02_Walton_179_200_179_200 10/07/15 11:58 Pagina 190 190 JONATHAN H. WALTON 190 (Deut 28,36). As Klein rightly observes, “[Deuteronomy 17] also refers to a ‘king like the nations’ but it is difficult to tell whether this expression [1 Sam 8,5] expresses a negative evaluation or whether it merely takes cognizance of the fact that kingship was a relatively late institution in Israel” 55. The term used by Gideon in Judg 8,23 (māšal) appears nowhere in the Pentateuch in reference to God either. If the structure of government is so critical, should there not be more information about it? The case would be stronger if the desire to be “like the nations” was presented along with a diverse list, or even no list at all; instead, they only ask for a single item (a king) to do a very specific thing (judge/rule us and fight our wars). Thus, it is unclear from the context whether the comparison with the nations refers to the kind of nation they want to be, or to the kind of autarch they want to have. All of this is of course circumstantial; the strongest evidence that this interpretation is flawed comes from the manner in which the elders make their request. Commentators disagree on whether the request is well warranted due to the political needs of the time and/or the impending failure of Samuel’s sons 56, or whether it is inappropriate given the demonstrated success of the judgeship model in ch. 7 57. What is undisputed, however, is that the elders come and present their request to Samuel, YHWH’s judge, priest, and prophet. If they really desired to be free of their judge and free of their God, why would they bother to ask their judge for permis- sion from their God? If a new judge-free government is what they want, they can simply ignore Samuel and nominate a warlord, like 55 KLEIN, Samuel, 75. 56 So FIRTH, Samuel, 113; AULD, Samuel, 93; DIETRICH, Samuel 1, 357; BERGEN, Samuel, 112; KLEIN, Samuel, 79; ESLINGER, Kingship, 255. Stoebe partially agrees, but he notes that the circumstance would only warrant a differ- ent judge, not necessarily a king: “Das Versagen der Söhne könnte streng genommen nur den Wunsch nach einem neuen Richter, nicht nach einem König begründen” (H.J. STOEBE, Das erste Buch Samuelis [KAT VIII.1; Gü- tersloh 1973] 182). 57 So TSUMURA, Samuel, 248; GORDON, Samuel, 110; MCCARTER, Samuel, 160 (“the pre-monarchical institutions are presented in this material as ade- quate, even ideal”). Weiser presents a sort of middle ground: the judgeship under Samuel was ideal, but is now doomed to failure because of Samuel’s sons; see A. WEISER, Samuel, seine geschichtliche Aufgabe und religiöse Be- deutung (FRLANT; Göttingen 1962) 30.