The Burden of Leadership: The Mosaic Paradigm of Kingship (Deut. 17:14–20)

By Daniel I. Block

[Daniel I. Block is John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.

This is the third article in a four-part series “Rediscovering the Gospel according to Moses,” delivered by the author as the W. H. Griffith Thomas Lectures at Dallas Theological Seminary, February 3-6, 2004.]

Responsible godly leadership involves submission and homage before God, the divine Sovereign, and humble modeling of covenant righteousness before His people in accord with His will and for their good.

The church in America is experiencing a crisis of leadership, not only with respect to leadership style but also with respect to definition. The Teal Trust, a British organization that aims to help develop effective Christian leaders, defines leadership as “enabling a group to engage together in the process of developing, sharing and moving into vision, and then living it out.”[1] Warren Bennis, author of dozens of books and essays on leadership, defines leadership as “the process by which an agent induces a subordinate to behave in a desired manner.”[2] Perhaps Peter Drucker has the simplest approach to leadership when he asserts, “The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.”[3] John C. Maxwell says that “leadership is influence—nothing more, nothing less.”[4] He then cites his favorite leadership proverb, “He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is only taking a walk.”[5]

After Moses herded his father-in-law’s sheep for about twenty years, this seems to have been the only kind of walk Moses was willing to take. His five responses to God’s call to leadership are classic. “I am nobody” (Exod. 3:11). “I have no authority” (v. 13). “I have no credibility” (4:1). “I have no talents” (v. 10). “I don’t want to go” (v. 13). Remarkably in responding to these protestations the Lord refused to answer according to modern definitions of leadership, which often sound slightly narcissistic.[6] Instead in each instance the Lord deflected Moses’ focus from his own inadequacies to God’s absolute sufficiencies. In the mission to which Moses was called the question was not who Moses is, but who God is. It was not Moses’ natural or derived authority, but God’s. It was not Moses’ credibility, but God’s. It was not Moses’ giftedness, but God’s control over gifts. It was not Moses’ will, but God’s.

The most eloquent presentation of servant leadership in the Old Testament is in Moses’ instructions in Deuteronomy 17:14–20 on the conduct of Israel’s future kings.

This passage is part of Moses’ second address to his people, an address that runs from 4:44 through 26:19, is interrupted momentarily by chapter 27, and then resumes in 28:1–29:1 (Heb., 28:1–69). More specifically this text appears in the middle of five literary units concerned with institutions of leadership (16:18–18:22). These units may be seen as arranged in a chiasm:

A. Instructions for communal judges as guardians of justice and orthodoxy (16:18–17:7)

B. Instructions for Levitical priests as Israel’s supreme court (17:8–13)

C. Instructions for the king of Israel (17:14–20)

B. Instructions for Levitical priests as worship officials (18:1–8)

A. Instructions for prophets as guardians of orthodoxy (18:9–22)

The “C” section subdivides into two parts, the first (17:14–15) being dominated by second person singular verbs and pronouns, and the second (vv. 16–20) by third person singular verbs and pronouns. These sections may be titled, “The Installation of a King over Israel Anticipated” and “The Conduct of the King of Israel Prescribed.”

What Circumstances Call for This Paradigm of Leadership?

Moses began his instructions about kingship rather matter-of-factly with a lengthy temporal clause predicting the circumstances under which a monarchy might be contemplated in Israel. The opening clause, beginning with כִּי (“When”), anticipates a future historical situation that is noted by three verbs: when Israel has entered the land, when they have taken possession of it, and when they have established their residence in it.

Verse 14a sets the context (“when you enter the land… and you possess it and live in it”); verse 14b announces the key issue (“and you say, ‘I would like to set [or, install] a king over me like all the nations who are around me”); and verse 14c declares the divine response (“you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses… you may not put a foreigner over yourselves”).

The present request catches the reader by surprise. Neither in the previous chapters of Deuteronomy nor in the narratives of Exodus and Numbers has anyone in Israel imagined the nation being constituted as a monarchy with a king other than the Lord their God.[7] Israel was a theocracy. However, this does not mean that the notion was entirely new. Included in God’s covenant with the patriarchs was the promise that Abraham’s descendants would become a multitude of nations (גּוֹיִם, Gen. 17:4–6, 16; 25:23; 35:11; 48:19), which are by definition monarchies (cf. 1 Sam. 8:5, 19–20).[8] More specifically on three occasions God had expressly promised Israel’s ancestors, including Jacob, that kings would be among their descendants (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11). Jacob expressly pronounced the tribe of Judah as the bearer of the royal scepter (49:10). Moses’ generation of Israelites would undoubtedly have been familiar with the oracles of the pagan prophet Balaam, who reinforced this notion twice, predicting first that Israel as a kingdom and her king would be exalted (Num. 24:7), and second that a star/royal scepter would rise from Jacob/Israel (v. 17). However, since the Israelites had left Egypt, no one in Israel had raised the issue of a human monarchy.

Scholars recognize that ancient Near Eastern kings were expected to fulfill several roles.[9] First, as warrior the king was to lead his nation in battle and protect the society from outside threats. With the imminent departure of Moses and the battles awaiting the Israelites on the other side of the Jordan, one might have expected the request to include a motive clause like the one presented to Samuel centuries later in which they said they wanted a king to fight their battles (1 Sam. 8:19–20).[10] But in Deuteronomy 17 the people requested a king after they dispossessed the enemy.

Second, as chief judge the king was to guarantee justice within the nation. However, in the immediately preceding paragraphs (16:18–17:13) Moses had just called for the appointment of judges and other officials to administer justice in the land, and he assigned to the Levitical priests a judicial role, thereby taking the gavel of justice out of the hands of any future king.

