The people would probably not have pressed for a king at this time had Samuel's sons proved as faithful to the Mosaic Covenant as their father had been. However, Joel ("Yahweh is God") and Abijah ("My [divine] Father is Yahweh") disqualified themselves from leadership in Israel by disobeying the Law (Exod. 23:6, 8; Deut. 16:19). Eli's sons had done the same thing.
God had made provision for kings to rule His people in the Mosaic Law (Deut. 17:14-20; cf. Gen. 1:26-28; 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:10). The request in itself was not what displeased Samuel and God. It was the reason they wanted a king that was bad. On the one hand it expressed dissatisfaction with God's present method of providing leadership through judges (v. 7). On the other it verbalized a desire to be "like all the nations"(v. 5). God's purpose for Israel was that it be different from the nations, superior to them, and a lesson for them (Exod. 19:5-6). The Israelites had requested a different form of government during Gideon's judgeship (Judg. 8:22-23), so this was not the first time the people had voiced this desire. God saw this demand as one more instance of apostasy that had marked the Israelites since the Exodus. He acceded to their request as He had done many times before--by providing manna, quail, and water in the wilderness, for example. However, He mixed judgment with His grace.94
"The rejection of Samuel was the rejection of godly leadership; the choice of Saul was the choice of ungodly leadership. In many ways Saul was the foil for the godly David, just as the sons of Eli were a foil for Samuel."95
Samuel experienced rejection by the people he led just as Moses, Jesus Christ, and so many of God's faithful servants have throughout history (cf. Luke 19:14).96
Samuel explained what having a king similar to all the nations would mean. The elders were interested in the functionsof monarchy, but Samuel pointed out the natureof monarchy. It meant the loss of freedoms and possessions that the people presently enjoyed. In verses 11-17 Samuel did not define the rights of a king but described the ways of most kings.97Note the recurrence of the words "take"and "best"in these verses.
"By nature royalty is parasitic rather than giving, and kings are never satisfied with the worst."98
The people would also regret their request because their king would disappoint them (v. 18). God would not remove the consequences of their choice. Their king could have been a great joy to them instead of a great disappointment if the people had waited for God to initiate the monarchy. As becomes clear later in Samuel as well as in Kings and Chronicles, David was God's choice to lead the Israelites. If the people had not been impatient, I believe David would have been their first king. Saul proved to be a "false start"to the monarchy.99
In the argument of Samuel this chapter serves to introduce the reason Saul became such a disappointment to the Israelites and such a disaster as a king. Nevertheless his reign was not totally unsuccessful because at its beginning he sought to please Yahweh.
