JBTS

Journal of
Biblical and
Theological
Studies
VOLUME 4 | ISSUE 1

A Biblical Theology of the Israelite Monarchy

Eugene H. Merrill
 [JBTS 4.1 (2019): 1–25]

A Biblical Theology of the Israelite Monarchy

Eugene H. Merrill

Eugene H. Merrill is Distinguished Professor of Old Testament Studies (Emeritus)

Dallas Theological Seminary

Abstract: In undertaking a comprehensive Biblical theology, one must take account

of each and every aspect of the biblical message and from the accumulated data distill
its fundamental concepts and concerns, looking for a central theme if one exists. At
the very opening of the sacred text and in the first recorded statement of God about
mankind, he speaks of the purpose of his creation: “Be fruitful, multiply, and have
dominion over all things” (Genesis 1:26-28). That mandate was never rescinded and
the Israelite Monarchy was one of its most significant expressions.

Key Words: Israel, Israelite Monarchy, Kingship, David

Foreword
If nothing else, the Bible is a theological treatise originating in the mind of God,
revealed to and through the prophets and apostles, and made available to the Church.
As such, no part of it, canonically speaking, is non-theological nor is any one of
its literary genres intended in the end to communicate anything but theology. This
includes the historical books and the events they describe, including, of course, the
era of Israel’s monarchy. To ‘do’ theology of a part of the canon, one must view it
as an integral part of the whole without the opportunity to do the whole. Our desire
and prayer is that this brief study will be read and examined in light of the entire
canonical revelation.1

Defense of ‘Monarchy’ as a Theological Theme

By ‘theme’ in biblical theology is meant a notion or concept that is readably observable,
easily understood, and intuitively sensed to be appropriate to the discipline. Many
works on the subject fail in one or more of these respects. To a great extent the criteria
are determined by such features as (1) the ‘space’ allocated to it in the Bible; that is,
to what extent is it the subject matter of Scripture?; (2) how pervasively is it identified
and carried throughout the various writings of the Bible?; (3) is there a perceptible
1. For a more thorough discussion of this author’s theological method, see Eugene H. Merrill,
Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006),
28-33.

1
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
sense of its organic nature, its development from a germination to a full-grown body
of truth that informs all its parts and is informed by them as well?; (4) does it reach a
climactic point where the creative and salvific purposes of God from the beginning
have been realized in history and in the eschatological age? Proposed themes that
lack one or more of these should foster concern as to whether the theologian has
adequately made a case for whatever central ideas he or she might be promoting to
see if their works are indeed credible and persuasive. A legitimate question can now
then be raised: Does the topic “Monarchy of Israel” pass muster?2 Only the reading
can supply an answer.3

Monarchy in the Ancient Near East and in Israel

As Religious/Political Institutions 4

Creation: The Origin of Israelite Kingship

The concept of kingship or monarchy or dominion was accepted world-wide
except, it seemed, in Israel. But this is a misreading of the sacred record. Words
like “dominion,” “rule,” and the like occur first at the very beginning, in Genesis 1:
26-28, even before mankind was created. God as king brought about humankind to
represent him as sentient beings, to be his images and to reign on his behalf. “Let us
make man as5 our image,” he said, and “let them fill the earth and have dominion6
over everything.” This is followed by the first recorded words uttered by God to man,
and in even stronger terms: “Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, subdue7 it, and
have dominion…” (v. 28). Part of this concept of having dominion is self-sufficiency,
exacting from surrounding creation the means by which he could exercise a certain
degree of human autonomy. Even before plants were created, the delay in their
springing forth was attributed partly to the fact that “there was no man who could
work [the soil]” (Genesis 2:5), clearly referring to the creation dominion mandate.

2. For an older but still important (and in agreement) work on the theme, see Tomoo Ishida, The
Royal Dynasties in Ancient Israel: A Study on the Formation and Development of Royal-Dynastic
Ideology. BZAW142. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1977.
3. Merrill, Everlasting Dominion, 127-162.
4. G. E. Mendenhall, “The Monarchy,” Interpretation 29 (1975): 155-170; Baruch Halpern, The
Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981); K. M. Heim, “Kings and
Kingship,” Dictionary if the Old Testament: Historical Books, Eds. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M.
Williamson (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Predss, 2005), 610-623.
5. 5 This subordinate conjunction can (and here does) have the meaning of beth essentiae, not
“in” but “as.” Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Wi-
nona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 11.2.5e.
6. Hebrew ‫( ָרדָ ה‬rādā), “tread, rule” (HALOT, 1190).
7. A related term is ‫( ָכבַשׂ‬kabas), “subjugate” (HALOT, 460). The idea implicit here is that
creation might resist human dominion at times, but it must be made to ‘understand’ that man is
sovereign under the Creator’s mighty hand

2
 Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
The Lord then expanded on the notion of “working” the ground by planting a garden
in Eden in which he placed the man (Genesis 28-17). As though to communicate to
him the marvels of self-sustenance, God made the soil burst forth with plants both
beautiful to see (flowers?) and good to eat (v. 9). Man’s emulation of these agricultural
techniques released him from utter helplessness and taught him what dominion over
“all things” might mean. He too could “create” plants, though not by spoken word as
had the Lord, but by arduous, fulfilling, labor.
The labor consisted of two stages: to “work” the ground and to “watch over” it
(Genesis 2:15). The first, “to work,”8 intimates bringing soil under control, as it were,
through breaking up the ground and making it subservient. “To watch over”9 was
to manage, guard, and cultivate it once it had been properly prepared by cultivation.
The agricultural language became translated to kingdom responsibility in due course,
the working being the preparation for monarchy, and the watching over to kingly
responsibility for maintaining the Creation plan of dominion over all things for the
glory of God.
Two examples of the preparation of mankind to be the image of God are (1)
the uniqueness of the bestowal upon him of life and (2) its result contrasted to
that of lower beings. The text in great detail specifies that God “breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life10 and [he] became a living being” (Gen 2:7). This tender
anthropomorphic moment in effect gives to man certain God-like qualities, but not
in essence; the resemblance is in exercise of authority, no matter how derivative and
incomparably less glorious it is to that of the King of Heaven and Earth.
Man’s (singular) and humankind’s (collective) function under God may be
conceptualized as levels of “sphere sovereignty” (to use the Dooyeweerdian term),
in which, as in pyramidal layers, God is the Apex, the source and distributor of
all authority, followed next in descending order by mankind, society, government,
institutions, and, at base, all other created things, sentient or otherwise.11 This is
the order as established in the days of creation, but in crescendo reverse order: (1)
Heavens and Earth, (2) the Waters, (3) Vegetation, (4) Heavenly Bodies, (5) Creatures
of the Seas and Skies, (6) Creatures of the Land), (7) Man, Woman. In opposition

8. The very common verb 800( ‫ ָעבַד‬x in BH) in most contexts means “to work” or “to make.”
9. The verb ‫שׁ ַמר‬ ָ , equally as common, is rendered “watch over,” “take care of,” and the like
(HALOT, 1581-1584).
10. The breathing out (‫ )יָפַח‬and breathing in (‫ ) ְבּ ַאפָּיו‬clearly suggests a certain transfer of
“godlikeness” or authority granted to mankind alone, another step toward dominion. The
ְ ִ‫נ‬, nišmat ḥayyîm) which produced a “living
breathing consisted of the “breath of life” (‫שׁ ַמ ת חַיּם‬
being” (‫נֶפֶשׁ חַי‬, nepheš ḥַay). Only mankind, of all living things, is said to have been created by
God’s breathing. Otherwise, it is merely by the spoken word. This alone suffices to mark man
as unique in all creation; hence his right to rule.
11. For the pyramidal model, see Figure 1 (below). This notion is associated with the Dutch Re-
formed ‘School,’ especially with Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) followed by Herman Dooyeweerd
(1894-1977), Gordon H. Clark, and Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). See John M. Frame, A History of
Western Philosophy and Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing), 215-221.

