Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 5:33

When they heard [that,] they were cut [to the heart,] and took counsel to slay them.

33 42. Effect of the Apostles’ defence. Counsel of Gamaliel. Release and subsequent conduct of the Twelve

33. When they heard that, they were cut to the heart ] There is no Greek here for to the hearty, but as in the only other place in the N. T. where this verb is found (Act 7:54) those words are added to it, it is best here to supply them to complete the sense, which is the same here as in that passage. The effect described is not the compunction which leads to penitence, but the annoyance that results in more furious anger.

and took counsel to slay them ] The best texts read, and wished to slay them. So to get rid of the fear of one man’s blood being brought upon them, they would take the lives of twelve more.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

When they heard that – That which the apostle Peter had said, to wit, that they were guilty of murder; that Jesus was raised up; and that he still lived as the Messiah.

They were cut to the heart – The word used here properly denotes to cut with a saw; and as applied to the mind, it means to be agitated with rage and indignation, as if wrath should seize upon the mind as a saw does upon wood, and tear it violently, or agitate it severely. When used in connection with the heart, it means that the heart is violently agitated and rent with rage. See Act 7:54. It is not used elsewhere in the New Testament. The reasons why they were thus indignant were doubtless:

1. Because the apostles had disregarded their command;
2. Because they charged them with murder;
3. Because they affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus, and thus tended to overthrow the sect of the Sadducees. The effect of the doctrines of the gospel is often to make people enraged.

Took counsel – The word rendered took counsel denotes commonly to will; then, to deliberate; and sometimes to decree or to determine. It doubtless implies here that their minds were made up to do it; but probably the formal decree was not passed to put them to death.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 5:33-42

When they heard that they were cut to the heart.

Cut to the heart

The strict meaning of the verb describes the action of a saw, as in Heb 11:37. Used figuratively, it seems to imply a more lacerating pain than the pricked to the heart of Act 2:37, leading not to repentance but to hatred. The persons spoken of are principally the high priest and his Sadducean followers (Act 2:17). (Dean Plumptre.)

Preaching to the heart

What would be thought of a doctor who, when called in to a suffering patient, should not at once prescribe the best and swiftest remedy without note or comment; but should proceed to discuss the comparative merits of homoeopathy and allopathy, with sly sarcastic glances at massage, hydropathy and faith-healing, then go on to describe, negatively, all the medicines which have been, or might be given; then positively to describe a remedy recently discovered by a young German doctor, saying he was not quite certain whether it would be effectual, but it was worth trying; that, in any case, with or without medicine, the patient would probably be cured, in this world or the next, and that in the course of a few years, such is the march of intellect in this enlightened age, a better remedy would, no doubt, be discovered? Equally foolish and wrong it is for a Christian minister, standing before a congregation, all suffering more or less from mental and moral disorders, doubts and fears, sins and sorrows, ignorance and self-deceit–all hungering and thirsting after righteousness, or if not, the more needing a warm-hearted gospel of truth and love to awaken in them a sense of unrighteousness–to make the staple of his discourse a series of clever hair splitting of words with all the opinions of commentators (A B C to Z) who had tried to find out (say) what St. Paul meant, perhaps winding up with the consolatory remark, that after all, it was not so much to be regretted that the true key to his meaning had been lost, as probably, if Paul had lived now, he would not only have used different words but held different opinions! Let us learn all that grammar and theology can put into our heads, but when we go into the pulpit we go not as grammarians, theologians, scientists, or philosophers, but as preachers to speak from the heart to the heart. Our people ask for bread, not flour and water; for water, not oxygen and hydrogen. (R. Bruce, D. D.)

The victory of the truth

Whoever will not receive truth into his heart, will perhaps be pierced to the heart by the truth. Even this is a victory. (Starke.)

Four characters

I. The character of the chief priests and elders; persecuting the servant as they had persecuted the Lord.

1. One new feature there is in this persecution. Among the impugners of our Lords own doctrine the Pharisee is the more conspicuous: it is he whose hypocrisy made him dread Christs discernment and holiness, and whose very orthodoxy gave a self-sufficiency to his judgment peculiarly unfavourable to the reception of the truth. But no sooner has Christ left the earth than the opposite party becomes the assailant. And most natural it was that a gospel built upon a resurrection should irritate most strongly the sect which denied that great hope of man. While it was a mere tenet they bore it with composure; when it became a statement of fact, it was at once a struggle for life and death. Great as were the faults of the Pharisee, he had a shorter path to traverse if once his steps should be turned in the direction of Christs kingdom. The Sadducee was a cold, scoffing, irreligious materialist.

2. And if there be a body of professed Christians who seek to divest the gospel of its supernatural character; who resolve its whole system of duty into respectability rather than holiness and good nature rather than charity; who practically make their nest here, and leave out of sight the world to come; then that body is the type of the Sadducee of other days; and those who have seen anything of the working of that spirit will be at no loss to understand how the Sadducee should outrun the Pharisee in the bitterness of his hostility to all that is distinctive and characteristic in the gospel. The spirit of the Sadducee is in all of us by nature, struggling in us for the mastery with that of the Pharisee and the Herodian. Each of these is but the development of one attribute of fallen nature. What is the Sadducee but the man who avows his disbelief in mysteries of which we all have too feeble a grasp? And what shall we say of those who have accustomed themselves to treat everything lightly till nothing is serious, who have a jest ready for every revelation, and a scoff for every demand of duty, till at length they can neither tremble at Gods terrors nor believe in Gods love? The Sadducees of our day do not gather themselves together in council to judge the disciples of the Lord: they themselves use the same name, and would be indignant at the denial of the title. But they hate, none the less, and they persecute too, those who truly believe; point at them as ignorant, as old-fashioned, as righteous overmuch, as slaves of the letter, as exclusive and positive and self-sufficient. May such persons ask themselves seriously this one question, Am I certain that I shall never want Christ in loneliness and sorrow, in age and sickness, in She hour of death, and in the day of judgment?

II. And when we turn from this hostility are we not struck with the existence in these days of many a Gamaliel; Of many a man who is at once observant and candid, anxious to do nothing rashly, waiting, rather to examine credentials, or even to see the end, before he pronounces himself decisively either for or against the gospel?

1. These men have much in them that is attractive, and at first sight all that is reasonable. What but good can come, we might inquire, of that prudent and sensible reminder, in a time of religious excitement and enthusiasm (Act 2:38)? And no doubt such a voice is useful. Happy the nation which has such men amongst its counsellors, when an act of hasty tyranny is in danger of treading out the spark of grace and truth! This was the part of Nicodemus, when the case of One greater than the apostles was at issue. Not long afterwards this timid and doubting ally is found testifying a love and a devotion refused by men who owe to Christ their all.

2. But yet we must not overrate a quality which has so much in it of good. Candour, moderation, an open mind and a calm judgment are useful qualities, and at certain times may rise even into great virtues. But not all of them together will suffice to save a soul. There are just a few great questions on which minds ought to be made up; on which if the evidence we possess be not sufficient for conviction, it is our first and most bounden duty to seek and to obtain more. Such a question, above all others, is that of the truth and power, of the person and work, of the Messiahship and Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To be candid on this subject is better indeed than to be prejudiced, scoffing, or hostile; but he who is merely candid concerning Christ is in danger of a life-long suspense, of an ultimate indifference. Men of mere candour, are commonly men who in great emergencies disappoint, and in critical decisions are even worse than foes. Their presence is fatal to generous impulses, to noble enthusiasms. Erasmus was the Gamaliel of the Reformation; calm, critical, deliberative, discerning: but where would the Reformation have been if beside Erasmus there had not been a Luther? If all had waited to see whether this counsel or this work was of men or of God, by watching for its issue, the blow for truth had never been struck, and a reformed faith had never emerged from the mists of Papal darkness. In details, or on subjects of minor moment, it is harmless, it is right, to be Gamaliels; but on the one great question, of having, or not having a Saviour, that man is a fool who postpones his decision, a lost man who dies without making it.

III. The common people who magnified the believers though they durst not join them, and who gladly used their beneficent and healing power. These too have their counterpart amongst us, There are men and women who reverence religion, who count the Christian alone happy, who delight to profit by Christian converse and to record the triumphs of the gospel, but who yet shrink from membership. Such persons are not against Christ, nor are they yet quite with Him. They are something more than candid inquirers; something far beyond men waiting, like Gamaliel, to see the end. Would that they could be induced to take just that one step which divides them from every hope and every comfort of a Christian! Would that they could be led to become not spectators only, but inmates of the sacred porch of Solomon! Believe only, not that Christ died for some, but that He died for thee; no longer an admirer but a partaker of the promises, yea, a fellow citizen with the saints, and of the very household of God!

IV. The Altogether Christian. Hear his creed as it is rehearsed in this record. I believe that I ought to obey God rather than men; that God has exalted Christ to be a Prince and a Saviour; that the very purpose of that exaltation is that He may bestow repentance and bestow forgiveness; that God for His sake gives His Holy Spirit to all who set themselves in His strength to obey. This was the faith which enabled apostles to brave persecution, nay, to rejoice to be counted worthy to suffer shame, or even death itself, for the one sufficient name in which alone is salvation. Conclusion: Who can doubt which of those four characters is the one which it would be happiest to live with, safest and most glorious to possess in death? Believe only, and it shall be yours! (Dean Vaughan.)

Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation of all the people.—

Gamaliel

I. It is strange how a single name here and there secures remembrance.

1. It is almost as when one looks out across the sea, and upon the surface, all grey and monotonous, there comes one flash of silver. Why should that especial wave have such peculiar privilege? It is not any larger than the rest, and is made of no different water; it is simply that it happened to leap just where the sun was smiting, and so it becomes illustrious. So the sun of history shines on this great sea of human life; and the special career which happens to leap just where the sun is striking catches his glory and seizes mens notice and remembrance. If the mans life is larger than other lives, so much the better,–it catches so much more of sunshine. If it is of special fineness, made of more lustrous stuff than Other mens, so much the better still–it turns the sunshine into a peculiar radiance. But still the essential thing is that it should leap at the right moment and should be turned the right way. With these conditions even a very common life becomes illustrious; and without them the largest and the finest character melts back into the bosom of the humanity out of which it sprung, unnoticed, unremembered.

2. These illustrious men when they appear are of more than merely phenomenal value. In their illumination the whole mass of humanity finds its illustration and understands itself. Each of them becomes the representative of some smaller group, to which he almost gives his name. Often, indeed, it is only a degenerate caricature of the higher nature which they present. The dogmatist names himself by the great name of St. Paul. The feeble sentimentalist counts himself the twin-brother of St. John. The dainty sceptic, dabbling in unbelief, takes the name of earnest, puzzled, simple-souled St. Thomas to himself. But, after all, there is a constant tendency in their association with the highest types of their several natures and tendencies to draw them upward and to make each of them a more worthy expression of his characteristic qualities than he could be if he knew it only in himself. In this truth lies one of the greatest advantages of the study of the representative men of human history.

3. I ask you to turn to the story of a man whose name flashes for a moment as the light of the New Testament history falls upon the life of Jerusalem at the beginning of the Christian Church. The flash is only for a moment, and yet the impression which it leaves is very clear. He is peculiarly a representative man, and the nature which he represents is one which appeals peculiarly to our modern life.

II. Let us recall the history of Gamaliel. He was one of the most famous teachers of the Jewish law.

1. All Jewish history declares that he was one of the ablest of the learned men of the nation. There were two schools among the Jews–that of Shammai, which was strict and narrow; and that of Hillel, which was liberal and free. Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel, and belonged to his school. He was one of the few rabbis who allowed their students the study of Greek literature. He taught that all persons engaged in works of mercy, duty, or necessity, should be exempt from the more stringent Sabbatical traditions; he bade his disciples greet even the pagans on their feast-days with the Peace be with you. In ways like these he showed the largeness of his spirit, and the people loved him. He was one of the seven among the Jewish doctors who alone have been honoured with the supreme title of Rabban. He lived to a good old age, and died about 60 a.d.

2. In the New Testament Gamaliel appears twice, and both times in the most interesting way.

(1) As a great preacher of toleration. Every great teacher and scholar ought to be aware of the mystery and of the mightiness of Truth, and therefore be prepared to see Truth linger and hesitate, and even seem to be turned back, and yet to keep a clear assurance that Truth must come right in the end, and that the only way to help her is to keep her free, so that she shall be at liberty to help herself. There is something in Gamaliel which reminds one of Milton. The one, like the other, seems to feel that any attempt to help truth save by securing her liberty is impertinent; that all attempts to make truth strong either by disarming her enemies or by choosing for her what weapons she shall fight her battles with, is not a homage to her strength, but an insulting insinuation of her weakness. The scholar of Truth must trust Truth; that is Gamaliels ground.

(2) And this character has close connection with the fact that he was the teacher of St. Paul. Such a teacher as that has a special interest. He is one of those men who give other men the chance to make history rather than make it themselves. They themselves are almost of necessity relegated to obscurity. The very splendour of the career of their pupils makes it impossible for the world to see them; as the flash of fire from the guns mouth, and the rush of the burning shell on its tremendous way, makes it impossible to see the gun itself in whose deep heart the power of the explosion was conceived and born.

(a) We can picture to ourselves Gamaliel watching Paul, and we can think of the calm large-minded teacher following the career of his fiery-hearted scholar, and, however he disagreed with what he thought his delusions, rejoicing in his faithfulness and force.

(b) And if we look the other way, there are few things finer than to see the reverence and gratitude with which the best men of active life look back to the quiet teachers who furnished them with the materials of living. Even from the midst of his missionary journeys, and his prison in Rome, we are able to believe that St. Paul looked back to the lessons of faithfulness and generosity which he had learned of the great teacher of his youth.

(c) There are some of us whose work in life seems to assume mainly this character. Parents, teachers, quiet helpers of other lives, it seems as if we were rather providing other souls with the conditions of living than living ourselves. In the apparent stationariness of much of our experience, seeing life flow by us, as the river flows by the tree, it is good to live thus by the life to which we try to minister, as the tree lives by the river whose waters it at the same time does something to colour and to direct.

(3) But there is a larger view of Gamaliel than this. He has his relation not merely to St. Paul, but to the whole opening history of Christianity. There are some men whose whole influence is to keep history open, so that whatever good thing is trying to get done in the world can get done. The counsel of Gamaliel seems to point him out as being such a man. There are men who seem to shut up a community, so that, as far as their influence extends, if a new thought were waiting to be spoken or a new deed all ready to be done, it would be thrown back and made hopeless. Was not this exactly what Jesus charged upon the Scribes and Pharisees: Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. Ye neither go in yourselves; neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in? They made great deeds, fresh thoughts, enthusiastic consecration to first principles appear impossible. There is a still stronger instance of the same blighting power in the record that Jesus could there do no mighty work, because of the peoples unbelief. It was possible for men so to shut up a whole district of the land that even Christs marvellous power could not do its work there. And in our little circles are there not men so distrustful of the higher impulses, men so unbelieving and so scornful, that we see the young people, the earnest people, shut up their lives before them as the flowers shut up at night; and there is no hope for any great thing to be done or thought while they are there. I do not mean the sober, thoughtful, accurate, critical men who act like the healthy frost, which kills the gnats and mosquitoes, but makes every higher being live with a fuller life; but the men who are set upon making all the world live in their way, and who have no real faith in God, nor therefore in man. But there are other men who, not doing themselves perhaps great deeds, seem to make great deeds, or a least to make great life, possible. Such men, in our community, in our family circles, in our own little groups, whatever they are, any of us may be. We cannot make the wind to blow,–it bloweth where it listeth; but we can keep the windows open, so that when it blows the chambered life about us shall not fail to receive its freshness.

III. Gamaliel believed in God.

1. To him, surrounding all that man does and working through it, there is God. And with God are the final issues and destinies of things. Work as man will, he cannot make a plan succeed which God disowns; work as man will, he cannot make a plan fail which God approves. That is a noble and distinct faith. These words of Gamaliel are the words of all progressive spirits. They were the words of Luther, who opened Europe and made the best of modern history a possibility. Fitly do they stand to-day carved upon the pedestal of his great statue at Wittenberg.

2. Nobody can doubt that Gamaliel went back from the Sanhedrin to teach with all his might that Christianity was wrong. He had his thoughts, and he upheld them. He said, This is the truth; only, as he said that, he must have said also to his scholars–young Saul of Tarsus sitting there among them There are men here in Jerusalem–earnest, brave, enthusiastic, wofully deluded, as I think–who are asserting that the Christ has come, and that His reign has begun. I think these men are wrong. I give you my reasons. By and by you will see their fanaticism wither and dry up because no life of God is in it. But now let them alone. Believe your truth, assert it, prove it, live it: so will you do your best to kill this folly. That was Gamaliel. That is the true spirit always. Men do not flee out of the furnace of bigotry only to freeze on the open and desolate plains of indifference. You believe, and yet you have no wish to persecute; and any reader of the history of faith–nay, any student of his own soul–knows how rarely these two conditions have met in perfect harmony.

3. Persecution sounds like a bygone word, and yet all persecution has not passed away. Social ostracism comes in to take the place of the more crude and violent punishments of other days, and persecution lingers still in a form yet more subtle–in the disposition to attach disastrous consequences in this world or the next to honest opinions which we hold to be mistaken; the desire to fasten ripen intellectual convictions those stigmas of wickedness which can belong only to personal character. When that last form of terrorism shall have passed away, then persecution will have finally perished. Man will cease persecuting his brother man, partly because he will outgrow the wish to persecute, but partly also because he will see how useless it is to persecute. We shall come in the end to welcome all the honest and earnest thought of men, partly because we see the good of it, however it differs from our own, and partly because we cannot help ourselves. It is by the combined forces of these two causes that every great progress of human thought has taken place.

