Break in series (IV): “A Contextual Study of ‘the Lord’s Anointed’ and a Related Plea”

Once upon a time, there was a movement who wished to have leaders who were untouchables.  And, since they believed in biblical inerrancy, they needed to find a presumed biblical basis for this notion: that their high-level leaders were beyond criticism or accountability.

But, where would they look in the Bible for such an idea?  They couldn’t find it in the New Testament, because leaders there are expected to be held to higher accountability (Luke 12:48) and not to “lord it over” God’s people (Matthew 20:25-28)–which arrogant unaccountability certainly is.  Also, no matter how high up the totem pole you get, if a leader does wrong or is hypocritical, that person may well have to be rebuked “in front of everyone” (Galatians 1:13-14, HCSB).

So, with no obviously promising proof-texts in the New Testament, the group apparently went to the Old Testament and lit on a passage which sounded good.  However, as we will see, if you study the passage in question in context–as proper biblical interpretation (“a text without a context is a pretext”) requires–the slogan turns out to point in a considerably different direction.

If you’ve hung around in SBC circles for very long, I’m sure you’ve heard the widely-cited favored passage: 1 Samuel 26:9b, lifted completely out of context: “… [W]ho can lift a hand against the Lord’s anointed and be blameless?” (HCSB).  The surfacely apparent thought here is applied to the major SBC power brokers, as if anything said about them or done in regard to them that it is not positive to the point of being almost worshipful is “blameworthy.”  Further, the implication is left that God will deal severely with anyone guilty of such unthinkable conduct.

How convenient an all-purpose “pass” on accountability that is!  All you have to do is say, “They are ‘the Lord’s anointed.’  They can’t be worried with trivialities like other people”–such as being held accountable to the people of the Southern Baptist Convention to provide information that all responsible parties in the Convention are required to divulge.  After all, those leaders are too important to God, and His plan, to be hindered by obeying what everyone else has to when, instead, their energies are consumed with what is politically expedient.

But, let’s just take a few moments and see what this passage actually is teaching, in context.  If you have never done a careful study of this passage, you may be shocked.

In the immediate context, here’s what’s going on: David displayed incredible mercy in sparing Saul’s life at a point of providential vulnerability (26:7-11), especially since Saul had repeatedly–17 times by my count–tried to kill David (1 Samuel 18-26).  As a result, Saul admitted the complete wrongness of his actions spiritually and that he was a fool and promised never to harm David (26:21).

Now, with Saul–”the Lord’s anointed,” in David’s words–as unquestionably the “bad guy” in the passage, don’t things look considerably different than the positive way the CR guys like to throw around the wording?  In fact, it is a highly illuminating exercise to just list some of the ways that this verse, in context, undermines the attitude almost always reflected when the CR slogan pops up.

Try these on for size:

- As inferred above, the person doing the aggressive pursuit of no good, the one intent on doing the damage here, is not David, but Saul, “the Lord’s anointed” in this passage.

- The person primarily guilty of intrigue (i.e., “sneakin’ around” behind the scenes to try to get an advantage) here is Saul, “the Lord’s anointed,” not David.  All David was doing was trying to avoid getting killed by convincing Saul to stop coming after him.

- David knew very well that sparing the life of “the Lord’s anointed,” Saul, would do nothing more than delay somewhat the inevitable ultimate disaster.  Listen to David’s words in the very next verse: “As the Lord lives, the Lord will certainly strike him down; either his day will come and he will die, or he will go into battle and perish” (26:10, HCSB–which is exactly what happened [1 Samuel 31])!  Of course, in the meantime, things got much worse before he died.  Saul, in a classic indication of just how far away from God “the Lord’s anointed” can get, stooped so low spiritually as to consult the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28).

- Saul also now knew that the Lord was allowing his protection to break down.  Proximity to “the Lord’s anointed” was no longer a place of guaranteed security, as evidenced by the taking of Saul’s spear and water jug from right under his nose (26:11, 12, 16).

- Saul, “The Lord’s anointed,” though highly paranoid, actually was fully aware that the time of his legitimate anointing had long since passed and that he was just hanging on until the bitter end.  Listen to Saul’s words: “You are blessed, my son David.  You will certainly do great things and will also prevail” (26:25, HCSB, emphasis mine).

- Perhaps most significant of all, “the Lord’s anointed” said of this incident–and his previous behavior leading up to it–”I have sinned” (26:21).  Sadly, even though Saul also invited David to return to service in his court,(”Come back… !”; 26:21), David was wise enough to know that Saul was so far from the Lord that he could not trust him, “the Lord’s anointed,” to keep his word not to harm him.

