Governmental and Judicial Ethics in the Bible & Rabbinic Literature
EXCURSUS I
Subject reviewed in Excursus I
Political Power in Israel
Introduction
As one examines the sources, one finds that royal law was not identical with religious law in the ancient Near East. After surveying the Sumerian and Akkadian laws of Babylonia, the Assyrian laws, and the Hittite laws,1 Cassuto states, “In all the aforementioned codes we observe that the law does not emanate from the will of the gods.”2 For example, Cassuto points out that the early conclusion that Hammurabi, on the so-called stele of Hammurabi, is receiving a code of laws from the god Shamash is now recognized to be wrong thanks to a more careful analysis of the prologue and epilogue of the code, and that, in actuality, “it is clear that it is Hammurabi who enacts the laws.”3 As a matter of fact, the conclusion is reached that “the legal tradition of the Ancient East was, in all its branches, secular, not religious. The sources of law were on the one hand usage . . . and on the other, the king's will.”4
Against this background5 Cassuto makes some observations with reference to Israel. He states: “Now it is possible to show that also among the Israelites, during the whole period preceding the destruction of the First Temple, the sources of the official law were the secular statutes of the ruling authorities and accepted usage; whereas the Torah laws were regarded as religious and ethical requirements directed to the collective and individual conscience.”6
Cassuto cites several examples from the Bible to indicate the existence of secular law among the Israelites. Two are: David’s rule concerning the distribution of the spoils of war,7 and Isaiah’s “woe” upon “those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression” (Is. 10:1), which can only mean that the oppressors were within their legal rights. Other references of Scripture indicate the existence of recognized legal usage, e.g., the bride money (Ex. 22:16), the “custom in former times in Israel” (Ruth 4:7), and Joab’s flight for safety to the horns of the altar (I Kings 2:28 ff.).8
Finally, Cassuto sees Israel's law as a part of the general legal tradition in the ancient Near East. However, the qualification he states in the following passage is significant. “The statutes of the Torah are not to be identified with Israel’s secular legislation. Only in the time of Ezra were the laws of the Torah accepted as the laws of the country, by the consent of the people and its leaders. When we come to compare the Pentateuchal statutes with those of the neighbouring peoples, we must not forget . . . the difference in character between them: the laws of the neighbouring peoples were not decreed on behalf of the gods, but on behalf of the kings; whereas the laws of the Torah were not promulgated in the name of the monarchy, nor even in the name of Moses as the leader of Israel, but are religious and ethical instructions in judicial matters ordained in the name of the God of Israel.”9
One may conclude from the above introduction that in ancient Israel, up to the time of Ezra, there was a distinction between secular and religious law; yet, at the same time, there was a very close relationship between the two in the day-to-day affairs of the people. A close examination of biblical sources indicates the practical way in which political power was expressed in Israel. Sometimes this power was with law and sometimes contrary to it.
Political Role Of Kings In Israel
A study of kingship in Israel brings one to a better insight into the role of the king with all of its political ramifications for the people. A.R. Johnson speaks of three aspects of the theory and practice of the king's function in Israel. “1. For the Hebrews an important, if not the most important, aspect of the king’s function was that of being a leader in war (I Sam. 8:19-20; II Sam. 8:2, 14, etc.). 2. Another and equally important aspect of the Hebrew view of kingship is that of being responsible for the administration of justice within the realm (I Kings. 3:16-28; II Kings. 8:1-6, etc.). 3. A third aspect of the prevailing Hebrew conception of kingship which stands out clearly in the Old Testament records is that which centers in the king’s relations, not with his subjects, but with Yahweh as the national god; for in the last resort that which bound together the confederation of tribes which went to the making of the Israelite nation was a common loyalty to Yahweh (I Sam. 16:13; 24:6; II Sam. 23:1-5, etc.).”10
In this connection, Johnson points out that disasters on a national scale could be attributed to the fact that the king had overstepped the mark and offended Yahweh.11
It is now appropriate to examine specific biblical texts in determining more exactly the political role of kings in Israel, and to relate their activity to the law as it was observed at the time.
