14<\/strong>. When thou art come<\/em>, etc.] Similarly Deu 18:9<\/span>, Deu 26:1<\/span>; cp. Deu 6:10<\/span>, Deu 7:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n I will set a king like as all the nations<\/em>, etc.] 1Sa 8:5<\/span>: make us<\/em> (the same verb) a king to judge us like all the nations<\/em>. Cp. 1Sa 12:12<\/span>, where the example of the Ammonites is given as the motive of Israel’s desire, although Jehovah your God is your King<\/em>. Evidently D is doubtful of the advantages of the monarchy. Like so much else in the code this law is a concession to existing facts.<\/p>\n 14 20. Of the King<\/p>\n When Israel elect to have a King like other nations, he must be chosen of God, an Israelite and no foreigner (Deu 17:14<\/span> f.). He must not multiply horses, wives nor silver and gold (Deu 17:16<\/span> f.). He shall write a copy of the Law and always study it, that he may fear God, with a heart not uplifted above his brethren, to the prolonging of his own and his children’s days (Deu 17:18-20<\/span>). Peculiar to D, and in the Sg address, except in Deu 17:16<\/span> b<\/em> where unto you<\/em> is due to the attraction of the Pl. in the quotation. The obvious references to Solomon and the echo of the prophet’s protests against Egyptian alliances confirm the other evidence which D furnishes for a date under the later monarchy.<\/p>\n Some take the law as even later than the body of the Code, because, like Deu 31:9<\/span>, it represents the whole Law as written and canonical. So e.g. Cornill Einl<\/em>. 3 25 f. and Berth, who compares Deu 17:16<\/em><\/span> with Eze 17:15<\/span> and considers Zedekiah’s reign as probable a date therefore as the Exile. But it is difficult to conceive the original Code with no law of the King; and Deu 17:16<\/em><\/span> may well have been contained in the Law-Book discovered under Josiah. For the relation of this law to the two accounts of the institution of the Kingdom in 1 Sam. the older sympathetic (1Sa 9:1<\/span> to 1Sa 10:16 , 1Sa 10:27<\/span> b<\/em>, 1Sa 11:1-11<\/span>; 1Sa 11:15<\/span>; 1Sa 11:13-14<\/span>), and the younger hostile (1Sa 7:2-17<\/span>; 1Sa 7:8<\/span>, 1Sa 10:17-22<\/span> a<\/em>, 1Sa 10:12<\/span>) to the monarchy see Driver’s Deut.<\/em> 212 f. For the Babylonian ideals of a King see Prologue to the Code of ammurabi and further Johns Bab<\/em>. & Ass. Laws<\/em>, etc., 192 f.<\/p>\n No encouragement is given to the desire, natural in an Oriental people, for monarchical government; but neither is such desire blamed, as appears from the fact that conditions are immediately laid down upon which it may be satisfied. Compare the marginal references.<\/P><\/p>\n He only foresees and foretells what they would do, but doth not seem to approve of it, because when they did this thing for this very reason here alleged, he declares his utter dislike of it, 1Sa 8:7<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 14. When thou . . . shalt say, Iwill set a king over me<\/B>In the following passage Mosesprophetically<\/I> announces a revolution which should occur at alater period in the national history of Israel. No sanction orrecommendation was indicated; on the contrary, when the popularclamor had effected that constitutional change on the theocracy bythe appointment of a king, the divine disapproval was expressed inthe most unequivocal terms (1Sa 8:7<\/span>).Permission at length was granted, God reserving to Himself thenomination of the family and the person who should be elevated to theregal dignity (1Sa 9:15<\/span>; 1Sa 10:24<\/span>;1Sa 16:12<\/span>; 1Ch 28:4<\/span>).In short, Moses foreseeing that his ignorant and fickle countrymen,insensible to their advantages as a peculiar people, would soon wishto change their constitution and be like other nations, provides to acertain extent for such an emergency and lays down the principles onwhich a king in Israel must act. He was to possess certainindispensable requisites. He was to be an Israelite, of the same raceand religion, to preserve the purity of the established worship, aswell as be a type of Christ, a spiritual king, one of their brethren.<\/P><\/p>\n When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee<\/strong>,…. The land of Canaan:<\/p>\n and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein<\/strong>; be entirely in the possession of it, and settled in it; it seems to denote some time of continuance in it, as it was, before they thought of setting a king over them, about which are the following instructions:<\/p>\n and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are round about me<\/strong>; which was what would and did lead them to such a thought and resolution; observing that the neighbouring nations had kings over them, they were desirous of being like them as to the form of their civil government, and have a king as they had.<\/p>\n Choice and Right of the King. – Deu 17:14<\/span>, Deu 17:15<\/span>. If Israel, when dwelling in the land which was given it by the Lord for a possession, should wish to appoint a king, like all the nations round about, it was to appoint the man whom Jehovah its God should choose, and that from among its brethren, i.e., from its own people, not a foreigner or non-Israelite. The earthly kingdom in Israel was not opposed to the theocracy, i.e., to the rule of Jehovah as king over the people of His possession, provided no one was made king but the person whom Jehovah should choose. The appointment of a king is not commanded<\/em>, like the institution of judges (Deu 16:18<\/span>), because Israel could exist under the government of Jehovah, even without an earthly king; it is simply permitted<\/em>, in case the need should arise for a regal government. There was no necessity to describe more minutely the course to be adopted, as the people possessed the natural provision for the administration of their national affairs in their well-organized tribes, by whom this point could be decided. Moses also omits to state more particularly in what way Jehovah would make known the choice of the king to be appointed. The congregation, no doubt, possessed one means of asking the will of the Lord in the Urim and Thummim of the high priest, provided the Lord did not reveal His will in a different manner, namely through a prophet, as He did in the election of Saul and David (1 Sam 8-9, and 16). The commandment not to choose a foreigner, acknowledged the right of the nation to choose. Consequently the choice on the part of the Lord may have consisted simply in His pointing out to the people, in a very evident manner, the person they were to elect, or in His confirming the choice by word and act, as in accordance with His will.