King Saul, Stone Choir, And Antisemitism
DAVID AND HONORING A TYRANT
David’s world was no gentle pasture of ease and luxury. He dwelt in a realm of tension, uncertainty, and mortal danger. Though anointed by the prophet Samuel’s trembling hands and sealed with the oil of divine favor (1 Samuel 16:13), David found himself living more like a fugitive than a monarch. He slept in caves still damp with morning dew, hid behind jagged rocks in desolate valleys, and navigated a bleak landscape where every rustle in the brush might herald a band of men commissioned to kill him. His enemy was not some foreign marauder or nameless warlord; it was Saul, Israel’s first king—one who had once been “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 10:1) but had now devolved into a petty, paranoid tyrant. Saul’s mind teetered between past glories and present fears, and he clutched at his fading crown with a ferocity that deepened his disgrace.
David’s trials were not just an inconvenience. Consider the crushing psychological weight of it all: the one anointed by God as Israel’s true king was forced to crouch in the darkness, straining his ears for the footfall of armed men. David knew he was chosen to lead God’s people, guide them into righteousness, and establish a kingdom founded not on caprice but covenantal faithfulness. Yet he lived as a man hunted, slandered, and pressed on every side. He had every human reason to strike Saul down the moment an opportunity arose. Saul had hurled spears at him, driven him from royal courts, and invaded the sanctuary of his peace. When the king stumbled unknowingly into David’s hiding place (1 Samuel 24), vulnerable and alone, David’s men whispered in his ear that this was providence itself—God handing Saul over for judgment. One swift slash of steel would have ended the tyrant’s tyranny and brought David nearer to his rightful throne. Who could fault him for taking such a step?
But David was governed by a compass that defied the raw impulses of vengeance. He refused to raise his hand against “the Lord’s anointed” (1 Samuel 24:6). Instead, he chose reverence over revenge, forbearance over fury. His blade did not drip with Saul’s blood; it bore only the memory of a garment’s corner, a silent testimony that David’s restraint was not weakness but faith. Faith that God’s justice did not need human rage to complete its course. Faith that a truly righteous king must refuse the paths of cruelty. Faith that the kingdom he would inherit must never be stained by the poison of personal vendetta.
THE CHURCH AS TYPOLOGICAL DAVID
This narrative—a story charged with tension and moral grandeur—is not just historical. It is also typological. It is a living parable for the Church and her posture toward secular Israel. Let me explain.
When the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost (Acts 2), Christ’s Church emerged as the rightful heir of the covenantal promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Church became, in Christ, the faithful Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), endowed with the mandate to carry the Gospel to every tribe and tongue. She was anointed like David. The rightful heir to the throne of the world. Yet for decades, this ruddy Church found itself overshadowed by the tyrant whims of Saul — an Old Covenant Judah – who hurled spears at her, pressed her on every side and staggered toward its own covenantal destruction when it fell on its own sword in AD 70. Like Saul, who raged against David, first-century Judaism raged against the Church, flogging, maiming, and murdering Jesus’ bride in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and every diaspora synagogue scattered throughout the Roman world. Believers were hauled before councils, beaten, stoned, and scattered. And, these wounds were not inflicted by distant pagans, but by their own flesh and blood, their own kin according to the flesh (Romans 9:3). The paradox was heart-wrenching: How could the Church honor these persecutors—these spiritual forebears—who now sought its life?
Yet the apostles, like David, chose a path marked not by hatred but heartbreak. They did not resort to the vindictive fury being leveled at them but with tearful entreaty, humility, and honor, marking David as a man after God’s heart.
Consider Paul’s lament: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” (Romans 9:2). This is the cry of a man who would accept a curse upon himself if it could mean the salvation of his Jewish brethren. Was he naive? Hardly. He knew that the old covenant was passing away (Hebrews 8:13) and that there was no salvation outside of Christ.
Yet he also knew that bitterness would not bring redemption. This great pharisee, formerly named “Saul” (ironic?), once hunted down the Church with the same ferocity that his Benjaminite ancestor had for David. He oversaw murders. He chased Christians like dogs from city to city. But, unlike Saul, he laid down his arms in the light of the resurrected Christ. He repented. And he joined the ranks of Christ, becoming one of the persecuted, beaten, and abused in that first tumultuous century.
Yet, no matter how ruthlessly they beat him or the rest of the apostles, they simply heralded the truth with humility and grace. They were unafraid to call Judah to repentance with broken hearts and ribs, praying for their countrymen to repent rather than lusting after vengeance. Like David cutting off only a piece of Saul’s robe, they exposed Israel’s sin without succumbing to the dark allure of hatred, revenge, or indifference.
