Acts 5:17–42: The Apostles Arrested and Freed
Passage
I didn’t make it a major point, but the last passage mentioned that the Apostles and/or the overall Church were held in high regard by the people. The passage was about how powerfully the Holy Spirit was working in the Church, and telling about many miraculous healings.
This passage, however, starts with the word “but,” indicating that not everyone holds the new Church in such high regard:
But the high priest rose up, and all who were with him (that is, the party of the Sadducees), and filled with jealousy they arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. (verses 17–18)
Since the text specifically calls out that they were put in the public prison, I’m taking this to mean that the religious leaders were serious about locking these men up! They want them in a Roman prison, guarded by Roman guards.
Unfortunately for them, no amount of security on a prison is stronger than the power of God. During the night an angel comes and opens the doors to let them out, and then tells them to go back to the temple, “and speak to the people all the words of this Life” (verses 19–20)1.
So the Apostles follow the angel’s command and the next daybreak finds them in the temple, teaching.
The religious leaders are initially unaware of any of this. They had the men sent to a Roman prison, so obviously they can’t get out, they must be right where they were left! When they’re ready for the council they send for the prisoners and everyone ends up perplexed when they find out that the Apostles aren’t in the prison. The doors are locked and the guards are still there standing in front of those doors, but… no prisoners!
But then someone comes to report that the men they’re looking for are in the temple, teaching the people. The text doesn’t say this, but I have to assume this made the religious leaders even more perplexed: these men have apparently just broken out of a Roman prison, so why aren’t they in hiding? The last place the council probably expected to find the Apostles was teaching people in the most public place possible!
Regardless, they send for the Apostles and have them brought to the council, but the guards don’t bring them by force because they’re afraid the people will stone them.
But the Apostles come willingly:
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (verses 27–32)
For context, remember why the religious leaders had had Jesus killed: they believed he was blaspheming by calling himself the Son of God. (If Jesus hadn’t been the Son of God, the things He said would have been blasphemous, and the punishment would have actually been the correct punishment according to Jewish law.) The Gospels and Acts make it clear that this wasn’t the only reason they’d had Jesus killed—even this passage starts out by reminding us that the religious leaders are jealous (though in this case they’re jealous of the attention paid to Jesus’ disciples, and before it was jealousy of Jesus Himself)—but it was one reason. And I mention all of this because it’s not surprising that the Apostles’ words here—once again “blaspheming” about Jesus (if His claims aren’t true)—enrage the religious leaders, who want to kill them.
However, a respected member of the council named Gamaliel has the Apostles put outside the room so that he can address the council. He reminds them of a couple of recent cases whereby men rose up “claiming to be somebody”—I love that phrase, it’s in verse 36)—drew followings, and then were killed and had their followers scattered. He suggests they leave the Apostles alone, and, if they’re not really from God, the same thing will happen: “So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” (verses 36–39)
So the council follows Gamaliel’s advice. They bring the Apostles back in and have them beaten—just in case there was any doubt in our minds that this council is full of righteous men—instruct them not to speak in the name of Jesus anymore, and let them go.
The Apostles have already said that they must obey God, not men, so it’s no surprise that they immediately go out and do the exact opposite:
Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus. (verses 41–42)
Thoughts
The most obviously dramatic part of the story is the “escape” from prison. I only put “escape” in quotes because the actual exit itself wasn’t so dramatic: the door was open, they just walked out! But I’m not trying to minimize the overall drama, the door was only open in the first place because an angel had opened it, and we find out that the guards were still there at the door, so somehow there was a miracle involved in those guards not even noticing the door being opened and the Apostles walking out!
This isn’t even the only time an angel will miraculously free believers from a prison in the book of Acts! The same thing is going to happen with Paul later.
Maybe I’m laying it on too thick, but there’s both a literal and a metaphorical thing happening: the power of God is greater than any prison, but also, the Word of God can’t be “imprisoned” or contained either, it will get out, no matter how people try to stop it.
Afraid of the people
When the guards bring the Apostles to the council, verse 26 says that they don’t use force because they’re afraid of being stoned by the people. I do not, however, take this as a sign that all of the people are believing in Jesus, or wholeheartedly following the Apostles.
