Gamaliel and the Judas Corollary

Downing did a good job of putting the oft-quoted Gamaliel advice in its proper context last week. Before getting to the Judas Corollary, may I add two more points to his observations.

• The advice was apathetic. Right before Gamaliel stepped in to call a ceasefire on the apostles’ enemies, Peter had clearly presented the Gospel to the assembled crowd, which included Gamaliel. There was enough information for Gamaliel to come to a proper conclusion about Peter’s claims about Jesus, but he limp-wristedly complained that there was really no way to know right now who was telling the truth. That’s why history books record Gamaliel as the first postmodern religious leader.
• The advice was ineffective. Although the apostles weren’t killed, they almost were. After being persuaded by his words, the crowd hardly opened their hearts and minds to them. Note Acts 5:40:
  

  His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

  As Downing pointed out, Gamaliel is hardly someone we’d want to be taking advice from, given what we know about the subsequent behaviors of the people he influenced.

Now, part of what Gamaliel said was true (about the impossibility of thwarting God’s will), but that truth is not a sufficient guide for moral behavior. Think about how well Gamaliel describes Judas’ behavior.

1. Judas was effective. Think about all the times Jesus’ enemies had tried to trap and destroy him. In a single evening, Judas seemingly halted Jesus ministry and changed the course of history. If you’re looking for an example of a world changer or religious reformer, Judas is your man.
2. Judas had a personal relationship with Jesus. Knowing Jesus is not enough. Relying on Jesus to change our hearts is what we need.
3. Judas ignored his critics. If someone had tried to stop Judas, the critic’s efforts would have been ineffective, yet right.
4. Judas was squarely within God’s will. This illustrates the profound danger of the fatalism or God-willed-it argument. Just because God is in control doesn’t mean that I can’t be out of control. Just because all things work together for good doesn’t mean that my actions aren’t bad.

God uses everybody to carry out his will. Once, he used a donkey. Another time, he used a traitor. To say that we are acting in accordance with God’s will is always true, but it doesn’t necessarily make us good.

It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

Gamaliel’s Questionable Advice

Acts 5:35-39 (New International Version)

³⁵Then he addressed them: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. ³⁶Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. ³⁷After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. ³⁸Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. ³⁹But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

This passage of Scripture has become somewhat of a mantra for the “Turnstile Pastors”. We’ve seen Furtick employ it against carnal deacons , and here, Noble uses it against his critics. Who can blame them? It is an awfully strong passage.  It appears that the Word of God is telling us to avoid hindering anything that may be scene as a movement of God.  However, even the shallowest look into the context of this passage shows something quite different.

The first question that comes to mind is, who was Gamaliel? Certainly, for these powerful leaders of the modern Church to quote him so frequently he must have been an early church father…or something. Nope. Gamaliel was a rabbi with great respect among the Sanhedrin. He was a Pharisee, which strikes me a little funny, considering that in the same post that Perry invokes Gamaliel’s advice against his critics, he compares his critics to the Pharisees. Anyone seeing the irony in that?

So, here are just a few problems with using Gamaliel’s advice in the way that Furtick and Noble want to use it:

1. The advice was not given in regards to people who wanted to debate doctrinal issues with the Apostles. The Sanhedrin completely disagreed with the Apostles, and Gamaliel did too. The debate was as to whether or not the Apostles should be killed. Gamaliel was never implying that they should start agreeing with the Apostles, only that they shouldn’t kill them.  For Furtick and Noble to compare their situation to that of the persecuted early church is both silly and insulting. There are people in the world who are suffering for their faith. However, American pastors living in huge homes paid for by their congregation might want to tone down the martyr act just a bit.
2. It goes against the words of Jesus and Paul when they warn against false prophets and teachers. Was Paul wrong when he wrote his letter correcting the Corinthians? According to Gamaliel he should have left them alone and let God deal with them. This is the problem with taking one small passage out of context, and not weighing it against the whole of Scripture.
3. It is just BAD advice. If Gamaliel’s words are true, then the Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists…etc…all are of God. Gamaliel equates longevity to God’s favor. This is clearly untrue.

So, my first article on Pajama Pages. Tune in next time when we discuss “Excellence as an Idol”.

Man, I’m feeling rather BAM…nah, I won’t go there.