Samuel's mistake anointing Saul to be King

I t

Francis Drake said:

The fivefold ministries you list were never given to the body of Christ as rulers. Jesus made that very clear to James and John when they asked for two thrones. They are supposed to be servants of the body, that's what minister means.
I have heard it ad nauseam, "Our pastor has such a servant heart". Then they relate that if anyone else wants to present anything to the congregation, they have to go and ask permission from the pastor!
If you have to ask a servant for permission, then he is your master, not your servant.

Christian leaders are our kings for exactly the same reason that Israel demanded a king. People are too lazy to seek God for themselves, they want someone to do it for them, and they will happily pay him for doing it.

Click to expand...

hink when he referred to kings it was going back to Old Testament times and kings over Israel back then, not now.

That was what I got out of it because there really aren’t kings today

ToBeLoved said:

I t

hink when he referred to kings it was going back to Old Testament times and kings over Israel back then, not now.

That was what I got out of it because there really aren’t kings today

Click to expand...

I agree the OP was referring to OT kings.
I was simply drawing a direct comparison between Saul and the kings that Christians demand today.

I see little difference in the demands of both instances.
I see little difference in the heart attitudes of those who make those two demands.
I see little difference in what God thinks in both instances

The people wanted a king so they could be ruled by a human government and be like the pagan nations around them. God allowed it, but the reason Saul was chosen was because God knew that he would fail as king and betray both Him and His people. He chose Saul to be king as a way of disciplining Israel for their rebellion. Samuel was warned because he was the prophet and God's messenger. All of the prophets in the OT were given the task of preaching repentance and warning Israel and others of what would happen to them if they did not turn their hearts back to God.

Emerald518 said:

The people wanted a king so they could be ruled by a human government and be like the pagan nations around them. God allowed it, but the reason Saul was chosen was because God knew that he would fail as king and betray both Him and His people. He chose Saul to be king as a way of disciplining Israel for their rebellion. Samuel was warned because he was the prophet and God's messenger. All of the prophets in the OT were given the task of preaching repentance and warning Israel and others of what would happen to them if they did not turn their hearts back to God.

Click to expand...

I would sort-of agree with this view. I don't think kingship itself was viewed as bad - hence why the book of Judges shows the need for a king. What was viewed as bad was Saul's kingship specifically. David and Solomon's kingship were viewed positively.

But this still doesn't address why the people are condemned for requesting a king. I think we may need to be suspicious of Samuel, after all, he has something to lose here - it's his family that loses out if the people reject him or his sons. If his sons were really corrupt judges (1 Sam 8:3), and Eli's sons before were corrupt (1 Sam 2:22), is it any surprise that the tribes demand something else? Would it be any surprise if Samuel were displeased by the fact that the people have rejected his sons as their rulers? The people are divided tribes who are trying to fight in a united front against the Philistines. And the judges that are leading them in this united fight are corrupt. Additionally, the Philistines seem stronger and were giving the Israelites real trouble - they seemed to be winning, to include winning one battle against the Israelites even though the Israelites had the Ark with them.

The people seem to keep worshiping Yahweh. So if they have rejected him as Samuel said, they have a weird way of showing it. It seems as if they don't trust their corrupt judges, namely Eli and Samuel's sons, not that they don't trust Yahweh. But Samuel equates the rejection of himself as rejection of God, but it seems that in reality Samuel's leadership was lacking (Eli's as well), so the people demand something else. It could be that Samuel sees his victories as proof of his divine appointment, and so sees the tribes' rejection of him as a rejection of Yahweh.

I suspect there was a crisis in Israel when they lost the battle against the Philistines, the Ark was captured, and the leadership (Eli and his family) was decimated. Samuel offers some stability after the losses against the Philistines. He wins some battles and regains some lost territory, but his sons are showing the same signs of corruption as Eli's sons. A House of Samuel seems to be no better in the long run than the House of Eli. Rather than go down the road of crisis and defeat due to corrupt judges again, the tribes demand something else.

