Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 8:1
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
Ch. 1Sa 8:1-5. Request of the people for a king
1. when Samuel was old ] A considerable time, probably not much less than 20 years, must have elapsed since the victory of Ebenezer, before Samuel required the help of his sons on the ground of old age, and some years more before their misgovernment became so flagrant as to give occasion for the request of the elders. On the chronology see Introd. p. 22 ff.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
This verse implies a long period, probably not less than 20 years, of which we have no account except what is contained in the brief notice in 1Sa 7:13-17. The general idea conveyed is of a time of peace and prosperity, analogous to that under other Judges.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Sa 8:1-8
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
Parental trials
The best sometimes meet with the bitterest disappointment, and their grey hairs are brought down with sorrow to the grave by the unprincipled conduct of their sons. The most exemplary home has become a place of weeping by the unexpected misconduct of those who were its brightest ornaments. Samuel was now growing old. Those in high positions are naturally wishful that their sons should sustain a fathers name and exercise a similar influence. Samuel had that laudable desire, and he made his sons judges over Israel. Nepotism has been one of the grossest scandals of most Roman pontiffs, and not a few high functionaries in every land. But there are honourable exceptions. It is not said that Samuel did wrong in appointing his sons to the judicial bench. The people never accused him of nepotism. Sons of such a sire would promise hopefully for the administration of justice. But the fairest sky may have a darkening cloud, the brightest buds may be early blighted, and a hopeful spring result in a scanty harvest; so the conduct of Samuels sons disappointed a fathers heart, and troubled the land of Israel.
1. They did not walk in their fathers ways. They misimproved the bright example they had before them at home, where they saw little that would tend to blind their minds or pervert their hearts. When we consider Elis softness and incapacity for command, we do not wonder at his sons going astray. But Samuel was so firm, yet generous withal, that it indicated great depravity in his sons to abuse the example of their fathers spotless life. Their conduct showed that they had sought no personal religion, but had trusted to what they joined in at the family altar. Hence, when they left the sacred enclosures of the domestic circle at Ramah, they had no principle of restraint. What must the eternal experience be but remorse, anguish, and despair, to those who, in time, daily beheld a Christian parent, yet never personally sought the Saviour?
2. They turned aside after lucre, and took bribes. The qualifications of a judge are thus specified by Jethro to Moses (Exo 18:21). Moses thus commanded the people in the name of the Lord (Deu 16:18-19). But the sons of Samuel did not fulfil these requirements. They were led astray by the love of money. It is amazing how speedily this sin of covetousness perverts the moral faculties. Gold, unlawfully got, sears the conscience. Perhaps there was not a greater man in his own age, or in any age, than Lord Bacon. He is the father of modern philosophy, and revolutionized the inquiries of the schools. To him more than to any man is the student of nature and of science indebted. He conferred a lasting benefit on mankind by opening up the true method of inquiry. Yet, strange to relate, Lord Bacon was one of the most unscrupulous lawyers, and one of the most disreputable judges that ever sat on the English bench. His place hunting was most dishonourable; and, after having become, by the most ignoble means, Lord High Chancellor, he degraded the highest legal office in the country by taking bribes. So glaring was the evil, and so notorious, that this philosopher, who had written so much in praise of learning, virtue, and religion, was impeached by the House of Commons, and found guilty of receiving bribes to the amount of 100,000! It must have been a most humiliating spectacle to see such a man as Bacon confessing to his peers that he had been guilty of corruption. This glimpse of the rise and fall of this great man proclaims aloud the insufficiency of all but the grace and truth of God to keep man morally erect. Not gigantic intellectual powers–had these sufficed, Bacon would have been steadfast as a rock; not worldly success–Bacon sat at the right hand of royalty, and kept the conscience of a king; not great trust–the Lord Hugh Chancellor of England was the foremost subject in that respect; not celebrity–with that Bacon might have been satiated; not greatness without goodness–that is a tinkling cymbal. What, then? The answer which experience, history, and the word of God combine to give is this–I am what I am, by the grace of God that is in me. The man who dims the light of that lamp which was kindled in heaven has already tottered to his fall. Thus acted the sons of Samuel.
3. They perverted judgment. This was the natural consequence of the course they pursued. It was not justice, but profit which they sought. Their decision was not what the law of God demanded, but what they were best rewarded to decree. Their conduct was most offensive to God: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord (Pro 17:15). Samuel was a disappointed father. He had evidently hoped that his sons might fill his place when his days were ended. There is nothing that distresses a parent more than the misconduct of a son. It was the grief of Isaac when Esau associated with idolaters, and despised the patriarchal birthright. It made many of Jacobs years a perennial sorrow. It was Aarons trial soon after the priesthood had been settled on his house, when Nadab and Abihu went drunk to the altar, and offered strange fire to God. It was Elis calamity and punishment, as his reckless sons, whom he had never restrained, rushed on the ruin of his house, It was Davids sorest wounding, when one of his sons after another wrought folly and wickedness in Israel. Sons should consider the necessity of a personal religion, by means of which the best wishes of a parent may be realised, and the individual happiness of a soul secured. Without this you may be drifted by every wind, like a boat without a rudder; you may be borne along a current of evil. (R. Steel.)
The ministers family
The ministers family should be an example to all his congregation. It cannot fail to give high value to his exhortations. It did so in the case of the devoted Alleine, of whom this testimony is given, that, as he walked about the house, he would make some spiritual use of everything that did occur; and his lips did drop as an honeycomb to all that were about him. Cotton Mather is renowned for his admirably managed family, and his children rose up to call him blessed, while his ministry was largely owned of God Philip Henrys domestic life is well known; and his son Matthew, the commentator, ascribes with gratitude his own Christian character to godly parental training. Nor are these solitary examples. Many more might easily be adduced in illustration of pious training. Eli neglected this, disobeyed the Lord, and injured his sons. (R. Steel.)
But turned aside after lucre and took bribes.
Political corruption
From the earliest periods of the worlds history corruption among public men has brought on political troubles and national ruin It is wide-spread–it is everywhere. This deplorable state of things may be remedied:–
I. By filling the subordinate offices with men whose fitness has been proved by competitive examination.
II. The candidates for office should be chosen because of character and qualifications.
III. Monopolies, whether corporate or individual, should be regulated so as to protect fully public rights. (Homiletic Review.)
Bribery
My charge is to you, in all departments of life, steer clear of bribery, all of you. Every man and woman at some time will be tempted to do wrong for compensation. The bribe may not be offered in money. It may be offered in social position. Let us remember that there is a day coming when the most secret transaction of private life and of public life will come up for public reprehension. We cannot bribe death, cannot bribe sickness, we cannot bribe the grave, we cannot bribe the judgments of that God who thunders in my text, Fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery. Fire? said Cardinal Beaufort, fire? Cant Death be hired? Is money nothing? Must I die, and so rich? You can tell from what they say in their last hours that one of their chief sorrows is that they have to leave their money. I break that delusion. I tell that bribe-taker that he will take his money with him. God will wrap it up in your shroud, or put it into the palm of your hand in resurrection, and there it will lie, not the cool, bright, shining gold at it was on the day when you sold your vote and your moral principle; but there it will lie, a hot metal burning and consuming your hand foreverse Or, if there be enough of it for a chain, then it will fall from the wrist, clanking the fetters of an eternal captivity. The bribe is an everlasting possession; you take it for time, you take it for eternity. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER VIII
Samuel, grown old, makes his sons judges in Beer-sheba, 1, 2.
They pervert judgment; and the people complain, and desire a
king, 3-5.
Samuel is displeased, and inquires of the Lord, 6.
The Lord is also displeased; but directs Samuel to appoint them
a king, and to show them solemnly the consequences of their
choice, 7-9.
Samuel does so; and shows them what they may expect from an
absolute monarch, and how afflicted they should be under his
administration, 10-18.
The people refuse to recede from their demand; and Samuel lays
the matter before the Lord, and dismisses them, 19-22.
NOTES ON CHAP. VIII
Verse 1. When Samuel was old] Supposed to be about sixty.
He made his sons judges] He appointed them as his lieutenants to superintend certain affairs in Beer-sheba, which he could not conveniently attend to himself. But they were never judges in the proper sense of the word; Samuel was the last judge in Israel, and he judged it to the day of his death. See 1Sa 7:16.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
when Samuel was old, and so unable for his former travels and labours, he made his sons judges; not supreme judges, for such there was to be but one, and that of Gods choosing, and Samuel still kept that office in his own hands, 1Sa 7:15; but his vicegerents or deputies, who might go about and determine matters, but with reservation of a right of appeals to himself. He advanceth his sons to this place, not so much out of paternal indulgence, the sad effects whereof he had seen in Eli; but because he had doubtless instructed them in a singular manner, and fitted them for the highest employments; and he hoped that the example he had set them, and the inspection and authority he still had over them, would have obliged them to diligence and faithfulness in the execution of their trust.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-5. when Samuel was oldHewas now about fifty-four years of age, having discharged the officeof sole judge for twelve years. Unable, from growing infirmities, toprosecute his circuit journeys through the country, he at lengthconfined his magisterial duties to Ramah and its neighborhood (1Sa7:15), delegating to his sons as his deputies the administrationof justice in the southern districts of Palestine, their provincialcourt being held at Beer-sheba. The young men, however, did notinherit the high qualities of their father. Having corrupted thefountains of justice for their own private aggrandizement, adeputation of the leading men in the country lodged a complaintagainst them in headquarters, accompanied with a formal demand for achange in the government. The limited and occasional authority of thejudges, the disunion and jealousy of the tribes under theadministration of those rulers, had been creating a desire for aunited and permanent form of government; while the advanced age ofSamuel, together with the risk of his death happening in the thenunsettled state of the people, was the occasion of calling forth anexpression of this desire now.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old,…. The common notion of the Jews is, that he lived but fifty two years t; when a man is not usually called an old man, unless the infirmities of old age came upon him sooner than they commonly do, through his indefatigable labours from his childhood, and the cares and burdens of government he had long bore; though some think he was about sixty years of age; and Abarbinel is of opinion that he was more than seventy. It is a rule with the Jews u, that a man is called an old man at sixty, and a grey headed man at seventy:
that he made his sons judges over Israel; under himself, not being able through old age to go the circuits he used; he sent them, and appointed them to hear and try causes in his stead, or settled them in some particular places in the land, and, as it seems by what follows, at Beersheba; though whether that was under his direction, or was their own choice, is not certain.
t Seder Olam Rabba, ut supra. (c. 13. p. 35.) u Pirke Abot, c. 5. sect. 21.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1Sa 8:1-2 The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel’s sons as judges is his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan (Jdg 20:1, etc.; see at Gen 21:31). The sons are also mentioned again in 1Ch 6:13, though the name of the elder has either been dropped out of the Masoretic text or has become corrupt.
1Sa 8:3 The sons, however, did not walk in the ways of their father, but set their hearts upon gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, in opposition to the command of God (see Exo 23:6, Exo 23:8; Deu 16:19).
1Sa 8:4-5 These circumstances (viz., Samuel’s age and the degeneracy of his sons) furnished the elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply to Samuel with this request: “ Appoint us a king to judge us, as all the nations ” (the heathen), sc., have kings. This request resembles so completely the law of the king in Deu 17:14 (observe, for example, the expression ), that the distinct allusion to it is unmistakeable. The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law is met with for the first time in the writings of the period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah had foretold through His servant Moses, as a thing that would take place in the future and for which He had even made provision.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Wickedness of Samuel’s Sons. | B. C. 1075. |
1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba. 3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
Two sad things we find here, but not strange things:– 1. A good and useful man growing old and unfit for service (v. 1): Samuel was old, and could not judge Israel, as he had done. He is not reckoned to be past sixty years of age now, perhaps not so much; but he was a man betimes, was full of thoughts and cared when he was a child, which perhaps hastened the infirmities of age upon him. The fruits that are the first ripe keep the worst. He had spent his strength and spirits in the fatigue of public business, and now, if he think to shake himself as at other times, he finds he is mistaken: old age has cut his hair. Those that are in the prime of their time ought to be busy in doing the work of life: for, as they go into years, they will find themselves less disposed to it and less able for it. 2. The children of a good man turning aside, and not treading in his steps. Samuel had given his sons so good an education, and they had given him such good hopes of their doing well, and gained such a reputation in Israel, that he made them judges, assistants to him awhile, and afterwards deputies under him at Beer-sheba, which lay remote from Ramah, v. 2. Probably the southern countries petitioned for their residence there, that they might not be necessitated to travel far with their causes. We have reason to think that Samuel gave them their commissions, not because they were his sons (he had no ambition to entail the government upon his family, any more than Gideon had), but because, for aught that yet appeared, they were men very fit for the trust; and none so proper to ease the aged judge, and take some of the burden off him, as (cteris paribus—other things being equal) his own sons, who no doubt were respected for their good father’s sake, and, having such an advantage at setting out, might soon have been great if they had but been good. But, alas! his sons walked not in his ways (v. 3), and, when their character was the reverse of his, their relation to so good a man, which otherwise would have been their honour, was really their disgrace. Degeneranti genus opprobrium–A good extraction is a reproach to him that degenerates from it. Note, Those that have the most grace themselves cannot give grace to their children. It has often been the grief of good men to see their posterity, instead of treading in their steps, trampling upon them, and, as Job speaks, marring their path. Nay, many that have begun well, promised fair, and set out in the right path, so that their parents and friends have had great hopes of them, yet afterwards have turned aside to by-paths, and been the grief of those of whom they should have been the joy. When Samuel’s sons were made judges, and settled at a distance form him, then they discovered themselves. Thus, (1.) Many that have been well educated, and have conducted themselves well while they were under their parents’ eye, when they have gone abroad into the world and set up for themselves have proved bad. Let none therefore be secure either of themselves or theirs, but depend on divine grace. (2.) Many that have done well in a state of meanness and subjection have been spoiled by preferment and power. Honours change men’s minds, and too often for the worse. It does not appear that Samuel’s sons were so profane and vicious as Eli’s sons; but, whatever they were in other respects, they were corrupt judges, they turned aside after lucre, after the mammon of unrighteousness, so the Chaldee reads it. Note, The love of money is the root of all evil. It is pernicious in any, but especially in judges. Samuel had taken no bribes (ch. xii. 3), but his sons had, though, no doubt, he warned them against it when he made them judges; and then they perverted judgment. In determining controversies, they had an eye to the bribe, not to the law, and enquired who bid highest, not who had right on his side. It is sad with a people when the public justice that should do them right, being perverted, does them the greatest wrong.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
First Samuel – Chapter 8
Desire for a King, vs. 1-9
There were several reasons the people found for desiring a king: 1) Samuel was too old to judge them; 2) his sons were corrupt judges, not judging in the manner of their father; 3) they desired to be like the nations around them, to have an anointed king as their ruler.
As for the first, the age of Samuel at the time is not known. He might have been considered an old man at what is a relatively young fifty or sixty today. It seems certain that he lived at least thirty more years, into Saul’s forty years’ reign, for he still lived in the days of David’s flight from Saul, which was evidently in the last ten years of Saul’s reign. So Samuel had very many good years left to him, when he might have ruled, or judged, Israel as God willed.
There was more substance to the second reason the Israelites gave for wanting a king. Joel and Abiah, Samuel’s sons, had been made judges by their father in the southern city of Beer-sheba, perhaps to save their father from the long journey there to judge the people. It seems their judgment could be bought by the highest bidder. There is nothing said about the Lord instructing Samuel to make his sons judges, so this is likely a serious mistake on his part. It is sad that the sons of this good man turned out much like the sons of Eli. Yet Samuel is not censured by the Lord as was Eli, so that nature of their error is not the same. This was not sufficient reason to set aside the old prophet-judge.
The last reason the Israelites gave for desiring a king, to be like the nations around them, is the most dangerous of all. When God’s people begin trying to be like the world they will eventually produce a people who do not want the Lord, and they will be destroyed. God did not want Israel to be like the nations and had warned them not to take up the pagan practices of the nations (e.g., De 12:29-32).
A delegation of the Israelite elders came to see Samuel at Raman with their demand for a king, citing the above reasons. The prophet was much disturbed by their request, but he knew where to carry his problems. He bought the matter before the Lord in prayer. It appears that Samuel may have felt that he was no longer appreciated, that the people had cast him aside. However, when it seems the people have rejected the man of God it is never he who has been rejected, but the God he represents. The Lord soon set this straight for Samuel. He reminded Samuel that Israel was behaving true to character. The Lord had been dealing with them far longer than Samuel, and they had been continually rejecting Him, from the very time He had delivered them out of Egypt. Over and over they had turned from God to serve idols.
Now, however, the Lord is ready to grant them their wish, to give them a king. De 7:14-20 indicates that the Lord intended to grant them a king at His own time, but they got ready for a king before the Lord was ready for them to have one. Yet they are to find out the folly of their desire for a king. Samuel is to advise them of the kind of ruler their king will be, but they will not believe him.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
1Sa. 8:1. When Samuel was old. Many expositors consider that he was now about sixty years of age, others that he was not more than fifty-four. It is plain that he lived for some time after this, and continued to exercise his judgeship. He made his sons judges, etc. The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuels sons as judges is his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan (Keil).
1Sa. 8:2. The name of his firstborn was Joel, etc. These names may be taken as indications of the fathers pious feeling. The first, Joel, Jehovah is God, was, not improbably, a protest against the idolatry of the Israelites. The name of the second son, Abiah, Jehovah is father, expresses trust in the fatherhood of God, an idea which hardly appears in the Old Testament except in proper names (Translator of Langes Commentary). Abiah records doubtless the fervent aspiration of him who devised it as a name, and, we may hope, of many who subsequently adopted it after that endearing and intimate relationship between God and the soul of man, which is truly expressed by the words father and child. It may be accepted as a proof that believers in ancient days, though they had not possession of the perfect knowledge of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ, or of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless received the spirit of adoption, that God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, whereby they cried Abba, Father (Wilkinsons Personal Names in the Bible).
1Sa. 8:3. His sons walked not in his ways. The question may arise, why Samuel was not punished, as Eli, for the misconduct of his sons? But the answer is obvious. Not only was the offence of Samuels sons of a far less heinous criminality, but Samuel might not know, owing to this distance of Beersheba, anything of their delinquency (Jamieson).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.1Sa. 8:1-3
SAMUEL THE FATHER
Samuel has been called the second Moses of Hebrew history, but though their personal character and their life-work were very much alike, there are some striking contrasts in their individual history. Moses, for instance, was not called to begin his great life-work until he was older than Samuel was at the period of his history to which these verses refer, while this latter servant of God entered upon his special service while he was a child. But he who came last retained his bodily vigour much longer, for at the age of one hundred and twenty years his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated (Deu. 34:7), while Samuel, when not more than half so old, began to feel the infirmities of age. Moses continued physically fit for service, yet was forbidden by God to serve longer. Samuel became unfit for active service, and yet was permitted to continue it. Both were compelled, the one by Divine command, the other by bodily infirmity, to hand over their work to others, but Moses is happy in finding a suitable successor, while Samuel is obliged to delegate his authority to those who are very unfit to exercise it. Thus the life of the great law-giver and that of the first of the prophets remarkably illustrate the variety of Gods dealings with his servants, and lead us to exclaim, when we contemplate His providential leadings, His ways are past finding out (Rom. 11:33). The verses teach us
I. That time is no respecter of character. Samuel grew infirm although he was so good. Character is by far the most important thing on earth as well as in heaven, yet the greatest saint as much as the greatest sinner realises in his own experience that the creature is made subject to vanity (Rom. 8:20). In this respect Samuel, the elect servant of God, was no more highly favoured than the most ungodly man in the kingdom of Israel. The outer man of one as well as of the other was perishing day by day (2Co. 4:16).
II. But the fact that it is so shows the necessity for the full adoption of the body. (Rom. 8:23). It must be shown that God is a respecter of persons. That the same destiny should await the body of a saint, which has been an instrument of righteousness, and that of a sinner, which has been altogether devoted to the service of sin, does not accord with our conception of the justice of God. There is that within us which demands that, at some time or other, there should be some difference made, and God in His revealed word tells us that there will be. The body of the saint will have an adoption-dayit will be redeemed from the curse of sin (Rom. 8:23), and will be fashioned like unto the glorious body of the Son of God (Php. 3:21).
III. Family life is consistent with the highest spiritual attainments and the most devoted spiritual service. Samuel the prophet of God was a husband and father. The highest ideal of man is not that of a solitary creature bound by no human ties, and fulfilling none of the social duties of life. But the most perfect manhood is that which is developed first of all in the head of a house-hold as the father of a family. When God first created man He did not consider him complete until he became a social head, and it is as true now as it was then that a man is not developed on all sides of his character until he takes the position for which God evidently intended him, and fulfils the duties which belong to that position. And this being so, it is obvious that such a life is no hindrance to a mans spiritual growth and to his most entire devotion to the service of God. No man in Hebrew history stands before Samuel in purity of life or singleness of aim; no man, excepting perhaps Moses, was more honoured by God as an intercessor on behalf of others, or was more entirely devoted to the highest welfare of his people, yet he was the head of a household, he was a husband and a father. And if we look back upon the history of the Church of God, we shall find that the greater number of her most devoted servants have not been monks and nuns, but husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.
IV. The most godly men cannot transmit their godliness to their children. Samuels sons walked not in his ways. There were several reasons which we should have supposed would lead them to do so. From their earliest days they had been witnesses of their fathers godly life, and nothing is more powerful than a good example. Yet in this case it had no influence; all Samuels integrity was unable to win his sons to the practice of justice. Then there was the position of responsibility in which they were placed. That they held a position in the nation which was only second to that of their father was favourable to the transmission of the virtues which he had displayed as judge of Israel. But this was not the case. We cannot doubt that they also enjoyed the blessing of a fathers prayers and instruction. If Samuel was in the habit of bringing all Israel before God in prayer, it is certain that he did not omit to make special intercession for his own children; if he ceased not to instruct and warn the entire nation, it is most unlikely that he failed to acquaint his children with the law of Godwith His dealings with the nation in the pastwith the judgment that he had been called to foretell concerning the sons of Eli, and with the great promises which had been made to Israel if they were faithful to their privileges. But he finds himself confronted with the fact that a holy seed is born, not of the blood of prophets, nor of the will of man, but of God. Great as are the moral advantages of being born into a godly family, more than the mere fact of being so born, and of being surrounded by every holy influence, is needed to subdue the will of fallen man, and make him a servant of God.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
1Sa. 8:1. Samuel began his acquaintance with God early, and continued it long; he began it in his long coats, and continued to his grey hairs: he judged Israel all the days of his life. God doth not use to put off His old servants, their age endeareth them to Him the more; if we be not unfaithful to Him, He cannot be unconstant to us.Bishop Hall.
1Sa. 8:3. It is amazing how this sin of covetousness perverts the moral faculties. Gold, unlawfully got, sears the conscience. Some of the loftiest minds have been degraded by this sin. Perhaps there was not a greater man in his own age, or in any age, than Lord Bacon. He is the father of modern philosophy, and revolutionised the inquiries of the schools. His works must ever be read with profit, and they contain a vast store of wisdom expressed in the most felicitous language. Yet, strange to relate, Lord Bacon was one of the most unscrupulous lawyers, and one of the most disreputable judges that ever sat upon the English bench. This philosopher, who had written so much in praise of virtue, was impeached by the House of Commons, and found guilty of receiving bribes to the amount of 100,100! This glimpse of the rise and fall of a great man, says Dr. Tweedie, proclaims aloud the insufficiency of all but the grace and truth of God to keep a man morally erect.Steel.
Perhaps Israel had never thought of a king, if Samuels sons had not been unlike their father. Who can promise himself holy children, when the loins of a Samuel and the education in the temple yielded monsters? It is not likely that good Samuel was faulty in that indulgence for which his own mouth had denounced Gods judgments against Eli; yet this holy man succeeds Eli in his cross, as well as in his place, though not in his sin; and is afflicted with a wicked succession. God will let us find that grace is by gift, not by inheritance. I fear Samuel was too partial to nature in the surrogation of his sons. I do not hear of Gods allowance to this act; if this had been Gods choice as well as his, it had been like to have received more blessing. Even the best heart may be blinded by affection.Bp. Hall.
I. The children of good men do not always walk in their parents ways. It was not the peculiar affliction of Samuel. It was early seen that grace was not hereditary. In the family of Adam, there was a Cain, a murderer; in that of Noah, a Ham, who mocked his father; in that of Abraham, an Ishmael, a scoffer at religion; in that of Isaac, a profane Esau. An incestuous Reuben, and a bloody Simeon and Levi, distressed the heart of good old Jacob; two drunkards, Nadab and Abihu, were found in the family of Aaron, the saint of God; and Hophni and Phinehas brought disgrace and ruin upon the house of Eli.
II. The frequent recurrence of this fact need excite no surprise in those who believe in the corruptions of human nature and the sovereignty of Divine Grace. The children of the godly are by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Something more is necessary than parents can confer, a change of heart, which God alone can accomplish.
III. Causes why the children of godly parents do not often walk in their parents ways. Although this is to be accounted for by the corruption of human nature, there are certain subordinate causes.
1. The untender and uncircumspect conversation of parents. They will more readily copy what is bad in your example, than what is good and praiseworthy. the bad example will be followed, the good advice neglected.
2. Faults in their education. Such as unjust partiality, as in that of Isaac for Esau, and of Rebekah for Jacob. Or undue indulgence, which seems to have been the error of David, and the ruin of his son Adonijah. Excessive severity is an error not less fatal, and perhaps as common.
3. The influence of bad company and bad example in others. The ruin of multitudes has proceeded from want of caution in this matter.Peddie.
1Sa. 8:4. The unanimity of the people, even as exemplified in their desire for a king, was a result of Samuels activity. His former activity was an excellent preparation for royalty. The consciousness of religious and civil union was powerfully re-awakened by his means. An able king had only to reap what he had sown.Hengstenberg.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
The Installation of Israels First King, 1Sa. 8:1 to 1Sa. 10:27.
The people ask for a King. 1Sa. 8:1-5
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
2 Now the name of his first-born was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beer-sheba.
3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
4.
When Samuel was old, whom did he make judges over Israel? 1Sa. 8:1
He made his sons judges over Israel. The reasons assigned for the appointment of Samuels sons as judges stem from his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw from this alone is that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary in his family. This is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beer-sheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan.
2.
What are the meanings of the names of Samuels sons? 1Sa. 8:2
Samuel chose very appropriate names for his sons. His firstborns name means Jehovah is God. The other one had a name which means Jehovah is my father. This is some indication of the faith which Samuel had, and it should have been an encouragement to his sons to walk in Godly ways.
3.
What sort of men were they? 1Sa. 8:3
The sons did not walk in the way of their father. They set their hearts upon gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, All of this was in opposition to the command of God (see Exo. 23:6; Exo. 23:8; Deu. 16:19). One can only marvel that having witnessed the failure of Eli to train his sons Samuel failed to curb the lusts of his sons. It is not enough to say that this is just the common experience of the Orientals. This is just another instance of a good father without the blessing of faithful sons. It is this very failure on the part of Samuel that occasioned the Israelites demanding a king.
4.
Who were the elders? 1Sa. 8:4
The elders of Israel were the leaders of the people. They were not elders in the same sense as leaders of the New Testament church (1 Timothy 3). Each tribe would have its appointed leaders. These men represented the tribes as they came to Samuel.
5.
What request did the people make of Samuel? 1Sa. 8:5
The request was for a king. They used the age of Samuel, and the iniquity of his sons as an excuse. The people were represented by their leaders; and although in I Samuel 5:20 the desire is grounded in a need for a leader in war, the express reason here is the maladministration of justice. Samuel viewed this request as a sinful demand. He knew that the theocracy was the divinely appointed constitution for Israel. The substitution of another form was treason to God.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) When Samuel was old.We are not able with any precision to fix the dates of Samuels life. When the great disaster happened which resulted in the capture of the Ark of God and Elis death. the young prophet was barely thirty years old. For the next twenty years we have seen how unweariedly he laboured to awaken in the people a sense of their deep degradation and of the real causes of their fallen state. Thus, when the great revolt and the Israelite victory at Eben-ezer took place, Samuel the judge was probably nearly fifty years of age. Another considerable apse of time must be assumed between the day of the uprising of the people and the throwing off the Philistine yoke and the events related at such length in the present chapterthe request of the people for an earthly king; for we must allow a sufficient lapse of time for the Philistines to have recovered the effects of their defeat at Eben-ezer, and again to have established themselves in power, at least in the southern districts of Canaan. A famous Hebrew commentator suggests seventy years of age as the most likely time of life. This supposition is, likely enough, a correct one.
The following little table, showing the events in the life of Samuel, will assist the student of the Bible story:
1st period, 12 years 2 period about 15 to 20 years.
The child life in the Tabernacle service, under the guardianship of Eli. The boy is called by the holy Voice to be a prophet; Josephus states that this happened in his twelfth year. The boy-prophet remains in Shiloh The people gradually come to the knowledge that a new prophet had risen up among them. He stays with Eli until his death, after the disastrous battle of Aphek and the capture of the Ark. Shiloh was probably destroyed by the Philistines after the battle of Aphek.
3rd period, 20 year.
He works unweariedly up and down among the people, and rouses them to renounce idolatry, and under the Eternals protection to win their freedom.
4th period, probably nearly 20 years. 5th period.
Samuel judges Israel, now a free nation, again. The Eternal God-Friend acknowledged by the people as King. Samuel the seer and judge and Saul the king govern Israel.
(2) They were judges in Beer-sheba.It was natural that the father, as the infirmities of old age were beginning to make his toilsome life more burden some, should turn to his sons, and endeavour to train them up to share in his high duties, but beyond the natural regret of a father that the honours and dignities he had himself so hardly won should pass from his house for ever, no murmur seems to have escaped Samuels lips when the will of the Eternal was made known to him; and the aged prophet, forgetting he had sons and a house which bore his name, was the principal agent in the establishment of the king, in whom all the powers of the judge were to be merged. It is probable that at the time when old age was beginning to enfeeble the strength of Samuel, and many of the duties devolved upon his worthless sons, the Philistines recovered much of their lost power over the southern districts of Israel. The names of these sons are especially significant of the holy atmosphere their father lived in. Joel signifies Jehovah is God; and Abiah, Jehovah a Father. But the glorious traditions of Samuel were quickly forgotten by these unworthy men who called him father. Josephus supplements the Biblical record by stating that while one of these sons remained in Beer-sheba, the other judged in the north of the land.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Made his sons judges Not with authority equal to his own, but assistant judges, who might attend to judicial matters in remote places, to which Samuel’s age prevented his going. “As we do not find that either God or the people censured him for making his sons judges in Israel, we may infer that he had properly educated them, and that they appeared well qualified for the office, and were appointed to it for the good, and by the approbation of, the people.” Scott. At the same time there is not sufficient reason to believe that Samuel designed to make the judgeship hereditary, and expected his sons to succeed him in the government of Israel. See on 1Sa 12:2.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The People Seek For The Appointment of a King Over Them ( 1Sa 8:1-6 ).
Outwardly the desire of the elders for a king appears reasonable, but what they ignored was the fact that once there was a dynasty there could be good kings followed by bad kings. It was a lesson that they should have learned from Eli’s sons and Samuel’s sons. What they should therefore rather have done was to trust in YHWH, and fully follow Him, for while they did so His appointees would always be dependable. Unfortunately, however, their desire arose from an evil heart of unbelief, and it was thus a rejection of YHWH’s kingship.
Analysis.
a
b Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah. They were judges in Beer-sheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after ill-gotten gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice (1Sa 8:2-3).
c Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to Rama (1Sa 8:4).
b And they said to him, “Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1Sa 8:5).
a But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to YHWH (1Sa 8:6)
Note that in ‘a’ Samuel makes his sons judges over Israel, and in the parallel they seek rather for a king to be judge over them. In ‘b his sons do not walk in his ways, and in the parallel that is the complaint of the elders about them. In ‘c’ all the elders gather in an assembly of the tribes at Rama in order to settle the future leadership question.
1Sa 8:1
‘ And it came about that when Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel.’
Samuel had been mainly responsible for judgeship in the central part of Israel, but as a prophet of YHWH his influence would have reached much further throughout the whole of Israel. Thus when he was growing old he assigned to the judgeship of his sons the southernmost region of Israel to his sons. The fact that he did so when he had not been acting there himself would suggest the probability that the people around Beersheba had come to him asking for suitable ‘judges’ to rule over them. In response to their request he had felt that he could trust his sons. No father likes to feel that his sons cannot be trusted, and he felt that they were now ready to take independent authority. Unfortunately he was to be proved wrong. Perhaps it was because he had been neglectful over the bringing up of his own sons. Many a man who blesses many fails to be the blessing to his own family that he should be
1Sa 8:2
‘ Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah. They were judges in Beer-sheba.
The names of his sons are given. His firstborn was Joel, while his second son was called Abijah. It will be noted that both names compound with the name of YHWH, Yo-el (Yah is God) and Abi-yah (My divine father is Yah), and witness to Samuel’s faith. In 1Ch 6:28, however, they are named ‘the firstborn Vashni and Abijah’. This is quite possible because it was not unusual in Israel for a man to have two names. They were appointed as joint judges in Beersheba which was the southernmost region in Israel (compare 1Sa 3:20).
