Messiah, a king?

[Dondi]

What is the prevalent Jewish thought concerning the Messiah, assuming it an actual person, coming as a king as a restoration of the line of King David? (And don't worry, I'm not going to try and shoehorn Jesus into this conversation)

This is a leading question, for I have come other observations to make, but I'm just fishing for info on the matter before proceeding further.

[dauer]

Dondi,

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if, assuming the messiah is a person, is his being a king who restores the line of David prevalent thought

or

"" "" "" "" what are some of the things related to kingship that the messiah will do?

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by dauer

Dondi,

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking if, assuming the messiah is a person, is his being a king who restores the line of David prevalent thought

or

"" "" "" "" what are some of the things related to kingship that the messiah will do?

I guess I'm asking the former. But the latter would be interesting to know, too.

[dauer]

In answer to the first question, yes. It's a part of the job description.

In answer to the second, establish world peace, reinstitute a halachic nation of Israel with a sanhedrin over which he would be king.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by dauer

In answer to the first question, yes. It's a part of the job description.

In answer to the second, establish world peace, reinstitute a halachic nation of Israel with a sanhedrin over which he would be king.

OK, So here's what I'm leading up to.

In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, we see the laws for establishing a king:

"When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel."

Would it be a correct assumption that the idea of a king came from the people of Israel, rather than God, as evident by the quote above: "I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;", the "I" in this case being Israel? That really God would rather rule by theocracy?

[dauer]

Dondi,

It still is a theocracy, but what was recognized here is that people want something that looks familiar. It parallels very much what rambam recognized about the sacrificial system, that it was to meet the needs of the people for their religion to appear in familiar forms. The king is still selected by G!d. If you look at the story of David being chosen, for example. As it says in your above passage: "whom the LORD thy God shall choose." But it is an appeasement to human nature. Some would suggest the king is a bit more of a figurehead in an ideal situation.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by dauer

Dondi,

It still is a theocracy, but what was recognized here is that people want something that looks familiar. It parallels very much what rambam recognized about the sacrificial system, that it was to meet the needs of the people for their religion to appear in familiar forms. The king is still selected by G!d. If you look at the story of David being chosen, for example. As it says in your above passage: "whom the LORD thy God shall choose." But it is an appeasement to human nature. Some would suggest the king is a bit more of a figurehead in an ideal situation.

Yes, I see that it would be God's choice. The people wanted to be like the other nations surrounding them. And I see that is it a kind of modified theocracy, for success depended on Israel's obedience. And really you got ahead of me a bit with David, because I actually wanted to talk about the selection of Saul, who was the first choice, was he not?

We see in I Samuel 8:6-9:

"But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them."

And if that weren't enough, Samuel acknowledge that to have a king is actually a sin:

"Is it not wheat harvest to day? I will call unto the LORD, and he shall send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive and see that your wickedness is great, which ye have done in the sight of the LORD, in asking you a king." - I Samuel 12:17

So it seems to me that Israel's desire of a king is actually a rejection of God's reign. God did choose Saul, who for a while reigned properly, but eventually he got into a bit of trouble, did he not? And even David's life was met with woe. In fact, you could say that most, if not all, of Israel's kings didn't a such a bang up job in reigning over God's people with the condition that, "If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:" - I Samuel 12:14

Evidently, the kingship is conditional to Israel's obedience to God's commandments.

And I said all that to say this, which brings me back to the Messiah. If the Messiah is going to establish peace throughout the world, it would depend on Israel's obedience. How will he accomplish this if even great kings like Saul and David were prone to failure? And is this restoration forever?

[dauer]

Dondi,

I don't think it's refusing G!d's reign in a literal sense so much as an almost subtle form of idolatry, but one that is tolerated. It's trying to be like the other nations. G!d is continuing to reign but he has an earthly counterpart through whom he reigns. And as you brought the Torah text before you can see that it's discussing having a king already and laws for the king. How would those commandments regarding a king possibly be fulfilled without a king over Israel? The people are commanded specifically to set a king over themselves. That means that in order for them to be obedient to G!d they must set before themselves a king.

And you're absolutely right that there were problems with the kings, even David. I don't think that's saying that kingship is dependent on obedience to G!d's commandments. It says:

"If ye will fear the LORD, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD" (If you are obedient to G!d)

" then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the LORD your God:" (then you and the king will be obedient to G!d.)

It's not saying if they're not obedient the king won't be. But it is saying that if all of them are then the king will be as well. I think it's more a way of saying, in the context of the rest of the chapter, that having a king isn't a reason to stop following G!d and that G!d is still above the king.

And I said all that to say this, which brings me back to the Messiah. If the Messiah is going to establish peace throughout the world, it would depend on Israel's obedience. How will he accomplish this if even great kings like Saul and David were prone to failure? And is this restoration forever?

Two possibilities: world's all good or world's all bad. If world's all bad, difficult birth. If world's all good, easy birth. The messiah himself is just a person and is not supposed to have any super abilities. The heavy lifting is really for G!d to do. I think I mentioned in another thread that there are some opinions the nature of humanity will change such that the only possible sin is a cheyt, an unintentional error. But that's not the doing of the messiah. That's the doing of G!d. Even in that future situation, the messiah is still more of a figurehead.

Neither Saul nor David's reign were about world peace. And traditionally, yes, it would be a permanent change not a temporary one.

[Joedjr]

Originally Posted by dauer

Dondi,

It still is a theocracy, but what was recognized here is that people want something that looks familiar. It parallels very much what rambam recognized about the sacrificial system, that it was to meet the needs of the people for their religion to appear in familiar forms. The king is still selected by G!d. If you look at the story of David being chosen, for example. As it says in your above passage: "whom the LORD thy God shall choose." But it is an appeasement to human nature. Some would suggest the king is a bit more of a figurehead in an ideal situation.

Hi,
thanks Dauer for the info on the sacrificial system. It sheds some light on part of the Bible which has been hard for me to get through. I could never understand why the Creator would want to see so much blood shed from His creation. Am I right to think that the people at that time were sacrificing to other gods but after the law, kept the practice, but were redirected to the true G!d?

Also another question:
"that it was to meet the needs of the people for their religion to appear in familiar forms". What would this be in our present day?

Joe

[dauer]

Hey Joe. Welcome to C-R.

[quote]Am I right to think that the people at that time were sacrificing to other gods but after the law, kept the practice, but were redirected to the true G!d? [/quote\]

Yep.

What would this be in our present day?

In Judaism the daily prayer services came to replace the daily offerings. It's important to note that sacrifice in hebrew is qorban, which doesn't actually mean to give something up, but to draw near or come close, thus the biblical equivalent of what prayer is today.