Third, as patron of worship, the king was to maintain places of worship and provide materials and personnel for the religious rituals. But this notion is foreign to the Book of Deuteronomy,[11] for the Lord Himself chose the place to establish His name and He Himself established the form of worship without the involvement of a king.

In 17:16–20 Moses repudiated prevailing models of kingship for Israel, which heightens the significance of the request that the people have a king “like all the nations” around them (v. 14). Grammatically “like all the nations” could refer to the king, in which case the desire was to have “a king like all the nations [have].” However, it is more likely that the phrase refers to the rationale for and the process of installing a king as the nations do, in which case the request reflects a desire to be like the nations. This interpretation seems to be supported by the way the elders of Israel understood the statement when they demanded that Samuel give them a king (1 Sam. 8:5). They betrayed their true colors when they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles” (vv. 19–20; italics added).

Moses had spoken repeatedly of the seductive attractions of the Canaanite religious ideas (Deut. 4:15–19; 7:3–4; 11:16; 12:29–31; 13:2, 6, 13), and he even suggested that Israel’s spiritual demise was inevitable (5:29). But now he spoke of the seductive attraction of the Canaanite political system. Despite having taken over the land of the Canaanites and despite the nations’ having recognized the righteous nature of the Israelites’ constitution (cf. 4:8), the people were expected, amazingly, to want to follow the political system of those whom they displaced.

Although one might be suspicious of the motivation behind the request for a king, Moses’ response was fundamentally positive: “You may indeed install a king over yourself” (17:15). Unlike the appointment of judges, which Moses prescribed in 16:18–20, this statement represents a granting of permission to act according to the people’s desire. That Moses should approve the request demonstrates that the Israelite constitution was not opposed in principle to a monarchical system. Moses narrowed the qualifications for candidates for kingship (17:15), and then he set strict limits on the conduct of those who would be installed as king (vv. 16–20).

What Qualifies a Person for This Kind of Leadership?

Moses stated two qualifications for the future king. First, the king must be chosen by the Lord. The concept of divine election is familiar to readers of Deuteronomy. The Lord chose Israel as His people out of all the peoples on earth (4:37; 7:6–7; 10:15; 14:2), He chose a place to establish His name (12:5, 14),[12] and He chose priests from the tribe of Levi (18:5; 21:5). Here Moses spoke of the Lord choosing a king from the people of Israel to govern the nation for Him (17:15).

The notion of the gods choosing a person to serve as their royal representative was widespread in the ancient Near East. This is attested as early as the eighteenth century b.c. in Mari on the Euphrates River[13] and in Babylon,[14] and as late as eighth-century b.c. Syria,[15] seventh-century b.c. Assyria,[16] and sixth-century b.c. Persia.[17] However, Moses envisioned a chosen ruler governing the chosen people on the Lord’s behalf. But Moses gave no clue about who this person might be.[18]

In verse 15 Moses added a second qualification for an Israelite king: he must be a fellow Israelite. Moses made this point emphatically, first, by declaring that the candidate must be one “from the midst of your brothers,” and second, by stating that an outsider (נָכְרִי), one “who is not a countryman,”[19] was not to be installed. Throughout the history of Israel this proscription seems to have been strictly observed, with Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, representing the nearest the Israelites came to violating this requirement (2 Kings 11). According to Moses the people were to be ruled by a viceroy of the Lord chosen from their own ranks, not someone brought in as an expert from outside.

How Does a True Leader Exercise Leadership?

Having expressed his fundamental support of the appointment of a king in Israel’s future, Moses turned his attention to the manner in which the responsibilities of kingship were to be exercised (Deut. 17:16–20). His instructions express a remarkable contrast between, on the one hand, the royal office, and on the other hand, the offices of judge, which Moses commanded the Israelites to institute (16:18–20; 17:9); of priest, which Moses said the Lord had already instituted (17:9; 18:1–8); and of prophet, which Moses said the Lord would institute in the future (18:9–22). Moses presented the office of king as optional, subject to the desire of the people. However, more revolutionary than the optional nature of the office of king was Moses’ severe circumscription of the Israelite king’s powers. He described the duties of the future king in two parts: first, with a triad of proscriptions intended to prevent common abuses of the office (vv. 16–17) that could arise out of ambition and greed, and second, with an extraordinary spiritual and ethical prescription for the king (vv. 18–20).

The Danger: Ambition (vv. 16–17)

Moses signaled his transition to a new phase of his instructions about kingship in Israel with the restrictive particle רַק, “only, except, by no means.” This emphatic particle applies to all four of the following negative commands. Although the proscriptions are four main statements, they may be considered as three prohibitions, for the first two both relate to multiplying horses. Each of these commands has significant symbolic significance: multiplying for himself horses, women, and precious metals.

The lust for power: The prohibition regarding horses. Moses’ first proscription on royal behavior prohibited the king from multiplying horses for himself. Horses were first domesticated in the Eurasian steppes and introduced to the Near East in the third millennium b.c. Unlike cattle and donkeys, which were widely used in the ancient Near East for agricultural purposes or to transport goods, horses were used primarily for pulling chariots.[20] Fleets of chariots gave a great military advantage over foot soldiers when battles were conducted in relatively flat terrain (Deut. 20:1; Josh. 17:16–18; Judg. 1:19). Hittite and Ugaritic sources indicate that horses were used for military purposes north of Israel.[21] However, with a single exception, in the Pentateuch horses are mentioned only in connection with the Egyptians (Gen. 47:17; Exod. 9:3; 14:9, 23; 15:19; Deut. 11:4; 17:16). Anticipating the temptation that surfaced later not only for kings but also for the people to look to horses and chariots as guarantors of security (Ps. 20:7; Isa. 30:16), Moses wrote, “When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you” (Deut. 20:1).[22]

To the basic prohibition on the multiplication of horses, Moses added that the king must never send the people to Egypt to procure horses from there (v. 16b). Although the Egyptians were renowned for their use of horses and chariots in their military forces, they were generally importers rather than exporters of horses. Egypt is probably mentioned here as a potential source of horses because of Israel’s memory of their involvement at the time of the Exodus, or because Moses realistically anticipated that Egypt would continue to be a force in Palestinian affairs in the future. This anticipation was fulfilled both in the days of the united monarchy (1 Kings 11:40; 14:25) and on into the end of the eighth[23] and seventh centuries (2 Kings 23:28–30).