<\/p>\n Three rules are laid down for the king himself in Deu 17:16-20<\/span>. In the first<\/em> place, he was not to keep many horses, or lead back the people to Egypt, to multiply horses, because Jehovah had forbidden the people to return thither by that way. The notion of modern critics, that there is an allusion in this prohibition to the constitution of the kingdom under Solomon, is so far from having any foundation, that the reason assigned – namely, the fear lest the king should lead back the people to Egypt from his love of horses, “ to the end that he should multiply horses” – really precludes the time of Solomon, inasmuch as the time had then long gone by when any thought could have been entertained of leading back the people to Egypt. But such a reason would be quite in its place in Moses’ time, and only then, “when it would not seem impossible to reunite the broken band, and when the people were ready to express their longing, and even their intention, to return to Egypt on the very slightest occasion; whereas the reason assigned for the prohibition might have furnished Solomon with an excuse for regarding the prohibition itself as merely a temporary one, which was no longer binding” ( Oehler<\/em> in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia:<\/em> vid., Hengstenberg’s Dissertations<\/em>).<\/p>\n (Note: When Riehm<\/em> objects to this, that if such a prohibition had been unnecessary in a future age, in which the people had reached the full consciousness of its national independence, and every thought of the possibility of a reunion with the Egyptians had disappeared, Moses would never have issued it, since he must have foreseen the national independence of the people; the force of this objection rests simply upon his confounding foreseeing with assuming, and upon a thoroughly mistaken view of the prophet’s vision of the future. Even if Moses, as “a great prophet,” did foresee the future national independence of Israel, he had also had such experience of the fickle character of the people, that he could not regard the thought of returning to Egypt as absolutely an impossible one, even after the conquest of Canaan, or reject it as inconceivable. Moreover, the prophetic foresight of Moses was not, as Riehm<\/em> imagines it, a foreknowledge of all the separate points in the historical development of the nation, much less a foreknowledge of the thoughts and desires of the heart, which might arise in the course of time amidst the changes that would take place in the nation. A foresight of the development of Israel into national independence, so far as we may attribute it to Moses as a prophet, was founded not upon the character of the people, but upon the divine choice and destination of Israel, which by no means precluded the possibility of their desiring to return to Egypt, even at some future time, since God Himself had threatened the people with dispersion among the heathen as the punishment for continued transgression of His covenant, and yet, notwithstanding this dispersion, had predicted the ultimate realization of His covenant of grace. And when Riehm<\/em> still further observes, that the taste for horses, which lay at the foundation of this fear, evidently points to a later time, when the old repugnance to cavalry which existed in the nation in the days of the judges, and even under David, had disappeared; this supposed repugnance to cavalry is a fiction of the critic himself, without any historical foundation. For nothing more is related in the history, than that before the time of Solomon the Israelites had not cultivated the rearing of horses, and that David only kept 100 of the war-horses taken from the Syrians for himself, and had the others put to death (2Sa 8:4<\/span>). And so long as horses were neither reared nor possessed by the Israelites, there can be no ground for speaking of the old repugnance to cavalry. On the other hand, the impossibility of tracing this prohibition to the historical circumstances of the time of Solomon, or even a later age, is manifest in the desperate subterfuge to which Riehm has recourse, when he connects this passage with the threat in Deu 28:68<\/span>, that if all the punishments suspended over them should be ineffectual, God would carry them back in ships to Egypt, and that they should there be sold to their enemies as men-servants and maid-servants, and then discovers a proof in this, that the Egyptian king Psammetichus, who sought out foreign soldiers and employed them, had left king Manasseh some horses, solely on the condition that he sent him some Israelitish infantry, and placed them at his disposal. But this is not expounding Scripture; it is putting hypotheses into it. As Oehler<\/em> has already observed, this hypothesis has no foundation whatever in the Old Testament, nor (we may add) in the accounts of Herodotus<\/em> and Diodorus Siculus concerning Psammetichus. According to Diod. (i. 66), Psammetichus hired soldiers from Arabia, Caria, and Ionia; and according to Herodotus (i. 152), he hired Ionians and Carians armed with brass, that he might conquer his rival kings with their assistance. But neither of these historians says anything at all about Israelitish infantry. And even if it were conceivable that any king of Israel or Judah could carry on such traffic in men, as to sell his own subjects to the Egyptians for horses, it is very certain that the prophets, who condemned every alliance with foreign kings, and were not silent with regard to Manasseh’s idolatry, would not have passed over such an abomination as this without remark or without reproof.)<\/p>\n The second<\/em> admonition also, that the king was not to take to himself many wives, and turn away his heart (sc., from the Lord), nor greatly multiply to himself silver and gold, can be explained without the hypothesis that there is an allusion to Solomon’s reign, although this king did transgress both commands (1Ki 10:14<\/span>. Deu 11:1<\/span>.). A richly furnished harem, and the accumulation of silver and gold, were inseparably connected with the luxury of Oriental monarchs generally; so that the fear was a very natural one, that the future king of Israel might follow the general customs of the heathen in these respects.