| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
1 Samuel
Chapter Eight
1 Samuel 8
Chapter Contents
The evil government of Samuel's sons. (1-3) The
Israelites ask for a king. (4-9) The manner of a king. (10-22)
Commentary on 1 Samuel 8:1-3
(Read 1 Samuel 8:1-3)
It does not appear that Samuel's sons were so profane and
vicious as Eli's sons; but they were corrupt judges, they turned aside after
lucre. Samuel took no bribes, but his sons did, and then they perverted
judgment. What added to the grievance of the people was, that they were
threatened by an invasion from Nahash, king of the Ammonites.
Commentary on 1 Samuel 8:4-9
(Read 1 Samuel 8:4-9)
Samuel was displeased; he could patiently bear what
reflected on himself, and his own family; but it displeased him when they said,
Give us a king to judge us, because that reflected upon God. It drove him to
his knees. When any thing disturbs us, it is our interest, as well as our duty,
to show our trouble before God. Samuel is to tell them that they shall have a
king. Not that God was pleased with their request, but as sometimes he opposes
us from loving-kindness, so at other times he gratifies us in wrath; he did so
here. God knows how to bring glory to himself, and serves his own wise
purposes, even by men's foolish counsels.
Commentary on 1 Samuel 8:10-22
(Read 1 Samuel 8:10-22)
If they would have a king to rule them, as the eastern
kings ruled their subjects, they would find the yoke exceedingly heavy. Those
that submit to the government of the world and the flesh, are told plainly,
what hard masters they are, and what tyranny the dominion of sin is. The law of
God and the manner of men widely differ from each other; the former should be
our rule in the several relations of life; the latter should be the measure of
our expectations from others. These would be their grievances, and, when they
complained to God, he would not hear them. When we bring ourselves into
distress by our own wrong desires and projects, we justly forfeit the comfort
of prayer, and the benefit of Divine aid. The people were obstinate and urgent
in their demand. Sudden resolves and hasty desires make work for long and
leisurely repentance. Our wisdom is, to be thankful for the advantages, and
patient under the disadvantages of the government we may live under; and to
pray continually for our rulers, that they may govern us in the fear of God,
and that we may live under them in all godliness and honesty. And it is a
hopeful symptom when our desires of worldly objects can brook delay; and when
we can refer the time and manner of their being granted to God's providence.
── Matthew Henry《Concise Commentary on 1 Samuel》
1 Samuel 8
Verse 1
[1] And
it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
Old —
And so unfit for his former travels and labours. He is not supposed to have
been now above sixty years of age. But he had spent his strength and spirits in
the fatigue of public business: and now if he thinks to shake himself as at
other times, he finds he is mistaken: age has cut his hair. They that are in
the prime of their years, ought to be busy in doing the work of life: for as
they go into years, they will find themselves less disposed to it, and less
capable of it.
Judges —
Not supreme judges, for such there was to be but one, and that of God's
chusing; and Samuel still kept that office in his own hands, chap. 7:15, but his deputies, to go about and
determine matters, but with reservation of a right of appeals to himself. He
had doubtless instructed them in a singular manner, and fitted them for the
highest employments; and he hoped that the example he had sent them, and the
authority he still had over them, would oblige them to diligence and
faithfulness in their trust.
Verse 2
[2] Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah:
they were judges in Beersheba.
Beer-sheba — In
the southern border of the land of Canaan, which were very remote from his
house at Ramah; where, and in the neighbouring places Samuel himself still
executing the office of judge.
Verse 3
[3] And
his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes,
and perverted judgment.
Took bribes —
Opportunity and temptation discovered that corruption in them which 'till now
was hid from their father. It has often been the grief of holy men, that their
children did not tread in their steps. So far from it, that the sons of
eminently good men, have been often eminently wicked.
Verse 5
[5] And
said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now
make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
A king —
Their desires exceed their reasons, which extended no farther than to the
removal of Samuel's sons from their places, and the procuring some other just:
and prudent assistance to Samuel's age. Nor was the grant of their desire a
remedy for their disease, but rather an aggravation of it. For the sons of
their king were likely to he as corrupt as Samuel's sons and, if they were,
would not be so easily removed.
Like other nations —
That is, as most of the nations about us have. But there was not the like
reason; because God had separated them from all other nations, and cautioned
them against the imitation of their examples, and had taken them into his own
immediate care and government; which privilege other nations had not.
Verse 6
[6] But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge
us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
Displeased —
Because God was hereby dishonoured by that distrust of him, and that ambition,
and itch after changes, which were the manifest causes of this desire; and
because of that great misery, which he foresaw the people would hereby bring
upon themselves.
Prayed —
For the pardon of their sin, and direction and help from God in this great
affair.
Verse 7
[7] And
the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that
they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me,
that I should not reign over them.
Hearken —
God grants their desire in anger, and for their punishment.
Rejected me —
This injury and contumely, reflects chiefly upon me and my government.
Should not reign — By
my immediate government, which was the great honour, safety, and happiness of
this people, if they had had hearts to prize it.
Verse 8
[8]
According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought
them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and
served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
So do they —
Thou farest no worse than myself. This he speaks for Samuel's comfort and
vindication.
Verse 9
[9] Now
therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and
shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
Ye protest —
That, if it be possible, thou mayst yet prevent their sin and misery.
The manner —
That is, of the kings which they desire like the kings of other nations.
Verse 11
[11] And
he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will
take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his
horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
Will take —
Injuriously and by violence.
Verse 12
[12] And
he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and
will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his
instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
Will appoint —
Heb. To, or for himself; for his own fancy, or glory, and not only when the
necessities of the kingdom require it. And though this might seem to he no
incumbrance, but an honour to the persons so advanced, yet even in them that
honour was accompanied with great dangers, and pernicious snares of many kinds,
which those faint shadows of glory could not recompense; and as to the public,
their pomp and power proved very burdensome to the people, whose lands and
fruits were taken from them, and bestowed upon these, for the support of their
state.
Will set them — At
his own pleasure, when possibly their own fields required all their time and
pains. He will press them for all sorts of his work, and that upon his own
terms.
Verse 13
[13] And
he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be
bakers.
Daughters —
Which would be more grievous to their parents, and more dangerous to themselves,
because of the tenderness of that sex, and their liableness to many injuries.
Verse 14
[14] And
he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the
best of them, and give them to his servants.
Your fields — By
fraud or force, as Ahab did from Naboth.
His servants — He
will not only take the fruits of your lands for his own use, but will take away
your possessions to give to his servants.
Verse 15
[15] And
he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his
officers, and to his servants.
The tenth —
Besides the several tenths which God hath reserved for his service, he will,
when he pleaseth, impose another tenth upon you.
Officers —
Heb. To his eunuchs, which may imply a farther injury, that he should against
the command of God, make some of his people eunuchs; and take those into his
court and favour, which God would have cast out of the congregation.
Verse 16
[16] And
he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young
men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
Will take — By
constraint, and without sufficient recompense.
Verse 17
[17] He
will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
His servants —
That is, he will use you like slaves, and deprive you of that liberty which now
you enjoy.
Verse 18
[18] And
ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen
you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Cry out — Ye
shall bitterly mourn for the sad effects of this inordinate desire of a king.
Will not hear —
Because you will not hear, nor obey his counsel in this day.
Verse 20
[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.
Be like —
What stupidity! It was their happiness that they were unlike all other nations,
Numbers 23:9; Deuteronomy 33:28, as in other glorious
privileges, so especially in this, that the Lord was their immediate king and
lawgiver. But they will have a king to go out before them, and to fight their
battles. Could they desire a battle better fought for them than the last was,
by Samuel's prayers and God's thunders? Were they fond to try the chance of
war, at the same uncertainty that others did? And what was the issue? Their
first king was slain in battle: and so was Joshua, one of the last and best.
Verse 21
[21] And
Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of
the LORD.
Rehearsed — He
repeated them privately between God and himself; for his own vindication and
comfort: and as a foundation for his prayers to God, for direction and
assistance.
Verse 22
[22] And
the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And
Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
Go — Betake yourselves to
your several occasions, till you hear more from me in this matter.
── John Wesley《Explanatory Notes on 1 Samuel》
08 Chapter 8
Verses 1-22
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons
judges over Israel.
Parental trials
The best sometimes meet with the bitterest disappointment, and
their grey hairs are brought down with sorrow to the grave by the unprincipled
conduct of their sons. The most exemplary home has become a place of weeping by
the unexpected misconduct of those who were its brightest ornaments. Samuel was
now growing old. Those in high positions are naturally wishful that their sons
should sustain a father’s name and exercise a similar influence. Samuel had
that laudable desire, and he made his sons judges over Israel. Nepotism has
been one of the grossest scandals of most Roman pontiffs, and not a few high
functionaries in every land. But there are honourable exceptions. It is not
said that Samuel did wrong in appointing his sons to the judicial bench. The
people never accused him of nepotism. Sons of such a sire would promise
hopefully for the administration of justice. But the fairest sky may have a
darkening cloud, the brightest buds may be early blighted, and a hopeful spring
result in a scanty harvest; so the conduct of Samuel’s sons disappointed a
father’s heart, and troubled the land of Israel.
1. They did not walk in their father’s ways. They misimproved the
bright example they had before them at home, where they saw little that would tend
to blind their minds or pervert their hearts. When we consider Eli’s softness
and incapacity for command, we do not wonder at his sons going astray. But
Samuel was so firm, yet generous withal, that it indicated great depravity in
his sons to abuse the example of their father’s spotless life. Their conduct
showed that they had sought no personal religion, but had trusted to what they
joined in at the family altar. Hence, when they left the sacred enclosures of
the domestic circle at Ramah, they had no principle of restraint. What must the
eternal experience be but remorse, anguish, and despair, to those who, in time,
daily beheld a Christian parent, yet never personally sought the Saviour?
2. They “turned aside after lucre, and took bribes.” The qualifications
of a judge are thus specified by Jethro to Moses (Exodus 18:21). Moses thus commanded the
people in the name of the Lord (Deuteronomy 16:18-19). But the sons of
Samuel did not fulfil these requirements. They were led astray by the love of
money. It is amazing how speedily this sin of covetousness perverts the moral
faculties. Gold, unlawfully got, sears the conscience. Perhaps there was not a
greater man in his own age, or in any age, than Lord Bacon. He is the father of
modern philosophy, and revolutionized the inquiries of the schools. To him more
than to any man is the student of nature and of science indebted. He conferred
a lasting benefit on mankind by opening up the true method of inquiry. Yet,
strange to relate, Lord Bacon was one of the most unscrupulous lawyers, and one
of the most disreputable judges that ever sat on the English bench. His place
hunting was most dishonourable; and, after having become, by the most ignoble
means, Lord High Chancellor, he degraded the highest legal office in the
country by taking bribes. So glaring was the evil, and so notorious, that this
philosopher, who had written so much in praise of learning, virtue, and
religion, was impeached by the House of Commons, and found guilty of receiving
bribes to the amount of £100,000! It must have been a most humiliating
spectacle to see such a man as Bacon confessing to his peers that he had been
guilty of corruption. “This glimpse of the rise and fall of this great man
proclaims aloud the insufficiency of all but the grace and truth of God to keep
man morally erect. Not gigantic intellectual powers--had these sufficed, Bacon
would have been steadfast as a rock; not worldly success--Bacon sat at the
right hand of royalty, and kept the conscience of a king; not great trust--the
Lord Hugh Chancellor of England was the foremost subject in that respect; not
celebrity--with that Bacon might have been satiated; not greatness without
goodness--that is a tinkling cymbal. What, then? The answer which experience,
history, and the word of God combine to give is this--‘I am what I am, by the
grace of God that is in me.’ The man who dims the light of that lamp which was
kindled in heaven has already tottered to his fall.” Thus acted the sons of
Samuel.
