Originally, YHWH put Adam in the Garden of Eden, to tend it and to keep it.

 

 

However, Adam and his wife fell out of YHWH’s favor, because they chose to disobey His commandments.

 

 

Had Adam and Havvah been careful to obey they might have been able to live in the Garden forever; and yet as we explain in ‘About Predestination’, YHWH knew that they would disobey. In fact, the reason YHWH allowed them to fall from His favor was so they would then have to accept Yeshua as King over their lives, in order to regain YHWH’s favor (grace). This was YHWH’s plan from before the foundation of the world.

 

 

YHWH not only foreknew that Adam and Havvah would fall: His grand plan of Salvation required it; for if man had never fallen from YHWH’s favor, then why would we have to bow the knee to the King of Kings?

 

It is tempting to see the Garden of Eden as an ideal state to be re-attained, or to think that we are supposed to go back to the Garden. Yet if we are go back to the Garden of Eden, then why did YHWH place His name in a city (Jerusalem)? And why does Revelation tell us that we are not going to go to a renewed Garden, but to a Renewed Jerusalem?

 

 

YHWH originally put man in a garden, but that is not where He wants man to end up. Man is destined to go to a city (from which both human and divine kings also reign). Therefore let us understand an ironic mystery: while it was not YHWH’s will that Adam and Havvah should disobey Him, it was always a part of His plan; and even though it was part of YHWH’s plan, the failing was still mankind’s fault.

 

Another ironic mystery is that it was never YHWH’s will that Israel have a king; and yet it was a part of His plan. Israel’s children were always supposed to obey their family patriarchs; and yet when the patriarchs died and some other method of establishing order had to be put in place, it still reckoned as iniquity to Israel. That is why both YHWH and Shemuel were unhappy when Israel asked for a king, so they could be “like all of the other nations” (verses 5 and verse 20).

 

 

Although it was not YHWH’s will that Israel should have a king, YHWH prophesied through Balaam the Son of Beor that Israel would have a mighty king, whose kingdom would be exalted. It can be argued that this is a reference to Yeshua, but is it necessarily so?

 

 

In Deuteronomy Seventeen, YHWH told Israel that they would have a king: only they were not to choose a king for themselves, like all of the other nations around them (verse 14). Rather, they were to set for themselves the king that YHWH wanted for them (verse 15).

 

 

This is the central issue in all of Scripture: will the bride (Israel) carefully seek YHWH’s face, and shema (hear and obey) His voice, so as to eat of the Tree of Life? Or will she decide to do what seems good and right in her own eyes, and keep her own counsel, and eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? This is the question that turns up all throughout Scripture, and it is the same question that confronts Israel today.

 

It is generally understood that in a democracy, people typically vote their own self-interest. This selfishness is widely accepted to be a part of the democratic process. Yet, when did selfishness ever lead to the blessings of YHWH? Are not selfish ambition and contentiousness listed as the fruits of the flesh? And yet is not such contentiousness (rather than the building of consensus) an integral part of the democratic process?

 

 

Surely if both Ephraim and Judah were to pray and seek YHWH’s face, and vote for whoever wanted most to serve YHWH and His people, it would be a good thing. That would be similar to how the Nation of Israel was always supposed to seek out and then follow the judge or the king that YHWH had chosen for them. However, even if all twelve tribes were to seek His face and then fill modern democratic offices with those who want to serve YHWH and their fellow man (rather than just serving themselves), the democratic process is still fatally flawed since it is based on majority rule, rather than on hearing from YHWH. Because democracies are based on majority rule, compromise (and not purity) is the rule of the day; and when did YHWH ever bless compromise?

 

Even the Hebrew of the word for Babylon (בבל) speaks of democracy, in which power is vested in more than one house. That is, there is no consolidation of power.

 

ב Beit (House)

ב Beit (House)

ל Lamed (Authority)

 

Since democracy has more than one center of power, and since male nature is to seek power, the men in the different power centers will pull at each other, and eventually pull the government apart. This is why Yeshua told us that eventually, every kingdom divided against itself will be brought to desolation.

 

 

In the Post-Millennial Return study we predict the fall of America, and outline a scenario that covers its slow demise as a result of shared power and compromise with evil due to majority rule. So far the predictions in our scenario are exactly on track.

 

There are some important differences between the role of an anointed judge, and the role of a king. Because an anointed judge hears YHWH’s voice, he or she is supposed to let the people know YHWH’s will (whether in legal disputes or in matters of doctrine/halachah). Since Israel is operationally defined as those who seek to please YHWH by keeping His Instructions (by virtue of their faith in Yeshua), the people are then supposed to obey the Word of YHWH on their own, without the need for enforcement of any kind. This is the kind of witness Yeshua gave during His ministry.