The King And Secular Power
Abimelech, Gideon’s son by his concubine, acted in a completely unrestrained manner in his move to become king, killing seventy of his brothers in order to remove all opposition to his usurpation of power.12 The infamy of Abimelech, as an example of what a king should not be, remained in the memory of the Israelites, as indicated by the insightful message sent by Joab to David at the time of Uriah’s murder.13 Samuel’s opposition to kingship, assuming that it does not reflect a later period, may have been influenced in part by the experience of Abimelech’s bloody attempt to establish a monarchy.
An episode in the life of king Saul illustrates his possession of secular power and his use of it. After a striking victory against the Ammonites under Saul’s leadership, his followers were ready to put those to death who had earlier questioned Saul’s capability.14 They said to Samuel: “Who is it that said, ‘Shall Saul reign over us?’ Bring the men, that we may put them to death. But Saul said, ‘Not a man shall be put to death this day, for today the Lord has wrought deliverance in Israel.’”15
Clearly, the law of the Torah did not permit a king to put to death people who had peacefully objected to his assumption of royal power. Saul’s ability to impose the death penalty on dissidents was purely secular law and custom.
The fact that Saul, as king, had the power to put others to death is illustrated by the oath that he pronounced against anyone who stopped to eat during the battle against the Philistines.16 When Jonathan, his son, unknowingly violated the oath, Saul pronounced the death sentence upon him.17 The fact that the people had to ransom Jonathan to prevent the execution indicates the awesome reality of Saul's power over the lives of his subjects.18
Even before Saul, one is startled to find that Jephthah had the undisputed right to sacrifice his daughter because of an ill-advised vow.19
It was to limit the power of the father to put his children to death at will that the deuteronomic law concerning “the stubborn and rebellious son” was introduced (Deut. 21:18-21). Henceforth, such a delinquent could be put to death only after a proper trial before an authorized court.20
Again, the power of life and death that the king could exercise is seen in the relationship of Saul and David. On several occasions, Saul made direct attempts to kill David.21 There was no one who questioned Saul's legal power to do so. Furthermore, Saul’s execution of the eighty-five priests of Nob, plus the entire population of the city,22 went unchallenged.
During this period of Israel’s history there was no power to restrain the king, or even a claimant to the throne. This point is well illustrated in the account of David’s reaction to Nabal’s refusal to let him have any provisions. Replying to Abigail, Nabal’s wife, who had managed to appease him, David said, “Blessed be your discretion, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodguilt and from avenging myself with my own hand! For as surely as the Lord the God of Israel lives, who has restrained me from hurting you, unless you had made haste and come to meet me, truly by morning there had not been left to Nabal so much as one male.”23
Clearly, no religious law could have justified David’s threats, which, in view of his oath (“For as surely as the Lord the God of Israel lives . . .”), he undoubtedly intended to put into action.
These examples indicate the secular power that rested with the king. It is obvious that he could, without fear, exercise this power, even to the extent of execution. It is also interesting to note that long after the monarchy had ceased, the rabbinic view does not include a general condemnation of kingship as such,24 merely an occasional denunciation of individual kings.25
In view of the virtually unlimited authority wielded by various kings as indicated in the examples described above, it is not surprising that king David did not hesitate to kill on the spot a man who had confessed to slaying Saul.26
Some Arbitrary Rulings By King David – The first case is that concerning Mephibosheth and Ziba. Mephibosheth was Saul’s grandson. David, as king, wanted to extend a kindness to one of the house of Saul for the sake of Jonathan.27 Therefore, David had Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth, brought to the royal court with this pronouncement, ‘I will restore to you all the land of Saul your father; and you shall eat at my table always . .’ Then the king called Ziba, Saul’s servant, and said to him, ‘All that belonged to Saul and to all his house I have given to your master’s son. And you and your sons and your servants shall till the land for him, and shall bring in the produce, that your master’s son may have bread to eat; but Mephibosheth your master's son shall always eat at my table.’”28
However, in spite of this royal decree, David, upon hearing of possible disloyalty on Mephibosheth’s part, awarded to Ziba all the property he had originally given to Mephibosheth,29 making no attempt to listen to Mephibosheth’s explanation. Then, in yet another arbitrary ruling, after being assured by Mephibosheth of his loyalty to the king, David states, “I have decided you and Ziba shall divide the land.”30 Neither biblical nor rabbinic law justified such arbitrary procedures.31 That considerable property was involved in the three different rulings by king David indicates the great secular power the king wielded.