3. They “perverted judgment.” This was the natural consequence of the
course they pursued. It was not justice, but profit which they sought. Their
decision was not what the law of God demanded, but what they were best rewarded
to decree. Their conduct was most offensive to God: “He that justifieth the
wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to
the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15). Samuel was a
disappointed father. He had evidently hoped that his sons might fill his place
when his days were ended. There is nothing that distresses a parent more than
the misconduct of a son. It was the grief of Isaac when Esau associated with
idolaters, and despised the patriarchal birthright. It made many of Jacob’s
years a perennial sorrow. It was Aaron’s trial soon after the priesthood had
been settled on his house, when Nadab and Abihu went drunk to the altar, and
offered strange fire to God. It was Eli’s calamity and punishment, as his
reckless sons, whom he had never restrained, rushed on the ruin of his house,
It was David’s sorest wounding, when one of his sons after another wrought
folly and wickedness in Israel. Sons should consider the necessity of a
personal religion, by means of which the best wishes of a parent may be
realised, and the individual happiness of a soul secured. Without this you may
be drifted by every wind, like a boat without a rudder; you may be borne along
a current of evil. (R. Steel.)
The minister’s family
The minister’s family should be an example to all his
congregation. It cannot fail to give high value to his exhortations. It did so
in the case of the devoted Alleine, of whom this testimony is given, that, “as
he walked about the house, he would make some spiritual use of everything that
did occur; and his lips did drop as an honeycomb to all that were about him.”
Cotton Mather is renowned for his admirably managed family, and his children
rose up to call him blessed, while his ministry was largely owned of God Philip
Henry’s domestic life is well known; and his son Matthew, the commentator,
ascribes with gratitude his own Christian character to godly parental training.
Nor are these solitary examples. Many more might easily be adduced in
illustration of pious training. Eli neglected this, disobeyed the Lord, and
injured his sons. (R. Steel.)
But turned aside after
lucre and took bribes.
Political corruption
From the earliest periods of the world’s history corruption among
public men has brought on political troubles and national ruin It is
wide-spread--it is everywhere. This deplorable state of things may be
remedied:--
I. By filling the
subordinate offices with men whose fitness has been proved by competitive
examination.
II. The candidates
for office should be chosen because of character and qualifications.
III. Monopolies,
whether corporate or individual, should be regulated so as to protect fully
public rights. (Homiletic Review.)
Bribery
My charge is to you, in all departments of life, steer clear of
bribery, all of you. Every man and woman at some time will be tempted to do
wrong for compensation. The bribe may not be offered in money. It may be
offered in social position. Let us remember that there is a day coming when the
most secret transaction of private life and of public life will come up for
public reprehension. We cannot bribe death, cannot bribe sickness, we cannot
bribe the grave, we cannot bribe the judgments of that God who thunders in my
text, “Fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery.” “Fire?” said Cardinal
Beaufort, “fire? Can’t Death be hired? Is money nothing? Must I die, and so
rich?” You can tell from what they say in their last hours that one of their
chief sorrows is that they have to leave their money. I break that delusion. I
tell that bribe-taker that he will take his money with him. God will wrap it up
in your shroud, or put it into the palm of your hand in resurrection, and there
it will lie, not the cool, bright, shining gold at it was on the day when you
sold your vote and your moral principle; but there it will lie, a hot metal
burning and consuming your hand foreverse Or, if there be enough of it for a
chain, then it will fall from the wrist, clanking the fetters of an eternal
captivity. The bribe is an everlasting possession; you take it for time, you
take it for eternity. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
Verse 4
Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
Making a king
As a matter of public notoriety, Samuel’s sons were not like
Samuel himself in their moral tone and in their moral example. This brings
before us a sad and humiliating fact--that the children of great men and of
good men are not always worthy of their parentage. There are men who can speak
to a thousand hearers, who are utterly weak and powerless when they come into
the details of common life and have to teach a single child at home, and show
the light of God upon the private paths of life. Consequently, their own garden
wall is broken down, their own little flower bed at home is all weed grown,
whilst they are busy with the great public fields and the great vineyards of
the world.
1. This brings before us the equally remarkable fact that grace is
not hereditary. When we see a good man we expect his children to be like
himself. But grace does not descend in the family line. The father may be an
apostle, the son may be a blasphemer. There are circumstances, no doubt, in
which at the very moment that the father has been preaching the gospel, his own
son, whom he loved as his life, has been fulfilling some profane engagement,
has been blaspheming the name of the God of his fathers! The elders of Israel
had a case. They were concerned for the nation; they saw the two sons of Samuel
going astray from their father’s paths; they came to the man when he was old,
and told him about the apostasy of his sons. They said, “Make us a king to
judge us like all the nations.” If ever men apparently had a simple,
straightforward, common sense case, the elders of Israel had such a case.
Samuel heard this statement, and the thing displeased him. No man likes to see
his whole life disregarded, and his power thrown away ruthlessly. After all,
there is a good deal of human nature and common sense in the old man’s view of
the changes which are proposed to him. He started from a given point; he has
worked along a certain line; a man cannot disinherit and dispossess himself of
all his own learning, culture, traditions, and associations, and go back again
or go forward into the infancy of new and startling movements. It would be well
if men could learn this more profoundly. Young Englandism and young Americanism
must be very distasteful to old Samuels, high priests, and venerable prophets.
We shall show our strength by showing our moderation; we shall be most mighty
when we are most yielding! Samuel told the Lord about it. This is very
startling to those who live at a far distance from God. These old men seem
always to have been living, as it were, next door to him, and had but to
whisper and they were heard. It is a kind of breathing process, it is ready,
spontaneous as love. Samuel turned towards the elders of Israel, heard their
story, then turned his face about and told God concerning the whole thing. It
is a wonderful kind of life--God always so nigh at hand.
2. Samuel saw the outside of the case. Samuel saw what we now call
the fact of the case; God saw the truth of it. Many people do not distinguish
between fact and truth. There is an infinite difference between fact and truth.
Fact is the thing done, the thing visible, the thing that has shape, and that
can be approached and touched. Truth underlies it. We must get at the truth
before we can understand the fact itself. This is ever necessary, but specially
needful where matters are complicated by profoundly moral considerations. The
Lord explained the case to Samuel. He said, in effect: “They are only making a
tool of thee; thou art become to them a mere convenience, or as it were a
scapegoat. They profess to be very deeply concerned about the moral apostasy of
thy sons; they do not care one pin point about it; they are extremely glad to
be able to seize upon anything that will seem to give a good colouring to their
case. Samuel, Israel has cast off its God. Is it wonderful, then, that Israel
should cast off the servant?” What an explanation this is! how it goes to the
root and core! What a subject opens upon us here! The great world of excuses,
social explanations, the faces which things are made to wear, the visors and
disguises which are set upon life in order to conceal its corruption, its
leprosy, its death Truly the word of God is sharp and powerful, sharper than
any two-edged sword! So there are two judgments in the world. Man makes out his
own case, God comes with the explanation. Man cheats man with outside
appearances; afterwards God holds the light over the case. All things are naked
and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do!
3. The Lord told Samuel to make the people a king. “Hear them; do
what they ask; hearken unto their voice; howbeit yet protest solemnly unto
them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” This is
an instruction that we should do well to carry out in all life. There are times
when we are pressed into certain courses; when all we can do is to protest.
What then? When they heard the speech they said, “Nay; but we will have a king
over us.” Observe how men can fight their way, when so determined, through all
the warnings that even God can send. Observe, man can have his way. There is a
point at which even God withdraws from the contest. “My Spirit shall not always
strive with man.” If we be so minded, we can force our way through all solemn
warning, all pathetic entreaty, all earnest persuasiveness on the part of
friend, wife, husband, teacher, preacher, God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost! We can go to hell if we will! There is a grim, ghastly
cross--hew it down! There is a way round it, a way through it, a way over
it--you can get there! Fool, coward! (J. Parker, D. D.)
Israel asking for a king
Wishing to resemble other nations, they asked Samuel to make them
a king. They “were dazzled,” says John Henry Newman, “with the pomp and
splendour of the heathen monarchs around them, and they desired someone to
fight their battles, some visible succour to depend on, instead of having to
wait for an invisible Providence, which came in its own way and time, by little
and little, being dispensed silently, or tardily, or (as they might consider)
unsuitably. We must notice the way in which the elders expressed their wish to
Samuel. They felt it necessary to show some reason, if possible, for their
action. They therefore began by reminding Samuel of his advancing years.” A
Greek proverb says, “The more a good tree grows, the more shade does it give.” Samuel
was not too old for service, but the wayward people whom the elders represented
(v. 19) were apparently tired of his administration. Aged people should be
treated very gently and not spoken to as if we thought they were in our way.
The latter part of the speech of the elders was no more welcome than its
beginning. Their request was an affront. But he did not resent it. Instead of
at once answering them he prayed unto the Lord. Luther says, “He must be of a
high and great spirit, that undertakes to serve the people in body and soul,
for he must suffer the utmost danger and unthankfulness.” Samuel was “of a high
and great spirit.” Instead of brooding over the personal wrong done to himself,
he went quietly into God’s presence and laid the whole case before Him. Have we
difficulties that we cannot solve? Let us pray. Cecil says, “No man rejects a
minister of God who faithfully performs his office, till he has rejected God.”
This remark applies to all spheres of life. The strict performance of duty
often results in personal loss. Take the case of a young man suddenly dismissed
by an unscrupulous tradesman because he refuses to take undue advantage of a
customer. That young man should bear God’s voice saying, “Your master has not
rejected you, he has rejected Me.” With this thought in his heart he will be
able cheerfully to suffer (Psalms 69:7; Colossians 1:24). Israel’s request was
granted, but at the same time the people were earnestly warned of their error.
God’s sovereignty and man’s free will are here vividly contrasted. Apparently
the people gained their point, but really they were making a rod for their own
back (Psalms 78:29-31; Psalms 106:15). “How bitterly the nation,
even in the successful and glorious reign of King Solomon, felt the pressure of
the royal yoke, so truly foretold by their last judge, is shown in the history
of the times which followed the death of Solomon, when the public discontent at
the brilliant but despotic rule of the great king split up the people into two
nations” (1 Kings 12:4). Sir William Temple
says “A restlessness in men’s minds to be something that they are not and to
have something that they have not, is the root of all immorality.” William
Collins, the artist, very decidedly expresses his opinion “that if the Almighty
were to give us everything for which we feel desirous, we should as often find
it necessary to pray to Him to take away as to grant new favours.” We have read
perhaps of the little stream that began to feel weary of being a simple brook.
It therefore asked for snows from the mountains, water from the torrents, rain
from the tempests; until, its petitions granted, it burst its bounds, and
ravaged its hitherto delightsome banks. At first the proud stream exulted in
its force; but seeing ere long that it carried desolation in its flow, that its
progress was now doomed to solitude, and that its waters were forever turbid,
it came to regret the humble bed hollowed out for it by Nature--the birds, the
flowers, the trees, and the brooks, hitherto the modest companions of its
tranquil course.” (M. Lucas.)
A king instead of a god
The history now moves in one great step to Samuel’s old age. Of
his marriage, family life, and the gathering round him of the manifold
affection for which such a nature as his must have been beautifully fitted, we
know nothing. If we have any hint, it is in the naming of the two sons who are
mentioned in this chapter. In the same spirit as that in which he named the
place of victory--Ebenezer--Samuel called his firstborn son Joel; that
is--Jehovah is God. This must have been as a protest against the idolatry, the
Baal and Astarte worship, with which Israel had been infected and polluted.
Samuel named his other son Abiah; that is--Jehovah is Father. This ought to
obtain from us admiring and reverent regard as we think of the fragmentary
suggestions of Samuel’s family life. Jehovah was truly God over all, blessed
for evermore; Dagon, Baal, and Astarte embodied only the inane and foul
misconceptions of man’s nature and God’s demands They were as naught before the
God of gods. But more: Jehovah was a Father, tender and true to home and
nation, to heathen and Jew. And this double truth it is that the naming of
Samuel’s sons betokens. For the first time in the Old Testament the recognition
of this foundation doctrine is announced to us, as it was many a time
subsequently, by names devised in a time of deep feeling and earnest
consecration of heart and home to God. This is the first recorded evidence of
an endeavour to witness to the assurance of the adoption, to cry Abba, Father!
