A verse by verse commentary on 1 Samuel 8 dealing with Israel asking for a king from Samuel so they could be like other nations and God told him to give them a king with great warnings of the price they would pay.

1. 1 SAMUEL 8 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Israel Asks for a King
1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as
Israel’s leaders.[a]
BARNES, "This verse implies a long period, probably not less than 20 years, of which
we have no account except what is contained in the brief notice in 1Sa_7:13-17. The
general idea conveyed is of a time of peace and prosperity, analogous to that under other
Judges.
CLARKE, "When Samuel was old - Supposed to be about sixty.
He made his sons judges - He appointed them as his lieutenants to superintend
certain affairs in Beer-sheba, which he could not conveniently attend to himself. But they
were never judges in the proper sense of the word; Samuel was the last judge in Israel,
and he judged it to the day of his death. See 1Sa_7:16.
GILL, "And it came to pass, when Samuel was old,.... The common notion of the
Jews is, that he lived but fifty two years (t); when a man is not usually called an old man,
unless the infirmities of old age came upon him sooner than they commonly do, through
his indefatigable labours from his childhood, and the cares and burdens of government
he had long bore; though some think he was about sixty years of age; and Abarbinel is of
opinion that he was more than seventy. It is a rule with the Jews (u), that a man is called
an old man at sixty, and a grey headed man at seventy:
that he made his sons judges over Israel; under himself, not being able through
old age to go the circuits he used; he sent them, and appointed them to hear and try
causes in his stead, or settled them in some particular places in the land, and, as it seems
by what follows, at Beersheba; though whether that was under his direction, or was their
own choice, is not certain.
1

2. HENRY 1-2, "Two sad things we find here, but not strange things: - 1. A good and
useful man growing old and unfit for service (1Sa_8:1): Samuel was old, and could not
judge Israel, as he had done. He is not reckoned to be past sixty years of age now,
perhaps not so much; but he was a man betimes, was full of thoughts and cared when he
was a child, which perhaps hastened the infirmities of age upon him. The fruits that are
the first ripe keep the worst. He had spent his strength and spirits in the fatigue of public
business, and now, if he think to shake himself as at other times, he finds he is mistaken:
old age has cut his hair. Those that are in the prime of their time ought to be busy in
doing the work of life: for, as they go into years, they will find themselves less disposed
to it and less able for it. 2. The children of a good man turning aside, and not treading in
his steps. Samuel had given his sons so good an education, and they had given him such
good hopes of their doing well, and gained such a reputation in Israel, that he made
them judges, assistants to him awhile, and afterwards deputies under him at
Beersheeba, which lay remote from Ramah, 1Sa_8:2. Probably the southern countries
petitioned for their residence there, that they might not be necessitated to travel far with
their causes. We have reason to think that Samuel gave them their commissions, not
because they were his sons (he had no ambition to entail the government upon his
family, any more than Gideon had), but because, for aught that yet appeared, they were
men very fit for the trust; and none so proper to ease the aged judge, and take some of
the burden off him, as (coeteris paribus - other things being equal) his own sons, who
no doubt were respected for their good father's sake, and, having such an advantage at
setting out, might soon have been great if they had but been good. But, alas! his sons
walked not in his ways (1Sa_8:3), and, when their character was the reverse of his, their
relation to so good a man, which otherwise would have been their honour, was really
their disgrace. Degeneranti genus opprobrium - A good extraction is a reproach to him
that degenerates from it. Note, Those that have the most grace themselves cannot give
grace to their children. It has often been the grief of good men to see their posterity,
instead of treading in their steps, trampling upon them, and, as Job speaks, marring
their path. Nay, many that have begun well, promised fair, and set out in the right path,
so that their parents and friends have had great hopes of them, yet afterwards have
turned aside to by-paths, and been the grief of those of whom they should have been the
joy. When Samuel's sons were made judges, and settled at a distance form him, then
they discovered themselves. Thus, (1.) Many that have been well educated, and have
conducted themselves well while they were under their parents' eye, when they have
gone abroad into the world and set up for themselves have proved bad. Let none
therefore be secure either of themselves or theirs, but depend on divine grace.
JAMISON, "1Sa_8:1-18. Occasioned by the ill-government of Samuel’s sons, the
Israelites ask a king.
when Samuel was old — He was now about fifty-four years of age, having
discharged the office of sole judge for twelve years. Unable, from growing infirmities, to
prosecute his circuit journeys through the country, he at length confined his magisterial
2

3. duties to Ramah and its neighborhood (1Sa_7:15), delegating to his sons as his deputies
the administration of justice in the southern districts of Palestine, their provincial court
being held at Beer-sheba. The young men, however, did not inherit the high qualities of
their father. Having corrupted the fountains of justice for their own private
aggrandizement, a deputation of the leading men in the country lodged a complaint
against them in headquarters, accompanied with a formal demand for a change in the
government. The limited and occasional authority of the judges, the disunion and
jealousy of the tribes under the administration of those rulers, had been creating a desire
for a united and permanent form of government; while the advanced age of Samuel,
together with the risk of his death happening in the then unsettled state of the people,
was the occasion of calling forth an expression of this desire now.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 8:1. Samuel was old — And so unfit for his former travels and
labours. He is not supposed to have been now above sixty years of age; but he had
spent his strength and spirits in the fatigue of public business; and now if he thinks
to shake himself as at other times, he finds he is mistaken; age has cut his hair. They
that are in the prime of their years, ought to be busy in doing the work of life; for as
they go into years, they will find themselves less disposed to it, and less capable of it.
He made his sons judges — Not supreme judges, for of such there was to be but one,
and that of God’s choosing; and Samuel still kept that office in his own hands, (1
Samuel 7:15;) but his deputies, to go about and determine matters, with reservation,
however, of a right of appeal to himself. He had doubtless instructed them in a
singular manner, and fitted them for the highest employments; and he hoped that
the example he had set them, and the authority he still had over them, would oblige
them to diligence and faithfulness in their trust.
COFFMAN, "ISRAEL DEMANDS A KING ... LIKE ALL THE NATIONS
This is one of the most important chapters in the Bible. Right here is the very tap
root of the evil that mined Israel. In this chapter, they rejected God, demanded a
king like other nations, and set in motion a chain of events that culminated in the
frenzied cry of the Sanhedrin before Pilate, "We have no king but Caesar."
SAMUEL'S SONS NO BETTER THAN THOSE OF ELI
The big event in this chapter is Israel's demand for a king. There were a number of
reasons for this development, but the `trigger situation' that precipitated the
3

4. demand of the elders of Israel is revealed in this first paragraph.
"When Samuel became old he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his
first-born son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in
Beersheba. Yet his sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after gain; they
took bribes and perverted justice."
"Sons judges over Israel" (1 Samuel 8:1). This cannot mean that they replaced
Samuel in any official sense, but that they were deputies appointed by Samuel and
empowered to exercise authority that belonged to their father. It seems that the
examples God allowed in the reprobate sons of both Eli and Samuel, and also in the
instance of Abimelech the son of Gideon, should have been a sufficient warning to
Israel against any system that called for hereditary succession of authority; but
Israel did not heed it.
"Joel ... Abijah" (1 Samuel 8:2). The devotion of their godly father is evident in the
names bestowed upon his sons. Joel means `The Lord is God,' and Abijah (or
Abiah) means `God is father'[1] The statement here that they performed their
judgeship in Beersheba emphasizes the extension of Israel's authority under Samuel
to that southern landmark. Josephus states that one of Samuel's sons judged at
Bethel,[2] but this presents no difficulty. As Samuel's judgeships were performed at
a number of different cities, his sons probably, at one time or another judged at all
of them. The narrative here and that of Josephus do not necessarily refer to exactly
the same time periods. We receive both accounts as true.
ELLICOTT, " (1) When Samuel was old.—We are not able with any precision to fix
the dates of Samuel’s life. When the great disaster happened which resulted in the
capture of the Ark of God and Eli’s death. the young prophet was barely thirty
years old. For the next twenty years we have seen how unweariedly he laboured to
awaken in the people a sense of their deep degradation and of the real causes of
their fallen state. Thus, when the great revolt and the Israelite victory at Eben-ezer
took place, Samuel the judge was probably nearly fifty years of age. Another
considerable apse of time must be assumed between the day of the uprising of the
people and the throwing off the Philistine yoke and the events related at such length
4

5. in the present chapter—the request of the people for an earthly king; for we must
allow a sufficient lapse of time for the Philistines to have recovered the effects of
their defeat at Eben-ezer, and again to have established themselves in power, at least
in the southern districts of Canaan. A famous Hebrew commentator suggests
seventy years of age as the most likely time of life. This supposition is, likely enough,
a correct one.
The following little table, showing the events in the life of Samuel, will assist the
student of the Bible story:—
1st period, 12 years 2 period about 15 to 20 years.
The child life in the Tabernacle service, under the guardianship of Eli. The boy is
called by the holy Voice to be a prophet; Josephus states that this happened in his
twelfth year. The boy-prophet remains in Shiloh The people gradually come to the
knowledge that a new prophet had risen up among them. He stays with Eli until his
death, after the disastrous battle of Aphek and the capture of the Ark. Shiloh was
probably destroyed by the Philistines after the battle of Aphek.
3rd period, 20 year.
He works unweariedly up and down among the people, and rouses them to renounce
idolatry, and under the Eternal’s protection to win their freedom.
4th period, probably nearly 20 years. 5th period.
Samuel judges Israel, now a free nation, again. The Eternal God-Friend
acknowledged by the people as King. Samuel the seer and judge and Saul the king
govern Israel.
HAWKER, "This Chapter contains rather the dark side of Israel from the former.
Samuel growing old, and his sons not closely copying after the example of their
father, discontent broke out among the people. They ask for a king in imitation of
the nations around them. The thing displeaseth the Lord. Samuel remonstrates with
the people. They are obstinate. Samuel promiseth their request shall be complied
with. These are the principal things contained in this Chapter.
1 Samuel 8:1
5

