1 Samuel 12: "...God was your king."

"To determine precisely what sort of government is the best, would be an arduous task."  So says a note in my commentary on 1 Samuel 12.  Such a thought comes to mind precisely because this chapter seems to deal rather harshly with the concept of monarchy, and yet for most of Church history it has been the monarchical form of government that has best preserved Christianity and allowed its values to flourish.  And the Christian monarchy of the Middle Ages and even into early modern times has been primarily based on the Biblical model, the very one being established here in this First Book of Samuel.  The conundrum, though, is based on Samuel's very harsh words in this chapter.  He says in verse 17, "...you yourselves have done a great evil in the sight of the Lord, in desiring a king over you."  How can a monarchy (or any specific king) be seen as good when it seems to be condemned as an outright evil here in the First Book of Samuel?  It all comes back to man's fallen nature, of course.  It's the pattern established in the first books of Genesis: man has it good, but man is weak, so man lapses, then man is punished.  In hindsight, the Israelites had a good thing going during the time of the judges.  Their political system was decentralized, with each tribe essentially taking care of its own basic needs, each region being ruled by a judge (many of whom were divinely raised and thus good and virtuous, salvific even).  God Himself seemed to have been pleased with this system.  The Israelites needed no king because God Himself was their king: "...the Lord sent Jerobaal, and Badan, and Jephte, and Samuel, and delivered you from the hand of your enemies round about, and you dwelt securely" (1 Samuel 12:11) and "...the Lord your God was your king" (1 Samuel 12:12).  When seen this way, the Israelites' demanding of a king is really a demonstration of faithlessness.  Had their faith in God been stronger, they wouldn't have needed an earthly king, but God lets them have what they want, though it will come with consequences.  Which leads me to the last verse in this chapter: "But if you will still do wickedly: both you and your king shall perish together" (1 Samuel 12:25).  Even with the king they wanted, the Israelites can't refrain from sin; they fall, their king falls, and they are ultimately cast out. 

So in the end, Chapter 12 really comes off as a dire, fatalistic warning of sorts.  What's fascinating is how God manages to use man's follies to still carry out His divine plan.  Though God doesn't desire men to be ruled by an all-powerful king, He permits it.  And through this development, He even allows us a glimpse at the divine kingship of Christ to come.  In fact, in 1 Samuel 12 we see Saul being referred to as the "anointed" one, literally, the Messiah, or, in Greek, the Christ!  So through man's weakness in needing a king, we are given a remarkable symbol of Christ the King.  A lot more could be said about what this chapter means for best political practices.  It appears indeed that local governance, i.e., subsidiarity, is the ideal.  Monarchy, though obviously better than some modern democracies, is actually not God's preferred political system for men, though He permits it and can still use it to achieve His plan.  It will be important to remember this point when Israel's kingship ultimately and inevitably falls apart.