“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own sight” (Judg. 21:25). This quote at the end of Judges sets up an optimistic view of kings for the rest of the Deuteronomistic History. King David is considered perhaps the greatest king over all of Israel, whereas King Hezekiah is praised for never turning away from God and being the greatest king among all the kings of Judah (2 Kgs. 5). However, despite the high need for a praise of kings throughout the Deuteronomistic history, Solomon is viewed with a skeptical eye and is the cause of the demise of Israel. Unlike the positive view of kings portrayed throughout the Deuteronomistic history, King Solomon is framed in a negative light in 1 Kings 11: 1-13, which …show more content…
emphasizes the breaking of the Mosaic covenant and Solomon’s love for foreign women. Chapter 11 of 1 Kings begins on a negative note by describing the nationalities of Solomon’s numerous wives. King Solomon had 700 princesses as wives and 300 concubines, from peoples like the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites (1 Kgs. 11:1). All of these foreign women were prohibited from marrying the Israelites per the LORD, in case the foreign women may turn the Israelites’ hearts to their gods (1 Kgs. 11:2). Although Solomon had hundreds of wives, his main sin was that his multitude of wives were foreign. Even though the 7th commandment that Moses divinely inspired in Exodus 20 clearly and plainly says “You shall not commit adultery,” Solomon’s heart was turned away from God because the wives were foreign, not because he had so many (Exod. 20:14). One of the laws of the Israelites, written in Deuteronomy, states that the Israelites should not make a covenant with any foreigners, nor should they intermarry with them, as the foreigners would turn the Israelites’ backs against the LORD (Deut. 7:2-4). These foreign women worshipped multiple gods, such as the Canaanite religion, which worships a god, “El” and as well as a “younger, more vigorous god called Baal (Kugel 96). Many of the religions also produced cultic images of God, which was stated as prohibited in the Ten Commandments (Kugel 98). Thus, Solomon was perfectly aware that intermarrying with foreign women was a grave sin, as his heart would be turned. In fact, Solomon’s heart was turned away from God because of his marriages, and he followed gods such as Astarte, from the Sidonians; Miclom and Molech of the Ammonites; and Chemosh of Moab (1 Kgs 11:5-8). Solomon built high places to all these gods and to every god in which his foreign wives “burned incense and sacrificed” (1 Kgs 11:8). Repeatedly, 1 Kings 11 states that Solomon’s heart was turned towards other gods, going against the Mosaic covenant described in Exodus 20 (1 Kgs 11:11). Thus, Solomon broke the Mosaic covenant held by his father David, despite the LORD’s promise to protect Israel if Solomon kept the covenant (1 Kgs 6:11-13). The LORD became angry with Solomon and promised to tear away the kingdom from him (1 Kgs 11:9,11). Based on 1 Kings 11, one would think that the book of 1 Kings and the authors of the entire Deuteronomistic History would have a negative view of kings. Solomon is described as having wives who “turned his heart to follow other gods,” not following the LORD “unreservedly as David his father had done,” and the LORD threatened Solomon, saying “I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant” (1 Kgs 11:4,6,11). Solomon is viewed as an unfaithful king, who did not follow the law of the LORD, as kings ought. However, despite Solomon’s failing, the author of the Deuteronomistic History has an overall arching view that kings were good. As John J. Collins describes, the entire Deuteronomistic History was “composed by one editor, during the Babylonian exile” (Collins 111). However, even though the editor wrote the history during the Babylonian exile, he still held a “positive view of the kingship” which is evident especially in the Davidic covenant (Collins 111). The “positive view of the kingship” is first hinted at in Judges 17:6, when the phrase “in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in their own eyes” is first stated.
