(37) Judas of Galilee.--In one passage Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1) calls him a Gaulonite--i.e., of the country east of Galilee. Had this stood alone, St. Luke might have been charged here also with inaccuracy; but in other passages (Ant. xx. 5, ? 2; Wars, ii. 8, ? 1) he is described as a Galilean. On the taxing, in the modern sense of the term, which followed on the census that synchronised with our Lord's nativity, both being conducted under the supervision of Quirinus, see Notes on Luke 2:1-2. The insurrection of Judas was by far the most important of the attempts to throw off the yoke of Rome. He was assisted by a Pharisee, named Sadduk, and the absolute independence of Israel was the watchword of his followers. It was unlawful, in any form, to pay tribute to Caesar. It was lawful to use any weapons in defence of freedom. The war they waged was a religious war; and Josephus, writing long after the movement had collapsed, but giving, obviously, the impressions of his own early manhood, enumerates them as being with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, with the first of whom they were very closely allied--one of the four great religious sects of Judaism. Roman procurators and princes, like Archelaus and Antipas, were naturally united against him, and he and his followers came to the end of which Gamaliel speaks. His influence over the excitable population of Galilee was, however, at the time great, and in part survived. One of the Apostles probably derived his name of Zelotes, or Cananite (see Notes on Matthew 10:4), from having been among the followers of Judas, who were known by that name. His sons, Jacob and Simon, continued to be looked on as leaders after his death, and were crucified under Tiberius Alexander, the successor of Fadus in the procuratorship (Jos. Ant. xx. 5, ?2).

Verse 37 - Enrolment for taxing, A.V.; some of the for much, A.V.; as many for even as many, A.V.; scattered abroad for dispersed, A.V. Judas of Galilee, otherwise called the Gaulonite, as a native of Gamala, in Gaulonitis. He was probably called a Galilaean because Galilee was the seat of his insurrection (Josephus, 'Ant.,' 18, 1:1 and 6; also 'Bell. Jud.,' 2. 8:1; 17:8). He was the great leader of the Jews in opposing the census ordered by Augustus, after the deposition of Archelaus, and carried out by Cyrenius, or rather P. Sulpicius Quirinus, the Propraetor of Syria, with the assistance of Cumanus, the subordinate Governor of Judaea. Judas, with Zadoc his coadjutor, was the founder of a fourth Jewish sect, nearly allied to the Pharisees, and his sedition was founded on his philosophic tenets. Josephus speaks of him as the author of all the seditions, tumults, slaughters, sieges, devastations, plunder, famines, ending with the burning of the temple, which afflicted his unhappy country. He gives no account of his death. But his two sons, James and Simon, were crucified by Tiberius Alexander, the successor of Cuspius Fadus. Another son, Menahem, having collected and armed a large band of robbers and other insurgents, after a partially successful attack on the Roman camp at Jerusalem, was miserably slain. The enrolment (ἡ ἀπογραφή, as Luke 2:1). The purpose of Augustus, which had been delayed some years from causes not accurately known, perhaps in deference to some remonstrance from Herod the Great, was now carried into effect. Quirinus was sent, apparently the second time, as Proprsetor of Syria, to which Judaea was now attached, with Cumanus under him as Procurator of Judaea, to make a valuation of all their property. The Jews had been first persuaded by the high priest Joazar, i.e. apparently in the end of Herod's reign, or the beginning of Archelaus's, to submit to what they greatly disliked, but were now roused to insurrection by Judas of Galilee ('Ant.,' 18, 1:1). He also perished. Nothing is known of his death beyond this notice of it. Scattered abroad. Not crushed, for the insurrection broke out again and again, having the character of a religious war given to it by Judas of Galilee.

