Flogging: The Compassionate Choice (Acts 5:33-42 pt 1) | TMBH Acts #22

Things seemed primed to go nuclear as Peter and the apostles are marched before the religious leaders again. The room's been hostile and Peter's just finished making them even more angry with his brief speech. All signs point to violence, but a guy named Gamaliel stands up to speak and the room gets quiet. What does he have in mind, and what's going to happen to Peter and the others?

Acts 5:33-42

[stephenbunting]

Currently studying through Acts and using these videos alongside as I appreciate the extra historical/social context that I may not have gleaned myself, so first of all, thanks for the series.

I've got a question that has come up twice now through the first 5 chapters that has piqued my curiosity, wondering if you (or anyone reading) may have some insight to offer. Do we have indication as to how Luke gave account of the seemingly private conversations among the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:15-18 and again in 5:34-40? I realize it's a fair deduction that Luke did extensive research and talked to many, many first hand witnesses of the accounts he gives as stated in Luke 1, but I couldn't help but go down the rabbit trail of trying to determine how Luke might give account of these particular conversations. I've only come up with a couple theories of my own, curious to see what your take may be.

1. Divine revelation, aka God told Luke what they said. This one is way too simplistic for my tastes. I fully accept and realize God is capable of doing so but it just doesn't seem to fit with the way Luke writes his accounts.

2. Paul (then Saul) would have been present in the meetings or at least close enough to people present to know what was said. We know from Acts 22 that Paul was a student under Gamaliel, perhaps if Paul wasn't present himself Gamaliel could have told him what was said in these meetings, which he later told Luke.

3. Luke interviewed one of the Sanhedrin members directly. Given Luke's focus on accuracy and reporting straightforward facts, this one doesn't seem likely to me as I can't help but think this wouldn't be a very reliable source and Luke would know that. UNLESS, one of the members of the Sanhedrin present for the meetings was later converted and gave an account. But that's obviously just speculation at best.

I think the answer is simply that we do not know exactly how, but given Luke's body of work we can safely deduct that he had it on good authority to include them in his writings. Thoughts?

[DRiceArizona]

Nice subtle touch on comments between 2:48 and 3:00.

[pit]

0:42 Uncle??? Someone seems to be getting mixed up with The Magician's Nephew!

[janetely]

Josephus is the basis of the recent teaching I encountered that says the destruction of the temple in 70AD, Jesus's return took place then, and we are living in the new heaven and earth now.

[langwaydpful]

You enjoy elf of a shelf? Try president down descent

[clipsu]

ummm. Perhaps Reagan taking a tumble is a sign?

[Martin-zpky]

Those Pharisees loved killing people who showed a bit of descent didn't they? No one was coming between them and their power over the people.
I chuckled at your subtle dig at Muslim extremists! 😂 very well done 👍

[craigertlmaier]

Rabban Gamaliel said if the Jesus movement or Netzarim as it was known in Hebrew came to nothing then its leader would be considered false. The research I did demonstrated the Nazarenes came to nothing in 135 ce and disappeared from history in 333 ce. The only logical conclusion is Jesus or Yeshua is not the Messiah.

[IamGrimalkin]

1:00 well he did have the advantage over them that he had built that wardrobe out of a tree grown from an apple he had taken from Narnia.
4:05 Interesting, I didn't know that about Gamaliel. Which other sources did you say talk more about him?
6:16 If you were to take the idea that Josephus was talking about the same guy, isn't another possibly that Josephus got it wrong, whilst Luke and Gamaliel got it right? But yeah, that is unlikely for the same reasons you outline that Gamaliel wouldn't have got it wrong.
8:22 If he's called John, I think it's interesting that there is at least one other known person that would fit the bill if you ignore the timing with Judas the Galilean: John the Baptist. It's hard to tell because of the lack of information; but it seems that John rose up, claiming to be a messenger from god, a number of men joined him and became his disciples, but when he got killed they dispersed (and some ultimately got absorbed into Jesus's disciples). He didn't lead a revolt, but in the esv translation at least, I don't see Gamaliel talking about revolts, only people with followers.