1 Samuel 8:1–22

8:2 Samuel’s two sons, “Joel” (“Yahweh is God”) and “Abijah” (“My father is Yahweh”), are based in the important town of Beersheba, in the far south of Judah (3:20).¹ Why both are sent to one place is not clear; indeed, Josephus states that one was sent to Bethel (Antiquities 6.32). At any rate, Samuel’s zone of influence is clearly not as restricted as 7:16 might imply.

8:3 The narrator explicitly condemns Samuel’s sons for failing to display anything like their father’s integrity (cf. 12:3–5). Instead, attracted by the allure of wealth, they “turned aside” (lit., “stretched out [the hand]”) for personal gain by taking bribes (forbidden in Ex. 18:21; Deut. 16:19; and scrupulously avoided by Samuel, 1 Sam. 12:4). Consequently, their corrupt administration “perverted” (from the same root as “turned aside”) true justice (cf. comment on 8:1).

8:4 As heads of families and clans, the elders of Israel (cf. comment on 4:3) are the acknowledged leaders of the community, and they probably also include its wealthiest members. It is a measure of their acute concern over the rule of Israel that they collectively approach Samuel at Ramah (7:17) with a view toward initiating constitutional change.

8:5 The elders appreciate the national cohesion provided by Samuel’s judgeship over all Israel (7:3, 5), and wish to see it perpetuated. However, they argue plausibly that Samuel’s age means the existing arrangements will not last much longer, and his sons’ conduct should preclude them from office. It is unclear if this is the first time Samuel has been informed of his sons’ malfeasance.

The elders’ confidence in Samuel is clear, as they ask him to effect the change, but their request embodies a vote of no confidence in the Lord’s ability to provide for the future government of the nation. Abandoning Israel’s distinctive constitution (Lev. 20:26; Num. 23:9), in which the Lord is their covenant King (Ex. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5), the elders demand major change: “Appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” “Appoint” is the same term as “made” (1 Sam. 8:1); Samuel himself has set a precedent for their move. “Judge” (cf. comment on 8:1) is here used in its most extensive sense of administering the affairs of the land, while “king” refers to a sole ruler with supreme authority over the nation. While “like all the nations” is phrased in terms of the Mosaic ordinance (Deut. 17:14), the elders seek conformity with the structures of the surrounding nations (cf. 1 Sam. 8:20).

8:6 It is not surprising that “the thing displeased Samuel” (lit., “the thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel”). At one level this might reflect the pique of an old man being told it is time to retire. He may also bristle at being informed of the conduct of his sons. But Samuel’s fundamental objection is that the proposal disregards the Lord’s direct rule over the nation through which he has provided judges, including Samuel himself.

Even so, Samuel knows it is not his prerogative to determine the matter. The Mosaic contingency arrangements mean the proposal is not inherently evil, even though the motivation for presenting it is sadly inadequate. So “Samuel prayed to the Lord” for guidance in how to proceed.

8:7 In a reversal of the normal requirement that the people listen to the prophet, the Lord’s response to Samuel is framed by the command, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you.” This drives home the point that the initiative for the change has originated with the people, and they are being given what they have asked for. God’s concession is not outright endorsement of their proposal but an indication that he will orchestrate the situation to accomplish his purposes (cf. Gen. 50:20).

The Lord is aware of Samuel’s personal sense of grievance at being rejected, and God points out that it is not principally Samuel who is being rebuffed. Emphatically God states, “Not you they have rejected, but me they have rejected” (AT). “Reject” was most commonly employed in religious settings for both the people’s defiant spurning of God’s rule over them and his reaction to such rebellion (1 Sam. 10:19; 15:23; 2 Kings 17:20; Jer. 6:30).

8:8 It is no new phenomenon for Israel not to perceive the Lord’s care for them. Their ingratitude toward Samuel is characteristic of their behavior toward the Lord ever since he delivered them from Egypt. Forgetful of the benefits he bestowed on them, they had persisted in “forsaking me and serving other gods” (cf. Judg. 3:7; 10:6). Now Samuel is being subjected to similar rejection, not personally but in his official capacity.

8:9 Nevertheless, the Lord orders Samuel to act in accordance with the proposal put before him, but with an important qualification marked by “only.” The people will have to learn through experience, but they will not be able to claim they had not been warned regarding what would come on them. For “the ways of the king,” cf. comment on 8:11. “Shall reign” (from the same root as “king”) is not a specific reference to Saul but refers to any king who would ascend the throne.

8:10 Samuel is probably not reluctant to carry out his commission, and he relates all that the Lord has said to the “people” (also in v. 19)—a more comprehensive group than the elders (v. 4). “Asking” comes from the same root as the personal name “Saul” (cf. comments on 1:20; 1:27).

Samuel’s warning about the nature of kingship is treated by critical scholarship as a retrojection in light of the track record of the subsequent monarchy, but scholar Kenneth Kitchen provides point-by-point illustrations from surrounding regions in Samuel’s day to rebut this misperception.² It is noteworthy, however, that Samuel’s address does not oppose kingship on ideological grounds; rather, he combats the desired model of kingship from a pragmatic perspective—it will cost Israel a lot.

