Original Meaning

WHILE THE DOMINANCE OF threefold constructions lends coherence to Deuteronomy 17:14–20,1 this text divides into two parts: the anticipation of a king in Israel (vv. 14–15), and the prescribed conduct of Israel’s future king (vv. 16–20). Moses’ instructions on kingship begin with a lengthy temporal clause describing future circumstances when the Israelites might contemplate a monarchy. The structure of verses 14–15 resembles 12:20, with the key issue being cast in the form of direct speech, followed by the declared desire. Since the Israelites lack the authority to effect the expressed desire without Moses’ and Yahweh’s permission, the verbs in both connote a request.

While the present text offers no clues concerning what might occasion this request, in the ancient Near East kings normally fulfilled three primary roles: (1) as warrior protecting the nation from outside threats; (2) as judge, guaranteeing justice within; (3) as patron of the cult, ensuring the right ordering of worship.2 However, in verses 16–20 Moses will explicitly repudiate prevailing models of kingship, which heightens the significance of the request, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us.” Grammatically “like all the nations that are around [me]” could mean “like all the nations [have],” or more likely, “May I have a king [that I may be] like all the nations around me?”3 Whereas Moses has repeatedly spoken of the seductive force of Canaanite religious ideas, now he speaks of the seductive pull of Canaanite politeia. Remarkably, this text perceives kingship in Israel not as a top-down imposition by a powerful ruler, but as a democratic development, in response to the wishes of the community.

The emphatic opening clause of verse 15 reflects Moses’ fundamentally positive disposition toward the monarchical system in principle. However, as in his response to the request in 12:23–25, here Moses narrows the parameters of Israel’s kingship. First, the king must be chosen by Yahweh. The notion of divinity choosing a person to serve as his royal representative is widely attested in the ancient Near East, from as early as the eighteenth century BC to beyond the Old Testament period. Moses is even more emphatic about the second qualification, insisting the king must be an Israelite, “from among your own brothers,” and then excluding any outsider.4

Verses 16–20 address the manner in which kingship is to be exercised in Israel. Continuing in third person, Moses’ purpose is not to provide the king with a manual for leadership but to create an image of responsible leadership in the minds of the people. In contrast to the offices of judge (16:18–20; 17:9), priest (17:9; 18:1–8), and prophet (18:9–22), the office of king is presented as optional, subject to the desire of the people. However, Moses reins in temptations to abuse the office by proscribing greed and ambition (vv. 16–17) and by prescribing an extraordinary spiritual and ethical standard for the king (vv. 18–20).

The proscriptions consist of four statements, but they may be reduced to three prohibitions against excessive accumulation of horses, women, and precious metals. The regulation regarding horses is intended to stifle militaristic impulses (cf. Deut. 20:1; Josh. 17:16–18; Judg. 1:19). The command not to go down to Egypt to procure horses warns against being drawn back to the land that had enslaved them (v. 16).5 The specific warning is missing in previous narratives,6 but Moses seems to allude to a warning that has not been preserved in the biblical record. He recalls it here to emphasize that a return to Egypt would in effect annul the people’s redemption and cancel their covenant relationship with Yahweh.7

The prohibition against multiplying women extends far beyond providing the king with unlimited opportunity for sexual gratification.8 Since marriages were often arranged to strengthen alliances,9 the institution of the harem enabled kings to be allied simultaneously with many outside rulers (cf. 1 Kings 11:1), while also providing decoration for the court to impress visitors.10 But this text seems unconcerned about these considerations. Instead, Moses the pastor views the harem as a threat to spiritual fidelity to Yahweh: The women will turn the king’s heart away. The warning concerns defection into idolatry (cf. 7:3–4), though in light of what follows it may involve defection from the Torah in general and the Supreme Command in particular. The reference to “his heart” suggests such defection is not primarily an external act but a fundamental aspect of one’s being (cf. 6:5). Like wine and strong drink, pursuing pleasure and status can inhibit the proper exercise of one’s responsibilities.11

The proscription on excessive accumulation of silver and gold is shorthand for wealth and opulence. In the ancient Near Eastern political world, this wealth was generally amassed at the expense of the people by taxing the citizens and demanding tribute from subject states.

These prohibitions, then, address three major temptations facing ancient rulers: lust for power, lust for status, and lust for wealth. The text does not prohibit the purchase of horses, or marriage, or the accumulation of some silver and gold. The threefold repetition of “for himself” emphasizes the ban concerning the king’s exploitation of his office for personal gain.

