While most non-believing Jews feared to meddle with the Christian community in Jerusalem, the religious leaders were finally driven to action. The church was having success after success, and the high priest and his associates—who were Sadducees—felt mortally threatened.

Luke wrote that they "were filled with jealousy" (5:17-18). Because of this, the Sanhedrin arrested the apostles and put them in jail.

It appears that all the apostles were involved this time, not just Peter and John. The temple authorities issued no warning as they had to Peter and John. They simply had them rounded up and thrown into the guardroom, probably in the temple precincts. In essence, the apostles were punished for disobeying the order not to preach in Jesus’ name, down in the previous hearing.

But then another miracle occurred. During the night "an angel of the Lord" opened the doors of the jail (5:19). This phrase has Old Testament roots. There it seems to stand for an extension of the divine personality — Yahweh — as he manifests himself to human beings and deals with them (7:30, 38). Angelic messengers often appear in Luke and Acts, acting as intermediaries between humans and God. (For some examples, see Luke 1:11, 26; 2:9, 13; 22:43; 24:23; Acts 8:26; 10:3, 7, 22; 11:13; 12:7-15, 23; 27:23.)

In this case, all the apostles were released from the public lock-up through divine intervention. Later in Acts we will see even more dramatic prison miracles, involving Peter (12:6-11) and Paul (16:26-31).

Here the angel told the apostles to go to the temple courts and continue preaching "the full message of this new life" (5:20). The message of the new life that the apostles preached included the resurrection—the new and eternal life made possible by Jesus. The resurrection was the capstone message of the good news (1 Corinthians 15:1-20).

The "new life" can also refer to the new life that Christians experience after conversion. Paul explained that believers are baptized into Jesus’ death, and are figuratively buried with him in death. But they are also raised with Christ that they "may live a new life" (Romans 6:4).

At daybreak, probably as devout Jews began to gather for the ritual of the morning sacrifice, the apostles came into the temple precincts. In obedience to the angelic vision, they began to teach the people about Jesus and salvation. Sometime later in the morning the high priest called together the Sanhedrin, in order to judge and assign punishment on the apostles. Temple police officers were sent to the jail to bring the apostles to the judgment bar.

They were shocked to find that the prisoners were missing even though the jail was fully secured. The officers returned to the chief priests with the news of the apostles’ apparent escape. While the Sanhedrin was considering these puzzling developments, someone rushed into the assembly and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people" (5:25).

The situation, while deadly serious, was filled with comedic potential. Luke exploited the irony and humor of the situation, which is evident in his narrative.

With the comic speed of an old "Keystone Cops" movie, an angel sets the apostles free, and by daybreak they are back making trouble at the temple. Then follows an even more comic shuttling back and forth from council to jail, back to the council, with the discovery of the apostles busy at the temple, teaching. (William H. Willimon, Acts, Interpretation commentary series, page 56)

The captain of the temple police and his officers went to the temple to fetch the apostles, even as they were preaching to the people. Luke said no force was used, because the Sanhedrin was afraid the people would stone its members for arresting the apostles (5:26). The apostles must have been firmly but politely asked to go with the officers. The apostles complied with the order and didn’t resist (Luke 22:50).

Upon being brought before the Sanhedrin, the high priest berated them for teaching in Jesus’ name at the temple. The Sanhedrin was especially concerned that its members were being singled out as being responsible for having crucified Jesus. In their words, they said the apostles were "determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood" (5:28). They clearly feared a violent insurrection against them.

By accusing the Jewish leaders of murdering the Messiah, whom God had then raised from the dead, the Christians were in effect publicly calling for divine retribution. The Jewish leaders regarded the death of Jesus as the result of the legal trial of a malefactor; the Christians were making it out to be an act of murder, and thus claiming that the Jewish leaders were guilty men. (I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, page 119)

While the apostles were placing accountability on those with whom it obviously lay—the Sanhedrin—they were not interested in pointing the finger of blame. They were preaching the forgiveness of sin, not condemnation.

We should note that the high priest could not bring himself to use Jesus’ name. Rather, he contemptuously referred to Jesus’ death as "this man’s blood" (5:28). Earlier, he had avoided using Jesus’ name by using the phrase "in this name." The disdain and hatred for Jesus ran deep.