Yekcidmij said:

The people seem to keep worshiping Yahweh. So if they have rejected him as Samuel said, they have a weird way of showing it

Click to expand...

8:7 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.

God is the One who said the people rejected Him.

Emerald518 said:

The people wanted a king so they could be ruled by a human government and be like the pagan nations around them.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

God allowed it, but the reason Saul was chosen was because God knew that he would fail as king and betray both Him and His people. He chose Saul to be king as a way of disciplining Israel for their rebellion.

Click to expand...

Disagreed.
Saul was clearly the best man for the job in the whole of Israel.
1Sam10v24Samuel said to all the people, “Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen? Surely there is no one like him among all the people.” So all the people shouted and said, “Long live the king!”
He was the best, but like all men including David and Solomon, he was flawed.

There's no evidence that God deliberately selected someone programmed to fail.

Samuel was warned because he was the prophet and God's messenger. All of the prophets in the OT were given the task of preaching repentance and warning Israel and others of what would happen to them if they did not turn their hearts back to God.

Click to expand...

Yekcidmij said:

I don't think kingship itself was viewed as bad - hence why the book of Judges shows the need for a king.

Click to expand...

The Book of Judges didn't show the need for a king. It shows the need for repentance and obedience to the Law.

What was viewed as bad was Saul's kingship specifically. David and Solomon's kingship were viewed positively.

Click to expand...

No.
What was bad was their demand to be like the nations around them, when God had made it clear that Israel should be nothing like the nations around them.

When Israel forces a change against what God commands, then from that time onwards, that's how God treated them.
Hence, once they demanded a king, from that time forward, that's how God worked with Israel. It was their idea, and they were now stuck with it for better or worse!

But this still doesn't address why the people are condemned for requesting a king.

Click to expand...

Scripture makes it clear they were condemned because in demanding a king, they had rejected God that he should no longer reign over them.
1Sam8v7The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.

I think we may need to be suspicious of Samuel, after all, he has something to lose here - it's his family that loses out if the people reject him or his sons. If his sons were really corrupt judges (1 Sam 8:3), and Eli's sons before were corrupt (1 Sam 2:22), is it any surprise that the tribes demand something else? Would it be any surprise if Samuel were displeased by the fact that the people have rejected his sons as their rulers? The people are divided tribes who are trying to fight in a united front against the Philistines. And the judges that are leading them in this united fight are corrupt. Additionally, the Philistines seem stronger and were giving the Israelites real trouble - they seemed to be winning, to include winning one battle against the Israelites even though the Israelites had the Ark with them.

Click to expand...

Casting suspicion on Samuel is very wrong. Scripture makes it clear that he was completely innocent, despite his

1Sam12v2“Now, here is the king walking before you, but I am old and gray, and behold my sons are with you. And I have walked before you from my youth even to this day. 3“Here I am; bear witness against me before the LORD and His anointed. Whose ox have I taken, or whose donkey have I taken, or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed, or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? I will restore it to you.” 4They said, “You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything from any man’s hand.” 5He said to them, “The LORD is witness against you, and His anointed is witness this day that you have found nothing in my hand.” And they said, “He is witness.”​

The people seem to keep worshiping Yahweh. So if they have rejected him as Samuel said, they have a weird way of showing it.

Click to expand...

They were not at all loyal to Yahweh. Since they had entered the land, they worshipped many of the deities of those they had defeated, plus those of the nations around them. Yahweh was regularly demoted to just one god among many gods.

It seems as if they don't trust their corrupt judges, namely Eli and Samuel's sons, not that they don't trust Yahweh. But Samuel equates the rejection of himself as rejection of God,

Click to expand...

Wrong.
You have completely contradicted scripture. It was not Samuel that equated it as rejection of God, but God himself who stated that.
1Sam8v7The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. 8“Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also.

