Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

KING, KINGSHIP

In the OT, king and kingship (derived from Heb. mlk) signify both an administrative office and a leadership role for governing peoples and territories. The concept implies at least some religious, political, social, and economic centralization, but it is not clear whether full-blown nation-statehood is necessarily envisaged. As in other Near Eastern societies, kings are suzerains (overlords) whose vassals comprise their own peoples, others whom they conquer or who willfully join allegiance, and at times lesser kings and kingdoms. Kings are responsible for maintaining socio-political order through laws, battles, rituals, and the exercise of wise judgment and effective persuasion (2 Sam. 5–8). These are meant to guarantee their vassals’ general well-being and security. Unlike kingship among their neighbors, Yahwist kingship is not created by the deity, Yahwist kings do not enjoy divine filiation, and their edicts are not eternal.

The Bible depicts ambiguous attitudes toward the institution. Enthusiasm, resistance, and reluctant acceptance are all present. The ambivalence begins with the founding of kingship. Samuel, the chief proponent and prophetic impulse for monarchy, wavers (compare 1 Sam. 9:1–10:16; 11 and 1 Sam. 8; 10:17-27). Differences between Yahwist and neighboring models are desired but maintained only with difficulty, and sliding toward totalitarian practices is feared (1 Sam. 8:11-18; Amos 7:10-16). Rules of succession and inheritance seem to favor primogeniture, but the rules at times seem to be unclear, lacking, or ignored (e.g., 1 Kgs. 1:28-37; 11-12). As a result, divisiveness and intrigue lead to schism, mayhem, and even death. Divine sanction and official investiture do not guarantee competence, morality, or effectiveness. But the monarchic principle survives for several centuries (ca. 1150-587 b.c.e.), kingship can be the basis for renewal (2 Kgs. 23), and after its passing the institution is remembered favorably in the hymns and prayers of the Psalter.

The exact time and causes of biblical kingship’s beginning are debated. The biblical portrayal of Saul as a divinely chosen suzerain anointed by Samuel immediately after the tribal period in the 11th century is oversimplified. Faced with Philistine domination, the Yahwists turn to Samuel to choose a centralized leader who is first Saul and then David (1 Sam. 8-16). Eventually, David is made king of Judah (2 Sam. 2:1-7) and then Israel (5:1-5) before moving his administrative center for both units to Jerusalem (5:6-10).

In this view, centralized leadership is commonly thought to date from the 10th or 9th century, when northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) Yahwists share single leadership under David and Solomon. The unity appears to have been the personal prerogative of the so-called United Monarchies, rather than a political unity of the regions. The post-Solomonic division, the Divided Monarchy, may be a shedding of a shared leader rather than a disintegration of a political and religious alliance. Whatever the exact nature and cause of the turn of events that lead to the schism separating northern and southern kingdoms, Israel survives a succession of kings until it falls to the Assyrians in 721 (2 Kgs. 17), and Judah prevails until being overrun by the Babylonians led by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 (2 Kgs. 24–25).

Archaeology and comparative sociology suggest a more gradual, prolonged, and complex process leading toward establishing kingship. Accordingly, full statehood with national kingship follows developments and pressures both within and outside the Yahwist community. Over time — suggestions range from a few decades to several centuries — Yahwist tribal units coalesce to form moieties led by paramount chiefs before further developments propel the federations to statehood. The transitions are accompanied, if not caused, by changes in economic base and residential strategy as much as by threats from foreign enemies. Developing agriculture technologies, diversification in crafts, specializations in modes of production, and introduction of iron-making all foster sedentariness and begin to supplement and shift reliance away from pastoralism and nomadism. The latter are retained in some areas and are integrated into the new economy in others. And they are valued nostalgically as socio-religious ideals imbued with mythic power from the past. But the general trend is toward sedentary agrarianism and urbanism with an accompanying need for stable permanent administrative office such as kingship.

The developments leading toward and supporting kingship parallel transformations in the Yahwist literary tradition. The palace becomes the repository and origin of tradition. There tradition is interpreted and reinterpreted in light of current needs, attitudes, and circumstances. Texts produced by court scribes bear the distinctive views of their patrons. Changes in patrons or patrons’ views guide modern biblical critics in their attempts to unravel the stages of development within the biblical tradition. Identifying the stages demonstrates that as an ancient technology writing contributes directly to the propaganda and power of the centralized king. The ability to control the past by shaping its telling is an effective administrative tool. The unity and disunity, the agreements and disagreements that constitute the richness and variety of the biblical story result from the king’s telling and retelling the past.

A king’s personal traits are important. Good looks, physical strength, height, quick-wittedness, an even temper, and ability with weapons are valued (1 Sam. 9:1-2; 17; 1 Kgs. 4:29-34). As with other biblical figures, long years of life and ruling are signs of wisdom.

Throughout kingship’s history the extent of Yahwist influence changes many times as the leaders’ fate varies. Consequently, the territorial limits of kings’ authority are often indistinct. Modern attempts to reconstruct them rely on census lists, battle stories, tales of journeys, and other accounts that contain place names and topographical features. However, these may be less important for marking boundaries than is the allegiance of individuals and groups that guarantee a king’s power. A king’s control over people and, in turn, their identification with place define the sphere of influence more than a boundary line or border such as moderns would indicate on a map.

Yahwist kingship enjoys only limited approval from Hebrew prophets, whose dire warnings eventually prove to be correct. Royal policy and behavior elicit threatening criticism and stern rebukes. Violations of covenant values bring promises of the most dire consequences, including personal punishments and loss of autonomy for the nation.

With the demise of independent political kingship among the Yahwists, priesthood emerges as the inheritor of many of the promises and expectations that Royal Theology previously invests in kings. Priesthood and priestly environments become the locus of monarchic hopes. Messianism arises from this milieu.

Bibliography. J. W. Flanagan, David’s Social Drama. JSOTSup 74 (Sheffield, 1988); K. W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchial Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel. JSOTSup 12 (Sheffield, 1979).

James W. Flanagan

Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

KING, KINGSHIP

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000)