Kingship. Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1—6

Kingship. Coronation, and Covenant in Mosiah 1—6Stephen D. RicksProvo, Utah: Maxwell Institute

The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=121Print | Email< Previous  |  Next >

Previous ChapterNext Chapter

The first six chapters of Mosiah contain King Benjamin's farewell address—one of the most memorable sermons on record. These chapters also portray for us the succession of Mosiah₂ to the Nephite throne. Many features of this coronation ceremony reflect ancient Israelite culture. First is the significance of the office of king. Second is the coronation ceremony for the new king—the details of which have parallels in both Israel and other ancient Near Eastern societies and even in other parts of the world. Third, the order of events reported in these chapters reflects the "treaty/covenant" pattern well-known in ancient Israel and the ancient Near East. Finally, an interrelated cluster of concepts in Israelite religion connects the themes of rising from the dust, enthronement, kingship, and resurrection. My discussion of these four sets of features will show how faithfully the Book of Mormon reflects these Old World practices and beliefs.

KINGSHIP

The Meaning of Kingship

Although kingship is a political institution whose origins are lost to history, nearly every ancient and medieval civilization had a king who was believed to have been appointed by heaven. The Egyptians held that kingship had existed as long as the world itself;¹ to the Sumerians, this form of rule was a gift from the gods.² The Israelites also believed that the king was appointed and adopted by God and that "he mediated between God and the people and represented them before each other."³ Although the Nephite king was never viewed as a divine being (which would be inconsistent with Deuteronomy 17:15), he was closely connected with God in the sense that, as an intermediate, he too modeled and represented God to his people (as in Mosiah 2:19).

In the ancient view of God's conferral of governmental power upon the king, the traditional code of royalty—which stipulates that the monarch receive sacred names and powers—allows him to stand in the place of God before his people. That ceremony "contained in particular the ancient titles and sovereign rights and duties conferred on Pharaoh by the god, in brief, the king's authority to rule as the surrogate of the god."⁴ In the case of Benjamin's speech, a similar ideology is to an extent operational: Benjamin conferred upon Mosiah, and also upon the people, a new name (see Mosiah 5:8); he entrusted Mosiah with other insignia of his royal office (see Mosiah 1:15–16), and he mentioned Mosiah's right and duty to deliver to his people the commandments of God and to lead them in the ways of peace and well-being (see Mosiah 2:31; see also 5:5).

If the king represented the person of God, a fortiori, he also embodied the will and word of God or, in other words, the law of God. According to Moshe Weinfeld, "law is embodied in the person of the king. The king is 'the living law.'"⁵ Similarly, a strong element in Benjamin's discourse is his role as an example. At several important junctures in the speech, Benjamin cites his own behavior or function as a role model to the people, thus embodying the principles of divine righteousness that were incumbent upon his people to obey. For example, if Benjamin had labored to serve other people, then how much more should they do likewise (see Mosiah 2:18).

The role of king in Hebrew times

was based on two covenants which defined the duties of the crown towards God and towards the people. The king's relationship to the divinity was conceived as that of a vassal towards his overlord. He was installed in the office by divine election, on condition that he remain loyal to God and keep his laws (II Sam. xxiii 5; Ps. cxxxii 12). The other covenant defined the king's obligations towards the nation and fulfilled the function of a modern constitution (II Sam. iii 21, v 3; II Chron. xxiii 3). The various conditions were probably recited at the accession to the throne.⁶

In the case of Benjamin's and Mosiah's kingship, we see clearly that they both stood between God and the people (see Mosiah 2:31; 5:5) and that the king was one who acted as a vassal or steward over God's people (see Mosiah 1:10) and who accepted the king's commands by way of covenant (see Mosiah 5:5).

In Israel, kingship came to be a vital element of the society's organization through the four hundred years leading up to Lehi's departure from Jerusalem. In the American promised land, among the Nephites, Lamanites, and people of Zarahemla, kings were again an essential part of political life for many centuries. Mosiah 1–6 gives us some of the clearest information on the ideals of royal government in the Book of Mormon. For example, as a practical matter, the ancient king had two fundamental obligations: namely, to maintain peace and to establish justice. "Clearly, the function of the king was twofold: to ensure the safety of his people by 'force of arms' against [the] internal threat of rebellion or external threat of invasion and to ensure the 'well-being' of the nation through the establishment of justice. This dual function of the king as both warrior and judge is evident throughout the ancient Near East."⁷ These two roles transcended the particular form of rulership in Israel or in the ancient world and endured from era to era: Whether an early judge or a later monarch in Israel, the ruler "was the leader in the Holy War chosen by Yahweh. He was also the man who had been given wisdom to act as a Judge of the people: to see that honesty flourishes in the kingdom."⁸ As Falk has observed, the Hebrew king was responsible for the "functions of judicial and political administration"; he acted as judge, and was also "called upon to fulfill a political task, in the course of which he also took upon himself the religious functions"; and he was "commissioned by God to administer justice."⁹Benjamin clearly filled these perennial roles: as warrior, he had led the Nephites into victorious battle against invading troops and quelled rebellion in his own lands (see Words of Mormon 1:12–16); as judge, it is evident that he had established justice and enforced the laws against slavery, murder, theft, adultery, and "any manner of wickedness" (Mosiah 2:13); and as religious leader, he received revelation from God and inspired his people in righteousness.

Especially prominent in the ancient meaning of kingship was the king's domestic role as the one in society primarily responsible for the internal peace, fairness, and equity within his realm. This royal function stands out in several Old Testament texts. For example, as Keith Whitelam remarks on Psalm 72: "The whole psalm is a testimony to the importance of the ideal of monarchical judicial administration which guarantees both the cosmic harmony, fertility and prosperity of the nation."¹⁰ Thus to Benjamin is attributed primary credit for the condition of peace in his land: "by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul," he and his prophets were able to "establish peace in the land" (Words of Mormon 1:18).

Whitelam identifies three additional points as being common to the ancient Near Eastern and Israelite royal ideologies: (1) the king's administration of justice was seen as essential for cosmic harmony; (2) this ensured the fertility and prosperity of the nation; and (3) the ideal king was often concerned with providing for the needs of the poor and the underprivileged.¹¹ While Benjamin recognizes these characteristics of kingship, he attributes them primarily to God and is only vicariously involved in caring for the poor. For Benjamin, the order of the world depends, not on himself as king, but solely on God's sustaining power that maintains life and the world order from day to day (see Mosiah 2:21). Likewise, Benjamin affirms that the eternal well-being of mankind is solely contingent on the atonement of Jesus Christ and the omnipotent goodness of God—not on the king's power as ruler (see Mosiah 3:18; 4:8–11). It is on the third point that Benjamin focuses his personal emphasis: just as God is kind and generous to all individuals who are impoverished beggars in the sight of God (see Mosiah 4:21), so too Benjamin expresses deep concern and takes specific steps to see that the poor and the underprivileged in his kingdom are cared and provided for (see Mosiah 4:14, 22–23).

Choosing the King

The Book of Mormon presents a pattern of choosing kings that matches customs in ancient Israel. In Israel, as in the ancient Near East generally, kingship was a divine election.¹² It was considered necessary that God choose the man to be king. Thus Solomon, not his older brother Adonijah, succeeded his father David as king, since, as Adonijah himself said, "it [the kingship] was [Solomon's] from the Lord" (1 Kings 2:15).¹³ De Vaux observes that "accession to the throne (of Judah) implies a divine choice: a man is 'king by the grace of God' not only because God made a covenant with the dynasty of David, but because his choice was exercised at each accession."¹⁴ Following this pattern of divine election of the king, King Benjamin believed that God had called Mosiah, his son: "On the morrow I shall proclaim . . . that thou art a king and a ruler over this people,whom the Lord our God hath given us" (Mosiah 1:10).

