Bible Commentaries

II. The Monarchy of Saul from His Election Till His Ultimate Rejection - 1 Samuel 8-15

The earthly monarchy in Israel was established in the time of Samuel, andthrough his mediation. At the pressing desire of the people, Samuelinstalled the Benjaminite Saul as king, according to the command of God. The reign of Saul may be divided into two essentially different periods:viz., (1) the establishment and vigorous development of his regalsupremacy (1 Samuel 8-15); (2) the decline and gradual overthrow of hismonarchy (1 Samuel 16-31). The establishment of the monarchy is introducedby the negotiations of the elders of Israel with Samuel concerning theappointment of a king (1 Samuel 8). This is followed by (1) the account of theanointing of Saul as king (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16), of his election by lot, and ofhis victory over the Ammonites and the confirmation of his monarchy atGilgal (1 Samuel 10:17-11:15), together with Samuel's final address to thenation (1 Samuel 12); (2) the history of Saul's reign, of which only his earliestvictories over the Philistines are given at all elaborately (1 Samuel 13:1-14:46), his other wars and family history being disposed of verysummarily (1 Samuel 14:47-52); (3) the account of his disobedience to thecommand of God in the war against the Amalekites, and the rejection onthe part of God with which Samuel threatened him in consequence (1 Samuel 15). The brevity with which the history of his actual reign is treated, incontrast with the elaborate account of his election and confirmation asking, may be accounted for from the significance and importance of Saul'smonarchy in relation to the kingdom of God in Israel.

The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, fromwhich they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to thedefects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king,like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer theirenemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existedin the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variancewith the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive whichled the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since thesource of all the evils and misfortunes from which Israel suffered was to befound in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting withthe gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obstinacy indemanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actualrejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifestedhimself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power oftheir foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart. Samuel pointed this out to the elders of Israel, when they laid theirpetition before him that he would choose them a king. But Jehovahfulfilled their desires. He directed Samuel to appoint them a king, whopossessed all the qualifications that were necessary to secure for thenation what it looked for from a king, and who therefore might haveestablished the monarchy in Israel as foreseen and foretold by Jehovah, ifhe had not presumed upon his own power, but had submitted humbly tothe will of God as made known to him by the prophet. Saul, who waschosen from Benjamin, the smallest but yet the most warlike of all thetribes, a man in the full vigour of youth, and surpassing all the rest of thepeople in beauty of form as well as bodily strength, not only possessed“warlike bravery and talent, unbroken courage that could overcomeopposition of every kind, a stedfast desire for the well-being of the nationin the face of its many and mighty foes, and zeal and pertinacity in theexecution of his plans” (Ewald), but also a pious heart, and an earnest zealfor the maintenance of the provisions of the law, and the promotion of thereligious life of the nation. He would not commence the conflict with the Philistines until sacrifice hadbeen offered (1 Samuel 13:9.); in the midst of the hot pursuit of the foe heopposed the sin committed by the people in eating flesh with the blood (1 Samuel 14:32-33); he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land(1 Samuel 28:3, 1 Samuel 28:9); and in general he appears to have kept a strict watch overthe observance of the Mosaic law in his kingdom. But the consciousnessof his own power, coupled with the energy of his character, led his astrayinto an incautious disregard of the commands of God; his zeal in theprosecution of his plans hurried him on to reckless and violent measures;and success in his undertakings heightened his ambition into a haughtyrebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel. These errors come outvery conspicuously in the three great events of his reign which are themost circumstantially described. When Saul was preparing for war against the Philistines, and Samuel didnot appear at once on the day appointed, he presumptuously disregardedthe prohibition of the prophet, and offered the sacrifice himself withoutwaiting for Samuel to arrive (1 Samuel 13:7.). In the engagement with thePhilistines, he attempted to force on the annihilation of the foe bypronouncing the ban upon any one in his army who should eat breadbefore the evening, or till he had avenged himself upon his foes. Consequently, he not only diminished the strength of the people, so thatthe overthrow of the enemy was not great, but he also preparedhumiliation for himself, inasmuch as he was not able to carry out his vow(1 Samuel 14:24.). But he sinned still more grievously in the war with theAmalekites, when he violated the express command of the Lord by onlyexecuting the ban upon that nation as far as he himself thought well, andthus by such utterly unpardonable conduct altogether renounced theobedience which he owed to the Lord his God (1 Samuel 15). All these acts oftransgression manifest an attempt to secure the unconditional gratificationof his own self-will, and a growing disregard of the government of Jehovahin Israel; and the consequence of the whole was simply this, that Saul notonly failed to accomplish that deliverance of the nation out of the powerof its foes which the Israelites had anticipated from their king, and wasunable to inflict any lasting humiliation upon the Philistines, but that heundermined the stability of his monarchy, and brought about his ownrejection on the part of God.

