like all the other nations. God was their King; nevertheless they want a human king.
Moral and Economic Changes
There was also a moral dimension to the request for a king. Starting at the period of the judges, there are repeated statements about lack of justice that prevailed among the Israelites because there was no king. In Judges 17–21 we find the common refrain: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as he pleased.” This formula unifies diverse stories in Judges by demonstrating the chaos that existed in the absence of a king.8 The author describes murders, wars, strife among brothers, rapes, and cultic sins. This kind of reality also existed on the eve of the monarchial period. It was the lack of justice and prevailing anarchy that also contributed to the demand for a king. Interestingly, an almost identical formula appears in Egyptian literature from the same period. Papyrus Harris I, most likely dating from the reign of Ramesses IV (ca. 1150 BCE), includes a retrospective history of the interval before the pharaoh Sethnakht’s accession, which is described as a time of lawlessness: “The land of Egypt was abandoned, every man a law unto himself. They had no leader (for) many years previously, until other times, when the land of Egypt had officials and city rulers, one (man) slew his fellow, great and humble.”9 After this period, the document describes another time consisting of “empty years” in which the Syrian Irsu set himself up as a prince of Egypt, followed by an account of Sethnakht being chosen by the gods, saying, “He (re)established order (in) the entire land, which had languished: he slew the rebels who had been in Egypt; he cleansed the Great throne of Egypt.”10
Another possible explanation for the formation of the monarchy in Israel lies in social and economic changes that occurred in Israelite society. The boost in population and growth in agriculture needed to be accommodated.11 It was the technological advancements, such as agricultural terracing and plastered cisterns for holding rainwater, coupled with the new iron technology that enabled the expansion of settlements and the creation of agricultural surplus. These new independent settlements with their flourishing agriculture attracted the Philistine aggression, which led to the formation of kingship. Gottwald mentions the Philistines as the main reason for the establishment of the monarchy, nevertheless he also claims that the use of iron and plastered water cisterns allowed the expansion of agriculture in the hill country, and thus led to population growth. The production of surpluses required complex management beyond the family unit; this led to social changes.12
By the end of the eleventh century the population in the central hill country more than doubled, and other regions of the highlands followed this pattern.13 The growth in population increased the growth in agricultural productivity, which transformed the Israelite social structure. Population growth within the current social structure of the Israelite society, where only the oldest son received double the inheritance, deprived many young men from relying solely on farming for a livelihood. The land in the highlands was very limited, thus many young, unmarried males looked for other economic opportunities. Yet, the establishment of the monarchy created new opportunities; it offered the young people a “safety valve,” enabling careers in the military, government, or priesthood.14 It is believed that David, who was the youngest in his family, was forced to leave home because there wasn’t much inheritance left for him when he became of age. David left home because he was looking for a new resource for his livelihood. He found it in the military activity in the service of Saul and later as the leader of his own outlaw band of mercenaries.15
Samuel’s Denunciation of Kingship
In contrast to the elders’ demand for a king, Samuel the prophet vehemently rejected the idea of human kingship. Modern scholars disagree strongly concerning the reason behind Samuel’s denunciation of kingship, and the timing of its composition. Wellhausen believed that the stories describing Samuel’s anti-monarchial views were composed in the Second Temple period. Theocratic views were prevalent among the priests and sages who governed during that period. The disappointment arising from the destruction of the temple buttressed this ideology, which viewed human kingship as a sin. The ideal was a religious community, which, through the study of the Torah and the fulfillment of God’s commandments, would receive God’s mercy and salvation.16
Budde held that the anti-monarchial stories were composed in the second half of the eighth century BCE, marked by the decline of the northern kingdom and its eventual destruction. To support his view, he points to the prophecies of Hosea that describe disappointment with human kingship (Hos 3:4–5; 8:4, 10; 13:10–11).17 Nevertheless, the same prophet embraced messianic expectations, prophesying that in the end days the Israelites: “Will seek the Lord their God and David their King” (3:5).
The opposition to kingship did not emerge in a later period, for it had already existed much earlier among the Israelite tribes. The verses in Samuel that object to kingship do not reflect a later period; they do describe the reality that existed during Saul’s period. Those passages were probably composed at the beginning of Saul’s reign.18
Opposition to human kingship is an early phenomenon and appears in the book of Judges with the story of Gideon.19 When the men of Israel say to Gideon: “Rule over us—you, your son, and your grandson as well,” Gideon replied: “I will not rule over you myself, nor shall my son rule over you; the Lord alone shall rule over you” (Judg 8:22–23). Rejection of human kingship is also found in the fable of Jotham (Judg 9:8–15). The fable parodies human kingship, with its origin in the “plants legend” found in Sumerian literature.20 In the fables of Gideon and Jotham, the rejection of human kingship is a theme. The stories possess literary traits of an earlier period and do not have traits of later composition, such as Deuteronomistic terminology. One senses that people did not want to give up their individual freedom and liberties.21
It was Samuel, not God, who was unhappy with the people’s request.22 Samuel’s main objection was the fear that the Israelite kingship would be similar to “the other nations,” but as noted already, Samuel had a different agenda; he tried to establish his own prophetic dynasty.23
Samuel outlined the rights of the king (1 Sam 8:11–18) to express his objection to human kingship. The whole section is directed against the demand for a human king. Samuel included the following reasons for his objections:
1. The demand for a human king displays distrust in God and his ability to save his people.
2. The request for a king is similar to worshiping other gods.
3. Human kings will appropriate all the people’s possessions, control their lives, and revoke their liberties.
4. Since humans and not God choose the king, God will not answer their pleas or deliver them of their distress (v. 18).24
This is one-sided; Samuel avoids mentioning the positive elements of kingship
