39 - Limitations on Obedience to Authority [B]

Limitations on Obedience to Authority. Acts 4:19-20

Acts 4:19,20 ^NASB "But Peter and John answered and said to them, "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."

The topic has been what are the limitations on authority? Are there circumstances and situations in which a believer is justified in disobeying authority over him? We have seen that there are different realms of authority over us that Gold has established. The guideline is found in these two verses in Acts chapter four where Peter and John are saying God's authority is over your [the Sanhedrin's] authority so we have to obey God rather than man. When God's authority is violated by any human authority that is the only time we are justified in violating that authority.

1 Peter 2:17 ^NASB "Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king." These are really the principles. Are we honoring the king? Are we honoring the government authority? That means we have to honor the office even though the person in the office may be unlikable, a person we may despise in terms of their personal ethics or behavior. That applies for every office of authority, whether it is an employer-employee relationship, a parent-child relationship, a husband-wife relationship. 

1 Peter 2:12 ^NASB "Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe {them,} glorify God in the day of visitation." So when people look at us, when they look at what we say and how we talk and how we respond to things, that it is with honor. The day of visitation is a term referring to the day of judgment. We may not see justification in this life but that justification will be there before the throne of God at the great white throne judgment. 

After Peter spoke about the government he then applies the same principle of authority to slaves. 1 Peter 2:18 ^NASB "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable." Again there is to be respect for the authority, the position of authority, even if the person in the position of authority is not respectable. [19] "For this {finds} favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly." The conscience is the set of norms and standards, that which is right or wrong. If because you are obeying the right set of standards, established by the Word of God and divine viewpoint, and are doing the right thing for the right reason (toward God) you endure grief and suffer wrongly—a victim of disrespect, unjustly treated, abused or taken advantage of, Peter says [20] "For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer {for it} you patiently endure it, this {finds} favor with God." That is not our natural orientation to the sin nature. The point he is making is very simple. If you are disobedient to authority, if you violate the rules and are punished for it, of course you are going to take it because you know you deserve the punishment. But if you are doing good—doing everything right for the right reasons, and you are reviled, punished, slandered—then you keep your mouth shut, put it in the hands of the Lord, endure it patiently. That is what receives commendation from God; not now but at the judgment seat of Christ. 

So this passage from Peter that talks about submitting to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake is couched within clear examples and other areas of authority that we are to submit to those authorities even when we think that authority is unjust, because it honors God and honors man. But there are still limitations.

When we look at examples in the Old Testament what we need to think about is examples where somebody is in a position where they are to submit to an authority and they disobey that authority, and what are the ramifications of that, the conditions surrounding it. The opening verses of Exodus chapter one talk about what transpired in the period between the arrival of Jacob and his family at the time when Joseph was still alive to this period about 200 years later. A new Pharaoh had come to power who had no respect for Joseph or the benefit that Joseph had brought to Egypt.

Exodus 1:7 ^NASB "But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them." God has blessed them; there has been a supernatural preservation so that there is little or no infant mortality among the children of Israel, so that there population was expanding exponentially. We know from the census that Moses took and is listed at the beginning of the book of Numbers that the male population over the age of twenty numbered approximately 600 to 650,000. So we can reach somewhat of an estimate of the population among them of 1.8-million, but there were probably more; possibly more than 2-million.

The pharaoh is operating on the basis of fear that with this strong people in their midst they could be easily overpowered and they could lead a revolt. So his problem is to have some population control to limit the danger he sees coming from the rapid increase of the children of Israel. Exodus 1:9 ^NASB "He said to his people, 'Behold, the people of the sons of Israel are more and mightier than we. [10] Come, let us deal wisely with them, or else they will multiply and in the event of war, they will also join themselves to those who hate us, and fight against us and depart from the land.' [11] So they appointed taskmasters over them to afflict them with hard labor. And they built for Pharaoh storage cities, Pithom and Raamses." But God's sovereignty works even in the midst of that negative situation. [12] "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread out, so that they were in dread of the sons of Israel."