The second case goes even further in illustrating the power of the king because it involves the ritual execution of innocent citizens by the vengeful Gibeonites, who sought vengeance for the ill-treatment they had received at the hand of Saul. When David hears that their request is that they be given seven sons of Saul for public hanging, David agrees to do so.32 In addition, David shows favoritism in the grim task of selecting the victims by sparing Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan.33 This action was taken in the face of the law of Moses which states, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”34 Also, this action by David was in contrast to the action of a later king, Amaziah, who spared the children of the murderers of his father on the basis of the same law.35
David And Solomon Cooperate In Exercising Royal Power – The first case involves Joab’s execution. Joab, David’s military commander, had engaged in a series of bloody deeds. He had killed Abner,36 who had been the captain of Saul’s army,37 because Abner had killed his brother Asahel,38 even though this had been against king David’s will.39 Joab had also slain Amasa,40 David’s commander.41 David chose not to exercise his option to bring Joab to trial for his deeds; however, he does request Solomon to execute him.42 Solomon is not slow in carrying out his father’s request,43 apparently because Joab had supported the opposition party upon Solomon’s ascension to the throne.44
The second case involves Shimei’s execution. Shimei had cursed David during the civil war with Absalom.45 But David exercised his option and spared his life, saying, “You shall not die.”46 Although this was obviously an example of lèse-majesté, it was certainly not a crime which had a legal death penalty attached. However, at David's request,47 Solomon also had Shimei put to death.48 Since no legal reason existed for this execution, it is another example of political power in the hands of the kings of Israel at this time.
Some Arbitrary Rulings By King Solomon – The first case is that concerning Abiathar, the priest. While impressing on him that the execution had not been ruled out and that he was lucky to have been spared, Solomon said, “. . . you deserve death. But I will not at this time put you to death . . .”49 This expulsion was apparently because Abiathar had supported Adonijah in his abortive attempt to seize the throne.50
The second case concerns Adonijah. Solomon murdered Adonijah51 after Adonijah had requested Abishag the Shunammite for a wife,52 apparently because of his coup attempt,53 although he had already given him conditional amnesty.54 This kind of unilateral action, involving banishing and executing persons at will, illustrates the immense power that the king possessed. These were not legal executions, of course; rather, they were acts of political expediency for which the king was not called to account.
Rehoboram And His “Scorpions” – After the death of Solomon, Rehoboam, his son, came to the throne. Solomon had imposed an oppressive system of forced labor and high taxes; Rehoboam, threatening to be even worse, told the people, “And now, whereas my father laid upon you a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”55
There was, of course, no recorded law for such “chastisement,” and, apparently, no recourse against such action by the king short of actual rebellion. On this occasion the people did take that extreme step, and in doing so stoned to death Adoram, Rehoboam’s taskmaster over the forced labor.56
Limitations On Royal Power
The case of Rehoboam’s harshness and the consequent rebellion by the people represents the practical limits beyond which even the king could not go without disastrous results. However, there were some formal attempts to limit the royal power of the king. Although, as has been illustrated, there were few, if any, formal restraints against the power of the king, as a matter of record the following texts under consideration do indicate that some attempt was made to deal with this problem.
The first example was provided by Samuel, who “told the people the rights and duties of the kingship; and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the Lord.”57 Although there are differences among scholars as to the exact meaning of this text, the use of mishpāţ has led some to interpret this verse as Samuel’s attempt to place limitations on the king’s power.58
The second example reads: “When you saw that Nahash the king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, “No, but a king shall reign over us,” when the Lord your God was your king. And now behold the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; behold, the Lord has set a king over you. If you will fear the Lord and serve him and hearken to his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be well; but if you will not hearken to the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king [Heb. = ‘fathers’].”59
This address to the people is, in effect, a call to the king as well as the people to submit to basic religious law or be destroyed. Provided this “condition” for maintaining the wellbeing of the kingdom was met, it would, of course, assure the proper attitude and behavior of the king toward his subjects.
