Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
- A.M. 2908, A.C. 1096.
*H And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he appointed his sons to be judges over Israel.
Ver. 1. Old. Houbigant would translate, "when he was growing old," senesceret, as he supposes he was now nearly sixty, having judged about twenty-five years, and living another twenty as partner with Saul. Prol. lxii. See C. vii. 15. H. — Judges, as his delegates in the southern parts of the country. C. — Josephus says one of them was stationed at Bethel. Ant. vi. 3.
*H Now the name of his firstborn son was Joel: and the name of the second was Abia, judges in Bersabee.
Ver. 2. In, or "as far as" Bersabee, from Dan, that is, throughout Palestine. C.
*H And his sons walked not in his ways: but they turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
Ver. 3. Judgment. Samuel was not to blame, and hence he was not punished like Heli. M. — However, the misconduct of the children of these two judges, in succession, (H.) gave occasion to the people to demand a king, who might not be tempted by bribes. W. — It is surprising that most of the great men who are mentioned in history, had degenerate children. C. — Such were some of David's sons, as well as Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, &c. H. — Was it because their fathers were too much taken up with the affairs of state, to watch over the education of their children? or rather, because these young men confided too much on the merits of their family, and took no pains to tread in the footsteps of their parents? C. — "We have here, says Josephus, a manifest proof that children do not always resemble their parents, but sometimes good men spring from the wicked; and on the contrary, the virtuous have an evil progeny."
* Footnotes
-
*
Osee
13:10
Where is thy king? now especially let him save thee in all thy cities: and thy judges, of whom thou saidst: Give me kings and princes.
-
*
Acts
13:21
And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years.
*H And they said to him: Behold thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: make us a king, to judge us, as all nations have.
Ver. 5. Judge us, in a different manner from what had been hitherto done. H. — By a crying ingratitude, they reject the government of a wise old man, who had rendered them the most signal services. Perhaps the power of Naas, king of the Ammonites, might afford them some pretext for acting as they did. C. — As all, &c. They seem to prefer the dominion of kings, who ruled over the surrounding barbarous nations as they thought proper, (H.) before one who should be tied down to observe the laws, prescribed by God, (M.) in case the Israelites should wish to have a king. Deut. xvii. H. — In the East, monarchy was the most ancient form of government. Tacit. Hist. iv. Just. i. "Principio, imperium penes Reges erat."
*H And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord.
Ver. 6. Samuel. Nothing could be more disrespectful to him, nor more ungrateful to God, who had distinguished them from all other nations, and had taken the government upon himself, and appointed the judges as his lieutenants. The foolish Israelites wished to throw off this sweet yoke, and to be ruled in an arbitrary manner, like the infidels, as if God could not otherwise protect them from their enemies. — Lord. Josephus says that he passed the night without food or sleep, and the Lord appeared to him. The will or petition "of the people, filled Samuel with great uneasiness, who on account of his innate justice, did not like the regal power, as being too exorbitant. He rather approved of an aristocracy, as more conducive to the welfare of the people." Ant. vi. 4. He means such an aristocracy as the Israelites had been accustomed to, under the guidance of men divinely commissioned, whence he elsewhere very properly styles it a theocracy, or "the government of God." H.
*H And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them.
Ver. 7. Thee. "God, in anger, grants a person what he desires wrongfully." S. Aug. — He permits the people to follow their own plans; and the Hebrews believe, that he gave them Saul to punish them, being well apprised of his proud and cruel nature. Cuneus Rep. C. — Rejected, &c. The government of Israel hitherto had been a theocracy: in which God himself immediately ruled, by laws which he had enacted, and by judges extraordinarily raised up by himself: and therefore he complains that his people rejected him, in desiring a change of government, (Ch). and wishing to appoint their own magistrates. The priests and judges had been commissioned by God. Ex. xix. Deut. xvii. W.
* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 105, Article 1
[I-II, Q. 105, Art. 1]
Whether the Old Law Enjoined Fitting Precepts Concerning Rulers?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting precepts concerning rulers. Because, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 4), "the ordering of the people depends mostly on the chief ruler." But the Law contains no precept relating to the institution of the chief ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions concerning the inferior rulers: firstly (Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; again (Num. 11:16): "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel"; and again (Deut. 1:13): "Let Me have from among you wise and understanding men," etc. Therefore the Law provided insufficiently in regard to the rulers of the people.
