Practically speaking the "anointing" doesn't really mean anything to us other than what Jerry mentioned. In the New Testament era (i.e., since Jesus left), we are all priests. We are all anointed. For reasons that for me come from a similar place as this NTM issue, I don't really believe in the concept as pertaining to any kind of leadership. Roughly, I would have to say, the Old Testament "anointing" was analogous to "the Holy Spirit was upon them." This had practical implications--as in the "positive" things Saul and David did through that power, but also symbolic, as recognized by David and so on when they refused to raise their hand.
What you said though is telling: despite that anointing, these people went on to do horrific things. It's up to you what you want to do with that, but among other things, it illustrates for us, points us toward the necessity of the New Testament priesthood.
1. They weren't even supposed to *have* a king. 2. If they *had* to have one, God was still okay with picking one, but all of the things He foretold as negatives still occurred. 3. Even though they were anointed, these guys still carried on like clowns. 4. Some people, like David, still respected the L's anointing enough to not "raise their hands" to the L.A., but they certainly weren't doing everything they said, either.
Doesn't exactly strike you as the New Testament model for how we become "anointed" and have people serve us, does it?
|