<\/p>\n The Choice of a King.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1451.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD<\/B> thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are<\/I> about me; 15 Thou shalt in any wise set him<\/I> king over thee, whom the LORD<\/B> thy God shall choose: one<\/I> from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is<\/I> not thy brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD<\/B> hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is<\/I> before the priests the Levites: 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD<\/B> his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to<\/I> the right hand, or to<\/I> the left: to the end that he may prolong his<\/I> days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.<\/P> After the laws which concerned subjects fitly followed the laws which concern kings; for those that rule others must themselves remember that they are under command. Here are laws given,<\/P> I. To the electors of the empire, what rules they must go by in making their choice, Deu 17:14<\/span>; Deu 17:15<\/span>. 1. It is here supposed that the people would, in process of time, be desirous of a king, whose royal pomp and power would be thought to make their nation look great among their neighbours. Their having a king is neither promised as a mercy nor commanded as a duty (nothing could be better for them than the divine regimen they were under), but it is permitted them if they desired it. If they would but take care to have the ends of government answered, and God’s laws duly observed and put in execution, they should not be tied to any one form of government, but should be welcome to have a king. Though something irregular is supposed to be the principle of the desire, that they might be like the nations (whereas God in many ways distinguished them from the nations), yet God would indulge them in it, because he intended to serve his own purposes by it, in making the regal government typical of the kingdom of the Messiah. 2. They are directed in their choice. If they will have a king over them, as God foresaw they would (though it does not appear that ever the motion was made till almost 400 years after), then they must, (1.) Ask counsel at God’s mouth, and make him king whom God shall choose; and happy it was for them that they had an oracle to consult in so weighty an affair, and a God to choose for them who knows infallibly what every man is and will be. Kings are God’s vicegerents, and therefore it is fit that he should have the choosing of them: God had himself been in a particular manner Israel’s King, and if they set another over them, under him, it was necessary that he should nominate the person. Accordingly, when the people desired a king, they applied to Samuel a prophet of the Lord; and afterwards David, Solomon, Jeroboam, Jehu, and others, were chosen by the prophets; and the people are reproved for not observing this law, Hos. viii. 4<\/span>: They have set up kings but not by me.<\/I> In all cases God’s choice, if we can but know it, should direct, determine, and overrule ours. (2.) They must not choose a foreigner under pretence of strengthening their alliances, or of the extraordinary fitness of the person, lest a strange king should introduce strange customs of usages, contrary to those that were established by the divine law; but he must be one from among thy brethren,<\/I> that he may be a type of Christ, who is bone of our bone, Heb. ii. 14<\/span>.<\/P> II. Laws are here given to the prince that should be elected for the due administration of the government.<\/P> 1. He must carefully avoid every thing that would divert him from God and religion. Riches, honours, and pleasures are the three great hindrances of godliness (the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life<\/I>), especially to those in high stations: against these therefore the king is here warned. (1.) He must not gratify the love of honour by multiplying horses, v.<\/I><\/span> 16<\/span>. He that rode upon a horse (a stately creature) in a country where asses and mules were generally used looked very great; and therefore though he might have horses for his own saddle, and chariots, yet he must not set servants on horseback<\/I> (Eccl. x. 7<\/span>) nor have many horses for his officers and guards (when God was their King, his judges rode on asses, Jdg 5:10<\/span>; Jdg 12:14<\/span>), nor must he multiply horses for war, lest he should trust too much to them, Psa 20:7<\/span>; Psa 33:17<\/span>; Hos 14:3<\/span>. The reason here given against his multiplying horses is because it would produce a greater correspondence with Egypt (which furnished Canaan with horses, 1Ki 10:28<\/span>; 1Ki 10:29<\/span>) than it was fit the Israel of God should have, who were brought thence with such a high hand: You shall return no more that way,<\/I> for fear of being infected with the idolatries of Egypt (Lev. xviii. 3<\/span>), to which they were very prone. Note, We should take heed of that commerce or conversation by which we are in danger of being drawn into sin. If Israel must not return to Egypt, they must not trade with Egypt; Solomon got no good by it. (2.) He must not gratify the love of pleasure by multiplying wives (v.<\/I><\/span> 17<\/span>), as Solomon did to his undoing (1 Kings xi. 1<\/span>), that his heart, being set upon them, turn not away from business, and every thing that is serious, and especially from the exercise of piety and devotion, to which nothing is a greater enemy than the indulgence of the flesh. (3.) He must not gratify the love of riches by greatly multiplying silver and gold. A competent treasure is allowed him, and he is not forbidden to be good husband of it, but, [1.] He must not greatly multiply money, so as to oppress his people by raising it (as Solomon seems to have done, 1 Kings xii. 4<\/span>), nor so as to deceive himself, by trusting to it, and setting his heart upon it, Ps. lxii. 10<\/span>. [2.] He must not multiply it to himself. David multiplied silver and gold, but it was for the service of God (1 Chron. xxix. 4<\/span>), not for himself; for his people, not for his own family.