Pastor steals more than $60K from church.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The important fact is that he can be forgiven and restored to the ministry.

He probably showed signs of repentance, I hope so.

He hasn't admitted guilt as far as I can see

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Touch not mine anointed was a warning from God to the heathen regarding God's people, was it not?

The phrase is found twice, specifically, once in 1 Chronicles 16:22 and again in Psalm 105:15.

David makes reference to the idea in 1 Samuel 24:6, as EB noted.

In 1 Chronicles 16:22 and Psalm 105:15, the Hebrew word for "anointed" is in the plural, thus indicating "anointed ones" as many modern translations bear out.

In 1 Samuel 24:6, Saul is called the LORD's anointed by David.

The question that needs to be asked and answered is: in what way, if any, do these three references in the Old Testament apply to New Covenant era ministers?

Context is always key.

Saul was literally anointed/smeared (had a horn of oil poured over his head) to be KING over an entire nation of people, by the Seer/Prophet and Judge, Samuel.

Psalm 105:15 is a reference to God's declaration and warning to the heathen nations, commanding them to not attack His people.

Psalm 105:7-15,

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.

It appears here that the anointed mentioned in verse 15 is the entire nation of God's people.

1 Chronicles 16:22 is nearly identical in wording and context to Psalm 105:

1 Chronicles 16:14-22,

14 He is the Lord our God; his judgments are in all the earth.
15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
18 Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;
19 When ye were but few, even a few, and strangers in it.
20 And when they went from nation to nation, and from one kingdom to another people;
21 He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes,
22 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

So then, in these three passages, where is the typology that makes "anointed ones" refer to New Covenant ministers?

In one reference, it means a sovereign king over an entire nation. In the other two references, it means the entirety of God's holy people.

The way I see it, the typology would be as follows:

1.) Saul being the LORD's anointed King over Israel = Jesus

2.) Israel as God's anointed ones = the entire Body of Christ

Seems pretty clear to me that "touch not mine anointed" can in no way refer to a unique class of people (i.e. the ministry) in the New Covenant era.

So then, the only thing remaining is the "do my prophets no harm", which is not present in 1 Samuel 24:6. So, even though Saul prophesied on more than one occasion, David didn't appear to consider him a prophet, meaning what he later penned in 1 Chronicles 16:22 and Psalm 105:15 doesn't apply to Saul.

This leaves one to wonder what the application of "do my prophets no harm" has in the New Covenant era. Moses desired that all of God's people would be prophets:

Numbers 11:29,

And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

This desire was unmistakenly fulfilled on Pentecost, and is daily fulfilled every time someone receives the Holy Spirit. All people filled with the Holy Spirit have been anointed by the Spirit of Christ, or Spirit of Messiah, or even more literally "Breath of the Anointed One", making all Spirit filled believers God's anointed. Secondly, since all prophesied when they received the Holy Spirit, they fulfill what Moses longed to see, that, in the moment of prophesying the vessel functioned as a prophet of God (in tongues) to declare His wondrous works.

And since we are all servants of the Most High, and we all fulfill a prophetic role in the world by prophesying when we receive the Holy Spirit, the only typology that seems to work regarding "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm" is the entirety of God's New Covenant people, not merely just a select group of people we call ministers.

[Esaias]

You are correct, Votive. All God's people are His 'anointed ones'. Which must of course include those involved as elders, overseers, deacons, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, etc.

The principle I see in David's referring to Saul is not so much to a political leader over Israel, but in referring to the man whom God had anointed/commissioned to fulfill a purpose. By attempting to thwart that purpose (attempting to undermine, resist, overthrow, or do damage to that commissioned one's authority, role, responsibility, prerogative, position, etc) one was opposing 'God's anointed' and by extension attempting to overthrow, undermine, subvert, or do damage to God's authority as Sovereign. Seeing as ALL whom God anoints are God's representatives, by interfering with the representative one interferes with the One who is being represented.

