Judaism G-d Relationship with Israel

[nili]

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." 

Out of curiosity, who do you suppose authored these two quotes and when?

[Channalee]

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." 

Out of curiosity, who do you suppose authored these two quotes and when?

I'm only pretty sure as to Who didn't author those two quotes.  

Seriously, I think that politics had much to do with a lot of the apparent contradictions in the Bible.  The priestly caste had an interest in maintaining control, so it makes sense that they wouldn't be too keen on monarchs (unless they could also control the monarch).

[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.

[Channalee]

I hope this helps, Channalee.

Well, yes, that does make sense.  And, because I'm a name nerd, I appreciate the aptness of the meanings of both Saul (as in, "You asked for it." LOL) and David ("beloved [of God]").

A question for you:  Doesn't the story seem just a little bit contrived, considering how coincidentally apt those two names are?     This is why I'm more inclined to view the Bible as metaphor than historic document.

[nili]

Out of curiosity, who do you suppose authored these two quotes and when?

I'm only pretty sure as to Who didn't author those two quotes.  

I'm pretty sure that you're right.  

[Steven Jonaitis]

Well, yes, that does make sense.  And, because I'm a name nerd, I appreciate the aptness of the meanings of both Saul (as in, "You asked for it." LOL) and David ("beloved [of God]").

A question for you:  Doesn't the story seem just a little bit contrived, considering how coincidentally apt those two names are?     This is why I'm more inclined to view the Bible as metaphor than historic document.

Well, this approach, if taken consistently, would compromise other and more serious issues, whether it is directly related to these events or not. 

I am personally inclined to believe that these stories are historically literal and true, and the apparent coincidence with the names is nothing less than divine providence working these events out. By this interpretation, everything was predetermined to occur, and these individuals were named for some particular call or purpose, as is evident in record of these events itself. However, since I am a Christian, I do also see allegorical meaning behind these events and names that relate to a Christiological view. So, I take it to be historical and allegorical together.