Should people choose their own leaders?
Kind of depends on what we’re talking about, huh?
For most people in a voter-driven country, we wouldn't have it any other way. In fact, we war heavily in this arena almost daily. It’s usually “my party vs your party” and we joyfully judge our neighbors, coworkers, family, and well, anyone that holds a different view from ours. Politics are a very serious thing for a lot of people. Many news channels have devoted their entire purpose to fueling the dispute and millions of people continually take the bait. Like I said, this is war.
And we prefer this to the alternative.
The idea of someone leading that was not chosen by the people is utterly appalling. No one wants a leader chosen for them because that means we are living in a dictatorial society and we simply do not trust the one appointed. Why is that? Well, because someone or some group had to make that decision and what we know about people is that they have their own preferences and those are usually based on how they can personally benefit.
Summary: man is selfish and will manipulate to get what best serves them. And everyone knows this.
So, is democracy the best choice? In light of this fact above, it sure does seem like it.
To be clear, democracy can restrain evil. It can slow corruption, distribute power, and prevent the rapid rise of tyrants. In a fallen world, those are real and meaningful benefits. But restraint is not the same thing as righteousness, and survival is not the same thing as obedience. The question Scripture presses is not whether democracy can work, but whether it produces leaders aligned with God’s purposes.
Biblically, however, it is painfully obvious that choosing your own leader seems to always result in tragedy. People become divided, nations crumble, and evil abounds. I guess when we put it that way, maybe being a democratic country means we are following the Biblical model after all -- if tragedy is the goal.
Let’s take a moment to look at some of the more popular examples of people-chosen leaders.
There are several instances where the people rallied to have the leader they wanted. And each time it ended a little less stable than it was before.
In 1 Samuel 8–10, we see the time of the judges comes to a close. Having seen other nations being led by a king, Israel decided following that model must also be best for them. They wanted a king like all the nations, one of clear visibility, strength, and military presence. They wanted someone who would go before them.
So they demanded a king, and Saul looked like exactly the kind of king they wanted. He was tall, impressive, and externally qualified. The people loved him.
The outcome of his leadership was less than desirable, though. This new model began with initial success, then moved towards gradual disobedience. From here, it was fear-driven leadership followed by jealousy, instability, and collapse.
The lesson here is this: The people chose based on appearance and cultural comparison, not calling.
YHVH explicitly says:
1 Samuel 8:7 “They have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.”
In 2 Samuel 15, Absalom deliberately undermines his father David’s God given authority by positioning himself as a more accessible, sympathetic alternative, standing at the city gate to listen to grievances and subtly suggesting that justice would be better if he were in charge. Through charm, flattery, and calculated patience, Absalom “steals the hearts of the men of Israel,” then uses a pretense of religious devotion to launch a full scale coup in Hebron. As support for Absalom grows, David is forced to flee Jerusalem, choosing restraint and trust in YHVH rather than immediate retaliation. The chapter exposes how rebellion often disguises itself as empathy and reform, showing that leadership gained through popularity and manipulation fractures the kingdom rather than heals it, even when the challenger appears righteous and well intentioned.
The people wanted justice that felt personal, empathy, and accessibility. Absalom got it through charisma, listening to the concerns of the people, and undermining trust in existing leadership. This doesn’t sound like modern politicians, does it?
Sadly, the outcome here was devastating: civil war, massive bloodshed, Absalom’s death, and a resulting national trauma.
The people chose the one that seemingly cared about what they wanted, not necessarily what they needed. The people chose the leader who felt right, not the one who was chosen by God Himself.
In Judges 9, we are given one of the earliest and clearest examples of a leader who is neither requested from YHVH nor appointed by Him, but instead self selected and affirmed by the people. Abimelech, the son of Gideon, rises to power despite Gideon’s explicit refusal of kingship and his declaration that YHVH alone was Israel’s ruler.
Abimelech appeals to tribal loyalty and convenience, arguing that it is better for one man to rule than for many, and the people of Shechem agree. With their financial and political backing, Abimelech murders his seventy brothers and is crowned king, not through divine calling but through popular consent.
The outcome is swift and devastating: betrayal, internal division, divine judgment, and widespread bloodshed. Scripture states that God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the people, turning their alliance into mutual destruction.
