Jude 2

My thought is why was God displeased with king Saul? Then removed him a choice David. This question is about any leader of the Church. Saul disobeyed and lied about it, was he not remorseful?

Are we to choice our leader or do we let God choice as he did David???

God does what He does with people through ...... people. Kinda hard to get around that. He also deals with us as we are at any moment in time. When God chose David, it was after Israel demanded a king, a choice that God advised was foolish. He chose Saul for them because that's what they wanted. That didn't mean that the whole shootin' match just got spilled over to the whims of people. Saul was still accountable, even though he was chosen to be something God had taught Israel (and they rejected) was not going to be good for them. Even still, he could've been an excellent king.

David, as a boy and as a man, had qualities and characters that lead him to be described as one after God's own heart. God chose him to fulfill the same role as He'd chosen Saul for -- a kingship that was of the kind not best for Israel.

So, I say all this, beckrl, to suggest kindly that maybe the question itself that you ask presumes some things about God's choice of Saul, of David, that may not be true at all. I have significant problems with looking to that model as being a model for the church of the New Testament. It doesn't fit. The kingdom of Israel, when commenced, was an angry demand from a disobedient people that already had their identity with God in the ark of the covenant. The kingdom of God, when introduced in the person of Christ, was a blood-bought beckoning from a merciful God who had already identified His people through the Cross. These two events, these two reigns (if you will), are so different in kind and nature and quality that I don't see where the church has anything to learn in how leaders are selected by the example of Saul and David's own selections by God. Jesus is the fulfillment and completion, the perfect expression, of kingship in the eyes of God. The real question is what did Jesus say to do and what did He, in fact, do? Are you doing it in selecting a leader? Are you setting that leader up in a manner in which Jesus taught His personally-trained and chosen leaders? Or, are you putting on them a mantle of kingship that really doesn't do justice to the Kingdom under Christ Jesus? Seems to me, just my .02, that those are the questions worth answering, the ones that matter most.

So,yes my forming of these questions are lacking. Let me try again.

What I thought is the people picked Saul for thier king, by maybe his looks and other characteristics. At some point Saul disobeyed God. To my understand he wasn't remorse for it. If he was and asked forgiveness God would allowed him to remain as king, But God then choice David

So, I say all this, beckrl, to suggest kindly that maybe the question itself that you ask presumes some things about God's choice of Saul, of David, that may not be true at all. I have significant problems with looking to that model as being a model for the church of the New Testament. It doesn't fit.

Your right, I wasn't trying to make an pattern (model) just simply looking at how God's deal with each. In the sence of remorse for disobeying.


In other forums we highlighted the past of some church leaders that showed remorse for there past. Would God still show his favor of the leader because his remorse and asking forgiveness? I know we can look at David's life and say, yes God does. But do we?

The other thought I tried to express is as for the office of Overseer. It should be theocratic government with acclamation of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes I feel like men try to make God's choice for God and say it of God. If it's not God's choice then it's man's choice as in Saul.

Let me add, God still can use that leader greaty, just as he could have used Saul. The different is the heart of that leader.

Saul took the position as first King...he wasn't annointed by God though to that post.
God showed him not to be His choice in a king for Israel and through his prophet Samuel He let them know that He wasn't in favor of them having a king....but when there was nothing left to be done God annointed David king of Israel.

Saul meanwhile was busy going crazy and insane...God's blessing rested on David...not Saul. Showing once again our first choice is always wrong...

The other stuff about David???
Hey..everyone is human...

Saul was the people's governor/king.
David was God's choice and he was after the Lord's own heart.

Jesus is God's choice to governor us now and we should reject any man that would assume such a position. When men do this they commit blasphemy.

To me the lesson in Saul's removal is nothing more than God was showing us that man cannot fill such a position but HIS Son can.

JohnDB wrote:Saul took the position as first King...he wasn't annointed by God though to that post.
God showed him not to be His choice in a king for Israel and through his prophet Samuel He let them know that He wasn't in favor of them having a king....but when there was nothing left to be done God annointed David king of Israel.