3
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
is the order of the Fall: (1) The Animal, (2) the Woman, (3) the Man. The snake
subverted the woman and the woman subverted the man and with their disobedience
to the Great King of All Things the pyramid collapsed from bottom up until only God
stood sublime and supreme to view the wreckage of what he had made in perfection.
By divine judgment the animal would thereafter crawl in the dust, the woman cower
in the dust in submission to the man, and the man return to the dust from which
he was made. But a note of gracious reversal to this calamitous circumstance was
sounded: The woman, cursed from then on by the pain of pregnancy and birth, would
stand between the two as the source of the restoration of God’s glorious creation plan.
She, suffering great pain, would be mother of a seed that would in time crush the
snake, though her offspring would be wounded in it that act of salvation. By crushing
the head of evil, the Seed would also restore man’s dignity and sovereignty. The
dominion of the man remained intact but in a crippled, disfigured way. He retained
the privilege of “working and guarding” the soil, but now no longer in the perfect
environment of the Garden. Rather, he was cast out and barred from that special
place of uninterrupted fellowship with God to break up and tend to a soil resistant
to his labor (Genesis 3:23-24). In a now hostile world, dominion slipped through his
hands in many ways. In that first little realm of his wife and two sons rebellion broke
out resulting in the death of Abel at the hands of Cain, the first instance of human
death recorded, and a violent, murderous one at that. He who was created to be the
image of God, ruling like God over all things, could not rule over even his family.
Sadly, his descendants from that day to this have done no better. Of generation after
generation it was (and has been) dolefully recorded: “And he died.” Eight times
between Adam and Noah the bell tolled that awful message of man’s finitude, failure,
and ultimate fate, the universal Flood. And yet there remained grace and hope. With
a new post-Deluge second chance came a new expression of the dominion mandate,
this time with Noah. In nearly exactly the same verbal expression as before, Yahweh
revealed to Noah that he, as “second Adam,” would pick up the shattered pieces of
broken dominion and sire a race that, like Adam’s, would be “fruitful and abundant,
filling the earth” (Gen 9:1-7). But in a stark reversal of the codicil spelling out man’s
dominion over all other living things, Yahweh omitted that phrasing, saying now
that the innate authoritative power implicit in “subjugation” and “having dominion”
was no longer to be the case. Now man would be lord by virtue of his superior
intelligence and forcible discipline upon the ‘lower’ orders. In this new phase of
kingship, motivation to compliance and obedience of the sub-human would come
through “fear and terror” (Gen 9:2).12

12. The terms are ‫מוֹרא‬ ָ and ‫ חַת‬respectively. This combination is likely a hendiadys to be ren-
dered “terrible fear,” “fearful terror,” or the like.

4
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy

Figure 1 Divinely Established Layers of Monarchy

Babel and the Development of National Monarchy

A natural impulse is for family and friends to stay together, even as nations, because
the familiar inculcates a feeling of joy, contentedness, and belonging. At the same
time, it stifles the very reason mankind was created in the first place, that is, “Be
fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). The
selfishness of comfort and shared culture of the creature prevailed over the mandate
of the Creator. The geo-center of human population had not moved far from Babel
and it was there that a great ziggurat was constructed, one so high it would reach up
“to the heavens.” It would serve as a symbol of defiant unity and oneness, of unbridled
hubris flying in the face of the Almighty. They would not leave until evicted, so
evicted they were and scattered “over the face of the whole earth.”
Apart from this and despite it, human population in time multiplied and spread
throughout the earth, a dispersion necessary for the following reasons:
• Natural population growth through the process of reproduction.
• Forced expulsion of the race because of its insistence on remaining
geographically concentrated in the Middle Eastern river valleys and plains in
direct contradiction to the divine command to multiply and fill the earth (Gen
1:28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 11:1, 8, 9).
• The natural impulse of travel, adventure, discovery, and incessant quest for a
better life somewhere else.
By 3000 B.C. Middle Eastern civilization began to blossom, especially in two
major regions: Egypt along the Nile and Mesopotamia, “between” the rivers, that is,
the Euphrates and Tigris. Eventual scarcity of land brought about a sort of primitive

5
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
urbanism, where people lived in small communities, and with that modest beginning
the accompanying onset of labor specialization apart from that of earlier agriculture
and pastoralism. Thus there emerged the industries of the potter, the weaver, the
tanner, the metallurgist, and the smithy, with his bronze vessels for domestic
and military uses. These naturally generated many other craftsmen, merchants,
and traders.13 The ‘invention’ of writing by the Sumerians ca. 3200 BC enabled
merchandising, trade, and distant communication to be undertaken at a highly more
sophistical and profitable manner than ever before.
All this spawned the need for expert and powerful leaders in religion, security,
defense, and law and order. This presupposes the inevitable establishment of
government whereby population entities could enjoy, peace, prosperity, and personal
safety and protection. Village chieftains sufficed for small communities, but with
the rise of cities more complex political structures must be organized, all of which
demanded strong leadership. Again, in the case of minor concentrations of persons,
requirements demanding full-time, charismatic, and powerful central control
essential to the complications of large urban locations could largely be forgone. Cities
of multiplied thousands of inhabitants obviously required wise and strong leadership
invested in either councils or, increasingly commonly, in a single individual at the
top. The Sumerians called the office and person so selected LU.GAL, literally, “big
man.” The Semitic Akkadian term was šarru, “king.”14 A similar term was malku,
cognate to West Semitic melek, the usual Old Testament Hebrew designation.15
Like many institutions of the ancient world, human kingship was connected first
and foremost to the rule of the gods from which, it was thought, it derived. Thus the
deities of Sumer, Akkad, Egypt, and Hatti ruled over their celestial realms, dealing
with all the exigencies of life thrust upon them by virtue of their positions, wisdom,
power, and sympathies (or lack hereof).16 They were the creators and managers of all

13. For a brilliant (if somewhat hypothetical) explanation for the ‘prehistoric’ development of
urbanism and division of labor, see Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human
Societies (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999).
14. Thorkild Jacobsen made a strong case for what he called “primitive democracy,” the model
suggested here for the secular realm. He proposed that Sumerian and Akkadian literature, espe-
cially the epics, viewed the gods as equal participants in heavenly councils, gatherings chaired by
a deity conceded to be the most powerful or wise. Such a system, he argued, collapsed under the
weight of increasingly powerful LU.GALS who morphed into outright monarchs answerable to
no one. Human monarchy was nothing but a pale imitation of the divine but it eventually came to
be the modus realis of at least the ancient Middle East. See his “Primitive Democracy in Ancient
Mesopotamia,” JNES 2/3 (1943): 159-172. The biblical model is, of course, diametrically opposite
to this view of governance.
15. In Egypt, the corresponding monarch was called pharaoh, that is, “big house,” obviously
referring to the resident of a palatial structure. Without exception, all 42 royal rulers of Israel from
Saul to Zechariah were addressed as ‘king.’
16. Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1972), 145-151; W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds., The Context
of Scripture. Volume Two: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (Leiden: Brill, 2000),
256-257. King Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC): “When the god Shamash, great lord of heaven and

6
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
things, the arbiters of discord, the benefactors of the weak and poor, and the leaders
in conflict against hostile powers in the heavens and on earth that threatened their
realms of authority and responsibility and endangered the peoples on Earth who
trusted them to protect and preserve them.17 To whatever degree was possible, earthly
kings above all were expected to inaugurate and oversee various religious exercises
by which they themselves could be honored and the practice of which would bring
religious significance to the monarchs, thus mimicking their heavenly counterparts
so as to become models of how governance should be undertaken.18
To some extent, this was at the heart of Israelite monarchy as well. The duties
of the kings of Israel (and Judah) included oversight of the religious life of the nation
as well as political and military affairs. Though most of the kings of Israel and
Judah, as it turned out, were written off as “evil,” the office itself continued to find
favor and common usage as late as the Second Temple period of the Maccabees and
Hasmoeans.19 Jesus was mockingly described as “king” by the Roman authorities
and Pharisees, but the same term is ascribed to him in all seriousness in Scripture in
a number of times and places, especially in eschatological texts.20