Exodus 1:15 ^NASB "Then the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other was named Puah; [16] and he said, 'When you are helping the Hebrew women to give birth and see {them} upon the birthstool, if it is a son, then you shall put him to death; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live.'" He gives a command that is in direct violation of God's command. So the person in authority is issuing a command that is 180-degrees opposite the biblical command: "Thou shalt not commit murder." Trouble is the Ten Commandments haven't been written yet. We have to go back to Genesis chapter 9 and the Noahic covenant. It was clearly understood that murder was wrong.

Exodus 1:17 ^NASB "But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live." There is one authority saying to one thing, a lower authority saying to do something else, and so they recognize that the principle is they don't put themselves in a position of judging the pharaoh, they follow the mandates of the higher authority. [18] "So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, 'Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?' [19] The midwives said to Pharaoh, 'Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.'" Normally what we may here in terms of the interpretation of this is that they lied. This may not necessarily be a lie; this may be true under certain circumstances. We don't know enough. We do know that the Scripture never condemns them for saying this. In fact, in the next verse we read [20] "So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty."

What is interesting about this and about Rahab—another example of someone in disobedience to an authority—she already had some understanding of what God was doing among the children of Israel. Rahab as a Gentile was in an interesting scenario, not unlike the scenario of the midwives, where is in an authority relationship to the ruler of Jericho. She hides the two spies, the king of Jericho ends out his police to enquire where they are, and she says they weren't there but had already left.

There are things in common here in both of these passages. First, lives are being protected and preserved by someone who tells what appears to be a lie. Second, nowhere in the Scripture are they ever condemned for the lie but they are commended for their action. Third, the way that this is typically handled by theologians is to separate the act of preserving the life from, the lie that they told to cover the situation. There is a problem with this. The Scripture doesn't bifurcate these episodes that way. Then, especially in Joshua where a major theme is one of deception, we typically think it is wrong to deceive someone. (This should not be used as a justification for doing whatever you want to do in terms of telling a lie, covering something up, or something of that nature. There are significant differences; these are unique situations) What is seen as a parallel with both of these situations is the kind of circumstance that we have in both police work today and in the military and intelligence work that is done by nations sending spies under cover into foreign nations during times of war. Is there justification for lying in those circumstances? 

Are we in a combat situation? We are all in a spiritual combat situation. The two midwives in Egypt are in a combat situation between the God who is sitting on the throne of Egypt—in their system the king is god—and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They are right at the front line in terms of this command. Are they going to obey this god or are they going to obey the God of Scripture? And in their deception here, if there is a deception, it could very well be that this is a justifiable deception because it is understood in this framework of combat.

In Joshua, just after the Jericho episode with Rahab, in the next chapter there is the assault on Ai. In the initial assault by the Israelites on Ai they are defeated because God had told them that under no condition was anybody to take any of the plunder from Jericho. All was supposed to be destroyed. But there was one man named Achan who did not follow that, and because of that hidden sin within the camp of Israel God brought judgment on them. Following that there is the episode where Achan's sin is revealed and cleansing takes place in the nation which included the death of not just Achan but also his wife and children. Following that God then gave marching orders to Joshua for his assault on Ai. The Israelites were to divide their forces so that they attacked with a frontal assault and a small force that would easily be overrun. The rest of the army was going to be hidden down a valley in an ambush scenario. So there was an act of deception in combat. So God uses deception within the strategy of warfare.

In conclusion, with the midwives what we have is a mandate by a person in authority to individual believers to specifically violate a commandment of God. They have a choice. They can either obey the human authority or they can obey God. They choose to obey God even if that will cost them their life.

There is the case of David in 1 Samuel 15 where Saul is going to disobey God after he was commanded to destroy the Amalekites along with all of their animals and possessions. 1 Samuel 15:3 ^NASB "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Saul doesn't do this. He kills most of the people but he keeps all the oxen and sheep for himself and lets Agag the king of the Amalekites live. For this Samuel is going to confront him. 1 Samuel 15:17 ^NASB "Samuel said, 'Is it not true, though you were little in your own eyes, you were {made} the head of the tribes of Israel? And the LORD anointed you king over Israel, [18] and the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated. [19] Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD, but rushed upon the spoil and did what was evil in the sight of the LORD?'" Saul then tries to rationalize and justify it, and then Samuel says to him [22] "Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, {And} to heed than the fat of rams. [23] For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from {being} king."

