Samuel Identifies Saul to the People as their King (1 Sam. 10:17-27)

Saul had been identified as king but only he and Samuel were aware of it. In order to proceed with a public ceremony Samuel called for a meeting of the people in Mizpah. This is stage two in Saul’s rise to the throne; previously the Lord had identified Saul to Samuel as the next king; stage three would be victory over an enemy invasion (11:1-11) and stage four would be a further national gathering at Gilgal (11:12–12:25).

The persistence of God in reminding the people of their sin

In verses 18 and 19 Samuel addresses the people and once more reminds them of their sin in desiring a king. Note that he places their rebellion not against the perceived need of the times, which was what had motivated the desire for a king, but against the redemption from Egypt that they as a nation had known. This is a reminder that redemption is a lens through which we are to scan the situation we face.

They had been slaves in Egypt and it was only the power of the Lord that could have rescued them. But they were redeemed in order to be devoted to the Lord. Redemption was with a view to establishing a relationship in which the Lord would be the Master and the people his servants. But Israel had turned its back on that relationship when they wished to have a king. Their sin was compounded because it was the rejection of a Redeemer of which they were guilty. In a real sense this is what makes sins of God’s people so heinous. It is the refusal to obey the One who has done so much for them.

Their sin is repeatedly mentioned in order for them to repent of it. This too is a reminder of God’s ways with his people. He never turns a blind eye to it and he never removes its consequences until his people confess their sins and repent of it. But there is no evidence that they saw any need for repentance. I suppose they could look back on the day’s event and regard it as God confirming their choice. But the reality was that they were entering into a period of judgment that would last as long as Saul ruled. Thankfully, God’s mercies would also be revealed during that period.

Mizpah had been a place where communal repentance had taken place some years before. But on this occasion there was none. The place of previous blessing had become a place where the people covered their sin with a religious veneer but with no reality.

The public confirmation of the personal guidance to his servant

The whole of Israel had to be involved in the selection of its king, and this passage, along with others, may be a reminder that all the people of God have to be involved in the selection of its leaders, a practice which is seen in our denomination in the way its office bearers are chosen. Our forefathers had to pay a heavy price to ensure we would have it.

It is not entirely clear what procedure was used by Samuel here. God had given to the priests of Israel the Urim and Thummim as means of discovering his will (Exod. 28:30), and in 1 Samuel 23:9 David makes use of the priest’s ephod to discover God’s will. Lots were used for identifying offenders (see Achan in Joshua 7:14-18 and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 14:38-42), and were also used by the apostles when they were choosing a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:26).

Should we use such methods today to discover God’s will? There are certain situations in which they should not be used, such as (a) if there is a clear biblical command concerning the situation, (b) if there is a clear biblical principle that can be used in the situation, (c) if the area of concern is one that God has left open such as marriage, (d) if such practices are becoming substitutes for taking note of biblical teaching, providential circumstances and wise counsel. I think it is also the case that there is a difference in asking for a sign as initial direction and asking for one as confirmation of an action that seems to be right, which is what Abraham’s servant did. Further, the silence of the New Testament letters concerning such practices would suggest they are incompatible with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church since Pentecost. I suspect that the only type of occasion that such things should be used would be in a situation of danger in which an immediate decision had to be made. Otherwise we should wait on the Lord’s dealing in providence.

Samuel was willing to hide his knowledge and let God reveal his will through his appointed means. He refused to take credit for the discovery of Saul. It would have been easy for him to have recounted his previous meeting with Saul and used this to present himself in a favourable way. But instead he went through the process that God had set up in Israel. The determination not to draw attention to himself is a good mark of a servant of God.

Samuel refused the possibility of manipulation of events. ‘Perhaps he now realised his own mistake in appointing his sons to an office they were unfit to hold. In any case, he did not try and arrange events.

This incident is a further reminder that God does not need our intervention to bring to pass the appointments he has in mind and this should stimulate confidence in his providential control of affairs.

Two other comments are worth making. Firstly, we are not to assume when reading Samuel’s words in verse 24, that the Lord had chosen Saul, that he was saying that it was a good thing to have Saul. It could be that he was asking the people to reflect on the kind of king they had been given, one like the other nations but unlike the king that God had purposed for them. It may be that Samuel was stressing the fact that Saul was an sign of judgment.

Secondly, the people were ignoring what the Bible had said about the future king. It was not that they rejected the description made in Deuteronomy but they also ignored the prophecy of Jacob who had predicted that the ruler would come would be Judah would come from the tribe of Judah. ‘Those therefore that knew the scriptures could not be very fond of the doing of that which they foresaw must, ere long, be undone again’ (Matthew Henry).

The position of the king – under the authority of God’s law

Samuel reminded them that the new king was subject to God’s law and was to rule according to God’s law. Probably he read them of the stipulations in Deuteronomy concerning kingship in Israel. There are one or two points worth noting in this regard.

First, even when God disapproves of a development, he still requires that his law be obeyed by those affected by the development. He never ceases to be the real king, and even in times of judgment his demands are not to be forgotten.

Second, this is an example of God’s common grace, in which he promises blessings to a kingdom whose rulers function according to his word.

Third, we have here something similar to what we call the establishment principle, which is that civil government should acknowledge the law of God. At one time, this was the general outlook in our society, although today it is non-existent in practice. It may be said that kings in Israel were different from other societies and that God does not require civil governments to pay attention to his law. In response, we only have to read the way the Old Testament prophets denounced the rulers of other nations for their practices to realise that God does require implementation of his laws.

How do we respond to governments which do not rule according to God’s Word? One answer is to pray that God would give us rulers who would do so. And another answer is that the church should remind rulers, as Samuel did here, of God’s requirements.

A problem in embryo – disunity

The national event had an unhappy conclusion. Saul was made king over a divided nation. I suppose his opponents were not too impressed by his hiding in the baggage, whereas others were led by God to support the new monarch; the majority sat on the fence until they would see how things worked out. Still it was a black mark on what should have been a day of unity. I suspect it is merely the working out of divine judgment on a people refusing to see that they are departing from God.

The character of Saul

It is obvious that Saul was very impressive in a physical sense. But that in itself does not qualify for leadership. Are there any clues to his character or abilities in this passage? Perhaps two comments will be sufficient.

When Saul was hiding in the baggage, is this a sign of humility or of fear? Humility can be displayed for two reasons. One is that the size of the task is too big for one and therefore running away is the best option; that is not godly humility but fear, and I suspect that is what Saul was like here. Rather godly humility is astounded that the great God who is able to deal with the situation himself should use such a weak and insignificant person to bring it about. A humble person is one who accepts God’s will for him and does it depending on God’s strength and wisdom.

When Saul remained silent at the refusal of some to serve him, was this a sign of patient leadership or brooding revenge? How should a leader respond to those who refuse to recognise his authority? One way is to wait for an opportunity to get rid of them and another way is to try and win them over. Saul did get his opportunity for revenge (11:12-13) but instead he showed mercy. So Saul had wisdom in dealing with people, which was essential in a leader. But we have to remember that natural wisdom is not enough.