Monarchy and Imperial Ethos

Benalin. C.R
8th September 2021

Sub-themes:

• Factors leading to the transition to monarchy- internal and external factors

• Prophets: Conflicting voices on the legitimization of monarchy: pro and anti-
monarchical rhetoric
• Models proposed by the Social scientific studies based on anthropological theories:
Processual and Chieftancy models
I. Introduction:

Israel’s history as seen in I & II Samuel, I & II Kings depict how a 12 tribe confederacy unites
to form a monarchy and goes on to become a powerful nation in West Asia. Drastic change in the
socio-politico-religious life of Israelites can be seen with the development of this nation. From a
confederacy of tribes of nomads, they went on to construct a splendid temple, which displays the
good resources they had. In this article we will attempt to see the various factors that lead to the
development of the transition to the monarchy, the role of prophets in monarchy and the proposals
by the Social scientific studies about evolution of state based on anthropological theories.

II. Israel before monarchy:

During the period of Judges, various nations situated at different sides of Israel, oppressed
Israel at different times in different regions. So, while Israel had a period of rest at one region other
regions were still facing oppression1. Also, the threat from Philistines was really growing. Probably
the procession of iron weapons by philistine over the bronze armaments of Israelites gave an edge
to philistines over Israel. The kind of threat faced by Israel called for a new mechanism from Israel’s
part. So, a growing look out for a monarchy was growing2.

III. Factors leading to the transition to monarchy:

Traditional view points used to look at the growing threat from Philistians as a key reason for
the emergence of Israelite monarchy. Apart from this external factor there are internal factors as
well. Also recent scholarship has suggested some more factors.

III.A) Internal:

III.A.1) Corruption of Eli’s son and lose of Ark of covenant (I Samuel 2:11-17)

Eli’s both children lived wicked life. “Eli’s sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for
the LORD” (I SAM 2:12 NIV). Eli’s children reflect the priestly order. However, their corrupt life reflect
the moral decay and the decline of the able leadership in Israel. This also led to the capture of Ark of
the covenant. This prompted Israelites to look for an able leader who may lead Israelites ethically
right and a charismatic leader.

III.A.2) Lack of ruler to give unity, governance and moral guidance3

1
LaSor, W. S., D. A. Hubbard, F. W. Bush, and L. C. Allen. 1996. Old Testament Survey. Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing.pg 220,221. [hereafter: LaSor]
2
LaSor 234
3
Kaiser, W. C. 1998. A History of Israel. B & H Publishing Group. 216 [hereafter: Kaiser]
 “Israel emerged as a loose assoiciation of villages organized into tribes, settled largely in the
northern hill country of Palestine. They were a “people,” not a city-state or nation”4. Israelites were
primarily shepherds. They were not trained war lords. So, without a leader it is very difficult for
Israelites to survive. Samuel the last judge assumed leadership. But his leadership was not so
charismatic to lead Israelites to victory. While the people of Israel waged war against the Philistines,
Samuel played the priestly role at Mizpah. But he himself, just like Eli, did not take command in war.5
Also, with the decline in morality of Eli’s children and Samuel’s children authoritative voice was
missing. This probably would have prompted people to think about monarchy.

III.A.3) There was an inbuilt longing for a king

After Gideon’s victory over Midianites, Israelites proposed to Gideon, “Rule over us, you and
your son and your grandson also; for you have delivered us out of the hand of Midian”. For which
Gideon denied saying, "I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; Yahweh will rule
over you" (Judg 8 22-23). Even in the period of judges Israelites probably longed for a charismatic
king who can victoriously campaign for them and can lead them.

III.A.4) Failure of Samuel’s sons to administer in a way to instill confidence 6

Samuel’s children were appointed as judges by Samuel. But they did not walk in the right
way and they twisted judgements for bribery. So, the elders requested to Samuel: "Behold, you are
old and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint for us a king to govern us like all the
nations" (8 5). Failure of a priestly lineage coupled with moral decay made Israelite feel that they
desperately need a monarch.

III.B External factors

III.B.1) Philistine oppression in west and Ammonite oppression in the east

The Israelite communities were territorially separate and were organized in a social structure
which were organized and governed by clan leaders. During most of the period, external threats
were brief and geographically confined. Hence, they could easily handle them. The Philistine threat
was very different. The Philistines were an economic, religious and political threat to Israelites. They
had access to iron weapons and had advanced military organization. The defeat of the Israelites at
Ebenezer, the destruction of Shiloh and the deterioration of tribal leadership left the Israelites
weakened. Other enemies of Israel-Ammon and Amalek-took advantage of the situation. A need for
a strong leadership was badly needed. 7

III.B.2) Understanding of Kingship in Ancient near East

Israelites wanted a king "like all the nations" (I Sam 8:5). Unlike Israelites other nations were
ruled by able kings and the benefits of having a good king was very much evident. “Divine rule and
human monarchy were generally regarded as complementary rather than contradictory ideas in the
ancient Near East”8. Probably Israelites also were going through this theological dilemma of
theocracy versus monarchy. So probably they wanted a king in the terms as other nations had.

