1 Samuel chapters 1-7 serve as a necessary preface for the narratives of chapters 8-12, which describe the
rise and establishment of kingship in Israel. In the study of these chapters, scholars have often noted the presence of a tension or ambivalence in the attitude toward the monarchy: One the one hand, Samuel is commended by the Lord to give the people a king; on the other hand, their request for a king is considered a sinful rejection of the Lord. These seemingly conflicting attitudes toward the monarchy must be understood in the context of Israel’s covenant relationship with the Lord.
Moses had anticipated Israel’s desire for a human king (Dt 17:14-21), but Israelite kingship was to be compatible with the continued
rule of the Lord over his people as their Great King. Instead, when the elders asked Samuel to give them a king (8:5, 19-20), they rejected the Lord’s kingship over them. Their desire was for a king such as the nations around them had – to lead them in battle and give them a sense of national security and unity.
The request for a king constituted a denial of their covenant relationship to the Lord, who was their king. The Lord not only had promised to be their protector but had also repeatedly demonstrated his power in their behalf (ch 4-7).
Nevertheless, the
Lord instructed Samuel to give the people a king. By divine appointment Saul was brought into contact with Samuel, and
Samuel was directed to anoint Saul privately as king (9:1-10:16).
The question that still needed resolution, then, was not so much whether Israel should have a king (it was clearly the Lord’s will to give them a king), but rather
how they could maintain their covenant with God now that they had a human king. The problem was resolved when Samuel called the people to repentance and renewal of their allegiance to the Lord on the very occasion of the inauguration of Saul as king. By establishing kingship in the context of covenant renewal, Samuel placed the monarchy in Israel on a radically different footing from that in surrounding nations.
The king in Israel was not to be autonomous in his authority and power; rather, he was to be subject to the law of the Lord and the word of the prophet (10:25, 12:23). This was true not only for Saul but also for all the kings who would occupy the throne in Israel in the future. The
king was to be an instrument of the Lord’s rule over his people, and the people as well as the king were to continued to recognize the Lord as their ultimate Sovereign (12:14-15).
Saul soon demonstrated that he was unwilling to submit to the requirements of his theocratic office (ch 13-15). When he disobeyed the instructions of the profit Samuel in preparation for battle against the Philistines (13:13), and when he refused to totally destroy the Amalekites as he had been commanded to do by the word of the Lord through Samuel (ch 15), he ceased to be an instrument of the Lord’s rule over his people. These abrogations of the requirements of his theocratic office led to his rejection as king (15:23).
2 Samuel depicts David as a true (though imperfect) representative of the theocratic king. David was initially acclaimed king at Hebron by the tribe of Judah (chs 1-4), and subsequently was accepted by the remaining tribes. David’s leadership was decisive and effective. He captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his royal city and residence (5:6-13). Shortly afterward he brought the ark of the Lord from the house of Abinadab to Jerusalem, publicly acknowledging the Lord’s kingship and rule over himself and the nation (ch 6).
Under David’s rule the Lord caused the nation to prosper, to defeat its enemies and, in fulfillment of his promise (Ge 15:18), to extend its borders from Egypt to the Euphrates (ch 8). David wanted to build a temple for the Lord – as his royal house, as a place for his throne (the ark) and as a place for Israel to worship him. But the prophet Nathan told David that he was not to build the Lord a house (temple), rather, the Lord would build David a house (dynasty). Ch 7 announces the
Lord’s promise that this Davidic dynasty would endure forever. Later the
prophets make clear that a descendant of David who sits on David’s throne will perfectly fulfill the role of the theocratic king. He will complete the redemption of God’s people, thus enabling them to achieve the promised victory with him (Ro 16:20).
After the description of David’s rule in its glory and success, ch 10-20 depict the darker side of his reign and describe David’s weaknesses and failures.
Even though David remained a king after God’s own heart because he was willing to acknowledge his sin and repent (12:13), he nevertheless fell far short of the theocratic ideal and suffered the disciplinary results of his disobedience (12:10-12). His sin with Bathsheba (ch 11-12) and leniency both with the wickedness of his sons (13:12-39; 21; 14:1, 33; 19:4-6) and with the insubordination of Joab (3:28-39; 10:10, 23) led to intrigue, violence and bloodshed within his own family and the nation.
Nonetheless the Lord was gracious to David, and his reign became a standard by which the reigns of later kings were measured.
1 & 2 Kings narrates the history of Israel during the period of the monarchy from the closing days of David’s rule until the time of the Babylonian exile. After an extensive account of
Solomon’s reign, the narrative relates the division of the kingdom and then presents an interrelated account of developments within the two kingdoms. Special attention is given to the ministries of Elijah and Elisha in the northern kingdom, with almost a third of the book (nearly equal to the amount of narrative given to Solomon’s reign) devoted to
God’s efforts through his prophets to turn that kingdom away from its apostasies back to covenant faithfulness.
Following Solomon’s reign, the kingdom was split in two. In the
southern kingdom (Judah containing Jerusalem) all of the rulers were descendents of David, beginning with Solomon’s son Rehoboam (except Athaliah, who usurping of the throne interrupted the sequence for a few years). Kingship in the
northern region (Israel), beginning with Jeroboam, was plagued with instability and violence. Both Judah and Israel had each 19 kings. Athaliah, the wicked woman who ruled 7 years in Judah, usurped the throne and is not counted as a legal ruler.
Judah had but one dynasty, beginning with David, when the kingdom was still one, and continuing to the Babylonish captivity. The Books of Chronicles establish the fact of the unbroken family line of kings and priests and Judah through the Captivity and afterwards on down to Christ, the son of David, the Son of God.
Israel had nine different dynasties. On account of wickedness no kingly family was established on the throne throughout the duration of the kingdom, and in 721 B.C. Israel went into dispersion, under Sennacherib, king of Assyria. Today this nation is remembered as "The Ten Lost Tribes."
Judah had at least four good kings; four others were partially good. Israel had all wicked and idolatrous kings — not a one godly.
Israel remained a kingdom approximately 254 years. Judah remained a kingdom approximately 389 years — 135 years longer than Israel because some of Judah’s kings were godly.
Rulers following Solomon's reign in Judah (southern region) and Israel (northern region)...
Note: Summary info taken from the Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Chart taken from this link.
