King Me
By: Jonathan Seidel
Divine Leadership?
Josiah’s resurgence of the Deuteronomic book is essential as Mishneh Torah and Torat Moshe. It is the lifeblood of Moses encapsulated in his incredible summation. The culmination of all that has. Reviewing the past forty years and prior. All the people have experienced and all their ancestors have given. Reminded of the essentials to history. A last hara before passing on the reigns. A retirement speech to the people filled with praise and criticism. Moses’ personal words and his heartfelt goodbye.
Along with the summation is preparations for a world outside the desert. Chapters devoted to the political construction and judicial framework. How to set it up and how to judge. Refuge cities for those who commit accidental errors and divvying up portions of land per tribe. Up to Shoftim is a summary with Shoftim looking to the future. Beginning with order and following with a slew of details. Laws of war and captives. Moses’ last half of his retirement speech is more laws. Paul would’ve had a field day. More laws more obligation. Yet these are laws specific to the next stage. Entirely irrelevant in the desert. Laws that impact the next stage.
Moses is readying the people for a time outside the desert. A time beyond the enveloped miraculous. God promises to assist in war and prophecy but his role as intervener has shifted. The battles are fought by men not god. The Amalek war was dependent on Moses’ hands not the quantity of soldiers nor the quality of their spears. Already into the final years, man is pointed to take care of his own problems. Maturing through the desert means his actions matter. Yet it is Moses, the man of God, who kills both Bilaam and Og. It is the prophet who dirties his hands. He is the messenger of God and fights on behalf of God. There is a transition to Moses’ action with divine aid though in skilful battle-like action. It is less miraculous and seems more natural.
Yet the transition isn’t as smooth as Moses to Joshua. The text specifically says “when you enter the land and wish to have a king”. While Abarbanel reads this negatively, there is some positivity in a lesser Maimonidean spirit. The king is inevitable as a man of the people anointed by God. A man in charge of the political and logistical while accepted by God. He is the people’s choice. Samuel is angry because he is differed. He is a prophet not a king. It wasn’t like all the other nations to copy just for the sake but to feel more connected to their king of flesh and blood. Anointed with the oil but a man nonetheless. The people could never compete with the prophet. The prophet was a social critic and an outsider who seamlessly always challenged the people.
The king was their man. The prophet was a check on the king not only due to absolute power and potential tyranny but influence. Ahab and Jezebel brought idolatry and Josiah brought Torah. The prophet lambasted and confided in the king to change his heart. Just as pharaoh had the power to free the people so too, the king has the power to enlighten them. While not completely, installing the evil or eradicating it, went a long way. Removing public displays changes public opinion. The king was the people’s representative and the prophet was God’s. David won wars and Solomon brought prosperity. This was the natural element that bestowed trust in the leadership. David and Solomon were loyal to the Lord while later kings grew paranoid and power hungry.
The ability for the king to cast out the man of God. God’s presence no longer led the people in the day nor the fire lighting up the night. God was shrouded in mystery. In prophetic phraseology. Some outcast has preached on high about a deity that cannot be heard. Especially drowned in idolatry. Generations seduced into the seditious lifestyle forgot God. A generation of maranos with zero remembrance of their ancestry. The work has been rewritten. The king himself is unaware of his error. He follows his father and his father’s father. A dynasty of a lost heritage. A sole savior looms out of nowhere. Babbling about a supreme deity. True prophets who attempted the impossible. Not the miracle of splitting the sea but the miracle of reviving the heritage.
Joshua like Moses split the sea. Joshua sent spies to Jericho. He was the servant of Moses. He mimicked his former teacher. While he never faired to the level of his master, he led the people to conquer the land. He set up the necessary landmarks, Moses foretold. He was the prophetic leader like his master before him. After his death the judges took over. The judges were somewhere between leaders and prophets. They weren’t preachers and they weren’t dynastic leaders. Like prophets they emerged in a time of crisis to save the day. They saved the day and led for a time before either dying or moving on. They stabilized the nation accomplishing their goal ending their duty. The cycle persists for each of the judges. They were military and political gurus aiding the people.