In Israel, the eldest son of the king usually became the next ruler, although the king was not obligated to choose him if he believed God desired otherwise. Jehoshaphat gave the kingdom to Jehoram "because he was the firstborn" (2 Chronicles 21:3). However, at a later time Joachaz succeeded Josiah even though Joachaz had an older brother (see 2 Kings 23:31, 36). The Book of Mormon does not say whether Mosiah was Benjamin's firstborn son, though this was probably the case since his name is given first in the list of names of Benjamin's sons (see Mosiah 1:2).

In Israel, both Solomon and Jotham became king while their fathers were still alive, because their fathers were old or ill (see 1 Kings 1:32–40; 2:1–10; 2 Kings 15:5). This is also apparently why Benjamin installed Mosiah when he did: "[Benjamin] waxed old, and he saw that he must very soon go the way of all the earth; therefore, he thought it expedient that he should confer the kingdom upon one of his sons" (Mosiah 1:9). After he "had consecrated his son Mosiah to be a ruler and a king over his people, . . . king Benjamin lived three years and he died" (Mosiah 6:3, 5).

Conflicting Views of Kingship

In Mesopotamia and Egypt, kingship was the only form of government, as far as we know. There the king was viewed as having descended from a god, or he had at least been adopted as an offspring of deity.¹⁵ To the writers of history in those lands, no other type of rule was conceivable. Some ancient Israelites took a very positive view of kingship, seeing the king as a necessary and elevated representative of God, even as an adopted son of God; other writers took a limited view of monarchy, seeing the king as "ultimately subject to the law given to the people by Yahweh. . . . The king represents more than just his person, he also represents the future of the nation and more especially his own dynasty."¹⁶

On the other hand, some people in Israel objected to kingship categorically on the ground that God alone was to rule over his people. For this reason, Gideon refused the invitation to become a hereditary monarch in Israel: "And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord shall rule over you" (Judges 8:23).

Others considered kingship permissible but warned against it. Samuel recognized the dangers of kingship. When the Israelites demanded of the prophet Samuel, "Make us a king to judge us like all the nations," Samuel painted a grim picture of what would happen under a king:

He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear [plant] his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. (1 Samuel 8:11–18)

In dealing with kingship, biblical authors, like people everywhere, were torn by the divergence between theory and practice. What a king was supposed to be and what a king in reality became were not often one and the same: "In general, the ideal position is presented in the Psalms and Prophets, whereas the historical books often witness to the practical problems involved in the administration of monarchical judicial authority and the failures to attain this ideal."¹⁷

The Nephites were also torn between conflicting views of kings. The Book of Mormon presents a similar variety of perspectives on kingship. The descendants of Nephi₁ found kings to be desirable, declaring that "whoso should reign in [Nephi's] stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings" (Jacob 1:11). Zeniff and his people willingly recognized the Lamanite king of the land (see Mosiah 9:5) and then proceeded to set up their own kingdom nearby. When Zeniff died, he conferred his kingdom upon his son, Noah. Though Noah "did not walk in the ways of his father" (Mosiah 11:1), he was still recognized and obeyed as king by the people. There was rarely a time when there was not a king of the Lamanites.

A second view presented by the Book of Mormon is that kingship is undesirable. After Lehi died, Nephi's supporters desired him to rule over them. However, Nephi opposed this idea, saying: "I, Nephi, was desirous that they should have no king" (2 Nephi 5:18). Other Nephites developed this stance even further, declaring that kings are trouble:

Because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! . . . ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. (Mosiah 29:16–17, 21–23)

Benjamin's description of how he ruled could hardly contrast more with Samuel's or Mosiah's description of the problems caused by wicked kings:

I . . . have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you; Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another. . . . And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne. (Mosiah 2:12–14)

Mosiah followed his father Benjamin in farming "the earth, that thereby he might not become burdensome to his people" (Mosiah 6:7). He took great pains to avoid abusing the royal power. Yet, near the end of his reign, Mosiah gives the most damning criticism to be found anywhere in scripture on the perils of kingship: "Because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!" (Mosiah 29:16–17; see all of 29:5–36).

The Nephites had many different models of rulership to choose from as they consulted the precedents in the records they had brought with them from Jerusalem. Many types of rulers were found in Israel over the centuries: priest-kings like Melchizedek; patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob; family and tribal leaders of various types; lawgivers like Moses; high priests like Aaron; prophets like Samuel; military leaders like Joshua and Sampson; judges like Gideon and Deborah; powerful kings like Saul, David, and Solomon; and reform-minded kings like Hezekiah and Josiah. From this wide array of options, it is little wonder that no single theory of kingship or rulership emerges among the Nephites, who at diverse times and under changing circumstances found themselves led by rulers such as Nephi, hereditary kings such as Nephi's successors, good kings such as Benjamin, wicked kings such as Noah, chief judges such as Nephihah, military captains such as Moroni, governors such as Lachoneus, and prophets such as Alma. All this generated conflicting ideologies of kingship and leadership among the Nephites and helps explain the dichotomy in Benjamin's kingship, which featured both power and humility.

The King as Guardian of the Covenant of the Lord

The king in the ancient Near East was obliged to maintain justice generally and to protect the rights of the weakest members of society.¹⁸ King Benjamin did not discuss this responsibility directly, but it is implied at several points in his sermon that he understood and observed the principle of protecting the rights of the weak (for example, see Mosiah 2:17–18; 4:13–16, 24).

The king in Israel had an added responsibility of acting as guardian of the covenant between the Lord and his people—a concept that seems to have no parallel among neighboring peoples. He was expected to be an obedient follower of God and to lead his people in obeying this covenant.¹⁹ Accordingly, "both Joshua and Josiah mediate covenants between Israel and God, [and] promise obedience to the book of the Torah."²⁰ As guardian of the covenant and of the law, the Israelite king took "special measures in his capacity of teacher of the torah, being the highest responsible authority in all matters appertaining to the department of the law."²¹

Kingship and covenant are also closely connected in Mosiah 1–6. Benjamin's command to his son to prepare for this grand occasion had two parts to it—to proclaim his son the new king and to "give this people a name" (Mosiah 1:11; see 1:10). The name was "the name of Christ"; this was to be accepted by all "that have entered into the covenant with God that [they] should be obedient unto the end of [their] lives" (Mosiah 5:8). The association of the two concepts in King Benjamin's agenda indicates that they were linked in Nephite thinking. In Mosiah 2:13, Benjamin clearly declares ways in which he had discharged his obligations as teacher and administrator in all matters of law.

Kingship and the covenant of the people with God are again combined in Mosiah 6:3. After Mosiah had been consecrated king, he "appointed priests to teach the people, that thereby they might hear and know the commandments of God, and to stir them up in remembrance of the oath [or covenant] which they had made." The record notes that following Benjamin's death, Mosiah very strictly observed the covenant and the commandments that his father had passed on to him (see Mosiah 6:6).

CORONATION

The coronation of the king is the most important ritual act associated with kingship in the ancient Near East. A comparison of Mosiah 1–6 with coronation ceremonies recorded in the Old Testament and with such rites among other ancient Near Eastern peoples reveals striking parallels.²²

The Sanctuary as the Site of the Coronation

A society's most sacred spot is the location where the holy act of royal coronation takes place. For Israel, the temple was that site. So we read that during his coronation Joash stood "by a pillar [of the temple], as the manner was" (2 Kings 11:14). However, the temple had not been built when Solomon became king, so he was crowned at Gihon (see 1 Kings 1:45). Although Gihon may have been chosen because water was available for purification rites,²³ it was made sacred by the presence of the ark of the covenant (which contained the sacred objects from Moses' day) in the special tabernacle that David had made to shelter it at Gihon. The priest Zadok took "out of the tabernacle" the horn containing oil with which he anointed Solomon (1 Kings 1:39). Thus scholars have concluded that the covenants made in connection with Israelite coronations were "made in the Temple. . . . The king went up into the House of Yahweh, he had his place by, or on, the pillar . . . and he concluded the covenant before Yahweh."²⁴

In the specifically Nephite case of Mosiah, all the people gathered at the temple at Zarahemla, the site chosen for Benjamin's address to the people and for the consecration of his son Mosiah as king (see Mosiah 1:18). The Nephite formalities, as had been the case in ancient Israel, took place in stages: "the coronation ceremony was divided into two parts, the anointing in the sanctuary and the enthronement in the royal palace."²⁵ Mosiah was first designated king in a private setting, presumably at the royal palace (see Mosiah 1:9–12), and then presented to the people in the public gathering at the temple (see Mosiah 2:30).

