Outline of Chapter 8:

       vv.    1–3        Samuel’s Miscreant Sons

       vv.    4–5        The People of Israel Ask Samuel for a King

       vv.    6–9        Samuel Goes to God About This Request

       vv.   10–18      Samuel Warns the People About the Consequences of Their Petition

       vv.   19–22      The People Still Want a King and God Grants Them This Request

Charts and Maps:

       v.      2           Just Who the Hell is Vashni?

       v.      7           The Three Wills of God

       v.      8           Covenant Theology vs. Dispensations

       v.      8           Keil and Delitzsch Explain Why the Request of the Elders was Displeasing

       v.     11           What a King would Do in Israel

       v.     18           Why is it Illogical that Someone Added Long Passages to the Scriptures?

       v.     18           Samuel’s List of the Ill Effects of Having a King

       v.     19           The Petitions of Prayer

       v.     20           Modern Renderings of 1Sam. 8:19–20

       v.     22           Dealing with the False Theories of Authorship and Time of Writing

I ntroduction: You may know a family where their last child was born 10 years after the previous child. Generally, this is the unplanned for child. What we have here is the unplanned for chapter. When Samuel was reaching the end of his life (in his opinion), he completed 1Sam. 7. He discussed a revival in Israel, the battle against the Philistines (which appeared to be their final battle at that point); and Samuel even added somewhat of an epilogue to chapter 7 (vv. 15–18). At that time, Samuel figured that his ministry was pretty much over. He was even training his sons to take over for him. Then, suddenly in chapter 8, it is like a family has given birth to a son long after their family was completed. Samuel thought that he had completed his divine assignment, and, suddenly, in 1Sam. 8, there’s more. I mention this, because it helps us to put a time frame to this. In 1Sam. 7:15–17, we have Samuel summing up what he thinks are his final days ministering to Israel. He had developed a circuit which he completed every year; he built his final home in Ramah; and he was living out the final years of his life. At the beginning of 1Sam. 8, Samuel has reached a point in his life when he feels that he should retire. He begins to groom his sons to take over his ministry (1Sam. 8:1).

During this time period, we must have enough time for Israel to fall off the wagon, so to speak. So, from the writing of 1Sam. 7, where everything is hunky dory at the end (see 1Sam. 7:13–14), to 1Sam. 8, where we have the implied degeneration of Israel (compare 1Sam. 8:5–6 12:12, 19 ). So, after 1Sam. 7:11, we may assume that we have, say, 10–40 years of peace and prosperity, which takes us up to the end of 1Sam. 7, when all of these things were recorded. Then we need time for Israel’s volition to go negative and for Israel to go into idolatry (and I am merely assuming this is what happened; degeneracy can take many forms). This time of negative volution will certainly start during the time of peace and prosperity. So, figure 10–20 years of that peace and prosperity time where Israel began her downhill slide. This takes us to 1Sam. 8. The point of all this is that between the writing of 1Sam. 7 (which Samuel assumed would be the last stuff that he would write) to the events of 1Sam. 8, there were a minimum of 10 years; and that the events of 1Sam. 8 could have occurred as much as 10–40 years after the events of 1Sam. 7:3–12). Returning to the analogy which I began with, 1Sam. 8 and following is the unexpected and unplanned for son which Samuel had very late in life.

Application: It was clear that, at the end of 1Sam. 7, Samuel figured that his ministry had been completed; it was over. However, listen carefully: Samuel was not dead, he was spiritually mature, and he was in fellowship most of the time. Therefore, Samuel still had a ministry before God. In fact, Samuel's ministry will continue probably for decades. My point? It does not matter how old you are. Your final years as a believer could be the most productive of your life. In fact, given that you will probably have more free time and that, ideally speaking, you will be more spiritually mature and less after to get out of fellowship, it would make sense that your final years on this earth could be very productive.

It has been interesting to follow the life of Samuel. We got a lot of information about him prior to his birth (1Sam. 1–2a); we examined his growth under Eli (1Sam. 2b–3); we then jumped to the pivotal point in his life when Israel recognized his authority (the previous chapter). Now, already, we are looking for his replacement. Samuel, by the time of this chapter, has grown old. He cannot do all that he did before and has gotten help from his two sons. However, they lack personal integrity and are willing to subvert justice for money. The people of Israel complain about that, but what they are after is a king. The major nations around them are all ruled by kings and they believe that they should be too. For hundreds of years, Israel has been a theocracy. God has ruled over Israel with a variety of intercessors, some with more authority than others. The Israeli people now call for a man with absolute power over them. This is not a sudden desire. Back as far as the days of the judges, the people called upon Gideon to rule over them. “Rule over us, both you and your son; and your son’s son, for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian.” (Judges 8:22b). Gideon responded with, “I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you; Jehovah will rule over you.” (Judges 8:23b). Gideon understood enough to realize that he was not the man to rule over Israel; and that it was not yet time for a man to rule as king over Israel.

Israel began as a nation under God, a theocracy. “Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you will be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine. And you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:5–6a). It is imprecise to conclude that Israel will no longer be a theocracy because, in this chapter, the elders request Samuel to install a king over them. God will allow this choice, although it is not His perfect will for Israel. Israel will still remain a theocracy and Israel will remain, as Thieme coined the phrase, a client nation to God.

You may recall that I mentioned one of the theories floating around that portions of 1Sam. 7 (specifically vv. 3–4 and vv. 13–14) were added after the rest of the chapter had been written. I believe that I need to occasionally address the more flaky theories out there in Christiandom. Gnana Robinson also points out that there is a pro and anti-king sentiment shown throughout this portion of 1Samuel (and in the chapters which follow), which he dutifully separates for us (Pro-king: 1Sam. 9:1–10:16 11 12:1–5 13–14. Anti-king: 1Sam. 8 10:17–27 12:6–25 15). Because both sentiments are found, it appears as though Robinson’s opinion is that these either represent different eras (although it was unclear whether we are speaking of different authors having their works woven together). His only disagreement with the infamous Julius Wellhausen is which tradition is oldest. Once we exegete this portion of Scripture, along with what is coming up, it will be clear that there are two stances that one could take. This in no way implies that there are two authors whose stories are interwoven, nor does it mean that we are faced with two irreconcilable viewpoints. There are simply pluses and minuses, and Scripture tends to deal with most issues even-handedly. This chapter will cause us to ask, what is the best form of national government? And, what is the best form of church government? Not only will we ask these questions, but we will answer them. The answer to these questions will make the idea of two authors having their stories interwoven a baseless theory.

The breakdown of this chapter is fairly simple. Samuel grows old and his sons begin to take over some of his responsibilities, but they were corrupt and were willing to pervert justice for a bribe (vv. 1–3). In part, because of this, the elders of Israel go to Samuel at his home in Ramah, complaining about his sons, and that they want a king over them (vv. 4–5). Samuel goes to God in prayer over this and God tells him they are just following their own corrupt nature, which has great historical precedent (vv. 7–8). Then God tells Samuel to listen to the people, but to first give them a solemn warning as to what the results of this request would be (v. 9). The lengthiest portion of this chapter is Samuel’s warning to the people of Israel as to what a king would do against them (vv. 10–18). The people answer, “Yeah, but we want a king over us.” (vv. 19–20). Samuel goes back to God in prayer and God tells Samuel to appoint a king over them (v. 21). Samuel returns to the elders and tells them to go home (v. 22).

Samuel’s Miscreant Sons

Apparently, we have a period of time during which Israel enjoyed some peace and prosperity. There is no narrative in Scripture which covers this period of time, apart from the short description found in 1Sam. 7:13–17: So the Philistines were subdued and they did not continue any more to enter into the territory of Israel; furthermore, the hand of Y^ehowah was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel. And so the towns, which the Philistines had taken from Israel, were restored to Israel—from Ekron even as far as Gath—and Israel had rescued her territory from the hand of the Philistines. And [there] was peace between Israel and the Amorites. So Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. And he went according as year to year and he went around to Beth-el, Gilgal and Mizpah and he governed Israel from all these places. And his returning [was] to Ramah, for his house [was] there; also, there he judged [or governed over] Israel. Furthermore, he built there an altar to Y^ehowah. Barnes suggests that at least 20 years of peace and prosperity have passed, not unlike similar periods of time of peace and prosperity enjoyed by Israel during the time of the judges. Although we really have no clue as to the actual time period, it cannot be too long (say, 50 years), or it will exceed the life of Samuel; and it cannot be too short (say, 5 years), as it would not be significant enough to note.

