1Sa 8 | KD | STEP | The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel’s sons as judges is his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan (Jdg 20:1, etc.; see at ). The sons are also mentioned again in , though the name of the elder has either been dropped out of the Masoretic text or has become corrupt.

‏ 1 Samuel 8

The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel’s sons as judges is his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan (Jdg 20:1, etc.; see at Gen 21:31). The sons are also mentioned again in 1Ch 6:13, though the name of the elder has either been dropped out of the Masoretic text or has become corrupt. 1Sa 8:3

The sons, however, did not walk in the ways of their father, but set their hearts upon gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, in opposition to the command of God (see Exo 23:6, Exo 23:8; Deu 16:19). 1Sa 8:4-5

These circumstances (viz., Samuel’s age and the degeneracy of his sons) furnished the elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply to Samuel with this request: “Appoint us a king to judge us, as all the nations” (the heathen), sc., have kings. This request resembles so completely the law of the king in Deu 17:14 (observe, for example, the expression כּכל־הגּוים), that the distinct allusion to it is unmistakeable. The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law is met with for the first time in the writings of the period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah had foretold through His servant Moses, as a thing that would take place in the future and for which He had even made provision. 1Sa 8:6-8

Nevertheless “the thing displeased Samuel when they said,” etc. This serves to explain הדּבר, and precludes the supposition that Samuel’s displeasure had reference to what they had said concerning his own age and the conduct of his sons. At the same time, the reason why the petition for a king displeased the prophet, was not that he regarded the earthly monarchy as irreconcilable with the sovereignty of God, or even as untimely; for in both these cases he would not have entered into the question at all, but would simply have refused the request as ungodly or unseasonable. But “Samuel prayed to the Lord,” i.e., he laid the matter before the Lord in prayer, and the Lord said (1Sa 8:7): “Hearken unto the voice 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 of God, the time had really come for the establishment of the earthly sovereignty in Israel. In this respect the request of the elders for a king to reign over them was perfectly justifiable; and there is no reason to say, with Calvin, “they ought to have had regard to the times and conditions prescribed by God, and it would no doubt have come to pass that the regal power would have grown up in the nation. Although, therefore, it had not yet been established, they ought to have waited patiently for the time appointed by God, and not to have given way to their own reasons and counsels apart from the will of God.” For God had not only appointed no particular time for the establishment of the monarchy; but in the introduction to the law for the king, “When thou shalt say, I will set a king over me,” He had ceded the right to the representatives of the nation to deliberate upon the matter. Nor did they err in this respect, that while Samuel was still living, it was not the proper time to make use of the permission that they had received; for they assigned as the reason for their application, that Samuel had grown old: consequently they did not petition for a king instead of the prophet who had been appointed and so gloriously accredited by God, but simply that Samuel himself would give them a king in consideration of his own age, in order that when he should become feeble or die, they might have a judge and leader of the nation. Nevertheless the Lord declared, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. As they have always done from the day that I brought them up out of Egypt unto this day, that they have forsaken me and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.” This verdict on the part of God refers not so much to the desire expressed, as to the feelings from which it had sprung. Externally regarded, the elders of Israel had a perfect right to present the request; the wrong was in their hearts. ^{▼▼Calvin has correctly pointed out how much would have been warrantable under the circumstances: “They might, indeed, have reminded Samuel of his old age, which rendered him less able to attend to the duties of his office, and also of the avarice of his sons and the corruptness of the judges; or they might have complained that his sons did not walk in his footsteps, and have asked that God would choose suitable men to govern them, and thus have left the whole thing to His will. And if they had done this, there can be no doubt that they would have received a gracious and suitable answer. But they did not think of calling upon God; they demanded that a king should be given them, and brought forward the customs and institutions of other nations.”}

They not only declared to the prophet their confidence in his administration of his office, but they implicitly declared him incapable of any further superintendence of their civil and political affairs. This mistrust was founded upon mistrust in the Lord and His guidance. In the person 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 secure their constant prosperity. Instead of seeking for the cause of the misfortunes which had hitherto befallen them in their own sin and want of fidelity towards Jehovah, they searched for it in the faulty constitution of the nation itself. In such a state of mind as this, their desire for a king was a contempt and rejection of the kingly government of Jehovah, and was nothing more than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods. (See 1Sa 10:18-19, and 1Sa 12:7., where Samuel points out to the people still more fully the wrong that they have committed.) 1Sa 8:9

In order to show them wherein they were wrong, Samuel was instructed to bear witness against them, by proclaiming the right of the king who would rule over them. בּהם תּעיד העד neither means “warn them earnestly” (De Wette), nor “explain and solemnly expound to them” (Thenius). בּ העיד means to bear witness, or give testimony against a person, i.e., to point out to him his wrong. The following words, והגּדתּוגו, are to be understood as explanatory, in the 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 king as was possessed by all the other nations, and such an one as Israel desired in the place of its own God-king, i.e., a king who would rule over his people with arbitrary and absolute power.

