Opinion: No King in Israel

By Craig G. Bartholomew

In 1 Samuel 8 we read about the Israelites desire for a “king to govern us, like other nations.” Samuel’s negative response to this and his discussion with YHWH about it provide a field day for historical critics, who discern different attitudes towards kingship and thus different sources. This is to miss the point entirely of this exceptionally powerful narrative.

In the ANE, kingship of the most authoritarian kind was the norm. One need only think of the pharaoh of Egypt who was regarded as semi-divine or divine. Generally as well, the king in the ANE was the lawgiver, and not the gods. OT Israel is revolutionary in these respects with YHWH as the king and him – and not Moses – as the lawgiver. Even when kingship is allowed in Israel, it is quite clear that just like every other citizen the king is to live under the law and not above it (see Deuteronomy 17:14-20). The revolution this ushered in has been well captured by the saying: Lex Rex and not Rex Lex. Law is king and the king is not the law.

I take it from this that the widespread “No king in America” demonstrations are to be welcomed as a desire among Americans for the rule of law. They took place amidst alarming signs of a slide towards authoritarianism by the Trump administration. Seeing a US senator bundled out of a press conference in a Federal building in his own state and then forced to the ground and handcuffed simply because he wanted to ask a question is surely a very bad sign, as is the growing practice of detention without due process. These are just two major signs amidst many others, signs that must be attended to.

It is the nature of authoritarianism that it simply cannot allow the law courts to operate independently. There can be only one final authority and that is the will of the dictator or leader. As we know too well from history this is inevitably very bad news. Of course, human law is not infallible like God. This is why it needs to be reformed continually as times and insights change, and why there is a place for civil disobedience (cf. Exodus 1:15-22) and just resistance (cf. Calvin) in Christian ethics. Having said this, the stability and health of a democratic society depends on the law being taken with utmost seriousness, and when it comes to international relations that means international law too.

We need leaders who model and embody such respect for law. Alas, the way we do politics in our democratic societies too often tilts towards the lust for power rather than respect for law, as those who govern seek to find ways around national and international law rather than demonstrating a clear commitment to them. Here Plato’s Republic comes to mind, with his stress on finding the leaders we need, people who do not want to be leaders. Of course, for Plato that meant philosophers! But his point is valid. Too often we are led by people who want the power rather than the service. Doubtless there are many politicians in our countries who are genuinely committed to public service. We need to identify and celebrate such people.

As an academic, the way in which the UK parliament operates often strikes me as far too confrontational, with parties doing their best to score points for their side. However, traditions like the Prime Minister’s question time when MPs can ask any question of the Prime Minister and he is required to reply, seem to me invaluable. Such a tradition would never have allowed Joe Biden’s mental and physical decline to have been covered up until that disastrous presidential debate. Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again (2025) is a must read on this tragic and catastrophic coverup and what it meant for the leadership of the most powerful nation in the world, and for paving the way for Trump’s re-election. If Biden had had to appear regularly before “parliament” to answer hard questions, this cover-up could never have been sustained. The same goes for President Trump, who uses the controlled environment of the Oval office to hold choreographed press conferences.

I have written before about Lady Justice depicted as blindfolded. The norm here is that the law is to be applied objectively, irrespective of the person or nation involved. Of course, this is complex and often not easy. Take Israel’s recent, unprovoked attack on Iran. Iran’s modern history is complex, with UK and American (CIA) interference in her affairs. In 1953 the CIA, aided by British intelligence, orchestrated a coup that ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and restored the Shah to power because of the nationalisation of Iranian oil. In 1979 the Shah was ousted, a new, theocratic constitution was approved, and Ayatollah Khomeini became the supreme leader.

In April 2015, six major powers and Iran agreed on an understanding to limit Iran’s nuclear programme. In 2018 Trump unilaterally withdrew from this agreement but recently opened up negotiations again. The most recent meeting was due to take place last Sunday. It was, thus, while negotiations were underway, that the Israeli attack took place, Iran responded, and so it continues. Bear in mind that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose aim is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons-making capability, to guarantee the right of all members to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and for the original five nuclear weapons powers to phase out their nuclear arsenals. Israel is not a signatory. Iran’s status as a signatory led the International Atomic Energy Agency to declare on 13 June that Iran is in breach of its non-proliferation obligations – the first such decision in some twenty years, following a critical report that the IAEA distributed to member states on 31 May.

All of which is to underline the complexity of international relations. In my view this makes law more important and not less. Since the horrific attack on Israel by Hamas we have heard repeatedly that Israel has the right to defend herself even as the occupier of Palestinian lands. A question we have to wrestle with is whether or not Iran has a similar right? For law to hold it has to hold for all.