God Save the Queen

The Spiritual Heart of the Monarchy

Ian Bradley

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781441178954
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

At a time of renewed interest in the monarchy (stimulated by the marriage of Prince William of Wales and the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II), the institution is analyzed and dissected from almost every point of view apart from the sacred -- which arguably stands at its heart and is its ultimate raison d'etre. Commentators assess the constitutional and philanthropic aspects of monarchy and its tourist potential; gossip magazines report on the Royal Family as a soap opera. This lack of attention is in marked contrast to the sacred origins of monarchy and the manifest importance of religious belief in the life of the present monarch. Ian Bradley traces the religious dimension of monarchy and argues for its importance as a spiritual force in British life, as well as exploring what this might mean in a society that is both multi-faith and increasingly secular.

1

Monarchy in the Old Testament

The theme of monarchy looms large in the collection of books which make up the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament. The word ‘king’ occurs 565 times and ‘kingdom’ 163 times. Six of the historical books in the Old Testament have the monarchy as their main subject matter, including, of course, the aptly named first and second books of Kings. The psalms and the so-called wisdom books are also full of references to kings. The life of one particular king, David, occupies more space in the Old Testament than that of any other figure, including the great patriarchs Abraham and Moses.

This is not mere ancient history. Much of the ceremonial and ritual associated with the British monarchy today is based on Old Testament practice and precedent. This is particularly true of the coronation service in which the central sacred act is the anointing of the monarch with holy oil. The anthem which has been sung at the most solemn moment of the crowning of every English sovereign since that of Edgar in 973 is taken directly from the account in the first chapter of the first Book of Kings of the coronation of Solomon by Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet.

More broadly, the Old Testament provides one of the main sources for our understanding of monarchy as having an essentially sacred and spiritual character. There are those who take it as a literal model and who see British monarchs standing in direct descent from King David and having a special covenant relationship with God as rulers of his chosen people. One does not have to be a British Israelite, however, to sense even in our secularized and deritualized age the continuing legacy of Old Testament ideas of kingship. It is there on the face of every coin in our pockets with their abbreviated reminder that the Queen reigns by the grace of God and is Defender of the Faith.

There has been considerable scholarly debate as to whether the general drift of the books that make up the first half of the Old Testament and are often known as the Deuteronomistic history is, in fact, pro- or anti-monarchical. These books, which were almost certainly written either during the last days of Israel’s kings or after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 bc and the exile of its people, display a distinct ambiguity about whether monarchy came about as a result of popular pressure or divine will and whether it was basically a good or bad thing for Israel.

The view that the Deuteronomistic history takes a positive view of monarchy was perhaps classically stated by the great German scholar Julius Wellhausen in 1878:

In the eyes of Israel before the exile the monarchy is the culminating point of the history, and the greatest blessing of Jehovah. It was preceded by a period of unrest and affliction, when every man did what was right in his own eyes, and the enemies of Israel accordingly got everything their own way. Under it the people dwell securely and respected by those round about; guarded by the shelter of civil order, the citizen can sit under his own vine and his fig-tree.¹

Although most contemporary scholars would read a slightly less enthusiastic endorsement of monarchy into the Deuteronomistic history, it is probably fair to say that a majority see it as basically pro- rather than anti-monarchical in tone. Kingship is presented as both the popularly requested and the divinely appointed answer to the anarchy and disorder prevailing under the judges who ruled the people of Israel for the first 250 years or so after their arrival in the promised land of Canaan. The latter part of the Book of Judges in particular seems to demonstrate the need for kings by emphasizing both the corruption and lawlessness under this form of government. Its concluding verse notes: ‘In those days there was no king in Israel: everyone did what was right in his eyes.’

There are other, earlier indicators of a basically benign and positive view towards monarchy in the opening set of books in the Hebrew Bible known as the Pentateuch. The Hebrew word used in Genesis 1.26 to describe God’s intention with regard to the relation between humans and other living creatures and usually translated into English as ‘dominion’ in fact means ‘kingly rule’ and suggests the exercise of mercy and justice in responsible stewardship and vice-regency on behalf of God. Its mistranslation, and the unfortunate connotations of domination which have resulted, have led to the wholly erroneous assumption that the Bible gives humans a warrant for exploiting the rest of creation. In fact, the Israelite understanding of kingly rule had a gentle, holistic, nurturing dimension which I have written about elsewhere in terms of its ecological message.²

A passage in the Book of Deuteronomy (17.14-20) known as ‘the law of kingship’ presents the establishment of monarchy in the context of the laws delivered by Moses on the plains of Moab shortly before his death. It highlights the importance of the Torah, the body of written law, in the Old Testament understanding of monarchy, emphasizing the king’s responsibility to govern under what was the supreme authority in Israel’s political life, and to ‘fear the Lord his God … that his heart may not be lifted up above his brethren’.

