1 Samuel 8:4-11
This text is used as one of the texts for the Lectionary Year B on June 7, 2015.
You know it’s going to be a challenging week of sermon prep when the text at hand mixes religion and politics. Of course, for the season of salvation history in question God’s spiritual people were also a national people. Religion and politics often went hand in hand. In the era of the new covenant, God’s spiritual people are now comprised of representatives from every nation and are, therefore, not confined to any one political region or boundary. Religion and politics may not share the same relationship that they once did, but the events of the present text illustrate several principles that are vitally important for the church today pertaining to divine authority and human leadership in our lives. The text breaks down naturally into three elements: the Israelites’ request for a king, Samuel’s interaction with the Lord, and Samuel’s report to the people.
The political circumstances that prompted the peoples’ request for a king were clearly less than ideal, at least from a “human leadership” point of view. Samuel was aging and his two sons were not righteous leaders. They had apparently been given positions of leadership based on heredity, which was never the intended model for judges in Israel. Consider the contrast of Gideon from Judges 8:22-23: “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you.” Another factor in the political landscape was the constant presence and problem of the Philistines. Samson, though a performer of feats of strength, never succeeded in eliminating the Philistine threat.
From reading ahead we know that both Samuel and the Lord responded negatively to the request for a king. Why did this request elicit such a response? The people referenced failing human leadership as one cause, “your two sons do not walk in your ways.” Later, in v. 20, they suggested that a king would be able to “fight” the people’s battles, hinting that fear of neighboring armies also played a role. Thirdly, the people’s desire to “be like the nations” also seems to have been on their mind. This last factor is all the more problematic when we recall that Israel was supposed to be set apart for the Lord, different from the nations. Instead they valued status among the nations over status with their God.
All three of the reasons listed above were interpreted by God as a rejection of his leadership. Instead of trusting God to raise up a new leader, like he had done in Samuel, the people wanted a human king (as if this would solve their problems with corrupt leadership?). Instead of trusting God to deliver them from enemies, like he had done in Egypt and throughout the Judges period, they wanted a human king. And instead of acknowledging and pursuing their unique identity as God’s chosen people, separated unto him, and under his kingship, they wanted a human king.
The Lord responded to Samuel’s dejection by pointing out that the Israelites were, in essence, rejecting God and not Samuel. He also commanded Samuel to give the people what they wanted while also making sure they understood fully what they were requesting. Verse 11 is only the beginning of the stringent sacrifices the people would have to make in order to facilitate an earthly king. Sons and daughters would be taken to serve in armies and palace services, and taxes would be required to support the king and his palace. None of these sacrifices were necessary if God were king, but the people happily embraced them so they could be like the other nations!
Maybe the “judge as leader” model was never meant to survive. After all, the laws in Deuteronomy made provisions for a king (Deut. 17). In the book of Judges we can see that the model was successful whenever the people were faithful to the covenant. But we also see in Judges that this was seldom the case. Idolatrous living among the Israelite tribes was more common than not, thereby making the judge model ineffective. Perhaps a king was needed to mandate covenant faithfulness. But even throughout the divided monarchy of Israel, the people would struggle with inconsistent leadership. It may be somewhat of a stretch to see a complete “cause and effect” relationship between corrupt Israelites and corrupt leadership, but the Old Testament does seem to identify a symbiotic relationship between people and their leaders. In the wilderness, unfaithful Israelites wanted to abandon Moses and select new leaders to take them back to Egypt. In the book of Judges, after a charismatic leader helped deliver the people from oppression, there was peace in the land until the leader died, suggesting faithful living among the people for a season. Other examples are numerous, including the case here where the people’s loss of faith in the Lord is the motivating cause for the political request.
The possible points of application here can be sensitive, and should be handled carefully, but they are quite profound. At the outset, let us acknowledge that good citizenship along with political awareness and involvement should be the mark of every Christ follower. Beyond that, some intriguing questions emerge from the principles inherent within this text. First, what does Christian political involvement that has ultimate trust in our King look like? And what does it look like when we are trusting humans and their systems more than God? If we feel that leadership at any level is corrupt (political, business, religious, etc.), do we lash out at leadership in general, or do we seek other alternatives? The answer to bad leadership is not no leadership, but good leadership. And within the symbiotic relationship between leaders and people, are we leading in ways that bring out the best in people and that show we acknowledge God as the ultimate authority? And if we desire our leadership to be better, shouldn’t we start with doing the work of the church, which is helping people know Christ and follow him faithfully? How we handle these conversations may vary from context to context, but if we omit God’s role as King, like the Israelites did here, we are likely to end up with a “King Saul” who does what he thinks best. Rather, let us wait on the Lord to raise up a “King David” who seeks to rule after God’s own heart.
Steven Laufer
Senior Pastor
University Baptist Church, Houston, TX
Steven.Laufer@ubc.org