# 1 Samuel 8 and Israel's 'sinful' request for a king



## Eoghan (Jun 7, 2013)

I found a book at London Bible College library some decades ago called "Promise and Covenant" by John Bright. It stated quite forcefully that Israel for the first 200 years or so was a confederacy of the twelve tribes - united by their common religion. I say religion because to say faith would open up all sorts of side-issues. Anyway his point and God's in v7 is that they have rejected Him in asking for a king. 

Yet in Genesis 17:6 Abraham is told that his descendants will give rise to kings and again Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-15 says they can ask for a king. Now admittedly these verses are passive in the sense that they foresee rather than endorse kingship but they knew it was coming.

My question is this. The request for a king is prompted by the failure of Samuel's sons to walk in his ways, just as Eli's sons failed to walk in Eli's ways. If then the hereditary office was discredited what on earth made them think that a hereditary kingship would work? Could it be that their "faith" was in the office of king not the person? Saul was succeeded by David without too much dissent (it just took a while for Saul to vacate the post/die). The Israelites became committed to the office of king, just as we are committed to the idea of "President" or "Prime Minister". If it was the office of king that they were putting their faith in I find this a much more heinous sin than trusting in God's annointed (i.e. Saul).

What do you think? Was it the office of king that seduced them? After all they were not putting forward a candidate but the office/post, of king.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 7, 2013)

It wasn't immoral to want a king _per se_; the mediatorial monarchy became a type of the Messiah, and the kingdom became a type of His kingdom, so how could it be sinful _per se_ to have a king.

But in asking for a king the Israelites at that time were rejecting God as king. They weren't asking for a viceregent with God as ultimate king and Lord, but an idol in God's place.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 8, 2013)

Calling for a king (like the nations around them) was an act of corporate rebellion. In this, Israel was imitating Adam in the garden.

Seeking alternative government is typically an incoherent demand. On the one hand, it evidences a desire to be free from the dictates of authority, which rule is not always illegitimate. On the other hand, it often demonstrates a desire to be free from responsibility.

Israel's demand for a king was both. It showed a desire to be free from direct rule by Jehovah, on the proposition that the problems of the nation were the result of poor or inefficient government. The ways of Moses were alleged to be inadequate for a more modern era.

But in fact, the problems of the nation were the result of the people poorly handling their relative freedom under God's rule. By putting _authority_ in the hands of the one man, the people were basically shifting the _responsibility_ for the nation's issues on the government--basically on one man, a hero of sorts. This (they thought) would relieve them of the onerous problem of _accountability_ for the sins of the people.

The results were predictable, over the long term; and they were right in line with what God warned the people such a demand would bring about. Tyranny is the final outcome of this line of thinking. Of course, no one thinks that he's buying into tyranny at the beginning. There is the conceit that the people will be able to keep the king's and the bureaucracy's power in check.

At the beginning, things are great. Responsibility is shifted, freeing up the "little guy" to have more "play time." Seems like the best of all worlds; and any time they feel the need, they can yank the "leash" on the king (if he gets too uppity). But all this is a fantasy. It takes no time at all for the people to lose all their memory of self-government, and ultimately cede power wholly to the throne. Lawlessness eventually characterizes both governed and Government, both serf and State.


All that tragedy is bound up, like a tightly coiled spring beneath layers and layers of wrapping, in the request for and election of Saul as king. Saul represents *the Dominion of Man*, autonomy; licentiousness and despotism all in one.

The grace of God is in how he brings good out of evil; salvation out of ruin. The reign of David represents a return under the *Dominion of God*, through his representative king. We actually do need a representative Head, precisely because we are fallen and need an ideal arrangement whereby our shortcomings are overcome, and we reap the benefits of a Mediator.

Saul is a man after his own heart, a deeply flawed and finally wholly corrupt individual who seeks Satan's counsel (through a medium) when God refuses to speak to him any more.

David is a man after God's own heart. On the human level, he ALSO is a deeply flawed and corrupt individual, but the grace of God is active in him, and God refuses to take his grace from him.

When we look at the sins of these two men, the ones the prophets took care to record for our benefit, one of the striking facts is how unutterably hideous and subtle and shameful were David's crimes that elicited God's open rebuke; whereas Saul's sins of 'jumping the gun," of offering a hasty sacrifice, of not wiping out the Amalekites to the last breath--these are the kind that the world wouldn't take any notice of. But God through Samuel is absolutely intolerant of Saul's behavior or excuses.

Each man admits, "I have sinned," 1Sam.15:24, 2Sam.12:13. But it is David--arguably the "worse" sinner--who receives mercy. Once again, the sovereign grace of God is in view.


And all this conduces, in a multi-layered and textured fashion, to the eventual introduction of the Christ, who is both everything that Saul was not (accentuating the failure), as well as everything that David and his sons could not be beyond a type and shadow, no matter how much success they had (superlative success). To come under Christ's rule is to once again be saved to God through a better Mediator, since we've gone astray and suffered under the rule of man.

We need the God-Man. We need a true hero, by whom we may take up again a measure of our freedom, and the responsibility that liberty entails.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 8, 2013)

The key to remember (as has been noted) is their demand not just for a king, but a king "like all the nations" (I Sam. 8:5). This simple phrase reveals their wicked and idolatrous heart and their rejection of God's call to be a separate and holy people.

The Lord declared their demand to be "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" (8:8).

Worldliness and Idolatry always walk hand in hand.


----------

