1 Samuel 8:1–22

Original Meaning

Israel Asks for a King (8:1–9)

THE ELDERS OF Israel are right to be concerned about Samuel’s sons succeeding him as the spiritual conscience of the nation. Joel and Abijah, his designated successors, are unrighteous and unjust, being easily bribed in their judgments. Dynastic succession had not been effective among the judges or the priests (Judg. 9:1–57; 1 Sam. 2:12–17). Israel had been down this path before. Why should the next generation of leaders necessarily come from Samuel’s family? Perhaps there would be a better way.

So the Israelites are justified in planning for the future, and we certainly cannot fault them for approaching Samuel about what they should do after his death. The problem arises in the nature of their suggestion. This request for a king (really, it is a demand) is the fundamental problem that finds resolution in chapters 8–12 and actually overshadows the rest of 1 Samuel. As we will see, the Israelite demand for a king in 8:5 is sinful in its motives, selfish in its timing, and cowardly in its spirit (see Bridging Contexts section).

The motivation for Israel’s demand for a king will become clearer as the passage unfolds. But it is clear enough already in the elders’ words of verse 5: “Appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”5 The use of the word “king” (melek) is an uncontested reference to monarchy, which had been portrayed as undesirable, though necessary, in the judges period (cf. Judg. 8:22–28; also Jotham’s fable in 9:7–15; see also 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). When the elders ask Samuel to appoint a king to “lead” them (lit., “judge” them), they clearly have in mind more than a simple change of leaders. They want a change of institutions; they want a fundamental change of national constitution.6

This is a request for a paradigm shift of political structures, rejecting the older form of charismatically chosen judges who led in peacetime and who occasionally also served as temporary military commanders in such defensive wars as were necessary. Requesting a “king” to “lead” is tantamount to a rejection of Samuel’s godly judgeship and ministry of prophecy.

Motivation for such a request is stated succinctly, requiring only two words in Hebrew: “such as all the other nations have” (see also 8:20). This alarming statement reveals a profound dissatisfaction with who they are as a people. They have been constituted as the people of God, established in covenant at Mount Sinai, informed by Torah instruction, and led and protected by divinely ordained religious judges. Now this very identity is in doubt. They seek a status on the level with their new neighbors, the Canaanites. They have lived among them for at least two centuries, and now they want to become like them. They have grown weary of being unique; they seek conformity and security. But as the passage makes clear, they are grasping for something they fail to understand and will lose the very things they hope to ensure by having a king.

At first sight, Yahweh’s response to Samuel may seem harsh: “It is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king” (8:7). Yahweh cites the long-standing pattern of sin and rebellion since the Exodus as evidence that the people of Israel will persist in their demand for a king (8:8). In fact, this speech of Yahweh uses characteristic vocabulary to illustrate that their request is tantamount to other episodes of rebellion from Israel’s history: “forsaking me and serving other gods.”7 He is painfully aware that even given the warnings against kingship, Israel will not relent. Furthermore, Gideon had also perceived human kingship as a rejection of Yahweh’s rule, reflecting the long-standing Israelite belief in theocracy (i.e., the kingship of God; Judg. 8:23; cf. 1 Sam 12:12). “The meaning of the kingship of God, according to the Bible, is the denial to [humankind] of the concentration and permanence of power.”8 To demand otherwise is to wrest power away from God.

Samuel Warns against Kingship (8:10–18)

Bridging Contexts

MANY MODERN BELIEVERS live in nations governed without kings or queens. At any rate, none are like the ancient Canaanite and Israelite monarchies. Nor do we live in tribal confederations, such as Israel’s judges period. In order to interpret this passage for today’s church, we need to make the appropriate cultural “jumps” to our own political and social contexts. This text presents us with a vivid picture of Israel’s longing and rebellion against God. In rejecting God’s lordship, they forfeit its security and blessings and embrace instead a lesser model of God’s governance.

