Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 8:4
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
4. the elders of Israel ] Acting as representatives of the people, 1Sa 8:7 ; 1Sa 8:10 ; 1Sa 8:19 ; 1Sa 8:22.
In a patriarchal system of government the Elders or heads of families are the natural authorities. Even before the Exodus Israel possessed an organization of Elders, to whom Moses was directed to deliver his message (Exo 3:16). The title gradually acquired an official signification; in the wilderness Moses appointed a council of seventy to represent the whole body (Num 11:16; Num 11:24-25). After the occupation of Canaan we find mention of ( a) Elders of cities, who acted as civil magistrates (Jos 20:4; Jdg 8:16; Rth 4:2; 1Sa 16:4): ( b) Elders of tribes or districts (Jdg 11:5; 1Sa 30:26; 2Sa 19:11): ( c) The Elders of Israel, or united body of the Elders of the tribes, forming the senate or executive council of the “congregation” or national assembly, (1) in war (ch. 1Sa 4:3), (2) in great political matters, as on the present occasion, (3) in matters of general importance to the nation (Jdg 21:16).
The institution of Elders lasted through the monarchy (see e.g. 1Ki 20:7-8; 1Ki 21:11), and was revived after the captivity (Ezr 10:14). In N.T. times “the Elders” formed one of the constituent elements of the Sanhedrin.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
1Sa 8:4; 1Sa 8:20
Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
Making a king
As a matter of public notoriety, Samuels 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. 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. 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.
1. 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! The elders of Israel had a case. They were concerned for the nation; they saw the two sons of Samuel going astray from their fathers 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. Samuel heard this statement, and the thing displeased him. No man likes to see his whole life disregarded, and his power thrown away ruthlessly. After all, there is a good deal of human nature and common sense in the old mans 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. 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.
2. 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 people 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: 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! 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! 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!
3. 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. What then? When they heard the speech they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us. Observe how men can fight their way, when so determined, through all the warnings that even God can send. 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! 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! (J. Parker, D. D.)
Israel asking for a king
Wishing to resemble other nations, they asked Samuel to make them a king. They were dazzled, says John Henry Newman, with the pomp and splendour of the heathen monarchs around them, and they desired someone to fight their battles, some visible succour to depend on, instead of having to wait for an invisible Providence, which came in its own way and time, by little and little, being dispensed silently, or tardily, or (as they might consider) unsuitably. We must notice the way in which the elders expressed their wish to Samuel. They felt it necessary to show some reason, if possible, for their action. They therefore began by reminding Samuel of his advancing years. A Greek proverb says, The more a good tree grows, the more shade does it give. Samuel was not too old for service, but the wayward people whom the elders represented (v. 19) were apparently tired of his administration. Aged people should be treated very gently and not spoken to as if we thought they were in our way. The latter part of the speech of the elders was no more welcome than its beginning. Their request was an affront. But he did not resent it. Instead of at once answering them he prayed unto the Lord. Luther says, He must be of a high and great spirit, that undertakes to serve the people in body and soul, for he must suffer the utmost danger and unthankfulness. Samuel was of a high and great spirit. Instead of brooding over the personal wrong done to himself, he went quietly into Gods presence and laid the whole case before Him. Have we difficulties that we cannot solve? Let us pray. Cecil says, No man rejects a minister of God who faithfully performs his office, till he has rejected God. This remark applies to all spheres of life. The strict performance of duty often results in personal loss. Take the case of a young man suddenly dismissed by an unscrupulous tradesman because he refuses to take undue advantage of a customer. That young man should bear Gods voice saying, Your master has not rejected you, he has rejected Me. With this thought in his heart he will be able cheerfully to suffer (Psa 69:7; Col 1:24). Israels request was granted, but at the same time the people were earnestly warned of their error. Gods sovereignty and mans free will are here vividly contrasted. Apparently the people gained their point, but really they were making a rod for their own back (Psa 78:29-31; Psa 106:15). How bitterly the nation, even in the successful and glorious reign of King Solomon, felt the pressure of the royal yoke, so truly foretold by their last judge, is shown in the history of the times which followed the death of Solomon, when the public discontent at the brilliant but despotic rule of the great king split up the people into two nations (1Ki 12:4). Sir William Temple says A restlessness in mens minds to be something that they are not and to have something that they have not, is the root of all immorality. William Collins, the artist, very decidedly expresses his opinion that if the Almighty were to give us everything for which we feel desirous, we should as often find it necessary to pray to Him to take away as to grant new favours. We have read perhaps of the little stream that began to feel weary of being a simple brook. It therefore asked for snows from the mountains, water from the torrents, rain from the tempests; until, its petitions granted, it burst its bounds, and ravaged its hitherto delightsome banks. At first the proud stream exulted in its force; but seeing ere long that it carried desolation in its flow, that its progress was now doomed to solitude, and that its waters were forever turbid, it came to regret the humble bed hollowed out for it by Nature–the birds, the flowers, the trees, and the brooks, hitherto the modest companions of its tranquil course. (M. Lucas.)
A king instead of a god
The history now moves in one great step to Samuels old age. Of his marriage, family life, and the gathering round him of the manifold affection for which such a nature as his must have been beautifully fitted, we know nothing. If we have any hint, it is in the naming of the two sons who are mentioned in this chapter. In the same spirit as that in which he named the place of victory–Ebenezer–Samuel called his firstborn son Joel; that is–Jehovah is God. This must have been as a protest against the idolatry, the Baal and Astarte worship, with which Israel had been infected and polluted. Samuel named his other son Abiah; that is–Jehovah is Father. This ought to obtain from us admiring and reverent regard as we think of the fragmentary suggestions of Samuels family life. Jehovah was truly God over all, blessed for evermore; Dagon, Baal, and Astarte embodied only the inane and foul misconceptions of mans nature and Gods demands They were as naught before the God of gods. But more: Jehovah was a Father, tender and true to home and nation, to heathen and Jew. And this double truth it is that the naming of Samuels sons betokens. For the first time in the Old Testament the recognition of this foundation doctrine is announced to us, as it was many a time subsequently, by names devised in a time of deep feeling and earnest consecration of heart and home to God. This is the first recorded evidence of an endeavour to witness to the assurance of the adoption, to cry Abba, Father! Both the sons of Samuel were destined, in their fathers thought, to be living witnesses to the Lord: one to the greatness of God and the other to the gentleness of the Most High. In spirit this act of Samuel is no more than should be the feeling and purpose of all spiritually-minded parents in their thoughts of their children. As we often give the children an ancestral name that we revere, or honour them by naming them after someone whom we esteem in public or private life, so our first and deepest thoughts of the children should be the longing and purpose that they may truly live to the honour of God, and carry, as it were, His name in their foreheads. This should mark our chief hopes and efforts on their behalf. But here we come to what so often is a cause of grief, and sad, heart-wearing disappointment. With such a man for their father as Samuel, and carrying in the very singularity of their names the marks of a high designation as plainly as a Brahmin carries the marks of his caste, we might have expected that they would have felt a restraint from sin, and an inspiration to rectitude and holiness that would have made them, at the least, worthy of their father and grandmother. The grandsons of Hannah and the sons of Samuel–Joel and Abiah–ought to have been like Timothy, whose unfeigned faith dwelt first in thy grandmother, Lois, and thy mother, Eunice. From the first son of man, who was a murderer, down to the present time, good mens children, or, as here, ministers sons, have not been proverbial for increasing the piety of the world, or lessening its sin. The child of a saint needs the forgiveness its father has found; and the son of a sinner is not, on account of his awful parentage, placed at a disadvantage with God. Still, in view of Samuels sons, the remembrance will come that Samuels pain and Davids wail have been the sadness of many a saintly man. Samuel could not have indulged his sons in sin. The history leads us rather to think that the sins were such as might not reveal themselves until the public life of judging in Beersheba came. The private lives of Joel and Abiah may not have given opportunity for the grave sins that marked their judicial position. Many a man lives a good life as a private person who would be a great sinner if exposed to the hazards of public life. Napoleon I might have lived and died a decent man had he lived only in privacy, end never entered the army. To such a being the command of men with muskets and swords in their hands was like the scent of blood to a tiger. Judge Jeffreys might not have been infamous if he had never been a judge. The sin of Elis sons was unchastity; that of Samuels sons was covetousness. Young men, you may not fall as Hophni and Phinehas did; take care that you do not sin as Joel and Abiah. The weak link may not have had to bear the strain with you. Life may soon have to bear the test on your weak side. May God keep you from yielding when the pressure comes.
1. The sin of Samuels sons brought swiftly on a national crisis. The old-fashioned theocratic commonwealth would not do any longer. They would have soldier-kings, and they got them; but how many of them were better than Joel or Abiah, or even superior to Hophni and Phinehas? Very few. And from the first to the last of them, who of all the kings was fit to stand with Samuel? The truth is, that, from the first, the God-governed commonwealth that was associated with such names as Moses and Samuel was a conception of political and social order that the Jews never cared to appreciate. Even before Samuels time, the Hebrews had shown unwholesome longing for visible military kingship and rule such as the heathen around them had. When Gideon, at the call of God, led them to victory the only use of the victory they made was atheistically to say to Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son and thy sons son also; and the better judgment, the holier manhood of Gideon, is seen in his answer, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule over you. Gideon and Cromwell have tried to teach men in nations to trust and obey God the Infinite more than to admire lucky soldiers and successful adventurers. Soldier-kings and nationalities, held together by the sword, are not Gods preferred agencies in working out the history of humanity. Rather are they His scourges and penalties; and, like all ether devastating powers, are not to be forever, but have their highest functions, as the fire dressing of a farm field, only in being preliminary to more rational and Divine processes of life and growth, instead of fire and death. To something higher than the sad miseries of the soldier-monarchies that succeeded Samuel, to the ideal kingdom of the ever-present God on earth, it was that Isaiah pointed the Jews in the days when kings went forth to battle. For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us. But this was precisely what the faithless Hebrews would not believe.
