By: Obed Pineda
During operation “Desert Storm,” the US government approved to send several fleets of fighter jets overseas to an undisclosed location in the Middle East. However, as the fleets began to land at their designated station a problem presented itself for the operation. The location that had been deemed best to set up as a base of operations for the fleets was now obstructing a key strategic route for the US forces. The commanding general on-site was advised of this new, unfortunate setback and he immediately traveled to the new base to speak with the commander in charge. The general notified the commander about the problem that now existed due to the location of the new base and ordered him to stop any additional fleets en route and to relocate the ones that were already on base to a different destination. The base commander explained to the general that he was unable to comply with his demands because he required a written order signed by a commanding officer to avoid a court-martial due to insubordination. Upon hearing the commander’s response and knowing that time was of the essence, the general proceeded to the nearest desk. He picked up a post-it note and wrote the order for the entire fleet to be relocated to a city designated by him, signed his name and rank, and gave it to the base commander. When the commander received the post-it note with the general’s new orders and signature, he immediately ordered the cease of any new arrivals to the base and began notifying everyone of their new orders to change locations. What gave this post-it note the proper authority to convince the base commander to comply with the orders written on it? Without a doubt, the authorized signature of the commanding general giving the order. Although some of the details of this tale may not be one hundred percent accurate, the part about the general handing his subordinate his new orders on a post-it note with his signature authorizing them is true. The hesitancy of the base commander in following through with the general’s urgent request without the proper authorization not only protected him personally but also preserved the efficiency of the chain of command. His resolve not to go beyond what was ordered to him enabled him with the right to say “no” to his superior. Observe that the general acknowledged that what his lower-ranked officer had done was justified and it prompted him to follow proper protocol as well. Together, both men were able to solve the problem efficiently in a righteous manner, without usurping authority. Holy Scripture declares, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him – the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak” (John 12:48-50, emphasis added). It is incredible to learn from the Holy Spirit that regardless of the fact that Jesus Christ is God, He chose to submit His will over to the Father. The Master’s words, as penned by the beloved John, further strengthens the unbreakable bond that lives among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The humility exhibited by the Lord’s unwillingness to speak no more than what His Father had given Him is what the apostle Paul describes as Jesus “who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7, emphasis added). This truth reveals an important lesson that must be comprehended by those who seek to be with Him in eternity. Consider the following: if Jesus, the Son of God, did not change His Father’s word, rather spoke “just as the Father” instructed Him to, what gives man the right to? It is imperative to understand that the Lord Jesus, before His death, burial, and resurrection, had not yet been authorized to remove and replace the Old with the New. Had He done so, He would have been guilty of insubordination for disobeying a direct order. Remember that Scripture concurs that “though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Hebrews 5:8-9, emphasis added). Verily, the inspired Matthew coincides with this truth for he manifests that it was after Jesus defeated death via resurrection that He proclaimed “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18, emphasis added). Prior to this triumph, the Lord would always reiterate, “not what I will, but what You will” (Mark 14:36, Matthew 26:39, 42, and Luke 22:42). Thus, because of His obedience to His Father’s will, Peter preached, “let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36, emphasis added). Therefore, the Master’s care in following His Father’s orders is how He rightfully gained the proper authority to eliminate “the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14, emphasis added). Since Christ has been given “all authority,” He has the right to delegate His orders to those under His command. It must be understood, however, that those who have been enabled by Him with His authority, do not have permission to alter His command in any way. It is unquestionably true that if the base commander from our example earlier would have chosen to relocate a different spot other than the one designated by the general, he would be guilty of insubordination. The same is absolutely true of anyone who teaches anything but Holy Scripture for Paul espoused, “we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as from God, we speak in the sight of God in Christ” (2nd Corinthians 2:17, emphasis added). It would be unwise not to point out the echo of the apostle’s words to those of the Lord Himself in solely speaking what he was commanded to speak. Peter commends Paul’s example as he promulgates that “no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2nd Peter 1:20-21, emphasis added). Thus, the folly of wanting to go beyond Holy Writ’s teachings is resplendently demonstrated by the Lord’s and His apostles’ refusal of doing so. This total submission to God’s Holy Word should always serve as a reminder that “Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6, emphasis added).