Samuel, in 1st Samuel, chooses Saul to be king over Israel.
And it is interesting to hear that Samuel, the chosen priest, still cannot keep his family in order. Just like his predecessor, he fails to communicate goodwill and obedience to God’s laws to his children.
God gives strange comfort to Samuel: it is not you that they have rejected, it is Me. Does this mean that Samuel could not have done otherwise? Or still, that the testimony of his house was insufficient for the neighbours and the nation to understand that God was their king alright.
And then, that matter of king altogether: God is the ruler of everyone. The high king, one might say. Why would then anybody need another, the low king? There might be two answers, or even three here: 1) people would expect the low king to be more accessible that God; 2) people would estimate the low king to be more easy to manipulate; 3) People want something tangible, instead of the Invisible Supreme Entity.
As it often is with the fulfillment of wishes, the wish is granted, but also the consequences become unavoidable: the low king, though tangible enough, refuses to be manipulated and be accessible. The king becomes the epitome of the nation for God, and the epitome of God for the nation. All the responsibility and hardly any rights. He takes the tithes, he takes the people for his needs, and actually becomes a drain on the resources of the nation.
Taking this up one level into a person’s life, are there any things that become ‘low kings’ in my world? Things, not evil in themselves, yet acting as mediators or shutters between me and God? Demanding a tithe of my resources? Pretending to be of divine origin? I must research this issue.