Commentator Daniel Block sees a chiastic structure in Deuteronomy 16:18-18:22:
A. Judges as guardians of righteousness (16:18-17:7)
B. Levitical priests as supreme court (17:8-13)
C. Kings of Israel as the embodiment of righteousness (17:14-20)
B'. Levitical priests as cultic officials (18:1-8)
A'. Prophets as guardians of righteousness (18:9-22)
So the section on kings seems to be central to the message of this part of Deuteronomy.
Moses says in Deuteronomy 17:14-15 that if the Israelites at some point asked for a king, then they could have one. That raises the question: Did God intend for the Israelites to eventually have a human king, or did he sort of grudgingly allow for the possibility? Biblical evidence points toward the former. In particular, part of the Abrahamic promise was that the patriarchs would have descendants who were kings (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11). Jacob's blessing for the tribe of Judah predicts a line of human kings from the line of Judah, culminating in the greatest king, the Messiah (Gen 49:10).
After giving an affirmative answer to the possibility of a human Israelite king, Moses proceeded to qualify his response. He specified that an Israelite king
- must be chosen by God;
- must be a fellow Israelite rather than some foreign conquerer;
- was not to indulge a lust for power, status, or wealth. The king was to exist for Israel's sake rather than the other way around.
- write a copy of "this Torah"---presumably the book of Deuteronomy---for himself;
- make that copy his constant companion;
- continually consult this teaching.
- would result from a democratic impulse and the favorable response of God, rather than from a human power struggle;
- would not put Israel under a foreign conqueror;
- would not be a way for a man to satisfy his lust for power, status, and wealth;
- would place the human ruler under God's law, rather than produce a king who was a law unto himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment