Essay --

Corey SchirmerAn Ap masterpriate Monarchy in Ancient IsraelThe Deuteronomistic belles-lettres of the Hebrew Bible seem to present opposite viewpoints on the offspring of tabbyship. The pro platform presents the Davidic top executiveship in a very positive light, maculation new(prenominal) texts particularly 1 Samuel appear to be against the topic of kingship. Upon gain evaluation, the institution of a monarchy in the Ancient Near East (ANE) was eliminate because it could provide stability to Israel. On the other hand the monarchy was not allot because it was a clear rejection of theology. A kingship is not inherently evil, but the multitudes request for a human as king showed a complete lack of faith in God as the primary ruler of his people. When examining Deuteronomy, the law of the king provides more information on what a king posteriornot do as a monarch. Most of what is outlined in these laws restricts royal authority and the monarch is subject to them. Some of thes e laws were things that later kings (even below the Davidic kingship) were guilty of committing. The first king of the Davidic Kingship (David) held multiple wives and even sent a soldier (Uriah) to his own death (New Oxford Annotated Bible, 2 Samuel 1124). David was not stainless and screwed up many times, but his heart was for the Lord. And the Lord formally appointed the Israelite King as an instrument of his rule. No matter how much these kings screwed up they were still held in good standing because God viewed them as the close set(predicate) thing to himself. This is what God intended the kingship of Israel to represent. A king that is not above the contract. A monarchy could be beneficial in many ways. Most of the pro platform displayed in 1 Samuel shows us that a king can provide trailership ... ...was their expectations for a king like all the other nations. This king would impose practices that would limit personal freedom and eventually lead to the abuse of power. After examining the disdain that a kingship brought to God. It seems as though a king would not be beneficial to Israel. In the right context, a king that was appointed by God to lead under his covenant would benefit the people because it would bring stability to Israel. The right leader is a human being that is still in need of divine help. The Israelite king is an instrument of divine justice and the icon of Gods ordinary rule. The king will lead the army in the name of God and defeats the Lords enemies. A kingship is not inherently evil. The appropriate king would be one after Gods own heart, maculation a non-appropriate king would be one that abuses power and leads the people of Israel astray.