The Royal Dais

Benjamin had a tower constructed from which he spoke and, presumably, presented Mosiah to the people (see Mosiah 2:7). Not only was the king crowned in the temple, but in a specific place within the temple complex. In 2 Kings 11:14 we read that at the time of his coronation, King Joash "stood by a pillar (Hebrew al ha-ammud), as the manner was" (emphasis added). According to Welch and Szink, "The preposition al can be translated 'by,' but it is much more often rendered 'on' or 'upon.'"²⁶ Similarly, in 2 Kings 23:3, when King Josiah rededicates the temple, he gathers all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem and reads the law before all the people. He then stands "by" or "on the pillar"—al ha-ammud—and makes a covenant to keep all the commandments.²⁷ De Vaux connects these pillars with the "brasen scaffold" that Solomon built (2 Chronicles 6:13), upon which he stands and kneels "before all the congregation of Israel," and from which he offers the dedicatory prayer for the temple; further, de Vaux suggests that the phrase near the pillar be translated "on the dais."²⁸

Another such structure is mentioned in Nehemiah 8:4. On the occasion of the reading of the law by Ezra the scribe, the religious leader of the people, we are again told that, during the Sukkot feast, Ezra "stood upon a pulpit of wood" in order to read the law to the people who were living "in booths for seven days following their return to Jerusalem from Babylon."²⁹ Commenting on the pillars in 2 Kings, Gerhard von Rad wrote, "It is certainly to be understood in any case that the place where the king stood was a raised one. The king would have had to be visible to the crowd which had gathered for the solemnities, so that one may probably think of some sort of pillar-like platform."³⁰ Widengren added,

We therefore conclude that at least towards the end of the pre-exilic period, but possibly from the beginning of that period, the king when reading to his people on a solemn occasion from the book of the law and acting as the mediator of the covenant making between Yahweh and the people had his place on a platform or a dais.³¹

In confirming the Old Testament documentation of the use of the dais, the Mishnah also supports the evidence found in the Book of Mormon. Together these illustrate that platforms are (1) located in the temple precinct, (2) associated with the coronation of new kings, (3) used by the king or another leader to read the law to the people, (4) used to offer dedicatory prayers for the temple, and (5) associated with the Festival of Booths. In view of these considerations, one can conclude that Benjamin's tower was more than just a way to communicate to the people—it was part of an Israelite coronation tradition in which the king stands on a platform or pillar at the temple before the people and before God.

Installing in Office with Insignia

At the coronation of Joash, Jehoiada the priest conferred upon him two objects, called the nezer and the edût."It would seem that the diadem and the protocol were the two items of sacral and legal insignia, conferment of which constituted the essential act of coronation."³² The meaning of the first term is certain; it means "crown" (2 Kings 11:12). What edût means is far less certain. Von Rad connected the edût with the idea of covenant and also with the Egyptian protocol that were given to the Pharaoh upon his ascent to the throne.³³In other words, it refers to a list of laws or regulations by which the king was to govern.³⁴ Geo Widengren, on the other hand, believes that the edût refers to the whole law. He notes:

It is highly important that according to all traditions the leader of the people of Israel, in older times chieftains of the charismatic type, like Moses and Joshua, in the period of the monarchy the king—and this right down into Hellenistic-Roman times—always had the law handed over to him, and thus was the real possessor of the Torah, in the concrete meaning of the word.³⁵

Ringgren cites Psalm 132:12 to support this claim:

If your sons keep my covenant
and my testimonies [edotai] which I shall teach them,
their sons also for ever
shall sit upon your throne.³⁶

The king, as possessor of the law, would then "read out to the assembly the commandments of the book of the covenant and then . . . make the covenant between Yahweh and his people."³⁷ The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi opined that the edût was a law, connecting it with the injunction in Deuteronomy 17:18–20, which specifies that the king should keep a copy of the law with him, that he might always remember the commandments of God, "to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom."³⁸ In like manner, Benjamin told his sons, including Mosiah, his successor, "I would that ye should keep the commandments of God, that ye may prosper in the land according to the promises which the Lord made unto our fathers" (Mosiah 1:7). Thus not only may Mosiah's receipt of the law as part of the regalia of kingship be similar to the procedure at the coronation of the kings in Israel, but the purpose for which it was given was also similar.

The royal documents were the most important records in the kingdoms of the ancient world, and a sword was a frequent sign of kingship in Europe and Asia. In addition, from early modern times at least back to the Roman Empire, an orb or ball was commonly held in the hand of Old World rulers; although the Bible does not mention such an object, it still might have been part of the Israelite set of artifacts copied from their neighbors.³⁹

With the transfer of power, Benjamin gave Mosiah similar objects.⁴⁰ He passed on the official records of the people (the plates of brass and the plates of Nephi), the sword of Laban, and the miraculous ball (called the director or Liahona; see Mosiah 1:15–16).

Moreover, the king donned sacred garments: "His sacral garment, his ecclesiastical garb, so to speak, meant that he wore the breast-plate of judgement, and in the pouch of judgement carried the Urim and Tummim, the symbols of the tablets of the law, corresponding exactly to the tablets of destiny worn by the ruler in Mesopotamia."⁴¹ Benjamin's concern about his garments (see Mosiah 2:28) and the fact that King Mosiah was known to possess "two stones" (Mosiah 28:13) by means of which he could translate the twenty-four plates of Ether may be evidence that similar items were present in the Nephite coronation.

Anointing

To anoint the king with oil was a significant part of coronation ceremonies in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East generally. The Bible records the anointing of six kings: Saul, David, Solomon, Jehu, Joash, and Jehoahaz.⁴² "The anointing is a ritual religious act, which marks the candidate for kingship as the Lord's elected."⁴³ Indeed, the name Messiah, which was used to refer to several of the kings of Israel, means "anointed," no doubt referring to the rite of anointing the king during his installation as ruler.⁴⁴

The Hittites, a northern neighbor of the Israelites, also had a ceremony that included anointing the king with oil.⁴⁵ Although no clear evidence exists that the Egyptian king was anointed at his accession to the throne, he apparently was anointed every morning before entering the temple where he performed daily chants.⁴⁶

Following Benjamin's address and the renewal of the covenant by the people, Benjamin "consecrated his son Mosiah to be a ruler and a king over his people" (Mosiah 6:3). In the Book of Mormon the verb to consecrateoccurs mostly in connection with priests or teachers (see 2 Nephi 5:26; Mosiah 11:5; 23:17; Alma 4:4, 7; 5:3; 15:13; 23:4), but also appears in three instances in association with kings. (1) Benjamin says that he was "consecrated" to be king by his father (Mosiah 2:11), (2) Mosiah was "consecrated" by Benjamin his father (Mosiah 6:3), and (3) Amlici was "consecrate[d]" by his followers to be their king (Alma 2:9).