Here is what others have done with this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so was as which old Samuel and so he made his sons judges to Israel.

Septuagint                             And it came to pass when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NAB                                       In his old age Samuel appointed his sons judges over Israel.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons judges over Israel.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel.

Young's Updated LT              And it comes to pass, when Samuel is aged, that he makes his sons judges over Israel.

What is the gist of this verse? Samuel becomes old and appoints his sons as judges over Israel.

Translation: And so when Samuel was old,... The NIV Study Bible suggests that approximately 20 years have passed since the previous chapter and that Samuel is about 65 years old. With regards to age; we have left that period of time when man lived for a long time before growing old. Around the time of the patriarchs and before, the ages of their fathers decreased as time progressed, where men at one time lived to be 900; and, in Abraham’s day, only into their early 100's. By the time of Samuel, we would expect their lifetimes to be roughly parallel to ours. In the psalm of Moses, who wrote prior to this era, said that man’s days on this earth were 70–80 years (Psalm 90:10). Therefore, the estimate of 65 years old seems reasonable.

Samuel will continue to play a part in Israel’s history, as Israel’s spiritual conscience; and as a confidant to King Saul, whom Samuel will choose, albeit unwillingly. He will also choose David as Saul’s successor, following God’s guidance. Through this time period, Samuel will function as an old man (1Sam. 8:1 12:2). Some time during Saul’s reign, Samuel will die; and, interestingly enough, his age will not be given (1Sam. 25:1).

Translation: ...he made his sons judges over Israel. When I was younger, I recall how difficult that it was for me to sit just in one place and to relax. I worked constantly, as many as four jobs at one time. Now, as age has started to get the best of me, I hold the limit at working two jobs at a time. As I go through and revise this chapter, a few years later, I am now working, essentially, half a job. Samuel was also getting older; traveling was more taxing; the newness of his responsibilities had long since worn out. He enjoyed sitting quietly as much as he did working. His energy level was much lower. Therefore, he appointed his sons as judges in his stead. He apparently retained some authority, but they began to assume his duties.

Interestingly enough, in the Law of God, there was no particular political system devised for the selection of judges. Deut. 16:18 reads: “You will appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which Jehovah your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they will judge the people with righteous judgment.” Even though Moses was addressing all of Israel (Deut. 5:1), most of what he said, including this verse, was in the 2^nd person masculine singular. Whether one would interpret this as Moses speaking to Israel (“You, Israel, will appoint for yourselves judges and officers...”) or if one would interpret this as speaking to each individual (“You, an individual citizen in Israel—you will choose for yourselves judges and officers...”); it is not clear as to what the mechanics would be. You must realize that the concept of the democracy was pretty foreign to the ancient world (at least, until the Greeks came along, and even then it was quite limited). What we have recorded is that Moses chose men under him to judge and dispense justice; Samuel chose his sons to judge. One might allow for this verse to mean that the elders of Israel were to choose their judges (which would make sense). However, what I believe is being said is that, the actual form of the government is not the essential element. These judges could be appointed by spiritually wise men (e.g., Moses and Samuel); they could be elected by a popular vote (we have no instances of this except, perhaps, in Acts 1); or, they could be chosen by the elders of Israel (which would have been a representative form of government).

Application: Listen to this, and read this well: If there were a superior form of government which would guarantee that superior judges would be chosen, God would have given us an unambiguous outline for that form of government. However, it is not the system, but the people in the system. At this point, apart from God coming down a choosing specific new leaders every 30–40 years (which, to a certain extent, He did), there is not one system of government which is superior over another system of government. As Thieme was wont to say: “People get the leaders that they deserve.” They might be chosen by a democracy, by a representative form of government, or they might be appointed. Even God might appoint these leaders (God did appoint Saul as king over Israel). Still, people get the kind of rulers that they deserve.

Application: So we completely understand what is going on here: the elders have come to Samuel thinking that the problem is the system of government. What is the real problem? The elders of Israel—they are the problem; the people of Israel—they are the problem. Haven't you heard over and over again, it is the system that is corrupt. A system does not become corrupt out of thin air. A system becomes corrupt because of the people in the system. During the time of the 1^st advent of Jesus Christ, the two greatest systems of jurisprudence at that time were the Roman and Jewish courts; and yet, both courts condemned Jesus Christ, a completely innocent man, innocent of all sin, to death. It was not the system, but those in the system.

Application: Now, let’s apply this. There are a lot of people who get hung up on the form of government found in the local church. Who is in charge? Who can veto who? Who makes the big decisions? How many elders should there be? What power should they have? How many pastors should a church have? Should their be assistant pastors? Not only do we have these questions (which are reasonable questions, by the way), but there are men who are adamant about which form is divinely mandated. You cannot go to the New Testament and clearly find one form of local church government as recommended over another. Who had authority over any pastor and any local church in that day? The Apostles. Where are the Apostles now? Face to face with our Lord Jesus Christ. There are no Apostles walking on this earth today. So who is in charge? God left this open. There are denominations and millions of people belong to these various denominations; and there are thousands of men, if not hundreds of thousands, who are detractors of the denomination. Does God’s Word clearly define a denomination as a form of Church government? Not really. But, does God’s Word clearly prohibit such a form of Church government? Not really. If a denomination recognizes that people are saved by believing in Christ Jesus, as opposed to being, say, Baptists, and if, whenever necessary, there can be reasonable fellowship with other believers of different denominations, there I don’t personally have a problem with them. My own personal choice would be a more autocratic Church government, e.g. what R. B. Thieme has going; but there is nothing in the New Testament which specifically defines that form of local church government. My point is, it is not the system but the people. I believe that J. Vernon McGee was, more or less, a Presbyterian ; however, in his later years, his ministry was over the radio and his local church became a much different sort of gathering and structure. Personally, the bulk of my spiritual growth occurred outside of a conventional church; it occurred as I sat next to a tape recorder copiously taking notes. Eventually, a local church was established where we sat around the same tape recorder taking notes; but still, my growth occurred elsewhere. My pastor was Bob Thieme and the structure was rather loose compared to the structure of his own local church. Now, I will guarantee that I progressed spiritually much faster than the average person did going to the average church. The important issues are positive volition, personal commitment, dedication, and correct priorities. What is not the issue: the system of church government. Does your congregation vote as a whole? Do your elders make all the decisions (or, your board of deacons)? Does your pastor run the show? Are there rules and regulations imposed from an organization in a different city? This are issues, but not important ones. Let me give you an analogy: you are traveling through an unfamiliar city and you are hungry. Do you stop at Midtown’s Ma and Pa Café or do you stop at a familiar chain where the food tastes the same, no matter what city you are in? Is one better than the other? It depends upon the people who are in charge. Just because a restaurant is a chain, that does not make it better or worse than a restaurant which is absolutely independent. Similarly, just because a local church is part of a denomination, that does not make it any better or worse than a church that is independent. I have been to denominational churches which wasted my time in church; and I have been to independent churches who wasted my time of worship. The problem was not the organization or the structure of church government or the system of election and authority—it was the people in charge. In our context, the problem is not whether or not Israel has a king—the problem is the shoddy justice dispensed by Samuel’s sons. The problem is that there are ordinary people in Israel who have chosen to bribe Samuel’s sons. No longer is there a concern for justice; the concern is money. Now, if this is a major concern, does the Bible specifically address it? Certainly: “You will not distort justice; you will not be partial; and you will not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.” (Deut. 16:19). So, is the method of selection an issue? No, and therefore, it is not addressed. Is the personal integrity of the judges an issue? Absolutely, and Moses addressed that issue as quoted.

