No Small Parts - Gamaliel
December 6, 2020 Sunday Evening Study

In our family, at least for Eleia and I, we tend to enjoy police procedural TV shows. Provided that they don’t get too violent, we like the stories of the hunt - the forensics, and eventually the capture. We watched shows like Quantico and Criminal Minds - there is a security in these shows that we take for granted - in the end, the good guy always wins. We get this sense of completion - justice has been served, and the world is the way it should be.

One of the things in these shows that I have always been uneasy about is the scenes which take place in courtrooms. Out in the field, there is always a balance of power - the cops and the robbers, so to speak. The cops have their superiors whom they obey (for the most part) and there is a recognizable system. Yet in the courtrooms, at least in how they are portrayed on TV, there is the judge - the supreme overlord of all proceedings whose word is law. As lawyers step outside of the lines, the judge threatens them, as attorneys object to things the judge so often says something along the lines of “I’ll allow it.” That is what always bothered me a little - “I’ll allow it” - it seems that a person's right to a fair trial is at the mercy of one person - a person who could quite honestly just be having a bad day.

Every once in a while on these shows, you get a judge who is not even willing to listen to all of the facts - as if they not only decide the fate of the defendant, but they decide exactly how they are allowed to defend themselves. Eleia and I watched a show a few days ago where an FBI agent had been taken to court over something that happened while she was in deep cover, and the judge forced her to convince him that it was a national security issue, meaning she had to divulge all kinds of classified information to satisfy this man’s requirements.

This got me thinking, so I did a little research. As it turns out, this sort of thing is not as uncommon as we might think. In 2019, the top 10 supreme court cases based upon selection from several media outlets and non-partisan statistical data generators had 6 - a majority - that were related to unconstitutional practices in the courtroom. In the 1990s, the superior courts of California, Florida, and Texas collectively had over 1500 cases overturned due to judicial misconduct, leading to the firings of over 600 judges and court officials.

How do we get here? Is it so difficult to put aside biases and assumptions and learn the truth of a matter that even a federal judge cannot be trusted? If there is an issue that I am dead-set against - let’s say, abortion - would I have the ability to fairly consider both sides of an argument in an abortion case, or would I enter into that situation with my mind already made up regardless of the arguments?

Please open your Bibles to Acts chapter 5. We are going to be looking at a judge this evening. This man is not just any judge - not just any member of the Sanhedrin. This is the guy - the leading authority in the Sanhedrin - the judge of judges. He was a Doctor of Jewish Law, respected and trusted by all Jews, and was even the man under which Paul studied the law.

At this point in the story, the disciples have been thrown in jail and told not to preach about Jesus anymore. An angel appears in the night, sets them free, and commands them to continue preaching in the temple courts. The Pharisees find them there, haul them in again, and are ready to deal with them much more harshly at this point after questioning them yet again. Let’s pick this up in Acts 5:28-40. Read Passage.

We are immediately treated to the core issue on the minds of the Sanhedrin. In verse 28, they get right to the heart of the matter - “You are trying to blame the death of Jesus on us!” For any of us reading, this seems ridiculous - of course they are, because that is what happened. Yet this should be a clue for us that the Sanhedrin truly did not believe they were at fault - to them, this trial was about the disciples, and they had already rendered their own verdict - they were ready to kill them. This is where our character comes on the scene  - Gamaliel.

Gamaliel stands up, and with his real and presumed authority, the other Pharisees turn to hear what he has to say on the matter. This is a man to be listened to - a man of wisdom and knowledge that even the self-important Pharisees recognize as at least a first among equals. Finally, we see a man in an official position who is interested in learning the truth prior to condemnation - finally a judge who says “I’ll allow it” to the defense of the apostles. After his explanation, his speech is said to persuade all of the others, and the disciples are released.

For tonight, I want to look at both the man Gamaliel, as well as his defense. As mentioned before, he was a leader of the Sanhedrin, and was the foremost authority on the law at the time. Jewish traditional writings take his role even further, celebrating Gamaliel as one of the greatest teachers in all the history of Judaism. In the Jewish writing the Mishna it is said that he advised Kings and Queens on rituals and matters of law, and there is a quote from after his death which states “Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and piety died out at the same time."

History shows that Gamaliel authored several laws on the subject of community welfare, some of which were quite controversial at the time. He was the first real authority to argue that the law should protect women during divorce, and he was known to have argued vehemently in favor of tithing both individually and from collected church bodies.

The Jewish Talmud speaks of Gamaliel teaching a student who displayed “impudence in learning” which is largely attributed to the apostle Paul. In Acts 22 we learn that Paul was born in Tarsus, but was “raised in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers.”

Christian tradition holds that Gamaliel eventually embraced the Christian faith, and some believe his openness to the faith was the reason for his tolerant attitude in this passage. Centuries later, Photios I of Constantinople would write that Gamaliel was baptized by Peter and John along with Nicodemus, and that both he and Nicodemus kept their conversions secret so as to remain on the Sanhedrin and covertly assist fellow Christians - though this cannot be proven. He was eventually venerated as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Gamaliel and his actions here represent a struggle that we all face - more often than we likely realize. Our deep seeded beliefs are very important - very personal to us, so we tend to guard them, even if it becomes more and more clear that we might be wrong. I can be so dead set in my opinion or belief about something that not only do I close myself off to influence from other people, but I will even resist direction from God. We see this play out most commonly in racial prejudices - we gain these deep beliefs and biases without even realizing we have done so.

This example of Gamaliel shows us that we have to be open to learn. I am not saying that we change our views on everything we hold dear - far from it. We know that the Word is the truth, and we know that we are called to live according to that truth. Yet we have to remember that it was a willingness to open ourselves to the idea that maybe we don’t know everything that brought us to our own conversions to begin with. Yet we must be willing to recognize in our lives that sometimes our experiences and history may have steered us down a path that is just a little off-center in some areas - and that is such a difficult line to walk. By no means would I suggest that we abandon the truth - but in the periphery - the things in our lives where we work off of the example of the Word rather than the content of the Word - this is where we must be open to leading from God - constantly checking our hearts with Him and getting to know Him better so as to better reflect His nature.

Gamaliel did not abandon his beliefs - he simply had enough faith in what he knew to allow for the results to speak for themselves. Is our faith strong enough for us to stand back and allow God to show the truth without us intervening? Sometimes we are called to step out and defend the truth - as we discussed last week - sometimes we are called to step aside and allow the truth to set us - and others - free.

Let’s pray.