It’s true that the Church at this point was growing by leaps and bounds, so many of the people probably did believe, but I’m guessing there were also people in that crowd who were eager to hear what the Apostles had to say, loved hearing something new and exciting, maybe even loved the idea of upending the status quo around the Jewish religion (or at least loved the idea on a surface level), but didn’t actually come to faith. Remember Jesus’ parable about the seed being spread on rocky ground, and on shallow soil, and on the path, and on fertile ground. Initial acceptance doesn’t always lead to true faith.
Overall, those of us who believe will say that Christianity is Good News (which is what the word “Gospel” means), but we can’t deny that Jesus also brought some hard teachings. I’m sure there were some people in that temple who were initially wanting to protect the Apostles from the guards but over time, as they really digested what the Apostles had been teaching, decided they couldn’t believe in Jesus afterall.
Guilty of Jesus’ Blood
I’ve always found it somewhat humorous that the council is complaining that the Apostles are trying to make them guilty in Jesus’ death, and the Apostles immediately respond by repeating that the council killed Jesus:
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.” (verses 27–32, emphasis added)
I don’t have a deep theological point about this, I just enjoy the religious leaders saying, essentially, “Stop saying we’re guilty of this man’s blood!” and then Peter and the Apostles immediately responding with, “God raised Jesus from the dead, after you killed him!”
We’ve seen the theme come up a number of times in the book of Acts, and will see it again…
Gamaliel’s Logic
I wrote an entire section here on whether Gamaliel’s argument makes sense. It makes perfect sense logically, but does it make sense from a religious standpoint? This is the Jewish council after all; I’d think what should be at question is whether these men are blaspheming or not. And, from the council’s point of view, unless they’re willing to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, the Apostles are blaspheming, just like Jesus was before them. And this isn’t just “some guy,” according to the ESV Study Bible notes Gamaliel was, “the most prominent rabbi of his day and the teacher of Paul (22:3). He belonged to the Pharisaic minority on the Sanhedrin but had considerable influence.”
But he’s just trying to be practical. The first half of his argument makes perfect sense: If this plan is from men, it will fail, just as other plans by other men have failed. To cite the ESV Study Bible again:
Acts 5:36 Gamaliel cited two examples from Jewish history to support his basic argument that movements not backed by God always come to nothing. Both examples were failed movements, the first being that of a revolutionary named Theudas, and the second that of “Judas the Galilean” (v. 37), who is said to have come “after him.” Judas the Galilean is well known, having led a tax revolt in A.D. 6 (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.23), and this is evidently the person to whom Gamaliel is referring. Although there is no historical record of the “Theudas” mentioned here (other than this statement by Gamaliel), most likely this “Theudas” was one of many otherwise unknown leaders of such movements following the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. Although Jewish historian Josephus (writing in A.D. 95 in Jewish Antiquities 20.97) mentions someone named “Theudas” who led a movement at a later date (A.D. 44–46), it is clear that Josephus’s reference is to a different person, since the movement to which he refers occurred many years after the speech by Gamaliel (c. A.D. 30 or 33).
So yes, the first half of Gamaliel’s logic? Rock solid! If this plan is from men, it will come to nothing! But… why does Gamaliel follow it with the second part—that if this plan is of God, the council can’t stop it anyway? Because… that would only be possible if Jesus was the Son of God! This council—and Gamaliel himself—are clearly not entertaining that possibility. I just don’t get how this plan could be “of God” if we ignore who Jesus was.
Then again… that’s essentially what anyone in the 21st Century is doing when they say that they believe that Jesus was a great man and a good teacher but they can’t believe that Christianity is the only way to God. That’s the core of everything Jesus taught; if Jesus isn’t the only way to get to God, then Jesus wasn’t a good teacher!
Gamaliel’s Politics
Aside from the logic, Gamaliel’s approach reinforces how political the whole process is. Throughout the Gospels, and now in Acts, I try to give religious leaders, Pharisees, and other enemies of Jesus the benefit of the doubt, and see things from their perspective. But that doesn’t by any means indicate that I see them as blameless—quite the opposite! In killing Jesus, they were clearly motivated as much by retaining power as they were by claims of blasphemy, and here they’re clearly motivated as much by keeping the peace as they are by doing the right thing according to their Law.
