United Monarchy - Essay Example

? United Monarchy United Monarchy United Monarchy is the period 1020-922 (BCE) wherein a United Israelite kingdom existed. After the death of Moses, Israelites entered Canaan and occupied the territory. They then shifted from being nomadic tribes to settled agriculture people. At this point, the different tribes (twelve) were led by the “judges”. The exact function of the judges is not defined clearly in the text. During this time, there was no single place of worship and Israelites believed in worshipping Yahweh alone. In contradiction, their neighbours were polytheists and worshipped idols of God, and this was a constant temptation for Israelites. There was God’s law which guided Israelites to live righteously but Israelites constantly failed and there was a pattern to this which was recorded by the judges. This pattern was observed prior and during the period of United Monarchy, and can be seen as an explanation of the events: A leader is given by Yahweh to guide Israelites in the righteous path and observe Torah People do not follow and comply by this as they indulge in social injustice or idolatry, or sometimes both. That is, they act against the will of God People are punished for above by God in order to get them back to the righteous path and faithfulness. Punishment is mainly in the form of an attack by the neighbouring people As a result, people turn to God to save them and repent for what they had done A new leader is given by God who saves them from the enemy and the faith in god is restored. The cycle starts again and continues the same way It was established from the above that loyalty to Yahweh would mean prosperity while non-compliance to God’s Torah would result inevitably in disaster. This ideology of one god and the pattern discussed above play an important role in beginning and end of United Monarchy. The idea is very appealing and interesting wherein a leader is given by God himself to protect and guide people in the correct path but when they do wrong; the same God also punishes them. But the idea of repeated pattern shows that people do not learn lessons from history and tend to make same mistakes. Once the Israelites settled down in the territory, there was a new problem that cropped up. All the tribes of Israelites were led by judges while most of their neighbours where led by kings and threats of attacks and invasions loomed large. This is when the people started demanding a centralised form of government with a single king leading all the tribes. The idea of having a king made great sense to tackle the situation and streamline all their resources and energies to fighting the outside invaders. On the other hand, the idea of having a king was in many ways contradicting the religious beliefs of Israelites. Israelites believed that God was their king and having a human king would be in all sense rejecting the leadership of God. Also Israel was supposed to be a “holy nation” unlike other nations. There was opposition to having a human king but the pressure was strong to have a permanent human king like other nations at the time. Samuel, the judge, is asked to identify the king to lead the nation but he warns that there would be many negative consequences of having centralised government and there is no guarantee of good leadership. Also he points out that: “Israelites suffered military defeat because of their infidelity to God not for the lack of king (1Sm 12:9-11). Not even a king will be able to save Israel from the consequences of a disobeying God. In this respect, the institution of monarchy will change nothing.” This cautionary warning is in accordance with the beliefs of Israelites that non-compliance with God’s Torah will lead to dire consequences. Therefore, irrespective of having a king or not if people do not follow the path of God, they will be punished until they vow to walk in the right path again. This ideology sounds right and to go by this, there is no need for the Israelites to have a king as long as they walk in the righteous path. Samuel was pressurised by the people and he agreed reluctantly. Saul was anointed to be the ruler after he was pointed by God as the holy one. The kingdom consisted of the 12 tribes and the king was supposed to act as the representative of God. The ideal behind having a king as God’s representative was that, he ought to rule as God did. According to this ideology, not only the king was to establish “peace, harmony and justice” but also was to ensure that Torah was observed. The belief that the king (God’s representative) was to act and rule as God did justifies the people’s demand to have a human leader (rejecting leadership of God) to lead them to battle. This idea is very accurate even to this day and can be adopted with some fine tuning. Therefore, the first king of the United Israelite kingdom was Saul. Saul led the kingdom to many battles against the neighbours and finally died in the battle against Philistines. This led to another important problem with respect to transition of kingship. The second king of Israel was a young shepherd by the name David who anointed by Samuel as the king after revelation from God. David was not supposed to be the king as he was not Saul’s son and kingship should have been hereditary. This raises two main issues: “One concerning the nature of the nature of God, the other concerning Saul and David... ‘Does God have second thoughts?’” Did God regret making Saul the king and hence chooses David to succeed him and not Saul’s son. It is clear that God had a change of mind and this is difficult to explain why. In an attempt to clarify the confusion, Samuel tells to Saul, “God neither retracts nor repents, for he is not man that he should repent”. Another concern that is raised is what factors decide that David is better than Saul. The change in kingship is justified by pointing out that Saul was disobedient and while David was a better military leader. While this idea of replacing a less capable king with a more capable one is justified, it is difficult to understand why all knowing God in the first place choose Saul to be the king. Also there are other factors such as David committed greater sins and Saul’s sins were relatively minor. So only justification possible to this is that military leadership is the primary factor considered while choosing a king. This idea of military leadership being the main criterion of being a king is little disturbing. If this context is applied to the current situation in the African countries and Middle East, the undemocratic and cruel dictatorship can be justified to some extent. Hence, I believe this idea is not valid and a leader must lead the people fairly in all aspects such social, political, military etc. Coming back to United Monarchy, irrespective of some instances of injustice and selfishness, David is known to be a very successful and ideal king under whom the Israelite empire reached its cultural and political peak. He is known to have been faithful to God and it was during his time that Jerusalem capital city and he also brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem which gave the city religious importance. It is said that God spoke to David through Prophet Nathan promised David that his dynasty would last forever and God would protect it from all enemies. David supported this covenant and helped its development which came to be known as royal theology. Unlike with Saul, David’s son Solomon succeeded as the king of Israel after him and the kingdom enjoyed prosperity under him. Solomon transformed the kingdom economically as well as established peace with foreign kings. The Temple of Yahweh was built in Jerusalem which became the centre of religious importance. It was believed that the temple Yahweh’s dwelling place on earth and due to this it could not be destroyed by any enemy. The economic development under Solomon came at a price in the form of enormous taxation and forced labour. As a result of this people started rebel and Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam, made no changes to policies. Tribes’ rebellion reached its peak and the kingdom was divided and United Monarchy ended. There are various reasons cited for the dissolution of the kingdom and the main one being that King Solomon was unfaithful towards Yahweh. This is in accordance with the pattern mentioned earlier. God punishes when people turn away from Yahweh. Solomon had built places for worship for foreign Gods. Therefore, the dissolution of United Israelite Kingdom was justified. Another idea which is to be analysed is the concept of blind faith showcased by Israelites in their belief in royal theology. According to royal theology, God had promised to protect David’s kingdom from all enemies and this led people to be overconfident. Israelites due to this, failed to recognise and act on prophetic warnings and political threats. This needs to be avoided and people must be able to think and act according to a particular situation. United monarchy ended in 922 (BCE) with dissolution of the kingdom. Under the leadership of Jeroboam I, the northern kingdom (Israel) was formed which consisted of 10 tribes from north and the southern kingdom (Judah) consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. Read More