1 Samuel 8:6 Komentář

Things went so very well with Israel, in the chapter before, under Samuel's administration, that, methinks, it is a pity to find him so quickly, as we do in this chapter, old, and going off, and things working towards a revolution. But so it is; Israel's good days seldom continue long. We have here, I. Samuel decaying (Sa1 8:1). II. His sons degenerating (Sa1 8:2, Sa1 8:3). III. Israel discontented with the present government and anxious to see a change. For 1. They petition Samuel to set a king over them (Sa1 8:4, Sa1 8:5). 2. Samuel brings the matter to God (Sa1 8:6). 3. God directs him what answer to give them, by way of reproof (Sa1 8:7, Sa1 8:8), and by way of remonstrance, setting forth the consequences of a change of the government, and how uneasy they would soon be under it (Sa1 8:9-18). 4. They insist upon their petition (Sa1 8:19, Sa1 8:20). 5. Samuel promises them, from God, that they shall shortly be gratified (Sa1 8:21, Sa1 8:22). Thus hard is it for people to know when they are well off.

INTRODUCTION TO FIRST SAMUEL 8 This chapter relates, how that Samuel being old, and his sons behaving ill, the people desired to have a king set over them, Sa1 8:1, which case Samuel laid before the Lord, and he was directed by him to yield to the people's desire, but at the same time to set before them all the disadvantages and ill consequences that would arise from thence, which he did, Sa1 8:6, but they insisting upon it, nevertheless, he gave them reason to expect that their request would be granted, Sa1 8:19.

But the thing displeased Samuel,.... Not that they called him an old man, and suggested that he was incapacitated for his office, nor for observing the unbecoming walk of his sons, but for what follows: when they said, give us a king to judge us; what displeased him was, that they were for changing their form of government, not only to remove it from him, and his sons, but from the Lord himself, who was king over them; the ill consequences of which, many of them at least, he easily foresaw, and which gave him great uneasiness, both on account of the glory of God, and their own good; insomuch, as Josephus (y) says, he could neither eat nor sleep, but watched all night, and spent it in prayer, as follows: and Samuel prayed unto the Lord; to know his mind and will, and what answer he should return unto them. (y) Ut supra, (Antiqu. l. 6. c. 3.) sect. 3.

4. For what displeased him was that through which he judged those who were speaking to be displeasing to God. But because it is not simply said, "the matter displeased Samuel," but "in the eyes of Samuel," and immediately it is added: (Verse 6.) "And Samuel prayed to the Lord for the people," we ought to consider these things somewhat more carefully. Holy men, who greatly fear displeasing Almighty God, are not hasty in their judgments, but first arrange all things rationally within themselves, so that they may dispose of them outwardly in action without reproach. For they accept no choice of judgment unless it is approved by the contemplation of reason. The Lord indeed wished to open these eyes of the prophet when He said: "See with your eyes, and hear with your ears" (Ezek. 40:4). Hence in the Gospel He said to the disciples: "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see" (Luke 10:23). For the eyes of the saints are the understanding of reason, opened by the grace of the Holy Spirit. And therefore they are said to be Samuel's, because all carnal people, even if they seem rational through human wisdom, are all the more blind to this light of reason, inasmuch as they see only with those eyes which the serpent opened. For if they could behold the splendor of spiritual virtues, they would surely desire to possess it as the adornment of their mind. So great indeed is the beauty of these virtues that their sight can never fail to be desired with longing by the one who sees them. Therefore the wise of this world, when they suppose themselves to possess the eyes of reason, can recognize from this how madly they rage: because not to be attracted by the beauty of holy virtues is surely not only not to perceive their glory, but not even to dream of it. Therefore holy men, who are already bound by the love of interior things through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, have the eyes of their mind all the clearer for seeing the glory of inward brightness, the more they have no desire for anything from the darkness of the world; and they can discern carnal things all the more rightly, the further they have been raised up from carnal things and have advanced more deeply into the grace of the Holy Spirit. Hence the Apostle Paul also, from the experience of so great a vision, pronounced the sentence, saying: "The spiritual man judges all things" (1 Cor. 2:15). Rightly therefore it is said: "The matter displeased in the eyes of Samuel." Because by spiritual men nothing is despised before it is judged to be worthy of contempt through the spiritual insight of the mind. And because the more abundantly they are filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, the less they presume upon the loftiness of their own virtue, there follows: "And Samuel prayed to the Lord." For what did he pray to the Lord, if not that He would deign to show him whether he ought to give assent to the petition of the tumultuous people? (Verses 7, 8.) "And the Lord said to Samuel: Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you. For they have not rejected you, but me, that I should not reign over them, according to all their works which they have done from the day when I brought them out of Egypt even to this day."

