1 Samuel 8:1-10:16 "A King . . . Like All the Nations" 1. Should Israel Have a King? (8:1-9) Many theologians have said that 1 Samuel 8 is anti-monarchical. And at first blush it is easy to see. Samuel is displeased with the request (8:6) And God himself says that their request is their rejection of himself as king! (8:7) Finally, God warns them that their king will oppress them (8:11-18). So it is easy to conclude that 1 Samuel is against the monarchy. According to this account, Israel should have continued under the judges, trusting in God as their king to rule over them. But God was gracious to Israel and turned even their rebellion to his glory by making a covenant with David, establishing a different sort of kingship. There are two problems with this approach. The first is the theological problem: God had said back in Deuteronomy 17 that Israel could have a king. When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, "I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me," You may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. (Dt 17:14-15) So God's purposes for Israel included the kingship. Okay, so Dt 17 says Israel could have a king, but then how do you account for the hostility of 1 Samuel 8 to the kingship? Then you also have to deal with the second problem. The second is a literary problem: because the book of Samuel is all about the kingship from first to last. Hannah prays for a king in 2:10! The whole problem with the judges is portrayed as a lack of continuity: both Eli and Samuel have rebellious sons. Now perhaps you can see why I was sympathetic to Eli. You cannot view Samuel as anything but a good and faithful prophet, priest and judge. Samuel is one of the great heroes of the faith in the OT. But his sons did not walk in his ways. Can you think of a single father in all of Israel whose sons walked in his ways? (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are a remarkable string but that is before the days of "Israel") There may well have been poor families where faithfulness endured, but the point of 1 Samuel (as with Judges before it) is that Israel's judges could not provide continuity of faithful leaders. And 1 Samuel sets up the kingship by exposing the inadequacy of the judges, but then has this stinging rebuke of Israel for wanting a king! Some have handled this dilemma by saying that the problem was not that Israel asked for a king, but that they asked for a king like all the nations. This was my own view for many years. In this view, the problem is the way in which Israel asked for a king. It is the dominant position among both Jewish and Christian commentators. The law said that it was okay to have a king, but you shouldn't have a king "like all the nations." But I've become convinced that this won't fly. Because if you are going to appeal to Deuteronomy 17 as the reason why it is okay to have a king, then you have to recognize that Dt 17 says that Israel may ask for a king "like all the nations that are around" them (Dt 17:14). The language of Israel in 1 Samuel 8 is precisely the language of Deuteronomy 17. Some have tried to say that Israel should have waited for God to provide them with a king. That is a nice idea, but again that is not what Dt 17 said to do. Dt 17 said that Israel could take the initiative, so long as they let God select the king. In other words, 1 Samuel 8 reads like a textbook case of Israel obeying the law! Israel did it precisely the way that God had told them to do it. And yet they are rebuked by both Samuel and God! Israel's obedience to Dt 17 results in God saying that they have rejected him as king! It seems like we are back to the theory that 1 Samuel 8 is against the monarchy! But there is at least one other option. 1 Samuel is not anti-monarchy. It is anti-Israel! Deuteronomy 17 is not exactly gung-ho about the kingship. It presents the kingship as a dangerous institution that is fraught with peril. The only time you adopt the kingship is at the uttermost end of need. When Israel has reached the nadir of its existence, then, and only then, do you turn to the last resort: the kingship. Look back at God's warning: Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. Okay. This sounds like God is saying that their request for a king is the rejection of him, but that is not what verse 8 says: According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. They are doing to you, Samuel, what they did to Moses (And remember that God told Moses that the people were not rejecting Moses, but Yahweh, whenever they rebelled), and what they did to the judges. The request for a king was simply symptomatic of the failure of Israel. Israel had failed to be and to do what God had called them to be and to do. It wasn't the request for a king that was the problem. For that matter, it wasn't even the way that they asked for a king. It was the fact that with the exception of Joshua's generation, the people of Israel had continued to forsake the LORD more and more in each generation. God had called Israel "my firstborn son," (Ex 4:22) and had called his son to be a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex 19:6). What should the son of God have looked like? What would a kingdom of priests look