Session 5 in Samuel

Session 5

Feared

1 Samuel 12:12-22

Context: 1 Samuel 12:1-25

Memory Verse: 1 Samuel 12:20

Main Idea: God’s character and power demand reverential fear.

FIRST THOUGHTS

        Lou Gehrig stands among some of the most famous New York Yankee baseball players. He was elected to the game’s highest honor, the Hall of Fame, in an unprecedented act shortly after his retirement from the game. Gehrig’s name has become interchangeable with the debilitating disease ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) that forced him to retire in 1939. Though he is remembered for his remarkable accomplishments and longevity on the baseball diamond, perhaps his lasting legacy is the farewell speech he gave at Yankee Stadium on the day of his retirement. He corrected those who might surmise he was a victim of bad luck. Instead, he counted the many blessings he had been given and concluded that he considered himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.

         If you were preparing your farewell speech, what would be the major emphasis of your remarks?

        Chapter 12 records a pivotal moment in the Book of 1 Samuel and in the public ministry of Samuel the prophet. What at first appeared to be the public inauguration of Saul as king became Samuel’s farewell address to the nation and includes his lengthiest speech. As one might expect, the prophet’s last words to the people touched on what was most important. Samuel called on the nation of Israel to renew their covenant with God. Part of their responsibility in this covenant was to fear and reverence God.

I. UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT

1 Samuel 12:1-25

        This chapter marks one of the most significant episodes in the history of Israel. There are a number of such pivotal episodes. Among them would be the call of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), the exodus from Egypt (Ex. 7–15), the covenant at Sinai (Ex. 19–24), the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 3–12), the covenant with David (2 Sam. 7), and the fall of Jerusalem (Jer. 52). Like all of those events, 1 Samuel 12 marks a radical change in the history of Israel. It signaled the end of the loose confederation of judges and the beginning of the Israelite monarchy. From the day Samuel gave the address recorded here until the fall of Jerusalem, kings would rule the Israelites. There would be no going back to the old order.

        Samuel’s speech marked the standard by which God would judge Israel now that they were a monarchy. Henceforth, God’s judgment would always make reference to the ruling kings. The nation would be evaluated in terms of whether the king did good or evil in the eyes of the Lord (see 1 Kings 11:6; 15:26; 16:25; 2 Kings 8:18; 10:30). In order to grasp the crucial place 1 Samuel 12 holds, we need to see how it is laid out.

1. Samuel established his credentials with the testimony of his life (vv. 1-7).

2. Samuel retold the story of Israel from the exodus to the request for a king (vv. 8-12).

3. Samuel laid down God’s conditions (vv. 13-15).

4. Samuel established his credentials with a sign (vv. 16-18).

5. The people responded with repentance and fear (v. 19).

6. Samuel gave words of exhortation and comfort (vv. 20-25).

        Samuel established his credentials first by asking if anyone had cause to accuse him of having abused his power. Had he taken someone’s property, such as an ox or donkey, or had he taken a bribe? The people willingly affirmed that Samuel had done no such thing. If he had behaved in such a manner, he would have had no moral authority to rebuke them or to lay down God’s requirements. Since no one could make such a charge, he told them to brace themselves for what he had to say.

        As Samuel retold the story of Israel, he focused on how God had always saved them from their troubles. Through Moses and Aaron, God had saved them from slavery in Egypt. When they sinned, God punished them with attacks from the Moabites, Philistines, and other enemies. When they repented, God gave them judges, including Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samuel himself. These heroic figures gave them victories and security. But when Nahash of the Ammonites began to terrify them, the old strategy of calling out to God for help was no longer good enough for them. They wanted a king. Samuel’s point was obvious. For hundreds of years God had proven that He could save Israel from any foe, as long as they put aside their idols and turned to Him for help. But now they were placing their hope in a king.

II. EXPLORE THE TEXT

A. The covenant revisited (1 Sam. 12:12-15)

        ¹² “And when you saw that Nahash the king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ when the Lord your God was your king. ¹³ And now behold the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; behold, the Lord has set a king over you. ¹⁴ If you will fear the Lord and serve him and obey his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well. ¹⁵ But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king.

