An Exegetical Analysis for Focused Study
[Deuteronomy 17:14-20 My Translation]
When you come to the land, which YHWH your God is giving to you, and you take possession[1] and you dwell in it and say, “I will set over me a king like all the nations that are around me.” 15 Set over you a king whom YHWH chooses; from among your citizenry[2] and not any foreigner who is not your citizenry. 16 But the king shall not gather many horses and shall not make you return to Egypt to gather more because YHWH said, “You shall not turn this way again.” 17 And neither shall the king have many wives, so his heart will not turn away, and he shall not increase greatly his personal wealth. 18 It shall be established that when the king sits on the throne, he shall write a copy of the law for himself from the Levitical priest’s law book. 19 He shall study this law every day and learn to fear YHWH and observe the laws and statutes of YHWH, 20 and may his heart not be lifted above his countrymen. May his application of the law be justly applied[3] so his reign will last. May this also be the practice of his children who reign as kings of Israel.
Pericope Outline:
14 – Prediction of Israel’s future want for a king.
15-17 – YHWH’s restrictions placed on a future king.
18-20a – YHWH’s prescribed guidelines for a king.
20b – YHWH’s allowance for an inherited monarchy.
וִֽירִשְׁתָּ֖הּ [wî·riš·tāh] -1
translated as take possession, but It is often translated as inherited. It is important to keep in mind that the land of Canaan was occupied by people who had to be displaced before Israel could live in it and eventually build a monarchy. The concept that YHWH is giving the land originates in Gen. 15:7-8. It is echoed repeatedly in Numbers and Deuteronomy as well as the book of Joshua. The ethics of this gift from God seem to be little wrote about, but I find it interesting that such a blatant disregard for life could be simply translated as inheritance.
אַחֶ֗יךָ [à hé kã] - 2
Translated as a citizenry, it can also be translated as a brother. The NIV uses fellow Israelites, and the KJV uses brethren. Today, modern nations are more diverse and not as ethnically centered. Therefore, citizenry, by which I mean one who is a citizen of the covenant community, I feel is more appropriate to get the meaning across without implying a xenophobic stance. However, the Hebrew word connotes familial closeness more.
וּלְבִלְתִּ֛י ס֥וּר [sūr ū·lə·ḇil·tî] - 3
Literal translation to turn to the right or to the left. The idiom meant that one was not leading a straight path. The phrase “application of the law be justly applied”, seems to be more understandable in a 21-century vernacular and carries the same importance. Although kingship is permitted by YHWH, a monarchy is predicated on the proper application of the law.
Outline summary:
The idea of kingship within the Torah does not start in Deuteronomy; it is found in Genesis 17:6, 17:16, and 35:11. Tradition, as well as theology, would suggest YHWH planted the idea of a king in their subconscious from the beginning. (Merrill 1994) The narrative within Deuteronomy is that YHWH foretells the election of a king to Moses to prepare Israel for the day when they will want to emulate the surrounding nations that have human kings. Verse 14 directly predicts the events of 1 Samuel 8, where although YHWH is the king of Israel, the people ask for a human king. (1 Sam: 15-17, 10:24, 16:12-13).
vv. 15-17 places restrictions on the human king, both asserting the dominance of YHWH’s lordship over the human king and predicting what will happen as the human kings become corrupted by power. These verses are believed to be a direct commentary of Solomon and his many wives, horses, and other material wealth, possibly inserted by post-exilic writers or redactors. (Wright, Shrines and Parker 1953)- David would begin to accumulate a massive amount of wealth, and his sizeable bureaucratic administration would require an influx of wealth to maintain. Therefore, the king would receive tithes [taxes] given [demanded], which would be used to pay for his lieutenants, army, and royal retainers, as well as support the royal family and harem. (Bennett 2002) The growth of the kingdom, in this way, would be in direct violation of YHWH’s instruction for the king. It is interesting to note that the mention of multiplying horses is a commentary on military building. Egypt would have been the leader in chariot warfare and, therefore, the best place to acquire horses for military use. (R. and G. 1970) This is why YHWH said never to turn that way again. This pericope suggests the king should live by the covenant established by YHWH and not live for military conquest. This entire passage could be used as a commentary on the leaders today who claim divine right for their power.