4
Carr, D. M. 2010. An Introduction to the Old Testament. John Wiley & Sons.57
5
Ishida, T. 2013. The Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel. Walter de Gruyter. 40[hereafter:Ishida]
6
Kaiser 204
7
Finkelstein, Israel. “The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel the Environmental and Socio-
Economic Aspects.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 14, no. 44 (June 1989):
44. https://doi.org/10.1177/030908928901404403. [hereafter:Finkelestein]
8
Ishida 40
III.C) Internal and Extra Factors suggested by academic scholarship9

In recent years, as a result of adopting sociological theories to biblical research, new

approaches to investigate the creation of the Israelite state from a socio-political point of view have
emerged. They too provide some good reasons for factors contributing to the realization of the need
for a monarchy.

1. Cultural factors in the emergence of states.

a. Chaney (1986) assumed that two factors led to the rise of the monarchy- a Philistine
threat to Israelite economy from the outside and the emergence of an economic
elite group from the Israelites themselves.
b. Gottwald (1979:655-58) is of the opinion that Israelites saw the expansion of hill
country agriculture and population growth. This demanded advanced management
and this posed the need for a leader over and above clan leaders. These cultural
factors posed the need for a monarch.
2. Warfare theory
a. Hauer (1986) assumed that the rising population density in the Iron I caused a
growing struggle between different groups over limited resources; This brought
tussle between Israelites and Philistines. Thus, to fight back Israelites needed a
strong monarch.
3. Unequal resource accessibility
a. Whitelam (1986:61-62) argued that the monarchy emerged as a result of both
external and internal pressures. As the population of Israelites increased the
availability of very good and fertile lands were less. This gave rise to conflict within
socities. This competition necessitated stabilizing institutions where a leader is
available to deal with internal conflicts. conflict brings about the creation of the
state as an intermediary institution.

IV: Prophets: Conflicting voices on the legitimization of monarchy:

IV.A) Prophecy – A helpmate to Israel’s monarchy:

Prophecy burst forth spontaneously at the moment of national yearning for full political
independence. Its primary function was clear from its inception:

a. to establish Israel's monarchy firmly,

b. to guide it, and
c. to serve as an as helpmate and as critic.

The generation prior to that of the anointment of King Saul, during the Prophet Samuel's youth, we
are told: "The word of the Lord was precious in those days, there was no frequent vision" (I Samuel
3:1). Yet after one generation, with the first blossoming of Monarchy, the land was filled with groups
of prophets and a band of prophets. It was the Prophet who established the Monarchy. “With all the
contradictions of Monarchy and despite the prophet's awareness of these contradictions, he did not
consider his mission complete until he had firmly set the foundations of Israel's kingdom”.10

IV. B) Prophet’s role in relation to the king.

The Prophet functions in close relation with the King. There is always an interdependence
between the monarch and the prophet. He is entrusted with the role to admonish them occasionally

9
Finkelestein 45
10
Livneh, Eliezer. "PROPHECY AND MONARCHY: Religion and State in the Biblical Era." Tradition: A Journal of
Orthodox Jewish Thought 2, no. 2 (1960): 262-72. Accessed September 8, 2021.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23255311.
and to warn them of their misdeeds. Few monarchs liked them inspite of their harsh messages while
yet other monarchs disliked and blamed the messenger for the message. “The constant and
recurring conflict between Monarch and Prophet is not the antagonism between two mutually
exclusive opposites, but rather the joining of two vital forces that arouse and motivate one another”.

IV. C) Conflicting voices on the legitimization of monarchy

The account in I Samuel has mixed feelings towards monarchy. While the Passages 8:1-
22,10:17-19, 12:1-25 oppose it and other passages like 9:1-10:16, 10:20-11:15 favour monarchy. The
prophet Samuel could foresee the severe failings of the monarchy and the dire consequences Israel
will need to face for the error. Yet, despite all fears and hesitations, the conclusion is clear. "Now
therefore harken unto their voice; howbeit thou shalt earnestly forewarn them, and shalt de clare
unto them the manner of the king that shall reign over them" (I Samuel 8:9). The Prophet himself,
filled with deep apprehension and concern, enthrones the first King over Israel and blesses his
endeavours. From then on, the whole history of the relationship between Prophecy and the State,
between Seer and King, is a story of mutual struggle.