Verses 12-14

        In one sense, everything had changed. Israel went from being a loose confederation with no central government to being a monarchy. Political and social life would be radically different. In another sense, nothing had changed. The terms that set the relationship between God and Israel were found in the Sinai Covenant. It had been established at Mount Sinai, as described in Exodus 19–24, and reaffirmed and given careful elaboration on the Plains of Moab just before the conquest, as described in Deuteronomy. The core of the law was the Ten Commandments, but many other stipulations and regulations supplemented and explained the core. Israel had laws that governed the function of their judicial system, their property rights, how they were to worship God, and many other details of life—including even how they were to dress. But the whole of the law came down to a few simple ideas. Israel was to show devotion to God by keeping His commands and especially by shunning idols and other gods. Doing this, they would love God with all their hearts. And Israel was to respect the rights, persons, and property of others. Doing this, they would love their neighbors. If they did these things, God would keep them safe and well.

        This was the essence of the Sinai Covenant, and when Israel adopted a monarchy, none of it changed. Israel would still be judged by these terms. Samuel could not have put it more succinctly: If you will fear the Lord and serve him and obey his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well. Samuel’s words sound redundant; obviously, if they obeyed God they would follow Him. But in this case, you will follow Him effectively means, “you will be right with Him.” In other words, God wouldn’t lay any more duties on them, and they would be under His protection as long as they kept the covenant and stayed away from idols. This would be true of both the king and the people. Both had to keep the covenant, and in that sense, being under a monarchy would make no difference in regard to how they related to God.

        How would having a king change the relationship between God and His people? How would it be different? How would it be the same?

Verse 15

        The contrary was also true: But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king. Samuel makes the same point in verse 25. If the Israelites failed to keep the Sinai Covenant, having a king would make no difference. Both king and people would be destroyed for their sin.

        The Christian church throughout its history has existed under many forms of government. The first churches existed under a multi-national empire governed by an emperor in the city of Rome. Persecution of the churches was at times severe. The late empire became officially Christian, and this produced different problems for the churches. The fall of Rome brought about chaos and many small states—the medieval world of duchies and kingdoms and competing dynasties. Christians in the east found themselves under Islamic states. The modern world has seen churches toiling under officially atheistic states in communist regimes. Christians in America lived first under a foreign power, then under a republic with a very limited government, and now under a fairly omnipresent republic operating through a vast bureaucracy. Governments and the ideologies that support them come and go, but the essential duties laid upon the churches remain the same. We are to hold fast to our confession of Christ and to the word of our testimony. We are to behave with integrity and kindness, and we are to walk humbly with our God. We are look to God and to no human being for our salvation. No one can deny that Christians in different eras and places have lived in radically different circumstances, but the core of our identity and of what God expects of us remains the same.

        List some different circumstances in which Christians live. Some are in prosperous societies and some are in poor ones. Some are persecuted and others are not. The world has many governments with many ideologies. How might our Christian duties change, if at all? What duties do not change? Do different circumstances make it easier to live as a Christian?

B. A sign Delivered (1 Sam. 12:16-18)

        ¹⁶ Now therefore stand still and see this great thing that the Lord will do before your eyes. ¹⁷ Is it not wheat harvest today? I will call upon the Lord, that he may send thunder and rain. And you shall know and see that your wickedness is great, which you have done in the sight of the Lord, in asking for yourselves a king.” ¹⁸ So Samuel called upon the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel.

Verses 16-18

        Rain came to Israel in a predictable pattern. The rainy season in Israel began in late October and lasted until February. November–December rains were the “early rains” and January–February rains were the “latter rains.” Planting of cereals took place before the rains, and the rain was essential for the growth of the grains. Cereal harvest began with the barley crop around the time of Passover (generally in March or April). This was followed by the wheat harvest, which ended around the time of Pentecost, in May or early June. We see this sequence in Ruth 2:23, which indicates that Ruth worked the fields of Boaz first during the barley harvest and then through the wheat harvest. Samuel spoke to the Israelites at the time of the wheat harvest, meaning that it was probably May. Rain was virtually unheard of in Israel at this time.

        In addition, rain at harvest time could spell disaster. Proverbs 26:1 alludes to this: “Like snow in summer or rain in harvest, so honor is not fitting for a fool.” If the fields were wet, it would be very difficult to cut, bind, carry, and thresh the heads of grain. Wet grain would be more likely to rot. And, of course, the crops could be badly damaged if the storms were severe.