However, when one recalls the several examples which have already been discussed in which the blatant and often ruthless display of raw power by different kings is seen, one realizes that Samuel’s attempts at formal or religious control of the king were hardly successful.
The third and final text to be considered in this connection is Deuteronomy 17:16 ff., where royal excesses are enumerated. In this passage Charles Foster Kent finds that the king must be a native Israelite, avoid the crimes of Solomon, and rule in accord with the deuteronomic laws. He states concerning this text, “These laws seek primarily to regulate those abuses which became most glaringly apparent in the reigns of Solomon and Ahab, cf. I Kings. 10:14-11:13. They aim to maintain the original, simple, democratic ideal of the Hebrew kingship against the seductive and subversive influence which came in from the neighbouring despotisms. In effect these regulations make the king a constitutional ruler, who stands in striking contrast to the tyrants who ruled in all the neighbouring states. They also assume that primitive Hebrew conception of the king, as Jehovah’s representative, responsible for all his acts to the Divine Sovereign, which was the historical and abiding basal idea of the theocracy.”60
If Kent is right in his analysis of this passage, this means that this text has as its motive the regulation of kingship in Israel, and therefore is intended to serve the same purpose as the other two which have been considered, viz., to place formal restrictions on the royal power of the king.
Prophetic Ethics vis-à-vis The King In the history of the Israelites there are some enlightening examples of the political role the prophets played, especially in their confrontations with contemporary kings.
Restraining Influence Of Prophets On Kings Although it is clear from the above analysis of their activities that kings in Israel were not inclined to restraint in their use of power, it is equally clear that they were often brought to restraint by the counterbalance of power and influence that many of the prophets possessed.
Samuel was such a prophet. On one occasion Saul was waiting for Samuel to arrive and offer the burnt offering before going into battle against the Philistines. After Samuel’s unusually long delay, Saul saw that his army was beginning to scatter so he offered the burnt offering himself. When Samuel arrived and saw what had occurred, he said to Saul, “You have done foolishly; you have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which he commanded you; for now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel for ever. But now your kingdom shall not continue; the Lord has sought out a man after his own heart; and the Lord has appointed him prince over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.”61
Samuel’s influence is apparent in that although he called Saul to account and predicted his downfall, Saul did not imprison him or put him to death.
The influential role of Samuel with regard to king Saul is seen even more dramatically when he denounces Saul for not carrying out orders in his battle against the Amalekites. Again he tells Saul that he has been rejected from being king, saying, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.”62 Upon hearing this, Saul responded in a way that dramatically illustrates the influence that Samuel had among the people, which no doubt was the reason why Saul did not raise his hand against him. Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may worship the Lord your God.”65
After the death of Solomon and the division of the kingdom, it was Rehoboam’s plan to fight a civil war against the Northern Kingdom and regain those tribes for his own rule. He mustered the forces of Judah and Benjamin, some 180,000 fighting men, and was prepared to carry out his plan. However, the prophet Shemaiah opposed him, saying, “Thus says the Lord, ‘You shall not go up or fight against your kinsmen the people of Israel. Return every man to his home, for this thing is from me.’”64 The people went home and Rehoboam was not able to carry out his plan; yet the record is silent as to any repressive action brought by him on Shemaiah. This is another clear illustration of the restraining influence of a prophet on a king, at least temporarily.65
Again, when Jeroboam became king of the Northern Kingdom, he built an altar for worship at Dan in the north and at Bethel near his southern border. Once, when Jeroboam was preparing to worship at the altar at Bethel, a prophet from Judah arrived and predicted its destruction along with its idolatrous priesthood. Jeroboam attempted to have the prophet seized and was stricken. When the altar was destroyed before his eyes, he entreated the prophet for help.66 In this instance the king was literally forced to respect the prophet.