The last judge is Samuel. Samuel embodied the prophet and the judge. For most of his life he was a judge but towards the end he becomes the prophet. His role early on was aiding the problematic nation. More than anyone else he was far more political than militaristic. Perpetually roaming the country assisting the people. Yet he is betrayed by the people. They are ready for a king. Samuel is rejected and regulated to the prophet. He has lost his political status. He became a political aide rather than a warrior. Saul is chosen because of his warrior-like bravado. The king is seen as a man of battle and resilience. It is here that Samuel’s role is to oversee the king. While feeling rejected this role is incredibly important.
Samuel’s new role as king’s overseer, is an interesting play for God. Abarbanel even notes that such a choice for a king rejects divine kinship for divine chosen kingship. In this way, God appointing Samuel to anoint Saul is God’s selection of Samuel. If the people desire Saul as their knight then God desires Samuel as his knight. Samuel through God handicaps Saul. Saul is to follow the word of God. Samuel informs Saul of the divine word to obey. When Saul fails, Samuel himself takes action. Samuel not Saul kills Agag. Samuel points to Saul’s inadequacy. The king is a mere servant to God. Yet as he is no prophet he acts mighty but he is also under the law. The prophet is the mouthpiece for the divine word to be relayed to the most powerful man in the nation.
Samuel was the last agent of God. Samuel was instructed to judge people. He never lost his connection to God nor his prestige but he did lose his role. God did not rebut him, the people did. Samuel was the thread between the divine age and the regal age. With a king in toe, the leader was not sent by God. In a way it was now fate rather than destiny. Though Samson and Samuel were born as nazarite judges, it was their mothers not lineage that determined their will. God chose for their attributes not their genetics. Yet even the kingship is chosen before it is fated. Saul and David are both chosen by God. Later on God instructs other prophets to anoint kings. Divine instruction is never eroded but it is left to the prophet to act. When not instructed it passes on through the king’s choice.
Divine kingship is paired with man’s medium. A prophet is designated the leader under divine instruction. The leader is a voice for the people. The leader is a political and spiritual magnet. He is the flowing divinity. Transmitting the divine energy to the people. God speaks to tell the people. The biblical story is about God’s relationship to the people. Moses is the middleman. It is the people who complain to Moses to intercede on their behalf to God. Moses is their transmitter. Even Moses himself councils God for advice. He is an instrument for the divine wisdom. Joshua assumes more authority but the divine word is still manifest frequently. Under the judges the leader is necessary in a time of spellbinding difficulty. When the people are divided and sinning, God sends a savior. In that time there was no king in Israel. No king and rarely a unified leader.
The familial relationship and the tribal relationship differ in their perspectives. God appears to the forefathers in a personable way. Each following their own path. God accompanies them on their journey. Moses turns the nation who scream to their ancestral God to Israel receiving the Torah at Sinai. Moses is the medium that brands the nation as God’s eldest son Israel. They aren’t just descendants of the forefathers or an enslaved people but a liberated people. They attain a new identity of Israel. Thus there is no king in Israel recognizes the fulfilled prophecy. They may not have a unified leader supervising since God is the supervisor. The people are a nation under God. Moses was the proto-proto-judge to redeem the people from bondage. Whisking them to the promised land. Joshua continues Moses’ mission into fulfilling that role.
Once the land is conquered, the tribes though connected under the Israel banner are fragmented into tribes. The divine banner is the Torah not a flag. No need for a central city nor a capital for a leader to reside. The ensuing judges are military leaders who assist in overcoming the enemy. Like Moses, they assume their role from God and then fulfill. Though the judges are not prophets in the same way Joshua nor Moses was. They are not kings in vitality nor power but are “secular” leaders. Moses was the political, military and spiritual leader. Yet it was incumbent on the judges to renew the people’s link with God. They were temporary leaders. Only sought in the cycle of turmoil and wrongdoing. Only mass error sought political aid. The judge united the people against the common antagonist, defeated him, rekindled the divine legacy and ensured its order.