Saul meanwhile was busy going crazy and insane...God's blessing rested on David...not Saul. Showing once again our first choice is always wrong...

The other stuff about David???
Hey..everyone is human...

You are right on some points, incorrect on some others. God did not wish His people to have a king because they had had a Theocracy. His people had been following God as leader. The Israelites saw other peoples had kings and decided they wanted a king, so, God anointed Saul to be King, to give the people what they wished for. Saul had been favored and blessed and he prophesied, God's hand was on him. But, ultimately Saul disobeyed God and failed. Through the prophet Samuel, God let Saul know he was not pleased. Saul was tormented by an evil spirit and went insane.
David was anointed to be king by Samuel after Saul sinned, but David did not assume the role until much later, and after Saul had passed away. Saul was still the King anointed by God during that time, even though he had fallen. This is why David refused to kill Saul even when he had an opportunity. We are to respect the position of authority of those over us, even when they are not perfect, because all authority is ordained by God. It isn't as though we do not sometimes have a choice of whom to follow, for instance, what church to attend, or what employer to work for, but we ultimately answer to God and try to stay within His will, and we trust God to deal with us fairly even through the lines of authority He has established, imperfect though they may be.

Jennifer,
I know how you came to that conclusion but...read the passages again in a more literal translation. The subtleties are there...especially in the Hebrew.
Saul was annointed as military commander and not king. The people wanted a human king and instead of giving them what they wanted God sought to give them relief from the people oppressing them. Saul was good at first at what God chose for him to do. But when he made himself king (at the people's request) he began to fail miserably as miliitary commander too.

Samuel's sarcasm and the chiastic fashion that Samuel is written in really doesn't come accross in English at all.

God was their king and leadership was expressed through the Judges and prophets. God didn't see how a human king would be better than him...
God gives gifts to his citizenry and a human king takes from the citizenry.

Israel's past with the Judges was at times very good, but when they had no one to lead them they returned to thier wicked ways. As for the Prophets the people only used them when they felt like they needed God to fight thier battles are to bless them some how.

Israel has alway needed a strong leader as in the Messiah to lead them down the right path.

As the church in which Christ is the head, we still need a strong visioned leader. A part of my questions is how do we come to that point where we know that whom God has choosing as our leader.

That is it...

God is our leader again.
His spokesman though as seen in days past in Judges and prophets and Apostles???

We ain't got any today...maybe...but then again we have had them.

We have had Billy Graham in recent memory...

Before that...well...I will let you decide.

Besides...prophets weren't really well liked in their day...neither were the judges.

The last apostle that knew Jesus the man has been dead for thousands of years...all we have is the written word.

JohnDB posted

I

know how you came to that conclusion but...read the passages again in a more literal translation.

Jennifer, I think what he is talking about is the "New Revised Butter Bean Version. When you read all the chapter as you said he was King and later this kingship was taken away from him for disobedience.

JohnDB, just part does the Church have in the leadship role of God's people? Remember that Jesus said "I will build my church". Also

Mr 3:13
¶ And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.

Mr 3:14
And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
Mr 3:15
And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

I'm not about to try to tell you or any on here which is church, only that it is the "Body of Christ". If you want to PM me then we can talk about it. I want to have respect for PG and others here that have their own belief.

Though I have a high respect for Bill Graham and some others, they are far from being spokesman for the children of God. Though your concept for church may different from other, the concept is still bible and can not be replaced by individuals.

Though you may not agree, Jennifer Smith is right by the bible.

1Sa 10:9
¶ And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day.

And Samuel said unto all Israel, Behold, I have hearkened unto your voice in all that ye said unto me, and have made a king over you.

Samuel was under God's commandment to do this.
1Sa 15:1
¶ Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

1Sa 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

JohnDB wrote:Jennifer,
I know how you came to that conclusion but...read the passages again in a more literal translation. The subtleties are there...especially in the Hebrew.
Saul was annointed as military commander and not king. The people wanted a human king and instead of giving them what they wanted God sought to give them relief from the people oppressing them. Saul was good at first at what God chose for him to do. But when he made himself king (at the people's request) he began to fail miserably as miliitary commander too.

