Gamaliel

Acts 5:34-39 22:3

     The Apostle Paul reports in Acts 22 that he was a student of Gamaliel. We have already been introduced to him earlier in the book of Acts. When Peter and the other Apostles were under scrutiny of some members of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel counseled moderation in treatment of them. He said that if what they were doing was not God’s will, it would die out on its own. If it is God’s will, the council would be in the untenable position of opposing God.
     Concerns have been raised by Scholars as to the mention of Gamaliel as a teacher of Paul. The question has been, if Paul was the student of such a man, how did Paul become so intolerant and so vigorously persecute the Christians? His teachings also do not seem in accord with the style of rabbinic teaching. It doesn’t seem logical, but students do sometimes stray from both the teaching and spirit of their mentors.
     Gamaliel was the grandson of a famous Rabbi – Hillel and the grandfather of Gamaliel II. His learning and generous spirit enhanced the prestige of liberal Pharisaism and effected its survival and vitality in serving the Jewish people after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Among other kindly and liberal actions he took was opening the amount of movements that was permitted to certain groups on the Sabbath. (Work, travel, etc. are not allowed on the Sabbath according to Jewish law). Gamaliel also forbade husbands to annual divorce proceedings without their wives’ knowledge. Jewish tradition holds him in so much esteem that there came a saying: When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Law ceased and purity and abstinence died.”
     Note: Although Pharisees have a bad rap in Christianity, it is important to remember that this is because Jesus was concerned about its abuses. Scholars tell us that the teachings of the Pharisees were much in accord with the message of Jesus. Some scholars have even speculated that Jesus himself was a Pharisee and thus his exposing of hypocrisy, etc. was especially contentious to the group (because one of their “own” was doing it.)
     E.P. Blair speculates on the reasons Gamaliel counseled against extreme measures in regard to the Apostles. One certainly came from his usual tolerance and generosity of spirit. The other reason for tolerance may have arisen because much of what the Christians taught was at one with Pharisaic Judaism. Tolerance for the Christians thus also protected the Pharisaic position. His third reason, Blair speculates, likely came from true piety, glimpsing the purpose and power of God at work.

Question to consider:

Gamaliel suggested waiting and letting the Christians proceed in the belief that if they were doing God’s thing, then it would succeed and if they weren’t, the Christian movement would go away on its own. The Christian message could not be stopped – not even Roman persecution could get it to go away. But can that tolerant philosophy be applied in every situation?

What situations might call on Christians to take a stand against something?

How can a stand against something be done in a Christian manner?


What standards would we apply to such a “stand” to keep it Christian – that is, what would need to characterize our words or actions?