Who was Gamaliel in the Bible?

Son of Pedahzur and prince of the tribe of Manasseh. Num. 1:10; Num. 2:20; Num. 7:54, 59; Num. 10:23.

Renowned doctor of the law, and member of the Sanhedrim, under whom Paul was educated. He gave the wise advice in the council that if the work of the apostles was of God it was useless to resist it; and if not, it would come to naught of itself. The Jews say he died a Pharisee, but ecclesiastical tradition records that he became a Christian. Acts 5:34; Acts 22:3.

From such a quarter these words of sobriety, as opposed to Sadducean violence, were irresistible. There seems no just reason to doubt that Gamaliel is the same celebrated man, son of Rabbi Simeon, grandson of the once famous Hillel; he presided over the Sanhedrim during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius; his son succeeded to the same chief place, and perished during the siege of Jerusalem. Under Gamaliel, we are told in Acts 22:3, Paul studied the law, of which he was styled 'the glory', as he was the first to bear the title of Rabban. That he was a Christian publicly, or even secretly, is only the assertion of unscrupulous legendmongers. Scripture gives us not only a perfectly reliable but a most graphic account of the man and of his character, as well as of the way in which he was providentially used at this critical moment.

For his intervention entirely fits in with the entire context, where God is tracing for our instruction how He watches over His own on earth for His glory. There was the manifestation of the Spirit's presence where they were all assembled and all filled with Him (Acts 4:31), lights in the world, holding forth the word of life, living to the forgetfulness of all selfish interests, whilst the apostles with great power testified of the Lord's resurrection (Acts 4:32-37). Then follows the display of the energy of the Holy Ghost in judgment of hypocritical deception and covetousness within (Acts 5:1-11), but along with it the renewed activity of miraculous power through the apostles in grace (vers. 12-16). Next, the Jews growingly oppose themselves to the testimony of Christ, but their measures are manifestly frustrated by divine power through the angel which set free the prisoners on their mission of grace and truth (vers. 17-25). Lastly, when the exasperated will of men would proceed to deeds of blood, God interferes in the ordinary way of His providence to protect His faithful servants by a grave and wise man even in the enemy's camp. The voice of moderation and wisdom, though only natural, prevailed over the rash impulses of pride and passion intermingled with fear. God would still provide a further space for truth to awaken consciences and win hearts among His ancient people, guilty though they were. It was the day of grace, when He would save to the praise of the Lord Jesus. 'Ye Israelites take heed to yourselves as to these men what things ye are about to do' (ver. 35)

Of Theudas, who is in the first instance named by Gamaliel, we know no more than Luke records. 'For before these days rose up Theudas, saying that he himself was somebody, with whom a number of men, about four hundred took sides, who was slain, and all as many as obeyed him were scattered and brought to nothing' (ver. 36). What less likely than that the Theudas, who, according to Josephus, appeared at least a dozen years after Gamaliel's speech in the fourth year of Claudius (A.D. 44), can have been so seriously misplaced even by an historian abounding in inaccuracies, as all competent men acknowledge? If Luke had been only an ordinary godly Christian, is it conceivable that he would put into the mouth of a prominent and respected Jew like Gamaliel a falsehood so egregious as antedating the story of Theudas? If he be an inspired writer, it is needless to assert his immaculate exactness. God Who knows all and cannot lie is the true source of inspiration, whoever may be the instrument. The fact is that, on the one hand, the historical accuracy, as tested by the minutest shades of knowledge in the varying conditions and circumstances of which Luke writes freely in his Gospel, and even more amply in this Book of the Acts, is too well known generally by the most competent to need proof here; and, on the other, the name of Theudas1 was too common (cf. Cicero Ad Fam. vi. 10, ed. Orell. iii. 41; Galeni Opp. xiii. 925, ed. Kühn) to provoke the least well-grounded surprise that more than one so called could rise up among the many insurgent chiefs who agitated the Jews either before or since the death of Herod the Great. Josephus himself alludes to many, of whom he names but three, the Theudas, whose defeat by Fadus he places a dozen years later, seems to have had a far larger following than the 400 men of whom our evangelist writes. {1 Abp. Ussher (Works x. 484) identifies the Theudas of Acts 5:36 with one of those called Judas in the days of Archelaus. 'Cum vero Hebraeorum Yehudah fuerit Syrorum Thudah. indeque Judas et Thaddaeus, multoque magis Theudas idem plane nomen extiterit: non alius videtur fuisse Judas hic quam Theudas ille de quo Gamaliel dixit …'}

