Final Research Paper:
The Deuteronomy 17 Kingship in Relation to Israel’s Desires
and David’s Performance as King
A Paper
Submitted to Dr. Jeffrey Audirsch
of Shorter University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Course
CST 4711: Old Testament Book Study – 1 & 2 Samuel
School of Christian Studies
Joshua K. Ensley
Shorter University, 1873
April 15, 2014

CONTENTS
1.
Introduction
2.
Deuteronomy’s Kingly Model and Israel’s Demand for a King
3.
David’s Unrighteous Kingly Behavior
4.
Conclusion
5.
Bibliography
6
10
1
1
12

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to outline the kingship model given in Deuteronomy 17 in relation to two future events: 1) Israel’s first request of a king; 2) David’s position as king.
Specifically, two questions will be asked: “Did Israel desire a king that fit the model of
Deuteronomy 17?” and, “Did David succeed in fitting the kingship model of Deuteronomy 17?”
My hypothesis for the first question is that Israel did not desire a king that fit the Deuteronomic model, but rather, they desired a king that sharply contrasted it. My second hypothesis for this paper is that, though he was portrayed as a righteous man from 1 Samuel 16 – 2 Samuel 8, David did not completely succeed in becoming the righteous king which YHWH required of His monarchial system. For both of these hypotheses, textual contrasts and connections will be observed in order to arrive to a conclusion.
Deuteronomy’s kingly Model and Israel’s Demand for a King
Chapter 7 of 1 Samuel ends with Samuel leading Israel in worship and acting as its judge.
Chapter 8 picks up with the narrative but time has elapsed. This is evident by the phrase given in verse 1 which says, “And it came to be when Samuel was old.” What happens next is unexpected and upsets the people of Israel. Samuel sets his two sons – Joel and Abijah – over the people as judges, but they were wicked men who were out for their own gain, not walking in the ways of YHWH. The judges in the book of Judges took on a role of military leadership as
1

well as a judicial position. However, Samuel’s sons only take on the judicial position and do not step in as military leaders.
1
Acting opposite of how they were expected to act, Samuel’s two sons are similar to Eli’s two sons.
2
Samuel and Eli, two Godly men of YHWH, would be expected to produce a lineage of more Godly men; however, both Samuel and Eli’s sons rebel and pervert the ways of YHWH
(v5), leading to their rejection by the people. Eli’s sons’ rebellion may have come by their father’s non-disciplinary actions, but the narrative fails to inform the reader why Samuel’s sons become failures. Regardless, the means by which their failures came to pass is not the point of concern, the rebellion leading to a request for a king is.
Being in the position of judge, the two sons were expected to display a Deuteronomistic model of office - righteous and fair, not showing partiality, taking a bribe, or twisting the words of the righteous (Deut 16:19). Sadly, this is not the behavior of Joel and Abijah. Samuel is no longer able to fulfill the role of righteous leader and his sons are failures. This unrighteous behavior, and Samuel’s inability to continue leading Israel, led the people to request a king.
The phrase at the end of verse 5 is important to understand. The people at Rhema say to
Samuel, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to rule us like all the nations ” (1 Sam 8:5 – Emphasis Added). Firth asks the question, “Are they requesting a model of government with a king as human head of state, the pattern followed in the nations, or are they asking for a human ruler with the same authority as the surrounding
1
David G. Firth. Apollos Old Testament Commentary: 1&2 Samuel . (Downers Grove,
InterVarsity Press, 2009), 112.
2 Ibid., 113.
2

nations?” 3
It seems as though the latter is more plausible than the first because of Moses’s prohibitions against military impulses for the new king as found in Deuteronomy 17, followed by
Samuel’s separation from Israel’s decision to set up a king in 1 Samuel 8:18. It seems as though
Samuel understands that Israel’s desired king will not fit the model in Deuteronomy. The
Deuteronomistic theme for kingship is laid out in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
" (14) When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' (15) you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. (16) Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' (17) And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. (18) "And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. (19) And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, (20) that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.” (Deut 17:14-20 ESV)
Just as the men of Rhema request in 1 Samuel 8, Moses tells of a time when Israel will set a king over themselves “like all the nations.” Daniel Block suggests that this text perceives that Israelite kingship is “not a top-down imposition by a powerful ruler, but as a democratic development, in response to the wishes of the community.” 4
Block believes that the kingship is something that the people have desired and are willing to set up themselves, in which they will share power with the king, ultimately benefitting from his newly appointed position.
3
Ibid., 113.
4
Daniel I. Block. The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy . (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012), 417.
3

