The above verses appear to present us with an ethical problem, according to Jim Goad in his list of contradictions in the Bible. Before I attempt to tackle this issue, I need to point out that I do not in the least picture myself as a reliable guide in the areas of biblical ethics or theology. Instead, I prefer to stick to areas of hermeneutics, i.e. concentrating on issues such as textual criticism, word definitions, context, and structure of the text. So let me begin by sharing my own limited understanding in regard to these competing passages before beginning to quote from more reliable ethicists.
Acts 5:29 takes place in the context of Peter and the apostles being hauled up before the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, who reminds the apostles that they had been earlier instructed to stop preaching about Jesus Christ. In most English translations, Peter's comment back is rendered as: “We must obey God rather than any human authority.” The first thing to note is that the Greek literally reads, “We must obey God rather than men.” So immediately that brings up the good point as to whether the members of the Sanhedrin were speaking in their duly appointed role as enforcers of the law under Roman authority, or whether they, as a mere body of flawed human beings, were just trying to hush up the apostles in order not to bring into public question their own unsavory and illegal role in Jesus' death and perhaps cause them to get into trouble with Rome. The aftermath proves that they were not acting in their official role at all. They realize it and let the apostles go on their way.
The above is one example of what has been called an unjust law, a command at variance with the general principles of the land and certainly at odds with God's commands.
Turning to I Peter 2:3, this same apostle is again quoted, but in an entirely different geographical and political context. He is now speaking at a later date to fledgling believers in Gentile territory who are directly under Roman law. His comments are only part of the so-called Household Code. He is instructing them how to act in light of their tenuous situation among others who do not understand their religious beliefs and are rightly suspicious of this upstart group. Peter's remarks are penned in order that they might live a peaceful life and that the Gospel message can spread without overt opposition from the outside. Those believers are in a rather different situation from Peter and the other apostles, who had been directly commissioned by Christ Himself with the task of spreading the Word to all the world through their missionary efforts.
So under these particular circumstances, the church as aliens is instructed, “Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge. For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Honor everyone, Love the family of believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (I Peter 2:12-17)
From an exegetical viewpoint, we should compare not only the historical contexts but also the stated motivations in each of these two cases. In the Acts passage, the clear motivation for disobeying an “authority” is that it would fly in the face of the commands the apostles had been given by Christ. But in I Peter, the church is instructed to obey Roman law for the following reasons: (1) so that others will glorify God, (2) because God has instituted such authorities to keep the peace, (3) it is God's will that foolish people will be silenced, and (4) you are servants of God.
I will hold my own peace at this point and turn instead to some comments on the subject from the scholarly literature, presented in a rather random order:
Barton rejects two explanations of Peter's household codes in general:
(1) Elliott's view that they were intended to differentiate and isolate Christians from their surrounding society.
(2) Balch's feeling that they were intended to help integrate Christians into their social environment through accommodation.
His own opinion is that it is a subtle encouragement for believers to live a life of holiness whether it attracts or repels those around them.
Mott: “In contrast to Romans 13..., 1 Peter does not present the civil authorities as subordinate officers representing God. God is carefully distinguished from the emperor. One 'loves' the family of God, one 'fears' God, but one only 'honors' the emperor, the same response that is due 'everyone' (1 Pet 2:17)...the motivation is that Christ may be honored in the pure conduct of believers' lives and that criticism may be dispelled (1 Pet 2:12-13,15)...Peter's words [in Acts 5:25] literally read, 'To obey God is more of an obligation than to obey people.' The basic duty to submit to human authority is acknowledged, but also recognized is the authorities' capacity of rebellion against God (see also Acts 5:30-33; 7:51-53). Peter brings a new element to the tension by asserting concrete claims of God that trumped the demands of civil authority.”
Boring on I Peter: The Roman emperor, the institution of slavery, the patriarchal family are accepted as the present order of things that is soon to pass away (see 1.17; 2.11, 4.7).”
P.L. Jones: “There is a general presumption...that those subject to any law should obey that law (see Rom. 13:1-8; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-16). The burden of proof, the demonstration that a conflict actually exists and calls for civil disobedience in some instance, therefore, rests with the disobedient...Laws that oblige one to do what God forbids or prevent one from doing what God commands are thereby deemed bad and should be disobeyed.”
Jones lays out some general principles governing whether one engages in civil disobedience. These include (1) making sure of all the facts in the case, (2) realizing that disobedience should be a last resort, (3) making sure that the injustice of the law outweighs the moral objections to disobedience, and (4) accepting whatever punishment may result from your actions. One wonders how many of these principles were carefully kept in mind by those believers who stormed the nation's capitol.
Reed cites Jesus' words in Mark 12:17: “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's and to God the things that are of God.” She comments, “the saying in Mark 12:17 depends for its effectiveness on a distinction between the limited jurisdiction of earthly government and the supreme authority of God.”
Towner: “New Testament writers seem to have viewed their world and its structures as a part of God's design. They could encourage the church to 'submit to' the institutions of the world (Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 2:13) and through generally accepted conduct to bear witness within it (1 Thess. 4:11-12; 1 Tim. 3:7; 6:1). But in tension with this view was the conviction...that the world is an evil force opposite to God. The church was to resist its influence and policies (Rom. 12:2; 1 John 2:11-17); yet it was also to inhabit the social space and be a redemptive presence [i.e. not retreat into enclaves isolated from society].”
At this point I should point out that the concept of “tension” mentioned by several commentators is quite different from the idea of “contradiction.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments