CHAPTER THREE

THE INSTITUTION OF MONARCHY

Objective

You should, at the end of this chapter, be able to give an account

of how monarchy was brought into Israel. You should be able

to identify Samuel and

Saul, and account for how and why Saul became God’s

providential choice of king for Israel. Moreover, you should be

able to mention the advantages and disadvantages of theocracy

and monarchy; as well as state Saul’s strengths and weaknesses

as king of Israel.

Pre-test

1. Why was the system of the Judges rejected by the Israelites?

2. How and why was Saul chosen as king over Israel?

3. What were Saul’s strengths and weaknesses as king?

4. What did Saul do to gain Samuel’s disfavour?

5. How is Israel monarchy different from pagan monarchy?

6. Mention the advantages and disadvantages of: (i) theocracy,

and (ii) monarchy.

Content

The institution of kingship was established at the request of

the elders of Israel, and Samuel views this request as a form

of rebellion against Yahweh. According to Mckenzie (2020),

20Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective

the king was chosen by lot rather than divine election at this

time, meaning that no unique characteristics were required. In

truth, the shy candidate must be roused from his or her hiding

place. The Israelites abandoned the Judges' system not because

of its failure, but because of their worldliness, according to the

text. Samuel is the only Judge/prophet who is both a permanent

magistrate and a military leader who defeated the Philistines

decisively.

I Sam. 7:3-8: 22; 12:1 and 10:17-22 gave an account of how

monarchy was brought into Israel. The people had demanded

that Samuel give them a king. Samuel was vehemently

opposed to this request. This, however, did not affirm that

Samuel was opposed to the institution of monarchy in Israel.

In fact, he was instrumental in the planting of monarchy in

Israel. Consequently, Saul was made the first king of Israel.

Samuel’s advancement in age and dwindling physical capacity

to do great works compelled him to make his sons Judges over

Israel. But his sons were grossly involved in unethical conducts

such as collecting bribe from people instead of focusing on

sound administration. They were morally debased and lack

good human relations that could endear them to the people.

The immoral conducts of two sons of Samuel (Joel and Abiah)

compelled Israelites to demand for a king from Samuel. They

said to Samuel: “appoint for us a king to govern over us like

other nations” (that is, the heathen nations around them). They

demanded for a king that would lead them in battle and riot.

At this stage, the people’s belief is that kingship was good for

Israel. They saw monarchy as the means of salvation for Israel.

This demand did not go well with Samuel. In Samuel’s view,

theocracy is far better than monarchy. Samuel believed that

monarchy was not good for Israel because he knew that the

kings would later become oriental despots which will lead to

the ruin of Israel. Sequel to his prayer for divine’s intervention

on the matter, God said, “hearken to the voice of the people in

all that they say to you’ they have not rejected you, but they

21Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile

have rejected me from being king over them” (I Sam.8:7). This,

therefore, amounted to rejecting God. Apparently, God was not

pleased with such a demand because Israel has been a nation

ruled by God through His representatives specifically the Judges

and priests. Israelites had, for centuries, been disobedient to

God; the demand for a king was, therefore, not surprising (Van

Seters, 2012).

Like a good democrat, God not only instructed Samuel to

oblige them but also to show them the ways of the king who

shall reign over them. The description was that the king would

have certain constitutional rights to compel them to work for

him; some would have to plough and reap his farm while others

would run before his chariot in accordance with ancient custom

of oriental despots. The description of the king’s authority by

Samuel should not be construed as an attempt to dampen the

spirits of the Israelites. Rather, it was to enlighten them as well

as possibly negotiate the monarchical constitution with them.

The Israelites were hesitant despite the gloomy picture painted

by Samuel; they were not ready to change their minds; they just

wanted a king. Samuel called a national assembly where Saul

was chosen as king. This was reciprocated with a loud ovation:

“longlive-the-king”. Monarchy was therefore, established in

Israel (Mullen, 2011).

Saul’s enthronement as king over Israel

Account of the event that led to Saul’s enthronement as king

over Israel held that a man known as Kish had a son called

Saul who was assigned to search for his father’s loss assess.