2. The spirit and unworthiness of the movement may be seen in this–That they asked not counsel of the Lord, nor of Samuel. The history of this demand, and the outworking of it in the progress of the monarchy, are illustrations of the rebellion and the sinfulness of hiding counsel from the Lord. We, especially, who profess to sing the Ebenezers of Divine deliverance, must go on to seek the guidance of the Divine wisdom in all things; trusting in the Lord with all our hearts, leaning not to our own understanding; in all our ways acknowledging Him and hoping that He will direct our paths.
3. The folly as well as the sin of the project will be further seen from remembering that God had chosen them to be alone and the guide of all the nations; but their self-degrading demand was to be as the nations. They may have been caught by the false glare and splendour of the monarchies around them, as well as moved by the fear of Nahash, King of the Ammonites. More certainly they ignored the high intention of God in establishing His own regal authority among them; and, ignoring the higher destiny, they fell into a lower degradation than that of their neighbours. For a nation to forget its mission as the most liberal and hopeful people of the earth, and descend to the infamous degradation of being mere traders and gun makers and lenders of money to anyone who will give interest enough, as England seems to be doing–this is an abdication, a self-degrading, vast and solemn enough to make a crisis in the history of the world; and is as fit a theme for religious thought and solemn, prayerful consideration as anything that ever happened in the history of Israel.
4. Moreover, it is evident from the history that the pernicious influence of international rivalry was at work among the elders of Israel–rivalry, that is, chiefly in means of making war. To be as, or better than, other nations in war power is a poor ambition, and does no good to any in the long run, but rather evil all round. A boy never had a knife without wanting to cut something with it, and, as likely as not, something that did not need cutting. So, too, a nation, or, rather, a military caste never has a big gun now without wanting to shoot it; and, more likely than not, it will fire at something that did not need shooting. If, now, you look at the national life represented on the one hand by the judge and on the other by the military king, you may find sufficient explanation of the rejection of Samuel and God, deeper down than the occasion given for the rejection by the injustice of Samuels sons, at Beersheba. The judgeship under Samuel was the rule of right, and knowledge and regard, above all things, to the ends that God had in view. The soldier-kingship was the showy rule of the strong hand, in which the elders who came to Samuel would have chief gain, and the people would be pleased by having the outward and visible signs of greatness and strength that in politics and religion so often do duty for the reality long after it has departed. Plain principles of eternal righteousness, where have they ever stood half so high in popular esteem, and the desires of privileged classes, as the gaudy pretentiousness of the uniformed soldier and priest? Certainly they never did among the Jews; and they do not, I fear, among us nowadays. (G. B. Ryley.)
The disaffected people
There is scarcely anything more trying to a father than to witness the moral shipwreck of his sons. But this personal trouble was intimately connected with a more overwhelming one–the disaffection and declension of the people. While this man of God was lamenting his domestic trial and his countrys loss by reason of the conduct of his sons, a deputation of the people was introduced to state the popular wish, and to ask political changes. They had seen the growing infirmities of Samuel; they had suffered from the dishonesty of his sons; they probably feared the consequences if their leader were taken away; therefore they solicited a thorough Change in their civil polity: Make us a king to judge us like all the nations. Their government was theocratic. God was their king But the people of Israel did not possess the same license with regard to government as other nations. They were bound to consult the will of God, and seek Divine approbation of their arrangements. They did not like to be so isolated, so peculiar; they grew weary of the ways of God. Conformity to the world has been always a great snare to the Church. Natural to the sinful heart, it tempts the imperfect, and has led many a fair professor into backsliding. Conformity to the world, united to a profession of faith, has been the stumbling black to many an awakened soul. It troubles the Church, but it does not induce the world to be godly The most ungodly know well how to estimate this conformity in those who profess the faith of Christ. They consider it an attempt to serve two masters. It does not attract them towards, but repels them from, religion. It strengthens their opinion of the superstition of worship, and of the hypocrisy of religionists Samuel was above these infirmities of ignoble minds. But he knew the theory of the national government was well acquainted with past history, and aware that self-willed reforms were neither healthy nor good. The circumstances occasioning it was to him most affecting–the misconduct of his sons. Consciousness of his growing infirmities contributed to try the feelings of this man of God. But he had a resource where he could find composure, counsel, and strength: And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. Prayer was to him the exercise of communion with God. As you would consult a tried friend in your difficult, circumstances, and be comforted and strengthened by his prudent advice, so did Samuel with God when Providences were dark and the path of duty not plain. Prayer to God was the constant resource of Moses ere he spoke to the people, and hence it was only once throughout forty years of difficult leadership in the weary wilderness that he is said to have spoken unadvisedly with his lips Nehemiah found his soul strengthened by ejaculatory prayer while he was considering what answer he should make to the king Artaxerxes. This was Samuels practice, and it made his words cautious and weighty. No man can be so much engrossed as to have no time for prayer. The eminent physician Boerhaave, whose practice was so great that even Peter the Great and to remain for hours in an antechamber before he could be admitted to an interview, was wont to devote the first hour of every day to prayer; and he recommended this practice to others, as the source of that vigour which carried him through all his toils. Learn from Samuel how to act in seasons of perplexity. It is vain to place happiness in the present world. The Israelites imagined that their temporal aggrandizement would be to their advantage; that a king, and a pompous retinue behind him, would greatly enhance their importance. But God taught them that the desire was sinful, and the result disappointing. Byron sought early gratifications, and by means of his lofty titles, splendid genius, and jovial tastes, had abundant means of gratifying his large capacity for pleasure; but he wrote, as the result of all, that he–Drank every cup of joy, heard every trump of fame: drank early–deeply drank–drank draughts that common millions would have quenchd; then died of thirst, because there was no more to drink. The great novelist, Sir Walter Scott, had as brilliant a career as any litterateur. But he who gratified tens of thousands was not a happy man, and in the closing scene of his life had no abiding joy. His hopes had been blighted. His happiness had been eclipsed. His fortune had vanished. He was impoverished, embarrassed, aged, and comfortless. And under the influence of these unhappy experiences, he said, as he sat at Abbotsford, When I think of what this place now is, compared with what it has been not long ago, I think my heart will break. I have no other wish than that (the grated door of a burial place) may open for me at no distant period. The recollection of youth, health, and power of activity neither improved nor enjoyed, is a poor strain of comfort. The best is, the long halt will arrive at length and close all. His idolized existence had a melancholy termination. The truth is, no earthly advantage can give peace to the soul or secure its bliss. (R. Steel.)
Political Transitions.
How varied and fitful are the scenes of national life, they are alternations of sins and sorrows. The reaction of human thought is both sudden in its nature and extreme in its tendency. When once its energies are stimulated, they become restless and surge from one realm to another As the winds change in a moment from one point of the compass to its opposite extreme and toss the ship from its destined course, so this impetus of change sweeps down upon the soul with such power that it reels for a time, is then caught by the current and carried contrary to the intention of its calmer moments. Thus, as we gaze upon the picture, our wonder is excited that a people so strong in their respect for the Divine, should now conspire to dethrone its authority by establishing the human Political transitions:–
I. as founded on the most frivolous pretext. It generally happens that the greatest revolutions are founded upon petty excuses. Thus our national institutions yield to the touch of fancy, the suggestion of caprice, or to the effort of misguided partisanship. This political change was founded–
1. On the old age of Samuel. The conduct of these elders was cruel and ungrateful. No man living had served their secular and religious interests as Samuel had, they could ill afford his departure from their senate, and though his sun was gone down they should have tenderly respected the lingering brightness which yet tinted the evening horizon
2. On the conduct of Samuels sons. This plea was
(1) Unjust to Samuel. Because, although the injustice of his sons was prejudicial to national comfort and success, it was not his fault but his sorrow and misfortune.
(2) It was remedial. But no, the people are bent upon revolution, the voice of reason is drowned in the tumult of passion.
3. Consider the request of the nation.
(1) It was influential. The elders of Israel (verse 4). One would have thought that these elders were old enough to have known better, that the circumstances of their life would have inspired a sympathy towards the aged parent. But no, the oldest men are sometimes misguided, and the wisest often mistaken. Social rank is no guarantee for common sense.
(2) It was unanimous.
4. The conduct of Samuel in this crisis. We can scarcely imagine the feelings of Samuel as he listens to this desire for a king. He is alone, the companions of his youth are gone. He is sad; the nation of today has no sympathy with his grief, but is striving to sever the last tie which binds the old man to the scenes of his boyhood.
(1) Samuels prayer. Samuel acted in this crisis as a true man, he did not selfishly appeal to the forbearance of the people, did not vent his grief in ungovernable rage, but calmly asked the aid of heaven.
II. As pursued in antagonism to the Divine will.
1. The Divine permission.
2. The Divine protestation.
Howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them (verse 9). God never wantonly leaves human nature to itself, he uses means to prevent wrong, pushes them to a certain point, then if resisted by the force of will he retires, and permits the nation to work out a ruin, which becomes disciplinary.
III. as involving the most alarming consequences.
1. The despotic character of their future ruler. Sometimes God makes disclosures of the future in order to deter from sin, he places an angel in the path to warn and rebuke our folly. He would:–
(1) Disregard lifes dearest relationships (verse 11).
(2) Impose several burdens of service (verse 16).
(3) His arbitrary distribution of property (verse 14).
2. The withdrawal of Divine sympathy in this extremity (verse 18). Surely if anything could have silenced the demand of the nation such a fearful picture as this would, but the passion is so intense, the national yearning so Strong, the present pushes upon their sceptical minds, the future days of life are unreal to them, hence the stern realities to come fade into mist, and the cry is uttered yet more fervent:–But we will have a king over us.
lessons:
(1) The awful power of restless impulses to disturb national peace.
(2) The base ingratitude of collective life.
(3) The dignity of noble manhood.
(4) The persistency of national desire.
(5) The unfettered action of human conduct. (J. S. Exell, M. A.)