5:34-42 The Lord still has all hearts in his hands, and sometimes directs the prudence of the worldly wise, so as to restrain the persecutors. Common sense tells us to be cautious, while experience and observation show that the success of frauds in matters of religion has been very short. Reproach for Christ is true preferment, as it makes us conformable to his pattern, and serviceable to his interest. They rejoiced in it. If we suffer ill for doing well, provided we suffer it well, and as we should, we ought to rejoice in that grace which enabled us so to do. The apostles did not preach themselves, but Christ. This was the preaching that most offended the priests. But it ought to be the constant business of gospel ministers to preach Christ: Christ, and him crucified; Christ, and him glorified; nothing beside this, but what has reference to it. And whatever is our station or rank in life, we should seek to make Him known, and to glorify his name.After this man rose up, Judas of Galilee,.... Of whom Josephus thus says (k):

"there was a man of Galilee, by name Judas, who led his countrymen into rebellion, declaring it an evil, should they suffer tribute to be paid to the Romans, and introduce mortal rulers after God.''

And not unlike this is what another Jewish writer says (l) of Judas the Galilean, and his party:

"these were the cause of the Jews rebelling against the Romans, for they said, it was not fit that any should rule over men but God alone; and that no one should be called Lord, but the blessed God.''

And this insurrection was "in the days of the taxing"; which was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria; and the reason of it was, because he and his party would not pay that tax, for the reasons suggested in the above citations: and this is what Josephus refers to, when he says (m),

"Cyrenius came to Syria, sent from Caesar as judge of the nation, and appraiser of their estates; upon which Judas, the Gaulonite, (the same with Judas of Galilee,) rebelled, and Saddochus with him; saying, that this appraisment brought nothing else but servitude upon them; and therefore exhorted the nation to vindicate their liberty.''

And his exhortations and arguments prevailed with the people: wherefore it follows here,

and drew away much people after him; perhaps a much larger number than Theudas did, since they are not expressly mentioned how many they were:

he also perished; being killed in the insurrection, or taken and put to death by the Romans. So Origen says (n), that he was punished, and his doctrine was destroyed, and remained only among a few contemptible persons:

and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed; were forced to fly, some one way, and some another, and could make nothing of it: and as this instance was after the other before mentioned; and was so early as under the government of Cyrenius, and at the time of the taxing under him; it shows that Theudas could not be the Theudas of Josephus, unless the words should be rendered as see choose to do, "besides this man rose up Judas", &c. And others observe, that "after him", is the same as "before him"; and which, however, at first hearing, may seem very absurd, yet is justified by instances, as being a very proper way of speaking, seeing, when an account proceeds from the last as nearest, the first must be last, and the last first. Some, in order to reconcile this passage, think, that there is a transposition in the words of Luke, and that they should be read thus, "for before those days rose up Judas of Galilee", &c. and then, "after this man rose up Theudas", &c. so making Judas of Galilee more ancient than Theudas, as he must be, if he is the same Theudas Josephus speaks of: but still it is a difficulty how he could be the same, when that fact of his, the above historian speaks of, was seven, or eight, or ten, and, as some say, twelve years after this speech of Gamaliel's. To remove this, it is proposed, that what is said concerning Theudas is to be put into a parenthesis, and to be considered not as the words of Gamaliel saying them in the sanhedrim, but as the words of Luke the historian, who wrote after this fact was done; and because of the agreement of it with that of Judas, mentioned by Gamaliel, he inserts it; here, and joins it with it (o). And yet, after all, it looks as if it was another Theudas that is here spoken of, who was before Judas; and that he that Josephus speaks of, might be, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, one of his posterity, who was of, the same name, and trod in his steps, and. was guilty of sedition as his ancestor was, and as the sons of Judas were, mentioned by the same historian in the same place.

(k) De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 1.((l) Juchasin, fol. 139. 1.((m) Antiqu. l. 18. c. 1. sect. 1. Vid. l. 20. c. 4. sect. 2.((n) L. 1. contr. Cels. p. 44. (o) Vid. Vales. Not. in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 11. & Capelli Spicileg. in loc.