The verb to anoint is more commonly used in the Book of Mormon record with the setting apart of kings. Nephi "anointed" his successor (Jacob 1:9); interestingly, the word is used nine times in the Jaredite record, perhaps in a formulaic fashion (see Ether 6:22, 27; 9:4, 14–15, 21–22; 10:10, 16). In the Bible, only the verbto anoint (from the root *MSH) is used exclusively with reference to kings.⁴⁷ In the enthronements of both Solomon (see 1 Kings 1:34, 39) and Joash (see 2 Kings 11:12) an anointing occurs. Furthermore, Saul, David, Jehu, and Jehoahaz were all anointed.⁴⁸ The verb to consecrate (from the root *QDS) is restricted to priests in the Old Testament. The two terms are similar but not identical in meaning. To anoint means to set apart by applying oil to the body, specifically the head, and to consecrate, a more general term, means to make holy. Consecrating could be done by anointing, but is not limited to it. It is possible that the consecration of Mosiah included anointing, which would have been in accordance with the practices in ancient Israel and the ancient Near East.

Presentation of the New King

Mosiah is presented to the people as their king in Mosiah 2:30. In 1 Kings 1:34, 39, Solomon is presented to the people, "and they blew the trumpet; and all the people said God save king Solomon." At the coronation of Joash "the princes and the trumpeters [were] by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets" (2 Kings 11:14). The blowing of the trumpet (shôfar) bears an interesting connection with the New Year festival discussed above. Returning to the enthronement of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon cited above, we find that he too was presented to the people:

He (i.e., Sennacherib [Esarhaddon's father]) heeded their [the gods'] important pronouncement and called together the people of Assyria, young and old, my brothers (and all) the male descendants of (the family of) my father and made them take a solemn oath in the presence of (the images of) the gods of Assyria: Ashur, Sin, Shamash, Nebo, (and) Marduk, (and) of (all) the (other) gods residing in heaven and in the nether world, in order to secure my succession.⁴⁹

It should also be noted that Esarhaddon's enthronement took place during the Babylonian month of Nisan, which, being the first month of the year, was the month when the Babylonian New Year festival was celebrated. Similarly, presentation and acclamation were formal parts of the enthronement in Israel and the ancient Near East.⁵⁰

One reason for the public proclamation of the new king was to avoid disputes over the throne. In fact, it is most likely that we have detailed accounts concerning the coronation of Solomon and Joash specifically because both kingships were challenged.⁵¹ Despite his father's efforts, the Assyrian Esarhaddon had serious problems with his brothers who also wanted to be king. With this in mind, Benjamin's statements immediately following the presentation of his son take on new meaning: "If ye shall keep the commandments of my son, or the commandments of God which shall be delivered unto you by him, ye shall prosper in the land, and your enemies shall have no power over you. But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah" (Mosiah 2:31–32). The use of the word contention is significant. A quick study of its context in the Book of Mormon reveals that it is often tied to wars and that the principal cause of those wars was dissension and rebellion against the king by individuals. Hence the need for public designation of the king.

As Nibley has pointed out, there is a twist in the Nephite enthronement ceremony, for although Mosiah was proclaimed king, more attention is devoted to God as king.⁵² Benjamin repeatedly reminds the people that he too is human (see Mosiah 2:11, 26) and that God is the real king (see Mosiah 2:19). The idea of God-as-king is frequently found in the Old Testament, especially in Psalms.⁵³ As a final part of the proclamation of the coronation of the new king, "in a fresh act of the drama," the king himself would next speak; "claiming the authority of a divine revelation made to him, he proclaims to the city and to the world (in a more or less threatening speech) the nature of the overlordship which has been conferred upon him."⁵⁴ At this point, the people respond by accepting the king's declarations (see Mosiah 4:2; 5:2–4), and their acclamation "signalizes the people's approval and contributes to the reciprocal feeling of closeness between the king and his citizens."⁵⁵ The public proclamation of the kingship of Mosiah evidently follows the ancient pattern closely.

Receiving a Throne Name

In many societies, a king received a new name or throne name when he was crowned king.⁵⁶ Several Israelite kings had two names, a "birth name" and a throne name. It may be that all the kings of Judah received a new name when they came to the throne.⁵⁷ During the "royal protocol Yahweh addresses the king in direct speech, calls him his son, invests him with sovereign rights, confers upon him his coronation name, and so on."⁵⁸ During the Middle Kingdom period, each king of Egypt had no less than five names and received a throne name at the time he became king.⁵⁹ Kings in Mesopotamia also received a new name. All Parthian kings (in ancient Iran) assumed the same throne name, "Arsak," at their crowning—a fact that has made it hard for historians to identify one ruler from another.⁶⁰

Use of the same royal title also marks the early Nephite kings. Jacob wrote that, "The people having loved Nephi exceedingly, . . . Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever [original] name they would" (Jacob 1:10–11). While it is true that we do not know that this new name was given to the rulers over the Nephites as part of the coronation rite, there is every reason to expect that it was.

Divine Adoption of the King

Based on relating various Psalms (2, 89, 110) or passages in Isaiah (9:6–7) to the coronation, many scholars include as part of the enthronement procedure the divine adoption of the king.⁶¹

As "son" of God, the king belongs to the sphere in which God in a specific manner manifests his fatherly concern and exercises fatherly authority. Both a privilege and an obligation are thus involved. As "son", the king enjoys divine protection and help. This feature is found in all the most important texts. As "son", the king also participates in the power of God and exercises delegated divine power. His sovereignty on earth is a replica of that of God in heaven (Ps 89 and 110). But divine sonship also implies filial obedience, although this obedience is not a sine qua non for the legitimacy of the king.⁶²

Typically, Latter-day Saints have interpreted these passages as referring to Christ. In them the king is called a son of God. In one passage, however, the Lord through Nathan the prophet, referring directly to Solomon, declares, "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" (2 Samuel 7:14). Benjamin's actual bestowal of the name on the people is recorded in Mosiah 5:6–12. Note particularly verse 7:

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Again we can find a similar idea in the enthronement of Joash. "And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord's people" (2 Kings 11:17). What was once reserved for kings at coronation has now been extended in Nephite culture to the people generally. These last two themes—new name and divine adoption—are included in the coronation ritual and further confirm the ancient antecedents of King Benjamin's address.

THE ASSEMBLY OF MOSIAH 1–6 
AS A COVENANT RENEWAL

Mosiah 1–6 mentions three notable features of this assembly: the pilgrimage of whole families to the temple site, the sacrifice of animals, and the people's dwelling in tents. These elements are so typical of the Israelite Feast of Tabernacles that they strongly suggest that the events recorded in these chapters took place during a Nephite observance of that festival.⁶³ From the Old Testament it appears that the Feast of Tabernacles was the time when the Israelites renewed their covenant with God,⁶⁴ which is what the Nephites appear to have been doing in the assembly reported in Mosiah 1–6.

Six elements of covenant renewal can be found in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua: the record (1) gives a preamble in which God is introduced as the one making the covenant or in which his prophet is introduced as spokesman for God; (2) gives a brief review of God's relations with Israel in the past; (3) notes the terms of the covenant, listing specific commandments and obligations that God expected Israel to keep; (4) records that the people bear witness in formal statements that they accept the covenant; (5) gives a list of blessings and curses for obedience or disobedience to the covenant; and (6) records that provisions are made for depositing a written copy of the covenant in a safe and sacred place and for reading its contents to the people in the future.