<\/P> 2. He must carefully apply himself to the law of God, and make that his rule. This must be to him better than all riches, honours, and pleasures, than many horses or many wives, better than thousands of gold and silver.<\/P> (1.) He must write himself a copy of the law out of the original, which was in the custody of the priests that attended the sanctuary, v.<\/I><\/span> 18<\/span>. Some think that he was to write only this book of Deuteronomy, which is an abstract of the law, and the precepts of which, being mostly moral and judicial, concerned the king more than the laws in Leviticus and Numbers, which, being ceremonial, concerned chiefly the priests. Others think that he was to transcribe all the five books of Moses, which are called the law,<\/I> and which were preserved together as the foundation of their religion. Now, [1.] Though the king might be presumed to have very fair copies by him from his ancestors, yet, besides those, he must have one of his own: it might be presumed that theirs were worn with constant use; he must have a fresh one to begin the world with. [2.] Though he had secretaries about him whom he might employ to write this copy, and who perhaps could write a better hand than he, yet he must do it himself, with his own hand, for the honour of the law, and that he might think no act of religion below him, to inure himself to labour and study, and especially that he might thereby be obliged to take particular notice of every part of the law and by writing it might imprint it in his mind. Note, It is of great use for each of us to write down what we observe as most affecting and edifying to us, out of the scriptures and good books, and out of the sermons we hear. A prudent pen may go far towards making up the deficiencies of the memory, and the furnishing of the treasures of the good householder with things new and old. [3.] He must do this even when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom, provided that he had not done it before. When he begins to apply himself to business, he must apply himself to this in the first place. He that sits upon the throne of a kingdom cannot but have his hands full. The affairs of his kingdom both at home and abroad call for a large share of his time and thoughts, and yet he must write himself a copy of the law. Let not those who call themselves men of business think that this will excuse them from making religion their business; nor let great men think it any disparagement to them to write for themselves those great things of God’s law which he hath written to them,<\/I> Hos. viii. 12<\/I><\/span>.<\/P> (2.) Having a Bible by him of his own writing, he must not think it enough to keep it in his cabinet, but he must read therein all the days of his life,<\/I> v.<\/span> 19<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. It is not enough to have Bibles, but we must use them, use them daily, as the duty and necessity of everyday require: our souls must have their constant meals of that manna; and, if well digested, it will be true nourishment and strength to them. As the body is receiving benefit by its food continually, and not only when it is eating, so is the soul, by the word of God, if it meditate therein day and night,<\/I> Ps. i. 2<\/I><\/span>. And we must persevere in the use of the written word of God as long as we live. Christ’s scholars never learn above their Bibles, but will have a constant occasion for them till they come to that world where knowledge and love will both be made perfect.<\/P> (3.) His writing and reading were all nothing if he did not reduce to practice what he wrote and read, Deu 17:19<\/span>; Deu 17:20<\/span>. The word of God is not designed merely to be and entertaining subject of speculation, but to be a commanding rule of conversation. Let him know, [1.] What dominion his religion must have over him, and what influence it must have upon him. First,<\/I> It must possess him with a very reverent and awful regard to the divine majesty and authority. He must learn (and thus the most learned must by ever learning) to fear the Lord his God;<\/I> and, as high as he is, he must remember that God is above him, and, whatever fear his subjects owe to him, that, and much more, he owes to God as his King. Secondly,<\/I> It must engage him to a constant observance of the law of God, and a conscientious obedience to it, as the effect of that fear. He must keep all the words of this law<\/I> (he is custos utriusque tabulae–the keeper of both tables<\/I>), not only take care that others do them, but do them himself as a humble servant to the God of heaven and a good example to his inferiors. Thirdly,<\/I> It must keep him humble. How much soever he is advanced, let him keep his spirit low, and let the fear of his God prevent the contempt of his brethren;<\/I> and let not his heart be lifted up above them,<\/I> so as to carry himself haughtily or disdainfully towards them, and to trample upon them. Let him not conceit himself better than they because he is greater and makes a fairer show; but let him remember that he is the minister of God to them for good<\/I> (major singulis,<\/I> but minor universis<\/I>—greater than any one,<\/I> but less than the whole<\/I>). It must prevent his errors, either on he right hand or on the left<\/I> (for there are errors on both hands), and keep him right, in all instances, to his God and to his duty. [2.] What advantage his religion would be of to him. Those that fear God and keep his commandments will certainly fare the better for it in this world. The greatest monarch in the world may receive more benefit by religion than by all the wealth and power of his monarchy. It will be of advantage, First,<\/I> To his person: He shall prolong his days in his kingdom.<\/I> We find in the history of the kings of Judah that, generally, the best reigns were the longest, except when God shortened them for the punishment of the people, as Josiah’s. Secondly,<\/I> To his family: his children shall also prosper. Entail religion upon posterity, and God will entail a blessing upon it.<\/P><\/p>\n Verses 14-20:<\/strong><\/p>\n God intended that Israel be a theocracy, not a monarchy. Jehovah Elohim was to be their King. However, the text provides for the selection of a king when Israel should be settled in their Land. It would not be in their best interest to demand a king. But God provided that they should have a king if they so desired. The text lists some of the regulations which should govern the selection of the king:<\/p>\n (1) He must be God’s choice, not their own. Israel ignored this provision in the selection of Saul as their king, and it proved disastrous, see 1Sa chapter 8.