yet among a pastoral and nomadic population there would be alike frequent opportunity for, and abundant

temptation to, bribery; nor would any other charge against a judge so quickly spread, or be so keenly

resented as this.74

Soon the murmurs became a complaint; and that loud enough to bring about a meeting of that most ancient

and powerful institution in Israel, "the eldership," or local and tribal oligarchy. Probably it was not merely

discontent with this partial administration of justice that led to the proposal of changing the form of

government from a pure theocracy to hereditary monarchy. Other causes had long been at work. We know

that a similar proposal had been made to Gideon (Judges 8:22), if not to Jephthah (Judges 11:6). Although in

both instances these overtures had been declined, the feeling which prompted it could only have gained

strength. An hereditary monarchy seemed the only means of combining the tribes into one nation, putting

an end to their mutual jealousies, and subordinating tribal to national interests. All nations around had their

kings; and whether for war or in peace, the want of a strong hand wielding a central power for the common

good must have been increasingly felt.

Moreover, the ancient God-given constitution of Israel had distinctly contemplated and provided for a

monarchy, when once the people had attained a settled state in the land. It must be admitted that, if ever,

circumstances now pointed to this as the proper period for the change. The institution of "judges," however

successful at times and in individuals, had failed as a whole. It had neither given external security nor good

government to the people. Manifestly, it was at an end. Samuel must soon die; and what after him? Would it

not be better to make the change under his direction, instead of leaving the people in charge of two men

who could not even keep their hands from taking bribes? Many years had elapsed since the battle of

Mizpeh, and yet the Philistines were not driven out of the land. In fact, the present administration held out

no prospect of any such result. This then, if ever was the proper time to carry out the long-desired and

much-needed reform.

It cannot be denied that there was much force in all these considera tions; and yet we find that not only

Samuel resented it, but that God also declared it a virtual rejection of Himself. The subject is so important as

to require careful consideration.

First, as to the facts of the case. The "elders of Israel" having formally applied to Samuel: "Make us now a

king to judge us, like all the nations," on the ground of his own advanced age and the unfitness of his sons,

"the thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel as they spake it,75 Give us a king to judge us." But instead of

making an immediate reply, Samuel referred the matter to the Lord in prayer. The view which Samuel had

taken was fully confirmed by the Lord, Who declared it a rejection of Himself, similar to that of their fathers

when they forsook Him and served other gods. Still He directed His prophet to grant their request, with this

twofold proviso: to "bear strong testimony against them"  76 in reference to their sin in this matter, and to

"declare to them the right of the king," - not, of course, as God had fixed it, b ut as exercised in those heathen

monarchies, the like of which they now wished to inaugurate in Israel. Samuel having fully complied with the

Divine direction, and the people still persisting in their request, the prophet had now only to await the

indication from on high as to the person to be appointed king - till which time the deputies of Israel were

dismissed to their homes.

Keeping in view that there was nothing absolutely wrong in Israel's desire for a monarchy (Deuteronomy

17:14, etc.; comp. even Genesis 17:6, 16; 35:11), nor yet, so far as we can judge, relatively, as concerned the

time when this demand was made, the explanation of the difficulty must lie in the motives and the manner

rather than in the fact of the "elders," request. In truth, it is precisely this - the "wherefore" and the "how,"

not the thing itself, - not that they spake it, but "as they spake it," which was "evil in the eyes of Samuel."  77

Israel asked "a king" to "judge" them, such as those of all the nations. We know what the term "judge"

meant in Israel. It meant implicit reliance for deliverance from their enemies on an individual, specially God-

appointed - that is, really on the unseen God. It was this to which the people had objected in the time of

Gideon, and which they would no longer bear in the days of Samuel. Their deliverance was unseen, they

wanted it seen; it was only certain to faith, but quite uncertain to them in their state of mind; it was in