And of course, this is not a one-way street. A minister or overseer who interferes with and attempts to subvert any of the flock of God is just as in danger of treading upon God's representative(s) as an individual who interferes with and attempts to subvert any of God's appointed ministers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers, those serving as deacons (ministers, literally, ie servants) and overseers/elders... or anyone else in the Body of Christ anointed (appointed?) by God for a certain task or mission or ministry.

If we obeyed the apostle's command to ALL OF US be submitted one to another in the fear of God we would only have to worry about them that are outside attacking God's anointed nation, rather than constantly having to fight one another and defend against one another as well as dealing with the world's oppositions.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You are correct, Votive. All God's people are His 'anointed ones'. Which must of course include those involved as elders, overseers, deacons, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, etc.

The principle I see in David's referring to Saul is not so much to a political leader over Israel, but in referring to the man whom God had anointed/commissioned to fulfill a purpose. By attempting to thwart that purpose (attempting to undermine, resist, overthrow, or do damage to that commissioned one's authority, role, responsibility, prerogative, position, etc) one was opposing 'God's anointed' and by extension attempting to overthrow, undermine, subvert, or do damage to God's authority as Sovereign. Seeing as ALL whom God anoints are God's representatives, by interfering with the representative one interferes with the One who is being represented.

And of course, this is not a one-way street. A minister or overseer who interferes with and attempts to subvert any of the flock of God is just as in danger of treading upon God's representative(s) as an individual who interferes with and attempts to subvert any of God's appointed ministers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers, those serving as deacons (ministers, literally, ie servants) and overseers/elders... or anyone else in the Body of Christ anointed (appointed?) by God for a certain task or mission or ministry.

If we obeyed the apostle's command to ALL OF US be submitted one to another in the fear of God we would only have to worry about them that are outside attacking God's anointed nation, rather than constantly having to fight one another and defend against one another as well as dealing with the world's oppositions.

Good stuff, brother.

The million dollar question always comes back to: just because someone has been elected to a position, does that mean he (or in some cases, she) has a real commissioning from the Lord to represent Him (i.e. have they truly been anointed for the function) or were they merely placed there by the will of other people?

That's where all the wrangling, he said, she said, we said, they said stuff comes into play.

In so many ways, I think the early 1st century would have been much easier to live in as a believer. We all could simply appeal to the Twelve or others who had "seen the Lord" raised in power, like Paul, and they could and would be the final say on all of this stuff. We'd only have to really worry about the Romans.

Now, we are so far removed, and we've all got these private interpretations, few are willing to submit to any as long as they think their doctrinal position is more accurate than the other's.

It's no wonder the wolves in sheep's clothing can pretty much pick off at will the flock of God.

[Sean]

Amen, anyone that is born again is "God's annointed".

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You are correct, Votive. All God's people are His 'anointed ones'. Which must of course include those involved as elders, overseers, deacons, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, etc.

The principle I see in David's referring to Saul is not so much to a political leader over Israel, but in referring to the man whom God had anointed/commissioned to fulfill a purpose. By attempting to thwart that purpose (attempting to undermine, resist, overthrow, or do damage to that commissioned one's authority, role, responsibility, prerogative, position, etc) one was opposing 'God's anointed' and by extension attempting to overthrow, undermine, subvert, or do damage to God's authority as Sovereign. Seeing as ALL whom God anoints are God's representatives, by interfering with the representative one interferes with the One who is being represented.

And of course, this is not a one-way street. A minister or overseer who interferes with and attempts to subvert any of the flock of God is just as in danger of treading upon God's representative(s) as an individual who interferes with and attempts to subvert any of God's appointed ministers (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor/teachers, those serving as deacons (ministers, literally, ie servants) and overseers/elders... or anyone else in the Body of Christ anointed (appointed?) by God for a certain task or mission or ministry.

If we obeyed the apostle's command to ALL OF US be submitted one to another in the fear of God we would only have to worry about them that are outside attacking God's anointed nation, rather than constantly having to fight one another and defend against one another as well as dealing with the world's oppositions.

