Power In His Presence

IS THE BOOK OF SAMUEL PRO-MONARCHY OR ANTI-MONARCHY? WHY/WHY NOT?
The book of Samuel is a book which unreservedly accentuates on the concept anti-Monarchy which was dealt with by the author explicitly in the 8^th chapter of 1 Samuel. For my money, God had it in mind and in the records to rule over His own people without a crash of relying on human rulership like the other nations. I am banking on the books anti-monarchy because that is what the book asserts and affirms. Many scholars root for Isaiah being the writer of the book of Samuel and I attests to this fact because, the book it self reveals that the author will inevitably be a later entity who would possibly be from Judah and he mustered and collated all that he knows about the effects of forsaken the rulership of Jehovah for human leadership.

The author all along in his writing style, fashioned the book to be quite averse with the people’s request to opt for human kingship like the other nations. I will go ahead with my reasons for rooting for the nature of the book of Samuel being anti-Monarchy.

ANTI-MONARCHY

The exilic writer is pointing out that what has gone wrong is that Israel has always been a nation that has refused to submit to Yahweh’s kingship (1 Sam. 8). This proves to the fact that, hitherto, God’s purpose was to rule over His own people which will also bring a striking difference between Israel and the other surrounding nations. This writer pointed out succinctly that it wasn’t the intention of God to use kings as leaders and rulers.

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto Jehovah. And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them (1 Sam. 8:6,7).

This highlights the foolishness of their request for a (human) king to lead them into battle. Yahweh’s anger is not with the request for a (human) king. It’s the type of king that’s the problem. They want a human king to take Yahweh’s place, whereas the only acceptable king is one who acknowledges Yahweh’s sovereignty. The Israelites think they’ll be better off, but this type of king will in fact be a tyrant who will bring them nothing but misery. However, the institution of Israel’s monarchy is not judged as either good or bad. The real issue is Yahweh’s kingship. 1 & 2 Samuel are book-ended by Hannah’s song (1 Sam. 2) and David’s song (2 Sam. 22), and the theme of both is Yahweh’s kingship. This is the obvious lesson in both Saul’s failure and David’s rise. The exilic writer is pointing out that what has gone wrong is that Israel has always been a nation that has refused to submit to Yahweh’s kingship.

Samuel as the Leader of Israel was anti-monarchy because they were not content with the order that God had appointed, but would be governed as the Gentiles were. Samuel’s dissatisfaction arose principally from the proposed change being revolutionary in its character. Though it would not entirely subvert their theocratic government, the appointment of a visible monarch would necessarily tend to throw out of view their unseen King and Head. God intimated, through Samuel, that their request would, in anger, be granted, while at the same time he apprised them of some of the evils that would result from their choice.

REFERENCES:

R P Gordon’s 1 & 2 Samuel commentary (Paternoster)

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary (1Sam. 8 and 9)

Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible (1 Sam.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia