Touch Not the Lord’s Anointed!

I heard one of my least favourite Bible verses again last week. It’s not a ‘bad’ verse - no Scripture is bad if it is interpreted rightly.  It’s just one of those verses that tends to be interpreted very badly and very destructively. I don’t ever remember hearing a proper sermon or bible study on it. But I have heard it invoked several times in situations where a church has fallen into some sad degree of disunity or a leader is facing accusations of misconduct. You may have heard it yourself.

It looks something like this. There is a difficult meeting. The pastor is facing criticism. The congregation are divided in their assessment of the situation. And then one of the pastor’s closest supporters drops the bomb:

“Touch not the Lord’s anointed!”

The message is clear. This man is God’s man. No disagreement is permitted. No possibility of serious fault can be countenanced. Discontent ends right now.

It’s really quite an odd concept to appeal to in such circumstances. The first place it occurs in Scripture is in the story of David and Saul. David is in exile, hiding from Saul deep in a cave. Ignorant of David’s close proximity, Saul enters the cave to ‘see a man about a dog’. Whilst he is engaged in his personal business, David’s band of rough and ready outlaws suggest that God has given him into David’s hands. A quick assassination and David could go back home. David cuts a slice from Saul’s robe but his conscience is smitten, so he pacifies the men by saying: 

"The LORD forbid that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD's anointed,

to put out my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD's anointed" (1 Samuel 24:6).

Newer translations use ‘put out my hand’ in place of the King James’ ‘touch not’. A short while later, the situation arises again. This time Abishai offers to pierce Saul through with a spear but David restrains him.

"Do not destroy him, for who can put out his hand against

the LORD's anointed and be guiltless?" (1 Samuel 26:9).

The day arrives that Saul is mortally wounded in battle. Death is just a matter of time so he calls one of his entourage to finish him off. The servant comes to David, presumably expecting to be rewarded - but is duly executed.

“David said to him, "How is it you were not afraid to put out your

hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?... Your blood be on your head,

for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed

the LORD's anointed'" (2 Samuel 1:14-16).

Why is it such a curious concept to invoke in a contemporary setting? Because in each case ‘touching’ or ‘putting out your hand’ refers to extreme physical violence. It is talking about the intent to actually murder Saul. I have been in a few fiery church members meetings but none of them have ever involved the attempted murder of a pastor. Maybe your church is different.

There is an important backdrop to this verse. Way back in 1 Samuel 10, the Lord had sent prophet Samuel to ‘anoint’ Saul as king. Previously Israel had been a theocracy - God was King. But the people wanted to be like the other nations and God gave them what they asked for. Samuel made it clear that doing this was not right, because they were actually rejecting God.

Things go well for a few years but Saul proves to be a pretty lousy king. After committing several serious, unrepentant sins God decides to reject Saul. 

“And Samuel said, "Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings

and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to

obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. For rebellion

is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.

Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also 

rejected you from being king"  (1 Samuel 15:22-23).

So God sent Samuel to anoint David instead. From that point on, the Spirit of God departed from Saul and rested on David. David knew that Saul held the office of king but no longer had the Lord’s spiritual anointing. The reason he refuses to ‘touch the Lord’s anointed’ is that he will not take judgment into his own hands. He doesn’t need to because in his own good time the Lord is going to destroy Saul and lift up David

"As the LORD lives, the LORD will strike him, or his day will come to die, 

or he will go down into battle and perish” (1 Samuel 26:9-10).

When Christians claim this verse about their pastor, I don’t suppose they mean to say that he is an unrepentant sinner facing the certainty of judgment, a man who God did call to office but is now devoid of the Spirit, on account of having been utterly rejected by God. It seems a foolish choice of Scripture, given what the verse is actually saying in context. “Don’t criticise him - God has already abandoned him and his time’s nearly up!”

Perhaps though, the Scripture people are actually referring to is in 1 Chronicles 16:22 (quoted directly in Psalm 105) - although this verse doesn’t offer much support to their position either. On the day the Ark of the Covenant is brought into the tent of worship David recounts God’s powerful actions on behalf of his people. In verse 19-22 he refers to the time when God’s people were small in number, travelling as vulnerable pilgrims from place to place, as they had no home land of their own. God protected them in their travels, even rebuking kings who tried to oppress them - for example, think of the situation where Abimelech tries to take Abraham’s wife for himself. In other words, before the children of Abraham grew into the nation of Israel and entered the promised land, God:

“...allowed no one to oppress them; he rebuked kings on their account, saying, 

"Touch not my anointed ones, do my prophets no harm!"  (1 Chronicles 16:21-22).

The reference is again to physical violence or violation. The ‘anointed ones’ are God’s people. This time God is rebuking pagan outsiders who threaten His children and His servants. To lay hold of this verse in the context of a church meeting about the quality of ministry would be astonishingly inappropriate. Why? Because it implies that those who disagree are unbelievers facing God’s judgment. And if that accusation proves to be false, it is actually those invoking the verse who are issuing threats against God’s people.

So does this verse apply in New Testament times, and if so how? Well firstly we have to recognise that at various times in history God’s people, and God’s prophets, have been violently opposed. The climactic example of this is our Lord Jesus Christ, who was anointed with the Spirit without measure - and also suffered more than any other. Evil men did put out their hands to do him violence and He was crucified at the hands of an angry mob. The Jewish leaders who demanded Jesus’ death failed to listen to their own Scriptures and willingly took his blood on their own heads in the process.

The climactic fulfilment of this Old Testament theme occurred in the shedding of Christ’s blood. And this is vital because it is also the event in history which unites Christians with all kinds of diverse backgrounds and personalities. Ultimately the reason Christians are drawn to meet together is because we are all drawn to Christ. The church will know Holy Spirit given unity only so far as we, together, fix our eyes on Christ, the author and finisher of the faith. When people start fixing their eyes on this preacher or that, the church is in trouble. 

“What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," 

or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified

 for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).

All true Christians know the protection which God promises His people because they have “all been anointed by the Holy One” (1 John 2:20). We are anointed in order to receive a saving knowledge of Christ, a deep spiritual affinity for His truth, and as such we are all made kings and priests to God. We are commanded to exercise this ‘anointing’ in “testing the Spirits” and holding fast to Biblical doctrine over divisive errors. We must do this because a real call and usefulness at some point in the past does not guarantee that a minister will or is continuing in the gospel (1 John 2:19). It is the Holy Spirit who moves believers to test what is taught from the pulpit by the standards of Scripture (Acts 17:11). The Holy Spirit would not move people to invoke Scripture out of context in order to shut down and prevent the church from fulfilling her Spirit-given task of testing and maintaining the purity of her ministry. It is in everyone’s best interests to see the process through, obviously in a gracious and loving spirit, because to allow a minister to wander from the purity of his calling will be eternally detrimental both to him and his congregation (1 Timothy 4:16).

If you ever hear an appeal to the words “Touch not the Lord’s anointed” in defence of a Christian minister - whether that be in a formal church meeting or a living room conversation with other members of the church - it is time for some serious heart searching, self-humiliation, and prayerful repentance by the whole church. Because whatever causes of frustration are evident on the surface, this invocation points to a deep and critical rot: God’s people are turning on each other to defend the reputations of men. And if a pastor hears these words spoken in his defence - rather than in defence of the Lord’s honour! - surely his first duty is to put the flock of God ahead of his own interests and silence their flattering appeals to his pride: “Get behind the Lord, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men”.