The institution of judges, represented at its final stage by Samuel, starts to decline and eventually disappears. The reasons for this decline are briefly summarized: Samuel appointed his sons as judges, but they did not follow his example. Focused only on their interests, they accepted bribes and ruled unfairly (1-3).
The book presents two conflicting views of the monarchical system: Samuel opposes the people’s request, saying that Israel must have the Lord as its only king and rely on Him. He warns that the monarchy will turn against the people. Samuel explains what having a king means: slavery, not freedom. But is Samuel exaggerating? A human mediator does not replace God’s sovereignty. The king is supposed to defend the people from the arrogance of the powerful, guarantee justice, and protect them in war. This supports the opposing view. The book shows that Samuel anointed him, the people approved him, and the king began his mission of salvation well.
To explain the presence of the two opposing views in the book, some suggest a timeline. During Solomon’s era, the positive version, favoring David, was written, expanding the “pre-monarchical” awareness seen at the end of Judges. As opposition among various prophets to different kings grew stronger, the hostile or critical perspective started to develop.