But why did Moses warn against sending the people back to Egypt to get horses? The prohibition seems to be based on the fear that the king, as leader of the people, would possibly reverse the Exodus and lead them back into bondage, thereby undoing the great salvific acts that the Lord had accomplished on their behalf through Moses.[24] Whatever the reason, Moses strengthened his statement by appealing to an earlier utterance by the Lord that the Israelites were never to return to Egypt.[25]

The lust for status: The prohibition regarding women. The second command prohibited the king from multiplying women in his court (Deut. 17:17). The word נָשִׁים, usually translated “wives,” is better rendered more generically as “women,” the reference being to the harem of a typical oriental king. Although the Old Testament records illustrations of men having more than one wife at a time,[26] this statement represents the closest the Old Testament comes to prohibiting more than one wife.

In the ancient Near East, kings would amass large harems for several reasons. First, and most obviously, a harem gave the king unlimited opportunity to satisfy his sexual cravings with the most beautiful women in the kingdom. Second, since marriages were often arranged to strengthen alliances with other states,[27] the institution of the harem enabled a king to be allied simultaneously with many outside rulers (see, e.g., 1 Kings 11:1). Third, just as the male members of a royal court served as “decoration” to reflect the glory and majesty of a king,[28] so the larger the harem and the more beautiful its members, the more impressed foreign visitors would be when they visited the king. In short, one of the functions of the harem was to enhance the status of the king among his international peers.

Remarkably Deuteronomy 17:17 says nothing about any of these considerations. Instead the motivation for the prohibition is simply though somewhat ambiguously stated, “else his heart will turn away.” Since the prohibition does not explicitly prohibit marriage to foreign wives, who could lead the king into idolatry (cf. 7:3–4), the concern should probably not be restricted to the overt practice of idolatry. As in 6:5, the word ב, commonly rendered “heart,” could also refer to the mind as the seat of thought and intellect. Like wine and strong drink, the lust for pleasure and status could lead to intoxication that would turn the king’s heart away from God and his mind away from the rational exercise of his office (Prov. 31:3–9). In light of what follows and in the context of the overall thrust of Deuteronomy, Moses’ concern here may be defection from the Torah generally, which would of course also involve in particular the Great Commandment to love the Lord their God exclusively.

The lust for wealth: The prohibition regarding silver and gold. Moses’ third prohibition pertained to the king’s excessive accumulation of silver and gold (Deut. 17:17). Although Moses mentioned only these two metals, this expression probably stands for wealth and opulence in general. Moses did not speak about what might motivate a king to accumulate wealth, nor did he specify the actions a king might take to do so. However, in the broader context of ancient Near Eastern monarchies and in the light of the concern that the Israelite king not consider himself superior to his countrymen (v. 20), he probably had in mind primarily the accumulation of private wealth by imposing heavy taxes on the citizenry.

These three restrictions on common royal behavior address the three temptations that many have recognized as common to people in positions of leadership: an increasingly insatiable lust for power, a lust for status, and a lust for wealth.[29] It should be noted that Moses did not hereby prohibit the purchase of horses, or marriage, or the accumulation of some silver and gold within the country. What was banned was the king’s accumulation of all of these by exploiting his leadership position for personal gain. Moses highlighted this concern through his threefold repetition of the prepositional expression לוֹ, “for himself.” Persons are placed in positions of leadership for the sake of those whom they are called to lead, not for their own sakes.

The Demand: Submission (vv. 18–20)

The revolutionary nature of Moses’ monarchic ideals becomes even more striking in the last verses of this paragraph. He expressed his ideals with three commands, all relating to the Torah: the king shall copy the Torah, the king shall have the Torah with him, and the king shall read the Torah. Given the way הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, “this Torah,” and related expressions are used in the book,[30] it seems best to understand “this Torah” minimally as Moses’ second address (5:1b–26:19 and 28:1–68), and maximally as the entire collection of his speeches preserved in Deuteronomy and delivered as a series of farewell addresses to his people (1:6–4:40; 5:1b–26:19; and 28:1–68; 29:1–30:20), as well has the nation’s “national anthem” (32:1–43)[31] and Moses’ final benediction of the tribes (33:2–29).[32]

Moses began his positive instructions regarding the future king’s conduct by referring to the time when he sits on his throne over his kingdom (v. 18a), that is, in the course of his governing as king.[33] However, the timing of the first of these instructions should probably be distinguished from the second and third. The king would in all likelihood have made only one personal copy of the Torah, and he would have done so as soon as he assumed the kingship, perhaps even as part of his accession ritual. However, the command to have it with him bears a durative sense, and the final charge explicitly calls on him to read it all the days of his life. These charges underlie the Lord’s later injunction to Joshua to meditate on the Torah day and night (Josh. 1:8) and the psalmist’s congratulation of the person who does so (Ps. 1:2).

