Tag Archives: Saul

Conflict Springs From Justice

25 Wednesday May 2016

Posted by in 1 Samuel, Church Conflict, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This is the (draft) introduction to first chapter of a short book on Church Conflict. The goal of this book will be to train a congregation to avoid conflict. And, while nothing can perfectly protect against sin, there is a great deal which can be done to encourage a congregation in patterns of behavior and thought which can make conflict more difficult to maintain and easier to resolve.

We will go very wrong in thinking about conflict in the church, if we think that conflict is necessarily and always evil: even though the conflict we experience is almost always evil.

Conflict springs from a desire for what is good: It begins with the love of some-thing, and then the desire for the protection and promotion of that-object.  Since we are fighting for what we love, we are fighting for justice.  When we rightly love what is true and beautiful, our defense of that thing, that person, that right is just. Conflict springs from the apparent love of justice.

But sin has perverted our loves and has perverted our sense of justice.  Sin has taken something good (the desire to protect the good, true and beautiful) and turns it into evil.  Conflict is powerful and destructive because it is the misuse of something good and necessary.

Conflict also covers itself with the language of virtue: If you are fighting for what is right, you are fighting for virtue. When conflict comes within the Church, it uses spiritual language: conflict takes on sin, love, God, et cetera. Therefore, our opponent in church conflict can easily be portrayed as the enemy of God!

The church at Corinth fell into terrible fights among factions, with each party claiming to be most godly:

11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:11–13 (ESV)

When love of justice and the language of God’s side come together it not surprising that conflict can take deep root in a congregation.

 An Example of Righteous Conflict

King Saul’s story in Scripture is marked with conflict. His first official act as King was an instance of righteous conflict, instigated by the Spirit of God. First, there was a problem, a foreign King, Nahash the Ammonite threatened the city of Jabesh-gilead with slavery and the lose of each citizens’ right eye:

5 Now, behold, Saul was coming from the field behind the oxen. And Saul said, “What is wrong with the people, that they are weeping?” So they told him the news of the men of Jabesh. 6 And the Spirit of God rushed upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled. 7 He took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hand of the messengers, saying, “Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!” Then the dread of the Lord fell upon the people, and they came out as one man. 1 Samuel 11:5–7 (ESV)

Here there conflict – there is open war. But the conflict is wholly just on the side of Saul. Our text tells us that Saul’s anger, aroused by his sense of justice, was stirred by “the Spirit of God”.

This instance teaches that conflict is not necessary evil – at least that it is not necessarily the case that both parties involved in a conflict are wrong. Here, Saul was wholly just in his anger and the conflict against the Ammonites was a righteous act.

 

How Sin Hijacks our Sense of Justice

But not all conflict is righteous. The conflict which troubles us is unjust conflict, particularly the conflict where both parties are in sin. As explained above, conflict springs from a sense of offended justice. Where sin hijacks our sense of justice and leads us to seek to protect that which is evil, our participation in conflict is itself sin.

This is the first step in sinful conflict: our sense of justice, of right and wrong is altered. Do do this, sin hijacks our desire and our language. We see both perversions in the life of Saul.

In 1 Samuel 15, God commands Saul to destroy the perpetual enemy of Israel, the Amalekites. Saul brings the battle, but he does not utterly them. He spares “best” from destruction:

9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction. 1 Samuel 15:9 (ESV)

Those things which Saul (and the people) desired as “best” – the objects of his lust – these were kept alive in direct disobedience to God.  Saul desired something more than the glory of God. Perversion of desire is the first step in sinful conflict.

Saul then takes the next step, perversion in language: rationalizes his sin (which makes Samuel out to be the one who is contrary to God):

13 And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord.” 14 And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” 15 Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the Lord your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.”

1 Samuel 15:13–15 (ESV)

Saul uses spiritual language, the language of justice and virtue to dress up his sin. And, if Saul’s opponent had not been a prophet of God, Saul (who made a decent argument and who argued from a position of power) would have won. At the very least, Saul would have been able to prosecute the conflict for quite a while (as Saul did in the case of David).

Below, we will examine the details of how conflict perverts love and justice to sinful ends.