Political Involvement Of The Prophets
The prophets were often engaged in political affairs, and not infrequently they played a crucial role in determining or predicting the destiny of nations. For example, before the division of the kingdom, Ahijah the Shilonite announced its division to Jeroboam and assured him of kingship over the Northern Kingdom.67 Later, Ahijah predicts the destruction of Jeroboam’s house, and is not harmed by him.68
Likewise, Jehu the prophet, son of Hanani, speaks out against king Baasha, predicting destruction against his house in a manner similar to Ahijah’s pronouncement against Jeroboam.69
It is easy to see the prophets as significant figures in the politics of the period of monarchy. For the most part, they must be recognized as powerful influences exercising a great weight in the affairs of state. The fact that many of them could “tell off” the king and not be harmed is evidence of their power, especially when one remembers the actions of the kings, as analyzed above, when they were not under restraint.
The influence of a prophet is seen to extend even to the battlefield. In Ahab’s war against Syria, a prophet encourages Ahab in the battle, and even goes so far as to direct some of the battle strategy.70 When the war was resumed the following spring, Ahab is again encouraged by a prophet on the battlefield.71 However, when Ahab comes to peace terms with Benhadad, his enemy, and does not destroy him, Ahab’s doom is announced publicly by one of the “sons of the prophets.”72 Even though this was a battlefield setting and the exigencies of war often allow actions which would be unwarranted at other times, king Ahab does no harm to this prophet. Rather, “the king of Israel went to his house resentful and sullen, and came to Samaria.”73 This episode is a vivid example of the involvement and influence of “the sons of the prophets” in military affairs, even to the extent of rebuffing the “commander in chief,” all without retaliation against them.
Elijah’s Political Involvement – Elijah confronted Ahab and forcefully denounced him for his wickedness and predicted his downfall and the end of his dynasty, comparing his end to that of Jeroboam and Baasha.74 Yet, instead of becoming angry and seizing Elijah, it is said of Ahab, “When Ahab heard those words, he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted and lay in sackcloth, and went about dejectedly.”75
Elijah’s confrontation with king Ahaziah is another example of Elijah’s power. After rebuking Ahaziah for seeking aid from idols, Elijah informs him that he will not recover from his sickness. When Ahaziah sends a contingent of soldiers after Elijah to “bring him in,” Elijah deliberately and repeatedly disobeys the king’s order to surrender.76
Elisha’s Political Involvement – Elisha was a prophet who had not only local influence but international significance. The kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom formed a coalition to fight against Moab, who had rebelled against Israel. En route to war on Moab they became desperate in the desert for lack of water. When it became known that Elisha was on the expedition, “the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him.”77 “And Elisha said to the king of Israel, ‘What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother.’ But the king of Israel [Jehoram the son of Ahab] said, ‘No; it is the Lord who has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab.’ And Elisha said, ‘As the Lord of hosts lives, whom I serve, were it not that I have regard for Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would neither look at you, nor see you..”78
This insult to Jehoram, in openness before them all, was an invitation to disaster. However, the king did not raise his hand against him, indicating the extent of his influence, even among kings.
While the above incident was certainly not very diplomatic, to say the least, Elisha did fill a diplomatic role in curing Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, of his leprosy.79
The continuing activity of Elisha in international matters between Aram and Israel is again illustrated as Elisha kept warning the king of Israel of Syrian raids being planned into Israelite territory.80
Furthermore, Elisha pursued a consistent foreign policy toward Aram as he tried to transform that nation into a friend instead of an enemy, which involved a rebuke against the king of Israel and the return of Syrian captives to their homeland.81
Later, when the city of Samaria came under extended siege by the army of Syria, and the people became so desperate for food that they reached the point of cannibalism, Jehoram bitterly blamed Elisha for their difficulties and threatened his life.82 However, the king did not carry out his threat.