Vv. 18-20a prescribes the proper way in which a king should indeed behave. The kingdom in Israel was effectively a constitutional monarchy because of this pericope, which limited the powers of the king by making him subject to the priest and the law and effectively making the king a subject in YHWH’s kingdom. (Tigay 1996) By always having a copy of the law by his side and studying it daily, the king would be able to judge righteously and lovingly. One can conclude from the scripture that this was rarely (practically never) the case because kings would continue to work to amass wealth. This is an obvious conclusion considering the amount of wealth it would take to be considered legitimate by the surrounding nations. The Deuteronomic writer makes an excellent commentary on future kings and human nature. Did the institution of a king force Israel to concentrate on the political nature of such a role, which forced them to ignore YHWH? The evidence found in scripture would suggest that it would be a massive temptation, and YHWH knew it. It is interesting to note that even though David did commit some egregious sins, he accepted the word of YHWH, unlike what Saul had done (1 Samuel 15:23), and, therefore, he was allowed to remain the king of Israel. This also set up the king/prophet dynamic, beginning with Samuel and future prophets of Israel, who would be the voices that would tell the king and the people what sins they had committed against YHWH.
Verse 20b indicates that as long as the practice of following the guidelines given by YHWH to the king continues, the monarchy will remain with the bloodline of the one whom YHWH has chosen to lead Israel. We see in Saul's story that YHWH is keen to have the king follow the rules. The first and most important rule is to put nothing before YHWH. (1 Samuel 15:10-11)
Literary Context and Boundaries:
The boundaries of this pericope are well established. Many commentaries use Deut. 17:14-20 as a set pericope. It is noteworthy that this pericope is set as both instructions, even as it predicts Solomon's and David's behavior. Many critics consider this pericope to be a scathing commentary on the reign of Solomon. G. Ernest Wright notes that considering this is a writing of the ancient Near East; it is unusual for the writer not to make the king the most important figure. In fact, the writer emphasizes the judiciary before the king in the previous chapter (Deut 16:18-20) (Wright, Shrines and Parker 1953). The king is, by situational default, subject to the priest and the law. This is concluded by emphasizing the study of the Law. (Deut. 17:18-20) The behavior of ancient Near East kings will also be referenced by Samuel when the people of Israel do, in fact, ask for a king to “be like other nations.” Samuel then reaffirms the Deuteronomic writer’s critique in the form of a prophecy. He tells the people how the king will use them and amass wealth by taking their sons and daughters in the same ways as would be done under Solomon. He also eludes to the tithes (levies and taxes) that will be established by the king in order to keep the royal lifestyle going. YHWH allows this to happen to show Israel their error in wanting to be like other nations (1 Samuel 8). This pericope is perfectly set in its boundaries. Still, it should also be understood in the context of the surrounding book of Deuteronomy because of the impact it has on the history of Israel.
Historical Context:
Taking this thought to its ultimate conclusion, one must be aware of the implications implied by this passage throughout the entire Old Testament. A king set in place like other nations has lasting effects on Israel, even into the 2nd temple era of Jesus. Israel could be tempted to do as other nation-states do and elevate the king to the status of a god. Abraham Heschel notes that almost all ancient Near East kings were considered gods themselves or the adopted sons of gods. (Heschel 1962) Indeed, the elevation of a king also produced the elevation of a social justice figure, that of the prophet, as a counterbalance to the king. Abraham Heschel points out that the prophet was formerly called a seer. Prophets, beginning with Samuel, become the voice of YHWH and push back against the king in order to ensure the law of YHWH is followed. When the king, and therefore Israel, moves too far away from YHWH, the Prophet warns the king and Israel—speaking truth to power as God’s mouthpiece and with God’s authority. When the warning inevitably does not work, the prophet then announces YHWH’s judgment. This is the case with Saul being placed on the throne by YHWH through Samuel (1 Samuel 10) and ultimately dethroned and replaced by David. (1 Samuel 15:34-16:1. Giving us evidence that God can and will change direction to further His plan for creation.
