Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: July 31
Today is: Thursday, April 25th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of July: (Show All Months)
It is first of all clearly laid down, that the nomination of the man to be king was to be left to Jehovah himself. The regular mode of ascertaining the Lord’s will, would have been by Urim and Thummim through the high-priest; but the intimation could also be given through prophets, or by the sacred lot. Saul, David, and Jeroboam, all received the promise of the throne from prophets. Saul was further designated by the sacred lot; and David was elected by the elders of Israel to the throne, on the express ground that God had promised the kingdom to him. The same may be said of Jeroboam, whose elevation to the throne of the ten tribes, must at least have been materially influenced by the fact of his previous nomination to the throne by the prophet Ahijah. These divine interpositions were well calculated to remind the kings of Him on whom they were dependent, and to whose appointment they were indebted for the throne. “As monarchs, called kings of kings, were accustomed to appoint sub-kings or viceroys in the several provinces of their dominions, so was the king of the Hebrews to be called to the throne by Jehovah, to receive the kingdom from him, and in all respects to consider himself as his representative viceroy and vassal.” Note: Jahn’s Biblische Archaeologie, b. i. sect. 25. In fact, it seems to us that his position with respect to the Lord, as supreme king, bore much external resemblance to that which the Herodian kings of Judea bore to the Roman emperor. There can be no doubt, that this point in the Hebrew constitution was fully and plainly expressed by Samuel, when he showed to the people “the manner of the kingdom;” and in the sequel we shall find that the Lord himself failed not to enforce on all occasions, by rewards and by punishments, the responsibility of the sovereigns to him. The best and most prosperous kings were such as had the truest conception of this essential condition of their power.
It was farther ordained that the king should be one of themselves—a native Israelite. Not a foreigner, not one born such, even though a proselyte. The reasons for this restriction are obvious in a state so peculiarly constituted as that of the Hebrews, not only from the high estimation in which the descent from Abraham was held, but because all other nations were wholly given to idolatry. This, however, had respect only to free elections, and was by no means to be understood, as interpreted by Judas of Galilee, Note: Act_5:37. and by the zealots, during the great war with the Romans, that the Hebrews were not to submit to those foreign powers to which, in the providence of God, they were from time to time subjected. On the contrary, Moses himself had predicted such events, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel had earnestly exhorted their countrymen to submit themselves quietly to the rule of the Chaldeans. As to proselytes, the lapse of generations and a Hebrew mother, did not render even them capable of reigning in Israel—they were not of the chosen people, nor “brethren” of the descendants of Abraham, To indicate this purity of descent, the name of the mother of a new king is often mentioned. Note: 1Ki_15:2-10; 1Ki_22:42. 2Ki_8:26; 2Ki_12:1; 2Ki_14:5; 2Ki_15:2; 2Ki_15:33; 2Ki_18:2. But this occurs only in the kingdom of Judah, where the law of Moses was held in higher respect than in the other kingdom. To be born of a foreign mother was not indeed an obstacle to the attainment of the throne, if the descent had been unbroken on the side of the father from one of the families of Israel. Rehoboam succeeded Solomon, although his mother was an Ammonite; Note: 1Ki_14:31. 2Ch_12:13. but it may in this case be remembered that, so far as we know, he was the only son of the possessor of a thousand wives. The Idumeans counted among their ancestors Abraham and Isaac; but seeing that they came from Esau rather than from Jacob, they were not beyond this proscription of the law; and although Herod the elder, who possessed this character, was king of Judea, he never possessed the cordial sympathies of his subjects, and certainly never would have attained his monarchy, but by the irresistible will of the mightiest of conquerors.
Females are not expressly excluded from the throne; but their disqualification seems to be assumed. It appears never to have entered the contemplation of the legislature that they might be called to reign. The exclusion is, indeed, traced in the text, by Jewish writers, from the exclusive use of the masculine noun in referring to the contingencies of sovereign power. Note: Melek, masc. not Malkah, fem.—“Regem, dit le Deu_17:15, of non pas Reginam.”—Pastoret. It is true that Deborah was judge in Israel, but she wore not a diadem. Athaliah did; but that was by usurpation, in the teeth of the law, and from her the crown passed to the head of the rightful heir. Note: 2Ki_11:1; 2Ki_11:21. The same character, in a form somewhat mitigated, applies to the nine years reign of Alexandra, wife of king Alexander Janneus, who after his death, assumed the throne. There can be no reason to question that the Hebrew theory of government, like that of other Oriental nations, was unfavorable to the rule of females, although women did occasionally reign. This may be traced even in the prophets—“As for my people,” says Isaiah, “children are their oppressors, and women rule over them,” Isa_3:12. Those ancient times and distant nations wanted the experience furnished under our milder manners and more matured institutions—that a female reign may be as vigorous as that of any man, and not less prosperous and happy.
