It is no small feat that the Church in its Divine Wisdom has frequently spoken out against private interpretations and 1 Kings 8 is no small exception. Protestant readers are more familiar calling it 1 Samuel 8 but as I've become much more cemented in seeking out a Traditionalist perspective on Christianity, I have also become more acquainted with the numbering of the Biblical texts as 1-4 Kings. I have spoken briefly about this episode previously, but not in the intended depth that I have wanted due to time constraints. As well, I have much more time to think on it than in the past. As it seems strange that Christian tradition would carelessly promote a monarchy over that of other forms of governance knowing full well that a monarchy was rebuked by Our Lord. Crazy Church Lady brought this up to me in a recent conversation and it did give me a headache trying to explain that the purpose was not to bring up systems of governance. This is a very Protestant assessment of this text but indeed, many aspects of American Protestantism have creeped up into Catholic culture, often times to the detriment of Catholicity. Much of the neo-Catholic movement is deeply indebted to American Protestantism but also Traditionalist Catholics have allowed themselves to become Protestantized too by their participation with American Protestants in the Republican Party.
The first problem with this overtly Protestant interpretation is that it misses the context. As the Anglo-Catholic political theologian David Nicholls observed, "it was the people, in the days of Samuel, who clamoured for a king...and political theories which base authority on contract can make no claim to a specifically Christian foundation" (Deity and Domination, 26). Indeed, that is why the Catholic social doctrine firmly embraces the doctrine of subsidiarianism which is consistent with federalism. The root of the Catholic social doctrine teaches that the family, the most basic component of naturally organic society, is the only authority to know what is best for its relationship with God. From thence arises the domestic monastery which is where the worship of God, in its proper and rightly ordered sense, fully takes place. The development of any society is for a naturally organic system of governance. The philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls this natural order. Nicholls further spotlights that prior to the monarchy of Israel, Israel was broken down into tribes. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia makes this observation too. When the tribes suffered from war, a military leader referred to as a "Judge" emerged. This is the one the tribes rallied around.
The second problem comes with the subject of titles. In ancient Roman society, the word imperator did not initially mean "Emperor". It meant "Commander". The imperator, like the judge in ancient Israel, was a military leader. The military leader could claim emergency dictatorial powers which lasted for six months to which he would be the absolute leader of the State, but Rome would remain a republic. Even during the time of Caesar Augustus, Rome was a republic. But the imperator was gradually granted more and more power. Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn describes a situation of asking a Roman from 280 A.D. the question of whether they are a monarchy or not. The Roman might respond, "Well aren't we still a republic...We have a senate. Of course, we have also an Imperator, but that means 'general' and a general is not a monarch. We also call him princeps but that means 'first man' and nothing else." (Liberty or Equality, 163)
The title that would be referred to here is melek which is the ancient Hebrew word for "ruler". Of course, it is commonly translated to "king" as well. As seen with Melchizedek, the King of Righteousness. Melchizedek is the King of whom Jesus would order his own priesthood after. Not much is known of Melchizedek. But going back to the main text, there are now two things to take note of: The issue of the title, and the issue of the relationship between God and the people. Having established that military rankings, even in ancient Rome, ended up becoming monarchial titles, it is interesting that the New Advent Encyclopedia has the following to say of the Prophet Samuel:
"during Israel's fierce conflict with the Philistines, Samuel, the last judge, wielded the universal and absolute power of a monarch with the title and the insignia of royalty" ("Israel")
In other words, it wasn't so much a contrast between a monarchy and a non-monarchy at this point but rather one type of rulership and another type of rulership. It should be noted that what the people wanted was a specific type of rulership. When Samuel addresses the Lord, the Lord tells him that the people have not rejected him but rather they have rejected God himself (1 Kings* 8:7). Before that, the people specify that they want a king, just like the other nations (1 Kings 8:5). The emphasis of the text is not on the system of the governance, but on the centralization that the people demand. The centralized power of a ruler possessing almost dictatorial authority, but more specifically, a ruler just like the other nations. They demanded not for God's natural ordering of society but were demanding the social contract.
Of course, the ultimate source of this particular interpretation to see it in a context condemning a monarchial system of governance is none other than Thomas Paine himself. An avowed anti-Christian deist, possibly an atheist, who was hoping to use the assessment that the republican system of government was preferred by God in order to stir up revolutionaries against King George III. Rebellion is quite strong in the American people, after all. We are a country that is built on revolution and for Catholics, there is a temptation to follow that spirit as we grow under this revolutionary spirit of governance that has become the American republic. Nowadays, though, what people clamour for is a republic like all the other nations. Is this not also our own rejection of God's rulership over us? As Nicholls pointed out long ago, the text does not single out monarchy, but addresses the people's relationship with God. It rebukes all theories of social contracts.
*1 Samuel in the Protestant Bibles
No comments:
Post a Comment