The Circumscription of the King: Deuteronomy 17:16-17 in Its Ancient Social Context

Abstract

The portrait of in Deuteronomic law (Deut 17:14-21) presents a distinctive view of kingship and royal authority. The role of a Deuteronomic is carefully limited in ways that seem to reflect ideological interests. Various literary, redactional, and general social studies of the law of king have identified key components. In particular Deut 17:16-17 sets limits on a king's behavior that appear especially intriguing if only because they are so antithetical to usual assumptions about royal actions. But a social-scientific approach can set this part of law into social contexts of ancient agrarian monarchies and empires. The task of this article is, then, to ask: When we use socialscientific theories to examine ideological circumscription of in Deut 17:16-17, what insights can be gained about power politics of social group espousing that ideology in social context of ancient world? Several preliminary remarks on issues of redaction, background and significance, and method are necessary. I. Preliminary Issues Redaction The focus of this article will be two verses within law of king, Deut 17:16-17, more specifically, vv. 16a(alpha), 17a(alpha), and 17b. These lines limit king's ability to acquire horses, wives, and riches. A compositional and redactional study of law of is beyond scope of this article, but we can assume generally accepted views on such issues. Most commentators note similarity in vv. 16a(alpha), 17a(alpha), and 17b, and many place them in earliest Deuteronomic or proto-Deuteronomic layer of composition.1 Scholars then make various proposals on Deuteronomic and Deuteronomistic additions that eventually created not only these two verses but whole law of and section of laws on offices (Dent 16:18-18:22). Commentators also propose various dates for redactional layers ranging from pre- or proto-- Deuteronomic or Deuteronomistic development to exilic composition or redaction.2 Along with many scholars, we will assume that lines in question, if not other parts of law of and laws on offices, are part of a preexilic, Deuteronomic composition) This assumption places examination of IMAGE FORMULA7 implications of Deut 17:16a(alpha), 17a(alpha), and 17b within a monarchic political situation in seventh century B.C.E. when Judah was largely dominated by Assyria.4 Background and Significance There are various theories as to background and significance of limits placed on in Deut 17:16-17. Numerous scholars point out that these limits (and much of law of king) have a historical background in sustained prophetic critiques of royal authority and royal abuses of power. A related proposal is that origin of limits is in actual experiences of Israel with its kings, their powers and their excesses.5 Against this understanding of historical background, discussion of law of king, as a whole and within laws on offices, reveals two aspects of significance of these laws. (1) Deuteronomy 16:18-18:22 is significant because it places all authorities in nation under authority of Yahweh and within covenant character of law for nation. (2) The laws on offices provide for a balance of IMAGE FORMULA10 powers among leaders, which limits power of all offices, particularly king, so that laws work together as a constitution for nation.6 For many scholars, law of king, more specifically, is significant in placing theological/ideological (if not actual) limitations on kingship. Scholars discuss three broad limitations. (1) The law markedly reduces powers of and thereby possibilities of abuse of power. (2) The law places kingship within covenantal and community character of Israel as enjoined upon it by Yahweh. …