1 Sam 8:1 The history of this chapter narrates why and how the Israelite people asked for a king to be set over them. The cause of this petition was twofold, as is held below. "And it came to pass, when Samuel was old", so that in his usual manner he could not perform the labors of visiting and serving everyone and handling external affairs, which is very burdensome to holy men; for to them it is sweetest and most dear to be free for divine things and occupied with spiritual matters. Because of this, the holy man Augustine said: "I would rather work with my hands daily at something than hear and settle your causes and disputes."
"He appointed his sons over Israel", that is, he established them as judges of the Israelite people, not as kings or princes. This holy Samuel did not do out of carnal affection—as many now promote their relatives, not to say their sons, to prebends and ecclesiastical dignities—since he judged them truly worthy of the judicial office; and perhaps then they were, though later they became corrupt in heart, just as Saul was. Indeed, "leadership reveals the man," and honors change the character in many. Nevertheless, I do not recall reading that any Judge before Samuel, either while living or when at the point of death, appointed his sons as judges of the people. For in the Prima Secundae, Thomas [Aquinas] asserts, and Alexander of Hales and others commonly say (and it will be clear below), that God had chosen the children of Israel for Himself as a peculiar and beloved people, and therefore He willed to set judges and rulers over them Himself. Hence, it is commonly written of the judges that "the Lord raised up for them a savior or judge." Thus Moses appointed none of his sons as judge but asked the Lord to reveal to him whom He willed to succeed him. Therefore, it seems that Samuel did this from divine instinct and that his sons were good at first.
1 Sam 8:2 "And the name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of the second, Abijah, judges in Beersheba." The Master of the Histories [Peter Comestor] says: "When Samuel was old, he placed his sons Joel and Abijah, one in Bethel and the other in Beersheba, so that sitting there they might judge the people." How then is it said here "Judges in Beersheba", as if both were judges there? To this it must be said that Scripture, striving for brevity here, gives the other place to be understood by the expression of one. Or perhaps they both sat in Beersheba successively. Again, it may be asked how the Master of the Histories says one of them was placed in Bethel, while Josephus says "in Bethlehem," which Rabanus also follows, as does the aforementioned Master regarding the beginning of this book. To this it must be said that by "Bethel" he understands Bethlehem. Or, by a scribal error, "Bethel" was written for Bethlehem.
"And his sons did not walk in his ways", that is, they did not follow the virtues and virtuous works of their father, "but turned aside from the right path after avarice", following that which is to be avoided by judges; "and they took bribes" with a sinister intention "and perverted judgment", that is, they judged unjustly, knowingly seeking to please those from whom they received gifts. Against this, it is written in Exodus [23:8]: "You shall not take bribes, which even blind the prudent and subvert the words of the just." Furthermore, a judge ought to be like "animated justice" and like a "living law," so that he departs from equity neither for love, nor hatred, nor greed, nor fear, nor in any other way. And in whatever way he fails, he is bound to satisfaction toward those to whom he brings damage or trouble by judging impiously.
1 Sam 8:3-5 "Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel in Ramah, and said to him", to Samuel: "Behold, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways", that is, they do not imitate the rectitude of your judgments and works; "appoint for us a king to judge us, as all the nations have", that is, the rest of the nations commonly, or some from all of them. If these nobles, according to the teachings of evangelical wisdom, had first admonished them or announced to their father that he should correct his sons, they would have proceeded more advisedly. But now they immediately proceeded to their deposition.
1 Sam 8:6 "And the word was displeasing in the eyes", that is, in the intellect and wisdom "of Samuel, because they had said: 'Give us a king to judge us'", and not rather: "Correct your sons so that they may behave justly." That petition was displeasing to Samuel, not out of ambition, but out of equity and for the common good, because he knew it was more expedient to be ruled by judges, and since he knew that God had reserved the royal and monarchical rule of this people to Himself. Moreover, it was displeasing because they wanted to conform to the nations by having a king after the fashion of the nations, as if they were ruled in a more excellent way by a king than by God. The perversity of the sons also displeased the holy man. "And Samuel prayed to the Lord" so that He might reveal what he ought to do.