Moses’ positive instructions for the king are even more remarkable than the preceding prohibitions. (1) The king must copy the Torah for himself “when he sits on his throne over his kingdom” (v. 18a, pers. trans.). The NIV interprets this narrowly as the time of his accession,12 though the later charge to have the Torah with him all the days suggests a more durative sense. This charge is significant for several reasons. (a) It portrays the king, not as a legislator, but as one who receives laws from a higher authority and is himself subject to them: he writes them “for himself.” (b) It assumes royal literacy from the outset of the monarchy.13 (c) As Sonnet observes, the designation “a copy of this law” “implicitly requires a standard copy, an editio princeps, from which the transcript is to be made.”14 (d) The Torah is to be copied on a sēper,15 that is, a “written document,” probably a specially tanned leather scroll of sheep or goatskin.16 (e) By writing his copy in the presence of the Levitical priests, the king recognizes this as a sacred act (31:9–13). As divinely appointed witnesses and custodians of the document, the Levitical priests would ensure that the king copied the entire document, without addition or omission.17 By the act of copying the Torah, the king declared his spiritual subordination to the priests and to the Torah, the symbol of the covenant that bound Yahweh and Israel.

(2) The king must wear the Torah. Although it may never be treated merely as a good luck charm, the charge “it is to be with him” suggests that like an amulet, the Torah was to accompany the king constantly, providing a written reminder of his personal vassal status before Yahweh and his primary role as model of covenant righteousness.

(3) The king must read the Torah for himself (vv. 19–20).18 This charge is the most complex. Moses begins with a simple directive, “He is to read it all the days of his life,” reinforcing the previous charge to have the document with him constantly. The importance of reading the Torah is highlighted by four purpose clauses, which echo earlier injunctions to the people. (a) Faithful reading of the Torah is key to a proper disposition toward Yahweh. For the first time in the book, the Torah is portrayed as a medium by which the fear of Yahweh is instilled in the heart/mind.19

(b) Faithful reading of the Torah is key to a proper disposition toward other members of the covenant community. Echoing 8:13–14, the idiom, “his heart is lifted up” (pers. trans.), warns against the hubris that afflicted many ancient Near Eastern kings.20 The king may have been specially chosen by Yahweh and installed by the people,21 but he must resist the temptation to consider himself their superior.

(c) Faithful reading of the Torah is key to the king’s staying on course in his devotion to Yahweh.22 The clause “[that he not] turn from the law [command] to the right or to the left” echoes 5:31–32. Again the singular “the command” (hammiṣwâ) refers to the Supreme Command (see 6:5); that is, the king must demonstrate total covenant commitment to Yahweh.

(d) Faithful reading of the Torah is key to a secure future. Echoing earlier statements applied to Israel,23 Moses describes the prospect for the king and his sons in terms of lengthened days over his kingdom. Anticipating a dynastic monarchy, the statement applies to the king the principle enunciated in the Decalogue: people’s actions determine their own well-being and the well-being of their households (cf. 5:9).

Bridging Contexts

THE REVOLUTIONARY NATURE OF Israelite kingship. By incorporating demands that earlier texts had applied to the people of Israel, this passage reinforces the revolutionary nature of Israelite kingship. (1) Whereas the kings of other nations often gained power by force and at the expense of both rivals and subjects, Israel’s kingship will be established in response to a democratic impulse and with the blessing of Yahweh.

(2) Whereas foreigners, either 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 Yahweh.

(3) Whereas kings of other nations regularly used their office to satisfy their own lust for power, status, and wealth, Israelite kings were forbidden from doing so.

(4) Whereas other kings were viewed as administrators of justice, the primary 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 subjects rather than themselves,24 Israelite laws were codified by Yahweh, interpreted by his spokesman who had no vested interest in kingship, and then required of the king himself.

(6) Whereas kings of other nations were elevated above their countrymen with epithets like “son of God”25 and “image of Bel/Shamash,”26 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 altogether. Apart from “king,” the only epithet Israel’s monarch may claim is “brother” of his people.

The paradigm of kingship established here should have secured the place of Israel’s kings as the appointed rulers over his people. We do hear occasional echoes of this passage in later texts. Although Joshua was not a king chosen by Yahweh in response to the people’s request, as the successor of Moses in Joshua 1:8, Yahweh requires of him what this text demands of the king (note the singular). With Psalm 1 the Psalter opens by characterizing a blessed person as one who delights in the Torah of Yahweh and meditates on it day and night. On the surface, this statement seems to democratize the injunction to read the Torah. However, if the Psalter is indeed a fundamentally royal document, as some have argued,27 this psalm serves particularly as a guide for the king on how to read the Torah (specifically Deuteronomy).

