views composed, and by whom? What was the main reason for Samuel’s objections to kingship? Was there any personal agenda behind his rejection of kingship? In addition, Saul’s coronation appears in three versions. These different versions have provoked much debate among modern scholars, and what stands behind each version requires analysis. Why are they related in different places and in different ways? Are there links between the different traditions?
Appoint a King for Us
Samuel’s old age and his sons’ corruption led the elders of Israel to implore Samuel to appoint a king to judge them (1 Sam 8:5). Surprisingly, in the Hebrew Bible old age is not always a sign of grace and wisdom, but sometimes is the reason for failure by the biblical hero. Therefore, Isaac’s old age facilitated Rebecca and Jacob’s deception, and helped appropriate the birth right from Esau (Genesis 27). Eli, in his old age, did not rebuke his sons for their sins (1 Sam 2:22; 3:2, 13). King David, in old age, did not scold Adonijah for his boasting (1 Kgs 1:6); and the aged King Solomon married foreign women and worshiped other gods (1 Kgs 11:4).
Another reason the elders mentioned was the behavior of Samuel’s sons. They are described as being bent on gain, accepting bribes, and subverting justice. These transgressions are associated with judges and people with power; personality types the biblical narrators criticize. In Deuteronomy (10:17; 16:19; 27:25) and Exodus (23:6, 8) they appear as transgressions against God’s laws. The wicked lives led by Samuel’s sons are analogous to Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, who were known for their sinful lives (1 Sam 2:12–17). Evidently, the criticism of Samuel’s sons initiated a crisis and caused tension between Samuel and the elders. This tension is noted as: “Samuel was displeased” (1 Sam 8:6).
At first glance, it is not clear whether the appointment of Samuel’s sons as judges was to replace him or to relieve him of judicial responsibilities at a remote site.1 It was not customary for a judge to appoint his own sons as judges since judgeship was not hereditary. By appointing his sons, Samuel broke the customary practice of God appointing a new judge. Samuel probably tried to create “a hereditary succession” to replace the house of Eli.2 Therefore, after the destruction of Shiloh he did not ask the people to rebuild Shiloh, but built an altar in his hometown of Ramah (1 Sam 7:17). Moreover, he called the people to fast, pray, and sacrifice at Mizpah. He did not even mention the presence of the Ark of the Covenant housed in Kiriath-jearim.3 It appears that Samuel sought to establish his own dynasty, but the people opposed this attempt. According to R. P. Gordon, Samuel conducted his own “little dynastic experiment.”4 The people of Israel did not want to confront Samuel directly, so they raised concerns about his age and his sons’ behavior. Their opposition was directed against the dynastic idea.
The elders believed that the current system was insufficient to handle the Philistine threat. Therefore, the elders do not request a new righteous judge, but asked instead for a king to judge them like all the other nations.5 This request is repeated after Samuel describes “the rights of the king” (1 Sam 8:11–17). Samuel attempts to persuade the people to abandon the idea of human kingship. Despite Samuel’s harsh criticism of human kingship, the people refuse to listen and repeated their demand for a king (8:19; 10:19; 12:12). In 8:20, the people demand that the king will “go out before us and fight our battles.” Ackroyd points out that this verse refers to functions of kingship that emphasize “order and security.”6 The people of Israel thought and believed that kingship would bring military advantages; the king would lead them and fight their battles. The Israelites constantly battled with the Philistines, who had oppressed them at the end of the period of the judges and during Eli’s tenure as priest. After the defeat at Aphek, the Philistines controlled a large part of the territory of Ephraim. Their army controlled and occupied part of the land of Israel; they set prefects to control those areas. Recent archaeological data show that late in the eleventh century many villages were destroyed and abandoned and others grew in size and became regional centers.7 Inhabitants of these villages moved to larger and more protected sites. The Philistine threat induced this process. The war with the Philistines was long and continued throughout Saul’s lifetime. During Samuel’s era, the Philistines were repelled from Ekron to Gath in the south (7:11–14). This victory was short-lived. Later, during Saul’s monarchy, after the victory over Goliath, the Israelites chased the Philistines from Gath to Ekron (17:52). Evidently, the temporary leadership that existed since the time of the judges could not deal effectively with the Philistine threat. Therefore, strong leadership was necessary, and a drastic change inevitable. But, was there more than just a threat from the Philistines?
The threat from the Philistines in the west was not the only problem faced by Israel. At the same time, the Ammonites posed a threat on the east side of the Jordan River. The Ammonites had oppressed the Israelites since the time of Jephthah. The victory against the Ammonites was brief (Judg 11:29–34; 12:1–7). There is probably historical truth to the story of the rise of Nahash, the king of the Ammonites (1 Sam 12:12). Most likely, the Israelite tribes in the Transjordan asked for a king in order to face the threat from the Ammonites. Their proximity to the Ammonites, coupled with the fact that Ammon and Moab were monarchies, contributed to their fears. Additionally, 1 Samuel reads: “But when you saw that Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, had come against you, you said, ‘No! A king shall rule over us’” (12:12). This is the first example of a demand for a king to fight the Ammonites.
The demand for a king for military reasons is a repeated motif in the other parts of the narrative. In the story of Saul’s coronation, God chooses Saul to deliver the Israelites from the hands of the Philistines (9:16). In his speech after the victory against the Ammonites, Samuel describes the idyllic kingship. When the Israelites see that Nahash, king of the Ammonites, was advancing they say to Samuel: “No! A king shall rule over us” (12:12). The demand for a king and desire to be like other nations is ironic. God calls the Israelites his own people; however, they aspire to be like all the other nations. God was their King; nevertheless they want a human king.
Moral and Economic Changes
There was also a moral dimension to the request for a king. Starting at the period of the judges, there are repeated statements about lack of justice that prevailed among the Israelites because there was no king. In Judges 17–21 we find the common refrain: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as he pleased.” This formula unifies diverse stories in Judges by demonstrating the chaos that existed in the absence of a king.8 The author describes murders, wars, strife among brothers, rapes, and cultic sins. This kind of reality also existed on the eve of the monarchial period. It was the lack of justice and prevailing anarchy that also contributed to the demand for a king. Interestingly, an almost identical formula appears in Egyptian literature from the same period. Papyrus Harris I, most likely dating from the reign of Ramesses IV (ca. 1150 BCE), includes a retrospective history of the interval before the pharaoh Sethnakht’s accession, which is described as a time of lawlessness: “The land of Egypt was abandoned, every man a law unto himself. They had no leader (for) many years previously, until other times, when the land of Egypt had officials and city rulers, one (man) slew his fellow, great and humble.”9 After this period, the document describes another time consisting of “empty years” in which the Syrian Irsu set himself up as a prince of Egypt, followed by an account of Sethnakht being chosen by the gods, saying, “He (re)established order (in) the entire land, which had languished: he slew the rebels who had been in Egypt; he cleansed the Great throne of Egypt.”10
Another possible explanation for the formation of the monarchy in Israel lies in social