as I write it

Just for my own amazement and amusement, I am freeform writing the rough draft of my final paper for Leadership in the Bible for my HST 495 class at PSU. This particular paper is written prior to doing the research it will demand and, if you waste your time reading it, you will note it is only about half done. Obviously, this is a rough draft and I am taking a break for a few hours to work on other projects, but I want to see how my recollection will match up with actual research.
It is particularly fascinating to me because it is a way of looking at the Bible I have never thought about before. The Bible is not a history book, yet for those who believe, the history presented is accurate. The FOCUS of the book is not history yet the telling of history is accurate. It is a fine yet important distinction. It is not written from the standpoint that a historian would write it but instead is written as an instruction manual to guide people in the paths of righteousness and to avoid the errors of those who went before.
Now I am writing about it from a historical standpoint. And that is a different kettle of fish. You might think it is not fish at all. Anyway, here is about half of my from memory rough draft. you will note a couple places where I left blank spaces, planning to fill in the names later after research.


The roles of prophet and King in early Israel and Judah had many different and fascinating interactions. Their roles overlapped in some areas and competed in others. At times they worked together and at other times were bitter enemies. This paper will examine the anticipated and actual roles of ancient Israelite and Judaic kings and prophets.
It is important to note that the roles were not static. Various changes regarding what was expected or even permissible took part throughout the years. One example would be in the religious realm.
Saul, the first King, was not allowed to perform priestly duties. It was his assumption of the priestly role in sacrificing in an attempt to bring the favor of God that led to his downfall. Yet his successor, David, did perform the priestly office, sacrificing on several occasions. This practice continued with Solomon who was lauded for his thousands of sacrifices. Shortly thereafter, the performance by a king reverted to being an evil action and eventually, in the case of ……… it actually led to him living the remainder of his life as a leper in punishment for his presumptuousness in assuming a religious role that God apparently did not wish him to have and touching the altar.
This dichotomy indicates that the role of the king shifted. The period in which David and Solomon were allowed to perform key religious roles coincided with the reigns of the two kings presented as being the best at following the laws of God. This indicates that, for the Biblical writers, the role of the king was first and foremost to lead the people in paths of obedience to God. All other considerations came second to this ideal.
The Biblical text indicates with certainty it was the kings who were instrumental in how the people acted. The formula “The king walked according to all the sins that his father had done” is repeated over and over and over. Each time the inference is that the people followed his example. Their evil actions would include things like building altars in the high places and worshipping false or competing gods. These sins were attributed first to the king but then to all the people.
Conversely, when the formula included something closer to “He followed the Lord” even with a disclaimer like “but he did not remove the high places” then the people are seemingly absolved from sin. Their behavior was praised and the nation prospered.
These recurring textual artifices indicate the primary job of the king was to lead the people in religious matters even though he was prohibited from performing the most important religious functions. Yet not all of his roles were as religious bell cow.
The kings were held responsible for protecting the borders of their respective kingdoms. When a king pays tribute to another king, for instance when ….. paid tribute to …… the resulting tone of chastisement recorder reveals that this is considered a failing on his part.
The contrast occurs when a king receives tribute. When ….. was given tribute by …. it is clearly meant to be interpreted as a sign of favor with God and of being a successful leader and protector of the people. The function of giving or receiving tribute was a function of how successful the king was at defending or expanding the borders of Israel or Judah. At the same time, trouble followed the king who grew too proud.
Hezekiah (?) is the premiere example. He was a good king insofar as he strove to serve the Lord. Yet towards the end of his life he boastfully showed all the wealth of his treasury to the representatives of Nebudchadnezzar (?). This was revealed to be a sin that would subsequently cost (Judah?) their wealth. It was the role of the king to accumulate wealth without being ostentation or believing he did it on his own.
This hearkens back to the main role of the king. Though they were expected to be militarily successful, they were to never forget their strength came from the Lord. When kings forgot it was the Lord who gave them victory they were punished. This is another indication the primary role of the king was to lead his people in serving the Lord and to be sure all honor and praise went to the Lord. He was to always be aware that he was subservient to the Lord. In fact, his role might best be described as to be a servant of the Lord. All other responsibilities had to be fulfilled with this factor taking precedence.
This was also shown by the interactions of kings with prophets. Typically when things were going well in regard to serving the Lord the prophets were nowhere to be found. When kings followed the commands of the Lord the prophets seem to not have been needed. However, when kings went astray the prophets appeared.
Their appearance was not sufficient to change the path of the nations. At times the kings would demonstrate their secular power. An early example would be Saul killing the priests at Nob. This clearly was a violation of God’s will. Many other kingly actions demonstrated ways in which kings rejected the teachings of the prophets as well, yet some of their actions were beneficial to the people.
Sometimes with the support of the prophets and sometimes despite their advice and warnings kings would go to war with other nations, make alliances with other nations. The marriage to the offspring of other nations was always condemned. They taxed the people as part of their kingly role. At times, such as when it was to rebuild or enhance the temple this was looked on with favor. At other times, such as when it was to finance a war the prophet had warned against it was spoken against. The kings were responsible for giving justice to the land.
All of these roles were performed by the kings, sometimes in service to the Lord and other times in opposition. It was primarily when they were in opposition that the Scripture records the appearance of the prophets.
Just as the role of the king changed over time, so did the role of the prophet. Early prophets such as Nathan and Gad seemed to have been around King David most of the time. It can be extrapolated from the text that Nathan functioned as an advisor when events were either positive or neutral. For example, it was not surprising to anyone when he spoke to David on the matter of Solomon’s succession to the throne. This indicates he regularly showed up in the court on matters of state.
Naturally, when David did wrong, such as the sin with Bathsheba or the census, the prophets took on a different role. Both Nathan and Gad are reported as chastising the king and later pronouncing the judgment of God. At this point the prophets seem to serve the role of advisors to the king and intermediaries between the kings and God.
As the Scriptural narrative proceeds the role of the prophet inexorably changes. Later prophets will not be presented as advisors to the king but will frequently fulfill the role of opponent.