The Talmudists held the opinion that these were not the only disqualifications—but that various professions or trades precluded a man from becoming king in Israel. At the head of this list are physicians, who, say these sages, live too proudly, without fear of disease, and with hearts unhumbled before God—and are often guilty of the blood of their poor brethren, by refusing to them the succor of their skill. Note: This exclusion of the physicians is not stated in Maimonides’ Treatise upon the Kings. But Maimonides was himself a physician. We might be astonished to see the noblest of secular professions thus unfavorably estimated, and mixed up with some of the coarsest of the arts, did we not read in the history of antiquity, that the profession of medicine was for the most part abandoned to slaves. Other disqualifying employments are those of butchers, barbers, bathmen, weavers, tanners, grooms, and camel-drivers. They apprehended, it seems, that an Israelite could not have exercised such employments without contracting low and ignoble sentiments, and it was believed that the remembrance of his former condition, would cause him to be held in contempt by his subjects. The same professions equally debarred an Israelite from the high-priesthood. Other employments which, to our notions, are scarcely of higher consideration than these, did not disqualify a man from being king. Saul had the care of asses, and David of sheep—but the asses and the sheep were those of their fathers, in a country where pastoral employments were long held in high respect. The son of a slave, or even of a captive, was also by usage excluded from the throne. Most readers will remember that the priest-king, Alexander Janneus, was once pelted with citrons when he stood at the altar about to offer sacrifice, and reviled as the descendant of a captive, and therefore unfit to sacrifice. This charge, founded on a false report that his grandmother had been a captive in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, Alexander resented so highly, that his wrath was scarcely appeased by the blood of six thousand Israelites, whom he slew in his rage. Note: Josephus, Antiq., xiii. 13, 5. See also De Bell. Jud., i. 4, 3.
Certain exterior advantages—or rather the absence of certain bodily imperfections, seem also to have been regarded as essential to the possessor of the throne. We have seen in the case of Saul, that his eminent stature materially contributed to his nomination and acceptance; and in the account of the appointment of David to the throne, the beauty of his person is emphatically indicated. The Scripture itself, as we have already seen, is far from sanctioning this class of ideas, and some of the most eminent men of ancient times were subject to infirmities: Moses had a stammering tongue; Jacob was lame; Isaac was blind—yet they were not the less chiefs of Israel, and men honored of God.
Looking to the position which the Hebrew king occupied, it was of course impossible for him to possess the power of introducing any new mode or object of religious worship. The kings of other nations performed the functions of priests on great occasions; but although more than one Hebrew king evinced a disposition to assume this power, this was entirely unlawful, except the king were of the family of Aaron, as was the case with the Maccabean or Hasmonean sovereigns, who, therefore, rightfully discharged the functions of the priesthood.
So far from being allowed to make any alteration in the religious worship of the people, the king was required, as the servant and minister of the Lord, to be watchful in all respects over its conservation, and to repress all tendency to change. He was to be the champion of the law against the encroachments of idolatry, and he was deeply responsible for any neglect of this high and solemn duty. He was required to be himself most strict in his observance of the law—and that he might be well acquainted with it, he was required to make a transcript of the authentic copy in the possession of the priests, and to “read therein all the days Note: It has been questioned whether the king was to copy the whole of the law entire, or only the abstract of it given in the book of Deuteronomy. The latter is the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, as well as by some Jewish commentators of authority; but the prevailing opinions among the Rabbis, and, we think, among Christian writers, is in favor of the whole law being understood. In Schickard’s learned work De Jure Reg. Hebraeorum their. v. p. 9, et seq. ample details may be found from the Rabbinical writers, as to what was understood to be the manner in which this royal copy of the law was to be made, the characters, the pages, the lines, the dimensions, the divisions, the material of the volume, its covering, the preparation of the ink, the inscription of the name of Jehovah, the copying of the poetry contained in these sacred books, and various other matters. of his life, that he might learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all the words of the law, that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren;” that is, that he should be no arbitrary despot, whose only law is his own pleasure.
That his heart might not be lifted up in kingly pride, it was further directed, that he should eschew the pernicious luxury to which Oriental monarchs have in all ages been prone. An effectual check upon this was provided, and at the same time a powerful motive to oppressive exactions upon his subjects, was cut away by the interdiction of the accumulation of large treasures; neither was he to adopt that usual accompaniment of eastern state—a numerous harem. Besides the other and obvious disadvantages of such establishments, many of the women in such cases are always foreigners, and it was to be feared that the servant of God might be led to regard idolatry with favor through their influence. This actually happened in the case of Solomon.
Furthermore, as the object of preserving the Israelites as a separate people in Canaan, was incompatible with views of extended empire, the king was forbidden to maintain large bodies of cavalry, which were in that age chiefly used in such undertakings. In fact, to strike at the root of the danger, the breeding and possession of horses may be said to have been discouraged. This could be no great hardship in Palestine, the mountainous character of which, and the difficult passes which continually occur, render, even to this day, the horse of less use and value there than in the neighboring countries.
It will be seen that some of those wise regulations were more or less neglected by many of the kings; and it will also be seen that by this neglect, they brought down upon themselves and their people, the very dangers and evils which they were designed to avert. Note: On the subject of this day’s Reading, the following works have been looked into, and may be consulted with advantage by the reader: Schickard, Jus Regium Hebraeorum e tenebris Rabbinicis erutum, Leipzig, 1674. Jahn, Biblische Archaeologie, Wien, 1805; Pastoret, Legislation des Hebreux, Paris, 1817; Salvador, Histoire des Institutiones de Moise et du Peuple Hebreux, Paris, 1828; Hullman, Staatsures fassung der Israeliten, Leipzig, 1834.