- Further, if we explore the preceding narrative, we realize that King Saul, “the Lord’s anointed,” was furious in his jealousy of David (18:8), but he was also very afraid of him (18:29).  So much did Saul hate David that he tried to trap David into being killed off through marrying Saul’s daughter, Michal (18:20-30), even though David was clearly his best warrior (18:7, 30). 

Thus, it is clear that, in this entire narrative, there is no sense in which the concept of “the Lord’s anointed” becomes a positive one again until Saul finally passes off the scene.  David, “the man after God’s own heart,” had long since been anointed to succeed Saul (16:12-13), but Saul steadfastly refused to step aside and give up the power to which his ego had become addicted.

Spiritually, why was this the case?  At root, it was because of the absence of the work of the Holy Spirit in Saul’s life.  But, the reality of how that went may surprise you.

Many people are aware that the Lord eventually took the Spirit from Saul (16:14).  But, well before that, after prolonged self-centered sinfulness, God finally rejected Saul from being His king (15:26).  After plenty of opportunities to get right with the Lord while he still had the Holy Spirit, it was now too late for surfacy shows of repentance to make any difference (e.g., 15:24-25).  But, since such admissions of sin were mostly to save face in front of his underling leaders and his constituency (15:30), neither the Lord nor Samuel was impressed in the least with the possibility that Saul might be sincere. 

So, when the dust settles, what have we learned from poking around in 1 Samuel in regard to the contextual meaning of “the Lord’s anointed?”  Two major conclusions have crystalized from my study of this text within its nearer and surrounding narrative context:

1) The current (mis)use in the SBC of the phrase “the Lord’s anointed” is contextually laughable.  Saul, “the Lord’s anointed,” is the bad guy in every sense in 1 Samuel 26 and the surrounding passages, while David, who chooses not to kill his pursuer, is merely allowing Saul to self-destruct out of respect for his position (i.e., “the Lord’s anointed”), but not his person (i.e., character).  And, of course, with the Lord, character (the heart) is always much more important than carefully crafted public image (1 Samuel 16:7).

2) Even though the phrase “the Lord’s anointed” is totally ripped out of context by the SBC royalty in its short-sighted grab for a biblical basis for untouchable leaders, there are indeed numerous eerie resemblances between some in their leadership and Saul as “the Lord’s anointed.”

An Appended Plea: Dear Trustees of Southwestern and Southern Seminaries, Do you still not see that the crucial roles to which you have been appointed require fair (that means to everybody associated with the institution) and objectively responsible oversight of these seminaries owned by the Southern Baptist Convention?  Your role is not to be fan clubs or deputized bodyguards or security details for their presidents, whom you short-sightedly fawn over as “the Lord’s anointed.” 

And, just this past week, we have seen further evidence that you are failing miserably at the job that SBC entity trustees are supposed to do.  While the entity heads gathered in Nashville for a beautifully crafted photo op presumably reflecting loving unity:

1) Five former lieutenants of SBTS President Al Mohler chose not to criticize “the Lord’s anointed” by claiming they were too busy to comment.  But, in doing so, they also totally refused to clear him of accusations lodged in a recent anonymous open letter. 

SBTS trustees, do you honestly believe that anyone else looking on, who is not, like you, fully committed to complete submission to SBC royalty like Dr. Mohler, would not see five of five ”no comments” from Mohler’s former assistants as no more than mere coincidence?  If you are that naive, I have some Hurricane Katrina mangled timber from my family’s property in South Mississippi I will sell you for a premium price.

and 2) The lawyers’ most recent desperate attempts failed to get the lawsuit for wrongful termination by Dr. Sheri Klouda against SWBTS dismissed.  While there will certainly be additional actions tried by SWBTS to get off the hot seat, it must be observed that, the longer the suit proceeds, the more it harms the public perception of the proud former flagship seminary of the SBC. 

SWBTS trustees, this debacle is just piled on top of two classic recent examples of Dr. Patterson’s stonewalling: a) his blatant failure to provide the SBC with actual, not just estimated, enrollment figures for the last year (as did all five other seminaries), for no better reason than not to have to admit sagging enrollment; and b) the deafening silence of his refusal to provide Ben Cole with figures concerning his bloated salary and other related benefits–both of which are required by SBC regulations.  Do you not realize that Dr. Patterson is supposed to be under trustee oversight, not you existing strictly and only to do exactly what he wants, because he has elevated himself to unaccountable status as “the Lord’s anointed?”