Old Testament Pre-Monarchic Statecraft

Following the death of Moses, his brother Aaron, and finally Joshua, Moses’ longtime
junior associate and leader of Israel’s conquest of Canaan (ca. 1350 B.C.), the nation
was leaderless and began slowly and then more precipitously to slip away from its
moorings in Torah and its monotheistic credo into a watered-down Yahwism and
inexorably into outright paganism (Judges 3:1-7). In the plan of God, the time was
not right yet for a long-promised monarchy,21 so he established an order of judges,
charismatic22 persons raised up from time to time to deal with particular crises as

earth, king of the gods … granted to me everlasting kingship (and) a reign of long days.” Byron E.
Shafer, Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice (London: Routledge, 1991),
67: “[the king] was originally mortal” but the deity “always divine.”
17. On the subject see Henri Cazelles, “De l’ideologie royale,” JANES 5 (1973); Ivan Engnell,
Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: Almqvist & Witsells, 1943); Henri
Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948).
18. Labat, René, Le caractère religieux de royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1939); S. N.
Kramer, “Kingship in Sumer and Akkad: The Ideal King,” Rencontre Assyriologique Internatio-
nale I:19 (1971):163-176.
19. Out of 42 kings of Israel and Judah together, only 16 escape the opprobrious description
“evil.” In Judah alone 16 of the 20 kings are described thus. For the Maccabean and Hasmonean
kingship see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 12-16.
20. Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:18; Luke 23:2, 3, 37; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:37; 19:3, 19; 1 Timothy
1:17; 6:15; Revelation 15:3; 17:14; 19:16.
21. Genesis 49:10; Numbers 24:17; Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
22. The term in Judges suggests that the judges did not occupy their offices by human appoint-
ment, but as the Spirit came upon them as a sign of God’s presence and power (Judges 3:10; 6:34;
11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14).

7
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
they arose. This system, almost jerry-built it seems at times, lasted for about 300
years. Problems with surrounding nations—permitted, indeed ordained—by God
were met by judges who, having resolved the challenge, retired from view and gave
way to succeeding persons called forth for the next emergency.
The first of these was Othniel, nephew of the great warrior Caleb (Judges 3:9).
He delivered Israel from a far-off people beyond the Euphrates in Aram-Naharaim.
The oppression lasted for eight long years until Othniel drove out the invaders.
However, for the next 350 years the cycle was repeated: Israel sinned, Yahweh
punished them at the hands of another oppressor, they repented, Yahweh elevated a
new judge who saved them, a new peace ensued, only to be broken by a repetition of
these stages. The last of these was mighty Samson, he who slew lions and defeated
single-handedly whole companies of Philistine warriors (Judges 13:1-16:31). But his
20 years of leadership epitomized the weakness of human flesh to govern and be
governed. His lust for foreign women and seeming indifference to the very Spirit
who empowered him brought him down to a suicidal death in the temple of Baal
(16:28-31). Written as an epitaph over Israel’s history for these abysmally wretched
years are the somber words: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone
did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25) or similar sentiments (18:1;
19:1). Indeed, there was no king, a situation requiring drastic remedy, and Yahweh
had one in view.

Late Pre-Monarchical History and Governmental Failure

(1400-1350 B. C.)

The Episode of Conquest

Full Trust in God’s Instructions

Israel’s impending conquest of Canaan was a most formidable challenge to say the
least, but Yahweh gave to Joshua and the priests instructions to be followed to the
letter.23 First in importance was the transfer of the Ark of the Covenant, borne by the
priests, epitomizing the presence of God leading the procession as a mighty warrior
(Joshua 3:3-6, 8-13). This and following instructions are all elements of so-called
‘Holy War’ (or, alternatively, ‘Yahweh War’) in the Old Testament. The principal
truths central to the conveyance of the Ark were (1) its pride of place (Joshua 3:3-4);

23. The procedures outlined here are standard elements of so-called Holy War. See Eugene
H. Merrill, “The Case for Moderate Discontinuity,” Show Them no Mercy: God and Canaanite
Genocide, ed. Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 63-94. See also now M. Daniel
Carroll, R., and J. Blair Wilgus, eds. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old
Testament (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013); Paul Copan and Matthew Flanagan, Did God
Really Command Genocide: Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014).

8
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
(2) its association with the supernatural (vv. 5, 7); (3) its metaphorical assurance of
the presence of Yahweh (vv. 10, 11); and (4) its function as a standard at the head of
the hosts of Israel that enabled a miraculous crossing of the overflowing river and a
sure and certain triumph over the nations that would fight to prevent their coming
into the land (vv. 10, 13).

Full Trust in God’s Ways

An important component of Holy War in general (but not the only one) was the
total destruction of certain persons and places (cf. Numbers 21:1-3; Joshua 6:21; 8:26;
1 Kings 9:11; 2 Kings 19:11; Jeremiah 50:21). 24 So inflexible and precise was the
ritual of Holy War that any deviation from it constituted serious disobedience of the
Great King, with all its implied consequences. In the case of the Conquest, ḥērem
had been predicted and commanded by Moses (Deuteronomy 7:1-5; 12:2-3; 13:15;
20:16-18; 31:1-6). Moreover, it had already been exercised in the Exodus25 and the
Conquest of the Trans-Jordan (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:6; Joshua 2:10). The operation
at hand focused on Jericho’s total demolition and the annihilation of its populace
(Joshua 6:2-5). Once the walls were breached and the warriors could enter the city,
Joshua warned them not to take anything for themselves because Jericho was to be
dedicated to Yahweh as a whole ‘burnt’ offering. Anyone who violated this principle
would himself become its victim (vv. 16-18, 26). The temptation to loot the ruins for
silver and gold and imported finery was too much for Achan, a Judean, and once
found out, was stoned to death, along with his family, and all he stole was burned up
as mere refuse (Joshua 7:16-26). This focus on Holy War suggests, in a broad sense,
that aggressive warfare and moral and spiritual integrity need not be considered
counter-intuitive, certainly not where divine holiness and righteousness are at stake.
In a narrow sense, a kingly priest could be called by God to be, as He is, a heroic
priest-king engaged in the mission of establishing a monarchy over which Yahweh
himself would ultimately reign forever.

The Era of the Judges (1350-1100 B. C.)

To return to the central theme of this study, namely, the theology of Israel’s monarchy,
attention is directed to the chaotic period just before the accession of Saul to the

24. The term can bear the following notions: (1) “to separate;” (2) to enclose; (3) to claim some-
thing as one’s own; (4) to annihilate something or someone at Yahweh’s command as an offering to
him. See HALOT, 353-354.
25. This victory hymn, commonly called the “Song of Moses” (Exodus 15:1-18), extols Yahweh
as a king who has demonstrated his sovereignty over the sea and over Pharaoh and his mighty
armies that have malevolently pursued his chosen people Israel (v. 18). He is also called “a warrior”
and he who is incomparable ‘among the gods’ and “majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working
wonders” (v. 11). These attributes far transcend anything that can be said of a mere mortal king,
but Israel’s monarchy was to be seen as God’s earthly agency and therefore was to receive similar
accolades and respect.

9
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
throne as King of Israel (ca. 1051). External fashion and internal moral, social, and
political realities were driving the leading voices of the people to demand some
kind of solidarity, something more comprehensive and effective than had been the
case in the days of the judges. The dominant theme of the historians who lived in
and reflected on the situation at the end of the Twelfth Century is embedded in the
laments in the book of Judges as a motif underlying the rationale of and urgent need
for a monarchy. “In those days,” says the compiler of Judges, “there was no king in
Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Jud 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). This
is the very definition of anarchy, society without law and restraint, instability on
every hand, breakdown of cohesion, discipline, morality, and civility. Added to all
this was the imminent threat from unfriendly neighbor countries ready for war and
plunder and slaughter.

False Sovereignty and Idolatry

The first of these laments concerns idolatry, denial of the sovereignty, grace,
protection—and judgment of a God to whom they were accountable and in whom
their only hope for stability and security lay.26 The comment of complaint occurs
in the midst of a narrative featuring two young men (Jud 17:1-13). The first, Micah,
prevails on his mother to give him the funds necessary to the establishment of a
household cult including the fabrication and installation of two silver figurines, one
sculpted and the other molded, before which his own son would serve as priest for
the family. This blatant denial of Yahweh and flagrant disregard for Torah prompted
the narrator to summarize “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” But this
was only half the story. Micah needed a legitimate priest and it so happened that an
‘unemployed’ priest passed by and offered his services. The mutual need was thus
supplied to Micah’s great satisfaction: “Yahweh will now do good (things) for me
because I have a Levitical priest” (Jud 17:13).

