The tension between 1 Samuel 8’s negative perspective and the Pentateuch’s positive anticipation of the monarchy

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Richard E. Averbeck’s Pentateuch and Historical Books course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Reflecting upon Israel’s history, God says in 1 Samuel 8:8, “As all of the deeds that they did from the day I brought them from Egypt until this day, they forsook me and served other gods.” As Bergen comments, “Against this backdrop, Israel’s demand for an earthly king is presented as merely the latest instance of their long-standing pattern of rejection” (116-117). However, on the other hand, Pentateuch texts such as Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:8-12; Num 24:7, 17; and Deut 17:14-20 provide a positive anticipation of the monarchy as part of God’s plan. In other words, an apparent tension exists between 1 Samuel 8’s negative appraisal of the people’s request for a king and the Pentateuch’s anticipation and prediction of such a king. How is it that both Samuel and God can be so opposed to the people’s request for a king when in fact God had predicted this request and installment of a king? This short paper seeks to answer this question.

McCarter helpfully notes that the people’s request was not merely concerned with military security. Certainly, this was a concern. With Samuel’s age (8:1), a new leader was obviously going to be needed. Yet Israel did not simply request a new leader, but a new institution or form of that leadership. And clearly, they see this Canaanite model of kingship (8:20) as a military advantage (8:20). This ambition was seemingly innocent in and of itself given the Pentateuch’s anticipation of a monarchy and God’s instruction to secure the land. But as McCarter notes, their ambition went further than this. “They are motivated by a perverse and self-destructive urge to rise above themselves” (160). In other words, McCarter understands the problem with this request as having to do with Israel’s discontentment with the adequate (cf. 7:2-17) pre-monarchial leadership institution established by YHWH and currently in place. Therefore, chapter 8 must be understood in light of the picture painted in chapter 7 (160). Rather than being content with what God had established for the time being, they sought to be “like all the nations” (8:20). “The people demand a king of Samuel because they want to be like the other nations; but this is precisely what they are not supposed to be” (McCarter, 160). Baldwin provides a paradoxical explanation stating, “Despite Israel’s apostasy in requesting a king, the Lord was positively at work to achieve his ultimate purpose” (84, cf. 87). Finally, one should observe that the perspectives represented in the Pentateuch’s anticipation of a king and 1 Samuel 8 are not all that different; in fact, they are quite similar in one sense. Whereas 1 Samuel 8 lists off the various upcoming offenses of this new king, Deuteronomy 17:14-17, for instance, provides restrictions that would prohibit such abuses. In other words, a Pentateuch passage like Deuteronomy 17 also holds to the view that kings tend to corrupt (McCarter, 162). Likewise, but contrastingly, Baldwin eases the tension by arguing that the Pentateuch shares 1 Samuel 8’s pessimistic view. He states that in Deuteronomy 17:14-15 “the desire to emulate other nations is foreseen and permitted, rather than approved” and that God “adapted his purposes and acquiesced sufficiently … even incorporating the monarchy into his revelation of himself to Israel [in the Pentateuch]” (84, emphasis mine). Therefore, for Baldwin, the tension is eased because for him there was really no tension in the first place; both passages are pessimistic.

In conclusion, one of YHWH’s concerns is that this king would claim prerogatives and rights that ought to belong solely to God alone as Israel’s ultimate king. In this vein of thought, it may be that this tension between God’s simultaneous desire and repulsion towards kingship is only truly resolved in the kingship of Christ, that human king who is simultaneously God, possesses the rights to such prerogatives, and executes His rule perfectly. At the same time, the people’s motives for requesting a king provide the surest exegetical explanation. Given these Pentateuch texts (above), God was certainly not against kingship per se. But, as McCarter pointed out, Israel wanted a king for sinful motivations. And contrary to Baldwin, Howard rightly affirms that “this desire flew in the face of the injunctions in Deuteronomy 17:14-20” (159). Consequently, this action was interpreted as a rejection of YHWH’s rule (8:7) because they did not desire his model of kingship.

