Open Bible Data Home About News OET Key
OET OET-RV OET-LV ULT UST BSB BLB AICNT OEB WEBBE WMBB NET LSV FBV TCNT T4T LEB BBE Moff JPS Wymth ASV DRA YLT Drby RV Wbstr KJB-1769 KJB-1611 Bshps Gnva Cvdl TNT Wycl SR-GNT UHB BrLXX BrTr Related Topics Parallel Interlinear Reference Dictionary Search
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z
THEOCRACY*
Form of government that acknowledges God alone as the highest political authority, whether or not he is represented by a human ruler such as a king. Thus, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 argues that a human king rules only as one designated for kingship by the Lord.
In ancient Israel, the concept of theocratic government developed through several historical stages. A fundamental theological conception of the sons of Israel in Egypt involved the belief that Yahweh, their special God, cared enough about their plight to become personally involved in redeeming them from slavery and establishing them in freedom from all earthly rulers (specifically the pharaoh). They would then be able to serve him alone (see Ex 3:7-10; 8:1; 9:1). It is necessary to remember that the conditions of oppression described in Exodus were everyday features in the lives of Egyptian peasants. Living under the rulership of the pharaoh as a peasant implied oppression, unreasonable work assignments, loss of freedom and self-respect, and many other things. By contrast, life under the rulership of Yahweh came to signify freedom, justice, and equality.
Upon arriving in Canaan, the young tribes encountered a system of kingship widely different from the Egyptian model but equally opprobrious. Ancient Canaanite rulers normally owned the city-state they governed, and rented out at least some of the land to their subjects. But the Israelites who occupied Canaan under Joshua were meant to be free inhabitants of the territory allotted to them and subservient to God alone.
In the period of the judges, the idea of theocracy continued to be expressed consistently and explicitly. The various groups comprising the “sons of Israel” were not welded together into a unified body by any external political structure. Rather, acceptance of the rulership of Yahweh alone continued to function as the foundational unifying element. Thus Gideon, when asked by some to accept kingship, could say in words acceptable to virtually all Israelites, “The Lord shall rule over you” (Jgs 8:23).
In this period, human leadership became necessary from time to time as threats arose to one or more of the tribes. These judges were regularly described as “raised up” for the specific task of averting immediate danger, but more specifically to lead the people back to the Lord (Jgs 2:16). But no judge was believed to have brought victory to Israel by means of his personal abilities. Yahweh alone was credited with having won the battle; hence, he deserved and received the loyalty of Israel.
Samuel bridges the time of the judges and a new era of monarchy in Israel. Philistine social and military pressure was confronting the Israelite theocratic government with a challenge of enormous proportions. For roughly 200 years preceding Samuel, the Israelites and the Philistines had coexisted, if not peaceably, at least short of open warfare. During the career of Samuel, however, the Philistines inaugurated a policy of open aggression toward Israel aimed at conquest and expansion. The tribal confederacy, which for years had successfully defended one or more tribal groups, now appeared incapable of resisting the Philistines. A new governmental structure had clearly become necessary. In the minds of many influential Israelites, only a kingdom headed by a king could enable Israel to survive (see 1 Sm 8:5, 19-20).
At this point the concept of theocracy received a severe test. Politically and militarily, a king appeared to be a wise and necessary choice. But the tradition of theocratic rule was deeply ingrained. Samuel viewed the desire for a king as rejection of the rulership of Yahweh (1 Sm 8:10-18; 10:19). On the other hand, he also appears to have received a prophetic word concerning Saul and the willingness of God to have him anointed as king (9:27–10:1).
In addition to his prophetic anointing, Saul also received a designation from “the spirit of God” (1 Sm 11:6), which closely paralleled the experiences of earlier judges. A third ingredient to Saul’s claim to kingship was added when the people acclaimed him following a military victory over the Ammonites. Apart from the clarity of the biblical tradition that two opinions of kingship were represented among Israelites, clearly God chose the king and revealed his choice through his messenger-prophet.
One day God’s people would no longer need a human king to rule them. This is portrayed in the book of Ezekiel (Ez 40–48), in which God would rule his people through the Zadokite priesthood. This began to be implemented through the work of Haggai and Zechariah in 520 BC. This was a particularly important feature of postexilic life and imparted a distinctive character to the Judean community. The work of Ezra made the theocracy normative for Judaism, and thereafter the priesthood exercised an important role in national life. Although the people were subjected to human rule under the Seleucids, they looked for the true king, a descendant of David. This man, the Messiah, would be the peaceful prince who would redeem Israel and bring the ancient covenantal values of justice, righteousness, and equity to fruition.
See also King.