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
In the eleventh century BCE Israel is divided into twelve tribes. The prophet Samuel is called upon to bring the people under one ruler or king and lead Israel into a monarchy. However this brings a major split and for the first time we find a military and political leader, the King, along with a spiritual leader, or the prophet. The prophet played the role of moral keeper and would make sure that the King was ruling justly and keeping the Law of God.
Before actually attaining the role of king, both David and Saul must forego a number of events to have a rightful claim to the throne. First and most importantly, they are anointed by God's power, proclaimed openly, and lastly, unanimously acclaimed by the people. Because God guarantees their power on Earth, it is highly evident that these men must still obey the Lord. Adding to this, it seems as if David and Saul have a proverbial contractual agreement with God. When the rules of this proverbial contract are broken, it is God that determines the repercussions.
...distinction of whom He rules. After Israel captures Edom, "… all the Edomites became vassals of David" (II Sam. 8:14). Initially, this is capture is not seen as a blessing. However, after examining what nations typically did after capturing another nation, Israel is truly a blessing, because not only did Israel refrain from destroying, robbing, and murdering the citizens and the city, but instead appointed them to official positions. Israel's conquests prove to be a blessing to other nations, as they allow the peoples to live by accepting Yahweh as God.
“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
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
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.
The history of the Hebrew nation is told through the lives of the Israelite and Judean kings as representatives of the nation, because the fortunes of the king and the plight of the people were entwined. Rebellion and disobedience in the form of idolatry and social injustice on the part of the king brought divine retribution on the nation in several forms, including oppression by surrounding hostile powers, overthrow of the royal dynasties, and ultimately exile into foreign lands. Conversely, the blessing of Yahweh’s favor in the form of peace, security, prosperity, and deliverance from foes rested upon the people of God when the king was obedient to the L...
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
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.
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
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty
The bible recounts the story of the great King Solomon, the son of the notable King David. By following God and his commandments, David had built his empire into a legacy, which was then passed on to Solomon. Soon after Solomon’s reign began, the Lord appeared to him in a dream, offering him anything he desired. Solomon’s request was wisdom and knowledge, so that he may govern his people fairly, and know the difference between good and the bad.
The Magna Carta On June 15th, 1215, in a field at Runnymede, King John and the Barons signed The Magna Carta. This was a royal charter drawn up by the barons to insure King John would treat them fairly and equally. This document consists of political rights and a series of written promises. When the Barons made this document, it was their attempt to stop the King from possessing too much power and abusing it.
The Tudor dynasty or House of Tudor was a royal house of Welsh origin, descended from the last ‘king of the Britons,’ which ruled the Kingdom of England and its realms. Its first monarch was Henry VII, a descendant through his mother of a legitimized branch of the English royal House of Lancaster.