The Biblical Image of Divine Kingship as a No Kings Protest

There are at least two ways to approach understanding the biblical image of God as King (or even “Lord” - if we are prone to ascribing some feudal significance to such a concept). First, we might well ask ourselves: What is there about the historic experience of kingship that is godlike for us? And, second, what is there about the historic experience of kingship which is anything but godly? I believe these two questions are significant because, without understanding the historic experience of the people of Israel as expressed in the scripture, there is no way that we can understand what they are claiming when they claim that God is King.

The development and embrace of an image of God being King is the direct result of the very questionable experiences that biblical people had in struggling to see the value in having a king at all. In some very real sense, it wouldn’t be too far from the truth to conclude any and all biblical claims that “God is King!” are the direct result of an ancient “No Kings!” protest and movement.

To begin with, the biblical record is rife with opposition toward the elevation of Israel’s first king. The primary reason in the apparently growing itch to have a king is expressed as a desire to be like other nations or, in the headstrong voice of adolescence which most of us know so well, it is an expressed desire to exercise an independence by wanting to be just like everybody else - which always turns a blind eye and ignores the great majority of folk who are everybody else. There may well have been some easily understood reasons why having a king was perceived by some as a very good thing. Afterall, all the great nations and empires of the world had kings and there was little reason not to ascribe their seemingly vast wealth and staggering military power to the fact that they all had kings. However, while some (arguably, the few) enjoyed living the high life under the auspices of a king, most people’s lot in life were not much enriched by such an experience.

There is a very interesting story to be told from the archeological record of what life may have been like prior to the raising up of Israel’s first king. For the most part, the towns and villages and even the larger cities of Israel were, prior to the presence of kings, unfortified and without walls. Even the supposed crumbling walls of Jericho during Joshua’s reported occupying of that city may be a less spectacular but no less miraculous opportune moment for such an event. Jericho’s walls seem to have come tumbling down in an earthquake at least some 300 years before Joshua. The town never really recovered and by the time Joshua blew his trumpet and danced around the practically vacant remains of the city, the town was a gift for the taking. The “walls” of Jericho were not rebuilt for another 300 years after Joshua and in the early decades of the rising importance of the kings of Israel.

Again, for the most part, prior to Israel’s first king, the archeological record suggests that almost all village buildings barely deviated from one another in terms of their scope and footprint. What this suggests is that pretty much everybody lived lives that differed little from one another in terms of social or economic standing. As most people were engaged in livelihoods that revolved around farming, herding, or crafts, there was probably a fair amount of mutual bartering going on to sustain each other’s lives. There is also a surprising lack of evidence to suggest that the land suffered from either domestic unrest or foreign invasion. However, a lot changed when they found themselves with a king.

Kings, and Israel’s kings were no exception in this regard, require royal salaries, monumental building projects, increased military operations, and the construction of protective walls where there had previously been none. All of these are communicated to be for the honor and the defense of the nation. All of these also require an immense outlay of money which is primarily raised through taxation on the people who it is supposedly benefiting. The cost was dear, particularly to a way of living which, for most, previously required none of this. Even the supposed Camelot-years of the great King David and his son Solomon did not significantly improve the lives of the great majority of Israel’s population. It is out of these realities that the biblical image of God as King developed and was embraced. Soon enough, within a hundred years of Israel’s first king - including the assassination of its second, the politics of it all split the nation in two giving the people two rival kings to pledge allegiance and, naturally enough, doubling the cost of sustaining the developing and often deadly competition between kingly aspirants. So much for the unanticipated consequences of wanting to be just like everybody else.

In its earliest imaginings the concept of the kingship of God was, theologically speaking, probably a way of asserting that, “We have no need of a king because we have God!” In fact, as found repeatedly in scripture, having trust in God requires no need for walls or fortresses or a military. The Bible reiterates again and again that God alone is our refuge, our fortress, our warrior, our protection, and our defense thereby negating the need for anything else to provide such. All those who claim to provide such are, in terms of having an established trust in God, are merely imposters vying for allegiances that should only be exercised toward God. In light of our trust in God, they are at best unnecessary and at worst idolatrous. It is the insidious threat and influence of Idolatry which lies at the root of the biblical image of God as King.

Idolatry is, arguably, the only sin we find in the Bible. It is the primary and most foundational of any and all understandings of biblical sin. The sin of idolatry occurs whenever and however we end up putting our trust and allegiance in something other than God. Whereas the image of God as KIng is an image adopted to call into question any and all allegiances we may place upon earthly rulers, it is certainly not limited to those allegiances. It can be ascribed to any allegiance through which we have elevated anything to the throne of our hearts. If we are finding our identities so wrapped up in the attitudes, conduct, opinions and behaviors we bring to such things, if we can almost not help but convince ourselves that we cannot imagine ourselves without such, we are enthroning in our hearts and in our minds that which is a false idol.

Now what this might be saying to any of us could be very different for each of us. So, what might this be saying to us about how we either do or do not rely upon God in our varied experiences of life? Aside from kings or walls or a fortified existence, what else might our understanding of this particular image of God be calling into question for how we live our lives in our own time? Chances are good that if we find ourselves leaning hard into any “ism”, we are beginning to lose our footing on the slippery slope that leads us into idolatrous living. Yes, these may even include things like nationalism or even patriotism; communism, socialism, or capitalism; racism, exclusivism, exclusive inclusivism, sexism, liberalism, conservatism, individualism, denominationalism, and, yes, even biblicism or biblical literalism. These can all be adopted as a false god in the living out of our lives and given full expression in the attitudes, conduct, opinions, behaviors, and allegiances of the lives we live among one another. Sometimes it confronts us in more subtle ways. When, for instance, did we last sacrifice a real-life present interaction with somebody for the wiles of social media? A real-life outside experience of God’s world with somebody else for spectating somebody else’s life on TV? Forgoing the gains of a real intellectual conversation with others for the “artificial” intelligence we supposedly obtain with little more than the push of a few buttons? The question is whether we can imagine our selves living without such and, if not, where exactly does that leave us?