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.