In addition, the ideal was that the new king take office before the death of the old one,⁶⁵ and this transfer of power was connected with the ceremony in which the people make or renew their covenant with God. Interestingly, each of these features is found in Mosiah 1–6 (see table 1 and its comparisons of Mosiah 1–6 and Old Testament covenant passages). This basic structure of the covenant is further nuanced by a comparison with Hittite treaties composed in the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries BC, approximately the same period of time as the Israelite exodus from Egypt.⁶⁶ The fundamental elements common to both the Hittite treaties and the covenant passages in the Old Testament include the preamble, the antecedent history, individual stipulations, witness formulas or oaths of acceptance, blessings and curses, and provisions for the recital of the covenant and deposit of the text.⁶⁷

1. Preamble

In the Hittite treaties, the preamble contains the name, as well as other titles and attributes, of the suzerain making the treaty: "These are the words of the Sun, Muwatallis, the Great King, King of the land of Hatti, Beloved of the Weather-God."⁶⁸ The passages in the Bible that deal with the renewal of the covenant sometimes introduce God as the maker of the covenant: "And God spake all these words saying . . ." (Exodus 20:1). At other times, a prophet is introduced to act for God: "And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel . . ." (Joshua 24:2). Similarly, Benjamin's covenant assembly in the book of Mosiah begins: "And these are the words which [Benjamin] spake and caused to be written, saying . . ." (Mosiah 2:9). Although Benjamin is speaking, he is clearly acting as the mouthpiece of God. In fact, a sizable part of his address consists of words that had been made known to him "by an angel from God" (Mosiah 3:2).

2. Review of God's Relations with Israel

This part of the typical Hittite treaty acknowledges the past kindnesses that had been shown by the suzerain toward his vassal, providing the rationale for the great king's appeal (in the following section, which contained specific stipulations) to his vassal to render future obedience in return for past benefits: "When, in former times Labarnas, my grandfather, attacked the land of Wilusa, he conquered [it]. . . . The Land of Wilusa never after fell away from the land of Hatti but . . . remained friends with the king of Hatti."⁶⁹ At this point in the covenant renewal, according to the Bible, the people hear of God's mighty acts on behalf of his people Israel. For example, "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagle's wings, and brought you unto myself" (Exodus 19:4; compare Exodus 20:2; Joshua 24:12–13). The Mosiah passage includes a long account of the past relations between King Benjamin and his people and uses the thanks the people owe him for his contributions to their welfare as an a fortiori argument for the greater thanks they owe to God:

And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, . . . do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

. . . who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, . . . and even supporting you from one moment to another. (Mosiah 2:19, 21)

3. Terms of the Covenant

In the Hittite treaties, this section includes the specific obligations that the vassal had to his overlord: "Thou, Alaksandus, shalt protect the Sun as a friend. . . . If anyone says an unfriendly word about the Sun and you keep it secret from the Sun . . . then thou, Alaksandus, sinnest before the oath of the gods; let the oath of the gods harry [thee]!"⁷⁰ Each of the biblical covenant passages stipulates the commandments that God expects his people Israel to keep. A prime example is in Exodus 20–23 where God first briefly lists the Ten Commandments (see Exodus 20:3–17) and then spells out in greater detail what the people are to obey (see Exodus 21:1–23:19). Benjamin's address also contains numerous commandments; for example, "Believe in God. . . . And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you" (Mosiah 4:9–10).

4. Formal Witness

The Hittite treaties contain clauses in which the gods are invoked to witness and act as guarantors of the treaties: "The Sun God of heaven, lord of the lands, Shepherd of men, the Sun Goddess of Arinna, the Queen of the lands, the Weather-God [are called to witness this treaty]."⁷¹ Clearly, such a clause would have been unacceptable in a covenant in monotheistic Israel. At one time in the Old Testament, an object, a particular stone, is made witness to the covenant, "for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God" (Joshua 24:27). In general, though, the people themselves were the witnesses; for instance, they say "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do" (Exodus 19:8). Following King Benjamin's address, the people express their desire "to enter into a covenant with [their] God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments" (Mosiah 5:5). They further witness their willingness to obey by allowing their names to be listed among those who have "entered into a covenant with God to keep his commandments" (Mosiah 6:1).

5. Blessings and Cursings

The end of a biblical covenant ceremony often contains a list of curses and blessings for those who enter into the covenant:

Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image. . . . And all the people shall answer and say, Amen. Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27:15–16)

Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle. (Deuteronomy 28:3–4)

More often the Old Testament just implies the curses and blessings:

And Joshua said unto the people, . . . If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good. (Joshua 24:19–20)

The curses and blessings in Benjamin's speech are also implied rather than stated outright:

And . . . whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God. . . . And now . . . whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God. (Mosiah 5:9–10)

6. Reciting and Depositing the Covenant

The Bible frequently mentions that the covenant was read aloud: "And he [Moses] took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people" (Exodus 24:7). Other passages mention that the covenant was written and put in a safe and sacred place: "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak, that was by the sanctuary of the Lord" (Joshua 24:26). The words of King Benjamin were written and sent out among the people, not only so they could study and understand what had gone on, but also as a permanent record of the assembly (see Mosiah 2:8–9). At the end of Benjamin's address, when all the people expressed a willingness to take upon themselves Christ's name, their names were recorded (Mosiah 6:1).

FROM DUST TO EXALTATION

The ideology of kingship in ancient Israel extended beyond coronation rituals and covenant patterns. Biblical scholars have found that the ideas associated with becoming a king or a queen also came to serve as religious images, symbolizing the ascent of mortal beings from dust to exaltation.

"Recent studies," according to Walter Brueggemann, "have suggested an intersection in the motifs of covenant-making, enthronement, and resurrection."⁷² For example, the resurrection of Jesus was conjoined in early Christianity with his messianic enthronement, and descriptions of his glorification were substantiated through Old Testament passages about Davidic kingship. And just as mortal kings were created out of the dust of the earth and yet could be elevated by God to become a leader in Israel, so all human beings could be raised from their mortal state to resurrected glory.

Thus, in Israelite thought, "the motifs of covenant-renewal, enthronement, and resurrection cannot be kept in isolation from each other but they run together and serve to illuminate each other."⁷³ And with this matrix in mind, it becomes all the more significant that Benjamin intertwines the themes of dust, kingship, covenant, enthronement, and resurrection throughout his speech.

The use of the word dust is a first important indicator of the possible presence of royal language. In a telling declaration, God told the Israelite king Baasha that divine power had raised him to kingship from the dust: "Since I exalted you out of the dust and made you leader over my people Israel . . . " (1 Kings 16:2, translation by author; see also the combination of dust and kingship in 1 Samuel 2:6–8; Psalm 113:7). Brueggemann argues that the creation account and Adam's elevation from the dust should be understood as having enthronement overtones, for Adam "is really being crowned king over the garden with all the power and authority which it implies."⁷⁴ Thus it is significant that King Benjamin began his royal speech by reminding his people that he too was "of the dust" (Mosiah 2:26) and was dependent on God for his power, that he had been "suffered by the hand of the Lord . . . [to] be a ruler and a king over this people" (Mosiah 2:11).

The operative vehicle that takes any man from the dust and installs him in a position of authority or favor is the power of covenant, according to Brueggemann. Hence, texts that speak of being in the dust can refer to situations in which the covenant relationship between Jehovah and the king or his people has been broken (see Psalm 7:6), while its opposite, coming to life, is connected with making and keeping the covenant. For instance, in Psalm 104:29–30, covenant and creation "are closely related."⁷⁵ In the case of Benjamin's people, they first viewed themselves as "even less than the dust of the earth" (Mosiah 4:2), but through the force and effect of their covenant they became spiritually begotten, born, free, and positioned on the right hand of God (see Mosiah 5:7–10). It was the covenant that raised them from the dust, both ceremonially and spiritually.

The idea that God elevates the righteous king from the dust brings with it two counter sides. First is the realization that if the king is wicked the Lord will utterly sweep away the ruler who breaks the covenant, returning him to the dust and sweeping him out of the house (compare 1 Kings 16:3). Although Benjamin does not turn explicitly to dust imagery when he warns his people against breaking their covenant, he takes it for granted throughout his speech that mortals owe to God everything that they have and are (see Mosiah 2:20–25), and therefore it is to be expected that they will be returned to the dust, utterly blotted out, driven away, and cast out if they are not true and faithful to their God (see Mosiah 5:11, 14).

