Essay --

Corey Schirmer An Appropriate Monarchy in Ancient Israel The Deuteronomistic literature of the Hebrew Bible seem to present opposite viewpoints on the topic of kingship. The pro platform presents the Davidic kingship in a very positive light, while other texts particularly 1 Samuel appear to be against the topic of kingship. Upon further evaluation, the institution of a monarchy in the Ancient Near East (ANE) was appropriate because it could provide stability to Israel. On the other hand the monarchy was not appropriate because it was a clear rejection of God. A kingship is not inherently evil, but the people’s request for a human as king showed a complete lack of faith in God as the primary ruler of his people. When examining Deuteronomy, the â€Å"law of the king† provides more information on what a king cannot do as a monarch. Most of what is outlined in these laws restricts royal authority and the monarch is subject to them. Some of these laws were things that later kings (even under the Davidic kingship) were guilty of committing. The first king of the Davidic Kingship (David) held multiple wives and even sent a soldier (Uriah) to his own death (New Oxford Annotated Bible, 2 Samuel 11:24). David was not perfect and screwed up many times, but his heart was for the Lord. And the Lord formally appointed the Israelite King as an instrument of his rule. No matter how much these kings screwed up they were still held in good standing because God viewed them as the closest thing to himself. This is what God intended the kingship of Israel to represent. A king that is not above the covenant. A monarchy could be beneficial in many ways. Most of the pro platform displayed in 1 Samuel shows us that a king can provide leadership ... ...was their expectations for a king like all the other nations. This king would impose practices that would limit personal freedom and eventually lead to the abuse of power. After examining the disdain that a kingship brought to God. It seems as though a king would not be beneficial to Israel. In the right context, a king that was appointed by God to lead under his covenant would benefit the people because it would bring stability to Israel. The right leader is a human being that is still in need of divine help. The Israelite king is an instrument of divine justice and the icon of God’s universal rule. The king will lead the army in the name of God and defeats the Lord’s enemies. A kingship is not inherently evil. The appropriate king would be one after God’s own heart, while a non-appropriate king would be one that abuses power and leads the people of Israel astray.