Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: July 24
Today is: Friday, April 26th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of July: (Show All Months)
1Sa_8:4-7
It is true that they went so far as to limit his action in this great matter by declaring the form of government they desired to see established. They must “have a king to rule them like the nations.” It is far from unlikely that this preference for a regal government, at this time, was suggested by circumstances with which we are unacquainted. It is possible that there were already signs of movement against Israel among the Philistines on the west, and the Ammonites on the east, which suggested that they would soon be called upon to engage in a severe military contest, without their having any one before the public qualified by his position or prowess to take the command of their armies, and lead them to battle. Samuel himself, besides being advanced in years, was a man of peaceful pursuits, and his sons had forfeited, or rather had not won, the respect and confidence of the people; while, as Levites, they were scarcely the class of persons to be looked to for the performance of such duties. We do not indeed lay too much stress on this sort of disqualification, for in those days there was no military profession and almost every man was more or less qualified to wield the sword and the spear. But still, as the results of military conflicts were then often determined by the prowess and experience of individuals, it was a natural subject of anxiety that they saw no one with pre-eminent claims, from fitness or station, to be their leader in the conflicts that seemed to be at hand. They were then led to regard as enviable in this respect the condition of the neighboring nations, each of which had a king who relieved his subjects from all anxiety in this matter, being naturally, as his chief office, the leader in war; and, from the necessities of his position, trained from his youth up in all martial exercises. To him belonged the consideration and decision of all matters of peace and war; and his people were spared the trouble of deliberation and decision. They had nothing to do but to obey his orders and follow him to battle.
It may also appear, from previous indications, that the Israelites craved to have an earthly sovereign, surrounded with the usual attributes of power and state, and representing to the eyes of those around them, the power and dignity of the nation. Besides, the eastern mind is so essentially and pervadingly regal, that to be without a sovereign is scarcely an intelligible state of things to an oriental; and they must have had occasion to feel that the absence of a king gave them an appearance of inferiority in the eyes of their neighbors, incapable of understanding or appreciating the special and glorious privileges of their position. The want of a royal head must often have been cast in their teeth by their neighbors, as a kind of stigma; and they world in time come to regard it as such themselves, and long to be in this respect on a level with other nations. Even good men—able to appreciate the advantages of existing institutions, would eventually become weary of a peculiarity which the nations would obtusely persist in regarding as discreditable.
This principle, which has not been before urged as contributing to the explanation of this transaction, does not want such confirmation as historical illustration might supply. We remember to have read some years ago, in Harris’s Collection of Travels, that when the English and Dutch were competing for power and influence in the East, the English, in order to damage their rivals, industriously circulated the dangerous secret that the Dutch had no king. The oriental mind was astonished and perplexed by the indication of a condition so utterly beyond the scope of its experience and comprehension; and the Dutch, alarmed for the effect of this slur upon their respectability, stoutly repelled the charge, as an infamous calumny, affirming that they had a very great king, and exalting for the nonce their stadtholder to that higher rank.
The magnates of Israel—who are the parties we behold moving in this matter—may also have considered that although a form of government had been organized by Moses, in which the presence of a human king was not recognized, he had clearly contemplated the probability that a regal government might eventually be adopted, and had even laid down certain rules involving principles by which the conduct of their future king was to be guided. Deu_17:14-20. This, it might be urged, was inconsistent with any absolute interdiction of the erection of the state into a temporal monarchy, and that the time had now, if ever, come, which the wise and far-seeing lawgiver had contemplated.
Such seem to us the considerations by which the elders of Israel were influenced in the important step which was now taken by them. They were not satisfactory to Samuel, who, it is clear from the words in which the Divine will was presently made known to him, deemed himself personally affronted by what he could not but view as a requisition to abdicate the authority which he had so long and efficiently exercised. There may have been something of human infirmity in his displeasure. As men grow older in the possession of power, it becomes dearer to them, and the more reluctant they are to part with it; and in this case Samuel could not but see that, whatever consideration he might retain, from the deference of the people and of the king, it would be rather a concession than a right, and the most essential powers of the government would and must go into the hands of the new sovereign.
But hurt and displeased as Samuel was, under this keen sense of a nation’s ingratitude, he is not stated to have expressed any opinion till he felt authorized from the Lord to do so. His resource was that which has been the resource of the servants of God in all ages: “Samuel prayed unto the Lord.” The answer to his prayer was not delayed. He was told to act as the people desired, but to do so under a strong and decided protest, that in this they had forsaken the wiser and happier course, and would involve themselves in greater troubles than those from which they sought to be freed. Samuel thought they had rejected him. But the Divine Voice directed him to a broader view of the question: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that . should not reign over them.”
If the reader bears in mind the explanation which has been already given of the principles of the theocracy as established under the institutions of Moses, Note: See Fourteenth Week—Sunday. he will be at no loss to see the grounds on which the course which the people were bent upon, and which they were allowed under protest to follow, was regarded with disapprobation. Jehovah was their king, and from past experience they had no reason to doubt that so long as they remained true to him, he would not fail to do all things well and prosperously for them. He would, as he had done, raise up from time to time faithful men, abundantly qualified for the public service, whether in peace or war. They, not knowing the hearts and qualities of untried men, might not see the man or men then qualified for such service. But He knew; and in the appointed time and place would not fail to call out from among the thousands of Israel the man best suited for the work there was to do.
It may be suspected that the Israelites had grown weary of a system of government which made their welfare entirely dependent upon their right conduct; and were partly led to desire this change under some vague impression that a permanent government, under a king, would relieve them from some of this distinct responsibility for their conduct to an infallible authority which could not be mistaken, and against which they had no right to murmur; and they may have dimly fancied that their well-being might henceforth be more connected with the character of their government and the qualities of their king. But as the Lord did not mean to abandon the Israelites to their own devices, or to allow the great objects of his dealings with them to be frustrated, it became important that the same principle of national responsibility to him should be preserved under any form to which the government might be altered.