Kingship and Biblical Irony II: What Kind of Government?

We have seen how the prospect of establishing a monarchy in Deuteronomy 17:14 was a pivotal point with far-reaching implications, extending beyond centuries and books. Let us now examine what God advocates when the time comes to choose a king. The passage is in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and adds further layers to the interplay between the books and to our understanding of them, here and now.

Before examining the verses in detail, a preliminary observation is necessary. It concerns the structure of the institution of the king, and we will compare it to that of the judges. The institution of the judges is indeed described structurally. In fact, Jethro, in Exodus 18:13-27, even provides an idea of ​​the relationships between levels of jurisdiction, while Moses, in Deuteronomy 17:8-13, describes the workings of a body similar to what we might call a supreme court today. It is important to note that these structural descriptions are not devoid of axiological elements: righteousness must be a central attribute of the judge (Deuteronomy 16:18-20). Furthermore, they do not define the precise form of government. It is as if the institution (we are obviously referring, in Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9, to the "obligatory" institutions: priests, judges, prophets) within the state is more important than the form of government. This lack of a constitution did not prevent Israel from developing in its land despite conflicts (particularly against its Philistine enemy), but at the cost of a lack of clarity in the separation of powers. This will be especially striking in the case of Samuel, just before the rise of the kings. We will return to this point later.

Compared to the institution of judges, the king in our passage (Deut 17:14-20) [1] does not truly resemble an institution in the political sense of the term. The recommendations say nothing about the structure of a monarchical regime, but are confined to personal ethics, as if, for God, the king's worth guaranteed the worth of the monarchy. Regardless of the form of the monarchy, the essential point for God is to instill in the people a reflex of demanding respect for the sovereign, who is responsible, by virtue of his worth, for the proper functioning of the government, whatever its form. This is also true of the government of judges, whose necessary personal worth is emphasized (again, Deut 16:18-20). When this worth is lacking, the worst can happen. Let us recall that the establishment of the kings of Israel [2] followed a regime of corrupt judges, the highest authorities of whom, the sons of Samuel, represented hereditary power, a fact not explicitly stated in the Deuteronomic "constitution." Furthermore, if God warns us that a judge is good because he is good and not because he is the son of a judge, he also warns us that this is perhaps even truer with regard to the king: Deuteronomy 17:20 seems to accept the idea of ​​royal hereditary succession, but conditioned on the king's conduct, in conformity with the ethical prescriptions of Deut 17:14-20.

One last remark concerning the structure of the institution: the monarchy adds a centralizing layer to the Nation, mitigating the local power of the judges, explicitly linked to the tribes (Deut 16:18, לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ, "for your tribes").

In summary, God does not prescribe a governmental structure in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, but rather a human value, an attitude, a way of relating to Him and to others. We will see in more detail what each verse implies regarding the choice of king, but we can ask ourselves if, today, we are not prioritizing the form of government over human values. Idolatry can take so many forms...

C. L.

NOTES

[1] Our passage is not the only one in the Pentateuch where the monarchy is associated with Israel, but the other occurrences are brief prophetic passages stating that one day Israel will be ruled by kings (Gen 17:6) from Judah (Gen 49:10), who will dominate the Amalekites (Num 24:7) or other peoples (Num 24:17-18) before going into exile with their people (Deut 28:36). These passages have nothing to do with recommendations concerning the choice and conduct of the sovereign.

[2] Here is the passage, in 1 Samuel 8:1-3:

When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. His eldest son was named Joel, and the second Abiyah. They served as judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not follow in his footsteps. Corrupted by greed and accepting bribes, they perverted justice.

Dt 17:14-20 (NIV) :

14 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,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold. 18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.