Both the sons of Samuel were destined, in their father’s thought, to be living
witnesses to the Lord: one to the greatness of God and the other to the
gentleness of the Most High. In spirit this act of Samuel is no more than
should be the feeling and purpose of all spiritually-minded parents in their
thoughts of their children. As we often give the children an ancestral name
that we revere, or honour them by naming them after someone whom we esteem in
public or private life, so our first and deepest thoughts of the children
should be the longing and purpose that they may truly live to the honour of
God, and carry, as it were, “His name in their foreheads.” This should mark our
chief hopes and efforts on their behalf. But here we come to what so often is a
cause of grief, and sad, heart-wearing disappointment. With such a man for
their father as Samuel, and carrying in the very singularity of their names the
marks of a high designation as plainly as a Brahmin carries the marks of his
caste, we might have expected that they would have felt a restraint from sin,
and an inspiration to rectitude and holiness that would have made them, at the
least, worthy of their father and grandmother. The grandsons of Hannah and the
sons of Samuel--Joel and Abiah--ought to have been like Timothy, whose
“unfeigned faith” dwelt first “in thy grandmother, Lois, and thy mother,
Eunice.” From the first son of man, who was a murderer, down to the present
time, good men’s children, or, as here, ministers’ sons, have not been
proverbial for increasing the piety of the world, or lessening its sin. The
child of a saint needs the forgiveness its father has found; and the son of a
sinner is not, on account of his awful parentage, placed at a disadvantage with
God. Still, in view of Samuel’s sons, the remembrance will come that Samuel’s
pain and David’s wail have been the sadness of many a saintly man. Samuel could
not have indulged his sons in sin. The history leads us rather to think that
the sins were such as might not reveal themselves until the public life of
judging in Beersheba came. The private lives of Joel and Abiah may not have
given opportunity for the grave sins that marked their judicial position. Many
a man lives a good life as a private person who would be a great sinner if
exposed to the hazards of public life. Napoleon I might have lived and died a
decent man had he lived only in privacy, end never entered the army. To such a
being the command of men with muskets and swords in their hands was like the
scent of blood to a tiger. Judge Jeffreys might not have been infamous if he
had never been a judge. The sin of Eli’s sons was unchastity; that of Samuel’s
sons was covetousness. Young men, you may not fall as Hophni and Phinehas did;
take care that you do not sin as Joel and Abiah. The weak link may not have had
to bear the strain with you. Life may soon have to bear the test on your weak
side. May God keep you from yielding when the pressure comes.
1. The sin of Samuel’s sons brought swiftly on a national crisis. The
old-fashioned theocratic commonwealth would not do any longer. They would have
soldier-kings, and they got them; but how many of them were better than Joel or
Abiah, or even superior to Hophni and Phinehas? Very few. And from the first to
the last of them, who of all the kings was fit to stand with Samuel? The truth
is, that, from the first, the God-governed commonwealth that was associated
with such names as Moses and Samuel was a conception of political and social
order that the Jews never cared to appreciate. Even before Samuel’s time, the
Hebrews had shown unwholesome longing for visible military kingship and rule
such as the heathen around them had. When Gideon, at the call of God, led them
to victory the only use of the victory they made was atheistically to say to
Gideon, “Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son and thy son’s son also”; and
the better judgment, the holier manhood of Gideon, is seen in his answer, “I
will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule
over you.” Gideon and Cromwell have tried to teach men in nations to trust and
obey God the Infinite more than to admire lucky soldiers and successful
adventurers. Soldier-kings and nationalities, held together by the sword, are
not God’s preferred agencies in working out the history of humanity. Rather are
they His scourges and penalties; and, like all ether devastating powers, are
not to be forever, but have their highest functions, as the fire dressing of a
farm field, only in being preliminary to more rational and Divine processes of
life and growth, instead of fire and death. To something higher than the sad
miseries of the soldier-monarchies that succeeded Samuel, to the ideal kingdom
of the ever-present God on earth, it was that Isaiah pointed the Jews in the
days “when kings went forth to battle.” “For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is
our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us.” But this was precisely
what the faithless Hebrews would not believe.
2. The spirit and unworthiness of the movement may be seen in
this--That they asked not counsel of the Lord, nor of Samuel. The history of
this demand, and the outworking of it in the progress of the monarchy, are
illustrations of the rebellion and the sinfulness of hiding counsel from the
Lord. We, especially, who profess to sing the Ebenezers of Divine deliverance,
must go on to seek the guidance of the Divine wisdom in all things; trusting in
the Lord with all our hearts, leaning not to our own understanding; in all our
ways acknowledging Him and hoping that He will direct our paths.
3. The folly as well as the sin of the project will be further seen
from remembering that God had chosen them to be alone and the guide of all the
nations; but their self-degrading demand was to be as the nations. They may
have been caught by the false glare and splendour of the monarchies around
them, as well as moved by the fear of Nahash, King of the Ammonites. More
certainly they ignored the high intention of God in establishing His own regal
authority among them; and, ignoring the higher destiny, they fell into a lower
degradation than that of their neighbours. For a nation to forget its mission as
the most liberal and hopeful people of the earth, and descend to the infamous
degradation of being mere traders and gun makers and lenders of money to anyone
who will give interest enough, as England seems to be doing--this is an
abdication, a self-degrading, vast and solemn enough to make a crisis in the
history of the world; and is as fit a theme for religious thought and solemn,
prayerful consideration as anything that ever happened in the history of
Israel.
4. Moreover, it is evident from the history that the pernicious
influence of international rivalry was at work among the elders of
Israel--rivalry, that is, chiefly in means of making war. To be as, or better
than, other nations in war power is a poor ambition, and does no good to any in
the long run, but rather evil all round. A boy never had a knife without
wanting to cut something with it, and, as likely as not, something that did not
need cutting. So, too, a nation, or, rather, a military caste never has a big
gun now without wanting to shoot it; and, more likely than not, it will fire at
something that did not need shooting. If, now, you look at the national life
represented on the one hand by the judge and on the other by the military king,
you may find sufficient explanation of the rejection of Samuel and God, deeper
down than the occasion given for the rejection by the injustice of Samuel’s
sons, at Beersheba. The judgeship under Samuel was the rule of right, and
knowledge and regard, above all things, to the ends that God had in view. The
soldier-kingship was the showy rule of the strong hand, in which “the elders”
who came to Samuel would have chief gain, and the people would be pleased by
having the outward and visible signs of greatness and strength that in politics
and religion so often do duty for the reality long after it has departed. Plain
principles of eternal righteousness, where have they ever stood half so high in
popular esteem, and the desires of privileged classes, as the gaudy
pretentiousness of the uniformed soldier and priest? Certainly they never did
among the Jews; and they do not, I fear, among us nowadays. (G. B. Ryley.)
The disaffected people
There is scarcely anything more trying to a father than to witness
the moral shipwreck of his sons. But this personal trouble was intimately
connected with a more overwhelming one--the disaffection and declension of the
people. While this man of God was lamenting his domestic trial and his
country’s loss by reason of the conduct of his sons, a deputation of the people
was introduced to state the popular wish, and to ask political changes. They
had seen the growing infirmities of Samuel; they had suffered from the
dishonesty of his sons; they probably feared the consequences if their leader
were taken away; therefore they solicited a thorough Change in their civil
polity: “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” Their government was
theocratic. God was their king But the people of Israel did not possess the
same license with regard to government as other nations. They were bound to
consult the will of God, and seek Divine approbation of their arrangements.
They did not like to be so isolated, so peculiar; they grew weary of the ways
of God. Conformity to the world has been always a great snare to the Church.
Natural to the sinful heart, it tempts the imperfect, and has led many a fair
professor into backsliding. Conformity to the world, united to a profession of
faith, has been the stumbling black to many an awakened soul. It troubles the
Church, but it does not induce the world to be godly The most ungodly know well
how to estimate this conformity in those who profess the faith of Christ. They
consider it an attempt to serve two masters. It does not attract them towards,
but repels them from, religion. It strengthens their opinion of the
superstition of worship, and of the hypocrisy of religionists Samuel was above
these infirmities of ignoble minds. But he knew the theory of the national
government was well acquainted with past history, and aware that self-willed
reforms were neither healthy nor good. The circumstances occasioning it was to
him most affecting--the misconduct of his sons. Consciousness of his growing
infirmities contributed to try the feelings of this man of God. But he had a
resource where he could find composure, counsel, and strength: “And Samuel
prayed unto the Lord.” Prayer was to him the exercise of communion with God. As
you would consult a tried friend in your difficult, circumstances, and be
comforted and strengthened by his prudent advice, so did Samuel with God when
Providences were dark and the path of duty not plain. Prayer to God was the
constant resource of Moses ere he spoke to the people, and hence it was only
once throughout forty years of difficult leadership in the weary wilderness
that he is said to have spoken “unadvisedly with his lips” Nehemiah found his
soul strengthened by ejaculatory prayer while he was considering what answer he
should make to the king Artaxerxes. This was Samuel’s practice, and it made his
words cautious and weighty. No man can be so much engrossed as to have no time
for prayer. The eminent physician Boerhaave, whose practice was so great that
“even Peter the Great and to remain for hours in an antechamber before he could
be admitted to an interview, was wont to devote the first hour of every day to
prayer;” and he recommended this practice to others, “as the source of that
vigour which carried him through all his toils.” Learn from Samuel how to act
in seasons of perplexity. It is vain to place happiness in the present world. The
Israelites imagined that their temporal aggrandizement would be to their
advantage; that a king, and a pompous retinue behind him, would greatly enhance
their importance. But God taught them that the desire was sinful, and the
result disappointing. Byron sought early gratifications, and by means of his
lofty titles, splendid genius, and jovial tastes, had abundant means of
gratifying his large capacity for pleasure; but he wrote, as the result of all,
that he--“Drank every cup of joy, heard every trump of fame: drank
early--deeply drank--drank draughts that common millions would have quench’d;
then died of thirst, because there was no more to drink.” The great novelist,
Sir Walter Scott, had as brilliant a career as any litterateur. But he
who gratified tens of thousands was not a happy man, and in the closing scene
of his life had no abiding joy. His hopes had been blighted. His happiness had
been eclipsed. His fortune had vanished. He was impoverished, embarrassed,
aged, and comfortless. And under the influence of these unhappy experiences, he
said, as he sat at Abbotsford, “When I think of what this place now is,
compared with what it has been not long ago, I think my heart will break.” “I
have no other wish than that (the grated door of a burial place) may open for
me at no distant period. The recollection of youth, health, and power of
activity neither improved nor enjoyed, is a poor strain of comfort. The best
is, the long halt will arrive at length and close all.” His idolized existence
had a melancholy termination. The truth is, no earthly advantage can give peace
to the soul or secure its bliss. (R. Steel.)
Political Transitions.
How varied and fitful are the scenes of national life, they are
alternations of sins and sorrows. The reaction of human thought is both sudden
in its nature and extreme in its tendency. When once its energies are
stimulated, they become restless and surge from one realm to another As the
winds change in a moment from one point of the compass to its opposite extreme
and toss the ship from its destined course, so this impetus of change sweeps
down upon the soul with such power that it reels for a time, is then caught by
the current and carried contrary to the intention of its calmer moments. Thus,
as we gaze upon the picture, our wonder is excited that a people so strong in
their respect for the Divine, should now conspire to dethrone its authority by
establishing the human Political transitions:--
I. as founded on
the most frivolous pretext. It generally happens that the greatest revolutions
are founded upon petty excuses. Thus our national institutions yield to the
touch of fancy, the suggestion of caprice, or to the effort of misguided
partisanship. This political change was founded--
1. On the old age of Samuel. The conduct of these elders was cruel
and ungrateful. No man living had served their secular and religious interests
as Samuel had, they could ill afford his departure from their senate, and
though his sun was gone down they should have tenderly respected the lingering
brightness which yet tinted the evening horizon
2. On the conduct of Samuel’s sons. This plea was
3. Consider the request of the nation.
4. The conduct of Samuel in this crisis. We can scarcely imagine the
feelings of Samuel as he listens to this desire for a king. He is alone, the
companions of his youth are gone. He is sad; the nation of today has no
sympathy with his grief, but is striving to sever the last tie which binds the
old man to the scenes of his boyhood.
II. As pursued in
antagonism to the Divine will.