The command to copy the Torah. This command is remarkable on five counts. First, it suggests that Moses recognized the canonical status of his teaching from the outset, necessitating its immediate transcription to writing and assuming its normativeness in perpetuity (cf. Deut. 31:9).

Second, this charge perceives the king not as one who writes the laws, but as one who receives them from a higher authority and is subject to them. Though Israel would have a human king, they would remain a theocracy, in which the Lord, the divine King, would rule everyone. The addition of the prepositional expression, לוֹ, “for himself,” presents an intentional contrast to the preceding words. Whereas Moses had earlier explicitly forbidden the king from amassing horses, women, and wealth “for himself,” that is, for personal advantage, now Moses declared emphatically that there was something the king must do “for himself,” namely, to write his own copy of the Torah.

Third, the charge assumes royal literacy from the outset of the monarchy. Many scholars continue to be skeptical about this level of literacy in ancient Israel. However, the invention of the twenty-two-letter Hebrew alphabet in the first half of the second millennium b.c. certainly made the ability to read and write more accessible to much greater numbers of people than did Egyptian hieroglyphs and Akkadian cuneiform.[34] Furthermore there is no objective reason to doubt that compositions as extensive and complex as the individual speeches of Moses preserved in Deuteronomy could have been produced in the second half of the second millennium b.c.[35]

Fourth, the charge identifies the document to be copied as “a copy of this Torah” (17:18). The translators of the Septuagint sent the history of interpretation of Deuteronomy in a wrong direction in the third century b.c. when they rendered the phrase τὸ δευτερονόμιον τοῦτο, “this second law.” This unfortunate rendering is immortalized in the title of the book not only in the Greek version but in all English translations as well, obscuring not only the real meaning of the phrase in this context but also the book’s own title, “These are the Words.” The word “Deuteronomy” (“Second Law”) also clouds the fact that the overriding tone of the book is homiletical, expository, and rhetorical, rather than legal.

Fifth, Moses instructed the king to copy the Torah on a פֶר36 in the presence of the Levitical priests. This hints that the priests were to be the custodians of the Torah that Moses was proclaiming and would shortly transcribe. Having committed his address to writing, Moses would hand it over to the priests who carried the ark of the covenant and to the elders of Israel, charging them to read it before the people every seven years at the Festival of Booths (31:9–13). Responsibility for guarding the Torah fell to the priests by virtue of their role as custodians of the Lord’s covenant.[37] At the accession of every king the priests were to retrieve the document, hand it to the king, and watch him as he copied it.

According to Philo the demand for the king to copy the Torah was motivated by a concern for memorability—in the act of writing, the words of the text are impressed on the mind more indelibly than if the text was only heard.[38] However, this was much more than a mnemonic procedure; it was a sacred act, and for several reasons. (1) It involved copying a sacred document that claims to have been uttered orally by Moses at the command of the Lord.[39] (2) It involved copying a document that was stored next to the most sacred object in Israel’s possession, the ark of the covenant. (3) It involved copying a document in a sacred setting, presumably at the central sanctuary in the presence of the Levitical priests, who served not only as custodians of the document but also as witnesses and guarantors on the Lord’s behalf that the king would copy the entire document, without addition or omission,[40]and that he would be true to the Torah that he was copying. Copying the Torah is perceived here as a covenantal act, whereby the king bound himself to all its promises and demands. He thereby declared nonverbally both his spiritual subordination to the priests and his subordination to the Torah as a symbol of the covenant that bound the Lord and Israel.

The command to wear the Torah. The second directive for the king with respect to the Torah consists of only two words, וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ (“and it shall be with him”), but its significance is profound. In the ancient world of suzerain-vassal relationships the vassal would receive a written copy of the covenant, which he then deposited in the temple of his chief deity, who provided oversight of the document.[41] At stated intervals the document would be retrieved and read aloud before the subordinate at covenant renewal ceremonies.[42] However, the king of Israel was not to treat the Torah, with Moses’ authoritative interpretation of the Lord’s covenant with Israel, as a museum piece or an object to be retrieved only periodically and have read before him. Although it must never be treated as a good-luck charm,[43] the copy of the Torah was to accompany the king wherever he went, as a constant reminder of his personal vassal status and as a guide for his conduct.[44]

The command to read the Torah. The last charge to the king is the most elaborate, taking up the rest of verse 19 and all of verse 20. Moses began with a simple directive, “He shall read it all the days of his life,” but this is followed by a series of four purpose clauses, which highlight the significance of this extraordinary royal duty. Whereas the first three identify specific responses that are dependent on the reading, the last announces the long-range reward for the king and his successors. Even so, all four statements echo earlier injunctions to the people.

First, faithful reading of the Torah is the key to a proper disposition toward the Lord, the divine Suzerain—fear, demonstrated in scrupulous obedience.[45] Second, faithful reading of the Torah is the key to a proper disposition toward fellow members of the covenant community—humility toward one’s own countrymen.[46] The Israelite king may have been chosen by the Lord and installed by the people as king over them,[47] but he must resist all temptation to consider himself in any way their superior. Third, faithful reading of the Torah is the key to staying on course in one’s devotion to the Lord. Not turning “to the right or the left” is equivalent to walking in all the ways of the Lord.[48] Fourth, faithful reading of the Torah is the key to a secure future, described in terms of lengthened days over his kingdom in the midst of Israel for himself and his sons.[49]