IV. D) Pro and anti-monarchical rhetoric

Prophets spoke the word of the truth. There were mixed voices. Prophets were guides who
gave the will of God to the kings. Among the many prophecies directed toward the kings are
predictions about the future reign of a king, victory over enemy, the construction of the Temple, and
the establishment of royal dynasty. In other cases, the message is not so welcome. They refuse to
sanction wars, attack arrogance and very clearly say no to idolatry. They pronounce judgements too.
Prophet’s critique and speaking forth have done good to kings too.

Some key instances of pro-monarchy rhetoric:

1. Anointment and appointment Saul as king and of anointment of David by prophet Samuel.
2. Elisha’s high regard for Jehoshaphat: Elisha said, “As surely as the LORD Almighty lives,
whom I serve, if I did not have respect for the presence of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,
I would not pay any attention to you. But now bring me a harpist.” I Kings 3:14,15
3. The sadness of Isaiah at the death of Uzziah (Isaiah 6:1)

Some key instances of anti-monarchy utterances:

1. The very Samuel who anointed Saul goes with the message of rejection from God. After the
Prophet has informed the King that the Almighty has rejected both him and his family
because of his transgression in showing compassion to the Amalekites, Saul turns to the
Prophet and says: "I have sinned; yet honor me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my
people, and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord thy God." "So
Samuel returned after Saul; and Saul worshipped the Lord" (I Samuel 15:30-31). A mutual
relationship of this sort existed between Prophet and even when the King was not of sterling
character.
2. Gad goes to reprove King David for his serious transgression.
3. Prophet Elijah confronts Ahab’s injustice again and announces the downfall of his house.
4. One of Elisha’s more notable confrontations is with King Jehu. He anoints Jehu and instructs
him to wipe out Ahab’s house11.
5. The message of Amos that Jeroboam would be slain and Israel exiled was viewed as
conspiracy by the priest, and a report was immediately given to the king. Jeroboam's
reaction was to banish Amos from his kingdom.

11
https://www.whitneywoollard.com/sitecontent/kings-vs-prophets
V) Models proposed by the Social scientific studies based on anthropological theories: Processual
and Chieftancy models12

Various interdisciplinary studies to understand the emergence of monarchy have opened

new vistas in understanding Ancient Israelite community and its development towards monarchy.
The socio-politcal research of recent years has dealt intensively with the nature of the state, the
reasons for its creation and the stages in its development. Processual and chieftain models based on
anthropological theories are noteworthy. What follows are the summary of the different theorists
and their theories on Israelite transition to a monarchy.
James W. Flanagan was the first Biblical scholar to make a detailed argument for the
presence of chiefly leadership during the 10th century. He analysed Biblical text from anthropological
theories on state formation and process involved in succession to kingship. According to him Saul’s
leadership in Bible is typical of chiefdom and the traditions about David’s reign reflect the transition
from chiefdom to state and the full statehood did not develop until the reign of Solomon.
Frank S. Frick argues for a traditional stage of chiefdom in the evolution of the Israelite
State. He summarizes 3 basic types of state formation – the conflict approach, the interrogative
approach and synthetic approach. His interdisciplinary study of Biblical text from inuts from
archeology, sociology, politics, history, agriculture and management have given impetus to his
research. He looked at the emergence of chiefdoms as a result of agricultural progress and
generation of elite class which in turn calls for a leader to manage different elite class leaders.
According to him Saul’s reign should probably be described as a chiefdom and David’s reign need to
be classified as full-blown state.
Coote and Whitelam’s study on process is associated with transition to statehood. They
consider the emergence of monarchy as part of a “continuum relating to process and development
of Iron age I, not as a dialectical conflict”. They view “the developments in both pre-monarchic and
monarchic Israel as representing particular adaptations to social and environmental pressures”.
Carneiro’s circumscription theory of state origins note that State arise in response to specific
cultural, demographic, and ecological conditions and emphasize the significance of environmental
and social circumscription, that is the limitations imposed by environmental and social factors,
particularly as agriculture develops over the course of severe generations.
Flanagan argues that Saul’s leadership was typical of a chiefdom, that the reign of David
reflects the transition from a chiefdom to a state and that only Solomon’s kingdom can be classified
as a fully developed state.

Schafer-Lichtenberger counters the proposal of chiefdom. Their conclusion is that Saul’s

reign was an “inchoative state”, and David’s was a “transitional early state” in some respects and an
“inchoative state in other respects.

VI) Conclusion:
We attempted to study the rise of Israel monarchy from a group of loose tribes. The careful
study of various causes helped us to note that the Philistine threat was not the only factor but other
internal and external factors contributed to the emergence of monarchy. The role of prophet in
relation to monarchy was also seen. It is interesting to note how the prophetic role and that of a
monarch are mutually depended on each other. The survey of scientific method to the study of
Biblical account of monarchs help us understand the various contributing factors to the formation of
Israel as a nation. Kt gives answers to the many questions raised as we go through the history as
recorded in the Biblical narrative.

12
McNutt, P. M. 1999. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. 114-142