The law of kingship closely anticipates the account of the actual establishment of the Israelite monarchy in 1 Samuel, chs 8 to 12. The somewhat contradictory and confused nature of this account has led scholars to suggest that it may represent material from two different traditions, one pro- and the other anti-monarchical. It begins with a demand by the elders of Israel to Samuel for ‘a king to govern us like all the nations’, which seems to represent a rejection of Yahweh and his divine kingship. This, indeed, is how God himself apparently interprets it when he tells Samuel to spell out to the people the dangers of kingship in terms of the accretion of private wealth and military might leading to the impoverishment and oppression of the nation. These warnings are completely ignored, however, and the people insist ‘we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles’ (v. 20). When Samuel reports this to God, he is told, ‘Hearken to their voice and make them a king.’

In this account of the origin of monarchy, the initiative seems to lie entirely with the people and to be inspired by a desire to keep up with the Joneses’, or more precisely the Canaanites, Moabites and other peoples of the ancient Near East. The Lord is portrayed as acceding to this popular demand with some reluctance. This is certainly consistent with the historical evidence, which suggests that other ancient Near Eastern people had kings long before the Israelites. Yet as the story of the establishment of Israel’s monarchy progresses, the initiative seems to lie much more clearly with God, even if there remains a lingering sense that in choosing this form of rule, his people have in some sense signalled their rejection of his all-sufficient protection and salvation.

The subsequent story of the choosing first of Saul and then of David as kings of Israel puts the emphasis firmly on the divine election of kings. There is, indeed, a sense of partnership between Yahweh and his chosen people in the making of kings. The Hebrew verb himlik, which is used to describe the process of making a king, occurs with both God and humans as the subject. Coronations in the Old Testament involve the active participation of priests, prophets and elders as well as acclamation by the people. They are also always described as being carried out ‘before the Lord’. The impression given here as elsewhere in the Old Testament is of a three-way covenant between God, the king and the people. This concept of covenant is, in fact, one of the most distinctive and central features of Israelite kingship.

To some extent the institution of monarchy is portrayed in the Old Testament as a consequence of a fallen world. There is an underlying implication that in an ideal world the Israelites would have clung to Yahweh as their king and not needed a human monarch. The sense that Israel’s request for a king amounted to a rejection of Yahweh in his role as national defender is never quite lost. It is also significant that the context in which monarchy is established is one of national emergency when enemies, especially the Philistines, are threatening the very survival and integrity of Israel. Yet, although the institution of kingship is adopted in response to the Philistine threat, there is no suggestion that it should be abandoned once that threat has disappeared, as it does thanks largely to the military victories secured by David. Far from it – in peacetime under David and his successor Solomon kingship becomes more centralized and institutionalized, developing extensive ritual and ceremonial, and becoming an accepted and permanent feature of life until the destruction of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah by the Assyrians and Babylonians.

This change in the view of monarchy from an unfortunate necessity at a time of national emergency to the accepted and natural form of government is paralleled by a theological shift. Whereas kingship initially is presented as a possible challenge to and diversion from the sovereignty of Yahweh, it becomes integrated into Yahweh’s rule with the king coming to play a special role in the administration and maintenance of Yahweh’s covenant with his people, the worship of the cult and the spiritual as well as the political and military life of the nation. The Deuteronomistic history brings kingship into the sequence of God’s mighty acts in history, following on from his gift of land and election of his people. Indeed, it comes to be presented almost as a natural follow-on from these earlier acts. God gives his people a king as he has already given them land and chosen them for his special favour.

The establishment of monarchy in Israel brings with it a new way of looking at God. Several scholars have argued that it was only during the monarchy that Israel began to refer to God as ‘king’. Certainly examples of royal language being applied to Yahweh in the pre-monarchical period are few and far between. With Israel’s adoption of monarchy, and especially with the building of the temple and royal palace in Jerusalem, images of God as king came into prominence. His kingship was seen as being exercised both from heaven, where he sat enthroned on a footstool made up of cherubim and seraphim, and on earth, where he reigned from his temple on Mount Zion and through the king whom he installed there as his representative.

In one respect kings fit very naturally into the whole history of Israel. The Old Testament makes much of the dominant role played by leaders in Israel’s history, from Abraham and Moses, through Joshua and Samuel and on to the kings. At every important point in their history the fate of the people is largely tied up with that of their leader. This is an important motif which points up the charismatic nature of personal leadership and the extent to which a ruler can mould the character of a nation or age, two themes that have informed attitudes to monarchy throughout the ages.

There is a significant message here about the importance of those who are chosen, born or fitted for leadership by character or upbringing not shirking it when it comes their way. This is almost certainly the theme of the ‘Jotham fable’ in the ninth chapter of the Book of Judges which tells of the trees attempting to anoint a king but being rejected by the olive, the fig and the vine, all of whom decline to reign over them, leaving only the bramble to offer them protection. This parable has often been seen as anti-monarchical but its message is surely that of The Lion King, that those who are born or called to positions of leadership should not shirk their responsibilities. Here, indeed, is an early homily on the duties and burdens of kingship.

The establishment of monarchy brought Israel into line with other parts of the ancient Near East. Several of its neighbours seem to have had kings from as early as the third millennium bc. This is of course the context for the coming of monarchy to Israel as it is described in 1 Samuel 8 when, despite Samuel’s caveats and warnings, the people persist in demanding a king ‘that we also may be like all the nations’. In fact, they are given something rather different. What starts as an imitation of other countries’ practice becomes a highly distinctive institution, not least in respect of its spiritual character and relationship to God.

