David M. Howard, Jr.
The issue of God's attitude toward the human institution of kingship in Israel is one concerning which the Biblical texts appear -- on the surface -- to be ambiguous. On the one hand, God blessed the monarchy, and he even chose a kingly line from which to appear in human form. An impressive theology of kingship can be traced throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament. On the other hand, we read in several texts in 1 Samuel about Samuel's and God's displeasure over the Israelites' request for a king, and it appears that God's granting of a king is a second-best concession to the people's sinful request, much in the way that Moses permitted divorce as a concession to the people's hardness of heart (Matt. 19:8).
However, this analogy is not a good one, since God did not bless and use divorce the way he did the institution of kingship. Furthermore, the prevailing pictures of the idea of monarchy in the Old Testament are consistently positive ones; it is difficult to accept the fact that this view of the monarchy was a concession to a second-best ideal. The answer to the apparent tension in the Biblical texts is rather to be sought in the reasons for Israel's request for a king, and not in the question of whether God intended for there to be a king in Israel at all.
A recent work by Gerald E. Gerbrandt points the way toward the resolution of this issue. His contention is that the view in what is commonly called the Deuteronomistic History of the institution of kingship in Israel is essentially a favorable one, not a negative one, as is commonly supposed. The real issue in the Biblical texts is what kind of monarchy was to exist or to be exercised, not whether Israel should have a monarchy or not.
Gerbrandt's basic thesis is that the king was "to lead Israel by being the covenant administrator; then he could trust Yahweh to deliver. At the heart of this covenant was Israel's obligation to be totally loyal to Yahweh." The godly king was to lead the people in worship and in keeping covenant, and to trust in YHWH to fight Israel's battles. The true reason for the disapproval of the people's request for a king in 1 Samuel 8 was because they wanted a king "like all the nations" (8:5, 20), who would "go out before us and fight our battles" (8:20). Those kings who were the closest to the ideal -- David, Hezekiah, and Josiah -- were ones whom the texts especially emphasize as trusting in YHWH and keeping the Law.
The view here is that Gerbrandt has had good success in presenting his case. His thesis provides a compelling argument in its harmonizing of those texts within the Deuteronomistic History that have appeared on the surface to be anti-kingship and those that are clearly pro-kingship. Since it is the texts within this corpus that appear to be the most anti-kingship, his solution effectively resolves the tension mentioned above.
Gerbrandt's interest was limited to the Deuteronomistic History, and thus he did not consider texts elsewhere. However, when other Old Testament texts are considered, the issue becomes even more clear. It is apparent that, from the beginning, God had designs for kings in the lineage of Abraham. This essay is intended to support the thesis that all the Biblical texts that speak to the issue are pro-kingship. Any the texts that appear to be anti-kingship are dealing with the motivations behind the requests for it or with aspects of its exercise, and not questioning the legitimacy of its existence.
The survey here will cover the narrative corpus in the Protestant canon that is not part of the Deuteronomistic History -- i.e., Genesis through Numbers, Ruth, and Chronicles through Esther -- as well as the Psalms, with an eye toward highlighting the writers' attitudes toward the institution of kingship. The texts prior to the Deuteronomistic History present the earliest history of God's dealings, and they show kingship in Israel to be one of his intended blessings on his people and the nations at least from patriarchal times. The remaining texts in this survey all were written in times when the establishment of the kingship was a fait accompli. They serve to link Israel's monarchy with the early promises and generally to present the monarchy --and the idea of monarchy -- in a favorable light.
I. The Pentateuch
The topic of kingship is not a major one in the Pentateuch, which is understandable, since the monarchy was not established until several hundred years after the events therein. However, when the issue is addressed, the institution is presented as a positive thing. The "Charter for Kingship" passage in Deuteronomy 17 aside, the major texts in the Pentateuch that speak to kingship are in Genesis and Numbers.
A. Genesis:
It is significant that -- from the very beginning -- the promise of kings was given to the patriarchs. On three different occasions, God included kings as a blessing -- along with the other blessings -- upon Abraham and his family:
These references are not merely predictions of the (negative) state of affairs that would obtain at some later time. Rather, they are part and parcel of the good things -- the blessings -- that God intended to confer upon Abraham's line.
In the Testament of Jacob, a "royal" promise to Judah is found in the well-known scepter prophecy (Gen. 49:10):
The scepter (sëbet) shall not depart from Judah,
nor the ruler's staff (mehöqëq) from between his feet,
until he comes to whom it belongs;
and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.
