There is a tension between the kingship of God and human leadership. A human leader can come to stand between God and people and thus the relationship with God will diminish. This tension exists now in the church of Christ and used to exist in Israel. In our churches, congregations and circles, we face this question. In doing so, it does not matter how we view the structure of the church. It is about the question of the position of priests, pastors or pastors. It is also about the position of elders, elders, deacons or, if necessary, circle leaders.. 

The Old Testament deals with leaders in a surprising way. On the one hand it does justice to the need to appoint a human leader and on the other hand it does justice to the command that everyone acknowledge God as king. As a starting point we can choose Deut.17:14- 20, where guidelines are given for kingship. In addition, we will have to turn to 1Sam.8, where the people ask for a king as with all other nations.

A king like any other nation 

When it appears that the sons of Samuel, the last ruler, are corrupt (1Sam.8:1-3), the people come to Samuel with a request to appoint a king over them as with all other nations. First, it is important to develop a clear understanding regarding how kingship functioned among surrounding peoples. In the early agrarian society of the ancient East, kingship was the sole form of government of many cities and of all states. Here we should not think of a constitutional monarchy as with us, but of a form of government in which the king had all the power. It is not surprising that this form of government was dominant in the Old Eastern context, because there we are always dealing with agrarian societies. Those communities, more than hunter-gatherer cultures, need extensive and complex organization. Organization is necessary to collect money for communal projects such as terracing (for fields on slopes) and irrigation. Organization also presupposes a degree of hierarchy, and in this hierarchy the person of the king is at the head. The king is responsible for ensuring that the law is maintained, order is kept and the land is protected from enemies. To achieve these goals, he uses an army and a civil service. It is possible to list a number of characteristics of Old Eastern monarchs:

 A general feature of kingship is its hereditary nature: the king's son and, in sporadic cases, daughter are considered heirs to the throne. This applies both to kings of large states and to city princes. Recent research names several more things that were fairly common among Eastern kings.

1. Divine election and calling. 

This motif is present in Mesopotamia from the 3rd millennium B.C. In many texts, after creation, the gods go in search of "shepherds" who can lead the land. In Egypt we encounter the phenomenon Kingship and leadership - Cees Stavleu - from the Middle Kingdom (early 2nd millennium BCE). When a king has insufficient royal lineage, a divine oracle is needed. In the Syriac, there is also a connection between the deity and the king. Connected with election and calling is the custom of anointing a king, symbolically expressing that he is initiated into his task. 

2. The king as a descendant of the gods. 

In both Mesopotamia, Egypt and Canaan, there is a representation that the first king of a dynasty was fathered by the gods. An example from Canaan is the Ugaritic king Keret who is described as "son of El" and as a "descendant of the good and holy. 

3. The king as god.

 Especially from Egypt and Mesopotamia we know examples of a god-king. The Egyptian representation is, that the pharaoh became a son of Horus. In the Mesopotamian area of around the 2nd millennium BCE, there are also examples of kings who were worshipped as gods. In the Canaanite area no examples of this exist. There seems to be deification of the monarch only in larger states. In all cases the king has very great powers and almost unlimited power. 

We can say that ancient Eastern monarchs were typical despots whose will is law. Their position is emphasized in such a way that they receive divine power. This is the example the Israelites had in mind. 

Want to get more out of your Quiet Time? Then download the free bundle now ⤵️

Why the people asked for a king

 Are there reasons why the Israelites decided to appoint a king in the 11th century BCE? Both external and internal factors can be identified. There was quite a threat from enemy nations at the time. The Philistines threatened the Israelites' survival, while there was threat from Ammonites to the east and danger from the Amalekites to the south. The king provided security against enemies. Also, the example of the powerful Philistine city-states will have been a model for the Israelites. As for internal factors, I would like to point out the investments needed to improve agriculture in the mountainous area where the Israelites lived. The construction of terraces and cisterns (water storages) required long-term investments and this required centralization. It is also possible that gradually some farmers became richer and others poorer and dependent on richer farmers. A need for a central authority then arises in both groups: the rich farmers consolidate their position with this and the poor farmers are protected from further exploitation by richer ones. A king then formed the necessary central point in the organization.

Risk and measures against derailment

 The Israelites ran the risk of choosing a king who would become an old-earth despot. In several places we see that Samuel speaks of this in cautionary terms Theme Article 2 Study Bible magazine 18. Particularly striking is the description of the ill effects of an eastern despot on the people in 1Sam.8:10-17. He is considered a man who exploits the people and is primarily focused on his own advantage. In addition, the Israelites show a heart attitude by which they turn against God (1Sam.8:7). Against this background we must place the various negative statements about kingship (e.g. 1Sam.12). 