        When Samuel called down rain in the normally dry month of May, he was doing two things. First, he was demonstrating that the words he was about to speak truly came from God. His ability to command the rain to fall showed that he was a true prophet of God. Second, the rain at harvest time was a vivid metaphor. Storms in May implied that the harvest would be ruined; by analogy, Israel’s request for a king would end badly. The untimely rain, like a locust plague or like a drought in mid-winter, implied the wrath of God. Israel’s request for a king had been an act of rebellion. In addition, rains at this time implied a bad harvest, and this implied a year of want and the danger of starvation. In short, it was an economic disaster. Samuel had warned the people that having a king would be economically ruinous for them. The king would seize their lands, their cattle, their servants, and even conscript their children (1 Sam. 8:11-18). Thus, their king would come down upon them and their fields like a storm out of season.

        Are all signs from God miraculous? In Matthew 16:2-4, Jesus told the Pharisees that an evil generation seeks a miraculous sign, but that they could not discern the signs of the times. Do you see any “signs” of what God is doing on the horizon right now?

C. God’s Mercy and grace (1 Sam. 12:19-22)

        ¹⁹ And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king.” ²⁰ And Samuel said to the people, “Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil. Yet do not turn aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart. ²¹ And do not turn aside after empty things that cannot profit or deliver, for they are empty. ²² For the Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name’s sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself.”

Verse 19

        The Israelites were obviously alarmed by what they saw. The rainstorm not only vindicated Samuel, but it implied that they had committed a great sin in asking for a king. It is noteworthy that they did not try to take back their request for a king. They knew that what was done could not be undone. They instead asked Samuel to intercede for them: for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king. That is, asking for a king was just one of many sins for which they bore deep guilt. Their request looks back to the precedent of the first great prophet of Israel, Moses, who interceded for the nation when it built the golden calf (Ex. 32:11-14).

Verse 20

        Samuel responded with words of compassion and reassurance: “Do not be afraid.” He did not deny that what they had done was wrong (the words you have done all this evil affirm that the Israelites were right to view their request as a sin). But he knew that God was forgiving and could redeem even bad decisions. The Israelites would need to do two things.

        First, they should remain loyal to God. They should not turn away from following Him. Sometimes, our sin can so discourage us that we give up entirely. People abandon the faith not because they are angry at God but because they are convinced that their guilt is so terrible that they cannot possibly come back. They should resolve to continue to serve God and to do what is right even though their actions make them feel unworthy.

Verses 21-22

        Second, they should shun all idols. These are the empty things that Samuel mentioned. Ancient peoples turned to idols for health, for prosperity, and for protection from enemies. The Israelites had turned to a king for protection. But looking to an idol was many times worse. If the people would simply place their trust in God, He would continue to watch over them and sustain them, king or no king. Put another way, asking for a king was a sin, but it was not a fatal sin. Worshiping an idol was a fatal sin.

        Samuel vowed that he would not sin against God by ceasing to pray for Israel (v. 23). His attitude showed great maturity. Had he been bitter, he would have said, “Well, they didn’t listen to me, so they can just live in the mess they have made for themselves!” But he did not do this. He would continue to ask God to heal them and be merciful to them. He did, however, leave them with a warning. If they did not heed his advice and serve God faithfully, nothing else they did would matter. Both they and their king would go down together (v. 25).

        Do you sometimes get so frustrated at political decisions your country or your government has made that you cease to pray for them? Do you do the same thing to family members, to friends, or to your church, when they do something that is wrong? Why should you continue to pray for people even when you know they have made a bad decision?

        We sometimes make very bad decisions. These are decisions that are not only wrong but that can never be fully undone. To give a simple but obvious example: we all have at times gotten into bad relationships. We can often escape such entanglements with relative ease. But a bad marriage is something we never fully escape. Years can be lost in such a marriage, and we can never get those years back. Even if the marriage ends by death or divorce, it will be with us to the end of life. And this is just one example. There are many decisions that have repercussions that we never fully escape.

        But even very big, very bad decisions do not mean that our relationship with God is forever ruined. To a great extent, it is not changed at all. God forgives, and the clearest picture of His heart of forgiveness is seen in the crucifixion of His Son, Jesus Christ. What God wants both before and after our bad decisions is that we fear and serve Him, that we grow in faith and grace, and that we love one another.

        The Israelites made a bad decision that changed their nation forever. Nevertheless, God’s marching orders for them—that they keep the Sinai Covenant—remained the same. No matter what we have done, God’s marching orders for us remain unchanged: that we should believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ.

        Describe the balance between God’s judgment and His grace. When can they complement each other? When do we see both working simultaneously?

KEY DOCTRINE

God’s Purpose of Grace

        God’s grace is the glorious display of His sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable.

BIBLE SKILL

Compare and contrast similar situations.