Obj. 2: Further, "The best gives of the best," as Plato states (Tim. ii). Now the best ordering of a state or of any nation is to be ruled by a king: because this kind of government approaches nearest in resemblance to the Divine government, whereby God rules the world from the beginning. Therefore the Law should have set a king over the people, and they should not have been allowed a choice in the matter, as indeed they were allowed (Deut. 17:14, 15): "When thou . . . shalt say: I will set a king over me . . . thou shalt set him," etc.
Obj. 3: Further, according to Matt. 12:25: "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate": a saying which was verified in the Jewish people, whose destruction was brought about by the division of the kingdom. But the Law should aim chiefly at things pertaining to the general well-being of the people. Therefore it should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided under two kings: nor should this have been introduced even by Divine authority; as we read of its being introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahias the Silonite (3 Kings 11:29, seqq.).
Obj. 4: Further, just as priests are instituted for the benefit of the people in things concerning God, as stated in Heb. 5:1; so are rulers set up for the benefit of the people in human affairs. But certain things were allotted as a means of livelihood for the priests and Levites of the Law: such as the tithes and first-fruits, and many like things. Therefore in like manner certain things should have been determined for the livelihood of the rulers of the people: the more that they were forbidden to accept presents, as is clearly stated in Ex. 23:8: "You shall not [Vulg.: 'Neither shalt thou'] take bribes, which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just."
Obj. 5: Further, as a kingdom is the best form of government, so is tyranny the most corrupt. But when the Lord appointed the king, He established a tyrannical law; for it is written (1 Kings 8:11): "This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons," etc. Therefore the Law made unfitting provision with regard to the institution of rulers.
_On the contrary,_ The people of Israel is commended for the beauty of its order (Num. 24:5): "How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O Jacob, and thy tents." But the beautiful ordering of a people depends on the right establishment of its rulers. Therefore the Law made right provision for the people with regard to its rulers.
_I answer that,_ Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in _Polit._ ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the _kingdom,_ where the power of government is vested in one; and _aristocracy,_ which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deut. 1:15): "I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers": so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deut. 1:13): "Let me have from among you wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.
Reply Obj. 1: This people was governed under the special care of God: wherefore it is written (Deut. 7:6): "The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be His peculiar people": and this is why the Lord reserved to Himself the institution of the chief ruler. For this too did Moses pray (Num. 27:16): "May the Lord the God of the spirits of all the flesh provide a man, that may be over this multitude." Thus by God's orders Josue was set at the head in place of Moses; and we read about each of the judges who succeeded Josue that God "raised . . . up a saviour" for the people, and that "the spirit of the Lord was" in them (Judges 3:9, 10, 15). Hence the Lord did not leave the choice of a king to the people; but reserved this to Himself, as appears from Deut. 17:15: "Thou shalt set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose."
Reply Obj. 2: A kingdom is the best form of government of the people, so long as it is not corrupt. But since the power granted to a king is so great, it easily degenerates into tyranny, unless he to whom this power is given be a very virtuous man: for it is only the virtuous man that conducts himself well in the midst of prosperity, as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 3). Now perfect virtue is to be found in few: and especially were the Jews inclined to cruelty and avarice, which vices above all turn men into tyrants. Hence from the very first the Lord did not set up the kingly authority with full power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them. But afterwards when the people asked Him to do so, being indignant with them, so to speak, He granted them a king, as is clear from His words to Samuel (1 Kings 8:7): "They have not rejected thee, but Me, that I should not reign over them."
Nevertheless, as regards the appointment of a king, He did establish the manner of election from the very beginning (Deut. 17:14, seqq.): and then He determined two points: first, that in choosing a king they should wait for the Lord's decision; and that they should not make a man of another nation king, because such kings are wont to take little interest in the people they are set over, and consequently to have no care for their welfare: secondly, He prescribed how the king after his appointment should behave, in regard to himself; namely, that he should not accumulate chariots and horses, nor wives, nor immense wealth: because through craving for such things princes become tyrants and forsake justice. He also appointed the manner in which they were to conduct themselves towards God: namely, that they should continually read and ponder on God's Law, and should ever fear and obey God. Moreover, He decided how they should behave towards their subjects: namely, that they should not proudly despise them, or ill-treat them, and that they should not depart from the paths of justice.
Reply Obj. 3: The division of the kingdom, and a number of kings, was rather a punishment inflicted on that people for their many dissensions, specially against the just rule of David, than a benefit conferred on them for their profit. Hence it is written (Osee 13:11): "I will give thee a king in My wrath"; and (Osee 8:4): "They have reigned, but not by Me: they have been princes, and I knew not."