(Many, however, think that in 1Ch 6:28 the name Joel has somehow slipped out of the text, and that it should read, ‘the firstborn Joel and the second Abijah’, for vashni could be pointed to signify ‘and the second’. There is, however, no textual evidence to support the suggestion. LXX reads ‘the first-born Sani, and Abia’ which supports MT).
1Sa 8:3
‘ And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after ill-gotten gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice.’
Sadly, as so often happens, their authority went to their heads and instead of walking in their father’s ways they used their positions for their own ends. Thus they used their new positions in order to build up personal wealth. They sought to obtain ill-gotten gains, accepted bribes and perverted justice. And it was not a momentary lapse. For this to come to the notice of all Israel it must have gone on for a few years.
1Sa 8:4
‘ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to Ramah’
The behaviour of Samuel’s sons clearly had a profound effect on many of the elders of Israel who were no doubt watching to see how the sons got on. And it was seemingly that that brought them to a decision, for it was soon clear to them that the sons were not walking in the prophetic tradition of their father, and would not be able to follow in his footsteps. So summoning all the elders of the tribes together, and no doubt discussing the matter thoroughly, they came to Samuel at Ramah.
“The elders of Israel.” Israel had been run by a group of ‘elders’ while in Egypt (Exo 3:16), and ‘elders’ were appointed from among the tribal elders to support Moses in judging Israel in the wilderness (Num 11:16; Num 11:24-25). Elders of the different cities were responsible for jurisdiction in that city (Deu 21:3; Jos 20:4; Jdg 8:16; 1Sa 4:2). So ‘elder’ was the name given to those in authority both at a local and a tribal level. The elders mentioned here would be the ‘senior’ elders who ruled over the different tribes and sub-tribes. While not all old, the tendency would be for them to be older men, simply because it was such who would be ‘fathers’ of wider families, and because age was thought to bring wisdom.
1Sa 8:5
‘ And they said to him, “Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” ’
And there they announced the decision that they had made. In view of the fact that Samuel was ageing, and that his sons had proved unsuitable, they wanted a king to act from now on as their judge and war-leader, a king ‘like all the nations round about’. Outwardly they were simply asking for what Moses had said that they would one day want to ask in Deu 17:14. But they were doing it in the wrong way, and in the wrong circumstances. Their request was not that YHWH provide them with another prophetic man or a man of God, nor that He appoint a suitable replacement for Samuel. It was not even a request for a king in line with YHWH’s intentions as expressed in Gen 49:10; Deu 17:14-20, someone appointed alongside a suitable prophet (Deu 18:15). There was no spiritual basis for their request at all. Basically they were indicating that they no longer wanted to go along in the same old way of having to look to YHWH every time they wanted a ‘judge’. They wanted something more permanent, just as the other nations had.
They had had plenty of opportunity to study other kings, for each city state in Canaan had its own king, as had the Philistine cities (even if the Philistines did call them ‘seren’), and they were envious at the way that this appeared to ensure a relatively smooth transition of leadership, and provide a war-leader when trouble lay ahead. They had seen how they could also set up efficient standing armies. (They only noted the successful ones). And with the danger of the Philistines ever looming once Samuel had gone they wanted to be prepared. They felt that having a king appointed while Samuel was still alive would take away the uncertainty. And that was what they wanted, at whatever cost. YHWH did not come into it except to help them in choosing a king.
1Sa 8:6
‘ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to YHWH.’
But their words displeased Samuel when they said ‘give us a king to judge us’. He recognised it for what it was, an unwillingness to continue trusting in YHWH to provide them with leadership. They wanted a more independent regime, not totally dependent on YHWH, and to depend on a man and his descendants. And so Samuel did the only thing that he could think of. He took the whole matter before YHWH. Godly man that he was, he knew that it was not for him to make the decision.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Sa 8:1-22 Israel Asks for a King In 1Sa 8:1-22 we have the story of the children of Israel asking for a king to rule over them.
1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
1Sa 8:6
Deu 17:14, “When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;”
1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
1Sa 8:11
1Ki 18:46, “And the hand of the LORD was on Elijah; and he girded up his loins, and ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel.”
1Sa 8:11 Comments – Note the fulfilment of Samuel’s prophecy in 1Sa 13:2; 1Sa 14:52.
1Sa 13:2, “Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin: and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent.”
1Sa 14:52, “And there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul: and when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him.”
Israel wants a king. In Joshua and Judges, God set up his kingdom the way He wanted it, as a theocracy, without an earthly king. Today, the elders of the New Testament church are like the elders in Israel in the time of the judges. Today, churches want a leader, but God ordained “elders” in place of “one elder” because God is the Leader, or King.
1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
1Sa 8:14
1Sa 22:7, “Then Saul said unto his servants that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds;”
1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
1Sa 8:15
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
1Sa 8:18
[22] Kenneth Hagin, The Spirit Within and the Spirit Upon (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Faith Library Publications, c2003, 2006), 37-9: Kenneth Hagin, Following God’s Plan For Your Life (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Faith Library Publications, c1993, 1994), 126.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Samuel Displeased at the Insistent DesiRev. 1. And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel, the increasing infirmities of old age prompting him to take this step, whereby his sons became his assistants.
v. 2. Now, the name of his first-born was Joel v. 3. And his sons walked not in his ways, v. 4. Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Ramah, v. 5. and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways, v. 6. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. v. 7. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, v. 8. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken Me and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. v. 9. Now, therefore, hearken unto their voice,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
SAUL (CHS. 8-31).
THE great interest of the First Book of Samuel lies in the fact that we have in it the orderly consolidation of two of the main factors in the preparation for the manifestation of our Lord, namely, prophecy and the kingdom. The first seven chapters give us the history of Samuel’s birth, and of the gradual development in him of those spiritual powers which finally made him not merely a prophet, but the founder of prophecy as a permanent and regularly organised institution of the Jewish Church. The whole of the rest of the book, while adding many interesting particulars about Samuel, is occupied with the establishment of the kingdom and with Saul. We have in him, both in his uprise and his fall, one of the most remarkable personages of the Old Testament. But his character for good and for evil will develop itself as we proceed. Before, however, we can appreciate his history, it is necessary for us to understand something of the vast issues that depended upon the change of government effected in his person. With Samuel, then, and Saul we have come to the time when the prophet and the king take their due place in the development of Israel. They were both essential to its progress, and the accomplishment of its Divine mission, and in Deu 17:14-20, and again Deu 28:36, the establishment of the monarchy is spoken of as a virtual necessity. It was not Israel’s highest ideal, far from it. Had religion been as far advanced as in the days of Hezekiah and Isaiah, the theocracy might have existed in such a form as would have insured the national safety. But such as the people were in the centuries which followed the conquest of Canaan, it was rather a high and glorious idea than a fact capable of being realised. It was one of those magnificent thoughts which raised the Israelites so high above the level of ordinary nations, and gave such grandeur and nobleness to the long struggle of their history; but it was a thought, the value of which lay in its giving them a future, towards which their faces were ever turned, and which, by the sublimity of its conception, ever drew them onwards and upwards to all that was best and most Divine.
To be then Jehovah’s own subjects, ruled directly by him, a republic with Jehovah for its chief, and its officers speaking at his command, and under his direct influence and control this was Israel’s grand ideal. As a matter of fact, it did not give them peace at home nor security from foreign invasion. It did not even enable them to advance in the path of culture or morality, nor did it so work as to bind the twelve tribes together into a harmonious whole. Throughout the Book of Judges we find the record of a desperate struggle in which Israel again and again is in danger of being utterly destroyed from among the nations, and at the end of this period the Philistines are the dominant power, and Israel is disarmed and virtually at their mercy. The cause of this was that somehow or other the priests and Levites were unable to prevent the people from lapsing into idolatry, and though upon their repentance Jehovah, as their King, aid on every emergency raise men to be their saviours, yet the system was too cumbrous and exceptional for ordinary times. It was only in times of trouble that the nation roused itself to the conviction that it was Jehovah’s realm, and fought with the heroism which so grand a thought must give it; at other times it sank down each day to a lower level, till all that the last judge, Samson, could do was to arouse the national spirit to a prolonged resistance and a last effort against the dangers and difficulties that were threatening Israel with gradual extinction (see on 1Sa 1:3).
This powerlessness in war was the inevitable result of having no settled ordinary ruler, whose business it was to convoke the national forces, and provide for the general safety; but it was by no means the worst evil attendant in practice upon the theocracy. In the three last chapters of the Book of Judges we have the history of a fearful crime, punished with equally fearful cruelty. What makes it the more remarkable is that it took place in the days of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, at a time when the public morality still stood high, and religion had great influence over the people. Now, had there been a king he would have punished the malefactors, as a matter of course; but when it had to be done by an extraordinary gathering of the people in arms, the Benjamites, always a high-spirited tribe, imagined themselves bound in honour to resist an invasion of their territory, and a violent civil war was the result. So embittered did the feelings of the Israelites become at the brave defence of the Benjamites, that when at last they had overpowered them, they burned their cities with fire, and put men, women, children, and cattle to an indiscriminate slaughter. Repenting soon afterwards of their revolting cruelty, they treated the men of Jabesh-Gilead with almost equal violence, on the pretence of their not having taken part in the war, but really to provide the remaining Benjamites with wives. Now, both at the beginning and end of this narrative, it is carefully pointed out that all this crime and cruelty was the result of the state of anarchy which everywhere prevailed. “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jdg 21:25). There was no regular administration of justice, no person whose business it was to maintain law and order, no one whose authority kept malefactors in awe, and who, when a crime had been committed, would punish it in a regular manner, and with the general approval of all parties; and so every species of villainy could be practised with impunity, until the patience of the community was exhausted, and it visited the offenders with a violence so summary as to make it repent afterwards of its own cruelty.
The position of these three chapters, immediately preceding in the Hebrew the Books of Samuel (for the insertion of the Book of Ruth is a modern attempt at a chronological arrangement), seems intended to point out that the king was as absolutely necessary for the well being of the Hebrew commonwealth as he was essential for the perfecting of the Messianic idea. It is in Christ’s kingdom that the theocracy becomes a realised fact, and Christ is above all things a King. Now in Israel the King was emphatically the Anointed One, i.e. the Messiah or Christ (1Sa 2:10, 1Sa 2:35; 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 12:3, etc.). True it is that in Christ all offices must be united, and he must be a Priest to make atonement and a Prophet to teach as well as a King to rule; yet we find in Israel, as the type of Christ’s kingdom, that priest and prophet stood at the king’s beck. In Solomon we have the delineation of Israel’s king in his full power and glory; and we find him thrusting out Abiathar from being high priest (1Ki 2:27), appointing the order of service for the priests and Levites (2Ch 8:14), and having the prophets in attendance upon him to record his noble deeds (2Ch 9:29). To Solomon’s reign the Israelites ever looked back as giving the ideal of what their “anointed one” should be, and onward they looked to the coming of One who should perfect this ideal, and instead of staining it with sin, as Solomon did, should raise it to the full and vast dimensions of Israelite thought. Most painful must it have been to the nation that each one of its first three king, though rising every one far above the level of ordinary men, yet fell so very far short of their ideal. And then came the rent in the kingdom, and an ideal king was possible no longer.
But the prophets kept the thought ever alive in the hearts of the people, and in the fulness of time the Messiah came. Meanwhile the establishment of the earthly monarchy was an essential condition for the security, the continuance, and the development of Israel. Without a king Israel could never have performed its work of preparing for Christ. Even the organisation of prophecy was delayed till there was a king, because when a nation has to fight for its very existence there is no room for a literary and educated order of men. Learning would have died out in the middle ages had there not been cloisters into which men who loved mental culture might retire. Still it was not this which made the people cling so tenaciously to the hope held out to them by Moses, but the daily vexation of Philistine misrule. And what the Philistines were to them now all the neighbouring nations had previously been in turn. Throughout the Book of Judges we find a state of things described from which all thoughtful men must have desired deliverance, and the few exceptions, as when they flourished for a time under the strong hand of Gideon, only served to bring out the contrast more clearly between times when they had a ruler and times when they had none. We need not wonder, therefore, at the persistency with which the people urged their demand, even after the dark pictures which Samuel had drawn of what a king might become if he degenerated into a tyrant. But our admiration is due to the patriotism and generosity which made this noble-minded man grant their request, though he knew that he thereby limited his own powers, and gave his sons an inferior place. So also had Moses done before. While he gave Aaron high and perpetual office, he let his own family fall back into the position of ordinary Israelites. And, moreover, the king whom Samuel chose was a grand hero, though, like so many men gifted with great powers of command, he fell through that self-will which is the besetting sin of ruling natures. Few men can endure the trial of the possession of absolute power, and least of all those endowed with an energetic and resolute temperament. It is a noble testimony that David bears to Saul and his heroic son in the “Song of the Bow” (2Sa 1:19-27): “mighty” they were, and “the beauty of Israel,” though Saul marred his glory by great and ruinous faults. With Saul, then, the rest of the book is occupied, and it divides itself into two parts
(1) the founding and establishment of Saul’s kingdom (chs 8-15); and
(2) its gradual decay and final fall (Jdg 16:1-31 -31.).
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SAUL‘S KINGDOM (CHS. VIII–XV.).
REJECTION OF SAMUEL‘S SONS (verses 1-5).
1Sa 8:1
When Samuel was old. As Samuel lived for very many years after this time, till towards the close of Saul’s reign, he was probably not more than sixty when this happened. The dates are all very uncertain, but he was probably between twenty and thirty when Shiloh was captured, and no doubt, according to Israelite custom, had married as soon as he arrived at manhood. Then came the most important and active period of his life, during which the ark rested for twenty years in the house of Abinadab, and Samuel was traversing every part of the country, preaching repentance, and preparing the people for a revolt from the tyranny of the Philistines. Upon this followed the victory at Mizpah, and the establishment of Samuel as judge. Now some considerable time would elapse before Samuel so felt the weight of increasing years as to delegate a part of his authority to his sons, and more again before the national discontent at their covetousness became general. The Talmud, however, represents Samuel as being at this time only fifty-two years of age, while Abravanel says seventy, and the latter number is by no means impossible; for as a Nazarite Samuel would lead a life of perfect temperance, and his predecessor Eli lived to be ninety-eight, and died then by an accident. Still, probably, Abravanel’s calculation is too high, and we must remember that besides the misconduct of Samuel’s sons, there was the growing danger of the re-establishment of the domination of the Philistines to quicken the people’s movements. They had garrisons again in Israel when Saul was chosen king, and it was this which made the nation long for a change, but. their choice would probably have fallen upon one of Samuel’s sons had either of them been worthy. A king they had long wished for; it is only when they saw that none of Samuel’s race would give them internal peace and security that they took public action for the appointment of some one else.
1Sa 8:2
The name of his firstborn was Joel. The names of Samuel’s sons are pledges of his faithJoel meaning Jehovah is God, and Abiah Jab is Father. The name given in 1Ch 6:28, Vashni, is a mistake. It means, “and the second,” the name of Joel the firstborn having somehow been omitted. The names of Saul’s sons, and even of Jonathan’s, unlike those in Samuel’s family, bear witness to their religion having been of a curiously mixed character. In Beer-sheba. Not, therefore, in any of the places to which Samuel went in person, and which were all near Ramah, his home. Beer-sheba was in the extreme south of the tribe of Judah (see on Gen 21:31), on the Philistine border, and his being able to place his sons there in authority proves, not merely that his rule was acknowledged throughout the whole country, but also that the Philistines did not interfere much with the internal arrangements of the Israelites. Josephus (‘Antiq.,’ 6:3, 2) represents only one son as placed at Beer-sheba, and says that the other was judge at Dan, but it may be doubted whether the northern tribes were sufficiently under control to submit to be governed by a southern judge.
1Sa 8:3
His sons took bribes. This sin was expressly forbidden in Exo 23:6, Exo 23:8; Deu 16:19, and it marks the high spirit of the nation that it was so indignant at justice being thus perverted. They walked not in his way (singularso the written text); for Samuel’s own administration of justice had been most upright (1Sa 12:4), nor is it laid to his charge that he connived at the misconduct of his sons. On the contrary, after remonstrance indeed, not for his sons’ sake, but for the honour of the theocracy, and that the people might be on their guard against a despotic exercise of the power with which they were about to intrust a single man, he superseded not them only, but also himself. His conduct in this trying conjuncture was most admirable, and few commentators have done justice to the man, who, possessed of what was virtually kingly power, yet gave it over for the nation’s good into the hands of another.
1Sa 8:4, 1Sa 8:5
The elders of Israel. Here, as elsewhere (1Sa 15:30 :2Sa 1Sa 5:3; 1Ki 8:3, etc.), we have traces of a popular assembly, representing the Israelite nation, and composed probably of the chiefs and heads of fathers houses. Already in Egypt (Exo 3:16, etc.) we find stone such body in existence, and it seems to have lasted throughout the whole history of the nation; for it outlived the monarchy, gained increased power after the exile, and continued down to New Testament times. The demand, therefore, for a king, though a sort of revolt against Samuel’s authority, was at least made in a constitutional manner, and came before him with all the weight of a formal decision on the part of the representatives of the nation. They put it also in the form of a request, for which they give two reasons. First, the decay of his physical powersBehold, thou art old. Wise and vigorous as his rule had been, yet with increasing years there was less of energy; and the events recorded as having occurred at the beginning of Saul’s reign show, that in order to check the increasing power of the Philistines, a leader was needed who was at once daring, resolute, and skilful in war. But there was a further reasonThy sons walk not in thy ways. These words show that the elders had the most perfect confidence in Samuel. They felt that he would not connive at the .wickedness of his sons, but would do what was right by the nation. Thus they had everything to hope from the father’s justice, while if they waited till his death the sons might resist what was virtually their deposition. That the sons of a judge possessed considerable power see Jdg 9:2. Make us a king to judge us like all the nations. I.e. just as all the heathen nations have a king. The words are those of Deu 17:14, and were probably intended to remind Samuel that the nation was only asking what had virtually been promised.
1Sa 8:6
But the thing displeased Samuel, and justly so. For, in the first place, they had determined to have a king without consulting the will of God. Granting that it would give them the security necessary for the nation’s welfare and progress, yet so weighty a matter ought not to have been decided without an appeal to Jehovah. Samuel did make it a matter of prayer; the elders were actuated solely by political motives. And, secondly, they undervalued their own religious privileges. They wanted a king such as the heathen had, whereas something far better and higher was possible for them, namely, a king who would be the representative of Jehovah, as the shophet had hitherto been. The nation’s real need was not a new power, but the permanent organisation of what up to this time had been a casual authority. And it was Samuel’s high office to give the nation this, while he also changed the outward form of prophecy, and made it too into an orderly institution. A king to judge us. I.e. to govern us, as the shophet or, judge had done, only in a more regularly constituted manner. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. There had been no such submission to the will of God on the part of the elders; but deeply as Samuel must have been hurt by this determination of the nation to take the government out of the hands of himself and his sons, yet he leaves the decision to Jehovah. Moreover, we must note that it was as prophet that he thus acted as mediator between the people and God; and he gave them his services in this his highest capacity as faithfully when the question was one injurious to himself as he had ever done on more pleasing occasions.
1Sa 8:7
In prayer then the answer came to him that the request of the people must be granted, however wrongly it had been urged. In itself it was wrong; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. As we saw above, they wanted no theocratic king, whose first duty would be to maintain the Mosaic law (Deu 17:18, Deu 17:19), and protect the priest and prophet in the discharge of their legitimate functions; all they wanted was a soldier who would put an end to their state of anarchy, and enable them to cultivate their fields without the danger of seeing the produce swept off by marauders.
1Sa 8:8, 1Sa 8:9
According to all the works, etc. They showed in this the same want of respect and affection for their own institutions and religious privileges which had marked all their history since the day when Jehovah brought them up out of Egypt. And therefore Samuel was to protest solemnly unto them, and show them. The two verbs do not mean different things, but the same. “To protest” is to testify, to bear witness, and warn them of the danger they were incurring. And as they were asking not for the development and perfecting of their own institutions, but for a government modelled upon the institutions of the heathen round them, Samuel shows what are the dangers inherent in the establishment of a despot such as the kings of the heathen were. As a rule the kings of Judaea did not resemble the picture drawn by Samuel, but in spite of many blemishes remained tame to their allegiance to Jehovah as the supreme Ruler of the nation, and confined themselves within the limits marked out for them by the Mosaic law. Now therefore, at the beginning of the verse, is in the Hebrew simply “And now.” There is no inference implied in it.
1Sa 8:11
This will be the manner of the king. On the meaning of this word see 1Sa 2:13. Here also it signifies not so much the legal right itself, as the way in which that right was exercised. His chariots. The word is singular, both here and at the end of the verse, and though it may be taken, as in the A.V; for a collective noun, “his chariotry,” yet the singular is better, because this verse does not refer to war, but to the personal magnificence and grandeur of the king. Instead of the old simplicity in which the judges had lived, he would have a state chariot (see 2Ki 9:21), and go forth escorted by horsemen and runners on foot. To be his horsemen. Rather, “upon his homes.” The whole clause should be translated, “And he will set them for him (i.e. for his service) upon his chariot and on his horses; and they will run before his chariot.”
1Sa 8:12
Captains over thousands, and captains over fifties. The largest and smallest divisions respectively of an Israelite, army. However objectionable the king’s personal state might be, this would fall in with the people’s wishes, for it would give them the promise of a well organised army. Not so the next clause, to ear i.e. to ploughhis ground. Forced labour was one of the most unjust, oppressive, and wasteful exactions of absolute governments, and was the chief cause of the revolt of the ten tribes from Rehoboam. And yet it was the universal rule in ancient times, and in some countries it has continued even to the present day to be the law that the peasants must at certain seasons give their labour unpaid either to the proprietors or to the state. Naturally, for a nation of agriculturists to have to leave their own fields just when their presence at home was most needed to plough the king’s ground and reap his harvest would be a bitter annoyance, because to the loss would be added a sense of wrong. How determinately a high-spirited nation like the Jews did resist this injustice we gather not merely from the indignation felt against Solomon’s levies, but also from the reproach cast in Jehoiakim’s teeth by Jeremiah, that “he used his neighbour’s service without wages, and gave him not for his work” (Jer 22:13). To make his instruments of war. Such work must be done; but in well organised states it is paid for by means of taxes, i.e. by a money compensation in place of personal service. In semi-barbarous states forced labour is used, and the national arsenals furnished at the greatest possible expense and vexation to those compelled to labour, and loss to the national resources.
1Sa 8:13
Confectionaries. Rather, “perfumers,” makers of ointments and scents, of which Orientals are excessively fond. It is remarkable that Samuel does not mention the far worse use to which Solomon put their daughters (1Ki 11:3), and to a less extent David and some other kings.
1Sa 8:14
Your fields. The history of the seizure of Naboth’s vineyard shows that the kings were not able to exercise this arbitrary power. Jezebel had to use great art and falsehood before she could get possession of the coveted plot of ground. But throughout Samuel describes a despot ruling after the fashion of heathen kings such as the people had desired.
1Sa 8:15
The tenth. i.e. the king will cost you as much as all the ordinances of religion. Still national security would be cheaply purchased at this, or even a greater cost, if the money were well spent; but Samuel says that the king would lavish it not on his officers, but on his eunuchs, those miserable creatures, so cruelly wronged, and generally so hateful, who ministered to the pleasures of Oriental kings.
1Sa 8:16
He will put them to his work. Again the hateful forced service, but here not, as in 1Sa 8:12, of themselves, but of their households. Instead of your goodliest young men the Septuagint reads, “your best oxen,” which requires only the change of one letter, and is in agreement with the rest of the verse. Samuel would scarcely place their choicest young men between the female slaves and the asses. But while the ass was used chiefly for riding, the ox was, as he still continues to be upon the Continent, man’s most faithful and valued friend and fellow labourer.
1Sa 8:17
His servants. Literally, “his slaves.” Under an absolute monarchy no one is flee.
1Sa 8:18
Ye shall cry. In despair at this cruel oppression ye shall appeal to Jehovah, but in vain. The king was given them at their own request, persisted in even after warning, and they must abide by their choice. It is worth noting that in the northern kingdom a majority of the kings more or less fulfilled Samuel’s evil forebodings, and there they were much more completely the product of the temper condemned by the prophet than they were in Judah. The ten tribes roughly snapped the tie which bound them to Jehovah; they discarded the ark and all the services of the sanctuary, and were content with so poor an imitation of them that all piously disposed men were compelled to abandon their lands and migrate into Judaea (2Ch 11:16); and so the majority of their kings, not being held in check by religious influences, were tyrants. At Jerusalem, on the contrary, most of them were content to remain within the limits of the Mosaic law, and were upon the whole a series of men far superior, not merely to the judges and the monarchs in old time, but to any European dynasty.
1Sa 8:19, 1Sa 8:20
The people refused to obeyliterally, to hearken tothe voice of Samuel. The words of Samuel were no doubt formally considered by the elders, and we may be sure that there would not be wanting men to urge attention and obedience to his warning; but when the decision had to be made, whether by vote or acclamation, the majority persisted in their choice, and for a reason which completely justified Samuel’s displeasure; for they sayThat we also may be like all the nations. Their wish was not to develop and perfect their own institutions, but to revolt from them, and escape from the rigour of the Mosaic law. It is remarkable that their nearest neighbours and most inveterate enemies, the Philistines, had no king, but an oligarchy of five princes. Probably it had been argued, in the assembly of the elders, that if the whole power of Israel were gathered into one hand it would be more than a match for the Philistines, whose energy must often have been diminished by discords among its rulers. That our king may judgei.e. govern (1Sa 7:17)us, and fight our battles. Here the people had reason on their side. Both the internal administration of justice and the defence of the country would be better managed under a permanent and regular authority than under the judges, whose rule was extemporised to meet difficulties, and had no inherent stability.
1Sa 8:21
All the words. The elders had of course reported to Samuel all the arguments used in the assembly, and just as previously he had carried his own distress at the national discontent with his government to Jehovah’s footstool in prayer (1Sa 8:6), so now, in his mediatorial office as prophet, he carries thither the nation’s petition.
1Sa 8:22
Hearken unto their voice. The Divine consent is now given for the third time to their request (see 1Sa 8:7, 1Sa 8:9). For the will of God ever leaves the will of man free, even when overruling it to the carrying out of some higher and fore ordained purpose. Everything was ripe in Israel for the change, but it was due to the moderation and disinterestedness of Samuel that the revolution was made without bloodshed or armed struggle. Ordinary rulers too often resist a popular demand, and stem back the flowing current of thought till it breaks through the opposing barrier, and sweeps with resistless violence all opposition away. Samuel yielded, and the nation trusted him so thoroughly that they left the choice of the king entirely to him, permitted him to settle the terms and limits of the monarchy, or, as we should say, to give the nation a constitution (1Sa 10:25), and treated him throughout the rest of his life with the deepest respect. He was deprived neither of his prophetic rank nor of his judicial functions, for “Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life” (1Sa 7:15), i.e. he remained to the last a coordinate power by the side of a king so self-willed and energetic even as Saul. Go ye every man unto his city. Prudence forbade a hasty choice. It would be well to let the agitation subside, or otherwise some busy intriguer among the elders might have managed to get himself selected by the popular voice. We gather from 1Sa 10:27 that there were leading men who felt aggrieved when the choice fell on none of them. But how wonderful is the confidence reposed in Samuel by the nation, when thus it left to the ruler whom virtually it was setting aside the choice of the person to whom he should cede his powers.
HOMILETICS
1Sa 8:1-9
Discontent with God’s methods.
The facts are
1. In Samuel’s old age his sons, being judges over Israel, abuse their office by accepting bribes.
2. This fact is adduced by the people as a reason for asking Samuel to make them a king.
3. Samuel in his grief seeks counsel of God.
4. Samuel is instructed to yield to their request, while protesting against it.
5. The conduct of the people is declared to be an expression of the perverse tendency characteristic of their history. The order of government under which Israel was living had received the special sanction of God, and had, also, grown naturally out of their circumstances. Though often sinful and foolish, it had never before entered into their minds to seek, apart from God, a change in the political settlement inherited from the times of Moses. The deputation which waited on Samuel, asking for a king, was not the expression of a sagacious patriotism, or of profound concern for the spiritual interests of the commonwealth, and ultimately of the world; but of a restless desire for what God would give in his own time, mingled with a dissatisfaction with the system which God then was sanctioning (1Sa 5:1-12 :20, 21). Practically, to Samuel; it meant, We can suggest and we demand now a course more agreeable to our views of life and our aspirations than that you represent. Samuel’s pain was acute and natural, and the concession made to the discontented, though apparently a breach in the Divine order, was in keeping with God’s usual treatment of men.
I. DISCONTENT WITH GOD‘S METHODS AND TIMES IS VARIOUSLY SHOWN. Men can detect and condemn faults in others which they either do not see or condone in themselves. It is possible for us, in the light of history, to dilate on the sin and folly of Israel while the same temper may be manifested by us in other forms. Discontent with God’s methods and times may appear in various relations.
1. The general government of the world. It is not often said that God has made a mistake in constituting the moral and material universe in such a way that so much sin and suffering should be possible; but the feeling is often entertained that it would have been well if some other course had been instituted. There is more of this feeling lurking in some hearts than is supposed. Men dare not face certain of their mental operations. How far the feeling affects theology, philosophical theories, personal rest in God, and fitness for doing the best Christian work, demands serious consideration.
2. The manner and form in which revelation has been conveyed to man. Many attacks on the Bible proceed from a discontent with what is conceived to be inadequate to the wants of the world; and in some this feeling has generated the supposed discovery of reasons for discarding the book as a revelation from God at all. The very primitive biographical notices; outlines of tribal history interblended with singular personal experiences; genealogies of uninteresting names; crude ideas and antique customs of strange peopleall this in connection with a favoured people, and relieved by streaks of light suited to men of later times, does not seem to be a mode of revelation most likely to survive the advancing intelligence of the world. It is also not the most satisfactory thing for so precious a boon as a revelation to be given in detached portions, to be conveyed originally to men of one country, and to be characterised by a series of supernatural events. Men feel that God has imposed a hard task on them to have to defend and justify what seems open to assault from so many sides. They wish it had been his will to have given his light so unmixed with an ancient human history that the most keen antagonist would be compelled to recognise its presence. To some it really seems as though the form and origin of the contents of the Bible were a misfortune. Of course this discontent, silent or expressed, springs from an imperfect consideration of the real nature and purport of the revelation given, as well as of the inevitable conditions of any revelation that has to be coextensive with the wants of both the first and last ages of the world; and that, moreover, has to be concentrated and verified in a Divine person duly attested by a contemporary evidence harmonious with a chain of antecedent proof. It would be useful to the Church if some one, dissatisfied with the way in which God is affirmed to have made known his will to succeeding ages, would prescribe the right way.
3. The method of saving men by atonement. That God does save souls by means of an atonement bearing, in some way, an objective relation to his government, as well as a moral relation to men’s lives, is so clearly the natural teaching of the Bible that it can only be eliminated by the adoption of a forced, non-natural interpretation of fact and statement. The discontent which some feel with the atonement is the reason for what is manifestly a forced interpretation of language. Entertaining the crude notion that the atonement is a transaction affecting three distinct beings, forgetful of the pregnant fact that it was God in Christ who, by sacrifice, effects redemption, and not considering well that all the pain and suffering, supposed to be imposed for the benefit of another, abide on any theory for the benefit of some one, they prefer a system in which pardon is based on the merits of a moral change brought on by a display of love in the shame and agonies of the cross!
4. The means of perfecting holiness in character. The long and tedious process by which often the soul advances from one degree of purity to another awakens dissatisfaction and fretfulness. Why should so blessed an issue as sanctification be insured by sometimes loss of property, friends, and health? Is it not possible to secure elevation of character apart from tribulation?
5. The means used for the conversion of the world. There is not a more common form of discontent than this. The Apostle Peter had to contend with it when he reminded his readers of the thousand years being with God as one day. That a religion demonstrably Divine, destined to be supreme, so entirely conducive to the temporal as also spiritual interests of all men, should be slow in progress and skill is a puzzle to many. Indolence, wild interpretations of prophecy, and latent scepticism are often but indications of a wish that God had not so ordained the constitution of things.