The apostles’ immediately responded to the Sanhedrin’s threat of dire consequences for teaching in Jesus’ name. In a brief summary of their defense, Luke described Peter as the spokesman for the others. Nonetheless, all the apostles agreed with the argument. They asserted that they should obey God rather than human beings (5:29). Since God had commanded them to preach about the work of Jesus, that’s what they were going to do. Peter and John had already affirmed this principle at their first trial, that they were constrained to obey God over human authorities (4:19). Now all the apostles took the same stand.

They had been eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection and glorification (2 Peter 1:16-18). Now they were obligated to testify that the one they had heard, seen and touched was the Word of life (John 1:1-2). "We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard," the apostles told the Sanhedrin (4:20).

Peter began the apostles’ defense by asserting that the ancestral God of Israel had "raised Jesus from the dead" (5:30). Some commentators point out that the phrase "from the dead" is not in the Greek—the text simply says that God raised him. Peter may not have been so much speaking of Jesus’ resurrection, as his exaltation (5:31). That is, Peter would have been saying that the very person the Jews had rejected and killed was the person God had brought onto the stage of history to fulfill the role of Messiah. God had "raised up" or chosen Jesus to accomplish his purpose.

In any case, the resurrection was the focal point of God’s purpose. God had to raise up Jesus from death in order to "raise him" to glory and exaltation. The resurrection was the divine vindication of Jesus. This contrasted with his utter rejection by humans, epitomized by the crucifixion (2:23; 3:14; 4:10).

In this account, Luke had Peter using the expression "hanging him on a tree" (kremasantes epi xylou) to define Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30). But this doesn’t mean Jesus was crucified on a living tree. Luke tells us that the cross was carried through the streets of Jerusalem (Luke 23:26). In Jesus’ day, the Greek word xylon was used for objects made from wood, including poles. Luke used xylon in referring to the clubs used by those arresting Jesus (Luke 22:52) and the stocks into which Paul was placed (Acts 16:24). A few times in the New Testament, as here in verse 30, xylon was also used to define the cross of Jesus (10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24).

The phrase "hanged on a tree" comes from Deuteronomy 21:22-23. In the law of ancient Israel, a person guilty of a capital offense was put to death by stoning. Any such executed criminal was considered to be under God’s curse. After his execution, the condemned person’s body was hung on a tree during the day, but buried before nightfall.

What Peter was saying is that the Jews had inflicted the greatest disgrace on Jesus. They condemned him to death with a capital offense, and then crucified him as a common criminal. Paul discussed this paradox of God’s chosen vessel being placed under a divine curse to die for the sins of humanity (Galatians 3:10-14, with reference to Deuteronomy 21:22-23).

By using the phrase "hanged on a tree" in this context, Peter highlighted the contrast between the people’s rejection of Jesus and God’s glorification of the One accounted as accursed. "God exalted him [Jesus] to his own right hand as Prince and Savior," said Peter (5:31). Paradoxically, Jesus’ rejection and death (and resurrection) made it possible to offer "repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel" (5:31). Thus, salvation was being offered to the very people who "hanged Jesus on a tree"—who rejected and crucified him.

This is the first time in Acts that the title "Savior" (Greek, soter) is used of Jesus. It is used only once more in Acts (13:23) and a few times in the Gospels. The title is used less than 20 times in the rest of the New Testament. There is no question, however, that God’s plan of salvation works through Jesus Christ as Savior (Philippians 3:20; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 4:14). As Peter stressed earlier, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

We should note that in these early sections Luke often reminded his readers that the promise of salvation was made to Israel (1:6; 2:36; 4:10, 27; 5:21). In keeping with God’s promises, the offer of salvation had to go to the Jews first.

Peter made an important observation about salvation in his summary defense. Repentance and forgiveness of sins are given by God (5:31). Human beings, on their own, cannot decide to repent and then present themselves as candidates for salvation. To repent involves having a "new mind" that connects with God’s thoughts. This is something that must be given by God, and it is provided through the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 8:10).

Peter and the apostles said they were witnesses of these wonderful truths about salvation (5:32). Another witness was the Holy Spirit, "whom God has given to those who obey him" (5:32). When taken out of context, this verse might seem to teach that obedience to the law must come before and is the condition for receiving the Holy Spirit. However, the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit is a gift, not a payment for work.

True obedience to God, which comes from a relationship of trust, is internal and is made possible by the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Holy Spirit must come before faith and obedience can occur. We are saved through faith, not because of works (Romans 3:21-26; Ephesians 2:8). Faith goes hand in hand with an obedient, submissive spirit. But true obedience—that is, sinlessness—is not the actual state of any human being, except Jesus.

