Kingship and Biblical Irony I

Irony -even tragic irony- is a major feature of the writing of the Hebrew Bible. We will examine one example -or rather, a node of cross-references- concerning the king of Israel as presented by Moses on behalf of God (1) in the Deuteronomic law code.

We are in the parsha Shofetim (Deut 16:18-21:9), which describes in particular the future institutions of Israel (priests, judges, prophets), at the time when the Hebrews are preparing to enter the land of Canaan (this settlement will be recounted in the following book, Joshua). These institutions are obligatory (עָשִׂיתָ, "You shall do…"): the Israelites coming out of the desert must know what administrative-religious structure they will have to imprint on the country to make it the Land of Israel. And here, surprisingly, between the descriptions of the supreme court and the priests, is that of an institution that seems optional, yet receives the same level of detail as the others: the monarchy. Here is the verse that introduces the passage we are considering:

Deut 17:14 (NIV) : When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,”

From the obligation of "you shall do… you shall install…", we move to a phrase difficult to understand other than as an observation, a disillusioned anticipation by God concerning a future choice of his people. First, the sentence structure is a classic sequence of verbs expressing an unreal future, driven by an initial verb with a temporal or hypothetical particle (2). Furthermore, this is not an institution decided by God but by the people (God's observation "you shall say" is opposed to God's order "you shall do"). The people autonomously establish a political structure by competing with God on the ground of expression, words against Word. Furthermore, the desire to make the Land of Israel the seat of a nation similar to those surrounding it is fundamentally antithetical to the original plan, set forth in Exodus 19:6 ("and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.") and repeated many times thereafter. God can therefore only consider with great circumspection the idea of ​​having to install a king on his Holy Land simply to "do as the others do."

Note that God clearly intends Israel to be a monarchy (מַמְלָכָה, a kingdom, in Ex 19:6), but a divine, not human, monarchy: the only true theocracy. This is evident when, centuries later, Israel actually chooses to establish a monarchy. The prophet Samuel's reaction is strong ("But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord." 1 Sam 8:6) (3), but God himself sharply absolves Samuel of any wrongdoing and instead sees his failure to be recognized as king (“... it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. They no longer want me to reign over them” I Sam 8:7b). It is certain that Israel is a "stiff-necked" people (Ex 33:3), and that it has the constant temptation to idolatry, like the others nations. That's why, given the constant unfaithful nature of the people, it is important to look at the institutions and the leaders of Israel. That's why the structure is important : the structure is there to contain the crowd's multiplicative factor of the individual's primitive spirit.

In any case, we thus have a first loop, opened centuries earlier (4) with our passage from Deuteronomy 17:14, but which will only reveal its full relevance centuries and two books (Joshua and Judges) later: God had indeed foreseen the inevitable emergence of a monarchy in Israel. We can observe how the text maintains a distance between God and man: God is prescient, but leaves the decision to man. (5).

The Bible rarely relies on a single narrative thread. Indeed, why, in 1 Samuel 8:1-5, does the people demand a king, despite Samuel's own grim description of the monarchy to the crowd? Because of the corruption of the Judges. These Judges were appointed by Samuel himself: his own children! (6) So, on the one hand, we have a great spiritual figure who is guilty of giving power to his corrupt children, and on the other, a government of judges, an institution obligatory since Deuteronomy but fallible, which will be overthrown by a very human monarchy accepted by God against his own wishes (7). The irony is biting. Samuel, whom God never disavows, is nevertheless largely responsible for the fall of the government of Judges.

In conclusion, in Deuteronomy 17:14, God reveals himself to be both prescient and bitter. This foresight allows him—to a certain extent—to provide, throughout the centuries and across the Scriptures, the guidelines for a monarchical structure based on divine right, one that can simultaneously "do as everyone else does" while remaining a separate nation, a jewel in God's hand. A true challenge indeed.

We will see how, in Deuteronomy 17:15-20, God outlines his rules for an as good as possible monarchy, even though the portrait Samuel paints of the regime in 1 Samuel 8:11-18 is truly terrible. The corruption of the judges -and their lack of counter-power ?- must have been so great that "the people refused to listen to Samuel's voice" (1 Samuel 8:19).

We never left the biblical world. That's why the Bible never lost one ounce of it's relevance.

C. L.

NOTES :

1- Deuteronomy presents the last teaching of Moses, yet Moses remains the greatest prophet of Israel, "the one whom the Lord knew face to face" (Deut 34:10). We will therefore out of convenience (because the nature of the narration, although of the foremost interest in itself, is not the main focus of this study), write "God" without ignoring that it is Moses who is supposed to teach.

2- The aspectual nuance of the sentence is not easy to render. Everything rests on a classic sequence in biblical Hebrew. The yigdol of the protasis (כִּֽי־תָבֹא) determines the unreal future value of the three following verbs (וִֽירִשְׁתָּהּ / וְיָשַׁבְתָּה / וְאָמַרְתָּ), apodoses in weqabal. There is indeed a hypothetical nuance, but one of virtuality, not choice. This is why we interpret this as a disillusioned tone from God: he expresses the desire to have a king as a regrettable but inevitable consequence of entering Canaan.

3- The text can be literally translated as: "And the thing was bad in Samuel's eyes…". Samuel must take the Israelites' request as a personal failure: the top authority figure in Israel was unable to convince his people.

4- Regardless of the historical composition and disposition of the texts, the cycle exists and with intention, either by the authors or by history itself.

5 & 7- 1 Samuel 8:9: “Now therefore, listen to their voice. But do not fail to warn them: teach them how the king who will reign over them will govern.”

6- The text emphasizes that Samuel is old. As with Isaac and David, the old age of the great political and religious leader is not necessary a great period (this is another manifestation of Bible's realism). By appointing his children to the positions of high judges, Samuel the prophet undermines the power of the Judges. He establishes a kind of corrupt pact that eliminates checks and balances. The people see the corruption of the surrounding monarchies, but they believe—rightly or wrongly—that it is not as severe as that of the Judges.