Reply Obj. 4: The priestly office was bequeathed by succession from father to son: and this, in order that it might be held in greater respect, if not any man from the people could become a priest: since honor was given to them out of reverence for the divine worship. Hence it was necessary to put aside certain things for them both as to tithes and as to first-fruits, and, again, as to oblations and sacrifices, that they might be afforded a means of livelihood. On the other hand, the rulers, as stated above, were chosen from the whole people; wherefore they had their own possessions, from which to derive a living: and so much the more, since the Lord forbade even a king to have superabundant wealth to make too much show of magnificence: both because he could scarcely avoid the excesses of pride and tyranny, arising from such things, and because, if the rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much work and anxiety, it would not tempt the ambition of the common people; and would not become an occasion of sedition.
Reply Obj. 5: That right was not given to the king by Divine institution: rather was it foretold that kings would usurp that right, by framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who preyed on their subjects. This is clear from the context that follows: "And you shall be his slaves [Douay: 'servants']": which is significative of tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as though they were his slaves. Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them from asking for a king; since the narrative continues: "But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel." It may happen, however, that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal. ________________________
SECOND
*H According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee.
Ver. 8. Thee. He comforts Samuel, by observing that it was not so much any fault of his, as the people's habitual fickle temper, which made them seek for this change. M.
*H Now, therefore, hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right of the king, that shall reign over them.
Ver. 9. The right. That is, the manner (mishpat) after which he shall proceed, having no one to control him, when he has the power in his hands. Ch. — He intimates that the kings will frequently act in a tyrannical manner, v. 11. M. — But the holy Fathers observe, that herein they do what is unjust, and contrary to God's law. S. Gregory remarks, that Achab is punished for taking the vineyard of Naboth, (3 K. xxi.) while David will not take a piece of ground belonging to Ornan, even for an altar, without first paying a just price for it. 1 Par. xxi. 25. Some of these rights or customs are prohibited to the king. Deut. xvii. 16. It is true, kings enjoy great prerogatives above judges, but never contrary to the law. They cannot take their subjects' goods: but the latter are bound to contribute to the maintenance of government; and, if they refuse, may be compelled. If kings should be guilty of excesses, "yet them are not to be deposed by the people,...but must be tolerated with patience, peace, and meekness, till God, by his sovereign authority, left in his Church, dispose of them, which his divine wisdom and goodness often deferred to do, as here he expressly forewarneth, (v. 18) because he will punish the sins of the people by suffering evil princes to reign." Job xxxiv. 30. Conc. Later. c. iii. de hœret. W. See S. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 12. a. 2. — We may here also remark, that the people petitioned for a king, yet God made the choice; and, when he proved rebellious, selected another by the hand of Samuel, though he permitted the former to enjoy his dignity till death. C. xiii. and xxxi. H. — Grotius (Jur. i. 1. and 4.) maintains that Samuel here proposes the just rights of the king, and that the prince has a greater right to any one's personal property, for the public good, than he has himself. In effect, the eastern kings regarded their subjects as slaves. But those who governed the Hebrews were to follow a different conduct; and Samuel is so far from approving of what some of them would do, that he mentions their tyranny, in order to dissuade the people from what they so inconsiderately requested. C. — The misconduct of rulers, is one of the most trying inconveniences to which a nation can be exposed. In such circumstances, "bear, says a pagan historian, (H.) with the luxury and avarice of those who hold dominion, as with other natural evils. There will be vices as long as men subsist, but neither will these continue for ever, and they are compensated by the intervention of better things or men." Meliorum interventu pensantur. Tacit. — Grotius at last seems to conclude, (Sup. c. iv. p. 97) that the right of the king here specified is only apparent, in as much as it includes "the obligation of making no resistance." H.
*H And said: This will be the right of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen, to run before his chariots,
Ver. 11. Chariots; to be drivers, (M.) or will make them fight from them. — Footmen, or guards. Xenophon places 4000 armed with bucklers before, and 2000 with lances all round the chariot of Cyrus. See C. xxii. 17.
* Summa
*S Part 2, Ques 105, Article 1
[I-II, Q. 105, Art. 1]
Whether the Old Law Enjoined Fitting Precepts Concerning Rulers?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting precepts concerning rulers. Because, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 4), "the ordering of the people depends mostly on the chief ruler." But the Law contains no precept relating to the institution of the chief ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions concerning the inferior rulers: firstly (Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; again (Num. 11:16): "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel"; and again (Deut. 1:13): "Let Me have from among you wise and understanding men," etc. Therefore the Law provided insufficiently in regard to the rulers of the people.