Asking for a king
I. Why did the people desire a king? Because the rule of the Judges had brought them neither quietness within nor security from enemies without. National unity had almost disappeared. They seem twelve tribes rather than one nation. They were scattered over a wide and difficult territory, traversed only by a few wretched paths. When hostile incursions fell upon exposed regions, the untroubled portions were often indifferent to the fate of their brethren. The Judges whom God raised up to deliver them had little influence beyond the scene of their exploits. The feebleness of the prophet, prematurely old with his cares, and the unworthiness of his sons, increased the popular discontent. Many years ago, their fathers had wanted to make Gideon king: now surely the time had come for a strong central government. Then let the change be made while Samuel was with them, rather than risk the chance of unpromising successors. Had not Jehovah himself looked forward to a kingdom? Both Abraham (Gen 17:6-16) and Jacob (Gen 35:11) had been promised that they should be fathers of kings. Moses had anticipated the monarchy in his final address (Deu 17:14-20) Everything seemed to favour and demand the step.
II. Why was the request wrong? Not in the sense of its need, but in the way of seeking it. The people forgot their covenant relation to Jehovah–that they were a peculiar nation, with a peculiar history and a peculiar mission. Such a demand showed ingratitude, distrust and disloyalty toward God. They wanted to better their government instead of reforming their character, and looked to legislation for help which could come only from righteousness
III. Why did God consent to what He did not approve? Because, if He could not do the best for them, He would do the best He could. His disapproval was for their sins; His consent, to a change not wrong in itself, probably in His plan. The idea of royalty belonged to a true conception of the Messiah, and would be developed most successfully by the rule of righteous kings, as the cross was typified by the sacrifices Since the people were too faithless to wait Gods time resistance to their wishes could only harden their hearts. The history of our race is one record of the accommodation of a Divine ideal to human frailty. Besides the ever-present truth that all mischief comes from sin and all happiness is found in obedience to God, the special value of the lesson is to illustrate the true source of national greatness. This law is stated in a Divine utterance at Sinai: If ye will obey My voice indeed and keep My covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is mine. Here are three distinct statements: first, all the earth is Gods; second, a single nation is chosen by Him as a peculiar treasure; third, the ground of the choice, the condition of the favour, is national righteousness. This compact statement declares the providential evolution and Divine selection of nations, resulting in the survival of the fittest.
1. The Divine order is not committed in favour of any one form of government. Political forms are means, not ends. We cannot, assume that a democracy is the ideal. The kingdom of heaven is a monarchy, not dependent on mens votes for its authority, or human legislation for its laws and penalties Stable governments are growths, not manufactured forms, and the same growth is not fitted for every soil. When King Murat demanded of Lord Holland to make him a constitution, the wise statesman replied, You might as well ask me to build you a tree. A republic demands general virtue and intelligence What would become of Russia or Turkey if made democracies at once? The Almighty has blessed forms of government widely different. An ideal constitution will not make an ideal nation.
2. The Divine order is not committed to any degree of material prosperity. Egypt had everything, Israel nothing; yet the mob of slaves was chosen before the kingdom opulent with treasure and hoary with learning. Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, have been used and discarded in the advance of the church
3. The Divine order is committed eternally for righteousness. This has been the principle of selection in national evolution, not the development of certain political forms. The moral good of the race is the only object which a holy God can permit to control its destinies. The Christian character of our government must be asserted and maintained. It is false to speak of this government as having no religious character. It was born a Christian nation by the will of man and also by the will of God. Surely the centuries have brought us something; above all else, a Christian birthright. Christianity is the Common law of the land. All, all, proclaim that Christianity, general, tolerant Christianity, Christianity independent of sects and parties, that Christianity to which the sword and fagot are unknown, general tolerant Christianity, is the law of the land. The virtue of its individual citizens is the nations real hope. The sins which bare destroyed the dead nations have been the sins of individuals. The state as a corporation has no soul. We know but two moral existences, God and man; and the conduct which God rewards in individuals will secure his blessing upon their associated action A community may be rich or poor, may be under a monarch or a president: are its members righteous?–then they will have national prosperity; are they vile?–their nation will be cursed. (Monday Club Sermons)
Asking for a king
Revolutions sometimes take place without great popular excitement or the leadership of great men. The history before us presents such a case The dramatis personae are the elders of the tribes, the representatives of the people; Samuel the prophet, the judge and hero, and Saul, the least free agent of them all, whose exceptional size contrasts with the littleness of the figure he cuts in this first scene of a national tragedy. The revolution, however quietly accomplished, was important and permanent. The introduction of a new instrument under the theocracy, it forever separated the prophetic office from civil government. Henceforth the prophet and magistrate are distinct as to office and often antagonistic as to policy. Both are prominent in the development of the Messianic design. The freedom of the individual and the equality of the citizen have never been so justly and wisely provided for as under the Hebrew law. A freer people from the Exodus to the reign of Solomon was never known. The idea of royal authority was not new to the Hebrews. All around them were petty monarchies more or less absolute, and by tradition and commerce they were familiar with the greater kingdoms of the Nile and Euphrates. The demand for a king came from the elders of the tribes. They came fortified with Scripture, quoting Moses in Deu 17:14-20, simply asking what the Lord had predicted and recorded by their great legislator as a possible event in their history. They aimed at a centralisation of power that would combine the tribes for defensive purposes. To their unbelief which failed to look beyond man, it seemed that Samuel was to have no successor. The history of popular revolutions shows that there was no unusual lack of political wisdom among those compatriots of Samuel. Indeed, their mistake has ever been the ordinary wisdom of the world. Grecian and Roman history shows how natural it is for nations to seek relief from popular lawlessness in tyrants, dictators and emperors. Mediaeval history repeats how popular suffering, industries and property sought escape from feudal tyrannies under the sceptre of kings. So the Hebrews falsely argued. To secure a possible constitutional concession they adopt manners and methods full of insult and ingratitude to Samuel and sacrilege and impiety toward God. The political blunder, as well as religious crime, of the Hebrews was in charging their troubles not upon corrupt magistrates and popular lawlessness, but on their national constitution. Now, it may be admitted that this constitution was defective in power lust as soon as the people lost the sense of their theocratic obligations and of Jehovah as their present King. Decline in theocratic belief and life was ever the one sign of weakness in the Hebrew commonwealth, and the one only dissolvent of their otherwise impregnable security. Their liberties were invincible against internal or external foes so long as they were faithful to inspired covenant morality; but apostasy ever made them vulnerable, and at last exposed their national life to a deadly wound. In this hour of ecclesiastical and political peril Samuel carried the matter in prayer to God To the illustrious chief the answer of God is full of grace, sympathy and pathos: They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me that I should not reign over them. This reply teaches–
1. That this prayer for a king was essential apostasy (Psa 118:9). In coming down to the political policies of surrounding nations they violated their covenant relations and exposed themselves to bondage under the prince of this world. The final cause of all priestly and political absolutism is to be found in the implacable enmity of Satan to divine sovereignty and human liberty. Conscience makes cowards of us all, and fears, the inevitable consequence of declining piety, make them distrust the protection and guidance of Jehovah.
2. That this prayer for a king was the outburst of an hereditary vice This was the rejection of the sovereignty of God. They did now just what their patriarchs did to Joseph and their fathers to Moses, the representatives of that sovereignty.
3. That this prayer for a king was practical idolatry (verse 8).
4. That God may grant the obstinate prayer of mistrust (verses 9, 19-22).
5. Yet the prayer was granted under solemn protest and clear warning (verses 9-18). The original government of the world designed by God was neither a monarchy, an aristocracy nor a republic. None of these is compatible with the individual sovereignty bestowed in the creation of man. But the theocracy was above the ethical culture of the people, too sublime for the moral education of their schools The large personal liberty conferred by the Mosaic constitution degenerated into social lawlessness and weak administration, and foreign infidelity and socialism penetrated and corrupted the religious beliefs and national manners of the people. The moral status of the people was unworthy of the free government God had given them. Concentration under the direct sovereignty of God was more possible than under a human dynasty. This their own history demonstrates. God alone is King. The noblest idea of government, individual or social, is a theocracy, and under it the parity of citizens. Nor need this state be utopian if the people are, as they ought to be and can be, under a Bible cultus. National unity and perpetuity is a matter of ethics, and not of community of race, tradition and history, of laws and language, of literature and religion. These latter are additional bonds, but history, from the Hebrews to the Americans, shows how feeble they are to preserve national unity. Scepticism and infidelity are the sure signs of mental and moral degeneracy in civilisation. Royalty is a Divine prerogative, and property belongs to the Son of God. Our safety is trust in God by the recognition in the family, school and legislature of Jesus Christ as King, His doctrines as law and His precepts as practice (G. C. Heckman, D. D.)
Demand for the tangible and visible
For are we not all in the same condemnation? The life of faith, which relies on an unseen arm, and hearkens to the law of an unseen King, is difficult, the sense cries out for something that it can realise and cling to. Luther, in one of his letters, has a parable that tells how he looked at the vault of the sky, and sought in vain for the pillars that held it up, and how he feared that, having no visible supports, it must fall. We all would like to see the upholding columns. An Alpine path without a parapet seems to us more dangerous that if a wall, however low, fenced it on the side of the precipice. Give us a king is but the ancient form of the universal craving for something more substantial than the bare word of a God whom sense cannot grasp. How many of us would rather have a good balance at our bankers than Gods promise, Thy bread shall be given thee, and thy water made sure! How many of us call the visible supports solid realities, and the unseen strengths mystical, meaning thereby unreal! How few of us believe that the Unseen is the real and solid, and the visible and transient and phantasmal! Let us scrutinise our governing ideas, and we shall find them very like those that sent the elders to Samuel, crying for a king. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
The elders; either for age, or dignity and power.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together,…. At some place of rendezvous appointed; these were the heads of the tribes, and fathers of the houses and families of Israel, the principal persons of age and authority:
and came to Samuel unto Ramah; the place of his nativity and abode, and where he now dwelt, and judged Israel; they went in a very respectable body with an address to him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The People Desire a King; God’s Answer to Israel; The People Insist on Having a King. | B. C. 1075. |
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. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. 7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 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. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. 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. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 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. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 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. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. 22 And the LORD 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.