4. And when all persecution goes, there will come a chance and a demand for the two forms of human influence which will then have all the work to do. When you have thoroughly believed that it is both wrong and useless to try to frighten your fellow-man out of his faith trite yours, then what remains? First, you may argue with him, tell him why you believe, show him how unreasonable his unbelief or his fanaticism is. And if you cannot argue, or if your friend is one to whose mind arguments bring no conviction, then you must live your faith. And then just trying to live out its own life, to turn its own assured belief into obedient action, gradually other people become aware that the true soul is bearing a witness to truth which must have power. In a live State the soldiers have their useful duty, but it is not the soldiers who make the States true strength. Its faithful citizens, ,living their industrious lives within its institutions, which their lives are always filling with life, they are the true defenders of the State, making it strong, and making its strength impressively manifest to all the world. So the great faith needs learned reasoners; but it needs obedient servants and disciples more.

5. And that brings us back to Gamaliel. Was he, then, right? Could he then, can a man to-day, leave all to God and be quietly sure that He will vindicate the truth? A thousand fluctuations in the varying battle make us doubt. Many and many a time it seems as if between the error and the truth it were merely a question of which had the cleverest men upon its side. And yet you know that, if there be a God at all, Gamaliel was right. There must be time, there must be patience; but the real final question of two trees is the question of their roots. That which is rooted in God must live. The final glory of Gamaliel lies there. He believed that God was the only life of this world, that all which did not live in Him must die. We do not know whether Gamaliel ever became a Christian. The legends say that he did. History seems to say that he did not. But at least we know that if we have rightly read his character and story, he made the Christian faith more possible for other men, and he must somewhere, if not here, then beyond, have come to the truth and to the Christ Himself. (Bp. Phillips Brooks.)

The speech of Gamaliel at the Sanhedrin

Note here–

I. Good oratory neutralised by a corrupt audience.

1. The speaker.

(1) His ability and position. Some suppose him to be the son of Simeon, who took the infant Jesus in his arms, and the grandson of Hillel, both famous Jewish doctors. The exalted title of Rabban was given him for his great wisdom. He had been president of the Sanhedrin, and was the tutor of St. Paul. He was popular too–had in reputation among all the people. All this would give weight to his oratory, which would be wanting in a less distinguished man.

(2) The course he recommended. Had he urged some abstract proposition, or a difficult or dangerous course of action, one need not have wondered at the ineffectiveness of his address; but the course he recommended was most reasonable and easy, Refrain from these men, etc.

(3) The argument he employed.

(a) If the movement was undivine, opposition was unnecessary–it would come to nought of itself. In support of this, first, he gives facts referring to Theudas and Judas. Secondly, he states a principle–viz., that the human would perish and the Divine flourish. The argument is ad hominem, his hearers on their own principles were bound to take his advice. They professed to regard the new religion as an undivine thing and therefore need not take the trouble of opposing it.

(b) If the movement was of God, opposition would be futile and impious. Attempts to crush the cause of God are as futile as attempts to roll back the tides of the ocean, or reverse the course of the planets–worse than futile, it is fighting against God.

(4) The impression he produced–To him they agreed. They could not but feel the force of his arguments.

2. So far, Gamaliels speech seems powerful, and one might have thought that he would have gained his end. But no; they pursued their course of persecution (verse 40). What rendered this oratory so ineffective? The character of the audience. Prejudice warped their judgment and malice inspired their hearts. The eloquence of a discourse depends upon the mind of the auditory. Hence what is felt to be eloquence in one audience would not be in another. He is the most eloquent man in his sphere who advocates the wishes of his hearers: otherwise, though he reasons with the logic of Aristotle, and declaims with the power of Demosthenes, his eloquence will not be felt. Paul was a babbler at Athens. Let, then, hearers who would benefit free their minds from prejudice and listen with candour; and let speakers be above pandering to low tastes and sectarian sympathies.

II. Culpable indifference justifying itself by plausible logic. The non-intervention here recommended may in some aspects admit of justification. Statesmen, e.g., have no right to interfere with the religious opinions and movements of the people, so long as there is no infringement of the rights of others. The conscience is sacred to God. Men may argue, but not coerce. Again, the advice may be justified on the ground of social philosophy, supposing Gamaliel believed Christianity to be an imposture. The way to give social power to error is to persecute it. But looking at it in a broad light the councillor displayed a reprehensible moral indifference. Because–

1. As a man, he was bound to satisfy himself whether the apostles cause was of man or of God by honest investigation.

2. He had abundant evidence to satisfy himself on the question.

3. If it was the work of God he was bound to go heart and soul into it. We cannot therefore but regard his argument as formularised to apologise for his indifference. In this respect he is a type of a large class whose policy is to allow things to take their course and settle themselves whether true or false.

III. A test by which the divinity of Christianity is established. If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it. Christianity has not been overthrown, but has gone on conquering and to conquer.

IV. An example of the all-conquering spirit of genuine religion (verses 40-42). Observe–

1. Their exultation in ignominious suffering which can only be accounted for by–

(1) A consciousness of rectitude.

(2) A supreme affection for Christ. Love rejoices to suffer for its object.

(3) A recollection that their Master suffered in the same way.

(4) A fresh assurance of their genuine interest in Christ. He had told them that they should suffer (Mat 5:11-12; Mat 10:17-22).

2. Their invincibility in prohibited labour. No power could break down their holy purpose. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

Gamaliels counsel

I. A good counsel.

1. As a rule of judgment when we see the end of Gods ways. Then at last it shall certainly hold good. Every plant which My Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.

2. As a rule of conduct when carnal zeal will resort to carnal weapons in spiritual matters; and when no light has arisen as to whether a work be of God or man. In this sense Luther applied this counsel to the Elector of Treves as one undecided.

II. A bad counsel.

1. As a rule of judgment when, in the midst of the imperfect course of the world, good and evil are judged according to their external and temporary success. As a rule of conduct, when it is transformed into a pillow of laziness, to get rid of an inward and earnest decision, when Gods Word speaks distinctly enough, and Gods Spirit points clearly enough; and to avoid courageous acting and energetic witness-bearing, when we are really decided. (K. Gerok.)

Gamaliels counsel

I. A good counsel.

1. Of humility before God, the Supreme Judge.

2. Of charitableness toward our neighbour who thinks differently, and perhaps erroneously.

3. Of watchfulness over our passions.

II. A bad counsel.

1. Of a policy judging only according to outward success.

2. Of a toleration toward that which is evil.

3. Of an indifferentism undecided in itself. Conclusion: Better the deed of the apostles than the counsel of Gamaliel. (K. Gerok.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 33. They were cut to the heart] , Literally, they were sawn through, from through, and , to saw. They were stung to the heart, not with compunction nor remorse, but with spite, malice, and revenge: for, having the murder of Christ thus brought home to their consciences, in the first feelings of their malice and revenge, they thought of destroying the persons who had witnessed their nefarious conduct.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

They were cut to the heart; they grinned with their teeth, visibly showing the rage and fury that was within them, by which they were as sawn and divided asunder; malice and rage being a grievous torment to the cruel and malicious, ..

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

33. cut to the heart and took“weretaking.”

counsel to slay themHowdifferent this feeling and the effect of it from that “prickingof the heart” which drew from the first converts on the day ofPentecost the cry, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”(Ac 2:37). The words used inthe two places are strikingly different.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

When they heard that,…. This defence of the apostles, in which they still insisted upon it, that they had been the crucifiers of Christ, and yet that he was raised from the dead, and exalted in heaven, and was a spiritual Saviour of men:

they were cut; to the heart, as if they had been cut asunder with a saw; the Ethiopic version renders it, “they were angry”, and “gnashed with their teeth”, as if a saw was drawn to and fro; they were filled with rage and madness:

and took counsel to slay them; not in a legal and judicial way, but in a private manner, or by force; stirring up the zealots to rise up against them, and dispatch them at once, as blasphemers and heretics.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Were cut to the heart (). Imperfect passive of old verb (, ), to saw in two (), to cut in two (to the heart). Here it is rage that cuts into their hearts, not conviction of sin as in Ac 2:37. Only here and Ac 7:54 (after Stephen’s speech) in the N.T. (cf. Simeon’s prophecy in Lu 2:35).

Were minded (). Imperfect middle of . They were plotting and planning to kill (, as in Acts 2:23; Luke 23:33 which see) then and there. The point in 4:7 was whether the apostles deserved stoning for curing the cripple by demoniacal power, but here it was disobedience to the command of the Sanhedrin which was not a capital offence. “They were on the point of committing a grave judicial blunder” (Furneaux).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

They were cut to the heart [] . Only here and ch. 7 54. The verb means, originally, to saw asunder. A strong figure for exasperation.

To slay. See on Luk 23:32.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “When they heard that,” (ho de akousantes) “Then those having heard,” that the saving, life-giving power of the Holy Spirit had saved them, thru faith in Christ, and called and empowered them in their witnessing of the living resurrected, ascended Savior, as they had been commanded to do, Joh 20:21; Luk 24:49; Act 1:8.

2) “They were cut to the heart,” (dieprionto) “They were cut,” in emotions, “to the heart,” to the seat of their affections, deeply enraged, Act 7:51; Act 7:54; Act 9:3-6 and as Felix and Agrippa were, for good or bad, Act 24:24-25; Act 26:22-32; Pro 1:22-27.