The nation was a group of fragmented tribes with close connections. There were intertribal issues before the kingship and afterwards. Yet it was the princes who became the leaders. While the princes of the tribe in the desert submitted to Moses, they gained their authority post-Joshua. The princes were now in charge of their respective tribes. Israel was divided into different people from the same family. A common heritage under the familial and covenantal bond to God. God chose the family and the nation chose God. Judges thus emerged from various tribes. Each tribe was a part of the historical community. They may have politically diverged but they accepted the divine word at Sinai and fought together to conquer the land. Fragmented but realigned under God.
Pre-monarchy is the Jeffersonian version of democracy while monarchy is the Hamiltonian version of democracy. One places power in the state and one places power in the federal apparatus. A republic with little oversight or with much intervention. In both cases the constitution is the highest order. God is akin to the law above all. The divine word is above the senator and the president. Hamilton sees the federal aspect as a permanent piece of the puzzle. Engaging in the political and economic aspects. Though potentially going farther in the legal atmosphere (this has more ramifications for the rabbinic age though arguably specifically the French model). Jefferson instead saw the state as the decider for its own issues with intervention under extenuating circumstances. Federal absence is a necessary freedom to the state community.
Judges for Jefferson are a sort of state of exception. In specific circumstances the federal government may intervene. While it doesn’t seem Jefferson was looking to elect a president when things went awry, anticipating a permanent role for the elected leader, his role only became more imbued with dire ramifications. Jefferson may even applaud Lincoln for a state of emergency to regain the south from secession. Federal involvement is necessary when threatened whether politically, economically or militarily. FDR’s actions may even be credible if they were temporary measures. The judge is a divine choice for the state of exception. The states are in a bind and only the federal choice can unify the people to propel them to victory.
While there is no prophet technically in the Hamiltonian version though seemingly congress ought to play that role even if they do so horribly. Their power exceeds pure constitutional protection as legislators. In a way even if the court declares a law unconstitutional, congress can override their decision into an amendment like with the 11th amendment of sovereign immunity. In contrast, the biblical model employs a defender of the divine law by God choosing his guard. The king is the legislator but the prophet is the judge of his actions and the people’s. Significant political differences but the duality is helpful for discerning between states under a legal rubric rather than a single person or collective apparatus.
Pre-monarchy doesn’t aspire for permanent leadership. One can argue that Moses’ sin was not the cause of his lost opportunity. It was never his role to lead the people into the land and conquer it. Not because he wasn’t worthy but incapable. Moses regularly grows weary of the people. He defends them at almost every turn saving them from damnation but it is this strife that causes him to lose his cool. He hits the rock because the people are stiff-necked, because they are complaining non-stop. Moses’ reaction was typical. While commentators point to his overreaction as lacking faith in God, it was his distraction due to the constant delirium. He was a product of a royal upbringing never experiencing the slave mentality. His ire was from the evident miraculous care. Stop complaining already accept God and move on. He hit his boiling point and snapped. It was not unworthiness but misunderstanding.
Moses redeemed them, made them a nation under God and brought them to the border for Joshua to take over. The temporary collective leadership lasted for generations. The people flourished and failed throughout. It can be argued that it was only peaceful and angelic under the judge’s reign. The cycle meant that they would inevitably turn bad. Yet the monarchy had its own pitfalls. Extended leadership also lead to disaster. At least the periodic judge could swoop in sufficiently to help the people back on track after they took a wrong turn.
Unlike the monarchy that would drown them in devilish behavior unable to see the light of God. In both cases there was good and bad. Leaving the people to their own devices led to frequent estrangement with an emergency mechanical fix but the monarchy flooded the people with perpetuated estrangement that needed to buy a new model to restart the error.
The people may have desired their own leader. A representative of their own but such relational commitment is not necessarily the best option. The leader is idolized into the supreme order. He becomes the face of the nation. He demonstrates his power and influence uniting the people. He is so amazing he deserves so much praise. The law becomes a relic of a bygone past and the leader the new legacy. Permanence prevails in hyper-focusing on the leader over the law. The king over the king of kings. The law is fossilized in favor of a new naturalized model. Man replaces God. Mortality replaced immortality. Finite leadership in place of the infinite law. The place of the prophet is to balance this error. The king is not the new focus but a part of the divine chessboard. He is anointed by God. If he is not anointed, he is equivalent to the false prophet.
