Summary: Samuel appointed his two sons as judges in Israel, but they proved corrupt by accepting bribes (v.3; cf. Deut. 16:19). This echoes the situation with Eli, who forfeited his leadership due to his sons’ immorality. Samuel faced the risk of repeating history.
Despite God’s guidelines for kingship (Deut. 17:14-20), Israel desired a king for all the wrong reasons, wanting to emulate the surrounding nations (v.5). Another motive emerged when faced with the threat of Nahash, the king of the Ammonites (1 Sam. 12:12). Fear prompted them to demand a king, despite God being their rightful ruler.
Samuel cautioned about the consequences of kingship (v.10), predicting high taxes and authoritarian dominance (vv.11-18). But the people disregarded his warnings (vv.19-20), and God allowed their choice.
(8:1) When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.
Samuel was old, but the text doesn’t describe his death until chapter 25. So, he must’ve had a long life as a prophet.
“He appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders.” Unfortunately, Samuel never learned the lesson that he should discipline his own sons. Perhaps, he learned this from Eli’s poor example. Regardless, Samuel installed his sons as leaders, and they end up being ungodly men (v.3).
(8:2-3) The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
“Dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.” This was forbidden by the law (Ex. 23:8; Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:19). Ironically, Joel’s name meant, “The Lord is God,” and Abijah’s name meant, “My [Divine] Father is the Lord.”[] Samuel stayed in a small circuit in Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah, and Ramah (1 Sam. 7:16-17). But his boys stayed far away from their father in the south at Beersheba. They must’ve wanted to have the freedom to cheat and steal away from the watching eyes of their father.
These two sons are similar to Eli’s sons. A key difference in Samuel’s parenting is that he was far away (Beersheba is 57 miles from Ramah).[] However, why didn’t Samuel do something to correct the sin of his sons?—especially after seeing this exact same scenario occur in Eli’s family line?
(8:4) So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah.
The elders had to tell Samuel about this. He wasn’t engaged enough with his sons to know what they were doing.
(8:5) They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”
“Appoint a king to lead us.” The people recognized the problem adequately, but they didn’t offer a solution. Instead of running these bad men out of office, they decide to give over more control to a king, who would have even more control and power. In this case, the medicine was worse than the disease itself.
“Such as all the other nations have.” They were also succumbing to assimilation with the culture, which God prohibited (Lev. 20:26; Num. 23:9). The reason for their solution was faulty as well. After all, the nations were horrible!
(8:6) But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD.
Samuel could tell something was wrong with this. After all, God was their king (Deut. 33:5). Instead of taking his anger out of Samuel, he took the request to God in prayer for counsel.
(8:7) And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.
Surprisingly, God tells Samuel to “listen” to the people three times (vv.7, 9, 22).
(8:8) As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you.
(1 Sam. 8:7-8) Why would God say he was rejected as the king, if he included instructions for a king (Deut. 17:14-20)? The people wanted a human king for the wrong reasons. They wanted to be like the other nations (v.5). Moreover, they wanted to trust in a visible and finite leader, rather than the invisible and infinite God. This is why Samuel reminds them that God was the one who rescued them from Egypt—not a human person (v.19). Moreover, God would be the one to appoint a king (Deut. 17:15), but the people wanted to choose their own king. While God also chose Saul (1 Sam 9:16; 10:1, 24; 12:13), the people were choosing him for the wrong reasons (e.g. stature, good looks, etc.).
(8:9) Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
God was willing to condescend to their request, but not without thoroughly warning the people of what they were asking.
There isn’t a single positive reference to having a king in this warning. Moreover, this description fits the contemporary Canaanite kings, giving evidence that this accurately captures the historical setting.[]
(8:10) Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king.
Samuel spoke authoritatively from God. These weren’t his private opinions, but divine predictions of what would happen.
(8:11) He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.
King Saul made people serve just like this (1 Sam. 14:52). Moreover, Absalom (2 Sam. 15:1) and Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5) adopted this exact practice of having “frontrunners” with their chariots.
(8:12) Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.
The king would gather an army, as well as gather money (food).
(8:13) He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.
The kings wouldn’t even spare the women from conscription into service (albeit, non-military service). He wouldn’t just take their sons, but also their daughters.
(8:14-15) He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.
The king would take their property. After all, he would need to sustain all of the people in his army (v.15).
(8:16) Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.
The king would take the servants from the people (i.e. he would take their “employees” from their businesses), and he would take their “best” livestock.
(8:17) He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.
The king would take their money, as well as their livestock.
(8:18) When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
This is in stark contrast to how Samuel cried out to God on behalf of the people, and the people were given protection (1 Sam. 7:8-9). This prediction came to fruition through David (2 Sam. 6:1; 8:15-18) and Solomon and his son (1 Kin. 12:4). It only became worse as Israel’s history progressed.
(8:19) But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us.”
How could you go ahead after such a horrible description? Clearly, they already had their minds made up. If God added another negative to the list, it wouldn’t change their minds at all.
(8:20) “Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
God himself wanted to fight their battles (2 Chron. 32:8). The people wanted a physical and tangible person to “lead” them and “go out before them” and “fight their battles.” They wanted a man, rather than God.
(8:21-22) When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.” Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”
Samuel took their response back to God, rather than asserting himself. God acquiesced to their desire. Samuel later reminds them of their faulty decision in the rest of this book (1 Sam. 10:19; 12:12).
We should trust in God—not in man-made structures. God seems to condescend to work through structures. But God doesn’t want us trust in our structures. In the church, we should depend on God, rather than our structures for how to do his work.
Perhaps, a king was a lesser of two evils. Life in Judges was awful because “there was no king in Israel” (Judg. 21:25). But the problem wasn’t with the monarchy. The problem was with the people not trusting God. When they stayed on track with God, everything went well. When we choose our own path, it might be a lesser of two evils, but it is always second best compared to God’s plan.
This concept of a king shows the problem of having a perfect king in character. Who could possibly have all of the power necessary to lead, but will also be a man of character? This shows that we need God to rule. This is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, who is humble and gentle in heart (Mt. 11:29), but is also unbelievably powerful (Col. 1:16).
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 612.
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 612.
Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 614.
James is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies.