1 Sam 8:7"And the Lord said to Samuel: 'Hear the voice of the people in all that they say to you' " regarding this matter, that is, set a king over them. If they sinned by asking for a king, why did the Lord command that their petition be satisfied? It is answered that God permitted or commanded this by a just judgment for the punishment and humiliation of those who were proud, and because having a king was not evil in itself, and because He had decreed to elicit many good things from the fulfillment of their petition or the institution of kings. For He predicted through the patriarch Jacob that kings would be born from the tribe of Judah [Genesis 49:10]; to Abraham also He said: "Kings shall come forth from you."
Wherefore the Lord said "Hear their voice", speaking as if angry. "For they have not rejected you, but me", that is, not you alone or principally, but Me, who until now have been their King and have provided for them from the deputy of My governance by raising up judges. Therefore, you must have patience. Although Samuel appointed his sons as judges, the children of Israel are nevertheless said to have rejected him because they rejected him in his sons, or because he still remained the supreme judge over that people, as recourse was made to him in greater and doubtful causes. For upon the words "When he was old", the Gloss speaks: "Burdened by age and cares, he could not celebrate the solemn judgments." "Lest I should reign over them" by exercising royal presidency over them through Myself. For according to the doctors, the judges themselves did not have any prelatical authority or right over the people, except that the people of Israel used their counsel or prudence in their tribulations, as I recall was said more fully on the book of Judges.
1 Sam 8:8 "So therefore have they rejected me" and you "according to all their works which they have done from the day I brought them out of Egypt unto this day"; that is, just as they and their fathers frequently behaved badly at the time of their departure from Egypt until the present, so also in this they have acted badly. Thus it is not to be understood that these men of whom these things were said were led out of Egypt, except in the loins of their fathers, or that they sinned in all their acts in the meantime, since in this chapter many good things are said of them. "Just as they have forsaken me and served strange gods" at times (not always), "so do they also to you"; that is, they are ungrateful to you and reject your presidency, just as they were ungrateful to Me and forsook My governance, subjecting themselves to the domination of foreign gods. Behold how piously and most worthily the God of immense majesty speaks, comparing Himself to a man, a creature who is transient and fragile of himself.
1 Sam 8:9-17 "Now therefore hear their voice. Nevertheless, protest", that is, certify them with a protest "and preach to them the right of the king who shall reign over them." Samuel therefore spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had sought a king from him, and Samuel said this to the people: "This will be the right of the king who is to command you: He will take your sons and put them in his chariots", that is, he will make them drivers of his four-horse chariots; "and he will make for himself horsemen", that is, he will make some of your sons be his horsemen, "and some runners before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself from them tribunes" who preside over a thousand men "and centurions", so that it will be necessary for them to be exposed to the constant dangers of battles, and thus heavy burdens will be annexed to their dignity; "and plowmen of his fields and reapers of his harvests, and smiths of his armor and his chariots. Your daughters also he will make for himself perfumers and hearth-keepers", that is, preparers of ointments and cooks, "and bakers", that is, makers of bread. "Your fields also and vineyards and the best oliveyards he will take and give to his servants. But also the yields of your harvests and vineyards he will tithe", that is, he will take a tenth "to give to his eunuchs", that is, the guardians of his bed or of his maidens, "and to his attendants. Your servants also and handmaids and best young men and asses he will take away and put to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants."
Regarding these matters, Thomas Aquinas argues in the Prima Secundae, Question 105: just as a kingdom is the best form of government, so tyranny is the worst corruption of government. But the Lord, in instituting a king, appears to have instituted a tyrannical right, for it is said in 1 Samuel: "This will be the right of the king who is to command you: He will take your sons, etc."
To this, the Doctor responds: That "right" is not determined for the king by divine institution, but rather the usurpation of kings is foretold there—kings who establish for themselves an iniquitous right, degenerating into tyranny and plundering their subjects. This is clear from what is added at the end: "And you shall be his servants," which properly pertains to tyranny, because tyrants rule over their subjects as slaves. Samuel said these things to deter them from seeking a king.
