Judaism G-d Relationship with Israel

[Steven Jonaitis]

There's a lot you've presented here!  Allow me to focus on one of these things?  You wrote:  "In the Abrahamic Covenant, G-d promises three things primarily: a land, a people, and kingship. In other words, Abraham's offspring would inherit the land of Canaan, grow into an innumerable people ruled by their own kings."
 
In Deuteronomy 17:15, God does say: "You shall set a king over you."  He also says that the king must be one who is chosen by God.  Then, much later on, in I Samuel 8:7, when the people are clamoring for a king to judge them, God tells his prophet Samuel:  "Listen to the voice of the people, according to all that they will say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from reigning over them." 
 
How would you explain this apparent contradiction in the Bible:  That at first God wants us to set a king over us, but later God says that appointing such a king is a rejection of God's reign? 
 
This question is also for anyone else who cares to comment.  I'm interested in what others have to say, as well.

Good question, I actually had been thinking over these two passages for a while before, here is something I have noticed...

Israel's demand was not just for a king, but to be "like all the nations" around them (1 Sam. 8:5, 20). This simple phrase showed, not only their sole intention in the matter, but what sort of king they were looking for. They asked for a king without the direct rule of G-d, like the Gentiles had. This was not what G-d had in mind in his promise for kingship (that was to come later). So it was Saul, whom G-d temporally enthroned, who showed them the failure of their request. His name means "asked for," which was not coincidental. He was tall and handsome in appearance, coming from a wealthy family (1 Sam. 9:1-2), like what they may have desired in a king. As the story continues, Saul ("asked for") was literally a picture of what they wanted: self rule and autonomy from G-d. He was a sign of their rebellion, as well as a sort of divine judgement. 

His short-lived kingdom eventually ended with him in his disobedience, and G-d sought to look for one he delighted in. David represented divine grace in bringing his people back under the rule of G-d, since David was said to be "a man after his own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14). Whereas Saul represented a kingdom autonomous of G-d's rule, David represented a kingdom under G-d's rule. It pleased the Lord to firmly establish David's throne forever, because he was the one whom G-d had promised.

So, it seems like an apparent contradiction, but really it isn't. They did sin in asking for a king, but there was more to it than that one request alone. Their premature and sinfully motivated request was shown in Saul, but it pleased G-d through their disobedience to finally appoint the man he wanted.

I hope this helps, Channalee.