False Governance: Immorality, Violence, and ‘Frontier’ Justice

Micah’s joy was to be short-lived, however, for the lawlessness that inspired Micah
to create his own god and a priest to perform ritual in his own chapel turned on him
and in his chaotic world he had no one to come to his aid. What prompted Micah’s
negative turn of events was the forced migration of the tribe of Dan from its original
mandated territory between Ephraim/Benjamin on the East and the Mediterranean
Sea to the West to a region named Laish at the farthest limit of Israelite territory
along the Aramean and Lebanon border (Judges 18:7-10). En route through Ephraim,
five men, delegated to find a place of security for the tribe, came across the home of
Micah where they saw paraphernalia of syncretistic worship and the young hireling

26. J. Gadd, “The Hebrew Conception of the Kingship of God: Its Origin and Development,”
Vetus Testamentum 6 (1956): 268-285.

10
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
priest. Realizing that they would now be far from Shiloh and the Tabernacle, the
five concluded they would have to create their own shrine and, of course, their own
priesthood and religious system.
Reaching Laish, the Danites slaughtered all the people there and undertook
their own construction of a city with its social and religious institutions, including a
new tabernacle. Recalling what the five spies had seen in Ephraim, the tribal leaders
sent the five plus a 600-man contingent of soldiers back to Micah’s home. There they
looted the place of all the idols and vessels of worship and persuaded the young priest
to go back with them. Which is better, they asked, to be priest of one man or of a
whole tribe (Judges 18:19)? The answer is obvious.
The foregoing litany of broken systems, broken ideologies, and broken people—
all because of a lack of strong, godly, obedient leadership—should suffice to justify
the insistent clamor of the populace for a king, a central authority who would be able
to gather together the loose cultural, political, and religious strands into a cohesive
system that would bring stability, peace, and wellbeing to God’s chosen nation. To
this day, nations in turmoil look to a ‘strong man,’ no matter how despotic and self-
serving, to establish law and order and some sense of civility and normalcy. This is
when Samuel sprang into action, he who had seen with his own eyes and rebuked
with his own lips the corruption of Israelite society and its futile attempts to pull
itself up by its own bootstraps.

Samuel: God-Appointed Kingmaker

Born for the day in which he was sovereignly placed, the prophet began to speak
words from God at a time, notes the historian, when “the word of the Lord was rare;
there were not many visions” (1 Sam 3:1[NIV]). But by the time Samuel finished
his ‘apprenticeship’ with Eli it could be said of Samuel that “all Israel from Dan to
Beersheba recognized that Samuel was attested as a prophet of the Lord” (1 Sam 3:20).
Samuel’s most important accomplishment was the recovery of the Creation
principle of God as King in Heaven who created mankind to be his image and
surrogate king on Earth, charged solely with administering the affairs of God in
accordance to his designs and purposes. Samuel conceptualized this over-riding
biblical idea and served as God’s agent to establish, not just theoretically, but
politically and theologically, the nexus between Yahweh as universally sovereign
and mankind (in his case, a solitary man of God’s choice), as a monarch charged
with leading his chosen people Israel. What was envisioned, it seems, was that for the
first time an actual nation with a human ruler would serve as a proto-type modeling
what God had in mind from the beginning and what he was preparing to demonstrate
historically and eschatologically through this existing chosen nation27 and now a
chosen king.

27. This was affirmed in Israel’s encounter with Yahweh at Sinai: “If you attentively listen to me

11
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
The notion of Yahweh as king is lavishly documented in the Old Testament
and was certainly a well-known theological tenet.28 On the other hand, for a man to
be called ‘king’ and to be considered so in the sense that he was the special image
of God and an envoy on earth working out God’s plan for Israel would have been at
first incomprehensible to most. Israel wanted a king ‘like all the other nations,’ to be
sure, but now they could and would have a veritable ‘son of God’ as ruler; one, in
fact, whose last descendant will one day be called God in the flesh. Had they only
reflected on the Torah pledge of the appearance of monarchy climaxing the covenant
promises to Abraham and Sarah that someday she would be the ‘mother of kings,’
how different the nation’s mood would have been.

Anointing of Saul
The prophet’s first great commission was to accede to the people’s demand for a king,
though his compliance in doing so was with personal displeasure and apprehension
(1 Samuel 8:4-6). Nonetheless, Yahweh made clear to the old prophet that what he
as God knew to be a wrong choice for the moment was something from which the
nation could and needed to learn. They must wait upon him for that which was best
and for what had been promised to the Fathers, namely, the emergence of a human
monarchy under divine permission and authorization. The time had come but not in
the person of Saul. This tragic figure, so much, it seemed, was to Israel a ‘messianic’
ruler who could put down the hated Philistines and other foes and at the same time
bring internal harmony and an end to the corruptive administration of priests and
renegade self-appointed politicians. In the end he was a foil against whom the glory
of the God-chosen candidate would be all the more glorious.
But this was not to be, at least on the near horizon. Samuel’s own lascivious
sons typified the times, enabling him to see up close the cogency of the peoples’
outcries. Budding judges though they were, they viewed their ministries as a means
to personal social and financial gain (1 Samuel 8:1-3). If this be true of the priest’s
household, what hope lay ahead for the household of the nation? “Make a king for
us,” they pleaded, “one to judge us like all the nations” (v. 5). To be fair, they were
not asking for kings like other nations had but for a system of justice that other kings
of other nations created and administered in their various realms.
Samuel’s quandary was alleviated somewhat by Yahweh’s assurance that it was
not he, Samuel, who was being rejected, but Yahweh himself and his kingship (v.

and keep my covenant, you will become to me ‫“( ְסגֻלָּה ִמכָּל ָה ַע ִמּים‬an especially treasured one from
among all the nations). The idea will now be applied to David who is to Yahweh ‫ ִאישׁ ִכּ ְלבָבוֹ‬, “a man
according to my heart,” that is, “a man of my choosing.”
28. Numbers 23:21; 1 Sam 12:12; Psa 5:2; 24:7, 8, 9, 10; 44:4; 47:2, 6, 7; 48:2; 68:24; 74:12; 84:3;
95 :3; 98:6; 99:4; 145:1; 149:2; Isa 33:22; 41:21; 43:15; 44:6; Jer 8:19; 10:7, 10; 51:57; Zeph 3:15; Zech
14 :16, 17; Mal 1:14.

12
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
7). He therefore instructed the prophet to concede to popular demand but to do so
with the severest warnings as to the kind of king they could expect. The kings of the
other nations demanded their youth to go to war; Israel’s God fought Israel’s wars
for them. Other kings subjected their people to corvée; Yahweh set his free to labor
for his glory. The others catered to the rich and the powerful; he sought out the poor
and needy to give them rest. The kings of the nations behaved as they did for they
were merely mimicking the gods they served: exploitative, acquisitive, and, at the
end, powerless (vv. 10-18). Surely, this could not be what the people wanted but all
the louder they clamored for this very thing until Yahweh confided to Samuel, “Make
a king for them.”29

Anointing of David
The dismal forty years of Saul’s reign that followed made one point crystal clear:
Kingship in itself was not the answer unless from the beginning it was embodied in
a man called by God. That man would now be found in a most unlikely place called
Bethlehem, in the home of a peasant shepherd, Jesse by name. It will be recalled that
Bethlehem played a somewhat unsavory role in the days of the judges. It was from
Bethlehem that the young Levite sallied forth seeking employment, which he found
in the idolatrous house of Micah, which he then he left for what he presumed to be
a better opportunity as a priest for the renegade tribe of Dan. They spurned him as
a traitorous upstart, forcing his ignominious retreat homeward (Judges 17:1-18:26).
Bethlehem also was the home of a feckless girl who married a Levite, was unfaithful
to him and ran away, was retrieved by him, murdered by a gang of ruffians in Gibeah,
and cut to pieces by her Levite husband (Judges 19:1-30). Could the king of Israel
come from such a place?
On the other hand, Bethlehem was the home of David’s great-grandmother Ruth,
a Moabite who had come to embrace Yahweh as her God. She had married a son of
a Bethlehem widow named Naomi who himself had died. The two widows took up
residence in Bethlehem where Ruth met and married a next of kin to her mother-in-
law, Boaz by name. The story behind the marriage is a story of redemption. Naomi,
as a widow, was seeking possession of her husband’s properties which were in the
hands of a lender who was entitled under Torah law to hold it as earnest until it could
be redeemed through debt payment by a family member. When it seems there was
no close kinsman who could, meet the requirements, Boaz, a more distant relative,
agreed to the transaction only to find that he must take Ruth as wife as part of the
‘inheritance.’ He was happy to do this so he, by this deference, became (obviously
unaware) the great-grandfather of King David, the messianic prototype of Jesus
Christ. Ruth 4 lists David’s ancestry as follows: Perez (son of Judah), Hezron, Ram,

29. The factitive verb form here converts the nominal to a verbal, ‫“( ִה ְמ ַלכְתָּ ָלהֶם ֶמלֶךּ‬you [Samuel]
bring about a king for them.” Or, more idiomatically, “Appoint them a king.”