1. The Divine permission.
2. The Divine protestation.
“Howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them” (verse 9). God never
wantonly leaves human nature to itself, he uses means to prevent wrong, pushes
them to a certain point, then if resisted by the force of will he retires, and
permits the nation to work out a ruin, which becomes disciplinary.
III. as involving
the most alarming consequences.
1. The despotic character of their future ruler. Sometimes God makes
disclosures of the future in order to deter from sin, he places an angel in the
path to warn and rebuke our folly. He would:--
2. The withdrawal of Divine sympathy in this extremity (verse 18).
Surely if anything could have silenced the demand of the nation such a fearful
picture as this would, but the passion is so intense, the national yearning so
Strong, the present pushes upon their sceptical minds, the future days of life
are unreal to them, hence the stern realities to come fade into mist, and the
cry is uttered yet more fervent:--“But we will have a king over us.”
lessons:
Asking for a king
I. Why did the
people desire a king? Because the rule of the Judges had brought them neither
quietness within nor security from enemies without. National unity had almost
disappeared. They seem twelve tribes rather than one nation. They were
scattered over a wide and difficult territory, traversed only by a few wretched
paths. When hostile incursions fell upon exposed regions, the untroubled
portions were often indifferent to the fate of their brethren. The Judges whom
God raised up to deliver them had little influence beyond the scene of their
exploits. The feebleness of the prophet, prematurely old with his cares, and
the unworthiness of his sons, increased the popular discontent. Many years ago,
their fathers had wanted to make Gideon king: now surely the time had come for
a strong central government. Then let the change be made while Samuel was with
them, rather than risk the chance of unpromising successors. Had not Jehovah
himself looked forward to a kingdom? Both Abraham (Genesis 17:6-16) and Jacob (Genesis 35:11) had been promised that
they should be fathers of kings. Moses had anticipated the monarchy in his
final address (Deuteronomy 17:14-20) Everything seemed
to favour and demand the step.
II. Why was the
request wrong? Not in the sense of its need, but in the way of seeking it. The
people forgot their covenant relation to Jehovah--that they were a peculiar
nation, with a peculiar history and a peculiar mission. Such a demand showed
ingratitude, distrust and disloyalty toward God. They wanted to better their
government instead of reforming their character, and looked to legislation for
help which could come only from righteousness
III. Why did God
consent to what He did not approve? Because, if He could not do the best for
them, He would do the best He could. His disapproval was for their sins; His
consent, to a change not wrong in itself, probably in His plan. The idea of
royalty belonged to a true conception of the Messiah, and would be developed
most successfully by the rule of righteous kings, as the cross was typified by
the sacrifices Since the people were too faithless to wait God’s time
resistance to their wishes could only harden their hearts. The history of our
race is one record of the accommodation of a Divine ideal to human frailty.
Besides the ever-present truth that all mischief comes from sin and all
happiness is found in obedience to God, the special value of the lesson is to
illustrate the true source of national greatness. This law is stated in a
Divine utterance at Sinai: “If ye will obey My voice indeed and keep My
covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for
all the earth is mine.” Here are three distinct statements: first, all the
earth is God’s; second, a single nation is chosen by Him as a peculiar
treasure; third, the ground of the choice, the condition of the favour, is
national righteousness. This compact statement declares the providential
evolution and Divine selection of nations, resulting in the survival of the
fittest.
1. The Divine order is not committed in favour of any one form of
government. Political forms are means, not ends. We cannot, assume that a
democracy is the ideal. The kingdom of heaven is a monarchy, not dependent on
men’s votes for its authority, or human legislation for its laws and penalties
Stable governments are growths, not manufactured forms, and the same growth is
not fitted for every soil. When King Murat demanded of Lord Holland to make him
a constitution, the wise statesman replied, “You might as well ask me to build
you a tree.” A republic demands general virtue and intelligence What would
become of Russia or Turkey if made democracies at once? The Almighty has
blessed forms of government widely different. An ideal constitution will not
make an ideal nation.
2. The Divine order is not committed to any degree of material
prosperity. Egypt had everything, Israel nothing; yet the mob of slaves was
chosen before the kingdom opulent with treasure and hoary with learning.
Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, have been used and discarded in the advance of
the church
3. The Divine order is committed eternally for righteousness. This
has been the principle of selection in national evolution, not the development
of certain political forms. The moral good of the race is the only object which
a holy God can permit to control its destinies. The Christian character of our
government must be asserted and maintained. It is false to speak of this
government as having no religious character. It was born a Christian nation by
the will of man and also by the will of God. Surely the centuries have brought
us something; above all else, a Christian birthright. Christianity is the
“Common law” of the land. All, all, proclaim that Christianity, general,
tolerant Christianity, Christianity independent of sects and parties, that
Christianity to which the sword and fagot are unknown, general tolerant
Christianity, is the law of the land. The virtue of its individual citizens is
the nation’s real hope. The sins which bare destroyed the dead nations have
been the sins of individuals. The state as a corporation has no soul. We know
but two moral existences, God and man; and the conduct which God rewards in
individuals will secure his blessing upon their associated action A community
may be rich or poor, may be under a monarch or a president: are its members
righteous?--then they will have national prosperity; are they vile?--their
nation will be cursed. (Monday Club Sermons)
Asking for a king
Revolutions sometimes take place without great popular excitement
or the leadership of great men. The history before us presents such a case The dramatis
personae are the elders of the tribes, the representatives of the people;
Samuel the prophet, the judge and hero, and Saul, the least free agent of them
all, whose exceptional size contrasts with the littleness of the figure he cuts
in this first scene of a national tragedy. The revolution, however quietly
accomplished, was important and permanent. The introduction of a new instrument
under the theocracy, it forever separated the prophetic office from civil
government. Henceforth the prophet and magistrate are distinct as to office and
often antagonistic as to policy. Both are prominent in the development of the
Messianic design. The freedom of the individual and the equality of the citizen
have never been so justly and wisely provided for as under the Hebrew law. A
freer people from the Exodus to the reign of Solomon was never known. The idea
of royal authority was not new to the Hebrews. All around them were petty
monarchies more or less absolute, and by tradition and commerce they were
familiar with the greater kingdoms of the Nile and Euphrates. The demand for a
king came from the elders of the tribes. They came fortified with Scripture,
quoting Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, simply asking what
the Lord had predicted and recorded by their great legislator as a possible
event in their history. They aimed at a centralisation of power that would
combine the tribes for defensive purposes. To their unbelief which failed to
look beyond man, it seemed that Samuel was to have no successor. The history of
popular revolutions shows that there was no unusual lack of political wisdom
among those compatriots of Samuel. Indeed, their mistake has ever been the
ordinary wisdom of the world. Grecian and Roman history shows how natural it is
for nations to seek relief from popular lawlessness in tyrants, dictators and
emperors. Mediaeval history repeats how popular suffering, industries and
property sought escape from feudal tyrannies under the sceptre of kings. So the
Hebrews falsely argued. To secure a possible constitutional concession they
adopt manners and methods full of insult and ingratitude to Samuel and
sacrilege and impiety toward God. The political blunder, as well as religious
crime, of the Hebrews was in charging their troubles not upon corrupt
magistrates and popular lawlessness, but on their national constitution. Now,
it may be admitted that this constitution was defective in power lust as soon
as the people lost the sense of their theocratic obligations and of Jehovah as
their present King. Decline in theocratic belief and life was ever the one sign
of weakness in the Hebrew commonwealth, and the one only dissolvent of their
otherwise impregnable security. Their liberties were invincible against
internal or external foes so long as they were faithful to inspired covenant
morality; but apostasy ever made them vulnerable, and at last exposed their
national life to a deadly wound. In this hour of ecclesiastical and political
peril Samuel carried the matter in prayer to God To the illustrious chief the
answer of God is full of grace, sympathy and pathos: “They have not rejected
thee, but they have rejected Me that I should not reign over them.” This reply
teaches--
1. That this prayer for a king was essential apostasy (Psalms 118:9). In coming down to the
political policies of surrounding nations they violated their covenant
relations and exposed themselves to bondage under the prince of this world. The
final cause of all priestly and political absolutism is to be found in the
implacable enmity of Satan to divine sovereignty and human liberty. “Conscience
makes cowards of us all,” and fears, the inevitable consequence of declining
piety, make them distrust the protection and guidance of Jehovah.
2. That this prayer for a king was the outburst of an hereditary vice
This was the rejection of the sovereignty of God. They did now just what their
patriarchs did to Joseph and their fathers to Moses, the representatives of
that sovereignty.
3. That this prayer for a king was practical idolatry (verse 8).
4. That God may grant the obstinate prayer of mistrust (verses 9,
19-22).
5. Yet the prayer was granted under solemn protest and clear warning
(verses 9-18). The original government of the world designed by God was neither
a monarchy, an aristocracy nor a republic. None of these is compatible with the
individual sovereignty bestowed in the creation of man. But the theocracy was
above the ethical culture of the people, too sublime for the moral education of
their schools The large personal liberty conferred by the Mosaic constitution
degenerated into social lawlessness and weak administration, and foreign
infidelity and socialism penetrated and corrupted the religious beliefs and
national manners of the people. The moral status of the people was unworthy of
the free government God had given them. Concentration under the direct
sovereignty of God was more possible than under a human dynasty. This their own
history demonstrates. God alone is King. The noblest idea of government,
individual or social, is a theocracy, and under it the parity of citizens. Nor
need this state be utopian if the people are, as they ought to be and can be,
under a Bible cultus. National unity and perpetuity is a matter of ethics, and
not of community of race, tradition and history, of laws and language, of literature
and religion. These latter are additional bonds, but history, from the Hebrews
to the Americans, shows how feeble they are to preserve national unity.
Scepticism and infidelity are the sure signs of mental and moral degeneracy in
civilisation. Royalty is a Divine prerogative, and property belongs to the Son
of God. Our safety is trust in God by the recognition in the family, school and
legislature of Jesus Christ as King, His doctrines as law and His precepts as
practice (G. C. Heckman, D. D.)
Demand for the tangible and visible
For are we not all in the same condemnation? The life of faith,
which relies on an unseen arm, and hearkens to the law of an unseen King, is
difficult, the sense cries out for something that it can realise and cling to.
Luther, in one of his letters, has a parable that tells how he looked at the
vault of the sky, and sought in vain for the pillars that held it up, and how
he feared that, having no visible supports, it must fall. We all would like to
see the upholding columns. An Alpine path without a parapet seems to us more
dangerous that if a wall, however low, fenced it on the side of the precipice.
“Give us a king” is but the ancient form of the universal craving for something
“more substantial” than the bare word of a God whom sense cannot grasp. How
many of us would rather have a good balance at our banker’s than God’s promise,
“Thy bread shall be given thee, and thy water made sure”! How many of us call
the visible supports “solid realities,” and the unseen strengths “mystical,”
meaning thereby unreal! How few of us believe that the Unseen is the real and
solid, and the visible and transient and phantasmal! Let us scrutinise our
governing ideas, and we shall find them very like those that sent the elders to
Samuel, crying for a king. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Verses 7-9
Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto
thee.
Prayer answered under protest
Prayer is certainly a most salutary exercise whenever one is
agitated beyond his strength. When the elders of Israel came to Samuel he
discovered that the complication was too deep for an old man like him to deal
with; and so he went in prayer to God In thy end we shall learn that the
petition of these malcontents was granted, but with the answer came retribution
and ultimate dismay. Prayers are sometimes answered under protest Let us, then,
move on at once in our search.
I. We shall have
to begin with a fair and detailed exposition of the narrative as it meets us.
1. This verse, besides its bearing upon our main point, contains a
valuable lesson of its own: Rejecting Divine Providence is rejecting Divine
government and forfeiting Divine favour. There is no sense in a declaration that
we accept God’s law in general, but reserve the right to practical freedom in
reference to particulars. “The end of all civil government,” says an ancient
thinker, writing for our times as wisely as for his own, “is to live well
according to the Divine pleasure.” We are surely Christians, but in general,
you know; not quite so particular as we might be, possibly, but with a decided
respect for religion always. Now this will not do; Jesus Christ, is everything
to a man, or He is nothing. In all human history there has never been a fitter
leader to command our loyalty or to win our love. We have been told that the
ancient Persian kings used to elect, for the education and training of their
princes, the four best men in the kingdom--the justest man, the wisest man, the
bravest man, and the most temperate man--so that each new sovereign might have
the highest advantages, and come to the regal throne best fitted to rule over
the people. Christ is the Prince of a kingdom that, is supreme in the universe.