Okay, so now you are thinking...you've either come up with great reasons in favor of denominations or against them. So let's discuss this further. A denomination can have a great doctrinal statement. Although I have never read the doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Association (or, whatever it is called), I suspect that it is very well written and quite accurate. Now, if a pastor in that organization studies and teaches the Word of God, then I do not see a big problem with him being a southern Baptist. However, if that pastor is lazy and if his primary focus is simply what he learned in a southern Baptist university, then his ministry is going to be crap. The independent church is very similar: I know that R. B. Thieme Jr. and J. Vernon McGee were independent and they both had excellent ministries. However, there are thousands of independents who head lousy churches because they do not teach correct doctrine. They themselves are unteachable; and therefore, what they teach is generally, inaccurate. Again, the key is the actual pastor, and not the actual organization.

Let me dispense with a question often raised at this point: Since 1Sam. 7:15 tells us that Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life, doesn’t the appointment of his sons as judges contradict this? No. Moses ruled over Israel, in a manner of speaking, all of his life. He still had an assistant, Joshua, who seamlessly stepped in at his death and led Israel (Joshua also seamlessly stepped in as a recorder of Israel’s history in Scripture). Furthermore, Moses still appointed others to help him judge various matters brought before him (Ex. 18). Similarly, Samuel was the undisputed judge over Israel; his two sons were also appointed judges in a different part of Israel (southern Judah) to take some of the burden off of Samuel as he got older. I recall going from four jobs to two jobs as I got older; and to half a job after that. A man just has so much energy and that diminishes with age. Samuel simply slowed down and passed some of the work along to his sons. This does not contradict 1Sam. 7:15.

First, the other translations:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so was a name of his son, the firstborn, Joel; and a name of his second, Abijah—judges in Beersheba.

Septuagint                             ...and these are the names of his sons: Joel, the first-born, and the name of the second: Abia, judges in Bersabee.

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         His firstborn son was named Joel, the name of his second, Abijah. They were assigned duty in Beersheba.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

Complete Jewish Bible          His firstborn was named Yo’el, while his second son was named Aviyah; they were judges in Be’er-Sheva.

JPS (Tanakh)                        The name of his first-born son as Joel, and his second son’s name was Abijah; they sat as judges in Beer-sheba.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Now the name of his first-born was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba.

Young's Literal Translation    And the name of his first-born son is Joel, and the name of his second, Abiah, judges in beer-Sheba;...

What is the gist of this verse? Samuel had two sons who functioned as judges: Joel and Abijah, his first and second born.

Translation: Now the name of his firstborn son was Joel,... Joel means to whom Jehovah is God or worshiper of Jehovah. At this point, you probably are not the least confused. Your Bible reads pretty much what I have here. However, if you have a Scofield Bible, there is a margin note on Joel which gives the name Vashni and cites 1Chron. 6:28. And, anyone who has a KJV, turns to 1Chron. 6:28 and you see that Joel’s firstborn son is named Vashni. This should prompt you to wonder...

Translation: ...and the name of his second [was] Abijah—[they were both] judges in Beersheba. The masculine plural, Qal active participle of the verb should be rendered those judging, judges, governors. This simply means that Samuel had trained both of his sons to take his place. We are told nothing about God's dealings with Samuel at this point. The implication is, God did not tell Samuel, "Hold on there, buddy; we aren't setting up your sons to rule as judges after you." God did not have to guide Samuel's every step with divine guidance from heaven. Samuel did not have to stop at a fork in the path and ask God, should I go to the left or to the right? And clearly, if Samuel lives during a time of the audibly revealed Word of God, and not every step of his is guided by God; then surely we can function in our lives without stopping every minute or two to ask Gods guidance.

Application: Yes, the Bible does say Pray without ceasing. This refers to being in fellowship at all times, which means that you have unbroken fellowship with God. Therefore, you can, at any given time, speak to God. However, do not think that you need to ask God for a sign every time there is a fork in the road. If you do not know what to do 95% of the time without begging God in prayer for guidance, then you are not getting sound Bible teaching where you are. Now, does this mean that you should not have an ongoing conversation with God, which may include elements of guidance? Of course not; there are times when you will function in life and be in prayer at the same time, and some of your prayer will be asking God for guidance. What I am speaking of is, the idea that, you are at a crossroads, and you are immobilized because you cannot figure out what to do. That should not happen several times a week. During a time when you face a lot of important decisions, you might have to momentarily stop and especially pray for guidance once a month. However, do not function in a state of guidance-confusion for most of your life. That simply means, you are in the wrong church; you are not learning enough.

Beersheba was in southern Judah, which is pretty much the southernmost you can get in Israel and still be in a populated area. It is even possible that Beersheba was, at one time, in Philistine territory (when Philistia became more and more aggressive, taking more and more territory from the Israelites). However, even if that were the case, Israel had pushed the Philistines back considerably to the east-west line which ran through the cities Ekron and Gath (1Sam. 7:14). So Samuel trained his sons in sort of an out of the way place; however, given his own responsibilities and the circuit that he traveled, Samuel was apparently unable to properly train his sons in personal integrity (and it is possible that he tried and it didn’t take). I think that it is important to notice that, Samuel did not starts his sons out on the main circuit. He gave them freedom and yet kept them at a distance from the primary court system. This suggests to me that, Samuel also had doubts about his own kids.

As a side note, Josephus tells us that these sons governed in both Beersheba and in Bethel (one son in each city—Antiquities, 6:3,2). However, there is no other support for this notion.

Let’s see what others have done with this verse first:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And have not walked his sons in his ways and so turn aside after the [dishonest] gain and so they take a bribe and so they [cause to] turn aside justice.

Septuagint                             And his sons did not walk in his way; and they turned aside after gain, and took gifts, and perverted judgments.

Significant differences:          Essentially, the same.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NEB                                       His sons did not follow in their father’s footsteps but were intent on their own profit, taking bribes and perverting the course of justice.

NJB                                His sons did not follow his example but, seduced by the love of money, took bribes and gave biased verdicts.

TEV                                       But they did not follow their father’s example; they were interested only in making money, so they accepted bribes and did not decide cases honestly.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The sons didn’t follow their father’s example but turned to dishonest ways of making money. They took bribes and denied people justice.

JPS (Tanakh)                        But his sons did not follow in his ways; they were bent on gain, they accepted bribes, and they subverted justice.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice.

Young's Literal Translation    ...and his sons have not walked in his ways and turn aside after the dishonest gain, and take a bribe, and turn aside judgment.

What is the gist of this verse? Samuel's sons did not have the personal integrity which he did. They were willing to forgo justice if they got money for doing so.

Translation: However, his sons did not walk in his ways,... Samuel was an honorable man who pursued after righteousness. It would never occur to him to take a bribe; it would never occur to him to show favoritism

in court. However, his sons did not walk in his ways. McGee comments: Samuel made his own sons judges to succeed him although they were unworthy and incompetent for the job. This was a mistake. Samuel was a great judge, a wonderful prophet, and a great man of God—but he was a failure as a father just as Eli had been. Elsewhere, McGee refers to Samuel as a howling failure as a father. Those are remarkable and provocative statements that McGee makes. We don’t know a great deal about Eli, and we know only a little more about Samuel’s ministry (so far). What is interesting is that they both appear to be lousy fathers; or, at the very least, they raised sons who had no personal integrity. We might suggest that Samuel learned everything from Eli, including how to be a poor father—however, Eli’s sons were probably middle-aged about the time that Samuel was brought to the Tabernacle. It does tell us at least two things: (1) no one is perfect. Although we know very little about Eli, what we know about Samuel is positive. He is a man of God who communicates with God, who apparently studies the Word of God (and, probably records the Word of God). Yet he has two sons whose lack of integrity brings Samuel’s parenting skills into question. What is unmistakably clear is that no man of God is assured of having children who revere God as well. (2) All men have free will. It is possible that Samuel’s two sons received an outstanding childhood, replete with great training and examples. They probably attended court and observed Samuel’s decisions, the criminals brought before him, and the consequences of poorly chosen actions. However, whatever their background and training was, they chose to commit these criminal acts. Taking a bribe to subvert justice is a conscious, criminal act.