3) “And took council to slay them,” (kai eboulonto anelien autous) “And they intended (had in their mind) to kill them,” to kill the apostles, in a vicious, violent, vengeful manner, even as they often took council how they might slay the Lord, Mar 3:6; Joh 11:53. It is here verified that he that is not “with” the Lord is (exists) against Him, with carnal enmity, Rom 8:7; Luk 11:23; Joh 15:20; 2Ti 3:12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

33. They were cut in sunder. The priests ought to have been thoroughly moved, though they had had hearts of iron, but they burst. (280) Whence we gather that no reasons can prevail with the reprobate, to bring them unto the obedience of Christ; for unless God speak within, the outward doctrine shall be able to do nothing else but to beat the cars. The apostles were able so to overcome their enemies, that they should not have had one word to say; but their fury was so untamed, and unbridled that they do rather go mad. Yet we must therewithal note the force of the word, because although the reprobate are not thereby changed, that they may become better, yet it pierceth into their hearts, so that it urgeth their consciences; for thence springeth their fury, because they saw themselves (281) urged by their judge. They would gladly mock all the gospel, as they attempt whatsoever they can, that they may count it as nothing; but there is in the same a certain hidden majesty, which driveth away mightily all their delicacy. (282) And chiefly when they are cited by the sound of the trumpet to appear before the judgment-seat of God, then appeareth their madness and fury.

(280) “ Sed rumpuntur,” but they burst (with rage.)

(281) “ Se sentiunt,” they feel themselves.

(282) “ Quae omnes illorum delicias violenter discutit,” which, with a strong hand, dispels all their delights.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 5:33. Cut to the heart.Lit. sawn asunder, torn in pieces, sc. in their hearts. Compare Act. 7:54a much stronger expression than that used in Act. 4:2 or Act. 16:18, and closely resembling that employed in Act. 2:37.

Act. 5:34. A pharisee.A member of one of the principal religious sects in Jerusalem, the others being Sadducees and Essenes. See further on Act. 15:5. Gamaliel = Benefit of God (see Num. 1:10; Num. 2:20). Probably Gamaliel the elder, one of the seven to whom the Jews gave the title Rabbi. In the Talmud he appears as a zealous Pharisee and distinguished teacher of the law.

Act. 5:35. Take heed to yourselves.Either with respect to these men, what ye intend to do (Hackett), or what ye intend to do with respect to these men (Holtzmann).

Act. 5:36-37. Theudas and Judas.Concerning the supposed chronological difficulty connected with these names see Homiletical Analysis.

Act. 5:39. In ye cannot overthrow it read for it them. Lest haply, etc., may be connected either with let them alone, or with a supplied thought such as and ye ought not to attempt to overthrow them, or take heed to yourselves.

Act. 5:40. And when they had called the apostles, sc. unto them, so as to preserve the force of the preposition the apostles having been removed a little space apart from the council during the progress of the deliberations (Act. 5:34).

Act. 5:41. Worthy to suffer shame.Or, worthy to be disgraced; a bold oxymoron. For His name should be for the namei.e., of Jesus, which is here omitted, either because it had just been mentioned (Act. 5:40), or because the name had already come to be a term in familiar use among the disciples. (Compare Act. 9:16.)

Act. 5:42. In every house.Better, at home, or from house to house, as in Act. 2:46.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 5:33-42

Gamaliel and his Colleagues; or, a Friend at Court

I. The person of Gamaliel.

1. His name. Borne by more than one celebrated scribe of the first and second centuries after Christ, this namemeaning Benefit of God (Num. 1:10; Num. 2:20; Num. 7:54)belonged first to Rabbi Gamaliel, the elder Hillels grandson; Gamaliel the younger flourished about 80118 A.D. The former, in all probability, the individual referred to by Luke 2. His profession.

(1) A member of the Sanhedrimone in the council; hardly its president (the Talmud).
(2) A Pharisee, one of the straitest sects of religionists in Jerusalem, who differed from the Sadducees in holding the doctrine of a resurrection, and outdid these in extravagant adherence to the letter of the Mosaic Law.

(3) A scribe or doctor of the law, virtually a professor of theology like his grandfather Hillel and his father Simon (said to be, but hardly likely, the Simeon of Luk. 2:25), whom he succeeded. He is reported to have had one thousand scholars, of whom five hundred studied the law, and five hundred Greek wisdom (Talmud)a statement which, if it could be depended on, would shed an interesting light on Pauls knowledge of the Greek poets. (See Riehms Handwrterbuch des Biblischen Altertums, art. Gamaliel).

3. His renown. Had in reputation among all the people, also among his colleagues, for his zeal as a Pharisee, his learning as a teacher, and his charity as a man. In corroboration of the first may be mentioned that when he died men said reverence for the law, purity, and continence had perished; the best certificates of the second were his brilliant scholars, Onkelos the Targumist and Saul of Tarsus (Act. 22:3); the third his counsel to the Sanhedrists attested.

4. His history. According to Christian tradition he embraced Christianity, and, along with his son Ahib and Nicodemus, was baptised by Peter and John, the Clementine Recognitions even affirming that at this time he was a secret disciple. This statement, however, Jewish tradition declines to verify, making him die a Pharisee eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

II. The advice of Gamaliel.

1. His recommendations. Two things he urged upon his colleagues.

(1) Caution. To take heed to themselves with regard to the apostles what they intended to do. Always commendable, even in a right course, circumspection and prudence are specially desirable when the path inviting entrance is dubious and dangerous, not to say wrong. To look well before one leaps is a safe maxim.
(2) Tolerance. To hold their hands and let the apostles alone. If they could not help their prisoners cause, at least they should not hinder it. Neither punish them for what they have done nor restrain them for the future. Connive at themlet them take their courselet not our hand be upon them (Henry). This, the least the truth has a right to expect and receive at the hands of men.

2. His arguments. Also two: one for each recommendation.

(1) One for the caution, this, drawn from past experience, that possibly need would not arise for action in the matter, as the present movement would most likely run the course of other popular agitations which in former times had suddenly sprung up, flourished for a season, and eventually subsid d. One such had been the insurrection of Theudas. (Note. This Theudas was not the revolutionary of that name in the reign of Claudius, and under the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus A.D. 44, ten or twelve years after this speech of Gamaliel (Jos., Ant., XX. Act. 5:1), but either another of the same name, which was common, who had figured in the public gaze shortly before; or the Judas, who, after Herods death, led a robber band against the palace of Sepphoris in Galilee (Jos., Ant., XVII. x. 5), Judas, according to Mat. 10:3; Luk. 6:16, being interchangeable with Thaddeus or Theudas; or the Simon (Jos., Ant., XVII. x. 6), one of Herods slaves, who got himself proclaimed king, burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, with others of the kings houses throughout the land, but eventually was captured and beheadedit being supposed (Sonntag, see Hackett) that Theudas was a title Simon had assumed on pretending to royal dignity). Another of these abortive insurrections was that headed by Judas of Galilee (Jos., Ant., XX Act. 5:2; Wars, II. viii. 1), called also a Gaulonitei.e., an inhabitant of the district east of Galilee (Jos., Ant., XVIII. i. 1), who, in the days of the taxing, or enrolmenti.e., registration of persons and property with a view to taxation, conducted under Cyrenius (Luk. 2:2), raised a revolt against Rome which attracted numerous supporters, but terminated in failure, he himself getting killed and his followers dispersed. One of these followers is believed (but without foundation) to have been Simon the Canaanite, or Simon Zelotes, the apostle.

(2) For the tolerance this, derived from reflection, that resistance was either needless or hopeless (Plumptre), that the movement, if of men, would sooner or later collapse, while if of God, it would defy all attempts at overthrow, while those who opposed it would be guilty of fighting against God. If the first part of this argument sprang from timidity, the second was the outcome of sober judgment. If God was behind the apostles it would be fruitless and dangerous to stand before them.
3. His motives. Various have been suggested.

(1) A secret conviction that the movement was of God, though as yet not prepared to act on this conviction and espouse it boldly. According to this view (which, however, is pure conjecture), Gamaliel was a secret disciple like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, probably one of the great company of priests who soon after became obedient to the faith (Act. 6:7).

(2) A latent sympathy with the apostles doctrine concerning Jesus, arising from the fact of his being a Pharisee, and therefore a believer in the resurrection, and from the probable circumstance of His having sat among the doctors whom Jesus, when a boy, questioned in the temple (Luk. 2:46).

(3) A perceptible leaning to the sentiments of his two colleagues, Nicodemus who once advised that Christ should be let alone (Joh. 7:50-51), and Joseph of Arimathea, who consented not to the counsel and deed of Caiaphas (Luk. 23:51).

(4) Discernment to perceive that if the movement was purely fanatical, it would not be suppressed but only rendered more violent by opposition.