By incorporating echoes of earlier texts that applied to the people of Israel, Moses reinforced the revolutionary nature of his paradigm for Israelite kingship. (1) Whereas the kings of other nations often gained power by sheer force and at the expense of their rivals and their subjects, the kingship of Israel was to be established in response to a democratic impulse and the favorable response of the Lord. (2) Whereas foreigners, illegitimate usurpers from the outside, or imperial overlords often governed other states, the Israelites were to be governed by one of their own under the imperial reign of the Lord. (3) Whereas the kings of other nations regularly used their positions to satisfy their lust for power, status, and wealth, the Israelite kings were forbidden from using their office to amass power and wealth for themselves. (4) Whereas other kings were perceived primarily as administrators of justice, a function they fulfilled by demanding absolute loyalty, the role of Israelite kings was to embody the divinely revealed standard of covenantal justice. (5) Whereas other kings codified laws to protect their own interests and to regulate the conduct of their subjects, rather than themselves,[50] the Lord Himself codified the Israelite laws and had His spokesman, who had no vested interests in the kingship, interpret them, and then imposed them on the king himself.[51] Written copies of treaties for vassal kings are well known, and numerous ancient law codes governing the conduct of the people have been discovered in the soil of the Near East. However, for Israel’s king the response of the people was of secondary importance, if not irrelevant. He had no authority to teach or interpret the Torah, let alone amend it; he could only demonstrate its intent by modeling it.[52] (6) Whereas the kings of other ancient Near Eastern nations were elevated above their countrymen with epithets like “son of God”[53] and “image of Bel/Shamash,”[54] in Deuteronomy the former title is reserved for the nation of Israel (14:1; 32:6, 18; cf. 1:31), and the latter is absent all together. The only epithet the king of Israel may claim is “brother” of his people.

The role of the king as model citizen of Israel and vassal of the Lord is highlighted not only by echoes of earlier statements applied to Israel in this pericope, but also by the way in which exposure to the Word of God is presented as a prerequisite to one’s well-being. Although no single text contains all the elements, the complete chain of events follows this order: reading, hearing, learning, fearing, obeying, living. Fear is explicitly linked to obedience in several passages, as seen in this table.

Reference	Reading	Hearing	Learning	Fearing	Obeying	Living/Well-being
4:10		X	X	X
5:23–29		X		X	X	X
6:1–3			X	X	X	X
17:13		X		X	X
17:19–20	X	(X)	X	X	X	X
19:20		X		X	X
31:11–13	X	X	X	X	X

In this list 17:19–20 represents the most complete text, lacking only an explicit reference to hearing. However, since reading involved “crying out” and the king is to “read” the Torah to himself, it could be argued that hearing is present implicitly. In drawing the link between reading and prolonged tenure on the throne (the equivalent to the people’s long life in the land), Moses hereby presented the king as an exemplary Israelite and the embodiment of covenant fidelity. His countrymen should be able to recognize that if they imitate him, their own well-being in the land would be secured. At the same time, the consequences of not fearing and obeying the Lord are clearly spelled out in the covenant curses, specifically 28:58: “If you are not careful to observe all the words of this law which are written in this book, to fear this honored and awesome name, the Lord your God,” then the Lord would impose all kinds of horrendous consequences on Israel.

Concluding Reflections

Deuteronomy 17:14–20 offers church leaders some important guidelines for developing a theology of ministry—guidelines that run against the grain of church leadership definitions given at the beginning of this article.

First, the paradigm presented here suggests that the forms of leadership in the church need not necessarily follow a prescribed order. The Lord here acceded to the people’s desire to have a king—which would inevitably challenge traditional tribal structures. Kingship was not prescribed; it was permitted.

Second, those who lead the people of God must be chosen by God. The way in which the king would be called remained open. Presumably, since it was the people who initiated the request for a king, the identity of the person called would be revealed to the people (perhaps even before it was known by the person himself). In Israel’s own history this election ultimately led to David, “whom the Lord had in mind from the beginning” (1 Sam. 13:14). Just as the early church was led by persons recognized to have been called by God,[55] so churches today must be led by persons whom all recognize are called by God.

Third, leaders are to exist for the well-being of those they lead, and they are not to exploit their positions for personal advantage or selfish gain. The lust for power (horses), the lust for status and self-gratification (women), and the lust for wealth (silver and gold), remain paramount temptations in every age. In the Bible responsible headship is never about power or privilege; it is always about securing the well-being of those under one’s charge.

Fourth, functionally and for the sake of the ministry, leaders may be perceived as above their peers, but they must acknowledge their subordination to God. The king envisioned by Moses was to write a copy of the Torah for himself in the presence of the priests, who as representatives of God would hold him accountable for his personal conduct. Significantly not a word is said about administrative gifts or persuasive talent.[56]

Fifth, while a few leaders in Israel’s history modeled the ideals of the Torah presented here (Joshua—though not a king, Josh. 1:8–9; Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18:3–7; and Josiah, 22:18–19), ultimately this role will be fulfilled perfectly only by Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, who came, not to bring an end to the Torah, but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). He serves as the perfect embodiment of the ideals of covenant relationship as represented in the Torah.

Sixth, before leaders can presume the right to teach people God’s Word or to create visions of growth and destiny for them, they must embody personally the ideals of covenant relationship to which the people have bound themselves. This may call for a modification of Maxwell’s favorite leadership proverb, “He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is only taking a walk.” Actually leaders in the church must be taking a walk, walking according to God’s Word so that they may learn to fear the Lord and obey His will. In this way they can model for people the direct link between knowing the Word and fearing and obeying the Lord (cf. Deut. 31:9–13). Paul may have had this very text in mind when he wrote in 1 Timothy 4:13–16 about how Timothy should handle ministry.

May church leaders, through the work of the Holy Spirit and the written Word of God, lead “according to God” (1 Pet. 5:2). Before they can do the tasks involved in church leadership they must be paradigms of fidelity and virtue, leading with their own lives before they lead with their ideas and gifts.