<\/p>\n (2) He must be a native-born Israelite, not a stranger or foreign-born.<\/p>\n (3) He must not rely upon conventional military armaments, such as war-horses, cavalry, and chariots, etc.<\/p>\n (4) He must not purchase war-horses from Egypt, nor lead Israel to make any kind of military alliance with Egypt. Solomon violated this provision, 1Ki 10:26-29<\/span>.<\/p>\n (5) He must not have a large harem of many wives. This would cause him to be led astray into idolatry. Solomon demonstrated the need for this warning, 1Ki 11:1-8<\/span>.<\/p>\n (6) He must not amass a personal fortune.<\/p>\n (7) He must not exalt himself above his fellow-Israelites.<\/p>\n (8) He must make for himself a copy of the laws of God, and study it carefully as a guide to his actions and leadership as king.<\/p>\n (9) He must not deviate the Law of God, in any way.<\/p>\n History reveals that none of Israel’s king’s met these standards fully.<\/p>\n These criteria reflect the ideal standards for those who govern, whether king, president, governor, magistrate, or any other government official. Civil government is of Divine institution, Rom 13:1-7<\/span>; Dan 4:34-35<\/span>. Its purpose: the enforcement of righteous principles, and the maintaining of justice for all citizens. All true righteousness is of God, and all true justice comes from Him. It is not the prerogative of government to determine what is right or wrong. Tyranny and oppression and wickedness are the inevitable result when government leaders deviate from Divine Law and set their own rules and their own standards of what is right or wrong.<\/p>\n Government officials today may find direction in determining right and just only in the Word of God and its righteous principles. When they refuse to do so, injustice and oppression characterize their administration.<\/p>\n 14. When thou art come unto the land. In this passage God sets forth the merits of that sacerdotal kingdom, of which mention is made elsewhere; for, since the splendor of the royal name might dazzle their eyes, so that they should forget that God retained the sovereignty over them, they are thus early admonished how unjust it would be if the majesty of God should be diminished by the rule of a mortal man. In sum, the power of kings is here put beneath that of God; and kings themselves are consecrated unto obedience to Him, lest the people should ever turn to ungodliness, whatever change of government might take place. But although under the judges religion was often subverted, yet it was not without a cause that a special law was enacted with respect to kings, because nothing is more likely than that earthly pomps should draw men away from piety. Now we understand the design of God in this matter, let us proceed to examine its several parts. He passes over (as I have said) all the intermediate time until the beginning of the kingdom, because this new state of things brought with it an increase of danger: for as long as the judges were in power, their different form of government separated the Jews from heathen nations. All the surrounding neighbors were subject to kings; and God always retained the preeminence, whilst He raised up judges from amongst the people; but when they began to choose kings for themselves, they were so mixed up with the Gentiles, that it was easy for them to fall into other corruptions. For the very similarity (of their governments) united them more closely; wherefore, it is expressly said, When thou shalt set a king over thee “like as all the nations that are about” thee. For God signifies that the example of the nations would be an evil snare to them, that they should desire to have a king, and thus their condition would in future be identical, though by divine decree it had been distinct. In short, their rebellion is here indirectly condemned, when God foretells that they would wantonly shake off their yoke; as indeed actually took place, when they rejected Samuel, and tumultuously required a king. On which point God elsewhere complains that He was despised. But the question arises, how these two things can be reconciled, that kings should reign over them from the lust or foolish desire of the people, and yet that the kingdom was the chief glory of the people, a special pledge of God’s favor, and consequently of their welfare and full felicity. The prophecy of Jacob is well known, <\/p>\n “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, — until Shiloh come.” (Gen 49:10<\/span>.) <\/p>\n Whence it appears that a king was promised to the children of Abraham as an inestimable blessing. Why, then, does not God declare Himself its author? I reply that, although it was God’s design from the beginning to set up David as a type of Christ, yet, because their unseemly haste disturbed the order of things, the commencement of the kingdom is ascribed to the people’s fault, when they were impelled by their perverse emulation to wish to be like the Gentiles. God appears then to have designedly censured their wilfulness, as if He had said, “Although by appointing a king, you approach more nearly to the Gentiles, beware lest your perverse desire should altogether turn you away from true religion. <\/p>\n (2) KINGS (Deu. 17:14-20<\/span>)<\/p>\n 14 When thou art come unto the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me; 15 thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother. 16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses; forasmuch as Jehovah hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. THOUGHT QUESTIONS 17:1420<\/p>\n 292.<\/p>\n These verses contain a prophesy covering how many years?<\/p>\n 293.<\/p>\n Was this prediction an encouragement to disobedience? Discuss.<\/p>\n 294.<\/p>\n Discuss the importance of the three prohibitions. Cf. Deu. 17:16-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 295.<\/p>\n What law book was to be copied by the King? For what purpose?<\/p>\n 296.<\/p>\n What are some of the indications of his heart being lifted up above his brethren?