God Rejected As King
Introduction
They have rejected me from being king over them: Samuel felt that he had been rejected, but basically this was because he was identified with the Lord’s cause. As Hertzberg comments:
Here one of the basic features of world history emerges: the struggle of man against God—already beginning in Gen. 3—a struggle which, according to the general outline presented in the Bible, has its roots in the special position given to man in Gen. 1. Samuel experiences what Moses, the prophets, and even Jesus experienced: ‘We do not want this man to reign over us’ (Luke 19:14).39
4–6. All the elders of Israel were unanimous, and sufficiently in touch with one another to assemble at Ramah with the request that Samuel should appoint a king to govern us like all the nations (Heb. gôyîm, in the sense of ‘gentiles’). The phrase is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 17:14–15 where the desire to emulate other nations is foreseen and permitted, rather than approved.
From Israel’s earliest days, God himself had directed his people, revealed his commands and given suitable leaders. Though the monarchy would introduce undesirable social changes, three considerations weighed with the people: i. they wanted to be like all the nations, to have influence and status; ii. they desired that our king may govern us, so lifting responsibility from local leaders and providing a figure-head; iii. and they wanted someone to go out before us and fight our battles, a focal person, already accepted and therefore immediately prepared to lead the army against any invader. But what does the new divine directive say to us?
The collective decision of the community was taken seriously. There are ‘movements’ in society which need to work themselves out; here the people of God found themselves in tension between the traditional and the new, but in the case of the monarchy the new was not to be rejected. ‘The time was ripe for the king, i.e. for the development of a state, even though the manifold dangers which could now cause theological chaos were seen all too well.’42 This is the kind of dilemma in which Christians all too often find themselves. The ideal is not an option, because it would not find support, so another way has to be chosen which involves a compromise. The Lord, like a master chess-player, achieves his objective despite human plans and policies that temporarily impede what he wants to do.
They want to be like all the other nations, led by a man who will command an army and protect the borders of the land.
Dependence on a new “savior” or “deliverer” could replace trust in God himself.