The speech was displeasing to the eyes of Samuel, etc. The infidelity of the Jews was displeasing before the wise in Christ, who are the eyes of the Church, because in choosing the lowest for the highest, although ignorant, they said to the Lord, "Give us an earthly kingdom that will perpetually damn us." For of the heavenly kingdom, which you promise to the poor in spirit, we have no care, for whose salvation the Savior prayed either by himself while he was in the world, or through his members even after the ascension. This is specially narrated in the ecclesiastical history concerning James, the brother of the Lord (Matthew V), because he prayed for the people attending the temple with such insistence and diligence that his knees were believed to have taken on the hardness of camels'.

Samuel, grown old, makes his sons judges in Beer-sheba, Sa1 8:1, Sa1 8:2. They pervert judgment; and the people complain, and desire a king, Sa1 8:3-5. Samuel is displeased, and inquires of the Lord, Sa1 8:6. The Lord is also displeased; but directs Samuel to appoint them a king, and to show them solemnly the consequences of their choice, Sa1 8:7-9. Samuel does so; and shows them what they may expect from an absolute monarch, and how afflicted they should be under his administration, Sa1 8:10-18. The people refuse to recede from their demand; and Samuel lays the matter before the Lord, and dismisses them, Sa1 8:19-22.

The thing displeased Samuel - Because he saw that this amounted to a formal renunciation of the Divine government. Samuel prayed unto the Lord - He begged to know his mind in this important business.

OCCASIONED BY THE ILL-GOVERNMENT OF SAMUEL'S SONS, THE ISRAELITES ASK A KING. (1Sa. 8:1-18) when Samuel was old--He was now about fifty-four years of age, having discharged the office of sole judge for twelve years. Unable, from growing infirmities, to prosecute his circuit journeys through the country, he at length confined his magisterial duties to Ramah and its neighborhood (Sa1 7:15), delegating to his sons as his deputies the administration of justice in the southern districts of Palestine, their provincial court being held at Beer-sheba. The young men, however, did not inherit the high qualities of their father. Having corrupted the fountains of justice for their own private aggrandizement, a deputation of the leading men in the country lodged a complaint against them in headquarters, accompanied with a formal demand for a change in the government. The limited and occasional authority of the judges, the disunion and jealousy of the tribes under the administration of those rulers, had been creating a desire for a united and permanent form of government; while the advanced age of Samuel, together with the risk of his death happening in the then unsettled state of the people, was the occasion of calling forth an expression of this desire now.

the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us--Personal and family feelings might affect his views of this public movement. But his dissatisfaction arose principally from the proposed change being revolutionary in its character. Though it would not entirely subvert their theocratic government, the appointment of a visible monarch would necessarily tend to throw out of view their unseen King and Head. God intimated, through Samuel, that their request would, in anger, be granted, while at the same time he apprised them of some of the evils that would result from their choice.