Abimelech’s reign ends in humiliation and chaos, reinforcing the Biblical pattern that leadership established by ambition and human approval rather than God’s appointment does not bring stability, but consumes both the ruler and those who empower him.
From 1 Kings 12 onward, we see the overall decay of a nation. After Solomon, the people reject the Davidic line, which was God-appointed.
Now, Solomon didn’t do himself any favors throughout his kingship, as his descent unfolds quietly but decisively as his heart turns from wholehearted devotion to YHVH toward political pragmatism, excess, and accommodation, most clearly through his many foreign marriages that draw him into idolatry and divided worship. Though endowed with extraordinary wisdom, Solomon uses his gifts to consolidate wealth, expand building projects, and strengthen the kingdom at the cost of heavy taxation and forced labor, placing increasing strain on the people.
What began as a golden age of peace and prosperity slowly becomes burdensome and centralized, so that by the end of his reign the kingdom is stable on the surface but fractured underneath. When Solomon dies, the people’s rejection of the Davidic line is not rooted primarily in theology but in exhaustion and resentment, as they associate David’s house with oppression, arrogance, and unresponsive authority. Their demand for relief rather than repentance leads them to abandon God’s chosen dynasty, revealing how spiritual compromise at the top eventually produces political rebellion at the bottom.
The people wanted relief from this burden. Political autonomy seemed like the way. But they sought immediate comfort and what they got was Jeroboam and successive self-appointed kings.
It didn’t take long for them to enter immediately into idolatry. This bred institutionalized rebellion and eventual exile into Assyria. Almost every king that followed did what was evil in the sight of YHVH.
When people choose leaders to serve their own preferences, worship always degrades. Always.
These are just a few of the instances where tragedy follows a man-chosen leader. But when Abba chooses the leader, life and blessing tend to follow.
In contrast to man having a say in who leads them, there is a tried and tested model of God-chosen leaders. I’m sure you are very familiar with each of these:
Moses was not looking for a leadership position. In fact, he even tried running from it. More than that, on paper he had absolutely no qualification to stand before Pharaoh and demand the people’s release.
Moses’ call to leadership is marked not by ambition but by resistance, as he repeatedly argues with YHVH that he is unqualified for the task set before him. At the burning bush, Moses objects on multiple grounds, questioning his own authority, doubting that the people will listen to him, and insisting that he lacks the ability to speak clearly or persuasively.
Far from presenting himself as a natural leader, Moses emphasizes his weakness, fear, and inadequacy, even pleading that YHVH send someone else instead. This reluctance reveals a crucial Biblical pattern: God does not choose leaders who seek power or trust their own competence, but those who are aware of their dependence and therefore willing to obey. Moses leads not because he believes he is equipped, but because YHVH’s presence and authority compensate for everything he lacks.
Moses had speech issues and a history littered with trauma. He had no charisma campaign and did not make empty promises just to be elected.
YHVH chose him due to his humility, dependence, obedience, and greatest of all, a heart for justice. Moses loved the underdog. We saw it in Egypt, at the well in Midian, and in the face of Pharaoh. His heart, combined with Abba’s instructions and power, yielded the greatest deliverance event in history.
In addition to their deliverance from Egypt, we get the formation of a nation and direct revelation of Torah. You and I here today are the direct beneficiaries of the leadership of Moses.
Joshua’s succession was not decided by popular support or self promotion but by direct appointment from YHVH, making the transition from Moses a matter of obedience rather than preference. As Moses nears the end of his life, he asks YHVH to appoint a leader so the people will not be left like sheep without a shepherd, and YHVH explicitly names Joshua, describing him as a man in whom is the Spirit. Moses publicly lays his hands on Joshua and commissions him before the people, transferring authority in a visible and orderly way that affirms divine choice rather than personal ambition.
Joshua’s leadership is grounded in long proven faithfulness, having served Moses closely and trusted YHVH fully when others feared, and his appointment establishes continuity rather than disruption. This moment reinforces the Biblical pattern that legitimate authority is received, not seized, and that leadership chosen by God brings stability, clarity, and confidence to the people.