Amen, obeying the apostle's command didn't take a vote from the community. The church understood that the apostle had the word, and therefore was Biblical leadership. He was also tried and tested, and had a good report. In the case of the "anointed" individual who had his father's wife, the individual had to be turned over to satan. That suggestion for the "anointed" individual who had his father's wife, to have him turned over to satan, was directly from the apostle. Why? Because all the "anointed" church family (including their leadership) ignored what was going on. Therefore the apostle had to straighten the situation out and give a "command." That command wasn't based on wind, but it was concerning adultery and incest which the apostle could point out to the rest of the "anointed" saints.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Good stuff, brother.

The million dollar question always comes back to: just because someone has been elected to a position, does that mean he (or in some cases, she) has a real commissioning from the Lord to represent Him (i.e. have they truly been anointed for the function) or were they merely placed there by the will of other people?

Or by the will of God?

Psalm 75:7, Daniel 4:17, Romans 13:1?

Romans 13:1 talking about officers of the law, not minister of the church. Daniel 4:17 is governmental leadership, not specifically church, but they are all in their position due to God's appointment. Whether good or bad.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Good stuff, brother.

The million dollar question always comes back to: just because someone has been elected to a position, does that mean he (or in some cases, she) has a real commissioning from the Lord to represent Him (i.e. have they truly been anointed for the function) or were they merely placed there by the will of other people?

That's where all the wrangling, he said, she said, we said, they said stuff comes into play.

In so many ways, I think the early 1st century would have been much easier to live in as a believer. We all could simply appeal to the Twelve or others who had "seen the Lord" raised in power, like Paul, and they could and would be the final say on all of this stuff. We'd only have to really worry about the Romans.

Now, we are so far removed, and we've all got these private interpretations, few are willing to submit to any as long as they think their doctrinal position is more accurate than the other's.

It's no wonder the wolves in sheep's clothing can pretty much pick off at will the flock of God.

That last part brings up an interesting question: Do we not have the words of the apostles? So what's our problem? Perhaps it is not that everybody is a blindfolded man touching an elephant wishing the apostles were around to turn on the light, but that many have stopped their ears from hearing the words of the law?

Of course, the charismatics have lots of "apostles" available to help us get straightened out (for a seed offering of course) but somehow I don't think that's quite what we need.

What if we "speak what and where the Bible speaks and stay quiet where and with regard to what the Bible is quiet about"? (But we still get to clap while singing, of course...)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Amen, obeying the apostle's command didn't take a vote from the community. The church understood that the apostle had the word, and therefore was Biblical leadership. He was also tried and tested, and had a good report. In the case of the "anointed" individual who had his father's wife, the individual had to be turned over to satan. That suggestion for the "anointed" individual who had his father's wife, to have him turned over to satan, was directly from the apostle. Why? Because all the "anointed" church family (including their leadership) ignored what was going on. Therefore the apostle had to straighten the situation out and give a "command." That command wasn't based on wind, but it was concerning adultery and incest which the apostle could point out to the rest of the "anointed" saints.

Yes indeed. Though I notice the apostle (as you also seem to notice) did not render his personal opinion, but simply demanded the enforcement of God's Word. Apparently the church had all failed to do what God had required to begin with, so the apostle reasserts the proper course of action. Also, he himself did not unilaterally excommunicate the offender (Paul was no pope) but demanded that the whole assembly do so. He EMPOWERED the whole people of God to do their duty. Paul - the excellent example of true leadership! Empowering others to fulfill their calling... even if those others don't feel too inclined to be so empowered!

And thus we see that no church can properly function if some or most of the members are out of step with God and one another AND WITH ELDERSHIP.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Yes indeed. Though I notice the apostle (as you also seem to notice) did not render his personal opinion, but simply demanded the enforcement of God's Word. Apparently the church had all failed to do what God had required to begin with, so the apostle reasserts the proper course of action. Also, he himself did not unilaterally excommunicate the offender (Paul was no pope) but demanded that the whole assembly do so. He EMPOWERED the whole people of God to do their duty. Paul - the excellent example of true leadership! Empowering others to fulfill their calling... even if those others don't feel too inclined to be so empowered!

And thus we see that no church can properly function if some or most of the members are out of step with God and one another AND WITH ELDERSHIP.