 

 

While Yeshua rebuked the cities for not following His righteous example, notice that He did nothing by way of enforcement, because that is the job of a king (and He was not in the king’s role at that time). In contrast, the job of a king is to enforce YHWH’s righteousness within his realm, against all threats from within, and against all threats from without. In essence, then, the king is not just the head of the army (including the police), but he is YHWH’s minister of force (or a ‘Minister of Power’).

 

 

Shaul told us that the king is a Minister of Force when he wrote his epistle to the Romans.

 

 

We deal with the objections to Romans Thirteen in the article, ‘About Submission to Government’, yet notice that Scripture tells us that kings in Israel are to pay for this ministration of force with a flat ten percent tax.

 

 

We will talk about funding the government more as this study progresses. Here in First Samuel it is presented as a very negative thing, even though it was always a part of YHWH’s plan, as a necessary component of establishing order once the Patriarchs had died.

 

As we will explain as this study progresses, this ten percent tax is essentially to pay for the king’s armed forces (both internal and external), a system of courts, and nothing more. Further, this ten percent tax should yield a net surplus each year, such that the king builds a vast war treasury over time (as opposed to a national debt). Thus the kingship is to be established with one singular point of power, and upon a store of gold. Note how this is the exact opposite of how kingships are run in democracies.

 

In Scripture, there is no distinction between the army and the police. Whether applied inside or outside one’s borders, force is force. The only real question is if this force is applied justly, and in the pursuit of YHWH’s righteousness, or not.

 

Later in this study we will discuss the office of the kingship when it is fulfilled by persons other than a literal king. These include the electoral head of Hosea 2:2 (Hosea 1:11 in English versions), and the Nasi of Ezekiel 44-48. While these persons are not literal kings, they nonetheless fulfill the kingship role, and they become the Commander In Chief of the nation.

 

One of the reasons YHWH favors kingship is simply because of its efficiency. Because all power and final decision-making capacity rests in a single individual, the redundancy of bureaucratic agencies can be done away with, streamlining the government. Thus it can do more, sooner, and on far less money.

 

Sometimes people fear kingship, and they think of it as bad. These often suggest that when a king is good (such as King David), he can be very good: and yet they point out that when a king is not good he can be very bad. That it all true, but shall we compare it to the fruit of American democracy, which has slowly but surely removed Scripture from the public schools, mandates the teaching of Evolution, and teaches the children things Scripture considers to be abominations, simply because a certain percentage of the people don’t think they are bad.

 

Critics counter that democracy is a good system, if only we can get rid of the bad leaders. But is that really so? Three hundred years ago, a great many of the colonists in America were believers, having just left kingships in Europe. Three hundred years later, Democracy has begun turning its descendants against the Nation of Israel, and the Jews. Democracy in America has even begun turning its children towards Islam.

 

The term Democracy is not found in Scripture. Perhaps the closest we can find is Laodicea, which means, ‘The people are right’, or ‘The people rule.’ If we have eyes to see, does this not really describe the democratic West, where the decadent Christians feel they are rich, but in reality they have nothing that is spiritually good?

 

 

Has Democracy really brought the descendants of Ephraim and Judah closer to His kingdom on earth? And has it really taught His righteousness? Or has it not rather taught progressive compromises with evil, so long as a certain percentage of the people desire it?

 

Let us consider again at the inefficiency with which Democracy and its ministers operate, and then take a fresh look at the efficiency of YHWH’s chosen kingship model, which provides for national defense, police protection and a system of courts on a flat ten percent tax; and it even leaves a war chest, rather than leaving a National Debt for its children’s children.

 

No one (and especially not the king) ever has the right to disobey YHWH’s Torah.  The king, as the enforcer of the Torah, needs to obey it more than anyone.  This was one of King David’s major downfalls is that he did not enforce the Torah with regards to his own children in the rape of Tamar; and this was one of the reasons his son Avshalom, (Absalom) tried to overthrow him.

 

The life of a king is more glorious to those who look on it than it is for those that bear it.  YHWH does not make it easy to be a king; and yet someone needs to enforce YHWH’s standards in the kingdom.

 

However, the role of the king may also be past.  As we will see later in this study, it will be the Nasi who takes care of leading the government in the future.  We will discuss the Nasi in a later chapter.