II. The Monarchy of Saul from His Election Till His Ultimate Rejection - 1 Samuel 8-15 The earthly monarchy in Israel was established in the time of Samuel, and through his mediation. At the pressing desire of the people, Samuel installed the Benjaminite Saul as king, according to the command of God. The reign of Saul may be divided into two essentially different periods: viz., (1) the establishment and vigorous development of his regal supremacy (1 Samuel 8-15); (2) the decline and gradual overthrow of his monarchy (1 Samuel 16-31). The establishment of the monarchy is introduced by the negotiations of the elders of Israel with Samuel concerning the appointment of a king (1 Samuel 8). This is followed by (1) the account of the anointing of Saul as king (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16), of his election by lot, and of his victory over the Ammonites and the confirmation of his monarchy at Gilgal (1 Samuel 10:17-11:15), together with Samuel's final address to the nation (1 Samuel 12); (2) the history of Saul's reign, of which only his earliest victories over the Philistines are given at all elaborately (1 Samuel 13:1-14:46), his other wars and family history being disposed of very summarily (Sa1 14:47-52); (3) the account of his disobedience to the command of God in the war against the Amalekites, and the rejection on the part of God with which Samuel threatened him in consequence (1 Samuel 15). The brevity with which the history of his actual reign is treated, in contrast with the elaborate account of his election and confirmation as king, may be accounted for from the significance and importance of Saul's monarchy in relation to the kingdom of God in Israel. The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since the source of all the evils and misfortunes from which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obstinacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart. Samuel pointed this out to the elders of Israel, when they laid their petition before him that he would choose them a king. But Jehovah fulfilled their desires. He directed Samuel to appoint them a king, who possessed all the qualifications that were necessary to secure for the nation what it looked for from a king, and who therefore might have established the monarchy in Israel as foreseen and foretold by Jehovah, if he had not presumed upon his own power, but had submitted humbly to the will of God as made known to him by the prophet. Saul, who was chosen from Benjamin, the smallest but yet the most warlike of all the tribes, a man in the full vigour of youth, and surpassing all the rest of the people in beauty of form as well as bodily strength, not only possessed "warlike bravery and talent, unbroken courage that could overcome opposition of every kind, a stedfast desire for the well-being of the nation in the face of its many and mighty foes, and zeal and pertinacity in the execution of his plans" (Ewald), but also a pious heart, and an earnest zeal for the maintenance of the provisions of the law, and the promotion of the religious life of the nation. He would not commence the conflict with the Philistines until sacrifice had been offered (Sa1 13:9.); in the midst of the hot pursuit of the foe he opposed the sin committed by the people in eating flesh with the blood (Sa1 14:32-33); he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land (Sa1 28:3, Sa1 28:9); and in general he appears to have kept a strict watch over the observance of the Mosaic law in his kingdom. But the consciousness of his own power, coupled with the energy of his character, led his astray into an incautious disregard of the commands of God; his zeal in the prosecution of his plans hurried him on to reckless and violent measures; and success in his undertakings heightened his ambition into a haughty rebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel. These errors come out very conspicuously in the three great events of his reign which are the most circumstantially described. When Saul was preparing for war against the Philistines, and Samuel did not appear at once on the day appointed, he presumptuously disregarded the prohibition of the prophet, and offered the sacrifice himself without waiting for Samuel to arrive (Sa1 13:7.). In the engagement with the Philistines, he attempted to force on the annihilation of the foe by pronouncing the ban upon any one in his army who should eat bread before the evening, or till he had avenged himself upon his foes. Consequently, he not only diminished the strength of the people, so that the overthrow of the enemy was not great, but he also prepared humiliation for himself, inasmuch as he was not able to carry out his vow (Sa1 14:24.). But he sinned still more grievously in the war with the Amalekites, when he violated the express command of the Lord by only executing the ban upon that nation as far as he himself thought well, and thus by such utterly unpardonable conduct altogether renounced the obedience which he owed to the Lord his God (1 Samuel 15). All these acts of transgression manifest an attempt to secure the unconditional gratification of his own self-will, and a growing disregard of the government of Jehovah in Israel; and the consequence of the whole was simply this, that Saul not only failed to accomplish that deliverance of the nation out of the power of its foes which the Israelites had anticipated from their king, and was unable to inflict any lasting humiliation upon the Philistines, but that he undermined the stability of his monarchy, and brought about his own rejection on the part of God. From all this we may see very clearly, that the reason why the occurrences connected with the election of Saul as king as fully described on the one hand, and on the other only such incidents connected with his enterprises after he began to reign as served to bring out the faults and crimes of his monarchy, was, that Israel might learn from this, that royalty itself could never secure the salvation it expected, unless the occupant of the throne submitted altogether to the will of the Lord. Of the other acts of Saul, the wars with the different nations round about are only briefly mentioned, but with this remark, that he displayed his strength and gained the victory in whatever direction he turned (Sa1 14:47), simply because this statement was sufficient to bring out the brighter side of his reign, inasmuch as this clearly showed that it might have been a source of blessing to the people of God, if the king had only studied how to govern his people in the power and according to the will of Jehovah. If we examine the history of Saul's reign from this point of view, all the different points connected with it exhibit the greatest harmony. Modern critics, however, have discovered irreconcilable contradictions in the history, simply because, instead of studying it for the purpose of fathoming the plan and purpose which lie at the foundation, they have entered upon the inquiry with a twofold assumption: viz., (1) that the government of Jehovah over Israel was only a subjective idea of the Israelitish nation, without any objective reality; and (2) that the human monarchy was irreconcilably opposed to the government of God. Governed by these axioms, which are derived not from the Scriptures, but from the philosophical views of modern times, the critics have found it impossible to explain the different accounts in any other way than by the purely external hypothesis, that the history contained in this book has been compiled from two different sources, in one of which the establishment of the earthly monarchy was treated as a violation of the supremacy of God, whilst the other took a more favourable view. From the first source, 1 Samuel 8, Sa1 10:17-27, Sa1 10:11-12, and Sa1 10:15 are said to have been derived; and 1 Samuel 9-10:17, Sa1 10:13, and Sa1 10:14 from the second.