Almost all commentators and translations see this as a royal (or messianic) prophecy, by translating sëbet as "scepter" and mehöqëq as "ruler's staff," and by noting the royal imagery in vv. 10b*, 11-12.
The evidence of royal imagery in the passage includes the following: (1) v. 10ba, which depicts a ruler's arrival; (2) v. 10b*, where the obedience of the peoples is fit only for a king; (3) v. 11a, where the reference to the donkey anticipates the royal imagery of Zech. 9:9, in which the victorious king comes riding on a donkey (and cf., of course, the NT references to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on a donkey, Mt. 21:1-9 and parallels); (4) the language throughout vv. 10b*, 11-12 -- and, indeed, all of vv. 8-12 -- is typical of a royal oracle, in promising peace, prosperity, and uncontested dominion.
Given the context, the translation of sëbet and mehöqëq as "scepter" and "ruler's staff" is the most appropriate. It is true that sëbet can also be rendered simply as "rod." However, there is ample justification here for understanding it as a royal instrument. Aside from the general contextual argument, we should note that sëbet is parallel with mehöqëq, which in most cases has royal connotations. Sëbet carries royal connotations in several other passages, as well.
Subsequent texts confirm that this is royal leadership, since it is from Judah that the kingly line blessed by God eventually comes. This prophecy receives its initial fulfillment in David, of the tribe of Judah, and its ultimate fulfillment in the Christ, the son of David (Matthew 1).
B. Numbers:
Two references in Numbers -- in the Balaam oracles -- are relevant to the present discussion. The first is Num. 24:7:
Water shall flow from his [Israel's] buckets,
and his seed shall be in many waters,
his king shall be higher than Agag,
and his kingdom shall be exalted.
While the understanding of v. 7a is somewhat obscure, v. 7b is clear: it is a promise concerning the ascendancy of Israel's king over his enemies, and of his kingdom over theirs. As with the Genesis references, this prophecy is a promise of good things. It assumes Israel will have a king and a kingdom, and that their success is a blessing from God.
The second reference is Num. 24:17, another "scepter" prophecy:
... a star (kôkab) shall come forth out of Jacob,
and a scepter (sëbet) shall rise out of Israel....
Here again we see a clear royal promise to Israel, and most modern commentators and versions render sëbet as "scepter." The following context lists the various peoples over which Israel -- or Israel's star/scepter -- shall have ascendancy.
II. Ruth
The "royal" significance of the book of Ruth can be found primarily in the blessing of Boaz in 4:11-12 and in the Davidic genealogy at the conclusion of the book (4:18-22). Both serve to link David with Judah and the patriarchs.
The blessing on Boaz does this in at least three ways. First, it mentions two of Jacob's wives: Rachel and Leah (who was Judah's mother). Second, it includes Ephrathah and Bethlehem, which are first juxtaposed in Gen. 35:16-19, in connection with the death of Rachel and the birth of Benjamin, step-mother and brother of Judah, respectively. Third, it mentions Judah himself, the father of Perez by Tamar, who are also mentioned. Ruth herself is to be like all three of these patriarchal wives, who were mothers of a great lineage.
In the genealogy, the ancestry of David is traced from Perez to David, including Boaz, Ruth's husband. This serves to link the short genealogy in 4:17 with the mention of Perez in 4:12. The significance of Perez here is that he was the son of Judah.
Ruth and Boaz are thus pivotal figures in the Davidic line. The blessing in 4:11-12 shows us their ties with Judah, Tamar, and the patriarchs; the genealogies in 4:17, 18-22 show us their ties with David. The emphasis on the patriarchs as a whole serves to highlight the continuities between the Davidic and Abrahamic Covenants, particularly since nothing concerning Moses or the Mosaic Covenant is mentioned in the book. Since a royal heritage is promised to Judah in Jacob's blessing on him, the three lines of evidence in the blessing -- as well as the genealogy itself -- all remind us of the legitimacy of David's royal status by pointing us back to these two figures.
The significance of the Ruth genealogy also can be seen in that the names therein are likewise found in the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chr. 2:3-15 (see below), and they also appear in the Matthean and Lukan genealogies of Jesus Christ. Both of the latter include the names in the Ruth genealogy essentially intact, as well as those of the three patriarchs.
