A Free Pass for the Anointed?

What this is about

The author of this site learned of a minister who used vulgar language about the mother of a man he was quarrelling with. She was not part of the quarrel. It was not the first time: demeaning people is said to be his habit. The author asked that no one be named or guessed at, and that the words themselves not be repeated. This page does neither.

His thesis: “Scripture never exempts a minister from the standard it sets for every Christian’s speech. It raises the standard for him. Anointing is not a licence to demean others, and ‘touch not my anointed’ was never a shield against being held to account for what one says.”

The short answer

The defenders’ case, and the harsh words of Scripture

The full dossier states the defenders’ five arguments first, fairly. He is anointed and deserves deference. “Touch not mine anointed.” Fifty years of fruit speak for themselves. It is not our place to judge; God will deal with him. And, strongest of all, the prophets and Jesus used harsh words too.

That last point is true. Ezekiel described Jerusalem’s idolatry in shocking images (Ezekiel 16 and 23). Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). Jesus called the Pharisees “hypocrites” and a “generation of vipers” (Matthew 23). Paul wished the false teachers in Galatia would cut themselves off (Galatians 5:12). And Luther wrote things far coarser than any of them.

So the full dossier asks four questions of every case. Who was the target? What was the purpose? Was it aimed at someone’s family? Did the speaker exempt himself from correction? In Scripture, every hard word was aimed at idolatry or false teaching, meant to call people back to God, never aimed at an opponent’s mother, and spoken by someone who stood under the same judgement. When Paul called the high priest a “whited wall,” he took it back at once: “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people” (Acts 23:5). And the Lutheran churches publicly repudiated Luther’s worst writings, in 1983 and 1994. Even the Reformer got no free pass.

Rebuke, or reviling?

Six statements, all made up for illustration, and none containing vulgar words. Is each a rebuke, aimed at a wrong to correct it, or reviling, aimed at a person to demean?

0 of 6 sorted.

“Touch not mine anointed,” read in context

Psalm 105 is retelling Genesis. The anointed are a family of “very few, and strangers,” wandering “from one kingdom to another people,” and God “reproved kings for their sakes, Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm” (105:12–15). The stories behind it are about kings who took or threatened the patriarchs’ wives. In one, King Abimelech decreed: “He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death” (Genesis 26:11). In another, God calls Abraham “a prophet” (20:7).

David would not kill King Saul, “the LORD’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24:6). But he went straight out and told Saul, in front of his army, that he was in the wrong (24:9–15). The prophet Nathan told the anointed King David to his face, “Thou art the man” (2 Samuel 12:7). And in the New Testament the anointing is the Holy Spirit, given to all believers (1 John 2:20, 27; 2 Corinthians 1:21). If the woman and her son are Christians, the anointed have been touched after all.

The standard for everyone, and the higher standard for teachers

The New Testament’s rules for speech are written to whole churches. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” (Ephesians 4:29). “Put off … filthy communication out of your mouth” (Colossians 3:8). “To speak evil of no man” (Titus 3:2). “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (James 3:10). Not one of them has a clause for the anointed. Paul even names the “railer,” a man who habitually abuses others with words, as someone the church must discipline (1 Corinthians 5:11).

And for teachers the bar goes up, not down. “Be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). A bishop must be “blameless … no striker … not a brawler” (1 Timothy 3:2–3), and “not soon angry” (Titus 1:7). Timothy is to be an example first of all “in word” (1 Timothy 4:12).

Which way does the bar move?

Six texts. Does each set a higher bar for those who teach, the same bar for everyone, or a lower bar for teachers?

0 of 6 sorted.

Fifty years, a mother, and the pattern of Christ

Gifts are not fruit. God spoke through Balaam, who “loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15). King Saul prophesied on his way to kill David (1 Samuel 19:23). Judas was sent out to heal (Matthew 10:1–4). Many will say, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” and hear “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:22–23). The fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance” (Galatians 5:22–23). Fifty years show that God has used a man. They are not the same thing as fruit.

The woman was not part of the quarrel. Paul tells a young minister to treat older women “as mothers … with all purity” (1 Timothy 5:2). Luther’s Small Catechism asks every Christian to “defend [his neighbour], speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.” Even Indian civil law treats words meant to insult a woman’s modesty as a serious offence (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, section 79, formerly IPC section 509). The page draws no legal conclusion about anyone.

Christ, an archangel and a king refused to revile. On the cross Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34). The archangel Michael “durst not bring against [the devil] a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9). When Shimei cursed King David, David said, “let him alone, and let him curse” (2 Samuel 16:11). If an archangel would not revile the devil, on what ground may a minister revile another man’s mother?

“It is not our place to judge”

Scripture gives the Church a process for exactly this, and it is written about elders: “Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear” (1 Timothy 5:19–20). Paul used it on the apostle Peter: “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).

The early Church used it too. The Apostolic Canons, a fourth-century church order, deposed any bishop, priest or deacon who struck the faithful, quoting 1 Peter 2:23, and excommunicated clergy who mocked the lame, the deaf or the blind. John Chrysostom wrote that a priest’s sins “receive sorer punishment by far” than a layman’s, because they harm “the weaker brethren.” At the same time the Church rejected the Donatists, who said a sinful minister’s sacraments were worthless. A man’s ministry can be valid while his conduct is condemned.

Questions you can ask about any minister, including your own:

1. When he disagrees with someone, does he address the argument, or demean the person and their family?
2. Does his speech match Ephesians 4:29 and James 3?
3. Is he held to the standard of 1 Timothy 3, or excused from it?
4. Can anyone in his church correct him, as Paul corrected Peter?
5. When his followers defend him, do they appeal to Scripture, or to his anointing?

And Christ’s own test: “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16).

What does this prove?

It is easy to claim too much for this argument. Six claims. Does the argument show each one?

0 of 6 sorted.

Check it yourself

Five things. The first takes ten minutes. The last is the one that matters.

1. 1. Read Psalm 105:8–15, then Genesis 20:1–7 and 26:6–11. Who are the anointed, and who is warned?
2. 2. Read 1 Samuel 24:1–15 and 2 Samuel 12:1–13. What did David refuse to do to Saul, and what did he do instead? What did Nathan say to David?
3. 3. Read James 3:1–12 and 1 Timothy 3:1–7. Look for an exception for teachers.
4. 4. Read 1 Peter 2:21–23 and Jude 9. How did Christ and the archangel answer abuse?
5. 5. One sentence. Do this one. Write down the last thing you heard a minister say about someone he disagrees with. Write Ephesians 4:29 beside it, and read them together.