Nevertheless, it can happen that even a good king, without tyranny, may take the sons of subjects to appoint them as tribunes and centurions, and may take many things from his subjects to procure the common good. Thomas attributes the specific list in Samuel to the private gain of a tyrant. Hence others say that certain things belong to the "right of a king" when established in necessity, which do not belong to his right outside of a case of necessity; indeed, then they would pertain to tyranny.
Two Kinds of Dominion
One must observe that there is a twofold domination:
Natural and Ordered: Where one presides over others for their progress and utility. This is even called a "servitude" insofar as it is ordered toward the benefit of the inferiors, not for one's own profit. Thus, the Supreme Prelate of the Church calls himself the "Servant of the servants of God."
Innatural and Inordinate: Where one presides solely for his own profit, which is tyranny.
Between these two is a middle domination: though ordered toward the profit of the ruler, it is done without injury to the servant, and even with his utility and reward. Thus, the subjects of a virtuous king are his servants by a servitude of ordered subjection, chaste fear, and spontaneous will.
The People's Persistence
1 Sam 8:18 "And you shall cry out in that day from the face of your king whom you have chosen." That is, you will seek to be delivered from such a king because of the pressures and aforementioned injuries, "and the Lord will not hear you in that day" because He will punish your disobedience.
1 Sam 8:19-20 "But the people refused to hear the voice of Samuel." They would not acquiesce to his admonition but said: "Nay"—meaning, it will by no means go as badly for us with a king as you threaten, or we will by no means obey this persuasion of yours. "For there shall be a king over us, and we also shall be like all the nations." As if to say: "We seem inferior and more base than other nations because we do not have a prince of such dignity as they, but only a judge and consultative rector." "And our king shall judge us, and go forth before us, and fight our battles for us."
1 Sam 8:21-22 "And Samuel heard all the words of the people and spoke them in the ears of the Lord." And the Lord said: "Hear their voice and appoint a king over them." Samuel then told the men of Israel to return to their cities and have patience until the Lord revealed whom He willed to be created for them.
Moral and Theological Lessons
Avarice in Judges: We are taught how detestable all avarice is in judges. As the Gloss says: for the sake of a gift, the judge causes the oppressed to be crushed; it breeds deceit, lies, perjury, and the oppression of the innocent.
The Danger of Self-Will: It is dangerous for subjects to persist in their own sense rather than the sound counsel of their superiors.
Petitions as Punishment: God sometimes grants petitions as a punishment. When we are uncertain if our desires are for our salvation, we ought to commit the hearing of our prayers to God's wisest moderation.
Did Israel Sin in Asking for a King?
It might seem they did not sin, because according to Aristotle (Politics, Book III), a monarchical regime is the best; therefore, to seek it is no fault. Furthermore, God gave a form for seeking a king in Deuteronomy ("When you enter the land... and say, 'I will set a king over me'").
However, Lyra, following St. Thomas, responds that they did sin. Because God chose Israel as a special people, He willed to be their immediate King. He gave the Law on Mount Sinai personally, not through a human mediator. He willed their governors to be appointed by Him as His vicars (like Moses, Joshua, and the Judges), not as independent kings. To seek a human king was to act against this divine ordination.
Rabbi Paul [Paul of Burgos] argues differently: he claims they did not sin in seeking a king, but in seeking a king differently than was granted—namely, a king with "plenary power" who would be absolute and above the law, judging them in the way of the Gentiles without limitation of power.
However, the author rejects this Rabbi's view, noting that no nation is so foolish as to want a king without limitation of power (indeed, the Romans killed such kings). The Scripture explicitly states they sinned. Samuel later tells them: "See that you have done a great evil in the sight of the Lord by seeking a king." The people even confess: "We have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for ourselves a king."
Why does the Christian Church have kings if Israel sinned?
In the time of the Mosaic Law, other nations were falling into idolatry and denying Providence. God willed to demonstrate His Providence to the Jews by exercising royal governance directly. In the Christian era, the truth of the one God has been made manifest to all nations through the Gospel. Therefore, while the Christian people are the special people of God, the reason for immediate divine rule (without human kings) no longer applies in the same way. Finally, although the Israelites sinned in asking for a king, neither they nor their posterity sinned in accepting the kings whom God subsequently chose, such as Saul, David, and his descendants.
Comments
Post a Comment