A Thought on the Kingdom 15/08/2005 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.Judges 21:25 (NIV)That statement comes right at the end of the book of Judges in the Bible and I have always found it interesting. It is often taken to mean that such a situation is bad, that it leads to chaos and confusion, but it is really just a recording of fact without qualification. There is no value judgement in the statement and there is none in its context, the verses that precede it. It's a bald statement of fact.The placement of this verse is very revealing of its intent. It is a summary of all that has gone before in the book of Judges, an attempt to put the thing in a nutshell. Judges records the history of Israel from the time they settled in the Promised Land until the moment when God allowed them to have a king. We should remember that He granted this reluctantly, finally yielding to the Israelites' desire to be ruled in the same way as the nations around them. As far as God was concerned, it was a "second best" option, a less than perfect solution to the problem of government. He warned them of the dire consequences that would result from their desire for a king but still they insisted. And one must presume that He let them have their way merely to teach them a lesson.Why were the Israelites so bent on having a king to rule them? To us, with our belief in the principles of democracy, it seems a strange choice, especially when we look at that statement at the end of Judges and think that it sounds very much like our own situation. But we need to remember that democracy had not been invented at the time. Some unknown little Greek city states were shortly to experiment with all sorts of governmental systems, one of which was to become the foundation of democracy (although it was not democracy as we know it, being reserved for successful males and ignoring females and slaves). At the time of Judges, however, all of this was in the future.So democracy was not an option for the Israelites. They had a very limited range of choices indeed: either what they were already experiencing or a king. It is true that some nations at the time were ruled by god-kings or by a priesthood, yet the effect was the same as a monarchy. We may define such a system as a theocracy but the reality was that a mere mortal was always the object into which all the supposed powers of a god were poured and he ruled as a king. This was not an option for the Israelites; they had direct experience of the Living God and knew that He was not embodied in the flesh of any of them.They chose to have a king rather than continue in the system they had, a system that is the sole instance of true theocracy in the history of mankind. They were ruled by God. And the problem for the Israelites was that, for most of the time, He left them pretty much to their own devices, just as described in the verse I have quoted. Every man did as he saw fit. Certainly, there was a priesthood, but it did not attempt to set itself up as a ruler; it functioned purely as a religious organization, acting as a mediator between the people and God. And there was no representative of God who sat upon a throne and told them what to do; nor did God come down and sit on that throne. To anyone observing, it must have seemed that Israel was completely leaderless, a ragged bunch of desert nomads who existed in a state of disorder.That was a part of the Israelites' problem; they were acutely aware of the mockery and contempt of other nations. And their apparent lack of organization made them seem easy prey to enemies. They were repeatedly assaulted by the nations around them.It was at those times of crisis that God's leadership became suddenly apparent. He would raise up a hero (known as a judge, since they would sometimes continue after the crisis as a mediator of disputes - hence the name of the book) who would succeed in gathering enough of an army to defeat the invaders. This happened time after time; on numerous occasions the Israelites would find themselves teetering on the edge of destruction, only to be rescued at the last moment by God's intervention in the form of an unexpected leader.And this was the real cause of the Israelites' ultimate dissatisfaction with the whole theocracy thing: that God loves those "at the last moment" scenarios (understandably, since they enable Him to give demonstration of the fact that He really is in charge). But they are scary times for mere mortals. To put it in modern terms, the Israelites had a crisis of faith. Their trust in God had been stretched beyond endurance and they wanted something more tangible to rely on, something or someone they could see and touch, someone they could heap responsibility on and say, "Oh, the king will tell us what to do."No wonder God was not all that keen on the idea. His people were, in effect, saying that their faith was no longer in Him. Were He not God, I would suspect that there was an element of revenge in His giving in to their pleas.So he allowed them to have their king and the rest, as they say, is history. But that short, simple phrase still fascinates - "everyone did as he saw fit." What lessons and wisdom are in those words and the period they refer to - particularly for Christians, who now inhabit a Kingdom governed in the same way as were the Israelites of so long ago.What, you say we live in a democracy? Not Christians; we are but sojourners here and citizens of another Kingdom entirely.