13
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David. The providence of God
in sustaining the Abraham > David > Jesus chain of salvific hope cannot be ignored.
This remarkable backdrop provides a context in which Yahweh’s instruction
to Samuel go to Bethlehem and there to the house of Jesse can be understood. Any
bafflement felt by Samuel initially was certainly allayed when Yahweh revealed to
him more specifics: “Fill your horn with oil” and “I have chosen one of [Jesse’s] sons
to be king” (1 Samuel 16:1). At last the old prophet knew he would live to see the
fulfillment of his mother Hannah’s prayer:
The Most High will thunder from Heaven;
The Lord will judge the ends of the earth.
He will give strength to his king
And exalt the horn of his anointed (1 Samuel 2:10)

David having been chosen from all of Jesse’s sons, and having been anointed
by Samuel, the narrator states that “from that day on the Spirit of the Lord came
powerfully upon David” (16:12). That statement alone may explain (1) David’s
immediate awareness of his exalted position even though he had not assumed it, and
(2) how and why he apparently began to compose and sing the magnificent poetic
psalms attributed to him or speaking of him. Here is the appropriate place to examine
them and others referring to him to glean from them the more full extent of his self-
understanding of his kingship in light of all that had transpired. Chart 2 lists the
‘Davidic Psalms and how they reflect these viewpoints. Chart 3 consist s of so-called
“Royal Psalms,” those written by David and others that celebrate the kingship of both
Yahweh and his anointed one, David

Table 1: The Psalms of David

Literary Type Divine Kingship David’s Political Kingship David’s Priestly
Kingship
3 Lament Elevation of his head
5 Lament My King and my God
7 Lament Enthroned
8 Hymn Majestic name Man’s sovereignty
9 Thanksgiving Enthroned, Reigns
11 Lament Enthroned
18 Messianic “his [Yahweh’s] king”
20 Blessings “the king” (David)
21 Thanksgiving “the king” (David) given
“splendor and majesty” with
a “golden crown”and “un-
ending blessings”
22 Lament Enthroned, Holy One,
dominion over all

14
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy

Literary Type Divine Kingship David’s Political Kingship David’s Priestly

Kingship
24 Entrance Liturgy King of Glory, Lord Almighty
29 Hymn Enthroned as King forever
55 Lament Enthroned from of old
59 Lament Rules over Jacob
61 Lament “increase the years of the
king’s life,”
“may he be enthroned
forever”
63 Thanksgiving “I have seen you
in the sanctuary”
66 Thanksgiving Rules by his power over the
nations
68 Victory Songs God reigns forever, “Sovereign
Lord,” majesty over Israel
103 Hymn From a throne in heaven, rules
over all
144 Praise and “the one who gives victory
Petition to kings, who delivers his
servant David”
145 Hymn God the King

Table 2: The Royal Psalms

2 Messianic “I have installed my king [David];” Yahweh’s son
18 Messianic “[God] delighted in me,” “exalted me,” “his anointed”
20 Blessings “his anointed,” “give victory to the king [David]”
21 Thanksgiving “the king [David] rejoices in Yahweh;” [God] placed a crown on his head
72 Intercession “royal son,” “may all kings bow down to him,” “long may he live,” “may his name
endure forever,”
132 Messianic “For the sake of your servant David, do not reject your anointed one;” “The Lord
swore an oath to David…one of your own descendants I will place on your throne;” I
will make a horn grow for David and set up a lamp for my anointed one

Affirmation of David
Perhaps the strongest testimony to the selection, empowerment, and paradigmatic
messianic nature of David’s kingship is Psalm 89, generally categorized as a royal
psalm.30 It is attributed to ‘Ethan the Ezrahite31.’ Structurally, it can be understood
as follows:
Introit (vv. 1-2)

30. C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books, revised and ex-
panded (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1988), 137-39
31. For ‘Ethan the Ezrahite,’ the attributive author of the psalm, see Franz Delitzsch, Biblical
Commentary on the Psalms. Vol. III. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n. d.), 32-33.

15
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
Introduction to covenant made with David (vv. 3-4)
Hymn of praise to God in Heaven (vv. 5-18)
David, the Chosen Servant (vv. 19-37)
Lament over God’s apparent rejection of his people (vv. 38-48)
Appeal to God’s lovingkindness (vv. 49-51)
Benediction (v. 52)

The name David occurs four times in the psalm out of 14 times in the entire
book of Psalms. Together with Psalm 132 (5 times), the two account for nearly ¾ of
all in the book. In addition, the term ‘covenant’ is found four times, once for every
reference to David. Clearly, the poet is making a profoundly important theological
point, one that demands at least brief attention.
At the outset, the composer connects ‘covenant’ with ‘David, describing the
latter as ‘my chosen’ and ‘my servant’ (vv. 3-4). Two other concepts are also joined,
‘seed’ and ‘throne.’ The referent is, of course, self-evident: David the anointed servant
will sire one who will be king. Only Yahweh, the incomparable and omnipotent God,
can bring this to pass. Amongst the heavenly hosts and in battle with the monsters
of chaos and unrighteousness, he stands alone as Sovereign (vv. 6-17). But his
sovereignty he shares with his servant David, says the poet:
Our shield belongs to Yahweh,
Our king to the Holy (One) of Israel.

Shield and king are in poetic parallelism as are ‘Yahweh’ and ‘Holy One.’ In
context, David is Israel’s shield, a descriptor found nowhere else in the Bible but
an imagery found commonly in the Psalter with reference to God as a shield (Psa.
3:3; 7:10; 18:2, 35; 28:7; etc.). David is thus raised here hyperbolically to a super-
human level of being and function. On the other hand, deity is never attributed to
David or any other king of Israel, contrary to the traditions of surrounding nations,
especially, of course, those of Egypt. In the remainder of the psalm, similar sobriquets
surround the king. He was ‘found’ and ‘anointed’32 (v. 20; cf. vv. 38, 51) and then was
promised victory over all his foes, human and otherwise (vv. 21-25). Of particular
note is the allusion to the creation mandate of Genesis 1:26-28 in which mankind
is commissioned to have dominion over all things including the realms of the seas
and rivers.33 The very powers articulated here were displayed by Jesus Christ, Son
of David and Son of Man (Matt. 8:26-27). In the historical circumstances of David,

32. ‫שׁחְתִּ י‬
ַ ‫שׁי ְמ‬
ִ ְ‫שׁ ֶמן ָקד‬
ֶ ‫ ְבּ‬. The transliterated form of the adjectival-nominal ‫שׁי ַח‬
ִ ‫ ָמ‬is, of course, “mes-
siah,” which occurs three times in this psalm as an epithet of David (vv. 20, 38, 51).
33. This brings to mind the Ugaritic (Canaanite) epics of Baal who, in achieving the construc-
tion of his palace and throne of kingship, had to slay Nahar, the god of the rivers, and Yamm(u),
god of the seas. Such imagery would be of great interest and meaning in the pagan environment
surrounding Israel in the 11th Century. For David and his successors to have such power would be an
unanswerable claim to the messiahship of David (as lord of the bordering nations) and Jesus Christ
(as Lord of heaven and earth).

16
 Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
these pledges of dominion and of military and material success were conditioned
on his adherence to the covenant Yahweh had made with him. However, in the
eschatological sense, also in view here (vv. 28-29), terms such as ‘forever’ (vv. 4,
28, 29, 36, 37) and ‘never’ make clear that the covenant in view is unconditional.
On the other hand, David’s historical dynastic descendants could and did break
covenant over and over, infidelity that brought both Assyrian and Babylonian exiles
and multitudes of troubles in addition (vv. 30-32, 38-52). But in the midst of the
statements of the contingencies of the future (vv. 30-31) and the realities of the past
(vv. 38-51), the poet returns again to the irrefragability of the unconditional covenant
yet to come (vv. 33-37).