As a paradigm for modern believers, Israel’s desires, demands, and failures offer us opportunities to examine our own faith. How often modern Christians reject his loving rule, opting instead for some compromise. Regardless of whether we live in a representative republic, in a constitutional monarchy, or under a dictatorship, God wants to rule among his people.

The text presents Israel’s request for a king as shameless rebellion against God’s will, reminiscent of her idolatrous behavior after the Exodus (8:8). God set out to create a nation in his image (Ex. 19:5–6), but now Israel wants to create a king in her image. There are at least three ways in which Israel’s request for a king may be critiqued.

(1) The demand for a king is sinful in its motives. Israel’s motivation is repeated twice in the text: They desire to be like “all the other nations” (8:5, 20). This motivation is stated in a most general way. There is certainly more involved emotionally, psychologically, and politically, as we learn elsewhere in this chapter and later in the book. But in general, this is the essence of the matter, and it is succinctly stated. They are tired of being who they are!

Like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Israelites of Samuel’s day attempt to cross over the divinely ordained boundaries in order to become something they were not created to be and are not supposed to be.14 They are not satisfied with what God has done with them and where God has placed them. As Adam and Eve longed to become “like God” (Gen. 3:5), the elders of Israel long to become “like the other nations.”

Again, like the first human family in the paradisiacal garden, Israel was a specially formed community. All of her needs were cared for and all her borders secure (esp. after the repentance and victory of ch. 7). God himself was Israel’s Lord, protector, and provider. But Israel now chooses a new level of respect and acceptance among her neighbors, which she values as more desirable than her current status. Like Adam and Eve, the nation will learn too late how truly blessed her God-given position is (8:18).

(2) The demand for a king is selfish in its timing. Yahweh is not opposed to the concept of kingship in Israel. In fact, there are indications in the Pentateuch that this was his plan for Israel from the beginning.15 When God confirmed his covenant with Abraham, he stated unequivocally, “I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you” (Gen. 17:6; cf. 17:16). In his deathbed blessing, Jacob appears to have referred to the coming Davidic line of royalty from the tribe of Judah, predicting the rise of the monarchy, the establishment of the Israelite empire, and perhaps even the coming of the Messiah himself (49:10).16 And Balaam’s fourth oracle also alludes to a coming ruler from Israel who will bring military victory against all her enemies (Num. 24:17–19).17

The problem with Israel’s demand in 1 Samuel 8 is not the fact that they want a king, but that they want a king now! They are wrongly motivated, but they are also selfishly driven to settle for something less than Yahweh’s timing, even after Samuel’s stern warnings about the consequences (8:11–17). It should be enough for believers to rejoice in what God has planned for the future, to enjoy his blessings vicariously through successors in the faith, and to live patiently in his grace for the moment. Awaiting the best God has to offer is always better than settling for something inferior. But saying “now” may be as disobedient as saying “no” to God. Impatience is a form of rebellion as much as any of Israel’s sins in the desert after the Exodus (Isa. 40:31; James 1:4).

(3) The demand for a king is cowardly in its spirit. Israel suffered much during the judges period. Neighboring nations constantly threatened Israel, and these adversaries oppressed various tribes on many occasions (Judg. 2:14–15). But the source of their suffering was not the tribal political structure in the premonarchic period. Rather, the Bible states clearly that the source of their problems was their own apostasy from devotion to Yahweh and their propensity to worship the Canaanite gods of fertility (2:10–13).18

In fact, the book of Judges together with 1 Samuel 1–7 illustrates that the appointed judges were Yahweh’s means of saving Israel from her enemies, and this tribal confederation had, at various times, been adequate for all her needs. But it demanded courage. It is difficult to trust in Yahweh alone when the enemy is threatening at the border. It seems so much more desirable to have a standing army supplied by an able monarch, someone you can see and trust as a tangible means of security. It takes courageous faith to trust in the judges system and to be willing to live without defenses until the need arises. Demanding a king is the easy way out, and it places blame on the political system rather than one’s own religious unfaithfulness.