Israel’s political history. This text is important for understanding Israel’s political history. Years later, when the elders of Israel appealed to Samuel for a king, the appeal echoed Deuteronomy 17:14: “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations” (1 Sam. 8:19–20). Samuel’s prior “pronouncement concerning the king” seems to have been composed against the backdrop of Deuteronomy 17:16–17. He warned the people that the king they demanded would use his office for selfish ends and run roughshod over their interests. Yahweh answered this request by giving them Saul, who as a Benjamite represented the tribe that had proved by deed and disposition to be like the lowest of the nations (Judg. 19–21; cf. Gen. 19). But Saul’s rule was doomed from the beginning. Ultimately he served as a foil for the one Yahweh had in mind from the beginning, the man after Yahweh’s heart (1 Sam. 13:14).28

None of these texts suggests the biblical authors rejected the monarchy in principle. On the contrary, on three occasions God had expressly promised Abraham that “kings” would come from him and Sarah (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11), an expectation that Genesis 49:9–12 narrows to the tribe of Judah. The present generation had heard the pagan prophet Balaam speak of the king and his kingdom being exalted (Num. 24:7), and of a star and (royal) scepter rising from Jacob/Israel (Num. 24:17). In David the one chosen by Yahweh had arrived.

The paradigm of kingship established in Deuteronomy 17:14–20 provides the lens used by deuteronomistic historians and prophets to evaluate Israel’s kings. This is most evident in the portrayal of Solomon in 1 Kings. Although he is most famous for constructing the temple for Yahweh (David’s project), he multiplied horses (1 Kings 4:26–28[5:6–8]; 10:26–29) and wives (11:1–13) and amassed vast riches for the crown (10:23). To be fair, the historian does not explicitly condemn Solomon multiplying wealth or horses, but he denounces him sharply for marrying foreign women (11:1–13), forcefully ruling over his countrymen (5:13–18[27–32]), and breaking the covenant (11:9–13, 33). In the end responsibility for Israel’s exile rested on the shoulders of kings who abused the people and led the nation in apostasy (2 Kings 24:3–4).29

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), the failure of Israel’s kings combined with Yahweh’s promise to David of eternal title to the throne of Israel gave rise to the messianic hope of a future son of David to embody perfectly the Mosaic paradigm for kingship. This expectation was ultimately fulfilled by Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, whose mission was not to bring an end to the Torah but to fulfill it (Matt. 5:17). As the beloved Son of God who fulfills all righteousness (Matt 3:15), he embodies perfectly the ideals of covenant relationship as represented in the Torah. He is the climax of the royal metanarrative underlying the entire Old Testament and his kingdom is secure.

Contemporary Significance

PREREQUISITE TO THE KING’S life and well-being. The role of the king as model citizen of Israel and a vassal of Yahweh is highlighted not only by applying to the king earlier statements pertaining to Israel, but also by the way exposure to the word of God is presented as a prerequisite to life and well-being. Although no single text contains all the elements, the complete chain of events looks something like this:

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

This chart shows that 17:19–20 represents the most complete text, lacking only an explicit reference to hearing. However, since reading involved “crying out” and the king was to “read” the Torah to himself, this element is implied. The link between reading the Torah, fearing Yahweh, and prolonged tenure on the throne (the equivalent to the people’s long life in the land) presents a recipe for covenant life in the present. Many centuries later Malachi would acknowledge that the solution for spiritual indifference and the absence of fear is careful attention to the Torah of Moses (Mal. 4:4[3:22]).

Guidelines for a theology of ministry. Beyond this general lesson on the importance of reading the Scriptures in the promotion of fear of God, Deuteronomy 17:14–20 offers church leaders an important resource for developing a theology of ministry—guidelines that run against the grain of many modern definitions of church leadership.30 (1) The paradigm presented here suggests that the forms of leadership in the church need not necessarily follow a prescribed order. The Lord acceded to the people’s desire to have a king. In keeping with new circumstances, new forms of government may need to be designed.

(2) Leaders of God’s people must be chosen by God. The way the king would be called remained open, but in Israel’s own history this election ultimately led to David. Just as the early church was led by persons recognized to have been called by God,31 so the church today must seek to be led by faithful persons called by God.

(3) Godly leaders exist for the well-being of those they lead and refuse to exploit their positions for personal advantage. The three restrictions placed on royal behavior address three common temptations of leaders: an increasingly insatiable lust for power, status, and wealth.32 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.

(4) Functionally and for the sake of the ministry, godly leaders may be perceived as above their peers, but they must acknowledge their subordination to God and to the people. Like the king in Moses’ paradigm, leaders of God’s people will read the Word of God for their own nurture and discipline, knowing that God holds them accountable for their personal conduct. Significantly, our text says nothing about administrative gifts or persuasive talent.33

(5) Godly leaders embody personally the ideals of covenant relationship to which God’s people are committed. This may require modification of John Maxwell’s favorite leadership proverb, “He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is only taking a walk.”34 Actually leaders in the church must be taking a walk, walking according to the revealed will of God. In so doing, they model the link between knowing the Word and fearing and obeying the Lord (cf. 31:9–13). This may be what Paul intended with his challenge to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:13–16.