddies?” Acknowledging the possibility of a miracle would have only made things worse. The people may have held the apostles in even higher esteem.

Instead, the leaders immediately call for the arrest of the apostles. Undoubtedly, the high priest and captain of the guard lost face before the other leaders—failing to control a handful of prisoners who then openly defied them for a second time. Preaching at the temple instead of escaping was nothing less than a public challenge to the authority of the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, the guards must arrest the apostles nonviolently. Why? “For they were afraid of being stoned by the people.”

Given the history of Israel—recall the Maccabean rebellion we discussed last time, for example—a violent uprising was not implausible. Not only was this immediately dangerous to the members of the Sanhedrin, but stirring the crowds could provoke Roman retribution. On a theological level, we should note that the leaders’ actions are not motivated by what is right or wrong. They act based on what is advantageous and are only limited by power.

The Trial

Yet again the apostles find themselves in the middle of an interrogation. Surprisingly, the interrogation does not open with, “How did you escape?” This matter was less pressing to the authorities than the apostles’ disobedience to their previous warning. Besides, asking such a question could open the door for a bold speech about God helping the righteous—only a rookie lawyer asks open ended questions of a hostile witness.

What is the authorities’ problem with the apostles preaching? We have discussed this before, so I will keep this brief. The authorities claim the apostles are bringing Jesus’ “blood on them” (Acts 5:28). This refers to the concept of bloodguilt: one who carried guilt for shedding innocent blood would need to be punished. Interestingly, later in Acts this is a standard that the apostles would apply to themselves. In chapter 20, Paul implies that he would have blood guilt if failed to preach the gospel.

“And now I know that none of you among whom I went around proclaiming the kingdom will see me again. Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all. For I did not hold back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God. Acts 20:25-27

Peter’s response to the authorities is also one we have discussed before. Peter claims that he must obey God over people (Acts 5:29). Although the background to Peter’s claim is clearly the Old Testament prophets who often antagonized the nation of Israel for the sake of delivering God’s message, Peter’s response would have been intelligible to someone with a Hellenistic background as well. His words recall the story of Socrates’ trial, and his obeying “the god” rather than his judges.

Notice that Peter does not accuse the leaders of “crucifying” Jesus. Instead he speaks in a manner appropriate not to Romans but to Israel’s leaders: they “hanged him on a tree.” The language alludes to a shameful mode of execution in Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which Jews by this period applied to crucifixion.

Peter’s response was surely unexpected to the council. Those on trial, much less the uneducated and politically weak, did not speak with such boldness and open defiance. In challenging the officials’ behavior, Peter and the other apostles appear unafraid even of provoking their martyrdom. This fearlessness indicates their absolute conviction

What was the divine commission the apostles were called to obey?

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” Acts 1:8

The Punishment

The apostles’ refusal to be intimidated threatens the elite’s socially accepted status of honor. This is a situation in which the message of the gospel collides against hardened hearts. The result is “fury” (Διαπρίω). The term indicates extreme rage. In its only other New Testament use, the council proceeds to kill the object of their anger.

The elite wished to execute the apostles. Both an impromptu lynching or a formally carried out death sentence without Roman approval would have been against Roman law. (We discussed this during our study of John.) However, in antiquity like today, such restrictions could be finessed politically. Ancient reports suggest that the Sadducees sometimes abused their power violently. (But we should not exaggerate either. We do not have evidence of the Sanhedrin being involved in lynchings.) The Pharisees, to their credit, were probably much more stringent in evidential requirements for capital cases. So, perhaps if Gamaliel had not intervened, the Sadducees would have held the apostles until they could secure an execution by the Roman authorities.

We will discuss Gamaliel in a minute, but let’s conclude the discussion of the apostles’ punishment. Having been calmed down, the council members decide against capital punishment. The apostles were too popular in Jerusalem to risk disposing of them the way Jesus was dealt with. However, the apostles do not escape with another warning. Not at all.

A flogging was a severe punishment. Many scholars suspect that the flogging was the traditional Jewish thirty-nine lashes. (The Pharisees in the council would not have approved of more lashes in view of Deuteronomy 25:2-3.) We know that such a flogging punishment was somewhat common after an offender defied a warning. The person would be tied to a post or lie on the ground, receiving one-third of the blows on the front of the body and two-thirds on the back.

Gamaliel

Luke’s portrayal of Jerusalem’s aristocracy is not monolithic. Luke tells us of a fair member of the council named Gamaliel. Gamaliel, a minority Pharisee on the council, does not so much defend the apostles’ views as the Pharisaic position of tolerance.

Gamaliel is described as a “teacher of the law.” Gamaliel was a renown teacher, respected by all the people. This was both presupposed by Paul (see Acts 22:3) and attested in rabbinic comments on both him and his grandson. Gamaliel was also wealthy. We can learn something about his wealth from the comments made of his son. Josephus tells us that Gamaliel’s son held much authority in the Jerusalem assembly; that he was a Pharisee from a prominent Jerusalem family; that he was very intelligent; and that he had influence with two high priests.

Gamaliel ordered the apostles to be put outside, undoubtedly partly for privacy but perhaps also to prevent the apostles from making the court still angrier. Gamaliel’s tolerance makes sense from a Pharisaic perspective. Whereas the Sadducees, who held most of the political power, were sensitive to political threats, the Pharisees would likely object to executing those who kept the law. The Pharisees are reported to have favored more leniency than the Sadducees.

That Gamaliel, a renowned and respected Pharisee, was able to persuade the Sanhedrin is not surprising. The Pharisees seemed to have represented the views of the people, a status that often enabled them to sway the council’s decisions. (Recall that the council was already concerned that the people might react violently and stone them.)

