Acts 5:39

ἐάν … εἰ δὲ : it has sometimes been thought that the change of mood from subjunctive to indicative, “but if it is of God,” as if indicating that the second supposition were the more probable (cf. Galatians 1:8-9), indicates sympathy on the part of Gamaliel. It is of course possible that he may have been rendered favourably disposed towards the Christians by their strict observance of the Law, and by their appeal to a doctrine which widely divided Pharisees and Sadducees. Others have attributed the change in mood, not to Gamaliel at all, but to the author (so Overbeck, Holtzmann), and have maintained (so Blass, Weiss, cf. Winer-Moulton, xli. 2) that the indicative may be used because the second is the case with which the Council had actually to deal, the assertion, i.e., of the Apostles. There may also be an underlying contrast between the transitoriness of all mere human schemes, all of which would be overthrown, and the certainty of that which is “of God,” and which has Him for its Author. There cannot be the least ground for supposing that Gamaliel's counsel was in its tenor a mere invention, as it bears the impress of a thorough Rabbinical wise saying, cf. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, v., 24 (Taylor, p. 93, second edition). See too Herod., ix. 16; Eur., Hippol., vi., 76; for the construction, cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 96, and Viteau, Le Grec du N. T., pp. 103, 113 (1893), who compares LXX, Genesis 44:23; Genesis 44:26. οὐ δύνασθε : R.V. and W.H [186], δυνήσεσθε. καταλῦσαι with accusative of person in Xen., Cyr., viii., 5, 24; Plato, Legg., iv., p. 714,., cf. 4Ma 4:16. But without this addition it is usual to refer back to προσέχετε in Acts 5:35 (cf. Luke 21:34) for the construction of μήποτε; but μήποτε … εὑρεθῆτε may be explained on the principle that a verb of fearing is sometimes unexpressed, the idea of fear being supplied by the context (in clauses where μή with the subjunctive is found), Burton, u. s., p. 96. μήποτε, “lest haply,” its use in later Greek, Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 208. καί sometimes interpreted (so Alford, Wendt, Holtzmann), as if it meant not only against man but also against God. θεομάχοι : not found elsewhere, but cf. LXX, Job 26:5, Symm., and in Proverbs 9:18; Proverbs 21:16, applying the word to the Rephaim (see B.D. 2 “Giants”); in 2Ma 7:19 we have θεομαχεῖν ἐπεχείρησας. In classical Greek the same verb is found, see Grimm and Wendt for instances; θεομαχία, Plato, Rep., 378, D. (as certain books of the Iliad were called, especially the 19). The tolerance of the sentiments here attributed to Gamaliel is undoubtedly in perfect accordance with what we know of his character and opinions; the decisions attributed to him, e.g., that relating to the law of the Sabbath (Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums, ii., 2, 237; see also Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 239 246, and cf. also Renan, Apostles, p. 153, E.T.), are marked by a tendency to mildness and liberality; and perhaps a still more remarkable illustration of the same tendency is afforded by the enactment so often referred to him (Hamburger, u. s.) to allow to the poor of the heathen, as well as of Israel, the gleaning and a participation in the corn left standing in the corner of the fields, to inquire after the welfare of the Gentile poor, to maintain them, to visit their sick, to bury their dead (the prayer against heretics belonged not to this Gamaliel, but to Gamaliel II.). But the decision of Gamaliel was not prompted by any sympathy with the Christians; it was the judgment of toleration and prudence, but certainly nothing more, although it scarcely falls under the head of “cynical”; it was rather, as Ewald called it, that of an ordinary politician. No credence whatever can be attributed to the tradition that Gamaliel became a Christian, or that he was secretly a Christian, although we may sympathise with St. Chrysostom's words, “it cannot be that he should have continued in unbelief to the end”. The Talmud distinctly affirms that he died a Jew, and, if he had betrayed his faith, we cannot understand the honour which Jewish tradition attaches to his name, “Gamaliel,” B.D. 2; Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii., vol. i., p. 364. Wendt, while he refuses to admit the historical character of the speech of Gamaliel, is evidently puzzled to discover any definite grounds for St. Luke's wilful introduction of the famous Rabban into the scene (so too Feine). He therefore supposes that the decision in Acts 5:38, in which he sees a wise saying similar to those attributed to other Rabbis, was assigned by tradition to Gamaliel, and that St. Luke, who was in possession of the further tradition that Gamaliel had given a decisive judgment in the trial of the Apostles, introduces this saying into the speech which he attributes to Gamaliel as fitting to the occasion. But there is no indication in our authorities that the sentiment thus attributed to Gamaliel was in any way different from what might have been expected of him (see Schürer, Jewish People, u. s.). The chief objection to the speech, viz., the alleged anachronism involved in the mention of Theudas, really begs the question as to its authenticity, and even on the supposition of an inaccuracy in the point mentioned, we cannot get rid of the fact that the attitude of Gamaliel in itself betrays no inconsistency. It was this alleged anachronism which caused Spitta to refer the incident of Gamaliel in this chapter to his inferior source., and to refuse to adopt the solution of Weiss and Feine, who solved the difficulty involved in the mention of Theudas by introducing the hand of a reviser.

[186] Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.