Notes

1. Teal Trust introduction page at http://www.teal.org.uk/about.htm
2. Warren G. Bennis, “Leadership Theory and Administrative Behavior: The Problems of Authority,” Administrative Science Quarterly 4 (1959): 259-301, quoted in Bernard M. Bass, ed., Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, rev. ed. (New York: Free, 1981), 9. Linda Smircich and Gareth Morgan define leadership more subjectively as “the process whereby one or more individuals succeeds in attempting to frame and define the reality of others” (“Leadership: The Management of Meaning,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18 [1982]: 258).
3. Peter Drucker, “Forward: Not Enough Generals Were Killed,” in The Leader of the Future, ed. Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996), xii (italics his).
4. John C. Maxwell, The Twenty-one Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 17.
5. Ibid., 20.
6. Warren Bennis writes that “leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential” (http://www.teal.org.uk/ about.htm).
7. Explicit references to the Lord’s kingship over Israel appear only in poetic texts (Exod. 15:18; Num. 23:21; Deut. 33:5). Exodus 19:6 includes an implicit reference to the Lord’s kingship, inasmuch as He refers to Israel as His “kingdom of priests.”
8. See also Daniel I. Block, “Nations,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 4:966–72.
9. See K. W. Whitelam, “Israelite Kingship: The Royal Ideology and Its Opponents,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives, ed. R. E. Clements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 130.
10. Remarkably the people did not make Joshua a king, though the Lord’s command to Joshua to have the Torah on his lips continuously (Josh. 1:7–8) seems to be based on the paradigm of kingship presented in Deuteronomy 17.
11. Gary Knoppers, “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Re-examination of a Relationship,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 330; and idem, “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2002): 404-5.
12. The fact that the Lord would choose a place to establish for Himself occurs an additional twenty times in Deuteronomy (12:11, 18, 21, 23; 14:23–25; 15:20; 16:2, 6–7, 11, 15–16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 23:16; 26:2; 31:11).
13. The relevant texts are published in transliteration and translation by Martii Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). Prophecies from Mari speak of Adad raising up Zimri-Lim in his lap and establishing him on his ancestral throne (ibid., 1:18) and Adad declaring, “I have given the whole country to Yahdun-Lim” (ibid., 1:21; 2:5–7).
14. In the prologue to the Law Code of Hammurabi the Old Babylonian king characterizes himself as the one named by Anum and Enlil to promote the welfare of the people, to promote the cause of justice in the land, to destroy the wicked and defend the rights of the weak—in general to light up the land. He is the shepherd called by Enlil to ensure prosperity for the land (James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969], 164).
15. In the stela of Zakir, usurper of the thrones of Hamath and Luash, Zakir introduced himself as the one whom Be‘elshamayn made king over Hadrach (ibid., 655; and Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 205).
16. Especially intriguing is the introduction of Esarhaddon in a text describing his rise to power: “Esarhaddon, the great king, legitimate king, king of the world, king of Assyria, regent of Babylonia, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims [of the earth], true shepherd, favorite of the great gods, whom Assur, Shamash, Bel, and Nebo, the Ishtar of Nineveh [and] the Ishtar of Arbela, has chosen me—in due form and in the presence [lit., assembly] of all my brothers—saying: ‘This is the son to (be elevated) to the position of a succesor of mine” (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 289; see also Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, 137). Elsewhere neo-Assyrian prophecies speak of the divinely chosen kings, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, as persons whom the gods called by name to kingship (ibid., 172), with whom the gods have established a covenant (ibid., 120), the “son” or “creation” of the gods, and “beloved of the gods.” On these epithets and the relationship of neo-Assyrian kings to the gods see Simo Parpola, “The King as God’s Son and Chosen One,” in Assyrian Prophecies, State Archives of Assyria 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), xxxvi-xliv.
17. According to the Cyrus Cylinder Inscription, “He [Marduk] surveyed and looked throughout all the lands, searching for a righteous king whom he would support. He called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he pronounced his name to be king over all (the world)” (Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, vol. 2 of The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. [Leiden: Brill, 2000], 315).
18. According to 1 Samuel 13:14 God had David in mind from the beginning, for he alone was the “man after His own heart.” While this statement says little about any special quality of David, it does more than merely emphasize the Lord’s free selection of the occupant of the throne (P. Kyle McCarter Jr., I Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980], 229). The verse points to David as the one whom the Lord had in mind when He promised Abraham that his seed would possess the gate of his enemies (Gen. 22:17; the verb “possess” is singular), and when He inspired Jacob to declare that the one who would wield the royal scepter would be from the tribe of Judah (49:10). The narrator of 1 Samuel never viewed Saul as a legitimate holder of this office. See also Daniel I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 38–40.
19. The word נָכְרִי occurs in Deuteronomy 14:21 and 15:3 and appears again in 23:21 and 29:22 (Heb., v. 21), where he is defined as one “who comes from a distant land.” On the status of the נָכְרִי see Daniel I. Block, “Sojourner; Alien; Stranger,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 562. Since Moses delivered the speeches in Deuteronomy in the second millennium, a recent illustration of foreign control over a nation would have been provided by the fifteenth and sixteenth dynasties of Egypt, lines of Asiatics, who controlled Egypt from their capital in Avaris for more than a century from 1650–1530 b.c., and whose name meant “ruler(s) of foreign land(s).” See Donald B. Redford, “Hyksos,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:341–44.