<\/p>\n AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 17:1420<\/p>\n 14 When you come to the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and live there, and then say, I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are about me; COMMENT 17:1420<\/p>\n As we have already seen, and shall see in this book, God divinely anticipates the evil into which Israel would degenerate and makes provision for it. See another example of this in 1Sa. 8:4-22<\/span>; 1Sa. 12:12<\/span>. He does not condone or endorse all he allowsor all he foreknows. Their desire for a king would represent a degeneration and corruption of Israels Theocracy. But God was still their father, and Israel was still his nation, and he was not about to forsake them on this account. So the regulatory laws we have here. As we will see, even these were soon broken!<\/p>\n Because God knew ahead of time what Israel would do after they arrived in the promised land, did not mean he caused or compelled them to do itmuch less authorized it. A scientist-astronomer may now know that an eclipse will take place exactly at such-and-such a time in 1980. Does his foreknowledge cause the eclipse? No, but it may cause him to do many things in anticipation of it. It seems we have a fair parallel here. God anticipated the evil into which Israel would degenerate in clamoring for a king, and the present scriptures provide for that state of things. McGarvey asks, What was to prevent Moses from anticipating this? He was starting his people on their national career without a king, when all the nations round about them had kings, and had been ruled by them in the past. He would have been grossly ignorant of human nature had he not anticipated and feared that in the course of time they would grow weary of such singularity, and want to live like other nations. Such has been the fearful anticipation of every body of patriots who ever organized a democratic or republican form of government.[36]<\/p>\n [36] Authorship of Deuteronomy, p. 116<\/p>\n AND SHALT SAY, I WILL SET A KING OVER ME (Deu. 17:14<\/span>)1Sa. 8:5<\/span>; 1Sa. 8:19-20<\/span>.<\/p>\n KING . . . WHOM JEHOVAH THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE (Deu. 17:15<\/span>)An Israelite that had Gods divine approval. Note, for example, Davids anointing, 1Sa. 16:4-13<\/span>. Of course, this principle was often broken after the kingdom divided.<\/p>\n HE SHALL NOT MULTIPLY HORSES (Deu. 17:16<\/span>) . . . WIVES (Deu. 17:17<\/span>) SILVER AND GOLD (Deu. 17:17<\/span>)King solomon probably represents the most flagrant transgressor of these prohibitions. He at first obeyed the Lord, and riches (which he had not asked for) were added to his request for wisdom (1Ki. 3:9-14<\/span>). But he was soon sidetracked from wholehearted service to Jehovah. Exactly as these verses specify he was not to do, he multiplied<\/p>\n (1)<\/p>\n Horses1Ki. 4:26<\/span> (Cf. 2Ch. 9:25<\/span>) 1Ki. 10:26<\/span>; 1Ki. 10:28-29<\/span>. Note also that his horses were brought out of Egyptagain breaking the command of God as we have it here (Deu. 17:16<\/span>). A king would not multiply horses normally, unless preparing for war or building up military might. See Psa. 20:7<\/span>; Psa. 33:16-19<\/span>; Psa. 147:10-11<\/span>; Pro. 21:31<\/span>; Isa. 2:5-8<\/span>. Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots because they are many, and in horsemen because they are very strong, but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek Jehovah! (Isa. 31:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n (2)<\/p>\n Riches1Ki. 10:27<\/span>, 2Ch. 1:15<\/span>. At first given by God, money apparently became an obsession with him. This meant heavy, excessive taxes, plus a system of forced labor, 1Ki. 5:13-17<\/span>. Compare Israels complaint to Rehoboam, 1Ki. 12:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n (3)<\/p>\n Wives1Ki. 11:1-10<\/span>. These turned Solomons heart away from God.<\/p>\n HE SHALL WRITE HIM A COPY OF THIS LAW OUT OF THAT WHICH IS BEFORE THE PRIESTS THE LEVITES (Deu. 17:18<\/span>)It is likely this means, that the copy which the king was to write out was to be taken from the autograph kept in the tabernacle before the Lord, from which, as a standard, every copy was taken, and with which doubtless every copy was compared; and it is probable that the priests and Levites had the revising of every copy that was taken off, in order to prevent errors from creeping into the sacred text. (Clarke) The priests were the custodians of the law (Deu. 31:26<\/span>).<\/p>\n The book was to be constantly studied and meditated upon by the king (Deu. 17:19-20<\/span>)and be his directory and guide in daily life. Joshua was not a king, but was Gods leader of Israel, note Jos. 1:7-8<\/span>. David, of course, is the king who truly held Gods law in its proper esteem (Psalms 119<\/span>, etc.).<\/p>\n It is probable, however, that the book here referred to was neither the book of Deuteronomy or the Pentateuch. As this law was to be copied out of that which was before the priests, it did not, of course, contain all that was in that book; and as it was to govern the king rather than the priests or the people, it included only such portions as related to the kings personal and official duties. It was not, therefore, a very long document. (McGarvey)<\/p>\n This may have been the testimony given Jehoash (Joash), 2Ki. 11:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n Deu. 17:14-20<\/span>. THE LAW OF THE KINGDOM.<\/strong><\/p>\n (14) When thou art come unto the land.<\/strong>These are not the words of a legislator who is already in the land. Those who say that this law dates from later times must be prepared to assert that this clause is expressly framed to suit the lips of Moses, and is thus far a deliberate forgery.<\/p>\n And shalt possess it, and dwell therein<\/strong>i.e., <\/em>shalt complete the conquest and settle. It is not contemplated that the king would be desired immediately after the conquest.<\/p>\n I will set a king over me, like as all the nations.