II. The PLEA FOR DISCONTENT IS PLAUSIBLE. The plea of the Israelites was that Samuel’s sons were untrustworthythe sources of justice were corrupt. The argument urged seemed to indicate a love of purity, concern for the moral welfare of the state, a fine sense of national honour, a real advance from the degradation which had acquiesced in the vices of Eli’s sons, and an appreciation of Samuel’s own character. But men often pay homage to conscience by creating delusive arguments Wherewith to set aside the behests of conscience. This reference to the sons of Samuel was only a pretext; for the evil could have been remedied by demanding their removal. It is clear that the plea was only a cover for a deep aversion, a predetermined plan to get rid of the present system, whether the prophet of God approved or not. Nor is the discontent of men with other of the methods of God without apparent reason. As in Samuel’s time, so now, men who cherish or express uneasiness with respect to God’s ways in the government of the world and revelation seize hold of some incident, some human aspect, some partial truth that really does not touch the main issue, and make it the cover for an aversion of deeper moral origin. An everlasting universal government has only had time to exhibit its first principles, and yet some transitory phenomenal inequalities are seized on as grounds of dissatisfaction with what must be of immeasurable range and ceaseless development. From scattered incidents of which the circumstances are not fully known, and from forms of representation suited to men not blessed with full gospel light, the discontented draw a plea for a revelation to the individual man apart from Scripture. To a plain, unbiassed mind an objective revelation and an objective atonement are as truly facts as was God’s government by judges, and as is his present government of the world in spite of apparent inequalities; but earnest desire to see the world blessed with “true ideas” and “beneficent influences” are pleas for explaining away what is very clear. The plea sounds well; but if men will look deeper it may be found to cover a settled aversion to submit to a ruling not chosen by self. No revealed truth is in moral antagonism with our true nature.
III. The EFFECT OF THIS DISCONTENT ON THE LOYAL IS TO AWAKEN THEIR DEEP SYMPATHY WITH GOD. Samuel was deeply wounded, not by the allusion to his sons, but by the people’s evident aversion to God’s ways and time. That any one should dare to suggest a variation from what God had approved was to him incomprehensible. He felt that God’s method and time must be wisest, best, safest, because they were his. As a true man of God, he naturally seeks counsel from on high. In Samuel’s displeasure there was an element of surprise, but his dominant feeling was sympathy with all that was of God. Sympathy with God is one of the natural fruits of piety. It was seen in Caleb and Joshua when the people were averse to the Divine procedure. Jeremiah knew it when wishing that his head were waters and his eyes a fountain of tears. In Not my will, but thine be done” received its highest expression. In proportion as it is strong does the resistance of men to the ways of God cause wonder, shame, and anguish. To such a soul all the works of God are excellent; they shine with supernal glory. Providences dark and painful are even welcomed as parts of the Father’s blessed discipline. What men call imperfections are felt to be only dim intimations of some glorious, loving purpose. “Whatever is is right,” comes from the heart when the intellect is baffled. This blessed sympathy with God! This belief which no argument can shake! This glorious optimism resting on the fact that the all-wise and loving One cannot but do right! It is not any so called Christian that attains to it. Yet it is the truest philosophy; for it is rest in God, content with his will. “Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.”
IV. The DIVINE TREATMENT OF DISCONTENT IS CHARACTERISED BY WONDERFUL PATIENCE. No sudden vengeance came on the rejecters of God. Consolation is poured into the heart of the sorrowing prophet; a reference of their conduct to their ineradicable perversity is made, and they are to have their way under protest (verses 7-9). This patience is in keeping with the record of God’s treatment of Israel in the seventy-eighth Psalm. “He remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again” (Psa 78:39). The same is seen still. As Christ once “endured the contradiction of sinners,” so does God constantly suffer men to raise their voice against his appointments. He is “slow to anger.” Calmly he allows men even to deny his existence, to criticise his government, to reject the light of his revelation, to invent ways of their own for securing future blessedness, and to murmur at his means of subduing the curse of sin. In their folly men interpret this patience of God as evidence of the correctness of their position, forgetting that “the day of the Lord” is coming, when men shall reap the fruit of their ways. To the successors of the prophet there is still consolation in the assurance that their prayer is heard, and their honour covered by the honour of their God. Hence the calmness, “the patience of the saints.” They often can do little more than “protest” against the unbelief and waywardness of the world. A whole nation on one side and a Samuel on the other does not convert error into truth and folly into wisdom. But none of these things shake the confidence of the few who, in critical seasons, are in deep sympathy with God; for they know, by a varied experience, his vast patience, and are assured that some day feeble men will learn the lesson, perhaps bitterly, that his ways are best.
General lessons:
1. The inconsistencies of men in office furnish occasion for developing the latent evils of their fellows (verses 3, 4).
2. The deceitfulness of the heart is seen in the eagerness with which men endeavour to justify what dare not be plainly avowed (verse 5).
3. Human history shows how utterly incompetent man is to form a correct estimate of the ways of God (verses 5, 8).
4. It is possible for our theologies to be framed more after what we prefer than after what is actually the fact.
5. When the Church of God is distressed because of the aversion to what is revealed, patience and prayer should be combined.
6. The most sore trial to those in deep sympathy with what Christ has approved is to witness, on the part of his professed people, a desire to escape his appointments for something more congenial to unsanctified ambition.
7. Every heresy and departure from God’s ways is plausible to many, and may seem to be unchecked, but God never vacates his seat of authority.
1Sa 8:10-22
Permitted, not approved.
The facts are
1. Samuel points out to the people that their desired king will aggrandise himself at their expense, and that, once entering on their course, there will be no deliverance.
2. The people, nevertheless, decide to have a king, and assign the motive of their preference.
3. Samuel, on laying the matter before God, receives a command to make them a king. The question at issue was not whether this or that form of government was intrinsically best, nor whether at some time in the near future God might or might not cause judgeship gradually to develop into kingship; but whether, at this juncture, it was God’s will to introduce a monarchy. The references in Deu 17:14-20 were probably a forecast of the events now brought to pass. At all events, God’s time for monarchy in Israel was not yet come; the people’s had come. The historian sets forth the bearings and result of the controversy. The instance is unique, but the principle involved is of frequent exemplification in human affairs.
I. THERE ARE SPHERES OF ACTION IN WHICH GOD ALLOWS MEN TO TAKE THEIR CHOICE OF THE METHODS BY WHICH HIS PURPOSES ARE TO BE WROUGHT OUT. Israel was a nation working out a spiritual issue. The day must come when in the “seed of Abraham” all nations shall be blessed Thus far, politically, this issue was being reached by a peculiar arrangement with as much success as the perverse spirit of the people would allow to any system. When “Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king” (Deu 17:10), it was understood that, though they were not at liberty to set aside recognition of Jehovah, the institutions of worship, and the moral law, they were free, if they so willed, to adopt political methods of their own. They would not cease to be Messianic in purpose, but they would work toward the goal by a new method unusually characterised by human frailty. There is a marked distinction in the accomplishment of Divine purposes through irrational and rational agents. The one is a channel of necessity; the other the free organ of controllable actions. Every stone falls because it must; every will acts because it wills. The marvel and mystery is that the eternal Will should in the end get its own through, or in spite of, the free action of other wills. Yet so it is. Likewise there are differences in the ruling of rational creatures. In one sense every free being can, and is left to, take what course he pleases. He may sin or not sin; he may love God or not; and this, too, while the obligation is most binding. But, nevertheless, God enforces some things and in others allows option. It is essential that God be loved; that Christ be the Medium through which saving mercy comes to all, infant and adult; that repentance and faith be exercised by all who bear the gospel call; and that certain duties to man be discharged. These are conditions of safety, purity, and bliss. But it is not essential to the same degree and in the same sense that men should pursue their calling in one way only. There is an option left as to how men shall obtain and use their knowledge; what methods shall be followed in pursuit of life’s calling; what means taken to promote spiritual culture and material advantage; what social and national arrangements may best subserve the common good. Having laid down the broad lines of faith in Christ and righteousness of principle in all things, God seems to have left a margin for the exercise of our discretion. It is as though the Eternal would thus mark his estimate of the great prerogative of freedom. He educates the individual and the race by the accumulation of varied experiences, the outgrowth of freedom.
II. Any CHOICE OF MEN, AS TO METHODS of pursuing their course, is ATTENDED WITH INCONVENIENCE IN SO FAR AS IT DEVIATES FROM THAT WHICH GOD CLEARLY APPROVES. Samuel declares to the people that the choice of a monarchy would impose on them inconvenient burdens, and rob them of much of the happiness they enjoyed under the form of government already approved of God (Deu 17:11-18). Personal pomp and splendour would mean taxation and regal aggrandisement. The sense, therefore, of this warning is that Israel might yet be God’s chosen people, subject to Mosaic law, guided in great affairs by prophets, and working to a Messianic goal; but the form of government chosen by man would be more costly and hindering than that at present approved by God. The teaching is true generally. There are clear lines of conduct laid down by Providence indicative of the way in which God would have us fulfil our purpose in the world. The man of business will not realise the end in view in so far as his methods are precisely contrary to the teachings of Providence. Statesmen may take a course of their own, heedless of what God prefers; their troubles will be proportionate. It is God’s method of developing the full manhood of Christian life that, while walking humbly with him in private, we do not “forsake the assembling of ourselves together.” Men who chose a different course may do so, but must bear the consequences of a dwarfed Christianity.
III. NOTWITHSTANDING A CLEAR STATEMENT OF THE PERILS OF DEVIATING FROM GOD‘S METHODS, MEN, UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A MASTERFUL PASSION, WILL SOMETIMES TAKE THEIR OWN COURSE. In vain did Samuel warn the people of the disapproval of God, and the costs of their desired monarchy; they refused to obey his voice, and said, “Nay; but we will have a king to reign over us” (Deu 17:19). It was not whether God approved or not; it was not a question of promoting righteousness; it was not a desire to see the Messianic purposes more speedily realised; but a longing to be like other nations, and consequently a desire to be less in direct connection with God as Ruler. The strength of this passion is obvious; for it disregards personal loss, the prophet’s aversion, and the declared disapproval of God.
1. The overpowering influence of a passion may be felt by the individual Christian. It is possible for Christian men, when piety is at low ebb, to hanker after the mode of life pursued by the Christless. The prayer of Christ that his people may “not be of the world” is sometimes either forgotten or freely interpreted. “Come out from among them, and be ye separate” may be admitted as a general duty, while its execution is sadly deficient. It is only when the soul has, in unguarded hours, come under the spell of the world passion that the clear lessons of Scripture and of experience are set aside for the paltry gratification of being like other men.
2. The same passion may lay hold of the Church. History shows that the Church has not been free from the spell which once laid hold of Israel. The simplicity of Christ has sometimes perished in the attempt to reproduce in the Church the formalities and pomp of the Philistines. “How far the Church can safely conform to the world” is a dangerous question, and should be substituted by “How may the Church best fashion the world to its own pure and lofty standard?”
IV. MEN DEGRADE THEMSELVES in so far as the METHODS THEY ADOPT DO NOT HARMONISE WITH THE SUPREME OBJECT FOR WHICH THEY LIVE. The ordinary reader feels that Israel was self-degraded in preferring to live like heathen nations when another course was open. The ends of Israel’s existence were highly moral; the mere love of pomp and splendour had no congruity with this end. What had grand military and regal parade to do with the righteousness which alone exalts a nation, and which was the peculiar qualification for advancing Messianic issues? It would not save them from the disasters consequent on loss of righteousnessrather it would aggravate them (Deu 17:18); nor would it make the practice of righteousness more easy. There is an intellectual and moral debasement in choice of means for an end not congruous with it, and in face of warning. The individual Christian and the Church profess to live for spiritual purposes. They degenerate when, from sheer self-will and hankering after the outwardly sensational, they seek to promote private or public ends pertaining to their Christian calling by anything not spiritual in character and tendency.
V. The CHOICE OF METHODS NOT APPROVED BY GOD IS NO BAR TO THE FINAL REALISATION OF THE DIVINE PURPOSE. As when men from discontent with God’s provision sought flesh, he sent them quails in abundance, so now he allows their freedom and gives a king. The quails and manna were only means of subsistence. “The life was more than meat.” So the government by judges or kings was only method of training the people for their ultimate purpose in life. Men might sicken and die with excess of flesh, but the nation would live on. Trouble and sorrow might arise from a change of form of government, and the people might morally sink in the choice, yet God would overrule all and effect his purpose. The Church may suffer much from her perverseness, and comparatively tedious advance will be made in the world; yet Christ will at last subdue all to himself, albeit his foolish people have to learn many a bitter lesson. Likewise personally the image of Christ will some day be more perfect in the soul, though late in life, and after many a sorrow induced by our own self-will in deviating from his methods of perfecting character.
HOMILIES BY B DALE
1Sa 8:1-3. (BEERSHEBA.)
Ignoble sons of an honoured father.
Nearly all that is known of Samuel’s household is here stated. He had at least two sons, Joel (Jehovah is God) and Abiah (my father is Jah), whose names were indicative of the devout spirit in which they were given (1Ch 6:28 : “And the sons of Samuel, the firstborn, and the second Abiah;” 1Ch 6:33 : “Heman a singer, the son of Joel;” 1Sa 15:17; 1Sa 25:5 : “Heman, the king’s seer”). During the period of his judgeship they grew to maturity, and toward its close he made them judges over Israel, and sent them to administer justice in Beersheba, in the southern limit of the land. His influence as judge as well as prophet extended “from Dan even to Beersheba” (1Sa 3:20), and with advancing age he needed assistance in his labours. “It may be doubted whether Samuel acted wisely in making this appointment, especially if, as seems to have been understood, the nomination in his lifetime of his sons to fulfil the functions he had hitherto discharged alone was an intimation that he meant them to be regarded as his successors in such government as he exercised. Nothing of this kind had been done before. And thus, almost unconsciously, perhaps, he was led to give a kind of sanction to the hereditary principle of government which was soon to be turned against himself” (Kitto). He acted according to his judgment of what was best, and doubtless with disinterestedness. There is no reason to suppose that he failed to train his sons in the right way, or that he was aware of their conduct at Beersheba “and restrained them not.” He is not, therefore, to be blamed. No man is infallible. The plans of the wisest men are often marred by the misconduct of others. And this appointment was, in its result, disastrous.
I. THEIR ADVANTAGES WERE GREAT. They were sons of one of the most faithful and eminent servants of God, had the benefit of his instruction and example in private and public, studied perhaps in a school of the prophets, were well acquainted with the law, held in honour for their father’s sake, placed in responsible positions. All these things, we might have expected, would have made them circumspect, just, and devout; and they should have done so. How, then, can we account for their defection?
1. Goodness is not hereditary. “The sinner begets a sinner, but a saint doth not beget a saint” (M. Henry). Hereditary relationship exerts a powerful influence on the mind and disposition, but nothing but Divine grace can change the heart.
“Rarely into the branches of the tree
Doth human worth mount up: and so ordains
He who bestows it, that as his free gift
It may be called” (Dante, ‘Purg.’ 7.).
2. Education is not omnipotent. When children of a good man turn out badly, it may generally be traced to some defect of training, through attention to other duties, absence from home, inconsistency at home, unwise methods, excessive strictness, unjust partiality, undue indulgence, maternal carelessness, intimate association with evil companions (in some cases unknown and unpreventable). We do not know enough of Samuel’s household to say that it was wholly free from such influences. But the most perfect education is limited in its power over character.
3. Power is a perilous trust. It presents temptations which are sometimes too strong for men who under other circumstances might not have fallen. It is a severe test, and a sure revealer, of character (Luk 12:45). Power shows the man.
4. Each man is responsible for his own conduct. He is endowed with the power of choosing or refusing good and evil, and no external circumstances can fully account for the choice he makes. “Every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal 6:5). “As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son,” etc. (Eze 18:4).
II. THEIR CONDUCT WAS BASE. “His sons walked not in his ways” of truth, integrity, self-denial, and true godliness; but “turned aside” from them to
1. Covetousness, or the undue love of earthly possessions. “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1Ti 6:17-19). “Covetousness is idolatry” (Luk 12:15; Col 3:5). “It is the idolatry of the heart, where, as in a temple, a miserable wretch excludes God, sets up gold instead of him, and places that confidence in it which belongs to the great Supreme alone.” It was one of the necessary qualifications of judges that they should be “men of truth, hating covetousness” (Exo 18:21). Nothing is more corrupting than “the narrowing lust of gold.”
2. Bribery (Exo 23:6, Exo 23:8; Deu 16:18, Deu 16:19).
3. Perversion of justice (Pro 17:15).
4. Their conduct in all these things was so persistent and flagrant that it was known to “all the elders of Israel.” They openly abused their power for selfish ends, trampled on the law which they were appointed to “magnify and make honourable,” and wrought against the purpose which Samuel spent his life in effecting.
III. THEM INFLUENCE WAS PERNICIOUS. Not only did they bring misery upon themselves, and occasion bitter sorrow to their aged father; but they also
1. Inflicted grievous injury on those with reference to whom they “took bribes and perverted judgment.”
2. Set a bad example to all men (Psa 12:8).
3. Brought their high office into contempt.
4. Contributed directly to a national revolution. How true it is that “one sinner destroyeth much good!”D.
1Sa 8:4-22. (RAMAH.)
Israel’s desire for a king.
“The old order changeth, giving place to new
And God fulfils himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world” (Tennyson).
Introductory.The desire of Israel for a king, as expressed by their elders to Samuel,was a turning point in their history.
1. This desire was not new. It existed long before (Jdg 8:22; Jdg 9:9). But new circumstances had arisen,the greater order and unity resulting from the labours of Samuel, the misconduct of his sons, the threatening attitude of surrounding nations,causing it to become stronger and more general, and to issue in a definite and fixed determination. The elders simply gave expression to what the heart of the people was set upon.
2. The object of their desire was not essentially wrong. It had been foretold that kings should arise in Israel (Gen 17:6, Gen 17:16; Gen 35:11; Num 24:17). Provision had been made in the law of Moses for the choice of a king, and directions given concerning the manner in which he should govern (Deu 17:15-20); and, more recently, intimations had been afforded that the time for his election was at hand (1Sa 2:10, 1Sa 2:35). His appointment was only in apparent contradiction to the fundamental principle of the theocracy, that “God was their King,” for it was not intended to supersede the Divine authority; he was to be the viceroy or deputy of Jehovah, as the judges had been; and he might be better adapted than they to the present condition of the people. Nevertheless, the transition was in one aspect from a higher to a lower order of things, from a direct to a mediate theocracy; it tended to set the invisible Ruler in the background, and it was fraught with imminent peril.
3. The sinfulness of their desire consisted in the sort of king they sought and the spirit they manifested; whereby they, in effect, rejected the Lord as their King. “If they had simply desired a king to be given them according to the law of God (Deu 17:15), that should govern them in equity, and such an one as feared God, they then had not offended; but now they do ask a king of a preposterous desire only that they might be like unto other nations; yet God, having purposed to erect among his people a kingly throne, and to raise unto them a king of whose seed Messiah should come, took this occasion to accomplish his purpose, so turning their evil and inordinate desire unto a good end, as God can convert the evil thoughts and actions of men to serve for his own glory” (Willet).
4. Their desire was fulfilled, and the transition peaceably effected through the agency of Samuel, who yielded to their request because he perceived the good which was hidden therein, and that in the providence of God the time was come for a king to be appointed (1Sa 9:16). “Israel was in the position of a boat which has been borne down in a swift stream into the very suction of the rapids. The best would be that she should put back; but if it be too late for this, then the best is that there should be in her a strong arm and a steady eye to keep her head straight. And thus it was with Israel. She plunged down the fall madly, rashly, wickedly, but under Samuel’s control steadily” (Robertson). “He had to guide the difficult transition of Israel’s political organisation from a Divinely ruled republic into a regularly constituted monarchy.” “To mediate between the old and the new was, indeed, the peculiar position of Samuel. He was at once the last of the judges, and the inaugurator of the first of the kings. Take the whole of the narrative togethertake the story first of his opposition, and then of his acquiescence, in the establishment of the monarchy. Both together bring us to a just impression of the double aspect in which he appears; of the two-sided sympathy which enabled him to unite together the passing and the coming epoch” (Stanley). His calmness, moderation, breadth of view, practical adaptation, and lofty devotion to God and his people were herein exhibited in an eminent degree. “Samuel is one of the few great men in history who, in critical times, by sheer force of character and invincible energy terminate the previous form of a great existing systemat first against their own will, but afterwards, when convinced of the necessity, with all the force and eagerness of their nature; and who then initiate a better form with the happiest results, though amidst much personal suffering and persecution” (Ewald, ‘History ‘).D.
1Sa 8:4-22. (RAMAH)
The popular desire for a king.
“Make us a king to judge us like all the nations (1Sa 8:5). This narrative teaches us
I. THAT THE POPULAR DESIRE, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE PLAUSIBLE, IS OFTEN REPREHENSIBLE (1Sa 8:4, 1Sa 8:5).
1. Its alleged grounds were insufficient.
(1) The old age of Samuel. But due respect to him and gratitude for his past services should have prevented their desire to set him aside; and the prosperity that attended his rule during many years should have led them to wish for its continuance as long as possible. They were inconsiderate, forgetful, unthankful, hasty, and unjust.
(2) The misgovermnent of his sons. But they might have been removed from their office without the office itself being abolished. It is better to try to mend an institution than to destroy it.
(3) To be like other nations. But Israel was designed to be unlike them, and superior to them (Le 1Sa 20:26); and most of the miseries they had suffered arose from conformity to their ways. The wish to be like others is a fruitful source of sin and woe. The cause of truth and righteousness in the world is greatly damaged when those who should be the guides of the ignorant and the wicked become their servile followers. “Palestine in ancient times was pre-eminently a land of kings. Every district, nay, every considerable city, had its king and its court. In most cases the king was an autocrat, absolute and irresponsible, lawgiver, judge, and executor, the source of all honours, offices, and emoluments, the commander of the army, the dispenser of favours, the awarder of punishment. The rights, claims: and prerogatives of royalty extended to every person, and to every relation of life. The king was the master, the people were his subjects, nay, slaveshis property. In a better sense he was the common father of the community, they his children, with all the kindlier duties and obligations implied and included in this most sacred of human relations. Royalty thus constituted and administered was selected by Jehovah as the synonym and exemplar of his special relation to the Hebrew people” (Thomson, ‘Bibliotbeca Sacra,’ vol. 30.).
(4) The threatening attitude of the Philistines (1Sa 9:16) and the Ammonites (1Sa 12:12), which was doubtless referred to in the interview of the elders with Samuel. But the Lord of hosts, who had hitherto delivered them, was able to do so still; and to rely upon a new institution for safety instead of upon him was to lean upon a broken reed. “Instead of seeking for the cause of the misfortunes which had hitherto befallen them in their own sin and want of fidelity toward Jehovah, they searched for it in the faulty constitution of the nation itself” (Keil).
2. Its real grounds were blameworthy.
(1) Dissatisfaction with the government which had been Divinely appointed and sanctioned. When the hearts of men are right with God they are not disposed to complain of his ordinances.
(2) Distrust of the presence and might of their invisible King. “God was not sufficient for them without a creature prop.” “Their demand of a visible earthly sovereign was in disparagement of that extraordinary Providence which had distinguished them from the nations of the earth, and taken them by a privilege under an immediate theocracy. Their sin was founded in a revolt from God, in the abdication of a perfect trust and reliance upon his providential government in that method in which with respect to them he had ordered it. But their fault, though uncommon in its form, is not at all in its principle. Something to see and nothing to believe is the wish and propensity of more than the, Israelites” (Davison ‘on Prophecy ‘).
(3) Impatience, presumption, and self-will. God gave them judges and afterwards they desired a king” (Act 13:20, Act 13:21). Instead of first seeking to know the will of God, and then waiting his time for a change, if it should seem good in his sight, they thought that they knew what was best, took counsel of their own hearts, and, having chosen their course independently of him, proceeded forthwith to follow it up, and resolved to have their own way. They were thus disloyal to their Divine King, to whose direction and control they were bound to submit.
(4) The love of worldly pleasure, power, and glory. They desired a king not merely
(a) that he might judge them without interruption, by the law of hereditary descent; but also
(b) that “he might go out before them and fight their battles” (1Sa 8:20); and, still further
(c), that he might hold a splendid court, and gratify their ambition and lust of shining or making a boastful display. They wished to be thought in no respect inferior to the surrounding nations. It was a result to which prosperity too often leads. The worldliness from which the misconduct of Samuel’s sons proceeded was but a symptom of a widespread evil. “The secret spring of their rebellion was the ambition of their leaders, who could live no longer without the splendour of a regal court and household. ‘Give me’ (say they, as the prophet Hosea makes them speak, 1Sa 13:10) ‘a king and princes,’ where every one of them might shine a distinguished officer of state. They could get nothing, when their affairs led them to their judge’s poor residence in the schools of the prophets, but the gift of the Holy Ghost (1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 19:1-24.), which a courtier, I suppose, would not prize even at the rate of Simon Magus, or think it worth the bribing for a piece of money. This it was, and only this, that made their demand criminal” (Warburton, ‘Div. Leg.,’ Book V.). How often has their sin been repeated in the history of nations! “All the tragical wars of the Greeks or barbarians, whether civil or foreign, have flowed from one fountainfrom the desire either of riches, or of glory, or of pleasure; for in pursuit of these things the human race brings on its own destruction”.
II. THAT THE POPULAR DESIRE IS NOT UNFREQUENTLY AN OCCASION OF GREAT TROUBLE TO A GODLY MAN (1Sa 8:6-9). “The thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel.” He saw that it was wrong, felt disappointed and grieved, and was at first altogether opposed to it, and disinclined to listen to those by whom it was expressed, “because,” says Josephus, “of his inborn sense of justice, because of his hatred of kings, as so far inferior to the aristocratic form of government which conferred a godlike character on those who lived under it.” “For kings are many, and the good are few” (Dante).
1. As a good man has no greater joy than to see the people seeking what is right and good, so he has no greater sorrow than to see them “going after vain things which cannot profit nor deliver; for they are vain” (1Sa 12:21). Abraham (Gen 18:23), Moses (Exo 32:18, Exo 32:31), Elijah (1Ki 19:10). The Psalmist (Psa 119:158), Jeremiah (Jer 9:1), Paul at Athens (Act 17:16).
2. The grief he feels is of the noblest kind.
(1) Unselfish. Samuel did not resent or complain of what was said concerning his old age or his sons’ misgovernment; and if he was not absolutely indifferent to the injustice done to himself, yet his trouble arose chiefly from other and higher considerations.
(2) Patriotic.
(3) Divine. He was concerned, above all things, for the honour and glory of God. His own loyalty to him made him quick to resent the disloyalty of others, and his sympathy with his purposes filled him with holy jealousy lest they should be defeated or in any way hindered. He felt in some degree as God himself feels.
3. His resource in trouble is prayer to God. “And Samuel prayed to the Lord” (verse 6); probably all night, as on a subsequent occasion (1Sa 15:11). Such had been the resource of his devout mother in her distress. Nor is there any other so effectual (Psa 55:22; Php 4:6).
4. In communion with God he finds abundant consolation and help. God takes upon himself the burden of his servant who has laboured and suffered for his sake (Psa 69:7). “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” He assures him that it is “no strange thing that has happened unto him.” “According to all the works which they have done,” etc. (verse 8). He removes his perplexity, tells him what to do, and gives him strength to do it. “Hearken unto their voice,” etc. (verse 9). All questionings cease when the Divine voice speaks, and, with the morning light, Samuel goes forth humbly, fearlessly, and cheerfully to deliver his message to the elders.
III. THAT THE POPULAR DESIRE, WHEN IT IS WRONG, SHOULD BE REBUKED, AND ITS EVIL EFFECTS DECLARED (verses 10-18). It may not be allowed to pursue its course without warning on the part of those who feel that it is wrong, and to whom a Divine message comes.
1. This message consists of
(1) A testimony against its sinfulness. “Hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly (testify) unto them” their sin, and the displeasure of Heaven.
(2) A declaration of the evils involved in its fulfilment. “Show them the manner (mishpat) of the king that shall reign over them,” i.e. his regal rights, claims, privileges, and prerogatives; not what might be de jure, according to “the manner of the kingdom” (1Sa 10:25; Deu 17:14), but would be de facto, according to the custom of the kings of the heathen nations whom they wished to resemble. We have here a picture of “the dark side of the institution” in contrast with the theocracy:
(a) Its ruling motivepersonal aggrandisement and indulgence. “He will take for himself, his chariots, his horses, etc; whilst for your welfare he will care nothing.
(b) Its arbitrary and oppressive character. “He will take your sons” to be his personal attendants (verse 11) for military and agricultural service (verse 12), your daughters for domestic service (verse 13), your land to give to his attendants (verse 14), a tenth of your corn and wine to reward his officers (imposing heavy taxationverse 15), your servants and cattle “to put them to his work” (verse 16), and a tenth of your sheep; “a great retinue, a great table, a standing army, great favourites, great revenues” (M. Henry); and you yourselves will lose your political and social liberty, and become his slaves (verse 17).
(c) Its helpless and hopeless misery (verse 18)brought upon.yourselves, causing you to cry out to God for help, “and the Lord will not hear you in that day.” “The yoke once assumed you must bear forever” (1Ki 12:4).
2. The message must be declared faithfully and fully, whether men will bear or forbear. “And Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people” (verse 10).
3. The purpose of such declaration being to lead them to consideration and repentance, and, if they still persist, to throw the responsibility for the result upon themselves alone. The watchman who warns the wicked, even if they turn not from their way, “hath delivered his soul” (Eze 33:9); and the faithful minister is “unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish” (2Co 2:15).
IV. THAT THE POPULAR DESIRE IS SOMETIMES EFFECTUALLY CORRECTED BY BEING GRATIFIED (verses 19-22).
1. In spite of every admonition, men can and do persist in their sinful desire. “Nay; but we will have a king over us.” Their self-will appears more plainly than before. Expostulation only makes it stronger. They will have their way. And God, who coerces not whom he has endowed with moral freedom, permits them to do so.
2. By their persistency they even obtain of him the fulfilment of their request. “Make them a king,” is his final response to Samuel, who “rehearsed the words in his ears,” and now dismisses them “every man unto his city,” to await the speedy accomplishment of their desire. The evil which would have resulted from its refusal is thus averted. The principle of the theocracy is preserved. Jehovah continues to rule over Israel; and they recognise his authority in so far, at least, as to leave the selection and appointment of a king in his hands. His sovereign will encircles and controls their purposes. But he does not, by granting their request, sanction their sin. On the contrary
3. In its fulfilment he inflicts upon them a just chastisement, and teaches them, by the experience of its legitimate results, the folly of their devices. Their first king is a man after their own heart, reflects their sin, and brings overwhelming calamity on himself and them. “I gave thee a king in mine anger” (Hos 13:11; Psa 106:15). “God, when he is asked for aught amiss, showeth displeasure when he giveth, hath mercy when he giveth not. The devil was heard in asking to enter the swine, the apostle was not heard when he prayed that the messenger of Satan might depart from him.”
4. He prepares them thereby to receive as their ruler” a man after his own heart” (1Sa 13:14), who shall conduct them to power and honour, and foreshadow him who is higher than the kings of the earth. How wonderfully are the Divine purposes fulfilled in and through the errors and sins of men! “In a very remarkable sense the vox populi was the vox Dei, even when the two voices seemed most utterly out of harmony ….The Jews were asking for heavy punishment, without which the evil which was in them could not have been brought to light or cured. But they were asking also for something besides punishment, for that in which lay the seeds of a higher blessing. Beneath this dark counterfeit image was hidden the image of a true King reigning in righteousness; the assertor of truth, order, unity in the land; the Helper of the poor, who would not judge after the sight of his eyes, nor reprove after the hearing of his ears; but would smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips would slay the wicked” (Maurice).D.
1Sa 8:6
The benefit of prayer.
“And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.” The blessings obtained in answer to prayer are real and manifold. Some of them are outward and materialdaily bread, health, safety, life. God is “in all, above all, and through all,” the personal and free Ruler of the universe, and able to grant our petitions for temporal good in harmony with the established order of nature. The mind and will of man can produce changes in the material world without disturbing that order; much more can the eternal mind and will do the same. Other blessings are inward and spiritualwisdom, righteousness, peace, and joy. The “Father of spirits” has access to the human spirit, interpenetrates it as light the atmosphere, holds communion with it, and disposes it to holiness. Spiritual blessings are incomparably more valuable than material. What we are determines our relation to surrounding objects. And beneficial changes wrought within are followed by similar changes in the world without. “In prayer we make the nearest approaches unto God, and lie open to the influences of Heaven. Then it is that the Sun of righteousness doth visit us with his directest rays, and dissipateth our darkness, and imprinteth his image on our souls” (Scougal).
“Speak to him, thou, for he hears, and spirit with spirit can meet.
Closer is he than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet” (Tennyson).
In illustration of the spiritual benefit of prayer let us consider how Samuel, who “prayed unto the Lord” in his trouble, and “rehearsed all the words of the people in the ears of the Lord” (1Sa 8:21), was comforted and helped in time of need. What a different man he was when he came forth from communion with his Almighty Friend to speak to the elders of Israel from what he was when he went from them, “displeased” (1Sa 8:6) and distressed, to pour out his heart before the Lord! “What profit shall we have if we pray unto him?”
1. Relief for a burdened heart. It is often a great relief to tell our trouble to an earthly friend; much more is it to pour it forth into the bosom of God. “No other God but the God of the Bible is heart to heart” (Niebuhr). “They went and told Jesus” (Mat 14:12).
