Shoftim: A Ten Commandments’ Modification?

“Appoint a man over the congregation who will go out in front of them and who will come in in front of them and who will bring them out and who will bring them in, so the Lord’s congregation won’t be a sheep that don’t have a shepherd.”

Numbers 27:16-17

The Torah Portion Shoftim illustrates how religion and politics can become inextricably intertwined. In Shoftim, the blueprint for the Israelite Monarchy was unveiled containing rule and regulations. This political configuration proposal which required divine involvement offers up as a Ten Commandments’ moment.

After the Ten Commandments’ covenant and prior to Shoftim, an Israelite political structure existed. The Prophet Moses commandeered the nation. Additionally, a succession plan was in place. Joshua was to replace Moses. See Numbers 27.

Given the scripture’s existing governance arrangement, the monarchy’s creation constituted a departure from the original plan.

Shoftim Controversy

Shoftim’s passage raising the potential monarchical rule is controversial. From a scholarship standpoint, It clouds the Book of Deuteronomy’s authorship. Why would an incubating nation be prompted concerning a monarchical rule option? At that point, they had neither taken possession of the land nor experienced a governmental crises there. So, what was the motivation for introducing it?

One can interpret the passage in two ways. It could have been a contemporary declaration by Moses. Or, it could have been a post-monarchical declaration. Perhaps, it was intended as propaganda to prop up the existing monarchy. Thus, the passage stands either as the Israelite nation’s political blueprint or a retrospective reinvention.

Beyond that, there is the notion of being just like other nations. Was that desirable? Or, was there some desire to be something different?

Shoftim

The Shoftim passage is as follows:

“When you’ll come to the land that the Lord, your God, is giving you, and you’ll take possession of it and live in it, and you’ll say, ‘Let me set a king over me like all nations that are around me,’ you shall set a king over you whom the Lord, your God will choose!” Deuteronomy 17:14-15 (Note: in legalese, “shall” is a powerful word. In essence, it makes matters mandatory.)

The Shoftim directive goes on further. It notes that the king would be obligated to write the instructions on a scroll and reading them. The purpose of this act being that “he will not turn from the commandment, right or left, and so he will extend days over his kingdom, he and his sons, within Israel.” Deuteronomy 17:20.

Matters of Interpretation

A straight reading of this scripture reveals much in terms of politicking. First, while the nation was not democratic, an election of sorts was necessary to choose a monarchical government. This election, one could surmise, was done by consensus.

Looking at the text in 1 Samuel 8, it is reported that the Israelites did not view the Prophet as having suitable replacement. His sons were problematic. It is further reported that it was the elders of Israel that gathered at Ramah and approached the Prophet Samuel to make the demand. Their expressed that the purpose for a king was that they wanted to be led and have someone go out before us and fight out battles. 1 Samuel 8:20. This request was endorsed by the Lord. Supra at 8:21-22.

Second, the Lord appeared to gain both a “nomination” and “veto” in the king making process. A divine emissary- perhaps priest or prophet- would deliver the official word on Monarchical status. Both the king’s nomination and reign were tied Deity satisfaction.

From the scripture, the priestly class provided a supervisory role to the monarch. The Levites appeared to play a role in a King’s education and adherence to the commandments. Part of the King’s obligation was to write his own personal set of the instructions. Deuteronomy 17:18. An argument can be maintained that the cult and Levites represented the Deity within the new covenant in multiple capacities.

Third, the passage offered a “term” limit. The king’s rule was conditioned upon commandments’ compliance. Thus, it was possible that a Divine Emissary could act to terminate a reign. (Note: Samuel ended Saul’s reign, See 1 Samuel 15:26)

While those were the passage’s takeaways, another strategic move took place under the David’s reign. When David is King, the Prophet Nathan comes to him. David is told , “Your dynasty and your kingdom will remain stedfast before you forever; your throne will remain firm forever.” 2 Samuel 7:16.

With this, a permanent familial decendency requirement became incorporated into the monarchical rule dictates.

Fourth, it appears that once this election was made to have a monarchical government that it was to be permanent in nature. There would be no return to the prior status quo.

The Writing’s Timing

Modern scholarship believes that the Book of Deuteronomy was crafted about the time of King Josiah when he was introducing reforms. Thus, it appears that older works may have been re-crafted to advance an agenda.

If one took this position, the Monarchy could assert that its imposition of commandment compliance was an existential concern. At the time, given the Assyrians had already conquered the Northern Israelite Kingdom, the threat, in the populace’s eyes, would have appeared quite real.

Conclusion

The Israelite Monarchical political structure was quite unique. It was crafted in a way that the Israelite Deity retained control of the nation. It appeared that the populace’s consensus to have a king created an irrevocable election.

From Deuteronomy, it would appear that the cult or more likely an individual recognized as being the representative of the Israelite God maintained power over the throne. One could liken it to either a veto power or impeachment power. Likewise, it maintained the power to nominate candidates for the throne.

There was arguably a religious connection to nation’s politics in that the basis for regime change would have been based commandments’ deviation and initiated by a religious figure. Thus, it would appear that the law served as the standard upon which a king was to be judged.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share.