When the Providences of God summon us to follow Jesus as our Lord, to reject
Him is also to reject the Lord that made us, and defy Him when He is most our
friend.
2. You must bear in mind, also, as this narrative proceeds, that
wilful disobedience, continuously repeated, becomes settled rebellion. The
reply which Samuel received reminded him that this was not a new case of sudden
refusal of the Divine sovereignty. That nation had actually got into the habit
of it. They had never shown anything more commendable since they came up out of
the land of Pharaoh; they proved an awkward and ungainly people when Moses was
trying to manage them in the wilderness. When one throws off God’s beneficent
restraints, it is surprising to see how awfully wicked he can be as in a moment
of rapid demoralisation. Things apparently innocent are made the baleful
occasion, sometimes even the instrument, of violent outbreak in vice. It is one
of the intense severities of Montaigne to say of these atheistic people that
“they infect innocent matter with their own venom.” Some sceptics like to do
this in their reckless arguments. They force natural science, always loyal and
reverent to the Creator of the universe, to speak a lie and bring false
testimony against God. It is the deliberate counting out of Divine government
which puts this universe in such a false position. The only effective manner in
which to deal with such a dangerous experience is found in letting it have its
own way until it shall be weary and worn with its follies and be ready to
return penitently to God.
3. So now we come to the point that we started to reach. Human
prayers are sometimes granted with a Divine protest. Solemn moment is that in
which God gives to any man or nation in judgment what was asked of Him in
petulance and pride! Now let us understand that circumstances may erect; a
foreordained fact into a responsible sin, for which those who are the actors
are to be held accountable in the end. The Lord said these malcontents in
Israel might have their wish, and yet he charges on them the guilt the
transaction involved. Furthermore, this very demand of the people had been
foreseen and publicly predicted three hundred years before. And yet this whole
proceeding was now wrong; it was premature and hasty, and it was conducted
without reference to the over-ruling will of Jehovah. God’s Providence does not
constrain any man’s iniquity. Foreordination has nothing to do with free will.
Those elders were doing their own behest, not God’s; and they suffered for it.
II. We turn now
from this story to the one principle it so vividly illustrates. It is worth our
while to press a valuable admonition like that which is given here. We are told
to let our hearts go forth in prayer continually unto God, and God will grant
us our desires. But here we learn that not even the answers we obtain are to be
trusted always. What does this mean in real experience?
1. It means that all petitions are to be offered, and all desires are
to be pressed, according to the Lord’s will before our will. If we thrust
ourselves forward, Divine Providence will frequently hedge up the way. If now
we urge on, sometimes the barrier is seen to move quietly away; then we can
have our request if we continue to press it. But is this safe or wise? that is
the sober question. It is the creature erecting itself against the supreme
judgment of its Creator and taking its case into its own hands. When a man is
intelligent, and his conscience tells him that God is not exactly granting, but
only permitting, his prayer, is it best for him to persevere in it in the
confident hope that courage will carry him through into safety?
2. And for another thing, this declaration means that under protest
God grants a Christian’s prayer, the answer will be a positive discipline
rather than a blessing. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
Verse 10
And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that
asked of him a king.
An admonition to the wilful
When about to frame the Tabernacle in the wilderness, Moses was
specially instructed by God to make it after the pattern which had been shown
him in the holy mount. When Jeremiah was set apart to the prophetical office,
for which he confessed himself unfit, God said, “Thou shalt go to all that I
shall send thee; and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak” (Jeremiah 1:7). The rule with respect to
all preachers of the gospel is after a similar form: “If any man speak, let him
speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11); “It is required of
stewards that a man be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2). Ministerial
fidelity is the full declaration of the word of God to the consciences of men.
“Who is a true and faithful steward?” asked Latimer of old. “He is true, he is
faithful, that coineth no new money, but seeketh it ready coined of the goodman
of the house; and neither changeth it nor clippeth it, after it is taken to him
to spend, but spendeth even the selfsame that he had of his Lord; and spendeth
it as his Lord commanded him.” Such a man was Samuel, who “told all the words
of the Lord unto the people.” This fidelity is essential to the proper
discharge of the ministerial office, as it was of the prophetical. The fear of
man may not alter the doctrine of the pulpit. The preacher of the word must
declare all the counsel of God, whether men hear or whether they forbear. Ere
the people proceeded to make a change of Government, Samuel declared the manner
of the king that should reign over them. Samuel did not show the people what a
king ought to be--that was written in the books of the law of Moses; but what
he would be. In the East, kings maintain great magnificence, live in highest
luxury, and indulge their passions. Followed by sycophants baser than
themselves, they soon get beyond amendment, and, secure in their
self-sufficiency, are heedless of the complaints and wrongs of their subjects.
Such were the men who wore a crown in the days of Samuel, nor have Eastern
monarchs much changed since then. But when an object is earnestly desired, all
connected with it is viewed through the coloured glasses of the beholder, The
people of Israel saw only the magnificence, not the luxury; the dignity, not
the expense; the power, not the oppression of a king. They were willing to run
before a royal chariot,--that would be no slavery. They would enlist in an
army,--that would be no yoke. They would give the best to a Hebrew king,--that
would be no sacrifice. The enthusiasm of the people saw no evil in a royal
crown or a courtly retinue. Like little children, the passions of a people are
blind to the future. They will have their desire, though it prove their ruin.
Thus French factions would have their objects in the revolutionary era,
regardless of the wrong they caused, the blood they shed, the religion they
blasphemed, the God they dishonoured, until the Red Republic was more cruel
than ever despotic monarchy had been. Thus the sinner will have his desire,
though he imperil his soul foreverse The avaricious will have gold, though it
becomes his idol, and his immortal spirit worships the golden calf. The
inebriate will have his drink, though he degrade his being, blast his
character, beggar his family, and damn his soul. The sinner will have his sin
though it ruin him foreverse But there is personal danger resulting from the indulgence
of wrong motives, and from the eager pursuit of sin. The soul is debased, made
guilty, and exposed to retribution. It may awaken too late to retrace its
steps, to secure pardon and salvation. Present decision to be right with God is
therefore an imperative duty, as it is the guarantee of future blessing.
Faithful as Samuel was to the people in declaring the words of God, he is none
the less so in rehearsing the words of the people of God. The decided
indication of the popular will does not alter Samuel’s views, or tempt him to
depart from God. He can go back to the presence of God with the same
uprightness as he bad come from that sacred place. The tides of popular feeling
did not bear him away. He could stand alone in his devotedness to God if the people
should all reject the word of the Most High. He acted as the commissioner of
Jehovah, and therefore laid the wish of the people before the throne of God. He
was willing to abide by the Divine decision. God granted the request of the
people, and Samuel gave information accordingly. This did not indicate Divine
approbation of their conduct; for it showed that they were to bear the
responsibility of the step. They become new opportunities of well-doing if
rightly improved, or means of conviction of the sin committed. They had
confidence in Samuel’s prayers, and were willing to abide the issue. “The
history of the world,” says a judicious commentator, “cannot produce another
instance in which a public determination was formed to appoint a king, and yet no
one proposed either himself or any other person to be king, but referred the
determination entirely to God.” (R. Steel.)
And they said, Nay, but we
will have a king over us.
A king desired
If we were asked what is
the prevailing feeling which the study of this history is calculated to
produce, we should answer in one word--disappointment.
I. The request of
the Israelites brings before us a melancholy view of the progress of degeneracy
in a community. It requires no effort to perceive in this desire of the
Israelites the renewed manifestation of the discontented and rebellious
disposition which prevailed in the camp at the Red Sea, and on subsequent occasions
in the wilderness; but now it was marked by a greater fixedness of criminal
resolve and of God-dishonouring purpose. It was the sin of the fathers living
over again, but with greater intensity, in the persons of the children. This
view of the case is, in a high degree, admonitory. None of us, perhaps, think
enough of the connection between ourselves and the future. Each age exerts a
very considerable influence on that which succeeds it, and the men of any
particular age are responsible to God in a very large and affecting measure for
the characteristics of the period which may come after them The degeneracy of
communities is after all the degeneracy of individuals; and he who makes the
effort to prevent in the conduct of a single individual the continuance of
sin--who attempts in the case of a single individual to raise the tone of
morals, does so far provide a better State of things for the age that shall
come after him. If looking at the clamorous assembly which the narrative brings
before us as now surrounding Samuel and asking a change in the form of
government, we inquire whence learnt they those low thoughts of God which led
them so much to dishonour Him as to wish to put Him aside in order to make room
for an earthly ruler? the only proper and correct reply would be, “From those
who went before them.” We live for a future age, and virtually we have the
character of that age in our hands, whether as it concerns the nation, the
church, or the family
II. The scene
brought before us by this demand of Israel for a king, teaches us the
perilousness of allowing our thoughts to run in an improper direction and our
wishes to centre upon a wrong object. And this for a reason which is very
distinctly conveyed to us in the tenour of the narrative--the absorbing effect
of one wrong thought, and its consequent power to throw into oblivion all those
counteracting thoughts and objects which from any other source might be
suggested. Trace the progress of this one wrong desire, in Israel, of having a
king. Was there nothing to be said on the other side? Rather we might ask, Is
it not exceedingly easy to conceive of the counteracting effect which at the
first stage might have been presented to such a wish by a recollection of their
actual privileges at the moment? There is a matchless sublimity--the sublimity
of condescension and graciousness--about the very idea of a theocracy. But if
its sublimity did not appeal to their moral sense, its peculiar
advantageousness might have appealed to their self-regard. The God-honouring
wish grew stronger and stronger. At least, however, it might have been expected
that they would be moved by a vivid delineation of the unwelcome consequences
which God declared would attend on the new arrangement. Yet, after all, this is
but a picture of real life, applicable to every age. It contains a faithful
warning. It says--“Beware of the first wrong desire, give it no encouragement.
Beware of the first misdirection of thought. Be sure you are right at first in
your plans and purposes, because afterwards, by reason of the very force with
which wrong thoughts indulged exclude all suggestions to the contrary, it may
be too late to alter.” To the young it especially says--“In the purposes you
cherish, the plans you propose, the changes you contemplate, the objects on
which you allow your affections to rest, beware of a mistake at the first.”
III. It is of
importance that we should carefully study the essential evil of the motive
which here operated in the minds of the Hebrew nation. That motive was--that
they might be like other people. And if in a thoughtful mood we take a survey
of the causes which have wrought to produce moral desolation in communities
from that day until the present, there will appear none whose operation has
proved more widely mischievous, more intensely active to harm than this--a
desire to be like others. Many a time has that young man left the house of God
full of conviction, and ready to resolve that, whatever others did, he would
serve the Lord. But he turned to take another look at the world, and the
thought came along with the look, float much of his worldly interest depended
upon the friendship of those around him, and that if he expected them to be his
friends, his opinions and his habits must not be opposed to theirs. He gave in
to the principle of being like them; and, having resembled them in time, his
lot now throughout eternity resembles theirs too. Alas! the wreck of souls
which this principle involves! and, we must, add, the wreck of earthly comfort,
too. (J. A. Miller.)
Verse 20
Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
Making a king
As a matter of public notoriety, Samuel’s sons were not like
Samuel himself in their moral tone and in their moral example. This brings
before us a sad and humiliating fact--that the children of great men and of
good men are not always worthy of their parentage. There are men who can speak
to a thousand hearers, who are utterly weak and powerless when they come into
the details of common life and have to teach a single child at home, and show
the light of God upon the private paths of life. Consequently, their own garden
wall is broken down, their own little flower bed at home is all weed grown,
whilst they are busy with the great public fields and the great vineyards of
the world.
1. This brings before us the equally remarkable fact that grace is
not hereditary. When we see a good man we expect his children to be like
himself. But grace does not descend in the family line. The father may be an
apostle, the son may be a blasphemer. There are circumstances, no doubt, in
which at the very moment that the father has been preaching the gospel, his own
son, whom he loved as his life, has been fulfilling some profane engagement,
has been blaspheming the name of the God of his fathers! The elders of Israel
had a case. They were concerned for the nation; they saw the two sons of Samuel
going astray from their father’s paths; they came to the man when he was old,
and told him about the apostasy of his sons. They said, “Make us a king to
judge us like all the nations.” If ever men apparently had a simple,
straightforward, common sense case, the elders of Israel had such a case.
