King

King

The title is applied to rulers of various degrees of sovereignty. We find it employed to designate the tetrarch Agrippa II. (Act 25:13); Aretas of Arabia (2Co 11:32); Agrippa I., whose territory was co-extensive with that of Herod the Great, and who seems to have received the royal title (Act 12:1); and the Roman Emperor, whom it appears to have been the custom for Greeks and Orientals so to designate (1Ti 2:2, 1Pe 2:13; 1Pe 2:17). An instance of the elasticity of the term is provided in Revelation 17, where the seven kings in Rev 17:10 are Roman Emperors, while the ten kings in Rev 17:12 are vassal kings.

1. Christ as King

(1) The nature of Christs Kingship.-It was made an accusation against St. Paul and Silas at Thessalonica (Act 17:7) that they were guilty of treason, inasmuch as they proclaimed another king, one Jesus. It was the revival of the charge brought against the Master (Luk 23:2). It is true that the Christians did claim Kingship for their Lord, but His Kingdom was not of this world (Joh 18:36). His throne is in heaven, where He is set down with His Father (Rev 3:21). There are various representations of His Kingship in the apostolic writings.

At one time His reign seems to have already begun. This is the thought suggested by the frequently recurring phrase, based on Psa 110:1, sitting at the right hand of God (Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1), which signifies Christs participation in the Divine government. According to this view, Christ enters into His immediately on His Exaltation (B. Weiss, Bib. Theol. of the NT, Eng. translation , ii. [1883] 99), in recognition of His obedience unto death (Rev 3:21, Heb 12:2, Php 2:8 f.). On the literal interpretation of Col 1:13, the Kingdom of the Son is present even now, and believers are already translated into it (so Lightfoot and Haupt, while others interpret the phrase proleptically). Their citizenship is in heaven, whence they look for Christ (Php 3:20). The law they obey is called (Jam 2:8), in virtue of its emanating from the King (Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, p. 265). At limes this heavenly Kingship of Christ is represented as undisturbed by further conflict, and as peaceful sway over the powers which have been brought into subjection. So in 1Pe 3:22 He is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him (cf. Eph 1:20 f.); and in Heb 10:12 f. He is represented as sitting down for ever at the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. According to this view, His work is finished; His present state is one of royal rest, and it remains for God to complete the subjugation of the hostile powers.

But there are other representations of Christs Kingship. The most general view of His in the NT represents it as not already realized, but beginning at the Parousia (so O. Pfleiderer, Paulinism, Eng. translation , 1877, i. 268); and according to the programme sketched by St. Paul in 1Co 15:24 ff., His reign is no peaceful sway, but a ceaseless conflict against the powers of darkness. He must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet (1Co 15:25). The last enemy to be overcome is Death; and when that is accomplished, then cometh the end, when He delivers up the sovereignty to God (1Co 15:24). According to this outline, Christs reign is of the nature of an interregnum, to be terminated (in opposition to the of Heb 10:12) when He resigns the power into the hands of God.

In the later Epistles this programme is not adhered to. In accordance with their more developed Christology, Christ becomes the end of Creation (Col 1:16), and the final consummation is now represented, not as the reign of God, who is to be all in all (1Co 15:28), but as the Kingdom of Christ and God (Eph 5:5), or even of Christ alone (2Ti 4:1), whose Kingdom is an everlasting one (2Pe 1:11), and whose sovereignty is declared to extend to the future aeon (Eph 1:21). Again, in the earlier representation Christs Kingdom is to be established on earth at His Coming, but in the later versions it becomes a heavenly kingdom (2Ti 4:18), corresponding to the kingdom of the Father which St. Paul had expected to succeed the interregnum of the Son.

In Revelation we again meet with the conception of a temporary reign of Christ, its duration being put at 1,000 years (20:4). It is questionable whether that reign is here regarded as one of uninterrupted peace and blessedness, or of continuous conflict against the powers of evil. H. J. Holtzmann (NT Theologie2, 1911, i. 542f.) thinks that the only original contribution made by the author of the Revelation in this picture of the millennium is the representation of the interregnum as a period of peace and rest (Rev 20:2-3; Rev 20:7). On the other hand, F. C. Porter (Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) iv. 262) contends that the 1,000 years reign is part of the last conflict against evil, the reigning and judging of Christ and His saints being the gradual subjugation of the powers of evil, and that there is no suggestion in Rev. that peace and rest characterize the millennium.

(2) Christ and earthly kings.-In the Pauline references to the sovereignty of Christ the hostile forces which He overcomes are not earthly potentates but the angelic principalities and powers, the world-rulers of this darkness (Eph 6:12, 2Co 4:4, Col 1:13). To this corresponds the conflict with Satan in Revelation. But in the latter book there is also frequent representation of Christs sovereignty over earthly potentates. He is Prince of the kings of the earth (Rev 1:5), King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev 17:14, Rev 19:16). Out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and He rules them with a rod of iron (Rev 19:15). The kings of earth who have committed fornication with Babylon (Rev 17:2), and who marshal their armies in support of the Beast (Rev 19:19), are numbered among the enemies whom He has to subdue. Corresponding to this attitude of hostility to Christ on the part of the kings of the earth in Rev. is the spirit of hatred to the Roman Empire which the book breathes, as contrasted with that recommended in the other apostolic writings. St. Paul as a citizen of the Roman Empire recognizes in the higher powers the ordinances of God, and regards subjection to them as a religious duty (Rom 13:1 ff.). St. Peter recommends submission to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, and exhorts to fear God and honour the king (1Pe 2:13; 1Pe 2:17). In 1Ti 2:2 the injunction is given to pray for kings and for all in authority. But in Rev. we find a fierce hatred of Rome and longing for her destruction, She is to the author the throne of the Beast (Rev 16:10), the very incarnation of the sin which Christianity sought to destroy, and his attitude towards the Imperial power is the direct opposite of that taken up by St. Paul.

2. God as King.-There is no power but of God (Rom 13:1), and all kingly authority ultimately proceeds from Him who is King of kings and Lord of lords (1Ti 6:15). Christ has ultimately to deliver up the sovereignty to the Father, being subject to Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all (1Co 15:24-28). In the song of Moses and of the Lamb (Rev 15:3) God is praised as the King of nations, and in 1Ti 1:17 a doxology is sounded to Him as King of the aeons. The phrase may be chosen with reference to the Gnostic series of aeons, and may mean King of the worlds. Others take it as King of the world times, the ruler who decrees what is to happen from age to age; while others render it, as in the Authorized Version , the King eternal.

3. Believers as kings.-In Rev 1:6 the Authorized Version runs: and hath made us kings and priests unto God. This is based on the reading , which must be abandoned for the better-attested . But in Rev 5:10, where the same phrase occurs in the song of the angels concerning the Church (though here again there is a variant , which, however, would render the concluding clause superfluous), there is the further addition: . reads ; and if we accept that reading, then the reference is to the future dominion of believers as represented in Rev 20:4, where they live and reign with Christ 1,000 years. Other references to this future sovereignty are found in Rom 5:17, 2Ti 2:12, and 1Co 6:2 f. (where they judge the world and the very angels). But if be retained, then the standpoint of the author is that already that sovereignty of the saints prophesied in Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27 has begun. The Church, down-trodden and oppressed, is already the dominant power in the world. St. Paul ironically congratulates the Corinthians on the assumption of kingly authority (1Co 4:8). Their vaunting may have been due to a perversion of this doctrine of the present sovereignty of the saints.

Literature.-The various handbooks, on NT Theol.; H. Weinel, Die Stellung des Urchristentums zum Staat, 1908; A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 1908.

G. Wauchope Stewart.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

King

(Heb. and Chald. , me’lek, ruler; ), the most general term for an absolute, independent, and life-long sovereign.

1. Scriptural Applications of the Title. In the Bible the name does not always imply the same degree of power or importance, neither does it indicate the magnitude of the dominion or territory of the national ruler thus designated (Gen 36:31). Many persons are called ” kings” in Scripture whom we should rather denominate chiefs or leaders; and many single towns, or towns with their adjacent villages, are said to have kings. Hence we need not be surprised at seeing that so small a country as Canaan contained thirty-one kings who were conquered (Jos 12:9; Jos 12:24), besides many who no doubt escaped the arms of Joshua. Adonibezek himself, no very powerful king, mentions seventy kings whom he had subdued and mutilated (Jdg 1:7; 1Ki 4:21; 1Ki 20:1; 1Ki 20:16). Even at the present day the heads of Arab tribes are often called ” king,” which in this case also means no more than sheik or chief. In like manner, in the New Test., owing to the peculiar political relations of the Jews, the title “king” has very different significations: (1.) The Roman emperor (1Pe 2:13; 1Pe 2:17); and so the ” seven kings” (Rev 17:10) are perhaps the first seven Casars (comp. Thilo, Apocr. 579).

(2.) Herod Antipas (Mat 14:9; Mar 6:22), although only tetrarch (compare Luk 3:19).

(3.) So also the ten provincial representatives of the Roman government (Rev 17:12), as being supreme within their respective jurisdictions. SEE GOVERNOR, etc.

“King,” in symbolical language, signifies the possessor of supreme power, whether lodged in one or more persons (Pro 8:15-16). It is applied in the Scriptures to God, as the sole proper sovereign and ruler of the universe (1Ti 1:17), and to Christ, the Son of God, the sole head and Governor of his Church (1Ti 6:15-16; Mat 27:11; Luk 19:38; Joh 1:49; Joh 18:33-34); also to men, as invested with regal authority by their fellows (Luk 22:25; 1Ti 2:1-2; 1Pe 2:13-17); so also the people of God are called kings and priests (Psa 49:14; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27; Mat 19:28; Luk 22:29-30; 1Co 6:2-3; 2Ti 2:12; Rev 1:6; Rev 2:26-27; Rev 3:21; Rev 5:10; Rev 22:5). In Job 18:14 it is applied to Death, who is there called the ” king of terrors.” In Job 41:34, leviathan, or the crocodile, is thus designated: “he is a king over all the children of pride.” (See Wemyss’s Symbol. Dict.)

The application, however, of the term “king,” with which we are here particularly concerned, is that of the name of the national ruler of the Hebrews during a period of about 500 years previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, B.C. 588. It was borne first by the ruler of the Twelve Tribes united, and then by the rulers of Judah and Israel separately. SEE KINGS, BOOK OF.

2. Origin of the Hebrew Monarchy. Regal authority was altogether alien to the institutions of Moses in their original and unadulterated form. Their fundamental idea was that Jehovah was the sole king of the nation (1Sa 8:7); to use the emphatic words in Isa 33:22, “the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king.” Although Moses ventured, with his half-civilized hordes, on the bold experiment of founding a society without a king, and in doing so evinced a rare patriotism and self- denial, for without doubt the man who rescued the Jews from bondage and conducted them to the land of Canaan might, had he chosen, have kept the dominion in his own hands, and transmitted a crown to his posterity, yet he well knew what were the elements with which he had to deal in framing institutions for the rescued Israelites. Slaves they had been, and the spirit of slavery was not yet wholly eradicated from their souls. They had witnessed in Egypt the more than ordinary pomp and splendor which environ a throne. Not improbably the prosperity and abundance which they had seen in Egypt, and in which they had been, in a measure, allowed to partake, might have been ascribed by them to the regal form of the Egyptian government. Moses may well, therefore. have apprehended a not very remote departure from the fundamental type of his institutions. Accordingly he makes a special provision for this contingency (Deu 17:14), and labors, by anticipation, to guard against the abuses of royal power. Should a king be demanded by the people, then he was to be a native Israelite; he was not to be drawn away by the love of show, especially by a desire for that regal display in which horses have always borne so large a part, to send down to Egypt, still less to cause the people to return to that land; he was to avoid the corrupting influence of a large harem, so common among Eastern monarchs; he was to abstain from amassing silver and gold; he was to have a copy of the law made expressly for his own study a study which he was never to intermit till the end of his days, so that his heart might not be lifted up above his brethren, that he might not be turned aside from the living God, but, observing the divine statute?, and thus acknowledging himself to be no more than the vicegerent of heaven, he might enjoy happiness, and transmit his authority to his descendants.