Samuel experiences the request for a king as a rejection of himself, and then God also expresses that the people have rejected Him. Nevertheless, the Lord gives permission to appoint a king. This permission seems to be contrary to Samuel's negative words in 1Sam.8. However, we have seen that the issue there is the Israelites' wrong heart condition. Kingship had been granted before. Many centuries earlier, however, God anticipated the Israelites' request for the appointment of a king and indicated that they may appoint a prince. Already in the book of Genesis, it appears that there will be kings among the Israelites in the future. During the covenant relationship with Abraham, God promised that kings would come forth from him. The promise to progenitor Judah indicates the reign of the royal house of David (Gen. 49:10). So kingship is not an institution forbidden by the Lord, but rather provided by Him. It was made clear to Moses that kingship should take shape according to fixed guidelines. We find these guidelines largely in Deut.17:14-20 and the measures have the following content:

1.  God is the king of Israel (Ex. 15:1-21) and the king of Israel is to be understood as a viceroy under God. 
2. The second requirement is that the king be an Israelite and not a foreigner. The reason for this commandment will have been because of the religious influence such a king exerts; only a devoted servant of the Lord can fulfill the precepts God gives.
3. The position of viceroy under God meant that the Lord conducted the wars and the king arranged the internal affairs. God's blessing determined the security of the kingdom. This is evidenced in part by the fact that he is not allowed to keep many horses. Horses at that time were mainly important for chariots and not for cavalry. Ordinary armies with foot soldiers are almost powerless against chariots, the tanks of antiquity. For Israel, however, it is more important to trust in God, as was evident in the confrontation with Pharaoh and his 600 chariots (Ex. 14; 15:1,4). The Lord also provides for the conquest of Canaan. When the king lives in devotion to God, He will bless him. 
4. He must not take many wives. This prohibition was given in view of the danger of idolatry. Eastern princes took wives from all kinds of royal houses and integrated their gods into their royal house. The example of Solomon (1Kon.11) is telling in this regard. 
5. The king's rights and duties were set forth in a document called "The King's Right. He must constantly read into this.
6. The king is never deified. He is and remains an ordinary human being whose vocation lies in the glorification of God.
7. There was a clear separation of powers. The king of Israel was definitely not allowed to be a priest. This rule was contrary to the ancient eastern autocrats who generally did assume priestly duties. 

The core idea surrounding Israelite kingship is that the king is viceroy under God. God is and remains king and He is the one who wages wars. In everything, we see that the king's position is highly constrained. 

Practice

Saul is considered a type of a monarch who disobeyed God and was rejected, while David was a monarch who usually acknowledged God's kingship and was therefore blessed. We find the background of this institution in the Old Eastern rule of legitimation and delegitimation of kingship. Eastern kings had to establish their authority through loyalty to the gods and could lose their position by failing to live up to expectations. Most kings of Israel were not viceroys under God and developed into oriental despots. Strong examples of this are Ahab and Manasseh. By their behavior they caused judgment. From the beginning of the Babylonian exile, there was no king in the southern kingdom and an independent kingdom did not return. In the crisis, the desire for a new David arose and this promise was fulfilled in David's son Jesus. He was completely obedient to God and received all power in heaven and on earth.

This article previously came out in November 2007, order a free magazine to get acquainted!

God's kingship and leadership in the church

The church has the same tension as in Israel. Christ is Lord of the church, but meanwhile human leadership is also needed. Within the various movements of Christianity, there is a range of views on how to interpret leadership. A few things stand out: First, human leaders are limited and their power is relative. The leader should always be aware of his limitations. Due to the nature of the position, which often involves working in great seriousness, there is a danger of absolutizing the position of the officer. Such a presentation, however, is contrary to the Biblical witness. Second, Christ leads the battle: the congregation prospers and is blessed by God and not by the earthly leader. This means that the leader is primarily dependent and lets God do the work. Without negating the importance of research into the spiritual world and without denying the importance of strategies around spiritual struggles, the core task of the spiritual leader lies in abiding in Christ. Furthermore, it is important that the leader be active in his allegiance to Christ. He should diligently study His Word. He encourages people to have a personal relationship with Him. Thus, his task is primarily referential, and his position is defined by reference to Jesus, the head of the congregation. Once the relationship between a church member and Christ is sufficiently strong, authority within the congregation may be delegated to that brother or sister. Just as the position of the king in the Old Testament was a limited one, the position of a spiritual leader is by definition limited. He need not have influence in all areas of congregational life. In other words, he must know his limits.

Want to dive deeper into the Bible yourself? Then try the Study Bible app for free!

This article written by Cees Stavleu was previously published in StudieBijbel Magazine volume 1.2