Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: July 25
Today is: Saturday, April 27th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of July: (Show All Months)
1Sa_8:9-22
We cannot but think, that had the matter been left, as it might have been, entirely in the Lord’s hands, the monarchial government would have been established, and David would have been the first king. How we know not; but the crown was eventually secured to him through greater difficulties than need have occurred, had not the monarchy been prematurely established. It is easy to suppose, for instance, that in the one case as in the other, he might have been brought into public notice by the overthrow of Goliath, which, from the feeling of the people in favor of monarchy, would probably have resulted in the offer of the crown to him; and as this would have been in accordance with the purposes of God, he would have become king, under such circumstances, and with such conditions, as would have secured the true doctrine of the Hebrew government from being thrown into the shade.
It is said, indeed, by Hos_13:11, that the Lord “gave them a king in his anger.” But this does not militate against the view we have taken; for it is quite true, from the history, that in answer to their unreasonable and unbecoming demand, he did give them their first king in his anger; did concede the premature establishment of the regal government in his wrath. But it does not therefore follow that it would not ere long have been established with his favor, in the person of “the man after God’s own heart.”
The grievous error of the elders of Israel was, that instead of taking counsel of their Divine King, as they were bound to do, they made a peremptory demand in a manner in which, according to the principles of the constitution, they had no right to determine. And there was another error, scarcely inferior to this, that instead of manifesting any anxiety to secure the liberties and invaluable public rights which they enjoyed under their present government, they wanted to have a king to rule them as the nations around were ruled. If this mean anything, it means, that in exchange for their present mild government, they were willing to subject themselves to the rule of a despotic sovereign, invested with absolute power over their substance and their lives. O foolish people and unwise! How wonderful it is that the Lord endured their perverse manners so long, not only in the wilderness, but in the promised land!
That there might be no misapprehension in this matter, the prophet, in the audience of the people, drew a graphic picture of the kind of government to which, in desiring to be governed like the nations, they wished to be subjected. There can be no question that in this picture, the monarchial governments of the time and country are correctly represented; and, in fact, the details agree in every essential point with the existing despotisms of the East. “This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectioneries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. And he will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day, because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”
The conditions of regal power thus described, are, and always have been, so familiar to the oriental mind, that we know not anything which gives to ourselves a more strong and distinct idea of the immunities and peculiar privileges which the Israelites practically enjoyed, than the fact, that the prophet knew the condition in which they lived to be so different from that which he described, as to be not without hope, that the picture which he drew might have some effect in changing their purpose, especially when they were also aware that the course they were taking was not regarded with favor by their divine King. In this reasonable expectation the prophet was disappointed. They had, it seems, counted the cost, and were willing to pay it; or rather, the love of change blinded their eyes, and they were inclined to fancy that the advantages they imagined themselves to perceive in the kingly government, especially as to their standing among the nations, would more than counterbalance the disadvantages the prophet set before them. Their answer therefore was—“Nay: but we will have a king over us, that he may judge us, and go out before us to fight our battles.”
On this, Samuel sorrowfully dismissed them to their homes, that he might have time to take the necessary measures for effecting this great change. But although the people thus, with criminal disregard of their rights as men, and their privileges as the Lord’s peculiar people, declared their willingness to bend their necks to the yoke of regal despotism—instead of waiting until the Lord should arrange the matter for them in unison with their rights and his own laws—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 nations—if the people retained possession of more of their natural and social rights than in other eastern kingdoms—and if the strong exertion of kingly power was in after ages resented by them as a wrong instead of being recognized 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 deeply we contemplate the character of Samuel, the more its greatness grows upon us; and the more distinctly we recognize the most truly illustrious character in Hebrew history since Moses.