CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES—
1 Samuel 8:1. “When Samuel was old.” Many expositors consider that he was now about sixty years of age, others that he was not more than fifty-four. It is plain that he lived for some time after this, and continued to exercise his judgeship. “He made his sons judges,” etc. “The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel’s sons as judges is his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan” (Keil).
1 Samuel 8:2. “The name of his firstborn was Joel,” etc. “These names may be taken as indications of the father’s pious feeling. The first, Joel, ‘Jehovah is God,’ was, not improbably, a protest against the idolatry of the Israelites. The name of the second son, Abiah, ‘Jehovah is father,’ expresses trust in the fatherhood of God, an idea which hardly appears in the Old Testament except in proper names” (Translator of Lange’s Commentary). “Abiah records doubtless the fervent aspiration of him who devised it as a name, and, we may hope, of many who subsequently adopted it after that endearing and intimate relationship between God and the soul of man, which is truly expressed by the words father and child. It may be accepted as a proof that believers in ancient days, though they had not possession of the perfect knowledge of ‘the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ,’ or of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless ‘received the spirit of adoption,’ that God ‘sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, whereby they cried Abba, Father’ ” (Wilkinson’s Personal Names in the Bible).
1 Samuel 8:3. “His sons walked not in his ways.” “The question may arise, why Samuel was not punished, as Eli, for the misconduct of his sons? But the answer is obvious. Not only was the offence of Samuel’s sons of a far less heinous criminality, but Samuel might not know, owing to this distance of Beersheba, anything of their delinquency” (Jamieson).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— 1 Samuel 8:1-3
SAMUEL THE FATHER
Samuel has been called the second Moses of Hebrew history, but though their personal character and their life-work were very much alike, there are some striking contrasts in their individual history. Moses, for instance, was not called to begin his great life-work until he was older than Samuel was at the period of his history to which these verses refer, while this latter servant of God entered upon his special service while he was a child. But he who came last retained his bodily vigour much longer, for at the age of one hundred and twenty years “his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated” (Deuteronomy 34:7), while Samuel, when not more than half so old, began to feel the infirmities of age. Moses continued physically fit for service, yet was forbidden by God to serve longer. Samuel became unfit for active service, and yet was permitted to continue it. Both were compelled, the one by Divine command, the other by bodily infirmity, to hand over their work to others, but Moses is happy in finding a suitable successor, while Samuel is obliged to delegate his authority to those who are very unfit to exercise it. Thus the life of the great law-giver and that of the first of the prophets remarkably illustrate the variety of God’s dealings with his servants, and lead us to exclaim, when we contemplate His providential leadings, “His ways are past finding out” (Romans 11:33). The verses teach us—
I. That time is no respecter of character. Samuel grew infirm although he was so good. Character is by far the most important thing on earth as well as in heaven, yet the greatest saint as much as the greatest sinner realises in his own experience that “the creature is made subject to vanity” (Romans 8:20). In this respect Samuel, the elect servant of God, was no more highly favoured than the most ungodly man in the kingdom of Israel. The “outer man” of one as well as of the other was “perishing day by day” (2 Corinthians 4:16).
II. But the fact that it is so shows the necessity for the full adoption of the body. (Romans 8:23). It must be shown that God is a respecter of persons. That the same destiny should await the body of a saint, which has been an instrument of righteousness, and that of a sinner, which has been altogether devoted to the service of sin, does not accord with our conception of the justice of God. There is that within us which demands that, at some time or other, there should be some difference made, and God in His revealed word tells us that there will be. The body of the saint will have an adoption-day—it will be redeemed from the curse of sin (Romans 8:23), and will be “fashioned like unto the glorious body” of the Son of God (Philippians 3:21).
III. Family life is consistent with the highest spiritual attainments and the most devoted spiritual service. Samuel the prophet of God was a husband and father. The highest ideal of man is not that of a solitary creature bound by no human ties, and fulfilling none of the social duties of life. But the most perfect manhood is that which is developed first of all in the head of a house-hold as the father of a family. When God first created man He did not consider him complete until he became a social head, and it is as true now as it was then that a man is not developed on all sides of his character until he takes the position for which God evidently intended him, and fulfils the duties which belong to that position. And this being so, it is obvious that such a life is no hindrance to a man’s spiritual growth and to his most entire devotion to the service of God. No man in Hebrew history stands before Samuel in purity of life or singleness of aim; no man, excepting perhaps Moses, was more honoured by God as an intercessor on behalf of others, or was more entirely devoted to the highest welfare of his people, yet he was the head of a household, he was a husband and a father. And if we look back upon the history of the Church of God, we shall find that the greater number of her most devoted servants have not been monks and nuns, but husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.
