02_Walton_179_200_179_200 10/07/15 11:58 Pagina 182 182 JONATHAN H. WALTON 182 luctantly (or vindictively) replacing his original sociopolitical ideal of [blank] with the poorly-considered request for “monarchy” and simply making do for the rest of the Bible is a common theme among commentators. From Bergen: “In a move that would deter- mine the shape of Israel’s history from that day forward [...] the Lord acceded to their will. A troubling future for Israel was thus assured” 10. Polzin agrees: “Because of the ideological clarity of chapter 8, the reader is allowed no doubt about the intrinsic evil of kingship” 11. McCarter compares the transition from judgeship to monarchy to the expulsion from paradise in Genesis 3, and cites 1 Samuel 7 as the depiction of the alternative ideal 12. More nuanced but still speculative is Gordon: “In explanation of why the monar- chy failed despite being under divine auspices [...] the institution came not as a gift, but as a concession from Yahweh” 13. In context, this “failure” means “failure to prevent idolatry” despite the fact that the text explicitly describes this failure as a well-established trend under all of the previous “theocratic” regimes (v. 8), and, while it is true that idolatry is common among the kings, we will note that Saul, the exemplar of monarchical failure, is not an idol- ator 14. Gordon emphasizes that even the request for monarchy is an example of this failure 15, but if the failure is the fault of the governing institution, is judgeship not just as fallible as monarchy? Or, modus tollens, if the failure is not due to the judge, as YHWH assures Samuel it is not (v. 7, also 12,4), nor to the institution of judgeship (the “theocratic ideal” that the elders supposedly reject), how can failure under monarchy be considered the fault of the monarchy 16? deliberate choice of this form of government, Israel would have to live with its restricting demands”. BALDWIN, 1 & 2 Samuel, 84. 10 BERGEN, Samuel, 116. 11 R. POLZIN, Samuel and the Deuteronomist (San Francisco, CA 1989) 88. 12 P.K. MCCARTER, 1 Samuel (AB; Garden City, NY 1980) 160-161. See also HERTZBERG, Samuel, 72. 13 R.P. GORDON, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI 1986) 110. 14 D.M. GUNN, The Fate of King Saul (JSOTSS 14; Sheffield 1980) 38. 15 See GORDON, Samuel, 110: “The people of Israel are chafing at God’s exercise of his sovereign rights over them just as they have been inclined to do since the time of the Exodus”. 16 See KLEIN, 1 Samuel, 74. “Later prophetic critique against social in- equalities does not blame the king for them”.