The first requirement for the newly appointed king, as dictated in Deuteronomy 17, is that he is to be appointed specifically by YHWH. In ancient Near Eastern culture, a divinely appointed king or leader is a very common occurrence;
5
moreover, the belief that a national deity was “king” was a universal thought in the area.
6
Though Moses would not prohibit the idea of
YHWH being superior king over Israel, to confirm that the people will not immediately model their monarchy after the nations, Moses instructs the people that the king must come “from among your brothers” (Deut 17:15b). This suggests that the king will not only be divinely appointed, but he will also be from within the same covenant people of YHWH; appointing a fellow Israelite to the role of king will help prevent the monarchy from immediately turning away from YHWH’s covenant relationship with Israel. Moses then prohibits the future king from acting upon military impulses (v16a), as well as retreating back into Egypt (v16b), thus canceling their covenant relationship with YHWH by means of abandoning His protection and security.
7
There exists much irony in 1 Samuel 8 after the prayer of Samuel for the request of a king for Israel. As Firth has said, the content of the prayer is not important, otherwise it would have been included in the biblical text; what matters is YHWH’s response.
8
YHWH responds in a way that suggests that Samuel felt as though they were rejecting him by demanding a king.
YHWH informs Samuel that they have not rejected him, but rather, they had rejected YHWH
5 Ibid., 417.
6
Daniel G. Reid. Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books.
(Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2005), 616.
7
Block, 418.
8 Firth, 114.
4

from being their king (v7). Samuel’s feelings of rejection probably stem from the fact that he had been judging, ruling, and leading Israel in worship practices for years, acting as their ruler or
“king.” The irony is that the kingship which YHWH commands to be modeled in Deuteronomy
17 is to promote justice by means of righteousness modeled after their God, yet the kingship which Israel desires is one that seeks to negate YHWH’s own authority over them.
9
Unlike the offices of judge, priest, and prophet, the kingship is an optional office that may or may not be filled and is subject to the will of the people.
10 YHWH tells Samuel to warn the people and to make known to them what rulings the king shall have over them (v9). Samuel relays the king’s rulings to the people by informing them that the king shall take their sons for his military, the daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers, and the best of their fields in order to satisfy a costly army. The verb occurring in vv. 11, 13, 14, and 16 is “take.” This suggests that the king will “take” what he sees as the best and not what is voluntarily given.
11 Samuel is simply telling the people that the kingship will be taxing and that they will be forced to give much. What seems to be most crucial here is that Samuel distances himself from the decision to establish a king in verse 18 by using the phrase, “…the king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but YHWH is not going to answer you in that day.” The text suggests that YHWH will not approve of the king or allow the king to be His representative if the office is filled out of the desire to be like all the nations surrounding them. Had Israel heeded the requirements of the future king in Deuteronomy 17, YHWH would have no problem in accepting the king as His
9
Firth, 114.
10
Block, 418.
11 Firth, 115.
5

holy representative. This impromptu kingly establishment could very well be the beginning of
King Saul’s downfall before a position as king is even brought to his attention.
Undoubtedly, the people of Israel desired to have a king that did not model the standard which Moses prescribed. Israel desired a king that would lead them in battle and set them high above the nations around them. The people’s desires were evidentially contrary to the desires of
YHWH’s prophet Samuel, as seen in 1 Samuel 8:18, and ultimately contrary to the desires of
YHWH Himself. YHWH’s kingship model in Deuteronomy 17 describes a king who leads his people but still understands that he is subject to the true king – His God. Thus, Israel’s did not heed the words of Deuteronomy; Israel desired a man like Saul, and because of their unrighteous demands, they suffered through the consequences that followed.
David’s Unrighteous Kingly Behavior
The eleventh chapter of 2 Samuel is possibly the most famous of all Samuel text after the
David and Goliath narrative in 1 Samuel 17. 2 Samuel 11 is commonly known as “David and
Bathsheba.” Within this chapter of 2 Samuel, David’s actions result in the initial unwinding of his place as king. Chapter 9 of 2 Samuel is the beginning of what is known as the “Succession
Narrative.” 12
Though this chapter of 2 Samuel is one of the many matters of great concern in the early history of Samuel – Kings, the Chronicler fails to mention David’s unrighteous adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah.
13
Whether one takes the position of either David using
12
Audirsch, Jeffrey. “The Family of David.” Lecture, Shorter University, Rome, Ga,
April 1, 2014.
13 V. Philips Long. The Art of Biblical History . (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 77.
6

Uriah’s wife to kill him, or David being forced to kill Uriah on account of his (David’s) unrighteous acts, it is obvious that David has failed to live up to the standards set in
Deuteronomy 17 on kingly righteousness. The standard of which the king is to live by following his ascension to power can be found in Deuteronomy 17:18-20.
“
(16) Only, he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses for himself, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' (17) And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold. (18) And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the
Levitical priests. (19) And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, (20) that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel.”
(Deuteronomy 17:16-20 ESV)
According to Daniel Block, the first three prohibitions in this passage are three major temptations that ancient Near Eastern rulers faced: lust for power, lust for status, and lust for wealth.
14
Moreover, Block suggests that the “threefold repetition of ‘for himself’ emphasizes the ban concerning the king’s exploitation of his office for personal gain.” 15
Moses goes on to instruct the king to copy the Torah for himself as he sits on the throne (v18), whether that be in the time of his accession or a later, durative sense. Regardless, the command to copy the Torah for himself suggests that the king is in a seat of authority, but at the same time, he recognizes that he is still subject to a higher power. Moreover, by coping the Torah in the presence of the
Levitical priests, the act can be seen as sacred.
16
The responsibility does not stop there; the king is to go even further by reading from it all the days of his life so that he learns to “fear” YHWH
14
Block, 419.
15
Block, 419.
16 Block, 420.
7