From all this we may see very clearly, that the reason why the occurrencesconnected with the election of Saul as king as fully described on the onehand, and on the other only such incidents connected with his enterprisesafter he began to reign as served to bring out the faults and crimes of hismonarchy, was, that Israel might learn from this, that royalty itself couldnever secure the salvation it expected, unless the occupant of the thronesubmitted altogether to the will of the Lord. Of the other acts of Saul, thewars with the different nations round about are only briefly mentioned,but with this remark, that he displayed his strength and gained the victoryin whatever direction he turned (1 Samuel 14:47), simply because thisstatement was sufficient to bring out the brighter side of his reign,inasmuch as this clearly showed that it might have been a source ofblessing to the people of God, if the king had only studied how to governhis people in the power and according to the will of Jehovah. If weexamine the history of Saul's reign from this point of view, all the differentpoints connected with it exhibit the greatest harmony. Modern critics, however, have discovered irreconcilable contradictions inthe history, simply because, instead of studying it for the purpose offathoming the plan and purpose which lie at the foundation, they haveentered upon the inquiry with a twofold assumption: viz., (1) that thegovernment of Jehovah over Israel was only a subjective idea of theIsraelitish nation, without any objective reality; and (2) that the humanmonarchy was irreconcilably opposed to the government of God. Governed by these axioms, which are derived not from the Scriptures, butfrom the philosophical views of modern times, the critics have found itimpossible to explain the different accounts in any other way than by thepurely external hypothesis, that the history contained in this book hasbeen compiled from two different sources, in one of which theestablishment of the earthly monarchy was treated as a violation of thesupremacy of God, whilst the other took a more favourable view. Fromthe first source, 1 Samuel 8, 1 Samuel 10:17-27, 1 Samuel 10:11-12, and 1 Samuel 10:15 are said to have beenderived; and 1 Samuel 9-10:17, 1 Samuel 10:13, and 1 Samuel 10:14 from the second.

1 Samuel 8:1-2

The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel's sons asjudges is his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw fromthis alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in theadministration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying downhis office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary inhis family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed asjudges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border ofCanaan (Judges 20:1, etc.; see at Genesis 21:31). The sons are also mentionedagain in 1 Chronicles 6:13, though the name of the elder has either beendropped out of the Masoretic text or has become corrupt.

1 Samuel 8:3

The sons, however, did not walk in the ways of their father, butset their hearts upon gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, in oppositionto the command of God (see Exodus 23:6, Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19).

1 Samuel 8:4-5

These circumstances (viz., Samuel's age and the degeneracy ofhis sons) furnished the elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply toSamuel with this request: “Appoint us a king to judge us, as all thenations” (the heathen), sc., have kings. This request resembles socompletely the law of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14 (observe, for example, theexpression כּכל־הגּוים), that the distinct allusion to it isunmistakeable. The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law ismet with for the first time in the writings of the period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah had foretold through His servantMoses, as a thing that would take place in the future and for which He hadeven made provision.

Nevertheless “the thing displeased Samuel when they said,” etc. Thisserves to explain הדּבר, and precludes the supposition thatSamuel's displeasure had reference to what they had said concerning hisown age and the conduct of his sons. At the same time, the reason why thepetition for a king displeased the prophet, was not that he regarded theearthly monarchy as irreconcilable with the sovereignty of God, or even asuntimely; for in both these cases he would not have entered into thequestion at all, but would simply have refused the request as ungodly orunseasonable. But “Samuel prayed to the Lord,” i.e., he laid the matterbefore the Lord in prayer, and the Lord said (1 Samuel 8:7): “Hearken unto thevoice of the people in all that they say unto thee.” This clearly implies,that not only in Samuel's opinion, but also according to the counsel ofGod, the time had really come for the establishment of the earthlysovereignty in Israel. In this respect the request of the elders for a king toreign over them was perfectly justifiable; and there is no reason to say,with Calvin, “they ought to have had regard to the times and conditionsprescribed by God, and it would no doubt have come to pass that the regalpower would have grown up in the nation. Although, therefore, it had notyet been established, they ought to have waited patiently for the timeappointed by God, and not to have given way to their own reasons andcounsels apart from the will of God.” For God had not only appointed noparticular time for the establishment of the monarchy; but in theintroduction to the law for the king, “When thou shalt say, I will set a kingover me,” He had ceded the right to the representatives of the nation todeliberate upon the matter. Nor did they err in this respect, that while Samuel was still living, it wasnot the proper time to make use of the permission that they had received;for they assigned as the reason for their application, that Samuel hadgrown old: consequently they did not petition for a king instead of theprophet who had been appointed and so gloriously accredited by God, butsimply that Samuel himself would give them a king in consideration of hisown age, in order that when he should become feeble or die, they mighthave a judge and leader of the nation. Nevertheless the Lord declared,“They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should notreign over them. As they have always done from the day that I broughtthem up out of Egypt unto this day, that they have forsaken me andserved other gods, so do they also unto thee.” This verdict on the part ofGod refers not so much to the desire expressed, as to the feelings fromwhich it had sprung. Externally regarded, the elders of Israel had a perfectright to present the request; the wrong was in their hearts.