Yekcidmij said:

I would sort-of agree with this view. I don't think kingship itself was viewed as bad - hence why the book of Judges shows the need for a king. What was viewed as bad was Saul's kingship specifically. David and Solomon's kingship were viewed positively.

But this still doesn't address why the people are condemned for requesting a king. I think we may need to be suspicious of Samuel, after all, he has something to lose here - it's his family that loses out if the people reject him or his sons. If his sons were really corrupt judges (1 Sam 8:3), and Eli's sons before were corrupt (1 Sam 2:22), is it any surprise that the tribes demand something else? Would it be any surprise if Samuel were displeased by the fact that the people have rejected his sons as their rulers? The people are divided tribes who are trying to fight in a united front against the Philistines. And the judges that are leading them in this united fight are corrupt. Additionally, the Philistines seem stronger and were giving the Israelites real trouble - they seemed to be winning, to include winning one battle against the Israelites even though the Israelites had the Ark with them.

The people seem to keep worshiping Yahweh. So if they have rejected him as Samuel said, they have a weird way of showing it. It seems as if they don't trust their corrupt judges, namely Eli and Samuel's sons, not that they don't trust Yahweh. But Samuel equates the rejection of himself as rejection of God, but it seems that in reality Samuel's leadership was lacking (Eli's as well), so the people demand something else. It could be that Samuel sees his victories as proof of his divine appointment, and so sees the tribes' rejection of him as a rejection of Yahweh.

I suspect there was a crisis in Israel when they lost the battle against the Philistines, the Ark was captured, and the leadership (Eli and his family) was decimated. Samuel offers some stability after the losses against the Philistines. He wins some battles and regains some lost territory, but his sons are showing the same signs of corruption as Eli's sons. A House of Samuel seems to be no better in the long run than the House of Eli. Rather than go down the road of crisis and defeat due to corrupt judges again, the tribes demand something else.

Click to expand...

God had always intended for Israel to be ruled by Him and Him alone because they were His chosen people to serve as a witness of Him and draw all people unto Himself, like how the Christian Church is today (however, the Church does not replace Israel). When the people requested a human king, they were essentially rejecting God. By appointing a human king that was going to mess everything up, God was showing the people why it was better that only He ruled them. It was a testament to His faithfulness and other attributes. With a human king Israel was now like the other nations and not separate and called out like He intended. They compromised to be like the world and were no different from the pagans in this respect.

As far as David and Solomon's Kingship being viewed positively, this is because God redeemed Israel's kingship by choosing men who were Godly and who He knew would keep Israel from straying. David was a man after God's own heart and Solomon was hailed by God as the wisest of all rulers.

Francis Drake said:

The Book of Judges didn't show the need for a king. It shows the need for repentance and obedience to the Law.

Click to expand...

So what do you do with the verses in Judges that indicate that a king was needed:

Judg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.
Judg 18:1 In those days there was no king of Israel
Judg 19:1 Now it came about in those days, when there was no king in Israel,
Judg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

It seems these are meant to show that the time of the Judges was a chaotic time where everyone "did what was right in his own eyes." This is directly connected to the fact that there was no king. It seems the conclusion was that there needed to be a king.

They were not at all loyal to Yahweh. Since they had entered the land, they worshipped many of the deities of those they had defeated, plus those of the nations around them. Yahweh was regularly demoted to just one god among many gods.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the case just before they demanded a king:

7:4 So the Israelites removed the Baals and images of Ashtoreth. They served only the Lord.

Hence, once they demanded a king, from that time forward, that's how God worked with Israel. It was their idea, and they were now stuck with it for better or worse!

Click to expand...

It seems the time of the Judges wasn't that much better. We know neither Eli's nor Samuel's sons were better than a king. Neither was Micah (Jdg 17), nor the Judges ruling during the civil war (Jdg 20), Samson, Jephthah, or Abimelech.

Judg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.
Judg 18:1 In those days there was no king of Israel
Judg 19:1 Now it came about in those days, when there was no king in Israel,
Judg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.