        Read 2 Corinthians 13:7–10, and describe how Paul prayed for the Corinthian Christians. The church at Corinth was filled with troubles, conflicts, and false beliefs. How does Paul’s attitude compare to Samuel’s attitude towards God’s people? How do both of them demonstrate a deep love for God’s people in spite of their failings?

Lesson 4 in Samuel

Lesson 4

King?

1 Samuel 8:4-9,19-22

Context: 1 Samuel 8:1–11:15

Memory Verse: 1 Samuel 8:7

Main Idea: Only God is worthy of being looked to as the Ruler of His people and of His creation.

FIRST THOUGHTS

        Although the legends of King Arthur are a familiar source of enjoyment for us today, the tales originated from a culture of people who felt doubtful—even fearful—about their future survival. In the face of invading foreign tribes and ever-changing, contentious leadership, the early people of England longed for a protector who was powerful in battle, chivalrous in nature, and of the utmost Christian character. Out of these concerns emerged the tales of King Arthur, the ideal king in every way. It is unlikely that the King Arthur of these legends actually existed in history; nonetheless, these tales have endured for many centuries because they represent the potency of the idea of a king—the belief that one powerful leader can make all the difference between devastating defeat and triumphant victory. However, even mythical Arthur’s reign carried the seeds of its own destruction—the legends conclude that his leadership eventually fell prey to human sin and collapsed.

What are your expectations of a leader? What are the qualities of a leader that inspire your trust?

        Like the early people of England, the Israelites also feared invasion and sought an earthly king for their protection. Up to this point, Israel did not have kings like the other nations; judges had led them after Joshua’s death (Judg. 2:6-10). These judges were deliverers raised up by God to lead the people out of idolatry and the resulting misfortune. Typically, they were military leaders who guided Israel into battle with foreign enemies, but their impact was limited and temporary (Judg. 2:18).

        While most of the judges led the nation in battle, Samuel’s ministry as a judge demonstrated what Israel truly needed: righteousness, repentance, and a return to the Lord. The Lord God could be all the King that His people ever needed. Unfortunately, the Israelites were blind to such a vision, and as a result, the king they demanded would only delay the repercussions of their sin.

I. UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT

1 Samuel 8:1–11:15

        Old Testament law contains all kinds of rules. For example, it demanded that the Israelites give a tithe to God (Lev. 27:30), refrain from charging interest on private loans (Ex. 22:25), leave parts of their fields for the poor to harvest (Lev. 19:9-10), and follow specific rules for dealing with captives in warfare (Deut. 21:10-14). These and similar regulations give us the impression that early Israel had a strong central government. After all, how else could they have enforced these regulations? The reality was quite different. In fact, prior to King Saul, Israel had no central government whatsoever.

        When Israel was on the plains of Moab and about to invade Canaan, Joshua was named as Moses’ successor. Under Joshua’s leadership, the conquest was carried out and the territory allotted to the tribes. But no successor was named for Joshua. After Joshua, early Israel had no king or national ruler, no capital city, no bureaucracy, no tax collectors, no highway department, no national court system, no representative body (like a congress or parliament), no welfare department, and no standing army. They did have “judges,” but these were leaders who were sporadically raised up for specific purposes. (God would raise up a judge to deal with a foreign oppressor, as when Gideon fought the Midianites.) Judges served more as heroes and champions than as governors. We hear little about them after they defeat the oppressor. Their authority tended to be more local than national, and they had no administration serving under them. There was no office of “judge” that had to be filled (in contrast to a king or a president, whose office cannot be left vacant), and there was no system of succession.

        How was Israel supposed to survive in this nearly anarchic situation? There was a kind of local government. Groups of city elders would meet to make decisions and especially to adjudicate in cases of crime (Someone stole my ox!) or civil lawsuits (Someone allowed his ox to graze in my wheat field!). Local militias served as defense against outside attack. In case of a national emergency, there would be an ad hoc national assembly (Judg. 20:1-11).

        Most importantly, Israel was supposed to be faithful to their covenant with God and to regard Him as their king. The laws about tithes, provisions for the poor, military life, slavery, and so forth were not enforced by a central state. The people were expected to understand that God enforced the laws and punished all disobedience. They were to obey the laws about tithing, providing for the poor, and so forth out of respect for God alone.

        If the Israelites had been faithful to God, He would have protected them and given them all the prosperity they could handle. Their society would have been orderly and a model of righteousness. But they were not faithful. We see this in the summary of the history of early Israel given in Judges 2:11-23. Because of disobedience to God, they descended into true anarchy. Being a lawless, disorganized people, they were prey to many outside invaders. Since they would not have God as their king, they wanted a human king to protect them. 

