Old Testament

The Books of Samuel

Judge of Prophecy – Discussion Questions

Questions for reflection:
1. The stories of Eli and Samuel illustrate the tendency for families who inherit leadership roles to succumb to corruption. Is this problem endemic to political leadership?

2. What were the pros and cons of kingship? Why did the people opt for it, even when they were warned of its costs?

3. Is Samuel’s objection to the kingship based on concern for the people or on his own reluctance to relinquish power?

Comment below or engage with fellow learners in the forum to discuss these topics.

Join Us

Create an account to enroll in our free courses, track your progress and take part in the discussion

Take notes on this lesson

One Note

  1. O.G.

    1. Lord Acton said it, and it applies to any form of leadership, inherited or not. Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. The tendency toward corruption in inherited leadership is probably greater, as the check of elections is missing.

    2. Kingships imply a state. The state must be protected, and the king, as the embodiment of the state must be revered, as well as protected. Suddenly, treason becomes a concept, and the possibility of abuse of power is strengthened. On the other hand, if the king is not a despot, possibilities for justice are enhanced. The people have a central authority to guide their commerce and relationships. Eventually, the nation and its rulers become ensconced, and are seen as a necessary evil.

    3. I don’t think Samuel had all that much power. Power would be consolidated with a king and his government. I think Samuel was concerned for his people losing touch with G-d, becoming subjugated to temporal rule, and victims of oppression.