Deuteronomy is Moses’ foretelling of the future. A king will be desired. It is an eventual part of political development. Industrialization as well as order establish a unified federalism. The king makes sense but it ought not forget the divine banner. The king carries a Torah scroll to war as a sign of his submission to God and the covenant. The king must demonstrate his allegiance to God. The prophet is the check on the king but the king must display his commitment. Hakhel sums this up. The law of the king to read the Torah every seven years to the entire nation on Sukkoth. A way of imploring the people of their heritage. The king’s duty is not solely political and nor was the judges. Regarding Deborah who was the judge and prophetess, it was her sidekick Barack who was the military strategist. Yet it was Yael of the Keini (Jethro) who slew Sisra and brought peace to Israel.
Hakhel is fascinating because unlike the other prohibitions against excess materialism (wives, horses, money) this was a positive commandment on the king alone with no relation to the prophet, only that the prophet seemingly ensure the king pull through though not explicitly mentioned in Deuteronomy nor in Sotah. Every Sukkoth Sabbatical year at the temple, the king would read aloud certain verses from Deuteronomy. Sotah details these verses: Parshat Devarim till Shema, vehaya, blessings and curses and maybe the deeds in Parshat kedoshim. Parshat Devarim begins with Moses retelling the history and concludes with Moses directing them to recall the divine word. Listen Israel God is ours and he is one and listen to his commandments to be blessed lest you be punished for disobedience. Additionally be holy by acting in this manner towards God and others. The king relates the historical record and the eternal authority of God. He encourages the people while also submitting his servitude.
Moses recognizes the inevitability of a political monarchy. It is not a question of ideal or not but rather how to act under those conditions. If you want a king here are the rules. Here are the parameters to follow. It is easy to forget God when there is a human leader over an aspiring legal system. Deuteronomy foresees the possibility of a framework with permanent human authority. The messianic trope seeks to install a king from the davidic line reclaiming the monarchy. While righteous it promotes collectivism instead of fragmented tribalism. Deuteronomy is no longer a plausibility but a prophecy. The judicial age is no more only the salvation under the monarchic centrality. Yet the messiah will read these powerful verses from Moses every Sukkoth Sabbatical year to reinvigorate the relationship with ineffable and commitment to the covenant.
Along with the summation is preparations for a world outside the desert. Chapters devoted to the political construction and judicial framework. How to set it up and how to judge. Refuge cities for those who commit accidental errors and divvying up portions of land per tribe. Up to Shoftim is a summary with Shoftim looking to the future. Beginning with order and following with a slew of details. Laws of war and captives. Moses’ last half of his retirement speech is more laws. Paul would’ve had a field day. More laws more obligation. Yet these are laws specific to the next stage. Entirely irrelevant in the desert. Laws that impact the next stage.
Moses is readying the people for a time outside the desert. A time beyond the enveloped miraculous. God promises to assist in war and prophecy but his role as intervener has shifted. The battles are fought by men not god. The Amalek war was dependent on Moses’ hands not the quantity of soldiers nor the quality of their spears. Already into the final years, man is pointed to take care of his own problems. Maturing through the desert means his actions matter. Yet it is Moses, the man of God, who kills both Bilaam and Og. It is the prophet who dirties his hands. He is the messenger of God and fights on behalf of God. There is a transition to Moses’ action with divine aid though in skilful battle-like action. It is less miraculous and seems more natural.
Yet the transition isn’t as smooth as Moses to Joshua. The text specifically says “when you enter the land and wish to have a king”. While Abarbanel reads this negatively, there is some positivity in a lesser Maimonidean spirit. The king is inevitable as a man of the people anointed by God. A man in charge of the political and logistical while accepted by God. He is the people’s choice. Samuel is angry because he is differed. He is a prophet not a king. It wasn’t like all the other nations to copy just for the sake but to feel more connected to their king of flesh and blood. Anointed with the oil but a man nonetheless. The people could never compete with the prophet. The prophet was a social critic and an outsider who seamlessly always challenged the people.