We have here the starting of a matter perfectly new and surprising, which was the setting up of kingly government in Israel. Perhaps the thing had been often talked of among them by those that were given to change and affected that which looked great. But we do not find that it was ever till now publicly proposed and debated. Abimelech was little better than a titular king, though he is said to reign over Israel (Judges ix. 22), and perhaps his fall had for a great while rendered the title of king odious in Israel, as that of Tarquinius did among the Romans; but, if it had, by this time the odium was worn off, and some bold steps are here taken towards so great a revolution as that amounted to. Here is,
I. The address of the elders to Samuel in this matter (1Sa 8:4; 1Sa 8:5): They gathered themselves together, by common consent; and not in a riotous tumultuous manner, but with the respect due to his character, they came to him to his house as Ramah with their address, which contained,
1. A remonstrance of their grievances: in short, Thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways. Many a fairer occasion that people had had to ask a king, when they were oppressed by their neighbours or embroiled at home for want of a king in Israel, but a small thing will serve factious spirits for a colour to desire a change. (1.) It was true that Samuel was old; but if that made him less able to ride the circuit, and sit long on the bench, yet it made him the more wise and experienced, and, upon that account, the fitter to rule. If he was old, had he not grown old in their service? And it was very unkind, ungrateful, nay, and unjust, to cast him off when he was old, who had spent his days in doing them good. God had saved his youth from being despicable (ch. iii. 20), yet they make his old age so, which should have been counted worthy of double honour. If old people be upbraided with their infirmities, and laid aside for them, let them not think it strange; Samuel himself was so. (2.) It was true that his sons did not walk in his ways; the more was his grief, but they could not say it was his fault: he had not, like Eli, indulged them in their badness, but was ready to receive complaints against them. And, if that had been the thing desired, we may well suppose, upon the making out of the charge of bribery against them he would have superseded their commissions and punished them. But this would not content the elders of Israel; they had another project in their head.
2. A petition for the redress of these grievances, by setting a king over them: Make us a king to judge us like all the nations. Thus far it was well, that they did not rise up in rebellion against Samuel and set up a king for themselves, vi et armis–by force; but they applied to Samuel, God’s prophet, and humbly begged of him to do it. But it appears by what follows that it was an evil proposal and ill made, and was displeasing to God. God designed them a king, a man after his own heart, when Samuel was dead; but they would anticipate God’s counsel, and would have one now that Samuel was old. They had a prophet to judge them, that had immediate correspondence with heaven, and therein they were great and happy above any nation, none having God so nigh unto them as they had, Deut. iv. 7. But this would not serve; they must have a king to judge them with external pomp and power, like all the nations. A poor prophet in a mantle, though conversant in the visions of the Almighty, looked mean in the eyes of those who judged by outward appearance; but a king in a purple robe, with his guards and officers of state, would look great: and such a one they must have. They knew it was in vain to court Samuel to take upon him the title and dignity of a king, but he must appoint them one. They do not say, “Give us a king that is wise and good, and will judge better than thy sons do,” but, “Give us a king,” any body that will but make a figure. Thus foolishly did they forsake their own mercies, and, under pretence of advancing the dignity of their nation to that of their neighbours, did really thrust themselves down from their own excellency, and profane their crown by casting it to the ground.
II. Samuel’s resentment of this address, v. 6. Let us see how he took it. 1. It cut him to the heart. Probably it was a surprise to him, and he had not any intimation before of their design, which made it the more grievous. The thing displeased Samuel; not when they upbraided him with his own infirmities and his children’s irregularities (he could patiently bear what reflected on himself and his own family), but it displeased him when they said, Give us a king to judge us, because that reflected upon God and his honour. 2. It drove him to his knees; he gave them no answer for the present, but took time to consider of what they proposed, and prayed unto the Lord for direction what to do, spreading the case before him and leaving it with him, and so making himself easy. Samuel was a man much in prayer, and we are encouraged in every thing to make our requests known to God, Phil. iv. 6. When any thing disturbs us, it is our interest, as well as our duty, to show before God our trouble, and he gives us leave to be humbly free with him.
III. The instruction God gave him concerning this matter. Those that in straits seek to God shall find him nigh unto them, and ready to direct them. He tells him,
1. That which would be an allay to his displeasure. Samuel was much disturbed at the proposal: it troubled him greatly to see his prophetic office thus slighted, and all the good turns he had done to Israel thus ungratefully returned; but God tells him he must not think it either hard or strange. (1.) He must not think it hard that they had put this slight upon him, for they had herein put a slight upon God himself: “They have not rejected thee only, but they have rejected me. I share with thee in the affront,” v. 7. Note, If God interest himself in the indignities that are done us, and the contempts that are put upon us, we may well afford to bear them patiently; nor need we think the worse of ourselves if for his sake we bear reproach (Ps. lxix. 7), but rather rejoice and count it an honour, Col. i. 24. Samuel must not complain that they were weary of his government, though just and gentle, for really they were weary of God’s government; this was what they disliked: They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. God reigns over the heathen (Ps. xlvii. 8), over all the world, but the government of Israel had hitherto been, in a more peculiar manner than ever any government was, a Theocracy, a divine government; their judges had their call and commission immediately from God; the affairs of their nation were under his peculiar direction. As the constitution, so the administration of their government, was by Thus saith the Lord; this method they were weary of, though it was their honour and safety, above any thing, so long as they kept in with God. They were indeed so much the more exposed to calamities if they provoked God to anger by sin, and found they could not transgress at so cheap a rate as other nations could, which perhaps was the true reason why they desired to stand upon the same terms with God that other nations did. (2.) He must not think it strange, nor marvel at the matter, for they do as they always have done: According to all the works which they have done, since the day that I brought them out of Egypt, so do they unto thee, v. 8; They had at first been so very respectful and obsequious to Samuel that he began to hope they were cured of their old stubborn disposition; but now he found himself deceived in them, and must not be surprised at it. They had always been rude to their governors, witness Moses and Aaron; nay, They have forsaken me and served other gods; the greatness of their crime, in affecting new gods, may make this crime of affecting new governors seem little. Samuel might expect they would deal treacherously, for they were called transgressors from the womb, Isa. xlviii. 8. This had been their manner from their youth up, Jer. xxii. 21.
2. He tells him that which would be an answer to their demand. Samuel would not have known what to say if God had not instructed him. Should he oppose the motion, it would bespeak a greater fondness of power and dominion than did become a prophet, and an indulgence of his sons. Should he yield to the motion, it would look like the betraying of his trust, and he would become accessory to all the bad consequences of a change. Aaron sinned in gratifying the people when they said, Make us gods; Samuel dares not therefore comply with them when they say, Make us a king, but he gives them, with assurance, the answer God sent them.
(1.) He must tell them that they shall have a king. Hearken to the voice of the people, v. 7, and again, v. 9. Not that God was pleased with their request, but, as sometimes he crosses us in love, so at other times he gratifies us in wrath; he did so here. When they said, Give us a king and princes he gave them a king in his anger (see Hos 13:10; Hos 13:11), as he gave them quails, Psa 106:5; Psa 78:29. God bade Samuel humour them in this matter, [1.] That they might be beaten with their own rod, and might feel, to their cost, the difference between his government and the government of a king; see 2 Chron. xii. 8. It soon appeared how much worse their condition was, in all respects, under Saul, than it had been under Samuel. [2.] To prevent something worse. If they were not gratified, they would either rise in rebellion against Samuel or universally revolt from their religion and admit the gods of the nations, that they might have kings like them. Rather than so, let them have a king. [3.] God knows how to bring glory to himself out of it, and to serve his own wise purposes even by their foolish counsels.
(2.) But he must tell them, withal, that when they have a king they will soon have enough of him, and will, when it is too late, repent of their choice. This he must protest solemnly to them (v. 9), that, if they would have a king to rule them, as the eastern kings ruled their subjects, they would find the yoke exceedingly heavy. They looked only at the pomp or magnificence of a king, and thought that would make their nation great and considerable among its neighbours, and would strike a terror upon their enemies; but he must bid them consider how they would like to bear the charges of that pomp, and how they would endure that arbitrary power which the neighbouring kings assumed. Note, Those that set their hearts inordinately upon any thing in this world ought, for the moderating of their desires, to consider the inconveniences as well as the conveniences that will attend it, and to set the one over against the other in their thoughts. Those that submit to the government of the world and the flesh are told plainly what hard masters they are, and what a tyranny the dominion of sin is; and yet they will exchange God’s government for it.
IV. Samuel’s faithful delivery of God’s mind to them, v. 10. He told them all the words of the Lord, how ill he resented it, that he construed it a rejecting of him, and compared it with their serving other gods,–that he would grant their request if they insisted on it, but withal had ordered him to represent to them the certain consequences of their choice, that they would be such that if they had any reason left them, and would allow themselves to consult their own interest, they would withdraw their petition, and beg to continue as they were. Accordingly he lays before them, very particularly, what would be, not the right of a king in general, but the manner of the king that should reign over them, according to the pattern of the nations, v. 11. Samuel does not speak (as bishop Patrick expounds it) of a just and honest right of a king to do these things, for his right is quite otherwise described in that part of Moses’s law which concerns the king’s duty, but such a right as the kings of the nations had then acquired. This shall be the manner of the king, that is, “thus he must support his dignity at the expense of that which is dearest to you, and thus he will abuse his power, as those that have power are apt to do; and, having the militia in his hand, you will be under a necessity of submitting to him.”