Why does say that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft [divination]? It is because witchcraft is the product of demonism and is associated with Satan, and rebellion is exactly what Satan did in eternity past in his revolt against God. So rebellion against authority, whether it is God or an established authority by God, is tantamount to witchcraft; it is following the thinking of the devil. That is a powerful verse that has to be understood and dealt with whenever anyone contemplates disobeying a legitimate authority.

Then there is an announcement from Samuel that God has rejected Saul from being king. At the end of verse 26 Samuel says: "for you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel." But is Saul still the legitimate king of Israel? Yes. God hasn't removed him from office, He has just rejected him from being a dynastic head. [28] "…"The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to your neighbor, who is better than you. [29] Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." In 1 Samuel 16:13 we see that God then has Samuel anoint the next king of Israel—David. "Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah." David is anointed but he is not king, so Saul is still the legitimate anointed king of Israel. 

1 Samuel 16:14 ^NASB Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him." He is coming under divine discipline and God is allowing him to come under demon oppression [not demon possession] at this point. This begins the final deterioration, decline and discipline upon Saul. Chapter 17 gives us the episode of David's defeat of Goliath and then David is going to be rewarded. Part of the reward was that God said that whoever defeated Goliath would receive Saul's daughter's hand in marriage. When we come to the reward section in chapter eighteen we find that now Saul begins to enter into massive complex mental attitude sin because of David. David is praised beyond Saul for his valiant prowess as a warrior. This makes Saul extremely jealous and we read in verse 9 that Saul eyed David from that day forward. Then in the next verse, 1 Sam 18:10 ^NASB "Now it came about on the next day that an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul, and he raved in the midst of the house, while David was playing {the harp} with his hand, as usual; and a spear {was} in Saul's hand. [11] Saul hurled the spear for he thought, 'I will pin David to the wall.' But David escaped from his presence twice." This is his first attempt to murder David. Twice that day Saul tries to kill David. Then we read that Saul is afraid of David.

There is a second attempt to murder David. 1 Samuel 18:17 ^NASB "Then Saul said to David, 'Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the LORD'S battles.' For Saul thought, 'My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.'" Saul was trying to put David in a situation where he would be vulnerable militarily and to kill. Then in chapter 19 there is another attempt in the first eight verses, a fourth event after verse 10 where Saul again tries to pin David to the wall with a spear. In chapter twenty there is a fifth attempt on David. Jonathan helps David escape and in verse 30, "Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan…"  So Saul is out of fellowship, as angry as he possibly could be.

The next thing that happens is when David is running away from Saul and he seeks protection and food from the priests of Nod (Chapter 21). In retaliation, when Saul finds out about it in chapter 22 he has his henchman Doag kill the priests. 1 Samuel 22:18, 19 "Then the king said to Doeg, 'You turn around and attack the priests.' And Doeg the Edomite turned around and attacked the priests, and he killed that day eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod. And he struck Nob the city of the priests with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and infants; also oxen, donkeys, and sheep {he struck} with the edge of the sword." Remember, Saul didn't kill the oxen and donkeys and sheep that belonged to the Amalekites. He kills those who belonged to the priests.

In chapter 24 we have the episode where David is in the cave at Engedi. David shows his character and refuses to kill Saul. 1 Sam 24:12, 13 "May the LORD judge between you and me, and may the LORD avenge me on you; but my hand shall not be against you. As the proverb of the ancients says, 'Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness'; but my hand shall not be against you.'" What is he saying? He is saying, I am not going to violate the office of king that you have been placed in by God, and if God is going to remove you it is His responsibility, I am putting it in the Lord's hands. [15] "The LORD therefore be judge and decide between you and me; and may He see and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand."

What we learn from this is something that has to be taken into account in terms of what is said in the New Testament about authority. God establishes authority if there are circumstances where human beings are ever justified in removing an authority it has to be an exceptional situation.