Obj. 2: Further, "The best gives of the best," as Plato states (Tim. ii). Now the best ordering of a state or of any nation is to be ruled by a king: because this kind of government approaches nearest in resemblance to the Divine government, whereby God rules the world from the beginning. Therefore the Law should have set a king over the people, and they should not have been allowed a choice in the matter, as indeed they were allowed (Deut. 17:14, 15): "When thou . . . shalt say: I will set a king over me . . . thou shalt set him," etc.
Obj. 3: Further, according to Matt. 12:25: "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate": a saying which was verified in the Jewish people, whose destruction was brought about by the division of the kingdom. But the Law should aim chiefly at things pertaining to the general well-being of the people. Therefore it should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided under two kings: nor should this have been introduced even by Divine authority; as we read of its being introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahias the Silonite (3 Kings 11:29, seqq.).
Obj. 4: Further, just as priests are instituted for the benefit of the people in things concerning God, as stated in Heb. 5:1; so are rulers set up for the benefit of the people in human affairs. But certain things were allotted as a means of livelihood for the priests and Levites of the Law: such as the tithes and first-fruits, and many like things. Therefore in like manner certain things should have been determined for the livelihood of the rulers of the people: the more that they were forbidden to accept presents, as is clearly stated in Ex. 23:8: "You shall not [Vulg.: 'Neither shalt thou'] take bribes, which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just."
Obj. 5: Further, as a kingdom is the best form of government, so is tyranny the most corrupt. But when the Lord appointed the king, He established a tyrannical law; for it is written (1 Kings 8:11): "This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons," etc. Therefore the Law made unfitting provision with regard to the institution of rulers.
_On the contrary,_ The people of Israel is commended for the beauty of its order (Num. 24:5): "How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O Jacob, and thy tents." But the beautiful ordering of a people depends on the right establishment of its rulers. Therefore the Law made right provision for the people with regard to its rulers.
_I answer that,_ Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring, as stated in _Polit._ ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the _kingdom,_ where the power of government is vested in one; and _aristocracy,_ which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue: for it is written (Deut. 1:15): "I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers": so that there was an element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people; wherefore it is written (Deut. 1:13): "Let me have from among you wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.
Reply Obj. 1: This people was governed under the special care of God: wherefore it is written (Deut. 7:6): "The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be His peculiar people": and this is why the Lord reserved to Himself the institution of the chief ruler. For this too did Moses pray (Num. 27:16): "May the Lord the God of the spirits of all the flesh provide a man, that may be over this multitude." Thus by God's orders Josue was set at the head in place of Moses; and we read about each of the judges who succeeded Josue that God "raised . . . up a saviour" for the people, and that "the spirit of the Lord was" in them (Judges 3:9, 10, 15). Hence the Lord did not leave the choice of a king to the people; but reserved this to Himself, as appears from Deut. 17:15: "Thou shalt set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose."
Reply Obj. 2: A kingdom is the best form of government of the people, so long as it is not corrupt. But since the power granted to a king is so great, it easily degenerates into tyranny, unless he to whom this power is given be a very virtuous man: for it is only the virtuous man that conducts himself well in the midst of prosperity, as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 3). Now perfect virtue is to be found in few: and especially were the Jews inclined to cruelty and avarice, which vices above all turn men into tyrants. Hence from the very first the Lord did not set up the kingly authority with full power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them. But afterwards when the people asked Him to do so, being indignant with them, so to speak, He granted them a king, as is clear from His words to Samuel (1 Kings 8:7): "They have not rejected thee, but Me, that I should not reign over them."
Nevertheless, as regards the appointment of a king, He did establish the manner of election from the very beginning (Deut. 17:14, seqq.): and then He determined two points: first, that in choosing a king they should wait for the Lord's decision; and that they should not make a man of another nation king, because such kings are wont to take little interest in the people they are set over, and consequently to have no care for their welfare: secondly, He prescribed how the king after his appointment should behave, in regard to himself; namely, that he should not accumulate chariots and horses, nor wives, nor immense wealth: because through craving for such things princes become tyrants and forsake justice. He also appointed the manner in which they were to conduct themselves towards God: namely, that they should continually read and ponder on God's Law, and should ever fear and obey God. Moreover, He decided how they should behave towards their subjects: namely, that they should not proudly despise them, or ill-treat them, and that they should not depart from the paths of justice.