The Institutes of the Christian Religion (Abridged Version) by John Calvin

Kirk E. Miller

The following is a summary of and reflection upon an abridged version of Calvin’s Institutes produced by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne (see it here on Amazon). I should note that I did not read the final book, Book IV: Outward Means by which God Helps Us, in its entirety; and therefore, it was directly not taken into consideration in the writing of this review.

* * * * *

Summary

Calvin’s understanding of how men know God, know themselves, and the relationship between these two types of knowledge is seemingly foundational to the entirety of his theology (1:1:1). For Calvin, knowledge of self is intrinsically linked to knowledge of God while knowledge of God results in proper assessment of self (1:1:1). Genuine knowledge of self necessarily assumes knowledge of God. One cannot fully grasp the existence of the creature apart from his fundamental relationship to his Creator and Sustainer (1:1:1). Comprehension of man’s falleness assumes an ideal, one that is rooted in God’s creative-design; transgression implies the reality of Judge (1:1:1). On the other hand, without knowledge of God, no one ever truly knows himself (1:1:2). Lacking insight into the purpose for which He was created, ignorance of his original nature and its divine intent flourish. Unaware of God’s standard of righteousness, man consequently assesses his moral condition inaccurately (2:1:1).

Continue reading →

Athanasius’ On the Incarnation

Kirk E. Miller

I previously wrote a review On the Incarnation by Athanasius (c. 297-373). Well, I read the book again and wrote another review that I thought I’d share with you here. Hopefully this second review, which covers a lot of the same things as the first one, has greater insight and clarity. Enjoy!

* * * * *

In his work, On the Incarnation, Athanasius seeks to present “a brief statement of the faith of Christ and of the manifestation of His Godhead to us” (IX.56). Acknowledging that “such and so many are the Savior’s achievements that follow from His incarnation” (X.54) such that one is unable to present them satisfactorily, he nonetheless determines to set forth his understanding of “why it is that the Word of the Father . . . has been made manifest in bodily form” (I.1); his answer in short: “for the salvation of us men” (I.1). What follows is less a systematic doctrinal treatise and more an explanation and defense of the incarnation against its 4th century misconceptions and critiques.

Athanasius begins his account with creation and the fall. Of all His creatures, God bestowed upon mankind a special grace, the Image of God. For Athanasius this Image means a sharing in the divine being (“though in a limited degree”; I.3; III.11) and a unique incorruptibility because of this intimate knowledge of and union with the Incorruptible One (I.4-5; II.6-7; III.13). In such a state, man would have continued forever (I.3). But by “turning from eternal things to things corruptible” man embraced corruption—death—by forsaking union with the eternal (I.5; cf. I.4). Such is the setting for “the divine dilemma and its solution in the incarnation” (II).

Continue reading →

Augustine, the Christian Hedonist

Kirk E. Miller

What is Christian Hedonism?

“Christian Hedonism” is term coined by John Piper. According to Piper, all men by nature seek their own happiness. However, this pursuit of happiness is not in competition with God (contra. self-centeredness). In fact, as Piper has famously said, “God Is Most Glorified In Us When We Are Most Satisfied In Him.” And conversely, we are most satisfied as we seek that satisfaction in God. C.S. Lewis, who greatly influenced Piper’s view of Christian Hedonism, said,

If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. – C.S. Lewis, “The Weight of Glory.”

Continue reading →

God and Science by Jon Hanes (FACT)

Kirk E. Miller

The following lecture was presented by Jon Hanes (deacon) at Lake Drive Baptist Church as a part of the FACT (Forum for the Advancement of Christian Thought) ministry run alongside the church. In this lecture Jon argues that the nature of science assumes or presupposes the existence of God. God is a “properly basic” belief in the scientific method, namely in its blind trust in the uniformity of nature and corresponding use of induction. This is true despite many scientists who deny the existence of this God. In essence, Jon argues for a Reformed, foundationalist epistemology as it relates to science. However, he explains all of this in much more colloquial language than I just did. This lecture is geared for the lay individual; and it is very understandable and clear. Among other things, it has much apologetic value. Jon has doctoral background in the sciences and enters this discussion prompted by the observation that there is very little regard for, or awareness of, the philosophy of science among other scientists in his field of study. I highly recommended it. Check it out.