Joshua was not selected by a vote. He was commissioned by YHVH and confirmed through Moses. The outcome was of epic proportions. The Children of Israel faithfully took possession of the Land, there was covenant renewal, and surprisingly, there was stability across this leadership transition.
In summary, succession chosen by God produces continuity, not chaos.
As we saw above, the people’s choice in Saul was not really what they wanted. In the wake of this hard life lesson, Abba selected the king of His choice: David.
David was chosen to be king because YHVH deliberately rejected the human criteria that had guided Israel’s earlier choice and instead selected a leader based on heart posture rather than outward strength. When Samuel is sent to anoint a new king, every visible and impressive option is passed over, and David, the youngest and least likely son, is chosen while tending sheep, largely unnoticed and uncelebrated.
Abba makes His reasoning explicit, declaring that while humans look at appearance, He looks at the heart, signaling that David’s humility, trust, and responsiveness to God mattered more than stature or experience. David is not chosen because he is flawless or powerful, but because he is teachable, dependent, and aligned toward YHVH even in obscurity. His anointing establishes a kingship rooted in covenant faithfulness rather than public approval, setting the stage for a dynasty defined not by perfection, but by repentance and submission to God’s authority.
The people loved Saul’s image. But as we are told,
1 Samuel 16:7 “Man looks at the outward appearance, but YHVH looks at the heart.”
And what do we get from this divinely chosen king? Covenant lineage, Messianic promise, and long-term fruit despite personal failures.
One thing to make note of here is that God-appointed leaders are not necessarily perfect. David sinned, but he repented, whereas Saul sinned and defended himself. It’s ok to make mistakes as long as you repent the moment you realize it.
Aharon and his sons were appointed to the priesthood not because of prior qualification, lineage training, or demonstrated religious expertise, but solely because YHVH chose them for the role, establishing their authority by divine command rather than human credential. Aharon had no background as a ritual specialist or institutional leader; he was shaped into the role through obedience, instruction, and repeated dependence on God’s direction. This made the priesthood a visible reminder that sacred authority originates with YHVH, not with résumé or popular approval.
Korah, however, rejected this premise entirely, framing his challenge as a matter of fairness and equality while rallying the support of influential men among the people to legitimize his claim. Korah did not deny God outright. Instead, he argued that everyone was holy and therefore equally entitled to leadership, using public consensus to try to override divine appointment. His rebellion exposed a recurring danger in Scripture: when authority grounded in God’s choosing is replaced by authority grounded in popular support, order collapses and worship itself is put at risk.
So yes, Aharon and his sons had no prior expertise that set them apart for the job at hand, but that didn’t matter. It’s usually when people have no idea what they are doing that they rely heavily on Abba’s guidance. Of course Korah had no background for this role either but he thought having the approval of the leaders would be enough to overthrow YHVH’s choice. By declaring equality, he framed rebellion as fairness.
As a result, the earth swallowed up the rebels. Through this Aharon’s authority was reaffirmed and the priesthood secured.
It’s popular to challenge the divine order in a way that is framed as justice but it always ends in destruction. Ask anyone involved in a church split.
What do these man-appointed and God-appointed examples tell us? When people choose leaders, they choose based on appearance, charisma, cultural pressure, immediate benefit and emotional resonance. This results in short-term satisfaction, long-term instability, a drift from obedience, and eventual judgment.
But when Abba chooses a leader, He chooses based on: heart posture, submission, faithfulness, and one’s willingness to obey. The result here is endurance, covenant continuity, correction with restoration, and even greater, generational fruit
So… Is Letting People Choose Their Leaders a Good Idea?
The Biblical answer would have to be: Only when the people are submitted to YHVH first.
Otherwise democracy becomes idolatry, popular will replaces divine will, and leadership becomes a mirror of the people’s desires, not God’s direction.
Scripture does not argue against consent, it argues against self-rule. Even righteous leaders such as Moses, David and Joshua were often opposed by the people they served.
When people choose leaders, they choose leaders like themselves. When YHVH chooses leaders, He chooses leaders who will change the people. And people really don’t like to change.
Just ask Yeshua.
Yeshua did not emerge as a leader by ambition, persuasion, or popular momentum; He was appointed openly and unmistakably by YHVH Himself. From His baptism, where Abba speaks audibly, to His miracles, teachings, and fulfillment of Scripture, His authority was repeatedly affirmed as coming from above rather than from the people.