Now, let’s look at this from a slightly different perspective. For all intents and purposes, Eli raised Samuel and Samuel, obviously, came out okay. We don’t know what the difference was. Samuel was not his own son, so perhaps he was less indulgent. However, given their relative ages and given the fact that Eli’s sons were grown when Samuel was little, we might assume that Eli would take more of a hands off approach, as some older parents do. Think about this: Samuel, when he was old enough to recognize what was going on, realized that Eli had himself some loser sons. He may have even quietly judged Eli as being a weak parent because of his sons’ behavior. However, when Samuel himself had children, they grew up to be as corrupt as Eli’s sons. I believe that God saw to it that the souls of Samuel’s sons were similar to the souls of Eli’s sons. In other words, despite their training and exposure to truth, both sets of sons chose self-indulgence instead. When taking an objective view of his own sons, Samuel could not longer think negatively about Eli, as both sets of sons rejected the faith and integrity of their fathers. The key is negative volition. Having taught for years, I can certainly confirm that there are many families with a good son and a bad son; and, in talking to the parents, they gave equal effort to both children, tried the same tricks, and, in one case, appeared to succeed, and in the other, appeared to fail. But the deciding factor was the volition of the individual children. Now, do not misunderstand me to be saying that it does not matter how you parent; nor am I saying that kids are going to do what they are going to do. That is not my point at all. There is a strong correlation between good kids and good parents. My point is, in some cases, it does not matter what you do—the child’s volition will overrule your every attempt to correct and guide them. You have to do that which is right, allow the young adult child to begin making some of their own decisions, and then let the chips fall where they may.

Translation: ...but they inclined toward unjust gain;... Interestingly enough, the weakness of Samuel's sons was very similar to the weakness of Eli's. Eli's sons ignored their spiritual responsibilities (after all, they were unbelievers), and took whatever they could get as priests. Samuel's sons ignored their civic responsibilities and took whatever they could get a judges. They got greedy. Law at that time, just as now, dealt in part with money and possessions. Samuel's sons recognized immediately that there was a buck to be made where their decisions affected the outcome.

Translation: ...they would take a bribe... The Qal imperfect of to incline to or to turn aside after refers to what they typically would do (v. 3b). It describes a routine; therefore, when it is followed by another Qal imperfect, to take, again, this is descriptive of what they typically did.

The end results here are quite obvious—a criminal would offer one of Samuel's sons money, and it would be decided that there was not enough evidence to convict the criminal. Or, there would be a lawsuit involving money or possessions, and Samuel's sons would take the side of those who paid them. When the judge is willing to take a bribe, there is no justice.

Translation: ...and so they caused justice to be derailed. The verb here is the 3^rd person masculine plural, Hiphil imperfect of nâţâh, but in the Hiphil, where it means to cause to turn aside. We might modernize the term somewhat to mean to derail. What their actions cause is the turning aside of or the derailment of the masculine singular noun mish^epâţ (ט ָ  ׃ש  ̣מ) [pronounced mish-PAWT], which means judgement, a verdict rendered by a judge, a judicial decision, a judicial sentence, a verdict, the judgement of the court; as well as the act of deciding a case, the place where a judgement is rendered. It can also mean manner, custom, fashion. Strong's #4941 BDB #1048. We have already had the verbal cognate of this noun in vv. 1 and 2. Samuel's sons are judges in v. 1 and they are judging in Beersheba in v. 2. The end result is, they pervert justice in this verse. Their actions would be cited by the elders of Israel to support the need for a king to be apointed over Israel.

To look at all of v. 3 so far: ...and they turned aside after the gain [or, profit] and [habitually] take a bribe, so causing to derail justice. Typically, when one was offered, and where things seemed reasonable to them, the sons of Samuel would take bribes. They would turn aside from their paths as judges toward unjust gain and thus, they would cause the derailment of justice. One can’t help but think back to Eli’s worthless sons who treated the sacred animal sacrifices to God as personal barbeques. Samuel’s sons were not concerned with justice or with that which is right or wrong; if it lined their pockets, then that was right. They believed in taking care of #1 first. God’s Word was explicit in this case: “You will not pervert justice of your needy brother in his dispute. Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty. And you will not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just.” (Ex. 23:6–8). These were the words of God being spoken directly to Moses.

The People of Israel Ask Samuel for a King

First what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so gathered together [themselves] all elders of Israel and so they came unto Samuel the Ramah-ward.

Septuagint                             And the men of Israel gather themselves together, and come to Armathaim to Samuel,...

Significant differences: 

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         Fed up, all the elders of Israel got together and confronted Samuel at Ramah.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        All the elders of Israel assembled and came to Samuel at Ramah,...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;

Young's Literal Translation    And all the elders of Israel gather themselves together, and come in unto Samuel to Ramath.

What is the gist of this verse? The elders of Israel gathered themselves together and went to speak with Samuel in Ramah.

Translation: So all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together... The elders of Israel saw a problem and believed that they had a solution, so they gathered themselves together to be heard by Samuel, their spiritual leader. Apparently, elders began to talk, perhaps informally, with one another, maybe on the golf course; and they compared notes with those whom they knew from other cities. The first reports probably originated in Beersheba when it was observed that there was no justice to be had in the courts of Samuel's sons. The situation needed attention, as Samuel was, in their opinion, too old to continue much longer. Samuel had, at that time, clear spiritual authority, and the ability to communicate with God. However, if they waited too much longer, all of this could be lost. Therefore, the elders gathered together, either in Ramah or nearby. They gathered as a group, so that it was clear to Samuel that there was a consensus of opinion. Two or three elders could not show up and expect this idea to fly before Samuel.

Translation: ...and came to Samuel at Ramah. Samuel had a circuit that he followed; then he would go home to Ramah to his home and, presumably, his wife. His sons were located quite a distance away in Beersheba. Suddenly, there was a knock at his door and he looks outside to see a gathering of the elders or statesmen of Israel.

Here is what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so they said unto him, “Behold, you [even] you have become old and your sons have not walked in your ways. Now place for us a king to judge [or, govern] us like all the nations.”

The Septuagint                      ...and they said to him, “Behold, you are grown old, and your sons walk not in your way; and now set over us a king to judge us, as also the other nations.”

Significant differences: 

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NLT                                “Look,” they told him, “you are now old, and your sons are not like you. Give us a king like all the other nations have.”

TEV                                       ...and said to him, “Look, you are getting old and your sons don’t follow your example. So then, appoint a king to rule over us, so that we will have a king, as other countries have.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        ...and they said to him, “You have grown old, and your sons have not followed your ways. Therefore appoint a king for us, to govern us like all other nations.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     ...and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”

Young's Updated LT              ...and say unto him, ‘Lo, you have become aged, and your sons have not walked in your ways; now, appoint to us a king, to judge us, like all the nations.’

What is the gist of this verse? The elders point out to Samuel that he is old and that his sons are not just as he is. They suggest that the solution would be to appoint a king to reign over them.

Translation: Then they said to him, “Listen, you yourself have become old... The elders begin to reason with Samuel. He is getting older and he cannot deny this. In fact, recognizing that fact, Samuel sets up his sons in Beersheba, probably to train them. That is, they are given a court right near the outskirts of Israel in order to practice justice.

Now, even though the elders make a good point here concerning Samuel's age, do they not grasp that any king that is appointed to rule over Israel would also grow old? Do they not grasp that, if Samuel's own sons are corrupt, what about a king? Could he not become corrupt as well?