Clive
Eddy Of course the problem of the Israelites was also the fact that they did whatever they pleased. The era of the judges shows the fickleness of the human condition Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Very true, Eddy. And perhaps that is my point. ;) Date Added: 15/08/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) And Yaweh is not the God of the Christians. He was a storm god that Abraham brought down from the mountains of Sumeria (S. Iraq) and put in a box (Ark) and took north. Yaweh has too many of the negative human traits to be fully believable by post Jung/Freud 21st-centuriyites. Jesus was the "King of the Jews" and made into God by later Christians, but early Christians didn't see it that way. A complex subject for a comment box :-) Date Added: 15/08/2005
Mad .o0(Here we go...) Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Ah, John, you introduce a host of red herrings (all of which I disagree with, of course :D). But, as you say, it's a little complicated for a comment box so I will pass over them... ;) Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Mad: How to avoid an argument in one easy lesson. ;) Date Added: 15/08/2005
ME Strauss Tag You're IT! I'm trying to find my way around the WBA. Found the mag. I'm reading away and I really should be working. smiles, me-Liz Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Ahah, then you've discovered the truth that some things are more important than mere working, ME! ;) Date Added: 15/08/2005
Kurt Interesting bit of analysis, Clive. I'm not religious myself, but I go to a Catholic university, and I've found some of the theology classes I've taken there absolutely fascinating, particularly one on the synoptic gospels that focused on the cultural situation and context of Second-Temple Judaism. I guess I should go read Judges; it's one of the 'recommended' texts for the course that I never got around to. :) Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Judges is an interesting study of a society under a system of government that has been tried nowhere else, Kurt. Agnostics and atheists would no doubt argue with the suggestion that God was behind all the leaders who arrived in the nick of time, but that does not detract from the extraordinary fact that Israel existed for a long time without any human government at all. How on earth did they manage that if God was not involved? Date Added: 15/08/2005
Kurt I'm sure it would make for an interesting sociological study, or an interesting flamewar, neither of which I have the incentive to incite right now. But if you're going to post at length about anything like it again, I'll keep reading if it's this interesting and provokes questions that are half as good. Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Well, Kurt, as I said in my last post, I have to write about what I'm thinking on that particular day; and I never know what that might be! This post might be an odd theological departure or it might be the first of many such ponderings, who can say? But thank you for your kind words and, whatever happens, I'll try to remain interesting! Date Added: 15/08/2005
Stuart I was always taught that you should never discuss politics or religion in polite company ... hmmm perhaps that's why I stick to business. But you raise an interesting point. There are the very dour traditionalists who say that there is no such thing as free choice. Every man's path is set from before the beginning of time and he will not and cannot deviate from that path. And yet here God gives an entire nation a choice. Things that make you go hmmmm. You also raise another intersting point Clive but it's 4.30am here and that is a far too ungodly a time to enter into deep theological discussions. Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Ah, those would be the Calvinists, the ones who maintain that all is set beforehand. Yet that is a misunderstanding of Calvinism (I am one so I ought to know); the theory is Predestination, which has nothing to do with Fate or Destiny but is more a matter of God knowing from the beginning what choices you will make - but He still offers you the choice. And I have no doubt He knew that Israel would reject His government long before they even reached the Promised Land. Yet He still offered them the choice... And now you've made me mention Calvinism. Oh dear, as if that isn't asking for controversy! Date Added: 15/08/2005
Stuart Ah ... thankyou for bringing old memories flooding back. Yes Calvinism and predestination were the terms that were lurking in the far reaches of my brain. Date Added: 15/08/2005
Quills There are the very dour traditionalists who say that there is no such thing as free choice. Every man's path is set from before the beginning of time and he will not and cannot deviate from that path. I would call that a deterministic view point, rather than traditionalistic. We are what we are, and what will happen will happen because of what we do. What we do happens because of who we are.......causality may be a fallacy, according to some purists, but it seems obvious enough to me. Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Causality as described by you is fairly easy to accept, I think, Quills. I'm sure we can all think of occasions when we have made choices determined by what we are, rather than what might be more logical or moral. But I think Stuart is referring to something more like the moslem Kismet, the concept of all our histories being written down in a great, big book somewhere long before we were born, and that we cannot deviate from what is written there. And that is a concept that is not Christian. Date Added: 15/08/2005