The second counterpoint is a motif that frequently occurs in connection with the ascension of a righteous king, namely the logical presumption that, conversely, one king "can be raised from the dust to power only when the alternative rulers are sent to the dust."⁷⁶ Thus the Psalmist prays in a royal setting, "May his foes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust" (Psalm 72:9, translation by author; see also Micah 7:17; Isaiah 49:23). This imagery is sometimes "extended so that the whole people now share in the promise and hope of the royal tradition," as when Isaiah prophesies that the people of Israel will be raised to power as their enemies are brought low in the dust (see Isaiah 25:10–12; 26:5–6).⁷⁷ Benjamin seems attuned to this motif as well when he assures the ascendance of his son Mosiah by promising and instructing his people that "your enemies shall have no power over you" (Mosiah 2:31), and that the "enemy to all righteousness" (Mosiah 4:14) shall have "no place in you" (Mosiah 2:36), if they would obey Mosiah as king.

The ultimate victory over one's enemy, of course, is found in overcoming death through the resurrection of the dead. Here, also, the theme of rising from the dust becomes important in scripture: "Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust" (Isaiah 26:19); "many . . . that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2). John H. Hayes has argued that New Testament texts about resurrection draw on enthronement imagery.⁷⁸ Brueggemann extends that argument into the Old Testament: "The resurrection of Israel is in fact the enthronement of Israel among the nations"; by building "an anthropology out of royal ritual," the ancient prophets affirmed "that man is bound for kingship."⁷⁹ With equal confidence, King Benjamin took the symbols and promises of royal ritual and extended them to the common people in his domain. He delivered to them great promises of joy and confidence (see Mosiah 3:3–4), assuring them that the dead will rise (see Mosiah 3:5, 10) and that the righteous will be lifted up and "brought to heaven" (Mosiah 5:15).

No one seems to dispute Brueggemann and others in their assertion that themes of kingship, covenant-making, rising from the dust, coronation, and resurrection were closely linked in the minds of ancient Israelites and early Christians, even though their findings have been detected and assembled only from bits and pieces in scattered texts throughout the Bible. Thus it may come as an unexpected verification that all their findings are illuminated and strongly exemplified in a single text—the Book of Mormon. Indeed, Benjamin's speech may be the best royal and religious text that shows both king and common folk in relation to each of the elements in the precise set of interconnected themes of kingship, coronation, covenant, and being raised from the dust to eternal life.

CONCLUSION

As Hugh Nibley has noted on numerous occasions, one of the best means of establishing a text's authenticity lies in examining the degree to which it accurately reflects in its smaller details the milieu from which it claims to derive.⁸⁰ The Book of Mormon claims to derive from ancient Israel. The extent to which it correctly mirrors the culture of the ancient Near East in matters of religious practice, manner of life, methods of warfare, as well as other topics (especially those that were either unknown or unexamined in Joseph Smith's time), may provide one of the best tests of the book's genuineness. In this study, we have found numerous elements in the ancient ideology of kingship that are reflected accurately in Benjamin's speech. Indeed, the full ceremonial life-setting of both the covenant renewal festivals—in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua—and the coronation ceremonies have been identified with the Feast of Tabernacles. And its form (going back to what must have been a far more ancient Near Eastern pattern) has only in the past several decades been analyzed to include a preamble, antecedent history, stipulations, witness formulas, blessings and curses, and provisions for the recital and deposit of the text. That the covenant assembly in the book of Mosiah has been found—possibly—to have the same ritual setting (the Feast of Tabernacles) as the covenant renewal festivals and coronation assemblies in the Old Testament is remarkable. That the covenant ceremonies in both the Old Testament and the book of Mosiah reflect an ancient Near Eastern pattern prescribed for such occasions may provide another control for establishing the genuineness of the Book of Mormon.

Mosiah 1–6 reflects in considerable detail the Israelite customs and beliefs that are part of the process of choosing and seating a new king on the throne. This sermon ranks as one of the most important in scripture. It serves to fulfill one of the primary purposes of the Book of Mormon by placing central focus and highest importance on the life, mission, atonement, and eternal reign of the heavenly King, Jesus Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent.