Samuel heard this statement, and the thing displeased him. No man likes to see
his whole life disregarded, and his power thrown away ruthlessly. After all,
there is a good deal of human nature and common sense in the old man’s view of
the changes which are proposed to him. He started from a given point; he has
worked along a certain line; a man cannot disinherit and dispossess himself of
all his own learning, culture, traditions, and associations, and go back again
or go forward into the infancy of new and startling movements. It would be well
if men could learn this more profoundly. Young Englandism and young Americanism
must be very distasteful to old Samuels, high priests, and venerable prophets.
We shall show our strength by showing our moderation; we shall be most mighty
when we are most yielding! Samuel told the Lord about it. This is very
startling to those who live at a far distance from God. These old men seem
always to have been living, as it were, next door to him, and had but to
whisper and they were heard. It is a kind of breathing process, it is ready,
spontaneous as love. Samuel turned towards the elders of Israel, heard their
story, then turned his face about and told God concerning the whole thing. It
is a wonderful kind of life--God always so nigh at hand.
2. Samuel saw the outside of the case. Samuel saw what we now call
the fact of the case; God saw the truth of it. Many people do not distinguish
between fact and truth. There is an infinite difference between fact and truth.
Fact is the thing done, the thing visible, the thing that has shape, and that
can be approached and touched. Truth underlies it. We must get at the truth
before we can understand the fact itself. This is ever necessary, but specially
needful where matters are complicated by profoundly moral considerations. The
Lord explained the case to Samuel. He said, in effect: “They are only making a
tool of thee; thou art become to them a mere convenience, or as it were a
scapegoat. They profess to be very deeply concerned about the moral apostasy of
thy sons; they do not care one pin point about it; they are extremely glad to
be able to seize upon anything that will seem to give a good colouring to their
case. Samuel, Israel has cast off its God. Is it wonderful, then, that Israel
should cast off the servant?” What an explanation this is! how it goes to the
root and core! What a subject opens upon us here! The great world of excuses,
social explanations, the faces which things are made to wear, the visors and
disguises which are set upon life in order to conceal its corruption, its
leprosy, its death Truly the word of God is sharp and powerful, sharper than
any two-edged sword! So there are two judgments in the world. Man makes out his
own case, God comes with the explanation. Man cheats man with outside
appearances; afterwards God holds the light over the case. All things are naked
and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do!
3. The Lord told Samuel to make the people a king. “Hear them; do
what they ask; hearken unto their voice; howbeit yet protest solemnly unto
them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” This is
an instruction that we should do well to carry out in all life. There are times
when we are pressed into certain courses; when all we can do is to protest.
What then? When they heard the speech they said, “Nay; but we will have a king
over us.” Observe how men can fight their way, when so determined, through all
the warnings that even God can send. Observe, man can have his way. There is a
point at which even God withdraws from the contest. “My Spirit shall not always
strive with man.” If we be so minded, we can force our way through all solemn
warning, all pathetic entreaty, all earnest persuasiveness on the part of
friend, wife, husband, teacher, preacher, God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Ghost! We can go to hell if we will! There is a grim, ghastly
cross--hew it down! There is a way round it, a way through it, a way over it--you
can get there! Fool, coward! (J. Parker, D. D.)
Israel asking for a king
Wishing to resemble other nations, they asked Samuel to make them
a king. They “were dazzled,” says John Henry Newman, “with the pomp and
splendour of the heathen monarchs around them, and they desired someone to
fight their battles, some visible succour to depend on, instead of having to
wait for an invisible Providence, which came in its own way and time, by little
and little, being dispensed silently, or tardily, or (as they might consider)
unsuitably. We must notice the way in which the elders expressed their wish to
Samuel. They felt it necessary to show some reason, if possible, for their
action. They therefore began by reminding Samuel of his advancing years.” A
Greek proverb says, “The more a good tree grows, the more shade does it give.”
Samuel was not too old for service, but the wayward people whom the elders
represented (v. 19) were apparently tired of his administration. Aged people
should be treated very gently and not spoken to as if we thought they were in
our way. The latter part of the speech of the elders was no more welcome than
its beginning. Their request was an affront. But he did not resent it. Instead
of at once answering them he prayed unto the Lord. Luther says, “He must be of
a high and great spirit, that undertakes to serve the people in body and soul,
for he must suffer the utmost danger and unthankfulness.” Samuel was “of a high
and great spirit.” Instead of brooding over the personal wrong done to himself,
he went quietly into God’s presence and laid the whole case before Him. Have we
difficulties that we cannot solve? Let us pray. Cecil says, “No man rejects a
minister of God who faithfully performs his office, till he has rejected God.”
This remark applies to all spheres of life. The strict performance of duty
often results in personal loss. Take the case of a young man suddenly dismissed
by an unscrupulous tradesman because he refuses to take undue advantage of a
customer. That young man should bear God’s voice saying, “Your master has not
rejected you, he has rejected Me.” With this thought in his heart he will be
able cheerfully to suffer (Psalms 69:7; Colossians 1:24). Israel’s request was
granted, but at the same time the people were earnestly warned of their error.
God’s sovereignty and man’s free will are here vividly contrasted. Apparently
the people gained their point, but really they were making a rod for their own
back (Psalms 78:29-31; Psalms 106:15). “How bitterly the nation,
even in the successful and glorious reign of King Solomon, felt the pressure of
the royal yoke, so truly foretold by their last judge, is shown in the history
of the times which followed the death of Solomon, when the public discontent at
the brilliant but despotic rule of the great king split up the people into two
nations” (1 Kings 12:4). Sir William Temple
says “A restlessness in men’s minds to be something that they are not and to
have something that they have not, is the root of all immorality.” William
Collins, the artist, very decidedly expresses his opinion “that if the Almighty
were to give us everything for which we feel desirous, we should as often find
it necessary to pray to Him to take away as to grant new favours.” We have read
perhaps of the little stream that began to feel weary of being a simple brook.
It therefore asked for snows from the mountains, water from the torrents, rain
from the tempests; until, its petitions granted, it burst its bounds, and
ravaged its hitherto delightsome banks. At first the proud stream exulted in
its force; but seeing ere long that it carried desolation in its flow, that its
progress was now doomed to solitude, and that its waters were forever turbid,
it came to regret the humble bed hollowed out for it by Nature--the birds, the
flowers, the trees, and the brooks, hitherto the modest companions of its
tranquil course.” (M. Lucas.)
A king instead of a god
The history now moves in one great step to Samuel’s old age. Of
his marriage, family life, and the gathering round him of the manifold
affection for which such a nature as his must have been beautifully fitted, we
know nothing. If we have any hint, it is in the naming of the two sons who are
mentioned in this chapter. In the same spirit as that in which he named the
place of victory--Ebenezer--Samuel called his firstborn son Joel; that
is--Jehovah is God. This must have been as a protest against the idolatry, the
Baal and Astarte worship, with which Israel had been infected and polluted.
Samuel named his other son Abiah; that is--Jehovah is Father. This ought to
obtain from us admiring and reverent regard as we think of the fragmentary
suggestions of Samuel’s family life. Jehovah was truly God over all, blessed
for evermore; Dagon, Baal, and Astarte embodied only the inane and foul
misconceptions of man’s nature and God’s demands They were as naught before the
God of gods. But more: Jehovah was a Father, tender and true to home and
nation, to heathen and Jew. And this double truth it is that the naming of
Samuel’s sons betokens. For the first time in the Old Testament the recognition
of this foundation doctrine is announced to us, as it was many a time
subsequently, by names devised in a time of deep feeling and earnest
consecration of heart and home to God. This is the first recorded evidence of
an endeavour to witness to the assurance of the adoption, to cry Abba, Father!
Both the sons of Samuel were destined, in their father’s thought, to be living
witnesses to the Lord: one to the greatness of God and the other to the
gentleness of the Most High. In spirit this act of Samuel is no more than
should be the feeling and purpose of all spiritually-minded parents in their thoughts
of their children. As we often give the children an ancestral name that we
revere, or honour them by naming them after someone whom we esteem in public or
private life, so our first and deepest thoughts of the children should be the
longing and purpose that they may truly live to the honour of God, and carry,
as it were, “His name in their foreheads.” This should mark our chief hopes and
efforts on their behalf. But here we come to what so often is a cause of grief,
and sad, heart-wearing disappointment. With such a man for their father as
Samuel, and carrying in the very singularity of their names the marks of a high
designation as plainly as a Brahmin carries the marks of his caste, we might
have expected that they would have felt a restraint from sin, and an
inspiration to rectitude and holiness that would have made them, at the least,
worthy of their father and grandmother. The grandsons of Hannah and the sons of
Samuel--Joel and Abiah--ought to have been like Timothy, whose “unfeigned
faith” dwelt first “in thy grandmother, Lois, and thy mother, Eunice.” From the
first son of man, who was a murderer, down to the present time, good men’s
children, or, as here, ministers’ sons, have not been proverbial for increasing
the piety of the world, or lessening its sin. The child of a saint needs the
forgiveness its father has found; and the son of a sinner is not, on account of
his awful parentage, placed at a disadvantage with God. Still, in view of
Samuel’s sons, the remembrance will come that Samuel’s pain and David’s wail
have been the sadness of many a saintly man. Samuel could not have indulged his
sons in sin. The history leads us rather to think that the sins were such as
might not reveal themselves until the public life of judging in Beersheba came.
The private lives of Joel and Abiah may not have given opportunity for the
grave sins that marked their judicial position. Many a man lives a good life as
a private person who would be a great sinner if exposed to the hazards of
public life. Napoleon I might have lived and died a decent man had he lived
only in privacy, end never entered the army. To such a being the command of men
with muskets and swords in their hands was like the scent of blood to a tiger.
Judge Jeffreys might not have been infamous if he had never been a judge. The
sin of Eli’s sons was unchastity; that of Samuel’s sons was covetousness. Young
men, you may not fall as Hophni and Phinehas did; take care that you do not sin
as Joel and Abiah. The weak link may not have had to bear the strain with you.
Life may soon have to bear the test on your weak side. May God keep you from
yielding when the pressure comes.
1. The sin of Samuel’s sons brought swiftly on a national crisis. The
old-fashioned theocratic commonwealth would not do any longer. They would have
soldier-kings, and they got them; but how many of them were better than Joel or
Abiah, or even superior to Hophni and Phinehas? Very few. And from the first to
the last of them, who of all the kings was fit to stand with Samuel? The truth
is, that, from the first, the God-governed commonwealth that was associated
with such names as Moses and Samuel was a conception of political and social
order that the Jews never cared to appreciate. Even before Samuel’s time, the
Hebrews had shown unwholesome longing for visible military kingship and rule
such as the heathen around them had. When Gideon, at the call of God, led them
to victory the only use of the victory they made was atheistically to say to
Gideon, “Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son and thy son’s son also”; and
the better judgment, the holier manhood of Gideon, is seen in his answer, “I
will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you; the Lord shall rule
over you.” Gideon and Cromwell have tried to teach men in nations to trust and
obey God the Infinite more than to admire lucky soldiers and successful
adventurers. Soldier-kings and nationalities, held together by the sword, are
not God’s preferred agencies in working out the history of humanity. Rather are
they His scourges and penalties; and, like all ether devastating powers, are
not to be forever, but have their highest functions, as the fire dressing of a
farm field, only in being preliminary to more rational and Divine processes of
life and growth, instead of fire and death. To something higher than the sad
miseries of the soldier-monarchies that succeeded Samuel, to the ideal kingdom
of the ever-present God on earth, it was that Isaiah pointed the Jews in the
days “when kings went forth to battle.” “For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is
our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save us.” But this was precisely
what the faithless Hebrews would not believe.