He was accompanied by a servant to search for the asses until

they got to the land of Zuph. When Saul was eager to get back

home, his servant told him of a man in a nearly village who

could tell them the outcome of the search. Saul tried to wave

the suggestion away on the ground that he had no money to pay

for the consultation. The futurist was Samuel, also described 22Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
as a Seer. Samuel told them that the asses had been found; and
he later invited Saul to a feast of sacrifice. Saul was anointed
king the following morning by Samuel. He gave him three
signs that indicated that he was chosen by God. The first two
signs were that he would meet some people that would confirm
to him that the asses had been found and that some pilgrims
who were heading towards Bethel would share their bread
(that is, the bread they were taking to Bethel for sacrificial
meal) with him. Also, it was revealed that he would meet some
prophets descending from the place with harps, flutes, lyres
and tambourines prophesying together with Saul. Thus, this
account proves that Saul was God’s providential choice for
Israel (Whitelam, 2007).
Meanwhile, the threat of the Ammonites had spread to Saul’s
hometown, Gibeah of Saul. The spirit of God came upon Saul
while working on his farm. He slaughtered an ox and distributed
the pieces to all tribes of Israel, signalling his call on them to
come out and support him in a war against the ammonites. He
was crowned at Gilgal having won the war. Monarchy was fully
established. Under the monarchy, the covenant relationship
that existed between God and his people was not taken away
(Whitelam, 2007).
According to Tullock (1992), Saul’s career as a king was a
pathetic story. Explaining further, Tullock (1992) says Saul
had some strength as a king. He was impressively tall, dark
and handsome. He was non-assertive of his authority. He
was charismatic, that is, he had certain personality traits that
command followership of people. He was a simple man. On the
other hand, Saul had some weaknesses. He was a very shy man,
and non-assertive. He was a men-pleaser. He had insecurity-
complex. He lacked self-confidence.
Saul’s kingship gained Samuel’ disfavour when he (Saul) began
to mess up Samuel’s authority by performing some priestly
function which was the exclusive preserve of Samuel. For

23Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
instance, Saul took over the function of priesthood (I Sam. 13:
3-15) by not waiting for Samuel. He was to wait for Samuel to
perform the proper religious ceremony before he (Saul) could
launch an attack on the Philistines. Saul actually waited for
7 days. By this time, his army was very impatient and were
beginning to scatter from him. So, he decided to perform the
religious ceremony himself. Samuel then came and discovered
Saul had not waited enough for him to come and perform the
sacrifice. In anger, Samuel rebuked Saul and passed judgement
onhiskingdom.ThefinaldisfavourwithSamuelcame
when Saul failed to keep all the holy war provisions with the
Amalekites. He was impatient, and was said to have violated
the harem which was a sacred law regarding the conduct of the
war. He was disobedient by sparing the Amalekite king and
fatling of cows and rams alive under the pretext of carrying out
sacrifice (Shanks, 1992).
Some sources in the scripture (I Sam. 8:5, 20) reject the
rulership as an institution of the heathens’ nations. So it was,
in the sense that it was a foreign institution to Israel, while
common elsewhere and therefore suggested to Israel by his
environment. But Israel monarchy was nevertheless unique.
It was certainly not designed on the feudal city state system
whether of the kingdom of Edom, Moab and Ammon. Being a
fusion of theocracy and monarchy, it remained a phenomenon
characteristically Israelites. The evolution of the monarchy in
Israel can be traced to several factors. In order to understand
these factors, it is imperative to examine the religio-political
background of Israel. The period of Samuel marked the end of
the old order in the religio-political affairs of Israel as a nation.
Israel in the old order was a confederate state being ruled by
charismatic leaders after the land settlement in Canaan. These
charismatic leaders were chosen by God. It was therefore a
confederacy where each tribe was independent of one another.
That is to say, whenever there was war between one tribe and
the surrounding heathen nations, there was no compulsion on24Israel: Monarchy to ExileHistorical Perpective
the part of the remaining eleven tribes to assist them. Since
there was no standing army, the people of Israel only seemed to
come together to rally round the charismatic leaders that rose
from time in the various tribes to meet up with any emergency.
The only unifying factor among the twelve tribes was the belief
in Yahweh as the only God to be worshipped. This is the God
who saved them from the house of bondage in Egypt and chose
Israel to be his people in a covenant signed on Mount Sinai
(Kyle, 2013).
These charismatic leaders were not only leaders in the battle
front, but were also Judges. The book of Judges Chapter 3-16
gives a list of twelve Judges who were charismatic leaders at this
period; Samuel was the last Judge during the period of the tribal
confederacy. The change from theocracy (the rule of a God) to
monarchy (the rule of a king) was received with mixed feelings;
majority in favour of it, others opposed it, but the majority had
their way. Daudu and Kwala (2004) also say that there are two
accounts of how the monarchy was instituted. We are told in I
Sam. 8, 10:17-27 that the people of Israel themselves requested
Samuel to give them a king.To this, Samuel was opposed.
Then, in chapter 9:110:16 and 11 (all this is one account), it is
made clear that the prophet was not opposed to the institution
of monarchy. Hence, Dickson (1981) says that it quite clear that
the accounts come from different sources, though both affirm
that Samuel took an active role in the institution of monarchy
and that Saul was the first king ofIsrael.
By the time Saul became a king, Samuel has undisputed authority
over Israel. Indeed, by that time, he was fairly advanced in age
and could no longer carry out his activities without help. He
accordingly made his sons Judges over Israel. This shows that
the administration of the laws of the country was in Samuel’s
hands. Unfortunately, his sons were more interested in bribes
than in good administration. It was partly because of this that
the people sent elders to Samuel with the request, ‘appoint for us a king to govern us like all the nations’. Canaanites among

whom they lived had many kings, each with his own territory,

similar to what is obtainable in Africa, where each king has his

own jurisdiction. The Israelites did not just want to copy this

for imitation sake, but for its functionality in meeting their own

needs. They wanted a king cum leader who would lead them

in battle because of the threats of the Philistines (Jame, 2013).