The removal of Moses and Joshua- by death soon left the people to the natural results of their own condition and character. Anarchy ensued. Noble minds, indeed, and stout hearts appeared in those who were termed judges; but the state of the country was not so satisfactory as to prevent an unenlightened people, having low and gross affections, from preferring the glare of a crown and the apparent protection of a sceptre to the invisible and, therefore, mostly unrecognised arm of Omnipotence. A king accordingly is requested (1 Samuel 8). The misconduct of Samuel’s sons, who had been made judges, was the immediate cause of the demand being put forth. The request came with authority, for it emanated from all the elders of Israel, who, after holding a formal conference, proceeded to Samuel, in order to make him acquainted with their wish. Samuel was displeased; but, having sought in prayer to learn the divine will, he was instructed to yield to the demand; yet at the same time he was directed to “protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.” Faithfully did the prophet depict the evils which a monarchy would inflict on the people. In vain; they said, “Nay, but we will have a king over us.” Accordingly, Saul, the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, was, by divine direction, selected, and privately anointed by Samuel ” to be captain over God’s inheritance;” thus he was to hold only a delegated and subordinate authority (1 Samuel 9; 1Sa 10:1-16). Under the guidance of Samuel, Saul was subsequently chosen by lot from among the assembled tribes; and though his personal appearance had no influence inl the choice, yet, when he was plainly pointed out to be the individual designed for the sceptre, Samuel called attention to those personal qualities which in less civilized nations have a preponderating influence, and are never without effect, at least, in supporting the physical dignity of a reign (1Sa 10:17-27). (For a fuller discussion of this change in the Hebrew constitution, see Kitto’s Daily Bible Illustrations under the portion of history in question.) SEE SAMUEL.

The special occasion of the substitution of a regal form of government for that of the judges seems to have been the siege of Jabesh-Gilead by Nahash, king of the Ammonites (1Sa 11:1; 1Sa 12:12), and the refusal to allow the inhabitants of that city to capitulate except on humiliating and cruel conditions (1Sa 11:2; 1Sa 11:4-6). The conviction seems to have forced itself on the Israelites that they could not resist their formidable neighbor unless they placed themselves under the sway of a king, like surrounding nations. Concurrently with this conviction, disgust had been excited by the corrupt administration of justice under the sons of Samuel, and a radical change was desired by them in this respect also (1Sa 8:3-5). Accordingly, the original idea of a Hebrew king was twofold: 1st, that he should lead the people to battle in time of war; and, 2dly, that he should execute judgment and justice to them in war and in peace (1Sa 8:20). In both respects the desired end was attained. The righteous wrath and military capacity of Saul were immediately triumphant over the Ammonites; and though ultimately he was defeated and slain in battle with the Philistines, he put even them to flight on more than one occasion (1Sa 14:23; 1Sa 17:52), and generally waged successful war against the surrounding nations (1Sa 14:47). SEE SAUL.

His successor, David, entered on a series of brilliant conquests over the Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, Edomites, and Ammonites; and the Israelites, no longer confined within the narrow bounds of Palestine, had an empire extending from the River Euphrates to Gaza, and from the entering in of Hamath to the river of Egypt (1Ki 4:21). In the meanwhile complaints ceased of the corruption of justice; and Solomon not only consolidated and maintained in peace the empire of his father David, but left an enduring reputation for his wisdom as a judge. Under this expression, however, we must regard him, not merely as pronouncing decisions, primarily or in the last resort, in civil and criminal cases, but likewise as holding public levees and transacting public business “at the gate,” when he would receive petitions, hear complaints, and give summary decisions on various points, which in a modern European kingdom would come under the cognizance of numerous distinct public departments. SEE DAVID; SEE SOLOMON.

3. Functions and Prerogatives. Emanating as the royal power did from the demand of the people and the permission of a prophet, it was not likely to be unlimited in its extent or arbitrary in its exercise. The government of God, indeed, remained, being rather concealed and complicated than disowned, much less superseded. The king ruled not in his own right nor in virtue of the choice of the people, but by concession from on high, and partly as the servant and partly as the representative of the theocracy. How insecure, indeed, was the tenure of the kingly power. how restricted it was in its authority, appears clear from the comparative facility with which the crown was transferred from Saul to David; and the part which the prophet Samuel took il effecting that transference points out the quarter where lay the power which limited, if it did not primarily, at least, control the royal authority. It must, however, be added that, if religion narrowed this authority, it also invested it with a sacredness which could emanate from no other source. Liable as the Israelitish kings were to interference on the part of priest and prophet, they were, by the same divine power, shielded from the unholy hands of the profane vulgar, and it was at once impiety and rebellion to do injury to “the Lord’s anointed” (Psa 2:6-7 sq.). Instances are not wanting to corroborate and extend these general observations.

When Saul was in extremity before the Philistines (1 Samuel 28), he resorted to the usual methods of obtaining counsel: “Saul inquired of the Lord; the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by the prophets.” So David, when in need of advice in war (1Sa 30:7), resorted to Abiathar the priest, who, by means of the ephod, inquired of the Lord, and thereupon urged the king to take a certain course, which proved successful (see also 2Sa 2:1). Sometimes, indeed, as appears from 1 Samuel 28, it was a prophet who acted the part of prime minister, or chief counsellor, to the king, and who, as bearing that sacred character, must have possessed very weighty influence in the royal divan (1Ki 22:7 sq.). We must not, however, expect to find any definite and permanent distribution of power, any legal determination of the royal prerogatives as discriminated from the divine authority; circumstances, as they prompted certain deeds, restricted or enlarged the sphere of the monarch’s action. Thus, in 1Sa 11:4 sq., we find Saul, in an emergency, assuming, without consultation or deliberation, the power of demanding something like a levy en masse, and of proclaiming instant war. With the king lay the administration of justice in the last resort (2Sa 15:2; 1Ki 3:16 sq.). He also possessed the power of life and death (2 Samuel 14). To provide for and superintend the public worship was at once his duty and his highest honor (1 Kings 8; 2Ki 12:4; 2Ki 18:4; 2Ki 23:1). One reason why the people requested a king was that they might have a recognised leader in war (1Sa 8:20). The Mosaic law offered a powerful hindrance to royal despotism (1Sa 10:25). The people also, by means of their elders, formed an express compact, by which they stipulated for their rights (1Ki 12:4), and were from time to time appealed to, generally in cases of ” great pith and moment” (1Ch 29:1; 2Ki 11:17; Josephus, War, ii, 1, 2). Nor did the people fail to interpose their will, where they thought it necessary, in opposition to that of the monarch (1Sa 14:45). The part which Nathan took against David shows how effective, as well as bold, was the check exerted by the prophets; indeed, most of the prophetic history is the history of the noblest opposition ever made to the vices alike of royalty, priesthood, and people. If needful, the prophet hesitated not to demand an audience with the king, nor was he dazzled or deterred by royal power and pomp (1Ki 20:22; 1Ki 20:38; 2Ki 1:15). As, however, the monarch held the sword, the instrument of death was sometimes made to prevail over every restraining influence (1Sa 22:17). SEE PROPHET.

To form a correct idea of a Hebrew king, we must abstract ourselves from the notions of modern Europe, and realize the position of Oriental sovereigns. It would be a mistake to regard the Hebrew government as a limited monarchy, in the English sense of the expression. It is stated in 1Sa 10:25, that Samuel ” told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in the book and laid it before the Lord,” and it is barely possible that this may refer to some statement respecting the boundaries of the kingly power. (The word , literally judgment, translated “manner” in the A. V., is translated in the Sept. ehncaiwa, i.e. statute or ordinance [comp. Sir 4:17; Bar. ii, 12; 4:13]. But Josephus seems to have regarded the document as a prophetical statement, read before the king, of the calamities which were to arise from the kingly power, as a kind of protest recorded for succeeding ages [Ant. 6:4, 6]). But no such document has come down to us; and if it ever existed, and contained restrictions of any moment on the kingly power, it was probably disregarded in practice.

The following passage of sir John Malcolm respecting the shahs. of Persia may, with some slight modifications, be regarded as fairly applicable to the Hebrew monarchy under David and Solomon: ” The monarch of Persia has been pronounced to be one of the most absolute in the world. His word has ever been deemed a law; and he has probably never had any further restraint upon the free exercise of his vast authority than has arisen from his regard for religion, his respect for established usages, his desire for reputation, and his fear of exciting an opposition that might be dangerous to his power or to his life” (Malcolm’s Persia, ii, 303; comp. Elphinstone’s India, bk. 8, ch. 3). It must not, however, be supposed to have been either the understanding or the practice that the sovereign might seize at his discretion the private property of individuals. Ahab did not venture to seize the vineyard of Naboth till, through the testimony of false witnesses, Naboth had been convicted of blasphemy; and possibly his vineyard may have been seized as a confiscation, without flagrantly outraging public sentiment in those who did not know the truth (1Ki 11:6). But no monarchy perhaps ever existed in which it would not be regarded as an outrage that the monarch should from covetousness seize the private property of an innocent subject in no ways dangerous to the state. And generally, when sir John Malcolm proceeds as follows in reference to “one of the most absolute” monarchs in the world, it will be understood that the Hebrew king, whose power might be described in the same way, is not, on account of certain restraints which exist in the nature of things, to be regarded as ” a limited monarch” in the European use of the words. ”

We may assume that the power of the king of Persia is by usage absolute over the property and lives of his conquered enemies, his rebellious subjects, his own family, his ministers, over public officers civil and military, and all the numerous train of domestics, and that he may punish any person of these classes without examination or normal procedure of any kind; in all other cases that are capital, the forms prescribed by law and custom are observed; the monarch only commands, when the evidence has been examined and the law declared, that the sentence shall be put in execution or that the condemned culprit shall be pardoned” (ii, 306). In accordance with such usages, David ordered Uriah to be treacherously exposed to death in the forefront of the hottest battle (2Sa 11:15); he caused Rechab and Baanah to be slain instantly, when they brought him the head of Ishbosheth (2Sa 4:12); and he is represented as having on his death-bed recommended Solomon to put Joab and Shimei to death (1Ki 2:5-9). In like manner, Solomon caused to be killed, without trial, not only his elder brother Adonijah and Joab, whose execution might be regarded as the exceptional acts of a dismal state-policy in the beginning of’ his reign, but likewise Shimei, after having been seated on the throne three years. And king Saul, in resentment at their connivance with David’s escape, put to death 85 priests, and caused a massacre of the inhabitants of Nob, including women, children, and sucklings (1Sa 22:18-19).

Besides being commander-in-chief of the army, supreme judge, and absolute master, as it were, of the lives of his subjects, the king exercised the power of imposing taxes on them, and of exacting- from them personal service and labor. Both these points seem clear from the account given (1Sa 8:11-17) of the evils which would arise from the kingly power, and are confirmed in various ways. Whatever mention may be made of consulting ” old men,” or ” elders of Israel,” we never read of their deciding such points as these. When Pul, the king of Assyria, imposed a tribute on the kingdom of Israel, ” Menahem, the king,” exacted the money of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man 50 shekels of silver (2Ki 15:19). When Jehoiakim, king of Judah, gave his tribute of silver and gold to Pharaoh, he taxed the land to give the money; he exacted the silver and gold of the people, of every one according to his taxation (2Ki 23:35). The degree to which the exaction of personal labor might be carried on a special occasion is illustrated by king Solomon’s requirements for building the Temple. He raised a levy of 30,000 men, and sent them to Lebanon by courses of 10,000 a month; and he had 70,000 that bare burdens, and 80,000 hewers in the mountains (1Ki 5:13-15). Judged by the Oriental standard, there is nothing improbable in these numbers. In our own days, for the purpose of constructing the Mahmudeyeh Canal in Egypt, Mehemet Ali, by orders given to the various sheiks of the provinces of Sakarah, Ghizeh, Mensfirah, Sharkieh, Menuf, Bahyreh, and some others, caused 300,000 men, women, and children to be assembled along the site of the intended canal (see Mrs. Poole’s Englishwoman in Egypt, ii, 219). This was 120,000 more than the levy of Solomon.