2. The spirit and unworthiness of the movement may be seen in
this--That they asked not counsel of the Lord, nor of Samuel. The history of
this demand, and the outworking of it in the progress of the monarchy, are
illustrations of the rebellion and the sinfulness of hiding counsel from the
Lord. We, especially, who profess to sing the Ebenezers of Divine deliverance,
must go on to seek the guidance of the Divine wisdom in all things; trusting in
the Lord with all our hearts, leaning not to our own understanding; in all our
ways acknowledging Him and hoping that He will direct our paths.
3. The folly as well as the sin of the project will be further seen
from remembering that God had chosen them to be alone and the guide of all the
nations; but their self-degrading demand was to be as the nations. They may
have been caught by the false glare and splendour of the monarchies around
them, as well as moved by the fear of Nahash, King of the Ammonites. More
certainly they ignored the high intention of God in establishing His own regal
authority among them; and, ignoring the higher destiny, they fell into a lower
degradation than that of their neighbours. For a nation to forget its mission
as the most liberal and hopeful people of the earth, and descend to the
infamous degradation of being mere traders and gun makers and lenders of money
to anyone who will give interest enough, as England seems to be doing--this is
an abdication, a self-degrading, vast and solemn enough to make a crisis in the
history of the world; and is as fit a theme for religious thought and solemn,
prayerful consideration as anything that ever happened in the history of
Israel.
4. Moreover, it is evident from the history that the pernicious
influence of international rivalry was at work among the elders of
Israel--rivalry, that is, chiefly in means of making war. To be as, or better
than, other nations in war power is a poor ambition, and does no good to any in
the long run, but rather evil all round. A boy never had a knife without
wanting to cut something with it, and, as likely as not, something that did not
need cutting. So, too, a nation, or, rather, a military caste never has a big
gun now without wanting to shoot it; and, more likely than not, it will fire at
something that did not need shooting. If, now, you look at the national life
represented on the one hand by the judge and on the other by the military king,
you may find sufficient explanation of the rejection of Samuel and God, deeper
down than the occasion given for the rejection by the injustice of Samuel’s
sons, at Beersheba. The judgeship under Samuel was the rule of right, and
knowledge and regard, above all things, to the ends that God had in view. The
soldier-kingship was the showy rule of the strong hand, in which “the elders”
who came to Samuel would have chief gain, and the people would be pleased by
having the outward and visible signs of greatness and strength that in politics
and religion so often do duty for the reality long after it has departed. Plain
principles of eternal righteousness, where have they ever stood half so high in
popular esteem, and the desires of privileged classes, as the gaudy
pretentiousness of the uniformed soldier and priest? Certainly they never did
among the Jews; and they do not, I fear, among us nowadays. (G. B. Ryley.)
The disaffected people
There is scarcely anything more trying to a father than to witness
the moral shipwreck of his sons. But this personal trouble was intimately
connected with a more overwhelming one--the disaffection and declension of the
people. While this man of God was lamenting his domestic trial and his
country’s loss by reason of the conduct of his sons, a deputation of the people
was introduced to state the popular wish, and to ask political changes. They
had seen the growing infirmities of Samuel; they had suffered from the
dishonesty of his sons; they probably feared the consequences if their leader
were taken away; therefore they solicited a thorough Change in their civil
polity: “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” Their government was
theocratic. God was their king But the people of Israel did not possess the same
license with regard to government as other nations. They were bound to consult
the will of God, and seek Divine approbation of their arrangements. They did
not like to be so isolated, so peculiar; they grew weary of the ways of God.
Conformity to the world has been always a great snare to the Church. Natural to
the sinful heart, it tempts the imperfect, and has led many a fair professor
into backsliding. Conformity to the world, united to a profession of faith, has
been the stumbling black to many an awakened soul. It troubles the Church, but
it does not induce the world to be godly The most ungodly know well how to
estimate this conformity in those who profess the faith of Christ. They
consider it an attempt to serve two masters. It does not attract them towards,
but repels them from, religion. It strengthens their opinion of the
superstition of worship, and of the hypocrisy of religionists Samuel was above
these infirmities of ignoble minds. But he knew the theory of the national
government was well acquainted with past history, and aware that self-willed
reforms were neither healthy nor good. The circumstances occasioning it was to
him most affecting--the misconduct of his sons. Consciousness of his growing
infirmities contributed to try the feelings of this man of God. But he had a
resource where he could find composure, counsel, and strength: “And Samuel
prayed unto the Lord.” Prayer was to him the exercise of communion with God. As
you would consult a tried friend in your difficult, circumstances, and be comforted
and strengthened by his prudent advice, so did Samuel with God when Providences
were dark and the path of duty not plain. Prayer to God was the constant
resource of Moses ere he spoke to the people, and hence it was only once
throughout forty years of difficult leadership in the weary wilderness that he
is said to have spoken “unadvisedly with his lips” Nehemiah found his soul
strengthened by ejaculatory prayer while he was considering what answer he
should make to the king Artaxerxes. This was Samuel’s practice, and it made his
words cautious and weighty. No man can be so much engrossed as to have no time
for prayer. The eminent physician Boerhaave, whose practice was so great that
“even Peter the Great and to remain for hours in an antechamber before he could
be admitted to an interview, was wont to devote the first hour of every day to
prayer;” and he recommended this practice to others, “as the source of that
vigour which carried him through all his toils.” Learn from Samuel how to act
in seasons of perplexity. It is vain to place happiness in the present world.
The Israelites imagined that their temporal aggrandizement would be to their
advantage; that a king, and a pompous retinue behind him, would greatly enhance
their importance. But God taught them that the desire was sinful, and the
result disappointing. Byron sought early gratifications, and by means of his
lofty titles, splendid genius, and jovial tastes, had abundant means of
gratifying his large capacity for pleasure; but he wrote, as the result of all,
that he--“Drank every cup of joy, heard every trump of fame: drank
early--deeply drank--drank draughts that common millions would have quench’d;
then died of thirst, because there was no more to drink.” The great novelist,
Sir Walter Scott, had as brilliant a career as any litterateur. But he
who gratified tens of thousands was not a happy man, and in the closing scene
of his life had no abiding joy. His hopes had been blighted. His happiness had
been eclipsed. His fortune had vanished. He was impoverished, embarrassed,
aged, and comfortless. And under the influence of these unhappy experiences, he
said, as he sat at Abbotsford, “When I think of what this place now is,
compared with what it has been not long ago, I think my heart will break.” “I
have no other wish than that (the grated door of a burial place) may open for
me at no distant period. The recollection of youth, health, and power of
activity neither improved nor enjoyed, is a poor strain of comfort. The best
is, the long halt will arrive at length and close all.” His idolized existence
had a melancholy termination. The truth is, no earthly advantage can give peace
to the soul or secure its bliss. (R. Steel.)
Political Transitions.
How varied and fitful are the scenes of national life, they are
alternations of sins and sorrows. The reaction of human thought is both sudden
in its nature and extreme in its tendency. When once its energies are
stimulated, they become restless and surge from one realm to another As the
winds change in a moment from one point of the compass to its opposite extreme
and toss the ship from its destined course, so this impetus of change sweeps
down upon the soul with such power that it reels for a time, is then caught by
the current and carried contrary to the intention of its calmer moments. Thus,
as we gaze upon the picture, our wonder is excited that a people so strong in
their respect for the Divine, should now conspire to dethrone its authority by
establishing the human Political transitions:--
I. as founded on
the most frivolous pretext. It generally happens that the greatest revolutions
are founded upon petty excuses. Thus our national institutions yield to the
touch of fancy, the suggestion of caprice, or to the effort of misguided
partisanship. This political change was founded--
1. On the old age of Samuel. The conduct of these elders was cruel
and ungrateful. No man living had served their secular and religious interests
as Samuel had, they could ill afford his departure from their senate, and
though his sun was gone down they should have tenderly respected the lingering
brightness which yet tinted the evening horizon
2. On the conduct of Samuel’s sons. This plea was
3. Consider the request of the nation.
4. The conduct of Samuel in this crisis. We can scarcely imagine the
feelings of Samuel as he listens to this desire for a king. He is alone, the
companions of his youth are gone. He is sad; the nation of today has no
sympathy with his grief, but is striving to sever the last tie which binds the
old man to the scenes of his boyhood.
II. As pursued in
antagonism to the Divine will.
1. The Divine permission.
2. The Divine protestation.
“Howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them” (verse 9). God never
wantonly leaves human nature to itself, he uses means to prevent wrong, pushes
them to a certain point, then if resisted by the force of will he retires, and
permits the nation to work out a ruin, which becomes disciplinary.
III. as involving
the most alarming consequences.
1. The despotic character of their future ruler. Sometimes God makes
disclosures of the future in order to deter from sin, he places an angel in the
path to warn and rebuke our folly. He would:--
2. The withdrawal of Divine sympathy in this extremity (verse 18).
Surely if anything could have silenced the demand of the nation such a fearful
picture as this would, but the passion is so intense, the national yearning so
Strong, the present pushes upon their sceptical minds, the future days of life
are unreal to them, hence the stern realities to come fade into mist, and the
cry is uttered yet more fervent:--“But we will have a king over us.”
lessons:
Asking for a king
I. Why did the
people desire a king? Because the rule of the Judges had brought them neither
quietness within nor security from enemies without. National unity had almost
disappeared. They seem twelve tribes rather than one nation. They were
scattered over a wide and difficult territory, traversed only by a few wretched
paths. When hostile incursions fell upon exposed regions, the untroubled
portions were often indifferent to the fate of their brethren. The Judges whom
God raised up to deliver them had little influence beyond the scene of their
exploits. The feebleness of the prophet, prematurely old with his cares, and
the unworthiness of his sons, increased the popular discontent. Many years ago,
their fathers had wanted to make Gideon king: now surely the time had come for
a strong central government. Then let the change be made while Samuel was with
them, rather than risk the chance of unpromising successors. Had not Jehovah
himself looked forward to a kingdom? Both Abraham (Genesis 17:6-16) and Jacob (Genesis 35:11) had been promised that
they should be fathers of kings. Moses had anticipated the monarchy in his
final address (Deuteronomy 17:14-20) Everything seemed to
favour and demand the step.
II. Why was the
request wrong? Not in the sense of its need, but in the way of seeking it. The
people forgot their covenant relation to Jehovah--that they were a peculiar
nation, with a peculiar history and a peculiar mission. Such a demand showed
ingratitude, distrust and disloyalty toward God. They wanted to better their
government instead of reforming their character, and looked to legislation for
help which could come only from righteousness
III. Why did God
consent to what He did not approve? Because, if He could not do the best for
them, He would do the best He could. His disapproval was for their sins; His
consent, to a change not wrong in itself, probably in His plan. The idea of
royalty belonged to a true conception of the Messiah, and would be developed
most successfully by the rule of righteous kings, as the cross was typified by
the sacrifices Since the people were too faithless to wait God’s time
resistance to their wishes could only harden their hearts. The history of our
race is one record of the accommodation of a Divine ideal to human frailty.
Besides the ever-present truth that all mischief comes from sin and all
happiness is found in obedience to God, the special value of the lesson is to
illustrate the true source of national greatness. This law is stated in a
Divine utterance at Sinai: “If ye will obey My voice indeed and keep My
covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for
all the earth is mine.” Here are three distinct statements: first, all the
earth is God’s; second, a single nation is chosen by Him as a peculiar
treasure; third, the ground of the choice, the condition of the favour, is
national righteousness. This compact statement declares the providential
evolution and Divine selection of nations, resulting in the survival of the
fittest.
1. The Divine order is not committed in favour of any one form of
government. Political forms are means, not ends. We cannot, assume that a
democracy is the ideal. The kingdom of heaven is a monarchy, not dependent on
men’s votes for its authority, or human legislation for its laws and penalties
Stable governments are growths, not manufactured forms, and the same growth is
not fitted for every soil. When King Murat demanded of Lord Holland to make him
a constitution, the wise statesman replied, “You might as well ask me to build
you a tree.” A republic demands general virtue and intelligence What would
become of Russia or Turkey if made democracies at once? The Almighty has
blessed forms of government widely different. An ideal constitution will not
make an ideal nation.
2. The Divine order is not committed to any degree of material
prosperity. Egypt had everything, Israel nothing; yet the mob of slaves was
chosen before the kingdom opulent with treasure and hoary with learning.