20. For illustrations of chariots see The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 1:260–61. For a brief discussion of the domestication and use of horses in the ancient Near East see Edwin Firmage, “Zoology (Animal Profiles),” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:1136–37. On chariots and chariotry see M. A. Littauer and J. H. Crouwel, “Chariots,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1:888–92.
21. In a thirteenth-century b.c. text, the Ugaritic legend of Kirta, King Pabil seeks to persuade Kirta to withdraw his siege of Pabil’s city by offering him silver and gold, slaves, horses, and chariots (“Kirta,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. Simon B. Parker [Atlanta: Scholars, 1997], 17).
22. For a dramatic fulfillment of this promise see Judges 4:1–16.
23. In Isaiah’s pronouncement of woe on Israel, he associated going down to Egypt for help with reliance on horses, chariots, and horsemen (Isa. 31:1).
24. This could account for later prophetic references to kings as symbols of slavery. See especially Samuel’s speech in 1 Samuel 8:10–18 in response to the elders’ demand for a king.
25. The Scriptures record no such divine utterance before this. Perhaps the present statement, usually translated as a command, should also be interpreted as a promise: “For the Lord has said, ‘You will never return that way again’ ” (so also Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1996], 167). If it is interpreted as a warning, the present statement declares that Israel may not on their own choose to go back to Egypt, for this would in effect annul their status as a people redeemed from slavery and in covenant relationship with the Lord.
26. Examples include Abraham (Gen. 16; 25:1–2), Jacob (29:15–30), Esau (26:34; 36:2), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:2), David (18:17–30; 25:38–43; 2 Sam. 3:2–5), and Solomon (1 Kings 11:3).
27. See 1 Kings 9:15–16 (Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter); and 16:31 (Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel, a princess of Tyre, though she seems to have been his primary wife).
28. Daniel 1:3–4 focuses on the qualifications of candidates for the court of Nebuchadnezzar: youths without defect, handsome, intelligent in every branch of learning, discreet, wise, and knowledgeable in the protocol of the court.
29. The titles of the following publications illustrate present-day infatuation with these tendencies: David A. Stewart, Money, Power and Sex (New York: Libra, 1965); Nancy C. M. Hartsock, Money, Sex and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism (New York: Longman, 1983); Philip Turner, Sex, Money and Power: An Essay on Christian Ethics (Cambridge, MA: Cowley, 1985); Richard J. Foster, The Challenge of the Disciplined Life: Christian Reflections on Money, Sex and Power rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989); John L. Jackley, Below the Beltway: Money, Sex, Power, and Other Fundamentals of Democracy in the Nation’s Capital (Washington, DC: Regnery, 1996); Deion Sanders, Power, Money & Sex: How Success Almost Ruined My Life (Nashville: Word, 1999); Paul Rosenfield, The Club Rules. Power, Money, Sex and Fear: How It Works in Hollywood (New York: Warner, 1992); and Gretchen Craft Rubin, Power, Money, Fame, Sex: A User’s Guide (New York: Atria, 2001).
30. The expression הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, “this Torah,” occurs in 1:5; 4:8; 17:18–19; 27:3, 8, 26; 28:58, 61; 29:29 (Heb., v. 28); 31:9, 11–12, 24; and 32:46; פֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה, “this written document of the Torah,” is in 29:21 (Heb., v. 20); 30:10; and 31:26; and פֶַר הַזֶּה, “this written document,” is in 28:58; 29:20 (Heb., v. 19), 27 (Heb., v. 26).
31. This poem is generally referred to as the “Song of Moses.” However, based on the description of the circumstances of the song in 31:19–22, it seems preferable to refer to this as the “Song of the Lord,” inasmuch as He apparently dictated the words to Moses. In any case the narrative framework of the song suggests that it was to be memorized and sung in perpetuity, thereby serving as the nation’s national anthem.
32. For further discussion of these issues see Daniel I. Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 385-408.
33. This could also be understood more narrowly as the time of his accession, that is, “when he takes his seat on the throne” (A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, New Century Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 273; and Tigay, Deuteronomy, 168).
34. See also John F. A. Sawyer, Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts (New York: Routledge, 1999), 49–51.
35. See the helpful study by Alan Millard, “Books in the Late Bronze Age in the Levant,” in Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East, ed. S. Izre’el et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 171–81.
36. Although the word פֶר is generally translated “book,” this rendering is misleading. Books with individual sheets of parchment or papyrus written on both sides so they could be read sequentially and bound together were not produced until in the Roman period (André Lemaire, “Writing and Writing Materials,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6:1004). While פֶר may refer to any written document, in this instance one should think of a specially tanned leather scroll of sheep or goat skin, which is known to have been used as writing material in Egypt from the early third millennium b.c.(ibid., 1003). See also Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000), 25–26; and Menahem Haran, “Book-Scrolls in Israel in Pre-exilic Times,” Journal of Jewish Studies 33 (1982): 166-67.
37. Deuteronomy 31:24–26 indicates that the song the Lord dictated to Moses was added to the Torah and that the entire composition was then placed beside the ark of the covenant, symbolic of its immediate status as canonical and authoritative.
38. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus 4.160, quoted in Tigay, Deuteronomy, 168.
39. The narrator and Moses both declared that he spoke to the people according to all the Lord had commanded him (Deut. 1:5; 4:5, 14; 6:1; 26:13–14).
40. The production of duplicate written copies of significant documents was widespread in ancient Mesopotamia. On completing the task scribes would conventionally add a colophon declaring their fidelity to the original that commonly read, “according to its original, written, checked, and copied” (Earle Leichty, “The Colophon,” in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, ed. Robert D. Biggs and John A. Brinkman [Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1964], 150).