Finally, Elisha continued to exercise a political role by predicting that Hazael would be the king who was to follow Benhadad in Syria,83 and by selecting Jehu to be king in Israel and commissioning him to wipe out the house of Ahab.84 In view of Elisha’s intimate involvement in the politics of Israel, and his frequent confrontations with kings, it is a tribute to his power and influence as a man of God that he eventually died of natural causes.85
Jeremiah – Jeremiah was another prophet who was deeply involved in the tragic political developments of his time. For example, he gave implied support to Josiah’s cultic reforms86 with the words, “Weep not for him who is dead, nor bemoan him . . .”87 but described the fate of Jehoahaz (Shallum) saying, “Weep bitterly for him who goes away, for he shall return no more to see his native land.”88
He spoke out strongly during the reign of Jehoiakim against the evil practices of the people which were leading them to disaster.89 This forthright proclamation brought him face to face with death. However, after a public hearing in which both priests and false prophets testified against him, his life was spared when it was recalled that Hezekiah, in earlier times, had spared the faithful prophet Micah, who had ventured to warn of the coming overthrow of Judah.90
Jehoiakim, who did not hesitate to cut up and burn a scroll containing the word of God dictated to Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe,91 received Jeremiah’s condemnation and scathing forecast, “With the burial of an ass he shall be buried.”92
Jeremiah also expressed his opposition to the policies and practices of Jehoiachin (Coniah), and made the dire prediction concerning him that “none of his offspring shall succeed in sitting on the throne of David, and ruling again in Judah.”93
Zedekiah refused to take Jeremiah’s counsel, no doubt because he was a weak king and under strong pressure from his anti-Babylonian nobles.94 Hence, “He did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet . . .”95 Jeremiah predicted Zedekiah’s capture by Nebuchadrezzar,96 and said to him, “You shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.”97
After the capture of Jerusalem, Jeremiah was treated well by king Nebuchadrezzar.98
Persecuted Prophets Who Were Defenseless
There are two instances in Hebrew Scripture where the power and ruthlessness of the kings involved were so great that the prophets were actually put to death. These two examples point up in a vivid manner the fact that political expediency, together with unrestrained power, was often the motivation upon which the kings acted.
The first example occurred during the reign of king Joash. Zechariah spoke to the people and said, “Thus says God, ‘Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”99 This rebuke against the people caused them to conspire against him, and, by order of the king, he was murdered.100
The second example concerns the prophet Uriah, son of Shemaiah, who spoke out against Jerusalem and the people during the reign of king Jehoiakim. When the king tried to kill him, he escaped to Egypt. Eventually, however, the king obtained his extradition and executed him in Judah.101 Ironically, Uriah’s contemporary, Jeremiah, who had prophesied essentially the same message, was able to escape death, undoubtedly because he was held in higher esteem by the people.102 A third example involves the wrath of a king against a prophet which was checked short of the death sentence. However, it, too, is a clear instance of excessive use of power by the king without anyone calling it into question. During his reign Ahab entered into league with Jehoshaphat of Judah to move against the Syrians and capture Ramothgilead. At Jehoshaphat’s request, Ahab called together his prophets, about four hundred in number, to seek word as to how the battle might go. They unanimously predicted a great victory for the Israelites. Jehoshaphat, apparently suspicious of such striking unanimity from so many prophets, called for further confirmation. Reluctantly, Ahab summoned Micaiah, who predicted defeat for the expedition and Ahab’s death in battle. Upon hearing this, Ahab said, “Seize Micaiah, and take him back to Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king’s son; and say, Thus says the king, ‘Put this fellow in prison, and feed him with scant fare of bread and water, until I come in peace.’”103
In all these cases, we see a clear distinction between powerful prophets, who could speak their mind with impunity, and weaker prophets, who lacked political support and were therefore liable to be punished for any “dangerous” prophecies.
Political Cooperation Between Prophet and King Of course, there were times in the history of the Israelites when the relationship between king and prophet was that of cooperation. Interestingly enough, the only reference in the Hebrew Scriptures to the prophet Jonah outside of the book by that name is a statement indicating that Jonah heralded the reconquest of Israel’s lost territories by king Jeroboam, son of Joash, implying his loyalty and cooperation, at any rate with that particular governmental enterprise.104
A more striking example of political cooperation between king and prophet may be seen in the actions of the prophet Isaiah. Although Ahaz was not above reproach as a king,105 Isaiah stood with him during the trying times of the Israelite-Syrian coalition against Judah.106
Again, Isaiah was a great strength to king Hezekiah when the Assyrians were threatening to take Jerusalem. The “critical support” Isaiah offered was enough to give Hezekiah the courage he needed to stand against the enemy.107 However, Isaiah strongly opposed the subsequent attempt at an anti-Assyrian alliance Hezekiah formed with Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon.108
In all of this, Isaiah is seen as counselor and advisor to the court. He had great political influence with royalty, and he used that influence to help shape the foreign policy of the Kingdom of Judah during some of the most critical years of its history.