The king was their man. The prophet was a check on the king not only due to absolute power and potential tyranny but influence. Ahab and Jezebel brought idolatry and Josiah brought Torah. The prophet lambasted and confided in the king to change his heart. Just as pharaoh had the power to free the people so too, the king has the power to enlighten them. While not completely, installing the evil or eradicating it, went a long way. Removing public displays changes public opinion. The king was the people’s representative and the prophet was God’s. David won wars and Solomon brought prosperity. This was the natural element that bestowed trust in the leadership. David and Solomon were loyal to the Lord while later kings grew paranoid and power hungry.
The ability for the king to cast out the man of God. God’s presence no longer led the people in the day nor the fire lighting up the night. God was shrouded in mystery. In prophetic phraseology. Some outcast has preached on high about a deity that cannot be heard. Especially drowned in idolatry. Generations seduced into the seditious lifestyle forgot God. A generation of maranos with zero remembrance of their ancestry. The work has been rewritten. The king himself is unaware of his error. He follows his father and his father’s father. A dynasty of a lost heritage. A sole savior looms out of nowhere. Babbling about a supreme deity. True prophets who attempted the impossible. Not the miracle of splitting the sea but the miracle of reviving the heritage.
Joshua like Moses split the sea. Joshua sent spies to Jericho. He was the servant of Moses. He mimicked his former teacher. While he never faired to the level of his master, he led the people to conquer the land. He set up the necessary landmarks, Moses foretold. He was the prophetic leader like his master before him. After his death the judges took over. The judges were somewhere between leaders and prophets. They weren’t preachers and they weren’t dynastic leaders. Like prophets they emerged in a time of crisis to save the day. They saved the day and led for a time before either dying or moving on. They stabilized the nation accomplishing their goal ending their duty. The cycle persists for each of the judges. They were military and political gurus aiding the people.
The last judge is Samuel. Samuel embodied the prophet and the judge. For most of his life he was a judge but towards the end he becomes the prophet. His role early on was aiding the problematic nation. More than anyone else he was far more political than militaristic. Perpetually roaming the country assisting the people. Yet he is betrayed by the people. They are ready for a king. Samuel is rejected and regulated to the prophet. He has lost his political status. He became a political aide rather than a warrior. Saul is chosen because of his warrior-like bravado. The king is seen as a man of battle and resilience. It is here that Samuel’s role is to oversee the king. While feeling rejected this role is incredibly important.
Samuel’s new role as king’s overseer, is an interesting play for God. Abarbanel even notes that such a choice for a king rejects divine kinship for divine chosen kingship. In this way, God appointing Samuel to anoint Saul is God’s selection of Samuel. If the people desire Saul as their knight then God desires Samuel as his knight. Samuel through God handicaps Saul. Saul is to follow the word of God. Samuel informs Saul of the divine word to obey. When Saul fails, Samuel himself takes action. Samuel not Saul kills Agag. Samuel points to Saul’s inadequacy. The king is a mere servant to God. Yet as he is no prophet he acts mighty but he is also under the law. The prophet is the mouthpiece for the divine word to be relayed to the most powerful man in the nation.
Samuel was the last agent of God. Samuel was instructed to judge people. He never lost his connection to God nor his prestige but he did lose his role. God did not rebut him, the people did. Samuel was the thread between the divine age and the regal age. With a king in toe, the leader was not sent by God. In a way it was now fate rather than destiny. Though Samson and Samuel were born as nazarite judges, it was their mothers not lineage that determined their will. God chose for their attributes not their genetics. Yet even the kingship is chosen before it is fated. Saul and David are both chosen by God. Later on God instructs other prophets to anoint kings. Divine instruction is never eroded but it is left to the prophet to act. When not instructed it passes on through the king’s choice.
Divine kingship is paired with man’s medium. A prophet is designated the leader under divine instruction. The leader is a voice for the people. The leader is a political and spiritual magnet. He is the flowing divinity. Transmitting the divine energy to the people. God speaks to tell the people. The biblical story is about God’s relationship to the people. Moses is the middleman. It is the people who complain to Moses to intercede on their behalf to God. Moses is their transmitter. Even Moses himself councils God for advice. He is an instrument for the divine wisdom. Joshua assumes more authority but the divine word is still manifest frequently. Under the judges the leader is necessary in a time of spellbinding difficulty. When the people are divided and sinning, God sends a savior. In that time there was no king in Israel. No king and rarely a unified leader.