In accordance with the instructions of God, Samuel told the people all the words of Jehovah, i.e., all that God had said to him, as related in 1Sa 8:7-9, and then proclaimed to them the right of the king. 1Sa 8:11

“He will take your sons, and set them for himself upon his chariots, 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, his charioteers, riders, and runners. The singular suffix attached to בּמרכּבתּו is not to be altered, as Thenius suggests, into the plural 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 2Sa 1:6; 1Ki 5:6, etc. 1Sa 8:12

“And to make himself chiefs over thousands and over fifties;” - the greatest and smallest military officers are mentioned, instead of all the soldiers and officers (comp. Num 31:14; 2Ki 1:9., with Exo 18:21, Exo 18:25). ולשׂוּם is also dependent upon יקּח (1Sa 8:11), - “and to plough his field (חרישׁ, lit. the ploughed), and reap his harvest, and make his instruments of war and instruments of his chariots.” 1Sa 8:13

“Your daughters he will take as preparers of ointments, cooks, and bakers,” sc., for his court. 1Sa 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., the produce 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 royal chamberlains. Even their slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and their beasts of draught and burden he would take and use for his own work, and raise the tithe of the flock. The word בּחוּריכם, between the slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and the asses, is very striking and altogether unsuitable; and in all probability it is only an ancient copyist’s error for בּקריכם, your oxen, as we may see from the lxx rendering, τὰ βουκόλια. The servants and maids, oxen and asses, answer in that case to one another; whilst the young men are included among the sons in 1Sa 8:11, 1Sa 8:12. In this way the king would make all the people into his servants or slaves. This is the meaning of the second clause of 1Sa 8:17; for the whole are evidently summed up in conclusion in the expression, “and ye shall be his servants.” 1Sa 8:18

Israel would then cry out to God because of its king, but the Lord would not hear it then. This description, which contains a fearful picture of the tyranny of the king, is drawn from the despotic conduct of the heathen kings, and does not presuppose, as many have maintained, the times of the later kings, which were so full of painful experiences. 1Sa 8:19-20

With such a description of the “right of the king” as this, Samuel had pointed out to the elders the dangers connected with a monarchy in so alarming a manner, that they ought to have been brought to reflection, and to have desisted from their demand. “But the people refused to hearken to the voice of Samuel.” They repeated their demand, “We will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and conduct our battles.” 1Sa 8:21-22

These words of the people were laid by Samuel before the Lord, and the Lord commanded him to give the people a king. With this answer Samuel sent 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 the context, “till I shall call you again, to appoint you the king you desire.” When the Lord had instructed Samuel to appoint a king over the nation, in accordance with its own desire, He very speedily proceeded to show him the man whom He had chosen. Saul the Benjaminite came to Samuel, to consult him as a seer about his father’s she-asses, which had been lost, and for which he had been seeking in all directions in vain (1Sa 9:1-14). And the Lord had already revealed to the prophet the day before, that He would send him the man who had been set apart by Him as the king of Israel; and when Samuel met with Saul, He pointed him out as the man to whom He had referred (1Sa 9:15-17). Accordingly, Samuel invited Saul to be his guest at a sacrificial meal, which he was about to celebrate (1Sa 9:18-24). After the meal he made known to him the purpose of God, anointed him as king (1Sa 9:25-27; 1Sa 10:1), and sent him away, with an announcement of three signs, which would serve to confirm his election on the part of God (1Sa 10:2-16). This occurrence is related very circumstantially, to bring out distinctly the miraculous interposition of God, and to show that Saul did not aspire to the throne; and also that Samuel did not appoint of his own accord the man whom he was afterwards obliged to reject, but that Saul was elected by God to be king over His people, without any interference on the part of either Samuel or himself. ^{▼▼There is no tenable ground for the assumption of Thenius and others, that this account was derived from a different source from 1 Samuel 8, 1Sa 10:17-27, and 1Sa 10:11.; for the assertion that 1Sa 10:17-27 connects itself in the most natural way with 1 Samuel 8 is neither well-founded nor correct. In the first place, it was certainly more natural that Samuel, who was to place a king over the nation according to the appointment of God, should be made acquainted with the man whom God had appointed, before the people elected him by lot. And secondly, Saul’s behaviour in hiding himself when the lots were cast (1Sa 10:21.), can only be explained on the supposition that Samuel had already informed him that he was the appointed king; whereas, if this had not been the case, it would be altogether incomprehensible.}