Contradiction with 1 Samuel 8:7
This verse demonstrates God telling Samuel to heed the voice of the people, suggesting God’s approval for their request, which contradicts the displeasure indicated in 1 Samuel 8:15 about the burden a king would impose.
1 Samuel 8:7: And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
Contradiction with 1 Samuel 12:13
This reference acknowledges the people's demand for a king as their choice which God grants, contrasting with the warning of harsh treatment from a king in 1 Samuel 8:15.
1 Samuel 12:13: Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, [and] whom ye have desired! and, behold, the LORD hath set a king over you.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 17:14-15
These verses stipulate that appointing a king is a part of God’s plan, which contradicts the warning tone of oppression by a king’s rule in 1 Samuel 8:15.
Deuteronomy 17:14-15: When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
Contradiction with Acts 13:21
Here, Saul is given to the people as their king at their request, contrasting with the portrayal of kingship as burdensome taxation in 1 Samuel 8:15.
Acts 13:21: And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.
Paradox #1
1 Samuel 8:15 mentions the king taking a tenth of the people's grain and vineyards. Historically, this could contradict the image of a king as a benevolent leader, as it suggests taxation for personal gain. This idea of a king demanding a tithe could conflict with earlier Israelite values of communal sharing and equality among tribes.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict in this verse might arise from the tension between the concept of fairness and the imposition of authority. On one hand, a leader taking a portion of people's goods could be seen as unfair and burdensome, especially if it benefits only the ruling class. On the other hand, some might argue that a leader needs resources to govern effectively. This can create a conflict between the principles of equitable treatment and the practical needs of governance.