1. If they will have such a king as the nations have, let them consider, (1.) That king must have a great retinue, abundance of servants to wait on him, grooms to look after his chariots and horses, gentlemen to ride about with him, and footmen to run before his chariots. This is the chief grandeur of princes, and the imaginary glory of great men, to have a multitude of attendants. And whence must he have these? “Why, he will take your sons, who are free-born, have a liberal education, and whom you now have at your own disposal, and will appoint them for himself,” v. 11. They must wait upon him, and be at his beck; those that used to work for their parents and themselves must work for him, ear his ground, and reap his harvest (v. 12), and count it their preferment too, v. 16. This would be a great change. (2.) He must keep a great table; he will not be content to dine with his neighbours upon a sacrifice, as Samuel used to do (ch. ix. 13); but he must have a variety of dainty dishes, forced meats, and sweet-meats, and delicate sauces; and who must prepare him these? “Why, he will take your daughters, the most ingenious and handy of them, whom you hoped to prefer to houses and tables of their own; and, whether you be willing or no, they must be his confectioners, and cooks, and bakers, and the like.” (3.) “He must needs have a standing army, for guards and garrisons; and your sons, instead of being elders of your cities, and living in quiet and honour at home, must be captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and must be disposed of at the pleasure of the sovereign.” (4.) “You may expect that he will have great favourites, whom, having dignified and ennobled, he must enrich, and give them estates suitable to their honour; and which way can he do that, but out of your inheritances? v. 14. He will take your fields and vineyards, which descended to you from your ancestors, and which you hoped to leave to your posterity after you, even the best of them; and will not only take them to himself (you could bear that better), but he will give them to his servants, who will be your masters, and bear rule over that for which you have laboured, How will you like that?” (5.) “He must have great revenues to maintain his grandeur and power with; and whence must he have them but from you? He will take the tenth of the fruits of your ground (v. 15), and your cattle, v. 17. You think the tenths, the double tenths, which the law of God has appointed for the support of the church, grievous enough, and grudge the payment of them; but, if you have a king, there must issue another tenth out of your estates, which will be levied with more rigour, for the support of the royal dignity. Consider the expense with the magnificence, and whether it will quit cost.”
2. These would be their grievances, and, (1.) They would have none but God to complain to. Once they complained to the prince himself, and were answered, according to the manner of the king, Your yoke is heavy, and I will add to it, 1 Kings xii. 11. (2.) When they complained to God he would not hear them, v. 18. Nor could they expect that he should, both because they had been deaf to his calls and admonitions, and this trouble, in particular, they had brought upon themselves by rejecting him, and would not believe when he told them what would come of it. Note, When we bring ourselves into distress by our own irregular desires and projects we justly forfeit the comfort of prayer and the benefit of divine aids, and, if God be not better to us than we deserve, must have our relief in our own hands, and then it is bad with us.
V. The people’s obstinacy in their demand, 1Sa 8:19; 1Sa 8:20. One would think such a representation of the consequences as this was, coming from God himself, who can neither deceive by his word nor be deceived in his knowledge, should have prevailed with them to waive their request: but their hearts were upon it, right or wrong, good or evil: “We will have a king over us, whatever God or Samuel say to the contrary; we will have a king, whatever it cost us, and whatever inconvenience we bring upon ourselves or our posterity by it.” See their folly. 1. They were quite deaf to reason and blind to their own interest. They could not answer Samuel’s arguments against it, nor deny the force of them, and yet they grow more violent in their request, and more insolent. Before it was, “Pray, make us a king;” now it is, “Nay, but we will have a king; yea, that we will, because we will; nor will we bear to have any thing said against it.” See the absurdity of inordinate desires, and how they rob men of their reason. 2. They could not stay God’s time. God had intimated to them in the law that, in due time, Israel should have a king (Deu 17:14; Deu 17:15), and perhaps they had some intimation that the time was at hand; but they are all in haste: “We, in our day, will have this king over us.” Could they but have waited ten or twelve years longer they would have had David, a king of God’s giving in mercy, and all the calamities that attended the setting up of Saul would have been prevented. Sudden resolves and hasty desires make work for a long and leisurely repentance. 3. That which they aimed at in desiring a king was not only, as before, that they might be like the nations, and levelled with the one above whom God had so far advanced them, but that they might have one to judge them, and to go out before them when they took the field, and to fight their battles. Foolish people and unwise! Could they ever desire a battle better fought for them that the last was, by Samuel’s prayer and God’s thunder? ch. vii. 10. Was victory hereby too sure to them? And were they fond of trying the chance of war at the same uncertainty that others did? So sick, it seems, were they of their privileges: and what was the issue? Their first king was slain in a battle, which none of their judges ever were; so was Josiah, one of the last and best.
VI. The dismissing of them with an intimation that very shortly they should have what they asked. 1. Samuel rehearsed all their words in the ears of the Lord, v. 21. Not but that God perfectly knew it, without Samuel’s report; but thus he dealt faithfully between God and Israel, as a prophet, returning the answer to him that sent him; and thus he waited on God for further direction. God is fully acquainted with the state of the case we are in care and doubt about, but he will know it from us. His rehearsing it in the ears of the Lord intimates that it was done in private; for the people were not disposed to join with him in prayer to God for direction in this matter; also it bespeaks a holy familiarity, to which God graciously admits his people: they speak in the ears of the Lord, as one friend whispers with another; their communion with God is meat they have to eat which the world knows not of, John iv. 32. 2. God gave direction that they should have a king, since they were so inordinately set upon it (v. 22): “Make them a king, and let them make their best of him, and thank themselves if that very pomp and power which they are so eager to see their sovereign in be their plague and burden.” So he gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts. Samuel told them this, but sent them home for the present, every man to his city; for the designation of the person must be left to God; they had now no more to do. When God saw fit to notify the choice to Samuel they should hear further from him; in the mean time let them keep the peace and expect the issue.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES
1Sa. 8:5. Make us a king to judge us like all the nations. This request resembles so completely the law of the king in Deu. 17:14, that the distinct allusion to it is unmistakable. The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law is met with for the first time in the books 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 made provision (Kiel). See also comments on this verse.
1Sa. 8:6. The thing displeased Samuel, etc. He did not, therefore, take it amiss that they blamed the wrongdoing of his sons, or that they referred to his age, and thus intimated that he was no longer able to bear the whole burden of office (Erdmann). Personal and family feelings might affect his views of this public movement. But his dissatisfaction arose principally from the proposed change being revolutionary in its character. Though it would not entirely subvert their theocratic government, the appointment of a visible monarch would necessarily tend to throw out of view their unseen King and Head (Jamieson). (See also comments on the verse.)
1Sa. 8:11. This will be the manner of the king, i.e., the right or prerogative which the king would claim, namely, such a king as was possessed by all the other nations, and such an one as Israel desired in the place of its own God-king, i.e., a king who would rule over his people with arbitrary and absolute power (Keil). The following is a very just and graphic picture of the despotic governments which anciently were and still are found in the East, and into conformity with which the Hebrew monarchy, notwithstanding the restrictions prescribed by the law, gradually slid. Oriental sovereigns claim a right to the services of any of their subjects at pleasure. The royal equipages throughout the East were generally, as in Persia they still are, preceded and accompanied by a number of attendants on foot. Cookery, baking, and the kindred works are, in Eastern countries, female employments, and numbers of young women are occupied with these offices in the palaces even of petty princes (Jamieson).
1Sa. 8:20. The first part of this energetic answer implies that they were well aware of the peculiarity of their civil government, by which their governors were only Gods vicegerentsofficers chosen and appointed by an unseen powerand they desired a visible head. The second part of it expressed a strong preference for a permanent rather than an occasional or temporary magistrate to consult their interests by his domestic administration, and, with regard to their foreign relations, to keep a standing army, ready at all times, under his command, to repel the encroachments or insults of neighbouring states. Perhaps, too, the corruptions that had prevailed to so great an extent under the judges had originated a secret but strong desire to be freed from the government of the priesthood, and they probably expected that, if released from the authority of sacerdotal judges, they would find a regal government less austere and rigid than the old rgime (Jamieson).
1Sa. 8:22. Go ye every man, etc. We must here read between the lines that Samuel communicated the Divine decision to the people, and, dismissing the elders, took into consideration, in accordance with the Lords command, the necessary steps for the election of a king (Erdmann). He gave them time to reconsider their request, as well knowing that Gods permission was a punishment (Wordsworth). Such was their reverence for God, and their confidence in His prophet, that, instead of proceeding further to claim the right of popular election, they departed in full and patient reliance on Gods time and way of granting their request (Jamieson).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.1Sa. 8:4-22
A KING DESIRED AND GRANTED
I. The generality of mankind prefer the visible to the invisible. There have been men in all ages of the world who have chosen as their portion that which is unseen in preference to what is seen, and they have done so on the most reasonable and substantial grounds. The Invisible King had more power to influence the actionsto control the choiceof Moses than the visible and mighty monarch of Egypt. He was so ruled by a desire to serve Him whom he had never seen that he counted the wrath of Pharaoh as nothing in comparison. In the day of battle his eye was not fixed upon the visible enemy, but it was raised to that unseen friend whose help he sought for the people whom he led. His whole life was an enduring as seeing Him who is invisible (Heb. 11:27). Samuel also was ruled by an abiding sense of the presence of the Unseen King. To Him he cried in the day of his peoples danger, and with reference to Him he regulated his whole life. And in the present day, as in all past days, there are those who are ruled, not by the things which are seen and temporal, but by those which are unseen and eternal, who endure as seeing Him who is invisible. But these have always been in the minoritymost men, like Israel of old, prefer the visible and the seeming to the invisible and the real. Those who have this preference justify it because it makes them like the majority. Nay, said Israel, but we will have a king to reign over us, that we also may be like all the nations (1Sa. 8:19-20). The influence of numbers has always had great weight with mankind. They do not like to be singular, and they find a reason for doing what they do, and for having what they desire, in the fact that the generality of men have and do it. The great majority of the Hebrew nation were unwilling to be different from the nations around them; those nations had a visible king, and although he was but a man like themselves, Israel desired to have such a king rather than render allegiance to God only as their King.
II. Even when a desired thing is shown to be injurious, men will often persist in desiring it. Sometimes a physician finds a patient who is so self-willed that he will persist in desiring food which has been proved to be injurious to him. And so a godless soul has sometimes the injurious consequences of a certain course plainly set before him, and yet persists in his determination to continue in it. Samuel, like a wise moral physician, laid before Israel the consequences of persisting in their desire to have a king like the nations. But, although he plainly pointed out to them the bondage to which they would subject themselves by gratifying such a desire, they refused to relinquish it. In the face of the remonstrances of one whom they knew desired their real welfare, they held to their determination simply because it was theirs.