<\/strong>There is an evident allusion to this phrase in 1Sa. 8:20<\/span>, That we also may be like all the nations. It is noticeable that Moses in this place says nothing in disapproval of the design. In fact his words might easily have been cited by the people in support of their proposal. Moses said we should need a king; why should we not ask for on? Looked at this way, the citation of the words of Deuteronomy in Samuel is perfectly natural. The people confirm their request by presenting it in the very words of Moses. But if we suppose (with some modern writers) that the passage in Deuteronomy was constructed from that in Samuel, there are several difficulties(1) Why is there no disapproval here of the plan, which Samuel so strongly disapproved? (2) How does the writer in Deuteronomy contrive to be so wholly unconscious either of the royal tribe, or of the royal family? Precisely the same unconsciousness of the locality of the place which Jehovah should choose in Palestine appears in every reference to it in this book. In Moses this is perfectly natural. But that any later writer should be so totally regardless of the claims of Judah, David, and Jerusalem, and say nothing either for or against them, is inconceivable. Samuel could hardly have written about the king without betraying disapproval of Israels desire for him. No later writer could have avoided some allusion to the choice of Davids family, and the promises to Davids son.<\/p>\n (15) Whom the Lord thy God shall choose . . . from among thy brethren.<\/strong>This precept seems almost needless from the standpoint of later history. As years passed by, the Israelites were less and less tempted to accept the supremacy of foreign princes.[4] But Moses can never have forgotten that for two-thirds of his own lifetime the Israelites had been subject to the kings of Egypt; and that even since the exodus they had proposed to make a captain to return thither; whom <\/em>we know not, but very possibly an Egyptian. The chief thing dreaded by Moses was a return to Egypt, as appears by the next verse.<\/p>\n [4] But see note on Deu. 31:11<\/span> for an incident that illustrates the feeling.<\/p>\n (16,17) He shall not multiply horses . . . wives . . . neither shall he greatly multiply . . . silver and gold.<\/strong>It is not a little remarkable that these are the very things which Solomon did multiply; and that under him the monarchy attained its greatest glory. But the prophecy avenged itself by its literal fulfilment: When Solomon was old . . . his wives turned away his heart <\/em>(1Ki. 11:4<\/span>). Yet it is easier to read the words as prophecy than as later history. What Israelite could have written this sentence after the time of Solomon without some passing allusion to the glories of his reign? Compare the recorded allusion in Neh. 13:26<\/span> : Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.<\/p>\n The question, how Solomon came to transgress these orders, may easily be met by anotherHow came David to attempt the removal of the ark of God in a cart? The wealth which Solomon had is represented as the special gift of Jehovah. His many marriages may be partly accounted for by the fact that only one son is mentioned, and he was born before his father became king. <\/em>The question, Who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? is singularly applicable to this individual. And one of the Psalms, which is by its title ascribed to Solomon, pursues a similar line of thought (Ps. cxxvii).<\/p>\n The caution against multiplying horses marks the profound wisdom of the writer. The Israelitish infantry was Israels strength. The conquest of Canaan was entirely effected by infantry. There are not many battle-fields in Canaan suited for chariots and cavalry. An army of infantry can choose its own ground.<\/p>\n THE CHOICE OF A KING, AND RULES FOR HIS CONDUCT, Deu 17:14-20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 14<\/strong>. <\/strong> I will set a king over me <\/strong> Moses does not direct nor advise the people to have a king for their ruler. He foresees that they will act as the nations around them, and will decide to set a king over them. Some directions, then, both as to the choice of a supreme ruler and as to his conduct, would seem most appropriate in these last words of the great leader and lawgiver. It is not improbable that at times during the forty years’ wandering the people longed for a king to lead their armies, and to be the head of the nation. Moses sees that in the future that desire will become still more imperious. He seeks to control it to keep it within proper bounds. That Moses “should have anticipated the rise of the kingdom, and spoken accordingly that he should speak of these things with prophetic certainty can only be a stumbling-block to those who deny the possibility of a divine revelation of the future.” CURTISS’S Levitical Priests, <\/em> p. 152.<\/p>\n Requirements For Any Future King ( Deu 17:14-20<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> ).<\/strong> <\/p>\n Having been speaking of ‘the Judge’ who would have authority over Israel took, and being very much aware of the people’s weaknesses and willingness to follow anyone who offered them what they wanted (to look after them and fight their battles for them) Moses’ thoughts turned back to the promises of Genesis. There God had said that one day kings would be established who would be descended from Abraham (Gen 17:6<\/span>; Gen 17:16<\/span>; Gen 36:31<\/span>; Gen 35:11<\/span>; compare also Exo 19:6<\/span> where a kingdom of priests is mentioned which requires a king), so that he recognised that one day it was inevitable. <\/p>\n He also knew of Jacob’s prophecy concerning such a royal personage who would arise from Judah (Gen 49:10<\/span>), the coming of ‘Shiloh’, and he would have recently been further informed of the words of Balaam in Num 24:17<\/span> about ‘the sceptre that shall arise out of Israel’. None of this would have escaped his notice as he sought to prepare for the huge event that was about to come. He would have been negligent if it had. And we can understand why he was fearful that such a king, when he arose, would in seeking to promote himself, look to Egypt, the one great earthly power of whom he was most aware. And would not be reliable as a Judge. The one thing therefore that he would want them to avoid was ‘a king like the nations’. <\/p>\n At the time Moses was Israel’s ‘Judge’ (Deu 1:17<\/span> b) with full powers of ‘kingship’ under Yahweh, and he knew that he would shortly be appointing Joshua to have similar supreme authority. He had lived in the light of the revelations of Yahweh and the records of the fathers of old, and he expected Joshua to do the same. And he knew that always