Yahweh and King ····································································

Based on the previous various textures of Proverbs 16, the ideology and theology in the relationship between Yahweh and the King will be investigated. On the one hand, Proverbs 16 demands that one should obey both God and the King for the stability of the kingdom. The King is identified with God. On the other hand, the King should be righteous, fearing Yahweh. The relationship between two characters is a central topic of Proverbs 16 as well as the Old Testament. This relationship reflects royal ideology of the Ancient Near Eastern Nation, 37

37 _{In Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (2006), Walton examined the continuity and}

discontinuity between Old Testament and Ancient Near East. It is acceptable that one can find both continuity and discontinuity in between the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. Some aspects of Yahweh may remain in continuity with the rest of the ancient world. The gods in the Ancient Near East experienced the whole range of human emotions such as joy, sorrow, and anger. They are familiar with Yahweh in the Bible. However, as discontinuity, Yahweh does not show shame and fear unlike other gods where deities and kingship played central roles in

96 society and civilization.

In the Ancient world the King stood between the divine and human realism mediating the power of the deity (Clifford 1999:158). The King communed with the gods. He was responsible for maintaining justice and for the performance of the cult. The King in Egypt was, on the whole, divinized to a higher degree than kings in the other cultures. An Egyptian hymn to Re provides the origin of kingship and the role of the King (Walton 2006:279). Re has placed the King in the land of the living forever and ever, judging humankind and satisfying the gods, realizing Maat and destroying Izfet. The King gives offerings to the gods and mortuary offerings to the deceased. In Egypt the acts of Pharaoh were the acts of deity.38

The ideology in Proverbs 16 had the common element with royal ideology of the rest of the Ancient Near East, although with discontinuity. The King shared the divine nature

On the Mesopotamian side, the King was elected by the gods and adopted as the sons of gods (Walton 2006:279). The kingship was governed by an agreement that existed between the King and the gods. If kings lost touch with deity, divine patronage could be forfeit and divine authority withdrawn. Kings had to make efforts to learn the will of gods. Even though they are not portrayed as gods, they are sometimes treated as gods.

38 _{The position and the role of kings, however, have a tendency to change throughout the history, as Ray}

(1998:21) in Wisdom in Ancient Israel shows the examples. In the Instruction forMerikare, one can find unprecedented things in Egyptian literature because of the degree of selfcriticism which the king reveals and the stress he lays upon divine judgment for misdeeds, even those done by Pharaohs. Neferkare and the General Sisene mention that the previous system collapsed because of moral depravity. In Papyrus Westcar, the Pharaoh Cheops is shown as arbitrary and overbearing features which are in conflict with the idea of Maat.

and played the role as of the representative of Yahweh. The King stood between the divine and human realms mediating the power of Yahweh. The King enjoyed Yahweh’s favour and protection. Since the early Monarchic period the need to legitimize the new political power might force the addition of major features borrowed from other nations. The court ideologists of David and Solomon used Egyptian and Mesopotamian precedents to develop a new ideology of kingship (Scott 1965:XXX; Boström 1990:20; Clifford 1999:3). Williams R J (1981) advocated the Egyptian influence upon Israel and pointed to a number of factors that indicate that this was the case especially in Solomon’s and Hezekiah’s days. According to the ideology, the King was commissioned by him to bring the whole world to bow down to him as the incarnate son of Yahweh.

The middle texture of Proverbs 16, Proverbs 16:10-15 emphasises a special relationship between Yahweh and the King. In an article, Die Struktur von Proverbia 16:1-15, Pola (1995:43) considered Proverbs 16:1-15 as rhetorische Duplik which reflects royal ideology. Pola (1995:63) explains that while Proverbs 16:1-9 shows the contrast of human beings with Yahweh, Proverbs 16:10-15 exhibits the Einklang between Yahweh and the King. The topic of Yahweh (16:1-9) and kings (16:10-15) is the intention of an editor for identifying Yahweh with the King. With Yahweh’s greatness in Proverbs 16:1- 9, the greatness of the King prevails in Proverbs 16:10-15.

Even though the royal ideology in Proverbs 16 can be heard, the ideology is not all. The royal ideology is challenged by the theology found in Proverbs 16. One of the main

98

theologies of Israel is creation theology which means Yahweh is a real king,39

39 _{The theology that Yahweh is a real king of the universe can be found in different biblical contexts or}

different periods. Even the book of Proverbs, including Proverbs 16 shows some element of Yahweh as a universal king.

since Yahweh is the creator of the universe and of human beings. Even though the earthly King can exist in a court, there is only one sovereign King who is Yahweh. Whybray (1994a:88-89) insists that “joining of the topics of Yahweh and the King together serves a double purpose. On the one hand, it teaches that kings rule by divine permission and are Yahweh’s representatives on earth, but, on the other, that as human beings kings have this authority only if they acknowledge their subordinate status and rule righteously.” That is the creation theology on which the sage as the author or editor of Proverbs 16 depended.

After encountering the royal ideology of the king and priests, the theology of the sage or the scribe played a critical role regarding the ruling class. For the sage, Yahweh was the King. The sage urged human beings including the earthly king to fear Yahweh and to maintain the mystery of Yahweh, since Yahweh’s role as a sovereign King involves his mystery. Yahweh has the freedom to enact his will. Yahweh rules even chance, as symbolized by his rule over the casting of dice (16:33). Nevertheless, the creation theology of Yahweh as a King caused earthly kings to keep a social order and obey the law of Yahweh. As a sovereign king in heaven, Yahweh made the scales that the earthly King uses to administer fair weight and measures (16:11). Thus this coexistence of order and mystery is explained in the relationship between Yahweh and the King.