We Must Obey God Rather than Men

One of the many modern ideas which readers of Scripture frequently impose upon the text is the supposed distinction between “politics” and “religion.” This is enshrined in American political discourse as the “separation of church and state,” and for many contemporary Christians, we simply assume that the writers of the Bible share our dichotomy between the political and religious. This is, however, an idea which only seriously entered the Western intellectual tradition in the wake of Enlightenment skepticism. The ancients, as well as our medieval forebears, did not neatly divide the world up into those two discrete categories. One of the interpretive casualties of the modern distinction between church and state is to assume that the Jerusalem establishment, opposed to both Jesus and his followers, were the “religious” authorities, while Pilate (and to a lesser extent Herod) represented the Roman “political” authorities. This is historically inaccurate. Under the Roman provincial system, local or regional administrative bodies were often left in place, giving local political institutions the ability to manage a large, multicultural empire in a contextually sensitive manner. Herod ruled as a client-king for Rome, and the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling council based in Jerusalem, retained a wide degree of political autonomy. Roman governors like Pilate held the imperium, the power of capital punishment, but only intervened in local affairs in the case of political unrest or instability, under the wise Roman intuition that local leaders were best suited to handle local political affairs, knowing the subject population better than some governor from faraway Rome.

While Christians endlessly debate Romans 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17, far less attention has been paid to the ways in which the first followers of Jesus, based in Jerusalem, interacted with the Jerusalem establishment. For Jews, the Sanhedrin was as much a political institution as a religious one, and therefore every interaction Peter and his associates have with the Jerusalem council must be interpreted as a political engagement. In Acts 4 and 5, the Sanhedrin commands Peter to stop proclaiming the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and Peter twice tells them he will not stop. His reason is recorded in Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men.” We cannot allow modern assumptions to distort our reading of this text; Peter is not simply defying a religious injunction, pushing back against religious leaders, he is flat-out refusing to obey the political governing authorities. This complicates facile readings of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Notice that Peter isn’t calling for a new political party, the passing of a new law, rebellion against the state, or a reframing of Jewish political philosophy. He is simply acknowledging the truth: Jesus is Lord. He is willing to play ball with the political authorities until they tell him to compromise the truth, and then he refuses to acquiesce. Acts 4 and 5 must impact our reading of political themes in the New Testament, and I have a large section on these chapters (and the surrounding material) in my forthcoming book Politics, Economics, and New Testament Interpretation. I present to you an edited version of that very section below.

Peter vs. the Political Establishment

Peter’s several encounters with the political elites provide ample opportunities to proclaim Jesus, and many of these traditions resemble the conflict Jesus himself had with the Jerusalem establishment before his crucifixion. In Acts 4, Peter and John stand before a cast of characters with whom Luke’s audience is familiar. Acts 4:5-8 describes a gathering of the Sanhedrin, the “rulers and elders and scribes…Annas the high priest…Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.” Like Jesus, the two apostles must make a defense before the most powerful political leaders in the Jewish world. They specifically ask Peter, “By what power, or in what name, have you done this?” referring to the healing in Acts 3. Peter offers a direct response in Acts 4:8-12, telling them that it was done in the name of Jesus, blaming them for his crucifixion, and testifying that God raised Jesus from the dead. Peter then references Psalm 118:22, the very same passage quoted by Jesus against the authorities in Luke 20:17, informing the Sanhedrin that salvation is found in no one else. The council is flummoxed. In Acts 4:13-18, Peter and John are depicted, correctly, as “uneducated and untrained men,” but the council is amazed by their confidence and the undeniable presence of the man they had healed. There is no adequate reply to Peter because they cannot dismiss what had happened. The council’s only option is to instruct them to stop speaking or teaching in the name of Jesus. Peter, confronted with a direct command by the Jewish political authorities, refuses. Acts 4:19-20 records Peter’s response: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Peter, when confronted with a choice between following the Jewish political leaders or honoring God, chooses God. Following Jeremiah and Daniel, Peter neither calls for rebellion nor legitimizes the Sanhedrin’s power. His loyalty and mission transcend the political powers, whom God will deal with on His own time. Peter must obey his God no matter the consequences.

After this exchange Peter and John are released by the council. Acts 4:23-31 is a strategic selection of Lukan theology. The men return to the other disciples and report what had happened. They praise the God of creation, citing Psalm 146:6 and Psalm 2:1-2: “Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.” By conflating the Sanhedrin with Gentile rulers who oppose God, Luke is delegitimizing their authority and placing them in direct opposition to the Messiah Jesus and his people. The dividing line is drawn, and those who oppose Jesus are on the wrong side even if they happen to be the self-proclaimed leaders of Israel. Peter would soon find himself in trouble with the Sanhedrin for a second time. As the message of Jesus continues to increase, “the high priest rose up, along with all his associates (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail.” In Acts 5:19-25, an angel rescues Peter and his associates from jail during the night and instructs them to “Go, stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this Life.” The following day, they obediently preach in the temple and are once again apprehended and brought before the Sanhedrin.

The apostles are questioned and specifically asked why they had disobeyed the council’s previous command to stop proclaiming Jesus. Peter’s retort is framed by the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and builds upon his previous statement in Acts 4:19-20 about giving heed to God rather than men: “Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him.’” Why is it that Peter firmly expresses his obligation to obey God rather than the Sanhedrin? Because Jesus is the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Lord of creation through whom forgiveness was accomplished and the Holy Spirit poured out on those who obey him. Luke strongly emphasizes the concept of “obedience,” using cognates of the Greek term peitharcheo in both 5:29 and 5:32. Interestingly enough, the word peitharcheo denotes submission to a ruler or superior and is most likely employed by Luke as a subtle jab at the illegitimate authority of the Sanhedrin in comparison to the real authority held by the ascended Christ.

Peter’s words should have a profound impact on the way in which modern Christians think about their engagement with political authorities. Following the longstanding Jewish tradition of Jeremiah 29:7 in which God’s people are instructed to be at peace with the authorities without compromising their faithfulness to God, Peter advocates neither violent revolution nor blind submission. Since Jesus is currently sitting on the throne, Peter’s loyalties transcend temporal political structures and profoundly relativize them. The Sanhedrin isn’t really in charge. Peter isn’t recklessly disobeying the law or advocating that the council be overthrown and replaced with new leaders who are more congenial to the Jesus movement. He doesn’t lobby the Jewish elite to impose Christian values on Jerusalem by force of law. He testifies that the crucified Jesus is also the resurrected and ascended Christ who must be obeyed before all worldly leaders. This is precisely the kind of attitude the New Testament authors encourage their audiences to have towards the governing authorities and is an extension of the Jesus tradition’s political ethic. Revolution is off the table. So is compromise. We can seek to live at peace with our neighbors and the authorities without denying that Jesus is the Lord who will soon return. If our choice is between man and God, we must obey God rather than man.