Translation: ...and your sons do not walk in your ways. This is probably the poorest reason for desiring a king. The elders point out to Samuel that they should have a king, and one of their reasons for this request is that his sons are looser-judges. They’re corrupt. Money buys their judgment. Now, is Samuel a good judge? Certainly. Nowhere in Scripture is his personal function as a judge ever questioned. Is Samuel a great man of God? Definitely. Here he is, old and needing to be replaced, and yet the elders go to him specifically to appoint a king. They trust Samuel’s judgement and his relationship with God enough to take this request to him. The people aren’t saying that they have a king candidate in their pocket and they are running this by Samuel as a matter of respect. They are ready for Samuel to choose this king. This indicates great trust in Samuel as a judge and man of God. Now think about this for a moment. Let’s say that Samuel finds a great man to be king over Israel, what can we expect? (1) The king will grow old, just as Samuel grew old. However, instead of appointing someone to take his place, kings tend to rule until they die. This often makes their final years, unless they are assassinated, unproductive and chaotic. (2) Who typically succeeds the king in office? One of his sons, often his eldest. So, had Samuel become king 40 years ago, he would now be too old to rule over Israel, but, as kings do, he would continue to rule over Israel and no group of elders who valued their own lives would come to him and ask for a new king. Secondly, one of his corrupt sons, whom they are complaining about, would succeed him in office. Therefore, the arguments of the elders in favor of a king are even better arguments against appointing a king over Israel. Their solution is a solution which might be good for the next 20–40 years; however, this solution is fraught with problems—the very same problems which they see as reasons for needing a king. Generally speaking, man’s solutions rarely solve man’s problems.

Let me give you a down-to-earth example. One of the great changes in society over the past 40 years is the use of the court system. There are court cases of people against other people nowadays that would not go before a judge 40 years ago. Lawyers then wouldn’t take the cases that lawyers take now. Today, if you have any possessions, then you can expect to be sued. You don’t have to break the law; you don’t have to intentionally do harm to anyone else. You don’t even have to behave immorally to be taken to court. All you need to have is a little money, and someone will figure out a way to sue you. Celebrities face this all the time. They often face nuisance suits and they often settle these suits because otherwise, they, and everyone they know, will be subpoenaed, they will be required to face a lengthy deposition, they will be asked to produce a myriad of documents which have little or no relation to the case at hand, and then hauled into court. Even if they are 100% right and the one filing suit is 100% wrong, it may cost them $50,000 or more to defend themselves. So often, you see these suits being filed against celebrities, some with cause and most without; and they are often settled out of court. It is cheaper and quicker. Is justice done? Of course not! Now, how did these changes come about? There are lawyers in public service who have decided if there is some matter which need resolving, then it should go to court. However, for every real case that the doors of court are opened for, there are an additional dozen cases without merit being taken to court and then settled.

Why do you think your insurance and your doctor’s care are so expensive? In part, the court system. Do doctors make mistakes and do people die because of it? Of course. Doctors are human. They simply happen to be in the position of dealing with life and death situations. Doctors can do everything right and everything possible to save a person’s life and yet their patient can still die—and the doctor may find himself being sued, despite doing nothing wrong. And what about the doctor who decides to go this route of treatment rather than that route? If there are various options, and the option that the doctor chooses is not successful, then the doctor may find himself being sued simply because he chose one option over the other.

When the United States was the victim of attacks by terrorists on 9/11/2001, what happened? Hundreds of lawsuits were filed against airlines, against owners of the Twin Towers, against various Arab interests. What could be more appalling or opportunistic than that? This was an unprecedented type of attack. I’ve traveled all over on planes, and, although I guess that I realized in the back of my mind that I could run into the pilot’s cabin, it never occurred to me to do so; nor did it every occur to me that someone else would do so. There have certainly been some hijackings, but probably fewer hijackings than plane crashes. Personally, I thought more about planes crashing than I ever did about hijackers. So the thought of a group of hijackers taking over a plane on a suicide mission never occurred to me and doubtfully to anyone else in government. Now certainly, in retrospect, we could have prevented those attacks and made the planes more secure. In fact, it would have taken very little to have done so. However, this does not mean that someone is liable. It simply means that pretty much any accident can be theoretically prevented after the fact. It is easy to come up with an inexpensive scenario which would have prevented this or that accident. When you take a sympathetic victim into court and a more successful defendant; add to this that the accident could have been theoretically avoided had the successful defendant done this or that; the defendant risks losing the suit. And once again, he may have broken no laws and meant no harm. What happened could have been completely unforseen—and yet, not only can he be sued, but he can expect to lose money on the deal even if he wins. There are people who intentionally hurt themselves in order to sue; there are those who intentionally rent a home or apartment with the intention of suing the own prior to anything occurring. There are those who get into car accidents with the intention of suing the other person, even though, for all intents and purposes, the other person is the actual victim.

Now, I want to emphasize that these changes in the court system, which have essentially allowed for more and more lawsuits, were not necessarily incorporated with the intention of the court system being misused. There was probably some self-interest involved (a lawyer making law with the idea that another lawyer would solve the problem) but it is highly unlikely there was any thought of malice. No doubt, the idea was to fix a problem or two. In fact, this seems to be the all-purpose solution—wherever there is a disagreement, then allow the case to be taken to court. It is simply one lawyer providing a solution by means of a few other lawyers. My point is, people, when they attempt to solve problems, often create more problems than they solve.

Translation: Now appoint for us a king... What the elders have done is that they have stated the problem, as they see it (and it was a legitimate concern); and they have come up with a solution—at least one in their own minds. Their solution is, Samuel should appoint a king over Israel. All of the problems of Israel as they stand could be prevented by simply appointing a king. This is, of course, in the thinking of the elders.

Translation: ...to govern us like all the [other] nations.” It is clear that Samuel has a great deal of power in Israel. He appointed his sons to judge and they are still judging, despite the fact that it is well known that they take bribes. These elders do not want to bypass Samuel or his spiritual integrity. If he appoints a king, the population in general will probably go for it. If these elders appoint a king, there would be civil unrest. Samuel, because of his communication with God, would be able to appoint a worthy king—or at least that is one of their assumptions. Realize that there is a lack of logic in their reasoning. Samuel has already appointed his sons as judges, and that was a bad appointment.

It is important to point out that this demand of the people did not come out of nowhere. They did not decide one day that the judicial system in Israel was poorly run, and therefore they needed a king. There was another and more urgent influence on this demand. At this time, eastern Israel had been viciously invaded by Nahash the king-general of Ammon. This will not be mentioned until 1Sam. 11 and we actually will not be told of the relationship between this demand for a king and Nahash’s invasion until 1Sam. 12:12. My point is to indicate that there is more here than meets the eye. You may wonder why is that not mentioned here. We have several themes intertwined here. We tend to organize our thoughts chronologically in the western world; in the eastern world, their thinking is thematic instead. Therefore, we pursue various themes in these chapters. Right now, we are discussing Israel’s demand for a king. This will lead us, logically, to Saul being chosen as king over Israel. Now, despite the fact that God will choose Saul as king over Israel publically, this is not enough to confirm him as king. He will have to prove himself a leader, which he will do against Nahash. At that point, Nahash the Ammonite will be introduced, even though he is playing a significant part in all of this at this point in time. So much for coming attractions.

Recall that this was not the first time that Israel had asked God for a king to rule over them. When Gideon had delivered them, the Israelites asked him to be king over them (Judges 8:22). His response was “Hell, no!” (Judges 8:23).

Now, I want you to recognize how faithless these men are. They live in a theocracy, the only theocracy which has ever been established. That means that God ruled over them. Roughly a century ago, the Israelites were in the same spot. Their judge, Eli, had grown old and his sons did not walk in his ways. God still provided. God saw to it that Israel was given a great leader, a man of great spiritual character, even though He had to go outside the family of Levi to find such a one. God provided Samuel, who essentially came out of nowhere. Now Israel is faced with the exact same dilemma and these elders, who respect Samuel greatly, are faithless. They do not believe that God can provide them with a spiritual leader/judge.

What should the elders have done? They should have approached Samuel with evidence that his sons were taking bribes and subverting justice, and they should have been executed and replaced. Samuel possibly would not have seen to their execution, but it would have be reasonable to expect him to replace them. I had another thought: they could have gone to Samuel and requested a king over Israel and then say that Israel under judges has not worked out. After all, the period of the judges is one of the dark periods of Israel’s history. However, the reason that there were so many problems under the judges is Israel’s unexemplary behavior. It wasn’t a problem with their judges/deliverers. When Israel needed deliverance, God sent them a deliverer. However, the reason Israel needed deliverance was that they would fall into idolatry and then God would allow outside nations to punish them. A more reasonable approach might have been, “Talk to God and see if He will appoint a king of His choosing over us.” Samuel couldn’t really argue with that.

