Acts
by David CookDespite external persecution and internal hypocrisy, the church continues to grow.
Clearly God is accrediting His gospel message in miraculous ways (vv. 15-16). Luke now tells us that the motivation of the high priest and his associates is jealousy (v. 17), the same motivation behind their earlier attitude towards Jesus (Matthew 27:18). But prison is an ineffective weapon against the apostles. God's messengers cannot be stopped as long as He has work for them to do.
The Jewish religious authorities deny responsibility for the death of Jesus (v. 28). Verses 29-32 are an excellent summary of the apostolic response. Note the following elements:
The response to such a message (v. 33) is similar to the response to Stephen's speech later (Acts 7:54), and perhaps the apostles would also have met Stephen's fate (see Acts 7:54-60), but for the wise intercession of Gamaliel (vv. 34-39). Gamaliel reminds the Sanhedrin of Theudas (v. 36) and Judas the Galilean (v. 37), who appeared claiming to be someone but were later killed and their followers scattered. Similarly, he says, let the apostles go, for their cause will fail if it is of human origin (v. 38), but if, on the other hand, it is of God, then who can effectively oppose it (v. 39)?
The apostles are flogged and then released, but keep teaching and proclaiming, despite the Sanhedrin forbidding that activity. Saul (who will be known as Paul after his conversion), though a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), had no such open attitude to Christianity. He saw that the old system must stay; therefore the new must be banished.
According to the logic of Gamaliel, the ongoing growth of the church and its continuation to this day is ample evidence of its divine origin. To oppose the gospel is to fight against God (v. 39), surely a hopeless enterprise.
Why did Gamaliel and Saul have such different attitudes to the new movement?
What emotions are evident in those who oppose the apostles (see vv. 17, 24, 26, 33)?
COMMENTS (0)