The two differing attitudes to the monarchy which are seen in 1 Samuel 8, the attitude of Samuel in which he understands that the idea of theocracy is being rejected, and the attitude of the people who see their only hope of future stability in being ruled by a king 'so that we will be like other nations', reveal an inherent conflict between the ideas of the Yahweh faith of the Sinai covenant, and the ideas attached to kingship in the ancient Middle East countries of that time. From Moses to Samuel, the leaders of Israel had been charismatic leaders, leading Israel into battle against their enemies, upholding the covenant faith, speaking and acting for Israel's God. They upheld the rule of Yahweh over Israel. Samuel himself had broken this tradition by making his own sons judges, although they lacked any signs of charismatic leadership, and in doing this he could not escape responsibility for the people's final rejection of the rule of the judges. He himself still upheld Yahweh's rule over his people, but his sons did not. The authority of Yahweh was not seen in them.

When we look at the role and power of kings in the other countries of the ancient Middle East such as Egypt, Babylon and Assyria, we find the hereditary monarchy through which power was kept in one family and handed on from father to son, the divine status of the king, and the use of religion as a means of upholding the state. The king wielded great power, which he inherited and took as his right, irrespective of the king's own character and gifts.

In these other nations the position of the king was of little significance for the development of religious ideas. Their religions were polytheistic and the king was regarded as the representative of a god, taking part in the rituals and festivals which were the concern of the priests. The king left the priesthood to uphold religion and did not interfere with the cult or religious beliefs so long as religion upheld the state, and the king's own position.

The tribal confederation of Israel presented a very different situation with its implicit monotheism and its belief that Yahweh was the Lord of the covenant way of life. In a theocratic society there could be no king of the kind we have just described. But we have seen that the tribal confederation was under great stress because of the Philistine threat; it had to become something stronger if Israel was to survive. In a changing political situation, the demand for a ruler who had more organized authority than the charismatic leader of earlier times and who could strengthen Israel to fight against a more powerful enemy than they had so far encountered, could not be ignored by Samuel, whose attempt to keep charismatic leadership in his own family had failed.

The only way out of this very difficult situation was the choice of a ruler who would not be an imitation of a king of one of the other nations but who would combine greater organized authority with charismatic gifts of leadership, acknowledging his dependence on Yahweh to whom he would be subject in all things. He was to be the servant of God, subject to the Covenant Law and upholder of the covenant faith. Under such a king, the nation of Israel could emerge.

But the risk of future kings not maintaining this new ideal was great, and the consequences of such failure had to be pointed out to the people. When we read the account of the acceptance of the first king, we should note that Samuel explained the duties and rights of a king before the people, and also wrote this down and placed it at a sanctuary. There was to be no doubt about the way in which an Israelite king ought to rule.

We can summarize the distinguishing aspects of kingship in Israel as follows: (a) a king was subject to God's will and had to rule within the context of the covenant; (b) he had to be acceptable to the people, being one of the covenant people himself; (c) his authority, as distinct from his manner of appointment, was God-given. He was essentially the servant of Yahweh. The written constitution drawn up by Samuel (1 Samuel 10: 25) put a control on Israel's first king such as did not exist in the other nations. There was no place for autocracy in Israel.