This is astounding! Usually, when someone is beaten in the cause of doing good, anger, resentment, and frustration will seep into the heart. Yet, just like David, the Lord’s Church, under the power of the Holy Spirit, would not raise a hand against the Lord’s anointed people. Even though they were barreling towards disaster in AD 70, the Church honored them, prayed for them, loved them, and worked tirelessly to evangelize them. This was the attitude of the first-century Church and must be the attitude of all who call upon the name of Christ today.
STONE CHOIR AND ANTISEMITIC TWITTER THUGS
Sadly, this God-glorifying attitude that David demonstrated to Saul, and what the early Church offered to the Jews who were murdering them, is precisely what I have not seen much of today. Sitting in the comfort of their living rooms, men like the rock heads from Stone Choir and the anons who follow them lob one disgusting comment after another onto Twitter, comparing the Jews to vermin, feces, and worse. All Christians, they argue, must hate with perfect hatred, misapplying Scripture to justify their vitriol.
Instead of the patience, long-suffering, and silence of Christ before His accusers, their poison is exposed by the very words they use. One tweet declares that the Holocaust is nothing more than a fabricated ‘anti-German blood libel,’ while another goes further, mocking Holocaust memorials as meaningless artifacts – sarcastically mocking the absence of bodies. They encourage Christians to respond to Jewish voices with the words ‘Shut up, Jew,’ as a weapon against the ‘enemy.’ Such vile cynicism not only dismisses the suffering of real people but exposes a heart that is devoid of compassion or the Gospel’s transformative power.
Even more shocking, they twist Scripture to promote racial hatred, alleging that ‘God made greater and more lasting promises to the White race than He ever made to the Jews.’ They mock Africans and claim that God’s grace does not elevate the African people to an IQ over mental retardation and refer to interracial marriage as “worse than murder.”
The heart of these comments (and countless more) reveals itself in their utter disdain for the Gospel’s message of hope, grace, and redemption. Instead of calling modern-day Jews, or anyone else for that matter, to repent and turn to Christ, they weaponize Scripture to justify their hatred and excuse their ignorance as virtue. This is not masculinity. This is not Christianity. It is a perverse, hollow shell of faith that replaces the Savior’s cross with a sword of malice.
This is the sad reality of many today who bear the name of Christ but replace His love with their moral putrescence. Rather than emulate the example of Stephen, who prayed for those stoning him, they wield their keyboards like clubs, pounding out hatred in Jesus’ name. May God rebuke this evil, and may these men repent of their sins before the judgment they so carelessly invoke comes upon them.
THE RIGHT APPROACH
The actions of David toward Saul and the early Church toward Old Covenant Israel present us with a profoundly biblical model: one of truth spoken with reverence, correction offered with humility, and confrontation undertaken with a heartbreaking for the lost. This is the model we are called to emulate, especially when dealing with those who are enemies of the Gospel.
Yet, tragically, this model is precisely what is absent in the venomous rhetoric of groups like Stone Choir and their Twitter acolytes. They embody the antithesis of David’s restraint and the apostles’ sorrowful love for their persecutors. Instead of wielding the delicate scalpel of truth with care, they thrash about with the blunt cudgel of tribal animus, delighting in disdain rather than grieving for the lost. Their proclamations do not carry the sorrowful weight of David’s refusal to harm Saul or Paul’s anguish for his Jewish brethren (Romans 9:2); instead, they echo Saul’s manic paranoia and fury—a ferocity that consumes both persecutors and persecuted alike.
David’s refusal to strike Saul was not weakness but faith—a trust in God’s justice that needed no human vengeance to complete its course. Similarly, the apostles, battered and bloodied by their Jewish persecutors, chose to herald the Gospel with tearful entreaty rather than seething rage. They exposed sin without hatred, called for repentance without cruelty, and mourned the spiritual blindness of their own kinsmen according to the flesh (Romans 9:3).
Stone Choir and its ilk, however, offer no such model. Instead, they wield Scripture as a weapon for arrogance, not redemption. Their comments, rife with racial slurs and derisive mockery, expose a heart far removed from the Gospel’s transformative power. Rather than calling the Jewish people—or anyone else—to repentance in Christ, they use the language of Scripture to justify their hatred and veil their ignorance as virtue. This is not the way of David, the apostles, or our Lord. It is a hollow faith that trades the Savior’s cross for a sword of malice.