Samuel warns the Israelites about the consequences of the kingship they are requesting and gives them a chance to change their minds. But they are wrongly motivated from the beginning and will not back down now. It would take a courageous faith to continue to trust in the old judges system and patience to await Yahweh’s time for the coming kingdom. But such faith Israel is unwilling to exercise. Likewise, the failure of modern Christians to exercise courageous and patient faith results in challenges to the lordship of Christ.

Contemporary Significance

JESUS IS LORD. Christians by definition embrace and celebrate the lordship of Christ. It is possible that the earliest of all Christian creeds was the simple affirmation, employing only the two Greek words kyrios Iesous, “Jesus is Lord.” This affirmation appears to have been widely known among the early believers. Note Paul’s statement in Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (see also 1 Cor. 12:3).

At first glance, such a brief affirmation may seem inadequate to characterize the early Christians. But the power of that assertion rests in the way in which the first-century Jews used and understood the Old Testament. Their Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the LXX) used kyrios (“lord, Lord”) thousands of times to designate “Yahweh” (the name sometimes transcribed “Jehovah”), the personal name of God. In most modern English translations, God’s sacred name becomes simply “the LORD,” which continues the Jewish tradition of avoiding pronunciation of the name. So the profundity of the “Jesus is Lord” assertion is that the early followers of Jesus equated their Master with Yahweh of the Old Testament. The Creator of the universe and the covenant-making God of Israel was also Jesus of Nazareth, who came to give himself a ransom for many.

This earliest of creeds probably also lies at the heart of a passage sometimes called carmen Christi (Lat., “the song of Christ”; Phil. 2:6–11).19 At the climax of this great passage, Paul describes the exaltation of Christ by asserting that God gave to Jesus “the name that is above every name” (2:9). Though the name he gave to his Son may have been “God” or “Jesus,” it is more likely that Paul is referring to the title “Lord,” the most superior name possible.20 In a rousing climax of praise and adoration, Paul asserts that some day the entire universe will acknowledge what the tiny community of believers at Philippi already know, that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” the great sovereign God of the universe.

J. R. W. Stott has explored the “intellectual dimension” of this simple creed and its radical commitment to discipleship. These words imply a degree of ownership, so that it was natural for an early Christian to refer to himself as a “servant [slave] of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 1:1). This ownership must lay hold of the minds of modern believers, since, as Stott puts it, the intellect “is the central citadel of our personality and effectively rules our lives.” He continues:

Yet it is often the last stronghold to capitulate to the lordship of Jesus. The truth is that we rather like to think our own thoughts and ventilate our own opinions, and if they conflict with the teaching of Jesus, so much the worse for him!21

Stott goes on to make the point that many modern Christians are so eager to respond relevantly to the contemporary world that they accommodate the world’s way of thinking. Rather than becoming salt and light for the world, we often become like the world, in need of salt and light ourselves (Matt. 5:13–16).

I began exploring the contemporary meaning of this text by wistfully assuming Christians by their very natures “embrace and celebrate the lordship of Christ.” Now I must confess that this is far from always true. All too often, Christians become more like Israel than we care to admit, forsaking the security of the lordship of God and grasping after a compromise authority in order to become something we were never meant to be. I know this to be true because I grew up in the church, later became a pastor in the church, and have seen it too often. Indeed, I have been guilty of such grasping myself more times than I care to admit. In our clearest and most honest moments, we all too often seek security by conforming to the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, rather than serving in the world as God’s counterculture, as we were created to do. Like Israel, we tend to forfeit the lordship of God in order to become “like all the nations.”