The familial relationship and the tribal relationship differ in their perspectives. God appears to the forefathers in a personable way. Each following their own path. God accompanies them on their journey. Moses turns the nation who scream to their ancestral God to Israel receiving the Torah at Sinai. Moses is the medium that brands the nation as God’s eldest son Israel. They aren’t just descendants of the forefathers or an enslaved people but a liberated people. They attain a new identity of Israel. Thus there is no king in Israel recognizes the fulfilled prophecy. They may not have a unified leader supervising since God is the supervisor. The people are a nation under God. Moses was the proto-proto-judge to redeem the people from bondage. Whisking them to the promised land. Joshua continues Moses’ mission into fulfilling that role.
Once the land is conquered, the tribes though connected under the Israel banner are fragmented into tribes. The divine banner is the Torah not a flag. No need for a central city nor a capital for a leader to reside. The ensuing judges are military leaders who assist in overcoming the enemy. Like Moses, they assume their role from God and then fulfill. Though the judges are not prophets in the same way Joshua nor Moses was. They are not kings in vitality nor power but are “secular” leaders. Moses was the political, military and spiritual leader. Yet it was incumbent on the judges to renew the people’s link with God. They were temporary leaders. Only sought in the cycle of turmoil and wrongdoing. Only mass error sought political aid. The judge united the people against the common antagonist, defeated him, rekindled the divine legacy and ensured its order.
The nation was a group of fragmented tribes with close connections. There were intertribal issues before the kingship and afterwards. Yet it was the princes who became the leaders. While the princes of the tribe in the desert submitted to Moses, they gained their authority post-Joshua. The princes were now in charge of their respective tribes. Israel was divided into different people from the same family. A common heritage under the familial and covenantal bond to God. God chose the family and the nation chose God. Judges thus emerged from various tribes. Each tribe was a part of the historical community. They may have politically diverged but they accepted the divine word at Sinai and fought together to conquer the land. Fragmented but realigned under God.
Pre-monarchy is the Jeffersonian version of democracy while monarchy is the Hamiltonian version of democracy. One places power in the state and one places power in the federal apparatus. A republic with little oversight or with much intervention. In both cases the constitution is the highest order. God is akin to the law above all. The divine word is above the senator and the president. Hamilton sees the federal aspect as a permanent piece of the puzzle. Engaging in the political and economic aspects. Though potentially going farther in the legal atmosphere (this has more ramifications for the rabbinic age though arguably specifically the French model). Jefferson instead saw the state as the decider for its own issues with intervention under extenuating circumstances. Federal absence is a necessary freedom to the state community.
Judges for Jefferson are a sort of state of exception. In specific circumstances the federal government may intervene. While it doesn’t seem Jefferson was looking to elect a president when things went awry, anticipating a permanent role for the elected leader, his role only became more imbued with dire ramifications. Jefferson may even applaud Lincoln for a state of emergency to regain the south from secession. Federal involvement is necessary when threatened whether politically, economically or militarily. FDR’s actions may even be credible if they were temporary measures. The judge is a divine choice for the state of exception. The states are in a bind and only the federal choice can unify the people to propel them to victory.
While there is no prophet technically in the Hamiltonian version though seemingly congress ought to play that role even if they do so horribly. Their power exceeds pure constitutional protection as legislators. In a way even if the court declares a law unconstitutional, congress can override their decision into an amendment like with the 11th amendment of sovereign immunity. In contrast, the biblical model employs a defender of the divine law by God choosing his guard. The king is the legislator but the prophet is the judge of his actions and the people’s. Significant political differences but the duality is helpful for discerning between states under a legal rubric rather than a single person or collective apparatus.