III. God, rather than force the human will, will grant petitions which displease Him. God will not force any man to take His yoke. If men persist in desiring a heavier one, He will often grant their desire. This was more than once the case with the Hebrew nation. He once wrought a miracle to meet their wishes, when they incurred His deep displeasure by desiring their own way in preference to His. Is was an act of Divine judgment when He gave them quails to the full (Num. 11:33), and in the instance before us God granted their desire, but He gave them a king in His anger (Hos. 13:11), and Israel soon found that the gratification of their self-will brought its own punishment, and that their self-imposed yoke was a very different one from that which their Divine King had laid upon them. But God leaves men free to choose or to reject His guidance. He will have none but voluntary subjects.
IV. In the time of displeasure and perplexity we should take the cause of both to God. Samuel, in this day of disappointment and uncertainty, cried unto the Lord; and every child of God should do the same. He is prompted to this act by a spiritual instinct, and encouraged in it by the Divine promises. It is an instinct in human nature to turn to the strong in seasons of weakness, and to those who are wiser than we are in the season of perplexity. The child runs to the parent for help, and the inexperienced turn to those who have more wisdom than they have when they feel that their own wisdom is insufficient to guide them. In times of great extremity almost every human creature instinctively cries out for supernatural help, but when a man has a closer relation to God than that which is common to every human creaturewhen he can look up to Him and cry, Abba, Fatherhe not only turns his eye upward as naturally as a flower opens its petals to the sun, but he is encouraged and emboldened to do so by the Divine promises of succour. God has commanded His children to call upon Him in the day of trouble, and has promised them deliverance (Psa. 50:15). Because he hath set his love upon Me, therefore will I deliver him:. He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him (Psa. 91:14-15). Samuels experience at this time is an illustration of the truth of these Divine promises.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
1Sa. 8:5. The request of Israel brings before us
I. A melancholy view of the progress of degeneracy in a community. Looking at their history from the time of their entrance into Canaan, on the whole the scene presented is that of successive generations rising up to depart farther and farther from God, and now we have the dismal consummation in their effort to destroy, as far as they were concerned, that peculiar and interesting link between themselves and God which existed in the fact that besides being to them, as He is to all creatures, their Supreme Ruler, He condescended to act as such in a direct and immediate form, standing actually, and to all intents and purposes, in the same relation to them as that which an earthly sovereign sustains towards his subjects. It was the sin of the fathers living over again, but with greater intensity, in the persons of the children. This view of the case is, in a high degree, admonitory. None of us perhaps think enough of the connexion between ourselves and the future, and yet, when we do, there is much that may well fill our minds with awe. Each age exerts a very considerable influence on that which succeeds it, and the men of any particular age are responsible in a very large and affecting measure for the characteristics of the period which may come after them. In looking at the clamorous assembly which the narrative brings before us, we cannot recognise in that crowd the immediate descendants of a race of God-fearing fathers and of God-honouring mothers.
II. It teaches us the perilousness of allowing our thoughts to run in an improper direction, and our wishes to centre upon a wrong object. And this because of the absorbing effect of one wrong thought, and its consequent power to throw into oblivion all those counteracting thoughts and objects which from any other source might be suggested. Trace the progress of this one wrong desire in Israel. Was there nothing to be said on the other side? Is it not exceedingly easy to conceive of the counteracting effect which might have been presented to such a wish by a recollection of their actual privileges at the moment? There is a matchless sublimity about the very idea of a theocracy. But if its sublimity did not appeal to their moral sense, its peculiar advantageousness might have appealed to their self-regard. No other form of government could be compared with it for beneficial results to its subjects. For consider what it involvedthe equal accessibleness of the Sovereign to all His subjectsthe certainty of having the best counsel under all circumstancesthe largest resources, both of power and skill, at their commandthe impossibility of wrong motives affecting the Sovereigns actsthe freedom from the ordinary burdens of government when He was king who could say, Every beast in the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. Nor did they admit another recollection which might well have offered the strongest contradiction to their one wrong desire, even that of the faithfulness and the loving-kindness with which God, as their King, had ever treated them. Beware of the first misdirection of thought. Be sure you are right at first in your plans and purposes, because afterwards, by reason of the very force by which wrong thoughts indulged exclude all suggestions to the contrary, it may be too late to alter.Miller.
1Sa. 8:6. A beautiful example of prayer to obtain the composure of ruffled feelings and to have the judgment directed aright by Gods Holy Spirit, when it is in danger of being overswayed by personal motives.Biblical Commentary.
In this there was a twofold ungodly element.
(1). They desired a king instead of the God-established and nobly-attested judge Samuel. The scheme is characterised as an injustice against Samuel, and therefore a sin against the Lord who sent him (1Sa. 8:7-8).
(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).Hengstenberg.
1Sa. 8:7. It was not, then, the mere desire for reform in civil polity. It was the outburst in a new form of an ancient sin; it was a new disguise for a well-known delinquency; it was of a piece with their frequent backsliding. Ungodliness was at the root of their discontent. God, who judgeth the heart, recognised the former disobedience in this new request. How different it seemed, yet how radically the same! Man would have judged otherwise and imputed the desire to other motives; God, who is infallible, attributed it to the same. It is well to consider our motives for conduct, this would enable us to detect an old sin in a new form.Steel.
The condescension of this answer is very remarkable. Samuels wounded feelings are soothed by being reminded of the continual ingratitude of the people to God Himself, upon whom, in fact, a greater slight was put by this request for a king like the nations, than upon Samuel. It is in the spirit of our Lords saying to the apostles, The disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his lord (Mat. 10:24, comp. Joh. 15:18; Joh. 15:20).Biblical Commentary.
Such an answer sounds at first most strange, most perplexing! Hearken unto them, for they have rejected me. Yield to them, because they are doing a worse thing than you supposed they were doing. No contradiction can seem greater. And yet no Jewish statesman or prophet could do the work that was given him to do, could be Gods faithful witness, if he did not enter into the very heart of this contradiction, if he did not mould his own conduct according to the deep truth that was implied in it. His impulse was to maintain the order of things which he found established in his day. He believed that order was Gods order; he dared not refer it to any lower source. He administered that order in this faith; if it forsook him, he became careless and corrupt. Could Gods order then be changed? Was He not, by His very nature, the Unchangable? Was it not the highest duty to make the people feel that this was His character? Was it not thus that their own frivolity and passion for change would be corrected? When the impulse passes into reasoning you cannot easily detect a flaw in it; and yet it was stronger still while it was still an impulse and did not pass into reasoning. Nothing but prayer to the unchangable God could show wherein both were false and might lead to falsehood. The unchangableness of God is not to be confounded with the rigidness of a rule or a system. If it is so confounded, the purpose and nature of His government are forgotten. Hethe Perfect and Absolute Willhas created beings with wills, beings made in His own image. He educates them; He desires that they should know His Will, that is to say, Himself. They are to learn what they themselves are, what they would make of themselves, what He would make of them, partly by an experience of their own wilfulness, partly by results which He brings to pass in spite of that wilfulness, yea, by means of it. This is the explanation of the paradox Let them know what the general of armies, whom they crave for as a deliverer, will do to bring them into deeper bondage, but do not resist a desire which has in it a deeper meaning than you know, which will produce immediate sorrows, but in which is hidden a Divine purpose for the good and not for the destruction of your people. In a very remarkable sense, then, the vox populi was the vox Dei, even when the two voices seemed most utterly out of harmony. The prophet was not merely to notice the outward and obvious discord between them; he was to listen with purged ears till he found where one became really the echo of the other.Maurice.
The sin of Israel did not consist simply in wishing to have a king. God had promised to Abraham that kings should come out of him (Gen. 17:6), and also to Jacob (Gen. 35:11). The Holy Spirit had prophesied by Jacob that the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh come (Gen. 49:10); and Balaam, that a sceptre should arise out of Israel (Num. 24:17); and God had provided certain laws for the kingdom which should arise in Israel (Deu. 17:15-20). But their sin consisted in not waiting patiently for Gods time, when He might think fit to give them a king. It consisted in not leaving the season of the kingdom and the choice of a king in His hands. It consisted in not asking Samuel to inquire of God whether the time had arrived when they might have a king; and in presuming that they were themselves the best judges of what conduced to their own welfare, and needed not to ask counsel of God. St. Paul notices this in his historical address to the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia. God gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, and afterwards they desired a king (Act. 13:20-21). It consisted in the unthankfulness and discontent of the people dissatisfied with their present condition, when God was their King. It consisted in an eager desire to be like all other nations, who had earthly kings; whereas they ought to have deemed it a high privilege to be unlike other nations, in that they had been separated from all other people (Lev. 20:26) and chosen from out of other nations to be a peculiar treasure to God above all people, a holy nation, a kingdom of priests (Exo. 19:5-6), a special people unto the Lord their God, above all people that are upon the face of the earth (Deu. 7:6). They thought lightly of this prerogative, and, like a national Esau, they profanely bartered their birthright for what they deemed a temporal benefit.Wordsworth.
1Sa. 8:8. Old sins are not forgotten with God, if they are all the time kept up and not repented of (Exo. 32:34).Wuertemb. Bible.
1Sa. 8:18. Cries that will not be heard.
1. Self-will often brings us unto distress.
2. This distress makes us cry to the Lord.
3. Such cries the Lord does not promise to hear.Tr. of Langes Commentary.
These words should make us tremble. For they teach us that after having for some time followed with delight the wanderings of our own heart against the advice of our counsellors, we shall some day find ourselves involved in many evils. This often happens to men. One binds himself in one way, and one in anothereach walks according to the desires of his heart, and in the way which he has marked out for himself, and is followed by sorrows which compel him to cry to heaven for help. But God will not hear these cries, unless they are the fruit of a true repentance, and then the ills that are suffered in the path which has been chosen are the just punishment for our wilfulness in having entered it.De Sacy.
1Sa. 8:19. Like little children, the passions of a people are blind to the future. Thus the sinner will have his desire, though it imperil his soul for ever. The avaricious will have gold, though it become his idol, and his immortal spirit worship the golden calf. The inebriate will have his drink, though he degrade his being, blast his character, beggar his family, and damn his soul.Steel.
