Studies in Old Testament History

by Jesse Lyman Hurlbut

2. Another cause was the consolidation of the surrounding nations. In the days of the conquest there were few kings in the lands neighboring Palestine. We read of "lords" and "elders," but no kings, among the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Phenicians (Judg. 3. 3; 1 Sam. 5. 8; Num. 22. 7). But a wave of revolution swept over all those lands, as about the same time over Greece; and very soon we find that every nation around Israel had its king (1 Sam. 21. 10; 11. 1; 22. 3; 2 Sam. 5. 11). The movement of Israel toward monarchy was in accordance with this spirit.

3. There was a danger of invasion, which impelled the Israelites to seek for a stronger government (1 Sam. 12. 12). They felt themselves weak, while other nations were organized for conquest, and desired a king for leader in war.

4. Then, too, the rule of Samuel led the Israelites to desire a better organization of the government. For twenty years they had enjoyed the benefit of a wise, strong, and steady rule. They felt unwilling to risk the dangers of tribal dissension after the death of Samuel, and therefore they sought for a king.

5. But underlying all was the worldly ambition of the people. They were not willing to remain the people of God, and work out a peculiar destiny. They wished to be like the nations around, to establish a secular state, to conquer an empire for themselves (1 Sam. 8. 5-20). It was this worldly spirit, whose results Samuel saw, which made him unwilling to accede to the wish of the Israelites. But the very things against which he warned them (1 Sam. 8. 11-18) were just what they desired.

II. THE CHARACTER OF THE ISRAELITE KINGDOM. When men change their plans God changes his. He desired Israel to remain a republic, and not to enter into worldly relations and aims. When, however, the Israelites were determined, God gave them a king (1 Sam. 8. 22); but his rule was not to be like that of the nations around Israel. 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 David (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 Israel was an exception to this rule. The people could demand their rights from Rehoboam (1 Kings 12. 3, 4). Ahab could not take away nor even buy Naboth'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 Israelite 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. (B. C. 1095-1055.) 1. This may be divided into two parts: 1.) a period of prosperity, during which Saul ruled well, and freed Israel 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 David. After David's exile the Philistines again overran Israel, 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 Samuel, and with him the order of prophets (1 Sam. 15. 35); he alienated David, the ablest young man of his age, and the rising hope of Israel, 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 Israel; at his death the yoke of the Philistines 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.