Stephan’s Speech as Legal Argument/Story Part 3 (and a theory of Hebrews)

23 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Acts, Exodus, Hebrews, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The perplexing aspect of Steven’s speech comes in the movement from verse 50 to 51. The entire section reads as follows:

Acts 7:44–53 (ESV)

44 “Our fathers had the tent of witness in the wilderness, just as he who spoke to Moses directed him to make it, according to the pattern that he had seen. 45 Our fathers in turn brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our fathers. So it was until the days of David, 46 who found favor in the sight of God and asked to find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made by hands, as the prophet says,

49  “ ‘Heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool.

What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,

or what is the place of my rest?

50  Did not my hand make all these things?’

51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. 52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, 53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

The trouble here is not the Temple as an idol per se (see Sweeney, J. (2002), “Stephen’s Speech (Acts 7:2-53): Is it as ‘Anti-‘Temple’ as Is Frequently Alleged?”, TrinJ 23, NS, 185-210). I don’t think it lies in attacking the crowd because of the Temple. Jesus nowhere decried the Temple per se. 

When we look at the structure of the speech: proposed savior-rejected savior in the context of the people being returned to the land to worship God, we have to see the temple as somehow aligned with Jesus and also tied to the rejection of Jesus (which Stephen contends — and which leads to him being stoned to death): These people rejected, Jesus just as their fathers had rejected Joseph, Moses, and God (by idol worship).

The accusers draw this precise correlation as quoted in Acts 6:

 

Acts 6:13–14 (ESV)

13 and they set up false witnesses who said, “This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law, 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses delivered to us.”

This of course seems to derive from John 2:

John 2:18–21 (ESV)

18 So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

And Mark 14:

Mark 14:57–58 (ESV)

57 And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ”

So the destruction of Jesus = the destruction of the Temple (in some manner) goes back to Jesus.

Saul was present and the writing of Hebrews:

This leads to something more speculative. The language in this section parallels themes and allusions used in the book of Hebrews. Here are two examples. First Acts 7:44 quotes Exodus 25:40, that the temple was to be built “according to the pattern that he had seen”. This verse is quoted in one other place in the NT, Hebrews 8:5, where the writer draws a connection between the heavenly tabernacle:

Hebrews 8:1–5 (ESV)

8 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Notice also that the heavenly tabernacle is not made by man (which is a point raised by Stephen). In Hebrews 9:11, the heavenly tabernacle is explicitly said to be not “with hands”.

Stephen’s speech also concerns itself with the wilderness rebellion. The accusation of Stephen’s speech is that his audience has not changed from the wilderness rebellion. And, the wilderness rebellion is a constant theme of the Hebrews.

Finally, Hebrews draws an explicit line between Jesus and the Temple, even referring to the veil in the temple as his “flesh” (Hebrews 10:20).

More parallels could be drawn between Acts 7 & Hebrews at the level what was written. But, there was a man Saul (soon to be Paul) who was present at Stephen’s murder. This event must have been formative for Paul, because Luke records it.

This speech which drew Jesus and the Temple together must have had a profound effect upon Paul. And, while most at present would deny Paul was the author of Hebrews, it is commonly granted that Hebrews was written by someone in Paul’s orbit (I tend toward Luke as the author of Hebrews myself).

Thus, we have a tentative theory of development (and yes, I unquestionably hold to plenary verbal inspiration): Jesus (John 2); false accusation (Mark 14); false accusation (Acts 6); development (Acts 7); unwritten process of development Saul-Paul-Luke (?) – culmination of the doctrine (Hebrews).

Paul and Saul

13 Sunday Oct 2013

Posted by in Acts, New Testament Background

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In Acts 13:9, we first learn that Saul is also Paul. The circumstances for the new name are curious, Paul is first referred to as “Paul” in connection with the story of Sergius Paulus:

7 He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
8 But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.
9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him
10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?:

Witherington, in his excellent commentary on Acts, argues that Saul’s name as “Paul” “probably rules out the idea” that Paul’s name has something to do with Paulus. I’ll let Witherington speak in a moment. I would merely add that the comment “who was also called Paul” does not necessary tell us when Saul was first alternatively known as Paul. Luke’s language is as ambiguous as could be on the point in question, there is no verb in the phrase, “Σαῦλος δέ, ὁ καὶ Παῦλος ” (But Saul, the and/also Paul — in a painfully wooden translation; better, “Saul who is also Paul”). Now Saul could also been known as Paul since birth. But if that is so, why did Luke wait until this point to raise the matter?