To the believer it is certain that the revolt of Judas the Galilean was subsequent to that of the Theudas of whom Gamaliel spoke. Josephus entirely agrees with the Acts that it was in the time of the census under Quirinus, A.D. 6 (Antt. xviii. sub. init.). And it is remarkable that the Jewish historian, though describing him there as a Gaulonite of the city of Gamala, subsequently (6) speaks of him, just as Gamaliel does in our chapter, as 'the Galilean Judas'. Had this later mention been withheld, the impugners of revelation would have become loud in decrying Luke as they are absurd in their disposition to treat Josephus as infallible. But short as is the inspired report of Gamaliel's speech, we have strikingly accurate information of Judas perishing, as to which the historian is silent, and of the mere but thorough scattering of his most numerous supporters, who did not come to naught like Theudas, but again and again reappeared till the last and for a time successful effort terminated in the death of his younger son, Menahem, A.D. 66. 'After him rose up Judas the Galilean in the days of the census, and drew into revolt people after him, and he perished, and all as many as obeyed him were scattered abroad' (ver. 37). Whether Origen (Homil. in Luc. xxv.) had authority to say that this Judas really pretended to be Messiah may be doubtful; but he drew his vast crowds with the cry, 'We have God as our only Leader and Lord.' The uprising was fanatical as well as revolutionary. But how did it end? pleaded Gamaliel: a question unanswerable.

And now, in answer to the high priest, Peter, a second time the spokesman, and here for all his colleagues, thus delivered himself: "We ought to obey God rather than men." Did the rulers raise a question of disobedience of the authorities? There was another authority greater than them — even God. If these two are in conflict, God must be obeyed and human authorities be disregarded. That question simply settled, the charge of filling Jerusalem with their doctrine was next taken up. How could they help that, considering what God had done, and was doing by the presence of the Holy Ghost. So Peter proceeded: "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him has God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God has given to them that obey Him" (5:29-32). The offence was repeated, and the guilt of the rulers in crucifying the Lord was reaffirmed to their face. Their anger was therefore kindled. Cut to the heart, they now took counsel to slay them. No threats, nor imposing display of authority, could stop the mouths of their prisoners. Death only could close them, and rid them of such persistent accusers. To death they wished to consign them. At this juncture, however, a hindrance was discovered. The council must condemn them. Could the council be persuaded to do it? Could they secure a unanimous verdict against the Apostles, as they had against the Lord? The two rival factions, at one as to the Lord's condemnation, were not at one on this occasion. And Gamaliel, the spokesman here of the Pharisees, interposed, and turned the Sadducean section from their murderous intent.

Gamaliel. — The bitterest enemies of the Lord when in life were the Pharisees. His life, His teaching, condemned their practices, and they resented that. The bitterest enemies to the Apostles in Jerusalem after the Cross were the Sadducees (Acts 4:1, 5:17, 23:6-9). The doctrine of the Resurrection, the truth of it in the Lord's case, controverted their peculiar tenets; so they desired to put the Apostles down, and to silence them in one way or another. With that, however, the Pharisees had no sympathy; and by their spokesman Gamaliel, a man held in reputation among the Jews, advice was now to be tendered, the wisdom of which none of the opposite party could gainsay. Of Gamaliel we read again later on, learning there that the Apostle Paul had been in his earlier days one of his pupils; or, as he himself describes it, "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel" (22:3). This the Apostle Paul adduced in proof of his former Pharisaic principles, having been zealous towards God, like his opponents, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers. No one, when St. Paul mentioned Gamaliel, would have accused the latter of any leaning towards Christianity. Certainly on the present occasion his orthodoxy was by all unquestioned. Further, his learning was acknowledged. His reputation, too, was made. Any counsel from him would naturally meet with respect from the rest of the Sanhedrin. It would have weight with the chief doctors of the day. And if he be the man celebrated in the Talmud as Rabban — i.e., our master — the son of Simon, a grandson of Hillel, as is generally thought, we can understand the Apostle Paul speaking of him as his former teacher, as well as the prompt acceptance now of his advice, Pharisee though he was, by the Sadducean part of the council.

Something remarkable had clearly taken place since the whole number of the Apostles had been brought out of prison without human instrumentality, and without the slightest suspicion of connivance on the part of the guard before the doors. What power, then, was at work? was a very pertinent question. Caution in their proceedings it was well at that juncture to observe. So at the command of Gamaliel the Apostles were ordered to withdraw, whilst the council deliberated as to their judgment. Gamaliel then spoke in the absence of the prisoners, and, impressed with the startling occurrence of the escape from the prison, he counselled delay in dealing with the movement. It was wise advice, indeed. And he fortified it by reference to facts in history, with which all present were doubtless conversant, Of two men he spoke, self-assumed leaders in revolts, whose efforts to carry out their purposes signally and ignominiously failed. The first was a man named Theudas, who having raised a faction, and giving himself out to be somebody, got a following of about four hundred men. But he was slain, his deluded followers were dispersed by the secular power, and it all came to nothing. After him arose Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing or enrolment, referred to in Luke 2:1-2. Some followed him. He too perished, and as many as obeyed him were scattered abroad. In both these instances Gamaliel directs attention to this — that the end of the leaders was death, and then their followers were dispersed. Was this new movement to end like those? It was true a parallel could so far be traced. As with Theudas and Judas, so with the Lord — death had removed Him from earth. Would the parallel become still more complete by the ultimate dispersion of His followers? Time would show. "Let them alone," he said: "if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot [or, will not be able to] overthrow it [or rather, them]; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:38-39). Here was the gist of the matter. Was it of God, or was it not? Time manifested that it was of God. It has never, therefore, been overthrown. But the rulers who fought against the Apostles — where are they? Then were Theudas and Judas of that class which the Lord called thieves and robbers? (John 10:8). Probably they were. So the sheep did not hear them. But now it was different. The Shepherd had come. The sheep heard Him.