We must denounce such rhetoric for what it is: a betrayal of the Gospel. Yet, in doing so, we cannot abandon the biblical model of sorrowful correction. David did not exult in Saul’s downfall, nor did the apostles rejoice over the judgment that befell Old Covenant Israel in AD 70. Their hearts broke for their enemies, even as they stood firm in truth. And this must be our posture today.
Proclaiming Christ as the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises is not anti-Semitic; it is a faithful expression of the Gospel. Scripture affirms that while Israel played a profound role in redemptive history, the covenantal promises now find their complete realization in Christ alone (Acts 4:12; John 14:6). To deny this truth is to deny the Gospel itself. It is not slanderous to expose the sins of modern Judaism—such as its vehement rejection of Christ, the evils of the Talmud, its hatred of His Church, and its delusional claims to covenantal status apart from Him (John 14:6; Hebrews 8:13). Nor is it hateful to declare the truth: salvation is found in only one name under heaven, and that name is Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12). To proclaim these truths boldly is not an act of hatred, but the most loving and biblical thing we can do. However, to proclaim them without the sorrowful longing seen in David, Paul, and even Jesus is to distort the very heart of the Gospel. Such arrogance replaces the healing balm of grace with a weapon of pride, leaving no room for redemption and inflicting only wounds.
David’s blade did not bathe itself in Saul’s blood, just as the apostles’ tongues did not drip with hatred for the Jews who persecuted them. Instead, both bore witness to the power of grace, the hope of redemption, and the justice of God. In an age where the temptation to simplify—either to silence false religion or attack it with scorn—is all too real, we must resist both extremes. We must follow the biblical model: proclaim the exclusivity of Christ as the only way to salvation while longing, fervently and earnestly, for the repentance and restoration of the lost.
This is the shape of true Gospel fidelity: truth spoken with reverence, correction offered with humility, and confrontation undertaken with a heart that weeps for those in darkness. May we, like David, refuse the paths of cruelty and vengeance. May we, like the apostles, bear witness to the power of grace even under persecution. And may we, like our Lord, love even those who reject Him, praying for light to break through their darkness.
The Covenant Story: Mosaic Covenant
“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4-5). Jesus was born “under the Law.” Through the centuries, various views on the nature of the Mosaic Law have been bandied about in the church. Some have understood the Law in contrast to the Abrahamic covenant as God instituting an impossible meritorious system of salvation. If someone could keep the Law perfectly, he would be counted righteous and, therefore, earn his salvation. But God, knowing that no one could do this, sent Jesus to earn salvation with works of supererogation so that there is now an infinite treasury of merit for all who believe.
(more…)
Letters To Young Men: OK, Boomer
Dear Young Man,
I haven’t written a letter like this in a while, but having watched online interactions over the past few years, it seemed prudent to take up this format again. Generational hostilities have heated up on social media, especially coming from millennials and Gen Z, and I want to address it. (If you are not part of the social media militia, you can still read this letter with profit, but it won’t apply to you as directly). The “OK, Boomer” attitude has become a standard meme. Older generations (including Gen X, of which I am a part) are railed against for the messes they have left for the younger generations while providing them few, if any, tools with which to clean them up. Many of the accusations are legitimate. Boomers, having been raised by Silents who had to scrape by during the depression and face the harsh realities of World War 2, wanted an easier life for their children. My grandpa, a Silent who was, for all intents and purposes, my father, told me that he wouldn’t teach me to weld (he was a master welder) because he wanted me to get a college education so I wouldn’t have to work as hard as he did. The Silents gave their children everything they could, making life as easy as possible. It turned into a culture of rebellion, “free love,” Second Wave Feminism, and a general self-centeredness whose greatest aspiration was to retire at a young age to free themselves of as much responsibility as possible.
(more…)
The Covenant Story: Abraham’s Altars
Not long after God called Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees/Babylonians, Abraham started a missionary journey. He set out to be what God called him to be: a blessing to the nations. He wasted no time. He journeyed down to the land of Shechem right in the midst of the cursed line of Ham, the Canaanites. Around a terebinth tree at Moreh, Yahweh appeared to him and promised him the land where he was dwelling. Abraham’s response was to build an altar, establishing worship in the land (Gen 12:4-7).
After this, Abraham moved to the land between Bethel and Ai and built another altar (Gen 12:8). Later, after splitting up with his nephew, Lot, Abraham was promised by Yahweh again that he would possess the land. Abraham responded to Yahweh’s promise by building another altar at Hebron, near the terebinth trees of Mamre (Gen 13:14-18). The building of these altars anticipated and prepared the way for the promise of God to come to its fullness. It may have seemed small and somewhat insignificant compared to the vastness of the promise that God made that Abraham would inherit the world (cf. Rom 4:13), but Abraham started where Yahweh put him. He did what he was supposed to do in the place God, in his providence, placed him.