Paul Barnett in Jesus & The Rise of Early Christianity writes, “Moreover, Paul may have changed his name at this juncture, not only to mark the conversion of Serguis Paulus, the first Roman governor to embrace the faith of Christ, but also to acknowledge the patronage and protection of the Paulii family in Pisdia” (279).

In addition, this was not the firs time Saul/Paul would have interacted with Gentiles (Peter had already opened a mission to the Gentiles. In fact the name is noted in connection with Paul’s interaction with a Jew.). The point is not definitive in any direction.

With those questions (I am agnostic on the topic), Witherington writes:

The second name conundrum arises at v. 9, where for the first time we hear of Saul also being called Paul. As Barrett astutely puts it, this does not represent a change in name, but the identification of an alternative name.168 Luke’s way of putting it probably rules out the idea that Paul borrowed the name of the proconsul. It is probably right to say that Luke has introduced the name at this juncture because now Paul will be dealing with Gentiles and will accordingly want to use his Roman name in doing so. Presumably Paulus was the apostle’s cognomen, though it may have been his praenomen or even a nickname or supernomen, for “paulus” in Latin means little.169

fn 168: Cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 81; Barrett, Acts, vol. 1, p. 616. As Ramsay suggests, these alternative names would be used according to what audience Paul would be addressing, or, more to the point, according to what locale he was visiting. Part and parcel of a κατα γενος approach to history writing meant one was sensitive to the nuances involved in a change of ethnic or geographical setting. Luke is signaling that henceforth Paul would primarily be in regions where his Greek (or Roman) name would be apropos.

fn. 169: Acts 13:9 surely has the same intent as in 12:12, where an alternative name is in view. Cf. Leary, “Paul’s Improper Name”; Hemer, “The Name of Paul”; and my Conflict and Community in Corinth, p. 5 and n. 12. Leary notes a reason why he would not have wanted to be called “saulos” in the Greco-Roman world, a word that refers to the wanton way of walking of prostitutes. Only Luke tells us Paul’s Semitic name, but some possible confirmation that it is correct is that Paul says he was of the tribe of Benjamin (Phil. 3:5).

1 Clement 4:10-13, Translation and Notes

31 Tuesday Jul 2012

Posted by in 1 Clement, 1 Samuel, Ante-Nicene, Biblical Counseling, Church History, Discipleship, Exodus, Greek, Numbers

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 ζῆλος φυγεῖν ἠνάγκασεν Μωϋσῆν ἀπὸ προσώπου Φαραὼ βασιλέως Αἰγύπτου ἐν τῷ ἀκοῦσαι αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμοφύλου,. Τίς σε κατέστησεν κριτὴν ἢ δικαστὴν ἐφʼ ἡμῶν; μὴ ἀνελεῖν με σὺ θέλεις, ὅν τρόπον ἀνεῖλες ἐχθὲς τὀν Αἰγύπτιον; 11 διὰ ζῆλος Ἀαρὼν καὶ Μαριὰμ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς ηὐλίσθησαν. 12 ζῆλος Δαθὰν καὶ Ἀβειρὼν ζῶντας κατήγαγεν εἰς ᾅδου, διὰ τὸ στασιάσαι αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὸν θεράποντα τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωϋσῆν. 13 διὰ ζῆλος Δαυεὶδ φθόνον ἔσχεν οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ Σαοὺλ [βασιλέως Ἰσραὴλ] ἐδιώχθη

 Notes:

Each of the instance of jealousy noted by Clement involve rebellion against godly authority. Moses was persecuted because a fellow Israelite did not want Moses to be leader: Who appointed you? Answer, God. Moses later faced rebellion from his own immediate family and from the other Israelites. David was envied by the Philistines and persecuted because of the jealousy of Saul.

Again, from a biblical counseling perspective we see that Clement first engages in sustained exposition of the Scripture to show the basis upon which he will later seek their repentance.

