Joshua
to Chronicles: God versus the King
In
most Christian communities the view of the biblical Kingship is
generally positive. Fuelled by a Sunday School image of the boy-king
David, the monarchy is seen as God-ordained, God-approved and
God-supported; even if there were a few bad examples like Ahab. In
reality, out of the forty-two kings all but eight1
are called 'evil'. Scripture voices a breadth of positive and
negative views about the institution of monarchy, representing the
varied opinions of the people at different places and different
times. However, the overall impression we are left with is
overwhelmingly negative. Whenever God's own opinion about kingship is
made known through the prophets it is always impugning. An
understanding of the biblical concept of kingship is vital to any
true biblical theology of anarchism.
The
debate about kingship begins towards the end of the book of Judges
with the phrase: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but
every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”2
Versions of this refrain appear four times in the final chapters of
Judges as a segue into the books of Samuel. The phrase is added to
the end of stories of particularly violent behaviour which would seem
to make it a statement in favour of the impending kingship- an
indictment of lawlessness amongst the people and a strong case
showing the need for a ruler. It would be a mistake, however, to
conclude that this phrase
is the work of a pro-monarchic redactor.
Firstly,
within the framework of earlier writings, the people do
have a king, but they have turned away from God's kingship
repeatedly. In Judges 8 the people beg their saviour Gideon to become
king, but Gideon's theology of kingship is clear: “I will not rule
over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord will rule over
you.”3
In this context, the refrain “there was no king” is not a
statement in favour of future kingship, but rather a reproof against
the people's abandonment of God's rule.4
Secondly,
in the context of later writings, the
kings would themselves continue to disobey God and do 'what was right
in their own eyes'. Even if we assume an exilic authorship for this
section of Judges, then the writer would have been painfully aware of
the failure of the monarchy. The story of the Judges period
represents the complete failure of the people to fulfil the utopian
vision of Israel, but it was likely considered preferable to the
times of the monarchy. Though it is possible to read the 'no king'
statement as deliberately ambiguous, it is emphatically not
an argument in favour of rulers.
It
could be argued that the judges themselves were rulers, but Jacques
Ellul outlines an anarchist view of the judges as a kind of
'emergency powers act':
“When
the situation became disastrous... God then chose a man or woman who
had no specific authority but whom he inspired to win a war or lead
the people back to reverence for God, that it, to resolve the crisis.
Apparently, when the 'judges' had played their part they effaced
themselves and rejoined the people... They had no permanent power.
God alone could be considered the supreme authority.”5
Though
each tribe, clan and family had structure and leadership, though
conflict turned the people to violence, the call is not to institute
a monarchy, but to return to the rule of God. For the Christian
Anarchists this should be hugely significant. It runs counter to most
understandings of the biblical Israel that God imagined his people
existing in a community without a ruler. For the whole people of God
today expressing themselves as divinely inspired communities, for
those who see themselves as a new Israel, for nations who call
themselves 'Christian', it is a largely forgotten principle. God's
plan has an anarchist leaning – a people with guiding moral
principles and no need for rulers.
When
the monarchy is eventually instituted it is with disappointment and
pain on the part of God. Fearing a take-over by the selfish and
unjust sons of the final judge and prophet Samuel, the elders of
Israel demand Samuel appoint a king “such as all the other nations
have.”6
God speaks to Samuel: “It is not you they have rejected as their
king, but me. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of
Egypt, forsaking me and serving other Gods.”7
Since the very beginning of God's salvation plan for Israel they have
turned away from his model of living, preferring the customs and even
the gods of surrounding nations. Requesting a king is a new low. It
represented the people giving up their unique, ruler-less, identity
in order to be like everyone else.
Samuel
warns the people that a king will introduce policies of taxation and
subscription. He will take a tenth of all produce- all that had been
promised to God as offerings for redistribution among the priesthood,
foreigners, widows and orphans.8
The people “refused to listen” and demanded again that Samuel
make them like other nations with a king to lead and fight battles.