In many ways, Israel took over the view of kingship common throughout the Ancient Near East. This has been well summarized by Henri Frankfort:

The ancient Near East considered kingship the very basis of civilisation. Only savages could live without a king. Security, peace and justice could not prevail without a ruler to champion them.

Whatever was significant was imbedded in the life of the cosmos, and it was precisely the king’s function to maintain the harmony of that integration.

For the truth about their king affected their lives in every, even the most personal aspect, since, through the king, the harmony between human existence and supernatural order was maintained.³

Three features characterized kingship as it was understood in the ancient Near East, and, indeed, throughout the ancient world. First, it belonged primarily to heaven. Kingship was vested first and foremost in the gods, and those who ruled on earth did so as mediators of divine rule. Second, as part of their role as mediators of divine order in the perpetual struggle with the forces of chaos, human monarchs had a particular responsibility towards the weak, the widows and the fatherless. Third, the sacral nature of kingship and its derivation from heaven was celebrated in annual enthronement ceremonies in which monarchs were renewed in office. These ceremonies often involved a ritual humiliation and reinstatement, linked to fertility rites and the renewal of the cosmic order.

Elements from these three strands found their way into the Israelites’ view of kingship. Even more than their neighbours, the Israelites had an overwhelming sense of the sovereignty of Yahweh and the fact that all human kingship derived from and depended on him. Like their neighbours, they came to endow kings with an almost corporate personality and to see them as the embodiment of their people. The nation as a whole found its focus in the royal house and the personality of the reigning monarch. This meant that the nation’s well-being was intimately bound up with the character of the king with the result that disturbance and national disaster could be attributed to his wrongdoing. Because of Israel’s special relationship with and attachment to the land, its kings were seen as having particular responsibilities in this area, guaranteeing the continued life of the people on the land and protecting its integrity. More widely, the king was seen as the guarantor under God of order, not just in respect of the rule of justice and law, but in more cosmic terms as the one who promoted harmony and dispensed wisdom. Human and mortal though he was, his earthly reign in some sense mirrored and pointed to the divine reign. In the idealized language often used about kingship, he symbolized and exercised through his rule God’s attributes of mercy, justice, faithfulness and righteousness. This is expressed in several of the psalms in the form of prayers addressed to God by the people, as in Psalm 72:

Give the king thy justice, O God,

And thy righteousness to the royal son!

May he judge thy people with righteousness,

And the poor with justice!

In his important study of the roots of political theology, The Desire of the Nations, Oliver O’Donovan has identified three key functions fulfilled by the Israelite monarchs as God’s representatives. First, they exercised military leadership, undertaking warfare as an almost sacral performance initiated by Yahweh, in Israelite understanding it being God who won military victories and granted them as a favour to the king. Second, they exercised a judicial function, appointing judges and establishing a uniform system of justice to replace competing tribal jurisdictions and clearly standing as the unique mediators of Yahweh’s judgements and upholders of the Torah. Third, and most importantly, the Israelite monarchy offered ‘the function of continuity, ensuring an unbroken tradition in the occupation of the territory and the perpetuation of the national identity’.⁴

The Israelites shared their ancient Near Eastern neighbours’ sense that kings ruled by divine consent and had a prime obligation to serve the national god. In several countries this led to the king being seen as the nation’s high priest and playing a key role in ritual and worship. At an annual ceremony which was part of the New Year festival, the king of Babylon had to ‘grasp the hand of Marduk’ in the temple of the national god and so affirm his right to rule. Kings of Assyria were priests of Ashur, and the Hittite kings visited religious centres to perform royal rituals in honour of the national gods. In a similar way, the kings of Israel took a leading role in the temple cult and the worship of Yahweh.

In one crucial respect, however, the Israelite king was in a different position from many of his neighbours. In much of the ancient Near East as in other primitive societies, the king was seen in some senses as a divine figure, closely related to the gods if not in fact fully of their number. This understanding of the divine nature of monarchy was perhaps most fully developed in Africa where kings were seen as either possessed by or descended from a god. The king of the Shilluk in Sudan was believed to be possessed by the deified spirit of the first king, Nyikang, the Te Yoruba kings of Nigeria were thought to be descended from the god Odudua, the creator of the earth, and the kings of Buganda (Uganda) were said to be descended from the deified first king, Kintu. In Egypt the Pharoah was regarded as both the son of the god Re and also the incarnation of the god Horus, and after death it was believed that he was assimilated into Osiris. Kings of the Canaanite city states were similarly seen as sons of the god El. Divinization often accompanied the transition from elective to hereditary monarchy. This seems to have been the case with the Hittites who at first only divinized their kings at death but later came to endow them with superhuman powers in life too.

The Israelites had a different understanding of the relationship between monarchy and divinity. Their radical monotheism which clearly separated Yahweh from his creatures did not allow for divine kings. Rulers remained essen...