6. (1) ¶ And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons Judges over
Israel.
It should seem from calculation, that Samuel could not at this time be above sixty
years of age. But it is probable he had worn fast, and brought on premature old age
in the service and zeal of God's government. It forms a sweet reflection in the close
of life, if when strength is consumed, that that strength has not been spent in the
service of sin. But here, Reader, as in every other instance so in this, what a lovely
view doth our Jesus afford, whose day of life ended at a little more than thirty-
three! I must work (said that lovely one) the works of him that sent me while it is
day, the night cometh when no man can work. John 9:4.
K&D, "Introduction
II. The Monarchy of Saul from His Election Till His Ultimate Rejection - 1 Samuel
8-15
The earthly monarchy in Israel was established in the time of Samuel, andthrough
his mediation. At the pressing desire of the people, Samuelinstalled the Benjaminite
Saul as king, according to the command of God. The reign of Saul may be divided
into two essentially different periods:viz., (1) the establishment and vigorous
development of his regalsupremacy (1 Samuel 8-15); (2) the decline and gradual
overthrow of hismonarchy (1 Samuel 16-31). The establishment of the monarchy is
introducedby the negotiations of the elders of Israel with Samuel concerning
theappointment of a king (1 Samuel 8). This is followed by (1) the account of
theanointing of Saul as king (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16), of his election by lot, and ofhis
victory over the Ammonites and the confirmation of his monarchy atGilgal (1
Samuel 10:17-11:15), together with Samuel's final address to thenation (1 Samuel
12); (2) the history of Saul's reign, of which only his earliestvictories over the
Philistines are given at all elaborately (1 Samuel 13:1-14:46), his other wars and
family history being disposed of verysummarily (1 Samuel 14:47-52); (3) the account
of his disobedience to thecommand of God in the war against the Amalekites, and
the rejection onthe part of God with which Samuel threatened him in consequence
(1 Samuel 15). The brevity with which the history of his actual reign is treated,
6

7. incontrast with the elaborate account of his election and confirmation asking, may
be accounted for from the significance and importance of Saul'smonarchy in
relation to the kingdom of God in Israel.
The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, fromwhich they
had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to thedefects of their own
political constitution. They wished to have a king,like all the heathen nations, to
conduct their wars and conquer theirenemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled
by a king, which had existedin the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in
itself at variancewith the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive
whichled the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since thesource
of all the evils and misfortunes from which Israel suffered was to befound in the
apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting withthe gods of the heathen.
Consequently their self-willed obstinacy indemanding a king, notwithstanding the
warnings of Samuel, was an actualrejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He
had always manifestedhimself to His people as their king by delivering them out of
the power oftheir foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of
heart. Samuel pointed this out to the elders of Israel, when they laid theirpetition
before him that he would choose them a king. But Jehovahfulfilled their desires. He
directed Samuel to appoint them a king, whopossessed all the qualifications that
were necessary to secure for thenation what it looked for from a king, and who
therefore might haveestablished the monarchy in Israel as foreseen and foretold by
Jehovah, ifhe had not presumed upon his own power, but had submitted humbly
tothe will of God as made known to him by the prophet. Saul, who waschosen from
Benjamin, the smallest but yet the most warlike of all thetribes, a man in the full
vigour of youth, and surpassing all the rest of thepeople in beauty of form as well as
bodily strength, not only possessed“warlike bravery and talent, unbroken courage
that could overcomeopposition of every kind, a stedfast desire for the well-being of
the nationin the face of its many and mighty foes, and zeal and pertinacity in
theexecution of his plans” (Ewald), but also a pious heart, and an earnest zealfor the
maintenance of the provisions of the law, and the promotion of thereligious life of
the nation. He would not commence the conflict with the Philistines until sacrifice
hadbeen offered (1 Samuel 13:9.); in the midst of the hot pursuit of the foe
heopposed the sin committed by the people in eating flesh with the blood (1 Samuel
14:32-33); he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land(1 Samuel 28:3,
1 Samuel 28:9); and in general he appears to have kept a strict watch overthe
observance of the Mosaic law in his kingdom. But the consciousnessof his own
power, coupled with the energy of his character, led his astrayinto an incautious
disregard of the commands of God; his zeal in theprosecution of his plans hurried
him on to reckless and violent measures;and success in his undertakings heightened
7

8. his ambition into a haughtyrebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel. These
errors come outvery conspicuously in the three great events of his reign which are
themost circumstantially described. When Saul was preparing for war against the
Philistines, and Samuel didnot appear at once on the day appointed, he
presumptuously disregardedthe prohibition of the prophet, and offered the sacrifice
himself withoutwaiting for Samuel to arrive (1 Samuel 13:7.). In the engagement
with thePhilistines, he attempted to force on the annihilation of the foe
bypronouncing the ban upon any one in his army who should eat breadbefore the
evening, or till he had avenged himself upon his foes. Consequently, he not only
diminished the strength of the people, so thatthe overthrow of the enemy was not
great, but he also preparedhumiliation for himself, inasmuch as he was not able to
carry out his vow(1 Samuel 14:24.). But he sinned still more grievously in the war
with theAmalekites, when he violated the express command of the Lord by
onlyexecuting the ban upon that nation as far as he himself thought well, andthus by
such utterly unpardonable conduct altogether renounced theobedience which he
owed to the Lord his God (1 Samuel 15). All these acts oftransgression manifest an
attempt to secure the unconditional gratificationof his own self-will, and a growing
disregard of the government of Jehovahin Israel; and the consequence of the whole
was simply this, that Saul notonly failed to accomplish that deliverance of the nation
out of the powerof its foes which the Israelites had anticipated from their king, and
wasunable to inflict any lasting humiliation upon the Philistines, but that
heundermined the stability of his monarchy, and brought about his ownrejection on
the part of God.
From all this we may see very clearly, that the reason why the occurrencesconnected
with the election of Saul as king as fully described on the onehand, and on the other
only such incidents connected with his enterprisesafter he began to reign as served
to bring out the faults and crimes of hismonarchy, was, that Israel might learn from
this, that royalty itself couldnever secure the salvation it expected, unless the
occupant of the thronesubmitted altogether to the will of the Lord. Of the other acts
of Saul, thewars with the different nations round about are only briefly
mentioned,but with this remark, that he displayed his strength and gained the
victoryin whatever direction he turned (1 Samuel 14:47), simply because
thisstatement was sufficient to bring out the brighter side of his reign,inasmuch as
this clearly showed that it might have been a source ofblessing to the people of God,
if the king had only studied how to governhis people in the power and according to
the will of Jehovah. If weexamine the history of Saul's reign from this point of view,
all the differentpoints connected with it exhibit the greatest harmony. Modern
critics, however, have discovered irreconcilable contradictions inthe history, simply
because, instead of studying it for the purpose offathoming the plan and purpose
8

9. which lie at the foundation, they haveentered upon the inquiry with a twofold
assumption: viz., (1) that thegovernment of Jehovah over Israel was only a
subjective idea of theIsraelitish nation, without any objective reality; and (2) that
the humanmonarchy was irreconcilably opposed to the government of God.
Governed by these axioms, which are derived not from the Scriptures, butfrom the
philosophical views of modern times, the critics have found itimpossible to explain
the different accounts in any other way than by thepurely external hypothesis, that
the history contained in this book hasbeen compiled from two different sources, in
one of which theestablishment of the earthly monarchy was treated as a violation of
thesupremacy of God, whilst the other took a more favourable view. Fromthe first
source, 1 Samuel 8, 1 Samuel 10:17-27, 1 Samuel 10:11-12, and 1 Samuel 10:15 are
said to have beenderived; and 1 Samuel 9-10:17, 1 Samuel 10:13, and 1 Samuel
10:14 from the second.
Verses 1-5
1 Samuel 8:1-2
The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel's sons asjudges is his own
advanced age. The inference which we might draw fromthis alone, namely, that they
were simply to support their father in theadministration of justice, and that Samuel
had no intention of laying downhis office, and still less of making the supreme office
of judge hereditary inhis family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were
stationed asjudges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border
ofCanaan (Judges 20:1, etc.; see at Genesis 21:31). The sons are also mentionedagain
in 1 Chronicles 6:13, though the name of the elder has either beendropped out of the
Masoretic text or has become corrupt.
CONSTABLE, "The occasion for requesting a king 8:1-3
The people would probably not have pressed for a king at this time had Samuel's
sons proved as faithful to the Mosaic Covenant as their father had been. However,
Joel ("Yahweh is God") and Abijah ("My [divine] Father is Yahweh") disqualified
themselves from leadership in Israel by disobeying the Law (Exodus 23:6; Exodus
23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19). Eli's sons had done the same thing. Parental influence is
important, but personal choices are even more determinative in the outcome of one's
life. Whereas the writer censured Eli for his poor parenting (1 Samuel 3:13), he did
not do so with Samuel. Evidently he did not consider Samuel responsible for his
9

10. son's conduct, or perhaps he did not want to sully the reputation of this great judge.
Some commentators have faulted Samuel for his sons' behavior. [Note: E.g., Wood,
The Prophets ..., p. 160.]
LANGE, "The Preparations. Chapters8–9
I. The Persistent Desire of the People after a King conveyed through their Elders to
Samuel
1 Samuel 8:1-22
1And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over 2
Israel. Now [And] the name of his first-born was Joel, 1and the name of his [the]
3second Abiah[FN2]; they were judges in Beersheba. And his sons walked not in his
ways, but turned aside after lucre,[FN3] and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
4Then [And] all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to 5
Samuel to Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk 6 not
in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But [And] the thing
displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel 7 prayed
unto the Lord [Jehovah]. And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Samuel, Hearken unto
the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected
thee,[FN4] but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them 8 According
to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of
Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken [forsaking][FN5] me and
served [serving] other gods, so do they also [om. also] unto thee [ins. also]. 9Now
therefore [And now] hearken unto their voice; howbeit [om. howbeit] yet protest
solemnly unto [solemnly warn][FN6] them, and show them the manner[FN7] of the
king that shall reign over them.
10And Samuel told all the words of the Lord [Jehovah] to the people that asked 11
of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over
10