Footnotes:
1 Cf. above, pp. 12-20.
2 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, [trans. Israel Abrahams], (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1951), p. 260.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., pp. 259-260.
5 Ibid., pp. 257-259.
6 Ibid., p. 260.
7 I Sam. 30:24-25.
8 Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Exodus, pp. 260-261.
9 Ibid., p. 262.
10 A.R. Johnson. “Hebrew Concepts of Kingship,” in: Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, [ed. S.H. Hooks], (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), pp. 205-207.
11 Ibid., p. 211. Also, cf. II Sam. 24:10-25; Jer. 15:4.
12 Judg. 9:1-9.
13 II Sam. 11:19-21.
14 I Sam. 10:26-27.
15 I Sam. 11:12-13.
16 I Sam. 14:24.
17 I Sam. 14:43-44.
18 I Sam. 14:45.
19 Judg. 11:30-31, 34-35, 39.
20 T.B. San. 71a contains rabbinic debate concerning this law. With regard to actually applying it, one view was, “It never happened and never will happen.” But R. Jonathan said, “I saw him [a rebellious son who was executed at his parents’ demand] and sat on his grave,” indicating that the law was still alive in his time. Apparently this law was still in use at the time of Herod, who cited it to justify his charges against his sons Alexander and Aristobulus. Cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVI, xi, 2, 361-366 [trans. Ralph Marcus, Loeb Classical Library ed., vol. 8, pp. 355-357]. “He said that both by nature and by Caesar’s grant he himself had authority to act, but he added that there was also a law in his country that provided that if a man's parents, after accusing him, placed their hands on his head, the bystanders were bound to stone him and to kill him in this way. This, he said, he was prepared to do in his own country and realm . . .”
21 I Sam. 19:9-10, etc.
22 Sam. 22:18-19.
23 I Sam. 25:32-34.
24 M. San. II, 2-5.
25 Cf., e.g., M. San. X, 2; also, for another view of kingship, cf. Aristotle, Politics, bk. III, chap. 16, in: The Basic Works of Aristotle, [ed. Richard McKeon], (New York: Random House, 1941), p. 1202. “He who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the mind of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire.”
26 II Sam. 1:5-16.
27 Theodore H. Robinson, A History of Israel, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), p. 224. “One representative of the family is left, a lame son of Jonathan, who David takes into his own household. He has no reason to fear Meribaal (Mephibosheth), partly because of his physical weakness, and partly because the king is so sure of the devotion of Israel, and gives him a position of honour at court.” Cf. also William McKane, I & II Samuel (London: SCM Press, 1963), p. 225, where McKane points out the political sagacity as well as the kindness of David in bringing Jonathan’s son under the shadow of his watchful eye.
28 II Sam. 9:7, 9-10.
29 II Sam. 16:1-4.
30 II Sam. 19:24-30, esp. v. 29.
31 Cf. Shah. 56a-b, where the rabbinic debate over David’s action in this matter includes, among other points, a rebuke against him, i.e., “Had not David paid heed to slander, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided.”
