We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
Did God Want a King for Israel?
By the time God was ready to form a nation for himself by delivering the Israelites from the oppressive rule of the Egyptian Pharaoh, every nation was ruled by someone and existed in tension with, and often at war with, other nations. Yet, it’s clear from the biblical narrative that God originally wanted Israel to be an exception to this. Functioning as a microcosm of humanity, and as part of their priestly-servant role to other nations, it seems God wanted to manifest his original plan for humanity by raising up a nation that had no need of a human king, for they had God as their king. According to the biblical narrative, this is how it was for the first several hundred years after their deliverance from Egypt. Moreover, throughout the OT we find the Lord commanding his people to place no trust in human rulers, weapons or armies, but to rather find all their security in him.
This claim has sometimes been countered by appealing to Deuteronomy 17 in which the Lord gives instructions through Moses about the kind of king the Israelites should choose once they are established in the land he was giving them (Deut. 17:14-20). I contend that this passage, placed as it is within the wilderness narrative, actually confirms that God allowed Israel to have a king only as a concession to their sin. This passage recounts Moses prophesying that once the people “have taken possession” and “settled in” the land, they would say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us” (Deut 17:14). Note, it is the people who will demand a king, and they will do so precisely to be like all the other nations, in direct contradiction to the set-apart holiness that Yahweh had called them to.
Given that God foreknew this, this passage presents him as acquiescing to give instructions ahead of time about the kind of king they should appoint and the kind of safeguards they should place around him. Yahweh specifies, through Moses, that the king should be an Israelite (vs. 16); he shouldn’t acquire many wives (vs. 17); he shouldn’t acquire a great number of horses (viz. military power) or accumulate a great deal of wealth (vs. 17); he should have his own copy of the law and study it daily (vss. 18-19), and, most interestingly, he should never be regarded as “better than his fellow Israelites” (vs. 20).
What’s important for us to notice is that, had the Israelites followed these instructions, their kings would have looked and acted completely different from the rulers of other nations. Hence, even with the divine concession to allow Israel to have a king, Israel still would have provided a stark contrast with other nations and thereby preserved some of its distinctive witness to the singular Lordship of Yahweh to other nations. It seems evident, then, that in this passage Yahweh is simply trying to minimize ahead of time damage that his people’s insistence on having a king would bring to his goal of using them as servant priests to the world.
Image by trainjason via Flickr.
Category: General
Tags: Divine Accommodation, Moses, Old Testament, Power
Topics: Enemy-Loving Non-Violence
Verse: Deuteronomy 17
Related Reading
Do the Gospels Fabricate Prophetic Fulfillment?
Skeptically-inclined scholars, and especially critics of Christianity, frequently argue that the Gospel authors created mythological portraits of Jesus largely on the basis of OT material they claim Jesus “fulfilled.” In other words, they surveyed the OT and fabricated stories about how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies. In response, it’s hard to deny that there are certain…
When the Law Demanded the Death Penalty
The Sinai covenant is significantly structured around violence. It motivates behavioral conformity by promising rewards and threatening violence. Without the threat of violence, the law looses its “teeth.” If the law is an acquiescence to sin, then the divinely sanctioned violence that is associated with it must also be considered an acquiescence to sin. The…
Sin-Bearing God
On the cross, God became our sin, as Paul wrote: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor 5:21). However, God didn’t begin to be a sin-bearing God when Jesus walked the earth and hung on the cross. Rather he became Incarnate and bore our sins on the cross…
The Cross in the Manger, Part 2
While some shepherds were tending their flock, an angel appeared to them announcing “good news that will cause great joy for all the people,” for it news about “a Savior…the Messiah, the Lord” (Lk 2:10-11). Most Jews of this time expected a Messiah who would save them by vanquishing their Roman oppressors and liberating Israel…
Did God Give Violent Laws? A Response to Paul Copan (#13)
In his critique of Crucifixion of the Warrior God (CWG) at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting in November, Paul Copan takes issue with my contention that the violent dimension of OT laws reflects God accommodating the fallen and culturally conditioned perspectives of his people at this time. In my view, God was stooping to…
The Problem with Mixing Church & Government
Image by fusion-of-horizons via Flickr Some people insist that the only reason that neither Jesus nor anyone else in the first several centuries of the church tried to dominate the political system of their day was because they were a small minority of people living in a nondemocratic and hostile environment. By contrast, the argument goes,…