And the people refused to hearken to the voice of Samuel; and they said, No, but there shall be a king over us,
Samuel has just spelled out what a king will cost them: their sons, their daughters, their fields and flocks. The people answer with a flat no. Their refusal raises the questions that shape the rest of Israel's history. What were they really asking for? Why did God let them have it? And what does a people lose when it wants to look like everyone else?
Samuel's warning changed nothing. One writer notes how each word of their reply exposed them further.
It was in vain. "But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, 'No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations.'" Their heart was getting further and further away from God. Every word they uttered, though they little suspected it, condemned themselves the more. It was self-will at work against God. Worse still, they were deliberately throwing away their own highest privilege.
The people had blamed Samuel's age and his sons. One writer looks past that reason to what lay underneath.
The fact was that they asked for a king through unbelief. The first motive they put forward was that Samuel was old and his sons did not walk in his ways. That was not the real reason they were anxious to have a king... In self-will and unbelief they cried out for a king: "There shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." Their words showed that they did not trust the Lord's care for them, or His interest in them.
The people give two reasons for wanting a king. One writer weighs both and finds a loss in each.
They have no answer for the warning. They simply reply to Samuel, "No! But there shall be a king over us." They say it for two reasons. First, they want to be like the nations, just as many Christians today want to be like the world. Second, they expect a king to fight their battles for them. In both of these things they lose sight of God. How can they represent God before the nations if they choose to be like the nations? That would take away any real testimony to the difference God had made in them because of His love.
The people wanted a king they could see. One writer sets that beside the God who had already scattered the Philistines for them.
They began with a request: "Make us a king." They finish by declaring their determination: "No! But there shall be a king over us!" "That our king may fight our battles!" They spoke as if a king with his crown among them would guarantee them victory! Had they forgotten their great victory over the Philistine armies? "The LORD thundered with a mighty sound that day against the Philistines and threw them into confusion, and they were routed before Israel." Was "the LORD of hosts" no longer enough for them? They could not see Him, but a king, dressed in purple and gold and riding in a chariot, would be a fine sight for them to look at.
God does not overrule the demand. He answers it, and the answer itself becomes the lesson.
So God allows it. It is not only a concession to Israel's folly. He lets them have their way so that painful experience will teach them the results of that folly. Later God tells Israel, "I gave you a king in my anger, and I took him away in my wrath" (Hosea 13:11). Saul's beginning as king seemed promising, but his end was pitifully sad.
Another writer draws out the pastoral side of being handed what you insisted on: it was "nothing short of apostasy to desire a king like the nations," yet after the solemn warning "they are left — solemn thought — left to their choice... Our blessed God often permits us to have our own way, that He may show us the folly of it."
One writer sees more here than one nation's mistake. The refusal exposes the human heart itself.
The lesson was not for that generation only. Otherwise it would matter little. In all this testing of Israel... the test falls on man as man, and it uncovers the depths of his heart. The people's choice here is the same choice they made at a later day, when they cried, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" "They have rejected Me," says the LORD.
- Refusal. The people heard Samuel's full warning and still said no. Writers call it self-will at work against God, with every word condemning them further.
- Reason. They blamed Samuel's age and his sons. The real cause was unbelief — they did not trust the Lord's care for them.
- Request. They wanted to be like the nations and to have a king fight their battles. Both wishes lose sight of God and destroy the difference He had made in them.
- Result. God granted the demand, but in anger: "I gave you a king in my anger." He lets people have their way so that experience teaches them the folly of it. Yet He had His own Anointed One in view.
- Repeat. This is not one nation's old mistake. It is the human heart uncovered — the same choice cried out again later: "Not this man, but Barabbas!"
that we also may be like all the nations; and our king shall judge us, and go out before us, and conduct our wars.
Israel's leaders have asked Samuel for a king. Samuel has warned them what a king will cost. Verse 20 is their final answer. It lists what they want a king for — to judge them, to lead them out, to fight their wars. God had been doing all of that for them already.
Their reason comes in two parts. Both of them leave God out.
They have no answer for the warning, but reply to Samuel, "No; but we will have a king over us." Why? First, they want to be like the nations, just as many Christians today want to be like the world. Second, they expect a king to fight their battles for them. In both of these things they lose sight of God. How can they represent God before the nations if they choose to be like the nations? This would destroy any real witness to the difference God had made in them because He loved them. And in the past, who fought their battles for them when they won? See Exodus 14:13-14.
Wanting to look like everyone else was not a small preference. It cut against the very reason this nation existed.
Israel, as the people of Jehovah's gracious choice, was meant to be different in every respect from all others, and to be Jehovah's witness to them. Balaam, in his first speech, said, "Look, this is a people that will live alone, and will not be counted among the nations" (Num. 23:9). So it was a terrible thing when the people demanded of Samuel, "Make us a king to judge us like all the nations" (1 Sam. 8:5).
They blamed Samuel's age and his sons' corruption. That was not the real reason. Pressure from an enemy across the Jordan was.
They asked for a king through unbelief… Far worse than the personal slight to Samuel was the rejection of the Lord as their King. The immediate cause of their demand was the invasion of Israel's territory east of Jordan by Nahash, king of the children of Ammon (1 Sam. 12:12). Their words showed plainly that they did not trust the Lord's care for them, or His interest in them.
Notice how the request hardens as the chapter goes on — and how short their memory is. Only a chapter earlier, God had scattered the Philistines for them.
They began with a request: "Make us a king." They end with a demand: "No, but we will have a king!" "That our king may fight our battles!" — as if a king with a crown among them would guarantee them victory! "O foolish people, and unwise" — had they forgotten their great victory over the Philistine armies? The Lord "thundered with a great thunder upon them and threw them into confusion, and they were defeated before Israel." Was "the Lord of hosts" no longer enough for them? Him they could not see. But a king dressed in purple and gold lace, riding in a chariot, would be a grand sight to them.
The deepest problem was not that they wanted a king. It was the words "like all the nations." God already had His own king in view.
Their desire for a king was, in reality, giving up the Lord. It denied His direct rule through the judges. But their worst sin was asking for a king like the nations. Was it not God's counsel to give them a king according to His own heart, an Anointed whom He would have chosen for them Himself (1 Sam. 2:35; 1 Sam. 13:14)? Wanting a king like all the nations gave up their title as God's people and meant becoming like the world… Christendom, on its path of falling away, has acted the same way. Instead of humbling itself and mourning, it has looked to the world for support to keep itself going.
They asked for a man to go out before them. Read on into Saul's reign and you find the opposite happened.
When they did get a king, according to their hearts' desire, what did he do for them? "All the people followed him trembling."… His whole reign was a sad failure. The prophet Hosea sums it up in two striking sentences: "I gave you a king in my anger, and took him away in my wrath." In short, he was the answer to the unbelief and self-will of the people. So all their bright hopes about him ended in bitter disappointment. He failed to answer the mind of God, and so he failed to meet the people's need.
- The demand: They wanted a king to make them like the nations and to fight their battles. Both wants left God out.
- The root: They blamed Samuel's sons. The real cause was unbelief, brought out by Ammon's invasion across the Jordan.
- The loss: Israel was to live apart and be God's witness to the nations. Asking to look like them threw that witness away.
- The substitute: They traded a God they could not see for a king they could. Only a chapter earlier, the Lord had thundered against the Philistines for them.
- The result: God had His own anointed king in view. God gave the king they chose in anger, and the people followed him trembling.