Samuel's attitude toward the idea of choosing a king and establishing secular rule is not simply skeptical, but sharply negative. And God confirms his position, telling His servant that by wanting to choose a king for themselves, His people reject not so much Samuel as Him, their God.
What is this: God's providence or the ideology of the leaders of the early prophetic movement? Both. Today no scholar of the Bible doubts that the spiritual leaders of the prophetic communities in the era of the first kings had a sharply negative attitude toward secular statehood, considering it a pagan invention, unsuitable and unnecessary for the people of God. Their ideal was theocracy: the authority of a charismatic leader guided by God. Such leaders, who in those times were called "judges," were usually closely connected with the prophetic milieu.
But the matter is not only Samuel's position or that of other early prophetic leaders. The Bible in general treats secular power very cautiously. And the point here is that, from the point of view of the authors of all or almost all biblical books, good power in the fallen world cannot exist by definition; it can be either bad or very bad.
The trouble, however, is that theocracy too has a tendency to degenerate either into anarchy or into hierocracy, when leaders of one or another religious community take the place of a charismatic leader, some of whom truly acted by the will of God, and pass off their personal or corporate interest as the will of God. And then fallen secular power in the fallen world turns out to be the lesser of two evils. It does, of course, commit no little evil, and can commit infinitely much if it is not limited. But at least it does not claim that it is committing it in the name of God.