2. Sympathy under bitter disappointment. Samuel seemed to have “laboured in vain and spent his strength for nought.” But God sanctioned his work, identified himself with him, shared his disappointment, and took his burden on himself. In rejecting his faithful servants men reject the Lord. “Why persecutest thou me?” (Act 9:5). He sympathises with them (Heb 4:5); and one smile of his more than compensates for apparent failure and the frowns of the whole world. “By degrees two thoughts calmed him. The first was the feeling of identification with God’s cause. The other element of consolation was the Divine sympathy. Atheism and revolution here, as elsewhere, went hand in hand. We do not know how this sentence was impressed by the infinite mind on Samuel’s mind; all we know is, he had a conviction that God was a fellow sufferer” (Robertson).
3. Guidance in great perplexity. The will of the Lord, it may be, is at first hidden or obscure, but in fellowship with him the mists and clouds that prevent our seeing it are cleared away, the sun shines forth, and our way is made plain. We see “the light of this world” (Joh 11:9). “The vocation of man is the sun in the heavens of his life.” “The secret of the Lord” (the counsel or advice, such as a man gives to his friend) “is with them that fear him” (Psa 25:14). God tells his secrets only to his friends. “The meek will he guide in judgment: the meek will he teach his way” (Psa 25:9). “He will guide you into all the truth” (Joh 16:13).
4. Submission to the supreme will. That will is always wisest and best; it cannot be altered or made to bend to ours; and one of the chief benefits of prayer is that thereby we receive grace which disposes us to accept humbly and cheerfully what at first appears evil in our sight. We are made of one mind with God.
5. Strength for painful duty. It may be to “protest solemnly” (1Sa 8:9) against the course resolved upon by others, to alter our own course and expose ourselves to the charge of inconsistency, to face opposition, danger, and death. But, God never appoints us a duty without giving us strength to perform it. Habitual prayer constantly confers decision on the wavering, and energy on the listless, and calmness on the excitable, and disinterestedness on the selfish” (Liddon).
6. Composure amidst general excitement. Whilst the elders clamour, “Nay; but we will have a king over us,” Samuel is unmoved. He calmly listens to their decision, takes it back to God in secret prayer, and then comes forth and says, “Go ye every man to his own city.” “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee” (Isa 26:3). Hurricanes revolve around a centre of perfect calm. Outside the charmed circle the tempest may rage furiously; within it all is peace. Such is the heart and mind kept (garrisoned) by the peace of God (Php 4:7).
7. Confidence in a glorious future. “The Lord will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake” (1Sa 12:22). He works out his purposes by unexpected methods, overrules human perversity, and makes the wrath of man to praise him (Psa 76:10). “What will the end he?” it was said at a time of great and general anxiety to an eminent servant of God (Dr. A. Clarke), who replied, with a beaming countenance, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”D.
HOMILIES BY D. FRASER
1Sa 8:22
The unwise demand granted.
The government by judges fell into discredit. Samuel, indeed, was without reproach; but when advancing age made the burden of public affairs too heavy for him, his sons, to whom he naturally delegated his authority, proved unrighteous rulers. They do not seem to have been licentious, like the sons of Eli, but they were covetous, and corrupted the fountains of justice by taking bribes. What a persistent thing sin is! How it repeats itself! How hard it is to eradicate it! Samuel’s lifelong example of integrity was lost upon his sons. The terrible fate of Eli’s family was lost on them too. To the dignity of justice, to the honour of truth, they were indifferent for filthy luere’s sake. Then the elders of Israel asked Samuel to set a king over them.
I. THE IMPROPRIETY OF THE REQUEST.
1. It followed a bad precedent. The experiment had been tried about 150 years before. The people asked Gideon to be their hereditary prince, and that hero declined the proposal, as inconsistent with a pure theocracy. After his death Abimelech was king for three years; but his career began in cruelty, ended soon in disaster and death, and no one from that time had sought the royal dignity.
2. It proceeded on a wrong principle. The desire to be as the other nations round about was in fiat contradiction to the revealed purpose of God that Israel should be separate as a people unto him. The wish to have a king to lead them out to battle betrayed a thirst for war unworthy of a holy nation, and a mistrust of the Lord’s power to defend them. Here, indeed, is the point in which they departed from the permissive law regarding a king recorded in the seventeenth chapter of Deuteronomy. A regal government was not to be reckoned inconsistent with the theocracy, provided the king was not a foreigner, and was chosen by Jehovah, whose vicegerent he should be. The elders asked for a king not after the mind of the Lord, but after the pattern of the heathen round about.
II. REASONS OF THE DIVINE CONSENT.
1. A headstrong people must learn by experience. The elders and people of Israel were warned of the risk they ran. A king such as they desired would restrain their ancient liberties, and subordinate all their rights and interests to the maintenance of his court and army. They heard Samuel’s warning, and persisted in their demand. So the Lord bade his servant make them a king. If men will not take advice, let them have their way. Wisdom seldom comes to wilful men but through sharp lessons of the results of folly.
2. The way must be prepared for the king and the kingdom that God would choose. It is important to remember that Divine purposes are accomplished on earth not by direct fiats of authority or exertions of power, but through long and complex processes of human action and counteraction, by the corrections of experience, the smart of suffering, and the recoil from danger. It was God’s design to constitute Israel into a kingdom under a sure covenanta kingdom which should furnish the basis for glowing prophetic visions of the kingdom of Christ; but this design was not to be fulfilled abruptly, or by a sudden assertion of the Divine will. The way was prepared by the failure of all other devices for holding together the Hebrew people. First the government by judges lost credit; then the kingdom as set up by popular desire failed; so that the tribes, seeing the ruin of their own devices, might be ready to receive the kingdom as God would have it, and the man whom he would choose to “feed Jacob his people and Israel his inheritance.”
III. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE SAME PROCESS.
1. Men have set up their own devices in the administration of the Church; and with what result? They have not been content with an unseen Lord and King. The early patriarchates may be described as a government by judges; but men were not content therewith, and Latin Christianity set up an ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy on earth, a Saul-like kingship at Rome. Those parts of the Western Church which broke away from this doomed kingdom at the Reformation, for the most part gave power to secular princes in exchange for their protection. All such arrangements are temporary devices; but they are witnesses and preludes to something higher and more Divine. They prepare the way for the reign of Jesus Christ, as the broken, confused reign of Saul prepared for the strong kingdom of David.
2. Inward Christian experience can tell a similar tale. What plans have to be tried and found wanting, what thrones of confusion in the heart to be subverted, before the Lord alone is exalted! We are permitted to have our own way that we may learn how small our wisdom is, how vain are our devices. We exalt our own righteousness, our own will, our own religious confidence. It is our Saul; and the issue is confusion and disorder, till we renounce our pride and vainglory, and receive the Son of David Jehovah’s true Anointed, to reign over and rule in us. Self religion starts thus”Nay; but we will have a king.” The religion which is taught of God says, “Blessed be the king that cometh in the name of the Lord!”F.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
SECOND PART. SAUL
1 Samuel 8-31
________________
FIRST DIVISION
Establishment By Samuel Of The Israelitish Kingdom Under The Rule Of Saul. 1 Samuel 8-12
______________
FIRST SECTION
The Preparations. Chapters 89
I. The Persistent Desire of the People after a King conveyed through their Elders to Samuel
1Sa 8:1-22
1And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over 2Israel. Now [And] the name of his first-born was Joel , 1 and the name of his [the] 3second Abiah2; they were judges in Beersheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre,3 and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
4Then [And] all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to 5Samuel to Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk 6not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But [And] the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel 7prayed unto the Lord [Jehovah]. And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee,4 but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken [forsaking]5 me and served [serving] other gods, so do they also [om. also] unto thee [ins. also]. 9Now therefore [And now] hearken unto their voice; howbeit [om. howbeit] yet protest solemnly unto [solemnly warn]6 them, and show them the manner7 of the king that shall reign over them.
10And Samuel told all the words of the Lord [Jehovah] to the people that asked 11of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen [put them in his chariot and on his horses8], and some [they] 12shall run before his chariots [chariot]. And he will appoint9 him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them [some he will set] to ear [plough] his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war and [ins. 13the] instruments [equipment] of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries [perfumers],10 and to be [om. to be] cooks, and to be [om. to be] 14bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, 15even [om. even] the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his 16servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your 17goodliest young men [oxen],11 and your asses, and put them to his work. He will 18take the tenth of your sheep; and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which [whom] ye shall have chosen you, and the Lord [Jehovah] will not hear you in that day.
19Nevertheless [And] the people refused to obey [hearken to] the voice of Samuel. 20And they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us; That [And] we also may [will] be like all the nations, and that [om. that] our king may [shall] judge us, 21and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord [Jehovah]. And the 22Lord [Jehovah] said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1Sa 8:1-3. Samuels sons, Joel and Abiah, associated with him as judges over Israel.The reason here given, why Samuel made his two sons judges, is his age, for which his work, as sketched in 1Sa 7:15-17, had become too hard. The two sons, Joel and Abiah, are also mentioned in 1Ch 6:13 [Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 8:28], where, however, in the masoretic text, the name of the first has fallen out.12 [These names may be taken as indications of the fathers pious feeling. The first, Joel, Jehovah is God, was, not improbably, a protest against the idolatry of the Israelites. Hebrew names thus frequently serve as historical finger-signs, pointing out prevailing tendencies or modes of feeling at certain times. Comp. Ichabod (1Sa 4:21-22), Sauls sons Meribbaal (Mephibosheth) and Ishbaal (Ishbosheth), Davids sons (2Sa 3:2-5), Manasseh the King, Malachi. The name of Samuels second son, Abiah, Jehovah is father, expresses trust in the fatherhood of God, an idea which hardly appears in O. T. except in proper names. It records, doubtless, the fervent aspiration of him who first devised it as a name, and, we may hope, of many who subsequently adopted it, after that endearing and intimate relationship between God and the soul of man, which is truly expressed by the words father and child. It may be accepted as proof that believers in ancient days, though they had not possession of the perfect knowledge of the mystery of God and of the Father and of Christ, or of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless received the Spirit of adoption, that God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, whereby they cried, Abba, Father (Wilkinson, Personal Names in the Bible, page 169 sq.).Tr.].They acted as judges in Beersheba, Well of the seven (that is, lambs), or of the oath (Gen 21:28-33), the spot consecrated by the Patriarchal history (Gen 22:19; Gen 26:23; Gen 28:10), in the extreme south of the country, on the border of Edom, now Bir-es-seba [Well of the seven, or of the lion] (Robins. I. 337 [Amer. Ed. L., 204 sq.]).13 Josephus (Ant. VI., 3, 2) adds, in Bethel after judges, thus intimating that one son acted in the North, the other in the South, both together comprising the whole country in their judicial work, according to which Samuel had wholly retired; but against this is the previous statement that Samuel exercised his office all the days of his life, and therefore his sons could only have been appointed by him assistants in the performance of duties which his old age rendered too arduous for him. Ewalds opinion that this addition of Josephus suits so well, that he must have gotten it from a still better account in the histories of the Kings, is a mere surmise, over against which we may put with equal right the opinion that Josephus was indebted for this addition (Ngelsb.) to his very lively fancy (Then.), and that the Masoretic text fits in so well with the whole historical situation, that the integrity of the passage cannot be assailed. Since, on the one hand, our attention is directed to Samuels age,14 which compelled him to make his sons judges, while yet he did not lay down his office, and, on the other hand, the desire after a firm and energetic royal power was based on the dangerous condition of the country by reason of foreign enemies, it appears that Samuel, in order to lighten the burden, set his sons as judges in a part of the land, and in the part which occasioned the greatest difficulties and exertions, that is, the southern. 1Sa 8:3 affirms that this measure was a failure. In consequence of the division of the judicial power between the father and the sons, the authority of the office was so debased in the eyes of the people by the crimes of the latter, as the sacerdotal dignity was by the sons of Eli, that the desire for a higher authority to guide the people found utterance.They took bribes and perverted judgment.They thus transgressed the law of the Lord (Exo 23:6; Exo 23:8; comp. Deu 16:19), and destroyed the foundation of the judicial office as the office for the administration of right and justice. Their official unfaithfulness is contrasted with their fathers walk: they walked not in his ways.This fact or judgment alone is given, and Samuel is not, like Eli, charged with the blame of his sons misconduct. The words: they inclined or turned aside (namely, from the ways of their father15) after lucre, exhibit the roots of their wicked official procedure in a mind directed to gain. Luther gives the correct sense: they turned aside to covetousness.
1Sa 8:4-9.The demand for a king
1Sa 8:4-5, how it was made, 1Sa 8:6, how it was received by Samuel and carried before the Lord, 1Sa 8:7-9, how he, and through him the people, was instructed concerning it by the Lord.
1Sa 8:4-5. All the elders of Israel assemble in Ramah, Samuels judicial seat. Thus the whole nation is in motion against the existing condition of things; it appears before Samuel officially and formally in the body of its representatives. Two things they adduce as ground of the demand which they wish to make: 1) Samuels age, that is, the lack of vigor and energy in the government, which, with his advancing age, made itself perceptible to the whole nation, and was not supplied by the assistance of his sons, which he had for that reason (1Sa 8:1) called in; 2) the evil walk, the misgovernment of his sons, the moral and legal depravation which they produced. The demand is: Make us a king (Act 13:21); and two things are added: 1) in reference to his judicial work: he was to judge; the royal office was to take the place of the judicial, and so the meaning of the demand is a complete abrogation of the hitherto existing form of government under Judges 2) in reference to the royal-monarchical constitution of the surrounding nations: the Israelitish constitution is to be like that (). After the words as all the nations, we must supply have such a one. Israel will not be behind other nations in respect to the splendor and power of royal rule. The accordance of the last words: like all the nations with Deu 17:14 is to be noted.In 1Sa 8:6 two things are said of Samuels conduct in reference to this demand. First, that he received it with displeasure (, properly: the thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel). But the cause of his displeasure is expressly said to be, that they made the demand: Give us a king to judge us. He did not, therefore, take it amiss that they blamed the wrong-doing of his sons, nor that they referred to his age, and thus intimated that he was no longer able to bear the whole burden of the office, while his sons did evilly. What displeased him was the expression of desire for a king as ruler. How far and why this demand was the occasion of his displeasure appears from the connection. From the words of Samuel (1Sa 12:12) we see 1) that the people, pressed anew by the Ammonites, demanded a king who should give them the protection against enemies, which was not expected from the aging Samuel; 2) that, in this demand, they left out of view the kingdom of God in their midst, turned away their heart from the God who had hitherto as their almighty king so often saved them from the power of the enemy, and put their trust in an external, visible kingdom as means of safety and protection against their enemies, over against the invisible royal rule of their God, whose instrument, Samuel, they rejected. The same thing is expressed in the words of Samuel, 1Sa 10:18-19. In both passages, however, Samuels discourse is an echo of the word of God Himself, imparted to him in answer to the question which he had asked God in prayer. This, namely, is the second important factor in Samuels procedure: He prayed to the Lord. Deeply moved by the sin which, in this demand, the people committed against the Lord as their king (and this was the real occasion of his displeasure and unwillingness in reference to the desired revolution in the political constitution, which was connected with the rejection of himself as representative and instrument of the divine government), he carried the whole matter before the Lord in prayer, and, in this important crisis also of the history of his people, who would no longer be guided by him, showed himself the humble, consecrated man and hero of prayer.In 1Sa 8:7-9 we have the declaration, in which the Lord instructs Samuel as to the question of his prayer, and at the same time decides on the demand of the people. Prayer was the best means by which Samuel could learn the purpose and will of God in reference to this demand of the nation. The words: Hearken to the voice of the people, express the divine fulfillment of the peoples request. Here a discrepancy might be supposed to exist between this statement and Samuels reception of the request in 1Sa 8:6. But the appearance of such a discrepancy vanishes before the following considerations. An earthly-human kingdom could not at all, merely as such, stand in opposition with the revealed theocratic relation of the covenant-God with His people, in which the latter (Exo 19:5 sq.) were to be His property and a kingdom of priests, and He was to be their king (comp. Exo 15:18 : Jehovah is king forever, with Psa 44:5; Psa 68:25; Psa 74:12; Psa 10:16). For, if hitherto under the Theocracy chosen instruments of the Lord, like Moses, Joshua and the Judges, were the leaders of the people, governing them by His law, in His name and according to His will, then also a leader and governor of the people, depending solely on Gods will, governing solely in His name, and devoted to His law, intended and desiring to be nothing but the instrument of the invisible king in respect to His people, might rule over them with the power and dignity of a king. A king, as Gods instrument, chosen by God the royal ruler of His people out of their midst, could no more stand opposed to the fundamental idea of the theocracy, than all the former great leaders and guides of the people, who were chosen by Him for the realization of His will. This conception of the absolute dependence of an earthly-human kingdom in Israel on the invisible King of the nation is expressed in the so-called law of the king in Deu 17:14-20. As to the theocratical idea of a king, comp. Gen 17:6; Gen 17:16; Gen 35:11; Num 24:17. There is little occasion to suppose a contradiction between this idea of a theocratically-conditioned Israelitish kingdom and the Theocracy in Israel, when we consider the need of a unifying power for the whole national life within and without, as in Gideons time against the Midianites (Jdg 8:22-23), and now, in the time of the aged Samuel, both against the arbitrary rule and legal disorder of his sons, and against the Ammonites (1Sa 12:12) and the Philistines (1Sa 9:16). If Israels desire for a king had been in itself opposed to the theocratic principle, Samuel would not have carried the matter to the Lord in prayer, but would have given a decided refusal to the Elders, and the divine decision would not have been: Hearken to the voice of the people, make them a king (1Sa 8:22). But the reason of Samuels necessary displeasure at this desire clearly appears from the judgment passed on it in the divine response: they have not rejected thee; but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.In their request for a king, they did not assume the attitude of heart and of mind to the Lord, which was proper for them as His people, towards Him as their sole and exclusive ruler. They put out of sight the divine rule, to which, in view of its mighty deeds in their history, they ought to have trusted implicitly, that it would extend to them the oft-verified protection against external enemies and maladministration of the office of Judge; this protection they expect from the earthly-human kingly rule, instead of from God; instead of crying to God to give them a ruler according to His will, they demand from Samuel that a king be made according to their will and pleasure; instead of their holy civil constitution under the royal rule of their covenant-God, they desire a constitution under a visible kingdom, as they see it in the heathen nations. This was a denial of that highest truth which Gideon once (Jdg 8:23), in declining the royal authority offered him, held up before the people: The Lord is your king. In rejecting Samuels government, they rejected the rule of God, and, straying from the foundation of covenant-revelation to the stand-point of the heathen nations,, they put themselves in opposition to the royal majesty of God revealed among them, and to the high calling which they had to maintain and fulfil in fidelity and obedience towards the holy and almighty God as their king and ruler. In 1Sa 8:8 is shown how this disposition and conduct had been exhibited in the history of the people from Gods first great royal deed, the deliverance out of Egypt, till now, and how this new demand addressed to Samuel was only the old sin showing itself, the faithless and apostate disposition which had exhibited itself again and again up to this time. With such a disposition the desire for a kingdom was a despising and rejecting of Jehovahs kingdom, and no better than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods (Keil, in loco). (It is not necessary to insert a Pron. to me after they have done (Thenius), since this is involved in the following words: they have forsaken me). In 1Sa 8:9 Samuel is again expressly instructed to yield to the desire of the people; but there is added the twofold injunction: 1) bear witness against them, that is, attest and set before them their sin and guilt against me, and 2) announce to them what kind of right the king, who according to their desire shall rule over them like the kings of the heathen nations, will claim, in the exercise of unlimited and arbitrary power, after the manner of those rulers. By the first the people are to be made to see how, in the disposition of heart in which they demand a king, they stand in opposition to the absolute, holy royal rule of their God, and to their own theocratic calling. The fulfilment of the peoples desire after a king which had its root in an apostate and carnally proud temper, is in accordance with the same fundamental law of the Old Covenant, by which the holy God, on the one hand, judges Israels sin as a contradiction of His holy will, but at the same time, on the other hand, uses it as a means for the realization of the ends of His kingdom, as an occasion for a new development of His revealed glory. The other injunction, to set before the people the right [or, manner] of the king they demanded, is intended to exhibit to them the human kingdom apart from the divine rule, as it exists among the other nations, with all its usual and established despotism, as the source of great misfortune and shameful servitude, in contrast with the freedom and happiness offered to the people under the despised Theocracy. Comp. 1Sa 8:18.
1Sa 8:10-18. The right of the king.
1Sa 8:10. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people.This declaration of Samuel was therefore essentially an exhortation to repentance, which set before the people that, by their desire for a king, they had principially rejected Gods sole rule over them. Clericus: Therefore God declares that He was despised by the Israelites, inasmuch as they were not content with the theocracy, which had heretofore existed.The mishpat (, right, manner) is here what pertains to the king in the maintenance of courtly state, and what he claims from his subjects, according to the custom of heathen rulers and to kingly usage; for it was with their eyes on the kings of other nations that the people had demanded a king. Joseph.: , morem regis et agendi rationem [the manner of the king]. Maurer: id quod rex suo arbitrio vivens impune faciet [what the king, following his own will, would do with impunity]. Clericus: It signifies the manner of his life (1Sa 2:13; Gen 40:13; Jdg 13:12),not legal right (jus), for several unjust things are afterwards mentioned, such as were practiced by the neighboring kings, whom in fact the Hebrew kings afterwards imitated. Sept. [legal right or ordinance]. The words: he will take your sons his chariot, present a single comprehensive statement of the employment of the young men of the people in the royal court. The first sing. of the text in his chariot is to be retained (against Then., who, after Sept., Chald., and Syr., reads the Plu., and refers it to war-chariots), and the chariot is in both cases to be understood as the court and state-chariot, the service of which is described in accordance with the actual manner of oriental courts. In this there were 1) Chariot-drivers, who are referred to in the words he will put them in his chariot; 2) Riders, indicated by the phrase on his horses ( is here saddle-horse, as in 1Ki 5:6 [Eng. A. V. 1Sa 4:2616])he will put them on his saddle-horses, and 3) Runnersand they will run before his chariot. It is a description of the usual royal equipage of chariots and horses. Comp. 1Ki 5:6 [1Sa 4:26], 2Sa 15:1.
1Sa 8:12 refers partly to military service, partly to agricultural service. And to set17 depends on he will take; the twice-used [for himself] indicates his purely selfish aim. The captains over thousands and fifties18 represent the whole army in all its grades between these highest and lowest positions. For the charge of the captain over fifty comp. 2Ki 1:9-14.All the tillage of the royal possessions must be performed by them; it is described by its beginning and end (ploughing and reaping). To this is added the work of the royal artificers for war and peace.
1Sa 8:13. The daughters of the people will be employed in the service of the royal household. [Women were, in ancient times, cooks, bakers, and preparers of ointments and spices. This last work embraced the preparation of highly-seasoned food, meats and drinks, and of perfumed oils for anointing the body. The household of oriental princes is even now organized on a gigantic scale, and there are indications that a similar luxury was practiced by the nations who lived about the Israelites. All this, as well as the use of horses and chariots, though not absolutely forbidden in the Law, was contrary to its spirit.Tr.]. 1Sa 8:14 sqq. describe the arbitrary dealing of the king with the property of the people in order to enrich his courtiers. is properly a eunuch, then any court-officer.
1Sa 8:16 sqq. The king will use the serving-classes also, men-servants, maid-servants, and cattle, for himself, and will take the tenth of the small cattle [sheep, etc.]. For young men () we must read cattle () with Sept. ( ), since the young men are already included in the sons in 1Sa 8:11 [and the menservants in 1Sa 8:16.Tr.], and here both the juxtaposition of servants and animals and the correspondence between the two clauses, men, maidsoxen, asses (comp. Exo 20:17) would be destroyed by this inappropriate word. Small cattle are here named in addition to large cattle, to show how completely the king would claim their property for his own uses.And you shall be his servants. These words include all that is said before; the loss of political and social freedom is connected with the kingdom which the people demand as among the heathen nations. Thus the folly of their reference to the example of other nations is held up before them in contrast with the freedom and blessing, which they enjoyed under the rule of their invisible king, the living God.
1Sa 8:18. Their painful condition under such a government will be matter of unavailing lamentation before the Lord. is not because of your king, but properly from your king, that is, to the Lord. It is herein hinted that they will wish to be delivered from the oppressive royal government. But the Lord will continue to shut His ears. Clericus: God will not for your sake change the government of a master into the free commonwealth which you have hitherto enjoyed. The yoke once assumed you must hear forever. The evil which their own sin has brought on them they must bearso divine justice ordains.
1Sa 8:19-22. The result of the transactions between Samuel and the people.
1Sa 8:19-20. The reply of the people (through the elders). They refused to hearken to Samuels voice. The voice or address of Samuel contained enough to detach the people from their desire. Instead of this there follows, with a decided no,19 the repetition of the demand: There shall be a king over us. The dehortatory description of the royal privilege and custom among the surrounding nations is met with the declaration: And we also will be as all the nations. In this there is an ignoring and denying the lofty position which God the Lord had given His people above all nations by choosing them as His people, and establishing His royal rule among them. The demand for a kingdom like that of other nations was an act of sin against the Lord, who wished to be sole king over His people, and had sufficiently revealed Himself as such in their former history. Judging and leading in war are summarily mentioned as representing the duties of the king to be chosen. Without and within, in war and in peace, he was to be leader and governor of the people.
1Sa 8:21 sqq. Samuels intermediation. As mediator between God and the people he had hitherto striven with God in prayer, and with the elders of the people in earnest dealings and warnings concerning this important and eventful question. We see him wrestling anew with God in prayer; again he carries before the Lord in prayer the whole matter, as it now stands after the unsuccessful dealing with the people. Gods answer is: Make them a king. The demand, made in sin, from a disposition not well-pleasing to God, is fulfilled. The element of sin and error must, in the history of the kingdom of God, aid in the preparation and realization of the divine plans and ends. Samuel dismisses the men of Israel to their homes. We must here read between the lines, that Samuel communicated the divine decision to the people, and, dismissing the elders of the people, took into consideration, in accordance with the Lords command, the necessary steps for the election of a king. Following the sense, Josephus adds to the words of dismissal the following: And I will send for you at the proper time, when I learn from the Lord whom he will give you as king [Ant. VI. 3, 6].
HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The demand for a human kingdom like the kingdom in other nations, and its fulfilment, is one of the most important turning-points in the development of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Historically occasioned by constant danger from without, against which there was no one sufficient leader, and by the arbitrary and illegal procedure of the judges, it was more deeply grounded in the need (felt by the people and supported by public opinion) of a sole, continuous, and externally and internally firm and energetic rule. And this rule, even if it took the shape of royalty, needed not to be in conflict with the monarchical rule of God over His people (Exo 19:5 sq.; Jdg 8:23; 1Sa 12:12); for 1) the human king, if his relation to Gods kingdom were rightly apprehended, need be nothing more than the instrument and representative of the theocratic kingdom; 2) from the Patriarchal time on, through the Mosaic period and that of the Judges till now, there had been defined hopes of and allusions to the rise of a mighty and glorious kingdom within the nation under the lead of the Divine Spirit Himself (Gen 17:6; Gen 17:16; Gen 35:11; Num 24:17; comp. Deu 17:14-20; Jdg 8:23; Jdg 9:22; 1Sa 2:10, 3:35); and 3) the existing government was no longer able to perform the duties incumbent on it. Ew. Gesch. [History of Israel, 2, 606 sq.]: As, then, even under Samuel, in his latter years, the judicial office showed itself without and within too weak and unable to give permanent security, the time was at last come when the people must either submit to a more perfect human government, or perish irretrievably. The unfavorable decision on the demand given nevertheless by Samuel and in the divine declaration, refers to the sinful disposition of mind out of which the demand spranga disposition not trusting unconditionally in Gods power, anticipating the plans of His wisdom and His chosen time, controlled by vain and proud desire to imitate the royal magnificences of the heathen peoples. In this there was a two-fold ungodly element. 1) They desired a king instead of the God-established and nobly attested Judge Samuel The scheme is characterized as an injustice against Samuel, and therefore a sin against the Lord, who sent him, 1Sa 8:7; 1Sa 8:2) At the bottom of the peoples desire for a king lay the delusion, that God was powerless to help them, that the reason of their subjection was not their sin, but a fault in the constitution, that the kingdom would be an aid in addition to God. This point of view appears oftener in the narrative than the first. Isa 10:18-19; Isaiah 12. The kingdom desired in such a mind was not a form of Gods kingdom in accordance with revelation, but opposed to His kingdom. (Hengst. Beit. 3, p. 256 sq.) Calvin: They ought to have waited patiently for the time predetermined by God, and not have given place to their own designs and methods apart from Gods word. They ought not, therefore, to have anticipated Gods purpose, but ought to have waited till the Lord Himself should show by indubitable signs that the foreordained time had come, and should direct their counsels. Moreover, though they recognized Samuel as a prophet, they not only did not inquire of him whether they were to have a king or not, but wanted him to aid in carrying out their design. They do not think of invoking God; they demand that a king be given them; they adduce the customs and institutions of other nations. Nevertheless, Samuel yields to the desire of the people, because he knows that now Gods time has come; but, at the same time, he does all that he can to bring the people to a consciousness of their sin. (Hengst. ib. 258.) The fulfilment of the demand for a human kingdom is distinctly granted by God, because, though as a human factor in the movement it is rooted in sin, yet, foreseen by God, it fits into His plan, and is to be the means of elevating and confirming the Theocracy in His people, and of laying the foundation for the further development of the nations history, till the preparation should be complete for salvation in the person of Him, of whom the kingdom of Israel in David was to be the prefiguration and type. Herein the law, which runs through the whole history of the development of revelation, repeats itself: by the guilt of the covenant-people Gods arrangements for salvation reach a point where they no longer serve; then their guilt is revealed most strongly in open disobedience to God; but, in permitting what the people sinfully wish, God grasps the reins and directs events to a point, of which the people in their sinful blindness had thought nothing, so that He only the more glorifies Himself by the elevation of His revelation to a higher place. (O. v. Gerlach.)
2. We are not to think of the relation between the theocracy and the kingdom established through Samuel, as if the latter were an addition to the former to aid it in accomplishing its task, and to supply what was lacking to the times, as if a mixed constitution and rule had arisen, and out of a divine government had come a royal-divine government, a Basileo-Theocracy. Ew. Gesch. [Hist.] 3, 8. This conception of a co-ordinate relation does not agree with the governing principle of the theocracy, that God is and remains king of His people, that Gods law and truth is the authority to which the kingdom must unconditionally submit, in dependence on which it is to govern as visible instrument of the theocracy in the name and place of the invisible king. The rejection of Saul, who would not pay unconditional obedience to Gods rule, and the divine recognition of Davids government as one which was thoroughly in unison with the rule of Israels true king, their God and Lord, and which continued to prepare the way for its realization in the people, laying the historical basis for the future manifestation of the Messianic kingdom, confirm the view that the relation of the Israelitish kingdom to the Theocracy (as Samuel, under Gods direction, founded it) was one of unconditional subordination; it was to be the instrument of the latter. The statement that there was an encroachment on the pure Theocracy in the fact that Jehovah could no longer be the sole Lawgiver, that the earthly king must execute his will with unrestrained authority (Diestel, Jahrb. fr deutsche Theol., 1863, p. 554) rests on an incorrect presupposition, since, according to the principle of the Theocracy, even the established monarchy was expressly subject to the legislative authority of the covenant-God, and both king and people must unconditionally conform their will to the will and law of God.
3. This history of the peoples desire for a king and its fulfilment by God exhibits the relation of the divine will to the human will, when the latter stands sinfully opposed to the former. God never destroys the freedom of the human will. He leaves it to its free self-determination, but when it has turned away from His will, seeks to bring it back by the revelation in His word. If this does not succeed, human perversity must nevertheless minister to the realization of the plans of His kingdom and salvation, and also, in its evil consequences, bring punishment, according to His righteous law, on the sin which man thus freely commits.
4. Samuel appears, in this crisis of Old Testament history, among the men of God whom the Bible represents as heroes in prayer, as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah. Speaking to the people, he represented God as his prophet; praying to God, he represented the people as their priestly mediator. Comp. Schrring, Samuel als Beter (Samuel as a praying man), in the Zeitschr. fr luth. Theol. Krit., 1856, p. 414 sq.
