Acting without Authority

By Bob Myhan

The word "authority” means, "the power of rule or government, the power of one whose will and commands must be obeyed by others" (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 91). Does acting without authority have consequences?

Under the Law of Moses, the priesthood was given to Aaron and his sons (Num. 3:1-3). Not even they, however, could act without authority. When two of Aaron’s sons did so, the consequences were swift and severe.

Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. And Moses said to Aaron, "This is what the Lord spoke, saying: 'By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.'" So Aaron held his peace. And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, "Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp." So they went near and carried them by their tunics out of the camp, as Moses had said. And Moses said to Aaron, and to Eleazar and Ithamar, his sons, "Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the people. But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Lord has kindled. You shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die, for the anointing oil of the Lord is upon you." And they did according to the word of Moses. (Lev. 10:1-7)

Not only did Nadab and Abihu die because they “offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” but Aaron and his remaining sons were not even allowed to put their duties on hold long enough to mourn the loss of the two priests who acted without authority.

On two occasions, while the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness, Moses was instructed by God to get water out of a rock. On the first of these occasions, He was told to strike the rock. He did so and water came forth. (Ex. 17:5-6)

But on the second occasion, God told Moses, “Speak to the rock.” But Moses struck the rock, thus acting without authority and was not allowed to lead Israel into the Promised Land. (Num. 20:8-12)

During the period of judges the ark of God was taken into battle without God’s authority. As a consequence, the children of Israel were defeated and “the ark of God was captured” (1 Sam. 4:1-11).

The consequences of acting without authority were severe in the Old Testament. But are they as severe in the New Testament? Notice what Jesus said.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree can­not bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matt. 7:13-19)

Notice the consequences of entering the wide gate as opposed to the narrow gate. The wide gate puts one on the broad way that leads to destruction, while the narrow gate puts one on the way that leads to life. Notice, also, that those who enter by the narrow gate are to beware of false prophets (Matt. 7:15).

“But,” someone asks, “How is one to recognize the ravenous wolves if they come to you in sheep’s clothing?”

“Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” (Matt. 7:20)

To show us how to distinguish between teachers of truth and teachers of error, Jesus switches the figure of ravenous wolves to the figures of a good and bad tree. One recognizes a tree as good or bad by examining its fruit. If a tree bears good fruit, it is a good tree but if it bears bad fruit, it is a bad tree.

What is the fruit of a prophet or teacher? It is his teaching. If that which he teaches is truth, he is a good teacher. But if that which he teaches is error, he is a false teacher.

Notice, further, the consequences of be­ing a false teacher are severe. Such will be cut down and thrown into the fire (Matt. 7:19). It is one thing to believe and practice error. It is another thing, however, to propagate and perpetuate error by teaching others falsely.

There are those, of course, who believe and teach that Christians may believe and practice error without consequence. If that were so, why would Jesus say, “Beware of false prophets”? He said so because one cannot afford to be led astray by one who teaches error. There are consequences.

Paul wrote to Timothy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who “strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is al­ready past; and they overthrow the faith of some.” (2 Tim. 2:16-18)

Jesus explained that those whose religious practices are without authority cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

“Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as `Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven. On judgment day many will tell me, `Lord, Lord, we prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.' But I will reply, `I never knew you. Go away; the things you did were unauthorized.'” (Matt. 7:21-23, NLT)

Acting without authority will have eternal consequences. One cannot go on acting without authority here and hope to be with God in eternity. &

The Fourfold Will of God #2

By Bob Myhan

Second, there is the incidental will of God, what God is willing to occur, as incidental to His ideal will. By giving man a free will (the ability to think and act contrary to God’s ideal will) He made it possible for man to sin. To deny that man is allowed to sin—in this sense—is to deny the free moral agency of man. And to deny the free moral agency of man is to imply that God created a being that cannot help but sin. And, if God created a being that cannot help but sin, then He is unjust in holding that being accountable for sin, and His ideal will is unrealistic. If this is not the case, why is it not? Thus, God is willing for man to sin though He does not desire man to sin. In fact, God was grieved when man persisted in sinning.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Gen. 6:5-6)

Man is free to sin or not, as he chooses, but God does not desire man to sin and commands him not to do that which is sin. (Ex. 20:1-17; Rom. 13:9)

God also allows—but does not immediately cause—man to suffer physically, psychologically and emotionally. He does so for man's benefit.

It is good for me that I have been afflicted, That I may learn Your statutes. (Psalm 119:71)

Another benefit of man’s being allowed to suffer is that he longs for a place where he will suffer no more.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them. (Heb. 11:8-10, 16)

Though certain instances of suffering may be prevented, man cannot defeat the incidental will of God, because whatever occurs—even the prevention of certain instances of suffering—is allowed by God to occur as incidental to His ideal will.

God’s incidental will involves both the free will of man and the operation of natural laws. He must have been willing for Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil or He would not have given him free will. But He must have desired that Adam not eat of the fruit for He commanded him not to do so. &