God tells Samuel to 'accede' to their wishes.9
Here is the extent to which God rejects absolute rulers: He even
limits his own rule. Though it is blasphemous, treasonous and
ultimately disastrous, God allows the people to choose.
Saul's
Kinghip is marked by disobedience and ends when Saul refuses to wage
war according to the principle of herem10,
taking plunder from the Amalekite king. “The LORD was grieved that
he had made Saul king over Israel.”11
The first kingship was a failure.
At
its inception, David's kingship seems markedly different from Saul's.
In the account of his annointing in the book of Samuel, David seems
much more passive than Saul, with God taking the lead. From the
Goliath story we see David's fundamental understanding that rule and
victory belong not to the king, but to God.12
During his early kingship he seems to understand himself as a regent
under God. This apparent contrast to Saul caused Jaques Ellul to call
David an 'exception' to the pattern of kingship, but this does not
give the full picture.13
Like Saul, David leans gradually away from God's rule and towards
behaviour similar to other ancient near-eastern kings, culminating in
adultery with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah. God speaks through
Nathan to remind David of his position: It was never David's rule or
David's victory that won him fame and favour- it was God's rule and
God's victory acting through his annointed leader.14
This 'fall from grace' leads Vernard Eller to claim David as “one
of our best arguments for anarchy.”15
Even David with his good intentions, nuanced understanding of
kingship under God and genuine heart of worship is ultimately
corrupted by the power he wields.
The
book of Samuel ends with David fulfilling the dire warnings about
monarchy from the early chapters. David takes a census of all the
young men fit for fighting. His commander, Joab recognizes the
sinfulness of such an action: “Why does my lord the king want to do
such a thing?”16
Chronicles takes the view that David must have been inspired by Satan
to do something as evil as take a census.17
It is not immediately obvious why taking a census should be
considered so wicked without referring back to 1 Samuel 8.18
In ordering a military census David is taking Israel another step
away from God's vision and towards 'the other nations'. He is
centralising military power under his authority. He is causing Israel
to trust in their own military strength, rather than in God.
Commentator A.A. Anderson writes: “The king and the people should
not rely on their own strength but they should depend on Yahweh (cf.
1 Samuel 14:6; Isaiah 31:1). Yahweh can deliver his people and give
them victory “by many or by few” (1 Samuel 14:6).”19
Israel's
journey away from God's plan and towards its own dream of becoming a
centralised military empire 'like the other nations' is finally
fulfilled under David's son Solomon. The tension of pro and anti
monarchy voices in the narrative is at its height when dealing with
Solomon. Though the original tone is lost to us, we must assume
something between carefully studied ambiguity and deliberate irony in
the accounts of Solomon's legendary greatness. In the Kings account
of the building of the temple we find the phrase: “Here is the
account of the forced labour King Solomon conscripted to build the
Lord's temple...”20
A vast and powerful empire built by forced labour? For a readership
in exile in Babylon this would be an uncomfortable image21.
The shadow of Egypt falls over Jerusalem. Those waiting for a second
exodus would have told how God had rescued his people from forced
labour - led them out pursued by Pharaoh's horses and chariots. Both
accounts of Solomon's splendour (1 Kings 10 and 2 Chronicles 9) list
Solomon's riches, trading prowess and military equipment, ending
pointedly with horses and chariots -specifically, horses and chariots
purchased from Egypt.
Deuteronomy
had prophesied the Israelite kingship and had specifically
instructed: “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.””22
Solomon had returned Israel to the ways of Egypt. For those who
yearned to return to the 'glory days' of Jerusalem there is a sharp
reminder - The time that Israel was at the height of its power was
also the time that it was furthest from God's vision. By asking for a
king, by endeavouring to be 'like other nations', Israel had made
themselves into another Egypt.