11. you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be
his horsemen [put them in his chariot and on his horses[FN8]], and some [they]
12shall run before his chariots [chariot]. And he will appoint[FN9] him captains
over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them [some he will set] to ear
[plough] his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war
and [ins. 13the] instruments [equipment] of his chariots. And he will take your
daughters to be confectionaries [perfumers],[FN10] and to be [om. to be] cooks, and
to be [om. to be] 14bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and
your oliveyards, 15even [om. even] the best of them, and give them to his servants.
And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his
officers, and to his 16 servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-
servants, and your 17 goodliest young men [oxen],[FN11] and your asses, and put
them to his work. He will 18 take the tenth of your sheep; and ye shall be his
servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which [whom] ye
shall have chosen you, and the Lord [Jehovah] will not hear you in that day.
19Nevertheless [And] the people refused to obey [hearken to] the voice of Samuel 20
And they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us; That [And] we also may [will]
be like all the nations, and that [om. that] our king may [shall] judge us, 21and go
out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people,
and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord [Jehovah]. And the 22 Lord
[Jehovah] said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And
Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1 Samuel 8:1-3. Samuel’s sons, Joel and Abiah, associated with him as judges over
Israel.—The reason here given, why Samuel made his two sons Judges, is his age,
for which his work, as sketched in 1 Samuel 7:15-17, had become too hard. The two
sons, Joel and Abiah, are also mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6:13 [Eng. A. V: 1 Samuel
8:28], where, however, in the masoretic text, the name of the first has fallen
out.[FN12] [These names may be taken as indications of the father’s pious feeling.
The first, Joel, “Jehovah is God,” was, not improbably, a protest against the
idolatry of the Israelites. Hebrew names thus frequently serve as historical finger-
signs, pointing out prevailing tendencies or modes of feeling at certain times. Comp.
Ichabod ( 1 Samuel 4:21-22), Saul’s ’sons Meribbaal (Mephibosheth) and Ishbaal
11

12. (Ishbosheth), David’s sons ( 2 Samuel 3:2-5), Manasseh the King, Malachi. The
name of Samuel’s second Song of Solomon, Abiah, “Jehovah is father,” expresses
trust in the fatherhood of God, an idea which hardly appears in O. T. except in
proper names. “It records, doubtless, the fervent aspiration of him who first devised
it as a name, and, we may hope, of many who subsequently adopted it, after that
endearing and intimate relationship between God and the soul of Prayer of
Manasseh, which is truly expressed by the words ‘father’ and ‘child.’ It may be
accepted as proof that believers in ancient days, though they had not possession of
the perfect knowledge of ‘the mystery of God and of the Father and of Christ,’ or of
the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless ‘received the Spirit of adoption,’ that
God ‘sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, whereby they cried, Abba,
Father’ ” (Wilkinson, Personal Names in the Bible, page169 sq.).—Tr.].—They
acted as judges in Beersheba, “Well of the seven (that Isaiah, lambs), or of the oath”
( Genesis 21:28-33), the spot consecrated by the Patriarchal history ( Genesis 22:19;
Genesis 26:23; Genesis 28:10), in the extreme south of the country, on the border of
Edom, now Bir- Esther -seba [“Well of the seven, or of the lion”] (Robins. I:337
[Amer. Ed. L, 204sq.]).[FN13] Josephus (Ant. VI, 3, 2) adds, “in Bethel” after
“ Judges,” thus intimating that one son acted in the North, the other in the South,
both together comprising the whole country in their judicial work, according to
which Samuel had wholly retired; but against this is the previous statement that
Samuel exercised his office “all the days of his life,” and therefore his sons could
only have been appointed by him assistants in the performance of duties which his
old age rendered too arduous for him. Ewald’s opinion that this addition of
Josephus “suits so well,” that “he must have gotten it from a still better account in
the histories of the Kings,” is a mere surmise, over against which we may put with
equal right the opinion that Josephus was indebted for this addition (Nägelsb.) to
his “very lively fancy” (Then.), and that the Masoretic text fits in so well with the
whole historical situation, that the integrity of the passage cannot be assailed. Since,
on the one hand, our attention is directed to Samuel’s age,[FN14] which compelled
him to make his sons Judges, while yet he did not lay down his office, and, on the
other hand, the desire after a firm and energetic royal power was based on the
dangerous condition of the country by reason of foreign enemies, it appears that
Samuel, in order to lighten the burden, set his sons as judges in a part of the land,
and in the part which occasioned the greatest difficulties and exertions, that Isaiah,
the southern. 1 Samuel 8:3 affirms that this measure was a failure. In consequence
of the division of the judicial power between the father and the sons, the authority of
the office was so debased in the eyes of the people by the crimes of the latter, as the
sacerdotal dignity was by the sons of Eli, that the desire for a higher authority to
guide the people found utterance.—They took bribes and perverted judgment.—
They thus transgressed the law of the Lord ( Exodus 23:6; Exodus 23:8; comp.
12

13. Deuteronomy 16:19), and destroyed the foundation of the judicial office as the office
for the administration of right and justice. Their official unfaithfulness is contrasted
with their father’s walk: they walked not in his ways.—This fact or judgment alone
is given, and Samuel is not, like Eli, charged with the blame of his sons’ misconduct.
The words: they inclined or turned aside (namely, from the ways of their
father[FN15]) after lucre, exhibit the roots of their wicked official procedure in a
mind directed to gain. Luther gives the correct sense: “they turned aside to
covetousness.”
LANGE, "HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL
1. The demand for a human kingdom like the kingdom in other nations, and its
fulfilment, is one of the most important turning-points in the development of the
Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Historically occasioned by constant
danger from without, against which there was no one sufficient leader, and by the
arbitrary and illegal procedure of the Judges, it was more deeply grounded in the
need (felt by the people and supported by public opinion) of a sole, continuous, and
externally and internally firm and energetic rule. And this rule, even if it took the
shape of royalty, needed not to be in conflict with the monarchical rule of God over
His people ( Exodus 19:5 sq.; Judges 8:23; 1 Samuel 12:12); for1) the human king, if
his relation to God’s kingdom were rightly apprehended, need be nothing more than
the instrument and representative of the theocratic kingdom; 2) from the
Patriarchal time on, through the Mosaic period and that of the Judges till now,
there had been defined hopes of and allusions to the rise of a mighty and glorious
kingdom within the nation under the lead of the Divine Spirit Himself ( Genesis
17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 35:11; Numbers 24:17; comp. Deuteronomy 17:14-20;
Judges 8:23; Judges 9:22; 1 Samuel 2:10, 3:35); and3) the existing government was
no longer able to perform the duties incumbent on it. Ew. Gesch. [History of Israel,
2, 606 sq.]: “As, then, even under Samuel, in his latter years, the judicial office
showed itself without and within too weak and unable to give permanent security,
the time was at last come when the people must either submit to a more perfect
human government, or perish irretrievably. “The unfavorable decision on the
demand given nevertheless by Samuel and in the divine declaration, refers to the
sinful disposition of mind out of which the demand sprang—a disposition not
trusting unconditionally in God’s power, anticipating the plans of His wisdom and
His chosen time, controlled by vain and proud desire to imitate the royal
magnificences of the heathen peoples. “In this there was a two-fold ungodly
element1) They desired a king instead of the God-established and nobly attested
Judge Samuel …… The scheme is characterized as an injustice against Samuel, and
13

14. therefore a sin against the Lord, who sent him, 1 Samuel 8:7; 1 Samuel 8:2) At the
bottom of the people’s desire for a king lay the delusion, that God was powerless to
help them, that the reason of their subjection was not their sin, but a fault in the
constitution, that the kingdom would be an aid in addition to God. This point of
view appears oftener in the narrative than the first. Isaiah 10:18-19; Isaiah 12. The
kingdom desired in such a mind was not a form of God’s kingdom in accordance
with Revelation, but opposed to His kingdom.” (Hengst. Beit. 3, p256 sq.) Calvin:
“They ought to have waited patiently for the time predetermined by God, and not
have given place to their own designs and methods apart from God’s word. They
ought not, therefore, to have anticipated God’s purpose, but ought to have waited
till the Lord Himself should show by indubitable signs that the foreordained time
had come, and should direct their counsels. Moreover, though they recognized
Samuel as a prophet, they not only did not inquire of him whether they were to have
a king or not, but wanted him to aid in carrying out their design. They do not think
of invoking God; they demand that a king be given them; they adduce the customs
and institutions of other nations.” Nevertheless, Samuel yields to the desire of the
people, “because he knows that now God’s time has come; but, at the same time, he
does all that he can to bring the people to a consciousness of their sin.” (Hengst. ib.
258.) The fulfilment of the demand for a human kingdom is distinctly granted by
God, because, though as a human factor in the movement it is rooted in sin, yet,
foreseen by God, it fits into His plan, and is to be the means of elevating and
confirming the Theocracy in His people, and of laying the foundation for the further
development of the nation’s history, till the preparation should be complete for
salvation in the person of Him, of whom the kingdom of Israel in David was to be
the prefiguration and type. Herein the law, which runs through the whole history of
the development of Revelation, repeats itself: by the guilt of the covenant-people
God’s arrangements for salvation reach a point where they no longer serve; then
their guilt is revealed most strongly in open disobedience to God; but, in permitting
what the people sinfully wish, God grasps the reins and directs events to a point, of
which the people in their sinful blindness had thought nothing, so that He only the
more glorifies Himself by the elevation of His revelation to a higher place.” (O. v.
Gerlach.)
2. We are not to think of the relation between the theocracy and the kingdom
established through Samuel, as if the latter were an addition to the former “to aid it
in accomplishing its task, and to supply what was lacking to the times,” as if a
“mixed constitution and rule” had arisen, and “out of a divine government” had
come a “royal-divine government,” a Basileo-Theocracy. Ew. Gesch. [Hist.] 3, 8.
14

