-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Common Questions and Objections Regarding the Sabbath Refuted
- Thread starter ananda
- Start date
By the way they conducted themselves before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:
27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, he said. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this mans blood.
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the deadwhom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.
40 His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42 Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.
Never once did the Apostles contest the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. And plainly, St. Paul would have well-known how to raise such a defense.
Upvote
0
By the way they conducted themselves before the Sanhedrin in Acts 5:
27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
40 His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
Similarly, the Apostles had an earlier runin with the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:
4 The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2 They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. 4 But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.
5 The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family. 7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a man who was lame and are being asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’[a]
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
13 When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14 But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everyone living in Jerusalem knows they have performed a notable sign, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”
18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
21 After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.
41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42 Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.
Never once did the Apostles contest the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. And plainly, St. Paul would have well-known how to raise such a defense. While they expressed their intention to continue to be disobedient to the Sanhedrin's orders, that is NOT the same as contesting its jurisdiction.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then apparently we can read the same text and come to opposite conclusions.
4:3 - agents of the Sanhedrin seized the apostles (they did not approach willingly, which shows jurisdiction)
4:7 - the apostles were forced to appear before the Sanhedrin
4:8 - Peter recognized the Sanhedrin as "rulers and elders of the people" - not rulers over them
4:18 - the Sanhedrin attempted to assert their jurisdiction over the apostles
4:19-20,42 - the Apostles rejected their jurisdiction
5:27 - the apostles were forced to appear
5:29-32 - the apostles asserted that their jurisdiction was under God, not the Sanhedrin
5:33 - The Sanhedrin reacts negatively when their alleged authority and jurisdiction was questioned
5:34 - the apostles were forced to be "put outside"
Upvote
0
Frogster
Galatians is the best!
- Sep 7, 2009
- 44,343
- 3,067
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Republican
they were forced to go before the rulers. Of course they would be forced, whoever the rulers were, the force word does not bolster your case.
The fact is, the sanhederin were those they were forced to go before, because they were in charge.
I am forced to go before whatever law is in place, if arrested, so the way you try to act like the force word, invalidates their jurisdiction, does not work.
it would say forced for whomever was in charge.
It does not mean the resistance was to their authority, it just means they did not want to go before a group that could, and did punish.
Upvote
0
Frogster
Galatians is the best!
- Sep 7, 2009
- 44,343
- 3,067
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Republican
Actually one can say, the force word shows authority, would they be forced to go if they were not in charge?
Don't forget, it says they feared the people earlier in 4, so to show force by Acts 5, they had to have a legal jurisdiction. punish..IT SAYS IN 4:21
16 saying, What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it.
21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened.
Upvote
0
This is difficult. In Law School, you spend an entire year looking at Courts' jurisdiction. NONE of the texts indicate that jurisdiction was contested.
There was an expressed intention to continue to disobey the Sandhedrin's orders, but that is NOT the same as contesting its Jurisdiction to issue those orders. Plainly, it DID have jurisdiction and the Apostles NEVER contested that. Being forcibly brought into court (rather than showing up voluntarily) has NOTHING to do with whether a Court has jurisdiction or not.
Your arguments are identical to the arguments of the so-called modern "Constitutionalists." I have seen those same silly arguments raised in hundreds of courtrooms during 19 years of practicing law. In every single case, the person arguing such things was hauled away in handcuffs to jail. You can contest the jurisdiction of the court and pretend like it does not exist. But the Courts have the jurisdiction AND the power to give you plenty of time in jail to contemplate your failures in logic.
No Courts, ANYWHERE have EVER recognized or upheld the arguments that you are making. The Apostles, if they were to contest jurisdiction, would have said they did, or at the least, refused to participate in the proceedings like modern-day Constitutionalists do. Objections to Jurisdiction have throughout history have been raised unambiguously and pointedly so that there is no dispute that the litigants contest jurisdiction.
The Apostles never did. Paul was a former member of the Sanhedrin and well knew what it took to raise an objection to Jurisdiction. He simply never did.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
First off, Sanhedrin <> U.S. court system.
Secondly, I suggest that they took the opportunity to address the Sanhedrin to testify to them in their capacities as men, in respect of and obedience to Messiah's command (Mt 10:18,22). IMO, their appearance was acquiescence to force, not consent to jurisdiction.
Upvote
0
First off, Sanhedrin <> U.S. court system.
Secondly, I suggest that they took the opportunity to address the Sanhedrin to testify to them in their capacities as men, in respect of and obedience to Messiah's command (Mt 10:18,22). IMO, their appearance was acquiescence to force, not consent to jurisdiction.
The Sanhedrin published detailed rules of civil and criminal procedure that governed their court proceedings. They had detailed rules for contesting jurisdiction that a litigant had to follow precisely to be heard on the issue. Paul, having been trained by the foremost legal expert of his time, would have been well-aware of those rules. Have you had a chance to read them?
