GAMALIEL AND HIS "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" ADVICE

Acts 5:34-39 – Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

This was the advice given to the Sanhedrin council regarding Peter and the other apostles. Gamaliel was well respected (v 34), yet his advice is out of place. It is neither correct nor wise.
Gamaliel’s advice argued for neutrality. Christianity does not allow a neutral position. Jesus spoke of only two roads (Mt. 7:13-14), clearly stated that anyone not for him was against him (Mt. 12:30), and promised to some day divide every soul into only two categories (Mt. 25:31ff). Christianity demanded and still demands that each man choose to be for it or against it. Neutrality is never the proper response to Christ.

The old law did not allow a neutral position regarding Christianity. Jesus claimed to be God. If he was God then he was to be followed; if he was not God, then following him was following a false god. All those who followed or counseled others to follow false god’s were to be killed (Deut. 13). According to the law that Gamaliel claimed to believe and follow his own advice was sinful.

Gamaliel was afraid to fight against Christianity–‘What if it really was from God?’ Of course the evidence was plain that Christ was the Son of God, but Gamaliel shied away from certainty. Certainty demands action. If Gamaliel were convinced of Christ’s true identity he would have to serve and follow him. If he became convinced that Christianity was from men he would have to fight against it. Preferring the middle of the road, Gamaliel preferred uncertainty, agnosticism, ignorance.

And here is a great truth. Liberals today prefer not to fight against false doctrine. So they question whether or not we can be sure of what truth is. Liberals prefer not to expose the unfruitful works of darkness, so they walk around in the dim light of agnosticism, unsure of what things come from God and what things do not. They are not willing to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:14), and they are not willing to understand what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17). And the evidence is as plain today as it should have been to Gamaliel long ago.
Gamaliel would rather be seen as a moderate than as a radical. He preferred the middle of the road rather than the inside or outside curve. In this he is very different from his star pupil. Saul of Tarsus was educated under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and yet his actions deviated from his teacher’s advice. While Gamaliel was waiting to let God either support or overthrow this new religion, Saul thought it was his duty to be God’s agent in the matter (Acts 26:9). Saul breathed out threatenings and slaughter (Acts 9:1).

And yet God picked Saul of Tarsus to be his ambassador to the Gentile world. The implication is plain. God does not need or want people who sit back and wait for God to work his will among men. God has given us his written will, and desires that we be his ministers here on earth. We are the eyes and hands and feet of God in this world if we will let ourselves be used for God’s glory.

Gamaliel was a sit-on-the-bench player, and he didn’t even know who to root for. Saul of Tarsus was a here-am-I-send-me activist who thought he was doing right to persecute the church. Saul was wrong to persecute the church, but he lived before God in all good conscience (Acts 23:1). He never chose a middle-of-the-road lifestyle. The fact of his honesty, the fact that he did not hide behind agnosticism, the fact that he was willing to be the bad guy and stand against that which he believed to be wrong, all of these made him a great tool in the hands of God. God would rather have us to possess the moldable, shapable zeal of Saul than the insipid, cowardly weakness of Gamaliel.

Rusty Stark