United Monarchy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

United Monarchy - Essay Example In contradiction, their neighbours were polytheists and worshipped idols of God, and this was a constant temptation for Israelites. There was God’s law which guided Israelites to live righteously but Israelites constantly failed and there was a pattern to this which was recorded by the judges. This pattern was observed prior and during the period of United Monarchy, and can be seen as an explanation of the events: A leader is given by Yahweh to guide Israelites in the righteous path and observe Torah People do not follow and comply by this as they indulge in social injustice or idolatry, or sometimes both. That is, they act against the will of God People are punished for above by God in order to get them back to the righteous path and faithfulness. Punishment is mainly in the form of an attack by the neighbouring people As a result, people turn to God to save them and repent for what they had done A new leader is given by God who saves them from the enemy and the faith in god is restored. The cycle starts again and continues the same way It was established from the above that loyalty to Yahweh would mean prosperity while non-compliance to God’s Torah would result inevitably in disaster. This ideology of one god and the pattern discussed above play an important role in beginning and end of United Monarchy. ... All the tribes of Israelites were led by judges while most of their neighbours where led by kings and threats of attacks and invasions loomed large. This is when the people started demanding a centralised form of government with a single king leading all the tribes. The idea of having a king made great sense to tackle the situation and streamline all their resources and energies to fighting the outside invaders. On the other hand, the idea of having a king was in many ways contradicting the religious beliefs of Israelites. Israelites believed that God was their king and having a human king would be in all sense rejecting the leadership of God. Also Israel was supposed to be a â€Å"holy nation† unlike other nations. There was opposition to having a human king but the pressure was strong to have a permanent human king like other nations at the time. Samuel, the judge, is asked to identify the king to lead the nation but he warns that there would be many negative consequences of having centralised government and there is no guarantee of good leadership. Also he points out that: â€Å"Israelites suffered military defeat because of their infidelity to God not for the lack of king (1Sm 12:9-11). Not even a king will be able to save Israel from the consequences of a disobeying God. In this respect, the institution of monarchy will change nothing.† This cautionary warning is in accordance with the beliefs of Israelites that non-compliance with God’s Torah will lead to dire consequences. Therefore, irrespective of having a king or not if people do not follow the path of God, they will be punished until they vow to walk in the right path again. This ideology sounds right and to go by this, there is no need for the Israelites to have a king as long as