A King Is The Ruler

There are many different themes common on the subject of Kingship in Israel that are highlighted throughout scholarly analysis of the subject. Sages of the time, thought to have written Proverbs, believed that the king was a person way beyond the normal run of things. This piece from “Proverbs 30:29-31” is a prime example:

1 Samuel presents Israel transformation from theocracy to monarchy as theological and sociopolitical. Knut Heim mentions, “Such transformation could not take place without stresses and conflicts. The book of Samuel in general, and chaps. 8-15 in particular, reflect the tensions and ambiguities of these transitional time.” The Israel’s request of a king is seen desperate and insistence to become like other nations, due to internal and external crises. Of course, it was an evil thing to ask for because they were the God’s chosen people and God was their divine king. They are supposed to be different than other nations. Nevertheless, God graciously gives them a king, Saul, who eventually fails but God’s eternal plan of kingship unfolds as he choses a king for himself in David.

They introduce a series of contrasts between good and evil judges, plus faithful and unfaithful kings. As 1 Samuel opens, the era of the judges is still in the forefront, but it is fading fast. The leadership of Israel rests on the undisciplined and elderly Eli, the high priest of the tabernacle at Shiloh and one of the last of the minor judges (1 Sam 4:18). Throughout the early chapters of 1 Samuel, the author draws a sharp contrast between Eli and his ungodly sons and the godly prophet Samuel. By the middle of the book (1 Samuel 15–16), the same kind of contrast is drawn between Saul and David.

The surrounding nations had an influence on the people of Israel and this was not pleasing to God. They wanted a king. They wanted to be like other nations and have a leaded. A king they could see.

From a biblical perspective we see in 1 Samuel 12:1-4 Israel’s high regard for Samuel. He was a man who exuded integrity. Samuel said to all of Israel, “I have listened to everything you said to me and have set a king over you. Now you have a king as your leader. As for me, I am old and gray, and my sons are here with you. I have been your leader from my youth until this day. Here I stand. Testify against me in the presence of the Lord and his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I cheated? Whom have I oppressed? From whose hand have I accepted a bribe to make me shut my eyes? If I have done any of these, I will make it right.” “You have not cheated or oppressed us,” they replied. “You have not taken anything from anyone’s hand.”

During the time of Samuel, the people of Israel desire a king. God had promised to provide for the Israelites and in return God asked for obedience and love. Throughout the Old Testament God always provided for the Israelites yet God’s people regularly rejected him.

King David wrestled with sin, such as adultery, family disorder, and rebellion on a national level, however he also experienced great accomplishments as well. One great achievement was the unification of Israel. "Then all the tribes of Israel went to David at Hebron and told him, "We are all members of your family. For a long time, even while Saul was our King, you were the one who really led Israel. And the Lord has told you, "You will be the shepherd of my people Israel. You will be their leader" (2 Samuel 5:3). It is here that David makes a covenant with the leaders and becomes anointed as the

First, foreseeing the day that Israel would have a king, expressed in Deuteronomy are instructions for such a time. At this point it should be noted that the idea of Israel having a king, began in the mind of God. Contrary to what some believe about the idea of kinship and God’s supposed disdain for it, Howard mentions the fact that “God has spoken of kings to Abraham from the beginning (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11)”; furthermore, he noted that the problem with anointing a king was intention of the people to be like the nations

The inability of the three great powers of the time, Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, to exert influence over lesser entities such as the philistines greatly contributed to their rise in power. The culmination of these events lead to a desire and almost obligation of political unification under a monarch for the tribes of Israel because their internal weakness threatened their very existence. Nevertheless, contrary to the depiction in the Hebrew Bible, the tribes appear to maintain a significant amount of autonomy during the monarchy, which leads to the demise of the small unified monarchy and the development of two split kingdoms, Israel and Judah, that is found in I Kings 12. This is a result of increased demands and pressure from King Solomon that would have escalated if his son Rehoboam came to power over the lands of Israel. However, many scholars such as Beth Alpert Nakhai, attest that hints of disunity between Judah and other tribes were present through rebellions in David and Solomon’s reigns. Therefore, leaders of the various tribes elected to anoint a new king over their lands that would politically unite them enough to protect them from outside threats, while still maintaining their relative autonomy over their own tribes, making the kingdom of Israel a dispersed state with various religious and political centers. On the other hand, the kingdom of Judah maintained not only unity

The book of 1 Samuel, a part of the Old Testament, sparks the dawn of the United Kingdom of Israel by telling of its first king, Saul. Samuel is one of the first talked about pre-literary prophets in the bible perhaps because he anointed the first king of the United Kingdom. He is a prophet by definition because he possessed the ability to converse with the almighty Yahweh. Samuel and Saul are key players to the rise of the kingdom but Saul runs into trouble and disobeys God, which leads him to his own inevitable demise.

Because the judges were corrupt, and because everyone else had a king, Israel asked for one too. They were rushing God’s timing, by asking for a king “like all the other nations have” (1 Samuel 8:5 NLT). They wanted someone they could see to fight their battles for them. They, in a sense, rejected God as their king. This attitude indicates that the people were looking at the other nations and at those rulers’ outward characteristics. So, when the people demanded a king for the second time, God gave them what they demanded.

King David, a member of the tribe of Judah was chosen by God to lead his people. As everyone knows, he proved by his wise choices to be a very effective leader. As a great military strategist David united the tribes and extended the national boundaries so that in his time Israel enjoyed a greater fraction of

God told Samuel to locate the right person to be Israel’s first king. Well, he looked at a lot of people; God guiding him all the time. And finally he selected Saul. Saul was just a boy, but he was a tall, striking and modest young man.

Kings and rulers started to emerge as soon as people moved away from living in tribes. This was the case with the Jews when they have decided to unite under one ruler. However, long before them the first empire was established in Mesopotamia by Sargon of Akkad in 2334 BCE (Kelly, 2011). The essay will compare kingship in three geographically and chronologically different societies. They are the following: Babylonians during Hammurabi’s reign (1792-1750 BCE), Neo-Assyrians (934-610 BCE), and the Jews (1000 BCE). In order to avoid historical distortions, primary sources from those time periods will be used. These three communities have influenced each other in different fields. Therefore, we can see similarities in their ruling systems.

When defining a king, personally I think of one whom leads his people to a better life than before, protects his people, and is an individual who is one in the body of Christ (most importantly). However, I consider a great king to be defined as one whom not only protects his people, and leads them to a better life, but actually practices daily being one with Christ, which means to never allow Satan to determine their decisions, actions, etc. A good king, through his stable kingship and Christian walk, would bring his people to stability. Scholar William Scheuerman connects the king’s stability to the people by stating “the history of political and legal thought is replete with ambitious attempts to guarantee that kingship, when