We will have a king. Why then, you shall, saith God, for a mischief to you (Hos. 13:11). You shall have your will, and then I will have mine another while. (See the like, Hos. 13:11.)Trapp.
1Sa. 8:21. Samuel can go back to God with the same uprightness as he had come from that sacred place. The tides of popular feeling did not bear him away. He could stand alone in his devotedness to God, if the people should all reject the word of the Most High. He was willing to abide by the Divine decision. His will was according to Gods. High attainment for a sinful man!Steel.
1Sa. 8:22. The history of the world cannot produce another instance in which a public determination was formed to appoint a king, and yet no one proposed either himself or any other person to be king, but referred the determination entirely to God. Ambition of royal authority certainly was not the motive in the leading men who supported this measure. The whole of their proceedings, even in this highly improper determination, shows how fully convinced they were that the law of Moses was from God, and that, even in appointing a king, His directions must be observed, or rather, that the decision must be referred implicitly to God Himself.Scott.
Few who rebuke so sharply and are not followed, escape the animosity of the people, but this man of God conducted himself with such rectitude and godliness as to come forth from the ordeal with the confidence and respect of all the people. There are times when such consistent piety would have made him a martyr; nevertheless, it insures respect, and is most likely to invest its possessor with an invulnerable character in the esteem of the very people who often refused his counsel, but had been often benefited by his prayers.Steel.
Samuel sorrowfully dismissed them to their homes, that he might have time to take the necessary measures for effecting this great change. It was not the wish of the prophet to leave them to all the consequences of their infatuation. With wise and noble patriotism it was henceforth his solicitude, while accomplishing their wishes, to save them, as far as possible, from the consequences they declared themselves willing to incur. And if, in the result, we find the Hebrew monarchy less absolute than generally among eastern nationsif the people retained possession of more of their national and social rights than in other eastern kingdomsand if the strong exertion of kingly power was, in after ages, resented by them as a wrong instead of being recognised as a just prerogative, it is entirely owing to the sagacious care and forethought of Samuel, acting under Divine direction, in securing from utter destruction at the outset the liberties which the people so wilfully cast into the fire. In fact, the more we contemplate the character of Samuel, the more its greatness grows upon us, and the more distinctly we recognise the most truly illustrious character in Hebrew history since Moses.Kitto.
This history 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 of His word. If this does not succeed, human perversity must nevertheless minister to the realisation 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.Langes Commentary.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
(4) All the elders of Israel.We have here a clear trace of a popular assembly which seems in all times to have existed in Israel. Such a body appears to have met for deliberation even during the Egyptian captivity (see Exo. 3:16). Of this popular council we know little beyond the fact of its existence. It seems to have been composed of representatives of the people, qualified by birth or office; these were known as elders. Ewald sees special allusions to the Parliament or Assembly of Elders in Psalms 1. and 82. There are, however, various mentions of these councils in the Books of Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(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.
If my views of this scripture be right and just the request of the elders of Israel for a king did not arise from the age of Samuel, or the unworthiness of his sons; for in this case, they would humbly have prayed that Samuel would dismiss his sons and appoint other Judges. But desiring a king was a wicked encroachment upon the sovereignty of the Lord. God was their king: Samuel and his sons were only deputies.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 Samuel
‘MAKE US A KING’
1Sa 8:4 – 1Sa 8:20
The office of judge was as little capable of transmission from father to son as that of prophet, so that Samuel’s appointment of his sons as judges must be regarded as contrary to its true idea. It was God who made the judges, and the introduction, in however slight a degree, of the hereditary principle, was not only politically a blunder, but religiously wrong. Our narrative, like Scripture generally, pronounces no opinion on the facts it records, but its unfavourable judgment may be safely inferred from its explanation that Samuel was ‘old’ when he made the appointment, and that his sons were corrupt and unjust. Our text deals with the unexpectedly wide consequences of that act, in the clamour for a king.
I. Note the ill-omened request. A formal delegation of the representatives of the nation comes to Ramah, unsummoned by Samuel, with the demand for a king. There must have been much talk through Israel before the general mind could have been ascertained, and this step taken. Not a whisper of what was passing seems to have reached Samuel, and the request is flung at him in harsh language. It is not pleasant for any one, least of all for a ruler, to be told that everybody sees that he is getting old, and should provide for what is to come next. Fathers do not like to be told that their sons are disreputable, but Samuel had to hear the bitter truth. The old man was pained by it, and felt that the people were tired of him, as is plain enough from the divine words which followed, and bade him look beyond the ingratitude displayed towards himself, to that shown to God. But from the ‘practical’ point of view, there was a great deal to be said for the reasonableness and political wisdom of the elders’ suggestion. Samuel had shown that he felt the danger of leaving the nation without a leader, by his nomination of his sons, and the proposal of a king is but carrying his policy a little farther. The hereditary principle once admitted, a full-blown king was evidently the best. There were many inconveniences in the rule by judges. They had no power but that of force of personal character and the authority of an unseen Lord. They left no successors; and long intervals had elapsed, and might again elapse, between the death of one and the rise of another, during which the nation appeared to have no head to guide nor arm to defend it. Examples of strong monarchies surrounded them, and they wanted to have a centre of unity and a defender in the person of a king.
Samuel’s displeasure seems to have been mainly on the ground of the insult to himself in the proposal, and its bearing on the rule of Jehovah over the people does not seem to have occurred to him till it was pointed out by the divine voice. But, like a good and wise man, he took his perplexity and trouble to God; and there he got light. The divine judgment of the request cuts down to its hidden, and probably unconscious, motive, and shows Samuel that weariness of him was only its surface, while the true bottom of it was rejection of God. The parallel drawn with idolatry is very instructive. The two things were but diverse forms of the same sense-ridden disposition: the one being an inability to grasp the thought of the unseen God; the other, a precisely similar inability to keep on the high level of trust in an unseen defender, and obedience to an unseen monarch. They wished for a king ‘to go out before them’ and ‘fight their battles’ 1Sa 8:20. Had they forgotten Eben-ezer, and many another field, where they and their fathers had but to stand still and see the Lord fight for them?
The very same difficulty in living in quiet reliance on a power which is perceptible by no sense, besets us. We too are ever being tempted to prefer the solid security, as our foolish senses call it, of visible supports and delights, to the shadowy help of an unseen Arm. How many of us would feel safer with a good balance at our banker’s than with God’s promises! How many of us live as if we thought that men or women were better recipients of our love and of our trust than God! How few, even of professing Christians, really and habitually ‘walk by faith, not by sight’! Do we not see ourselves in the mirror of this story? If we do not, we should. Note that the elders had, apparently, no idea that they were rejecting God in wanting a king. Samuel says nothing of the sort to them, and they could scarcely have made the request so boldly and briefly if they had been conscious that it was upsetting the very basis of their national life. Men are slow to appreciate the full force of their craving for visible good. The petitioners could plead many strong reasons, and, no doubt, fancied themselves simply taking proper precautions for the future. A great deal of unavowed and unconscious unbelief wears the mask of wise foresight. We rather pride ourselves on our prudence, when we should be ashamed of our distrust.
Note, too, that we cannot combine reliance on the seen and the unseen. Life must be moulded by one or the other. The craving for a king was the rejection of Jehovah. We must elect by which we shall live, and from which we shall draw our supreme good.
The desire to be like their neighbours was another motive with the elders. It is hard to be singular, and to foster reliance on the invisible, when all around us are dazzling examples of the success attending the other course. One of the first lessons which we have to learn, and one of the last which we have to practise, is a wholesome disregard of other people’s ways. If we are to do anything worth doing, we must be content to be in a minority of one, if needful.
II. Note God’s concession of the foolish wish. The divine word to Samuel throws light on the nature of prophetic inspiration. He is bidden to ‘hearken to the people’s voice’-a procedure directly opposite to his own ideas. This is not a case of subsequent reflection modifying first impressions, but of an authoritative voice discerned by the hearer to be not his own, contradicting his own thoughts, and leaving no room for further consideration.
Further, the granting to Israel of the king whom they desired, is but one instance of the law which is exemplified in God’s dealing with nations and individuals, according to which He lets them have their own way, that they may ‘be filled with their own devices.’ Such experience is the best teacher, though her school fees are high. The surest way to disgust men with their own folly, is to let it work out its results,- just as boys in sweetmeat shops are allowed to eat as much as they like at first, and so get a distaste for the dainties. ‘Try it, then, and see how you like it,’ is not an unkind thing to say, and God often says it to us. When argument and appeals to duty and the like fail, there is nothing more to be done but to let us have our request, and find out the poison that lurked under the fair outside. The prodigal son gets his coveted portion, and is allowed to go into the far country, that he may prove how good and happy it is to starve among the swine, not because his father is angry with him, but because such experience is the only way to re-awaken his dormant love, and to make him long for the despised place in his father’s house. There are some fevers of the desires which must run their course before the patient can be well again. Let us keep a careful watch over ourselves, that we entertain no wishes but such as run parallel with God’s manifest will, lest He may have in His anger, which is still love, to give us our request, that we may find out our error by the bitter fruits of a granted desire.
III. Note the obstinacy that, with eyes open to the consequences, persists in its demands. Samuel is bidden to ‘show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.’ He sketches, in sombre outline, the picture of an Eastern despot, the only kind of king which the world then knew. The darker features of these monarchies are not included. There is no harem, nor cruelty, nor monstrous vice, in the picture; but the diversion of labour to minister to royal pomp, the establishment of a standing army, the alienation of land to officials, heavy taxation and forced labour make up the items. To these is added 1Sa 8:18 that the royalty, now so eagerly desired, would sooner or later become a burden, and that then they or their sons would find it was easier to put on than to put off the yoke; for ‘the Lord will not hear you in that day,’ in reference, that is, to the removal of the king. They were exchanging an unseen King who gave all things for one who would take, and not give. A wise exchange! The consequences of our wishes are not always drawn out so clearly before us as in this instance; but we are not left in darkness as to the broad issues, and we all know enough to make our persistence in evil, after such warnings, the deepest mystery and most flagrant sin. The drunkard is not deterred by his knowledge that there is such a thing as delirium tremens ; nor the thief, by the certainty that the officer’s hand will be laid on his shoulder one day or other; nor the young profligate, by the danger that his bones shall be ‘full of the sin of his youth’; nor are any of us kept from our sins, by the clear sight of their end. ‘I have loved strangers, and after them will I go,’ notwithstanding all knowledge of the fatal issue. Surely there is nothing sadder than that power of neglecting the most certain known result of our acts. Wilfully blind, and hurried on by lust, passion, or other impulse, like bulls which shut their eyes when they charge, we rush at our mark, and often dash ourselves to pieces on it. If a man saw the consequences of his sin at the moment of temptation, he would not do it; but this is the wonder, that he does not see them, though he knows them well enough, and that the knowledge has no power to restrain him.