In addition to these earthly powers, the king of Israel had a more awful claim to respect and obedience. He was the vicegerent of Jehovah (1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 16:13), and, as it were, His son, if just and holy (2Sa 7:14; Psa 89:26-27; Psa 2:6-7). He had been set apart as a consecrated ruler. Upon his head had been poured the holy anointing oil, composed of olive-oil, myrrh, cinnamon, sweet calamus, and cassia, which had hitherto been reserved exclusively for the priests of Jehovah, especially the high- priest, or had been solely used to anoint the Tabernacle of the Congregation, the Ark of the Testimony, and the vessels of the Tabernacle (Exo 30:23-33; Exo 40:9; Lev 21:10; 1Ki 1:39). He had become, in fact, emphatically ” the Lord’s anointed.” At the coronation of sovereigns in modern Europe, holy oil has frequently been used as a symbol of divine right; but this has been mainly regarded as a mere form, and the use of it was undoubtedly introduced in imitation of the Hebrew custom. But, from the beginning to the end of the Hebrew monarchy, a living real significance was attached to consecration by this holy anointing oil. From well-known anecdotes related of David-and, perhaps, from words in his lamentation over Saul and Jonathan (2Sa 1:21)-it results that a certain sacredness invested the person of Saul, the first king, as the Lord’s anointed; and that, on this account, it was deemed sacrilegious to kill him, even at his own request (1Sa 24:6; 1Sa 24:10; 1Sa 26:9; 1Sa 26:16; 2 Samuel i, 14). After the destruction of the first Temple, in the Book of Lamentations over the calamities of the Hebrew people, it is by the name of ” the Lord’s Anointed” that Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, is bewailed (Lamentaions 4:20). Again, more than 600 years after the capture of Zedekiah, the name of the Anointed, though never so used in thee Old Testament-yet suggested, probably, by Psa 2:2; Dan 9:26 -had become appropriated to the expected king, who was to restore the kingdom of David, and inaugurate a period when Edom, Moab, the Ammonites, and the Philistines would again be incorporated with the Hebrew monarchy, which would extend from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea and to the ends of the earth (Act 1:6; Joh 1:41; Joh 4:25; Isa 11:12-14; Psa 72:8). Thus the identical Hebrew word which signifies anointed, through its Aramaic form adopted into Greek and Latin, is still preserved to us in the English word Messiah. (See Gesenius’s Thesaurus, p. 825.) See 4, below.

4. Appointment and Inauguration. The law of succession to the throne is somewhat obscure, but it seems most probable that the king during his lifetime named his successor. This was certainly the case with David, who passed over his elder son Adonijah, the son of Haggith, in favor of Solomon, the son of Bathsheba (1Ki 1:30; 1Ki 2:22); and with Rehoboam, of whom it is said that he loved Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, above all his wives and concubines, and that he made Abijah her son to be ruler among his brethren, to make him king (2Ch 11:21-22). The succession of the firstborn has been inferred from a passage in 2Ch 21:3-4, in which Jehoshaphat is said to have given the kingdom to Jehoram “because he was the first-born.” But this very passage tends to show that Jehoshaphat had the power of naming his successor; and it is worthy of note that Jehoram, on his coming to the throne, put to death all his brothers, which he would scarcely, perhaps, have done if the succession of the first-born had been the law of the land. From the conciseness of the narratives in the books of Kings no inference either way can be drawn from the ordinary formula in which the death of the father and succession of his son is recorded (1Ki 15:8). At the same time, if no partiality for a favorite wife or son intervened, there would always be a natural bias of affection in favor of the eldest son. There appears to have been some prominence given to the mother of the king (2Ki 24:12; 2Ki 24:15; 1 Kings ii, 19), and it is possible that the mother may have been regent during the minority of a son. Indeed, some such custom best explains the possibility of the audacious usurpation of Athaliah on the death of her son Ahaziah: a usurpation which lasted six years after the destruction of all the seed-royal except the young Jehoash (2Ki 11:1-3). The people, too, and even foreign powers, at a later period interrupted the regular transmission of royal authority (2Ki 21:24; 2Ki 23:24; 2Ki 23:30; 2Ki 24:17). SEE HEIR.

It is supposed both by Jahn (Bib. Archceol. 222) and Bauer (in his Heb. Alterthiimer, 20) that a king was only anointed when a new family came to the throne, or when the right to the crown was disputed. It is usually on such occasions only that the anointing is specified, as in 1Sa 10:1; 2Sa 2:4; 1Ki 1:39; 2Ki 9:3; 2Ki 11:12; but this is not invariably the case (see 2Ki 23:30), and there does not appear sufficient reason to doubt that each individual king was anointed. There can be little doubt, likewise, that the kings of Israel were anointed, though this is not specified by the writers of Kings and Chronicles, who would deem such anointing invalid. The ceremony of anointing, which was observed at least in the case of Saul, David, and Solomon (1Sa 9:14; 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 15:1; 1Sa 16:12; 2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 5:1; 1Ki 1:34; 1Kings 39:5), and in which the prophet or high-priest who performed the rite acted as the representative of the theocracy and the expounder of the will of heaven, must have given to the spiritual power very considerable influence; and both this particular and the very nature of the observance direct the mind to Egypt, where the same custom prevailed, and where the power of the priestly caste was immense (Wilkinson’s Anc. Egypt. 5:279). Indeed, the ceremony seems to have been essential to constitute a legitimate monarch (2Ki 11:12; 2Ki 23:30); and thus the authorities of the Jewish Church held in their hands, and had subject to their will, a most important power, which they could use either for their own purposes or the common good. In consequence of the general observance of this ceremony, the term ” anointed,” ” the Lord’s anointed” (1Sa 2:10; 1Sa 16:6; 1Sa 24:6; 2Sa 19:21; Psa 2:2; Lam 4:20), came to be employed in rhetorical and poetical diction as equivalent in meaning to the designation “king.” SEE ANOINTING.

We have seen in the case of Saul that personal and even external qualities had their influence in procuring ready obedience to a sovereign; and further evidence to the same effect may be found in Psa 45:3; Eze 28:12 : such qualities would naturally excite the enthusiasm of the people, who appear to have manifested their approval by acclamations (1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:25; 2Ki 9:13; 2Ki 11:13; 2Ch 23:11; see also Josephus, War, i, 33, 9).

5. Court and Revenues.-The following is a list of some of the officers of the king:

1. The recorder or chronicler, who was perhaps analogous to the historiographer whom sir John Malcolm mentions as an officer of the Persian court, whose duty it is to write the annals of the king’s reign (Hist. of Persia, c. 23). Certain it is that there is no regular series of minute dates in Hebrew history until we read of this recorder, or remembrancer, as the word mazkir is translated in a marginal note of the English version. It signifies one who keeps the memory of events alive, in accordance with a motive assigned by Herodotus for writing his history, viz. that the acts of men might not become extinct by time (Herod. i, 1; 2Sa 8:16; 1Ki 4:3; 2Ki 18:18; Isa 36:3; Isa 36:22). SEE RECORDER.

2. The scribe or secretary, whose duty would be to answer letters or petitions in the name of the king, to write dispatches, and to draw up edicts (2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 20:25; 2Ki 12:10; 2Ki 19:2; 2Ki 22:8). SEE SCRIBE.

3. The officer who was over the house (Isa 32:15; Isa 36:3). His duties would be those of chief steward of the household, and would embrace all the internal economical arrangements of the palace, the superintendence of the king’s servants, and the custody of his costly vessels of gold and silver. He seems to have worn a distinctive robe of office and girdle. It was against Shebna, who held this office, that Isaiah uttered his personal prophecy (xxii, 15-25), the only instance of the kind in his writings (see Gesen. Jesa. i, 694). SEE STEWARD.

4. The king’s friend (1Ki 4:5), called likewise the king’s companion. It is evident from the name that this officer must have stood in confidential relation to the king, but his duties are nowhere specified.

5. The keeper of the vestry or wardrobe (2Ki 10:22).

6. The captain of the body-guard (2Sa 20:23). The importance of this officer requires no comment. It was he who obeyed Solomon in putting to death Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei (1Ki 2:25; 1Ki 2:34; 1Ki 2:46).

7. Distinct officers over the king’s treasures-his storehouses, laborers, vineyards, olive-trees, and sycamore-trees, herds, camels, and flocks (1Ch 27:25-31).

8. The officer over all the host or army of Israel, the commander-in- chief of the army, who commanded it in person during the king’s absence (2Sa 20:23; 1Ch 27:34; 2Sa 11:1). As an instance of the formidable power which a general might acquire in this office, see the narrative in 2Sa 3:30-37, when David deemed himself obliged to tolerate the murder of Abner by Joab and Abishai. 9. The royal counsellor (1Ch 27:32; Isa 3:3; Isa 19:11; Isa 19:13). Ahithophel is a specimen of how much such an officer might effect for evil or for good; but whether there existed under Hebrew kings any body corresponding, even distantly, to the English Privy Council in former times, does not appear (2Sa 16:20-23; 2Sa 17:1-14).

The following is a statement of the sources of the royal income:

1. The royal demesnes, corn-fields, vineyards, and olive-gardens. Some at least of these seem to have been taken from private individuals, but whether as the punishment of rebellion, or on any other plausible pretext, is not specified (1Sa 8:14; 1Ch 27:26-28).

2. The produce of the royal flocks (1Sa 21:7; 2Sa 13:23; 2Ch 26:10; 1Ch 27:25).

3. A nominal tenth of the produce of corn-land and vineyards, and of sheep (1Sa 8:15; 1Sa 8:17).

4. A tribute from merchants who passed through the Hebrew territory (11 Kings 10:14). 5. Presents made by his subjects (1Sa 10:27; 1Sa 16:20; 1Ki 10:25; Psa 72:10). There is, perhaps, no greater distinction in the usages of Eastern and Western nations than in what relates to the giving and receiving of presents. When made regularly, they do, in fact, amount to a regular tax. Thus, in the passage last referred to in the book of Kings, it is stated that they brought to Solomon ‘ every man his present, vessels of silver and vessels of gold, and garments, and armor, and spices, horses and mules, a rate year by year.”

6. In the time of Solomon, the king had trading vessels of his own at sea, which, starting from Eziongeber, brought back once in three years gold and silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks (1Ki 10:22). It is probable that Solomon and some other kings may have derived some revenue from commercial ventures (1Ki 9:28).

7. The spoils of war taken from conquered nations and the tribute paid by them (2Sa 8:2; 2Sa 8:7-8; 2Sa 8:10; 1Ki 4:21; 2Ch 27:5). 8. Lastly, an undefined power of exacting compulsory labor, to which reference has already been made (1Sa 8:12-13; 1Sa 8:16). As far as this power was exercised it was equivalent to so much income. There is nothing in 1Sa 10:25, or in 2Sa 5:3, to justify the statement that the Hebrews defined in express terms, or in any terms, by a particular agreement or covenant for that purpose, what services should be rendered to the king, or what he could legally require. SEE SOLOMON.

6. Usages. A ruler in whom so much authority, human and divine, was embodied, was naturally distinguished by outward honors and luxuries. He had a court of Oriental magnificence. When the power of the kingdom was at its height, he sat on a throne of ivory, covered with pure gold, at the feet of which were two figures of lions, with others on the steps approaching the throne. The king was dressed in royal robes (1Ki 22:10; 2Ch 18:9); his insignia were a crown or diadem of pure gold, or perhaps radiant with precious stones (2Sa 1:10; 2Sa 12:30; 2Ki 11:12; Psa 21:3), and a royal sceptre (Eze 19:11; Isa 14:5; Psa 45:6; Amo 1:5; Amo 1:8). Those who approached him did him obeisance, bowing down and touching the ground with their foreheads (1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 19:24); and this was done even by a king’s wife, the mother of Solomon (1Ki 1:16). His officers and subjects called themselves his servants or slaves, though they do not seem habitually to have given way to such extravagant salutations as in the Chaldaean and Persian courts (1Sa 17:32; 1Sa 17:34; 1Sa 17:36; 1Sa 20:8; 2Sa 6:20; Dan 2:4). As in the East at present, a kiss was a sign of respect and homage (1Sa 10:1; perhaps Psa 2:12). He lived in a splendid palace, with porches and columns (1Ki 7:2-7). All his drinking- vessels were of gold (1Ki 10:21).

