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 “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 ...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
The given documents are examples of the monarch’s ability to assert their authority through word. The different proclamations illustrate the problems of the time, and how the assumed power of the monarch addressed it. It is assumed that their power goes to include power over the church and all papal authority, ultimate power over Parliament, power over other lands, and it goes as far as suggesting that their power has been bestowed upon them by God. The assumed nature and extent of the Tudors’ power alters over time, each king reacting to a different situation. King Henry VII establishes a strong and clear claim to the crown for the Tudors when there were doubts about his claim. King Henry VIII extends the power of the monarch by annexing the
David is the first king that God chooses to lead His people (Saul was chosen by the Israelites). God makes a covenant with him that there will always be a descendant of his on the
“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
Revolutionary is defined as “something markedly changed or introducing radical change” ("Related Queries." Revolutionary). Some events that had a radical change was the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution in Europe. These events began when there was a split between the Parliament and King Charles I. Both sides had many arguments, and were not willing to back down over the principles that they had about the manner of the government, and how all those problems could be solved. The country then split into two sides, one was people who supported the Parliament, and then theres people who supported the Royalists, and both sides had fought many wars over the situation. This battle ended by the execution of King Charles I. The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution were truly revolutionary events and these events had many dramatic changes that occurred and changed their society. These dramatic changes changed Europe in it’s social and political ways that the Europeans gained rights and both events had an effect to their economic ways as well.
John Beckett mentions that the Glorious Revolution has been considered a historical event related to the political issues. The main target of this historical event was to create a commercial freedom in Europe. After this revolution was done, trade relations in Europe went up, and the Bill of Rights was also created in 1689. Today, the Bill of Rights is shown and known that it was the first building stone for the British constitution because it limited the monarchic power. During the eighteenth century, the period of the Age of Enlightenment is considered between 1713 and 1789 because Anthony Pagden states that Europe was like a republic of states, and it was like a union acting together and talking with one voice. The Age of Enlightenment
In those days, there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Judges 21:25 (ESV) - " I doubt any verse gives a more accurate reading of its respective book than Judges 21:25. This verse, the final verse of Judges, is the culmination of nearly 400 years of disobedience, strife, war, repentance, and temporary peace through God-appointed leaders. Inside twenty words, this small excerpt manages to capture both the heart and soul of the Israelites after their conquest of the Promised Land.
The emergence of capitalism in Western Europe was considered as a majority change in human history. As prior to the emergence of capitalism conditions are mainly agriculture and there was no sustained monotonic income per capita. Also prior to the emergence of capitalism there was a feudal system of organising the economy emerged in the 15th century of medieval Europe.
Some prophets targeted Jewish monarchs as an idolatrous distraction which prevented the people from properly hearing the Word of God. Other prophets still maintained that Jews should continue to believe that God would not abandon his chosen people. Regardless of the specific message, it was clear that the overall prophetic approach to God’s covenant with the Jewish people was changing.
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.
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...
According to the Sumerian King’s List , Ur dominated Southern Mesopotamia three times, which owes to the name ‘The Third Dynasty of Ur’. The Third dynasty stretched from c.2112 - c.2004. Shar-kali-sharri was the last ruler before the decline of the Akkadian period brought by the Gutian invaders. After about 40 years after the demise of the Akkadian Empire, Ur-Namma established this empire centered in Ur. This period was one of restoration as a reaction against the previous rule of the Akkadians. It is also sometimes known as the ‘Sumerian renaissance’ as the writing was still Sumerian and there were notable advances in culture. “This period stabilized the region of Mesopotamia and allowed for development of art, literature, science, agricultural
Samuel, a prophet anointed to speak of God’s word to the nation, represents one way of governing. God works through the prophet’s words to remind the people of Israel to be faithful to the terms of the Covenant. A second ...
As king, the pharaoh had many duties that were civic and religious. The people saw him as the living Horus and the son of Ra. They believed only pharaoh could sacrifice to the gods and only the pharaoh could appoint the priests to serve the gods in his place. The people believed that he became Osiris after death and would continue to help his people in the afterlife. Pharaoh was the commander-in-chief of the army and the highest judge in the land. The people saw the pharaoh as essential for keeping their lives in balance and keeping harmony in Egypt. His rule was absolute.
First Samuel 8:5; 19-20 records Israel’s request for a king developed out 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. During the time of the Judges, there was no central government, no one to fight for them, except God of course. To make matters worse the
While hierarchy is often seen as an ancient mode of survival, it has also permeated into many significant facets of the modern-day Asian lifestyle. This particular essay will explore the hierarchy that is the norm in both households and social situations in Japan, all the while also exploring the political and filial hierarchy as well as the significance of the hierarchical structure that is shared with Feudal Europe.