IV. Note the divine purpose which uses man’s sin as its instrument in advancing its designs. God had promised Israel a king Deu 17:14 , etc., and the elders may have thought that they were only asking for what was in accordance with His plan. So they were; but their motive was wrong, and so their prayer, though for what God meant to give, was wrong. In this case, as always, God uses men’s sins as occasions for the furtherance of His own eternal purpose, as that profound saying has it, ‘Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee.’ The kingly office was a step in advance, and gave occasion to the development of Messianic expectations of the true King of Israel and of men, which would have been impossible without it, In many ways it was for the good of the nation, and the holders of the office were ‘the Lord’s anointed.’ Modern criticism has found traces of two opposite views in this story, as compared with the passage in Deuteronomy above referred to; but surely it is a more sober, though less novel, view, to regard the whole incident as illustrating the two truths, that men may wish for right things in a wrong way, and that God uses sin as well as obedience as His instrument. No barriers can stop the march of His great purpose through the ages, any more than a bit of glass can stay a sunbeam. However the currents run and the storms howl, they carry the ship to the haven; for He holds the helm, and all winds help. The people rejected Him, and in seeking a king followed but their own earthly minds; but they prepared the way for David and David’s Son. Their children long after, moved by the same spirit, shouted, ‘We have no king but Caesar!’ but they prepared the throne for the true King, for whom they destined a Cross. Man’s greatest sin, the rejection of the visible King of the world, brought about the firm establishment of His dominion on earth and in heaven. The cross is the great instance of the same law as is embodied in this history,-the overruling providence which bends the antagonism of men into a tool for effecting the purpose of God.
Alas for those who only thus carry on God’s designs! They perish, and their work is none the less their sin, because God has used it. How much better to enter with a willing heart and a clear intelligence into sympathy with His designs, and, delighting to do His will, to share in the eternal duration of His triumphant purpose! ‘The world passeth away, and the fashion thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.’
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
II. KING SAUL: HIS REIGN AND REJECTION
1. The King Demanded
CHAPTER 8:4-22
1. The king demanded (1Sa 8:4-9)
2. The rights of the king (1Sa 8:10-22)
The kingly government is now to be established through the deliberate and untheocratic self-determination of the people. Jehovah was their invisible King, and Him they rejected by requesting a king like all the nations. The motives for the demand of a king are three: 1. The old age of Samuel and the unfitness of his sons; 2. The desire to be upon the same footing with other nations; 3. To have a leader and fight their battles (verse 20).
The state or political organization reaches its highest development when royalty is introduced. The King of Israel is not, however, intended to be an autocratic but a theocratic king; the prophet and the priest, in their official capacity, did not occupy a subordinate, but a co-ordinate rank. As men and as citizens, they were under an obligation, like all other subjects, to obey the king; but with respect to their prophetic and priestly offices, they were dependent on God alone, and by no means on the king J. H. Kurtz, Sacred History.
Samuel was displeased by the request, but the man of prayer turned to the Lord and received from Him the needed direction. The Lord comforts the heart of His servant for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. As they did to Jehovah, so the Lord told His servant, do they also unto thee. The servant is identified with His Master. It reminds us of the words of our Lord: if they have persecuted Me, they will persecute you also. We are called to share His reproach. And they were to have a King according to their own choice. Later the Lord reminded Israel through Hosea of this event. I will be thy King; where is any other that may serve thee in all thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, give me a king and princes? I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath (Hos 13:10-11). Then Samuel describes the manner, literally the rights, of the king. Military service, harsh and compulsory, forced labour and other evils are spread before them. Yet they refused to hearken and the Lord said again: Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
the elders: Exo 3:16, Exo 24:1, 2Sa 5:3
Reciprocal: 1Sa 7:17 – his return 1Ki 21:7 – Dost thou now Hos 5:8 – Ramah
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
WANTEDA KING!
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy way; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations, etc.
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 Samuels day, when the ark, the symbol of the peoples unity, was captured by the Philistines, prepared the way for great national changes.Samuels reformation awakened in the people a sense of order to which they had been strangers before. But Samuels 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 causedissatisfaction, 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 Samuels 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. Gods answer to Samuels 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.
Rev. F. D. Maurice.
Illustrations
(1) Although Samuels age, and the unworthiness of his sons, were the means of forcing the question immediately to the front, it had been discussed among the people often. They believed that they would secure national unity, and would make greater headway against their enemies, if only they were ruled by some one of physical strength and beauty and daring, who would lead them in their battles. God gave them exactly what they asked for. Saul, the son of Kish, surpassed all the people in beauty of form, and in physical stature and strength; he was possessed of talent for war, and of a courage which was never broken; he exhibited zeal and persistency in the execution of his plans, and at the beginning of his reign, at least, he jealously maintained the Mosaic law, banishing the wizards, and refusing to begin war without a preliminary sacrifice. But his reign taught the nation that royalty was not of itself sufficient to secure the salvation they expected; unless the king submitted himself absolutely to the will of God, and was content to reign as the executor of Divine commands, carried out in their integrity. Human agency never will rectify evils which are caused by moral faults, whether in an individual, or in a nation.
(2) Though the king, whom they sought, was to be a misfortune and a curse, the people persisted in their request, and it was granted according to a principle in the Divine government, that man gets what he importunately seeks, though it breeds leanness in his soul. To what fatal loss, however, the people exposed themselves, when they exchanged the royalty of Jehovah for that of an earthly sovereignthe theocracy for a monarchy! O my soul, see to it that thou dost not forsake the fountain of living waters for a cistern of thine own hewing.
(3) They that are not content with their present condition are like little children upon a hill; they look a great way off, and they see another hill, and think, if they were on the top of that, then they were able to touch the clouds with their fingers; but when they are on the top of that hill, alas! they are as far off from the clouds as ever. So it is with many who think another condition would give them happiness; but, when the desired position is attained, find themselves as far off from contentment as before.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto {c} Ramah,
(c) For there his house was, 1Sa 7:17.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The reason for requesting a king 8:4-9
God had made provision for kings to rule His people in the Mosaic Law (Deu 17:14-20; cf. Gen 1:26-28; Gen 17:6; Gen 17:16; Gen 35:11; Gen 49:10). The request in itself was not what displeased Samuel and God. It was the reason they wanted a king that was bad. On the one hand, it expressed dissatisfaction with God’s present method of providing leadership through judges (1Sa 8:7). On the other, it verbalized a desire to be "like all the nations" (1Sa 8:5). [Note: Idem, Israel’s United . . ., pp. 21-76, provided helpful background material on Israel’s fear of enemies, her developing desire for monarchy and rejection of pure theocracy, the political and ideological world of Samuel’s day, and the Israelite elders’ request for a king. He reviewed the types of kingship that existed in the ancient Near East at this time, what the Israelites wanted and did not want, and what they got.] God’s purpose for Israel was that it be different from the nations, superior to them, and a lesson for them (Exo 19:5-6). God saw this demand as one more instance of apostasy that had marked the Israelites since the Exodus (cf. Num 14:11). He acceded to their request as He had done many times before-by providing manna, quail, and water in the wilderness, for example. However, He mixed judgment with His grace. [Note: See J. Barton Payne, "Saul and the Changing Will of God," Bibliotheca Sacra 129:516 (October-December 1972):321-25; J. Carl Laney, First and Second Samuel, pp. 36-37; and Gordon, p. 109.]
God purposed to bless all other nations through His theocratic reign over Israel. This was a rule that God chose to administer mediatorially, through divinely chosen individuals who spoke and acted for God in governing functions and who were personally responsible to Him for what they did. These vice-regents were people like Moses, Joshua, the judges (including Samuel), and the kings, but God remained the real sovereign down to the end of this kingdom in history (1Ch 29:25). The Shekinah cloud visibly represented God’s presence as the divine ruler. This glorious cloud entered and filled the tabernacle at the inception of the kingdom (Exo 40:34-38). It led the nation into the Promised Land and stood over Solomon’s temple (2Ch 7:1-2). Finally it departed from Jerusalem spectacularly as the kingdom ended at the Babylonian captivity, when governmental sovereignty passed from Israel to the Gentiles (Eze 11:23; Dan 2:31-38). God will restore this mediatorial kingdom to Israel when Jesus Christ returns to earth in power and great glory. Christ will then (at His second coming) serve as God’s vice-regent and reign over all the nations as the perfect mediatorial king (Mic 4:1-8). This earthly kingdom is different from God’s heavenly kingdom, over which He reigns directly from heaven. This heavenly kingdom includes all objects, persons, events, activities, natural phenomena, and history (Psa 103:19; Dan 4:17). The earthly kingdom is a part of this larger universal kingdom of God (1Co 15:24).
"The rejection of Samuel was the rejection of godly leadership; the choice of Saul was the choice of ungodly leadership. In many ways Saul was the foil for the godly David, just as the sons of Eli were a foil for Samuel." [Note: Heater, p. 139.]
Samuel experienced rejection by the people he led just as Moses, Jesus Christ, and so many of God’s faithful servants have throughout history (cf. Luk 19:14). One writer suggested that the end of 1Sa 8:8 should read, ". . . so they are also making a king." [Note: Scott L. Harris, "1 Samuel VIII 7-8," Vetus Testamentum 31:1 (January 1981):79-80.] Even though this translation minimizes what seems to some to be a contradiction between 1Sa 8:7-8, it is inferior, I believe.