Kurt Quills, are you familiar with the philosophical concepts of determinism and the arguments against it? There are some quite good nondeterminist arguments out there, although I'm at work and on deadline, so I can't fill in any details at the moment. If there's some interest, I'd be glad at carrying the free will and omniscience debate into my blog in the near future, though. Date Added: 15/08/2005
Quills Unfortunately, I am :) Philosophy 101 was a helpful introduction. My specialities tend to be metaphysicals/continental philsophy though. I'm still figuring out what I wish to believe, and which arguments work for me (applied personal philosophy!) but I would be happy to join a debate about it. Just expect some very juvenile arguments while I rejig my memory & brain back into thinking logically and not chaotically.and yus Clive, I'm sure he was. I just couldn't resist interjecting. I'm annoying like that! Date Added: 15/08/2005
Kurt I'm only a semester out of Intro Metaphysics myself, but I had an absolutely top-notch professor who really explained a lot of things very well. I'll dig up my textbook one of these days for the subway ride to work and figure out something coherent to say about it. Date Added: 15/08/2005
Gone Away Oh, I wasn't objecting, Quills, I love interjections! Merely trying to continue the debate. ;) Date Added: 15/08/2005
John Great post and great comments Clive! I love how you bring the Spiritual and the secular together in your Blog, you are not afraid, like some others I know, to share your faith. May the Lord continue to bless this Blog and your readers. GBYAY Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Thank you, John, your comments are much appreciated. And especially I thank you for the compliment to my commenters. It's been pointed out recently how much a part of this blog they are and I want it to be known that I am very much aware of how much they add to my little posts. Best bunch of commenters on the net! :) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Phil Dillon Clive: Wonderful insight. I've often thought about that period and wondered if that really wasn't God's ideal. It's almost impossible for 21st century man to see, but I think you really hit the target. Living a life of faith seems far less tangible that living by the edict of a king. Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Thank you, Phil. I'm quite sure that God provides us with a description of that period to show us how He would prefer us to run our countries. The reality is, of course, that it is far harder to live by faith than by laws and edicts, so we allow responsibility for ourselves to be offloaded on to rulers and parliaments, kings and dictators. And, in the same way, our organized religions slip so easily from what was once a revelation of freedom into a system of rules and regulations. How grateful we should be that He is endlessly patient with us! Date Added: 16/08/2005
Jodie Makes me think that government is sometimes awfully burdensome. :) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Now don't start me on politics, Jodie! Who knows what might happen? ;) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Stuart Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's and render unto God that which is God's Give the politicians both barrels Clive :) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away There are two reasons why I must turn down that tempting suggestion, Stuart: Long ago I lost any faith in politics having any power to change our world for the better; and with that faith went most of my interest in the subject. I still have some thoughts on the matter but they are very basic and naive in comparison to the stuff I see churned out in some of the political blogs. They don't need my input. And, as a recent immigrant to the States, I don't think I have earned the right to add my voice to the political discussion in this country. I might occasionally talk about principles underlying political systems and my views might be interpreted from this; but as to participating directly in the debate - no, I don't think so. ;) Date Added: 16/08/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) Interesting you're a Calvinist, Clive. I've been trying to put my finger on your beliefs. I've a lot of respect for those who place a spiritual dimension at the centre of their lives. Unfortunately, I've read so widely in world religions that my own beliefs are very eclectic indeed, except for the Rules of Chivalry, which I try to live by, and they're purely Christian, but tending towards the Gospel of Thomas (so-called Gnostics) and Orthodox views.On determinism, I think C.S. Lewis got it right. My 2-cents is that there are different levels of consciousness. Each higher level can see the life below as a timeline, so can see it's future. But at the level you are, you have choice. Once, though, your consciousness rises, if only fleetingly, to a higher level, you begin to see that many of the things you do are determined, though by time warps, not actual rigid predestination. Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Sounds rather complicated, John. And here's me, just a boring old Christian (Calvinist in that I believe it's once saved, always saved). But I have read in depth about all the religions; it was necessary as I did not meet God in a church and needed to find out which one He was. I found that only two of those religions were talking about the God that I'd met and one of those was the culmination of the other... Date Added: 16/08/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) Sound equally complicated :-) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away I guess it is, at that... :D Date Added: 16/08/2005
Jodie Clive, anyone who's lived in Oklahoma for more than 2 weeks is allowed to talk Okie "politics" if that's what you can call what we have in this state. :) I think we have very similar views, there. Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away We do? Heck, I didn't even know I had any opinions on Okie politics (apart from loving the place, of course). Can you give me an example? Date Added: 16/08/2005
Glod I actually enjoyed this, most religous debate and analysis which finds it's way to me seems rather zealous. I liked the quote. Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Thank you, Glod. High praise indeed and I appreciate it. :) Are you back from your Scandinavian adventure now? Date Added: 16/08/2005
Glod Yes, thank you. If you ever need advice on some spots in Norway, then I assume you know who to ask. Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Indeed I do, Glod, and I may well take you up on that offer (Norway being one of my favorite adopted countries). Here's a useless bit of Scandinavian knowledge: the Swedes pronounce the name of their country, Sverige, as "Sver-i-yah". For years I assumed, therefore, that the Norwegians would pronounce their country's name, Norge, as "Nor-yah". Imagine my joy and renewed belief in the Norwegians when I discovered, on very good authority, that they actually pronounce it "Nor-gah". Now there's a sensible bunch of people for ya! :) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Kurt Clive, Part of what I think makes America a great country (not that I'm some uber-patriot, just a happy citizen) is that you don't have to 'earn' the right to talk freely about our politics here; that was earned for everyone first during the Revolutionary War with blood, and then through the Constitution with words, which I think are equally powerful. I think it's a concept you'll find familiar. :) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away I understand what you say, Kurt, and it is one of the things about Americans that I love - that they will happily allow their politics to be inspected by anyone. But my feeling of reluctance to speak comes more from the rules I set myself, I think. It is rude for a recent arrival to wander about the house, finding fault with things. Let that wait until I have become more a part of this America and might actually know a thing or two about it. ;) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Ken Point taken! I really enjoyed this post. You're clearly back to your best: interesting and provocative in all kinds of ways. Having lived abroad myself for a good many years, I especially appreciated the rightness of your response to Kurt above ("I understand what you say, Kurt, ..."). Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Thank you, Ken. We are both Englanders and "of the old school", I think, and have a common grounding in "the rules of polite society" as a result. These have changed a great deal over the years but it is hard for us to break the habits of a lifetime. ;) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gary Well-exposited, Clive. The Israelites already had a king (God) they were just too dense to realize it. (Also, did you know that changing the text size with Internet Explorer does not work with your blog? (View->Text Size). My up-close vision is not great and your text is small and the somewhat gray color makes it even harder to read for me. Better talk to Mad. Thanks! ) Date Added: 16/08/2005
Madmin My deepest apologies Gary, that was an oversight of mine that should of been corrected ages ago. The orgins of the style sheet for this site began when I was very new to CSS and I used fixed font size, today I know better but I had forgotten to correct my old mistake. Try again (by the way did you know that a combination of the mouse wheel and ctrl will scroll text size in IE?) the text should resize happily. Again my apologies and at some point there will be a high contrast alternative up for your use. Date Added: 16/08/2005
Gone Away Wow, how's that for service with a smile, Gary? ;) Date Added: 17/08/2005
