Did Jesus rebel or submit?

I have heard it said that Jesus was a rebel. And yet, Christ submitted even to the cross. So, I must ask, did Jesus submit unto the authorities of His day? Or did He rebel against them?

What do you think?

Blake

Jesus submitted to the "authorities", just as we are to submit to our "authorities". (For they are no more our authorities than Christ's!) He obeyed His parents and obeyed government officials. I know of no passage where He does otherwise. I do know that we are commanded to such things and therefore we know (through a short chain of logical deductions) that Jesus did them also.

Wasn't His only authority the Father. Earthly rulers were below Him, so he could not therefore rebel against them could he?

Jesus was called the Son of God and the Son of man. As a man, Jesus was under the authority of those above Him. For instance, He was under the Roman government. As such, He paid His taxes. Likewise, he was the son of Mary of whom He also obeyed. As such, He made water into wine at her request. He was under the law of Moses and obeyed every letter of the law to the point of fulfillment. Lastly, He submitted unto death on a cross.

When confronted by Pilate, Jesus said, "You have no authority over me except what has been given above." This meant that Pilate had authority over Jesus but only because it was given to Pilate by God. As such, Jesus submitted. Though Christ had more authority and power as God, He submitted as a man.

Hope this helps,

In Christ,
Blake

From Matthew 17, I suspect that Jesus paid the tax to avoid [b]perceived[/b] rebellion. It's probably a bit like the owner of a parking lot paying to park because the security guard doesn't know who he is.

[color=000099]
Mat 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
Mat 17:25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
Mat 17:26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, [b]Then are the children free.[/b]
Mat 17:27 [b]Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them[/b], go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
[/color]

PassingThru

And yet, Christ submitted even to the cross. So, I must ask, did Jesus submit unto the authorities of His day

This is a pickle. ;-)

Jesus did not plead to the Romans for an alternative to the Cross, but to the Father. Therefore it is reasonable to surmise that Jesus' submission was not to man but to God...and the course of that obedience led to submission to man. Still, we should not confuse the temporal government with the real government. The crucifixion of our Savior was neither brought about by Roman power or Jewish design, but was God's ordination for his own son. Men were following God's plan unwittingly, even as as Jesus was submitting obediently for the joy set before Him.

Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. Rather, we speak God's wisdom, mysterious, hidden, which God predetermined before the ages for our glory, and which none of the rulers of this age knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

So it is not right to call Jesus a rebel, for He himself is our plumbline of obedience to the Father. However he may have indeed appeared a rebel to those who themselves were rebels to God's government. At Golgotha man's rule and God's rule temporarily converged, but in the centuries to follow they were from time to time strikingly divergent. The marters who refused to submit to Ceasar worship are the brutal manifestation of this periodic divergence.

If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. The vast majority of time, it's possible to submit to the government of men. Not always 100% though. In those rare and undesirable cases, it may be the government that is in rebellion.

Edit: Blake I do want to add, that even though we might sometimes be at odds with a government of man, we can still 'submit' to them in one very important way...we submit to their punishment without resorting to violence or sabatougue. Though there may be circumstances where we do not obey a government fully (underground churches for instance) I see no license in scriptures whatsoever for fighting government. (Abortion clinic bombings.) Even in resistance, we are still peaceful, loving, and submissive.

Blessings,

MC

It occured to me that some of my comments in this discussion could appear to be (edit: contrary) to Beenblakes basic concern for respecting and submitting to authority. This would be a disservice to Beenblakes's Godly and biblical admonishment that Christians be peaceable and lawful people, even when they disagree with the authority.

Also I must admit that there is sometimes a popular perception, at least in the evangelical Church, that the Apostles went around unafraid of man's laws, with brazen fearless street preaching and were all too happy to be put in jail for their holy defiance. Or we might read the account of Jesus upsetting the tables of the money changers in the temple and take away a sense of righteous revolution that boldy puts the religous authorities in their rightful place.

Well, to Beenblake's worthy point, I think it's worth revisiting any rebel romanticsm we (or at least "I") might have assumed took place in the early preaching ministries.

Beenblake, you and others here could find as an interesting book [url=http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Trial-Book-Defense-Christianity/dp/0785245987/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-3836380-4310402?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178063039&sr=8-1]Paul on Trial[/url]. The author, John Mauck, is a Christian lawyer who approaches the book of Acts with the thesis that part of Luke's purpose for recording Paul's actions was to provide defense material for his forthcoming trial in Rome. Whether you agree with this premise, the book sees Paul not only as the fearless unapologetic champion of the Gospel, but also as a peaceful man deeply committed to conducting his ministry within the bounds of Roman law and with utmost love for the Tanakh.