III. The success of Gamaliel.His advice prevailed.

1. To all appearance unanimously. At least no opposition was offered to his cautious counsel. Having a majority in their favour, his sentiments were accepted without a division, and became the finding of the court. Yet

2. Not altogether wholly. Though persuaded to depart from their murderous intention (Act. 5:33) and to spare their prisoners lives, his colleagues could not appease their rage without inflicting on the apostles some punishment. Perhaps, also, they felt that something must be done on the one hand to justify their interference with the apostles liberty, and on the other hand to express their displeasure at the apostles disobedience. Accordingly they beat or scourged the apostles as Christ had been (Joh. 19:1), and as Paul afterwards was scourged on five occasions (2Co. 11:24). The scourge was a whip of two lashes, knotted with bones or heavy indented circles of bronze, or terminated by hooks, in which case it was aptly denominated a scorpion (quoted by Hackett). Still,

3. To all intents effectually. Charged not to speak in the name of Jesusa useless rehearsal of a useless interdict which they could not obey (Act. 4:20), the apostles were forthwith dismissed, no doubt reluctantly, their judges inwardly feeling they would rather have incarcerated permanently, or killed off finally such obnoxious persons as the apostles were supposed to be, but yet really so that they departed from the presence of the council, and on their part triumphantly, rejoicing they had been counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name of Him whom they served, in whom they believed, and of whom they witnessed, and permanently so that every day in the temple and at home they ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ.

Learn.

1. That God can raise up champions to speak for His people and defend His cause in the most unlikely places and at the most unlikely times. Examples: Moses at the court of Pharaoh; Elijah in the days of Ahab; John the Baptist in the reign of Herod. Luther, Latimer, Knox.
2. That good men generally carry with them an influence for good which weighs with and tells upon their contemporaries. Witness Samuel and Daniel in Old Testament times; Nicodemus and Gamaliel in the Sanhedrim.
3. That Gods servants may always comfort themselves with the reflection that His cause is invincible. Emblem: the bush burning yet not consumed.

4. That those who fight against God are engaged in a losing battle (Isa. 27:4).

5. That Gods servants and Christs followers may suffer wrong, and yet the cause for which they suffer win the day.

6. That to suffer for righteousness sake is the highest honour a Christian can enjoy on earth (Mat. 5:10; 1Pe. 4:16).

7. That always and everywhere Christians should publish the name of Jesus as the Christ, or Anointed King and Saviour of mankind.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 5:36. The Worlds Somebodies.Are not unfrequently.

1. Pretentious nobodies.
2. Worthless impostors.
3. Arrogant deceivers.
4. Disastrous leaders.

Act. 5:38-39. Gamaliels counsel.

I. The good advice it contained.

1. To abstain from injuring the apostles or hindering the cause they advocated. This was practically a dissuasive against persecution.
2. To wait with patience for the decision which Providence would ultimately give on this as on every other movement. Time tries all.
3. To beware of doing anything that might seem like fighting against God.

II. The doubtful doctrine it preached.

1. That the goodness of a cause may always be judged by its success.
2. That men should regulate their conduct by the bearing it will have upon their own interests.
3. That mans responsibilities towards the cause of God and Christ are discharged by simply letting it alone.

Act. 5:39. Fighting against God.

I. An old sin.

II. A common practice.

III. A hopeless enterprise.

IV. A perilous warfare.

V. A heinous wickedness.

Act. 5:35-39. Gamaliels Counsel.

I. A convenient counsel for the spiritually idle and for the politicians of the world.

II. A true counsel in opposition to senseless zeal.

III. A half counsel, when it concerns us to recognize, decide, and act at once.Beck in Lange.

Act. 5:38-39. Of men or of God; or, the Origin of Christianity.

I. Christianity must be either of men or of God.Either it is a creation or evolution of the human mind or a production and revelation of the divine Spirit. Either one, it may be the best, of ordinary nature religions, like those of paganism which it supplanted, like Buddhism, Confucianism, and Mohammedanism, or a distinctly supernatural religion, as Christ (Joh. 7:16) and His apostles affirmed that it was, and as its adherents believed it to be. No middle alternative is possible.

II. If Christianity be of men it will assuredly come to nought.It may seem for a time to be possessed of vitality, to manifest growth and to be productive of beneficial results, but these appearances will only be temporary. It will not succeed in lifting men much higher than other nature religions; it will not extend its dominion over a much greater territory than these; it will not exhibit qualities of permanence beyond what are displayed by these.

III. Thus far Christianity has not come to nought.It has survived the assaults of paganism, and even overthrown paganism wherever it has spread. It has resisted the still more dangerous onsets of philosophy and science, and in a large measure Christianised these. It has stood up against the combinations of world empires, and reduced these, in name at least, to subjection beneath the sceptre of Christ. It has maintained its vitality and influence notwithstanding the corruptions of its purity that have arisen within its own burdens and from the midst of its own adherents. It has met the deepest spiritual wants of the individual soul and of the world in a way that no other religion has done. It has extended its sway to almost every country under heaven. After nineteen centuries it evinces no sign of decrepitude and decay. Other religions are waxing old and vanishing away; it is with the passing years increasing in vigour and acceptance.

IV. Hence Christianity can only be of heavenly origin.This a necessary inference from the propositions laid down by Gamaliel. By its fruits ye shall know it. These are such as can be explained only on the hypothesis of its divine origin. This renders it certain that Christianity will prove itself to be successfuli.e., serving the ends of a religioni.e., saving; universal, ultimately embracing the globe; and permanent, enduring till the close of time.

V. No combination of forces can hinder Christianity from eventually accomplishing its mission.Ye will not be able to overthrow it, said Gamaliel. Gamaliel was right. If God be for it who can be against it? Who can fight successfully against God? No weapon that is formed against it shall prosper; the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Lessons.

1. The claims which Christianity as a supernatural religion has on the minds and hearts of men.
2. The duty of Christians doing everything to further its triumph.
3. The folly of attempting to overthrow or even hinder it.

Act. 5:40. The Way of the Holy Cross.

I. Threatening (Act. 4:21).

II. Imprisonment (Act. 5:18).

III. Scourging (Act. 5:40).

IV. Martyrdom (Act. 7:60).

Act. 5:41. Suffering Shame for the Name.

I. Comfort in it. That what one suffers for is Christs name (1Pe. 4:14).

II. Honour in it. That by means of suffering one can help on the triumph of that name.

III. Glory in it. Since if one suffers with Christ here, he shall reign with Christ hereafter (2Ti. 2:12).

Four Classes in the School of Suffering.

I. Obliged to suffer.

II. Willing to suffer.

III. Able to suffer.

IV. Permitted to suffer.Hartman in Lange.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(33) They were cut to the heart.The strict meaning of the verb describes the action of a saw, as in Heb. 11:37. Used figuratively, it seems to imply a more lacerating pain than the pricked to the heart of Act. 2:37, leading not to repentance but to hatred. The persons spoken of are principally the high priest and his Sadducean followers (Act. 5:17).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

33. When The firm repetition by the apostles of their conscientious disobedience to the Sanhedrin, and of their explicit charge against them of Messiah-murder and of the exaltation of Jesus to God’s right hand, was the greatest of possible offences. They were forbidden to proclaim the name of Jesus, and they promptly proclaimed it, first in the temple and then in the Sanhedrin.

Cut to the heart The phrase to the heart, as the italics indicate, is superfluously added by the translators. The phrase they were cut signifies literally in the Greek they were sawn through, and it describes by a strong figure the pang of indignant passion cutting through the entire person of a perfectly angry man.

Took counsel Not that they entered into consultation audibly, but that they framed the purpose unanimously in their heart.

To slay them As a court they had not the power of capital punishment, so that they were now simply inspired with a mad impulse of slaughter of the whole twelve by illegal violence, such as was perpetrated seen after upon the proto-martyr Stephen. But in the midst of their paroxysm a man of no ordinary presence stands forth, and, with words of singular calmness, brings them to a semblance of reason.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart, and minded to slay them.’

The result of Peter’s words was anguish and fury. They were ‘cut to the heart’, with that strange mixture of guilt and anger that takes hold of men when they are closing their minds to the truth, and are unwilling to face up to it. The consequence was that they began to conceive in their hearts the necessity for the death penalty. These men must be got rid of. They were embarrassing the priesthood. There is nothing like a bad conscience to make a man judge severely. Their fury probably arose partly from their own disturbed consciences, and partly from the seeming arrogance of the Apostles in flaunting themselves in the Temple, and then daring to come and challenge them. They were not used to being treated in this way.

It was apparent that the Sadducean side of the council were losing control of themselves. It was probably partly this that made Gamaliel stand up and request a private session which could be conducted without the prisoners present.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The counsel of Gamaliel:

v. 33. When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

v. 34. 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;

v. 35. and said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

v. 36. 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 naught.

v. 37. 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.