15. This conception of a co-ordinate relation does not agree with the governing
principle of the theocracy, that God is and remains king of His people, that God’s
law and truth is the authority to which the kingdom must unconditionally submit, in
dependence on which it is to govern as visible instrument of the theocracy in the
name and place of the invisible king. The rejection of Saul, who would not pay
unconditional obedience to God’s rule, and the divine recognition of David’s
government as one which was thoroughly in unison with the rule of Israel’s true
king, their God and Lord, and which continued to prepare the way for its
realization in the people, laying the historical basis for the future manifestation of
the Messianic kingdom, confirm the view that the relation of the Israelitish kingdom
to the Theocracy (as Samuel, under God’s direction, founded it) was one of
unconditional subordination; it was to be the instrument of the latter. The statement
that there was an encroachment on the pure Theocracy in the fact “that Jehovah
could no longer be the sole Lawgiver, that the earthly king must execute his will
with unrestrained authority” (Diestel, Jahrb. für deutsche Theol, 1863, p554) rests
on an incorrect presupposition, since, according to the principle of the Theocracy,
even the established monarchy was expressly subject to the legislative authority of
the covenant-God, and both king and people must unconditionally conform their
will to the will and law of God.
3. This history of the people’s desire for a king and its fulfilment by God exhibits the
relation of the divine will to the human will, when the latter stands sinfully opposed
to the former. God never destroys the freedom of the human will. He leaves it to its
free self-determination, but when it has turned away from His will, seeks to bring it
back by the revelation in His word. If this does not succeed, human perversity must
nevertheless minister to the realization of the plans of His kingdom and salvation,
and also, in its evil consequences, bring punishment, according to His righteous law,
on the sin which man thus freely commits.
4. Samuel appears, in this crisis of Old Testament history, among the men of God
whom the Bible represents as heroes in prayer, as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David,
Elijah. Speaking to the people, he represented God as his prophet; praying to God,
he represented the people as their priestly mediator. Comp. Schröring, Samuel als
Beter (“Samuel as a praying man”), in the Zeitschr. für luth. Theol. ü Krit, 1856, p
414 sq.
15

16. 5. [The relation between this narrative of the demand for a king and the “law of the
king,” Deuteronomy 17:14-20, requires a brief notice. It seems strange that Samuel,
if he was acquainted with this law, makes no mention of it. There is no difficulty in
his characterization of the demand as a rejection of the divine rule over them
(Jehovah Himself ( 1 Samuel 8:7-8) does the same thing), for the sin was in their
feeling and purpose, not in the demand per se, as Dr. Erdmann well brings out; and
Samuel might have so spoken, if he had known that the Law contemplated the
possibility of a regal government. The real difficulty lies in the fact that the
narrative in 1 Samuel8-12seems to be unconscious of the law in Deuteronomy.
Allowing much, it might be said, for the simple, unscientific, historical method of the
times, in which quotations are rare, and things omitted which are commonly known,
it would yet seem that there should be in the addresses of the people, of Samuel, and
of Jehovah, some recognition of the fact that this was a thing which did not make its
first appearance now, and some reference to the obligations imposed on the king in
the Mosaic Law. But, is there no recognition in the later transaction of the earlier
law? If we compare the two, we shall find the relation between them to be the
following: the form of demand in Deuteronomy 17:14 is given almost verbatim in 1
Samuel 8:5, but the former adds “about me,” while the latter adds the ground of the
desire, “that he may be judicial and military head;” for choice by Jehovah in Deut.
( 1 Samuel 8:15), we have choice by the people in 1 Sam. ( 1 Samuel 8:18); and by
Jehovah ( 1 Samuel 10:24); the reference to horses is nearly the same in form in
both, but in tone quite different, Deut. 1 Samuel 8:16; 1 Samuel 8:11; on the other
hand, the mention of returning to Egypt, of wives, silver and gold, and the study of
the law (Deut. 1 Samuel 8:17-20) is not found in Samuel. It will be seen from this
comparison, and still more from a comparison of the whole tone and drift in the
two, that the act described here was probably performed without reference to the
statute in Deut.; that the desire of the people was a natural, historical growth, and
the course of events was determined by the circumstances of the time. So in the
history of Gideon we see a similar unconsciousness of the Deuteronomic statute
(though there is recognition of the theocracy), and a similar determination of action
by existing circumstances. Where, then, was the Mosaic law all this time? and was
Samuel ignorant of it? The answer to these questions seems to be suggested by the
statement in 1 Samuel 10:25, in which there are three distinct affirmations: 1) “that
Sa muel told the people the law or manner of the kingdom, which is plainly different
from the law of the king in chap8, and is most naturally to be identified with
Deuteronomy 17:14-17; Deuteronomy 2) that he wrote this law in a book; and3) that
he put it somewhere in safe keeping. It seems probable, therefore, that we have here
the political adoption of the essence of the Mosaic “law of the king” (which, in its
prohibition of a return to Egypt, for example, has the stamp of Mosaic times). The
law had been announced by Moses, transmitted through the priests, and was known
16

17. to Samuel (though perhaps not generally known among the people). But it was a
permission of royalty merely, not an injunction, and its existence did not diminish
the people’s sin of superficial, unspiritual longing for outward guidance, nor prove
at first to Samuel that the time for its application had come. He therefore says
nothing about it. But when the transaction is concluded, the king actually chosen,
then he announces the law, and with obvious propriety commits it in its
constitutional form to writing, and deposits it before Jehovah as a part of the
theocratic constitution. Thus the history seems to become natural and intelligible
when regarded as exhibiting Samuel’s doubts as to whether the proper time had
come for the historical realization of what Moses puts merely as a possibility.
Apparently Samuel was not in sympathy with the movement, and seems to have felt
after this that he had outlived his time.—Tr.]
PETT, "While Samuel was fit and well and did not flag in looking after the people
they remained fully loyal to him and to YHWH. It was a minor golden age. All fear
of the Philistines had gone, and they knew the way in which they should walk, and
responded to Samuel’s authority. There was no question of ‘every man doing what
was right in his own eyes’ as they often had during the period preceding his arrival
(Judges 21:25). All responded to the prophet Samuel.
But as he grew older they became wary. For he had appointed his sons as judges
over a section of Israel in the territory of Judah which was almost due west of the
southern end of the Dead Sea. Its main town was called Beersheba, the
southernmost city in Israel, and beyond it lay the semi-desert of the Negev. They
had probably applied to him for help in finding suitable oversight, and who better
than his sons? They had had no objection to the appointment of his sons, but his
sons then proved unsuitable and took advantage of their positions to further their
own wealth by unscrupulous means.
This rang alarm bells in the minds of the people of Israel, for they could foresee
trouble once Samuel was gone. They did not want a repetition of what had
happened with the sons of Eli. What this should have done, of course, was to turn
their thoughts towards seeking YHWH. But that required continual repentance,
and genuine trust and obedience and they were not really ready for either.
17

18. So, probably without fully realising it (so dark is man’s heart), they were rejecting
their heritage. Perhaps they remembered back to stories about the period of the
Judges, when, in between YHWH’s successful appointees, there had always been
those dreadful periods of humiliation which were made clear in their history. Those
days were something that they did not want to go back to. They conveniently
overlooked the fact that each time those humiliations had occurred it was because
the people had fallen away from YHWH. What they really wanted was a stable and
permanent government under a king who could fight their battles for them and
which would not be dependent on the ups and downs of history (in other words
would carry on whether they were totally loyal to YHWH or not). So they came to
Samuel pleading with him to set a king over them. After all, had not God promised
that one day they would have such a king (as the writer has already made us aware -
1 Samuel 2:10)? Let Him then appoint one for them now. They were sure that this
would then solve all their problems. They would never have to worry about
leadership again.
Unknown to them YHWH had already been planning a king for them, but as yet he
was too young to take up the position, and had not yet been shaped by YHWH.
Thus YHWH would provide them with a king who would both teach them a lesson
about kingship and would in the end have to make way for David. They could have
no complaint. They had asked for a king like all the nations round about, and that
was what God gave them, a kingly figure who fought well for them, but also
manoeuvred things to his own advantage, and had not been especially prepared by
YHWH. We must presume that YHWH gave them the best that was available.
Verses 1-6
The People Seek For The Appointment of a King Over Them (1 Samuel 8:1-6).
Outwardly the desire of the elders for a king appears reasonable, but what they
ignored was the fact that once there was a dynasty there could be good kings
followed by bad kings. It was a lesson that they should have learned from Eli’s sons
and Samuel’s sons. What they should therefore rather have done was to trust in
18

19. YHWH, and fully follow Him, for while they did so His appointees would always be
dependable. Unfortunately, however, their desire arose from an evil heart of
unbelief, and it was thus a rejection of YHWH’s kingship.
Analysis.
a And it came about that when Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel
(1 Samuel 8:1).
b Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah. They
were judges in Beer-sheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside
after ill-gotten gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice (1 Samuel 8:2-3).
c Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to
Rama (1 Samuel 8:4).
b And they said to him, “Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your
ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (1 Samuel 8:5).
a But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.”
And Samuel prayed to YHWH (1 Samuel 8:6)
Note that in ‘a’ Samuel makes his sons judges over Israel, and in the parallel they
seek rather for a king to be judge over them. In ‘b his sons do not walk in his ways,
and in the parallel that is the complaint of the elders about them. In ‘c’ all the elders
gather in an assembly of the tribes at Rama in order to settle the future leadership
question.
1 Samuel 8:1
19

20. ‘And it came about that when Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel.’
Samuel had been mainly responsible for judgeship in the central part of Israel, but
as a prophet of YHWH his influence would have reached much further throughout
the whole of Israel. Thus when he was growing old he assigned to the judgeship of
his sons the southernmost region of Israel to his sons. The fact that he did so when
he had not been acting there himself would suggest the probability that the people
around Beersheba had come to him asking for suitable ‘judges’ to rule over them. In
response to their request he had felt that he could trust his sons. No father likes to
feel that his sons cannot be trusted, and he felt that they were now ready to take
independent authority. Unfortunately he was to be proved wrong. Perhaps it was
because he had been neglectful over the bringing up of his own sons. Many a man
who blesses many fails to be the blessing to his own family that he should be
2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name
of his second was Abijah, and they served at
Beersheba.
BARNES, "The mention of Beer-sheba, on the extreme southern frontier of Judah, as
the place where Samuel’s sons judged Israel is remarkable. It was probably due to the
recovery of territory from the usurpation of the Philistines 1Sa_7:14.
GILL, "Now the name of his firstborn was Joel,.... In 1Ch_6:28 he is called
Vashni; See Gill on 1Ch_6:28. This was not Joel the prophet, as some have thought,
neither his parentage, nor his office, nor his times, will agree with this:
and the name of his second Abiah: which two sons seem to be all he had:
20

