Chapter 8.1-22 GIVE US A KING
We now reach the second major division of 1 Samuel. The book can be divided into three sections with reference to its three principal characters. In chs.1-7, Samuel is prominent. In chs.8-15, Saul is prominent. In chs.16-31, David is prominent. However, the three sections do focus our attention on Samuel, David, and Saul, respectively.
But 1 Samuel 8 does more than prepare the way for Saul. It introduces a completely new chapter in Israel’s history. Saul was the first king of Israel, and the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, each lasting for forty years, comprise the "United Kingdom Period", in which the twelve tribes of Israel were united under one king. However, the anointing of Saul was far more than a change in visible government. It marked the end of theocracy, under which Israel had been ruled directly by their unseen heavenly King, and the beginning of the monarchy, under which they were subject to visible earthly rule. It was a retrograde step. "They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them" (v.7).
1. The desire for a king (vv.1-6)
Internal corruption
The appointment of his sons. The priesthood had already failed. Since the ark was not returned to Shiloh, we can only assume that the place had been abandoned, in which case, what had happened to the tabernacle? (What conclusions do you reach in view of 2 Sam 6.17; 7.2; 1 Kings 1.39; 2.28-30; 8.4?) The ark was in Kirjath-jearim. Samuel had certainly arrested the downward trend in Israel, and "as long as he laboured in the word (7.15-17), backed by noble example, he was a blessing to the people". But now "we detect an error of fleshly anxiety in the light of ‘old age’ which had far-reaching results. Samuel ‘made his sons judges over Israel’, which was the Lord’s prerogative alone (Judg 2.18)" (C E Hocking - Key men in Sacred History, Precious Seed). God had chosen the men to lead Israel (see Num 1.4-16), and, through the Holy Spirit, He chooses the men to lead in the assembly today (see Acts 20.28). Things inevitably go wrong when human appointments supersede God’s appointments. Eli’s two sons lost their right to function as priests. Samuel’s two sons had no right to function as judges. Keil and Delitzsch suggest that Samuel did not appoint his sons to succeed him, but to support him, and that this is confirmed by their location in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan.
The names of his sons. Unlike the sons of Eli, Samuel’s sons had fine names. Joel means "Jehovah is God". In the words of Thomas Newberry, "Jehovah" is "a combination in marvellous perfection of the three periods of existence in one word - the future, the present, and the past. First, yehi, ‘He will be’, long tense; second, hove, ‘being’, participle; third, hahyah, ‘he was’, short tense used in the past". In the New Testament, God speaks in the same way: "Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come" (Rev 1.4). "El" signifies "strong", "first". "It is the title which shows God to be the Mighty One, the First Great Cause of all" (Newberry). Abiah means "whose Father is Jehovah".
Fine names indeed! But Jehovah was not Joel’s God. In fact, Joel was anything but strong. He was decidedly weak. Jehovah was not Abiah’s Father! He displayed no family likeness whatever. Both sons failed to live in the good of their names. But what about us? James speaks about "that worthy name by the which ye are called" (2.7). We say that we are Christians, but do people see Christ in us?
The conduct of his sons. In New Testament language, Joel and Abiah were guilty of "partiality" (1 Tim 5.21). Joel and Abiah did not meet the criteria of Deuteronomy 16 (read vv.18-19). Psalm 15 is compulsory reading on this subject. We must be careful that we do not sacrifice the demands of God’s Word on the altar of family relationships, or personal friendships. We must not jettison principle in favour of sentiment.
All this led the elders of Israel to say, "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways". The people soon recognised the failure of the two judges, in the same way that an assembly will soon recognise unspirituality in its leadership. Samuel’s "ways" could be summed up as follows: (a) he was accustomed to hearing the voice of God, (b) he was accustomed to declaring the truth of God, and (c) he was accustomed to judging the people of God. We could say of Samuel, and men and women like him, "whose faith follow" (Heb 13.7). Sadly, the very men who should have maintained God’s interests as the unseen King of Israel, actually brought His reign into disrepute. This led to the second reason for their desire for a king.
External conformity
"Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." They had the answer to the problem of Samuel’s advancing years, and the failure of his sons! The outlook was bleak, and therefore, they argued, the solution lay in new arrangements. After all, if Samuel could make his sons judges, he could just as easily appoint a king! A monarchy with proper succession was a much better arrangement than the uncertainty created by the appointment of unworthy people like Joel and Abiah, and a settled constitution would ensure that the demands of God’s word were fully met by sound legal practice. It all sounds very plausible. It worked very well elsewhere. Hence the demand, "Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations".
To sum up, Israel had not learned the lesson that "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes" (Ps 118.8-9). They were saying that human arrangements are much more dependable than faith in God! Living by faith does not appeal to unspiritual people, and New Testament principles of gathering are not attractive to Christendom. There is little or no general appeal about the Lordship of Christ, the sole sufficiency of the Word of God, the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, and the priesthood of all believers. The simple pattern of New Testament church life is replaced by division between clergy and laity, by centralisation, by synods and presbyteries. In fact, by anything but the Word of God.
Uniformity is the order of the day. Whatever happens, we must not be different. People today do not want the God who put "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel" (Ex 11.7). Sadly, God’s people increasingly ape the world in outlook, speech, dress, pursuits, and conduct. But more than that, they ape the world in its craze for entertainment and music, all in the cause of "livening up the church and making it more attractive to modern young people". Sober, edifying Bible teaching, and spiritual worship, are "old hat". "Let’s be like all the nations!" is the call.
In all this, Israel had conveniently forgotten its own history. God had not failed them in the past. They had only to remember their deliverance from Egypt, passage through the wilderness en route to Canaan, and conquest of the land. Samuel drives this very lesson home (12.6-11). Then, in more recent times, what about that stone between Mizpeh and Shen? Had not the nation entreated Samuel to pray for them? Had not God answered his prayer and "thundered with a great thunder"? That stone was there to commemorate it all. Samuel "called the name of it Eben-ezer, saying, Hitherto hath the Lord helped us" (7.8-12). But Israel had obviously been paying attention to what was happening around them, with the result that they had become sold on the idea that other people’s methods were better. Samuel calls this "wickedness", and the people themselves call it "evil" (12.16-19).
Leaders do grow old, and, sadly, leaders can be unspiritual, but this does not mean that we should lose confidence in God, and cease to cry to Him for help, preservation, and guidance. Men certainly fail, but God will never fail. It is all too easy to blame our failure on our methods, rather than our sin and unspirituality. The old saying is so true: "We look for better methods, but God looks for better men".
Samuel evidently took their request personally. He apparently regarded it as a vote of "no confidence" in him. Hence the reassurance, "…they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them" (v.7). But Samuel did take his displeasure (v.6) to the Lord in prayer. He did not remonstrate with "the elders of Israel". There was no "war of words". Like Hezekiah, centuries later (2 Kings 19.14), Samuel "spread it before the Lord", and the Lord put him in a position to reply.
To be continued.