5. [The relation between this narrative of the demand for a king and the law of the king, Deu 17:14-20, requires a brief notice. It seems strange that Samuel, if he was acquainted with this law, makes no mention of it. There is no difficulty in his characterization of the demand as a rejection of the divine rule over them (Jehovah Himself (1Sa 8:7-8) does the same thing), for the sin was in their feeling and purpose, not in the demand per se, as Dr. Erdmann well brings out; and Samuel might have so spoken, if he had known that the Law contemplated the possibility of a regal government. The real difficulty lies in the fact that the narrative in 1 Samuel 8-12 seems to be unconscious of the law in Deuteronomy. Allowing much, it might be said, for the simple, unscientific, historical method of the times, in which quotations are rare, and things omitted which are commonly known, it would yet seem that there should be in the addresses of the people, of Samuel, and of Jehovah, some recognition of the fact that this was a thing which did not make its first appearance now, and some reference to the obligations imposed on the king in the Mosaic Law. But, is there no recognition in the later transaction of the earlier law? If we compare the two, we shall find the relation between them to be the following: the form of demand in Deu 17:14 is given almost verbatim in 1Sa 8:5, but the former adds about me, while the latter adds the ground of the desire, that he may be judicial and military head; for choice by Jehovah in Deut. (1Sa 8:15), we have choice by the people in 1 Sam. (1Sa 8:18); and by Jehovah (1Sa 10:24); the reference to horses is nearly the same in form in both, but in tone quite different, Deut. 1Sa 8:16; 1Sa 8:11; on the other hand, the mention of returning to Egypt, of wives, silver and gold, and the study of the law (Deut. 1Sa 8:17-20) is not found in Samuel. It will be seen from this comparison, and still more from a comparison of the whole tone and drift in the two, that the act described here was probably performed without reference to the statute in Deut.; that the desire of the people was a natural, historical growth, and the course of events was determined by the circumstances of the time. So in the history of Gideon we see a similar unconsciousness of the Deuteronomic statute (though there is recognition of the theocracy), and a similar determination of action by existing circumstances. Where, then, was the Mosaic law all this time? and was Samuel ignorant of it? The answer to these questions seems to be suggested by the statement in 1Sa 10:25, in which there are three distinct affirmations: 1) that Sa muel told the people the law or manner of the kingdom, which is plainly different from the law of the king in chap. 8, and is most naturally to be identified with Deu 17:14-17; Deuteronomy 2) that he wrote this law in a book; and 3) that he put it somewhere in safe keeping. It seems probable, therefore, that we have here the political adoption of the essence of the Mosaic law of the king (which, in its prohibition of a return to Egypt, for example, has the stamp of Mosaic times). The law had been announced by Moses, transmitted through the priests, and was known to Samuel (though perhaps not generally known among the people). But it was a permission of royalty merely, not an injunction, and its existence did not diminish the peoples sin of superficial, unspiritual longing for outward guidance, nor prove at first to Samuel that the time for its application had come. He therefore says nothing about it. But when the transaction is concluded, the king actually chosen, then he announces the law, and with obvious propriety commits it in its constitutional form to writing, and deposits it before Jehovah as a part of the theocratic constitution. Thus the history seems to become natural and intelligible when regarded as exhibiting Samuels doubts as to whether the proper time had come for the historical realization of what Moses puts merely as a possibility. Apparently Samuel was not in sympathy with the movement, and seems to have felt after this that he had outlived his time.Tr.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1Sa 8:1-3. Starke: Even good intentions do not always turn out well, but often fall through.Upright parents cannot always be blamed for it, if their children turn out badly.Avarice is a root of all evils, 1Ti 6:9-10; earnestly to avoid it is a great part of the wisdom of the righteous.Calvin: Parents should feel the duty laid upon them, amid great anxiety and sorrow, to pray to God for the prosperity of their children, and with earnest admonitions diligently to hold them to the task of making their life holy. They should earnestly beg God to lead and govern, by His Holy Spirit the children whom He has given them, and to let the mercy which has been their own portion pass over to their children also, and to grant them the gift of perseverance and constancy. For if so holy and exalted a prophet was not spared the having such wicked and corrupt sons, how will it be with those who are far removed from his piety.
1Sa 8:4-6. Starke: Even good things may sometimes be ill desired. A pious government is greatly pained when it traces among its subjects nothing but mere ingratitude.Cramer: When something disagreeable and repugnant befalls us, we can better bring it home to no one than to God; for He consoles the lowly, 2Co 7:6.Calvin: We ought, when anything is done or said against the honor of God, to be aroused and zealous, but not to suffer ourselves to be provoked when in regard to ourselves or ours an injustice is done us.
1Sa 8:7-9. Starke: What is done to servants of God, God accepts as done to Himself, Act 19:5.Berleb. Bible: God hears in manifold ways when we cry to Him for human guidance, and then we imagine we have obtained a great favor. But what a great misfortune it is when one draws himself off from the richly instructive guidance of the Lord, to allow Himself to be led by creatures which withdraw us from the guidance of God! Then from freemen, which we formerly were, we become mere bondmen, and can also rightly say, if only we are so happy as to forsake the human guidance: O Lord our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name (Isa 26:13). An upright guide like Samuel does not appropriate to himself the souls of men, but guides them to God, and serves only the purpose of bringing them to Him.Wuertemb. Bible: Old sins are not forgotten with God, if they are all the time kept up, and not repented of (Exo 32:34).Schmid: The fountain of all sins is in not fearing God; and he who fears not to sin against God, also fears not to sin against men.
1Sa 8:9. Schmid: If God has cause enough to punish, yet out of His long-suffering He will also have cause enough merely to chide and admonish (Hos 11:8-9).
1Sa 8:15-16. Berleb. Bible: If we owe so much to the earthly king, what do we not owe to the heavenly king? O Thou King of Glory, do but come and reign over us! Let Thy kingdom come to us! Lift up your heads, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in.[1Sa 8:18. Cries that will not be heard: 1) Self-will often brings us into distress. 2) This distress makes us cry to the Lord. 3) Such cries the Lord does not promise to hear.Tr.]
1Sa 8:19. Schmid: Among wretched men there is no constancy save in wickedness (Isa 5:18).Calvin: We learn here how God, according to His righteous judgment, blinds men and gives them up to error, when they persistently go after their foolish and perverse desires. Therefore we ought to learn from this example to be wise, that when we are entangled in sore temptations, we may not give too much room to our own plans and thoughts, as if they rested on a firm foundation and were wholesome. We will beg God to rule us by His Spirit, and not to give us over to ourselves, and not even in the least to suffer us to depart from His Word, but rather work in us that that Word may maintain its dominion over us, and we may rejoice in its guidance.
1Sa 8:21. Starke: A Christian should bewail and tell his need to no one rather than to the faithful God, and learn from Him how he shall rightly behave himself.
1Sa 8:22. S. Schmid: Gods forbearance should not confirm men in wickedness, as if it were well done, but should lead them to repentance, that they may at last recognize their unrighteousness (Psa 50:21).
Footnotes:
[1][1Sa 8:2. That is Jehovah is Godthe only God ( = = = for Jahveh), a name borne by several persons in O. T., and said by Schrader to occur on the Assyr. inscriptions as name of a king of Hamath, Jalu, borrowed, no doubt, from the Israelites.Tr.]
[2][1Sa 8:2. That is, my father (or, simply, father) is Jah, Jahu, Jahveh, Jehovah. The word means the second, not of Samuel, but of Joel.Tr.]
[3][1Sa 8:3. is sometimes profit in general, as in Gen 37:26, but usually unjust gain, as here. The Targ. renders mamon (mammon) of deceit, see Luk 16:9. In Talmud and Targ. mammon moans money, riches. and Augustine (Qust. Evan. 34) says that it was the Punic word for money. It is not found in Heb., and its origin is obscure.Tr.]
[4][1Sa 8:7. Better: not thee have they rejected, but me have, etc.Tr.]
[5][1Sa 8:8. Literally: according to all they have done and have forsaken me and served, etc. The consec., according to Heb. usage, introduces an appositional explanatory phrase, properly rendered by Eng. particip. On the Sept. insertion of to me after have done, see Exeg. Notes in loco.Tr.]
[6][1Sa 8:9. is restrictive-adversative, yet, nevertheless; is the subst. conjunct. that, introducing the following affirmation. The verb means literally testify to them, the word solemnly well expresses the force of the Inf. Abs.Tr.]
[7][1Sa 8:9. is judgment, then law, then right, privilege, but also manner, and this last is preferable here, because Samuel states what the king will do, not what he will have the right to do. His manner will be the law as determined by himselfTr.]
[8][1Sa 8:11. The word signifies either horses or horsemen; the former better suits construction and context.Tr.]
[9][1Sa 8:12. Lit. and to appoint, Inf. dependent on the verb take in 1Sa 8:11. The vss. vary greatly in the designation of the officers here mentioned, and some critics would read (with Sept.) hundreds instead of fifties, as being the more usual and natural. This is, however, a ground of objection to the change (from the harder to the easier), and there is no sufficient reason for abandoning the Heb. text.Tr.]
[10][1Sa 8:13. The word is used to express the preparing of fragrant ointments (Exo 30:22-35), and the noun is here best rendered ointment-makers, so Sept., Vulg., Erdmann, Philippson, and others. The Syriac renders weavers (websters) as if it read , and the Chald. has the general designation servants (comp. Arab. raqaha, provide for). The Heb. text is to be maintained. The Eng. word confectionary (=confectioner) formerly included the making of ointments and spiced preparations, see Exo 30:35, Eng. A. V., but would now convey an incorrect idea here.Tr.]
[11][1Sa 8:16. The reading oxen instead of young men ( for ) seems required by context, and is given by Sept., and adopted by Erdmann and others. Maurer admits the bearing of the context, but keeps the text on the ground of the ; but is applied to oxen in Gen 41:26, and to flesh of beasts in Eze 24:4 (in 1Sa 8:5 Ezek. uses of the flock), and may be here understood of oxen.Tr.]
[12][The Vashni in 1Ch 6:13 (28) is the same word as that rendered second in this passage.Tr.]
[13][Beersheba (a mere watering-place in the Patriarchal time) was probably at this time a place of some importance from the trade between Egypt and Asia. It was re-settled after the exile, was a large village with a Roman garrison in Jeromes time, and now exhibits only scattered ruins. Two large, and five small wells are still to be seen. The name does not occur in the New Test. See Robins. ubi sup., Smiths Bib. Dict., s. v.Tr.]
[14][If Samuel was born B. C. 1146, he would be sixty years old at the third battle of Ebenezer, 1086, and now, say ten years later, seventy years old. This would leave twenty years for Sauls reign up to B. C. 1056, when David was made king in Hebron.But it is possible that these dates may have to be put forward some years.Tr.]
[15][Or, from the ways of truth.Tr.]
[16][Eng. A. V. has here, not so well, horsemen.Tr.]
[17][This is the literal translation. Eng. A. V. gives the sense more freely.Tr.]
[18][On the variations in the vss. as to these numbers, see Text. and Gram. in loco.Tr.]
[19]On the doubling of the in see Ew. Gr., 91 d.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This Chapter contains rather the dark side of Israel from the former. Samuel growing old, and his sons not closely copying after the example of their father, discontent broke out among the people. They ask for a king in imitation of the nations around them. The thing displeaseth the Lord. Samuel remonstrates with the people. They are obstinate. Samuel promiseth their request shall be complied with. These are the principal things contained in this Chapter.
1Sa 8:1
(1) And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons Judges over Israel.
It should seem from calculation, that Samuel could not at this time be above sixty years of age. But it is probable he had worn fast, and brought on premature old age in the service and zeal of God’s government. It forms a sweet reflection in the close of life, if when strength is consumed, that that strength has not been spent in the service of sin. But here, Reader, as in every other instance so in this, what a lovely view doth our Jesus afford, whose day of life ended at a little more than thirty-three! I must work (said that lovely one) the works of him that sent me while it is day, the night cometh when no man can work. Joh 9:4 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Making a King
1Sa 8:5
WE have seen Israel defeated, almost destroyed, in war with the Philistines. We have seen Israel in extremity, prostrate before Almighty God, and crying unto him, in intolerable woe, for interposition in the time of torment and hopelessness. The prayer has been responded to, and Israel has been revived. A new hope has cheered the hearts of those who prayed unto the Lord of heaven. In the revival of strength Israel has become political. A new idea has occurred to the leaders of the people, namely, that a king should be required and should be set over Israel, that Israel might be like all other nations. That seems a very reasonable request, as viewed from a certain point. It becomes us, therefore, to look at it the more carefully; because, if so-called reasonable requests be followed by the disasters which accrued upon the prayer before us, it becomes a matter of infinite moment that we should know the significance of the words we use and the full compass of the desires which we express. Truly this is a chapter of incident; the movement is rapid from beginning to end. Let us watch it; and let us gather together, so far as we may be able, the great principles with which this graphic chapter is so fully charged. The elders of Israel said unto Samuel, “Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” The people of Israel, it appears, were extremely particular about the morality of other people. They had facts on their side. Samuel’s sons did not walk in their father’s ways, but turned aside after lucre, took bribes, and perverted judgment. When the elders of Israel saw this apostasy on the part of the sons of Samuel, they said, “Let us do away with this race of men altogether, and have a crowned head to reign over us, that we may be like the other nations of the earth.” Let us then do full justice to the elders of Israel. As a matter of public notoriety, Samuel’s sons were not like Samuel himself in their moral tone and in their moral example. This brings before us a sad and humiliating fact, that the children of great men and of good men are not always worthy of their parentage. Few things can be more humiliating to a high nature, to a Christian philanthropist, than to find that his public work is undone in the very circle within which his own influence ought to have been most intense; that he, who is instrumental in doing so much good abroad, should actually have to come home to find what sin is in its utmost keenness, in its intolerable bitterness. Sometimes public men may be to blame for this in some degree. They may have to say, “Other vineyards have I kept; my own vineyard I have not kept.” They may be more fitted for public teaching and public stimulus than for private utterance of truth and domestic control of life. This ought to be carefully understood before we venture to pronounce judgment upon such men, who in their own hearts feel a greater bitterness than it would be possible for us by our own mere reproaches to infuse into them. There are men who can speak to a thousand hearers, who are utterly weak and powerless when they come into the details of common life and have to teach a single child at home, and show the light of God upon the private paths of life. Others there may be who turn their public excitement into a temptation to go astray from plain, simple home duty. They have the ability; they are lacking in will. They can only show themselves upon public platforms, within great arenas of display; they are moved by public, rather than by intensely personal and moral considerations. Consequently, their own garden-wall is broken down, their own little flower-bed at home is all weed-grown, whilst they are busy with the great public fields and the great vineyards of the world. We should not speak harshly of such fathers: but if there be anything in these suggestions, and if any man should require a hint of the kind, tenderly, with self-restraint and brotherly forbearance, we would venture to say, Think of this; and, if you can improve, remember that now is the accepted time; you cannot too soon begin the work of family cultivation.
This brings before us the equally remarkable fact, that grace is not hereditary. When we see a good man we expect his children to be like himself. But grace does not descend in the family line. The father may be an apostle, the son may be a blasphemer. There are circumstances, no doubt, in which at the very moment that the father has been preaching the gospel, his own son, whom he loved as his life, has been fulfilling some profane engagement, has been blaspheming the name of the God of his fathers! This is very mysterious, inexpressibly painful, most disheartening to the man who wants to live a simple, godly, sincere, useful life. The fact is overbearing. To the son of a godly man we would say: Your father’s godliness will not save you; your father’s godliness abused on your part, disregarded by you, will augment the wrath from which you shall one day suffer. It is one of many talents given to you; and to whom much has been given, from him shall much be expected. He that had the opportunity and the privilege, and abused what he had, shall be it is the voice of justice, common sense, and righteousness beaten with many stripes. Why should it be thought a thing incredible, or why should it be a thing invested with tormenting mystery, that a child should not inherit the father’s piety? It is precisely the same with intellectual gifts in many cases; it is the same with physical endowments in many instances. We find, again and again, a great man, a man of wondrous compass of mind, great and manifold ability, whose son is of a very ordinary type of intellect. It is wonderful, but there is no occasion why we should torture it into a mystery, and look at it as one of those things which should affright us from the religious or the devotional side of life. We have not to explain these things. We may pause before them and learn much from them; but the explanation is not with us at all.
It is important to gather all these things together in order that the case of the elders of Israel may be turned as much to their advantage as we possibly can. What our object is in thus defending them will presently appear. The elders of Israel had a case. They were concerned for the nation; they saw the two sons of Samuel going astray from their father’s paths; they came to the man when he was old, and told him about the apostasy of his sons. They said, “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” If ever men apparently had a simple, straightforward, common-sense case, the elders of Israel had such a case in the chapter which is now before us. Samuel heard this statement, and the thing displeased him. No man likes to see his whole life disregarded, and his tower thrown away ruthlessly. Samuel was a man in advanced life, identified vitally with the religious and political fortunes of Israel; had his hopes with regard to the future; drew out of his own life the hopes by which he was animated. Now suddenly the elders of Israel say, “We wish to dispossess all who may be supposed to have any claim upon us through your agency and instrumentality; we wish to open a new political era in Israel.” No man likes to see the tower of his life thrown down in that way. We have sympathy with old ministers who have old-world notions; who view with what appears to younger men an almost ungenerous suspicion and distrust what they call new-fangled notions and methods of doing things. After all, there is a good deal of human nature and common sense in the old man’s view of the changes which are proposed to him. He started from a given point; he has worked along a certain line; a man cannot disinherit and dispossess himself of all his own learning, culture, traditions, and associations, and go back again or go forward into the infancy of new and startling movements. It would be well if men could learn this more profoundly. Young Englandism and young Americanism must be very distasteful to old Samuels, high-priests, and venerable prophets. We shall show our strength by showing our moderation; we shall be most mighty when we are most yielding!
Samuel told the Lord about it. This is very startling to those who live at a far distance from God. These old men seem always to have been living, as it were, next door to him, and had but to whisper and they were heard. These little sentences come in so abruptly. We read, “And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.” Not, “Samuel ordered a high ladder to be made that he might set it up against heaven, and creep up to it round by round;” but the record is “Samuel prayed unto the Lord.” It is a kind of breathing process, it is ready, spontaneous as love. Samuel turned towards the elders of Israel, heard their story, then turned his face about and told God concerning the whole thing. It is a wonderful kind of life, God always so nigh at hand. Will he not be equally nigh at hand today? Has he still to be sought for as if he had hidden himself beyond the voice of the thunder, or is he nigh at hand so that a sigh can reach him, and a whisper can stir his omnipotence into beneficent interposition on behalf of his sorrowing, suffering people? It would be a new life to us if we knew that God beset us behind and before, laid his hand upon us, and that not a throb of our heart escaped the ear of his love!
Samuel saw the outside of the case. Samuel saw, what we now call, the fact of the case; God saw the truth of it. Many persons do not distinguish between fact and truth. There is an infinite difference between fact and truth. Fact is the thing done, the thing visible, the thing that has shape, and that can be approached and touched. Truth underlies it. We must get at the truth before we can understand the fact itself. This is ever necessary, but specially needful where matters are complicated by profoundly moral considerations. The Lord explained the case to Samuel. He said, in effect, “Thou art quite mistaken; the matter is not as thou dost view it; looked at from thy point, the elders of Israel seem to have a very strong and excellent case. But, Samuel, the elders of Israel have rejected me, they have not rejected thee. They are only making a tool of thee; thou art become to them a mere convenience, or as it were a scapegoat. They profess to be very deeply concerned about the moral apostasy of thy sons; they do not care one pin-point about it; they are extremely glad to be able to seize upon anything that will seem to give a good colouring to their case. Samuel, Israel has cast off its God. Is it wonderful, then, that Israel should cast off the servant?” What an explanation this is! how it goes to the root and core! how it cleaves open the life of man, and holds up in the sunny universe a corrupt soul, that all men may see it and know that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked! What a subject opens upon us here! The great world of excuses, social explanations, the faces which things are made to wear, the visors and disguises which are set upon life in order to conceal its corruption, its leprosy, its death. Truly the word of God is sharp and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword! It will not let a man alone; it will not allow a man to tell his own story, and go away as if he had exhausted the case. He is permitted to state the circumstances, to make his own advocacy of given questions, to put the question before society just as he pleases. But when he sits down, this word that searches the heart and goes through the life like a flaming fire says, “Now I will tell you what it is; you have made an excuse into a reason; you have lied, not unto me, but unto the Holy Ghost, unto God! Your case looks well. But I open thee now, I cleave through thee, I pour the sunlight through every fibre of thy leprous being, and I brand thee liar and blasphemer!” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
See, for example, an individual who has a most excellent case. He goes to his minister, and says to him in a whine, which soft men may mistake for earnestness, “I really cannot remain here any longer, sir. I have seen so much inconsistency in the members of the Church; I have seen so much that has pained me; I have felt grieved at the inconsistency of professing Christians; therefore, I am going to turn over a new page, and I must withdraw from the Church.” He was pained! What that poor creature carried in the way of other people’s immoralities, no arithmetic can ever calculate, no poetry can ever dream! When he has told his tale, and impressed the poor minister, who believes well of everybody, in proportion as he does not know human nature, God says to him, “This is the case. That man would not care one farthing if all the Church were to prove traitorous to-morrow; that man, who has suffered so much pain, who has been so troubled about the inconsistencies of professing Christians, is now planning sin secretly in his soul; if I could show thee by taking off, fold after fold, thou wouldst see in his heart what he has never said to his wife or mother or child or friend; thou wouldst see there a determination to enjoy sin under some disguise. He wants to get clear of moral restraint, of social discipline; he wants to evade public opinion, that he may, in concealment and under such defence as secrecy may set up, enjoy sin as he has never enjoyed it before. Mark him, going away yonder, bearing the inconsistencies and immoralities of other people! He is now going to carry out the very first step of his plan to enjoy the works of iniquity, sources of forbidden pleasure as he never partook of them before.” So there are two judgments in the world. Man makes out his own case, God comes with the explanation. Man cheats man with outside appearances; afterwards God holds the light over the case. All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do!
Here is a minister of the Gospel, who says he is going to withdraw from the ministry and retire into private life. He has been so annoyed by circumstances which have arisen around him; he has been so fretted and chafed by a multitude of things, that he can no longer endure them; and now he is going to enjoy the retirement of private life. That is his statement. What does it amount to? He is going to run away because there are some difficulties in life. As if he ever could get into any sphere in this world where difficulty would not call upon him, and force its attention upon his reluctant soul! Has he told all the case? Has he not kept back part of the price? Is he not rather arranging his circumstances so that he can sin with larger license, that he can do things in private life which he dare not do under the responsibilities of a public position? These words cut like daggers and search like fire! God forbid they should have any application to us!
The Lord told Samuel to make the people a king. “Hear them; do what they ask; hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” This is an instruction that we should do well to carry out in all life. There are times when we are pressed into certain courses; when all we can do is to protest. Sometimes when a man is weak then is he strong. The lifting, the half-lifting of a tremulous hand means when interpreted by God’s wisdom battle, battle to the bitter end, protest, vehement opposition! It is a feeble sign: but the meaning of that poor, broken hand being lifted up is, that if the man could do that which is in his soul he would stem the torrent of the popular will and set up righteousness in the earth! The Lord instructed Samuel what to say. Here is the speech which was made to the elders of Israel:
‘And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: he will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to car his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day” ( 1Sa 8:11-18 ).
Observe, man can have his way. There is a point at which even God withdraws from the contest. “My Spirit shall not always strive with man.” If we be so minded, we can force our way through all solemn warning, all pathetic entreaty, all earnest persuasiveness on the part of friend, wife, husband, teacher, preacher, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost! We can go to hell if we will! So do not be discouraged, you can get there! Do not be discouraged, there is nothing before you but love, grace, mercy, tenderness, God. That is all. There is a grim ghastly cross, hew it down! There is a way round it, a way through it, a way over it, you can get there! Fool, coward!
See the childishness of the reasoning by which they supported their case. “That we,” said the elders of Israel, “also may be like all the nations; may be like other people.” That is what the young man says when he is hard pressed. When he wishes to throw off family restraint, when he wishes to get away from family prayer, family reading of the Bible and domestic superintendence, he says, “I want to be as other men are; other young men of my age have this privilege and that privilege, and I just want to be like other men.” That sounds very reasonable, but is that all? Be true to thyself, O young man; do not tell lies to thyself. If thou hast lies to tell, why not tell them aloud tell them to other people; why tell lies to thine own heart? To say it is only this you want; whereas thou knowest well, in thy heart of hearts, that it is some terrible wickedness to which thou wishest to give way.
Where the disease is vital, the remedy must be vital too. Nothing will reach this disease but the mediation of God the Son. It is not a speck of dust which any hand can rub off. The disease is in the heart, the poison is in the blood. The death is in the life this is no paradox, but an awful, grim, terrible truth. What, then, will reach it? The blood of the Son of God, the agony of Gethsemane, the atonement of Calvary, the wondrous, unspeakable, glorious work of Jesus Christ, Son of God, God the Son! Nothing else can reach it. Every other remedy is cutaneous, is transitory. The remedy of Christ’s cross, Christ’s atonement, is vital, and is therefore eternal!
Selected Note
The mustering of the Hebrews at Mizpeh on the inauguration of Samuel alarmed the Philistines, and their “lords went up against Israel.” Samuel assumed the functions of the theocratic viceroy, offered a burnt-offering, and implored the immediate protection of Jehovah. He was answered with propitious thunder. A fearful storm burst upon the Philistines, who were signally defeated, and did not recruit their strength again during the administration of the prophet-judge. The grateful victor erected a stone of remembrance, and named it Ebenezer. From an incidental allusion ( 1Sa 7:14 ) we learn, too, that about this time the Amorites, the inveterate foes of Israel, were also at peace with them another triumph of his government. The presidency of Samuel appears to have been eminently successful. From the very brief sketch given us of his public life we infer that the administration of justice occupied no little share of his time and attention. He went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh, places not very far distant from each other, but chosen perhaps, as Winer suggests, because they were the old scenes of worship ( Real-Wrt, sub voce).
In Samuel’s old age two of his sons were appointed by him deputy-judges in Beersheba. These young men possessed not their father’s integrity of spirit, but “turned aside after lucre, took bribes, and perverted judgment” ( 1Sa 8:3 ). The advanced years of the venerable ruler himself and his approaching dissolution, the certainty that none of his family could fill his office with advantage to the country, the horror of a period of anarchy which his death might occasion, the necessity of having some one to put an end to tribal jealousies and concentrate the energies of the nation, especially as there appeared to be symptoms of renewed warlike preparations on the part of the Ammonites ( 1Sa 12:12 ), these considerations seem to have led the ciders of Israel to adopt the bold step of assembling at Ramah and soliciting Samuel “to make a king to judge them.” The proposed change from a republican to a regal form of government displeased Samuel for various reasons. Besides it being a departure from the first political institute, and so far an infringement on the rights of the divine head of the theocracy, it was regarded by the regent as a virtual charge against himself, one of those examples of popular fickleness and ingratitude which the. history of every realm exhibits in profusion. Jehovah comforts Samuel by saying, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” Being warned of God to accede to their request for a king, and yet to remonstrate with the people, and set before the nation the perils and tyranny of a monarchical government ( 1Sa 8:10 ), Samuel proceeded to the election of a sovereign. Saul, son of Kish, “a choice young man and a goodly,” whom he had met unexpectedly, was pointed out to him by Jehovah as the king of Israel, and by the prophet was anointed and saluted as monarch. Samuel again convened the nation at Mizpeh, again with honest zeal condemned their project, but caused the sacred lot to be taken. The lot fell on Saul. The prophet now formally introduced him to the people, who shouted in joyous acclamation, “God save the king.”
Prayer
Almighty God, may the hour of worship be exceeding precious to the souls whose desire is towards thee. Come down upon us as a light above the brightness of the sun, as the cooling dew upon the parched grass, and as showers that water the earth. Bring to our memory the bitterest recollections of our sins, and then show us the cross of redemption, that our sorrow may be swallowed up in unspeakable joy. Show us thy name plainly written on every daily mercy. May our bread and our water remind us of God. May the light be a revelation, and the darkness a shield of defence. May joy be as an angel sent down from heaven, and sorrow as a cloud which shall hasten us home. Pity us in hours of weakness: save us when strong billows go over our heads. Let thy pardon be given to us, guilty helpless men, and it shall be well with us evermore. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
V
SAMUEL AND THE MONARCHY, AND HIS VINDICATION AS JUDGE
1Sa 8:1-22
I logically connect these two chapters so as to round up Samuel’s judgeship, and the intervening chapters will be discussed later. The general subject for this discussion is, “God through Samuel establishes the monarchy, and Samuel’s vindication when he gives up the position as judge.” The general purpose of this chapter is to show the steps of transition from a government by judges to a government by kings. The immediate occasion of the change was the persistent demand of the people.
The grounds alleged by the people for the change were, (1) that Samuel was old; (2) that his sons whom he made judges walked not in his way, and these allegations were strictly true. Samuel was old. He had made his sons judges, as Eli had done in the case of his sons. These sons were unworthy to hold office: “They did not walk in Samuel’s way, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.” Samuel had no right to make judges, nor to appoint his successor; that was Jehovah’s prerogative. He had retained these sons in office, though unworthy, and had so far followed Eli’s example.
Nepotism has always been repugnant to the people.
It was a compliment to the late Senator Coke when his kinsfolk complained that he had never gotten them an office on the score of kinship.
Public office is a public trust, and not for distribution of family patronage.
But their demand displeased Samuel. He did not dispute the facts alleged, nor deny their grievance against his sons, but he objected to the remedy proposed, namely: “Give us a king to judge us.” It would interest us to know what Samuel would have done if they had merely demanded the removal of his sons from office and Samuel’s consent to leave to God the appointment of his successor. But it is a destructive remedy to burn a ship in order to get rid of the rats. A change in the form of the government is not always the best way to get rid of unworthy officials, although the people will always demand it if from any cause the legal methods of removal are barred. The people usually are long-suffering, and often know not how practically to get rid of an evil by legal methods. Press them too far, and a revolution comes, maybe a destructive one. Samuel evinced his wisdom by carrying the case to Jehovah in prayer; that is, before he answered the people, with the following results:
1. Jehovah shows that the plausible grounds alleged by the people for the change of government disguised their real motive. It is characteristic of fallen human nature to veil a motive in a plausible plea; for example, to defend saloons on the plea of “personal liberty,” or that prohibition “injures business.”
2. These people meant, by rejecting Samuel, to reject Jehovah. It was the theocracy to which in heart they objected. They wanted kings like other nations.
3. Jehovah directed Samuel to set before them plainly, in protest, the manner of a king such as other nations had; to thus force them, if they persisted in their demand, to do so with open eyes and with all of their motives unmasked. This would prove that though they had a real grievance, they were not seeking redress of that grievance, but making it a plausible plea for the dethronement of Jehovah, even though their remedy brought grievances a thousand fold worse than those from which they pretended to seek relief.
The character of an Oriental despot is given by Samuel in his protest. Let us look at that in 1Sa 8:11-17 : “This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them unto him, for his chariots and to be his horsemen; and they shall run before his chariots; and he will appoint them unto him for captains of thousands and captains of fifties; and he will set some to plow his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and the instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks; and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king whom ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not answer you in that day.” I do not know anywhere in literature a better picture of an Oriental despot than is given in the language of Samuel.
The results, after Samuel showed them what it was to have a king like other nations, were as follows: (1) With their eyes open and their motives exposed, they demanded a king like other nations. (2) Jehovah directed Samuel to make them a king. “Sometimes God answers in wrath.” (3) But not to establish such a monarchy as they desired, that is, like other nations, but a kingdom under a written charter which retained the theocratic idea, the earthly king to be only Jehovah’s appointee and vicegerent, subject to Jehovah’s law, and guided in all things by Jehovah’s prophets, and at all times liable to removal by Jehovah. So God does not answer their request altogether. He makes a king, but not such a king as they wanted. Concerning such a ruler Geikie uses the following language: “Such a ruler would necessarily stand in a unique position. As only viceroy and representative of the true invisible King, Jehovah, he must be pointed out beforehand by special indications, and consecrated as to a sacred office. That be should, moreover, have commended himself to the nation by his qualities and deeds, was essential. Nor could it be permitted him to reign like other Eastern kings, by his mere pleasure; for the rights of Jehovah and those of his people, as a nation of freemen, demanded equal respect. He must, therefore, at all times, remember that he ruled under a higher King, whose will, expressed in his revealed law, was his absolute guide both in religion and ordinary life; its transgression, in any particular, being self-destruction. But such a man would necessarily be in loving sympathy with him under whom he held his authority, to be king after his heart; a man truly religious; obeying, not by mere outward constraint, but from loving choice.
“Though nominally king, it was a condition of his rule that he acted only as the prophet instructed him. Under the strange theocratic constitution enforced by Samuel, he was in fact only a puppet, moved by the prophet as he chose, and forbidden to act in anything as a free agent. The only counterpart to such a state of things in modern times, was the titular rule of the Mikado in Japan, side by side with the real Emperor, the Tycoon; the one a shadow king, the other the actual sovereign power. In antiquity, strange to say, we find parallel to Saul and Samuel among the Getae of the century before Christ. In their wild home north and south of the Danube, that people were ruled by a chief who acted only as the servant of a holy man, without whom he was not allowed to act in anything whatever. Still stranger, the result of this extraordinary custom was the same as followed the rule of Samuel in Israel. From the lowest weakness and moral degeneracy the Getae roused themselves under the leading of the holy man and the phantom king, to a thorough and lasting reformation. Indeed, they so turned themselves to a nobler life that their national vigor showed itself in a puritanical strictness and steadfast bravery, which carried their banners far and wide over new territories, till their kingdom was infinitely extended. Once recognized, such a complete subordination to the representative of the theocracy as was demanded from Saul might become more easy to be borne, but in its early years the strong, valiant warrior must have been sorely tried by finding himself king in name, but in fact absolutely subordinate in the most minute detail to the command of Samuel.”