Yeshua did not claim leadership for Himself in the way earthly rulers do, nor did He seek validation through consensus. He spoke and acted as one sent, consistently pointing away from Himself and toward the Father who commissioned Him. His authority was intrinsic, rooted in obedience and truth, not granted by crowds or institutions.
What is striking is that the people did not merely overlook Yeshua, they actively rejected Him. Crowds followed Him when He healed and fed them, but withdrew when His words demanded repentance, submission, and transformation.
Religious leaders resisted Him not because He lacked evidence, but because His authority threatened their control and exposed their hearts. When given the choice between Yeshua and a known criminal, the people did not hesitate. They cried for His execution, preferring political stability and familiar power structures over a King who demanded surrender.
This was not ignorance; it was a conscious rejection of divine authority in favor of self rule.
That rejection sets the stage for the final contrast Scripture draws. Having refused the leader appointed by God, humanity proves willing to accept leaders who arise from itself. In the End Times, the beast and the false prophet are not imposed on the world against its will, they are welcomed. They are self selected, self promoting figures whose authority is affirmed by admiration, signs, and perceived effectiveness.
Unlike Yeshua, who spoke truth regardless of response, they mirror the desires of the people and reward allegiance with security and belonging. Where Yeshua was appointed from Heaven and rejected on earth, the beast and false prophet are elevated by earth and ultimately opposed by Heaven.
The pattern is consistent and sobering: when humanity refuses God’s chosen King, it does not end up leaderless; it ends up choosing rulers that reflect its own appetites, fears, and rebellion.
And this is what we should expect to see in the Last Days.
In the final stage of rebellion, Scripture presents humanity not as coerced into following the beast and the false prophet, but as actively ushering them into power, embracing them as the leaders they have been waiting for. The world marvels, follows, and gives allegiance willingly, interpreting their authority and signs as proof of legitimacy and hope.
When these figures are finally defeated, Revelation describes not relief but devastation, confusion, and mourning among those who trusted them, because their downfall feels like the loss of salvation itself. The grief is not simply political; it is existential.
The people have tied their security, identity, and future to rulers who validated their desires, and when those rulers fall, the illusion collapses. This reaction exposes the depth of the deception: the world did not merely tolerate false leadership, it loved it, defended it, and depended on it.
When Yeshua takes His rightful place of authority and begins His thousand year reign, the contrast could not be sharper. His rule is established not by consensus but by truth, not by persuasion but by restored order.
During the Millennium, humanity experiences life under perfect justice, righteous law, and visible divine authority, yet Scripture is careful to show that not all hearts are automatically transformed. Many comply outwardly while still wrestling inwardly with submission, and some obey because reality leaves no room for denial rather than because love has fully displaced pride.
Peace, abundance, and clarity characterize the world, but the lingering presence of rebellion beneath the surface reveals something crucial: even under the best possible government, the human heart still requires alignment, not merely restraint.
The Millennial Kingdom proves that tyranny was never the problem and freedom was never the solution; only rightful kingship exposes who is truly willing to live under God’s rule.
So what does this mean today? The Millennial Kingdom does not just reveal how Messiah will rule in the future; it exposes how poorly we define leadership in the present.
If Yeshua’s kingdom exposes hearts even under perfect justice, then we should not be shocked that our leadership systems also expose hearts now.
The trouble we obviously face today is this: God doesn’t overtly appoint leaders and we can’t let dictators rise up, so the only alternative is for the people to choose.
From college clubs to the presidency, positions are filled with those that win the vote of the people. At the national scale, most people simply choose a side and vote for whoever the party selects. The closer to local you get, the more you likely know the candidates that are asking for your vote. This means it can turn into a popularity contest, but popularity is a false metric.
Celebrities, beautiful people, and charismatics are the new norm when it comes to filling leadership positions. None of which imply competence. But, like we saw before, it’s what the people want. In government, this is just the way it is.
In the earth, this is how it’s done, but should this be the process in the church as well? Well, no. But it is anyway, in practice.
Church boards have been known to choose a leader and monitor them primarily based on attendance and revenue. But do modern churches really see these as signs of success? Some do.