The dichotomy of prophet and king continues in other forms, such as in Jeremiah and the Babylonian exile. (Jeremiah 25) The king, having limited power, played well for the prophet within the narrative. Because the Law limited the power of the king, the king had to recognize the right of the prophet to be the voice of YHWH (Tigay 1996). One can see this pericope sets a tone for the rest of the Old Testament political history. A king being placed over Israel, even though chosen by YHWH, puts Israel in the middle of the geopolitical arena of the Near Middle East. No longer would Israel be ruled by Judges on a regional basis. A central government would be in place and, therefore, need to be maintained, as Samuel points out when warning the people through prophecy. All Christians should seriously consider the historical impact of this pericope.
Cultural Context:
Thomas Mann points out that the king was to be a theologian king. (Mann 1995) In the ancient Near East, all kings were tied to their religions. Some were even considered divine beings themselves. YHWH instructs the king to hand-copy the written Law from the priest’s scroll; he is advised to study it every day so he can render justice to the people of Israel. Mann points out that Deuteronomy was all too aware of the ideal monarchy versus the real-world monarchy. Mann compares the idea of a king to the reality of modern government by comparing the would-be earthly king of Israel to the modern-day reality of government within the United States. He uses the example of Watergate during the Nixon administration. Still, one can’t help but notice a striking resemblance to present-day political dilemmas and the role fundamental religious figures play in supporting such a government. What is the church’s role in modern politics? When we see religion, especially Christianity, tell the masses that the current leader is in place because God put him there and that everything is happening because it’s the will of God, how should moderate Christians react? Who is to be the voice of the YHWH today? Who are our modern-day prophets? Will they be wearing camel skins and eating locusts?
Engaging Diverse Perspectives:
The very public and personal life of the king was also a concern of YHWH. Valerie Griffiths points out that the idea of having multiple wives was mainly reserved for the rich and powerful. Throughout Mesopotamia, polygamy was not as widespread as some might think. It was used primarily by those who were wealthy in order to maintain an heir and, therefore, the wealth of the family. Basically, one must be rich enough to afford extra wives. Griffiths makes the point that Deuteronomy 17:17 warns that polygamy will lead to the downfall of kings, which comes to fruition in 1 Kings 11:1-6. Griffiths also points out that the Church has had a poor track record when it comes to missionaries who encounter polygamy. Polygamists who converted to Christianity were often forced by their missionary teachers to divorce their “extra” wives, which would leave the wife and their children destitute. (Griffiths 2002) This is a pointed commentary on the lack of social justice when dealing with women who, in many cases, are seen as property that can be discarded if needed.
Exegetical Focus:
The view of YHWH as king is prevalent from Genesis forward in scripture. This is understandable because by the time Abram left Ur to follow the command of YHWH, Egypt would have been a thousand years old. (Carew 2006) It is also understandable that the writer of Moses' story would insert the duties and limitations of a king. The idea that Israel would want a king is understandable through this worldly lens. If any Israelite looked at any nation other than their own, they would see a government with a king as the figurehead. The most pertinent question that comes to mind concerning a king, especially one with limited powers, is how this applies to our lives today. We also live in a society that claims limited powers to the various entities within our government. Our republic is based on a set of checks and balances. Just like when the king of Israel moved away from YHWH and the prophet gave a warning from YHWH, so too do the three branches of our government play a role in balancing the scales of justice. But what happens when the checks put in place are subverted? What happens when one entity oversteps the bounds of the assigned power structure and the other entities do nothing or are corrupted by their power? Without getting too much into the current political climate in Washington, let us look at the social justice platform on a smaller level. Today, many different social justice issues could be avoided if those who are called our leaders follow the teachings of the Torah and Jesus a little closer.
The fundamental problems are far more complicated than any one person could begin to comprehend, and I do not expect a paper that has been researched for six weeks to contain any lasting answers. However, the writer of Deuteronomy makes a valid point when he writes that YHWH wants the king to write a copy of the law down and study it every day. I would like to know how many of our national leaders have read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. How many of our local leaders have read the state constitution or the city charters where they reside? Just as the kings of Israel did not learn from the instruction of Deuteronomy, or the warning of Samuel, or the downfall of Saul, we too have not learned from the instruction of our written laws or the wisdom of Deuteronomy.