and to guard His words (v19). The motive of this copying and reading can be found in verse 20:
“so that his heart is not lifted up above his brothers.” The goal of Moses’s commands here is to keep the king in a position “specially chosen by YHWH and installed by the people, but resisting the temptation to consider himself their superior.” 17
King David, whom some consider the most righteous king of all of Israel’s monarchial history, seems to forget these commands or suppress his desire to keep them in chapter 11 of 2
Samuel when executing his assault on Uriah through his wife Bathsheba. According to Firth, it is difficult to label David’s summoning of Uriah as an attempted cover-up Bathsheba’s pregnancy because his motives are not a secret; he asked of her identity and summoned her.
18
By using sexual intimacy with a married woman to plot the death of one of his servants, the king has violated two very important commands found within the Torah – the book which David, as king, is commanded to copy and read all the days of his life in accordance with Deuteronomy 17.
These two broken commands are adultery (Deut 5:18; 22:22) and increasing wives ‘for himself’
(Deut 17:17). Thus, David has begun to turn from his righteous behavior to that of a king which
YHWH commanded Israel’s kings not to model.
David continues to break the model set for him by continually plotting the death of his innocent servant. In verse 8, David suggests the Uriah go down to his house and ‘wash his feet.’
This phrase could either refer to a normal procedure for welcoming a traveler into one’s house, or allude to the idea of the male genitalia, which would suggest having sex with his wife.
19
17
Block, 420.
18
Firth, 418.
19 Firth, 418.
8

Uriah’s response in verse 11 suggests that it very well could have been David’s intent to suggest lying with his wife, yet, his subtlety does not make anything explicit.
20 The irony in this portion of the narrative is that Uriah the Hittite, a servant of YHWH, though still labeled a Hittite
21
, understands the prohibition against an active soldier from sleeping with his wife as found in
Deuteronomy 23:10, and refuses to go to his home and participate in this lawless act, even though the king has suggested such. King David, a man appointed by YHWH to be His righteous representative, a man who is commanded to meditate on the laws of the Torah every day of his life, has become less familiar, or less faithful to the very laws that he has been commanded to live by so that he will not do the very thing that he is guilty of – setting his heart above his brothers (Deut 17:20).
By plotting Uriah’s death and bringing his demise to fruition, King David has broken four of the Ten Commandments all in one act. He has coveted, committed adultery, lied (if you consider his manipulative suggestions to Uriah as lies), and murdered an innocent man.
Ironically, David has become the king whom Samuel warned the people of in 1 Samuel 8:10-18 after they demand a king – a king who increases wives and riches for himself (Deut 17:17) and sets himself above his brothers (Deut 17:20). Thus, David did not completely succeed in fitting the kingship model of Deuteronomy 17.
20
Firth, 418.
21
Robert Gordon suggests that Uriah was possibly an alien residing in Israel at the time, or the descendent of one. Uriah is undoubtedly a Yahwist because his name contains the shortened form of YHWH’s Name. ( I&II Samuel: A Commentary ), 254.
9

Conclusion
Gathered at Rhema, the people of Israel demanded a king, but the king which they desired did not live up to the standard YHWH set for the monarchy in Deuteronomy 17. Samuel understood that Israel had rejected YHWH as being king by setting such nation-like standards for their future king. The king of Israel was to be chosen as a holy representative for YHWH
Himself, but the people received what they requested – a king who lifts his heart up above the people, refusing to accept that God is the true king of his nation. Though David did fulfill this role after the demise of King Saul, David did not stay true to his position. David’s demise began with his ungodly affair with Bathsheba, and his monarchy never fully recovered. In one short chain of events, King David went from being the Godliest man on earth to a heartless, adulterating murderer. King David, the man after God’s own heart, the man who repeatedly spared the life of Saul, the man who went to war and fought in the Name of YHWH, had become less righteous and less concerned with his own expected code of conduct than a Hittite from
Canaan – the very people David was not to model himself after.
10

11

WORKS CITED
Audirsch, Jeffrey. “The Family of David.” Lecture, Shorter University, Rome, Ga, April 1, 2014.
Block, Daniel I. The NIV Application Commentary: Deuteronomy . Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2012.
Firth, David G. Apollos Old Testament Commentary: 1&2 Samuel . Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2009.
Gordon, Robert P. I&II Samuel: A Commentary . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.
Long, V. Philips. The Art of Biblical History . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Reid, Daniel G. Dictionary of the Old Testament Historical Books . Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 2005.
12