This is an important question, since Luke repeatedly stresses that the feared the reaction of the people (Acts 4.21 ; Acts 5.26). Yet the flogging of the apostles in Acts 5.40 does not seem to have provoked any popular unrest. Several reasons can be put forward.
-
The flogging was probably not public
Luke simply says:
"They called in the apostles, had them flogged, ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go" (Acts 5.40).
Nothing indicates that this punishment was carried out in front of the crowd. The sessions of the were not public, and it is likely that the blows were administered within the Temple precincts or in a room belonging to the court. The authorities were precisely trying to avoid any incident with the population.
-
The people were not necessarily ready to revolt
Luke carefully distinguishes the esteem the apostles enjoyed from the idea of an insurrection:
"The people held them in high honor" (Acts 5.13).
This popular sympathy did not mean that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were willing to take up arms against their religious leaders. The majority remained respectful of the institutions and certainly did not wish to provoke a Roman intervention.
-
The apostles themselves rejected all violence
Unlike certain messianic or nationalist movements, the disciples of Jesus advocated no revolt. Jesus had declared:
"My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18.36).
And Peter had learned, at the arrest of Jesus, that he had to give up the use of the sword (Matthew 26.52). It is therefore likely that the apostles themselves helped to keep the peace.
-
The Jewish authorities were acting within the bounds of legality
Flogging was a punishment recognized by the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 25.1-3). In the eyes of a large part of the population, the was simply exercising its judicial authority. Many devout Jews might disapprove of the severity of the punishment without calling into question the legitimacy of the court.
-
The Romans closely watched Jerusalem
The knew that a riot risked provoking the immediate intervention of the Roman garrison stationed in the Antonia Fortress, near the Temple. After the many messianic tensions of the first century, no one had any interest in seeing the situation get out of hand.
-
Luke wants to show that Christianity posed no political danger
Throughout Acts, Luke insists that Christians are not a revolutionary movement. They seek neither to overthrow the Jewish authority nor to oppose . Later, the Roman authorities themselves would repeatedly acknowledge Paul's innocence (Acts 18.14-15 ; Acts 23.29 ; Acts 25.25 ; Acts 26.31-32).
Another hypothesis
It is also possible that the popularity of the apostles was real but limited. The miracles aroused admiration (Acts 5.15-16), but the whole population of Jerusalem had not been converted. Many observed these events with interest without being ready to openly identify themselves with the disciples of Jesus. This attitude explains why no collective reaction accompanied their sentencing.
Conclusion
It is unlikely that the had the apostles flogged in front of a large crowd. The authorities were precisely seeking to avoid a popular uprising. As for the people, their admiration for the disciples did not mean a desire to rebel. Luke thus presents a Church respected by many, but deeply peaceful, whose growth is not accompanied by any political or military unrest. This absence of violence is, moreover, one of the most remarkable features of nascent Christianity.