III. 1-2 Chronicles
There is virtually universal agreement in discussions of the issue that the books of Chronicles have David and the Davidic dynasty as a central theme or motif. Typical is R. North's comment, in a section entitled "Davidism": "The person and dynasty of David forms the heartbeat of all the Chronicler's theology," or that of P. R. Ackroyd:
The centrality of the David material ... appears from 1 Chron. 10 to 2 Chron. 9 explicitly, and implicitly also to the end of 2 Chron.... The elaboration of the Davidic genealogical material [1 Chronicles 1-9] ... would seem to point to an even greater concern with the Davidic ideal....
The work opens with a massive genealogical section which begins in chapter 1 with Adam and ends in chapter 9 with the post-exilic community. The shaping of these genealogies highlights the interest in Judah, the Davidic dynasty, and the institution by David of centralized worship at Jerusalem and the Temple. For instance, the introductory section (chapter 1) moves quickly from Adam to Jacob ("Israel"), and then the body of the genealogical section (chapters 2-8) focuses in depth upon Jacob's descendants, mostly from the pre-exilic period, and particularly from the time of David. It begins with a rapid survey of 12 generations between Judah and David (2:3-15), then moves to Davidic (3:1-24) and Judahite (4:1-23) genealogies proper before proceeding to list the other Israelite tribes, with an eye to showing that they all were a legitimate and loyal part of a united Israel. David, as the first king of a truly united Israel, and with whom the major narrative portions following the genealogies are preoccupied, is constantly in the background -- and sometimes explicitly mentioned -- even in these lists. The concluding section (9:1-34) is of the post-exilic Jerusalem community, particularly those involved in the Temple service that David had inaugurated. The lists here also serve to emphasize the continuity between the post-exilic people of God and pre-exilic "Israel."
David himself is the focus of the remainder of 1 Chronicles (chapters 10-29) and his son Solomon of the first part of 2 Chronicles (chapters 1-9). The remainder of the book focuses on the fortunes of the kingdom of Judah, the heir of the promises of the Davidic Covenant (chapters 10-36). In particular, the importance of David and Solomon as ones who established the Temple and the true cult in Jerusalem is an important theme in Chronicles.
Clearly here we see a positive view of the kingdom and the Davidic dynasty. David and Solomon were both chosen by God as his royal representatives in Israel, as were their descendants. The promises to David and Solomon were in perpetuity, and the work ends with a clear note of hope (2 Chron. 36:22-23), introducing the re-establishment of the centralized worship in Jerusalem that David and Solomon had initiated.
A question arises in Chronicles studies concerning whether the Chronicler had a "theocratic" or an "eschatological" perspective. If his perspective was theocratic, he would have seen the Davidic dynasty as failed, and thus of no abiding significance into the future, except in the roles of David and Solomon in establishing the cult and Temple worship, which were now to be regarded as the true expressions of God's rule. For most scholars who see the Chronicler as taking this position, the present order -- i.e., the end of the fifth century B.C., after the Ezra-Nehemiah reforms, when the Temple and the cult were now well established -- represented the culmination of past history and prophecy. An earthly king or kingdom was of no further value, since these had exhausted their usefulness in establishing the cult.
If the Chronicler had an eschatological perspective, he would have seen the Davidic dynasty as continuing beyond his own time, with an abiding significance in God's rule. In this understanding, the promises about the perpetuity of the dynasty were still in effect in the Chronicler's time, despite its absence from the political scene at the time. Most scholars who see the Chronicler as taking this position speak of a "Davidic messianism," the expectation that one day in the future a Davidic descendant would rise to re-establish the kingdom once again.
The resolution of this issue is not essential to the purpose of this paper, which is to show that God was in favor of the idea of a human king in Israel from the beginning and throughout its history. Both positions show the monarchy to be highly valued in Chronicles; only the reasons for its valuation differ.
However, the question does take on some significance in light of the plainly eschatological views of the Davidic line in the prophetic corpus, the Psalms, and the New Testament. Is the book of Chronicles outside the mainstream in this matter -- "at the very edge of the Canon," in Rudolph's arresting phrase? A majority would agree with Rudolph, based on what it perceives as a relatively closed view of the future in the book.
Many scholars, however, have argued that the Chronicler was indeed at least somewhat eschatological in outlook, and the view here is that they have had the better of the argument. Specifically, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Chronicler saw the Davidic dynasty as a perpetual one, given the consistent descriptions of it as "forever." Furthermore, the reference in 2 Chron. 13:8 to "the kingdom of the LORD in the hands of the sons of David" is significant, in its assertion that God's kingdom -- about which there is no question as to its permanence -- is now expressed on earth via the Davidic dynasty in Israel. The permanence of the latter is indicated in v. 5, with the reference to the covenant of salt, which was an eternal covenant.
