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.
No comments:
Post a Comment