At his accession, in addition to the anointing mentioned above, jubilant music formed a part of the popular rejoicings (1Ki 1:40); thank- offerings were made (1Ki 1:25); the new sovereign rode in solemn procession on the royal mule of his predecessor (1Ki 1:38), and took possession of the royal harem-an act which seems to have been scarcely less essential than other observances which appear to us to wear a higher character (1Ki 2:13; 1Ki 2:22; 2Sa 16:22). A numerous harem, indeed, was among the most highly estimated of the royal luxuries (2Sa 5:13; 1Ki 11:1; 1Ki 20:3). It was under the supervision and control of eunuchs, and passed from one monarch to another as a part of the crown property (2Sa 12:8). The law (Deu 17:17), foreseeing evils such as that by which Solomon, in his later years, was turned away from his fidelity to God, had strictly forbidden many wives; but Eastern passions and usages were too strong for a mere written prohibition, and a corrupted religion became a pander to royal lust, interpreting the divine command as sanctioning eighteen as the minimum of wives and concubines.

Deriving their power originally from the wishes of the people, and being one of the same race, the Hebrew kings were naturally less despotic than other Oriental sovereigns, mingled more with their subjects, and were by no means difficult of access (2Sa 19:8; 1Ki 20:39; Jer 38:7; 1Ki 3:16; 2Ki 6:26; 2Ki 8:3). After death the monarchs were interred in the royal cemetery in Jerusalem: ” So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David” (1Ki 2:10; 1Ki 11:43; 1Ki 14:31). But bad kings were excluded “from the sepulchres of the kings of Israel” (2Ch 28:27).

See Schickard, Jus Regium Hebrceor. (Tilbing. 1621); Carpzov, Apopar. Crit. p. 52; Michaelis, Mos. Recht. i, 298; Otho, Lex. Rabbin. p. 575; Hess, Gesch. d. K. Juda uud Israels (Ziir. 1787); Houtuyn, Monarchia Hebrceorum (Leyd. 1685); Newman, Hebrew Monarchy (Lond. 1847, 1853); Pastoret, Legislation des lebreux (Paris, 1817); Salvador, Hist. des Institutiones de Moise (Paris, 1828); Hullmann, Staatsverfassung der Israeliten (Lpz. 1834); Maurice, Kings and Prophets of the O.T. (Lond. 1852, Bost. 1858); Brit. and For. Evang. Review, April, 1801. SEE MONARCHY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

King (2)

is the name of the five canonical works of the followers of Confucius. SEE CONFUCIUS.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

King

is in Scripture very generally used to denote one invested with authority, whether extensive or limited. There were thirty-one kings in Canaan (Josh. 12:9, 24), whom Joshua subdued. Adonibezek subdued seventy kings (Judg. 1:7). In the New Testament the Roman emperor is spoken of as a king (1 Pet. 2:13, 17); and Herod Antipas, who was only a tetrarch, is also called a king (Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:22).

This title is applied to God (1 Tim. 1:17), and to Christ, the Son of God (1 Tim. 6:15, 16; Matt. 27:11). The people of God are also called “kings” (Dan. 7:22, 27; Matt. 19:28; Rev. 1:6, etc.). Death is called the “king of terrors” (Job 18:14).

Jehovah was the sole King of the Jewish nation (1 Sam. 8:7; Isa. 33:22). But there came a time in the history of that people when a king was demanded, that they might be like other nations (1 Sam. 8:5). The prophet Samuel remonstrated with them, but the people cried out, “Nay, but we will have a king over us.” The misconduct of Samuel’s sons was the immediate cause of this demand.

The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah, the true King of Israel (1 Sam. 10:1). The limits of the king’s power were prescribed (1 Sam. 10:25). The officers of his court were, (1) the recorder or remembrancer (2 Sam. 8:16; 1 Kings 4:3); (2) the scribe (2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25); (3) the officer over the house, the chief steward (Isa. 22:15); (4) the “king’s friend,” a confidential companion (1 Kings 4:5); (5) the keeper of the wardrobe (2 Kings 22:14); (6) captain of the bodyguard (2 Sam. 20:23); (7) officers over the king’s treasures, etc. (1 Chr. 27:25-31); (8) commander-in-chief of the army (1 Chr. 27:34); (9) the royal counsellor (1 Chr. 27:32; 2 Sam. 16:20-23).

(For catalogue of kings of Israel and Judah See chronological table in Appendix.)

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

King

Moses (Deu 17:14-17) contemplated the contingency of a king being set up in Israel as in all the adjoining nations. The theocracy and the law could be maintained under kings as under a commonwealth. God’s promise was,” kings of people shall be of Sarah” (Gen 17:16). Other allusions to kings to come occur (Gen 36:31; Num 24:17; Deu 28:36). The request of the people (1Sa 8:5, etc.), “make us a king to judge us like all the nations,” evidently is molded after Deu 17:14; so Samuel’s language in presenting Saul to the people (1Sa 10:24) as “him whom the Lord hath chosen” alludes to Moses’ direction (Deu 17:15), “thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose.” It was not the mere desire for a king which is blamed, but the spirit of their request and the circumstances under which they made it.

They set aside Samuel, though appointed by the heavenly King, on the pretext “behold thou art old,” though he took a leading part in state affairs for 35 years afterward (1Sa 8:5), “they have not rejected thee but … Me that I should not reign over them”; they distrusted God’s power and will to save them from Nahash (1Sa 12:12), though He had delivered them from the Philistines (1 Samuel 7). Samuel’s sons were corrupt, but that did not warrant their desire to set aside himself, whom none could accuse of corruption (1 Samuel 12). Impatience of God’s yoke (the laws of the theocracy), eagerness to imitate the nations around, and unbelief in trial, instead of seeking for the cause of their misfortunes in themselves, were the sin of their request. God in retribution “gave them a king in His anger” (Hos 13:10-11).

Samuel by God’s direction warned them of the evil results of their desire, the prerogative to dispose of their property and their children at will, which he would claim; yet they refused to obey: “nay, but we will have a king, that we also may be like all the nations, and that the king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” The sacred record of Solomon’s multiplying horses and chariots from Egypt, and foreign wives who turned away his heart, alludes to the prohibition (Deu 17:16-17; compare Deu 7:3-4; Exo 34:16), and proceeds to verify the prediction of the results of disobedience to it. God saves not by horses and horsemen, but by the Lord His people’s God (Hos 1:7). Moses’ caution against “returning to Egypt” accords with his experience (Num 14:4). After the kingdom was set up in Israel the danger was no longer of a literal (but see Jer 42:14) but of a spiritual backsliding return to Egypt (Hos 11:5; Isa 30:1-2; Isa 36:9; Eze 17:15).

Solomon’s multiplication of horses and chariots from Egypt entailed constant traffic with that idolatrous nation, which the prohibition, Deu 17:16, was designed to prevent. The king when set up, as the judge previously, was but God’s viceroy, enjoying only a delegated authority. The high priest, priests, and Levites, as God’s ministers, were magistrates as well as religious officers. Saul was elected by the divine oracle from an obscure family, so that all saw his authority was held solely at God’s pleasure. The king had the executive power under God; God reserved to Himself the executive. The words “Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King,” embody the theocracy (Isa 33:22). The land itself was His (Lev 25:23-42; Lev 25:55); and the people, as His servants, could not be permanently bondservants to men.

The king was closely connected with the priesthood, and was bound to “write (i.e. have written for him) a copy of the law out of that before the priests and Levites; he should read therein all his life, to keep all the words, that his heart might not be lifted up above his brethren, to the end that he might prolong his days in his kingdom” (Deu 17:18-20). Instead of being, like Eastern kings, of a distinct royal caste, he was simply to be first among equals, like his subjects bound by the fundamental law of the nation (compare Mat 23:9). None of the Israelite kings usurped the right to legislate. The people chose their king, but only in accordance with God’s “choice” and from their “brethren” (1Sa 9:15; 1Sa 10:24; 1Sa 16:12; 1Ki 19:16; 1Ch 22:10). The rule (“one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee,” Deu 17:15) that no stronger should reign gives point to the question (See JESUS CHRIST), Mat 22:17, “is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar?” (Jer 30:21).

The unlimited polygamy of Eastern kings was forbidden. Samuel wrote down “the manner of the kingdom” (1Sa 10:25), i.e. the rights and duties of the king in relation to Jehovah the supreme King, and to the nation. Despotic murders were committed as that of the 85 priests at Nob, besides the other inhabitants, by Saul (1Sa 22:18-19); but mostly the kings observed forms of law. Even Ahab did not seize at once Naboth’s vineyard, but did it with the show of a trial. David slew Rechab and Baanah because they were self convicted of Ishbosheth’s murder. The king was commander in chief, supreme judge, and imposer of taxes (Menahem, 2Ki 15:19-20; Jehoiakim, 2Ki 23:35) and levies of men (1Ki 5:13-15). He was “the Lord’s anointed,” consecrated with the holy oil heretofore reserved for the priests (Exo 30:23-33; 1Ki 1:39; 2Sa 7:14; Psa 89:19-20; Psa 89:26-27; Psa 2:2; Psa 2:6-7). It was sacrilegious to kill him, even at his own request (1Sa 24:5-6; 1Sa 24:10; 1Sa 26:9; 1Sa 26:16; 2Sa 1:14; Lam 4:20).

Type of Messiah (Dan 9:26). The prophets were his advisers, reprovers (2 Samuel 12, 1 Kings 21) and intercessors with God (1Ki 12:21-24; Isa 37:22-36; Jer 37:17; Jer 38:2; Jer 38:4; Jer 38:14-26). He was bound to consult God by the Urim and Thummim of the high priest in every important step (1Sa 14:18-19; 1Sa 28:6; 2Sa 2:1; 2Sa 5:19; 2Sa 5:23). He held office on condition of loyalty to his supreme Lord. Saul, failing herein, forfeited his throne; he usurped the place of God’s will: “we inquired not at the ark in the days of Saul” (1Ch 13:3). David, on the contrary, could not bear that God’s throne, the ark, should lie neglected while his throne was so elevated, and he stripped off his royal robe for the linen ephod to do homage before the symbol of God’s throne (2Sa 6:14).

The king selected his successor, under God’s direction, as David chose Solomon before the elder son Adonijah (1Ki 1:30; 1Ki 2:22; 2Sa 12:24-25); compare 2Ch 11:21-22, Rehoboam, Abijah; the firstborn was usually appointed (2Ch 21:3-4). The queen mother was regent during a son’s minority, and always held a high position of power at court (1Ki 2:19; 2Ki 24:12; 2Ki 24:15; 2Ki 11:1-3; Athaliah). His chief officers were the recorder, who wrote annals of his reign (2Sa 8:16); the scribe or secretary wrote dispatches and conducted his correspondence (2Sa 8:17); the officer over the house, arrayed in a distinctive robe of office and girdle (Isa 22:15, etc., Isa 36:3); the king’s friend or companion (1Ki 4:5); the captain of the body guard (2Sa 20:23; 1Ki 2:25; 1Ki 2:34; 1Ki 2:46), who was also chief executioner; the commander in chief under the king (2Sa 3:30-39; 2Sa 20:23); his counselor (2Sa 216:20-23; 2Sa 217:1-14; 1Ch 27:32). Besides demesnes, flocks, tenths (1Sa 8:15), levies, he enjoyed a large revenue by “presents,” which virtually became a regular tax.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

KING

As the sovereign ruler of the universe, God is the all-powerful and glorious king who reigns for ever and rules over all (Psa 10:16; Psa 24:8; Psa 24:10; Psa 95:3; Psa 103:19; Jer 51:57 : Dan 4:17; 1Ti 1:17; Rev 15:3). In particular he is king to his people, who live under his absolute lordship (Psa 98:6; Mal 1:14). This was well illustrated in the covenant that God made with Israel at Mt Sinai. In response to Gods sovereign act of graciously taking Israel to be his people, the Israelites promised to live in obedience to all his commands (Exo 19:5-6; Exo 24:3).

During the period of the Old Testament, Israels national life functioned under various kinds of government the absolute leadership of Moses (Num 12:6-8), a federation of self-governing tribes (Jos 24:1), a united monarchy (1Sa 11:15), a divided monarchy (1Ki 12:17-20; 1Ki 15:1) and a governorship controlled by a foreign overlord (Neh 5:14). However, the people were to regard God as their king, regardless of the kind of government they lived under. The New Testament teaches that the same principle applies to Christians, who in different countries and eras may live under different kinds of governments (Luk 20:25; 1Pe 2:13-17; see GOVERNMENT).