"As to law, a Pharisee." Speaking to King Agrippa Paul said: "After the most strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee." And to the Council he could say: "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee." He was, moreover, brought up in Jerusalem, at the "feet of Gamaliel," a Pharisee, a doctor of the law, and one had in reputation among all the people: apparently a wise and a good man. (Acts 22:3 & 5:34). There was no higher position in the Jews' religion to which Paul could attain.

Christ's witnesses are now to prove this; they are to be sheltered, yet by no apparent intervention of the divine Hand. One of the councilors themselves, a Pharisee and not a believer, though brought by all he has seen and heard into the neutral position which his advice indicates, is the instrument which God uses at this time to shelter the witnesses of His grace to men. Gamaliel, a man of great weight among the Jews, and grandson of the celebrated Hillel, having caused the apostles to be put forth for a little while, remonstrates against any violence. The case before them, he urges, was no solitary one; and the examples they had had of impostors who had arisen showed how surely these pretensions of men came to nought. He mentions two of these: one well-known, — "Judas of Galilee, in the days of the census, — the other a Theudas, only conjecturally taken to be either a Judas, in the reign of Archelaus, as Archbp. Ussher thought, or else a Matthias, about the close of that of Herod. Both attempts ended disastrously, as Gamaliel reminds his hearers, and so would this, if it were not of God. The possibility of this he warns them of, and the result in that case of being found fighting against God. A tremendous possibility, indeed!

His advice is conformable to such a suspense of judgment: "Refrain from these men, and let them alone." To which they agree, with a strange modification of their own; for while they acknowledge they may be fighting against God, and so give up their murderous intent, they contradict themselves, and show the malice of their hearts, by beating these possible witnesses for God, before they let them go! and again forbidding them to speak what they cannot venture to say may not be truth! Such a being is man!

There was a providential training in the apostle's case as in others, but strikingly manifest in him who was a Jew, not a Gentile proselyte. He was born in Tarsus, a renowned centre of letters and philosophy at that day. But he was brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of the most celebrated Rabbi of his day. Yet if Gamaliel was learned and strict as an orthodox Pharisee, we have already had remarkable proof, quite apart from the apostle, of his singular moderation, when the Sadducees began to persecute the faith. It is not often erudite men are equally known for prudence, still less for the wisdom which brought in God, not formally, but with conscience; and God used it completely to turn away the council from their unbelieving and sanguinary thoughts (Acts 5:34-40). At Gamaliel's feet was he brought up who was to be the Holy Ghost's witness to the grace of God in our Lord Jesus as no other man was since the world began.

But here again the hand of God appears; and as He had miraculously used an angel to let Peter out of prison, so now He employs the hand of man to arrest the power and the malice of the elders and high priest. The human prudence of the Pharisee Gamaliel, a man much esteemed, gives them to realise, by several examples, the peril of putting themselves in conflict with God. The Pharisees were always opposed to the Sadducees, and the high priest belonged to the sect of the Sadducees, so that the Pharisee could always employ his human sagacity to gain a hearing. And God could use it to preserve His servants from the wicked hand of their enemies.

342 They consent to the counsel of Gamaliel, but without any fear of God. The will is not changed, the enmity against the testimony of God remains in all its force; but they are afraid of compromising themselves, and know not what to do. The apostles are beaten, and forbidden to speak in the name of Jesus. It is enmity without strength, without conscience, and without knowledge, blind from unbelief, and resisting in vain the power of God! The apostles continue their work, teaching and preaching both in the temple and in every house.

Manasseh's prince was Gamaliel, meaning "God is a Rewarder." In time of conflict this is a wonderful encouragement. There is no reason to look for men's approval or rewards, for if we wage war with the motive of simply desiring to please God, we shall be fully content to wait for God's time of rewards. Gamaliel's father, Pedahzur, "the rock has redeemed" is a reminder that the rewards of service must not be occasions of pride on our part, for we must remember that we are only sinners redeemed by Him who is the one stable Rock.

Gamaliel, on the other hand, pleads for that middle ground in his advice; he advocates neutrality. He does not urge an honest investigation into the true nature of the work, in order to learn whether it be of God or man; and herein lay his clever but fatal mistake.

When the truth is in question neutrality becomes opposition. Everyone is morally bound to know the truth and follow it, for he will be judged according to the amount of light in which he has walked, and the measure of privilege he has enjoyed. If he reject that light, and neglect that privilege, his condemnation is but the greater, but his responsibility is co-extensive with his light.

When Paul made his defence before his countrymen, (Acts 22) he tells them that though born in Tarsus, he had been brought up "at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers." History speaks of Gamaliel as one of the most eminent of the doctors of the law; and from the scriptures we learn that he was moderate in his opinions, and possessed of much worldly wisdom. But the persecuting zeal of the pupil soon appears in strong contrast with the master's counsels for toleration.