(more…)
The Covenant Story: Creation Through Noah
In the beginning, God spoke. In his words, he revealed himself, expressing the glories of his person and his eternal Triune relationship in light, darkness, the firmament-heaven, seas, dry land, vegetation, sun, moon, stars, creatures of the land and sea, and, above all, man, who is created as the unique image of God. God’s words were his bond. They not only called into existence the world and everything in it from nothing, but his word bound him to the world. His word was his covenant.
Creation was not completed with one grand word spoken so that everything was created instantly. Rather, God progressively moved creation from immaturity–formless and void–to greater maturity over the span of six days. His creative actions set the stage for how the story of the world will unfold. Through God’s covenant words, the world will move from immaturity to maturity.
(more…)
Mugs of Tears
One of the chronic American maladies is the swell of emotive sobs that follow major national events which haven’t gone one’s way. Gone are the days where your candidate lost an election and you get to work beating him next time. Now, you cry about it. Literally.
Even worse for us today, the reproaches are televised. Bad enough are the TV anchors breaking down on live television; worse are the Tik-Tok-ers who so strongly feel the urge to scream that they set up a selfie camera to capture their rage, before uncorking it. What good do any of these tears do? They’re often performative, rather than heartfelt or actually meaningful.
(more…)
Weighing Debts
Forgiveness and reconciliation can be a thorny issue. Many questions must be asked to determine the shape of forgiveness and reconciliation. Is sin truly involved, or is one of the people offended because of his own unrealistic expectations of the other person? That is, one person has his feelings hurt because he is overly demanding, and no one lives up to his expectations. If sin is involved, is the sin of such a nature that it can be forgiven so that the relationship can return to what it was? If one spouse speaks uncharacteristically harshly to the other, forgiveness can be granted and the sin practically forgotten. Or is the sin of such a nature that the relationship is unalterably changed even though forgiveness is granted? If a spouse is a serial adulterer/adulteress, leading to a divorce, the marriage may never go back to what it was. Is the sinning party repentant or unrepentant? What is the part restitution plays in reconciliation? What does the healing process look like after forgiveness is granted? Though we don’t need to make forgiveness more complicated than necessary, human relationships are not as simple as “do these three things and move on.” (I’ve written several articles on forgiveness at Kuyperian Commentary. You can find them here, and a series that begins here.)
(more…)Preachers, Pastors, and Punishment
Recently claims have been made in evangelical media that Steve Lawson was not a pastor, elder, or even a member of the local church where he was preaching weekly when he was removed from all ministry due to revelation of an “inappropriate relationship” with a woman who was not his wife. If true, as Michael Grant has pointed out, this is a damning indictment of the (ongoing) problem of celebrity preachers, hired guns, in the evangelical and Reformed world. Men with big names and a large following are platformed by churches and organizations that have no meaningful authority to discipline them. These congregations or parachurch organizations can remove them from teaching positions when disqualifying sin is discovered, but they cannot discipline the unrepentant or disqualified person in a biblical and ecclesiastical way.
We have seen this before. A man commits disqualifying and egregious sin, but because he is not a member, or removes himself from membership in a local, independent church, he cannot be effectively disciplined. How can the church excommunicate someone who is not in communion? They can, and should, mark and avoid those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine (Rom. 16:17) as well as note that person and do not keep company with him (2Thess. 3:14), but they cannot remove him from their fellowship since he is not part of it. The Church exercises discipline over members of the Church (Matt. 18:15-17; 1Cor. 5:9-13).
Some in my own camp of more traditional Presbyterianism will immediately say, “This is why ministers should have accountability to higher courts of authority.” Yes, and amen. But that system only works if the members of it agree to abide by it. If members of that judicatory, in this case a church court, do not bring charges and demand accountability of the offender, then he might as well be independent of its authority. When the good old boy network protects those who are offenders, or seeks to deal with problems by a campaign of gossip and slander rather than transparent and biblical action, the system of justice remains ineffective at addressing sin in the camp.