Using the word, “puppet,” Geikie is mistaken, since the prophet never spoke except as God commanded, and for a man to rule under the direction of God does not make him a puppet. This kind of a kingdom was not repugnant to Jehovah’s plan, as set forth in their previous history and law, and in their subsequent history.
1. In Gen 17:16 , in the covenant which God made with Abraham, he promised that kings should be his descendants.
2. In Deu 17:14-20 : “When thou art come unto the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around about me; thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall choose: one from among the brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, which is not thy brother. Only he shall not multiply horses to himself nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses; forasmuch as Jehovah hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests and the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel.”
We can tell whether kings of later date did this, for we remember that Solomon took only 700 wives, besides 300 concubines. Every king, in his subsequent history, who violated this kingdom charter, or who refused to hear and obey Jehovah’s prophet, was punished by Jehovah. And to the extent that when one of them respected this charter, be was blessed of Jehovah, he and the people with him.
Thus it is evident that the issue was not whether the ruler should be called judge or king, but that Jehovah ruled, whatever the title of his earthly subordinate. The lesson is a mighty one. Jehovah is King of kings and Lord of lords. His law and authority are paramount over nations as well as over individuals. His government extends over the unwilling as well as the willing. To deny his rule is not to vacate responsibility to his judgment. That it was immaterial whether the ruler was called judge or king, is illustrated by a relative passage from Pope’s Essay on Man. The third epistle of that essay line 303, says:
For forms of government let, fools contest;
Whate’er is best administered is best,
It is further evidenced that the people had to see and admit their wrong in seeking to displace Samuel as judge in 1Sa 12:1-25 which gives Samuel’s address and contains the following points:
1. They had to bear witness and have the testimony recorded, to the wisdom, purity, and fidelity of Samuel’s administration when he retired from the judgeship.
2. They had to admit that all great leaders in the past were appointed by Jehovah, and that they had rebelled against every one of them.
3. They had to accept this alternative, with a king put over them; that is, if they and their king submitted to Jehovah’s rule according to the kingdom charter, then well; but if they turned away from him, then condign punishment came on them as on their rebellious fathers.
4. They had still to submit to Samuel as a prophet. The words of Samuel were confirmed by this miracle: He called their attention to the fact that it was harvest time when in ordinary cases it never rained. Then lifting his face, he spoke to Jehovah for a sign, and instantly the heavens were blackened, loud thunder rolled, lightning gored the black bosom of the cloud, and a windstorm came up to testify that God was speaking to them.
The result was that they felt and confessed the sin of their demand, and implored Samuel’s intercession that they might be forgiven, to which he gave the following reply:
1. He encouraged them not to despair on account of their sins that God was merciful but to repent and do better in the future.
2. That God, for his own name’s sake, would never forsake that people.
3. That he himself would not sin by ceasing to pray for them that their sins should be forgiven.
4. That he would, as prophet, continue to instruct them in the good and right way.
5. That in view of the great things that God had done for them, they should fear him and serve him in truth with all their hearts; otherwise they would be consumed. With other great events in their history, 1Sa 12 may be compared thus:
1. With the farewell address of Moses, (Deu 29:1-31:5 )
2. Joshua’s farewell address (Jos 24:1-28 )
3. Paul’s farewell address to the elders of the church at Ephesus (Act 20:18-38 )
4. On the score of patriotism, we may include Washington’s farewell address, when he announced he would no more be president. I once went to the city of Annapolis to see a great picture, or painting, representing the scene of Washington tendering his sword back to Congress at the close of the war, retiring from the office of commander-in-chief. It is a marvelous painting. Supposed but far-distant relatives of mine are in the picture Charles Carroll and his daughters. In a glass case to the right is the very suit of clothes Washington wore on that day, including his spurs. My old teacher made me memorize Washington’s farewell address. Two doctrines in Samuel’s address need to be emphasized:
1. The ground of God’s not forsaking his elect nation: “Not on your account, but for his own name’s sake,” and in this connection you must read Eze 36:22-36 , and the whole of Romans II. They both talk about God’s saving in one day the whole Jewish nation.
2. It is a sin not to pray for the forgiveness of sinners, of which the following is a Texas illustration: There was a certain man, preaching in many counties, taking the position that no Christian was justifiable in praying for the forgiveness of the sinner. I joined issue publicly, in the pulpit and in the press, citing Samuel’s doctrine: “God forbid that I should sin in ceasing to pray for the forgiveness of your sins.” In that great discussion I referred to what is called the “mourner’s bench,” stating that I had no particular fancy for what is called the “mourner’s bench;” that a man could find Christ on the bench, on the floor, behind the barn, or in the field, unless he made this point: “I will do anything that God wants Die to do to be saved, except a certain thing;” that if he reserved any one point on which he would not surrender to God, then he did not surrender at all; and I insisted that in leaving out the “mourner’s bench” they would not leave out the mourning. I did not object to leaving out the bench if they wanted to, but if they did leave it out, I hoped they would not cease praying for sinners.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the general purpose of this chapter?
2. What is the immediate occasion of the change?
3. What are the grounds alleged by the people for the change?
4. What can you say of these allegations?
5. Why, then, did their demand displease Samuel?
6. In what did Samuel evince his wisdom?
7. What are the results?
8. Describe the character of an Oriental despot as given in Samuel’s protest.
9. What were the results after Samuel showed them what it was to have a king like other nations?
10. Prove that this kind of a kingdom was not repugnant to Jehovah’s plan, as set forth in their previous history and law, and in their subsequent history.
11. If then it was immaterial whether the ruler was called judge or king, cite a relative passage from Pope’s Essay on Man.
12. What further evidence that the people had to see and admit their wrong in seeking to displace Samuel as judge?
13. How were the words of Samuel confirmed?
14. What was the result?
15. Analyze Samuel’s reply.
16. With what other great events in their history may 1Sa 12 be compared?
17. What two great doctrines in Samuel’s address need to be emphasized?
18. What Texas illustration of the second doctrine?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Sa 8:1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
Ver. 1. And it came to pass, when Samuel was old. ] Sixty at least, say interpreters; and so less able to do all himself. Omnia fert aetas, animum quoque fert, i.e., aufert. Age disableth for duty many times.
That he made his sons judges over Israel.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
old. From 1Sa 28:3 he predeceased Saul by about two years. Consequently he acted for thirty-eight years after Saul’s anointing (i.e. 1000-962 B.C.) When he anointed David he would be about eighty-six; and lived to about the age of Eli, ninety-eight years.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 8
Now it came to pass, when Samuel was old, he made his sons the judges over Israel. And the name of his firstborn was Joel; the second was Abiah: and they were judges in Beersheba. [Which is in the south.] But his sons did not walk in his ways, but they turned aside after lucre, they took bribes, and perverted judgment ( 1Sa 8:1-3 ).
So here’s an unfortunate thing. A godly man Samuel, and yet his sons were crooked. These guys were taking bribes, they had coveted after money, they would pervert judgment for bribes.
So all the elders of Israel came to Samuel there at Ramah, And they said, Behold, you are old, but your sons are not walking in your ways: so make us a king to judge us like all the nations. [So now the demand of all of the elders of Israel in order that they might have a king like the rest of the nations.] The thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. The Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people: for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, from being king over them ( 1Sa 8:4-7 ).
Now a nation that is governed by God is a theocracy. These people were rejecting now a theocratic form of government and they were demanding now a monarchy. “We want a king like the other nations.” It is a sad step down in their history when they rejected God from being king. However it was because God was not being faithfully represented to them by their rulers, that they were demanding a king like the other nations. The Lord said, “You tell them what a monarchy is going to entail.”
So Samuel told the people all the words of the Lord. When you have a king that reign over you: He’s gonna take your sons, he’s gonna draft them, and appoint them for himself, and for his chariots, that they might be his horsemen; some shall run before his chariots. He’s gonna appoint captains over the thousands, and over the fifties; and he will set them to ear his ground, or to till his soil, to reap his harvest, to make him instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters that they might be his bakers, and cooks, and confectionaries. And he will take your fields, your vineyards, your oliveyards, and the best of them, and he will give them to his servants. You’ll have to start paying taxes of ten percent. [They had it pretty good.] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your finest young men, your donkeys, and put them to his work. And he’ll take a tenth of your sheep: you’ll be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people said, Fine we want a king that we might be like all the nations; that our king might judge us, go out before us, and fight our battles. So Samuel heard the people, he went back and he said, Lord they still want a king. So the Lord said, Hearken to their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said to the men of Israel, Go your way every man to his own city ( 1Sa 8:10-22 ). “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
This first Book of Samuel at this point merges into its second division, which has to do with Saul. First we have the account of the clamor of the people for a king and the divine answer thereto. The occasion for the request on their part was that of the maladministration of the sons of Samuel, and their sinful practices. The real principle underlying their request was their desire to be, as they said, “like all the nations.”
This is the revelation of the supreme wrong. They had been chosen to be unlike the nations, a people directly governed by God. In communion, Jehovah made plain to Samuel the real evil in their request when He declared that they had rejected Him from being their King.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Seeking a King like Other Nations
1Sa 8:1-9
The sin that Samuel, as a lad, rebuked in Eli, reappeared in his own family and undermined his influence. The names of Samuels sons are suggestive of his own piety-Jehovah is God and Jehovah is my Father-but, alas, they failed to walk in His steps! It was a mistake to delegate authority to men whose character was corrupt, and this precipitated the desire of Israel for a king. They failed to value the glory and strength of their position as a theocracy-a nation directly ruled by God-and craved to be as other nations. This finally led to their undoing. Be not conformed to the world; or you will share in its condemnation as well as in its penalty, Hos 13:9-11.
Samuel felt the rebuff keenly, but ultimately he took the one wise step of laying the whole matter before the Lord. It is a good example! When the heart is overwhelmed; when we are hemmed in by difficulty; when men rise up and breathe out cruelty against us, let us roll back our trouble on our Lord and Savior, who has identified Himself with our life. Tell Him all, though your heart is almost too broken for utterance. He will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry, Isa 30:19.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
1Sa 8:4-8
The Book of Kings is also the Book of Samuel, not merely because the individual man was the last of the judges and poured the anointing oil upon the first two of the kings, but because he represented in his own person a power and a position which were quite different from theirs, and yet which could not be rightly understood apart from theirs.
I. Samuel was a witness that a hereditary priesthood derives all its worth from a Divine presence, which is not shut up in it or limited by it, and that without that presence it means nothing and is nothing, nay, becomes worse than nothing, a plague and cancer in the society, poisoning its very heart, spreading disease and death through it.
II. The signal downfall of the nation which took place in Samuel’s day, when the ark, the symbol of the people’s unity, was captured by the Philistines, prepared the way for great national changes. Samuel’s reformation awakened in the people a sense of order to which they had been strangers before. But Samuel’s sons did not walk in his ways. They were self-seekers; they were suspected of taking bribes. The effect of this distrust was just that which proceeds in all ages from the same cause-dissatisfaction, a cry for change, a feeling that the fault of the person who administers implies some evil or defect in that which he has to administer. The degeneracy of Samuel’s sons made the people long for a different sort of rule, for one which should be less irregular and fluctuating.
III. The request for a king displeased Samuel because he had a sense that there was something wrong in the wish of his countrymen. He may have felt their ingratitude to himself; he may have thought that his government was better than any they were likely to substitute for it.
IV. God’s answer to Samuel’s prayer was a very strange one. “Hearken unto them, for they have rejected Me. Let them have their way, seeing that they are not changing a mere form of government, but breaking loose from the principle upon which their nation has stood from its foundation.” The Jews were asking for heavy punishments, which they needed, without which the evil that was in them could not have been brought to light or cured. But beneath their dark counterfeit image of a king was hidden the image of a true King reigning in righteousness, who would not judge after the sight of His eye nor reprove after the hearing of His ear, but would smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips would slay the wicked.
F. D. Maurice, The Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, p. 1.
References: 1Sa 8:5.-Parker, vol. vi., p. 280. 1Sa 8:6.-Ibid., vol. vii., p. 62. 1Sa 8:6-9.-G. B. Ryley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiii., p. 237. 1Sa 8:19.-J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 422. 1Sa 8:22.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 62. 1Sam 8-Homiletic Magazine, vol. vii., p. 118. 1Sa 9:11-13.-Expositor, 2nd series, vol. vi., p. 245. 1Sa 9:20.-H. Hayman, Sermons Preached in Rugby School Chapel. p. 29. 1Sa 9:27.-J. Thain Davidson, Talks with Young Men, p. 17; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi., No. 1547; Preacher’s Monthly. vol. v., p. 62. 1Sam 9-W. Hanna, Sunday Magazine, 1865, p. 21. 1Sa 10:6.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 63. 1Sa 10:9.-Ibid., vol. vi., p. 290. 1Sa 10:12.-Old Testament Outlines, p. 62; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 284. 1Sa 10:24.-Parker, vol. vi., p. 299. 1Sa 10:26.-J. Burns, Sketches of Sermons on Special Occasions, p. 153. 1Sam 10-R. Lorimer, Bible Studies in Life and Truth, p. 71; W. Hanna, Sunday Magazine, 1865, p. 105; Homiletic Magazine, vol. vii., p. 167. 1Sa 11:14.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 64. 1Sam 11-Ibid., vol. vi., p. 305. 1Sa 12:1.-F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 4th series, p. 14. 1Sa 12:1, 1Sa 12:2.-S. W. Skeffington, Our Sins or Our Saviour, p. 214; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 28. 1Sa 12:1-25.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 336. 1Sa 12:2, 1Sa 12:3.-J. R. Macduff, Good Words, 1862, p. 524; Sermons for the Christian Seasons, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 681. 1Sa 12:7.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 65. 1Sa 12:10.-Ibid., p. 66. 1Sa 12:12.-Bishop Woodford, Sermons on Subjects from the Old Testament, p. 66. 1Sa 12:14.-G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 125. 1Sa 12:16, 1Sa 12:19.-W. Spensley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 59. 1Sa 12:17.-R. Heber, Parish Sermons, vol. ii., p. 25.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
am 2892, bc 1112, An, Ex, Is, 379
made his: Deu 16:18, Deu 16:19, Jdg 8:22, Jdg 8:23, 2Ch 19:5, 2Ch 19:6, Neh 7:2, 1Ti 5:21
sons judges: Jdg 5:10, Jdg 10:4, Jdg 12:14
Reciprocal: Exo 21:6 – the judges 1Sa 2:22 – Now 1Sa 12:2 – I am old 1Sa 14:52 – when Saul
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Division 2. (1Sa 8:1-22; 1Sa 9:1-27; 1Sa 10:1-27; 1Sa 11:1-15; 1Sa 12:1-25; 1Sa 13:1-23; 1Sa 14:1-52; 1Sa 15:1-35.)
Saul, the People’s Saviour, but not the divine.
We come now to the demand of the people for a king, and the history of Saul, the king given them according to their request. Though pointed out by God, in the recognized way of ascertaining His will, namely, by lot, yet he is exactly the king they have in mind, as even his height of stature shows. In this way alone could their desire be tested aright, to have a king, like all the nations. He is not after God’s heart, but after the people’s heart, and so He says: “I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.” (Hos 13:11.) The lesson was not for that generation only, however; otherwise, it would be of little importance. In all this proving of Israel, as we have again and again been called to realize, it is man as man that is proved, and the depths of his heart unveiled. As to the people, their choice here is really such as they displayed at a later day, when they cried, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” “They have rejected Me,” says Jehovah.
It was not that God had not designed them to have a king. The express provision in Deuteronomy is at least proof that one was permissible (Deu 17:14-20). The song of Hannah has already anticipated it. God’s purpose in Christ could only be so fulfilled. Moreover, we have already seen that this was to be expressed in the history anticipatively. The king also, when in truth He shall come, will not only be in full accord with the divine throne over all, but will be the complete expression of it. The evil was in the evident unbelief on the part of the people; and, as naturally connecting itself with this, the total opposition to God in the king they wanted. Saul, the Benjamite, carries us back indeed to the book of Genesis, where we have seen in Benjamin the type (when separated from Joseph) of that Messiah to which Israel clings, a deliverer by power merely. As such they would have received Christ, yea, “taken him by force to make him a king,” a manifest sign of the king of their choice. Barabbas, had he had the power, would really have suited them, as Barcochba afterwards* did suit them. God, and the whole relation of their souls to Him, they would gladly have left out.
{*An infidel Rabbi of this day owns fully that Barcochba, the leader of the Jewish insurrection under Hadrian, “had all the qualifications of a Messiah.” He was, barring anointment, a Messiah who tallied, every inch of him, with the hopes which his nation harbored concerning such a man.” -(Messianic Expectations, by Solomon Schindler.)}
This is the significance, then, of Saul, and it is wider than any merely Jewish one, while yet the Jew is necessarily in the fore-front.
1. (1) The occasion of the demand for a king is the misbehavior of Samuel’s sons whom in his old age he had made judges in Beersheba. Joel and Abiah, corrupted by opportunity, take bribes, and pervert justice; a thing which comes into view in the last days also, in connection with the coming of Christ as King, to exercise the judgment of God among the people (Psa 89:1-52). Their names stand for what they were responsible as judges to maintain, -Jehovah as the Mighty God (Joel), and the Father of the people (Abiah).* The people should have reasoned better: if so it were with Samuel’s sons, what hope of man at all? and should have fled to God as the only righteous One. But they do not: instead of this the whole nation, as represented by their elders, come to Samuel, seeking a king to judge them, like the nations round. Their peculiar privilege of direct leaning upon God alone they are more than ready to give up for an arm of flesh; and though their plea is “to judge us,” they must have been well aware how far judgment was exercised among the nations by their kings. In fact, as comes out afterwards, there was another cause in the threatening attitude of the Ammonites again, as in Jephthah’s time (1Sa 12:12). In any case there was lack of faith in Him who had so constantly, whenever they had turned to Him, come in for them. As they looked back they could, indeed, see many reverses, and long captivities. The holiness of God had shown itself as Joshua had declared it would. Doubtless they would rather have something that they could cling to, other than this which involved the necessity of persistent obedience. This has been found again and again among the people of God. They could not stand before “this holy Lord God,” and they unanimously preferred distance. The story is so old as to have become a trite and common thing; but it has not lost its significance, though it may its power to impress.
{* Joel, “Jehovah [is] the Mighty God”; Abiah, “the Father [is] Jah.”}
There are prayers that have to be granted, but in judgment: so with this prayer for a king. But care is taken that even self-deception shall be hardly possible. They are to have testimony from the Lord Himself of what all that is around them bore patent Witness also -the manner of this king that they desired. Samuel is instructed to declare all this to them, that their decision may be in the plainest light that can be given.
(2) The testimony is, after all, simple enough. Man being what he is, honor cannot be given him but he will debase himself with it. Put him in a place of service, he will serve himself first of all. Combine these two, as in the case of a king, self will shine out in him in the fullest way. This is nothing strange, alas, but the commonest experience. But here a people with Jehovah Himself the King, deliberately accepts the yoke of another!
2. (1) The king in Israel, however, must be chosen of God, for he is to be the minister and viceroy of God. He must be pointed out to himself as the chosen of God, that he may realize aright his responsibility to Him, and be made to realize in quiet, before exaltation comes, the purpose of it. God will do everything possible to make untrue His own prophecy of the king that is to be: and to this end comes all this preparatory dealing with Saul.
Saul’s genealogy is carefully given us for six generations back, himself being the seventh, Shaul, the “asked,” complete in all that makes man naturally to be desired of man. This genealogy is surely in its meaning, therefore, moral, and scarcely favorable in its significance. Its interpretation is somewhat difficult, and yet may be suggested, and its numerical character, which by this time we may assure ourselves of, will help and test the attempt to understand it. Meant to be understood it necessarily is, appealing with all Scripture to man as the rational creature of God, who needs yet continually to be taught of God.
The numbers read naturally backward, according to the actual descent, Kish being the sixth and not the first in the line given here. To understand it, therefore, it would seem that we should trace it in the same order.
We begin, then, with one who is simply given as “a man of Benjamin,” leaving more than the “higher critics” to wonder if the name has not dropped out. For the moral purpose, the omission of a name may itself have meaning. We have been taught of the Spirit Himself so to think of the omissions in the account of Melchizedek, and have seen it to be so with the nameless servant of Abraham (Gen 24:1-67) and the nameless city in Reuben (Jos 13:16); and so it may well be here. The significance of Saul’s descent from Benjamin we have briefly glanced at; and at the outset Kish is set before us here as a “man of Benjamin”: the repetition here we may conceive, therefore, to have another meaning; and from what has been said, not in any sense an evil one. We may well be carried back to him who was before any failure, to show us the better the failure itself, and how it came about. A “man of Benjamin,” as that, conveys no suggestion of evil, and there being no name beside, forbids the thought of any departure from the character implied in the tribal name. How good a sign of integrity for a child of Benjamin to be known only as that, with no intrusion of self to destroy simplicity! Here, then, we have got back beyond any evil development, if afterwards we should find this; while even here, however, we may have what enters into the making of Saul the “asked”: for those who can build the sepulchres of the prophets whom their fathers slew, can take pleasure in saintly lineage while far from saintliness.
The second name in descent is that of Aphiah; and if we have been right thus far in interpretation, then we may find the initial point of departure in this second name, the contrast with the first. For Aphiah means most legitimately (as the causative of puah), “I will utter,” or “speak out” and if we think of that name unuttered which heads the genealogy, it is natural to put these things together. We have now in opposition to the lowliness forgetful of self, the self-importance which needs must find utterance. And is not this always the point of departure from God, the true fall of the creature, -which is, indeed, to take up the taunt of the enemy, ever a “fall upward,” -the creature lifting itself out of its place, in obedience to the suggestion, “ye shall be as God”? The step here, in such a history as this, vindicates itself, therefore, as at least the image of truth.
The third name, under the number of manifestation, reveals the true character of all self-assumption in a child of God. It is Bechorath, “primogeniture,” the claim of nature, not of grace, of first against new birth. The order is “first, that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual.” (1Co 15:46). In the book of Genesis we are familiar with the fact that the first-born constantly thus loses the birthright, -Ishmael to Isaac, Esau to Jacob, Reuben to Joseph, Manasseh to Ephraim. If the child of God betray self-confidence, it is always and of necessity “confidence in the flesh.” The principle of the new nature is faith, and faith’s object never can be self. Even faith can, alas, be gloried in; but it cannot “glory,” save in Christ.
Zeror, under the fourth number, which is that of the creature, means “tightly enclosed,” or “pressed together.” It is thus used for a “stone,” because of the compression of its particles. It speaks here, therefore, as it would seem, of the narrow sphere and restricted limits of the old creation, shut in between birth and death, confined to the things seen and temporal. Yet men hug these chains, alas, and deliberately shut out heaven and eternity, and count themselves wise in doing so. Here is the sphere of their “primogeniture,” however, and they cannot, if they would, transcend it.
But in this sphere still how much space is there for self to display itself in. As an acre of ground may be an ant’s world, so the contraction of man’s desires gives him scope enough for the petty being into which he has shriveled up. If, moreover, the surface of the ground is actually narrow, he can do as in our modern cities, -build into the air. Great he must be, though it were only in imagination; and here, under the fifth number, that of capacity, we have Abiel, -not, as the name might signify, “God [is] my Father,” but rather “Father of might”: one whose strength is in himself. Such are the contradictions, such the possibilities and actuality of this strange being, man! With all its contradictions, this is still the character of the Sauls of whatever day. Kish ends the list with the assurance implied in his name, “ensnaring,” of the magic for deception that abides in all this for those for whom the light of the divine presence has not dispelled the illusion, and brought face to face with the holiness of truth. This Saul, this man of the people, has, beside all this, many rightly attractive qualities. We shall find him shortly tested under the hand of God, -surely not unmercifully, that were absolute impossibility from Him; yet so that he collapses utterly, and shows himself the poor lost creature that he is, -even so, not turning to Him, nor seeking the honor that is of God only. As he is the man of the people, so before the people he lives the sham life that men count really life; when the bubble breaks all is gone, out of the wreck nothing saved, the freightage of a soul precious to God, and worth Christ’s sacrifice to save it, gone irretrievably, and forever. “What shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
The overruling of God is clearly seen in the way Saul is led up to meet Samuel, ignorant of the hand that is guiding him, -ignorant of the very person of Samuel, as it would seem, and all his memorable history. Suited king for such a people, who were deliberately ignoring God’s mercies to them in the past, of which the prophet had been the divine instrument. Saul is seeking his father’s she-asses which have gone astray, and finds an intractable and rebellious nation, worse by far than these, put into his hand without seeking, to be brought back to God. In both cases he is unsuccessful: yet, had he sought the last with the same energy with which he had sought the first, he might have had the success which was now reserved for one to come after him.
A suggestion may be made as to the places of Saul’s vain search. There are four places in which he searches, but these are divided into three stages only, Mount Ephraim and the land of Shalisha being put together. In the land of Zuph, which comes significantly, therefore, as a fourth stage (the number of testing and failure), he does not search, but abandons his quest; and the name Zuph means “honeycomb,” the type of the sweetness of natural things, which have overcome many more than Saul. Thus there is a gleam of light which should encourage us to look further. The first stage gives us, under the number of obedience, Mount Ephraim, the “fruitfulness” which God seeks in us, with the “land of Shalisha,” (“third part,” or “divided into three,”) which I cannot interpret. Here “they found them not.” The second stage may speak of “humiliation,” where confessed failure in obedience would naturally bring the soul; and the name agrees with this, Shaalim, probably “hollows” or “deep valleys”: but “there they were not.” The third stage is the “land of Jemini,” (“my right hand,”) the place of dependent exaltation to which the “valley of humiliation” so often leads, through grace: but there, too, “they found them not.” Israel was, indeed, astray; nor could he find them whom the sweetness of nature beguiled from the search.
But at this point the servant’s voice is heard, counseling, as the true servant will, to “ask of God.” Saul does not think of this, nor know the man who can declare His mind. All this is characteristic; as it is that with the servant should be found the fitting present for the man of God: little enough, only the fourth part of a shekel, at still the “silver” of atonement, -current coin in the kingdom of God. So they are provided.
A parenthesis is introduced here to let us know the identity between the “prophet” and the “seer.” The latter term simply implied the knowledge which the prophet had, not the source of it. The nahbi, the prophet, was the mouthpiece of God, whose word filled him and “bubbled forth” from him. The people of the time here indicated spoke but of the “seer.” It was a day of decline, when carnal men thought at least much more of the effect than of the cause, and sought the one while they ignored the other. God had spoken long since of the “prophet”; the people eared but for the “seer.” Saul, upon this low ground, approves what he could not initiate. He, too, seeks the seer”; while the prophet, taught of God, is seeking for Him this blind man, brought by a way he knows not.
(2) To meet the seer they have to go up to a higher level, and Saul finds himself an inquirer in a strange place. First of all, there meet them on the ascent young maidens going forth to draw water, and from them they obtain their first answer. By the wells all through we have communications of grace, simple enough when we know for what the well stands. Those who draw water are, of course, those who seek and use the living waters of the Spirit; and with these is the knowledge of the things of God. From these Saul learns not only of the seer, but of the sacrifice, and a feast upon the sacrifice, the great lesson of communion for a king to learn. We have long since looked at the peace-offering (Lev 3:1-17 and Lev 7:11, seq.) where God and men sit, so to speak, at a common table, brought together by the work of the cross, and with common delight in Him who has made peace by it. But this is the foundation of the reign of peace, the reign of God in righteousness and peace among men. When it really comes, the Lamb, the Victim, will be on the Throne; and upon this foundation only can there be the least anticipation of this blessed time. Of all this, therefore, Saul must learn, to be fitted for his kingdom. He must himself participate in this peace. The link that unites God and man is the only link that unites man and man.
God is speaking in His love, seeking to win for himself this goodly creature of His hand. He reveals to Samuel, the day before Saul comes, that He is sending him, and that He means through him to minister to His people’s need. The prince shall be the saviour. And that he may be fully such, God would bring him to have first to do with Himself, before he comes to stand in the presence of the people. Thus by degrees He breaks to him His purpose: a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel, and made so by dreadful penalty exacted for a dreadful crime, He will take him with all the littleness which should keep him lowly, and mindful -as what Benjamite could be unmindful? -of the discipline through which they had all passed, and set him at the head of all the people. Samuel salutes him thus with the surprising news that upon him is fixed the desire of Israel. This can only mean that what they sought in a king he was the very man to answer to. He was in this way really the man of the people’s choice, the very style and pattern of the king they craved. But being such, God would, if he met this desire, make him much more, -desired to have him for Himself and with Himself, and for this was meeting him after the manner here.
Now he is called to feast upon the sacrifice. To feast upon love’s provision for one’s need, freely partaking of what has cost so much to give, is the way of acquirement of the spirit of sacrifice -of service which is that. So the special part which has been reserved for him is the burden-bearing shoulder, the priest’s portion (Exo 29:27): for the priest’s heart must go with the kingly office; in Him whose representative Saul is to be, king and priest are united together.
(3) Saul abides with Samuel for the night, and early in the morning is sent away. Samuel anoints him, -at once the assurance of power which he shall have, and the character of it, and the dependence upon the Spirit which it implies. Then the first kiss of subjection is on the part of the man of God, just now the judge of Israel. He gives him also three “signs,” which, when they come to pass, he is to do as his hand finds, in the full conviction that God is with him. These signs are, of course, to be more than mere foreseen occurrences. They are to have in themselves a voice, which will, however, depend upon himself for its significance: he must have in himself the understanding heart, or he will miss the meaning. “How often there is a meaning, a language, perfectly intelligible to one who has ears to hear, but which escapes us because our gross and hardened heart has no spiritual intelligence or discernment! And yet all our future hangs upon it. God has shown our incapacity for the blessing it involved. Nevertheless the means were not wanting.” (“Synopsis.”) From this necessity on our part, moreover, divine grace itself cannot release us. It would not be grace to do so. Yet how much of our lives are barren of meaning because we have not had capacity to read this language, or quickness to discern the voice that was speaking to us! Nor is this only true of the facts of the world around us, or of the events of our own lives: Scripture itself, with all its wealth of blessedness, is given “that the
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Even its plainest parts need spiritual discernment; and how much of it is written in a way that is not plain, but which needs and calls for spiritual intelligence and diligent inquiry, in order to any proper apprehension.
Saul then is left to his ability to read these signs; not as if the Lord were not ready to endue him with all the ability needed; of that we require no assurance: but here is the mystery of that dependent, yet free and accountable being of which we are possessed. We share with Saul this nature, with all its privilege, and with all its responsibility; and the Lord’s ways are equal, let us remember, with us all.
The first sign, in accordance with its numerical meaning, carries him back to Benjamin’s origin. He was the son of his mother’s sorrow, -she had died to give him birth; and where her grave stood there his inheritance began,* -at Zelzah more strictly, which interprets the thought as “shadowed brightness.” The world is shadowed when heaven stands revealed; and so in the Cross, the deepest shadow ever cast upon it. He also that will save his life shall lose it; but he that loses it in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. The self-renunciation Saul so needed is here enforced for him; and here two men meet him to let him know that, apart from his labor, the asses that he sought are found, and his father’s heart is yearning for his son. God can as easily work without us as He can with us; need of us He has not, but that heart of love to which our human affections, given of Him, truly, if feebly, testify. Many lessons, from different sides, concur here, evidently for one purpose -that Saul may be in the hand of God the free but devoted instrument He seeks.
{* This was not, of course, geographically exact, but near enough for the meaning which seems given to it here.}
The second sign yields its lesson in due order, that to the one so yielded up to God fellowship and help shall come from those who seek God. Here three men appeared instead of two, for they represent the whole Godhead, though seen in His people, acting in the strengthening of His servant; and they go up to God to Bethel, where Jacob learnt that God was -not simply his God, but the God of His own house, governing it for Himself. It is with those who seek God there that there will be found the apprehension of His mind; and with these, at the oak of Tabor, the living strength that unites with “purpose,” the man of God will have recognition. These may be few indeed; they ordinarily are few: but they represent, as we have seen, the fellowship of God Himself. Their gifts -what they have for God -are to be noted: three goats, one for each man, for the sin-offering; the bread, which they can share with another; the drink-offering wine, which is to be poured out to God. Such a company speaks plainly of its faith, and may be recognized by those who have hearts for it.
The third sign shows the work of the Spirit of God, even in a scene in which the Philistine has his posts at the very hill of God itself.* The presence of the enemy at such a place is the sad evidence of the state of things in Israel; but the remedy therefor is not, in the first place, by power, but by return to God and subjection to Him. He must be exalted where He has been dishonored; and this is what the spirit of prophecy does. Saul meets here, therefore, a company of prophets, and their various instruments of music show the joy and boldness that accompany the return of heart to God. How small a thing is the enemy in the presence of God! And this joy in Him is the sure sign of the overthrow of all that opposes itself to Him. Jehoshaphat’s singers and trumpeters are in the forefront of the host, and it is to these that the Lord hearkens and gives victory. (2Ch 20:22.) What a lesson for the Benjamite warrior, Saul!
{*Why called so, we are not told, apparently; nor is it needed for the purpose of the lesson.}
At this point the Spirit of Jehovah would come upon him, and he would be changed into another man, gifted with needed ability for the occasion, according to the place in which God had put him for the blessing of the people. Then he was to act as his hand found opportunity, for God was with him.
