While this is admittedly not a perfect fit, and some liberties have been taken with the figures involved, there are some interesting similarities to explore. Also, when I refer to King Saul, Im basically referring to the bad kings of Judah, while King David refers to the good kings.
King Saul started out humble, but got lifted up, was rash, couldnt wait, and spoke foolish things. (1Samuel 13-14). He was told to utterly destroy the accursed enemy, but he saved the king. (1Samuel 15). Then he lied about following Gods command, when really he had broken it. He made Gods people scared (1Samuel 16). An evil spirit entered him (1Samuel 16). He himself was scared of the enemy (1Samuel 17). He tried to kill Gods people (1Samuel 18). Saul didnt care much for his soldiers, and sent them to fight foreign peoples specifically so that they would die (1Samuel 18). He made a death decree to kill Gods people (1Samuel 19). He used a foreigner to slay the priests of the Lord (1Samuel 22). Saul went to see a spirit medium (1Samuel 28).
David got rid of the big enemy of Israel (1Samuel 17). He used unconventional means to obtain the victory, and ascribed the victory to God. David moved wisely, in the best interests of the people, so they loved him (1Samuel 18). He fought the foreign enemy bravely (1Samuel 18). He was under a death decree (1Samuel 19). To escape, he ran to be with the man of God Samuel (1Samuel 19). David sought out the priest of God for help (1Samuel 21). He acted crazy to avoid being killed by the enemy (1Samuel 21). David did good and helped many people, but when he got angry, he could really fight (1Samuel 25). David helped a needy foreigner, and was very fair with his soldiers (1Samuel 30).
No doubt Saul was seen as loving and inclusive for not killing who God said to kill. He used doublespeak, and went back on his word, flip-flopping around. One minute he was all smiles, the next he was throwing javelins at you.
Later, Rehoboams young advisers would influence the king to take extreme positions, increasing taxes etc., causing the people to rebel. The evil kings often burned their own children to Moloch. They had open borders and brought in their foreign gods. They were life-long politicians.
David loved his soldiers, and treated them with respect. He worked to make Israel first. He loved the Lord. He would not deliver his children to be burned to Moloch, his counselors were wise. He adhered to Gods laws mostly, but made huge mistakes in having a trusted soldier murdered, committing adultery, and numbering his people. He saw his sins and repented from them. He never forgot his humble roots.
I hope this comparison has been helpful mostly to those who are not planning to vote at all. If you dont vote, you are as guilty of the sins of the person who takes office, as if you actually voted for them. And if that person supports delivering up babies to Moloch, then you can look forward to the Day of Judgment where their little souls will rise up and condemn you for not doing what you could to save their lives.
May we do our God given duty, and help uplift the morals of society by voting for President of America in 2020.
The Lord would have His people bury political questions. On these themes silence is eloquence. Christ calls upon His followers to come into unity on the pure gospel principles which are plainly revealed in the word of God. We cannot with safety vote for political parties; for we do not know whom we are voting for. We cannot with safety take part in any political scheme. We cannot labor to please men who will use their influence to repress religious liberty, and to set in operation oppressive measures to lead or compel their fellow-men to keep Sunday as the Sabbath. The first day of the week is not a day to be reverenced. It is a spurious sabbath, and the members of the Lord's family cannot participate with the men who exalt this day, and violate the law of God by trampling upon His Sabbath. The people of God are not to vote to place such men in office; for when they do this, they are partakers with them of the sins which they commit while in office.
We are not to compromise principle by yielding to the opinions and prejudices which we may have encouraged before we united with God's commandment-keeping people. We have enlisted in the army of the Lord, and we are not to fight on the enemy's side, but on the side of Christ, where we can be a united whole, in sentiment, in action, in spirit, in fellowship. Those who are Christians indeed will be branches of the true vine, and will bear the same fruit as the vine. They will act in harmony, in Christian fellowship. They will not wear political badges, but the badge of Christ.
What are we to do, then?Let political questions alone. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? [2 Corinthians 6:14, 15.] What can there be in common between these parties? There can be no fellowship, no communion. . GW 391.1-GW 392.2
Here is a short quote from Ellen White's diary of 1859 regarding the question of voting:
[Battle Creek,] Sunday, March 6, 1859
Had an interview with Martha Byington. Cut out a dress. We were perplexed; took it all to pieces and made it over. Spent the afternoon with [Mary] Loughborough; attended meeting in the eve. Had quite a free, interesting meeting. After it was time to close, the subject of voting was considered and dwelt upon. James first talked, then Brother Andrews talked and it was thought by them best to give their ifluence in favor of right and against wrong. They think it right to vote in favor of temperance men being in office in our city, instead of - by their silence - running the risk of having men of non-temperance put in office. Brother Hewitt told his experience of a few days, and is settled that it is right to cast his vote. Brother Hart talked well.