Assyria, Persia, Greece, Rome, have been used and discarded in the advance of
the church
3. The Divine order is committed eternally for righteousness. This
has been the principle of selection in national evolution, not the development
of certain political forms. The moral good of the race is the only object which
a holy God can permit to control its destinies. The Christian character of our
government must be asserted and maintained. It is false to speak of this government
as having no religious character. It was born a Christian nation by the will of
man and also by the will of God. Surely the centuries have brought us
something; above all else, a Christian birthright. Christianity is the “Common
law” of the land. All, all, proclaim that Christianity, general, tolerant
Christianity, Christianity independent of sects and parties, that Christianity
to which the sword and fagot are unknown, general tolerant Christianity, is the
law of the land. The virtue of its individual citizens is the nation’s real
hope. The sins which bare destroyed the dead nations have been the sins of
individuals. The state as a corporation has no soul. We know but two moral
existences, God and man; and the conduct which God rewards in individuals will
secure his blessing upon their associated action A community may be rich or
poor, may be under a monarch or a president: are its members righteous?--then
they will have national prosperity; are they vile?--their nation will be
cursed. (Monday Club Sermons)
Asking for a king
Revolutions sometimes take place without great popular excitement
or the leadership of great men. The history before us presents such a case The dramatis
personae are the elders of the tribes, the representatives of the people;
Samuel the prophet, the judge and hero, and Saul, the least free agent of them
all, whose exceptional size contrasts with the littleness of the figure he cuts
in this first scene of a national tragedy. The revolution, however quietly
accomplished, was important and permanent. The introduction of a new instrument
under the theocracy, it forever separated the prophetic office from civil
government. Henceforth the prophet and magistrate are distinct as to office and
often antagonistic as to policy. Both are prominent in the development of the
Messianic design. The freedom of the individual and the equality of the citizen
have never been so justly and wisely provided for as under the Hebrew law. A
freer people from the Exodus to the reign of Solomon was never known. The idea
of royal authority was not new to the Hebrews. All around them were petty
monarchies more or less absolute, and by tradition and commerce they were
familiar with the greater kingdoms of the Nile and Euphrates. The demand for a
king came from the elders of the tribes. They came fortified with Scripture,
quoting Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, simply asking what
the Lord had predicted and recorded by their great legislator as a possible
event in their history. They aimed at a centralisation of power that would
combine the tribes for defensive purposes. To their unbelief which failed to
look beyond man, it seemed that Samuel was to have no successor. The history of
popular revolutions shows that there was no unusual lack of political wisdom
among those compatriots of Samuel. Indeed, their mistake has ever been the
ordinary wisdom of the world. Grecian and Roman history shows how natural it is
for nations to seek relief from popular lawlessness in tyrants, dictators and
emperors. Mediaeval history repeats how popular suffering, industries and
property sought escape from feudal tyrannies under the sceptre of kings. So the
Hebrews falsely argued. To secure a possible constitutional concession they
adopt manners and methods full of insult and ingratitude to Samuel and
sacrilege and impiety toward God. The political blunder, as well as religious
crime, of the Hebrews was in charging their troubles not upon corrupt
magistrates and popular lawlessness, but on their national constitution. Now,
it may be admitted that this constitution was defective in power lust as soon
as the people lost the sense of their theocratic obligations and of Jehovah as
their present King. Decline in theocratic belief and life was ever the one sign
of weakness in the Hebrew commonwealth, and the one only dissolvent of their
otherwise impregnable security. Their liberties were invincible against
internal or external foes so long as they were faithful to inspired covenant
morality; but apostasy ever made them vulnerable, and at last exposed their
national life to a deadly wound. In this hour of ecclesiastical and political
peril Samuel carried the matter in prayer to God To the illustrious chief the
answer of God is full of grace, sympathy and pathos: “They have not rejected
thee, but they have rejected Me that I should not reign over them.” This reply
teaches--
1. That this prayer for a king was essential apostasy (Psalms 118:9). In coming down to the
political policies of surrounding nations they violated their covenant
relations and exposed themselves to bondage under the prince of this world. The
final cause of all priestly and political absolutism is to be found in the
implacable enmity of Satan to divine sovereignty and human liberty. “Conscience
makes cowards of us all,” and fears, the inevitable consequence of declining
piety, make them distrust the protection and guidance of Jehovah.
2. That this prayer for a king was the outburst of an hereditary vice
This was the rejection of the sovereignty of God. They did now just what their
patriarchs did to Joseph and their fathers to Moses, the representatives of
that sovereignty.
3. That this prayer for a king was practical idolatry (verse 8).
4. That God may grant the obstinate prayer of mistrust (verses 9,
19-22).
5. Yet the prayer was granted under solemn protest and clear warning
(verses 9-18). The original government of the world designed by God was neither
a monarchy, an aristocracy nor a republic. None of these is compatible with the
individual sovereignty bestowed in the creation of man. But the theocracy was
above the ethical culture of the people, too sublime for the moral education of
their schools The large personal liberty conferred by the Mosaic constitution
degenerated into social lawlessness and weak administration, and foreign
infidelity and socialism penetrated and corrupted the religious beliefs and
national manners of the people. The moral status of the people was unworthy of
the free government God had given them. Concentration under the direct
sovereignty of God was more possible than under a human dynasty. This their own
history demonstrates. God alone is King. The noblest idea of government,
individual or social, is a theocracy, and under it the parity of citizens. Nor
need this state be utopian if the people are, as they ought to be and can be,
under a Bible cultus. National unity and perpetuity is a matter of ethics, and
not of community of race, tradition and history, of laws and language, of
literature and religion. These latter are additional bonds, but history, from
the Hebrews to the Americans, shows how feeble they are to preserve national
unity. Scepticism and infidelity are the sure signs of mental and moral
degeneracy in civilisation. Royalty is a Divine prerogative, and property
belongs to the Son of God. Our safety is trust in God by the recognition in the
family, school and legislature of Jesus Christ as King, His doctrines as law
and His precepts as practice (G. C. Heckman, D. D.)
Demand for the tangible and visible
For are we not all in the same condemnation? The life of faith,
which relies on an unseen arm, and hearkens to the law of an unseen King, is
difficult, the sense cries out for something that it can realise and cling to.
Luther, in one of his letters, has a parable that tells how he looked at the
vault of the sky, and sought in vain for the pillars that held it up, and how
he feared that, having no visible supports, it must fall. We all would like to
see the upholding columns. An Alpine path without a parapet seems to us more
dangerous that if a wall, however low, fenced it on the side of the precipice.
“Give us a king” is but the ancient form of the universal craving for something
“more substantial” than the bare word of a God whom sense cannot grasp. How
many of us would rather have a good balance at our banker’s than God’s promise,
“Thy bread shall be given thee, and thy water made sure”! How many of us call the
visible supports “solid realities,” and the unseen strengths “mystical,”
meaning thereby unreal! How few of us believe that the Unseen is the real and
solid, and the visible and transient and phantasmal! Let us scrutinise our
governing ideas, and we shall find them very like those that sent the elders to
Samuel, crying for a king. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king.
“Vox populi, vox Dei”
Perhaps there is no proverb which is more familiar, as it is
certain there is none more faulty, than this: “The voice of the people is the
voice of God.” And since the motto is Latin, it might as well go now with a
comment upon it from one of the greatest of the old Roman philosophers, even
Cicero himself, who says in his treatise Concerning Laws: “It is most absurd to
suppose that all the things are just which are found in the enactments and
institutions of a State. There is no such power in the sentence and command of
fools as that by their vote the nature of things can be reversed. The law did
not begin when first written, but when it first had existence; that is, when
the Divine mind first had existence.”
1. The story gives us the date to start with, and connects present
histories with those of a great and honoured past. Samuel is still at the
nation’s head, but failing: “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he
made his sons judges over Israel.” Piety cannot be transmitted according to
physical laws; and yet it seems as if we might insist, upon the signal benefits
of being born of good stock rather than of corrupt.
2. Who were these sons of Samuel? Unfortunately there is no account
of them that gives any satisfaction. The lesson we learn here is worth pressing
a little: noble names do not change bad hearts nor make wicked men fit to hold
high office. Samuel probably hoped a great deal for those sons of his when he
fixed upon them such names as these in the reverent regard for the old faith of
Israel. “Joel” signifies Jehovah is God; and “Abiah” means Jehovah is my
Father. We have no evidence that these children cared for their fine names
while they were little, as Samuel did for his when he moved reverently around
in the ministrations of the Tabernacle, a devout lad, obedient to God and to
Eli. We surely might expect that a maiden called “Sophia” ought not to be a
fool, for her name means wisdom. And just so “Gertrude” suggests a character of
all-truth. And “Alfred” becomes a pledge of all-peace. And “Leonard” must not
be a coward as long as he is called lion-like. “Francis” is to be frank, and
“Anna” is to be gracious, or intelligent people will laugh when their names are
called out in the room. Surely Nathanael, Theodore, Elnathan, and Dorothy ought
to bear in mind every day and hour that their names all alike signify the gift
of God.
3. The illustration of all this grows more and more vivid as the
story moves on; the next verse reads: “And his sons walked not, in his ways,
but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes and perverted judgment.” The
lesson we learn from this is explanatory as well as full of admonition:
covetousness is idolatry. A curious word is this here rendered “lucre;” it is
precisely that which Moses employed when he was defining the duties and
charactor of a judge: “Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people able
men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness.” That word
“covetousness” is the same as the word “lucre” in this verse before us. The old
Hebrew Targum translates it, “the mammon of falsehood.”
4. At this point the Scripture narrative begins to indicate the
effect of all this disastrous corruption in Samuel’s own family. “Then all the
elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah.”
Croakers always find easy companionship: that is our lesson now. Ravens are
said to detect afar off birds of the same black feather and the same lugubrious
voice. These “elders of Israel” in the story might surely have been about better
business than ministering to popular discontent. They were living under a
theocracy, and God was overhead; they could have interfered before for the
suppression of these corrupt judges, and in a wiser way. It was a remark of
Lord Beaconsfield that “it is much easier to be critical than to be correct.”
Joel and Abiah were bad enough; we wonder if the monarchists liked the
atmosphere better when Saul came into power. The plan proceeds plausibly. It is
fashionable to prate about the voice of the people: vox populi, vox Dei:
here the voice of the people is directly against the voice of God on a great
moral and political issue. A thousand votes for a wrong is not enough to make
it right: once nothing is nothing, twice nothing is nothing, tea times nothing
is nothing, a thousand times nothing is nothing: how many Israelite elders
would be necessary so to multiply nothing as to make it foot up something at
last? Just as many, we reply, as at any time it would take of wrong-headed men
to make wrong right.
5. But now let us bear in mind that when a mean thing has to get
itself done somehow, it requires a vast amount of meaningless talk for its
advancement into recognition and success. Our practical lesson from this part
of the story is this: graceful language is sometimes used to conceal thought,
and not express it. Diplomacy has a certain strong flavour of antiquity about
it. Just notice how these crafty elders plead their hypocritical arguments for
an overthrow of the government, and shake the conscientious scruples of the
faithful old man by the humiliating and cruel arraignment of his sons. Those
were not the real reasons why they wanted a king. Lord Bacon declares that “in
all wise human governments they that sit at the helm do more happily bring
their purposes about, and insinuate more easily into the minds of the people,
by pretext and oblique courses than by direct methods; so that all sceptres and
maces of authority ought in very deed to be crooked in the upper end.” It was
an old saying of Pascal that the world is satisfied with words, and few care to
dive beneath the surface of them. Logic has very little to de with the
utterances of a bad heart when politicians begin to reason; and there is truth
in the sarcasm of one of the wittiest of Frenchmen: “When the major of an
argument is an error, and the minor a passion, it is to be feared that the
conclusion will be a crime, for this is a syllogism of self-love.” Why did they
not suppress the sons and cling to God.
6. We become more and more sure as we read on that majorities are not
to be trusted among even the wisest of men. Majorities can be gotten on almost
every occasion for the right or for the wrong indiscriminately, according to
the popular epidemic of enthusiasm at the time. What is wanted in our day is
the virtue of an individual courage and of a personal conviction. We need
voters with a conscience that impels them to stand by the right measures and
support the righteous men for administering them. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》