Retrieval of the Ark of the Covenant

Samuel’s second important mission pertained to the misfortunes of the Ark of the
Covenant which, with the defeat of the armies of Israel, had been stolen by the
Philistines and taken to Ashdod. The Philistines entertained the idea that this ‘box’
either contained the God of Israel or was some kind of talisman that evoked the power
of that God. In any event, that ‘box’ spelled nothing but trouble for the Philistines,
notably the humiliating fall and fracture of the deity of the place, Dagan, in the
presence of the ‘box,’ thus giving evidence of the superiority of Yahweh.

David: Prophet, Priest, and King

These series of events—good, bad, indifferent—ushered in the turning-point in the
history of the monarchy because now crown could be integrated with cult and the two
would be one, which was God’s plan and purpose from the beginning.34 In fact, David
celebrated the return of the ark by dancing in delirium and clothed in a linen ephod,
a theologically significant piece of attire for ‘glory and beauty’ that marked one as a
priest (Exodus 28:2). But how was David (and potentially his dynasty) a priest? The
earliest hint chronologically is in David’s purchase of Araunah’s ‘threshing-floor’
where he then offered sacrifices as a ‘down-payment’ for the time when it would be
the seat of the temple altar yet to be established (2 Samuel 24:25). Along the way from
Kiriath-Jearim to Mount Zion David, not totally surprising now, offered sacrifices
in his priestly garb (2 Samuel 6:13, 17); he apparently entered into the quasi-temple
he had built without rebuke from any quarter (v. 17; 1 Chronicles 16:1); he appointed
Levitical temple personnel (vv. 4-7); and, notably, Asaph and Zadok as priests (vv.
37-39). Prior to David’s era, there is no record of a non-Aaronic undertaking such

34. After eliminating all his brothers from consideration, Samuel anointed David, at first in the
confines of the family home (1 Samuel 16:6-13), and later in a public ceremony. But Samuel, previ-
ous to that event, had already been informed by Yahweh that the only proper candidate must be “a
man after his [Yahweh’s] own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). See Zecharia Kallai, “The United Monarchy
of Israel—a Focal Point in Israelite Historiography,” IEJ 27 (1977): 103-109; Eugene H. Merrill,
“Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (1993):50-61.

17
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
sacred duties saving only Moses, but he was a Levite, and, therefore, of the ‘right’
tribe as opposed to David of Judah.
At this point, it will be helpful to return to Genesis, to the very beginning of the
concept just proposed and on the basis of which David could understand and act upon
as a priest-king. The patriarch Abraham, having learned that his nephew Lot had
been taken captive by four kings from the East, without delay set forth in hot pursuit
from his home in Mamre all the way to the far north near Hermon where he was able
to defeat Lot’s captors and bring Lot back (Genesis 14:1-12). On the way home he was
met by a strange and striking figure whom the narrator identifies as ‫שׁלֵם‬ ָ ‫ַמ ְלכִּי–זֶדֶ ק ֶמלֶק‬
and ‫( כֺּהֵן ְלאֵל ֶעלְיוֹן‬v. 18). This combination of two of the most theologically significant
offices in the Old Testament in one individual—and especially his connection with
‘Salem’leads one inevitably to think of David the king in Jerusalem dressed in priestly
attire, specially the ephod. As noted above, David was actively involved in matters of
temple and cultus. He retrieved the Ark and accompanied it to Jerusalem with much
fanfare of a religious nature (2 Samuel 6:5) and even by personally offering sacrifices
of praise (vv. 13, 17-18).35 Upon arriving at Zion, David “blessed the people in the
name of Yahweh,” clearly a priestly function in context, and, like Melchizedek, had
in his hands for distribution ‫ ַחלַּת ֶלחֶם‬and ‫שׁה‬ ָ ‫שׁי‬
ִ ‫ ֲא‬, if not wine, at least raisins (v. 19).
Not to be overlooked is the Chronicler’s inclusion of a celebratory hymn
composed by David and handed over to Asaph for presentation (1 Chronicles 16:8-
36; expanded in Psalm 105). Only pertinent words and phrases can be addresed
here. In v. 13 attention is drawn to Israel’s election as a special people with whom
a covenant was made, first with Abraham, inherited by Isaac, and “confirmed”36 to
“Jacob for a statute,37 to Israel for an everlasting covenant” (v. 17). This embodies
the land of Canaan (v. 18), the praiseworthiness of Yahweh as opposed to would-be
gods and dumb idols (vv. 25-26), and the exhortation to worship Yahweh “in the
splendor of his holiness” (v. 29). Then, climacticly, David the king looks to the day
when the nations (‫ )הַגּוֹי ִם‬will declare, with Israel,‫י ְהוָה ָמלְָך‬, “Reign, O Yahweh!” In
echo to this is the glad response in the same words in the so-called Enthronment
Psalms (93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 99:1; 47:9 (MT) reads ‫ ָמלְַך ֱאלֺהִים‬, “God has been enthroned.”
Though the form ‫ ָמלְָך‬is technically nominal, context requires verbal, either stative or
denominative. However, at times the forms are exactly alike and must be undertood
within their contexts.38

35. The preterite ‫ ַויִזְבַּח‬allows no other meaning than this.

36. ‫י ַ ֲע ִמידֶ הָה‬, “made it stand.” God’s promise to Abraham will never be rescinded until its full
purpose for Israel and the church has been achieved.
37. The term ‫( חֺק‬ḥoq) refers to a deep, undeletable incision in stone. It is used as a pars pro toto
for the entire Torah.
38. So Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 364-376.

18
 Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
Of all biblical characters, Melchizedek is one of the mose elusive and myterious.39
He appears and disappears in this narrative only, though he is mentioned ten other
times, all but once of these in the New Testament book of Hebrews.

The Book of Hebrews and Kingdom Theology

Names of this kind occur in the Bible, but much more commonly in foreign texts,
especially the Amarna Letters of the New Kingdom Egypt period (ca. 1388-1332).40
For example, in those documents the city of Jerusalem is said to have been led by
King Adoni-Zedek, that is, “My Lord is King.” He, of course, was a Canaanite or
Amorite ruler since the Jerusalem throne was not occupied by an Israelite king until
David did so in 1011 B. C. Abraham, however, encountered Melchizedek as early as
2050 B. C., more than 700 years prior to the Amarna Period. Even then, names of
this type are attested to in the records of various Ancient Near Eastern monarchs or
private citizens.41 His name is not as much of a conundrum as is what he says and
does.42 Bearing bread and wine, he takes the initiative in conversation and makes the
following declaration: “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and
earth.” Only the God of the Patriarchs and of Moses and the Prophets centuries later
ever spoke of himself this way. However, he was thus praised and blessed by poets
and prophets in numerous texts in these very terms of exaltation (Deuteronomy 32:8;

39. John G. Gammie, “Loci of the Melchizedek Tradition of Genesis 14:18-20,” JBL 90 (1971):
385-396. He is also given prominent attention in the Qumran text 11Q13; Targums Jonathan and
Yerushalmi; and the Babylonian Talmud. See Fred L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A Critical
Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A. D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976; Joshua G. Mathews, Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order:
A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18-20 and Its Echoes Throughout the Tanak. (Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns), 2013.
40. The Tell el-Amarna Letters from Egypt (ca. 1350 B. C.) consist of correspondence mainly
from peer nations or from vassal states such as Canaan, then in the throes of conquest by Israel.
The names of various kings of Canaanite states appear, many resembling the name ‘Melchizedek’
either in form or semantic equivalency. Examples are Ili-Milku (“Milku is my god)” and Milk-
Uru (“Milku is [my] Light”). “Milku” is the East Semitic equivalent to West Semitic Melek, as in
Melchizedek. William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1992, pp. 382, 383. Though this exact name was not found in the important city-state of Mari
on the upper Euphrates, the two elements MLK and ZDK are attested (though not in combination)
in these 17th Century B. C. texts. For example, there is Malaku-il (“Ilu is King’) and Malik dDagan
(“Dagan [another name for Baal] is King”). The equivalent of zedek occurs in Ili-Ṣidqum, “my god
is righteous.” Herbert B. Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), 230-231, 256-257.
41. For Mesopotamia, see Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. Vol. I. Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrasowitz, 1972; Vol. II. 1976. These alone attest such names as Adad-nīrāri II (911-891),
“Adad is my helper.” A second is Sargon II (722-705; Šarru-kȋn; “legitimate king”). The third,
Shamshi-Adad IV (1053-`1050; “Adad is my sun”), was nearly contemporary to David (1011-971).
42. It is the epithet, not the name, that is at issue, for Elohim or forms much like it were common
in early patriarchal times. However, to claim to be the priest of ‫( אֵל ֶעלְיוֹן‬El Elyȏn, “God Above All
Else”), would be the height Hebrew arrogant blasphemy if not true.