One of the greatest tragedies of the Second World War was the way some so-called German Christians accepted and even promoted the racial myths of Hitler’s Third Reich.22 This occurred because, as Helmut Thielicke concluded, the church failed to continue the debate between the gospel of Christ and the self-understanding of the age, between “eternity and time.” He argued instead that true Christian faith believes against as well as in; that is, it self-consciously runs counter to the currents in the modern ideological stream.

Thielicke speaks of the need for Christian theology’s “polar structure.” One pole is “a superior, eternal basis derived from revelation,” while the other is “specific constellations of the spirit of the age.”23 But why does the church so often fail to be what Christ created her to be? Why do any of us fail to fulfill the high calling to which he has called us? Because our sinful motives and cowardly spirits drive us to grasp selfishly for a different sphere in life—in some cases, any other sphere in life. But like the Israelites, we only make it more difficult to follow the higher path God has for us.

One of those courageous German Christians who resisted the Nazi ideas was Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He saw clearly the paradox between losing one’s life and finding it. Bonhoeffer himself lost his life on April 9, 1945, in the Flossenburg concentration camp, executed by special order of Himmler only a few days before the camp was liberated by the Allies. Bonhoeffer’s tragic death makes the following quote, written by him in 1937, seem all the more poignant:

Only the man who follows the command of Jesus single-mindedly, and unresistingly lets his yoke rest upon him, finds his burden easy, and under its gentle pressure receives the power to persevere in the right way. The command of Jesus is hard, unutterably hard, for those who try to resist it. But for those who willingly submit, the yoke is easy and the burden is light.24

Even in his martyrdom, Bonhoeffer taught that the yoke of Jesus is easy and that “its gentle pressure” gives power to persevere in a just cause. We are never compelled to accept the rule of God. But ultimately, God alone appoints the king, and we would do well to submit and find our rest.25

Original Meaning

Samuel Warns Against Kingship (8:10–18)

AT YAHWEH’S DIRECTION, Samuel details the consequences of the kingship Israel desires. At this point, the reader may object that kingship had been the plan of Yahweh from before the beginning of Israel as a nation (Gen. 17:6, 16; 49:10; Ex. 19:6; Num. 24:17–19; Deut. 17:14–20). The Lord’s warning against kingship may seem duplicitous.

It is true that Yahweh was not opposed to an Israelite monarchy. Rather, he was opposed to the kind of monarchy Israel is now demanding! She wants a king like the nations around her, a kingship that will bring her power and political influence. The problem of Israel’s request is aptly summarized by Ronald Clements:

The sharpness of the criticism of the kingship expressed here is not in order to reject the institution altogether, which would make nonsense of the sequel in Yahweh’s acceding to the request. Rather it is to condemn the precipitate action of the people in pressing their desire, when Yahweh himself was able to do all that was necessary in order to ensure the people’s salvation as the preceding Deuteronomistic narrative of the victory won by Samuel over the Philistines illustrates.9

Indeed, the portrait of kingship that Samuel paints appears to be an authentic description of the semifeudal Canaanite political structure as it existed prior to and during the time of Samuel.10 He objects that having a king like “all the other nations” is not what Yahweh has in mind. Such an unchecked human institution will become militaristic, conscript Israelite men (even women!) into military service, confiscate property, and lead ultimately to enslavement (8:11–17).

The theme words of Samuel’s warnings about kingship are “take” and “serve.” Ancient Near Eastern kingship is “parasitic rather than giving,” and Ahab’s seizure of Naboth’s vineyard (with Jezebel, of course) illustrates the truth of this warning all too well (1 Kings 21:7), as does David’s seizure of Bathsheba (2 Sam. 11:2–5).11 Nothing seems beyond the grasp of the king, whether children, personal property, or one’s freedom. Kings take and take, and when everything is gone, they force you to serve. The final indignation, “you yourselves will become his slaves” (8:17b), is terminology used of enslavement by a conqueror.12 The kind of kingship Israel is requesting has no redeeming qualities and is antithetical to Israelite faith and history.

Israel’s Informed Decision (8:19–22)