The address of Peter, in which he and also the other apostles defended themselves against the attacks of the Jewish leaders, was characterized by the candor and fearlessness which should ever mark the proclamation of the truth. But the members of the Sanhedrin, instead of giving heed to the truth and permitting repentance unto the forgiveness of sins to be worked in them, were, literally, sawed asunder to the heart, they were filled with the most violent indignation. One thought and one object therefore filled the minds of most of them, namely, to rid themselves of the disciples as they had done of the Master, to put the apostles to death. But at this crisis the calmer counsel of one of the members prevailed. For in his place in the Council arose a Pharisee by the name of Gamaliel, a learned teacher of the Law, highly respected and esteemed by all the people, whose word therefore had considerable influence, and commanded, first of all, that the accused men should be put out for a little while, since he wanted to speak in a confidential matter. Having held the floor until this was done, Gamaliel then addressed the Sanhedrin, giving them the honoring appellation of “men of Jerusalem. ” He cautioned his fellow counselors to exercise all care with respect to these men, and to weigh every act with great deliberation before putting it into execution. He substantiates his caution with a reference to historical facts, especially as to seditions and insurrections in their country. There had been one Theudas not long before this, not the one mentioned by Josephus as having found his end in 44 A. D. , but another man by the same name, probably the father or some other kinsman of this later Theudas. This man had advertised himself as a somebody, as a great man, and thus managed to get a following of some four hundred men, just as any demagogue may count upon some adherents. But this man had been promptly put to death, his followers had been scattered to the four winds, and the entire movement had fallen flat, without result. After this, in the days of the great census, which Luke distinguishes in this way (6-8 A. D.), another rebel, Judas of Galilee, arose, so called after the scene of his chief exploits, or Judas of Gaulanitis, after the place of his birth. Since this great census, under Quirinius’s second Roman administration, involved not only numbering and valuation of property, but the imposition of a tax as well, it is not surprising that Judas easily drew away much people, quickly gained a following. But his fate was the same as that of Theudas. He had also perished, he soon had found his end, and all those that had put any obedience and trust in him had been dispersed by the authorities. Gamaliel might have multiplied the number of examples, because, as Josephus reports, there were minor revolts and attempts at insurrection almost continually in some parts of Palestine, but he had said enough to make his point.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Act 5:33. They were cut to the heart, The word expresses the action of those, who, through rage, grate with their teeth, as it were with a saw; from the word , which signifies to cut with a saw. See Act 7:54.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Act 5:33 . ] not: they gnashed with the teeth , which would be (Lucian. Calumn . 24), but dissecabantur (Vulgate), comp. Act 7:54 : they were sawn through , cut through as by a saw (Plat. Conv. p. 193 A; Aristoph. Eq. 768; 1Ch 20:3 ; see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 880; Valckenaer, p. 402 f.), a figurative expression (comp. Act 2:37 ) of deeply penetrating painful indignation . Alberti, Gloss. p. 67: . It is stronger than the non-figurative , Act 4:2 , Act 16:18 .

] they consulted , Luk 14:31 ; Act 15:37 . The actual coming to a resolution was averted by Gamaliel.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

33 When they heard that , they were cut to the heart , and took counsel to slay them.

Ver. 33. They were cut to the heart ] They were so vexed as if they had been cut with a saw, ; or the gnashing of their teeth sounded as the reciprocation of a saw.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

33. ] sc. as ch. Act 7:54 . From its conjunction there with . , it does not appear to have any connexion with the phrase or . . with which Hesych [40] and Wetst. identify it. They were cut asunder (in heart). So Persius, iii. 8, ‘turgescit vitrea bilis: Findor , ut Arcadi pecuaria rudere credas.’ And Plautus, Bacch. ii. 3. 17, ‘Cor meum et cerebrum, Nicobule, finditur , Istius hominis ubi fit quaque mentio.’ And Euseb. H. E. Act 5:1 (in Suicer, sub voce, where he cites other authorities also), . .

[40] Hesychius of Jerusalem, cent y . vi.

] they were purposing , ‘taking counsel with the intent,’ see reff.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 5:33 . : lit [184] , were sawn asunder (in heart), dissecabantur , Vulgate ( cf. use of findo in Persius and Plautus), cf. Act 7:54 (Luk 2:35 ), Euseb., H. E. , v., i., 6 (see Grimm, sub v .). The word is used in its literal sense in Aristoph., Equites , 768, Plato, Conv. , p. 193 a , and once in the LXX, 1Ch 20:3 . The rendering “sawed their teeth” would certainly require as in other cases where the verb (and the simple verb also) has any such meaning. Dr. Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek , pp. 72, 73, also refers to its use in the comic poet Eubulus (Meineke), 3, 255, and classes it among the words (colloquial) common to the comic poets (including Aristophanes) and the N.T. Here we have not the pricking of the heart, Act 2:37 , which led to contrition and repentance, but the painful indignation and envy which found vent in seeking to rid themselves of the disciples as they had done of their Master. : the verb is found no less than nineteen times in Acts, twice in St. Luke’s Gospel, and only two or three times in the rest of the N.T., once in Mat 2:16 , Heb 10:9 (2Th 2:8 ); often used as here in LXX and classical Greek; it is therefore not one of those words which can be regarded as distinctly medical terms, characteristic of St. Luke (so Hobart and Zahn), although it is much used in medical writers. The noun , Act 8:1 , is only found in St. Luke, and is also frequent in medical writers, Hobart, Medical Language of St. Luke , pp. 209, 210; but this word is also used in LXX of a violent death or destruction, cf. Num 11:15 , Jdt 15:4 , 2Ma 5:13 . At the same time it is interesting to note that , another medical word characteristic of St. Luke, and used by him in the sense of attempting, trying, is found with in Act 9:29 , cf. Zahn, Einleitung , ii., p. 384, with which Hobart compares (Galen), see in loco .

[184] literal, literally.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 5:33-39

33But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. 35And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. 36For 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 followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. 37After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. 38So in the present case, I 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; 39but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”

Act 5:33

NASB”they were cut to the quick”

NKJV”they were furious”

NRSV”they were enraged”

TEV”they were so furious”

NJB”this so infuriated them”

This term literally means “cut with a saw” or “gnash with the teeth.” This very same term in the same form is also used in Act 7:54, where the added phrase, “cut to the heart,” shows the full metaphorical sense (see also Luk 2:35). This strong term (i.e., diapr) is similar in meaning to Act 2:37 a.

“intended to kill them” This is an imperfect middle (deponent) indicative, implying that (1) they began at this point to try to kill them or (2) this was a recurrent plan and desire. From our knowledge of the early church’s growth from #Acts , 1 fits best. Notice it is the Sadducees who expressed this anger and murderous intent. It is just possible that the Pharisees (i.e., Gamaliel) saw the early church as a useful thorn to poke at the Sadducean rejection of resurrection in general. Pharisees would not want to affirm the resurrection of Jesus, but would affirm the concept of a resurrection followed by a future life with God.

It is surprising to modern Bible readers that religious leaders could plan murder. Remember these were Sadducees committed to the writings of Moses, which commanded that a blasphemer must be stoned to death. These leaders thought they were acting on God’s behalf and in conformity to His word (cf. Lev 24:10-16).

Act 5:34 “Pharisees” See Special Topic following.

SPECIAL TOPIC: PHARISEES

SPECIAL TOPIC: GAMALIEL

Act 5:36-37 “Theudas. . .Judas of Galilee” Josephus mentions these same two names (cf. Antiq. 20.5.1). However, he listed them in the reverse order. Further historical information shows that there were two persons by this name who were Jewish zealots against Rome. Therefore, both the NT and Josephus could be accurate. The one mentioned by Gamaliel rebelled in A.D. 6, whereas the one mentioned by Josephus rebelled in A.D. 44.

Act 5:37 “in the days of the census” Josephus (cf. Antiq.18.1.1; Wars 2.8.1) tells us that Augustus ordered a tax to be levied on the Jews, soon after Archelaus was dethroned and Quirinius was made legate of Syria (i.e., about A.D. 6-7). These census for taxation purposes occurred every fourteen years, but took years to complete.

“Judas of Galilee” He is mentioned several times by Josephus (cf. Antiq. 18.1.1-6; 20.5.2 and also in Wars 2.8.1; 2.17.8-9). His revolt occurred in about A.D. 6 or 7. He was the founder of the zealot movement. The zealots (Josephus calls them “the fourth philosophy) and the Sicarii (i.e., assassins) are possibly the same political movement.

Act 5:38 “stay away from these men and let them alone” What surprising advice! This phrase has two aorist active imperatives.

1. aphistmi, separate, put away

2. aphimi, send away, dismiss

“if” This is a third class conditional sentence, which means potential action.

Act 5:39 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence, which usually denotes an affirmation of truth, but here it cannot be true. This shows the literary use of this grammatical form.

“or else you may even be found fighting against God” It must be remembered that these religious leaders think they are acting on God’s behalf. The very fact that Gamaliel speaks the possibility of their being sincerely wrong is a shocking statement (cf. Act 11:17).

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

When, &c. = Now they having heard.

cut to the heart. Greek. diapriomai. Only here and Act 7:54.

took counsels = were consulting. Greek. bouleuo.

slay. Greek. anaireo. See note on Act 2:23.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

33. ] sc. as ch. Act 7:54. From its conjunction there with . , it does not appear to have any connexion with the phrase or . . with which Hesych[40] and Wetst. identify it. They were cut asunder (in heart). So Persius, iii. 8, turgescit vitrea bilis: Findor, ut Arcadi pecuaria rudere credas. And Plautus, Bacch. ii. 3. 17, Cor meum et cerebrum, Nicobule, finditur, Istius hominis ubi fit quaque mentio. And Euseb. H. E. Act 5:1 (in Suicer, sub voce, where he cites other authorities also), . .

[40] Hesychius of Jerusalem, centy. vi.