Brother Lyon opposed. No other objected to voting, but Brother Kellogg begins to feel that it is right. Pleasant feelings exist among all the brethren. Oh, that they may all act in the fear of God. Men of intemperance have been in the office today, in a flattering manner expressing their approbation of the course of Sabbathkeepers in not voting, and expressing hope that they will stick to their course and, like the Quakers, not cast their vote. Satan and his evil angels are busy at this time and he has a work upon the earth. May Satan be disappointed, is my prayer.
[Battle Creek,] Monday, March 7, 1859
It is rainy today. It looks very gloomy without, but if the Sun of righteousness shines in my heart all is well and no outward appearance and gloom can make me sad. Today the votes are cast for town officers.
----------------------
I've seen somewhere (but can't find it now) where she even writes that she would go vote on the Sabbath to support those who were for prohibition. And that makes sense, since Jesus showed us clearly that we are to "do good" on the Sabbath.
Would it have been best for Esther to just remain silent, or was she correct in her action of in effect - voting for the king?
Let's disappoint Satan, and use our influence in favor of right like liberty and freedom, and against wrongs like abortion and same-sex marriage. If we don't "the least of these my brethren" will rise up in judgment against us.
Oh yes I truly believe in voting on the issues and will do so. But to choose a man of bad character or another that we do not know their character makes us responsible for what they do in office. Mans promises are like ropes of sand.
It seems like there's another way of coming at this issue.
The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy strongly imply that the United States was and is to be a highly distinctive country, with a focus on civil and religious liberty.
Two Spirit of Prophecy quotes that present this idea are given below.
At this point we can make the obvious argument that the United States has fallen way short of these ideals, and that things are getting worse and worse.
This may or may not be true, but even if it is true, it's still the case that the Lord is interested in the United States living up to the ideals that He set for it.
If this be so, then it seems like the citizens of the United States have an ongoing duty to exercise their right to vote, and make choices that will help uphold the Lord's original design for the country.
---
"And he had two horns like a lamb." The lamblike horns indicate youth, innocence, and gentleness, fitly representing the character of the United States when presented to the prophet as "coming up" in 1798. Among the Christian exiles who first fled to America and sought an asylum from royal oppression and priestly intolerance were many who determined to establish a government upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty. Their views found place in the Declaration of Independence, which sets forth the great truth that "all men are created equal" and endowed with the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." And the Constitution guarantees to the people the right of self-government, providing that representatives elected by the popular vote shall enact and administer the laws. Freedom of religious faith was also granted, every man being permitted to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience. Republicanism and Protestantism became the fundamental principles of the nation. These principles are the secret of its power and prosperity. The oppressed and downtrodden throughout Christendom have turned to this land with interest and hope. Millions have sought its shores, and the United States has risen to a place among the most powerful nations of the earth. {GC 441.1}
---
The "two horns like a lamb" well represent the character of our own Government, as expressed in its two fundamental principles,--Republicanism and Protestantism. These principles are the secret of our power and prosperity as a nation. Those who first found an asylum on the shores of America, rejoiced that they had reached a country free from the arrogant claims of popery and the tyranny of kingly rule. They determined to establish a government upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty. {ST, February 8, 1910 par. 6}
Another useful Bible illustration can be found in Daniel 4.
In the space of a few verses, Nebuchadnezzar went from being a definite man of the world (Daniel 4:30) to being God's man (Daniel 4:37).
Earlier in the same book it is mentioned that the Lord sets up and removes kings (Daniel 2:21), and it is worth asking what the Lord's purposes and goals might be at a given point in time.
We have lots of ideas of our own about what should take place, but it's worth remembering something that Abraham Lincoln said -- "The Almighty has His own purposes".
nb, I must correct your false, harsh words against our current president.
The facts are, he has started zero wars, and has even gotten several countries to sign peace deals in the Middle East.
He is for law and order in America.
He is also the most pro-life president since Roe vs Wade.
The other candidate is very pro-death. He wants to allow more abortions up to birth. He is fine with rioting and looting and arson and killing.
Reading your comments, it is evident that you have been brainwashed by fake media. That is sad to see.
On a different subject: We SDAs often vote for church leaders. So if we are responsible for the sins of those we vote for, are we responsible for our church leader's sins?