over Israel was Yahweh as Great King and Overlord Who had proved His supremity even over the Pharaoh. <\/p>\n But once established in the land he must have recognised that it was very likely that, once Joshua had died and time had passed, the people would want to appoint a king. At present Yahweh was their King with Moses as His deputy. The same would apply with Joshua. But what about those who followed? Moses knew men’s weaknesses. They would want to fall into line, and they would want to be looked after. And as Scripture confirmed that kingship was to happen, that made it obvious. But that made it necessary that getting the wrong kind of king was guarded against. When they did seek a king he was concerned that that king should recognise his true position under Yahweh, and be the kind of king that Yahweh approved of. And he knew that the only difference between Joshua and a king would be that Joshua had more authority because Yahweh was supreme king and he was His voice, but had less pretensions. The king, if a bad one, might act on his own authority and in his own name. <\/p>\n So Moses’ concern about kingship was fully understandable. He had especially seen what it was like in Egypt. He had seen the frantic efforts to build up the numbers of horses for military purposes, especially for the drawing of the chariots which were so vital a weapon in warfare, so that pre-eminence might be gained. He had himself been involved in the harems of Pharaoh, and experienced the intrigues that were constantly going on. He had noted the great efforts that kings and nobles put into gaining great wealth. And as he considered his people he was afraid lest they find themselves under someone like that. And he was concerned lest such a king might make treaties with Egypt, becoming their vassal in order to obtain horses. <\/p>\n He had also no doubt experienced petty ‘kings’ while son-in-law to the priest of Midian, and had noted that although their ambitions were on a smaller scale, they were still there. He had recently had dealings with the kings of Edom, Moab and Ammon who would all have treated him as a king, to say nothing of the kings of the Amorites. He would have noted the harem and wealth of Sihon, king of the Amorites, laid bare in Heshbon. He knew especially of Og, foreign king in Bashan, descended from a ‘super-race’ whose very bedstead (or sarcophagus) was the talk of all the nations around. Furthermore Israel were about to invade a country of nations who all had kings. Kingship was very much a current issue. And once they were settled in the land they would constantly be surrounded by kings. But he wanted to save his people from kings like that. It would be better for them to stick with Judges who had no such expectations. But if they would not do that, and he suspected that they would not, for they would soon begin to see them as the equivalent of kings, then let them consider what a king under Yahweh must be like if they were not to regret the move. <\/p>\n So we may take it for granted that an astute leader like Moses would recognise the very good likelihood, indeed certainty, that one day the people would seek to make their Judge a king following a similar pattern to the nations round about. How else could the prophecies be fulfilled? And it was after all only one step on from the overall ‘Judge’. The only difference that there would be between Joshua and a king would be that Joshua would not seek to behave with the bad habits of a king. He thus now gave strict instructions of what any king they considered appointing must be like. <\/p>\n Moses’ stress, then, was on the fact that he must not be like the kings round about. Rather he was to be and ‘ideal’, one of themselves, chosen by Yahweh, a native of Israel, and a student of Yahweh’s Instruction. He was to be a disclaimer of foreign military power and foreign marriage treaties, and spurn the accumulation of treasure for himself. He was to that end to write for himself a book based on the records which were under the oversight of the levitical priests and kept in the Tabernacle, the book which Moses himself had brought together from ancient covenant and other records (Genesis) and from the details of the Instruction (Torah) as directly revealed to him by God (the main basis of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers). And he was to live by them. <\/p>\n Indeed this picture of an ‘ideal’ king was so unlike any king that Israel ever knew or would know that it could only have been a theoretical one posited before the reality ruined the whole picture. Once kingship was established no one would ever have dreamed of suggesting a king like this. For it was actually the very opposite of what kings were. Instead they would have turned back to arguing for judges or chieftains or councils of elders. Moses’ words would also act as a warning to future judges. But until the coming of Jesus no such king ever lived. <\/p>\n We can consider in this respect how at least one such Judge, Gideon, was pressed to become Israel’s king and his refusal may well have been a polite acceptance (Jdg 8:22-23<\/span>). He certainly behaved like a king of the wrong kind (Jdg 8:30<\/span>), and one of his sons was expected to follow after him (Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; 20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel.<\/p>\n
15 You shall surely set as king over you him whom the Lord your God will choose; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner, who is not your brother, over you.
16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the Lord said to you, You shall never return that way.
17 And he shall not multiply wives to himself, that his [mind and] heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
18 And when he sits on his royal throne, he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of what is before the Levitical priests;
19 And he shall keep it with him, and he shall read it in all the days of his life, that he may learn (reverently) to fear the Lord his God, by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them;
20 That his [mind and] heart may not be lifted up above his brethren, and that he may not turn aside from the commandments, to the right hand or to the left; so that he may continue long, he and his sons, in his kingdom in Israel.<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n