] they were purposing, taking counsel with the intent, see reff.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 5:33. ) they were cut to the heart; ch. Act 7:54. So the Latins say, findor. [Cor meum finditur.-Plaut. Bac. ii. 3, 17.]-) they took counsel.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Act 5:33-42

SPEECH OF GAMALIEL

Act 5:33-42

33 But they, when they heard this, were cut to the heart,-This expresses the effect that Peters address had on the council; instead of being convinced and turning from their evil course, they were cut to the heart, but not of the conviction of their sins. Instead of blessing the apostles for speaking to them the word of life, or preaching to them the gospel, they were minded to slay them. The original, dieprionto, means to saw into, to cut into, to saw asunder; here it is rage that cuts into their hearts, not conviction of their sins as in Act 2:37. There is one other use of this term, in the speech of Stephen (Act 7:54) we have the same expression.

34 But there stood up one in the council,-There are four things said about Gamaliel here: (1) He was one of the council, a member of the Sanhedrin; (2) he was a Pharisee; if not the most influential, he was a leader among the Pharisees, while many of the other members were Sadducees; (3) he was a doctor of the law, or a teacher of the law; (4) he was respected and honored by all the people. The council feared the people, and as Gamaliel had such influence with the people it was prudent for them to hear him; hence, he asked that the apostles be put out so that he could address the council himself in the absence of the apostles.

35 And he said unto them, Ye men of Israel,-Gamaliel addressed them as men of Israel; these were common words of address to the council. Gamaliel proceeded then to give a timely warning as to what should be done with the apostles. He calls upon them to take heed to themselves as to what they were about to do. This does not mean that some danger is about to befall them, but that they should be careful or cautious about reaching a decision.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas,-Gamaliel now shows his wisdom by reminding them of some illustrations that mere pretenders will come to nought. Much discussion has been raised as to who Theudas was and what he did. It does not matter who he was; they were familiar with him and knew just what he had done. Josephus mentions a Theudas, who was a leader in an insurrection, but he could not have been this Theudas, for his rebellion was fifteen years later than this time. The times were full of revolts and rebellions, and as not less than three insurrec-tionary leaders were called Judas, and four Simon, there may have been two of the name of Theudas. This Theudas led about four hundred off, and was finally slain with his company.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee-This Judas was one of those who led an insurrection about the time of the taxing or enrolment. Josephus mentions a Judas of Galilee who made a revolt against the Roman enrollment which was ordered while Cyrenius or Quirinus was governor; he also mentions that his sons were executed, but does not tell what became of Judas; however, Gamaliel says here that he also perished, and all that were with him were either killed or scattered abroad.

38-39 And now I say unto you,-Gamaliel, after reciting these illustrations of those who had failed in their efforts to reform or rebel, gives his advice. He now says, Let them alone; that is, literally, stand off or aloof and suffer them to go on. He gives his reasons or argument for his advice. He advises that their work can be left to the dealing of God, which, in case of Theudas and Judas, as cited, had brought the wicked counsels to nought. Furthermore, if these men were doing the work of God, they would be fighting against God to oppose them. This was a shrewd argument for Gamaliel, and was suited to the critical case of the apostles; Gamaliel does not imply that he was a secret disciple of Jesus or that he leaned toward the apostles. Gamaliel’s reasoning seems to be clear; from the cases mentioned he inferred that if these apostles had no other basis but such as those that Theudas and Judas had, they would come to nought and the Sanhedrin would have no use to oppose them; but on the other hand, if the work that the apostles were doing was of God, it would be vain for the council to oppose it-nay, worse, for it would be in vain, and even worse than that, they would be found fighting against God.

40 And to him they agreed:-The argument of Gamaliel had influence on the Sanhedrin; the council yielded; the apostles were recalled; to give vent to their malice, and perhaps in their thought, to atone somewhat for this concession to moderate measures, they beat the apostles, and then repeated their futile injunction to speak no more in the name of Jesus; then they let them go. This Gamaliel was the same one who had taught Saul of Tarsus. Some think that Saul was present; if so, what did he think of the counsel of his old professor? The members of the Sanhedrin may have felt that their honor was at stake, and that, if the apostles departed untouched, they themselves would be regarded as having proceeded against innocent men; hence, to save their honor and the honor of the court, and to make the impression that the apostles were guilty of some offense, they were scourged. This was a frequent, though a very disgraceful, punishment among the Jews. Jesus had warned his apostles of such treatment. (Mat 10:17.)

41 They therefore departed from the presence of the council,^-The apostles considered it an honor to be followers of Jesus by evil report and good report.” (2Co 6:8.) Jesus had prepared them to meet ill treatment. (Joh 15:20.) The apostles departed from the Sanhedrin rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name.” No greater indignity could be put upon them than to be subjected to judicial scourging; such treatment would fill many with indignation, anger, or grief over the terrible injustice they suffered; but the apostles counted themselves fortunate, and they considered it an honor to suffer for Christ.

42 And every day, in the temple and at home,-The apostles continued to disregard the authority of the Sanhedrin and to obey God; they continued to teach in the temple and in every house. The two fields of apostolic work here mentioned are the public teaching at the temple, and the private teaching at home. Where crowds gathered and the disciples met, they continued to teach. The mission of the church is to carry the gospel to those who do not have it, and to edify itself in the things of God. This may be done by teaching from house to house” (Act 20:20) and publicly in the temple. Teach” and preach” are used here to describe the nature of the work of the apostles; didaskontes” is the original for teaching, and euaggelizomenoi is the original for preaching or evangelizing. This is the first use of the specific word for preach in the Acts; it is the same word from which the English term evangelize comes, and means to proclaim good news. It is used frequently by Luke and Paul. (See Luk 2:10 Luk 9:6; 1Th 3:6; Rom 1:15; 1Co 15:1; Gal 1:23; Eph 2:17.) From the scourging the apostles went to preach Christ as the Savior of the world.

Questions on Acts

By E.M. Zerr

Acts Chapter 5

What certain man is introduced?

Relate his business transaction.

Then relate his religious transaction.

Who was associated with him in the act?

Who filled the heart of Ananias?

With what did he fill it?

Before whom was the lie of Ananias considered?

Was the sale of land required?

Was all the money required?

In what did the sin consist?

State what happened to Ananias.

How did this affect those who heard of this?

What was done by the young men?

Who came in a few hours afterward?

Of what was she unaware?

State Peter’s question and the answer.

Of what conspiracy was she accused?

Is it possible to tempt God?

Tell the announcement made to Sapphira.

What happened to her then?

How was her body disposed of?

What came upon the church at this time?

State what was now done by apostles’ hands.

At what place were they gathered?

What now happened to the community of goods?

State the frame of mind of the people.

Who were added to the Lord?

From what ranks and ages?

How did they demonstrate their faith?

From what communities were the sick brought?

How many of them were healed?

Who rose up at this time?

With what were they filled?

What was done with the apostles?

Explain meaning of “common” prison.

What officer released them?

State his orders to them.

To what does “this life” refer in 20th verse?

How did the apostles respond to the command?

Who were unaware of their escape at this time?

What activities did they perform while unaware?

State the report brought to their ears.

How did it affect them?

What further report was then brought them?

In what manner were the apostles brought to them?

Was this because of friendliness for the apostles?

Before what body were the apostles placed?

With what had they filled Jerusalem?

What guilt did the Jews fear would come upon them?

Repeat the answer of Peter and the other apostle.

What fact did they attribute to God?

What fact did they attribute to the Jews?

To what was Christ exalted?

Tell what he was to give to Israel.

By whom is this witnessed?

To what class was the Holy Ghost given?

How did all this affect the minds of the Jews?

What did they prepare to do?

Who dissuaded them from it?

How did this man stand among the people?

What did be insist should be done with the apostles?

With what argument did he support his advice?

State his reasoning as to the work of God or man.

Why would such reasoning be wrong today?

How did the Jews receive the advice?

In what manner were the apostles released?

What command was given them?

Did they obey it?

In what did they rejoice?

When, where, and what did they teach and preach?

Acts Chapter Five

Ralph Starling

Ananias and Sapphira moved by such benevolent hands,

Should they also dispose of their land.

Together they came up with a plan,

Keep part of the price and fulfill the demand.

When I became evident their story was not real,

It became clear their destiny was sealed.

They had not lied to man but to God,

Both died and were buried because of their fraud.

This, the church and others could not ignore,

And many believers were added to the Lord.

When the religious leaders learned of the situation,

They imprisoned the apostles with fiery indignation.

But an angel of the Lord released them by night,

Saying, Do speak to the people the words of this life.

When confronted by the authorities again,

Peter said, We must obey God rather than men.

Then Gamaliel, a doctor of law of great respect,

Stood up and by history made a request.

Refrain from these men, leave them alone,

If they are not from God it will soon be known.

Hearing such testimony they were quick to agree,

After beating them they were set free.

The apostles departed without shame,

Counting it worthy to suffer for Christs name.

Having faced and survived such an ordeal,

They were ready to preach with t he same zeal.

And daily in the temple and every house,

They ceased not to preach Jesus the Christ!

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

cut

Cf. Act 2:37.