like? A holy nation would have been faithful to God's law. A kingdom of priests would have been a place where the surrounding nations would have marveled at the righteous laws which characterized Israel, and would have repented of their sinful ways and joined with Israel! Of course, a holy nation would also have endured the mockery and scorn of the unrighteous. Israel would have suffered at the hands of the nation but they would have suffered for righteousness' sake! In other words, a kingdom of priests and a holy nation would have looked an awful lot like Jesus! Because that is what the firstborn son of God is supposed to look like! And when Israel asks for a king, they are confessing that they have failed to be the son of God. And yes, the way they ask for a king isn't good. They want a king "like all the nations." Israel is supposed to be different. Israel is supposed to be a people set apart to the LORD. But Deuteronomy 17 had recognized that the only way that Israel would need a king is if Israel had failed. And of course, Moses' sermons in Deuteronomy make it clear that Israel would fail! So 1 Samuel 8 is simply saying that what Moses had said in Deuteronomy 17 has happened. Israel has failed. 2. What Will the King Be Like (8:10-22) Verses 10-22 are favorites of modern-day libertarians. They like to point out that Samuel condemns a 10% income tax, conscription of labor, and "big government"! These verses certainly view a central government as inherently oppressive. What libertarians usually neglect is the context! Israel already had a king! Israel was to be a kingdom of priests a holy nation. Yahweh himself was to rule in Israel. No other nation had such a promise. It is also important to note that Samuel does not say that this is a description of a bad king. It is the description of "the king who will reign over you." (8:11) It is not just Saul, Rehoboam, or Manasseh, but David, Solomon, and Josiah as well! If you want a king, then recognize that this is what a king does. In order for your king to go before you into battle, he needs to have an army, and in order to provide for his army, he needs to have food and equipment. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day. (8:18) For both better and worse, the kingship will figure prominently in Israel from this day forth. I am not satisfied by those who say that "if Israel had been faithful" then God would have given them David anyway. If Israel had been faithful, then there would have been no need for David. If Israel had been faithful, then there would have been no need for Jesus! Because the whole point that Moses had made in Dt 29-30 was that Israel was not going to be faithful! Or to use Paul's image from Galatians 3-4, Israel was the son of God in his minority but Israel was a rebellious son! The only hope for Adam's rebellious race was focused on Israel the son of God but Israel rebelled! And so the only hope for Israel was focused on the sons of David the son of God but the sons of David rebelled! And so the only hope for the sons of David was one man, Jesus the son of God and there the hopes of the world came to fruition! 3. The Selection of Saul (9:1-10:16) But we are getting ahead of ourselves! Because before we can talk about David, we must first understand Saul. Israel has asked for a king like all the nations, a king to "judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." (8:20) And so God gives them Saul. 1 Samuel gives us quite a bit of detail about the calling and anointing of Saul. The key to Saul is found in verse 2 of chapter 9: There was not a man among the people of Israel more handsome than he. From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people. Saul is everything that a king should be. He is an impressive specimen of a man. He is good-looking. He is tall (remember that when we get to Goliath!) And as chapter 9 tells us, he is pious and faithful. (We'll hear about his ability in battle in chapter 11) We tend to be rather dismissive of Saul because of the end of the story. But at the beginning of the story, Saul comes off rather well. The story of the anointing of Saul is framed by "the donkeys of Kish, Saul's father." The story begins with Saul being sent in search of the donkeys. Saul's encounter with Samuel comes about because Saul wishes to inquire of the man of God regarding his donkeys. At the very center of the story in 9:20 Samuel tells Saul that the donkeys are found. One of the signs of God's choice of Saul involves a message concerning the donkeys. And the story concludes with Saul and his uncle talking about the donkeys. Saul is portrayed as a conscientious and diligent young man, pursuing the lost donkeys. It may seem somewhat trivial to ask a prophet about lost donkeys, but neither Samuel nor the writer of 1 Samuel seems to think so. In fact, the lost donkeys are the occasion that God uses to bring Saul to Samuel. So Saul and his young man come to Samuel seeking after their lost donkeys. But God has sent Saul to Samuel not just to find his donkeys, but to "save my people from the hand of the Philistines." (9:16) And not only that, but Saul is to "restrain my people." (9:17)\ Here you begin to see how the king is to function in God's purposes. Israel has failed. Israel was supposed to be the son of God, ruling over the nations, but Israel itself as a wayward son now needs to be restrained and ruled. And Saul will be the king who will do this. At least, he will start it. Saul is a good example of how God's covenant has a conditional aspect. If Saul had been faithful, then it would have been the house of Saul that would have produced the Messiah. God said to Abraham, "Walk before me and be blameless." And Abraham did. (After all, God says to Isaac that it was "because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my law" that all nations would be blessed through Isaac's seed.