Today we read where the people of Israel asked for a king, and Samuel described in 1 Samuel 8:10-18 all the bad things that would happen if that occurred. The people demanded a king anyway, and the Lord was kind enough to tell Samuel that the people are rejecting the Lord and not Samuel and to accede to their wishes. My focus will be what being a king meant.
In those days, the true equivalent of a king would be a mayor, since no one can effectively rule a territory larger than he can enforce his rule. When travel is limited to how far a horse can travel in a day or two, it's impossible to enforce commands much farther than a 20-30 mile radius. In addition, the king needs command of the army, or at least a force of men who are willing to enforce the edicts and punish those who don't follow them. In other words, a king was a legal tyrant, since there's no way that people willingly agree to the things the Lord describes in verses 10-18. The people were told, and they still jumped in with both feet.
Why would people endure tyranny? In some cases, they don't have a choice, which happens today in totalitarian regimes like North Korea or closed societies like Iran. Sometimes it's a lesser of two evils choice, where the benefits (protection, the necessities of live, etc.) are promised (and not necessarily delivered) and the people acquiesce. History tells us repeatedly that kings and other monarchs are rarely put in place by the will of the people, but usually as a result of force. The note on p400 suggests that we're about 400 years removed from the people leaving Egypt, and the Lord mentions how the people have been disobeying him almost since that time.
The key verse is 8:20, where the people state "...with a king to lead us an to go out before us and fight our battles." The people have made TWO clear choices:
1. They no longer want God to take care of them as he had through the judges
2. They no longer want to take care of THEMSELVES. They were willingly looking for someone to fight their battles because they were too lazy to do it themselves and saw a king as a panacea that would solve their problems.
I fervently wish I could write that this doesn't happen today, but we all know it does. Every time we assume that someone else is responsible to care for us, educate our children, educate our children in the ways of the Lord or other things we're perfectly capable of doing, we erect new kings in our own lives and give up a little bit of freedom and responsibility at the same time. I'm not advocating the abolition of government, schools, churches or any other modern institutions, merely suggesting we remember they exist to assist us in life, but the ultimate responsibility still lies with us. And God, just like he did then, is still taking care of us today, just as he did back then.
Scott
No comments:
Post a Comment