Royal limitation as the distinctive of Israelite monarchy.

摘要

Kingship in Israel, although similar in many respects to kingship in the rest of the ancient Near East, was unique in at least one central area. Yahweh intentionally limited Israel's kings in the areas of military, diplomatic and monetary strength. The purpose of this limitation was to force the king to focus on covenant faithfulness and then depend on him for national defense. This royal limitation can be seen in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, known as the Law of the King. It restricted a king's resources and instead directed his attention toward learning to fear his God.;This text can help interpreters understand the conflict surrounding the origins of the monarchy in 1 Sam 8-12. There, in spite of the fact that he had promised kings to the patriarchs (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11), Yahweh appears to have rejected Israel's request for a king on the grounds that they were rejecting his authority over them. A solution to this problem, well known in Old Testament studies, was put forth by Gerald E. Gerbrandt in his book entitled, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History.;In that work Gerbrandt successfully argued that the reason Yahweh rejected Israel's request for a king was because Israel asked for the wrong kind of king. Gerbrandt then demonstrated that the Deuteronomist had an idea of the kind of king Yahweh preferred and that he revealed those preferred character traits in his presentation of the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah of Judah. Gerbrandt did not, however, compare Israel's monarchy with those of the ancient Near East, nor did he examine his thesis against the Chronicler's synoptic history.;This study will argue that although monarchy in Israel mirrored monarchy in the ancient Near East in many ways, it was unique in that Israel's king was limited by Yahweh. Israel's king was not to acquire a large army, riches, or many wives. The purpose of these limitations was to force him to trust Yahweh for national defense practically. The gods of the surrounding nations did not limit their kings this way.;In addition, contra Gerbrandt, the Law of the King stands as a prescription for the type of monarchy Yahweh desired for Israel from the outset. Yahweh always intended for Israel to have a king. The fact that made kingship acceptable was that he intended for the nation to have the kind of king who would strive to be faithful to the covenant and be forced to lean upon him for national defense. The Law of the King was designed to ensure this scenario because it limited the king's ability to trust his own resources in the event that he had to defend his nation. What is more, inasmuch as Deuteronomy is pre-monarchic it is safe to say that the Law of the King provides the lens through which the history of Israel's monarchy, including its origins, should be interpreted.;Finally, the Chronicler agreed with the Deuteronomist's ideals for kingship and in fact argues for those ideals more forcefully. Gerbrandt's conclusion, that the king should lead the nation in covenant faithfulness and then he could trust Yahweh to fight for him in battle, as argued by the Deuteronomistic history, holds true for the Chronicler's history as well. By limiting the king's ability to defend himself, Yahweh created a situation whereby the king would be forced to depend on him. The Chronicler revealed his interest in this theme by his unique presentation of key Judean monarchs, namely: Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Josiah. Where the Chronicler's presentation differs from that of his primary source, the Deuteronomistic History, we see his preferences revealed.