Notes

1. See Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), 15.
2. See Cyril J. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient Near East (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), 21.
3. Ze'ev W. Falk, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times: An Introduction (Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1964), 45.
4. Gerhard von Rad, "The Royal Ritual in Judah," in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 225.
5. Moshe Weinfeld, "The King as Servant of the People: The Source of the Idea," Journal of Jewish Studies 33/1–2 (1982): 189.
6. Falk, Hebrew Law, 45–46.
7. Keith W. Whitelam, The Just King: Monarchical Judicial Authority in Ancient Israel (Sheffield: JSOT, 1979), 17.
8. Hamish F. G. Swanston, The Kings and the Covenant (London: Burns & Oates, 1968), 169.
9. Falk, Hebrew Law, 43–45.
10. Whitelam, The Just King, 29.
11. Ibid.
12. On the ideology of kingship in the ancient Near East and in Israel, see John M. Lundquist, "The Legitimizing Role of the Temple in the Origin of the State," and Stephen D. Ricks and John J. Sroka, "King, Coronation, and Temple," inTemples of the Ancient World, 181, 236–38.
13. See Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 1:100. Adonijah's statement in 1 Kings 2:15 should be compared with David's in 1 Chronicles 28:5: "And of all my sons, (for the Lord hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel."
14. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1:100.
15. As was the case during the whole history of Mesopotamian kingship, until the New Kingdom the Egyptian king was seen as the offspring of deity rather than deity itself. Thus Dietrich Wildung, Egyptian Saints: Deification in Pharaonic Egypt (New York: New York University Press, 1977), 1–3, compares the pharaohs to saints in the normative Christian tradition; see also Georges Posener, De la divinité du Pharaon (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1960).
16. Victor H. Matthews, "The King's Call to Justice," Biblische Zeitschrift 35/2 (1991): 206.
17. Whitelam, The Just King, 18.
18. See F. Charles Fensham, "Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,"Journal of Near Eastern Studies 21/1 (1962): 129–39; Whitelam, The Just King, 17–37.
19. Compare Helen A. Kenik, "Code of Conduct for a King: Psalm 101," JBL 95/3 (1976): 391, 395.
20. Ray K. Sutherland, "Israelite Political Theories in Joshua 9," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 53 (1992): 70.
21. Geo Widengren, "King and Covenant," Journal of Semitic Studies 2/1 (1957): 17.
22. The full pattern of common elements in the coronation rites in various cultures of the world was worked out in detail by Arthur Hocart, Kingship (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), especially 70–71. Hocart includes in his comparison twenty-six features, which I give in a somewhat different order, with brief explanations of each of the features and with the addition of one feature in Ricks and Sroka, "King, Coronation, and Temple," 236–71, esp. 260–63.
23. It is still uncertain whether ablutions—ceremonial washings that were believed to avert evil, give life and strength, and symbolize rebirth—were part of the ancient Israelite coronation ceremonies; thus Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, trans. William R. Trask (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959), 130; compare also Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion (Cleveland: World, 1963), 188–89, 193–94; Maurice A. Canney, Newness of Life (Calcutta: University of Calcutta Press, 1928), 67; W. B. Kristensen, The Meaning of Religion (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1960), 446–47; A. J. Wensinck, "The Semitic New Year and the Origin of Eschatology," Acta Orientalia 1 (1923): 166, 186; Robert A. Wild, Water in the Cultic Worship of Isis and Sarapis (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 125, 153. However, since purification in water is mentioned in Exodus 29:4 in connection with the anointing and investment of Aaron and his sons (compare Exodus 40:12), Geo Widengren, "Royal Ideology and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs," inPromise and Fulfillment, ed. F. F. Bruce (Edinburgh: Clark, 1963), 207, thinks that "it is probable that certain water-purifications had a place in the Israelite royal consecration." In the fourth century a.d., Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catachesis XXI Mystagogica III de Chrismate 6 (Catechetical Lecture on the Chrism)," in Patrologiae Graecae, ed. J. P. Migne (Paris: Garnier, 1892), 33:1093, may have based his comments on an extrabiblical tradition when he wrote: "When the High Priest raised Solomon to the kingship, he anointed him after washing him in the waters of Gihon." Although there is no explicit mention in 1 Kings 1:38–39 of a ritual ablution in connection with King Solomon's coronation rites, TB Horayoth 12a records that "our Rabbis taught: The kings are anointed only at a fountain." The presumption in favor of the existence of ablutions in the Israelite coronation ceremony is strengthened by the symbolic placement of the temple—the site of many Israelite coronations (e.g., the coronation of Joash, 2 Kings 11:4–14)—over the center of the world, where the "Water of Life" flowed; see Geo Widengren, "Israelite-Jewish Religion," in Historia Religionum, ed. C. J. Bleeker and Geo Widengren (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 1:258–59. Such ablutions were a part of the coronation ceremonies in Egypt and the ancient Near East. According to Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Pyramid Texts(New York: Longmans, Green, 1952), 4:55, and Aylward M. Blackman, "An Ancient Egyptian Foretaste of the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration," Theology 1 (1920): 140–41, even as a child the Egyptian crown prince was sprinkled with water by officials in order that he might be endowed with divine qualities and be reborn. In his daily preparations for entrance into the temple, the pharaoh was sprinkled with holy water, an act that endowed him with life, good fortune, stability, health, and happiness. For the purpose of performing these ritual acts of ablution, a pool or lake was connected with many Egyptian temples. Blackman, "An Ancient Egyptian Foretaste," 135, 137–38; compare Aylward M. Blackman, "Some Notes on the Ancient Egyptian Practice of Washing the Dead," The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5 (1918): 124; Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Religion of Ancient Egypt (London: Luzac, 1949), 348–50; Wild, Water in the Cultic Worship, 145. According to Aylward M. Blackman, "The House of the Morning," The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 5 (1918): 155; Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 83; and Eva L. R. Meyerowitz, The Divine Kingship in Ghana and Ancient Egypt (London: Faber and Faber, 1960), 159, during the Sed festival, the recurring feast celebrating the pharaoh's kingship, the pharaoh would have his feet ceremonially washed.
24. Widengren, "King and Covenant," 3.
25. Von Rad, "The Royal Ritual in Judah," 223.
26. John W. Welch, Terrence L. Szink, et al., "Upon the Tower of Benjamin," FARMS Update, Insights (August 1995): 2.
27. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing in Antiquities 9.7.3, also placed King Joash "by" or "on a pillar" at the time of his coronation.
28. De Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1:102–3; the preposition involved here (al) certainly allows for such a translation; BDB, 752; T. Raymond Hobbs, 2 Kings (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 142, suggests that the object stood on or was by "some kind of column, podium, or platform"; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament(Richmond: Knox, 1966), 224, notes that "in the ceremonies of enthronement the king was lifted on to an ammudwhere he received the homage of the congregation."
29. Welch and Szink, "Upon the Tower," 2; compare Widengren, "King and Covenant," 11.
30. Von Rad, "The Royal Ritual in Judah," 224.
31. Widengren, "King and Covenant," 10. Later testimony of this structure is indicated by certain rabbis in M Sotah 7:8: "After the close of the first Festival-day of the Feast of Tabernacles, in the eighth year, after the going forth of the Seventh Year, they used to prepare for him in the Temple Court a wooden platform on which he sat, for it is written, 'At the end of every seven years in the set time . . .'" (compare Deuteronomy 31:10–13).
32. Von Rad, "The Royal Ritual in Judah," 228–29.
33. See ibid., 224–29.
34. See Hobbs, 2 Kings, 141; BDB, 730. Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 286–89, acknowledges this possibility and offers a quite speculative, alternative one: he suggests that the edût was an inscription on the crown indicating the king's close relationship with God.
35. Widengren, "King and Covenant," 21, emphasis in original. He also connects the king's receiving the law to the reception of the law by Moses and the Mesopotamian tradition that the king received the "tablets of the gods," or "tablets of destiny," upon his heavenly enthronement, 17.
36. Helmer Ringgren, Israelite Religion, trans. David E. Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 223–24; Aubrey R. Johnson,Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), 67 n. 2.
37. Widengren, "King and Covenant," 7.
38. Miqraot Gedolot, vol. 3; note Rashi's comment on 2 Kings 11:12.
39. On this compare Gordon C. Thomasson, "Mosiah: The Complex Symbolism and the Symbolic Complex of Kingship in the Book of Mormon," JBMS 2/1 (1993): 21–38, and Stephen D. Ricks, "Olive Culture in the Second Temple Era and Early Rabbinic Period," in The Allegory of the Olive Tree: The Olive, the Bible, and Jacob 5, ed. Stephen D. Ricks and John W. Welch (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994), 466–67, 474–75 n. 26.
40. See Brett L. Holbrook, "The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authority and Kingship," and Daniel N. Rolph, "Prophets, Kings, and Swords: The Sword of Laban and Its Possible Pre-Laban Origin," JBMS 2/1 (1993): 39–72, 73–79, for a rich and detailed discussion of the religious and ceremonial significance of swords in the Book of Mormon and the ancient Mediterranean. The kings evidently kept the large plates; beginning only with Mosiah¹ did the small plates also go through the royal line.
41. Widengren, "King and Covenant," 21; see also John van Seters, "The Creation of Man and the Creation of the King,"ZAW 101/3 (1989): 335–36.
42. Saul (1 Samuel 10:1); David (2 Samuel 5:3); Solomon (1 Kings 1:39); Jehu (2 Kings 9:6); Joash (2 Kings 11:12); Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30). In addition, it is recorded in 2 Samuel 19:10 that the upstart Absalom was anointed to be king.
43. Zafrira Ben-Barak, "The Mizpah Covenant (I Sam 10:25)—The Source of the Israelite Monarchic Covenant," ZAW 91/1 (1979): 38.
44. See Ernst Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient (Berlin: Tpelmann, 1963), 52–63; compare also J. A. Soggin, "maelaek," in Theologisches Handwrterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (Munich: Kaiser, 1971), 1:914–20. According to later Jewish legend, Apocalypse of Moses 9:3, cited in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976), 2:143, the idea of anointing began with the first man. According to this story, when Adam was 930 years old, he knew that his days were coming to an end. He therefore implored Eve: "Arise and go with my son Seth near to paradise, and put earth upon your heads and weep and pray to God to have mercy upon me and send his angel to paradise, and give me of the tree out of which the oil floweth, and bring it (to) me, and I shall anoint myself and shall have rest from my complaint."
45. See Oliver R. Gurney, "Hittite Kingship," in Myth, Ritual, and Kingship, ed. S. H. Hooke (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 118.
46. See Kutsch, Salbung als Rechtsakt, 41–52; Mercer, Religion of Ancient Egypt, 348.
47. See Baruch Halpern, Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981), 14, has proposed that anointing was not directly associated with the king's coronation but rather with his divine election; for further on anointing, see de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1:103–6.
48. See n. 44.
49. ANET, 289.
50. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1:106; Geo Widengren, Sakrales Königtum im Alten Testament und im Judentum (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1955), 49.
51. Solomon's by his half-brother Adonijah (see 1 Kings 1:5–10), and Joash's by his grandmother Athaliah (see 2 Kings 11:1–3).
52. See Hugh W. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 3rd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 300–301.
53. On this see Halpern, Constitution of the Monarchy, 61–109; Herman L. Jansen, "The Consecration in the Eighth Chapter of Testamentum Levi," in The Sacral Kingship, Contributions to the Central Theme of the VIIIth International Congress for the History of Religions, Rome, April 1955 (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 361–62. More recently see John H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), for a comprehensive discussion of the issue. But this theory is not without its critics. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 2:504–6; Kraus, Worship in Israel, 205–8. Mowinckel and Widengren themselves have been discussed in J. de Fraine, "Mowinckel (Sigmund Olaf Plytt)," inDictionnaire de la Bible, ed. Henri Cazelles and Andr Feuillet (Paris: Letouzey, 1957), 5:1387–90; Arvid S. Kapelrud,God and His Friends in the Old Testament (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1979), 53–78; Arvid S. Kapelrud, "Sigmund Mowinckel 1884–1965," Svensk Exegetisk rsbok 49 (1984): 66–73; John W. Jonsson, "Reflections on Geo Widengren's Phenomenological Method: Towards a Phenomenological Hermeneutic of the Old Testament," Scriptura,special issue S 2 (1986): 21–39.
54. Von Rad, "The Royal Ritual in Judah," 229.
55. Ben-Barak, "The Mizpah Covenant," 38.
56. See Arthur M. Hocart, "Initiation," Folklore 35 (1924): 312; compare Bruce H. Porter and Stephen D. Ricks, "Names in Antiquity: Old, New, and Hidden," in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 1:501–22, and Truman G. Madsen, "'Putting on the Names': A Jewish-Christian Legacy," in By Study and Also by Faith, 1:458–81.
57. See de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 1:108.
58. Von Rad, "The Royal Ritual in Judah," 229.
59. See Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 46–47; compare also John A. Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 102.
60. See Widengren, "The Sacral Kingship of Iran," in The Sacral Kingship/La regalità sacra (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 253–54. On the practice of assigning a new name at the time of the king's enthronement, see Ricks and Sroka, "King, Coronation, and Temple." Of course, kings were not the only ones to receive new names. Biblical history is full of examples of men (and in one case, a woman) who received new or changed names, frequently in association with a transition (usually, though not invariably, of a spiritual nature) in their lives. Thus Abram became Abraham (see Genesis 17:5), his wife Sarai became Sarah (see Genesis 17:15), Jacob was renamed Israel (see Genesis 32:28), and Joseph became Zaphnath-paaneah (see Genesis 41:45). In the New Testament, Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas (whose Greek reflex is Peter—see John 1:42; Matthew 16:17–18), while Saul took on the Latin name Paul, indicative of his role as missionary to the gentiles. The name Paul is first mentioned at Acts 13:9, at the beginning of his first missionary labors among the gentiles. The receipt of a new name is promised to all the faithful in Revelation: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it" (Revelation 2:17).
61. See, for example, Ringgren, Israelite Religion, 225–27; Kraus, Worship in Israel, 181, 224; Halpern, Constitution of the Monarchy, 128–29; von Rad, "The Royal Ritual in Judah," 230–31; Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, 146–49; on divine election in ancient Babylonia, see René Labat, Le caractère religieux de la royaut assyro-babylonienne (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1943), 53–69; on divine adoption in ancient Egypt, see Wildung, Egyptian Saints, 1–3.
62. Mettinger, King and Messiah, 291–92.
63. Compare von Rad, "The Problem of the Hexateuch," in The Problem of the Hexateuch, 35. Similarly, John Bright writes in A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 171: "It is exceedingly probable . . . that there was a regular ceremony of covenant renewal—whether annually or every seven years (Deuteronomy 31:9–13)—to which the tribesmen would come with their tribute to the God-King, to hear his gracious deeds recited and his commandments read, and then with blessings and curses to take anew their oath of allegiance to him."
64. "The idea of a covenant between a deity and a people is unknown to us from other religions and cultures [of the ancient Near East]." Moshe Weinfeld, "berith," in TDOT, 2:278. Covenant renewal also appears to be unique to ancient Israel.
65. See Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, trans. David Green (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 82–83.
66. The constituent elements of the Hittite treaty were first isolated and analyzed by Viktor Korosec, Hethitische Staatsveäge (Leipzig: Weicher, 1931), 12–14. The structural link between the Hittite treaties and the Old Testament covenant passages was first suggested by Elias Bickerman in "Couper une alliance," Archives d'histoire du droit oriental 5 (1950–51): 153, reprinted with an additional note in Elias Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part One (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 23, and later developed and expanded by George Mendenhall in "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," Biblical Archaeologist 17/3 (1954): 50–76. The literature on the treaty/covenant in the Bible and the ancient Near East since Bickerman and Mendenhall has been considerable; see Dennis J. McCarthy's thorough analysis of ancient Near Eastern treaties and their structural relationship to the covenant pericopes in the Old Testament (as well as an extensive bibliography) in his recent Treaty and Covenant (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978).
67. The specific names for these categories are, to an extent, my own, but they are similar to those in other treatments of the treaty/covenant pattern in the Bible, for example, J. A. Thompson, "The Near Eastern Suzerain-Vassal Concept in the Religion of Israel," Journal of Religious History 3 (1964): 4, and Mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," 57–60, both of which are based ultimately on the analysis of the constituent elements of the Hittite treaty in Korosec, Hethitische Staatsverträge, 12–14. The biblical covenant passages which will be studied here include Exodus 19:3b–8, 20–24; Deuteronomy 1–31; and Joshua 24. Other passages may also be analyzed in light of this pattern, for example, 1 Samuel 12. This analysis was first published in Stephen D. Ricks, "The Treaty/Covenant Pattern in King Bemjain's Speech," BYU Studies 24/2 (1984): 151–62.
68. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 1.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid., 2.
71. Ibid.
72. Walter Brueggemann, "From Dust to Kingship," ZAW 84/1 (1972): 1.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid., 12.
75. Ibid., 7.
76. Ibid., 8.
77. Ibid., 11.
78. See John H. Hayes, "The Resurrection as Enthronement and the Earliest Church Christology," Interpretation 22 (1968): 333–45.
79. Brueggemann, "From Dust to Kingship," 13, 17.
80. See, for example, Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 263, 378–79; Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 152–53, 464 n. 121.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=121