Establishment of Israels monarchy

In the early days of Israels settlement in Canaan, there was no monarchy and no central government. The various tribes looked after their own affairs (Jdg 21:25). During this period, the people of Israel were repeatedly unfaithful and disobedient to God, and this brought Gods judgment upon them in the form of repeated invasions from hostile neighbours (Jdg 2:13-19). In their search for greater national stability, the people decided to follow the pattern of neighbouring nations and appoint a king who would rule over the whole nation through a central government (1Sa 8:4).

This desire for a king was really a rejection of God not in the sense that an Israelite monarch replaced God as the leader of the government, but in the sense that the people tried to solve their problems without submitting to God. Their troubles arose from their sins, not from their system of government. Therefore, the way to overcome those troubles was to turn from their sins to God. Instead they chose to ignore God and to try to solve their problems by changing the political system. They did not want a way of life where their well-being depended on their spiritual relationship with God (1Sa 8:7-8).

Samuel warned that having a king would not improve matters if the people remained disobedient. In the days before they had a king they had been punished for disobedience, and under a king they would be punished just the same (1Sa 12:9-15).

Characteristics of the kings

During the period before the setting up of the monarchy, God had rescued Israel from foreign oppression by raising up deliverers (called judges) in response to the peoples repentance. Through the power of Gods Spirit, these leaders carried out Gods judgment on the oppressors and restored Israels independence (Jdg 2:16-19; Jdg 3:10; Jdg 6:34; Jdg 11:29; Jdg 13:25). This sort of activity continued into the reign of Israels first king, Saul (1Sa 10:6; 1Sa 10:10; 1Sa 11:6), but the next king, David, was the last of the Spirit-gifted leaders (1Sa 16:13-14). David established the sort of dynasty that the people had looked for. They wanted a system where the throne would pass on automatically from the king to his son, generation after generation. Such a system had no need of Gods provision of specially gifted people.

From what they had seen in the nations round about, the Israelites knew that kings could be oppressive because of their desire for personal power and wealth. But when Samuel warned them of this, they ignored him (1Sa 8:9-20).

Centuries earlier, Moses had anticipated this desire for an Israelite king. He therefore gave specific instructions to prevent Israelite kings from following the pattern of other kings, who built for themselves military glory, large harems and excessive wealth (Deu 17:14-17). Above all, the Israelite king was to have a personal copy of Gods law and study it carefully, so that he might govern Israel justly and righteously according to Gods standards (Deu 17:18-20; cf. 2Sa 23:3-7; Psalms 101).

The history of the Israelite monarchy records the development of the sorts of problems that Moses and Samuel had expected. Only by taxing the people heavily could many of the kings support their large royal households, finance their extravagant building programs and pay foreign overlords to support their throne (1Ki 4:1-7; 1Ki 5:13-17; 1Ki 12:4; 2Ki 15:20; 2Ki 23:35). Some kings brought justice and peace to the people, but others were cruel and corrupt (1Ki 21:1-14; 2Ki 18:1-6; 2Ki 21:16; 2Ch 17:3-4; 2Ch 17:9; Jer 22:13-17). The entire period of the monarchy was marked by a striking mixture of obedience and disobedience to the instructions set out in the law of Moses (Deu 17:14-20; cf. 1Ki 3:9; 1Ki 3:28; 1Ki 10:14-22; 1Ki 10:26; 1Ki 11:1-7; 2Ki 11:12; 2Ki 22:11-13; 2Ch 19:4-11).

Repeated disobedience among the kings was one reason for the nations decline and fall. In the end the nation was conquered, the people taken into captivity, and the monarchy brought to an end (2Ki 17:21-23; 2Ki 21:10-15; 2Ki 23:26-27).

The ideal king

With the increasing disorder that characterized Israelite life during the period of the monarchy, people looked back to the time of David as the nearest Israel had ever been to having an ideal king (Psa 89:20-21; Act 13:22). Each king of the dynasty of David was, in a sense, Gods son, because through him God exercised his rule. The coronation ceremony was the occasion when God formally adopted the king and anointed him for the task of ruling his people (2Sa 7:14-16; Psa 2:7; Psa 20:6; Psa 45:7; Psa 89:3-4; Psa 89:26-29).

In spite of the failure of their kings and the termination of the monarchy, the Israelite people still hoped for the day when the dynasty of David would be restored to power. They looked for one who would be the ideal king, the great descendant of David whom they called the Lords anointed one, or, in the Hebrew language, the Messiah (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5; Eze 34:23-24; Eze 37:24; see MESSIAH). In contrast to the kings of a former era, this king would rule with perfect wisdom, power, love and justice (Isa 9:6-7; Isa 11:2-5; Jer 33:15).

Jesus Christ was this promised king (Mat 2:2; Mat 21:5; Mat 21:9). However, he was not the sort of king many of the Jews expected; for his chief concern was not with bringing in a political golden age, but with bringing sinful people to submit to the rule of God in their lives. His kingdom was not concerned with national glory; it was a kingdom of a different kind from the political kingdoms of the world (Joh 6:15; Joh 12:13-16; Joh 18:33-37; see KINGDOM OF GOD). Unrepentant sinners did not want a king whose concern was for such a kingdom, and in the end they had him crucified (Mat 27:29; Mat 27:37; Mat 27:42; Joh 19:15; Joh 19:19; cf. Luk 19:14).

Through the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, God showed that Jesus Christ was indeed his chosen king, and the early preachers enthusiastically proclaimed his kingship and his kingdom (Act 2:36; Act 4:26-27; Act 5:31; Act 8:12; Act 17:7; Act 19:8; Act 28:23; Act 28:31; Php 2:9-11). This kingship will be displayed openly on the day when Jesus Christ returns in glory as King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev 17:14; Rev 19:15-16; cf. Mat 25:31; Mat 25:34; Mat 25:40).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

King

KING.The primitive Christian Church regarded herself as the vassal of Jesus Christ, her exalted Lord and King, under whose regal sway she had been brought by Divine grace (Col 1:13). The current belief was that Jesus had been installed in His royal office by the Resurrection; in that event God had made Him both Lord and Christ (Act 2:36), and in it had been fulfilled the prophecy regarding the Messianic King, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee (Psa 2:7, cf. Act 13:33), as also another prophetic utterance, Sit thou at my right hand (Psa 110:1; cf. Act 2:34, Rev 3:21). This sovereignty is indeed temporary; it will come to an end with the final overthrow of the enemies of God: Then shall he deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father (1Co 15:24; 1Co 15:28). It was the conviction of the primitive community that the idea of a Messianic kingdom upon earthwhether eternal (Luk 1:33) or of limited duration (Rev 20:4 ff.)as it gleams through the Jewish Apocalyptic and in the earlier Messianic hope, had at last been realized in the Kingdom of Christ, i.e., the Church as subject to her exalted King.

Now the question which we seek to answer in the present article is this:Did Jesus Himself in His lifetime put forward a claim to be the Messianic King? Here we light upon a problem which is vigorously canvassed among theologians, particularly at the present day. While there are scholars of high repute, such as Wellhausen and Wrede,* [Note: Wellhausen, IJG3, Comm. zu den Synopt. Evangelien, Einleit. in die drei ersten Evangelien (1905), 89 ff.; Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in der Evangelien, 1901.] who deny that Jesus thought of Himself as the Messiah at all, there are others who are convinced that He was in possession of some kind of Messianic consciousness; and among the latter the controversy turns upon the peculiar significance and the specific colouring of the implied claims and expectations. It is impossible in the space at our disposal to discuss the problem in all its bearings; for the details reference must be made to other works of the present writer. [Note: Die Schriften des NT, i. i. 135 f., 198 ff., 476 ff.] The task of determining the sense in which Jesus assumed the title of King is all that meanwhile concerns us.

The prophecy regarding Jesus uttered by the angel Gabriel: The Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end (Luk 1:32 f.), was not brought to fulfilment in the lifetime of Jesus. But the writer of the Gospel of the Infancy in Lk. would hardly have recorded the prediction, had he not entertained the hope that its fulfilment was but a matter of time. It is beyond question that the earliest Jewish Christian communities believed that Jesus would come again in kingly glory, as is acknowledged by the repentant thief upon the cross (Luk 23:42, reading as preferable to ). This belief appears also in the emphasis which the early churches laid upon the descent of Jesus from David (Rom 1:3), and in the endeavours which were made to substantiate it by the construction of genealogical tables (Mat 1:1-16, Luk 3:23-36). These tables were not constructed for merely academic or theological purposes; they were designed to support the contention with which the Jewish Christians confronted their unbelieving compatriots, viz. that Jesus was the King of Israel. It is true, indeed, that in the primitive tradition of the life of Jesus, His Kingship is not explicitly asserted. The acclamations of the multitude on the occasion of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, Hosanna to the son of David (Mat 21:9), Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David (Mar 11:10), cannot have been more than a bold anticipation of the future. The crown of thorns (15:17) was an act of derision, to the true significance of which the soldiers were blind; while the inscription on the cross (15:26) was a prediction which Pilate, in opposition to the wishes of the Jews and in ignorance of what he was doing (Joh 19:19 f.), was constrained to set forth in all the great languages of the world. In point of fact the primitive tradition makes it perfectly clear that Jesus deprecated and even disclaimed the ascription of royalty, or at all events that He thought of the dignity as something to become His only in the future.

To the question of Pilate, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answers, according to Mar 15:2, neither yea nor nay, but replies only in the words Thou sayest it. Is this an affirmative? St. Mark certainly regarded it as such (cf. 14:62), but St. Luke shows unmistakably that the words were not so understood by Pilate, since, if he had regarded them as equivalent to yea, be could not have said, I find no fault in this man (23:4): a claimant to the throne must necessarily have been convicted of sedition. St. John also indicates that Jesus at first replied evasively to the question (18:33f.), but that afterwards He frankly avowed His claim to the title of King, though with the reservation that His Kingdom was not of this world (18:36). Even more clearly than in the Synoptists we see in St. Johns account a definite purpose: he aims at showing that Jesus was no political usurper, no pretender to the crown, who designed by force of arms to deliver His people from the thraldom of Rome, and to reinstall the dynasty of David. Notwithstanding the obvious tendency of the writer of the Fourth Gospel, we must grant that in this instance his narrative, equally with those of the earlier Evangelists, is essentially faithful to fact.

That Jesus harboured no design of restoring the Davidic monarchy may be asserted without misgiving. To the policy of the violent, who would take the Kingdom by force (Mat 11:12), He lent no countenance, and when, after the feeding of the multitude, they wanted to make Him a King, he betook Himself elsewhere (Joh 6:15). We shall be asked, however, if He did not, on the occasion of His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, carefully organize and carry through a demonstration designed to further His royal claims. In answer to this it is to be said that St. Marks account of the episode (11:1f.) cannot be taken as historical; and we must either accept the narrative of Jn. (12:12ff.), according to which the demonstration emanated from His supporters among the people and was only permitted by Him, and which weakens the impression of the incident by its quotation from Zec 9:9;* [Note: cit. i. i. 163.] or else we must abandon the hope of winning from the event any light for our theme at all. Had the Triumphal Entry been of such capital importance and of such a striking character as St. Mark represents, the authorities would certainly have intervened, and the matter would have figured in the trial of Jesus as a count in the indictment [but see Entry into Jerusalem].