19
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
23 times in Psalms). David spoke of him in this manner in many of those psalms,
including some where his royal and priestly callings are also at play.
The place of the encounter is called ‫שׁוֶה‬
ָ ‫ ֵעמֶק‬alias ‫“( ֵעמֶק ַה ֶמּלְֶך‬Valley of Shaveh”43
and “Royal Valley” respectively). Melchizedek is asserted to be “King of Salem,”
almost certainly (Jeru)salem, a place strangely unmentioned in Scripture as early
as Abraham. Chronologically and topograpically this identification is not difficult to
prove. Jerusalem is cited in texts as early as the Early Bronze age (ca. 3000- 2200 B.
C.). Its meaning is something like “Peace City.”44 Melchizedek comes with bread and
wine, typical articles of peace offerings, but also as a priest of El Elyon, “Exalted God.”
What religious tradition he served is not disclosed but the fact that he worshiped God
by a name that occurs more than 50 times in the Old Testament strongly suggests that
he was a man of the true God of the Patriarchs. Moreover, Yahweh is extolled as the
creator (‫ )קֺנֵה‬of “heaven and earth,” a claim whose meaning, if not exact wording, is
also common to Hebrew Scripture.45
Now, however, focus must be on the one text in which David46 extolls his God
for having made him, the king, also the “priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek,”
namely, Psalm 110:47
1 Yahweh says to Adoni,48 “Sit to my right
Until I place your enemies under your feet.”49
2 Yahweh will extend

43. The meaning of the lexeme ‫ שׁוה‬is uncertain. Most likely it has to do with worthiness or
restfulness. HALOT, 1991-92. Neither the name of the valley nor its location can be known with
certainty. It may suggest a dry, desert-like place just north of Jerusalem. HALOT, 1438; cf. TDOT
14:524, “plain.”
44. Amarna texts (ca. 14th century B. C.) refer to it as Urusalim and later Assyrian inscriptions
render it Urusalimmu. The name is likely based on the ancient Sumerian term for ‘city’ (UR) de-
veloped in Akkadian as Uru; or on the Hebrew verb ‫“( י ָָרה‬cast down,” “lay a foundation,” HALOT
437) + ‫שׁלֵם‬
ָ (‘healthy,” “whole,” “peaceable,” HALOT 1539).
45. The precise wording here (“Creator of heaven and earth”) is unique to this passage but the
concept of God as creator of all things is, of course, common in the Old Testament.
46. The psalm is attributed to David as are others in which he understands himself to be the
royal and priestly messianic prototype. See Psalms 18:50; 20:9; 21:1-7; 27:4-5; 30:6-7; 55:14; 61:6-8;
63:2,11, all of which testify to David’s awareness of his kingship, his responsibility in light of it, and
his attachment to the Temple, the home of the living God.
47. Author’s translation. For an excellent literary analysis and practical applications of the psalm,
see Elliott E. Johnson, “Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110,” Bibliotheca
Sacra 149 (1992): 428-437.
48. This epithet, not to be confused with Adonai, is the normal term for a person of prestige or
honor. It is to be taken here as a highly indirect, politically correct self-reference. David as king is
“My Lord” to his subjects and so refers
49. This image of submission originates in Genesis where placing under the foot is seen as a
shorthand for dominion (Genesis 3:15). See Eugene H. Merrill, “’Foot’-Notes in Old Testament
Texts: A Study of Verbal and Nominal Expressions of Walking,” The Unfolding of Your Words
Gives Light: Studies on Biblical Hebrew in Honor of George L. Klein. Ed. Ethan C. Jones (Univer-
sity Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018).

20
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
Your mighty staff50 from Zion, saying,
“Have dominion among all your adversaries.”
3 Your people are ready for the day of your battle;
Clothed in holy garments (and) from the earliest dawn
Your warriors (will arise) for you.
4 Yahweh has sworn and will not recant;
“You are an eternal priest,
After the manner of Melchizedek.”
5 Adonai will be at your right (hand);
On his day of wrath, he will crush kings.
6 He will judge the nations, filling [them] with corpses,
He will crush the heads of all them upon the earth.
7 (Then) he will drink from a stream along the way;
So thus he will elevate his headship.

An important (and often misunderstood) aspect of the royal priesthood must

here come to the fore, and that is the non-Aaronic and non-Levitical designations and
public displays of the normally priestly roles carried out on occasion by the Davidic,
non-Levitical, royalty. These have been briefly alluded to but must here have a more
expanded analysis. In addition to what has been said of David already, the following
demand consideration. First, in terms of nomenclature the Samuel record refers to
some of David’s less well-known sons as ‫“( ְבנֵי דָ וִיד כוֹ ֲהנִים‬sons of David [were] priests”;
2 Samuel 8:18) but 1 Chronicles 18:17 reads ‫“( ְבנֵי דָ וִיד ה ִָראשֹׁנִים‬ruling sons of David”).51
Solomon after him also assumed a priestly role, even more vigorously and
thoroughly than his father. First, he was admonished to build the temple and was
invested by his father with kingly authority to be in charge of its architecture,
furnishings, and every detail necessary to its function as the dwelling-place of
Yahweh, God Most High. He was then to be responsible for the worship therein and
for the appointment of priests and Levites ministering the things of God to the people
(1 Chronicles 28:9-10, 20-21). The book of 1 Kings gives examples of Solomon’s
implementation of his duties, and in bold letters. He relieved Abiathar of his priestly
role (1 Kings 2:27), installed Zadok in his place (v. 35); and, of course, oversaw the
building of the great temple (6:1-38; 2 Chronicles 3:1-4:22). That Solomon understood
his role of priest\king is most clear in his dedicatory prayer (1 Kings 8:23-53; 2

50. The description of kings in the ancient Near East as shepherds is common. In the prologue
to his famous law code, the first epithet employed by the great Babylonian king Hammurabi (1790-
1753 B. C.) in in his self-asseveration “I, Hammurabi the shepherd [ri-iu-um].” Akkadian rēʼû is
cognate to Hebrew ‫רֹעֶה‬, rōʻeh, and its functional and semantic equivalent. HALOT, p. 1261; cf.
CAD, Vol. 14, pp. 310-311.
51. Eugene H. Merrill, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Chronicles, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand
Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015), 233: “the Chronicler, though not adverse to viewing David as a
messianic priest…, may not have been willing to cede that privilege over to the sons in view here
because only Solomon was qualified to succeed in that office along with the kingship (2 Chr 1:6;
7:4-7; 8:12).”

21
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1
Chronicles 6:14-42), preceded (1 Kings 8:15-21; 2 Chronicles 6:4-11) and concluded
(1 Kings 8:56-61) by prayers blessing the assembly.

An Assessment of the Royal Descendants of David

The Scriptures list 20 kings of Judah before the Babylonian exile of 586 B. C. and
they also assess their personal lives and their effectiveness as heirs of the messianic
promises invested in David. These will consist of very brief comments that
encapsulate these issues.

Table 3:The Dynasty of David from 931-586 B. C.

