We must obey God rather than men

theological

Another thought and another thread.

I started re-reading the Acts of the Apostles and came across an interesting passage which raises the question of authority and who we should serve when human authority and God's authority conflict.

In chapter 3 Peter had healed a lame beggar who used to sit at one of the temple gates in Jerusalem. Peter having gathered a crowd preached to them and taught that they had killed the author at life at the crucifixion but He was raised from the dead and that they needed to repent to find life in His name. They arrest Peter and he tells them that the only name that one can be saved by is Jesus. The apostles preach again and are arrested for the second time. Here's what happened with the council and the high priest.

Acts 5:27-42 wrote:

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honour by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!” So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.

In verse 29 (bolded) we see Peter tell the authorities in no uncertain terms that he will not obey them. In verse 42 at the end of the passage we see his defiance in continuing his ministry. What's even stranger is that they rejoice for being able to suffer in this way for Christ.

Questions for Christians:
Do you believe that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which we can be saved? Why or why not?

Would you be willing to go to prison for Jesus? When might this be necessary?

How can we rejoice in suffering for Jesus?

Non-Christians:
Do you feel that Peter's response to the authorities is justified? Why or why not?

All:
When is it acceptable to break the law?

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

Another thought and another thread.

I started re-reading the Acts of the Apostles and came across an interesting passage which raises the question of authority and who we should serve when human authority and God's authority conflict.

In chapter 3 Peter had healed a lame beggar who used to sit at one of the temple gates in Jerusalem. Peter having gathered a crowd preached to them and taught that they had killed the author at life at the crucifixion but He was raised from the dead and that they needed to repent to find life in His name. They arrest Peter and he tells them that the only name that one can be saved by is Jesus. The apostles preach again and are arrested for the second time. Here's what happened with the council and the high priest.



In verse 29 (bolded) we see Peter tell the authorities in no uncertain terms that he will not obey them. In verse 42 at the end of the passage we see his defiance in continuing his ministry. What's even stranger is that they rejoice for being able to suffer in this way for Christ.

Questions for Christians:
Do you believe that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which we can be saved? Why or why not?

Whilst I believe that the only way of salvation is through 'Christ's finished work on the cross', I don't think the actual name 'Jesus' need come into it. For example, a person who has never heard the word 'Jesus' can be saved, even though they cannot reference that word in the process of their salvation through his work.

Would you be willing to go to prison for Jesus? When might this be necessary?

I'd have no problem per se - although I'd prefer an Irish to say a Chinese prision. Thank God for small locational mercies.

This Extinction Rebellion work strikes me as an interesting approach. Open societies are quite complex and therefore quite vulnerable. The EA tack recognizes this. Since we are raping the planet and are contributing to global inequality with our gross consumerism, that would be an area of activity I could see myself engaging in. Would a resistance to such things be Kingdom Work? I don't see why not. I have little faith that governments or corporations will act in timely fashion - indeed the appearance is of throttle to the floor whilst we head off the side of a cliff.

How can we rejoice in suffering for Jesus?

Only with a significant power assist from Christ himself. I trust Paul's secret of contentment in every situation was founded on that. Otherwise the rejoicing would be more stoicism through gritted teeth than true rejoicing.

smacl

theological wrote: »

Non-Christians:
Do you feel that Peter's response to the authorities is justified? Why or why not?

You question amounts to what types of free speech the law should be allowed to censor if any. My position it is only reasonable to censor speech that is intent on causing harm to other people. Incitement to hatred would be a good example of this, or on a much more mundane level the likes of personal attacks on forums such as this.

All:
When is it acceptable to break the law?

Acceptable by whom and in what jurisdiction? I would consider many laws in many countries unjust and would personally have no issue with people breaking those laws. For example, apostasy is a crime carrying severe punishment in many Islamic countries but very few people in the Western world consider it a crime. Similarly, homosexual acts between consenting adults was a crime in this country until 1993.

Winning_Stroke

smacl wrote: »

For example, apostasy is a crime carrying severe punishment in many Islamic countries but very few people in the Western world consider it a crime. Similarly, homosexual acts between consenting adults was a crime in this country until 1993.

Similarly? Ah good stuff, yeah totally the same punishments going. Actually wasn't homosexuality all but decriminalized. But yeah, similarly. Still, at least you got your boot in!

theological wrote:

All:
When is it acceptable to break the law?

If it were simple to say then that itself could be called a law Ah it's a good question. I want to say when the law is in conflict with your most deeply held beliefs. Like John Brown the abolitionist perhaps? but of course then this is nowhere near a good enough and has the floodgates wide open