Moses knew long before this that the people of Israel would ask God for a king. “When you enter the land which Jehovah your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, then you will say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me.’ ” (Deut. 17:14). Therefore, this request is not a surprise to God; He had planned for it in eternity past.

Then the elders add this reason for requesting a king: so that Israel can be “...like all the [other] nations.” That’s the kicker. These elders think that the solution to their problems is to be like all the other nations. This shows a complete misunderstanding of their place in history. What sets Israel apart as a nation is the fact that it is not like all the other nations. Israel is a theocracy—God rules over Israel. God chose their temporal judge, who was subservient to Him. The elders, in speaking to Samuel, cite his old age and the unscrupulous behavior of his sons as reasons for requesting a king, but in this last phrase, we start getting the real reason for their request: so that Israel could be like other nations. One of the worst reasons for doing anything is so that you can be like everyone else. God did not make all mankind identical; and the nation Israel, God chose and developed from the loins of one man. God’s nation, if anything, should stand out as different from the other nations; God’s man, if anything, should stand out as different from other men. Now, as Scofield points out, Israel will remain a theocracy. Even though there will be a king over Israel, God is sovereign over their king (and this sovereignty is often illustrated by the king bowing to the authority of a prophet).

Now, many times when conversation in Scripture is recorded, not every word is quoted from the conversation. That should be obvious. We do not have a gathering of all the elders of Israel who meet with Samuel, say one sentence and split. We do not know the length of the meeting or what arguments were advanced or how they were countered, or whether they were countered. I mention this because, in the next verse, the verbiage is slightly different. It is possible that this is a direct quote of one thing which was said or whether it is simply the gist of the elders request (as was v. 5). In any case, this is not the entirety of what the elders said to Samuel.

From some of the comments which I have made, you realize that there are certain commentaries which make me grimace, and I often quote from them as examples of how people have screwed up what should be easy to understand. Gnana Robinson is one of those commentators. However, once and awhile, Robinson says something which makes sense and is quotable. Concerning the desire of these elders, Robinson writes: Monarchy was felt to be a historical necessity in Israel. To defend the people from enemies and to deal with their neighbors on economic and political matters, the Israelites needed a proper administrative structure on a permanent basis. The rule of judges, the charismatic leaders who rose from time to time, proved to be inadequate. While looking for an alternative model, the Israelites were attracted by the kingship model of their neighbors, but they could not foresee the pitfalls in that model. In that Canaanite model of kingship, the king, instead of becoming the servant or shepherd of the community, could easily arrogate power to himself and become the ruler/oppressor of the community, as among Israel’s neighbors. This was what the prophetic tradition feared and what later proved to be true in Israel.

Let’s approach this in a different way. You understand what a rationalization is, right? A person has already determined their course of action or their opinion, but then they have to back it up. So then they spend time thinking of things that would back up their position. Understand that they have already made up their minds. Their viewpoint, their opinion, their course of action is not the issue to them—how can they support this position is the issue. If you are in an argument or a debate with someone, while you are presenting your most cogent argument, look them in the eye. They are not listening carefully to your argument and considering it with an open mind; at best, they are listening to your argument in order to think of a counter argument; and, at worst, they are taking this time to put together another argument to support their own position. Surely you have had the experience when someone presented an argument and you ask yourself now where the hell did that come from? It had nothing to do with the point you were making. It is because, while you were talking, they devised another argument to present, and as soon as you stopped speaking, they offered up their argument, apropos of nothing which you said. Now, turn this around—the next time you are in a debate, look at what is going on in your own mind when someone is presenting their position. Are you listening and considering their argument, or are you using that time to formulate your own argument? Why did I bring this up? The people of Israel had wanted a king for a long time. If you went through the book of the Judges with me, you saw that Gideon and Jephthah had both been approached to become kings over Israel (Judges 8:22 11:6, 11—Jephthah was approached more to become a local ruler). So, these elders who approached Samuel had wanted a king for a long time. They had thought about it and they had made up their minds. They mention to Samuel that his sons are taking bribes and that they do not follow in his way, but that is a rationalization, and one that could (as I have shown you) be used as a good reason not to appoint a king over Israel. However, the elders have made up their minds and they are willing to offer any argument which might tip the scale in their favor.

Now, that Israel would at some time ask for a king was anticipated by Moses, as inspired by God the Holy Spirit: “When you enter the land which Jehovah your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me.’ Then you will certainly set a king over you whom Jehovah your God chooses, one from among your countrymen.” (Deut. 17:14–15a).

According to Canaanite beliefs, the king is a representative of Baal on earth. That is, Baal chose him to rule over their nation. Those who view fascism from the political ideological stance, see the ruler of a country as the man which God has placed there. Like all philosophies, there is some truth and some falsehood to this belief. A country gets the ruler it deserves; God places men in power and removes others. However, rarely do we ever have a man in power who represents God to man (there are exceptions like Moses, Samuel and David). Israel will have a series of monarchs, some good and many who are awful—but only a handful actually represent God to the people. Only a handful will record Scripture.

Samuel Goes to God about this Request

Here is what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so displeasing the word in [the two] eyes of Samuel in which they said, “Give to us a king to judge us.” And so pray Samuel unto Y^ehowah.

Septuagint                             And the thing [was] evil in the eyes of Samuel, when they said, “Give us a king to judge us;’” and Samuel prayed to the Lord.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NLT                                Samuel was very upset with their request and went to the Lord for advice.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         But Samuel considered it wrong for them to request a king to judge them. So Samuel prayed to the Lord.

JPS (Tanakh)                        Samuel was displeased that they said, “Give us a king to govern us.” Samuel prayed to the Lord,...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     But the thing was displeasing [or, evil] in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord.

Young's Updated LT              And the thing is evil in the eyes of Samuel, when they have said, ‘Give to us a king to judge us;’ and Samuel prayed unto Jehovah.

What is the gist of this verse? Samuel is upset by this request for a king, and goes to God in prayer about it.

Translation: So this thing was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel,... Or, (and I am taking some liberties here): And this opinion was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel; i.e., when they said,... Realize that Samuel was the authority here. He was the one who, for all intents and purposes, ruled over Israel (under the guidance of God, of course). He had devoted his entire life to serving God and serving Israel, and now this group of elders comes to him and says, it’s not good enough. So Samuel has two problems here: (1) the people are requesting a king which God had not expressly mandated from His directive will; and (2) the people are rejecting Samuel’s authority and dedication, which he no doubt took personally (we will see that in the next verse). Samuel devoted his entire life to public service, with very little by way of remuneration. Some people retire from public office as multi-millionaires or become multi-millionaires soon thereafter. This was not Samuel. His personal dedication and integrity were irreproachable. Sure, maybe his sons did not walk in his ways, but that is not necessarily Samuel’s fault, nor is it a problem which cannot be fixed apart from radical surgery (i.e., removing the sons from office).

Translation: ...when they said, “Give to us a king to govern us.” In the previous verse, it read, “Place for us a king to judge [or, govern] us like all the nations.” In this verse, it reads: “Give to us a king to judge us.” And, as I said, the entire text of what they had to say was not covered in the previous verse, nor was it covered here. What we are getting is the gist of what the elders had to say to Samuel.

Notice the verse to this point: So this opinion displeased Samuel, when they said, “Give to us a king to govern us.” Note that Samuel is not upset that his sons have been accused of subverting the law—he does not take that personally. As mentioned before, Samuel may have put them in an out of the way place with that idea in mind. What bothers him is, these people are requesting that he put a king over them, and that is clearly outside of the plan of God—or, at least, clearly outside the directive will of God.

Translation: Therefore, Samuel prayed to Y^ehowah. Samuel is somewhat frustrated over this. He understands the problems and no doubt sympathizes with the sentiment of the elders—he is old and his sons are worthless pieces of crap. However, Samuel also understands that God rules over Israel, and he knows that a king is not necessarily a good thing.

Application: Now, for a little application. It is easy to recognize a problem and to expound on this problem. We live in the devil's world. There is something wrong with just about everything. It is also easy to propose a solution. This does not mean, however, that every solution suggested to a problem will solve the problem. Often, solutions make the problem much worse. The best illustration of that is Congress. For the past century, Congress has seen it their job to pass law after law after law to solve problems. Many people would agree absolutely with this. However, in most cases, even when a new law solves or begins to solve a problem, two more (or ten more) problems crop up in place of the first problem. Where Israel is at this moment is a problem. Even Samuel would fully agree that he is getting old and that his sons are not his successors. However, that does not mean that the elders have the solution in proposing a king be appointed over them. You may recall from the first chapter of Acts that the disciples counted their number, realized that they were one short, and they elected a twelfth Apostle. That was foolish. Sure, they were one Apostle short. However, God did not give them authorization or leading to elect another Apostle. God chose the twelfth Apostle and possibly even a couple more. The man that they chose, Matthias, went nowhere. Matthias, who was probably very spiritual and a heck of a nice guy, was elected as the twelfth apostle, and after the election, we never hear from him again. Why? Because he was not God’s choice. He was not to solution to their problems. What am I saying to you? You do not always solve a problem by attempting to solve the problem. I know for some, that is a completely foreign concept. But this is a case in point (these elders coming to Samuel and proposing a king rule over Israel) and the election of the twelfth Apostle was a case in point. By the way, the twelfth Apostle was Paul, who persecuted Christians at the very early part of the Apostles’ ministry. Would the Apostles of Jesus elected Paul? Not in a million years. Most Christians did not even want to be in the same city as Paul, let alone elect him as an Apostle. That’s because we do not know what God knows. God could see the positive volition on the inside of Paul and God used Paul like He used no other Apostle. That is because God alone solved the problem of the lack of one Apostle.

Application: Let’s take this to a political level. I recall hearing one woman on public radio who supported a particular piece of legislation and it had been rejected because it was not written well enough. Everyone knew the intention of the law, but it had not been stated as well as it should be. Therefore, the bill was rejected. She was upset and said that some minor problems with the language should have not prevented the bill from passing, and that everyone knew the intention of the bill. Listen, our high courts are legendary in their ability to take a law and the language of a law and to twist it in such a way as to further their own agenda. They pass laws and make policies without ever having to pass a law through the normal channels. They just take a law already in existence and interpret it as per their own agenda. Our court system today is in virtual chaos because of that very power which the courts have they themselves misappropriated. So, when a law is passed, no matter how noble the cause; if the language is not just so, it allows the courts to come in and use that law for ways that the original authors could have never expected. One problem partially solved and ten problems created.

In the few verses, the literary style, so to speak, will change. There will be more adverbs, more prepositions and more verb forms. Throughout most of Samuel, the sentence structure is fairly simple and straightforward. Although the Hebrew which follows is not difficult, it is more complex than what has come before.

First, what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so says Y^ehowah unto Samuel, “Listen in a voice of the people to all which they say unto you for not you have they rejected, for Me they have rejected from ruling over them.

Septuagint                             And the Lord said to Samuel, “Hear the voice of the people, in whatever they will say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from reigning over them.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

REB                                       ...and the Lord told him, ‘Listen to the people and all that they are saying; they have not rejected you, it is I whom they have rejected, I whom they will not have to be their king.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The Lord told Samuel, “Listen to everything the people are saying to you. They haven’t reject you; they’ve rejected me.

JPS (Tanakh)                        ...and the Lord replied to Samuel, “Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And the 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.

Young's Updated LT              And Jehovah says to Samuel, ‘Hearken to the voice of the people, to all that they say to you, for you they have not rejected, but Me they have rejected, from reigning over them.

What is the gist of this verse? God tells Samuel to listen to the voice of the people (which means, to go along with what they desire); and to bear in mind, they have not rejected Samuel, but they have rejected Jesus Christ.

Translation: So Y^ehowah said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people,... It is not clear how God spoke to Samuel, whether it was through inspired writing or whether there was an actual audible voice as you and I would use to communicate. Samuel is spiritually mature—he understands the issues in the choice of the elders, and recognizes that they come from a spiritually bereft position. He goes to God in prayer, as he is old and the elders could easily override his veto.

The verb in this portion of v. 7 is the 2^nd person masculine singular, Qal imperative of to hear, to listen, to hearken. One of the great words from the King James’ era is hearken, which is an outstanding one-word rendering of this word. The implication is that God expects Samuel to listen and to obey the voice of the people. So, God does not expect Samuel to simply go back and lend a sympathetic ear to these elders; and then offer up a better solution. Samuel is to listen to them and go along with their request.

By the way, you see the word people here? But recall, it is the elders who have come to speak to Samuel. This indicates to us that the will of the elders is the will of the people. That is, they did not simply come up with this notion of a king out of their heads; this is a mandate from the people.

Translation: ...to all that they say to you,... This gives us: So Y^ehowah said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people and all that they said to you...” This is a surprise to Samuel. What the people are proposing to him is absolutely wrong, yet God tells him to listen to what the people have to say. And it will be clear that this is not simply to placate the people—that is, Samuel isn’t simply to just listen to the people and say some nice things and then ignore what they have to say. Samuel is to listen to and obey their voice.

Translation: ...for they have not rejected you,... The verb is the 3^rd person plural, Qal perfect of reject, despise, lightly esteem, refuse. The verb is accompanied by a negative. Samuel is taking this situation personally, and God is telling him not to. God has the full perspective, and Samuel can only see what is going on at that time.

Translation: ...but they have rejected Me from ruling over them. Or, more completely, “...for they have not rejected you but they have rejected Me from ruling over them.” What God says here indicates that Samuel himself took all of this a bit personally. God had put him in charge, the people were now unhappy with some of the results (specifically, the lack of integrity on the part of his sons), and Samuel takes it personally. God tells him not to. He simply tells Samuel that there is no personal rejection involved regarding Samuel. The people are expressing a faithlessness in God, Who provided them with Samuel in the first place. God is telling Samuel to objectively focus on the issue and upon what God would allow.

God has three will’s with respect to our volition. There is God’s directive will: He has a perfect decision for our life, and we choose that decision. We also have God’s permissive will. When given a choice between right and wrong, we choose wrong. God allows us to choose wrong, which allowance is His permissive will. There are also occasions where we want to choose wrong over right, but God intervenes in some way with this decision. For instance, when I moved here to Texas, I had two different jobs that, had I a choice, I would have taken the worst of the two (not really knowing which would be the better place for me to work at the time). God overruled my decision and did not give me a choice. That third will of God is known as His overruling will.

God has known from the very beginning that there would eventually be a king over Israel. In fact, God promised Abraham “I will make you exceedingly prolific and I will make nations of you and kings will come forth from you.” (Gen. 17:6). Jacob summoned his sons and predicted that the scepter (a symbol of rulership) would not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes (Gen. 49:10). David and Solomon were both from the tribe of Judah. The ruling family over the southern kingdom was Judah. In fact, given this passage, a good argument could be made that God would have instituted a monarchy over Israel beginning with David. Saul was a result of the demands of the people; but David was wholly God’s choice—Saul was given to Israel by God's permissive will. A king of Israel is mentioned in the prophecy of Balaam in Num. 24:7, 17. Moses warns that Israel will desire a king over them back in Deut. 17:14–15 and he includes guidelines for the behavior of a king over Israel (Deut. 17:16–20), which includes being certain to have a copy of the Law transcribed for himself to study. So, from circa 1440 b.c. until this time (roughly 1000 b.c.), Israel has no king over her, yet has survived as a nation (although, not always admirably so). At this point, the elders have requested a king and God will grant this request. This will be God’s permissive will. However, Israel’s having a king in general did not have to be a result of God’s permissive will. Given some time, God would have directed Samuel (or some later representative in the choosing of a king).