(Note: Calvin has correctly pointed out how much would have beenwarrantable under the circumstances: “They might, indeed, havereminded Samuel of his old age, which rendered him less able to attendto the duties of his office, and also of the avarice of his sons and thecorruptness of the judges; or they might have complained that hissons did not walk in his footsteps, and have asked that God wouldchoose suitable men to govern them, and thus have left the wholething to His will. And if they had done this, there can be no doubtthat they would have received a gracious and suitable answer. But theydid not think of calling upon God; they demanded that a king shouldbe given them, and brought forward the customs and institutions ofother nations.”)

They not only declared to the prophet their confidence in hisadministration of his office, but they implicitly declared him incapable ofany further superintendence of their civil and political affairs. Thismistrust was founded upon mistrust in the Lord and His guidance. In theperson of Samuel they rejected the Lord and His rule. They wanted a king,because they imagined that Jehovah their God-king was not able to securetheir constant prosperity. Instead of seeking for the cause of themisfortunes which had hitherto befallen them in their own sin and want offidelity towards Jehovah, they searched for it in the faulty constitution ofthe nation itself. In such a state of mind as this, their desire for a king wasa contempt and rejection of the kingly government of Jehovah, and wasnothing more than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods. (See 1 Samuel 10:18-19, and 1 Samuel 12:7., where Samuel points out to the people still morefully the wrong that they have committed.)

In order to show them wherein they were wrong, Samuel was instructed tobear witness against them, by proclaiming the right of the king who wouldrule over them. בּהם תּעיד העד neithermeans “warn them earnestly” (De Wette), nor “explain and solemnlyexpound to them” (Thenius). בּ העיד means to bear witness, orgive testimony against a person, i.e., to point out to him his wrong. Thefollowing words, והגּדתּוגו, are to be understood as explanatory, inthe sense of “by proclaiming to them.” “The manner (mishpat) of the king”is the right or prerogative which the king would claim, namely, such a kingas was possessed by all the other nations, and such an one as Israel desiredin the place of its own God-king, i.e., a king who would rule over hispeople with arbitrary and absolute power.

In accordance with the instructions of God, Samuel told the people all thewords of Jehovah, i.e., all that God had said to him, as related in 1 Samuel 8:7-9,and then proclaimed to them the right of the king.

1 Samuel 8:11

“He will take your sons, and set them for himself upon hischariots, and upon his saddle-horses, and they will run before his chariot;”i.e., he will make the sons of the people his retainers at court, hischarioteers, riders, and runners. The singular suffix attached toבּמרכּבתּו is not to be altered, as Thenius suggests, into theplural form, according to the lxx, Chald., and Syr., since the word refers,not to war-chariots, but to the king's state-carriage; and פּרשׁ does not mean a rider, but a saddle-horse, as in 2 Samuel 1:6; 1 Kings 5:6, etc.

1 Samuel 8:12

“And to make himself chiefs over thousands and over fifties;” - the greatest and smallest military officers are mentioned, instead of all thesoldiers and officers (comp. Numbers 31:14; 2 Kings 1:9., with Exodus 18:21, Exodus 18:25). ולשׂוּם is also dependent upon יקּח (1 Samuel 8:11), - “and toplough his field (חרישׁ, lit. the ploughed), and reap his harvest,and make his instruments of war and instruments of his chariots.”

1 Samuel 8:13

“Your daughters he will take as preparers of ointments, cooks,and bakers,” sc., for his court.

1 Samuel 8:14-17

All their possessions he would also take to himself: the good(i.e., the best) fields, vineyards, and olive-gardens, he would take away,and give to his servants; he would tithe the sowings and vineyards (i.e., theproduce which they yielded), and give them to his courtiers and servants. סריס, lit. the eunuch; here it is used in a wider sense for the royalchamberlains. Even their slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and theirbeasts of draught and burden he would take and use for his own work, andraise the tithe of the flock. The word בּחוּריכם, between theslaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and the asses, is very striking andaltogether unsuitable; and in all probability it is only an ancient copyist'serror for בּקריכם, your oxen, as we may see from the lxx rendering, τὰ βουκόλια . The servants and maids, oxen and asses, answer in that caseto one another; whilst the young men are included among the sons in 1 Samuel 8:11, 1 Samuel 8:12. In this way the king would make all the people into his servants orslaves. This is the meaning of the second clause of 1 Samuel 8:17; for the whole areevidently summed up in conclusion in the expression, “and ye shall be hisservants.”

1 Samuel 8:18

Israel would then cry out to God because of its king, but theLord would not hear it then. This description, which contains a fearfulpicture of the tyranny of the king, is drawn from the despotic conduct ofthe heathen kings, and does not presuppose, as many have maintained, thetimes of the later kings, which were so full of painful experiences.

With such a description of the “right of the king” as this, Samuel hadpointed out to the elders the dangers connected with a monarchy in soalarming a manner, that they ought to have been brought to reflection, andto have desisted from their demand. “But the people refused to hearken tothe voice of Samuel.” They repeated their demand, “We will have a kingover us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king mayjudge us, and go out before us, and conduct our battles.”

These words of the people were laid by Samuel before the Lord, and theLord commanded him to give the people a king. With this answer Samuelsent the men of Israel, i.e., the elders, away. This is implied in the words,“Go ye every man unto his city,” since we may easily supply from thecontext, “till I shall call you again, to appoint you the king you desire.”