-- Gen 26:4-5) If Saul had been faithful and been a king after God's heart, then we would have spoken of the son of Saul as the Christ. So when Saul asks Samuel, "Tell me, where is the house of the seer?" Samuel replies, "I am the seer," and invites him to a feast. And at the feast he gives him a place at the head of the table, indicating that Saul is the guest of honor. Not only that, but he gives Saul the leg the bone with the most meat! When I was in Eritrea, they gave me the bone with the most meat and then laughed when I started eating it in the middle of the meal. (They told me that since the bone was mine, I should wait until the end of the meal to eat it, because there was no guarantee that there would be enough food for everyone, so you'd better save the "guaranteed" food to the end of the meal!) Samuel then provided a place for Saul to sleep that night, and in the morning, he took Saul aside privately, and anointed him as king over Israel (9:25-10:1) And this shall be the sign to you that the LORD has anointed you to be prince over his heritage. And Samuel explained a series of signs. Like usual, the text first explains what the sign is, and then details the fulfillment of the sign. This is a good example of how God first tells his people what he is going to do for their salvation, and then he does it. It is not enough to have the promise, there must also be the fulfillment. And so Samuel says what will happen, and then it happens, just as Samuel had said, fulfilling the word of Saul's young man, "all that he says comes true." (And the editorial comment of 3:19, "the LORD...let none of his words fall to the ground") When you depart from me today, you will meet two men by Rachel's tomb (Rachel was the mother of Benjamin who died giving birth to Benjamin, so this is an important landmark) and they will say to you, "the donkeys that you went to seek are found, and now your father has ceased to care about the donkeys and is anxious about you, saying, 'What shall I do about my son?'" The first sign is the answer to Saul's request, which also demonstrates that God had orchestrated the wandering donkeys in order to bring Saul to Samuel. Then you shall go on from there further and come to the oak of Tabor. Three men going up to God at Bethel will meet you there, one carrying three young goats, another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a skin of wine. And they will greet you and give you two loaves of bread, which you shall accept from their hand. The second sign is of three men going up to sacrifice, who will give bread to Saul. The oak of Tabor is reminiscent of the oak of Moreh at Shechem, where Abram built his first altar to the LORD (Gen 12:6), and the oaks of Mamre, at Hebron, where Abram also built an altar to the LORD (Gen 13:18), and where Abraham offered hospitality to the three men. After that you shall come to Gibeath-Elohim (the hill of God) where there is a garrison of the Philistines. And there, as soon as you come to the city, you will meet a group of prophets coming down from the high place with harp, tambourine, flute, and lyre before them, prophesying. Then the Spirit of Yahweh will rush upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man. The third, and chief, sign is that the Spirit of God will rush upon Saul and he will prophesy. He is then to wait for seven days until Samuel comes. And indeed, When he turned his back to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart. And all these signs came to pass that day. When they came to Gibeah (Saul's hometown), behold, a group of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied among them. And when all who knew him previously saw how he prophesied with the prophets, the people said to one another, "What has come over the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?" And a man of the place answered, "And who is their father?" Our passage ends with high hopes! God has given Saul "another heart" and the Spirit of God has rushed upon him. Unlike the judges, this does not result in immediate action, because Saul is not supposed to be a one-shot wonder. The Spirit has come upon him (hopefully) for good! Conclusion What happens when you ask for something you shouldn't have? Sometimes, God gives it to you. Because it is part of his purpose for you in conforming you to his likeness. Israel was not supposed to ask for a king except for the fact that Israel had failed, and so part of that failure was their need for a king! And all of this was designed in the providence of God to bring us through Saul to David, and through David to Jesus.