A feature of the book are several charts that list the offenses and accusations made against Paul, as well as the other apsotles. As we know, the charges were numerous; Blasphemy against God and Moses, bringing a gentile into the temple, inciting civil unrest, practicing illegal religion, advocating unlawful customs, slandering Artemis, and of course promoting Jesus as King. (Acts 17.) In all of this no Roman laws were actually broken as evidenced that Paul was always aquitted or passed along. The only real defiance by Paul and the Apsotles was their differences with the Pharisees who were ignoring their own prophets concerning Jesus. Even so, the apostles were not hostile to the religous leadership, though they were non-compliant when enjoined to stop using the name of Jesus. For this 'crime' they suffered such penalties as imprisonment, flogging and even stoning.

Now compare these percieved "offenses" to the very serious accusations Acts brings against the accusers of Paul. The Sanhedrin were accused of flogging innocent men in Acts 5. Members of the Syngogue pressured men to perjure in Acts 6. The Sanhedrin committed murder, which was also a violation of Roman law forbidding capital punishment by the Sanhedrin in Acts 7. The Jews of Damscus conspired to murder Paul in Acts 9. Rioters conspired to murder him in Acts 21, and the Jewish leaders plotted to murder him in chapter 23. Still others in Iconium and Lystra plotted also to murder Paul. Herod did murder James, and attempted to do the same to Peter in Acts 12. Slave owners committed calmumnia, filing false criminal charges against Paul. The Romans magistrates unlawfully flogged him. The high priest Ananias caused a wrongful slap on Paul, and both Felix and festus were guilty of rex repetundae, or official corruption.

In all of this, Paul or the Apostles never lashed out verbally or physically against Rome or Jeruslam. Paul remained essentially respectful of Roman law even while being held injustly, and only irritated towards his Jewish brothers, who were so hostile and willfully blind to ther own law and their prophets concerning Jesus.

All of this is to show that our occasional romantic celebration of Paul's defiance of public officials, may be a misrepresentation and a parody of his ministry which was foremost an advocate of peaceful respect for the governments of Rome and Jerusalem. Paul did not, in the name of Jesus, show disrespect towards muncipal or temple authorities. And as we already know, Paul repeatedly encouraged the Church to also be submissive and respectful to the government, which has a place in God's rule.

Blessings,

MC

Here's the thing... we are to submit to earthly authorities so long as they do not command us to break God's laws.

For instance, in most parts China abortion "legally" forced on women if they are pregnant for their 2nd child. We are not commanded by scripture to obey that... we do not murder because the state says we should.

Does that make sense?

Krispy, I think you mean “obey” in this case. I don’t know if Scripture ever permits us NOT to submit to another.

“Submit to one another” Eph. 4: 21
I think that we misunderstand the meaning of “submission” because of the way the world uses it. The Christian community has adopted this unbiblical usage. Blindly obeying orders or allowing oneself to be dominated is not godly submission, because it is not the way of love. It may simply be passivity and self-preservation.

Years ago I came to understand submission to mean the surrender our rights for the BENEFIT of others. That may require that we "walk the second mile", "wash one’s feet", give our “enemy’ a drink when he is thirsty, give him the respect due him (see Rom. 13) - or even give our lives. It is being Christ-like to another.

Obviously submitting is not about giving “Caesar “ what he wants. That would apply to any relationship. It is not about letting another run your life. On the other hand it is about us exerting our God-given freedom and responsibility to build into another’s life, regardless of whom they. That may require questioning authority decisions sometimes rather than blindly complying (at the risk of being branded a rebel).

I agree, that Christ submitted to the cross, and in that sense he submitted to mankind. He gave up his rights for the benefit of mankind. But, as pointed out, noone made him! He did it willingly. That’s how he loved the church, “to make her holy… and to present her as a radiant church… “ Eph. 5:25 The Bible calls this love!

This all seems to lead to an equation:
“Love one another” = ‘Submit to one another”

Could this be right?

Diane

To the original question, Christ submitted to do all that the Father commanded Him, outside that He did all that the authorities commanded Him.

Through Jesus' earthly life we learn that the most powerful way we submit to God and mankind, and the most powerful way we rebel against the forces (including rules/laws/traditions) that squelch the Good News is by being a light – letting the world see Christ in and through us.

"...to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ...
to MAKE PLAIN to everyone the administration of this mystery...." (shine, illuminate... )
Eph. 3:8

Diane