Although he lacks the great eschatological vision found especially in the prophets and the New Testament, this is not to say the Chronicler was closed to the future, and even a future in which the Davidic dynasty figured in some way. That his vision of the re-establishment of this dynasty may have been more limited than that of some writers does not negate his having such a vision. After all, this dynasty was not important for its own sake; it was important as the symbol of the kingdom of God (see, e.g., 1 Chron. 17:14; 28:5; 29:11-12, 23; 2 Chron. 9:8).
IV. Ezra-Nehemiah
The general consensus today is that the books of 1-2 Chron-icles on the one hand and Ezra-Nehemiah on the other came from different authors, despite many similarities in situation and outlook and the repetition of 2 Chron. 36:22-23 in Ezra 1:1-3. This has implications for understanding the views of the monarchy in the two corpuses.
The strong emphasis on the Davidic dynasty in Chronicles is entirely absent in Ezra-Nehemiah. Furthermore, the emphasis in the latter on cultic reforms, covenant renewal, and the present order has led many to suggest a closed view of the future in these books. Thus, there is little in these books that comments directly on the monarchy, whether historical or eschatological. The silence would indicate a devaluation of its importance, if anything.
However, there are indications in the books that -- despite the relatively benevolent attitude of Persia toward the Jews, and the restoration of the Temple and the cult -- all was not well even in this period, and that there is more hope for the future than is commonly realized. J. G. McConville has recently argued this, that even here one can see a perspective of hope and an openness to the future, as have Williamson and K. Koch. McConville does this on the basis both of dissatisfaction in the book with the present state of affairs and of parallels with several prophecies in the prophetic corpus, especially Jeremiah and Isaiah, which indicate that the expectations in Ezra-Nehemiah still looked to the future, just as these prophecies did.
Most of the prophetic parallels in Ezra-Nehemiah do not refer to the monarchy or the Davidic Covenant at all, and thus one cannot see here any sort of the same messianic (or royalist) expectations as in Chronicles. However, the reference to the "holy seed" in Ezra 9:2 is certainly suggestive of these, especially given the parallel in Isaiah (6:13), where the holy seed is the stump that remains after the purging of Israel. Furthermore, the references to the restored remnant, including "Israel," "all Israel," and "Ephraim," point to an expectation of some type of restoration of the earlier kingdom. Also, we should note that the emphasis on the Temple and the Law is not incompatible with a "royalist" perspective, and even an eschatological, messianic perspective, since among the king's responsibilities were keeping the Law and worshiping correctly, and leading the people in doing so, and it would be part of the future king's mission to re-establish these in some way.
V. Esther
At first glance, there is no evidence in the book of Esther of interest in the Davidic dynasty, or in Israelite kingship generally. This is not surprising, given its setting in the diaspora. None of the standard commentaries refers at all to any interest in this.
However, S. B. Berg has recently argued that there is a clear interest in royal motifs in the book, including an interest in the Israelite monarchy. An obvious sign of this is the portrayal of Esther's royal position and power throughout the book. Another significant one -- although less obvious -- is the portrayal of Mordechai as a quasi-royal figure. For example, he is seen in royal regalia in Esth. 6:8-11 and 8:15. He is invested with royal power and acts like a king in 9:20-23. His ancestry is traced in 2:5 to names in the first Israelite king's (Saul's) lineage: Kish and (possibly) Shimei. His enemy in the book is "Haman the Agagite" (3:1), which recalls Saul's enemy Agag in 1 Samuel 15.
The parallels between Saul/Agag and Mordechai/Haman are striking. For example, we see the first pair as the respective ancestors of the second pair (as just noted). In addition, Saul disobeyed God's command, and spared Agag. Mordechai, by contrast, did not spare Haman, but killed him. Furthermore, Saul spared the best of the booty, also contrary to God's command. Mordechai, on the other hand, did not touch the available booty (Esth. 9:10, 15, 16), despite authorization to do so (8:11). In the context of Esther, the reason for this last action is clear enough: it avoided the Jews' being contaminated by anything Gentile, which reinforces the concept of Jewish superiority over the Gentiles seen in the book.