21. they were judges in Beersheba; in the utmost border of the land, to the south, as
Ramah, where Samuel dwelt and judged, was more to the north; where they were placed
by their father, for the greater convenience of the people of Israel that lived southward,
to bring their causes to them, as those lived more northward might bring them to him:
according to Josephus (w), they were placed by their father, the one in Bethel, one of the
places Samuel used to go to in his circuit and judge, and the other at Beersheba. But
some, as Junius and others, think it should be rendered, "unto Beersheba"; and so takes
in its opposite, Dan, which lay at the utmost border of the land northward; hence the
phrase, "from Dan to Beersheba"; and that the one was settled at Dan for the sake of the
northern part of the land, and the other at Beersheba, for the sake of the southern: or
rather these sons of Samuel placed themselves at Beersheba; which was an ill judged
thing, to be both in one place, and which must give the people of Israel a great deal of
trouble, and put them to a large expense to come from all quarters thither, to have their
causes tried; but that is not the worst.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 8:2. They were judges in Beer-sheba — In the southern
borders of the land of Canaan, which were very remote from his house at Ramah;
where, and in the neighbouring places, Samuel himself still executed the office of
judge.
HAWKER, "(2) Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his
second, Abiah: they were Judges in Beersheba. (3) And his sons walked not in his
ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
Behold, Reader, in these instances, that grace is not hereditary. The most pious of
men cannot convey the least portion of the Holy Ghost to their children. Oh! thou
dear Redeemer! how hast thou hereby taught us the infinite importance of an union
with thee! Holy Father! remember thy promise to our Jesus, and be it according to
thy words: pour thy Spirit. upon his seed, and thy blessing upon his offspring.
Isaiah 44:3.
PETT, "1 Samuel 8:2
‘Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah. They
were judges in Beer-sheba.
The names of his sons are given. His firstborn was Joel, while his second son was
called Abijah. It will be noted that both names compound with the name of YHWH,
Yo-el (Yah is God) and Abi-yah (My divine father is Yah), and witness to Samuel’s
faith. In 1 Chronicles 6:28, however, they are named ‘the firstborn Vashni and
Abijah’. This is quite possible because it was not unusual in Israel for a man to have
21

22. two names. They were appointed as joint judges in Beersheba which was the
southernmost region in Israel (compare 1 Samuel 3:20).
(Many, however, think that in 1 Chronicles 6:28 the name Joel has somehow slipped
out of the text, and that it should read, ‘the firstborn Joel and the second Abijah’,
for vashni could be pointed to signify ‘and the second’. There is, however, no textual
evidence to support the suggestion. LXX reads ‘the first-born Sani, and Abia’ which
supports MT).
PULPIT, "1Sa_8:2
The name of his firstborn was Joel. The names of Samuel’s sons are pledges of his
faith—Joel meaning Jehovah is God, and Abiah Jab is Father. The name given in 1Ch_
6:28, Vashni, is a mistake. It means, "and the second," the name of Joel the firstborn
having somehow been omitted. The names of Saul’s sons, and even of Jonathan’s, unlike
those in Samuel’s family, bear witness to their religion having been of a curiously mixed
character. In Beer-sheba. Not, therefore, in any of the places to which Samuel went in
person, and which were all near Ramah, his home. Beer-sheba was in the extreme south
of the tribe of Judah (see on Gen_21:31), on the Philistine border, and his being able to
place his sons there in authority proves, not merely that his rule was acknowledged
throughout the whole country, but also that the Philistines did not interfere much with
the internal arrangements of the Israelites. Josephus (’Antiq.,’ 6:3, 2) represents only
one son as placed at Beer-sheba, and says that the other was judge at Dan, but it may be
doubted whether the northern tribes were sufficiently under control to submit to be
governed by a southern judge.
3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They
turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted
bribes and perverted justice.
CLARKE, "His sons walked not in his ways - Their iniquity is pointed out in
three words:
22

23. 1. They turned aside after lucre; the original (‫בצע‬ batsa) signifies to cut, clip, break
off; and therefore Mr. Parkhurst thinks that it means nearly the same with our
clipping of coin. It however expresses here the idea of avarice, of getting money by
hook or by crook. The Targum says, “They looked after ‫דשקר‬ ‫ממון‬ mamon dishkar,
the mammon of unrighteousness;” of which they did not make unto themselves
friends but enemies; see the note on Mat_6:24.
2. They took bribes; ‫שחד‬ shochad, gifts or presents, to blind their eyes.
3. They perverted judgment - they turned judgment aside; they put it out of its
regular path; they sold it to the highest bidder: thus the wicked rich man had his
cause, and the poor man was oppressed and deprived of his right.
This was the custom in our own country before Magna Charta was obtained; he that
would speed in the king’s court must bribe all the officers, and fee both the king and
queen! I have found in our ancient records the most barefaced and shameful examples of
this kind; but it was totally abolished, invito rege, by that provision in the above charter
which states, Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimvs ant differemus rectum aut judicium; “To
no man will we sell, to no man will we deny or defer, justice and right.” It was customary
in those inauspicious times, for judgment to be delayed in banco regis, in the king’s
court, as long as there was any hope that more money would be paid in order to bring it
to issue. And there were cases, where the king did not like the party, in which he denied
justice and judgment entirely! Magna Charta brought them to book, and brought the
subject to his right.
Of those times it might well be said, as Homer did, Iliad xvi., ver. 387.
Οἱ βιῃ αγορη σκολιας κρινωσι θεμιστας,
Εκ δε δικην ελασωσι, θεων οπιν ουκ αλεγοντες.
“When guilty mortals break the eternal laws,
Or judges, bribed, betray the righteous cause.”
“When the laws are perverted by force; when justice is expelled from her seat; when
judges are swayed from the right, regardless of the vengeance of Heaven.” Or, in other
words, these were times in which the streams of justice were poisoned in their source,
and judges neither feared God nor regarded man.
GILL, "And his sons walked not in his ways,.... The meaning of which is not that
they did not go the circuit he did, which is too low a sense of the words some Jewish
writers give; but they did not walk in the fear of God, in the paths of religion and
righteousness, truth and holiness; they neither served God, nor did justice to men, as
Samuel had done:
but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment;
indulged to covetousness, sought to get riches at any rate, took bribes, which blind the
eyes of judges; and so passed wrong judgment, and gave the cause to those that gave the
largest gifts, right or wrong.
23

24. HENRY, "Many that have done well in a state of meanness and subjection have been
spoiled by preferment and power. Honours change men's minds, and too often for the
worse. It does not appear that Samuel's sons were so profane and vicious as Eli's sons;
but, whatever they were in other respects, they were corrupt judges, they turned aside
after lucre, after the mammon of unrighteousness, so the Chaldee reads it. Note, The
love of money is the root of all evil. It is pernicious in any, but especially in judges.
Samuel had taken no bribes (Job_12:3), but his sons had, though, no doubt, he warned
them against it when he made them judges; and then they perverted judgment. In
determining controversies, they had an eye to the bribe, not to the law, and enquired
who bid highest, not who had right on his side. It is sad with a people when the public
justice that should do them right, being perverted, does them the greatest wrong.
BENSON, "1 Samuel 8:3. Took bribes — Opportunity and temptation discovered
that corruption in them which, till now, was hid from their father, and, it may be,
from themselves. It has often been the grief of holy men, that their children did not
tread in their steps. So far from it, that the sons of eminently good men have been
often eminently wicked.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Took bribes, and perverted judgment.—This sin, at all times a
fatally common one in the East, was especially denounced in the Law. (See Exodus
23:6-8; Deuteronomy 16:19.) It is strange that the same ills that ruined Eli’s house,
owing to the evil conduct of his children, now threatened Samuel. The prophet-
judge, however, acted differently to the high priestly judge. The sons of Samuel
were evidently, through their father’s action in procuring the election of Saul,
quickly deposed from their authority. The punishment seems to have been
successful in correcting the corrupt tendencies of these men, for we hear in after
days of the high position occupied at the court of David by the distinguished
descendants of the noble and disinterested prophet. (See the notices in 1 Chronicles
6:33; 1 Chronicles 25:4-5, respecting Heman, the grandson of Samuel, the king’s
seer, who was chief of the choir of the Psalmist-king in the house of God.)
COKE, "1 Samuel 8:3. And his sons walked not in his ways— Eli was punished for
the wickedness of his sons, but Samuel was not; because it does not appear that the
crimes of Samuel's sons were in any respect so flagrant as those of the sons of Eli,
nor does it appear that Samuel knew of their crimes. They lived at a great distance
from him, and might receive the bribes secretly: nor, further, does it appear, that he
was wanting in a proper chastisement of them when he did know of their
enormities; at least nothing of this kind is recorded in history.
PETT, "1 Samuel 8:3
24

25. ‘And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after ill-gotten gain, and took
bribes, and perverted justice.’
Sadly, as so often happens, their authority went to their heads and instead of
walking in their father’s ways they used their positions for their own ends. Thus
they used their new positions in order to build up personal wealth. They sought to
obtain ill-gotten gains, accepted bribes and perverted justice. And it was not a
momentary lapse. For this to come to the notice of all Israel it must have gone on for
a few years.
K&D, "1Sa_8:3
The sons, however, did not walk in the ways of their father, but set their hearts upon
gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, in opposition to the command of God (see Exo_
23:6, Exo_23:8; Deu_16:19).
PULPIT, "1Sa_8:3
His sons …took bribes. This sin was expressly forbidden in Exo_23:6, Exo_23:8;
Deu_16:19, and it marks the high spirit of the nation that it was so indignant at justice
being thus perverted. They walked not in his way (singular—so the written text); for
Samuel’s own administration of justice had been most upright (1Sa_12:4), nor is it laid
to his charge that he connived at the misconduct of his sons. On the contrary, after
remonstrance indeed, not for his sons’ sake, but for the honour of the theocracy, and
that the people might be on their guard against a despotic exercise of the power with
which they were about to intrust a single man, he superseded not them only, but also
himself. His conduct in this trying conjuncture was most admirable, and few
commentators have done justice to the man, who, possessed of what was virtually kingly
power, yet gave it over for the nation’s good into the hands of another.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and
came to Samuel at Ramah.
BARNES, "Some attach the opening words to the close of 1 Sam. 3, as the
complement of what is there said, “The Lord revealed himself to Samuel ... in Shiloh,
25