The Gospel when preached in the power of the Spirit convicts or enrages.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

they: Act 2:37, Act 7:54, Act 22:22, Luk 4:28, Luk 4:29, Luk 6:11, Luk 11:50-54, Luk 19:45-48, Luk 20:19

took: Act 9:23, Gen 4:5-8, Psa 37:12-15, Psa 37:32, Psa 37:33, Psa 64:2-8, Mat 10:21, Mat 10:25, Mat 23:34, Mat 23:35, Mat 24:9, Joh 15:20, Joh 16:2

Reciprocal: Neh 4:7 – then Psa 2:1 – people Psa 45:5 – sharp Jer 20:10 – we shall Jer 26:8 – the priests Dan 3:19 – was Nebuchadnezzar Mat 28:12 – General Luk 23:5 – they Joh 11:53 – they Act 7:27 – he that Act 8:1 – there Heb 4:12 – sharper 1Jo 3:20 – if Rev 11:10 – these

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

3

Act 5:33. Cut is from DIAPRIO, which Thayer defines at this place, “to be sawn through mentally,” and explains it to mean, “to be rent with vexation.” This was different from the case in chapter 2:37, which says they were “pricked in their heart,” which means they were overwhelmed with a conviction of guilt. In the present instance the Jewish leaders were overcome with anger, because they realized that everything the apostles said was true, yet they were not in a penitent frame of mind. Instead of wanting to do the right thing as did the ones on Pentecost, they plotted to bring violence upon the apostles. Took counsel denotes that they held a consultation to decide on some means by which they could have the apostles slain. They knew they would have to do some kind of scheming to get it done, for they could not lawfully slay anybody (Joh 18:31).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 5:33. They were cut to the heart. Literally, they were cut asunder as with a saw (so the Vulgate, dissecabantur).

Took counsel to slay them. To carry out such a sentence, the sanction of the Roman Government must have been first obtained, unless they had effected their purpose by having recourse to one of those hurried, arbitrary procedures which some Roman governors, to win popularity, connived at. This was the case in the summary execution of St. Stephen the deacon.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Gamaliel’s Counsel

Peter’s words accusing the council of murdering Jesus enraged them to the point of being prepared to murder the apostles as well.

But they could take no such action without the support of the Pharisaic members of the court. The Pharisees were in the minority, but they commanded much more popular respect than the Sadducees did, so much so that the Sadducean members of the Sanhedrin found it impolitic to oppose the Pharisees demands. This was particularly important in a case like the present, where the defendants enjoyed the people’s good will (Bruce, pp. 123-124).

So, when Gamaliel, a highly respected teacher from among the Pharisees, rose to speak and asked for the apostles to be put outside, his words were instantly heeded.

Gamaliel warned the council against the actions they were contemplating. He reminded them of a man named Theudas who had claimed to be someone special and led four hundred men in a rebellion. He had been killed and those following him scattered, with the rebellion coming to nothing. Another man, named Judas of Galilee, also rose up during the time of a census and caused a number of people to follow him, but he was killed and his followers similarly scattered.

Gamaliel urged the council to leave the apostles alone. He reasoned that if their work was of their own creation, it would come to nothing. However, if their actions were truly directed by God, the council could not stop them and they would be found in the unenvious position of opposing the Almighty ( Act 5:33-39 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

Act 5:33. When they heard that When the high-priest and the Sadducees heard this courageous testimony, and faithful remonstrance; they were cut to the heart Greek, , they were sawn asunder, namely, with anger and indignation. When a sermon was preached to the people to this purpose, they were pierced to the heart, Act 2:37; namely, with remorse and godly sorrow: these here are cut to the heart with resentment and rage. Thus the same gospel is to some a savour of life unto life, and to others of death unto death; and its enemies not only deprive themselves of its comforts, but fill themselves with terrors, and are their own tormentors. And took counsel to slay them To put them all to death, either under pretence of blasphemy, or for sedition and rebellion against the supreme council of the state. Thus, while the apostles proceeded in the service of Christ, with a holy security and serenity of mind, perfectly composed, and in a sweet enjoyment of themselves, their persecutors went on in their opposition to Christ, with constant perplexity and perturbation!

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

33. The Sanhedrim had been astonished at the boldness of Peter and John on their former trial, but had contented themselves with severe threatenings. Now, both their commands and their threats, having been despised, and the bold innovators daring to defy them once more, they lost, for a moment, all the restraint which had been imposed by the fear of the multitude. (33) “Now when they heard this, they were exasperated, and determined to slay them.”

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

DIVINE INTERVENTION

33-42. Now they reach a grand culmination. The Preachers in charge and the official board are signally defeated, cut through, so they are counseling to kill the apostles. They have condemned and imprisoned them a second time, ordering them positively to preach no more in their territory. All their orders are disobeyed. Jails will not hold them. They determine to settle the matter by killing them by the Roman civil arm, bought over for Jewish favor. Why did they not kill them? They all finally wore martyrs crowns, except John, who, according to Justin Martyr and other Christian Fathers, was honored with a translation. The simple solution of the matter is, their work was not done. A vile reprobate once pointed a gun at me, which fired all right a few minutes previously. When he pulled the trigger it only snapped. Why? My work was not done. So Gods saints are immortal until their work is done. So God puts His hand on Gamaliel, their giant, the greatest man of the opposition, their biggest preacher, and raises him up to deliver the apostles and prolong their lives till their work is done. Twenty years ago, in the time of the Temperance Crusaders, when holy women in our cities were miraculously closing Satans saloons by their prayers, immense was the excitement! A number of saloons have been closed. The holy Crusaders were praying in a large saloon. Satans mob came to break up the meeting, led by a huge ruffian. A holy woman rises from her knees, slips out and meets the mob, looks this gigantic, diabolical leader in the face, saying, Will you please be so kind as to attend to the men and see that they do not interrupt our meeting? Immediately he whirls on his heel and roars: Back, fellows! back, fellows! We must have order here. You can not disturb this meeting. I will die for these good women. So he commands and quells the mob. So God puts His hand on the giant theologian of the Sanhedrin, the tallest bishop standing at the head of the hierarchy. To the unutterable surprise of all, Gamaliel takes command of the situation and suggests that the apostles be sent out of the hall. Now he delivers a thrilling oration to the Sanhedrin, calling their attention to Theudas, the impostor, who a few years previously had made a great commotion among the people, receiving a large following, but had utterly evanesced with all of his adherents, leaving not a vestige. Then he reiterated the brilliant career of Judas, the Galilean impostor, in the days of the Roman enrollment, preparatory to the taxation of imperial Caesar. He with his adherents has also vanished away like the gossamer which recedes before the effulgence of an Oriental sun. Here he fortifies a stalwart argument, driving his logic with sledgehammer blows, and clinching the conclusion with the grip of a giant. Of course Luke gives us but a mere epitome of Gamaliels unanswerable oration. The fac simile thus culminates: Theudas, Judas and other impostors have risen, created great commotions and received large followings, stirring Judea and Western Asia. These have all vanished away, leaving not a trace nor a track. Now, if Jesus of Nazareth is also an impostor, He and His followers, with all this mighty commotion which is shaking the powers of church and state from center to circumference, will break down of its own weight, vanish away, utterly evanesce and sink into oblivion, like other impostors who have preceded. This is the negative side: If Jesus of Nazareth is an impostor as you say [and He was one of them], He will evanesce and go into oblivion with all of His following and work, like Theudas, Judas the Galilean, and multitudes of impostors who have risen and are now buried in oblivion, utterly unknown, not a vestige of their former greatness surviving. Hence the utter superfluity of all of this effort to put down Jesus and His followers, as certainly, on the hypothesis that they are impostors, they will inevitably play out, without any effort on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities. Gamaliel proceeds to evolve the positive side of his argument, which flashes with the forked lightnings of divine retribution: If Jesus of Nazareth is truly the Christ of God, as He and His disciples claim, the combined powers of earth and hell can never prevail against Him. Besides, in that case, you will be found fighting against God, and the unhappy victims of His righteous judgments and awful indignation, certain to overtake the impudent audacity so diabolically impetuous as to antagonize the Almighty. This discourse delivered by the master-spirit of the Sanhedrin was followed by a decisive negative verdict in reference to the preceding counsel to kill the apostles. However, they give way to their implacable hatred, beating them cruelly before they release them. Having thus suffered the deep humiliation, disgrace and torture of an unmerciful thrashing in presence of the multitude, the apostles depart from the Sanhedrin, shouting aloud, exultantly praising God for permitting them to enjoy the privilege of taking a cruel whipping in His name.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

5:33 When they heard [that], they {l} were cut [to the heart], and took counsel to slay them.

(l) This shows that they were in a most vehement rage, and tremendously disquieted in mind, for it is a borrowed kind of speech taken from those who are harshly cut in pieces with a saw.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Peter’s firm but gracious words so infuriated the Sadducees that they were about to order the death of the apostles regardless of public reaction.

"While the Sanhedrin did not have authority under Roman jurisdiction to inflict capital punishment, undoubtedly they would have found some pretext for handing these men over to the Romans for such action-as they did with Jesus himself-had it not been for the intervention of the Pharisees, as represented particularly by Gamaliel." [Note: Longenecker, p. 321.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)