In the discourses of Jesus we find telling arguments, both positive and negative, in favour of the view that He either made no claim whatever to the title of Messianic King, or that He did so in a most unobtrusive way. To His descent from David, if He gave it credence at all, He did not attach the slightest importance; indeed, He even sought to convince the scribes that in regarding the coming Messiah as the Son of David they fell far short of the truth. To all appearance He desired to eradicate from the minds of His hearers the prevailing idea of a Davidic ruler, and to substitute for it another Messianic figure, viz. the Son of Man, the Man who, as Daniel (7:13f.) had prophesied, was to come in the clouds of heaven at the end of the age. This Son of Man is no earthly monarch, but a Being of Divine and heavenly nature; not one who by means of a revolution rises from his native obscurity to a throne, but one who descends from heaven to earth. With such a figure dominating the outlook of Jesus, there is no place for a Messianic King. It is thus quite in keeping with these facts that He announces, not that God is about to send forth the Messiah, the Son of David, not that the kingdom of David is at hand, but that the kingdom of God is at hand. The purport of this message has been dealt with elsewhere: [Note: Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes2 (1900).] suffice it to say here, that the announcement of a cosmical catastrophe, of a new aeon, in which the existing sway of Satan shall be destroyed, and God shall be all in all, is intrinsically incompatible with the idea of a Messianic King standing side by side with the Most High. Nor do the prophecies of Daniel, when rightly interpreted, present us with the figure of a Messiah. Hence it is by no mere accident that in the utterances of Jesus the title King is applied to God alone: cf. Jerusalem the city of the great king (Mat 5:35), the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (18:23); and in particular, the parable of the Marriage Feast (22:1ff.), where the Messiah appeals as the Kings son. It is only in the description of the Last Judgment (25:31) that the Son of Man appears as Kingnote the abrupt change vv. 34, 40; probably, however, we have in this passage reminiscences of some older parable, which had to do with a king and not with the Messiah at all. Only on one recorded occasion (Luk 22:29) does Jesus invest Himself with the , but that is for the future. This occurred, according to Lk., during the Last Supper,a circumstance which leads us to infer that Jesus did not in any sense regard Himself as being a king in the days of His flesh. What He has in prospect here is simply a participation in the Divine Sovereignty, a prerogative guaranteed also to those who accept Him. He believes, indeed, that He will occupy the chief place among them that are His; that He will take the seat of honour at table, having them on His right hand and on His left (Mat 20:21); but of a Messianic Kingship in the ordinary sense of the word there is no suggestion at all. If Jesus deemed Himself to be the predestined Messiah in any sense whatsoever, He certainly thought of the Messianic office as being different from that of a king. See, further, art. Messiah.

Johannes Weiss.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

King

KING

1. Etymology and use of the term.The Heb. name for king (melek) is connected with an Assyr. [Note: Assyrian.] root meaning advise, counsel, rule, and it seems to have first signified the wise man, the counsellor, and then the ruler. The root occurs in the names of several Semitic deities, e.g. Molech, the tribal god of the Ammonites, and the Phn. Melkarth. In the days of Abraham we find the title king applied to the rulers of the city-States of Palestine, e.g. Sodom, Gomorrah, etc. (Gen 14:2). We also find references to kings in all the countries bordering on CanaanSyria, Moab, Ammon, Egypt, etc., and in later times Assyria, Babylonia and Persia. In the NT the title king is applied to the vassal-king Herod (Mat 2:1, Luk 1:5) and to Agrippa (Act 25:13). In the Psalms and the Prophets God Himself is constantly designated King of Israel or my King (e.g. Isa 43:15; Isa 44:6, Psa 10:16; Psa 24:7; Psa 24:9; Psa 24:9-10; Psa 44:4; Psa 74:12; Psa 84:3 etc.), and the Messianic advent of the true King of the Kingdom of God is predicted (Zec 9:9, Isa 32:1 etc.). In the NT Christ is represented as the fulfilment of this prophecy and as the true King of Gods Kingdom (cf. Joh 18:33; Joh 18:37, 1Ti 6:15, Rev 17:14).

2. The office of king in Israel

(1) Institution. The settlement of the people of Israel in Canaan, and the change from a nomadic to an agricultural life, laid the incomers open to ever fresh attacks from new adventurers. Thus in the time of the judges we find Israel ever liable to hostile invasion. In order to preserve the nation from extermination, it became necessary that a closer connexion and a more intimate bond of union should exist between the different tribes. The judges in the period subsequent to the settlement seem, with the possible exception of Gideon (Jdg 8:22), to have been little more than local or tribal heroes, carrying on guerilla warfare against their neighbours. The successes of the warlike Philistines made it clear to patriotic minds that the tribes must be more closely connected, and that a permanent leader in war was a necessity. Accordingly Saul the Benjamite was anointed by Samuel (1Sa 10:1), and appointed by popular acclamation (1Sa 10:24, 1Sa 11:14). The exploits of Saul and his sons against the Ammonites (1Sa 11:11 ff.), against the Amalekites (1Sa 15:7), and against the Philistines (1Sa 14:1 ff.) showed the value of the kingly office; and when Saul and his sons fell on Mt. Gilboa, it was not long till David the outlaw chief of Judah was invited to fill his place.

(2) The duties of the king are partly indicated by the history of the rise of the kingship. The king was (a) leader in war. He acted as general, and in person led the troops to battle (cf. Saul on Mt. Gilboa, 1Sa 31:2; Ahab at Ramoth-gilead, 1Ki 22:29 ff.), By and by a standing army grew up, and fortresses were placed on the frontiers (cf. 1Ki 12:21 f., 2Ch 17:2). (b) Besides being leader of the army in war, the king was the supreme Judge (cf. 2Sa 14:5; 2Sa 15:2, 1Ki 3:15). Before the institution of the monarchy judicial functions were exercised by the heads of the various housesthe elders. These elders were gradually replaced by officials appointed by the king (2Ch 19:5-11), and the final appeal was to the king himself, who in Amo 2:3 is called the judge. (c) Further, according to the usual Semitic conception, the king was also the chief person from a religious point of view. This idea has been lost sight of by later Jewish writers, but there is little doubt that in early times the king regarded himself as the supreme religious director, the chief priest. Thus Saul sacrifices in Samuels absence (1Sa 13:9-11; 1Sa 14:33 ff.), so also David (2Sa 6:13; 2Sa 6:17; 2Sa 24:25); while both David and Solomon seem to appoint and dismiss the chief priest at pleasure (cf. 2Sa 8:17, 1Ki 2:26-27; 1Ki 2:35), and both bless the people (2Sa 6:18, 1Ki 8:14). Jeroboam sacrifices in person before the altar in Bethel (1Ki 12:32-33), and Ahaz orders a special altar to be made, and offers in person on it (2Ki 16:12). In later times, however, the priestly functions of the kings were less frequently exercised, priests being appointed, who are usually regarded as royal officials and numbered among other civil servants (2Sa 20:23 ff.).

(3) The kingship hereditary. It was a fixed idea in ancient Israel that the office of the kingship passed from father to son, as the judgeship passed from Gideon to his sons (Jdg 9:2), or from Samuel to his sons (1Sa 8:1). Although Saul was chosen by the people and David invited by the elders of Judah to be king, yet Saul himself regarded it as the natural thing that Jonathan should succeed him (1Sa 20:30 ff.). Adonijah assumed that, as Davids son, he had a right to the throne (1Ki 2:15), and even the succession of his younger half-brother Solomon was secured without any popular election. It is impossible to speak of an elective monarchy in Israel. The succession in Judah remained all along in the house of David, and in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes father always succeeded son, unless violence and revolution destroyed the royal house and brought a new adventurer to the throne.

(4) Power of the king. While the monarchy in Israel differed considerably from other Oriental despotisms, it could not be called a limited monarchy in our sense of the term. The kings power was limited by the fact that, to begin with, the royal house differed little from other chief houses of the nation. Saul, even after his election, resided on his ancestral estate, and came forth only as necessity called him (cf. 1Sa 11:4 ff.). On the one hand, law and ancient custom exercised considerable restraint on the kings; while, on the other hand, acts of despotic violence were allowed to pass unquestioned. A powerful ruler like David or Solomon was able to do much that would have been impossible for a weakling like Rehoboam. Solomon was practically an Oriental despot, who ground down the people by taxation and forced labour. David had the power to compass the death of Uriah and take his wife, but public opinion, as expressed by the prophets, exerted a considerable influence on the kings (cf. Nathan and David, Elijah and Ahab). The idea was never lost sight of that the office was instituted for the good of the nation, and that it ought to be a help, not a burden, to the people at large. Law and ancient custom were, in the peoples minds, placed before the kingly authority. Naboth can refuse to sell his vineyard to Ahab, and the king is unable to compel him, or to appropriate it till Naboth has been regularly condemned before a judicial tribunal (1Ki 21:1 ff.). Thus the king himself was under law (cf. Deu 17:14-20), and he does not seem to have had the power to promulgate new enactments. Josiah bases his reform not on a new law, but on the newly found Book of the Law (2Ki 23:1-3), to which he and the elders swear allegiance.

(5) Royal income. The early kings, Saul and David, do not seem to have subjected the people to heavy taxation. Sauls primitive court would be supported by his ancestral estate and by the booty taken from the enemy, perhaps along with presents, more or less compulsory, from his friends or subjects (1Sa 10:27; 1Sa 16:20). The census taken by David (2Sa 24:1) was probably intended as a basis for taxation, as was also Solomons division of the land into twelve districts (1Ki 4:7). Ezekiel (Eze 45:7-8; Eze 48:21) speaks of crown lands, and such seem to have been held by David (1Ch 27:26 ff.). The kings in the days of Amos laid claim to the first cutting of grass for the royal horses (Amo 7:1). Caravans passing from Egypt to Damascus paid toll (1Ki 10:16), and in the days of Solomon foreign trade by sea seems to have been a royal monopoly (1Ki 10:16). It is not quite certain whether anything of the nature of a land tax or property tax existed, though something of this kind may be referred to in the reward promised by Saul to the slayer of Goliath (1Sa 17:25); and it may have been the tenth mentioned in 1Sa 8:15; 1Sa 8:17. Special taxes seem to have been imposed to meet special emergencies (cf. 2Ki 23:35), and the kings of Judah made free use of the Temple treasures.

(6) Royal officials have the general title princes (srm). These included (a) the commander-in-chief, the captain of the host, who in the absence of the king commanded the army (e.g. Joab, 2Sa 12:27). (b) The prefect of the royal bodyguard, the leader of the mighty men of valour of AV [Note: Authorized Version.] (in Davids time the Cherethites and Pelethites, 2Sa 8:18; 2Sa 20:23). (c) The recorder, lit. one who calls to remembrance. His functions are nowhere defined, but he seems to have held an influential position, and was probably the chief minister, the Grand Vizier of modern times (cf. 2Sa 8:16, 2Ki 18:26). (d) The scribe (sphr) frequently mentioned along with the recorder seems to have attended to the royal correspondence, and to have been the Chancellor or rather Secretary of State (2Ki 18:18; 2Ki 18:37, 2Ch 34:8). (e) The officer who was over the tribute (2Sa 20:24) seems to have superintended the forced labour and the collecting of the taxes, (f) The governor of the royal household, the royal steward or High Chamberlain, seems to have held an important position in the days of the later monarchy (Isa 36:3; Isa 36:22; Isa 22:15). Mention is also made of several minor officials, such as the kings servant (2Ki 22:12), the kings friend (1Ki 4:5), the kings counsellor (1Ch 27:33), the head of the ward-robe (2Ki 22:14), the head of the eunuchs (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] officers, 1Sa 8:15), the governor of the city (1Ki 22:26). We hear much from the prophets of the oppression and injustice practised by these officials on the poor of the land (cf. Amo 2:6-7, Isa 5:8, Jer 5:28, Mic 3:11 etc.).

W. F. Boyd.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

King

There is somewhat very blessed in eyeing the Lord Jesus in this character, His church must always find in this view of their Lord a very high satisfaction. His is the blessed: office, in this royal character, to govern, rule, maintain, support, to pardon, reward, countenance, favour, and bless all his kingdom. He hath indeed made all his kings and priests to God and the Father. And what a rapturous thought is it to recollect, that his kingdom is for ever, and his dominion that which shall have no end! While we behold the Lord Jesus in this exalted point of view, it becomes an interesting enquiry of the soul, whether we are subjects of his kingdom. (See Rom 6:16)

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

King

King, a title applied in the Scriptures to men (Luk 22:25; 1Ti 2:1-2; 1Pe 2:13-17), to God (1Ti 1:17; 1Ti 6:15-16), and to Christ (Mat 27:11; Luk 19:38; Joh 1:49; Joh 6:15; Joh 18:32-37)to men, as invested with regal authority by their fellows; to God, as the sole proper sovereign and ruler of the universe; and to Christ, as the Messiah, the Son of God, the King of the Jews, the sole Head and Governor of His church.