IV. The most godly men cannot transmit their godliness to their children. Samuel’s sons “walked not in his ways.” There were several reasons which we should have supposed would lead them to do so. From their earliest days they had been witnesses of their father’s godly life, and nothing is more powerful than a good example. Yet in this case it had no influence; all Samuel’s integrity was unable to win his sons to the practice of justice. Then there was the position of responsibility in which they were placed. That they held a position in the nation which was only second to that of their father was favourable to the transmission of the virtues which he had displayed as judge of Israel. But this was not the case. We cannot doubt that they also enjoyed the blessing of a father’s prayers and instruction. If Samuel was in the habit of bringing all Israel before God in prayer, it is certain that he did not omit to make special intercession for his own children; if he ceased not to instruct and warn the entire nation, it is most unlikely that he failed to acquaint his children with the law of God—with His dealings with the nation in the past—with the judgment that he had been called to foretell concerning the sons of Eli, and with the great promises which had been made to Israel if they were faithful to their privileges. But he finds himself confronted with the fact that a holy seed is born, not of the blood of prophets, nor of the will of man, but of God. Great as are the moral advantages of being born into a godly family, more than the mere fact of being so born, and of being surrounded by every holy influence, is needed to subdue the will of fallen man, and make him a servant of God.
OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS
1 Samuel 8:1. Samuel began his acquaintance with God early, and continued it long; he began it in his long coats, and continued to his grey hairs: he judged Israel all the days of his life. God doth not use to put off His old servants, their age endeareth them to Him the more; if we be not unfaithful to Him, He cannot be unconstant to us.—Bishop Hall.
1 Samuel 8:3. It is amazing how this sin of covetousness perverts the moral faculties. Gold, unlawfully got, sears the conscience. Some of the loftiest minds have been degraded by this sin. Perhaps there was not a greater man in his own age, or in any age, than Lord Bacon. He is the father of modern philosophy, and revolutionised the inquiries of the schools.… His works must ever be read with profit, and they contain a vast store of wisdom expressed in the most felicitous language. Yet, strange to relate, Lord Bacon was one of the most unscrupulous lawyers, and one of the most disreputable judges that ever sat upon the English bench.… This philosopher, who had written so much in praise of virtue, was impeached by the House of Commons, and found guilty of receiving bribes to the amount of £100,100! “This glimpse of the rise and fall of a great man,” says Dr. Tweedie, “proclaims aloud the insufficiency of all but the grace and truth of God to keep a man morally erect.—Steel.
Perhaps Israel had never thought of a king, if Samuel’s sons had not been unlike their father. Who can promise himself holy children, when the loins of a Samuel and the education in the temple yielded monsters? It is not likely that good Samuel was faulty in that indulgence for which his own mouth had denounced God’s judgments against Eli; yet this holy man succeeds Eli in his cross, as well as in his place, though not in his sin; and is afflicted with a wicked succession. God will let us find that grace is by gift, not by inheritance. I fear Samuel was too partial to nature in the surrogation of his sons. I do not hear of God’s allowance to this act; if this had been God’s choice as well as his, it had been like to have received more blessing.… Even the best heart may be blinded by affection.—Bp. Hall.
I. The children of good men do not always walk in their parents’ ways. It was not the peculiar affliction of Samuel.… It was early seen that grace was not hereditary. In the family of Adam, there was a Cain, a murderer; in that of Noah, a Ham, who mocked his father; in that of Abraham, an Ishmael, a scoffer at religion; in that of Isaac, a profane Esau. An incestuous Reuben, and a bloody Simeon and Levi, distressed the heart of good old Jacob; two drunkards, Nadab and Abihu, were found in the family of Aaron, “the saint of God;” and Hophni and Phinehas brought disgrace and ruin upon the house of Eli.…
II. The frequent recurrence of this fact need excite no surprise in those who believe in the corruptions of human nature and the sovereignty of Divine Grace.… The children of the godly are “by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” … Something more is necessary than parents can confer, a change of heart, which God alone can accomplish.…
III. Causes why the children of godly parents do not often walk in their parents’ ways. Although this is to be accounted for by the corruption of human nature, there are certain subordinate causes.…
1. The untender and uncircumspect conversation of parents.… They will more readily copy what is bad in your example, than what is good and praiseworthy.… the bad example will be followed, the good advice neglected.
2. Faults in their education. Such as unjust partiality, as in that of Isaac for Esau, and of Rebekah for Jacob.… Or undue indulgence, which seems to have been the error of David, and the ruin of his son Adonijah.… Excessive severity is an error not less fatal, and perhaps as common.
3. The influence of bad company and bad example in others. The ruin of multitudes has proceeded from want of caution in this matter.—Peddie.
1 Samuel 8:4. The unanimity of the people, even as exemplified in their desire for a king, was a result of Samuel’s activity. His former activity was an excellent preparation for royalty. The consciousness of religious and civil union was powerfully re-awakened by his means. An able king had only to reap what he had sown.—Hengstenberg.