Rebellion Again (1 Samuel 8:1-22)

In this chapter Samuel is getting older, and he is probably about seventy when this incident occurs. Although many important events are behind him, there are still crucial events ahead for him. He is going to minister for several years yet, because he is going to anoint both Saul and David. So he is not going off the stage. As we mentioned in previous studies, the author is selecting important incidents from the history of Israel to detail their development as a nation until it reached its height under the reigns of David and Solomon. Each incident he details contains important lessons.

Samuel the older leader

We get an insight into the spirituality of Samuel when we consider the names of his sons. Names had significance at that time and it is reasonable to assume that the ones Samuel chose would be expressions of his faith as well as indications of his hopes for his sons. Joel means ‘Yahweh is my God’ and is an affirmation that Samuel worshipped the God that had revealed himself has being in covenant with Israel and shown his commitment by redeeming them from slavery. Abiah means ‘My father is Yahweh’ and indicates that Samuel understood to some degree the relationship of being a child of God. Samuel saw himself as being both a servant of God and a son of God. The fact that his sons were a disappointment to him does not detract from his spirituality.

The chapter stresses that God can use old people to accomplish great things for his kingdom. I have already mentioned that Samuel was about seventy and he probably lived for about one hundred years. Here he is at retirement age, we might say, yet God has much for him to do. Samuel is not the only aged person that God used in his kingdom, for we can think of Abraham, Moses and Paul. This lesson is relevant for the church today because we live in a society that presents youthfulness as the key factor. That is not to say that younger people do not have insights nor does it mean that all old people are wise. Yet the Bible does stress the importance of respecting the wisdom of the old, experienced believers.

The second lesson that I would mention is that old leaders, who have been used by God throughout their lives, can make foolish decisions. Samuel made such a choice when he selected his ungodly sons as judges. It is hard not to see here a similar situation to that of Eli, except in Samuel’s case he chose his sons whereas Eli’s sons were in an hereditary office.

To be fair to Samuel the text does suggest that the evil nature of his sons only showed itself after they had been given a position of power. So he may not have known their true character until it was too late. Nevertheless he could have deposed them. The main problem with Samuel’s action is that he had no divine authority for what he did. At best his action was a case of human wisdom. This kind of action is always a danger to those who lead God’s people, to try and solve a situation by common sense rather than limiting themselves to the instructions God has given.

This decision that Samuel made had long-term consequences. While the sins of others in attempting to resolve the situation are not excusable, it is the case that they would not have happened if Samuel had not made a foolish decision.

A second lesson is that a lifetime of service can result in disappointment. Samuel had spent his life attempting to bring the nation back to God and he had seen some fruit, as we saw earlier with regard to the national repentance at Mizpah. But here at the end of the day, he experiences his people rejecting God. Samuel was disappointed both with the behaviour of his sons and the beliefs of the people. Yet often ‘the supreme test of character is disappointment and apparent failure’ (F. B. Meyer).

There is a parallel between Samuel here and the apostle Paul as he addresses the elders in Ephesus in Acts 20. Although he had been involved in the formation of the church in Ephesus, and by implication was involved in the lives of these elders, he had to say that some of them would teach false doctrine.

It is also worth noticing that, although Samuel had made a wrong decision and was still encountering disappointments, he gave a high prominence to prayer. Before he answered the elders about their request which he realised was sinful, he committed the matter to the Lord in prayer. Also when the people refused to heed his warning, he referred the matter to the Lord. I think we can identify two important rules here to help us in our daily lives.

The first is take our disappointments to God. ‘When any thing disturbs us, it is our interest, as well as our duty, to show before God our trouble, and he gives us leave to be humbly free with him’ (Matthew Henry). We have heard of the advice to change the first letter from ‘d’ to ‘h’, and see disappointments as ‘his appointments’. There will be many disappointments in the Christian life, whether it be with ourselves, with others, with circumstances, with crushed hopes. Often, disappointments can come one upon another, as here, because Samuel not only had the long-term disappointment of his sons but the added disappointment of being rejected by the people he had laboured to help.

The second rule is speak with God first before we respond to those who speak harshly or ungratefully to us. The obvious danger that arises in such situations is that of self-defence and often wrong things can be said in this way. Samuel knew there was a measure of truth in the criticism. Indeed what seems to affect him the most was his realisation that the people were rejecting the Lord. Still he is an example of one who was slow to speak, who took his dilemma to the Lord.

Samuel, despite his weaknesses, remained faithful to the Lord. When he went to the Lord he receive a comforting assessment, that his rejection was shared by the Lord. He also received a word of warning to pass on, which he did, although it must have been difficult for him. In this he was sharing a common experience of the Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, and one that repeats itself in the lives of believers when they have to warn indifferent sinners of the price of rejecting God.

The people of Israel

A first lesson is that unity in a decision does not mean that God has originated it. The elders of the people had assessed the situation. It was obvious that Samuel’s sons were unfit to rule; the threat of foreign armies was real; the problem was obvious enough and they had an agreed solution. But there can be unity that is wrong as well as unity that is right.

The basic problem with the Israelites was that a generation arose that had not experienced God’s deliverance from the Philistines nor his blessing at Mizpah. But the elders should have recalled these events, so it is an appalling lapse on their part.

The people of Israel were guilty of several mistakes and it is helpful for us to identify them. First, they did not realise that the presence of sin in the leadership of the people of God does not justify a worldly solution. Instead of wanting a king who was like the rulers of the surrounding nations they should have waited on God asking him to give them the king he had promised. In Deuteronomy 17:14-17, the Lord describes the kind of king he intended for his people. But they assessed things from a worldly point of view and concluded that what they needed was a strong king who would defend them from their enemies whereas God intended that they should have a godly king, who lived according to the word of God.

Second, their response was a rejection of God. Because they had ignored the description that God had given they were guilty of rejecting God, by ignoring his word they indicated that they did not want God to rule over them. Their action was a continuation of the attitude that had marked Israel from the beginning. But there was a new dimension to their rebellion because if they set up a hereditary kingship it meant that God would no longer be regarded as the One who would send them deliverers. They were in effect saying that they no longer wanted rulers like Samuel whom God had sent. What they wanted was their own choice of government and defence.

Third, choosing a worldly way will result in us becoming insensitive to the warnings of God. The Lord agreed to give them their desire but insisted that Samuel detail what the worldly king would demand, and how different would his demands be compared to the description of the king God wanted to give them. When the Israelites heard the demands that their king would make, which was delivered to them by the spokesman of God, they persevered in their rebellion. Instead of repenting at their folly, they hardened their hearts and the warning of God fell on deaf ears.

The response of God to a dissatisfied people

As we consider the words of the Lord to his servant regarding the rebellion of his people, we should note two matters. The first I would call the sorrow or sadness of God. We have to be careful when we say that God possesses attributes similar to us. Obviously we are creatures, so there is a great distinction between what God feels and what we feel. Yet we are made in the image of God and our human attributes reflect the divine. God experiences love, joy, peace, delight; he also hates, despises and rejects.

God is saddened by the sins of his creatures: ‘And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart’ (Gen. 6:6). He tells Samuel that the Israelites have rejected him, and he does so with pain.

Second, we have an example of God giving to people what they want, although he gives it as an act of sovereign judgment and not of mercy. Hosea reminded the people of his day, in reference to Saul, that God them a king in his anger and took him away in his wrath (Hos. 13:10, 11). God can give in judgment what the people desire; they can be blinded by him and persist in disobedience even although God’s word warns them of the consequences.