Touch not my anointed: How far is too far?

[AngelofAshes]

Hey all, I was having a discussion with a group of older Christians today. We were talking about a well known preacher who had said some crazy things to his congregation one of such was challenging them to a fight to see who would be head honcho in the church. In a nutshell he was pretty much telling his congregation that none of them had the ability to fill his shoes so they should just shut up and fall in line. I just get very heated when I see pastors abusing their authority, so I jokingly said that I would've took his challenge and won the fight too xD The room fell silent and the oldest member in the group shook his head and said that we are not to touch God's anointed ones. I personally don't buy this, especially if the person is in the wrong, but it had me thinking maybe my interpretation of that scripture isn't accurate. What is your interpretation of this scripture? And when do you feel like modern day preachers and Christians take this expression way too far?

Please note I don't condone fighting nor have I been in a fight. My main suggestion was that I would've accepted his challenge, not by taking his position, but challenging his shameful behavior. Thank you :]

[Guest Robert]

Any pastor behaving like that should have at the very least been questioned seriously by the elders of that church. That said, let's look at the passage in context that you're referring to:

"The covenant which He made with Abraham, And His oath to Isaac. Then He confirmed it to Jacob for a statute,To Israel as an everlasting covenant, Saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan  As the portion of your inheritance, When they were only a few men in number, Very few, and strangers in it. And they wandered about from nation to nation, From one kingdom to another people. He permitted no man to oppress them, And He reproved kings for their sakes: “Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm.” And He called for a famine upon the land;  He broke the whole staff of bread." (Psalm 105:9-16, NASB, emphasis mine)

This was discussing Israel and her people; that the Lord was not going to take lightly anyone harming His people. If we read Psalm 105 in detail, we see that it is a history of the nation of Israel from the promise made to Abraham onward. I don't think this was talking about pastors or preachers nowadays.

As far as Scripture is concerned with "challenging" a pastor, i think these verses bear well on the matter:

"Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity." (1 Timothy 5:1-2, NASB)

"The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin." (1 Timothy 5:17-22, NASB, emphasis mine)

Paul was admonishing Timothy to show respect to those who were in positions in the church and to not take accusations against them lightly. But if it were true, then the church should discipline them for failing to live up to the standards set. The best way to handle such a thing if it happens in our churches (I know this was a "well-known preacher" that probably isn't in your church), we should work through the structure the Lord has put into place handle this. An excellent example is 3 John (the whole letter).

I hope this helps.

God bless,

-RobertS

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by RobertS

[Jayne]

Psalm 105:15 is not talking about disrespecting or challenging or even touching preachers, as I have once heard.

The "anointed" in "touch not mine anointed" is the nation of Israel. God was commanding the enemies of Israel not to harm His people.

Psalm 105:6-15

(6) O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. (7) He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. (8) He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. (9) Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; (10) And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: (11) Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: (12) When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. (13) When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people; (14) He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; (15) Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.


David wrote this psalm reminding us that God was chastising foreign nations and warning them to leave His nation of Israel alone. That's it. That's all.

This has nothing to do with challenging a preacher.

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, AngelofAshes said:

Hey all, I was having a discussion with a group of older Christians today. We were talking about a well known preacher who had said some crazy things to his congregation one of such was challenging them to a fight to see who would be head honcho in the church. In a nutshell he was pretty much telling his congregation that none of them had the ability to fill his shoes so they should just shut up and fall in line. I just get very heated when I see pastors abusing their authority, so I jokingly said that I would've took his challenge and won the fight too xD The room fell silent and the oldest member in the group shook his head and said that we are not to touch God's anointed ones. I personally don't buy this, especially if the person is in the wrong, but it had me thinking maybe my interpretation of that scripture isn't accurate. What is your interpretation of this scripture? And when do you feel like modern day preachers and Christians take this expression way too far?

Please note I don't condone fighting nor have I been in a fight. My main suggestion was that I would've accepted his challenge, not by taking his position, but challenging his shameful behavior. Thank you :]

There are people who use that verse to claim that preachers are beyond criticism.  A lot of Charismatics throw that verse out to defend or insulate people like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and others like them, from criticism.  It's one of their many intimidation tactics to silence critics, since they cannot really defend their false doctrines.

[Guest Robert]

13 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

There are people who use that verse to claim that preachers are beyond criticism.  A lot of Charismatics throw that verse out to defend or insulate people like Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn, and others like them, from criticism.  It's one of their many intimidation tactics to silence critics, since they cannot really defend their false doctrines.