Nevertheless "the thing displeased Samuel when they said," etc. This serves to explain הדּבר, and precludes the supposition that Samuel's displeasure had reference to what they had said concerning his own age and the conduct of his sons. At the same time, the reason why the petition for a king displeased the prophet, was not that he regarded the earthly monarchy as irreconcilable with the sovereignty of God, or even as untimely; for in both these cases he would not have entered into the question at all, but would simply have refused the request as ungodly or unseasonable. But "Samuel prayed to the Lord," i.e., he laid the matter before the Lord in prayer, and the Lord said (Sa1 8:7): "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee." This clearly implies, that not only in Samuel's opinion, but also according to the counsel of God, the time had really come for the establishment of the earthly sovereignty in Israel. In this respect the request of the elders for a king to reign over them was perfectly justifiable; and there is no reason to say, with Calvin, "they ought to have had regard to the times and conditions prescribed by God, and it would no doubt have come to pass that the regal power would have grown up in the nation. Although, therefore, it had not yet been established, they ought to have waited patiently for the time appointed by God, and not to have given way to their own reasons and counsels apart from the will of God." For God had not only appointed no particular time for the establishment of the monarchy; but in the introduction to the law for the king, "When thou shalt say, I will set a king over me," He had ceded the right to the representatives of the nation to deliberate upon the matter. Nor did they err in this respect, that while Samuel was still living, it was not the proper time to make use of the permission that they had received; for they assigned as the reason for their application, that Samuel had grown old: consequently they did not petition for a king instead of the prophet who had been appointed and so gloriously accredited by God, but simply that Samuel himself would give them a king in consideration of his own age, in order that when he should become feeble or die, they might have a judge and leader of the nation. Nevertheless the Lord declared, "They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. As they have always done from the day that I brought them up out of Egypt unto this day, that they have forsaken me and served other gods, so do they also unto thee." This verdict on the part of God refers not so much to the desire expressed, as to the feelings from which it had sprung. Externally regarded, the elders of Israel had a perfect right to present the request; the wrong was in their hearts. (Note: Calvin has correctly pointed out how much would have been warrantable under the circumstances: "They might, indeed, have reminded Samuel of his old age, which rendered him less able to attend to the duties of his office, and also of the avarice of his sons and the corruptness of the judges; or they might have complained that his sons did not walk in his footsteps, and have asked that God would choose suitable men to govern them, and thus have left the whole thing to His will. And if they had done this, there can be no doubt that they would have received a gracious and suitable answer. But they did not think of calling upon God; they demanded that a king should be given them, and brought forward the customs and institutions of other nations.") They not only declared to the prophet their confidence in his administration of his office, but they implicitly declared him incapable of any further superintendence of their civil and political affairs. This mistrust was founded upon mistrust in the Lord and His guidance. In the person of Samuel they rejected the Lord and His rule. They wanted a king, because they imagined that Jehovah their God-king was not able to secure their constant prosperity. Instead of seeking for the cause of the misfortunes which had hitherto befallen them in their own sin and want of fidelity towards Jehovah, they searched for it in the faulty constitution of the nation itself. In such a state of mind as this, their desire for a king was a contempt and rejection of the kingly government of Jehovah, and was nothing more than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods. (See Sa1 10:18-19, and Sa1 12:7., where Samuel points out to the people still more fully the wrong that they have committed.)