- 27-
seven," or "of the oath," on the southern boundary of the land. Their office seems to
have been chiefly, if not exclusively, that of civil administration, for which in the
border district, and so near a nomadic or semi-nomadic population, there must have
been ample need.
Unfortunately, they were quite unlike their father. Although not guilty of the wicked
practices of Eli's sons, yet among a pastoral and nomadic population there would be
alike frequent opportunity for, and abundant temptation to, bribery; nor would any
other charge against a judge so quickly spread, or be so keenly resented as this.^74
Soon the murmurs became a complaint; and that loud enough to bring about a
meeting of that most ancient and powerful institution in Israel, "the eldership," or
local and tribal oligarchy. Probably it was not merely discontent with this partial
administration of justice that led to the proposal of changing the form of government
from a pure theocracy to hereditary monarchy. Other causes had long been at work.
We know that a similar proposal had been made to Gideon (Judges 8:22), if not to
Jephthah (Judges 11:6). Although in both instances these overtures had been
declined, the feeling which prompted it could only have gained strength. An
hereditary monarchy seemed the only means of combining the tribes into one nation,
putting an end to their mutual jealousies, and subordinating tribal to national
interests. All nations around had their kings; and whether for war or in peace, the
want of a strong hand wielding a central power for the common good must have
been increasingly felt.
Moreover, the ancient God-given constitution of Israel had distinctly contemplated
and provided for a monarchy, when once the people had attained a settled state in the
land. It must be admitted that, if ever, circumstances now pointed to this as the
proper period for the change. The institution of "judges," however successful at
times and in individuals, had failed as a whole. It had neither given external security
nor good government to the people. Manifestly, it was at an end. Samuel must soon
die; and what after him? Would it not be better to make the change under his
direction, instead of leaving the people in charge of two men who could not even
keep their hands from taking bribes? Many years had elapsed since the battle of
Mizpeh, and yet the Philistines were not driven out of the land. In fact, the present
administration held out no prospect of any such result. This then, if ever was the
proper time to carry out the long-desired and much-needed reform.
It cannot be denied that there was much force in all these considerations; and yet we
find that not only Samuel resented it, but that God also declared it a virtual rejection
of Himself. The subject is so important as to require careful consideration.
(^)