Stuart Clive I have certainly enjoyed reading your original post and the comments that followed. I have only met one Calvinist before now and he managed to leave a very bleak impression with me of what he espoused. On the other hand you have added a much warmer face to something that I always considered to be a very grey and oppressive view of the world. And somewhere in the middle of all that I have now gained a mental picture of you as a Pommie version of Howard Keel - standing in the middle of the prairie singing the praises of Oklahoma - I think that's put me right off working for the rest of the day :) But then I never need much of an excuse not to work. Date Added: 17/08/2005
Gone Away Stuart, you are a wonderment! You never fail to put a smile on my face with your comments. I have no idea who Howard Keel is but I happily accept the picture of me standing on the prairie, singing the praises of Oklahoma! God, I love this country. More than once I have been called the Will Rogers of England and, although I don't think I could emulate that great man in a million years (the rope tricks alone would give me serious problems), I am very aware of what an honor it is to be so compared. As for the Calvinism thing, I have always considered it a great shame that Calvin's theology gave rise to some of the most austere and unforgiving denominations that Christianity has seen. The first premise of Calvinism is that once you're saved, you're saved, and nothing in this world, not even God Himself, will take that away from you. God is not an indian giver - He gives salvation as a gift and never goes back on His word. That is the most freeing doctrine I have ever encountered. Gone is the weight of performance, the prison of rules and regulations, the fear that one might not be getting it right enough to earn the reward. At last we can be free to be who He has made us, to forget petty concerns of whether this little thing is right or that minor matter wrong, to become all the potential He has put in our hearts and to do whatever He puts before us! How the Calvinist denominations managed to build such legalistic denominations on that foundation I will never understand. All I know is that it's true (God told me, so it must be so). His mercy is such that He gives the gift without conditions. He who is freed by the Son is free indeed! Would that we all could understand that and stop worrying about our salvation and picking away at details, wondering whether this or that is a sin. Forget all that; let us begin to act from the new heart that He has put within us! (It's all biblical, you know, though revealed to me through revelation) Date Added: 17/08/2005
John (SYNTAGMA) The combination of Geneva and John Knox in Scotland was bound to produce a gloomy outlook, methinks :-) Your view of salvation reminds me of the Buddhist one which says, "We are all Enlightened. It's just that some of us know it, and most of us don't." I've always gone along with that. It adds a bit of cheer to even the grimmest scenario. Great thread! Date Added: 17/08/2005
Gone Away John Knox and Geneva - yes, you have a point there, John! In some cases misery is the inevitable outcome. :D Date Added: 17/08/2005
Wayne Now this is more like it! Not that I minded the writers' blog stuff (I even joined), but I missed this stuff.I enjoyed this a lot; I've been meaning to revisit the Old Testament for a while, even though I'm a (GASP) agnostic. You know, many of us are, in fact, quite capable of reading the Bible and excellent commentaries like yours without getting all whiny with, "Well, you know, God might not exist in the first plaaaaace ..."In my view, the thorny matter of God's existence shouldn't impede a good analysis. Date Added: 17/08/2005
Janus Very deep and well written, thank you for some deep thinking to get my brain working this morning Date Added: 17/08/2005
Gone Away In the end, Wayne, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. And this post was what I had to do. I am greatly encouraged by your reaction to it; you confirm yet again for me what I have known for a long time: that, for reasons that mystify me, I have the best bunch of commenters on the net. A big thank you to all of you! Date Added: 17/08/2005
Gone Away And thank you too, Janus. Good to see that Splitting Hairs has broken its silence at last and once again the blogosphere is honored with your incisive commentary on life! Date Added: 17/08/2005
Gary Thanks for fixing the text size, Mad, and thanks for the tip about the mouse wheel! (Now, can I make one more little request? Can you make it so the comments page remembers our email and url addresses? I have to type them in everytime I comment. I'm just full of good news, huh? Great work, guys.) Date Added: 19/08/2005
Madmin Yeah that's been on the "to do" list for about six months Gary. I will get around to it eventually I promise. In the meantime why not try a browser that will automatically fill in forms for you like Firefox? Date Added: 19/08/2005
Back to the main blog
You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.
Name * Comment * Email * URL Commenting has closed for this post