Another way to put this—and I’m positive I’m not the first to say this—Gamaliel was right, but for the wrong reasons. We know that the Apostles were being sent by God, so the council couldn’t have thwarted them if they wanted to, even though Gamaliel likely assumed the opposite—that Jesus’ disciples weren’t from God, and would come to nothing. He just wanted to let nature take its course—let this new sect die out, as others had in the past—so that the council wouldn’t have to deal with an angry mob of Apostle supporters coming after them.
“Maybe we are supposed to put them to death,” he’s saying, “but since we’re afraid of the people, let’s just leave them alone and wait for the problem to go away.”
Wait, what did they rejoice about?
After the Apostles leave the council, we read this:
Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. (verse 41)
They’re not rejoicing because God saved them from prison, or because they weren’t executed, or even because the number of believers are growing, even though all of these things are true. And, in fact, I’m positive that the Apostles did rejoice about those things, regardless of what’s recorded here! But the focus given in the text, the main thing they’re rejoicing about, is that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for Jesus.
Most preachers I’ve heard will quickly point out that this isn’t a masochistic thing; the Apostles weren’t rejoicing because they loved suffering. If they had been given a choice whereby they could implement God’s will by suffering dishonour or they could implement God’s will by not suffering dishonour they would have chosen not to. If the text had even said that the Apostles were willing to suffer for the sake of implementing God’s will—and, to be clear, I think that’s at least part of what they’re rejoicing about—that would have made more sense to us, but it seems that they consider it a good thing that God considered them worthy of suffering dishonour.
And, wait… why is it even phrased that way in the first place?!? God counted them “worthy” of… suffering dishonour? That’s odd phrasing! Yet it’s pretty consistent across translations; for example:
| Version | Text (emphasis added) |
|---|---|
| ESV | Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. |
| NIV | The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. |
| KJV | And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. |
| NKJV | So they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. |
| NASB | So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. |
So it’s not just some quirk of the ESV translation, it seems to me that the original Greek text is making this point since all of the English translations I reached for treated it consistently, other than “dishonor” vs “disgrace” vs. “shame,” which are all synonymous to the point that the intent of the text is the same.
So why do the Apostles have to earn the right to suffer dishonour/disgrace/shame? Why would they even want that in the first place? Another word that consistently shows up across translations is “suffer,” so the text isn’t trying to tell us that the Apostles enjoyed their dishonour! They were suffering through it!
All of this is a laborious lead-up to me trying to come to grips with why the text is phrased this way, and does a nice job of covering my thought process as I wrestled with the wording, but it was also stalling for time as I tried to figure out how to articulate what I think the verse might be trying to say…
Firstly, I’m sure the Apostles were remembering Jesus’ teaching that His followers would suffer for His sake, just as He suffered. I’m sure there was a sense of following in their Master’s footsteps, not just living out His prophecy but actually being like Him.
Deeper than that, however, is the reason why Jesus said we would suffer like He suffered: it’s not because people don’t like Jesus—even to this day, if a random person is stopped and asked what they think of Jesus they’ll probably use phrases like “good teacher” and that kind of thing—it’s because they hate what Jesus taught. He’s the only way to get to God? We’re sinful, and deserve God’s wrath? No matter what we do, no matter how good we act, it’s all like filthy rags in the eyes of God?!? People who haven’t delved into Jesus’ teachings might view Him as a “good teacher,” but people who’ve really read what He said will end up with strong feelings about Him: they may hate Him, or they may love and follow Him, but they won’t just say He was a “good teacher” and leave it at that.
So for the Apostles to be suffering for Jesus’ sake would be an indication that they are properly conveying His teachings. I think that is what the text is driving at here: some bland teaching that “Jesus loves you, and wants you to love others” would have been accepted by everyone. There would have been no need for the Apostles to suffer dishonour. But neither would they have changed the world.
By faithfully passing on Jesus’ teaching, showing that He is the Son of God and that He was unjustly killed but that He rose from the dead and rules as King… by faithfully teaching these things, some of which would be hard teachings, they showed themselves “worthy” to follow in Jesus’ footsteps, and suffer for His name.
It’s not that their suffering was a “reward,” but it did serve as a proof that they were being faithful to their Lord, and that’s a good thing.
As a side note, that capital
Lin “Life” is in the text: the angel told the Apostles to speak the words of “this Life.” It seems to have been a proper noun. The ESV Study Bible posits that this might have been something the early Church was called: the Life, or the Way (as seen later in Chapter 9). ↩︎
No comments:
Post a Comment