Is Gamaliel’s Advice Relevant To The Asbury Revival? An Exegetical Look at Acts 5:34-40

In the wake of the purported revival at Asbury University, several individuals on the side supporting the revival, as were individuals questioning the validity of the revival, took to Scripture to support their standpoint. I commend both parties supporting and challenging the revival's validity by weighing and comparing it with Scripture; however, there was an ongoing section in the book of Acts I saw several biblical appeals in support of the revival and condemning those raising questions concerning the revival.

The consistent problem prevailing amongst evangelicals is a lack of consideration about the meaning of the passage of Scripture, the author’s intention, and the applicability of the current situation. One such passage is used as the metaphorical stone being thrown around is Acts 5:34-40.

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who were following him were dispersed and came to nothing. After this man, Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away people after him. He too, perished, and all those who were following him were scattered.  So in the present case, I also say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or you may even be found fighting against God.” So they followed his advice. And after calling the apostles in and beating them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Jesus and then released them. - Acts 5:34-40

How this passage is being used is passive-aggressively asserting that everyone questioning the revival must sit back and not worry about the genuineness of the movement but let time be the great equalizer. Whereas I agree with this sentiment, this section of the text has no relevance to our modern adaptation to apply to Asbury. The presupposition individuals have in using this text is that we should listen to Gamaliel's advice to the Sanhedrin concerning the Christian movement because many have come before (Theudas and Judas). Once the leader of these factions was killed, the movement ceased. Implying that this was indeed not a genuine move of God. The continued assumption on behalf of those using this verse to support the movement of Asbury is that anyone questioning it falls into the category of those disbelieving a genuine act of the Holy Spirit instead of testing the spirits to validate the genuineness of the movement (1 John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21) should stay quiet and sit back and wait to see what happens.

However, some critical things need to be corrected in this assumption that those using this verse to support their cause fall into.

Gamaliel’s Focus

            The focus of what Gamaliel is referring to is the message and content of Peter and John’s message that they were declaring. They were preaching that Jesus was the Messiah they had rejected and executed on the cross. Additionally, this was a message they had previously preached, and they were warned not to continue speaking in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:1-21; 5:11-32). So, Gamaliel’s advice focuses on preaching in the name of Jesus and those that followed this teaching, not the questionable nature of the “Spirits moving.” With this context in view, it becomes clear that the transcultural applicability of this passage has no relevance concerning the events at Asbury.

The Person of Gamaliel

Understanding the focus of Gamaliel’s advice, one must now look at Gamaliel himself and his appeal to the Sanhedrin. The author of Acts (Luke) provides an additional look at who Gamaliel is in Acts 22:3; as Paul defends himself before the Jews in Jerusalem, he mentions that he was trained under Gamaliel, who was “a strict follower of the law of our fathers.” In Acts 5:34, he is described again as a teacher of the Law, and it is understood that he was The President of the Sanhedrin.” The Sanhedrin can be understood in our context as the Supreme Court of the Jewish faith. His advice, considering if this is a move of God or not, is not focused on the truthfulness of the teaching of Peter and John, as he is referring to the overall movement and not the content of the movement.

Summary

So, when reflecting on this passage in Acts, we can clearly understand the flaw in the person and focus of Gamaliel. Gamaliel was not a believer and approved of the flogging of Peter and John (Acts 5:40) to not speak of the name of Jesus again. Additionally, Gamaliel was more concerned with maintaining the peace of the people coming to Christ of what might occur if they were to execute Peter and John because they preached Christ and waited to see if this was a movement of human origin or God. However, if the Sanhedrin rejected the teachings of Christ and denied the same teaching of Peter and John, how would they be able to determine if this was of God or not? They were the very ones who approved the execution of Christ, the flogging of Peter and John, and the execution of Stephen. Therefore, it is clear that Gamaliel and all of the Sanhedrin had and will continually reject the teachings of Christ and His messengers and are not to be trusted. Sitting back and waiting to see how events will transpire is in direct violation of God’s commands through the writers of the New Testament to discern the spirits and compare what you are seeing with what Scripture describes.

            More importantly, Paul addresses this assumption clearly in Acts 22:4-5

I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering both men and women into prisons, as also the high priest and all the Council of the elders can testify. From them I also received letters to the brothers, and started off for Damascus in order to bring even those who were there to Jerusalem as prisoners to be punished. - Acts 22:4-5

            Paul, in his defense, states that if a movement is wrong, it must be vigorously opposed and not met with a state of neutrality or “wait and see.” Gamaliel's approach does not consider the truthfulness of the apostolic claims, their message on the fulfillment of Scripture culminating in Christ as the Messiah and sign of God’s Spirit at work in the Christian movement demonstrated in Acts 4:8-12; 5:29-32. As the book of Acts indicates in Acts 9:2, Paul received approval letters in pursuing Christians well after the events in Acts 5, indicating that Gamaliel did not heed his own advice. Had Gamaliel listened and observed the actual move of God, then the letters and orders to continue imprisoning Christians would not have been issued.

One see’s that attempts at using this passage to defend the Asbury revival indicate a deeper issue that plagues the church, biblical illiteracy. Instead of searching for a verse to affirm the narrative you wish, take the time to do a proper study of the passage before you take God’s Word out of context, and use it to condemn brothers and sisters that are obeying the commands of Scripture to, “test the spirits.”