Submitting to authority.

[Carl Emerson]

Reading Acts 4, the early church decided not to obey authorities.

What authorities were they dismissing.

How does this relate to other biblical teaching that requires authorities to be honoured?

 

[Sketcher]

In Acts 4, the authorities they were refusing to submit to were religious authorities, and the reason for it was they were telling them to no longer do what Jesus told them to do. These were also the same religious authorities who voted to kill Jesus.

In Romans 13, Paul was speaking about political authorities, and speaking much more generally. He was essentially telling Christians to be good citizens. This does not override our first allegiance to Christ, but it stems from it. However, he obviously didn't have any problems with preaching the Gospel when it got him in trouble with the Roman authorities either. And the early Christian martyrs chose to face Roman execution rather than follow the Roman laws that mandated idolatry to the Emperor. Respect for the office was one thing, worshiping him as a god was too far.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Were not the temple authorities an extension of Roman rule?

Were they not allowed to operate by Roman authority?

Were they not in fact given political power to govern the Jews?

 

[Sketcher]

Were not the temple authorities an extension of Roman rule?

Were they not allowed to operate by Roman authority?

Were they not in fact given political power to govern the Jews?

The Sanhedrin was a religious authority to govern religious matters. This is why Pilate first told the Jews to judge Jesus by their own law. Of course, they didn't have the right to execute anyone, so they had to get him to do it.
Herod was the local political ruler, who had to be approved by the Romans.
Pilate was the Roman governor.
There was a complex relationship between them. They had to work together. Rome didn't want matters to have to be escalated to their governors and courts, but they were there if matters got too out of hand.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The Sanhedrin was a religious authority to govern religious matters.

Yes, but the authority to do this was given by the Romans.

The early church defied Roman rule when it came to spiritual matters.

Gradually. however, this position of putting God first in spiritual matters was eroded away to the extent that the Romans elected Church leaders and in fact it was the Romans that called the church together for the much hailed council of Nicea.

 

[com7fy8]

Were not the temple authorities an extension of Roman rule?

Were they not allowed to operate by Roman authority?

They were used by Rome, but they were an extension like a whig.

And whatever effect the whig could get would be fine as long as it meant Rome had the control and got the tax money they wanted. They would allow what the whig could do, that they could not, as non-Jews.

The Christian church would be fine with the basic things of control and taxes. But if they were told not to preach Jesus . . . that they would not accept.