Reply Obj. 3: The division of the kingdom, and a number of kings, was rather a punishment inflicted on that people for their many dissensions, specially against the just rule of David, than a benefit conferred on them for their profit. Hence it is written (Osee 13:11): "I will give thee a king in My wrath"; and (Osee 8:4): "They have reigned, but not by Me: they have been princes, and I knew not."
Reply Obj. 4: The priestly office was bequeathed by succession from father to son: and this, in order that it might be held in greater respect, if not any man from the people could become a priest: since honor was given to them out of reverence for the divine worship. Hence it was necessary to put aside certain things for them both as to tithes and as to first-fruits, and, again, as to oblations and sacrifices, that they might be afforded a means of livelihood. On the other hand, the rulers, as stated above, were chosen from the whole people; wherefore they had their own possessions, from which to derive a living: and so much the more, since the Lord forbade even a king to have superabundant wealth to make too much show of magnificence: both because he could scarcely avoid the excesses of pride and tyranny, arising from such things, and because, if the rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much work and anxiety, it would not tempt the ambition of the common people; and would not become an occasion of sedition.
Reply Obj. 5: That right was not given to the king by Divine institution: rather was it foretold that kings would usurp that right, by framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who preyed on their subjects. This is clear from the context that follows: "And you shall be his slaves [Douay: 'servants']": which is significative of tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as though they were his slaves. Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them from asking for a king; since the narrative continues: "But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel." It may happen, however, that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal. ________________________
SECOND
*H And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and his centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots.
Ver. 12. Centurions, or body-guards. M. — These offices might be honourable, but at the same time disagreeable, when people were forced to accept of them, and to neglect their more pleasing agricultural employment. The multitude of officers increases the expenses of the prince, and falls heavy upon the people. C.
*H And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants.
Ver. 14. Vineyards, as Achab did, though he first proposed to buy it.
*H Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give to his eunuchs and servants.
Ver. 15. Tenth. God had already claimed one tithe, which he had abandoned to his sacred ministers. We do not read that the kings of the Hebrews ever claimed (C.) a second tithe precisely, (H.) though they might have done it by the example of other kings. Lev. xxvii. 30. Joseph had asserted the fifth part of the revenues of Egypt for its monarchs. Gen. xlvii. 26. — Eunuchs. Heb. saris, denotes an officer of the court. It was not lawful for the Israelites to make any eunuchs, but they might employ foreigners.
*H Your servants also, and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, he will take away, and put them to his work.
Ver. 16. Goodliest, in strength (C.) and beauty. M. — Solomon made his people work at his buildings, and David employed an officer in the fields, 1 Par. xxvii. 26. Sept. have read in a different manner. "He will tithe...your excellent droves of oxen." C. — They also specify, "the tithe of asses for his work." H.
*H Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants.
Ver. 17. Servants, or slaves. The Hebrews enjoyed greater liberty than any of the nations in the East, yet they are styled slaves. C. xvii. 8. They were nearly on the same footing as the ancient Germans. "Each governed in his own place of abode. The Lord requires of them a quantity of corn, cattle, or clothing, and so far the slave obeys;" servus hactenus paret. Tacit. Germ. The Hebrews were also bound to follow the king to battle. The Egyptians, Persians, &c. were under greater oppression. Herodotus (iii. 31,) informs us, that when Cambyses designed to marry his own sister, his counsellors replied, that they found no express law to this effect; but there was another, "that the king of Persia may do whatever he please." The highest officers, and even his brothers, were styled, "slaves, ∆ουλοι, of the great king." Arist. Mund.
*H And you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves: and the Lord will not hear you in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king.
Ver. 18. The face, privately; for even groans will not be free. M. — The event justified this prediction, as most of the kings of the Hebrews ruled like tyrants, and what was worse, engaged their subjects in idolatry, and drew down the heaviest judgments upon them. C. — Hear you, so as to deliver you from oppression, though he is always willing to hear those who truly repent. W.
*H But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, and they said, Nay: but there shall be a king over us,
Ver. 19. Over us. The populace is generally inconstant, and fond of changes. M.
*H And we also will be like all nations: and our king shall judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles for us.
Ver. 20. Nations. We are neither better nor worse than the rest. What extravagance! for a people to abandon a state of happiness, and the dominion of God, and to prefer the service of a man! C. — For us. This was the pretext, as Naas threatened them with war. C. xii. 12. M.