26. and the word of Samuel went forth to all Israel.” If placed at the commencement of 1
Sam. 4, and in connection with what follows, they are to be understood in the sense that
Samuel called all Israel to battle against the Philistines. (Compare 1Sa_7:5.) But this is
not the natural interpretation of the words, which seem clearly to belong to what went
before.
The mention of the Philistines connects the narrative with Judg. 13–16. Since the
Philistine servitude lasted forty years Jdg_13:1, and seems to have terminated in the
days of Samuel 1Sa_7:13-14 in about the 20th year of his judgeship 1Sa_7:2; and since it
had already begun before the birth of Samson Jdg_13:5, and Samson judged Israel for
20 years “in the days of the Philistines” Jdg_15:20, it seems to follow that the latter part
of the judgeship of Eli and the early part of that of Samuel must have been coincident
with the lifetime of Samson.
Eben-ezer - (or, the stone of help) The place was afterward so named by Samuel. See
the marginal references. “Aphek,” or the “fortress,” was probably the same as the
“Aphek” of Jos_12:18. It would be toward the western frontier of Judah, not very far
from Mizpeh of Benjamin, and near Shiloh 1Sa_4:4.
CLARKE, "The word of Samuel came to all Israel - This clause certainly
belongs to the preceding chapter, and is so placed by the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, and
Arabic.
Pitched beside Eben-ezer - This name was not given to this place till more than
twenty years after this battle, see 1Sa_7:12; for the monument called ‫העזר‬ ‫האבן‬ haeben
haezer, the “Stone of Help,” was erected by Samuel in the place which was afterwards
from this circumstance, called Eben-ezer, when the Lord had given the Israelites a signal
victory over the Philistines. It was situated in the tribe of Judah, between Mizpeh and
Shen, and not far from the Aphek here mentioned. This is another proof that this book
was compiled after the times and transactions which it records, and probably from
memoranda which had been made by a contemporary writer.
GILL, "And the word of Samuel came to all Israel,.... Or was "known", as the
Targum, the word of prophecy by him, which related to what befell Eli and his family;
this was spread throughout the land, and everyone almost had knowledge of it, and
which began to be fulfilled in the war between Israel and the Philistines, later related; or
the doctrine, instructions, and exhortations of Samuel to the people of Israel, were by
the means of others conveyed throughout the land; and yet they went into measures
which proved fatal and ruinous to them; or the word of Samuel, which was from the
Lord, came to Israel, to stir them up to go to war with the Philistines, whereby the
punishment threatened to Eli's family would begin to have its accomplishment:
now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle; according to the word of
Samuel, or of the Lord by him; though Ben Gersom thinks they did this of themselves,
which was their sin, and did not ask counsel of the Lord, nor of Samuel his prophet; but
it seems as if the Philistines were the aggressors, and first came forth to war against
26

27. them, and they went out to meet them (a), as the word is, and defend themselves as it
became them: this was forty years after the death of Samson, and at the end of Eli's
government, who judged Israel so many years, when they had recruited themselves, and
recovered their losses they sustained by Samson; and when they perceived a new judge
was raised up among the Israelites, who was likely to be of great service to them, and to
prevent their authority over them, and therefore thought to begin with them as soon as
possible:
and pitched beside Ebenezer; a place so called by anticipation, and had its name
from an later victory obtained, when Samuel set up a stone between Mizpeh and Shen,
and called it by this name, 1Sa_7:12, it signifies a stone of help:
and the Philistines pitched in Aphek; a city in the tribe of Judah, bordering on the
Philistines; see Gill on Jos_12:18.
HENRY 4-5, "We have here the starting of a matter perfectly new and surprising,
which was the setting up of kingly government in Israel. Perhaps the thing had been
often talked of among them by those that were given to change and affected that which
looked great. But we do not find that it was ever till now publicly proposed and debated.
Abimelech was little better than a titular king, though he is said to reign over Israel
(Jdg_9:22), and perhaps his fall had for a great while rendered the title of king odious in
Israel, as that of Tarquinius did among the Romans; but, if it had, by this time the odium
was worn off, and some bold steps are here taken towards so great a revolution as that
amounted to. Here is,
I. The address of the elders to Samuel in this matter (1Sa_8:4, 1Sa_8:5): They
gathered themselves together, by common consent; and not in a riotous tumultuous
manner, but with the respect due to his character, they came to him to his house as
Ramah with their address, which contained,
1. A remonstrance of their grievances: in short, Thou art old, and thy sons walk not in
thy ways. Many a fairer occasion that people had had to ask a king, when they were
oppressed by their neighbours or embroiled at home for want of a king in Israel, but a
small thing will serve factious spirits for a colour to desire a change. (1.) It was true that
Samuel was old; but if that made him less able to ride the circuit, and sit long on the
bench, yet it made him the more wise and experienced, and, upon that account, the fitter
to rule. If he was old, had he not grown old in their service? And it was very unkind,
ungrateful, nay, and unjust, to cast him off when he was old, who had spent his days in
doing them good. God had saved his youth from being despicable (1Sa_3:20), yet they
make his old age so, which should have been counted worthy of double honour. If old
people be upbraided with their infirmities, and laid aside for them, let them not think it
strange; Samuel himself was so. (2.) It was true that his sons did not walk in his ways;
the more was his grief, but they could not say it was his fault: he had not, like Eli,
indulged them in their badness, but was ready to receive complaints against them. And,
if that had been the thing desired, we may well suppose, upon the making out of the
charge of bribery against them he would have superseded their commissions and
punished them. But this would not content the elders of Israel; they had another project
in their head.
2. A petition for the redress of these grievances, by setting a king over them: Make us
a king to judge us like all the nations. Thus far it was well, that they did not rise up in
27

28. rebellion against Samuel and set up a king for themselves, vi et armis - by force; but
they applied to Samuel, God's prophet, and humbly begged of him to do it. But it
appears by what follows that it was an evil proposal and ill made, and was displeasing to
God. God designed them a king, a man after his own heart, when Samuel was dead; but
they would anticipate God's counsel, and would have one now that Samuel was old. They
had a prophet to judge them, that had immediate correspondence with heaven, and
therein they were great and happy above any nation, none having God so nigh unto them
as they had, Deu_4:7. But this would not serve; they must have a king to judge them
with external pomp and power, like all the nations. A poor prophet in a mantle, though
conversant in the visions of the Almighty, looked mean in the eyes of those who judged
by outward appearance; but a king in a purple robe, with his guards and officers of state,
would look great: and such a one they must have. They knew it was in vain to court
Samuel to take upon him the title and dignity of a king, but he must appoint them one.
They do not say, “Give us a king that is wise and good, and will judge better than thy
sons do,” but, “Give us a king,” any body that will but make a figure. Thus foolishly did
they forsake their own mercies, and, under pretence of advancing the dignity of their
nation to that of their neighbours, did really thrust themselves down from their own
excellency, and profane their crown by casting it to the ground.
K&D, "1Sa_8:4-5
These circumstances (viz., Samuel's age and the degeneracy of his sons) furnished the
elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply to Samuel with this request: “Appoint us a
king to judge us, as all the nations” (the heathen), sc., have kings. This request
resembles so completely the law of the king in Deu_17:14 (observe, for example, the
expression ‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ‫גּ‬ ַ‫ל־ה‬ָ‫כ‬ ְ‫,)כּ‬ that the distinct allusion to it is unmistakeable. The custom of
expressly quoting the book of the law is met with for the first time in the writings of the
period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah had foretold through His
servant Moses, as a thing that would take place in the future and for which He had even
made provision.
COFFMAN, "THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL REQUEST A KING
"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and
said to him, "Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now
appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations." But the thing displeased
Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to govern us." And Samuel prayed to the
Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel. "Hearken to the voice of the people in all that
they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from
being king over them. According to all the deeds which they have done to me, from
the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day, forsaking me and
serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, hearken to their voice;
only you shall solemnly warn them, and show them the ways of the king who shall
28

29. reign over them."
The critical complaint that the reason for Israel's request for a king, "Here (in this
passage), is motivated by maladministration of justice, whereas in 1 Samuel 8:20 it is
due to a desire for a leader in war,"[3] is a strange complaint indeed. Apparently,
the critic had never heard of multiple motivations! A more discerning scholar listed
a number of motivations for the request of Israel's elders:
"The elders gave several reasons why Israel should have an earthly king: (1)
Samuel is near the end of his career; (2) Samuel's sons do not have godly qualities;
(3) a king would be a permanent judge; (4) the surrounding nations all have kings;
and (5) a king would effectively lead them in battle."[4]
There is even a sixth motivation suggested by the elders in their use of the words of
Deuteronomy 17:14, a quotation that was perhaps intended to, "Remind Samuel
that they were only asking what had virtually been promised by Moses."[5]
However, that passage from the Book of Moses may be understood not as a promise
of what God would require, but a prophecy of what Israel would demand. When
Israel indeed finally demanded a king, it is clear enough that God was displeased by
their request.
"They have rejected me from being king over them" (1 Samuel 8:7). The sin of
Israel here was not merely in the kind of king they requested, but in their rejection
of the king they already had, the Lord himself.
"According to all the deeds they have done to me" (1 Samuel 8:8). What were those
deeds? They are described in the last clause, "forsaking me and serving other gods."
The entire record of the nation of Israel was one long succession of doing the very
things mentioned here.
ELLICOTT, "(4) All the elders of Israel.—We have here a clear trace of a popular
assembly which seems in all times to have existed in Israel. Such a body appears to
have met for deliberation even during the Egyptian captivity (see Exodus 3:16). Of
this popular council we know little beyond the fact of its existence. It seems to have
been composed of representatives of the people, qualified by birth or office; these
were known as “elders.” Ewald sees special allusions to the “Parliament” or
Assembly of Elders in Psalms 1. and 82. There are, however, various mentions of
these councils in the Books of Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.
HAWKER, "(4) ¶ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and
came to Samuel unto Ramah, (5) And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy
29

30. sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
If my views of this scripture be right and just the request of the elders of Israel for a
king did not arise from the age of Samuel, or the unworthiness of his sons; for in
this case, they would humbly have prayed that Samuel would dismiss his sons and
appoint other Judges. But desiring a king was a wicked encroachment upon the
sovereignty of the Lord. God was their king: Samuel and his sons were only
deputies.
K&D, "1 Samuel 8:4-5
These circumstances (viz., Samuel's age and the degeneracy ofhis sons) furnished
the elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply toSamuel with this request:
“Appoint us a king to judge us, as all thenations” (the heathen), sc., have kings. This
request resembles socompletely the law of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14 (observe,
for example, theexpression ‫כּ‬‫כל־ה‬‫גּ‬‫וים‬ ), that the distinct allusion to it isunmistakeable.
The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law ismet with for the first time in
the writings of the period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah
had foretold through His servantMoses, as a thing that would take place in the
future and for which He hadeven made provision.
CONSTABLE, "The reason for requesting a king 8:4-9
God had made provision for kings to rule His people in the Mosaic Law
(Deuteronomy 17:14-20; cf. Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis
35:11; Genesis 49:10). The request in itself was not what displeased Samuel and
God. It was the reason they wanted a king that was bad. On the one hand, it
expressed dissatisfaction with God's present method of providing leadership
through judges (1 Samuel 8:7). On the other, it verbalized a desire to be "like all the
nations" (1 Samuel 8:5). [Note: Idem, Israel's United ..., pp. 21-76, provided helpful
background material on Israel's fear of enemies, her developing desire for
monarchy and rejection of pure theocracy, the political and ideological world of
Samuel's day, and the Israelite elders' request for a king. He reviewed the types of
kingship that existed in the ancient Near East at this time, what the Israelites
wanted and did not want, and what they got.] God's purpose for Israel was that it be
different from the nations, superior to them, and a lesson for them (Exodus 19:5-6).
God saw this demand as one more instance of apostasy that had marked the
Israelites since the Exodus (cf. Numbers 14:11). He acceded to their request as He
had done many times before-by providing manna, quail, and water in the
wilderness, for example. However, He mixed judgment with His grace. [Note: See J.
Barton Payne, "Saul and the Changing Will of God," Bibliotheca Sacra 129:516
30

31. (October-December 1972):321-25; J. Carl Laney, First and Second Samuel, pp.
36-37; and Gordon, p. 109.]
God purposed to bless all other nations through His theocratic reign over Israel.
This was a rule that God chose to administer mediatorially, through divinely chosen
individuals who spoke and acted for God in governing functions and who were
personally responsible to Him for what they did. These vice-regents were people like
Moses, Joshua, the judges (including Samuel), and the kings, but God remained the
real sovereign down to the end of this kingdom in history (1 Chronicles 29:25). The
Shekinah cloud visibly represented God's presence as the divine ruler. This glorious
cloud entered and filled the tabernacle at the inception of the kingdom (Exodus
40:34-38). It led the nation into the Promised Land and stood over Solomon's temple
(2 Chronicles 7:1-2). Finally it departed from Jerusalem spectacularly as the
kingdom ended at the Babylonian captivity, when governmental sovereignty passed
from Israel to the Gentiles (Ezekiel 11:23; Daniel 2:31-38). God will restore this
mediatorial kingdom to Israel when Jesus Christ returns to earth in power and
great glory. Christ will then (at His second coming) serve as God's vice-regent and
reign over all the nations as the perfect mediatorial king (Micah 4:1-8). This earthly
kingdom is different from God's heavenly kingdom, over which He reigns directly
from heaven. This heavenly kingdom includes all objects, persons, events, activities,
natural phenomena, and history (Psalms 103:19; Daniel 4:17). The earthly kingdom
is a part of this larger universal kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:24).
"The rejection of Samuel was the rejection of godly leadership; the choice of Saul
was the choice of ungodly leadership. In many ways Saul was the foil for the godly
David, just as the sons of Eli were a foil for Samuel." [Note: Heater, p. 139.]
Samuel experienced rejection by the people he led just as Moses, Jesus Christ, and
so many of God's faithful servants have throughout history (cf. Luke 19:14). One
writer suggested that the end of 1 Samuel 8:8 should read, "... so they are also
making a king." [Note: Scott L. Harris, "1 Samuel VIII 7-8," Vetus Testamentum
31:1 (January 1981):79-80.] Even though this translation minimizes what seems to
some to be a contradiction between 1 Samuel 8:7-8, it is inferior, I believe.
PETT, "1 Samuel 8:4
31

32. ‘Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel to
Ramah’
The behaviour of Samuel’s sons clearly had a profound effect on many of the elders
of Israel who were no doubt watching to see how the sons got on. And it was
seemingly that that brought them to a decision, for it was soon clear to them that the
sons were not walking in the prophetic tradition of their father, and would not be
able to follow in his footsteps. So summoning all the elders of the tribes together,
and no doubt discussing the matter thoroughly, they came to Samuel at Ramah.
“The elders of Israel.” Israel had been run by a group of ‘elders’ while in Egypt
(Exodus 3:16), and ‘elders’ were appointed from among the tribal elders to support
Moses in judging Israel in the wilderness (Numbers 11:16; Numbers 11:24-25).
Elders of the different cities were responsible for jurisdiction in that city
(Deuteronomy 21:3; Joshua 20:4; Judges 8:16; 1 Samuel 4:2). So ‘elder’ was the
name given to those in authority both at a local and a tribal level. The elders
mentioned here would be the ‘senior’ elders who ruled over the different tribes and
sub-tribes. While not all old, the tendency would be for them to be older men,
simply because it was such who would be ‘fathers’ of wider families, and because
age was thought to bring wisdom.
LANGE, " 1 Samuel 8:4-5, how it was made, 1 Samuel 8:6, how it was received by
Samuel and carried before the Lord, 1 Samuel 8:7-9, how Hebrews, and through
him the people, was instructed concerning it by the Lord.
1 Samuel 8:4-5. “All the elders of Israel” assemble in Ramah, Samuel’s judicial seat.
Thus the whole nation is in motion against the existing condition of things; it
appears before Samuel officially and formally in the body of its representatives.
Two things they adduce as ground of the demand which they wish to make: 1)
Samuel’s age, that Isaiah, the lack of vigor and energy in the government, which,
with his advancing age, made itself perceptible to the whole nation, and was not
supplied by the assistance of his sons, which he had for that reason ( 1 Samuel 8:1)
called in; 2) the evil walk, the misgovernment of his sons, the moral and legal
depravation which they produced. The demand is: Make us a king ( Acts 13:21);
32

33. and two things are added: 1) in reference to his judicial work: he was to judge; the
royal office was to take the place of the judicial, and so the meaning of the demand
is a complete abrogation of the hitherto existing form of government under Judges
2) in reference to the royal-monarchical constitution of the surrounding nations: the
Israelitish constitution is to be like that ( ְ‫.)כּ‬ After the words “as all the nations,” we
must supply “have such a one.” Israel will not be behind other nations in respect to
the splendor and power of royal rule. The accordance of the last words: “like all the
nations” with Deuteronomy 17:14 is to be noted.—In 1 Samuel 8:6 two things are
said of Samuel’s conduct in reference to this demand. First, that he received it with
displeasure (‫ע‬ ַ‫ֵר‬‫י‬ַ‫ו‬, properly: “the thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel”). But the cause
of his displeasure is expressly said to be, that they made the demand: “Give us a
king to judge us.” He did not, therefore, take it amiss that they blamed the wrong-
doing of his sons, nor that they referred to his age, and thus intimated that he was
no longer able to bear the whole burden of the office, while his sons did evilly. What
displeased him was the expression of desire for a king as ruler. How far and why
this demand was the occasion of his displeasure appears from the connection. From
the words of Samuel ( 1 Samuel 12:12) we see1) that the people, pressed anew by the
Ammonites, demanded a king who should give them the protection against enemies,
which was not expected from the aging Samuel; 2) that, in this demand, they left out
of view the kingdom of God in their midst, turned away their heart from the God
who had hitherto as their almighty king so often saved them from the power of the
enemy, and put their trust in an external, visible kingdom as means of safety and
protection against their enemies, over against the invisible royal rule of their God,
whose instrument, Samuel, they rejected. The same thing is expressed in the words
of Samuel, 1 Samuel 19-10:18 . In both passages, however, Samuel’s discourse is an
echo of the word of God Himself, imparted to him in answer to the question which
he had asked God in prayer. This, namely, is the second important factor in
Samuel’s procedure: He prayed to the Lord. Deeply moved by the sin which, in this
demand, the people committed against the Lord as their king (and this was the real
occasion of his displeasure and unwillingness in reference to the desired revolution
in the political constitution, which was connected with the rejection of himself as
representative and instrument of the divine government), he carried the whole
matter before the Lord in prayer, and, in this important crisis also of the history of
his people, who would no longer be guided by him, showed himself the humble,
consecrated man and hero of prayer.—In 1 Samuel 8:7-9 we have the declaration, in
which the Lord instructs Samuel as to the question of his prayer, and at the same
time decides on the demand of the people. Prayer was the best means by which
Samuel could learn the purpose and will of God in reference to this demand of the
nation. The words: Hearken to the voice of the people, express the divine fulfillment
of the people’s request. Here a discrepancy might be supposed to exist between this
33