But there follows a needed limiting of power, which might easily, in a time of such disorder, be carried too far. And here Samuel’s words look on to a time of special testing for Saul after he shall have been confirmed in the kingdom. In fact, he failed then, and his failure forfeited for him the continuance of the royal power in his house. He was to go down before Samuel to Gilgal, and there wait for him to offer the offerings needed. Seven days he would have to wait, and God would guide him through the prophet as to what to do. From this it is manifest that Samuel remained the representative of the kingdom over all, even when Saul took the lower kingdom: and this was the more necessary to be insisted on in view of the spirit of prophecy coming upon Saul also. But the men themselves were total contrasts; and here the two kingdoms show their possible opposition to each other, -a possibility to become actuality at an after time.
All these signs followed, as Samuel had foretold, and the same day. But “Saul among the prophets” became an ominous proverb in Israel, in spite of the prudent question of the bystander, who infers that God is the Source of the prophecy, thus the Father of the prophets. To his uncle,s questioning he replies, without divulging the secret of the kingdom.
3. The third subdivision gives the open manifestation of the king: first, by the lot, the way in which the divine choice was ascertained; then in the deliverance actually effected by him, -the work, in part, which he was needed and raised up to do. This confirms him in the place which God had given him.
(1) We have seen the lot used in the apportionment of their inheritance to the tribes of Israel, and to discover the guilty one in the case of the appropriation of that which was devoted to the Lord at Jericho. The account here is very brief: first, we hear of Benjamin being taken, then of the family of Matri (only mentioned here), and then of Saul, the son of Kish. Matri means, probably, “Jehovah is watching.” The place of gathering being Mizpeh, the “watchtower,” the significance of which we have seen as implying the people watching what Jehovah will say, here we may be reminded of the converse truth. Jehovah, in fact, was not speaking out His mind. He had done so, and they had given no heed. Now, even while He indicated Saul, it was as their choice, rather than His. He is forced to silence, and to await the result of their self-will. So Samuel once more warns them that in seeking a king they were rejecting the Lord. The lot has lost, therefore, its true meaning: it is not properly Jehovah’s choice; and little can be said about it.
When Saul is announced, he is not to be found, until the Lord answers their inquiry by letting them know that he is hidden among the baggage. In truth he was, -a mere “vessel” among the dead, inanimate “vessels,” (as the word means), which He can use, who can make all things serve Him, but without the life and spirit of service. However, when he is brought out, for thews and sinews he is a man indeed, and towers over the heads of all the people. Samuel points out how well he answers the ideal that they seek, and the people shout in answer, “Live the King!” But it means as little as the king himself does. Just so far as Saul has risen above them they have shrunk. Their colossus is but a shadow over them. Could he be aught else, when they had put him between their souls and God!
But all is settled, and they must abide their choice. And indeed the godly can own God in it, and thus escape the shadow. Samuel tells them the manner of the kingdom, and writes it in a book, and it is laid up before the Lord. Then he sends them to their houses; and Saul returns to Gibeah, to his house. There is no exuberance of loyalty. What men set their hearts on, they often need only to have to find how little it is. God touches the hearts of some, that they follow Saul; else none would have done so! And the children of Belial ask now, what the men of piety would have asked before, “How shall this man save us?” Before, that question would have honored God; now it leaves Him out. With all “powers that be,” faith recognizes, even in Saul, “a minister of God for good,” and knows the omnipotent love that makes all things work for good. How could it “despise,” as the men of Belial do, the “minister of God”?
Saul’s new-found greatness sits well upon him too, just now. He is as a deaf man to all their murmurings.
(2) The deliverance from the Ammonites it is that shows Saul to be the deliverer for whom the people are waiting, and which confirms the kingdom in his hand. With the Ammonites we have been already made familiar, especially in connection with a former deliverance by Jephthah, and their significance cannot now be doubtful. We find them here once again attacking Israel, under their king Nahash, whose name, almost identical with that of Nahshon, prince of Judah in the wilderness, means “divination, augury.” Nahshon, however, as we have seen in the book of the wilderness, is to be understood in a good sense, as Nahash the Ammonite cannot be. The divination of the heathen was assertedly the interpretation of a divine answer, though given through material signs, and the character of this is indicated in the identity of this word with that which was the general term for “serpent.” The spirit of all doctrinal heresy (of which the Ammonite speaks) is indeed Satanic. As the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of truth, and by the truth it is that men are sanctified, so on the other hand, Satan is the father of lies, and destroys men with the poison of falsehood. Scripture, in entire opposition to the natural thought, emphasizes more strongly by far the condemnation of doctrinal than of moral evil, closely connected as these are; and it is not hard to understand why, if by the word of truth we are new begotten and sanctified. The lusts of the flesh bring with them -at least wherever the light shines -their own condemnation; but Satan’s lie is the darkness which covers and shelters all the rest; or the false light that lures to shipwreck.
The attack of Nahash is naturally not upon the strongest part of Israel, but the weakest. Jabesh-gilead contributed no warriors to the Benjamite war, and was visited with ruthless destruction at the hands of united Israel at that time. Since then, it had recovered itself, but has here little strength of faith to oppose the enemy. Gilead, “the heap of witness,” speaks of memory that should be fruitful; and in fact the country is so, even at the present day; but Jabesh, “dry,” often “dried up, withered,” speaks of the reverse of this, and it is there where the truth is not productive, -where decline has begun in the soul, -that the attacks of error are most easily effectual.
Jabesh will surrender, if that be all that is needed, and serve the king of Ammon; but the king will not agree, except they come to his terms, worthy as they are of an Ammonite. He must thrust out all their right eyes, and lay it as a reproach against Israel. Spiritually read, a reproach indeed, if we interpret, according to what we have had elsewhere (vol. 1. p. 389, n.), the right eye as the eye of faith. Reason and faith are in fact the double witness in man which, where the soul is right with God, like the vision of the two eyes, accord in one image. But the following of man, which all heresy in its essence is, puts out therefore necessarily the eye of faith: for this sees God and not man. Nahash in his requirement speaks, therefore, quite intelligibly here.
But even the men of Jabesh demand a seven days’ respite, to see if there be no deliverer in Israel yet; and this the arrogance of Nahash grants; for he has not a dream of any rescue. The messengers of the straitened city come, therefore, at once to Gibeah, Saul’s city, with the news of these conditions.
As he hears, the Spirit of God comes upon Saul, and he summons the people with a threat to follow himself and Samuel. We see clearly that there is no energy in the people, and the energy in Saul is not of the highest kind. He leans on Samuel, and puts his name forth, though after his own, to enforce obedience, appealing to their fear as the most successful argument, and indeed not without cause; and in fact the fear of Jehovah it is that falls upon the people, so that they come out in mass. They gather (significantly) in Bezek, the place of the “fetter,” -under constraint, not willingly; and Saul sends word to the men of Jabesh that they shall have help.
(3) In result, the Ammonites are thoroughly beaten and scattered; and Saul becomes in this respect the people’s saviour, who therefore go off into a vehement enthusiasm for the man they had despised. But the Ammonites are but an incident in the history here. They do not give character to the condition of things in Israel, and do not test the king of their choice. We shall see in a little while what does so, and then how entirely Saul fails. Speaking according to the spiritual meaning, the deliverance of the people of God from heresy, however necessary, does not put them right with God; for this, much more is needed than orthodoxy, even of the strictest kind.
Yet this is a deliverance, and the people rightly may rejoice. Saul, too, uses his triumph wisely and with moderation. Samuel uses it to draw the people to Gilgal and renew the kingdom there. Gilgal is where the “reproach of Egypt” of the bondage of the people there, was rolled away. Circumcision, the renunciation of all confidence in the flesh, there enabled them to be the “Lord’s host,” the free servants of His will in opposition to all the hosts of evil. Thus the Captain of the Lord’s host, -greater even than Joshua, how much greater than Saul! -could take His place at their head for the career of victory now opening before them. The application is easy enough here. What should hinder things coming into their place as then? Let there be only subjection, all would be as then. Let Saul be as Joshua, the lower kingdom be in truthful obedience to the higher, God still remained for them Jehovah, the Unchanged, Unchangeable. Such, surely, was the thought in Samuel’s heart, for people and king. Thus only could their “sacrifices of peace-offerings” have meaning. But alas! there were too plain indications of another spirit than this; and if “Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly,” nothing is said of him whose joy would have been deepest had the material of it been there. If Samuel rejoiced, it must have been indeed with trembling. And so his words now show.
4. A new section opens here. For now the new king must abide the rule of the higher kingdom, and be tested as to his fitness to fulfill its requirements. So it has ever been. So, in regard to God’s governmental dealings with man in this life, it ever must be. Even the Church, though the witness of divine grace in its fullest character, yet as the responsible vessel of this on earth, has not escaped, nor could escape, this testing. “Unto thee goodness, if thou continue in His goodness,” says the apostle of the Gentiles, the special “minister” of the Church (Col 1:25), otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.” (Rom 11:22.) How she has answered to this test, let her history, in the light of the word of God, decide. Saul did not stand, we are called now, for our own profit, to consider the cause and manner o his fall. These things are written for our admonition: may we have open ears to receive the admonition!
(1) Samuel now stands forth before the people, rejoicing because of their deliverance, to use the opportunity to effect one much greater, namely, from the sin which is always the degradation and destruction of a people. Their own had never yet been realized, in asking for a king and now their rejoicing in the king they had got was likely to blind their eyes yet more, and God’s mercy toward them become only an occasion of worse departure from Him. Samuel for this, therefore, first of all, makes them own the uprightness of his own conduct in the place which God had given him among them. They were thus without excuse as to that which they had demanded, for although they had pleaded that the prophet’s sons walked not in his ways, such failure allowed of easy correction. Indeed, as he shows presently, without condescending to any direct notice of it, it was not the true ground for what they had sought at all, but their fear of the Ammonites, and their inability to trust Jehovah for protection. This cowardly unbelief would naturally be cowardly enough in self excuses, and he does not honor them by even noticing them.
(2) His integrity being allowed on all hands, he bids them stand forth while he reasons with them for his God. Jehovah’s deeds were known well enough. He does not need to speak of them in order or at length. That they had been brought out of Egypt, brought into the land they now possessed, he had but briefly to allude to. After all this, they had left their own victorious Jehovah for the dead idols of the defeated Canaanites. In the land which was His gift they had forgotten Him, and that again and again, after repeated deliverances. Their present sin was but a repetition of that of their fathers: its root was in insubjection of heart, and unbelief.
{*1Sa 12:11. Probably a textual error for Barak, which is the reading of the Septuagint.}
(3) He appeals to God Himself for confirmation of this. In Israel they, as a matter of course, gathered in their wheat in peace, but now the wrath of God would be manifest in sending thunder and rain. These signs come to pass the same day, and produce a transient effect upon the people. In a spasm of fear they own their guilt, and deprecate the death which they anticipate. Samuel reassures them, bidding them only fear Jehovah with a fruitful fear, productive of obedience, and lie would be with them; on the other hand, if still they did wickedly, they and their king alike would perish.
{*1Sa 13:1. One number is wanting here, and cannot be supplied from any known source; the other is questionable. The Septuagint omits the verse altogether, which on more accounts than this commends itself to me. But I have bracketed and left it. It seems an interruption in the course of the history, the second verse naturally connecting with the end of the last chapter.}
(4) Saul is now fully installed: he is accepted of the people and in the flush of a first victory. But the testing time has thus now come, and he must stand the test or be set aside. He does not stand the test, for he has no true faith in God, and is thus under the power of circumstances. He is slow and undecided when prompt action is called for, and then is forced into doing when he ought to have waited. Thus he openly disobeys God, and is of necessity set aside.
In natural courage he is not deficient, but natural courage without faith only begets self-confidence, and leads astray, while just where needed it is apt to break down and leave one in the lurch. Here, too, a man’s religion, which without faith is only superstition, becomes a hindrance, as we shall see in Saul.
His first act, after the victory over Nahash, judged by natural wisdom, is prudent enough. The rally in behalf of Jabesh-Gilead has brought together an ill-armed and undisciplined multitude, which, however effective under a sudden impulse, could not be trusted for a prolonged and regular war. To have kept so large a number together, had it been feasible, would have surely provoked a Philistine attack, and being unmanageable, the greater mass would have produced a worse defeat. Saul sends them all home, therefore, except three thousand men, too few to rouse the suspicion of those who had been rapidly assuming to be masters in Israel, and yet enough to occupy some central strong points, of which there were many in that mountainous land, and to be the nucleus of a trained and efficient army. The old days of Samuel had already passed away. The fruits of unbelief are not long in showing themselves. And in Saul’s action we see not a return to faith, but the wise caution of worldly prudence and astute generalship. Every thing has to be calculated and provided for. God is left out, for He is a force not calculable; but being left out, He is still at liberty to come in and spoil these arrangements, as we shall see: though He act in mercy toward His people, as now He does; but just on that account the human machinery must be set aside.
Two thousand men under Saul occupy the strong and important position of Michmash and Mount Bethel; a thousand are under Jonathan at Gibeah: and this introduces us to one in whom we have at this time -and Saul had also in close proximity to himself -the man of faith, through whom God works the deliverance which He has prepared for His people. Jonathan, or Jehonathan, means, “Jehovah hath given:” and he is truly the Lord’s gift to Israel for the emergency; but also this is the language of his own believing heart, a sort of blank check, which can be filled up for every occasion. We shall find how fully he makes use of it now, though the first effect seems only to upset all the prudential device, and threaten disaster. But he is really with God, and we find in him what Saul should have been and was not. With him there is no tardiness, no prudence: put arms in his hands and he will use them. With one bold act of defiance, he precipitates the unequal conflict with those whose strength the nation had so often proved, -at this time comparatively at the strongest. He smites the Philistine post at Geba, and the Philistines hear.
Saul cannot now lead: he must follow; but he follows in a path of which he has no knowledge, acting in the dark where he imagines he has full light. There is no caution now, no seeking wisdom from God. He has just dismissed the mass that had gathered against the Ammonites; now again he summons them in haste with the trumpet; but God has no use for them: a general fear falls upon the people; those that gather after Saul melt away again; he is left to his dismay; and the actual victory is gained by two people whose absence is only in this way discovered! What an object lesson of faith is given us here!
While faith triumphs, as it ever does, things have gone disastrously with Saul. He sees not God, sees only circumstances; and where he moves most freely and confidently, is in fact moved helplessly by them. He must have a rising of the people to meet the wave of hostile invasion. He summons them as “Hebrews,” not as Israelites; for of Israel, the people of God, he knows really nothing. They hear that Saul has smitten the post of the Philistines, leaving God out of the matter as Saul had left Him out. Unbelief awakens only unbelief; and then in opposition to Saul they naturally see the Philistines. Israel has come to be in ill savor also with the Philistines. They are called together after Saul to Gilgal. Where is the glorious Captain of the Lord’s host that once met them there? Now they only realize the host of the Philistines, to their eyes innumerable, who presently take possession of the passes to the upper country. So seeing they are in a strait they scatter, hiding themselves in holes in the rocks and in the ground. And “Hebrews” make their escape altogether out of the threatened district, going over Jordan to Gad and Gilead. A company remain with Saul, but they follow him trembling. In this direction there is no hope.
{*1Sa 13:8. The word ‘appointed’ or ‘spoken’ is not in the Hebrew copies generally but several MSS. have it.}
A grand opportunity for a man of God! and so it proves for Jonathan. It might have seemed that even Saul would be now driven to Him. Our extremity is still His opportunity, and this is what He would assure us of The conviction of helplessness contains oftentimes in itself the seed of faith and the famine and a world where no man gives, have been to how many prodigals constraining influences to bring about the cry, “I will arise and go to my Father!” But with Saul it is far otherwise, and the failure now is nothing incidental to the circumstances in which he is found, but the real and full manifestation of the man himself.
He is now in the position of which Samuel had forewarned him before his anointing, (chap. 10: 8,) and in obedience to his injunction he waits till near the close of the seventh day, -till it has advanced so far, indeed, that it seems as if there was now no hope of Samuel’s coming. The people are being scattered from him. His mind, sensitive as to external ordinances just in proportion to his inability to see beneath them, can only realize the failure (which was not his) in the matter of the sacrifice. In open disobedience he offers (or causes to be offered) the burnt-offering; and he has hardly done this before Samuel comes.
(5) It was a plain breach of positive command. Saul might and does urge the scattering of the people, the failure of Samuel (too quickly assumed that), the gathered Philistines. With all this he had nothing at all to do. The king of Israel was but the representative of the heavenly King, whose people Israel really was, and whose will alone was absolute throughout all circumstances that might arise. How good, in fact, to have it so! How entirely at rest might a king be so governing! As to any lack of understanding of that will, there was given the utmost liberty of appeal to Him through known and readily available channels of communication. With consequences he had nothing whatever to do. Were ever any king’s shoulders so entirely relieved of strain as those of the obedient king of such a kingdom?
Saul had not the spirit of obedience, and there was no harshness, no undue severity in his rejection by God. As yet even it does not amount to present personal rejection. It is announced only that his kingdom should not continue, and that God had sought Him a king after His own heart, -manifestly one who would govern according to His will, which, in the main, was David’s character. The two kingdoms must be in harmony. But Saul is yet left to recover, if it may be, the ground he had lost. Such is the mercy of the divine government, which we may see afterwards, even with a king so exceptionally bad as Ahab. (1Ki 21:29.) Yet this mercy of God allows, too, the development of evil in the unrepentant and this we have to find in a striking manner in Saul. “Because judgment against an evil work is not speedily executed, therefore the heart of the sons of men is thoroughly set in them to do evil.”
5. Side by side now, in contrasted development, we have in Saul the man without God, under the government of God, whose position as the ostensible, responsible head in Israel only emphasizes the lesson here. He is but the obstruction in the path of faith which we find in Jonathan, the man with God, whom Saul, though bound to him by every natural tie, would slay. Such is the essential opposition between what is natural and what is spiritual, even where, as here, it is not enmity, but a blind and superstitious zeal for God, -under which, however, all carnal and evil passions find ready lodgment. On the other hand, Saul’s strength, such as it is, is easily seen to be based upon Jonathan’s victories, which are crippled only by their connection with him, while Jonathan himself, though to the last attractive and interesting, soon ceases to have significance for the history at large, and at last expires under the shadow of a terrible humiliation upon the field of Gilboa. Impressive lessons, more than ever to be heeded today, when, through this very heedlessness, the history spiritually so often repeats itself.
(1) In the first place, here we are made to realize the circumstances in the midst of which faith finds its opportunity. The land is prostrate. Unbelief has speedily completed its work. The deliverance wrought by Samuel is undone, and the Philistine spoiler is abroad over the country. Saul has, indeed, his six hundred men; but they are spiritless, and armed but with rustic and blunted weapons. This barrenness of resources is, however, only God’s hand shutting them up to Himself. It is the prostration which makes Him their necessity; but, in general, there is no faith either to lay hold of Him. What would an army of such men accomplish? Nothing but their own defeat. Hence Jonathan, in whom faith is, will not burden himself with them: energized by God, he strikes with his own hand for deliverance, and strikes effectually.
(2) Jonathan knows well that “two cannot walk together except they are agreed,” that faith can take no counsel with unbelief; and when he starts against the Philistine garrison at Geba, he tells not his own father. Saul and his six hundred are shown us for a moment as he turns his back on them, Saul lying under the pomegranate at Migron (the place of “overthrow”); and with the failed king, the head of the failed priesthood, Ahijah (“brother of Jah”), son of Ahitub (“brother of goodness”), but the brother of Ichabod (“where is the glory?”), the monument of the sad history of Eli and his sons. With him is the ephod, expressly for communication with Jehovah, but there is none; and none among the people even know that Jonathan is gone away. Victory may be gained for these, not by them. They may enter presently upon a path which others have opened: open it they cannot.
Jonathan therefore goes forth alone, with only his armor-bearer with him, in whom faith responds to his own faith. Two things, as we find by his words, animate him: that the Philistines are the “uncircumcised,” the enemies of Israel, the people of God; and that “there is no restraint to Jehovah, to save by many or by few.” He believes in an omnipotent God who loves His people, and upon whom to venture for their salvation can surely be no mistake. He has no express command, no open call to accomplish this: he reasons; but he reasons from premises which faith furnishes, and from the depths of his own self-sacrificing love to the people of God, which enables him sympathetically to realize the divine love. He does not at first speak with absolute assurance of success: he says, “it may be that Jehovah will work for us”; he knows God’s heart better than His mind, gaining assurance as he goes on, willing to risk where the risk is all his own. Such believing love can never be unfruitful.
He finally accepts the enemy’s own decision of the matter as the Lord’s judgment. If they say, “Wait till we come down to you,” the energy implied will, at least, not show that He is opening the way before him. But if they say, “Come up to us,” then, whether it be indolence, indifference, or self-security, he will take it as the assurance that God has given them up into his hands.
There are abundant difficulties in those steep cliffs which overhang the bold adventurers’ path. Two points, on opposite sides, are mentioned, -not surely as mere commemorative indications of the place for days to come, but with a deeper interest. One, Bozez, was named from its “shining” surface, which, on the north side, (that of the enemy’s post,) would have the sun full upon it. The other, on Israel’s, would be correspondingly in the dark, and was called Seneh, the “thorn,” the sign of the curse. Israel was, indeed, in the shadow of God’s judgment then, as, on this account also, their enemies were in prosperity: and such things have been difficulties in the path of many a Jonathan from that day to this. But there is a faith which can surmount all, working through the love of a devoted heart; and we find it in this son of Saul, not, clearly, by any assistances of nature there.
The two discover themselves to the Philistine garrison in open day: for darkness does not favor the people of God, but the reverse. They are taunted with the cowardice that is not theirs, but is their brethren’s, as the sins of professors merely are hurled at all times at the true confessors; and are bidden, “Come up unto us, and we will show you a thing”: for with Philistines there is a height and superiority of knowledge inaccessible, in their judgment, to the “Israelite indeed.” They know not that this is the sign that Jehovah has delivered them up, and that the battle is gone against them.
Jonathan and his companion, therefore, climb on hands and knees to the attack: knees as well as hands are a grand necessity in climbing spiritual heights: and the Philistines fall before them. Fear and trembling fall upon the host; and the earth trembles and quakes; for God Himself is there: the victory is already accomplished.
(3) As yet but two men have wrought, even the little band with Saul unconscious of their departure from them; but now the Israelites around begin to be awakened and to follow in the track that has been opened to them. The watchmen of Saul begin to realize the commotion and disintegration in the enemy’s camp, and Saul imputes it to some human agency; but when the company is mustered, only Jonathan and another being absent, so slight a cause seems inadequate to the effect, and now he thinks of consulting God. But the noise increases in the camp, and the disorder among the Philistines being manifest, he abruptly stops the priest in the midst of his inquiry. He is pressed to God by great necessity; but he prefers much to do without Him. The matter is sufficiently plain for action. He gathers his company and goes out to battle, only to find that dissension has already precipitated disaster in the hostile ranks. The “Hebrews” recreant or captive among them turn against them; the Israelites who have been in hiding around swarm after the flying host. The broken wave of battle ebbs away toward the west. It is Jehovah who that day saves Israel.
(4) But the spirit of Saul is in entire independence. If Jehovah work, it is for him He works; and in his short-sighted desire for vengeance upon his enemies, he freely imprecates Jehovah’s curse upon the soul that does not obey his mandate to abstain from food until vengeance is executed. He thus makes the might of Jehovah’s name to work against the very thing he would accomplish; and limits, as far as he may, the effect of that which he had no part in producing. He can meddle and mar, if he cannot make. In his profanity he would have God curse where He means only blessing, heedless where the curse may fall. The people are faint, and the victory is incomplete. Jonathan, the instrument of the divine deliverance, is the one who falls under the futile curse. Too far away from the scene to have heard his father’s adjuration, he takes a little of the wild honey which offers itself by the way, and is refreshed. Told of his father’s curse he reprobates it, and shows its evil consequences. Honey is the sweetness of natural things, not to be ascetically interdicted to the people of God, though to be kept in due subordination. The world is, indeed, a place of warfare for the Christian, in which he may “not entangle himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please Him who has chosen him to be a soldier.” (2Ti 2:4.) We have need to watch lest we should be brought under the power of lawful things (1Co 6:12). But herein every one must judge for himself what is help, what hindrance, while it is grace alone that enables, and not law.
Saul’s prohibition leads to further evil. The famishing people, wild with hunger, fall at last upon the prey, and slaughtering sheep and oxen, eat them with the blood, in plain disobedience to the divine command. Thus an undue restriction leads to license, and the imposition of an arbitrary human enactment to a transgression of the divine: and these things occur not seldom in this way.
(5) Saul builds now an altar to Jehovah: he has need of Him, and formally acknowledges Him. He desires and proposes still to pursue the Philistines, and gains the consent of the people. It is the priest, who urges that God must be consulted first. Saul asks, accordingly, “Shall I go down after the Philistines?” and his proud spirit chafes at there being no answer to the question. He realizes that there has been sin somewhere, and evidently divines that it is in the transgression of his own rash prohibition; seems even to imagine (perhaps from Jonathan’s having been away when it was uttered) that it may be he: yet, instead of being smitten into the dust by the thought, or showing the least repentance for his reckless haste, boils over in a furious vow by Jehovah, that if it were in Jonathan himself, he should die. The people gaze upon him speechless. He brings it to a brief decision by putting himself and Jonathan over against the people for the lot to point out the guilty. He and Jonathan are taken: at the next casting Jonathan is taken: and Saul is face to face with the consequences of his deed.
But he is still unsubdued: stonily he questions the deliverer of Israel, What hast thou done? and hears his simple, straightforward account: “I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in my hand, and lo, I must die,” to answer with another imprecation upon the self, dearer loved than is his child, “God do so [to me] and more also, but thou shalt surely die, Jonathan!”
Then the people break out in a wave of astonishment and indignation, putting with emphatic decision their oath against the king’s oath. What! Jonathan, who has wrought, in the power of God, this deliverance of Israel? Jonathan die for the breach of a command he never knew, and by which Saul’s own madness had snatched the full fruits of the victory out of the deliverer’s hand? Nay, “as Jehovah liveth, there shall not a hair of his head fall to the ground!”
So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not; and Saul is left to his folly and shame. The whole matter, from beginning to end, has been one continued humiliation for the infatuated king. The man himself is unmistakably revealed; while on God’s part how great is the mercy shown, -how tender, if solemn, is the rebuke administered! And the divine patience is not exhausted yet.
6. Another test is to be permitted Saul; and as, in the former case he was under the pressure of circumstances which might plead, if not convincingly, for him, so now he is forborne with till he has gathered strength. One readily perceives, indeed, danger for him in this; but it is the only alternative. What he is, and whether Jehovah’s king for the people, must be proved; and nothing can prove so fully as when all constraint is taken off, and the will is allowed its fullest liberty. It is not meant, of course, but that lie is under the commandment of God: this is, of necessity, wherewith he is to be tried: the kingdom on earth is to be the true representative and executive of the kingdom in heaven: but obedience is to be made a question of pure will, with no hindrance to it from outside, no resistance except it be from the will itself.
The means of the ordained trial we have in Amalek; and here, as elsewhere to have the full lesson, the spiritual meaning of the people must be taken into account. In both Exodus and Numbers we have seen that as the offspring of Edom Amalek stands for the lusts of the flesh (Exo 17:1-16, Num 24:1-25, n.). In Balaam’s prophecy it is when the Scepter rises out of Israel, and out of Jacob comes one who hath dominion, -in other words, when Christ comes again -that “Amalek shall perish forever.” Till then his hand is “against the throne of Jah,” and “Jehovah will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.” Thus the destruction of Amalek is a sign of the true King having come to Israel.
The lusts of the flesh are indeed the very expression of the rebellious war against Jehovah’s throne; and he in whom these are found can never be Jehovah’s rightful king. There is but One, then, who can be this; and Saul is not even His typical picture -no, not for a moment. Of the issue of Saul’s trial here we shall have presently to speak.
(1) But first we are given to see his might. After the deliverance at Mich-mash he takes, indeed, the kingdom over Israel, and wars against all his enemies round about, and discomfits them, Philistines and Amalekites and all. “He did valiantly, and delivered Israel out of the hand of them that spoiled them.” Externally he is thus a prosperous man; no enemy at this time prevails against him: but in all this prosperity we have no hint of any real dependence on the Lord, nor of the Lord’s hand being stretched out for him. His resources are in himself. We read presently of his sons, his daughters, his wife, his cousin Abner, the captain of his host. There the record stops. He gathers no mighty men around him, as David does: he wins no heart, for he shows no heart. He is self-contained, self-centred; and thus the very king whom the people seek, though having found him, it is true he does not satisfy them. There is nothing in him to do so; and yet he is the perfect picture of what men applaud: “for men will praise thee when thou doest well to thyself.” (Psa 49:18.) The Sauls make up the history of the world, though a few souls may cluster around David.
Saul is a representative man, and thus we may well be interested in him. Not in vain does he occupy so many pages of an inspired history. His wars and his family relations, as given here, should all have meaning. As king of Israel he is in conflict with all the natural enemies of Israel, and here he shows his might. He discomfits them, but he does not destroy or subjugate them: even Amalek is not an exception to this, as we shall see. He is very far from leaving, as his successor does, “neither adversary nor evil occurrent.” (1Ki 5:4.) He dies in battle, defeated by the Philistines; an Amalekite claims to have given him his death-stroke; all the enemies have to be met afresh by the next king. He is under the law of nature simply, has his rise, culmination, and decline; but this with him, as with all under it, has a moral significance such as the psalmist attaches to it: “we are consumed by Thine anger, and by Thy wrath we are troubled.” (Psa 90:7.) The secret is as to Saul in his growing alienation from God, which is manifest, an awful hardening of heart terrible to contemplate, yet not so exceptional as to make it in any wise unsuited for an admonition to us. For here is the man that the multitude crowns with glory, while for the true king they have the cross and the crown of thorns.
And thus it is that we are in Saul’s reign still, and not in David’s; and the world occupies itself with laws and forms of government, while it knows not Christ, nor sees glory in God’s Beloved. A democracy under Satan would certainly have the suffrages of the mass today, rather than the sweet despotism of the Son of God. Yet men go frantic over wrongs that are only the twigs and branches from the root of this first great wrong. Saul, too, could lash at Israel’s enemies, but they survived him, pulled him from his seat, and conquered him at last; and so will the world’s efforts at self-government break down in hopeless anarchy and confusion before Christ comes to lay his right hand of power upon the strife, and still it into peace.
Saul’s sons, as given here, are three, though we learn elsewhere of a fourth, who does not come into this picture, Ish-bosheth, -acccording to the meaning of of his name, the “man of shame,” the only one who survives his father. The three here are his strength, but they all fall with him upon the fatal field of Gilboa.
Of Jonathan alone do we hear anything; and of him, the hero of Michmash and the lover of David, more often as in conflict with his father than otherwise. Yet Saul, with such heart as he had, loved Jonathan, -though, as we have seen, he would have sacrificed him to his superstition and pride, and afterwards to his rage against David. Jonathan means “Jehovah hath given,” the principle upon which, as we have seen, he acts at Michmash. Jonathan thus seems to represent the sovereignty of God, which, in fact, upholds as ordained of Him “the powers that be,” which Saul represents, though in themselves as little according to His mind as Saul was. This ordination is, therefore, not that electing love which originates what He approves, but that which takes them up simply as existent, in that sense is the fruit of their existence, (for the “powers that be” are ordained of God as such), and so can be rightly imaged as a son of Saul, his firstborn, as Jacob says of Reuben, his “might, the beginning of excellence and of power.” Yet it is clear that in this case Jonathan cannot be against David, even while he owns Saul, and why he expires with him upon the field where he expires. All this is simple. The victory over the Philistines at Michmash, due to him, is less so. Yet, if the Philistines represent the power of the ritualistic world-church, this has long, as we know, been in conflict with at first largely dominant over -what for the true people of God must be the rightful possessor of authority under God, even though as yet Saul, not David. The effort of the world-church, throughout the middle ages, was to put its yoke upon the kings of the earth; and the reformation was such a victory as that at Michmash, when the ordination of God of the secular power, realized in Israel among the people of God -beat off the Philistine oppressor. Yet, alas, there was no David on that throne: it could but restore a Saul! All is consistent, therefore, throughout.
Saul’s second son, Ishui, is much more scantily noticed in the history. In fact, even the name occurs only here, being replaced, where his death is spoken of by Abinadab (1Sa 31:2).
Ishui, or Ishvi, from shavah, “to be equal,” means “equal, equitable,” and this, under the number of service, ministry, speaks unmistakably of one of the very reasons for which the powers that be are ordained of God: “he is the minister of God to thee, for good.” (Rom 13:3-4.) “Do that which is good,” says the apostle, “and thou shalt have praise of the same.” This is the general truth, whatever exception there may be; and in striking contrast with Philistine oppression. When the “church,” as the superior, delivered up its victims into the hands of the obedient civil power, there was no equity! The second son of Saul confirms thus the meaning of the first.
