Touch not the Lord's anointed???
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:27 pm
I received the following email, and sent the following reply, earlier today. I was not sure whether this question had been raised here previously (a quick search didn't turn it up), so I thought I would post the correspondence, for the edification and response of all.
*****************************************************
Mr. Gregg,
My Pastor sometimes will quote 1 Chronicles 16:22 ("Do not touch my anointed ones") to the congregation; I don’t think he’s talking about physical injury but verbal disagreement against him. Is this how this verse is used today? J—
My reply:
Hi J—,
Your pastor is certainly misapplying the command in 1 Chron.16:22, as I have heard pastors do on many occasions. The biblical command has to do with physically attacking or killing a person whom God has clearly placed in a position of authority (e.g., 1 Sam.24:10; 26:8-9). In 1 Chronicles, it is apparently referring back to Genesis 20:7, where Abraham is "the anointed" in question—and, possibly, Genesis 35:5, where it is Jacob's family that is protected.
Your pastor's position invites two pertinent questions:
1) In one sense, all Christians are "anointed" (1 John 2:20, 27). If this is the sense in which he wishes to take the expression, then it will be as much a violation for him to "touch" you as for you to "touch" him. However, he is no doubt thinking of a special "anointing" or "gifting," that God gives to some whom He calls to lead others.
How are we to be sure that this man is "the Lord's anointed" in this special sense—just because someone hired him to fill a pulpit? There are thousands on men in pulpits that are not even converted, much less "anointed" to lead God's people. One does not wish to make negative judgments against one's pastor, but he should not think it to be a "given" that, just because he holds a job leading a church, that he is ipso facto "anointed" by God to be a leader (one can only hope that he may be);
2) Since the biblical expression speaks of doing physical harm to a man, how does one justify extrapolating from this to the matter of mere disagreement with—or even criticism of—a pastor? Though David refused to "touch" the Lord's anointed (Saul), he certainly had his disagreements with him, and stated them (e.g., 1 Sam.24:12-15)! Is your pastor claiming to be beyond correction? A wise man welcomes reproof and correction (Prov.1:7; 10:17; 12:1; 13:18). How is it that your pastor counts correction to be harmful? Is he not a wise man?
In his citation of this text, the man is simply twisting the Word of God to his own advantage—a strong reason to question whether he is really "the Lord's anointed" or not! He needs to repent of this scripture-twisting, and get down off his high horse. If he would concern himself more with washing the feet of others, rather than protecting his own interests, he might actually begin to look enough like Jesus to convince his congregation that he really IS the Lord's anointed.
Having said all that, I need to say that I genuinely have compassion on the man. He is clearly extremely insecure in his ministry (why else would he not welcome dissent?). He may well be a victim of a system that trained and conditioned him to believe that he should be a top-down kind of spiritual tyrant over the congregation. If so, he may merely be trying to do his [tyrant] job faithfully, and may feel very inadequate to hold such awesome authority, a feeling only amplified by every criticism from his flock. Do be gentle with him (2 Tim.2:24-26).
*****************************************************
Mr. Gregg,
My Pastor sometimes will quote 1 Chronicles 16:22 ("Do not touch my anointed ones") to the congregation; I don’t think he’s talking about physical injury but verbal disagreement against him. Is this how this verse is used today? J—
My reply:
Hi J—,
Your pastor is certainly misapplying the command in 1 Chron.16:22, as I have heard pastors do on many occasions. The biblical command has to do with physically attacking or killing a person whom God has clearly placed in a position of authority (e.g., 1 Sam.24:10; 26:8-9). In 1 Chronicles, it is apparently referring back to Genesis 20:7, where Abraham is "the anointed" in question—and, possibly, Genesis 35:5, where it is Jacob's family that is protected.
Your pastor's position invites two pertinent questions:
1) In one sense, all Christians are "anointed" (1 John 2:20, 27). If this is the sense in which he wishes to take the expression, then it will be as much a violation for him to "touch" you as for you to "touch" him. However, he is no doubt thinking of a special "anointing" or "gifting," that God gives to some whom He calls to lead others.
How are we to be sure that this man is "the Lord's anointed" in this special sense—just because someone hired him to fill a pulpit? There are thousands on men in pulpits that are not even converted, much less "anointed" to lead God's people. One does not wish to make negative judgments against one's pastor, but he should not think it to be a "given" that, just because he holds a job leading a church, that he is ipso facto "anointed" by God to be a leader (one can only hope that he may be);
2) Since the biblical expression speaks of doing physical harm to a man, how does one justify extrapolating from this to the matter of mere disagreement with—or even criticism of—a pastor? Though David refused to "touch" the Lord's anointed (Saul), he certainly had his disagreements with him, and stated them (e.g., 1 Sam.24:12-15)! Is your pastor claiming to be beyond correction? A wise man welcomes reproof and correction (Prov.1:7; 10:17; 12:1; 13:18). How is it that your pastor counts correction to be harmful? Is he not a wise man?
In his citation of this text, the man is simply twisting the Word of God to his own advantage—a strong reason to question whether he is really "the Lord's anointed" or not! He needs to repent of this scripture-twisting, and get down off his high horse. If he would concern himself more with washing the feet of others, rather than protecting his own interests, he might actually begin to look enough like Jesus to convince his congregation that he really IS the Lord's anointed.
Having said all that, I need to say that I genuinely have compassion on the man. He is clearly extremely insecure in his ministry (why else would he not welcome dissent?). He may well be a victim of a system that trained and conditioned him to believe that he should be a top-down kind of spiritual tyrant over the congregation. If so, he may merely be trying to do his [tyrant] job faithfully, and may feel very inadequate to hold such awesome authority, a feeling only amplified by every criticism from his flock. Do be gentle with him (2 Tim.2:24-26).