Peter was not making a timeless or general statement about the relationship of the Holy Spirit, faith and obedience in verse 32. The context makes his point clear. The Sanhedrin was challenging the apostles’ claim to be speaking for God. To the council, the apostles were rogues and revolutionaries, the leaders of a purely human movement who were trying to make the executed Jesus a martyr.

The apostles countered the accusation by saying the Sanhedrin was the one resisting the purpose of God (5:30-31). The disciples were insisting that their witness to Christ was given under the direction of a divine witness (5:32). Apart from the Holy Spirit’s presence in their preaching, the apostles’ witness could only fall on deaf ears, as the attitude of the council itself revealed. A human witness could have the desired effect on listeners only if the Holy Spirit was operating as a "witness" in both the message and the mind of the hearer.

Here, Peter is reaffirming that the Holy Spirit was revealing and guaranteeing the truth of the apostolic message. In this context, Peter pointed out that God’s Spirit is "given to those who obey him" (5:34) –in other words, the Holy Spirit has already been given to the people who are obeying him – that is, the apostles. Peter was asserting that the apostles truly did have the Holy Spirit. This is not saying anything about why the Holy Spirit is given.

Peter had said he and the other apostles obeyed God rather than human beings (5:29). How did they do so? By being witnesses to Jesus and preaching in his name! Now Peter was saying that this fact—that they were obeying God by preaching—was evidence of their having the Holy Spirit.

Peter was emphasizing in verse 32 that he and the other apostles were obedient to the command of God to preach the gospel (1:8; 5:20). The specific obedience Peter referred to was that of being Jesus’ witnesses, and he was declaring that their witness was corroborated by the Holy Spirit.

The fact that the apostles were witnessing to Christ was evidence that the Holy Spirit was with them—and not with the Sanhedrin, despite their claim to speak for God. In short, the Holy Spirit was given to those who, after being commanded to do so, obeyed God in faithfully preaching about Jesus Christ. The true representatives of God were the ones who were obeying him.

The Jewish leaders had been told that they were responsible for the death of Jesus, whom God had exalted. Peter had insisted that they were led by God’s Holy Spirit, and obedient to God. The implications were obvious: the religious leaders were disobedient to God, and had rejected his purpose for humanity, and their own Savior.

Most of the Sanhedrin officials were filled with rage after being accused, and were about to condemn the apostles to death. Of course, the Sanhedrin did not have authority to inflict capital punishment. But no doubt they would have found some pretext for handing the apostles over to the Roman authority. They had done it with Jesus, and their success would have emboldened them to try the same tactic again.

But suddenly a man named Gamaliel stood up to speak. What he said changed the council’s mind and saved the apostles. This member of the Pharisee sect was an extremely respected teacher of the law. Gamaliel was a member of the Sanhedrin and grandson of Hillel, a founder of the more liberal school of the Pharisees. Later, Luke noted that Gamaliel had been Paul’s teacher (22:3).

Gamaliel was so respected among pious Jews that he was given the title Rabban, which means "our teacher." This was a higher title than even Rab ("teacher") or Rabbi ("my teacher"). The Mishnah, a holy book composed of materials attributed to Jewish teachers from 50 B.C. to A.D. 200, says of him: "When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Torah came to an end, and cleanness and separateness perished" (Sotah 9.15).

While the Sadducean leaders of the Sanhedrin wanted to sentence the apostles to death, they could obviously take no action without the support of so prominent a religious leader as Gamaliel. Since he represented the Pharisaic party, the council had to listen to him. As we saw earlier, though the Pharisees were in the minority in the Sanhedrin, they commanded much more public support than the disliked Sadducees did. For this reason, the Sanhedrin would not be able to disregard the opinion of a Pharisee, especially one of Gamaliel’s stature.

Gamaliel told the council to reconsider its desire to have the apostles executed (5:35) and to let them go (5:38). If their movement was of purely human origin it would fail, said Gamaliel. But if it originated from a divine source, he said, "You will only find yourselves fighting against God" (5:39).

Gamaliel referred to two Jewish revolutionaries—Theudas and Judas—who had been killed by the Romans, and their followers scattered (5:36-37). His implication was clear. If the Christian movement was another attempted revolution, the Roman military would kill its leaders and crush the movement. The Jewish leadership didn’t need to get involved in something that might backfire on them.