In
order to spread his diplomatic power, Solomon takes many foreign
wives ('seven hundred') which inevitably leads to worshipping foreign
gods. From a political standpoint this makes perfect sense -
integrating other cultures can only strengthen Israel's position as a
cosmopolitan power. But Israel is not
a nation like all the others. Solomon “did evil in the eyes of the
LORD.”23
The story of Solomon ends with strife - enemies raised up against
him, the inevitable division of the kingdom, rebellion and uprising
among the people - it is a strife that would continue for another
three-hundred-and-forty-four years until the fall of Jerusalem to the
Babylonians and the final end of the failed kingship.
For
Christian Anarchism this account of the monarchy offers five key
points: Firstly, it dispenses with the view that political power,
rulers and governments are advocated by God. To the contrary, the
work of centralised government- taxation,
subscription, military power, census etc. are directly forbidden by
God. Ellul concludes that:
“Political power rests on distrust … of God”24
Secondly,
God allows the people to choose. God is not a dictator and does not
enforce his rule, even choosing and blessing the king. The third
point is that God's apparent 'blessing' does not constitute an
endorsement of an action or system. God chose to bless the kingship,
and to dwell in the temple, even though they went against his plan.
This means that arguments about Christians in government cannot rest
on the blessing of God. “Look at all the good that was done” or
“God really blessed that work” are not synonymous with God's
approval of a system. It is clear that, although God chose, annointed
and blessed the kings, he despaired of the system of kingship
throughout.
The
fourth point is the danger of corruption. Even David with his pure
heart and Solomon with his divine gift of wisdom are easily corrupted
by power, going against God and acting like other rulers, leading the
nation in the same direction. For Christians in government this is a
dire warning. Some Christian communities pray that God's people would
be brought into political office, hoping that they would do justice
and redeem the system of government. If the biblical kingship is our
example, this seems impossible. For individual Christian communities,
and for Christians in government, the temptation to be 'like other
nations' is always too great. Finally, there is only room for one
ruler, and
that is God. God sees the acknowledging of earthly rulers as
rejection.25
1Asa,
Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Hezekiah, Josiah.
2Judges
17:6 (KJV). Also, Judges 18:1, Judges 19:1, Judges 21:25.
3Judges
8:23 (NIV)
4See
also the Parable of Jotham. Judges 8:7-20. it should be noted that,
while YHWH's kingship is a central theme, this should properly be
viewed as an indictment of Abimelech specifically, rather than
Kingship generally.
5Jacques
Ellul. Anarchy
and Christianity.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988. Pg 46-47
61
Samuel 8:5
71
Samuel 8:7-8 NIV
8Deuteronomy
26:12
9Ralph
W. Klein's translation of 1 Samuel 8:22. Word
Biblical Commentary: 1 Samuel.
Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1983. Pg 73
101
Samuel 15:3 c. Leviticus 27:28
111
Samuel 15: 35
121
Samuel 17: 37, 45-47
13Jacques
Ellul. Anarchy
and Christianity.
Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988. Pg. 49
142
Samuel 12:7-9
15Vernard
Eller. Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987. Pg.
9
162
Samuel 24:3 (NIV)
18Exodus
30:12 supposes that a census will be taken, and the book of Numbers
begins with maybe the most famous recorded census. (1:1-4 and 19)
201
Kings 9:15 (NIV) See also, 2 Chronicles 8:8
21It
should also be noted that both Kings and chronicles record that the
amount of tax Solomon gathered was six-hundred-and-sixty-six shekels
(1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13). Whether this number is
adopted in John's revelation as a reference to Solomon's power and
imminent apostasy, or whether it has an older origin in Hebrew
numerology, scholarship is agreed that six-six-six represents
incompleteness, imperfection and the connection between man and
beast.
22Deuteronomy
17:16 (NIV)
231
Kings 11:6
24Jaques
Ellul, cited in Alexandre Christoyannopoulos. Christian Anarchism: A
Political Commentary on the Gospel (Abridged Edition). Exeter:
Imprint Academic, 2011. Pg. 70
251
Samuel 8:7
No comments:
Post a Comment