Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
I found a book at London Bible College library some decades ago called "Promise and Covenant" by John Bright. It stated quite forcefully that Israel for the first 200 years or so was a confederacy of the twelve tribes - united by their common religion. I say religion because to say faith would open up all sorts of side-issues. Anyway his point and God's in v7 is that they have rejected Him in asking for a king.
Yet in Genesis 17:6 Abraham is told that his descendants will give rise to kings and again Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-15 says they can ask for a king. Now admittedly these verses are passive in the sense that they foresee rather than endorse kingship but they knew it was coming.
My question is this. The request for a king is prompted by the failure of Samuel's sons to walk in his ways, just as Eli's sons failed to walk in Eli's ways. If then the hereditary office was discredited what on earth made them think that a hereditary kingship would work? Could it be that their "faith" was in the office of king not the person? Saul was succeeded by David without too much dissent (it just took a while for Saul to vacate the post/die). The Israelites became committed to the office of king, just as we are committed to the idea of "President" or "Prime Minister". If it was the office of king that they were putting their faith in I find this a much more heinous sin than trusting in God's annointed (i.e. Saul).
What do you think? Was it the office of king that seduced them? After all they were not putting forward a candidate but the office/post, of king.
Yet in Genesis 17:6 Abraham is told that his descendants will give rise to kings and again Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-15 says they can ask for a king. Now admittedly these verses are passive in the sense that they foresee rather than endorse kingship but they knew it was coming.
My question is this. The request for a king is prompted by the failure of Samuel's sons to walk in his ways, just as Eli's sons failed to walk in Eli's ways. If then the hereditary office was discredited what on earth made them think that a hereditary kingship would work? Could it be that their "faith" was in the office of king not the person? Saul was succeeded by David without too much dissent (it just took a while for Saul to vacate the post/die). The Israelites became committed to the office of king, just as we are committed to the idea of "President" or "Prime Minister". If it was the office of king that they were putting their faith in I find this a much more heinous sin than trusting in God's annointed (i.e. Saul).
What do you think? Was it the office of king that seduced them? After all they were not putting forward a candidate but the office/post, of king.