In the same vein, Bright (1982) sees the divine election of Saul

in two parallel narratives: one tacitly favourable to monarchy,

the other bitterly hostile to it. I Sam. 9:1-10:16, in favour of

monarchy, show how Saul was secretly anointed by Samuel at

Ramah, it was continued in chapter 13:3-15. Woven with this

narrative was Saul’s victory over Ammon and his subsequent

acclamation by the people at Gilgal. I Sam. 8, 10:17, 12, in

disfavour of monarchy, present the demand as a permissive

will; as if Samuel, in anger, yielded to popular demand, thus

presiding over Saul’s election at Mizpah.

Saul’s election was by prophetic direction and majority of a

loud applause (I Sam. 10:11, 11:14). The fact that he was from

the tribe of Benjamin, a small tribe not centrally located and

immediately threatened (thus keeping jealousy to a minimum),

may have influenced the choice. However, Saul was accepted

primarily because of his victory over Ammon. He exhibited

charismatic gifts like the Judges before him. Saul’s whole reign

was spent at war I Sam.14:37-52. But his impatience as well as

disobedience during the war with the Amalekites earned him

Samuel’s disfavour. Moreover, he took harsh measures against

the remnants of Gibeonite confederacy, thus defying the

covenant between Israel and the Gibeonites. Apparently, many

of them were killed and others forced to flee. Saul incidentally

became the first king to be appointed in Israel and he marked

the beginning of the new order of monarchical government.

Saul’s reign, 1050-1010 BC, marked the beginning of the new

order while the old order was Samuel’s reign over Israel (1075-

26Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective

1033 BC). Theocracy therefore, ended in Israel’s history, and

monarchy emerged. The challenge that was to face the people

of Israel was on the issue of loyalty. They would have divided

loyalty: loyalty to Yahweh the God of Israel and loyalty to the

king. The challenge of divided loyalty was one of the issues

at stake in the tension between theocracy and monarchy. This

challenge played out itself from monarchy to the time of exile

(Norman, 1985).

Every form of government has its strengths and weaknesses.

At this juncture, we shall see the advantage and disadvantage

of theocracy and monarchy as observed by Daudu and Kwala

(2004). Theocracy has merits in that, under it, Israel believed

in Yahweh not only as their God but also as their king and ruler.

In addition, protection and prosperity were guaranteed under

theocracy if God’s commandments were kept. Theocracy is

weak in that, under it, everyone did what was right in his own

eyes as there was no king in Israel (Judges 21:25); there was no

united Israel but merely a confederacy and with such a loose

unity, they could not defend the realm; the charismatic leaders

were not acknowledged as national heroes; and there was no

standing army to meet any emergency.

Similarly, monarchy, according to Daudu and Kwala (2004),

has its merits and demerits. In terms of merits, monarchy

ensured that Israel was united not only in the monotheistic

belief in Yahweh, but also in the monarch as an earthly leader;

the king was acknowledged as a national hero who could

galvanize the people into the united states of Israel (I Sam.11:3-

7, 11:12); and the monarch provided a standing army to meet

the challenges of Philistine’s threats. The demerits of monarchy

include the problem of a divided loyalty, that is, loyalty to God

and loyalty to man; the possibility for a king to disobey divine

commandment, which could lead to punishment or disaster (I

Sam. 15); the king could become an oriental depot over his

subjects (I Sam. 18: 11-18).

27Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile

Summary

The Judges ran Israel as a confederate nation-state. There was no

unity government until the establishment of monarchy. Samuel’s

role in the establishment of monarchy and enthronement of

Saul as the first king of Israel illustrates the providence of God.

Saul became king based on divine providence. He was more

of a men-pleaser than God fearer. No system of government is

perfect. Israelis monarchy is unique in that it was a mixture of

divine-human government. However, monarchy constitutes the

challenge of whether or not God’s authority should be regarded

as higher than the King’s authority. Israel’s choice of monarchy

over theocracy was informed by the need for a united front in

matters of warfare and defence.

Post test

1. Why was the system of the Judges rejected by the Israelites?

2. How and why was Saul chosen as king over Israel?

3. What were Saul’s strengths and weaknesses as king?

4. What did Saul do to gain Samuel’s disfavour?

5. How is Israel monarchy different from pagan monarchy?

6. What kind of challenge did the transition from theocracy

to monarchy present to Israel?

7. Enumerate the strengths and weaknesses of theocracy.

8. List the strengths and weaknesses of monarchy.