Names and Dates References Assessments
1. Rehoboam 1 Kgs 12:1-14:31; Permitted widespread idolatry; Judah “did evil;” did not
 (931-913) 2 Chr 10:1-12:16 seek after God
2. Abijah 1 Kgs 15:1-8; Committed the sins of his fathers; did not seek God
(913-911) 2 Chr 13:1-22
3. Asa 1 Kgs 15:9-24; Did what was right; expelled idols, destroyed shrines, but left high
(911-870) 2 Chr 14:1-16:17 places; urged the nation to seek Yahweh, commanded obedience to
Torah, and renewed covenant vows.
4. Jehoshaphat 1 Kgs 22:41-50; Did what was right; followed in the ways of Asa but left high
(873-848) 2 Chr 17:1-20:34 places alone; sought the Lord; sent teachers of Torah everywhere;
followed Yahweh in Holy War
5. Jehoram 2 Kgs 8:16-24; Walked in the ways of the kings of Israel; did evil; forsook Yahweh;
(848-841) 2 Chr 21:1-20) made high places; murdered his brothers
6. Ahaziah 2 Kgs 8:25-9:28; Walked in the way of Ahab (his father-in-law); did evil
(841) 2 Chr 22:1-9
7. Athaliah, 2 Kgs 11:1-16; Murdered the Judean royal family
(841-835)52 2 Chr 22:10-23:15
8. Joash 2 Kgs11:12-12:21; Did what was right; repaired the Temple; tolerated high places;
(835-796) 2 Chr 23:11-24:27 allowed murder of prophet Zechariah, son of Jehoiada
9. Amaziah 2 Kgs 14:1-19; Did what was right, but “not with a perfect heart;”
(796-767) 2 Chr 25:1-28 tolerated idolatry
10.Uzziah (=Aza- 2 Kgs 15:1-7; Did what was right but left high places; entered the Temple to burn
riah) 2 Chr 26:1-23 incense and became leprous53
(792-740)
11. Jotham 2 Kgs 15:32-38; Did what was right; followed his father but tolerated high places
(750-731) 2 Chr 27:1-7
12. Ahaz 2 Kgs 16:1-20; Was evil; sacrificed his son as a burnt offering; open idolatry;
(735-715) 2 Chr 28:1-27 paganized the Temple; practiced divination; made idols of Baal;
sought alliance with Assyria

52. At this point there is an inter-regnum in which Athaliah, wife of Jehoram and daughter of
King Ahab of Israel, exercised wicked leadership over Judah until she was assassinated.
53. The Law states clearly that only Aaronic priests could do this so royal priests were excluded
(Numbers 16:39-40).

22
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy

13. Hezekiah 2 Kgs 18:1-20:21; Did what was right; removed high places; repaired the Temple;
(729-686) 2 Chr 29:1-32:33 destroyed idols; none like him among all the kings; kept Torah;
rebuked by Isaiah for pretentiousness; revived the worship of Yah-
weh; tried to reunify the nation by inviting people from the north to
worship in Jerusalem; interceded for all the people before Yahweh;
sought God with all his heart.
14. Manasseh 2 Kgs 21:1-18; Did evil as the nations; built high places and fashioned idols, even
(696-642) 2 Chr 33:1-25 in the Temple; offered his son as a burnt offering; slew his own
people; resorted to divination; after his personal captivity, he
repented and “knew that Yahweh was God.”
15. Amon 2 Kgs 21:19; Did evil; mimicked his father
(642-640) 2 Chr 33:21-23
16. Josiah 2 Kgs 22:1-23:30; Did what was right; walked in the ways of David; refurbished the
(640-609) 2 Chr 34:1-35:27 Temple; received and enforced the ‘Book of the Law’;54 was spared
the pain of seeing the nation fall to Babylonia in 586.
17. Jehoahaz 2 Kgs 23:31-33; Did what was evil
(609) 2 Chr 36:1-3
18. Jehoiakim 2 Kgs 23:36-24:7; Did what was evil; committed ‘abominations’ and ‘detestable
(608-598) 2 Chr 36:5-8 things’
19. Jehoiachin 2 Kgs 24:6-17; Did what was evil
(598-597) 2 Chr 36:9-10
20. Zedekiah 2 Kgs 24:18-25:7; Did what was evil; hardened his heart; permitted the Temple to be
(597-586) 2 Chr 36:11-23 defiled

Theological Observations of the Davidic Dynasty

in the Divided Monarchy Era
• The summation “he did evil” (‫ ) ַויַּעַשׂ ה ַָרע‬suggests in the use of the preterite
a characteristic behavior, not an evil deed now and then. This is said to be
explicitly true of eight of the 20 kings.
• “He did right” (‫ ) ַויַּעַשׂ ַהיָּשָׁר‬occurs seven times. This was a mark of these kings’
personality and manner of life.
• Six kings tolerated high places, idolatry, and neglect of Yahweh and the temple.
• Three kings openly adopted paganism in some form or other.
• Only two were iconoclastic.
• Only two sought to repair or rehabilitate the Temple.
• Three neglected or paganized the Temple.
• Three attempted to return the people to Yahweh and Torah.
• Only two returned to the covenant and tried to restore the community to it.
• Two offered their sons as burnt offerings.

54. It is clear this is the book of Deuteronomy since this is the term employed therein to describe
itself (Deut 29:21; 30:10; 31:26).

23
 Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies 4.1

Synopsis
The conclusion is beyond dispute: The Divided Monarchy of Judaean kings (i.e.,
the Davidic Dynasty) fell far short of God’s expectations for the continuation of
the line of messianic kings who should (1) embody what is inherent in the term
‘messianic’ and (2) who, at least to some degree, should measure up to the character
and godliness of its prototype, King David, who himself was, of course, imperfect
by his own frequent admissions. The question then must be asked: In light of the
spiritual, political, and genealogical fragility of this stream of successors to David
and predecessors of the second David, the Lord Jesus Christ, how could it be that
the royal lineage they claimed and, indeed, to which they had been appointed by
God, would be a channel of world redemption and eschatological re-enthronement of
Yahweh as God in the minds and hearts of all mankind?

Four Responses are Tentatively and Cautiously Offered:

1. The rulers of the divided monarchy—the good, bad, and ugly—were Everyman;
that is, they are a mirror into which all mankind—and especially the Church--must
peer to see themselves (ourselves) as they (we) really are: liars, thieves, blasphemers,
adulterers, murderers, disobedient, disloyal, undependable, sexually impure,
unrepentant, and unworthy to be called God’s people—his sons and daughters.
2. The irony and grace of it is that the messianic transmission was never broken:
from Abraham, through Jacob, Judah, David, Solomon, Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah, and,
yes, Jehoram, Ahaz, and Manasseh, to the perfect One, conceived by the Spirit, born
of a virgin, He who ‘went about doing good,’ and who died on a cruel cross only to
conquer death and sin by his glorious resurrection.
3. The genetic strain throughout the 345 years of the Divided Monarchy remained
Davidic despite its generally sorry record. Never was it successfully overcome by
internal or external powers that would, in effect, derail the continuity of the line and
thus separate David dynastically from his latter Son.
4. It is said that a chain is as strong as its weakest link, but it is also said that blood
is thicker than water. The Ahaziah’s, Ahaz,s, and Manasseh’s of the lineage, evil as
they were, were overcome by the sworn oaths of Almighty God that through David
would come ultimate salvation, peace, and righteousness though a better David who
will usher in the everlasting Kingdom of God.
A Theology of the Monarchy is more than the history of a nation, no matter
how providentially selected and powerfully enabled. But it is history and must be
understood as such. These are not random tales of villains and heroes, or a space age
mythology of the Battle of the Gods. It is the account of‘ a profoundly transcendent
God, one eternally and absolutely ‘Other’ from his creation, and to the same degree,
one sharing ‘Sameness’ with it. He who reigns in Heaven ordained that creatures

24
Eugene H. Mer r ill: A Biblical Theolog y of the Israelite Monarchy
whom he calls his ‘image’ should emulate his kingship and reign over his kingdom
on Earth. The wicked choice in and by the infancy of the image to serve another god
seemed to have jeopardized the experiment, but not so. The ‘Fall’ was to demonstrate
the fallacy of human independence, but God was not so easily manipulated as to
end in failure. The sequel was a program of redemption by which the fractured
model could be reassembled, having learned its lesson. Now the Master Planner
set in motion a plan to ‘pick up the pieces,’ put them together again, and reshape
and repurpose them this time into a line of redemption, of re-creation, formed and
designed as a ‘Kingdom Model,’ a prototype of what he himself will bring to pass in
the endless ages of eternity yet to come. The Model in mind took the form of a man,
Abraham, called to be founder of a nation through which the nations of the world will
find everlasting shalom. That nation was Israel and that kingdom his namesake. The
theology that integrates all this and more is the topic of this paper.

To God the Great King and to his son Jesus Christ the Lord be all praise and glory given!

25