8:11 “Ways of the king” (the same expression as in v. 9) is similar to that rendered in 10:25 as “rights and duties of the kingship,” and the question arises as to whether any difference ought to be detected between them. “Ways” employs the same root as “judge” (cf. comment on 8:1) and may refer to either the observed norm of royal behavior or the norm to which a king ought to conform (cf. “custom”; 2:13). It is probable that here Samuel is setting out how kings habitually functioned in those days, whereas in 10:25 the focus is on how a king of Israel should conduct himself.

The key word “take” (Hb. laqakh) is employed four times (also in 8:13, 14, 16) and is implied in the other statements (supplied by ESV in vv. 15, 17). A typical Canaanite king would consider everyone and everything within his realm to be his to “take” (cf. 1 Kings 21:7). “Your sons,” the object of the verb, is brought forward for emphasis. This technique is repeated in 8:13, 14, 15, and 16 as Samuel ticks off one item after another that will become subject to royal control.

Here and in the following verse “appoint” (the same verb as in v. 5) is used ironically of what the king will do without considering the wishes of the people. A chariot was a light, open, two-wheeled vehicle drawn by one or more horses and designed for military use. Thus “chariots” and “horsemen” indicate conscription into the army. “To run before his chariots” is to act as a bodyguard and clear the way for the royal retinue (cf. 2 Sam. 15:1).

8:12 “Commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties” are professional officers in charge of military units of different sizes. “Thousands,” “fifties,” and similar numbers are technical terms for various sizes of army units and do not necessarily correspond to the actual number of soldiers in each unit (cf. Ex. 18:21; Deut. 1:15). Others will be compelled to act as manual laborers farming the royal estates, and still more will be required to produce armaments. Such forced unpaid labor will become a significant factor in Solomon’s unpopularity and the breakup of the kingdom on his death (1 Kings 5:13–16; 12:4).

8:13 The womenfolk of the nation will not be exempt from royal conscription for various tasks—which will, of course, be for the benefit and enjoyment of the king. These women seem to be palace servants rather than members of his harem.

8:14 Saul will later exercise his royal prerogative to do just what this verse describes (22:7). Land of the highest quality will catch the king’s eye as suitable for confiscation to reward high-ranking administrators and army officers.

8:15 The people already tithe to support the sanctuary and the priesthood (Deut. 14:22–29; 26:12–14), so a further 10 percent tax on agricultural produce to support the royal court will impose significant burdens on an economy operating not much above subsistence level.

8:16 Further demands will be made for a labor force to meet the king’s needs. “Your young men” is changed in the Septuagint to “your cattle,” and this seems to be more appropriate when associated with donkeys. However, Tsumura argues that the term translated “young man” may apply to the young of any animal, and he translates the term as “calves.”³ Everything a king might want, he will appropriate.

8:17 Again mention is made of an additional tithe, this time of sheep and goats. Samuel brings his warning to a climax by declaring, “You shall be his slaves.” Forced labor, while not technically slavery, is viewed as a dire imposition (1 Kings 9:22), equating Israel under an absolutist monarch to its status as slaves in Egypt.

8:18 “In that day,” when the kingdom is established, the people will suffer not from external threats but from internal royal oppression, which will cause them to “cry out” (cf. 5:10) to the Lord for relief, “but the Lord will not answer you”—a reversal of the Lord’s response to Samuel’s prayer in 7:9. Having made their choice, they will have to live with it. The repetition of “in that day” shows such conditions do not yet exist, but their request will undoubtedly give rise to them—as will happen in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12).

8:19 The people of Israel are not dissuaded by Samuel’s warnings. They clearly do not accept the accuracy of his forecasts, instead becoming more vehement in their demands. Repetition of “we” and “our” in verse 20 reveals their self-centered attitude.

8:20 Three factors motivate their request for a king: (1) They do not want to be viewed unfavorably by others. They expect that a permanent monarch, not a stopgap judge, will enhance their prestige. (2) “That our king may judge us” emphasizes his envisioned role at the center of the internal administration of the affairs of the land, though they avoid using “reign” in favor of the less autocratic term “judge.” (3) “Go out” is a technical term used for leading an army into battle. They seek a military figure (unlike Samuel, who does not have such a role) to provide an effective defense against their enemies. The Philistine threat remains (10:5), and the Ammonites are active in the east (12:12).

8:21 “All the words of the people” suggests that Samuel’s warning has led to considerable discussion, which he reports back to the Lord, waiting for instructions from him.

8:22 The people have not been dissuaded from their request, and the Lord acquiesces by repeating his earlier injunction to Samuel: “Obey their voice and make them a king” (cf. vv. 7, 9). “Make them” (lit., “make for them”; contrast 16:1) takes the matter out of Israel’s hands, but it still falls far short of the way in which David will rise to power: by the unprovoked hand of God.

So Samuel dismisses back to their hometowns “the men of Israel”—a description of them as the covenant community (11:15). He takes no immediate action, not because he is an unhappy man stalling progress but because he awaits the Lord’s further guidance as to how to proceed.