The Israelites arrive in the land of Canaan in the early 12th century BCE and live for about two centuries as a loose collection of small villages. This changes in the tenth century BCE with the rise of a united monarchy under Saul, David and Solomon. This kingdom then fragments into two — Israel in the north, which was destroyed in 720 BCE by the Assyrians, and Judah in the south, destroyed in 586 BCE by the Babylonians.
Why did the Israelites turn to monarchy and was it a good idea? The Bible is of two minds on this question.
In the Book of Samuel, the Israelites demand that the prophet appoint a king over them so they can be like other nations. Previously, governance was achieved through prophets or temporary chieftains when necessary, but now the people are dissatisfied, and God grudgingly acquiesces:
Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you (Samuel) that they have rejected; it is Me (God) they have rejected as their king (I Samuel 8:7).
However, before Samuel begins the process of finding a king, God commands him to inform the people of mishpat hamelekh, “the law of the king,” namely, what a king is really like:
He will take your sons and appoint them as his charioteers and horsemen … or they will have to plow his fields, reap his harvest, and make his weapons and the equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers. He will seize your choice fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his courtiers. He will take a tenth part of your grain and vintage and give it to his eunuchs and courtiers … He will take a tenth part of your flocks, and you shall become his slaves. (I Samuel 8:11–17)
This bleak depiction of what it means to live under a monarch ends with Samuel promising them that they will regret having ever asked for one:
The day will come when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen; and the LORD will not answer you on that day. (I Samuel 8:18)
But this is not the Bible’s only take on kings.
The Book of Judges consists of stories from before Israel had a king, when “chieftains” or “judges” (shoftim) would lead Israel in battle against invaders when necessary; otherwise, the people were left to themselves. A five-chapter appendix at the end of Judges tells two stories depicting Israel in religious and moral chaos.
The first involves a man named Micah who robs his mother to build a home worship center, complete with an idol, which is then stolen by members of the tribe of Dan. The second involves the gang-rape of a young concubine staying the night with her husband in Gibeah. When the woman dies as a result of the assault, a civil war breaks out with all other tribes against the tribe of Benjamin.
At various points in these stories, the text explains how it is possible that Israelites behave so badly by quoting the following refrain: “In those days, no king reigned in Israel; each person did what was right in their own eyes.” The implication is that Israel needs a king to ensure society runs on ethical principles and that the vulnerable are protected.
The Bible, therefore, is divided on whether having a king is desirable or objectionable. The same ambiguity appears in a more subtle form in the command in Deuteronomy to appoint a king:
If, after you have entered the land that the LORD your God has assigned to you, and taken possession of it and settled in it, you decide, “I will set a king over me, as do all the nations about me,” you shall surely set a king over yourself, one chosen by the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 17:14–15).
The text then continues with caveats: The king must be Israelite; he may not gather too many horses, or send Israelites to Egypt to import them or have too many wives. The last two call attention to stories of King Solomon, who is said to have had 12,000 horses, many procured from Egypt (I Kings 10:26–29), and 1,000 wives and concubines from all different nations (I Kings 11:1–5).
Solomon is a classic example of a double-edged sword. On one hand, the Book of Kings depicts him as exceedingly wise, well respected among the neighboring nations, and as a great builder, summing up his reign in glowing terms:
All the days of Solomon, Judah and Israel from Dan to Beersheba dwelt in safety, everyone under his own vine and under his own fig tree. (I Kings 5:5)
On the other hand, Solomon does exactly what the prophet Samuel warns in his “law of the king,” forcing every tribe to provide massive amounts of forced labor and imposing a tax burden that leads to rebellion against his son Rehoboam. The epitome of a corrupt and inept king, Rehoboam famously declares:
My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. My father imposed a heavy yoke on you, and I will add to your yoke; my father flogged you with whips, but I will flog you with scorpions. (I Kings 12:10–11)
But the Bible also has the likes of Josiah:
There was no king like him before who turned back to the LORD with all his heart and soul and might, in full accord with the Teaching of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. (II Kings 23:25)
Kings are a mixed bag; some are good, some are bad, and many are both. This ambiguous legacy of Israelite and Judean kings continues into the Second Temple period.
The Hasmoneans save Judea from the persecution of the Seleucid kings, but decades later, this same family brings about a civil war that leads to the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. Herod was a respected monarch among the Romans and built up Judea as no king had since Solomon. And yet, he was also a ruthless tyrant, who slaughtered countless opponents, real and imagined, including his own Hasmonean wife and their sons.
Kings, therefore, can be constructive builders or military leaders, and they can be destructive despots; and any given king can be both or neither. Thus, the Bible, composed in a world where monarchy was standard, remained skeptical.