Right, and they should not be beyond scrutiny or criticism.

[RustyAngeL]

After a scene like that I would have been out the door and on my way to another church.  Just ludicrous. 

[Ezra]

22 hours ago, AngelofAshes said:

We were talking about a well known preacher who had said some crazy things to his congregation one of such was challenging them to a fight to see who would be head honcho in the church.

1. This was clear evidence that this man was NOT anointed, but was a preacher according to the flesh. So the appropriate response would have been for all the church members to leave this church, after jointly notifying him that this is completely unacceptable. Alternatively, the church could have asked the man to resign, or fired him.

2. As to "head honcho" Scripture is clear that Christ alone is the Head of each church (assembly) and of the entire Church. So once again, this man was out of order.

3. According to Scripture, no one man is the spiritual leader of a church.  Rather we always see a plurality of elders (which would prevent such nonsense from being bandied about).

[Willa]

I used to hear this verse in connection with Jimmy Swaggart and others who were in error.  But never have I heard this about pastors who were truly righteous and led by God.  However, as Robert said, we do owe Bible believing pastors respect and approach them in humility.  

[Openly Curious]

On 10/2/2016 at 8:55 PM, AngelofAshes said:

Hey all, I was having a discussion with a group of older Christians today. We were talking about a well known preacher who had said some crazy things to his congregation one of such was challenging them to a fight to see who would be head honcho in the church. In a nutshell he was pretty much telling his congregation that none of them had the ability to fill his shoes so they should just shut up and fall in line. I just get very heated when I see pastors abusing their authority, so I jokingly said that I would've took his challenge and won the fight too xD The room fell silent and the oldest member in the group shook his head and said that we are not to touch God's anointed ones. I personally don't buy this, especially if the person is in the wrong, but it had me thinking maybe my interpretation of that scripture isn't accurate. What is your interpretation of this scripture? And when do you feel like modern day preachers and Christians take this expression way too far?

Please note I don't condone fighting nor have I been in a fight. My main suggestion was that I would've accepted his challenge, not by taking his position, but challenging his shameful behavior. Thank you :]

I think it literally means not to touch or lay your hands on God's people with the intent to harm them in any way.  Go back and read in the OT how David treated King Saul.  David had so many opportunities many times over to physically harm and even take Saul's life away from him but he never did because he was anointed by God to be King.

[Hawkeye]

On 10/2/2016 at 7:55 PM, AngelofAshes said:

Hey all, I was having a discussion with a group of older Christians today. We were talking about a well known preacher who had said some crazy things to his congregation one of such was challenging them to a fight to see who would be head honcho in the church. In a nutshell he was pretty much telling his congregation that none of them had the ability to fill his shoes so they should just shut up and fall in line. I just get very heated when I see pastors abusing their authority, so I jokingly said that I would've took his challenge and won the fight too xD The room fell silent and the oldest member in the group shook his head and said that we are not to touch God's anointed ones. I personally don't buy this, especially if the person is in the wrong, but it had me thinking maybe my interpretation of that scripture isn't accurate. What is your interpretation of this scripture? And when do you feel like modern day preachers and Christians take this expression way too far?

Please note I don't condone fighting nor have I been in a fight. My main suggestion was that I would've accepted his challenge, not by taking his position, but challenging his shameful behavior. Thank you :]

I have had similar conversations when talking about the false doctrine of a well know white suit wearing "faith healer". People get very die hard and want to defend and back up their leaders, even when they are in the wrong or teaching false doctrine. The problem comes that this verse is used out of context. I have noticed this phrase being used a lot in the pentecostal level of things, when people go to defend their heroes (Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, T.D Jakes, et, al) And it would indicate in looking at the original language, it is a physical touch (i.e pushing, hitting, punching, killing, etc...)

To touch not his anointed, we have to look at the context of the verse leading up to it. It would indicate it refers to Israel and his chosen people, not name-it-claim-it kooks.  It wasn't meant as a promise to believers today (much in the same way, Jeremiah 29:11 is misused). 

However, that being said- There is a difference between clearly stating why something is a false doctrine (i.e- The Bible says this, but televangelist XYZ says this, which contradicts the Bible). And just slandering to insult and be rude or cut down. Our talk should still be edifying, and if we can give constructive criticism and examples of where the false doctrine lies, specifically, we have a more credible story.