Samuel's sarcasm and the chiastic fashion that Samuel is written in really doesn't come accross in English at all.

God was their king and leadership was expressed through the Judges and prophets. God didn't see how a human king would be better than him...
God gives gifts to his citizenry and a human king takes from the citizenry.

The motivation behind the people's desire for a king at the time Saul was chosen may not have been correct, but it was always God's intent to give them a king. This is obvious in Deut. 17:14-15, and God would choose. Saul was God's choice, because God always abases him that is high and exalts him that is low. The tribe of Benjamin had been decimated (read the last chaps. of Judges), so God raised up a man from the smallest family in the smallest tribe. Saul had been humble, but somewhat as was the case with Lucifer, iniquity was found in him.

Korah and his "committee" rejected the leadership that God had installed, saying "the whole congregation is holy." Today, that same spirit is rampant. "We all have the Holy Ghost, we don't need leadership." But all Israel had the pillar of smoke and the pillar of fire to follow, but they did so "at the command of Moses." God proved time and again that He was leading Moses (and Aaron) and the people were to follow them, not the cloud directly.

When the time came, God made Israel a kingdom. The people thought they were getting what they wanted, but they were really playing into the will of God the whole time. But, be careful what you ask for... you might just get it.

OleTimer, who called Paul and Barnabas to their mission work? Who called Paul to be an apostle over the Gentiles?

Clue: It wasn't any of the apostles at Jerusalem. I am anxious to hear your answer though.

Just seen the question put to me there OleTimer...

the phrase you used "...I will build my curch on..." if this comes from the story usually referred to as "Peter's Confession of Christ" taken place at Cesarea Phillipi...

Then it isn't Peter that the church is built upon....and the "you" in "I will give you the keys to the kingdom" is plural...not singular... meaning all who understood the principle that was just laid out for them would have access and ability to use all of the riches and power that Heaven can unleash at their disposal.

But considering that every apostle died broke and penniless and under severe persecution...it isn't exactly a wealth making principle...

Full Quiver posted:

OleTimer, who called Paul and Barnabas to their mission work? Who called Paul to be an apostle over the Gentiles?

Clue: It wasn't any of the apostles at Jerusalem. I am anxious to hear your answer though.

Hopfully the same one that call most of us.

One thing that I have noticed is that Paul never hesitate to work with and thru the "Apostles at Jerusalem". A good sign that he practice what he preached and wrote about.

JohnDB

Just seen the question put to me there OleTimer...

the phrase you used "...I will build my curch on..." if this comes from the story usually referred to as "Peter's Confession of Christ" taken place at Cesarea Phillipi...

Then it isn't Peter that the church is built upon....and the "you" in "I will give you the keys to the kingdom" is plural...not singular... meaning all who understood the principle that was just laid out for them would have access and ability to use all of the riches and power that Heaven can unleash at their disposal.

But considering that every apostle died broke and penniless and under severe persecution...it isn't exactly a wealth making principle...

Then it isn't Peter that the church is built upon..

You are right, Peter is not "the rock".

Strong's Greek Dictionary
4074. Petros
Search for G4074 in KJVSL
petroV Petros pet'-ros
apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786.

As James Stone pounded into my head, Jesus is the "rock in its simplist form". Thru the understanding that Peter had of Christ as the Son of the Living God alloud Christ to use them to lead the Church, it was built on Christ the ROCK.
Eph 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Strong's Greek Dictionary
4073. petra
Search for G4073 in KJVSL
petra petra pet'-ra
feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock.

But considering that every apostle died broke and penniless and under severe persecution...it isn't exactly a wealth making principle...

Just another reminder that the Church is not built on man, but Jesus Christ, the manifest Word of God. When man die, the Church will go on. No I don't think that Christ was intending that Peter was going to get the
"keys to the kingdom", but was refurring to the Chruch it self. The Church has never been about one person other then Christ. Many great men have been used in the work of the Chruch, but no man has ever been the Chruch.