There is evidence that many modern churches emphasize metrics like attendance and revenue as indicators of success and growth. Research data from recent church trends shows that:
What does this mean regarding leadership? Even if a board-appointed leader is pushing deeply into the things of God, speaking to the hard things of the Kingdom, and squeezing comfort out of the pews, they can be removed by a group of human beings. Yes, people can hinder Abba’s work in its tracks if the bank account suffers. This is a travesty.
Now, I know what you must be thinking: “I thought Paul said God selects all leaders.”
That instinct is understandable, because Paul does say something very strong in Romans 13. He states that there is no authority except from God, and that the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. At first glance, this sounds like a blanket endorsement of every leader, every system, and every structure that happens to be in place.
But that is not what Paul is saying.
Paul is not saying that every leader is chosen in the same way Moses, Joshua, David, or Aharon were chosen. He is not saying that God approves of every ruler, policy, or decision. What Paul is saying is that no authority operates outside of God’s sovereignty. In other words, even when humans select leaders poorly, God still governs the outcome, limits their reach, and uses them for purposes that are often corrective rather than celebratory.
This distinction matters. Scripture shows us repeatedly that God can allow leaders as judgment, as discipline, or as exposure. Saul was allowed. Jeroboam was allowed. Nebuchadnezzar was allowed. None of them were righteous, but all of them served a purpose in revealing the hearts of the people and the consequences of rebellion.
Romans 13 is not a defense of bad leadership. It is a reminder that chaos is never sovereign. Even when leadership arises through human systems, YHVH remains the highest authority, and every ruler is accountable to Him whether they acknowledge it or not.
Paul’s own life makes this unmistakably clear. The same apostle who wrote Romans 13 also declared, “We must obey God rather than men,” and repeatedly defied authorities when obedience to God required it. He did not confuse God’s sovereignty over rulers with moral approval of them. Submission, for Paul, meant trusting God’s order without surrendering conscience. Authority was real, but it was never ultimate.
So no, Paul is not saying all leaders are good. He is saying all leaders are temporary, answerable, and never ultimate.
The same instincts that shape nations also shape households and churches.
This brings the conversation uncomfortably close to home.
Because while most people agree that leadership in Scripture looks different from leadership in the world, they quietly assume that the church should still operate on popular approval, negotiable authority, and measurable success.
Parents are a clear example. Scripture never frames parental authority as something children vote on or renegotiate based on agreement. Parents are positioned by God as stewards, not because they are perfect, but because order requires authority. And yet rebellion is often framed as independence, maturity, or self discovery rather than what it truly is: resistance to God’s design.
The same dynamic appears in the church.
Pastors are often treated less like shepherds and more like employees. Boards evaluate them based on attendance, giving, and retention rather than faithfulness, courage, or obedience. If a leader speaks too plainly, challenges comfort, or threatens financial stability, removal becomes a real possibility.
This creates a system where truth is tolerated only as long as it does not cost too much.
That is not Biblical leadership. It is institutionalized fear.
Scripture shows that God appointed leaders often lose popularity precisely because they are faithful. Moses was resisted. David was hunted. The prophets were rejected. Yeshua was crucified. Faithfulness has never been a reliable growth strategy.
The danger is not just poor leadership. The danger is teaching people, subtly but consistently, that obedience is negotiable if enough people disagree.
That lesson never ends well.
When you step back and look at the full Biblical arc, a sobering pattern emerges.
When people choose leaders, they choose leaders who reflect their desires. When God chooses leaders, He chooses leaders who confront them.
That is why humanity rejected Yeshua and will welcome the beast. One demands surrender. The other offers validation.
This is also why Yeshua does not return to campaign, persuade, or seek consensus. The age of choosing ends because the experiment has run its course. Humanity has demonstrated, across every era, that when given the authority to define leadership on its own terms, it consistently chooses comfort over truth.
So the final answer to the original question is not complicated. Humanity does not need better candidates. It needs a King.
Right now, submission is offered freely, in grace, without compulsion. Later, acknowledgment will be unavoidable, because reality will no longer permit denial.
Yeshua does not return to ask who we want to rule us. He returns because the time for choosing is over.
And the only question that remains is whether we recognized Him as King before the bowing of the knee was no longer optional.