This phrase is later repeated three more times, in Judges 18:1, 19:1, and 21:25. Since the phrase is repeated several times, it emphasizes the need for a king to govern the people and lead them in better ways. The Davidic covenant also exemplifies this positive view, since God showed favor on David and his descendants. God said that King David’s descendants are God’s sons, and that the LORD will establish a “royal throne forever”, as in a line of kings until the end of time (2 Sam. 7:13). God also promises to give David “rest from all your enemies” (2 Sam. 7:11) and a place for his people to live (2 Sam. 7:10). Just like Abraham, King David is promised descendants, blessings, and land. Hezekiah, another good king of Judah, was also viewed favorably. In the LORD’s sight, Hezekiah did what was right, just like David (2 Kgs 18:3). 2 Kings 18: 5 also states that “and neither before nor after [Hezekiah] was there anyone like him among all the kings of Judah.” Unlike Solomon, Hezekiah observed the commandments and thus, “the LORD was with him, and he succeeded in all he set out to do” (2 Kgs 18:7). Therefore, the Deuteronomistic History looks favorably upon kings, since the need for a king is stated multiple times in Judges, and kings like David and Hezekiah are looked upon with favor by God and the people
alike. After David’s death, Solomon was established as king and his reign was viewed as blessed and favorable. As described in 1 Kings 3, the LORD appeared to Solomon in a dream, promising to give him whatever he asked. Solomon replied and requested that God give him a wise heart to judge people and to “distinguish between good and evil” (1 Kgs 3:9). God also promised to give Solomon a long life if he followed the commandments as King David did. 1 Kings also positively describes the extent of Solomon’s wisdom, his wise decisions, and the building of the temple in which Solomon ordered. However, despite this positivity, there is a negative aspect behind many of the stories of Solomon. For example, chapters 5 and 6 of 1 Kings describes in great detail the exact dimensions and materials used to build the temple of the LORD. Despite this effort, the author makes a point to describe how Solomon built the temple of the LORD in seven years, but to finish building his own house took thirteen years (1 Kgs 6:37). Parallel passages in 2 Chronicles fail to point out that Solomon spent almost twice as much time on his house than on the temple, instead just stating that both the temple and Solomon’s house were built in 20 years (2 Chron. 8:1). Solomon is also praised for building a temple to the LORD so that the Israelites would not worship on the high places, yet it is emphasized that Solomon built high places to foreign gods in Chapter 11 of 1 Kings. 2 Chronicles contains a parallel passage to the reign of Solomon, but fails to ever mention Solomon’s great sin or the LORD’s anger with him (2 Chron.). Unlike the negative ending of 1 Kings, 2 Chronicles ends on a much more positive note, stating that King Solomon surpassed all other kings in both riches and wisdom, and ends with Solomon’s death (2 Chron. 9:22). Some may argue that the Deuteronomistic history does not always have a positive view of kings or that 1 Kings holds a positive view of Solomon. For example, although David is praised as one of the greatest kings, 2 Samuel spends an entire chapter describing David’s sin with Bathsheba (11). David killed Uriah, one of his soldiers, in order to marry his wife Bathsheba, who was pregnant with David’s child. Although Bathsheba became David’s wife, in the eyes of God, David had done something evil (2 Sam. 11). One may argue that this description of David’s sin and his evil doings exhibits a negative view of kings in general. One may also argue that 1 Kings hold a positive view of Solomon, as it emphasizes Solomon’s wisdom and the eventual building of the LORD’s temple. Solomon’s reign ended in idolatry, which would have provoked the LORD to tear away the kingdom, but the LORD saved Solomon on behalf of David. Several times the passage repeats the phrase “for the sake of David” (1 Kgs 11:12-13), he will not tear away the kingdom during Solomon’s lifetime. One can assume that, since Solomon was spared because of David--despite all of David’s sins and failings-- the LORD and the Deuteronomistic History did, in fact, view David and kings positively. Solomon’s wisdom and completion of the temple is also stated in the Deuteronomistic History, but it is not as emphasized as in the parallel passage of Chronicles. 1 Kings also makes the distinction between the amount of time spent building the temple, and the time Solomon spent building his house—almost twice as long. And even though Solomon was blessed with wisdom and a heart to judge between right and wrong, he still failed in placing God above other gods, and was tricked into building high places for his wives. Thus, despite the positive characteristics and deeds of Solomon pointed out in the Deuteronomistic History, the negative views of Solomon are emphasized more, and is ended on a much less positive and peaceful note than that of 2 Chronicles. Unlike the positive view of kings portrayed throughout the Deuteronomistic history, King Solomon is framed in a negative light in 1 Kings 11: 1-13, which emphasizes the breaking of the Mosaic covenant and Solomon’s love for foreign women. 1 Kings portrays a very negative image of Solomon, one where the LORD is angry with him because of his grave sins. This view of Solomon is unparalleled anywhere in the Old Testament. Solomon is the exception to the positive view of kings in the Deuteronomistic History, as his negative qualities and mistakes are emphasized, unlike 2 Chronicles which downplays them. Despite Solomon’s horrible sins, God still spares him, because of David’s good deeds and His unfailing mercy.
