How did Saul, David and Solomon fail to meet God's standards?

How did Saul, David and Solomon fail to meet God's standards? What are the standards of Christian leadership and how do we translate the notion of Israel's fidelity to God's covenant in the 21st century Gentile context?

In your exegesis, establish the authorial intent. Why does the writer describe the kings this way? Later, compare this Samuel-Kings account (Court Historian) of the same events with that of Chronicles (Chronicle's Historian).

In your hermeneutics, establish a reader response. Look for the contemporary analogues to kings and prophets. Then examine what lessons we may draw from these four remarkable books about leadership.

Answer: 467 words

Exegesis:-

God intended to form a nation under divine rule, but the Israelites preferred to be like the other nations. God himself chose the three kings as an accommodation to the desire of the Israelites. But even God's choice does not guarantee obedience. This supports the real freedom of will that we enjoy. The kings become a law unto themselves - autonomous. This resulted in the eventual collapse of the monarchy and divided the nation into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The transition from nation (rule by God) to kingdom (rule by king) changed the character of leadership. Each of the three kings abused the privilege of power and took themselves too seriously. This led Saul to reason away and justify his departure from God's command. David came to trust his own abilities and fooled himself into believing that he can justify his actions against Uriah. Solomon asked for wisdom but ended up unwisely showing off his grandeur and justified his adoption of pagan gods. Both David and Solomon aspired to be kings of a nation - like the other nations.The common thread in their reign was the justification of autonomy. They convinced themselves that they were above the law of God because they were in positions of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Hermeneutics:-

We are motivated by incentives. Whatever incentivizes you also motivates you. The emergence of the political system we inherit come bundled with the tragedies and consequences of flawed humans. Human leaders do not really have the interests of the people at heart. Thus, we ought to better manage our expectations and our disappointments. Look to God alone for true security and significance. This is no naive pacifism or blind ignorance to the harsh realities of life. Rather, if forms a reasoned trust in our creator to comfort us in our hour of despair and anticipates God's promise to wipe away every tear. When we replace God in favor of intoxicating charismatic leadership, we doom ourselves to disappointment and despair. Christian leadership is therefore an exercise in ego-control. We permit and indeed, exploit our incentivized motivation to achieve and accomplish our goals. But unbridled, that passion for achievement is disastrous. We need to manage our expectation of rewards so that we do not overstep the boundaries of what is acceptable. Fidelity to God demands that we avoid justifying autonomy. What then is the nomos (law) that we heed? It is the law of God. Since the church is Israel, the biblical covenant is pertinent to Gentiles in the 21st century because in Christ, there is no distinction between Gentile and Jew (Gal 3:28)

Conclusion:-

Leaders will always be tempted with autonomy, to be like God. Christian leadership must always beware this weakness of human aspiration.