At first glance, it seems strange that a member of the Pharisee sect would counsel leniency for Jesus’ disciples. After all, the Pharisees were opponents of Jesus, as Luke noted frequently in his Gospel (Luke 5:21, 30; 7:30; 11:37-12:1; 15:2; 16:14-15; 18:9-14). Jesus often criticized them for their hypocritical behavior. Also, Gamaliel must have been on the council when it condemned Jesus and handed him over to the Roman authority for crucifixion (Luke 22:66-23:25; Matthew 27:62). There is no indication Gamaliel defended Jesus. Why come to the defense of his followers now?

Some commentators point out that Jesus was not necessarily hated by all the Pharisees. He was often invited to their homes for a meal (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1). Jesus appeared to have some support among this sect, as the case of Nicodemus indicates (John 3:1; 7:50; 19:39). Later, many of the Pharisees became Christians (Acts 15:5; 23:6).

While the Pharisees would have been on the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, the Gospels do not name Gamaliel directly. In particular, we have no idea as to how Gamaliel felt about Jesus and the judgment of the Sanhedrin. Thus, many commentators are led to a favorable view of Gamaliel’s counsel to free the apostles. William Neil says:

Apart from his liberal leanings, which would encourage his tolerance of the Nazarenes [i.e., Christians] as law-abiding and faithful Jews, Gamaliel would be naturally more sympathetic than were the Sadducees to preachers of the Resurrection. (The Acts of the Apostles, The New Century Bible Commentary, page 99)

Others, such as Luke Timothy Johnson, take a more critical view of Gamaliel’s speech. He points out that Gamaliel was one of the synagogues’ leaders and would have been party to the condemnation of Jesus. Gamaliel had already rejected the apostles’ claim that the power of God was at work—that Jesus had been resurrected and glorified (5:31). He was also part of a council that had earlier rejected the proof that God had healed the beggar at the temple gate.

Later, with Judaism’s institutions—the temple, law and land—under frontal assault by Stephen, Gamaliel probably joined in the persecution of Christians in Jerusalem. Once again, then, the question: Why should we think Gamaliel’s counsel to free the apostles was not tainted by selfish motives? Luke Timothy Johnson claims that Gamaliel’s intent was generally self-serving to the Jewish position, and had little to do with belief in God, or the Christian movement:

He sends the apostles from the room, and with his colleagues formulates a plan of action based on historical prudence…. His entire point is to reduce Jesus to the status of those "would-be" prophets and kings. His argument runs like this: they "rose up," but then they were killed, and their followers scattered. His implication is that the same thing will probably happen here. The Acts of the Apostles, Sacra Pagina Series, page 103)

The leader of the Christians—Jesus—had already been executed, just like the leaders of the two movements to which Gamaliel referred, Theudas and Judas. Gamaliel’s inference was that the Christians are already a doomed movement because their leader, Jesus, is dead. The apostles will soon follow. His advice is why get involved in a religious argument that could have bad political consequences for Jews.

Whatever point of view Gamaliel may have held toward the apostles, his intervention resulted in their freedom. But first they were flogged and once more ordered not to speak in Jesus’ name (5:40).

The apostles probably received a severe beating of 39 lashes. The Mishnah describes this punishment, based on Deuteronomy 25:2-3 (Makkot 3:10-15a). The whipping could be administered by the Sanhedrin or the officials of a local synagogue if it was determined that the Jewish law had been violated by the accused. Paul would later feel the sting of such a flogging on five occasions (2 Corinthians 11:24).

The apostles rejoiced in their punishment, for they thought of themselves as having "been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name" (5:41). Jesus had counseled his disciples to rejoice when persecuted for his name (Matthew 5:11). The apostles Peter and Paul, having suffered much persecution themselves, could from personal experience tell Christians to rejoice (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Peter 1:6; 4:13). Such situations as this one described by Luke provide Christians with examples of the spiritual rejoicing they can have even under persecution.

Finally, Luke was careful to tell his readers that the apostles were obedient to the angelic message to preach the gospel. They disregarded the warning of the Sanhedrin not to teach and "they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ" (5:42).

To commentary on chapter 6

Paul Kroll, 2002

Click here to tell a friend about this article

Unless noted otherwise, materials on this website are copyright © Grace Communion International. All rights reserved. You may download and print one copy for your own use. If you wish to print more, please contact us. If you would like to donate to help support this ministry, click here.

If you want to receive email notifications about new articles on this site, click here and we'll send a message once a week to let you know what has been added. Alphabetical list of articles on this website