The apostles' defense, which actually manifests another instance of the charges against them, is more than the Sanhedrin could handle with sober judgment. Their jealousy and frustration (5:17, 24, 26) explode in a fury (literally, "sawn through"; compare 1 Chron 20:3; Acts 7:54) and a determination to do away with these men, as previously they had done with their Lord (Lk 22:2). Unless Peter's statement about Christ sitting at God's right hand as Prince and Savior is taken as a blasphemous attribution of deity to Jesus (compare Lk 22:69-71), there is no basis for a death-penalty verdict here.

In the midst of the furor a Pharisee, Gamaliel, a teacher of the law esteemed by the populace (m. Sota 9:15; Neusner 1971:373), takes the floor and has the apostles removed so that the Sanhedrin can go into executive session. Appealing for caution, he counsels a hands-off, wait-and-see policy (5:35, 38-39). Gamaliel makes his case by referring to two contemporary examples of failed revolutionary movements: Theudas (B.C. 4—see notes) and Judas the Galilean (A.D. 6/7). The former had either claimed to be a prophet or was a messianic pretender (Marshall 1980:122). The latter upbraided his fellow countrymen for paying taxes to the Romans (Josephus Jewish War 2.118). He founded the Zealot movement, whose credo was reminiscent of Peter's words (5:29). "They have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master" (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.23). Gamaliel's logic presumably is that just as these movements died with the death of the leader (he is not precisely correct with respect to the Zealots—see Josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.25), Christianity too will soon die out, for its leader is now dead.

Gamaliel caps his argument with the principle that works of purely human origin come to nothing but those from God cannot be stopped; indeed, to oppose the latter is to fight against God (compare m. 'Abot 4:11). Though Luke presents the two options of verses 38 and 39 as conditional clauses, reflecting Gamaliel's uncertainty concerning the human origin and certainty concerning the divine origin of Christianity (NIV obscures this), it is not clear whether this suggests an incipient embracing of the truth of Christianity or a scoring of points against the Sadducees. The Sadducees believed only in human causation in history, while the Pharisees affirmed the hand of both human beings and God (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.171-73; 18.12-15; Robertson 1934:1018; compare Longenecker 1981:324).

This appeal persuades the council. The Pharisees (a transliteration of Heb prusm, "separated ones"), a small lay movement promoting strict adherence to the written and oral Torah, were a minority in the council. Their voice, however, carried great weight, often overruling the Sadducees, because of the favor they had with the people (Josephus Jewish Antiquities 13.298; 18.17).

Gamaliel's intervention again answers the question "Who's in charge?" by pointing to a God who providentially will use unbelievers within the ranks of official opposition to further his saving purposes. No human situation is beyond his control and ordering.

And what of Gamaliel's counsel? It was good advice for the short run, since it encouraged unbelievers not to summarily dismiss Christianity's claims. Indeed, Luke gives his readers the same counsel of patience if they are to benefit from his writings and allow them to achieve their purpose (Lk 1:4). On the other hand, Gamaliel's words are also bad counsel, for good plans may fail and evil movements may succeed in the short term. The pragmatic test can fail us. In the long term, before God's judgment seat at the last day, we will know the truth that has triumphed, but then it will be too late. A wait-and-see approach to the gospel must be transformed into a decision-making stance. We must in repentance reach out and accept the forgiveness of sins that Jesus offers (5:31).