Jude 5 says that Jesus saved Israel out of Egypt and destroyed those who did not believe (I’m thinking the Egyptians at the Red Sea). Also, the angel of the Lord, there’s Jesus again, led the battle to conquer the promised land in Joshua. If you delivered a people from their oppressors while destroying the oppressors and conquered the land that people settled in, then wouldn’t you be the king of that people? So, could we say, in some sense, that Jesus was Israel’s king?
During the period of the judges, Israel was between periods of attack and relative peace. Towards the end of this period, Israel looked at Samuel’s sons, who took bribes. I can imagine Israel thinking these sons would be next in line to judge. So, they asked Samuel to put a king over them. They wanted a visible, tangible king that would make them like every other nation. Perhaps they hoped they could establish a more permanent peace with this king.
Samuel didn’t like the idea. But, God said to Israel have their king. They were rejecting him, not Samuel. So, in a sense, wasn’t Israel rejecting Jesus as king?
The rest of the Old Testament shows nothing good happened as a result of Israel rejecting God’s sovereignty. Basically, the result was a lot of violence.
The same is true for us when we reject Jesus, the Prince of Peace, as king today. According to James, it is from our lustful desires, ultimately a rejection of Jesus’ sovereignty so that we can rule, that all strife and war come.