Regal authority was altogether alien to the institutions of Moses in their original and unadulterated form. Their fundamental idea was that Jehovah was the sole king of the nation (1Sa 8:7): to use the emphatic words in Isa 33:22, ‘The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king.’ We consider it as a sign of that self-confidence and moral enterprise which are produced in great men by a consciousness of being what they profess, that Moses ventured, with his half-civilized hordes, on the bold experiment of founding a society without a king, and that in the solicitude which he must have felt for the success of his great undertaking, he forewent the advantages which a regal government would have afforded. Nor is such an attempt a little singular and novel at a period and in a part of the world in which royalty was not only general, but held in the greatest respect, and sometimes rose to the very height of pure despotism. Its novelty is an evidence of the divine original to which Moses referred all his polity. Equally honorable is the conduct of Moses in denying to his lower nature the gratifications which a crown might have imparted, and it is obvious that this self-denial on the part of Moses, this omission to create any human kingship, is in entire accordance with the import, aim, and spirit of the Mosaic institutions, as being divine in their origin, and designed to accomplish a special work of Providence for man; and, therefore, affords, by its consistency with the very essence of the system of which it forms a part, a very forcible argument in favor of the divine legation of Moses.

That great man, however, well knew what were the elements with which he had to deal in framing institutions for the rescued Israelites. Slaves they had been, and the spirit of slavery was not yet wholly eradicated from their souls. They had, too, witnessed in Egypt the more than ordinary pomp and splendor which environ a throne, dazzling the eyes and captivating the heart of the uncultured. Not improbably the prosperity and abundance which they had seen in Egypt, and in which they had been, in a measure, allowed to partake, might have been ascribed by them to the regal form of the Egyptian government. Moses may well, therefore, have apprehended a not very remote departure from the fundamental type of his institutions. Accordingly he makes a special provision for this contingency (Deu 17:14), and labors, by anticipation, to guard against the abuses of royal power. Should a king be demanded by the people, then he was to be a native Israelite; he was not to be drawn away by the love of show, especially by a desire for that regal display in which horses have always borne so large a part, to send down to Egypt, still less to cause the people to return to that land; he was to avoid the corrupting influence of a large harem, so common among Eastern monarchs; he was to abstain from amassing silver and gold; he was to have a copy of the law made expressly for his own studya study which he was never to intermit till the end of his days; so that his heart might not be lifted up above his brethren, that he might not be turned aside from the living God, but observing the divine statutes, and thus acknowledging himself to be no more than the vicegerent of heaven, he might enjoy happiness, and transmit his authority to his descendants.

The Jewish polity, then, was a sort of sacerdotal republicwe say sacerdotal, because of the great influence which, from the first, the priestly order enjoyed, having no human head, but being under the special supervision, protection, and guidance of the Almighty. The nature of the consequences, however, of that divine influence avowedly depended on the degree of obedience and the general faithfulness of the nation. The good, therefore, of such a superintendence in its immediate results was not necessary, but contingent. The removal of Moses and of Joshua by death soon left the people to the natural results of their own condition and character. Anarchy ensued. Noble minds, indeed, and stout hearts appeared in those who were termed Judges; but the state of the country was not so satisfactory as to prevent an unenlightened people, having low and gross affections, from preferring the glare of a crown and the apparent protection of a scepter, to the invisible and, therefore, mostly unrecognized arm of omnipotence. A king accordingly was requested. The misconduct of Samuel’s sons, who had been made judges, was the immediate occasion of the demand being put forth. The request came with authority, for it emanated from all the elders of Israel, who, after holding a formal conference, proceeded to Samuel, in order to make him acquainted with their wish. Samuel was displeased; but, having sought in prayer to learn the divine will, he is instructed to yield to the demand on a ground which we should not assuredly have found stated, had the book in which it appears been tampered with or fabricated for any courtly purposes or any personal ends, whether by Samuel himself, or by David, or any of his successors’for they have not rejected thee (Samuel), but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them’ (1Sa 8:7, see also 1Sa 8:8). Samuel was, moreover, directed to ‘protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.’ Faithfully did the prophet depict the evils which a monarchy would inflict on the people. In vain: they said, ‘Nay, but we will have a king over us.’ Accordingly, Saul the son of Kish, of the tribe of Benjamin, was, by divine direction, selected, and privately anointed by Samuel ‘to be captain over God’s inheritance;’ thus he was to hold only a delegated and subordinate authority. Under the guidance of Samuel, Saul was subsequently chosen by lot from among the assembled tribes; and though his personal appearance had no influence in the choice, yet when he was plainly pointed out to be the individual designed for the scepter, Samuel called attention to those qualities which in less civilized nations have a preponderating influence, and are never without effect, at least, in supporting ‘the divinity which doth hedge a king:’ ‘See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people,’ for he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward; ‘and all the people shouted, God save the king.’

Emanating as the royal power did from the demand of the people and the permission of a prophet, it was not likely to be unlimited in its extent or arbitrary in its exercise. The government of God, indeed, remained, being rather concealed and complicated than disowned, much less superseded. The king ruled not in his own right, nor in virtue of the choice of the people, but by concession from on high, and partly as the servant and partly as the representative of the theocracy. How insecure, indeed, was the tenure of the kingly power, how restricted it was in its authority, appears clear from the comparative facility with which the crown was transferred from Saul to David; and the part which the prophet Samuel took in effecting that transference points out the quarter where lay the power which limited, if it did not primarily, at least, control the royal authority. We must not, however, expect to find any definite and permanent distribution of power, any legal determination of the royal prerogatives as discriminated from the divine authority; circumstances, as they prompted certain deeds, restricted or enlarged the sphere of the monarch’s action. Thus, in 1Sa 11:4, sq., we find Saul, in an emergency, assuming, without consultation or deliberation, the power of demanding something like a levy en masse, and of proclaiming instant war. With the king lay the administration of justice in the last resort (2Sa 15:2; 1Ki 3:10, sq.). He also possessed the power of life and death (2 Samuel 14). To provide for and superintend the public worship was at once his duty and his highest honor (1 Kings 8; 2Ki 12:4; 2Ki 18:4; 2Ki 23:1). One reason why the people requested a king was, that they might have a recognized leader in war (1Sa 8:20). The Mosaic law offered a powerful hindrance to royal despotism (1Sa 10:25). The people also, by means of their elders, formed an express compact, by which they stipulated for their rights (1Ki 12:4), and were from time to time appealed to, generally in cases of ‘great pith and moment’ (1Ch 29:1; 2Ki 11:17). Nor did the people fail to interpose their will, where they thought it necessary, in opposition to that of the monarch (1Sa 14:45). The part which Nathan took against David shows how effective, as well as bold, was the check exerted by the prophets; indeed, most of the prophetic history is the history of the noblest opposition ever made to the vices alike of royalty, priesthood, and people. When needful, the prophet hesitated not to demand an audience of the king, nor was he dazzled or deterred by royal power and pomp (1Ki 20:22; 1Ki 20:38; 2Ki 1:15). As, however, the monarch held the sword, the instrument of death was sometimes made to prevail over every restraining influence (1Sa 22:17).

After the transfer of the crown from Saul to David, the royal power was annexed to the house of the latter, passing from father to son, with preference to the eldest born, though he might be a minor. Jehoash was seven years old when he began to reign (2Ki 11:21). This rule was not, however, rigidly observed, for instances are not wanting in which nomination of a younger son gave him a preferable title to the crown (1Ki 1:17; 2Ch 11:21): the people, too, and even foreign powers, at a later period, interrupted the regular transmission of royal authority (2Ki 21:24; 2Ki 23:24; 2Ki 23:30; 2Ki 24:17). The ceremony of anointing, which was observed at least in the case of Saul, David, and Solomon (1Sa 9:14; 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 15:1; 1Sa 16:12; 2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 5:1; 1Ki 1:34; 1Ki 19:16), and in which the prophet or high-priest who performed the rite acted as the representative of the theocracy and the expounder of the will of heaven, must have given to the spiritual power very considerable influence. Indeed, the ceremony seems to have been essential to constitute a legitimate monarch (2Ki 11:12; 2Ki 23:30); and thus the authorities of the Jewish church held in their hands, and had subject to their will, a most important power, which they could use either for their own purposes or the common good. We have seen in the case of Saul that personal and even external qualities had their influence in procuring ready obedience to a sovereign; and further evidence to the same effect may be found in Psa 45:3; Eze 28:12 such qualities would naturally excite the enthusiasm of the people, who appear to have manifested their approval by acclamations (1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:25; 2Ki 9:13; 2Ki 11:13; 2Ch 23:11). Jubilant music formed a part of the popular rejoicings (1Ki 1:40); thank-offerings were made (1Ki 1:25); the new sovereign rode in solemn procession on the royal mule of his predecessor (1Ki 1:38), and took possession of the royal hareman act which seems to have been scarcely less essential than other observances which appear to us to wear a higher character (1Ki 2:13; 1Ki 2:22; 2Sa 16:22). A numerous harem, indeed, was among the most highly estimated of the royal luxuries (2Sa 5:13; 1Ki 11:1; 1Ki 20:3). It was under the supervision and control of eunuchs, and passed from one monarch to another as a part of the crown-property (2Sa 12:8). The law (Deu 17:17), foreseeing evils such as that by which Solomon, in his later years, was turned away from his fidelity to God, had strictly forbidden many wives; but Eastern passions and usages were too strong for a mere written prohibition, and a corrupted religion became a pander to royal lust, interpreting the divine command as sanctioning eighteen as the minimum of wives and concubines. In the original distribution of the land no share, of course, was reserved for a merely possible monarch; yet the kings were not without several sources of income. In the earlier periods of the monarchy the simple manners which prevailed would render copious revenues unnecessary; and a throne which was the result of a spontaneous demand on the part of the people, would easily find support in free-will offerings, especially in a part of the world where the great are never approached without a present. There seems also reason to conclude that the amount of the contributions made by the people for the sustenance of the monarch depended, in a measure, on the degree of popularity which, in any particular case, he enjoyed, or the degree of service which he obviously rendered to the state (1Sa 10:27; 1Sa 16:20; 2Sa 8:11; 1Ki 10:11; 1Ki 10:25, sq.). That presents of small value and humble nature were not despised or thought unfit for the acceptance of royalty, may be learned from that which Jesse sent to Saul (1Sa 16:20), ‘an ass, with bread and a bottle of wine, and a kid.’ The indirect detail ‘of the substance which was King David’s,’ found in 1Ch 27:25, sq. (comp. 1Sa 8:14; 2Ch 26:10, sq.), shows at how early a period the Israelitish throne was in possession of very large property, both personal and real. The royal treasury was replenished by confiscation, as in the case of Naboth (1Ki 21:16; comp. Eze 46:16, sq.; 2Sa 16:4). Nor were taxes unknown. Samuel had predicted (1Sa 8:15), ‘He will take the tenth of your seed and of your vineyards,’ etc.; and so in other passages (1Ki 5:13; 1Ki 9:21) we find that levies both of men and money were made for the monarch’s purposes; and, in cases of special need, these exactions were large and rigorously levied (2Ki 23:35), as when Jehoiakim ‘taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh; he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation.’ So long, however, as the native vigor of a young monarchy made victory easy and frequent, large revenues came to the king from the spoils of war (2Sa 8:2, sq.). Commerce also then supplied abundant resources (1Ki 10:15).

According to Oriental custom, much ceremony and outward show of respect were observed. Those who were intended to be received with special honor were placed on the king’s right hand (1Ki 2:19). The most profound homage was paid to the monarch, which was required not merely by common usage, but by the voice of religious wisdom (Pro 24:21)a requirement which was not unnatural in regard to an office that was accounted of divine origin, and to have a sort of vice-divine authority. Those who presented themselves before the royal presence fell with their face towards the ground till their forehead touched it (1Sa 25:23; 2Sa 9:6; 2Sa 19:18), thus worshipping or doing obeisance to the monarch, a ceremony from which even the royal spouse was not exempted (1Ki 1:16). A kiss was among the established tokens of reverence (1Sa 10:1; Psa 2:12), as were also hyperbolical wishes of good (Dan 2:4; Dan 3:9). Serious offences against the king were punished with death (1Ki 21:10).

