This Week: On good and bad kingship: A biblical reflection upon King David and Herod; On not being fooled by “The Thing”; More on Yoram Hazony’s Conservatism: A Rediscovery: The Assumptions and Blindness of Liberalism; Finally…some personal reflections
On good and bad kingship: A biblical reflection upon King David and King Herod
I was struck by a seemingly providential lectionary reading this week. 2 Samuel 23 and Acts 10:
Now these are the last words of David:
…“The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me,
his word is upon my tongue.
The God of Israel has spoken,
the Rock of Israel has said to me:
When one rules justly over men,
ruling in the fear of God,
he dawns on them like the morning light,
like the sun shining forth upon a cloudless morning,
like rain that makes grass to sprout from the earth.”2 Samuel 23: 1,3-4
Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and they came to him in a body, and having persuaded Blastus, the king’s chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king’s country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them. And the people shouted, “The voice of a god, and not of man!” Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.
Acts 12:20-23
There is one of the principal differences between a good king and a bad king. A good king recognises that his authority is given to him by God and that he should in the fear of God. This kind of ruler brings about light and refreshment to his people.
Conversely a bad king disbelieves in the real God and therefore comes to think of himself as God. Eventually it will catch up with him, of course, when the genuine article makes Himself known. And as happened to Herod when he was struck down for his blasphemy.
The Divine Right of Kings (which became popular in the early modern, rather than the medieval, period by the way, contrary to what your average New Atheist type would have us believe) strikes me as more aligned with the Herodian vision than with the attitude of King David. King David, at least, had a very deep understanding of his own sin and expressed profound repentance for it. He did not believe that he had a unique hotline to God and that he could dictate to his people on the basis of it. God had chosen him, yes, but he was to exercise his rule with the humility of a shepherd taking care of his sheep. The king who claims divine right, on the other hand, does so not because of his piety but because of his arrogance, believing himself to be uniquely free from the effects of the fall upon his intellectual, spiritual and moral faculties.
The political lesson is clear: good rulers, including secular politicians, realise not only their limitations as human beings but they also realise their sinfulness and brokenness as creatures of God. They understand that they are not gods and that they must give an account to God for the way that they have used the authority that he has given.
This attitude frees the godly ruler from pretentious tendencies to totalitarian or absolute rule. For the atheist ruler - having rejected the existence of an authority higher than man - comes to believe himself the highest authority. Having become God, he can dictate to men as God from a place of omnipotence and omnicompetence.
I think this kind of arrogance is behind a lot of the political problems we face today. But, once again, this blog is called Good Things, so I don’t want to go too far down that road…
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Good Things to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.