1 Samuel 8:10-22

The consequences of requesting a king 8:10-22

Samuel explained what having a king similar to all the nations would mean. The elders were interested in the functions of monarchy, but Samuel pointed out the nature of monarchy. It meant the loss of freedoms and possessions that the people presently enjoyed. In 1 Samuel 8:11-17, Samuel did not define the rights of a king but described the ways of most kings. [Note: G. Coleman Luck, "Israel’s Demand for a King," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):61.] There is evidence that Israel’s neighbor nations really did suffer under their kings exactly as Samuel warned. [Note: See I. Mendelsohn, "Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the Akkadian Documents from Ugarit," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 143 (October 1956):17-22.] Note the recurrence of the words "take" and "best" in these verses.

"By nature royalty is parasitic rather than giving, and kings are never satisfied with the worst." [Note: Youngblood, p. 614.]

The people would also regret their request because their king would disappoint them (1 Samuel 8:18), but God would not remove the consequences of their choice. Their king could have been a great joy to them, instead of a great disappointment, if the people had waited for God to inaugurate the monarchy. As becomes clear later in Samuel, as well as in Kings and Chronicles, David was God’s choice to lead the Israelites from the beginning. If the people had not been impatient, I believe David would have been their first king. Saul proved to be a "false start" to the monarchy. [Note: David Payne, p. 1.]

In the argument of Samuel, this chapter serves to introduce the reason Saul became such a disappointment to the Israelites, and such a disaster as a king. Nevertheless, his reign was not totally unsuccessful, because at its beginning he sought to please Yahweh.