Deriving their power originally from the wishes of the people, and being one of the same race, the Hebrew kings were naturally less despotic than other Oriental sovereigns, mingled more with their subjects, and were by no means difficult of access (2Sa 19:8; 1Ki 20:39; Jer 38:7; 1Ki 3:16; 2Ki 6:26; 2Ki 8:3). After death the monarchs were interred in the royal cemetery in Jerusalem: ‘So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David’ (1Ki 2:10; 1Ki 11:43; 1Ki 14:31). But bad kings were excluded ‘from the sepulchers of the kings of Israel’ (2Ch 28:27). In 1 Kings 4 will be found an enumeration of the high officers of state under the reign of Solomon (see also 1Ki 10:5; 1Ki 12:18; 1Ki 18:3; 2Ki 8:16; 2Ki 10:22; 2Ki 18:18; 2Ki 19:2; 1Ch 27:25; Isa 22:15; Jer 52:25). The misdeeds of the Jewish crown, and the boldness with which they were reproved, may be seen exemplified in Jeremiah 22 : ‘Thus saith the Lord, Execute judgment and righteousness, and do no wrong; do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow; neither shed innocent blood. But if ye will not hear these words, this house shall become a desolation,’ etc.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

King

Called King of Kings

Ezr 7:12; Eze 26:7; Dan 2:37

Divinely authorized

Deu 17:15; 1Sa 9:16-17; 1Sa 16:12; 1Ch 22:10; 2Ch 2:11-12; Pro 8:15; Dan 2:21; Dan 2:37; Dan 4:17; Dan 5:20; Hos 8:4; Hos 13:11

How chosen:

– By divine appointment:

b Saul

1Sa 10:1

b David and the Davidic dynasty

1Sa 16:1-13

– Hereditary succession

2Sa 7:12-16; 1Ki 1:28-30; 2Ch 21:3-4; Psa 89:35-37

– Not hereditary

1Ch 1:43-51

– By lot

1Sa 10:20-21 Israel, 4; Israel, 5

Modes of induction into office:

– By anointing

Anointing

– By proclamation

2Sa 15:10; 1Ki 1:33-34; 2Ki 9:13; 2Ki 11:12

– By an oath

2Ki 11:4

Ceremonial recognition of:

– Prostration

1Sa 25:41; 2Sa 9:6; 2Sa 9:8; 1Ki 1:23; 1Ki 1:31; 1Ki 1:47

– Obeisance

1Ki 1:16

– Kneeling before

Mat 27:29

– Salutation to: »O king, live forever«

Dan 2:4; Dan 6:6; Dan 6:21

Acts as judge

2Sa 8:15; 2Sa 15:2; 1Ki 10:9; 2Ki 8:1-6; Psa 72:1-4; Psa 122:5; Act 25:11-12; Act 25:20

Precepts concerning

Deu 17:14-19; Pro 31:4-5; Eze 46:16-18

Obedience to, enjoined

Ecc 8:2-5

Rights and duties of

Pro 25:2; Pro 25:5-6; Pro 25:15; Pro 29:4; Pro 29:12; Pro 29:14; Jer 21:12

Exercise executive clemency

1Sa 11:13

Constitutional restrictions of

Deu 17:18-20; 1Sa 10:24-25; 2Sa 5:3; 2Ki 11:12; 2Ki 11:17; 2Ch 23:11; Jer 34:8-11; Dan 6:12-15

Influenced by popular opinion:

– Saul

1Sa 14:45; 1Sa 15:24

– David

2Ch 20:21

– Hezekiah

2Ch 30:2

– Zedekiah

Jer 38:19; Jer 38:24-27

– Herod

Mat 14:5; Act 12:2-3

– Pilate

Joh 19:6-13

Religious duties of

Eze 45:9-25; Eze 46:2; Eze 46:4-8

Deification of

Eze 28:2; Eze 28:9

Loyalty to, enjoined

Pro 16:14-15; Ecc 10:20

Influence of queens over:

– Bath-Sheba

1Ki 1:28-34

– Jezebel

1Ki 18:4; 1Ki 18:13; 1Ki 19:1-3; 1Ki 21:5-16

– Esther

Est 5:1-8

Respect due to

Job 34:18; Isa 8:21; Mat 22:21; Mar 12:17

Emoluments (compensations) of:

– Confiscations of property

2Sa 16:4; 1Ki 21:1-16

– Spoils

2Sa 12:30; 1Ch 26:27; 2Ch 24:23

– Tariff on imports, and internal revenue on merchandise

1Ki 10:15-29

– Tribute

2Sa 20:24; 1Ki 12:18; 2Ch 17:11

– Poll tax

Mat 17:24-27

– Presents

1Sa 10:27; 1Sa 16:20; 2Sa 8:2; 1Ki 10:2; 1Ki 10:10; 1Ki 10:25; 2Ch 9:24; Psa 72:10

– Commissary of

1Ki 4:7-19; 1Ki 4:27-28; 1Ch 27:25-31; 2Ch 26:10; 2Ch 32:28-29

Extensive studs of

Jdg 12:14; 1Ki 1:33; 1Ki 4:26; 1Ki 10:25; 2Ch 9:24-25; Est 6:8

Chief officers of:

– Captain of the host

2Sa 8:16; 1Ki 4:4

– Recorder

2Sa 8:16; 2Sa 20:24; 1Ki 4:3

– Scribe

2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 20:25; 1Ki 4:3

– Chief priests

2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 20:25; 1Ki 4:2

– Chief of the bodyguard

2Sa 8:18; 2Sa 15:18; 2Sa 20:23; 1Ch 11:25

– Collector of tribute

2Sa 20:24

– Chief ruler

2Sa 20:26; 1Ki 4:5; Est 3:1-2; Est 8:1-2; Est 8:15; Est 10:3

– Counselor

1Ki 4:5

– Provincial governors

Dan 6:1-3

Subordinate officers of:

– Governor of the household

1Ki 4:6; 2Ch 28:7

Keeper of the wardrobe

2Ki 22:14; 2Ch 34:22

Drunkenness of:

– Forbidden

Pro 31:4-5

– Instances of

Hos 7:5

– Baasha

1Ki 16:9

– Ben-Hadad

1Ki 20:16

– Belshazzar

Dan 5:1-4; Dan 5:23

– Ahasuerus

Est 1:7; Est 1:10; Est 5:6; Est 7:2

Prayer for

Ezr 6:10

Prayer for, enjoined

1Ti 2:1-2

Decrees of, irrevocable

Est 8:8; Dan 6:8-9; Dan 6:12-15

Chronicles of, kept

1Ki 11:41; 1Ki 14:19; 2Ki 21:25; 1Ch 9:1; 1Ch 27:24; 1Ch 29:29; 2Ch 9:29; 2Ch 12:15; 2Ch 20:34; 2Ch 26:22; 2Ch 32:32; Ezr 5:17; Est 6:1 Government; Rulers

The kings of Israel, before and after the revolt of the ten tribes

Israel, 4

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

King

King. “a chief ruler, one invested with supreme authority over a nation, tribe or country.” — Webster. In the Bible, the word does not necessarily imply great power or great extent of country. Many persons are called kings whom we should rather call chiefs or leaders. The word is applied in the Bible to God as the sovereign and ruler of the universe, and to Christ the Son of God as the head and governor of the Church.

The Hebrews were ruled by a king during a period of about 500 years previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, B.C. 586. The immediate occasion of the substitution of a regal form of government for that of judges seems to have been the siege of Jabesh-gilead by Nahash king of the Ammonites. 1Sa 11:1; 1Sa 12:12. The conviction seems to have forced itself on the Israelites that they could not resist their formidable neighbor unless they placed themselves under the sway of a king, like surrounding nations.

The original idea of a Hebrew King was twofold: first, that he should lead the people to battle in time of war; and, a second, that he should execute judgment and justice to them in war and in peace. 1Sa 8:20. In both respects, the desired end was attained. Besides being commander-in-chief of the army, supreme judge, and absolute master, as it were, of the lives of his subjects, the king exercised the power of imposing taxes on them, and of exacting from them personal service and labor.

In addition to these earthly powers, the king of Israel had a more awful claim to respect and obedience. He was the vicegerent of Jehovah, 1Sa 10:1; 1Sa 16:13, and as it were his son, if just and holy, 2Sa 7:14; Psa 2:6-7; Psa 89:26-27, he had been set apart as a consecrated ruler. Upon his head had been poured the holy anointing oil, which had hitherto been reserved exclusively for the priests of Jehovah. He had become, in fact, emphatically “the Lord’s anointed.” He had a court of Oriental magnificence.

The king was dressed in royal robes, 1Ki 22:10; 2Ch 18:9, his insignia were, a crown or diadem of pure gold, or perhaps radiant with precious gems, 2Sa 1:10; 2Sa 12:30; 2Ki 11:12; Psa 21:3, and a royal sceptre. Those who approached him did him obeisance, bowing down and touching the ground with their foreheads, 1Sa 24:8; 2Sa 19:24, and this was done even by a king’s wife, the mother of Solomon. 1Ki 1:16.

His officers and subjects called themselves his servants or slaves. He had a large harem, which was guarded by eunuchs. The law of succession to the throne is somewhat obscure, but it seems most probable that the king, during his lifetime, named his successor. At the same time, if no partiality for a favorite wife or son intervened, there would always be a natural bias of affection in favor of the eldest son.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

KING

King signifies the possessor of the supreme power, let it be lodged in one or more persons.f1 It also frequently signifies a succession of kings. And king and kingdom are synonymous, as appears from Dan 7:17; Dan 7:23.

F1 H. Grot. de J. B. & P. L. ii. c. ix. 8.

Fuente: A Symbolical Dictionary

King

“a king” (cp. Eng., “Basil”), e.g., Mat 1:6, is used of the Roman emperor in 1Pe 2:13, 1Pe 2:17 (a command of general application); this reference to the emperor is illustrated frequently in the Koine (see Preface to this volume); of Herod the Tetrarch (used by courtesy), Mat 14:9; of Christ, as the “King” of the Jews, e.g., Mat 2:2; Mat 27:11, Mat 27:29, Mat 27:37; as the “King” of Israel, Mar 15:32; Joh 1:49; Joh 12:13; as “King of kings,” Rev 17:14; Rev 19:16; as “the King” in judging nations and men at the establishment of the millennial kingdom, Mat 25:34, Mat 25:40; of God, “the great King,” Mat 5:35; “the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible,” 1Ti 1:17; “King of kings,” 1Ti 6:15, see Note (2) below; “King of the ages,” Rev 15:3, RV (AV, “saints”). Christ’s “kingship” was predicted in the OT, e.g., Psa 2:6, and in the NT, e.g., Luk 1:32-33; He came as such, e.g., Mat 2:2; Joh 18:37; was rejected and died as such, Luk 19:14; Mat 27:37; is now a “King” Priest, after the order of Melchizedek, Heb 5:6; Heb 7:1, Heb 7:17; and will reign for ever and ever, Rev 11:15.

Notes: (1) In Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10, the most authentic mss. have the word basileia, “kingdom,” instead of the plural of basileus, AV, “kings,” RV, “a kingdom (to be priests),” and “a kingdom (and priests).” The kingdom was conditionally offered by God to Israel, that they should be to Him “a kingdom of priests,” Exo 19:6, the entire nation fulfilling priestly worship and service. Their failure to fulfil His covenant resulted in the selection of the Aaronic priesthood. The bringing in of the new and better covenant of grace has constituted all believers a spiritual kingdom, a holy and royal priesthood, 1Pe 2:5, 1Pe 2:9. (2) In 1Ti 6:15, the word “kings” translates the present participle of the verb basileuo, “to be king, to have kingship,” lit., “of (those) who are kings.” See REIGN, (3) Deissmann has shown that the title “king of kings” was “in very early eastern history a decoration of great monarchs and also a divine title” (Light from the Ancient East, pp. 367ff.). Moulton and Milligan illustrate the use of the title among the Persians, from documents discovered in Media.

denoting “royal,” as in 1Pe 2:9, is used in the plural, of the courts or palaces of kings, Luk 7:25, “kings’ courts;” a possible meaning is “among royal courtiers or persons.”

“royal, belonging to a king,” is used in Act 12:20 with “country” understood, “their country was fed from the king’s,” lit., “the royal (country).” See NOBLEMAN, ROYAL.

Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words

King

Son 1:4 (c) In this way we see the Lord JESUS CHRIST in His glory as the sovereign ruler of His church.

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types