It was a sin in Israel to seek a king: it was of the Lord that they sought a king. By asking a king they virtually rejected God as their king: yet the king of Israel is eminently a type of the King Messiah. God, then, can bring about his purposes by the free actions of sinful men. Saul, in the divine sovereignty, is to be made king of Israel; and to bring this about, the sons of Samuel are no£ like their father. They are corrupt in judging, and they take bribes of the people. In consequence, Israel asks a king, and God commands Samuel to give them a king. Had Samuel's sons been like himself, the people would not have asked a king. Why, then, did not Providence prevent this occasion of sin to his people? Why did his Providence lay this stumbling-block before them? If he designed to give them a king, why did he not give them a king in a way that would have presented them with no occasion of rejecting himself as king? God designed to show what rebellion was in them, and his Providence manifests this, even in the way of fulfilling his own purposes, which coincide with theirs. Here is sovereignty.
Comments
Your comment has been submitted and is awaiting moderation. Once approved, it will appear on this page.
Be the first to comment!