  

        This situation had been anticipated in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, and this is where the story in 1 Samuel 8 begins. But it is important to recognize that the original plan was for the Israelites to live as subjects of God, with Him as their only king. They were to show fealty to Him by keeping all the commands Moses had given them. This was their covenant duty.

II. EXPLORE THE TEXT

1. A King Demanded (1 Sam. 8:4-5)

        ⁴ Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah ⁵ and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”

Verses 4-5

        As Samuel aged, he appointed his two sons to assist him in fulfilling his duties as a judge. This was highly unusual; the sons of the earlier judges did not succeed their fathers or inherit their authority. The one exception was Abimelech, son of Gideon, who tried to succeed his father and to actually claim the title of king. That ended in complete disaster (Judg. 9). We do not know why Samuel gave his two sons such authority, and it did not work out well. They abused the prestige they had as the sons of Samuel and were notoriously corrupt (1 Sam. 8:1-3).

  

        A delegation of elders came to Samuel at his hometown of Ramah. Their message was simple: the leadership Samuel provided was ending. He was too old to continue, and his sons were morally unqualified for leadership. Therefore, he should appoint for them a king.

        When we analyze their argument, we can see what was really on their hearts. The fact that Samuel was old and that his sons were corrupt was no reason to select a king. Samuel could have relieved his sons of their authority and could have retired from office himself. Israel had gone on for hundreds of years in which a judge would die without having any successor. For much of that time they either had no judge or the living judge was not actively governing the nation. The real reason they wanted a king is given at the end of their petition: Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.

        How does a desire to be like other people impact a person’s values and character? How does that desire cloud a person’s decision making?

        The other nations were the model that the Israelites were following. Israel had been chosen to be God’s own possession and a holy nation, separate from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6), but they wanted to be like the other nations. Without explicitly saying it, they were abandoning the distinctive relationship they had with God as His covenant people.  

        They wanted their king to judge them. This does not mean that his primary task would be to adjudicate cases in the court system. The main thing that Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson had done was to fight against oppressors. This was what the people wanted their king to do; he, too, should go out and wage war for them (1 Sam. 8:20). But they wanted his authority to be formally fixed and to be made permanent.

        In summary, the Israelites wanted a permanent, central state under a ruler with authority to raise an army, collect taxes, and organize defenses. They were willing to cede decision-making power to this man, and they were willing for his sons to succeed him as a ruling dynasty. The reason they chose to do this is that they thought that such an arrangement would give them security against foreign enemies. They made a classic trade-off. They gave up some freedom, wealth, and autonomy in order to be protected from various threats. The Israelites were implicitly confessing that they did not trust God to defend them.

        Make a list of things we rely on instead of God. In what do we place our faith for financial security? What do we rely on for protection from illness, violence, and crime? How can these institutions take the place of God?

2. Rejection Declared (1 Sam. 8:6-9)

        ⁶ But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. ⁷ And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. ⁸ According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. ⁹ Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

Verses 6-7

        The Bible tells us little about Samuel’s feelings in this matter beyond the fact that he considered their demand sinful. We do not know if he felt hurt by having his sons’ faults pointed out to him or if he considered the demand to be a thinly veiled attack on his competence or integrity. But God told Samuel that he should not let his personal feelings blind him to the real point. This was not really an attack on Samuel at all. God said, they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them.  

        God would tell Samuel to do as the people wished and give them a king (v. 9). This does not mean that God approved of their action. It demonstrates God’s forbearance. He is willing to let people choose their own path, even if their choices are poor and will cause them pain and regret.

Verses 8-9

        God did not consider Israel’s decision to be anything new or surprising. They had been turning from God ever since the exodus from Egypt. They demonstrated a lack of faith when they panicked at the Red Sea and were convinced that Moses had brought them out of Egypt to get them all killed. They demonstrated a tendency toward idolatry when they made the golden calf and proclaimed that it was the god that had saved them from slavery. From that perspective, Israel’s demand for a king was entirely predictable (and in fact was predicted in Deut. 17:14-20). Even so, this demand was a turning point in Israel’s history.

        Israel had many problems during the time of the judges. Much could be said about the folly and sinfulness of this era, but that is not the subject of this study. Even so, we need to recognize that the period of the judges was also a time of unparalleled freedom. They had no taxes, no conscription, and they bowed to no man. From the time of King Saul to the end of their history, the Israelites were always under a king, be he Israelite or foreigner. This lasted right up until they were under the thumb of the Roman emperors, who destroyed their city and put an end to ancient Israel.