Church discipline is, at the very least, designed to reclaim the offender (1Cor. 5:5), protect the Church from error and pollution (1Cor. 5:6), and vindicate and manifest the honor of Christ (1Cor. 5:7-8). When a man falls into grievous sin, it is a sin not to discipline him. That should begin with admonishment and rebuke, but if he will not hear the correction of his brethren, he must be dealt with more firmly. To leave him in his sin, uncorrected, is neither loving him nor the Church nor the Savior of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Steve Lawson was not a guest preacher; he was the regular teacher, the “Lead Preacher,” in a congregation to which he did not belong and to which he had no meaningful accountability. Even a hired gun in organizations that operate downrange have standards they are required to maintain and are subject to formal disciplinary action if they deviate from those protocols. The Church is not a business that simply deals with sin by termination of service. The Church is an organic, covenantal fellowship. Serious sin must be dealt with accordingly, not simply by firing a man from a job but by separating him from the life of the spiritual Body to which he belongs and by which he enjoys union and communion with Christ.
A man is only as accountable as he chooses to be. Our own congregation has seen people avoid discipline by fleeing the church or jurisdiction and seeking refuge elsewhere. It can be difficult to know what to do in these cases—it is easy for people outside the circle of knowledge to sit in judgment of the elders and assume the proper action is obvious—my own comments are not meant as an indictment of the Trinity church elders or those who are seeking to hold Mr. Lawson accountable right now. The point is that accountability requires meaningful connection and submission to authority. If even a member sometimes refuses to participate in or abide by a disciplinary process, how much more difficult (or impossible) is it to hold accountable a non-member who is simply functioning as a temporary, contracted resource, i.e. a hireling.
Churches are to be led and fed by pastors who preach, not preachers who refuse to pastor. It is perfectly appropriate for a church’s leaders to sometimes bring in a guest speaker or teacher who can edify the congregation with an outside perspective, but the ordinary instruction, the weekly and daily nurture of the flock must be carried out by men who are under authority and who are connected to and responsible for the people whom they serve. Shepherd the flock of God which is among you (1Pet. 5:1-4). This not only means that the system of celebrity preachers must be rejected and dismantled but also that churches served by “Lead Pastors” who preach but never shepherd the flock should also mend their ways. If your pastor does not know you, visit you, and pray for you, if he is only a teacher and not a shepherd, then you need to plead with your elders to address an unbiblical and unhealthy system.
The blessings and privileges of Christ are received and enjoyed in connection with the Body of Christ. As St. Cyprian rightly affirmed:
“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church.” –Treatise I: On the Unity of the Church 6 (ANF 5.423)
John Calvin echoed the same sentiments by titling the first chapter in Book IV of his Institutes: “OF THE TRUE CHURCH. DUTY OF CULTIVATING UNITY WITH HER, AS THE MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY,” and observing: “to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother” (Institutes IV.1.1). Every believer has a personal relationship with Christ, but no one ever has a private relationship with the Lord. You cannot belong to Christ and be (indefinitely) disconnected from the Body of Christ, the Church. To claim otherwise is to admit that you are an appendage of the Body that has been amputated and lies on the other side of the room. It is possible for a true believer to be separated from the Body for a time, but that is an emergency situation requiring rapid attention and deliberate reattachment.Every man in authority is first, and foremost, a man under authority. Accountability exists not only when there is meaningful connection and responsibility but when that relationship is acknowledged, embraced, and its authority submitted to. A man who only chooses to submit to authority when he finds it convenient is not accountable to authority at all; he is an authority unto himself. It is frightening to be in sin outside of the Body of Christ. The Church deals with erring members as a loving mother correcting a wayward child, but those who are outside God judges (1Cor. 5:13). If the Church will not (or cannot) deal with disobedient Christians, the Lord will, and that, frankly, is a terrifying thought. Lord, keep our hearts humble, and deliver us from evil.
JUST DO IT!
“Just tell me what to do!” Pastors and counselors sometimes hear these words from people in difficult situations. Whether they have gotten themselves into the situations through unwise decisions or suffering from someone else’s sin against them, they want answers. They want to know how to alleviate the painful consequences. Unfortunately, many people are looking for a silver bullet in the form of a simple formula or for the pastor or counselor to tell them exactly what to do. Telling them occasionally that you will not give them a rule or a command and expect them to follow orders strictly frustrates them. You may even be labeled as “unloving.” Sometimes, the person may be given principles and guidance with options, but that person must wrestle through the issue and make his own decisions.
When people are in trouble, they tend to revert to authoritarianism. It is simple. Follow the rules. Obey commands. Treat the world as an impersonal machine that operates by formulaic cause-and-effect. Expect everything to be fixed without time and work. People like authoritarianism at times because it alleviates personal responsibility. If I check everything off the list and “it doesn’t work,” it is your fault.
(more…)