34. statement and Samuel’s reception of the request in 1 Samuel 8:6. But the
appearance of such a discrepancy vanishes before the following considerations. An
earthly-human kingdom could not at all, merely as such, stand in opposition with
the revealed theocratic relation of the covenant-God with His people, in which the
latter ( Exodus 19:5 sq.) were to be His property and a “kingdom” of priests, and He
was to be their king (comp. Exodus 15:18 : “Jehovah is king forever,” with Psalm
44:5; Psalm 68:25; Psalm 74:12; Psalm 10:16). For, if hitherto under the Theocracy
chosen instruments of the Lord, like Moses, Joshua and the Judges, were the leaders
of the people, governing them by His law, in His name and according to His will,
then also a leader and governor of the people, depending solely on God’s will,
governing solely in His name, and devoted to His law, intended and desiring to be
nothing but the instrument of the invisible king in respect to His people, might rule
over them with the power and dignity of a king. A king, as God’s instrument, chosen
by God the royal ruler of His people out of their midst, could no more stand
opposed to the fundamental idea of the theocracy, than all the former great leaders
and guides of the people, who were chosen by Him for the realization of His will.
This conception of the absolute dependence of an earthly-human kingdom in Israel
on the invisible King of the nation is expressed in the Song of Solomon -called law of
the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. As to the theocratical idea of a king, comp.
Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 35:11; Numbers 24:17. There is little occasion
to suppose a contradiction between this idea of a theocratically-conditioned
Israelitish kingdom and the Theocracy in Israel, when we consider the need of a
unifying power for the whole national life within and without, as in Gideon’s time
against the Midianites ( Judges 8:22-23), and now, in the time of the aged Samuel,
both against the arbitrary rule and legal disorder of his sons, and against the
Ammonites ( 1 Samuel 12:12) and the Philistines ( 1 Samuel 9:16). If Israel’s desire
for a king had been in itself opposed to the theocratic principle, Samuel would not
have carried the matter to the Lord in prayer, but would have given a decided
refusal to the Elders, and the divine decision would not have been: “ Hearken to the
voice of the people, make them a king” ( 1 Samuel 8:22). But the reason of Samuel’s
necessary displeasure at this desire clearly appears from the judgment passed on it
in the divine response: they have not rejected thee; but they have rejected me, that I
should not reign over them.—In their request for a king, they did not assume the
attitude of heart and of mind to the Lord, which was proper for them as His people,
towards Him as their sole and exclusive ruler. They put out of sight the divine rule,
to which, in view of its mighty deeds in their history, they ought to have trusted
implicitly, that it would extend to them the oft-verified protection against external
enemies and maladministration of the office of Judge; this protection they expect
from the earthly-human kingly rule, instead of from God; instead of crying to God
to give them a ruler according to His will, they demand from Samuel that a king be
34

35. made according to their will and pleasure; instead of their holy civil constitution
under the royal rule of their covenant-God, they desire a constitution under a visible
kingdom, as they see it in the heathen nations. This was a denial of that highest
truth which Gideon once ( Judges 8:23), in declining the royal authority offered
him, held up before the people: “The Lord is your king.” In rejecting Samuel’s
government, they rejected the rule of God, and, straying from the foundation of
covenant-revelation to the stand-point of the heathen nations,, they put themselves
in opposition to the royal majesty of God revealed among them, and to the high
calling which they had to maintain and fulfil in fidelity and obedience towards the
holy and almighty God as their king and ruler. In 1 Samuel 8:8 is shown how this
disposition and conduct had been exhibited in the history of the people from God’s
first great royal deed, the deliverance out of Egypt, till now, and how this new
demand addressed to Samuel was only the old sin showing itself, the faithless and
apostate disposition which had exhibited itself again and again up to this time.
“With such a disposition the desire for a kingdom was a despising and rejecting of
Jehovah’s kingdom, and no better than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods”
(Keil, in loco). (It is not necessary to insert a Pron. “to me” after “they have done”
(Thenius), since this is involved in the following words: “they have forsaken me”).
In 1 Samuel 8:9 Samuel is again expressly instructed to yield to the desire of the
people; but there is added the twofold injunction: 1) bear witness against them, that
Isaiah, attest and set before them their sin and guilt against me, and2) announce to
them what kind of right the king, who according to their desire shall rule over them
like the kings of the heathen nations, will claim, in the exercise of unlimited and
arbitrary power, after the manner of those rulers. By the first the people are to be
made to see how, in the disposition of heart in which they demand a king, they stand
in opposition to the absolute, holy royal rule of their God, and to their own
theocratic calling. The fulfilment of the people’s desire after a king which had its
root in an apostate and carnally proud temper, is in accordance with the same
fundamental law of the Old Covenant, by which the holy God, on the one hand,
judges Israel’s sin as a contradiction of His holy will, but at the same time, on the
other hand, uses it as a means for the realization of the ends of His kingdom, as an
occasion for a new development of His revealed glory. The other injunction, to set
before the people the right [or, manner] of the king they demanded, is intended to
exhibit to them the human kingdom apart from the divine rule, as it exists among
the other nations, with all its usual and established despotism, as the source of great
misfortune and shameful servitude, in contrast with the freedom and happiness
offered to the people under the despised Theocracy. Comp. 1 Samuel 8:18.
35

36. NISBET, "WANTED—A KING!
‘Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together and came to Samuel unto
Ramah, and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy way;
now make us a king to judge us like all the nations,’ etc.
1 Samuel 8:4-8
The Book of Kings is also the Book of Samuel, not merely because the individual
man was the last of the judges and poured the anointing oil upon the first two of the
kings, but because he represented in his own person a power and a position which
were quite different from theirs, and yet which could not be rightly understood
apart from theirs.
I. Samuel was a witness that a hereditary priesthood derives all its worth from a
Divine presence, which is not shut up in it or limited by it, and that without that
presence it means nothing and is nothing, nay, becomes worse than nothing, a
plague and cancer in the society, poisoning its very heart, spreading disease and
death through it.
II. The signal downfall of the nation which took place in Samuel’s day, when the
ark, the symbol of the people’s unity, was captured by the Philistines, prepared the
way for great national changes.—Samuel’s reformation awakened in the people a
sense of order to which they had been strangers before. But Samuel’s sons did not
walk in his ways. They were self-seekers; they were suspected of taking bribes. The
effect of this distrust was just that which proceeds in all ages from the same cause—
dissatisfaction, a cry for change, a feeling that the fault of the person who
administers implies some evil or defect in that which he has to administer. The
degeneracy of Samuel’s sons made the people long for a different sort of rule, for
one which should be less irregular and fluctuating.
III. The request for a king displeased Samuel, because he had a sense that there was
36

37. something wrong in the wish of his countrymen.—He may have felt their ingratitude
to himself; he may have thought that his government was better than any they were
likely to substitute for it.
IV. God’s answer to Samuel’s prayer was a very strange one.—‘Hearken unto them,
for they have rejected Me. Let them have their way, seeing that they are not
changing a mere form of government, but breaking loose from the principle upon
which their nation has stood from its foundation.’ The Jews were asking for heavy
punishments, which they needed, without which the evil that was in them could not
have been brought to light or cured. But beneath their dark counterfeit image of a
king was hidden the image of a true King reigning in righteousness, who would not
judge after the sight of His eye nor reprove after the hearing of His ear, but would
smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips would slay
the wicked.
Rev. F. D. Maurice.
Illustrations
(1) ‘Although Samuel’s age, and the unworthiness of his sons, were the means of
forcing the question immediately to the front, it had been discussed among the
people often. They believed that they would secure national unity, and would make
greater headway against their enemies, if only they were ruled by some one of
physical strength and beauty and daring, who would lead them in their battles. God
gave them exactly what they asked for. Saul, the son of Kish, surpassed all the
people in beauty of form, and in physical stature and strength; he was possessed of
talent for war, and of a courage which was never broken; he exhibited zeal and
persistency in the execution of his plans, and at the beginning of his reign, at least,
he jealously maintained the Mosaic law, banishing the wizards, and refusing to
begin war without a preliminary sacrifice. But his reign taught the nation that
royalty was not of itself sufficient to secure the salvation they expected; unless the
king submitted himself absolutely to the will of God, and was content to reign as the
executor of Divine commands, carried out in their integrity. Human agency never
will rectify evils which are caused by moral faults, whether in an individual, or in a
37

38. nation.’
(2) ‘Though the king, whom they sought, was to be a misfortune and a curse, the
people persisted in their request, and it was granted according to a principle in the
Divine government, that man gets what he importunately seeks, though it breeds
leanness in his soul. To what fatal loss, however, the people exposed themselves,
when they exchanged the royalty of Jehovah for that of an earthly sovereign—the
theocracy for a monarchy! O my soul, see to it that thou dost not forsake the
fountain of living waters for a cistern of thine own hewing.’
(3) ‘They that are not content with their present condition are like little children
upon a hill; they look a great way off, and they see another hill, and think, if they
were on the top of that, then they were able to touch the clouds with their fingers;
but when they are on the top of that hill, alas! they are as far off from the clouds as
ever. So it is with many who think another condition would give them happiness;
but, when the desired position is attained, find themselves as far off from
contentment as before.’
BI, "So the people sent to Shiloh.
Shiloh and its lessons
This subject forms an impressive chapter in the history of Israel. Eli was now the
theocratic judge of the Hebrew commonwealth, and its administration centered round
Shiloh, where he dwelt and the ark was kept, and its statutes observed. Let us glance at
the steps which led to disaster.
1. Family discipline neglected. It is often the case, as true today as then, that men are
so busy with money making or important trusts, as to be almost strangers to their
own households and ignorant of the habits of their children.
2. Disobedient children. They were careless of religion, but careful of tithes. They
helped themselves to as much of the sacrifices as they wanted, whether the offerer
would or no; and as a result men abhorred the offerings of the Lord. Family
discipline is too great when children are full grown and their habits strong.
3. Religion slighted. A nation suffers more from the sins of its rulers and priests than
from the sins of an equal number of private men who are simply hewers of wood and
carriers of water. The sins of the former are fashionable; those of the latter are vulgar
and contemptible.
4. Vain confidence. And “all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang
again.” But courage is not of the sword and spear and shibboleth, of bow and banner
and boasting, neither of the giant frame and muscle; it is of the heart and spirit. It is
the unconquerable will, and the heart conscious of right, prodigal of life for its
38