The two views of these to two men, David and Daud expressed different beliefs. One (David), is a Jewish Israeli. The other man, Daud, is a very upset Palestinian Arab. Throughout the discussion they both are bringing up each of the countries faults and seeing if any of these points can maybe be resolved. It seems however as though, for right now they failed. I personally have to side with the Israeli man David. His point is very clear for me to see and it seems that all the Jewish people are there to help each other and to have their own place to call home.
Painted in Rome in the style of Neo-Classicism, Jacques Louis David’s Oath of the Horatii is one of the better-known examples of art produced by this artist of eclectic styles. This painting was hailed as the manifesto of a new school based on the fervent study of the antique and a return to classical techniques in the late 18th century. In this painting, completed in 1785 as an oil on canvas, David (DA-VEED) successfully coalesces the nascent and confused ideology of the Neo-Classical movement in a dramatic portrayal of the Horatii brothers swearing their allegiance to the state as their father stands with swords held high for them to grasp. An analysis of the painting’s historical background, and an evaluation of the lines, colors, and subject matter, will illustrate why Oath of the Horatii represents the defining characteristics of the Neo-Classical period.
Within The David Story, the Hebraic code of justice revolves around retributive justice and how it is administered by God. Simply stated, talio is the law of God. This law is a form of retributive justice, more so a punishment identical to the crime committed. All Kings of Israel must be chosen by God, and undergo a number of steps to ascend to the throne. The first king, Saul, loses the divine favor of God after his disobedience is showcased. His predecessor, David, acts out unjustly and also loses divine favor. Once God's scornful words come to fruition, both David and Saul bear the brunt of their wrongdoing. This justice creates a sense of equilibrium weighing one's offenses against one's punishment, and balances them. Within The David Story, the law of talio is defined by God, and once Saul and David disobey God's commands, the law of talio is used in a manner in which fits their crimes and sets out for justice, and like punishments for their crimes.
In the New Testament Jesus even said that David’s actions were unlawful. While the king of another kingdom may have been able to justify the act by claiming that they were a king and above the law, David cannot make that claim. Unlike the pharaoh who was a God King or Darius who makes the law, David was under the authority of God. This means that David still had to obey Gods Law and be subservient to God’s will.
“In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem” (2 Samuel 11:1). Everyone knows the story of David and Bathsheba; David, God’s chosen king of Israel, stays home from battle and commits adultry with one of his commanders wives, then ends up “inadvertently” causing the mans death to save face. This story shows its readers a new, dark side of the great king. If the Bible was not a book of God, but instead written to magnify man, this tragic story would probably have been carefully edited of completely omitted. But it’s not, the Bible is God’s word and this tragity was kept for a reason. David, a man to be considered after Gods own heart (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22), and probably the greatest hero in Hebrew history, falls into temptation and a spiral of sin. There are many lessons that can be learned from this story, such as: the utter vileness of our hearts, the horrible consequenc...