You may wonder, if God has already given guidelines for a king and now the people are requesting a king, what exactly is the foul? How is this God’s permissive will when a king is clearly a part of Israel’s future? The people had the wrong motivation for their desire of a king. They wanted to be like the other nations. Furthermore, they did not ask Samuel’s guidance or, for that matter, God’s will in this matter. They simply presented their demand to Samuel. Even after Samuel clearly explains what a king would do to them (vv. 11–18), they pretty much ignore everything that he says as unimportant and further demand a king (v. 19). Given that Samuel represents divine viewpoint to them, ignoring his arguments and demanding what he clearly presents as a poor choice is indicative of their negative volition toward God’s directive will. Therefore, the allowing of Israel to have a king is God’s permissive will. Now, God was going to place a king over Israel, because such a king would point toward the Eternal King to come; however, Israel chose to have this occur at the time that the elders desired as opposed to the time table of God. The difference? I suspect that God would have, 40 years or so hence, placed David as the first king over Israel. Saul could have still led Israel in battle, yet we would not have had 10+ years of crazy Saul on the throne over Israel. Samuel would have still been in charge and, prior to his death, he would have anointed David king over all Israel.

Archer explains: ...the reason why their request displeased the Lord was that it was based on the assumption that they should follow their pagan neighbors in their form of government. Their motive was to conform to the world about them rather than to abide by the holy and perfect constitution that God had given them under Moses in the form of the Pentateuchal code. There was a definite sense in which they were setting aside the laws of God as inadequate for their needs and falling in step with the idolatrous heathen. They expressed their desire to Samuel thus: “Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations” (nasb). They had forgotten that God had called them out of the world, not to conform to the world, but to walk in covenant fellowship with Yahweh as testimony of godliness before all the pagan world.

Samuel was named in the essentially list of problem that Israel had with being without a king, so God briefly explains the hard-headedness of His people. Here’s what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       “As all of the deeds which they have done from a day my bringing them out from Egypt and to the day the this and so they are forsaking Me and so they are serving gods others so they [even they] are doing also to you.

Septuagint                             According to all their doings which they have done to Me, from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day, even as they have deserted Me, and served other gods, so they do also to you.

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

The Message                         From the day I brought them out of Egypt until this very day they've been behaving like this, leaving me for other gods. And now they're doing it to you.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         They’re doing just what they’ve done since I took them out of Egypt—leaving me and serving other gods.

JPS (Tanakh)                        Like everything else they have done ever since I brought them out of Egypt to this day—forsaking Me and worshiping other gods—so they are doing to you.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     “Like all the deeds which they have done wince 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.

Young's Updated LT              According to all the works that they have done from the day of My bringing them up out of Egypt, even to this day, when they forsake Me, and serve other gods—so they are doing also to you.

What is the gist of this verse? God tells Samuel that this is typical of the Jews throughout their history. From the time that God brought them out of Egypt to that day, the Jews would continually forsake God and serve other gods. Their negative volition is here being made clear to Samuel.

Translation: “As all of the deeds which they have done... Here, God begins to summarize the history of Israel in relation to Him. God speaks of all the actions which Israel has done. The idea is, Israel has consistently done the same thing over and over again, as made obvious in all of their deeds. They have consistently shown to have negative volition toward God.

Translation: ...since the day I brought them out of Egypt... Then God gives a period of time over which the Israelites have exhibited this behavior. The negative volition of the nation of Israel dates back to the time that God led them out of Egypt. God show Israel marvelous signs through Moses, and still, much of the Torah is a case history of Israel rebelling against God.

Translation: ...even to this day,... Or, more fully: “...as all the deeds which they have done from the day of my bringing them out of Egypt even to this day...” God assures Samuel that this is typical Israeli behavior. Even when God brought them out of Egypt with great signs and wonders, they continually bitched in the desert about this thing and that thing to a point where God was ready to kill them all and start over with Moses. “They are behaving no differently than when I brought these ingrates out of Egypt, out of bondage, and performed signs and miracles in their presence.” Then God adds, “And they continue in this same behavior problem even up until today.”

Translation: ...they [continue to] forsake Me... Then God gives them a simple example, which is His primary beef with Israel (but certainly not the only one). God tells Samuel that Israel forsakes Him and His leadership. After all, Israel is, at this point in time, a theocracy, a nation under God; however, they desire to the a monarchy instead. This is a forsaking of God.

Translation: ...and serve other gods. Or, more fully: “...and they forsake me and serve other gods...” With all that God had done for Israel, one would think that this would be the easiest thing for an Israelite to grasp—he was to serve the One Who brought him out of Egypt. However, Israelites again and again deserted the God Who bought them and served heathen gods. When it came to worship of the True God, they continually chose to worship an idol or a false, non-existent god. You may wonder, how is it possible for the Jews of the first century a.d. to reject Jesus Christ? It was in their nature to do so. You may wonder, how can Jews, given the historical perspective, reject their God and Savior Christ Jesus? It is in their nature; they turned from God when they were in the desert wilderness and they continued to turn away from God again and again even until today. Okay, the other side of the coin: didn’t some of the Jews remain faithful? Yes, a number of them did, from time to time, followed the God of Glory; just as there are Jews now and again who believe in Christ Jesus. Negative volition toward Jesus Christ is negative volition toward God. For probably the majority of Jews, they know only the most fundamental things about their origins and little if anything about Christ Jesus (except that they should not believe in Him). The Old Testament is filled with parallels to the new, from Abraham’s aborted sacrifice of his only son to Moses’ intercession on behalf of Israel, to the Suffering Servant of Isa. 53.

Translation: Thus they also keep doing to you. The gist of this verse is that God has been faithful to the Jew and has led them out of Egypt, as had never before occurred in history. Yet, they continued to reject Him and to serve other gods. Samuel has provided good and faithful leadership to Israel, under God’s authority, and now—typical of the Jew—they reject his leadership as well. God simply tells Samuel that this is characteristic of His people.

Again, the text is somewhat more difficult here than elsewhere in this chapter. The gist of this verse is rather simple: God tells Samuel to listen to what the people request, grant this request, but make it clear to them what will happen if they demand a king. First, here is what others have done with this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And now hearken in their voice—only that you a testimony testify against them and you have made conspicuous to them a custom of the king who reigns over them.”

Septuagint                             And now hearken to their voice; only you will solemnly testify [or, report] to them, and you will describe to them the manner [or, judgment] of the king who will reign over them.”

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NAB                                       Now grant their request; but at the same time, warn them solemnly and inform them of the rights of the king who will rule them.”

NLT                                Do as they ask, but solemnly warn them about how a king will treat them.”

REB                                       Hear what they have to say now, but give them a solemn warning and tell them what sort of king will rule them.’

TEV                                       “So then, listen to them, but give them strict warnings and explain how their kings will treat them.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        Heed their demand; but warn them solemnly, and tell them about the practices of any king who will rule over them.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn [lit., testify to] them and tell them of the procedure [lit., custom] of the king who will reign over them.”

Young's Updated LT              And now, hearken to their voice; only, surely you do certainly protest to them, and have declared to them the custom of the king who does reign over them.’

What is the gist of this verse? God tells Samuel to listen (and obey) the voice of these elders; just make it clear what they are in for when it comes to having a king.

Translation: “Therefore, listen to their voice [and acquiesce to their request];... God already told Samuel to listen to what the elders had to say, the implication of the words meaning to listen and obey. So God for a second time tells Samuel to go along with what they want. It is obvious that Samuel is digging in his heels now, and God is making it as clear as possible that he is going to have to give in to the request of the elders at this point.

Translation: ...only solemnly testify against them... So God puts a restriction upon what Samuel is to do, even though he is to listen and to acquiesce to the requests of the elders. We have the doubling of a verb, which increases the intensity of the verb. Notice that the JPS, the NASB and the Septuagint all have solemnly added to the verb. Samuel is going to make is clear what the consequences are of having a king. God is letting these people make a mistake with open eyes (although, it will be apparent that they do not listen very well).