Do we look at the people we put into these positions? Do we only listen to soundbites of information and make decisions as to who to vote for on election day? Do we even vote in local elections, or do we only vote every four years when the get-out-the-vote campaigns popularize it? Do we show up to town halls and ask questions about how people experiencing homelessness are treated, or orphans, or people experiencing poverty? How would our candidates treat those who need long-term medical care or preventative measures that keep long-term care at bay for decades? Do our leaders claim to follow God, or do they follow an ideology?
The same lessons should also be held close to our hearts in other institutions. Our churches and civic organizations could learn from this pericope to keep God at the forefront of our minds, not just our hearts. When giving to our churches, do we know to what missions the monies go? How do these missions handle encounters with indigenous people both abroad and domestically? Do our local churches even know which indigenous people originally occupied the land our current sanctuaries sit on? If so, do we acknowledge that the land was taken away from those people, probably by force? The questions, when looked at closely, will spawn more questions for sure.
The main opposition I get when I have brought up these questions is, “What do we do about it?” It seems that the corruption of government is too much, and the church has always given to that charity that openly denies benefits to LGBTQ persons. How do we change the system? The one answer, the only answer I can think of, is the same as the answer found throughout the book of Deuteronomy. Each person is responsible for the decisions they make, and our choices should reflect the best interest of the community in which we live. We tend to let others make decisions for us. When it comes to voting, we listen to news pundits. When we give to charity, we tend to give to the same ones we have always given to or the ones our parents gave to. We must learn to ask if we are doing this to benefit the least of these or if we are only looking for self-gratification. We say, “I gave to charity; that should be enough,” or we say, “I voted for my party; they will take care of me.” How would YHWH of the Old Testament have treated a king with that attitude? The answer is found in scripture.
The people of Israel did the same thing we do today. They looked to the king to lead them without self-awareness while the king was turning away from YHWH. It was ultimately the Prophet who was burdened with the job of speaking God’s judgment in an effort to straighten the course of the people.
So, who is our prophet today? Is it the church? Whose church? Which denomination? Do we listen to a national denomination, the Pope, or whatever organization currently has the ear of our representatives, senators, and president? If I had to make a bold answer, it would be Jesus. A voice from two thousand years ago witnessed in scripture still gives us the most straightforward instruction, straight from the Shema in Deuteronomy 6. His words still ring true to this day. Being YHWH’s chosen people did not necessarily elect Israel to be free from suffering or even death. YHWH only wanted what was best for Israel and the world. Abraham was called to bless the nations; Israel, in turn, was called to carry on that tradition. Jesus amplified the call to the entire world by telling us to care for the “other” as we care for ourselves. That is the only way we indeed love God.
It is not as simple as putting on a “what would Jesus do?” tee shirt or wristband. That, although fashionable, is the equivalent of giving lip service to an issue. True reflection, like that of the prophets, is the only way to be what Jesus is calling us to be. The king was not instructed to be the military leader of Israel; that was the assumed role of the king by the Israelites. The king was commanded to study the law. To understand the covenant YHWH had made with Israel, to be intimate with it, to study it every day.
Most importantly, the king was to be the voice of YHWH when justice was needed. To be an example of how to live a covenant life. We see that the plan failed the first time out with Saul. It reverted to Samuel to be the voice of YHWH. Today, we, the individual, must be the voice of Jesus in the world, not by yelling and screaming, wearing “Y'all Need Jesus” tee-shirts, or placing the latest catchphrase bumper sticker on our cars. We can only follow the command of Jesus by doing the command of Jesus. Lead by example in all things. First, with ourselves, then our families, followed by the work we do in our churches and civic organizations, and then by how we vote. It was never the people who made a man a king. It was always YHWH who placed him there as long as he walked with God. Living by example, being intimate with the Word of God all the days of our lives so that our children will also be able to live the same life, is God’s plan for us, as found in scripture. We can learn a lot from the instructions for a king.
Comments