Malchishua, “my king is saviour,” is the third son. Though in an inferior sense, of course, in fact Saul was saviour-king. And, in fact, also for society, and for the church also, the secular magistrate is a necessity. This is evident from what has just been said, and need not be considered further. These are the sons of Saul which strengthen him in his kingdom. That there is another side is true also, and an Ishbosheth, “a man of shame,” among them; but it is in striking accordance with the view presented here that Ishbosheth should be in this place omitted.
Saul’s daughters are but two, Merab and Michal. Their names have evident connection. Merab, from rabah, means “increase.” Michal, though generally taken as “brook,” seems properly to mean “who shall measure?” As daughters they naturally also speak of fertility, fruit. Do they imply the prosperity and wealth that are the result of established government? -as to which the Philistines are here also (as seen in their city, Ashdod) “spoilers” in every sense?
Next we have Saul’s wife. She is Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz. The repetition of the first element in these names demands attention. Ahi means “my brother,” or “brother, kin.” Noam is “pleasure, that which pleases”; maaz, though by Gesenius taken to mean “anger,” is rather (from atzah) “strength.” “Pleasure,” as the consort of a king, and the outcome of “strength,” is simple enough reading. Among those set in high places, how natural and sure the abuse of strength that thence results! But pleasure may be sought without abuse. All depends here upon what pleases, and in some sort also upon what the strength is. In the case of Saul, and such as he, the double ahi marks this. The “kin of pleasure” is not pleasure; the “kin of strength” is not that. A false power, not of God, the source of all that is true, may be perverted for the enjoyment of pleasure, which is not true because not of Him. And here, alas, the Sauls find their affinities and ally themselves: they walk in the vain show of the world, and disquiet themselves, too, in vain.
Thus we have Saul’s sons, daughters, and wife: we are now called to consider the captain of his host; and this is Abner, the son of Ner. The peculiarity of the name strikes one at once; for Abner means “the father of Ner,” while he is his son: there is an inversion of fact. Ner means “lamp,” the receptacle of light, the symbol of joy, prosperity, and all that we naturally connect with the thought of illumination. David is thus spoken of as “the light [or lamp] of Israel.” (2Sa 21:17.) And though Ishbosheth were a poor representative of this, yet Abner’s support of him after Saul’s death may well illustrate the assumption of his name, in which are marked the pride and self-sufficiency that characterize Saul himself. He was the suited general of such a king, though we find nothing really great done by or attributed to him: and that is in keeping with the rest. Both Abner and Saul trace their descent from a certain Abiel, “the father of might,” and thus heredity exhibits itself clearly in them. But with men assumption largely carries the day; and “the father [or sustainer] of light” may well be Saul’s ordinary commander-in-chief, if Jonathan or David do the real work. But here is the might of Saul.
(2) Saul being thus established in his kingdom, and having realized his power, he is now to be tested as to his fitness for the work of the kingdom, which is the expression of the heavenly one, on earth. With the mind of God so accessible as in Israel it was, all that is required for this is obedience; but this is absolutely necessary, and must be prompt, unhesitating. Samuel is therefore sent to Saul with the command to destroy Amalek. The reason of the command is given also, that he may intelligently enter into fellowship with God about it. “Thus saith Jehovah of hosts,” -the King, as he is thus reminded, of the higher kingdom, -“I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way when he came up out of Egypt.” The debt, long since contracted, had never been repented of, forgiveness had never been sought for it, the Amalek of that day remaining the same adversary of God and His people, and thus had only acquired interest in the lapse of time. Indeed, they had again and again appeared as enemies in the land since then. This is always the reason of divine delay in judgment, that there is yet opportunity of mercy, and “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” Now the debt was to be exacted. “Now go and smite Amalek, and execute the ban upon all they have, and spare them not.” They are sentenced, as God alone has right to sentence, to complete extermination, with all that they have, even to the cattle. Such object-lessons of divine wrath upon sin the world at large needed, as Israel themselves did; and we may be sure, in effect, were mercy.
Saul gathers his host, a large one, and sets out to execute his commission; nor do we read of any difficulty attending it. No details are given; the Spirit of God passes to the one part of sorrowful interest here, that, in plain inexcusable disobedience to the command of God, “Saul and the people” spare Agag, the king of Amalek, with the best of all the sheep and oxen, executing the ban on what was bad and poor only, -wholesale rebellion against the Lord of hosts!
The lesson is a deeply solemn one, and wider in application than perhaps we would easily allow. If Amalek stand here as elsewhere for the lusts of the flesh, alas, is it not true that we measure our judgment of these often more by our own tastes than by the simple letter of the word of God? How easy it is to judge the multitude of things, and spare the worst of all, the Agag! And things which minister to the lusts of the flesh are unhesitatingly allowed, if only they are not what to common estimate would be considered vile. Our judgments, how apt are they to be those of the world at large rather than of God, -in the light of nature rather than of the sanctuary!
(3) The divine word announces to the prophet the failure of Saul once more. “It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, for he is turned back from following me, and has not performed my words.” God speaks as man that we may understand Him. He would rather have His wisdom called in question than His holiness. His repentance is one of act, founded on His reprobation of sin. The news “kindles” the fervent spirit of the prophet, and he cries to God all night.
The spirit of Saul advertises itself sufficiently. He sweeps in a circuit through the land from Carmel to Gilgal, setting up by the way a monument, literally a “hand,” pointing to his own achievements. It is at Gilgal Samuel meets him, the place of national circumcision, the “putting away the body of the flesh,” and where the captain of the Lord’s host comes to meet them. How great a change now as to both host and leader! Yet such is the deceitfulness of sin that Saul comes confidently forward with the assertion, “I have performed Jehovah’s word.” But there are many noisy witnesses in contradiction of this, the bleating of sheep and the lowing of oxen that they had brought from the Amalekites. Even the plea of sacrificing them to God is vain; for that which was already devoted could not be offered. Yet Saul again affirms this; when Samuel answers that to give heed is better than sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of rams. How low, indeed, was Saul’s conception of the God with whom he had to do! Rebellion was, indeed, the very beginning of the worship of false gods, to which in some way man ever turns when he gives up the true. With this word of Samuel the final sentence falls: “because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He also hath rejected thee from being king.”
(4) The soul strong in rebellion against God may be toward man most pitifully weak indeed; and this is what Saul now exhibits. The fear of God destroys every other fear, and sets free from the most degrading bondage. Saul owns, while evidently he would excuse himself in measure by it, that he has put man in the place of God: “I have sinned, for I have transgressed against the voice of Jehovah and thy words, because I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice.” Manifestly, therefore, he is unfit for the place of king over Jehovah’s people; and the sentence of displacement is the only possible one. Even now, while he pleads with Samuel yet to turn back with him, that he may worship Jehovah, the fear of the people is still upon him. Samuel refuses, repeating the judgment just pronounced; and when, Saul laying hold upon the skirt of his mantle, the garment tears, he uses this to illustrate and confirm the fact that Jehovah has similarly rent the kingdom from him, to give it into the hand of one better than himself. Nor will He in whom Israel confides repent: for He is not like him whom Saul has preferred before Him.
Again Saul owns his sin, and again he shows the power that is upon him. Will not Samuel at least honor him before the elders of the people, by turning with him, that he may worship Jehovah? And Samuel, thus appealed to, turns and does so.
(5) Samuel has yet another duty to perform. The judgment of God must be executed upon the king of Amalek, and he executes it: he hews Agag to pieces before Jehovah. With us, also, there must be the unsparing judgment of that which God has condemned. Faith must use resolutely “the sword of the Spirit, which is the saying of God,” and hew down the fairest and most royal forms of flesh, which are on that account so often spared. The Sauls of every generation fail here. The powers that be may in some degree destroy what is vile and refuse; but they judge not as God judges: the sword upon Agag can be wielded by the prophet’s hand alone.
Saul is for this set aside; and the powers of earth are doomed. Yet “a king shall reign in righteousness and princes decree justice.” God has sought and found Him a king after His own heart.
The Books of the Kings.
F. W. Grant.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
1Sa 8:1. Samuel was old And so unfit for his former travels and labours. He is not supposed to have been now above sixty years of age; but he had spent his strength and spirits in the fatigue of public business; and now if he thinks to shake himself as at other times, he finds he is mistaken; age has cut his hair. They that are in the prime of their years, ought to be busy in doing the work of life; for as they go into years, they will find themselves less disposed to it, and less capable of it. He made his sons judges Not supreme judges, for of such there was to be but one, and that of Gods choosing; and Samuel still kept that office in his own hands, (1Sa 7:15;) but his deputies, to go about and determine matters, with reservation, however, of a right of appeal to himself. He had doubtless instructed them in a singular manner, and fitted them for the highest employments; and he hoped that the example he had set them, and the authority he still had over them, would oblige them to diligence and faithfulness in their trust.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Sa 8:3. His sons walked not as their father, who always came into court with clean hands. Seeking to aggrandize their families they took bribes, and by consequence perverted judgment. The history of all nations abounds with complaints of the same sin.
1Sa 8:5. Make us a king. Moses had foreseen all this, Deu 17:14, and therefore provided that the king should govern by law. Primitive governments commenced with a patriarch, surrounded with elders, without whom he could not act. But men in power take advantage of the changes induced on the state to encrease their power; so that the happiest forms of liberty and law are eventually impelled towards aristocracy, and thence to monarchy. And monarchy, under a Sesostris in Egypt, a David in Israel, an Augustus in Rome, is certainly happy. A just prince makes just magistrates. Under a monarchy the British empire has risen to the highest splendour of wealth and power. The sin of the Hebrews, however, consisted in a distrust of the covenant, with him to whom they had sworn as their God and king, for they were his peculiar people; and the good kings of Judah still owned the Lord as their God, their pastor and king. What nation was ever so signally preserved and saved as the Hebrews, when they sought the Lord.
1Sa 8:11. This will be the manner of the king. Oppression of the subject to support the fastidious splendour of royalty, is here expressly forbidden. The courts of Egypt, Persia, and Babylon seem to have supported their splendour by tenths from the farmer: 1Sa 8:15.
REFLECTIONS.
Perhaps it is a weakness inseparable from human nature for a father to lean to his sons. This was Elis great fault; and if Samuel did err, perhaps it was in making his two sons judges in Beersheba; that is, associating them with himself, in judging the people from Beersheba to Dan.
If Samuels sons corrupted themselves under the eye of so holy a father, we have another dreadful proof of original sin. Adam begat a son in his own image, so called to distinguish it from the image of God. Noah, a perfect and an upright man, had his Ham. And Job, celebrated as one of the most perfect characters human nature can boast, had ten dissipated children. The sin of Adam affected all the branches of the covenant; and hence the death in paradise was not annihilation, but an alienation of the soul from the life of God. Hence regeneration is not from our parents, but from Jesus Christ, of whom the first Adam was the figure. So St. Paul has fully taught us. Rom 5:12-13. Eph 2:1-4. To ask for proof of original sin, when our sole embarrassment is a superabundance of proof, is an equal insult to reason and revelation. It is like asking to see the sun when he shines in all his splendour.
The Israelites, seeing Samuels sons corrupted with bribes; the father growing old; the Ammonites increasing their power; and well remembering what they had suffered from invasions when there was no judge whom all the tribes revered; solicited a king. This, considering the lenient character of their government, was a most extraordinary request. The theocracy of Israel, when properly connected with faith and piety on the part of the people, was the happiest government that ever existed. Under Joshua, under Gideon and others, the nation enjoyed liberty to an excess; liberty too indulgent for a nation ever prone to err. They paid no taxes, they feared no foes; and every man enjoyed the entire fruits of his labour. But they waxed fat and kicked against the Lord; and sometimes actually fought against his judges. The fact is, Israel was not worthy of a government so paternal. Hence the extraordinary wish, to make a sudden transition from perfect liberty to absolute monarchy, must have arisen from a dread of past calamities, inflicted on the nation by the heathen yoke.
This request displeased the Lord, as it implied a distrust of his covenant care. While obedient, he had never failed to deliver Israel from invaders, and he never designed them to make offensive wars against their quiet neighbours. And if this nation were disobedient, no form of government could save it from the visitations of his hand. Hence, consenting in anger to their wishes, he invested their sovereigns with a rod to scourge both them and their foes. Let the christian Israel therefore be instructed, having once put their necks under the yoke of Jesus, never to change their Lord and Master. Satan, the world, and the flesh, are all tyrants to the soul. Let us stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.
A farther objection arose from the splendour, as well as from the power of their prince. He would not live in simplicity, like Joshua and Samuel. He would take their sons and their daughters, their cattle, corn, and vineyards for his establishments; and when they should cry unto the Lord, there would be no redress. Thus the world will ask life and fortune to be wasted on its fashions and follies; and thus our pride and our passions impose taxes upon us of the severest kind. And when we cry unto the Lord in poverty and pain, on what ground, after a life of obstinate wickedness, can we expect redress. We may all learn of Israel the best wisdom for man to learn, that to reject the milder sovereignty of divine love, and to set up our blind and youthful passions for kings, is the worst of folly, and the last of evils to the soul.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1 Samuel 8. Demand for a King.Opening section, continued 1Sa 10:17, of later account of Sauls appointment as king: either Deuteronomic or late stratum of E. Probably 1Sa 10:17-19 a (to over us) in the Deuteronomic document stood in the place of 1Sa 8:10, giving the following sequence of events: appeal of the elders, convocation of assembly (as in 1Sa 7:5), Sauls election, etc. Also, in 1Sa 8:22; Go ye every man unto his city, is, like 1Sa 8:10, an editorial insertion, necessitated by the combination of different documents. In the Deuteronomic document 1Sa 10:19, Now therefore present yourselves, etc. immediately followed And Samuel said unto the men of Israel in 1Sa 8:22. Note the hostile attitude to the Monarchy, as in Deu 17:14-20.
1Sa 8:1-10. In Samuels old age, his sons act as his representatives at Beersheba, in the extreme S. of Judah (p. 32): they take bribes. The elders (p. 112, Exo 3:16*) ask Samuel for a king. Samuel is reluctant and lays the matter before Yahweh, who tells him that the request is a rejection of Himself; He should be their only king. Samuel is to bring home their iniquity to the people, but is to grant their request, explaining, however, that the request is granted as a punishment. (Here followed in the original arrangement, in the Deuteronomic document, the calling of an assembly at Mizpah; see above.)
1Sa 8:11-22. Samuel explains that the advantages of Monarchy would be dearly bought. The king would be a selfish tyrant of the usual Oriental type: he would confiscate the best land for himself and his favourites, institute conscription and forced labour, and levy taxes. The primitive state of things, which knew little of either the authority or the burden of an organised, central government, would pass away. In spite of this warning, the people pressed their demand; by the direction of Yahweh, Samuel granted it.
1Sa 8:13. confectionaries: rather, as RVm perfumers.
1Sa 8:16. menservants . . . maidservants: male and female slaves.young men: better cattle, with LXX.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
However, old age often brings weariness with it. The time comes when Samuel considers it necessary to have others as judges in the land, and it was quite natural (not spiritual) that he should give this place to his sons, specially since God had evidently not raised up any one else to take this responsibility. In fact, people generally expect something like this. What was Samuel to do? Certainly he could have earnestly sought the Lord’s face first about a matter so important, entreating His guidance as to what to do; but we are only told, “he made his sons judges over Israel.” However, godliness is not inherited, and “sons of the prophets” are too frequently far from being prophets themselves. The corruption of Samuel’s sons was serious, in taking bribes and perverting justice, though it was not the same loathsome evil as that of Eli’s sons, who committed abomination in the things of God.
The corruption of proper rule in Israel is the occasion the elders use for gathering together to Samuel to voice their own opinion as to what should be done about it. Since Samuel was old and his sons did not walk in his ways, the one alternative they saw was to have a king over them. They did not consider the obvious question: would a king be any more satisfactory than a judge? Their one argument was that other nations were ruled by kings: why not they? The people of God too frequently descend to this level. Instead of depending fully upon the leading and grace of God, they observe what others are doing; they see some apparent surface results, and decide on the basis of outward appearances what course of action to take. This is not faith.
Samuel was rightly displeased, yet it did not seem to have occurred to him to remove his sons from their position as judges and seek God’s guidance as to finding others who were honorable men. However, he did pray to the Lord about the matter. No doubt things had already gone too far, and God Himself does not suggest any alternative, but tells Samuel to listen to the people’s demand. For He adds that they had not merely rejected Samuel, but had rejected the Lord from reigning over them. This was consistent with their character from the time the Lord brought them out of Egypt. Over and over again they had left the Lord in order to serve idols. Now the same spirit was moving them.
God allows this, therefore, not merely as a concession to Israel’s folly, but in order that they might learn by painful experience the results of that folly. Later God tells Israel, “I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath” (Hos 13:11). Though Saul’s beginning as king seemed rather favorable, his end was pathetically sad.
Yet behind the scenes we can surely see the wisdom of God working for good It is right that Israel should have a king, but only one King has any title to this place, the One who came once and was rejected, but who will come again in power and glory and assert His right to the throne. Saul provides a dark background by which the glory of the true King is made to shine the more brightly by contrast. Saul is an example of mere man in the flesh wanting and clinging to the place of authority and rule of which he is incapable, and must be put out of it. David, who replaced him, is a type of Christ, a refreshing character insofar as he does represent Him, but whose personal failure emphasizes the fact that Christ alone is fitted to be King.
God, knowing well the sad future for Israel, instructs Samuel to warn them solemnly as to what they must expect if they are given the king they desire. Samuel, a true prophet faithful to his Lord, tells all the words of the Lord to the people. Their king would take their sons for his own servants, to be chariot drivers and horsemen, to be trained for army service, both officers and privates, to make instruments of war, etc. He would take their daughters also for every kind of female service. He would, as he pleased, appropriate their fields, olive yards and vineyards for his own servants. The best of their servants he would take for his work, and their animals. If people want such government, they must pay the costs. Of course it will be easily argued that all these things are necessary taxes, whether the people like it or not. But the Lord warns them they will not like it, and would eventually cry out for relief, but could not expect the Lord to give it. They would have to learn deeply the results of their own wilfulness.
The solemn warning falls on deaf ears. The most considerate wise reasoning is lost on those who are determined to have their own way. They have no answer for the warning, but reply to Samuel, “No; but we will have a king over us,” because, first, they want to be like the nations, Just as many Christians today want to be like the world; and secondly, they expect a king to fight their battles for them. In both of these things they lose sight of God. How can they represent God before the nations if they choose to be like the nations? this would effectively take away any real testimony to a difference that God had made because of His love for them. Also, in the past, who was it who fought their battles for them at those times when they gained victories? See Exo 14:13-14.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
8:1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he {a} made his sons judges over Israel.
(a) Because he was not able to bear the charge.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
1. The demand for a king ch. 8
The Israelites had pressed their leaders for a king at least twice in their past history. The first time was during Gideon’s judgeship (Jdg 8:22), and the second was during Abimelech’s conspiracy (Jdg 9:2). Now in Samuel’s judgeship they demanded one again.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The occasion for requesting a king 8:1-3
The people would probably not have pressed for a king at this time had Samuel’s sons proved as faithful to the Mosaic Covenant as their father had been. However, Joel ("Yahweh is God") and Abijah ("My [divine] Father is Yahweh") disqualified themselves from leadership in Israel by disobeying the Law (Exo 23:6; Exo 23:8; Deu 16:19). Eli’s sons had done the same thing. Parental influence is important, but personal choices are even more determinative in the outcome of one’s life. Whereas the writer censured Eli for his poor parenting (1Sa 3:13), he did not do so with Samuel. Evidently he did not consider Samuel responsible for his son’s conduct, or perhaps he did not want to sully the reputation of this great judge. Some commentators have faulted Samuel for his sons’ behavior. [Note: E.g., Wood, The Prophets . . ., p. 160.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER X.
THE PEOPLE DEMAND A KING.
1Sa 8:1-22.
WHATEVER impression the “Ebenezer” of Samuel may have produced at the time, it passed away with the lapse of years. The feeling that, in sympathy with Samuel, had recognized so cordially at that time the unbroken help of Jehovah from the very beginning, waxed old and vanished away. The help of Jehovah was no longer regarded as the palladium of the nation. A new generation had risen up that had only heard from their fathers of the deliverance from the Philistines, and what men only hear from their fathers does not make the same impression as what they see with their own eyes. The privilege of having God for their king ceased to be felt, when the occasions passed away that made His interposition so pressing and so precious. Other things began to press upon them, other cravings began to be felt, that the theocracy did not meet. This double process went on – the evils from which God did deliver becoming more faint, and the benefits which God did not bestow becoming more conspicuous by their absence – till a climax was reached. Samuel was getting old, and his sons were not like himself; therefore they afforded no materials for continuing the system of judges. None of them could ever fill their father’s place. The people forgot that God’s policy had been to raise up judges from time to time as they were needed. But would it not be better to discontinue this hand-to-mouth system of government and have a regular succession of kings? Why should Israel contrast disadvantageously in this respect with the surrounding nations? This seems to have been the unanimous feeling of the nation. “All the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and said to Samuel, Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.”
It seems to us very strange that they should have done such a thing. Why were they not satisfied with having God for their king? Was not the roll of past achievements under His guidance very glorious? What could have been more wonderful than the deliverance from Egypt, and the triumph over the greatest empire in the world? Had ever such victories been heard of as those over Sihon and Og? Was there ever a more triumphant campaign than that of Joshua, or a more comfortable settlement than that of the tribes? And if Canaanites, and Midianites, and Ammonites, and Philistines had vexed them, were not Barak and Deborah, Gideon and Jephthah, Samson and Samuel, more than a match for the strongest of them all? Then there was the moral glory of the theocracy. What nation had ever received direct from God, such ordinances, such a covenant, such promises? Where else were men to be found that had held such close fellowship with heaven as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, and Joshua? What other people had had such revelations of the fatherly character of God, so that it could be said of them, “As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: so the Lord did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.” Instead of wishing to change the theocracy, we Flight have expected that every Israelite, capable of appreciating solid benefits, would have clung to it as his greatest privilege and his greatest honour.
But it was otherwise. Comparatively blind to its glories, they wished to be like other nations. It is too much a characteristic of our human nature that it is indifferent to God, and to the advantages which are conferred by His approval and His blessing. How utterly do some leave God out of their calculations! How absolutely unconcerned they are as to whether they can reckon on His approval of their mode of life, how little it seems to count! You that by false pretences sell your wares and prey upon the simple and unwary; you that heed not what disappointment or what pain and misery you inflict on those who believe you, provided you get their money; you that grow rich on the toil of underpaid women and children, whose life is turned to slavery to fulfill your hard demands, do you never think of God? Do you never take into your reckoning that He is against you, and that He will one day come to reckon with you? You that frequent the haunts of secret wickedness, you that help to send others to the devil, you that say, ”Am I my brother’s keeper?” when you are doing your utmost to confirm others in debauchery and pollution, is it nothing to you that you have to reckon one day with an angry God? Be assured that God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, while he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
But the lesson of the text is rather for those who have the favour and blessing of God, but are not content, and still crave worldly things. You are in covenant with God. He has redeemed you, not with corruptible things such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ. You are now sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what you shall be. There is laid up for you an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away. Yet your heart hankers after the things of the world. Your acquaintances and friends are better off. Your bare house, your homely furnishings, your poor dress, your simple fare distress you, and you would fain be in a higher worldly sphere, enjoying more consideration, and participating more freely in worldly enjoyments. Be assured, my friends, you are not in a wholesome frame of mind. To be depreciating the surpassing gifts which God has given you, and to be exaggerating those which He has with-held, is far from being a wholesome condition. You wish to be like the nations. You forget that your very glory is not to be like them. Your glory is that ye are a chosen generation, an holy nation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people, your bodies temples of the Holy Ghost, your souls united to the Lord Jesus Christ.
Yet again, there are congregations, which though in humble circumstances, have enjoyed much spiritual blessing. Their songs have gone up, bearing the incense of much love and gratitude; their prayers have been humble and hearty, most real and true; and the Gospel has come to them not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance. Yet a generation has grown up that thinks little of these inestimable blessings, and misses fine architecture, and elaborate music, and highly cultured services. They want to have a king like the nations. However they may endanger the spiritual blessing, it is all-important to have these surroundings It is a perilous position, all the more perhaps that many do not see the peril – that many have little or no regard for the high interests that are in such danger of being sacrificed.
This then, was the request of all the elders of Israel to Samuel – “Give us a king to judge us like all the nations.” We have next to consider how it was received by the prophet.
“The thing displeased Samuel.” On the very face of it, it was an affront to himself. It intimated dissatisfaction with the arrangement which had made him judge of the people under God. Evidently they were tired of him. He had given them the best energies of his youth and of his manhood. He had undoubtedly conferred on them many real benefits. For all this, his reward is to be turned off in his old age. They wish to get rid of him, and of his manner of instructing them in the ways of the Lord. And the kind of functionary they wish to get in his room is not of a very flattering order. The kings of the nations for the most part were a poor set of men. Despotic, cruel, vindictive, proud – they were not much to be admired. Yet Israel’s eyes are turned enviously to them! Possibly Samuel was failing more than he was aware of, for old men are slow to recognize the progress of decay, and highly sensitive when it is bluntly intimated to them. Besides this, there was another sore point which the elders touched roughly. ”Thy sons walk not in thy ways.” However this may have come about, it was a sad thought to their father. But fathers often have the feeling that while they may reprove their sons, they do not like to hear this done by others. Thus it was that the message of the elders came home to Samuel, first of all, in its personal bearings, and greatly hurt him. It was a personal affront, it was hard to bear. The whole business of his life seemed frustrated; everything he had tried to do had failed; his whole life had missed its aim. No wonder if Samuel was greatly troubled.
But in the exercise of that admirable habit which he had learned so thoroughly, Samuel took the matter straight to the Lord. And even if no articulate response had been made to his prayer, the effect of this could not but have been great and important. The very act of going into God’s presence was fitted to change, in some measure, Samuel’s estimate of the situation. It placed him at a new point of view – at God’s point of view. When he reached that, the aspect of things must have undergone a change. The bearing of the transaction on God must have come out more prominently than its bearing on Samuel. And this was fully expressed in God’s words. “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me.” Samuel was but the servant, God was the lord and king. The servant was not greater than his lord, nor the disciple greater than his Master. The great sin of the people was their sin against God. He it was to whom the affront had been given; He, if any, it was that had cause to remonstrate and complain.
So prone are even the best of God’s servants to put themselves before their Master. So prone are ministers of the Gospel, when any of their flock has acted badly, to think of the annoyance to themselves, rather than the sin committed in the holy eyes of God. So prone are we all, in our families, and in our Churches, and in society, to think of other aspects of sin, than its essential demerit in God’s sight. Yet surely this should be the first consideration. That God should be dishonoured is surely a far more serious thing than that man should be offended. The sin against God is infinitely more heinous than the sin against man. He that has sinned against God has incurred a fearful penalty – what if this should lie on his conscience forever, unconfessed, unforgiven? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Yet, notwithstanding this very serious aspect of the people’s offence, God instructs Samuel to ”hearken to their voice, yet protest solemnly to them, and show them the manner of the kingdom.” There were good reasons why God should take this course. The people had shown themselves unworthy the high privilege of having God for their king. When men show themselves incapable of appreciating a high privilege, it is meet they should suffer the loss of it, or at least a diminution of it. They had shown a perpetual tendency to those idolatrous ways by which God was most grievously dishonoured. A theocracy, to work successfully, would need a very loyal people. Had Israel only been loyal, had it even been a point of conscience and a point of honour with them to obey God’s voice, had they even had a holy recoil from every act offensive to Him, the theocracy would have worked most beautifully. But there had been such a habitual absence of this spirit, that God now suffered them to institute a form of government that interposed a human official between Him and them, and that subjected them likewise to many an inconvenience. Yet even in allowing this arrangement God did not utterly withdraw His loving-kindness from them. The theocracy did not wholly cease. Though they would find that their kings would make many an exaction of them, there would be among them some that would reign in righteousness, and princes that would rule in judgment. The king would so far be approved of God as to bear the name of “the Lord’s anointed: “and would thus, in a sense, be a type of the great Anointed One, the true Messiah, whose kingdom, righteous, beneficent, holy, would be an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion from generation to generation.
The next scene in the chapter before us finds Samuel again met with the heads of the people. He is now showing them “the manner of the king” – the relation in which he and they will stand to one another. He is not to be a king that gives, but a king that takes. His exactions will be very multifarious. First of all, the most sacred treasures of their homes, their sons and their daughters, would be taken to do hard work in his army, and on his farms, and in his house. Then, their landed property would be taken on some pretext – the vineyards and olive-yards inherited from their fathers – and given to his favourites. The tenth part of the produce, too, of what remained would be claimed by him for his officers and his servants, and the tenth of their flocks. Any servant, or young man, or animal, that was particularly handsome and valuable would be sure to take his fancy, and to be attached for his service. This would be ordinarily the manner of their king. And the oppression and vexation connected with this system of arbitrary spoliation would be so great that they would cry out against him, as indeed they did in the days of Rehoboam, yet the Lord would not hear them. Such was Samuel’s picture of what they desired so much, but it made no impression; the people were still determined to have their king.
What a contrast there was between this exacting king, and the true King, the King that in the fullness of the time was to come to His people, meek and having salvation, riding upon the foal of an ass! If there be anything more than another that makes this King glorious, it is His giving nature. ”The Son of God,” says the Apostle, ”loved me, and gave Himself for me.” Gave Himself! How comprehensive the word! All that He was as God, all that He became as man. As prophet He gave Himself to teach, as priest to atone and intercede, as king to rule and to defend. “The Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.” “This is My body which is given for you.” ”If thou knewest the gift of God, and Who it is that saith unto thee, Give Me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water.” With what kingly generosity, while He was on earth. He scattered the gifts of health and happiness among the stricken and the helpless! ”Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of disease among the people.” See Him, even as He hung helpless on the cross, exercising His royal prerogative by giving to the thief at His side a right to the Kingdom of God – “Verily I say unto thee, this day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.” See Him likewise, exalted on His throne “at God’s right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” How different the attributes of this King from him whom Samuel delineated! The one exacting all that is ours; the other giving all that is His!
The last scene in the chapter shows us the people deliberately disregarding the protest of Samuel, and reiterating their willful resolution – “Nay, but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.” Once more, Samuel brings the matter to the Lord – repeats all that he has heard; and once more the Lord says to Samuel, “Hearken unto their choice and make them a king.” The matter is now decided on, and it only remains to find the person who is to wear the crown.
On the very surface of the narrative we see how much the people were influenced by the desire to be “like all the nations.” This does not indicate a very exalted tone of feeling. To be like all the nations was surely in itself a poor and childish thing, unless the nations were in this respect in a better condition than Israel. Yet how common and almost irresistible is this feeling!
Singularity is certainly not to be affected for singularity’s sake; but neither are we to conform to fashion simply because it is fashion. How cruel and horrible often are its behests! The Chinese girl has to submit to her feet being bandaged and confined till walking becomes a living torture, and even the hours of what should be rest and sleep, are often broken by bitter pain. The women of Lake Nyassa insert a piece of stone in their upper lip, enlarging it from time to time till speaking and eating become most awkward and painful operations, and the very lip sometimes is torn away. Our fathers had terrible experience of the tyranny of the drinking customs of their day; and spite of the greater freedom and the greater temperance of our time, there is no little tyranny still in the drinking laws of many a class among us. All this is just the outcome of the spirit that made the Hebrews so desire a king – the shrinking of men’s hearts from being unlike others, the desire to be like the world. What men dread in such cases is not wrong-doing, not sin, not offending God; but incurring the reproof of men, being laughed at, boycotted by their fellows. But is not this a very unworthy course? Can any man truly respect himself who says, “I do this not because I think it right, not even because I deem it for my interest, but simply because it is done by the generality of people?” Can any man justify himself before God, if the honest utterance of his heart must be, “I take this course, not because I deem it well-pleasing in Thy sight, but because if I did otherwise, men would laugh at me and despise me?” The very statement of the case in explicit terms condemns it. Not less is it condemned by the noble conduct of those to whom grace has been given to withstand the voice of the multitude and stand up faithfully for truth and duty. Was there ever a nobler attitude than that of Caleb, when he withstood the clamour of the other spies, and followed the Lord fully? or that of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, when alone among myriads, they refused to bow down to the image of gold? or that of Luther when, alone against the world, he held unflinchingly by his convictions of truth?
Let the young especially ponder these things. To them it often seems a terrible thing to resist the general voice, and hold by conscience and duty. To confess Christ among a school of despisers, is often like martyrdom. But think! What is it to deny Christ? Can that bring any peace or satisfaction to those who know His worth? Must it not bring misery and self-contempt? If the duty of confessing Him be difficult, seek strength for the duty. Pray for the strength which is made perfect in your weakness. Cast your thoughts onward to the day of Christ’s second coming, when the opinion and practice of the world shall all be reduced to their essential worthlessness, and the promises to the faithful, firm as the everlasting hills, shall be gloriously fulfilled. For in that day, Hannah’s song shall have a new fulfillment: ”He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar out of the dunghill, to set them among princes, and make them inherit the throne of glory.”