Secondly, the Sanhedrin was well-aware of the potential consequences of over-extending its jurisdiction. They were constantly wary of and considered the consequences of offending the Roman occupiers. It turns out their wariness was well founded, when in AD 70 the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, and then in AD 135 crushed the Bar Kokhba revolt, which ended up with the annihilation of over 1 million Jews and a complete ban on practicing any rite of Judaism. At the very least, the Sanhedrin was circumspect and cautious in the deployment of their jurisdiction.
Upvote
0
The Sanhedrin's jurisdiction flowed from their earthly Roman overlords and Caesar. The Apostles' jurisdiction flows from the heavenly King of Kings.
Paul was "in" the Sanhedrin system. The Apostles were not.
Upvote
0
The Sanhedrin's jurisdiction flowed from their earthly Roman overlords and Caesar. The Apostles' jurisdiction flows from the heavenly King of Kings.
You can quibble with and parse the wording all you want, but the facts are that the Apostles willingly argued their case before the Sanhedrin, and the Acts of the Apostles is clear on that (and they won at least one acquittal by doing so, and another time received a reduced punishment). Willingly arguing your case before a court constitutes a waiver of any defect in jurisdiction. That never happened in any case the Sanhedrin decided involving the Apostles.
Furthermore, the Roman Courts had concurrent jurisdiction over the province of Judea. Any litigant was free to demand a hearing before the Romans, rather than the Sanhedrin. That happened in one Paul's trials. Acts 24 Commentary - Before Felix - BibleGateway.com
Paul clearly raised a jurisdiction objection in Acts 25:
9 Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?”
10 Paul answered: “I am now standing before Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. 11 If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!”
12 After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared: “You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!”
THAT is how you contest jurisdiction
Upvote
0
I'm not disagreeing with you that they argued before the Sanhedrin. I am merely stating that they did that in obedience to Messiah's command, and that it wasn't done in recognition of the Sanhedrin's alleged jurisdiction
This supports my case that Paul was not amongst the Twelve
Paul appealed to Caesar, his master in his jurisdiction, whereas the Apostles appealed to God, their Master, in their jurisdiction.
Upvote
0
I'm not disagreeing with you that they argued before the Sanhedrin. I am merely stating that they did that in obedience to Messiah's command, and that it wasn't done in recognition of the Sanhedrin's alleged jurisdiction
This supports my case that Paul was not amongst the Twelve
It is irrelevant whether or not they "recognized the Sandherin's alleged jurisdiction." Its jurisdiction is simply an established fact that the Apostles NEVER contested. A fact that was recognized by the Romans insofar as it was exercised in the province of Judea. The Apostle's objection to the Sanhedrin would have been raised EXACTLY the same way Paul raised it with Festus and Agrippa in Acts 25-26.
Paul repeatedly contested the Roman's jurisdiction, but never the Sandhedrin's, cf. Acts 26:
"30 The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. 31 After they left the room, they began saying to one another, “This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment.”
32 Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
Upvote
0
Yes, the Romans might have recognized the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction, but I do not believe either God or Messiah did. The High Priest was no longer of the Aaronic or Zadokian line, but were puppets and viceregents of the Roman Empire. They were invalid High Priests in the eyes of God, and thus, their Sanhedrin under them were invalid in the eyes of God.
Where is it written that the Apostles called the members of the Sanhedrin "High Priest, judge, etc."? All I see in Acts 5:29 is Peter recognizing them only as "men" - equal to themselves.
Upvote
0
Simply put, nothing you have stated degrades or denies the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin over the Apostles. They acted and spoke as though the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction was a given. Even Jesus never contested the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. He simply submitted to it, without defenses of any kind.
Court's rarely, if ever, depend on God to endorse their jurisdiction. They are a human invention that doesn't waste time on such divine questions.
Upvote
0
I disagree, I read their interaction with the Sanhedrin differently, my friend.
None of your facts that you listed above would qualify as a Apostolic objection to the Sanhedrin's jurisdiction, nor in any other court I am aware of. Simply put, nothing that is recorded of what the Apostles said while they were in front of the Sanhedrin would qualify ANYWHERE as an objection to jurisdiction.
I can find two explicit examples of Paul objecting to the jurisdiction of the Romans, one of which was indeed granted and off to Rome he went. But none with the Sanhedrin. Acts is painstakingly precise in recording Paul's objection to the Roman jurisdiction. But there is a complete absence of him doing so before the Sanhedrin.
Upvote
0
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" Acts 5:22 RSV. This is clear enough to me that the apostles rejected the Sanhedrin's alleged jurisdiction
Paul is outside my jurisdiction
Upvote
0
"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men.'" Acts 5:22 RSV. This is clear enough to me that the apostles rejected the Sanhedrin's alleged jurisdiction
That would be considered by any Court to be merely an act of Contempt ("a refusal to obey a court's order"), NOT an objection to jurisdiction.
Notice how Paul when he objects to jurisdiction of the Romans he says "I want a hearing before Caesar, instead of Agrippa." He NEVER says that he will not obey a court order.
Contempt of a court's order is not raising a defense that the court lacks jurisdiction.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