He demonstrates great faith in the Scripture’s effectiveness. He starts with no pleas to philosophy or psychology, but rather with the Scripture which he welds like a hammer against their pride. In addition, note that he spends time in Numbers: a book I have rarely seen treated in contemporary biblical counseling literature.

ζῆλος φυγεῖν ἠνάγκασεν Μωϋσῆν:  Jealousy compelled Moses to flee. Winer comments on the use of the infinite with the finite that completes the meaning of the finite verb: “If, in such a case, the Inf. has its own subject differnet form that of the principle verb, such subject with all its attributives is put in the accusative (Acc. with Infin.)….” (Winer, 6th ed, Andover, 1874, 321). See Wallace, Accusative Subject of the Infinitive.  Compelled is aorist; infinitive, present.

The jealousy in the story as developed does not seem to be Pharaoh’s but the jealousy of the fellow Israelite.

ἀπὸ προσώπου Φαραὼ βασιλέως Αἰγύπτου:   From the presence (lit., face) of Pharaoh King of Egypt. The first genitive, face, is dictated by the preposition. Pharaoh is indeclinable. King is genitive of possession: the king’s face (see illustrations, Wallace, 82, Matt. 26:51).  The final genitive, of Egypt is the genitive of apposition – genitive of definition. King is a category which is limited by “of Egypt”.

ἐν τῷ ἀκοῦσαι: Wallace: ἐν τῷ+ infinitive:  It is translating by + gerund:  By hearing. However, the two instances of Wallace involve present tense verbs. Here, Clement uses an aorist infinitive. There is plainly a temporal ordering of events: Moses acts, Pharaoh hears, Pharaoh acts, Moses flees. Therefore, the translation must reflect that ordering: When he heard.

αὐτὸν: about him. The accusative of respect, Wallace, 203-204.

ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμοφύλου: from the fellow tribesman.

Τίς σε κατέστησεν κριτὴν ἢ δικαστὴν ἐφʼ ἡμῶν;: Who appointed you a ruler or judge over us (ESV translation of Acts 7:27).  The two words ruler and judge are near synonyms. The second word refers specifically to a judge in a trial who makes a decision. Epi + genitive: spatial, over: metaphorical here.

μὴ ἀνελεῖν με σὺ θέλεις:  do you wish do away with me?  The infinitive is complementary to the finite verb, and the object of the infinitive is in the accusative. The μὴ functions as an emphatic particle (otherwise it would read, “do you wish to not kill me”): Do you also, really want to kill me? Do you want to kill me, too? Interesting that the direct verb for kill is not present here. Louw and Nida note the nuance:

to get rid of someone by execution, often with legal or quasi-legal procedures—‘to kill, to execute, killing.’

Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 235.

ὅν τρόπον ἀνεῖλες ἐχθὲς τὀν Αἰγύπτιον;In the same manner that you did away with the Egyptian, yesterday? The relative pronoun clarifies the question about murder: Moses is not being accused of potential killing without reason: He had killed the Egyptian.

διὰ ζῆλος Ἀαρὼν καὶ Μαριὰμ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς ηὐλίσθησαν: Because of jealousy, Aaron and Mariam were housed outside the camp. (Numbers 12:15 records only that Mariam was lodged outside the camp for seven days. The jealousy was of Aaron and Miriam toward Moses. It was based upon racism: Numbers 12:1. See John Piper’s comment in his sermon on marriage and racism, http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/racial-harmony-and-interracial-marriage )

ζῆλος Δαθὰν καὶ Ἀβειρὼν ζῶντας κατήγαγεν εἰς ᾅδου:  Jealousy sent Dathan and Abiram alive into Hades. Alive is a present active participle modifying Dathan and Abiram; the participle makes the state of being alive more vivid.  See, Numbers 16.

διὰ τὸ στασιάσαι αὐτοὺς πρὸς τὸν θεράποντα τοῦ Θεοῦ Μωϋσῆν: because of the rebellion against Moses, the servant of God.  “All infinitives governed by a preposition are articular.” Dia + article + infinitive: cause.  Wallace, 610. Pros with the accusative: opposition, against.  The structure of the object of the prepositional phrase emphasizes the status of Moses: It was not against just Moses. It was against the servant of God, Moses. Servant here carries the nuance of being a

διὰ ζῆλος Δαυεὶδ φθόνον ἔσχεν οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων: Because of jealousy, David was envied, not only by the other tribe/foreigners, i.e., Philistines.

ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ Σαοὺλ [βασιλέως Ἰσραὴλ] ἐδιώχθη: He was even pursued by Saul, the King of Israel. Hupo + genitive: by, ultimate agency: Saul was the one who set the pursuit into action. See 1 Samuel 18:7-9.

 

The Doctrine and Practice of Mortification.20

07 Monday May 2012

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Mortification, Puritan, Thomas Wolfall

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

How Suspicious we Should be of Ourselves

            Since that this body of sin is thus active, it should make us suspicious of ourselves. [We should] be very jealous over ourselves in all the actions that we do: seeing that there is one within us that has a hand in them that is our mortal enemy (Prov. 26.25), who albeit he may speak us fair and make his voice gracious.

            Yet, as Solomon saith in another case, there are seven abominations in his heart. [It is as] if a man has a servant in his house that he neither can turn out nor may trust.  Will he not then be suspicious of him and often call him to account? Yet behold such is our own hearts, deceitful above all things, and who can know it; it has such turnings and windings that unless we watch it narrowly, it will deceive us (Jer. 17.9).

            Ask we our hearts this question, whether they went then at such a sermon, when the word was powerfully opened, it will answer as Gehezi did, Thy servant went no where (2 Kings 5:25).  Ask it again, whether it does believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for life and eternal salvation: It will answer, yea; He has believed ever since he can remember and never doubted in all his life.  Ask him again, whether he be in such a condition as he may go to the Lord’s Table, he will answer again, go in peace.  Thus like another treacherous Judas, he will for his own ends betray his own Master.

            Now I appeal unto your own heart, whether this be so or no, whether you have not offered such strange fire unto God and thought that such blind and lame services would serve your turn.  Have you not cause here to be suspicious of your secret enemy that lurks in your bosoms, that is ready to deceive itself and you?

            When that King of Syria saw that his plots were still discovered, that his war did not prosper against the Kings of Israel, Will you not tell me (says he) which of us is for the King of Israel?  So it should be with you, that when your designs and good purposes are interrupted, you should enter into your chamber and commune with your own hearts and call up all your thoughts together and say to them, will none of you show me, which of you are for Satan?  I find many good motions that are stifled in the birth and a law of the members that does rebel against the law of the mind, and then complain of this enemy unto him that is able to help you and say, O, wretched man that I, good Lord deliver me from this body of death!

How Long Will You Grieve?

05 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in 1 Samuel, Acts, Meditation, Ministry, Prayer, Romans, Spiritual Disciplines

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Walking by faith not by sight entails trusting the perspective of God over our own evaluation. When see children distressed that they may not gorge on candy, we smile because we know their appetite if not brooked will spill over into misery. The parent knows what the child cannot.

We are always as privileged as Samuel to know what God intends, but we must always trust beyond what we have been told, just as a child must trust the parent whether an explanation comes or not:

The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go. I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons.”

1 Sam 16:1.

God give me such a heart to trust you – even when I tempted to grieve over your decisions. Too often my heart runs to complaints when it should flow in faith and trust and hope. May I love you enough to trust you, and fear you enough to follow

And an example from Acts 8:

1 And Saul approved of his execution. And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.
2 Devout men buried Stephen and made great lamentation over him.
3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.
4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word.

Both passages also teach us to value the good in terms of glory to God. Being scattered due to persecution – in view of the personal ease and pleasure of the human beings – is all misery. But God brought honey from the lion of persecution. The honey is the glory and enjoyment of God.

In discussing the good which flows from trials we must never read the good which the trial produces as the trial being good. The trial is an evil even of it produces good. The murder of Jesus was evil even though God turned it to good. To ignore this truth will cause use to be unsympathetic with pain of others. Weep with those who weep is a command (Rom. 12:15).

Because I Feared the People

05 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in 1 Samuel, Ministry

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

As the fear of the Lord leads to holiness, so the fear of man leads to sin:

22 And Samuel said, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king.”
24 Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.

1 Sam. 15:22-24:

The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is safe.

Proverbs 29:25.