Set against the backdrop of 1 Samuel 15, however, this action takes on added significance. Together with the other parallels and contrasts between Saul and Mordechai, it could hardly have avoided a recalling of David to memory, as well. If the Jews -- by their actions in Esth. 9:10, 15, 16 -- "honor the obligation ignored by their ancestors," as Berg suggests, then the message would be -- at least in part -- that now, finally, the diaspora community has gotten it right, just as David got it right earlier. We are reminded of David in this situation, since Saul's failures were the prelude and necessary precondition to David's rise. David and Mordechai are paralleled in their doing what is right in contrast to Saul.
However, the action in Esther 9 does not parallel Saul's situation exactly, since to do so Mordechai would have had to destroy all the booty, not merely avoid touching it. Thus, the message here is -- at least in part -- that Mordechai is not simply the "new Saul," who did obey all of God's commands. Despite the esteem shown him in the book, Mordechai was not to be regarded in the last analysis as a substitute for a Davidic descendant; he was, after all, a Benjaminite. His actions do not correspond exactly to the conditions in 1 Samuel 15 that would have resulted in a Benjaminite's house being permanently established. In this way, he is a contrast to David, whose house was permanently established.
Regardless of whether either of these views of David is actually present in the book -- and the judgment here is that the latter view legitimately can be seen as part of the book's presentation -- what can be stated with some certainty is that the book of Esther does present a view of (Israelite) kingship that is favorable. Despite the diaspora situation, with no Israelite monarch reigning over an Israelite state, there is still an interest in the royal status of Esther and Mordechai, although of necessity covert, due to the prevailing political situation. Whether it is narrowly focused on Esther or Mordechai as royal figures in and of themselves (so Berg), or whether it is also intended to call David to mind (as suggested here) is secondary. What is primary is that monarchy still retains its valued status in the book's presentation.
VI. Psalms
In the Psalter, the idea of kingship is viewed very favorably. An obvious sign of this is the prominent place David the king occupies as author of approximately half of the psalms.
This also is evidenced very clearly by the royal psalms. These were first identified as such by Gunkel as Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 101, 110, 132, 144:1-11 (and 89:47-52). In them, David and the Davidic king, and the office of kingship itself, are consistently seen as chosen and favored by God, as exalted and to be prayed for, as central to God's purposes in history. Several of these are quoted in the NT as messianic.
Among those who have expanded upon Gunkel's work in this area, Eaton's is the most comprehensive in extending the category of royal psalms, which he did by paying attention to royal motifs. He identified 31 additional psalms that were clearly royal in his view, and 21 that were arguably so. This is along the same lines taken earlier by many pre-critical and post-critical conservative scholars, who have seen messianic overtones in many more than just the 13-15 quoted in the NT. The effect of these approaches is obvious with respect to displaying the psalmists' attitudes toward the kingship.
A further evidence for the high view of the monarchy in the Psalter is provided by B. S. Childs and his student, G. H. Wilson, in their studies of the placement of royal psalms. They have shown that these are found at critical junctures throughout the Psalter, and that this pattern functions to highlight their importance and provides a hermeneutic for reading the entire book. The Davidic kingship is especially prominent in Books I-III; it gives way to an emphasis in Books IV-V on YHWH's kingship. As Israel's history progressed, the eschatological aspect of its king and kingdom became more clearly understood. Israel's kingdom was a symbol of God's reign on earth; its king was God's vice-regent. It was in the later OT and intertestamental periods, and then in the NT period, that the eschatological understanding of the royal and other psalms attained its height.
The net effect of the work on royal/messianic psalms for the purposes of this study is to confirm the importance of the office of king in Israel, including as it was seen in God's eyes. The psalms reflect the high view of the monarchy found particularly in Chronicles: David and the Davidic kings were chosen and blessed by God, the vehicles through which he would bless Israel and the nations.
VII. Conclusion
This survey of the books containing the Biblical records of Israel's history and its songs of worship clearly shows that the idea of the monarchy in Israel was one which God favored from beginning to end. The kingship was no mere afterthought or second-best concession to Israel's foolishness. Rather, promised from the beginning, it appears in these books forming the centerpiece around which God accomplishes his redemptive work in the world. During the Israelite monarchy, the principle was thus: as the king went, so went the nation. The problems that God and his prophets had with the monarchy were in its administration, not in the fact of its existence. This high view of the institution in the Old Testament is affirmed in the New Testament, where it is shown to have received its climax and fulfillment in Jesus Christ, through whom all peoples of the earth are blessed as they respond to him.
(This article originally appeared in Trinity Journal 9.1 (Mar 1988): 19-35. )