Throughout this article, the author David Kirp claims that students who want a better future for themselves, will take advantage of any oppurtunity given to them. He further explains how students can only achieve their goals if these oppurtunities exsist for them. In paragraph 22, David states, “Students who come to see themselves as the masters of their own destiny can take advantage of opportunities to learn, but only if those opportunities exist.” This quote further supports David’s claim of making oppoutunities available so struggling students can prevail. To sway the audience, and further convince them of his claim, David uses the rhetoical device logos. Logos is a literary device that can be defined as a statement, sentence or argument
Like the book of Deuteronomy , the verses are a reaffirmation and restatement of the law and Sinai covenant. An agreement between God and his people that was given to them after the Exodus; this covenant law “gave parameters to their relationship with God”. It gave shape to how the vassal should live in grateful response to their suzerain. It is also a glimpse of what is expected in return, how the people are to promote social solidarity in Judah in the future. For this second generation of people free from slavery, many of whom have not seen what happened in Egypt and what God did, Deuteronomy acts as a reminder of who God is, and what he has
After conquering northern Israel in 722 B.C.E., the Assyrians engendered centuries of political intrigue and laid the foundation for future unscrupulous kingdoms and idolatrous people.1 Once the Babylonian empire overthrew Josiah, the King of Judah, Habakkuk began to compose a prophetic book, questioning the ways of God. Above all, Habakkuk could not comprehend why “the evil circumvented the just”2; he thought that the impiety of the world did not correlate with a supposedly just God.3 Throughout his narrative, this biblical prophet came to understand that “the just man, because of his faith, shall live” (Hb 2,4). Eventually discovering that righteousness and faith in God lead to justice, Habakkuk cried out to the people of Judah through his prophetic words, assuring that divine intervention would eradicate the wickedness and oppression.
David is the one who brings together loose tribes into a government. He instituted many new things like scribe culture and census records. This became known as the prototype for the ideal Jewish monarch. He established the city of Jerusalem, or the “City of David”. His legacy has become a major theme in Jewish history.
In order to understand what sets Hezekiah apart as a leader, it is important to understand the state of affairs when Hezekiah inherited the throne from his father Ahaz. The kingdom of Judah was living in the constant fear of the Assyrian invasion from the north. In an effort to save the city of Jerusalem from destruction, Ahaz...
Studies of The Old Testament make it evident that kingship is the ruling principle of leadership for a kingdom. There were no presidents with a democracy like The United States has today or communists making everyone equal. There was simply one king, specifically a male, his subordinates, and the kingdom he governed over. Hebrew culture was no different. This is seen through the great kings of the Bible, one of the most well known of them being King YHWH also called Yahweh. Kingship played a vital role in the progression and development of the kingdom of Israel throughout history from the time they first were freed by the mercy of Yahweh. The presentation of ancient Hebrew culture from kingship in the Old Testament reveals the tradition in
The Bible takes a unique turn in the book of 1 Samuel, when Israel requests the appointment of an earthly king. The prophet Samuel warned them against trading their Divine King for an earthly one. In Matthew 7:13 Jesus told us, “..For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction..,” cautioning believers not to long to be like everyone else. First Samuel 8:5; 19-20 records Israel’s request for a king developed out of their desire to be like the nations around them, thus placing them on the “broad road.” They desired a king to fight their battles, to establish a government, and to rule over them.
Cindy Pereyra The Pentateuch Dr. Luther 5 May 2014 Deuteronomy Study Assignment 1. Read Deuteronomy 16:18-20. a. Describe the requirements of judges in Israel based on this passage. In this passage, the requirements of judges in Israel are shown. The people are told to appoint judges and officers for themselves in all the towns that the Lord is giving to them according to their tribes.
Although David does show acts of weakness in character, Absalom is no better than when David commits adultery for throwing David off his throne. David is a remarkable king for protecting his land and being able to move the Ark, so David has not shown signs that a new king is needed for the kingdom to prosper; however David does show weakness when he is unable to control his children. Unlike David who acknowledges what he has done wrong, Absalom shows qualities of a coward when he is the only one to run away to avoid confrontation with his father after ordering servants to murder Amnon (The Holy Bible, 2 Samuel, 13:28-29). Absalom shows so many more weaknesses than David does. In addition, Absalom does not make up for his shortcomings. By character, Absalom does ...
David showed a positive ethical consideration towards Sheila. Whereas Sheila was not able to show him the same consideration when they were preparing for their assignment. Sheila basically didn’t care about how David was going to feel by not replying him back because she thought she was in a better place than David. In this case, the communication rules are broken between them and David feels scared.