SAUL AND JONATHAN
by Jim Langford on FactNet
Robert Grove and Jack Langford, who between them orchestrated
the inquisition against many Christian families during the
eighties, played freely and loosely with God’s word during
those years to help justify and enforce their actions. In a post
on March 1, 2005 we examined a letter (composed by Weyman Zelder
I was told) sent to Dalford Todd that was an inexcusable,
theatrical farce that bordered on blasphemy! The author
obviously had learned the trade well from his mentors.
Following is another example (of which there are myriads) that
displays the unique ability of some professing ministers of
God’s word to twist it to serve their immediate purposes. The
sad thing is that there is no evidence of anyone at that time
checking the Scriptures to verify what was said. Is it any
wonder why many of us lost confidence in those leaders?
There are “principles” inherent in the Old Testament texts
that are relevant to us today. The chief concern is that
application must be consistent with proper interpretation of the
context. To help a prominent brother from Riverside to grasp the
fact that in church discipline no partiality was to be shown
among physical family members, Jack Langford applied the story
of Saul and his son Jonathan. Here are his actual words
delivered in a message at Alhambra in July 1990:
“A few individuals saw through Saul,
Jonathan being one of them. He just was utterly disgusted
with his father. What carnality, what silly soulishness Saul
had. Jonathan, on the other hand saw through it and
rebuked his father, and gave total commitment to
David…What a man! Saul said, ‘Even my own son is
standing against me, even my own son...’ Isn’t that
sick? Well, saved people, Christians can often get sick. Thank
God, Jonathan saw—not persons—but truth! And reality! And
elected to walk in the truth. And if that meant rebuking
his own father, so be it! And Saul would be
rebuked and jonathan would be no help to the career of his
carnal, ungodly father! And that shouldn’t be strange
that a son would lose fellowship with his own father…”
This commentary could be excused by some as careless paraphrase
were it not for the fact that it was given to justify and
encourage division in Christian families. I refer you back to 1
Samuel, chapters 19-31. First of a all, Jonathan defended David
before his father and trusted his father when he swore not to
kill David (19:1-7). Jonathan didn’t see the truth until his
father, Saul, tried to kill him also (20:33)! Prior to this,
Jonathan refused to believe David (20:1-9) even though he,
himself, had once been instructed by Saul to kill David
(19:1-7). Secondly, there is no evidence in the record that
Jonathan “rebuked” his father other than to say, “Why
should he be put to death? What has he done?” (20:32) Thirdly,
no where are found the words Jack attributed to Saul: “Even my
own son is standing against me, even my own son.” And lastly,
the insinuation that “Jonathan would be no help to the career
of his carnal, ungodly father” and that he as “a son would
lose fellowship with his father” are simply contrary to the
facts of the biblical narrative. Jonathan continued to be with
his father, to serve his father and to die with his father. In
David’s lament for Saul and Jonathan he wrote: “Saul and
Jonathan—in life they were loved and gracious, and in death
they were not parted.” (2 Samuel 1:23)
Jack followed this example in his message with his routine
excursion to Sinai where he said: “Moses commanded the
children of Israel to hew down everyone who had a part in
idolatry. ‘You mean my brother? My sister? Yes, that’s what
God wants you to do! You’re doing it for God!’” The
horrors of the Inquisition were incited by the “Vicars of
Christ” using the same misapplication of God’s word. Whether
the Pope, Jim Jones, Jack Langford or Robert Grove, the Devil is
quite capable of using them to the precise degree necessary to
deceive their followers.
|
|