32 II Sam. 21:6.
33 II Sam. 21:7.
34 Deut. 24:16.
35 II Kings 14:5-6.
36 II Sam. 3:26-27.
37 II Sam. 2:8.
38 II Sam. 3:30, 2:22-23.
39 II Sam. 3:37-38.
40 II Sam. 20:8-10.
41 II Sam. 20:4.
42 I Kings 2:5-6.
43 I Kings 2:29-34.
44 I Kings 1:7, 2:28.
45 II Sam. 16:5-14.
46 II Sam. 19:16-23, esp. v. 23.
47 I Kings 2:8-9.
48 I Kings 2:36-46.
49 I Kings 2:26-27.
50 I Kings 1:7.
51 I Kings 2:24-25.
52 I Kings 2:13-21.
53 I Kings 1:5-7, 2:22-23.
54 I Kings 1:49-53.
55 I Kings 12:11.
56 I Kings 12:16-19.
57 I Sam. 10:25.
58 S. Goldman, Samuel (London: Soncino Press, 1951), p. 58. “Samuel not only chose the king, but laid down the constitution for the new form of government which was now inaugurated.” Cf. also McKane, I & II Samuel, p. 79. “It refers to a 'law of the king; the hedging of the monarchy with constitutional safeguards. . . . it may reflect an early if unsuccessful attempt to preserve the social values ot amphictyony by limiting the monarchy . . .” Cf. John Mauchline, “I & II Samuel,” in: New Century Bible, [ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black], (London: Oliphants, 1971), p. 103, where this author states, “25 describes the rights and duties (same word in Hebrew, mišpāt) of royal rule. Therefore 25 is concerned with the rights and duties of an anointed king united with Yahweh and his people in covenantal obligation.” However, contra see above; cf. Henry Preserved Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, in: International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902), p. 74, where Smith writes of the text in question, “. . . it seems impossible to understand this of anything else than the custom of the king already cited in 8:9-18. This was threatened as the penalty of the people's choice. . . . The document is laid up before Yahweh as a testimony, so that when they complain of tyranny they can be pointed to the fact that they have brought it upon themselves.”
59 I Sam. 12:12-15.
60 Charles Foster Kent, Israel’s Laws and Legal Precedents (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), p. 80.
61 I Sam. 13:13-14.
62 I Sam. 15:26.
63 I Sam. 15:30.
64 I Kings 12:24.
65 I Kings 14:30.
66 I Kings 13:6.
67 I Kings 11:29-35. Cf. San. 102a [trans. H. Freedman], for Rabbi Jose’s comment on Ahijah’s action, viz., “[That time was] a time predestined for punishment. (n. On that occasion Ahijah prophesied the division of the kingdom as a punishment for Solomon’s backsliding.)”
68 I Kings 14:7-16; cf. also I Kings 15:27-30 for the end of Jeroboam’s house.
69 I Kings 16:1-4.
70 I Kings 20:13, 22.
71 I Kings 20:28.
72 I Kings 20:35, 42.
73 I Kings 20:43.
74 I Kings 21:20-24.
75 I Kings 21:27.
76 II Kings 1:1-16.
77 II Kings 3:12.
78 II Kings 3:13-14.
79 II Kings 5:1-14.
80 II Kings 6:8-10.
81 II Kings 6:18-23.
82 II Kings 6:24-31, quote v. 31.
83 II Kings 8:7-15.
84 II Kings 9:1-13.
85 II Kings 13:14, 20.
86 II Kings 22:18-23:25.
87 Jer. 22:10a.
88 Jer. 22:10b-12.
89 Jet. 26:4-6.
90 Jer. 26:10-19.
91 Jer. 36:23 ff.
92 Jer. 22:13-19, quote v. 19.
93 Jer. 22:24-30, quote v. 30.
94 James Philip Hyatt, “Jeremiah,” in: Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 5, 1070-1072.
95 II Chron. 36:11-13, quote v. 12.
96 Jer. 21:3-7.
97 Jer. 37:17.
98 Jer. 39:11-14.
99 II Chron. 24:20.
100 II Chron. 24:21.
101 Jer. 26:20-23.
102 Jer. 26:16, 20, 24.
103 I Kings 22:1-28, quote v. 27.
104 II Kings 14:25.
105 II Kings 16:1-4.
106 Is. 7:1-4. But cf. also prophetic criticism of the king, Isaiah 7:13 ff. Cf. also San. 104a for a rabbinic view of Isaiah’s influence on king Ahaz.
107 II Kings 18:13-20:11; Is. 37-38.
108 II Kings 20:12-19; Is. 39. Cf. San. 26a for a rabbinic description of Isaiah’s encouragement of king Hezekiah.