The speech opens and closes with its main theme—a warning against hasty action. Gamaliel speaks eloquently, starting with the phrase “pay close attention to,” a familiar idiom in the context of exhortations. Gamaliel then compares the Jesus movement to armed resistance movements. Clearly, Gamaliel understands that is exactly the Sanhedrin’s concern regarding Jesus followers. Gamaliel makes the point that the prior revolutionary movements came to nothing, and the same would happen to the Jesus movement if it lacked God’s blessing.

Gamaliel’s argument is not a good one. First, the prior revolutionary movements came to nothing because they were violently stopped. So one could not draw the conclusion that because they failed then the Jesus movement would also fail without any need for violent opposition from the authorities. Moreover, the main premise of his argument invites a logical error. Gamaliel claims that a movement from God cannot be stopped. Fair enough. But we must keep in mind that simply because a movement from God cannot be stopped does not mean that a movement that cannot be stopped is from God. So, even if prior revolutions had succeeded, that would prove nothing. (Many ancients recognized the limits of Gamaliel’s logic, realizing one cannot always judge what is praiseworthy on the basis of successes or failures.)

Gamaliel’s argument is a classic instance of the descriptive versus prescriptive question when interpreting the Bible (or any text). One cannot assume that all things the Bible narrates is teaching us lessons to follow. The Bible may simply be describing something that happened, as in this case it describes the argument Gamaliel makes. Sometimes, of course, it is teaching us how to live or what to believe. We must be careful not to get the two confused.

Gamaliel’s closing statement to the council does not mince words. He cautions the elite that they might be “fighting against God.” This expression appeared in a widely circulated Jewish text (2 Maccabees 7:19). In that text, “fighting against God” is what the pagan persecutors of the Maccabean martyrs did. Maccabean martyrs were national heroes.

Although Gamaliel does not speak from a Christian perspective, perhaps Gamaliel entertained the possibility that God was acting though the apostles. The Sadducees were intellectually committed to the fact that no miracle had release the apostles from prison. Gamaliel, as a Pharisee, held no such commitment.

A Historical Error?

Gamaliel compares the Jesus movement to Judas the Galilean and Theudas. Judas led a revolt in the days of the census, that is, in 6 A.D. Judas’ sons were later crucified for rebellion.

Theudas was apparently an eschatological prophet (i.e., a wannabe Jesus) who tried, unsuccessfully, to part the Jordan. Theudas was quickly captured and his head was cut off.

Here’s the problem. Theudas’ revolt was in 44 A.D. This is after Gamaliel’s speech and long after Judas the Galilean’s revolt in 6 A.D. (rather than before as the text in Acts 5:37 seems to imply).

Various solutions to this dating issue are possible.

The first solution is that our source dating Theudas’ revolt was wrong. That source is Josephus. Josephus certainly makes mistakes in his writing, several times contradicting himself. Besides, Theudas’ revolt, as dated by Josephus, happened when Josephus was only 7 years old. Maybe Josephus remembers incorrectly. Yet given Josephus’ more detailed treatment of Theudas and Judas, explicit mention of the governors in authority during their revolts, and his apparent access to written sources, on the grounds normally used to ascertain historical probability Josephus seems likelier than Luke to have access to the correct chronology.

Another solution sometimes offered is that there was an earlier Theudas before Jesus’ birth. This would resolve the dating issue and the chronology in Acts 5 (i.e., first came Theudas, then came Judas). Undoubtedly, prophetic figures abounded, before and after Jesus. Theudas, however, was a rare name. But maybe “Theudas” was a nickname, short for such popular names as “Theodorus,” “Theodosius,” and “Theodotus.”

Most scholars believe that the simplest solution is that Luke made a mistake, either unaware of the true date of Theudas or confusing him with some other rebel. If this is a mistake on Luke’s part, it would not have been a “big deal” to him or his audience. Even the best of ancient historians made mistakes, and Luke still captures the essence of Gamaliel’s speech.

I wish to make two comments about this potential error. First, many Christians are committed to the inerrancy of scripture. Inerrancy is not always defined the same way. Its stronger form means that the Bible contains no errors whatsoever, of any kind, including in details such as weights and distances it describes. A more modest version of inerrancy is that the Bible contains no errors regarding anything it teaches. Without going into too much detail, this view allows for certain statements in the Bible to be false because the Bible itself is not committed to their truth. (An example would the mustard seed being the smallest seed in the garden.) Nevertheless, the Theudas mistake flies in the face of either view of inerrancy. So, I ask, if one could prove that there was in fact a mistake in Acts, such that biblical inerrancy fell apart, would that be the end of the Christian faith? No! I say this emphatically because many Christian seem to think so. As long as the Bible is reliable, we are justified in holding our faith in Jesus and in his recorded teachings. Reliability is a much more modest standard than inerrancy.

My second comment is, do we know that Luke made a mistake? Luke’s other significant historical assertions that can be tested most securely (Gallio, Felix and Festus, Drusilla, Agrippa and Berenice, the Egyptian prophet, local titles for officials, etc.) can all be corroborated. Over the centuries, there have been several instances in which scholars believed Luke made a mistake only to be proven wrong by later archaeological discoveries. Therefore, we have good reason to believe Luke did not make a mistake in the case of Theudas either.

Joy in Persecution

[I did not have time to finish this section, but here is a brief summary. The narrative concludes by reinforcing the characterization that the apostles, in contrast to Jerusalem’s political elite, obey God rather than people. They rejoice when suffering for Jesus’s name, as he commanded, while disobeying the Sanhedrin’s injunction not to teach in Jesus’s name. The apostles return with joy, as they did after Jesus’s ascension. Luke often emphasizes joy over embracing the gospel.]