41. See, for example, the Hittite treaty between Suppiluliuma I of Hatti and Shattiwaza of Mittanni, which makes the following provision: “A duplicate of this tablet is deposited before the Sun-goddess of Arinna, since the Sun-goddess of Arinna governs kingship and queenship” (Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts [Atlanta: Scholars, 1996], 42 [6A§13]).
42. See, for example, the Hittite treaty between Muwattalli of Hatti and Alaksandu of Wilusa: “This tablet which I have made for you, Alaksandu, shall be read out before you three times yearly, and you, Alaksandu shall know it. These words are by no means reciprocal. They issue from Hatti. Now you, Alaksandu must not do evil against My Majesty. Hatti must not prepare [evil] against you. I, Labarna, Great King, Beloved of the Storm-god of Lightning, have now summoned [the Thousand Gods] in this [matter] and have invoked them as witnesses. They shall listen” (ibid., 86 [13§16]). Moses later ordered that the Torah be transcribed and then read before all the people every seven years at the Festival of Booths (31:9).
43. See Jeremiah’s invective against his people for treating the Torah this way (Jer. 8:8).
44. This apparent linkage of the Torah with amulets is picked up in Proverbs and applied to parental commands and instructions (Prov. 1:8–9; 3:3, 21–22; 6:20–21).
45. Like the Lord’s own command in Deuteronomy 4:10, the statement assumes that the fear of the Lord is not natural, and that it must be learned. From Moses’ earlier statements it is clear that this fear is learned (a) by observing the Lord’s victories over enemies (2:25), (b) by hearing the voice of the Lord from the midst of the fire (4:10), and (c) by observing the punishment imposed on those who violate the covenant (17:13; 19:20; 21:21). For the first time mention is made of the Torah’s function as a means by which the fear of the Lord would be instilled in the hearts of His people. When they read the Torah that Moses had promulgated, they would not fear the human whose voice they had heard and whose hands had penned the words, but the One in whose name and by whose authority he acted. Moses hereby cautioned his hearers not to become addicted to visual theophanies and extraordinary manifestations of divine power as the basis for a proper disposition toward the Lord. Rather, in the written record of Moses’ interpretation of the Lord’s past revelation they would have constant reminders of the God who had fulfilled His promises to their ancestors by delivering His people from bondage, calling them to covenant relationship with Himself, revealing His will to them, and delivering the land of the Canaanites into their hands (cf. 6:20–25).
46. The idiom “that his heart may not be lifted up” echoes 8:13–14, where Moses had linked his warning to the people not to let their hearts be lifted up, with an appeal not to forget the Lord. As in the earlier context, here the warning follows a triple reference to the multiplication of possessions.
47. The preposition עַל, “over [me/you],” is used four times in verses 14–15, three of which are found in Moses’ speech.
48. See 8:6; 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16; 32:4. The words “that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left” (17:20) echo 5:31–32, where Moses had charged his people to observe the will of the Lord by acting in accord with that will, not turning aside to the right or to the left.
49. As noted earlier, the last clause is the only one of the four that promises a reward. But once again this clause echoes earlier statements, which appear in two versions. In some contexts Moses spoke of the Israelites themselves lengthening their days on the land. The concept of living long in the land occurs in 4:26, 40; 5:33; 11:9; 22:7; 30:18; and 32:47. In others Moses spoke of the days themselves lengthening. Variations of “your days may be prolonged” occur in 5:16; 6:2; and 25:15.
50. This is obvious from the prologue to the Law Code of Hammurabi (Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 2nd ed. [Atlanta: Scholars, 1995], 76–81). This is not to say that other nations did not have codified ideals for their kings. Although the document known as Advice to a Prince, found in the library of Ashurbanipal, derives from an omen text, it reflects a Mesopotamian effort to remind kings of their responsibility to seek the welfare of their subjects. For the text see Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960), 113–15. A similar awareness is reflected in the second millennium b.c. Ugaritic Kirta epic in which King Kirta is said to be suffering because he has not pursued the widow’s case nor taken up the claim of the wretched. For the text see Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, 41. See also Job 29:7–17 and Proverbs 31:1–9, both of which present non-Israelite rulers as responsible for the well-being of their subjects. But none of these come close to Deuteronomy 17:19–20 either in genre or in their intention to limit the king’s power.
51. Extrabiblical analogues to Moses’ prescription for the king are difficult to find. According to an ancient Mesopotamian text, apparently at his enthronement, Enmeduranki, the antedeluvian king of Sippar in Babylonia, received “the tablet of the gods, the bag with the mystery of heaven and earth.” This seems to have been some sort of pouch attached to the god or the king’s chest (Geo Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book [Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1950], 11–12). For the text see J. A. Craig, Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1895), 1:64.
52. Knoppers, “Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,” 402–4.
53. In later texts, however, Davidic kings were referred to as “sons of God” (2 Sam. 7:14; Pss. 2:6; 22:10; 28:6; 89:27–28). For a summary discussion of the “divine sonship” of kings in ancient Mesopotamia, Syria, and Egypt see Jarl E. Fossum, “Son of God,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 788–89.
54. Esarhaddon was characterized in this way by his exorcist: “The father of the king, my lord, was the very image of Bel, and the king, my lord, is likewise the image of Bel” (Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars [Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993], 181).
55. In Romans 1:1 Paul referred to himself as “a bondservant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.”
56. This understanding of leadership contrasts sharply with that of Carnes Lord, of the Naval War Academy, who asserts that leadership presupposes some element of “such traditionally manly qualities as competitiveness, aggression, or, for that matter, the ability to command.… Leadership that is not prepared to disadvantage anyone is hardly leadership at all” (The Modern Prince: What Leaders Need to Know Now, quoted by George Will, “Ending the ‘Feminization’ of Politics,” Courier Journal, January 29, 2004, A7).