        In 1 Samuel 8:11-18, Samuel warned what would happen if a king ruled over the people. The warnings come down to two ideas: first, the king would have the power to confiscate persons and their wealth, and second, he would have the power to give favors to some people while crushing others.

        According to Samuel, the king had the power to confiscate people by conscripting them into royal service. Young men were put into the ranks of the army, where they would charge ahead of the king into the teeth of battle. The king would live, but many of them would die. Some men were elevated to high rank, but others were set to manual labor. The former, the king’s favorites, received honor and opportunities to enrich themselves. The latter plowed the king’s fields, worked in his shops, and produced his weapons. Women, too, could be conscripted for service in the king’s palace. The king could confiscate all kinds of property, including land, livestock, and slaves. The end result was that the Israelites would discover they had no rights at all: “He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam. 8:17-18).

        How can we balance faith in God with simple prudence? What does this imply about our attitudes toward government, insurance, or bank accounts? What can we do to help ourselves maintain faith in God so that our true faith is not in human institutions?

3. Rebellion Determined (1 Sam. 8:19-22)

        ¹⁹ But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, ²⁰ that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” ²¹ And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Lord. ²² And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” Samuel then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”

Verses 19-22

        Samuel’s words of warning had no impact on the Israelites, except that it made them more determined to get a king. They considered the old system to be a failure because they had suffered so much under the Philistines and earlier oppressors. In reality, the old system of trusting God by keeping the covenant had not failed. It had never been tried. Every generation of Israelites, from the conquest to the time of Samuel, had been faithless and idolatrous. But since things had gone so badly, the Israelites decided that the prudent thing to do was to get a king.

        The Israelites said, “But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations.” The key expression here is like all the nations. The Israelites were like the other nations when they worshiped idols, and now they would be like the nations in having a king. The other nations imbued their kings with godlike qualities. They attributed to them something like superhero powers to defeat their enemies and to bring down blessings from heaven. As the nations bowed down to idols of wood and stone, so also did they bow low before flesh and blood mortals. Pagan attitudes toward kings were really not far removed from idolatry, and the Israelites were determined to do the same thing.

        We actually see pagan thinking about kings in action in Acts 12:20-23. Herod Agrippa I so impressed the Phoenicians with his generosity and splendor that when he spoke, they shouted, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” But God was not impressed with Herod. He struck him with a severe and sudden illness, and he died.

        Sometimes modern people treat a human ruler as a semi-divine figure and surround him with a personality cult. Obvious examples include Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong. In these cases, a man with political power was regarded as a god-like figure. Other cases involve a theocracy, in which a religious leader takes all political power for himself on the grounds that he speaks for God. The rulers of Iran and of the Islamic State have given us clear examples of this. How might these examples serve as warnings for us? 

        If the Israelites were not going to listen to Samuel, they might have listened to a much older speech, the parable of Jotham. It is found in Judges 9:7-15. When Abimelech, son of Gideon, decided to try to take his father’s power and become king in Israel, he killed all of his brothers (Gideon’s other sons) except for Jotham, who escaped the slaughter. The people of Shechem made Abimelech their king, but Jotham told them a strange parable. He said that the trees decided to choose a king. But when they offered the crown to various trees, they all refused. The olive tree, fig tree, and the grapevine all said that they had important work to do, producing olives, figs, and grapes. Becoming king of the trees would interfere with their much more useful work of providing rich produce for people to consume. Finally the trees went to the worthless bramble. He said that he would be their king.

        There is much one could say about this parable, but one point is obvious. Jotham warns us not to place too much confidence in the ability or virtue of those who have worldly power. Any time we look to some human leader as our savior, thinking we have found someone as magnificent and as richly gifted as a great olive tree, we should look more closely. We may have actually chosen a bramble. When we fail to acknowledge Jesus as our Savior and the King of kings (Rev. 19:16), chaos will be the inevitable result.

        How is it spiritually dangerous to look to a human being as your savior? What will that do to your relationship with God?

KEY DOCTRINE

God

        God is the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe.

BIBLE SKILL

Synthesize multiple passages related to a similar theme.

        Review the following passages, looking for guidelines for how Christians should relate to their government or how they should govern: Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-19; and Matthew 20:20-28. Record the insights you gained about government and governing.