Pre-monarchy doesn’t aspire for permanent leadership. One can argue that Moses’ sin was not the cause of his lost opportunity. It was never his role to lead the people into the land and conquer it. Not because he wasn’t worthy but incapable. Moses regularly grows weary of the people. He defends them at almost every turn saving them from damnation but it is this strife that causes him to lose his cool. He hits the rock because the people are stiff-necked, because they are complaining non-stop. Moses’ reaction was typical. While commentators point to his overreaction as lacking faith in God, it was his distraction due to the constant delirium. He was a product of a royal upbringing never experiencing the slave mentality. His ire was from the evident miraculous care. Stop complaining already accept God and move on. He hit his boiling point and snapped. It was not unworthiness but misunderstanding.
Moses redeemed them, made them a nation under God and brought them to the border for Joshua to take over. The temporary collective leadership lasted for generations. The people flourished and failed throughout. It can be argued that it was only peaceful and angelic under the judge’s reign. The cycle meant that they would inevitably turn bad. Yet the monarchy had its own pitfalls. Extended leadership also lead to disaster. At least the periodic judge could swoop in sufficiently to help the people back on track after they took a wrong turn.
Unlike the monarchy that would drown them in devilish behavior unable to see the light of God. In both cases there was good and bad. Leaving the people to their own devices led to frequent estrangement with an emergency mechanical fix but the monarchy flooded the people with perpetuated estrangement that needed to buy a new model to restart the error.
The people may have desired their own leader. A representative of their own but such relational commitment is not necessarily the best option. The leader is idolized into the supreme order. He becomes the face of the nation. He demonstrates his power and influence uniting the people. He is so amazing he deserves so much praise. The law becomes a relic of a bygone past and the leader the new legacy. Permanence prevails in hyper-focusing on the leader over the law. The king over the king of kings. The law is fossilized in favor of a new naturalized model. Man replaces God. Mortality replaced immortality. Finite leadership in place of the infinite law. The place of the prophet is to balance this error. The king is not the new focus but a part of the divine chessboard. He is anointed by God. If he is not anointed, he is equivalent to the false prophet.
Deuteronomy is Moses’ foretelling of the future. A king will be desired. It is an eventual part of political development. Industrialization as well as order establish a unified federalism. The king makes sense but it ought not forget the divine banner. The king carries a Torah scroll to war as a sign of his submission to God and the covenant. The king must demonstrate his allegiance to God. The prophet is the check on the king but the king must display his commitment. Hakhel sums this up. The law of the king to read the Torah every seven years to the entire nation on Sukkoth. A way of imploring the people of their heritage. The king’s duty is not solely political and nor was the judges. Regarding Deborah who was the judge and prophetess, it was her sidekick Barack who was the military strategist. Yet it was Yael of the Keini (Jethro) who slew Sisra and brought peace to Israel.
Hakhel is fascinating because unlike the other prohibitions against excess materialism (wives, horses, money) this was a positive commandment on the king alone with no relation to the prophet, only that the prophet seemingly ensure the king pull through though not explicitly mentioned in Deuteronomy nor in Sotah. Every Sukkoth Sabbatical year at the temple, the king would read aloud certain verses from Deuteronomy. Sotah details these verses: Parshat Devarim till Shema, vehaya, blessings and curses and maybe the deeds in Parshat kedoshim. Parshat Devarim begins with Moses retelling the history and concludes with Moses directing them to recall the divine word. Listen Israel God is ours and he is one and listen to his commandments to be blessed lest you be punished for disobedience. Additionally be holy by acting in this manner towards God and others. The king relates the historical record and the eternal authority of God. He encourages the people while also submitting his servitude.
Moses recognizes the inevitability of a political monarchy. It is not a question of ideal or not but rather how to act under those conditions. If you want a king here are the rules. Here are the parameters to follow. It is easy to forget God when there is a human leader over an aspiring legal system. Deuteronomy foresees the possibility of a framework with permanent human authority. The messianic trope seeks to install a king from the davidic line reclaiming the monarchy. While righteous it promotes collectivism instead of fragmented tribalism. Deuteronomy is no longer a plausibility but a prophecy. The judicial age is no more only the salvation under the monarchic centrality. Yet the messiah will read these powerful verses from Moses every Sukkoth Sabbatical year to reinvigorate the relationship with ineffable and commitment to the covenant.
Comments
Post a Comment