II. The Character of the Is´ra-el-ite Kingdom. When men change their plans God changes his. He desired Is´ra-el to remain a republic, and not to enter into worldly relations and aims. When, however, the Is´ra-el-ites were determined God gave them a king (1 Sam. 8. 22); but his rule was not to be like that of the nations around Is´ra-el. We ascertain the divine ideal of a kingdom for his chosen people:
1. It was a theocratic kingdom. That is, it recognized God as the supreme ruler, and the king as his representative, to rule in accordance with his will, and not by his own right. Only as people and king conformed to this principle could the true aims of the kingdom be accomplished (1 Sam. 12. 13-15). And if the king should deviate from this order he should lose his throne. Disobedience to the divine will caused the kingdom to pass from the family of Saul to that of Da´vid (1 Sam. 13. 13, 14; 15. 26).
2. It was a constitutional kingdom. The rights of the people were carefully guaranteed, and there was a written constitution (1 Sam. 10. 25). Nearly all the Oriental countries have always been governed by absolute monarchs, but Is´ra-el was an exception to this rule. The people could demand their rights from Re-ho-bo´am (1 Kings 12. 3, 4). A´hab could not take away nor even buy Na´both's vineyard against its owner's will (1 Kings 21. 1-3). No doubt the rights of the people were often violated, but the violation was contrary to the spirit of the monarchy.
3. It was regulated by the prophets. The order of prophets had a regular standing in the Is´ra-el-ite state. The prophet was a check upon the power of the king, as a representative both of God's will and the people's rights. He spoke not only of his own opinions, but by the authority of God. Notice instances of the boldness of prophets in rebuking kings (1 Sam. 15. 16-23; 2 Sam. 12. 1-7; 1 Kings 13. 1-6; 17. 1; 22. 7-17). The order of prophets was like the House of Commons, between the king and the people.
III. The Reign of Saul.
1. This may be divided into two parts: 1.) A period of prosperity, during which Saul ruled well, and freed Is´ra-el from its oppressors on every side (1 Sam. 14. 47, 48). 2.) Then a period of decline, in which Saul's kingdom seems to be falling in pieces, and only preserved by the prowess and ability of Da´vid. After Da´vid's exile the Phi-lis´tines again overran Is´ra-el, and Saul's reign ended in defeat and death.
2. We observe that Saul's reign was a failure, and left the tribes in worse condition than it found them. 1.) He failed in uniting the tribes; for tribal jealousies continued (1 Sam. 10. 27), and at the close of his reign broke out anew in the establishment of rival thrones (2 Sam. 2. 4, 8, 9). 2.) He failed in making friends. He alienated Sam´u-el, and with him the order of prophets (1 Sam. 15. 35); he alienated Da´vid, the ablest young man of his age and the rising hope of Is´ra-el, and drove him into exile (1 Sam. 21. 10); he alienated the entire order of the priests, and caused many of them to be massacred (1 Sam. 22. 18). 3.) He failed to advance religion, left the tabernacle in ruins, left the ark in seclusion, broke up the service, and drove the priests whom he did not murder into exile (1 Sam. 22. 20-23). 4.) He failed to liberate Is´ra-el; at his death the yoke of the Phi-lis´tines was more severe than ever before (1 Sam. 31. 1-7). The most charitable view of Saul was that he was insane during the latter years of his life. The cause of his failure was a desire to reign as an absolute monarch, and an unwillingness to submit to the constitution of the realm.
[For Blackboard Outline and Review Questions see end of the lesson.]
Part Two
IV. The Reign of Da´vid. This was a brilliant period; for it was led by a great man, in nearly every respect the greatest, after Mo´ses, in Is´ra-el-ite history.