The King's Justice by A. M. Hockart

The King - Shakespeare

Shakespeare's Ideas and Attributes Towards Kingship in Macbeth

Written by: philmorley_uk

With detailed reference to the characters of Macbeth, Duncan, Malcolm and Edward in the play ‘Macbeth’, analyse William Shakespeare’s ideas and attributes towards kingship and assess what you think the audiences reaction to the play would be at the time.

Shakespeare’s ideas towards kingship can be seen throughout the play. He shows that a king should be chosen by divine right and shows the attributes of what a good king should be.

The play ‘Macbeth’ is set in medieval Scotland at the fictional time of King Duncan. Scotland is currently at war with the Norwegians when news of their victory comes through, with thanks to the two leaders of the army Macbeth and Banquo. On their travel home Macbeth and Banquo stumble upon some old hags, and they predict Macbeth’s future to him. This startles Macbeth and his hunger for power grows so much that he and his wife plot to murder the well-respected King Duncan. Under Macbeth’s reign, Scotland becomes a country of turmoil because of the wicked leadership. Macbeth murders his best friend and another friend’s family and because of this Tyranny, paranoia sets in on Macbeth who sees many ghostly visions of people he sent out to be murdered. Scotland greatly suffers under his reign, this turns Lady Macbeth mad, and she eventually commits suicide. Macduff, eventually goes to England to ask for the help of the noble king Edward, who is highly respected for help to overthrow the leadership of Macbeth, and so the Anglo-Scottish revolt sees Macbeth to his death and Malcolm the son of Duncan is proclaimed king of Scotland.

Macbeth is the main character in the play and starts the play as a very hard fighting, loyal soldier whose bravery had just led the way to a victory over the Norwegians. It could be an essay in its own right to talk about how the character of Macbeth develops and changes, at the beginning he is a god-like hero –a firm, strong, loyal character. But through allowing his ambition to suppress his good qualities, he becomes ‘this tyrant’ (act4 sc3 L12 –Malcolm), this ‘dwarfish thief’ (act5 sc3 L12 –Angus) and this ‘hellhound’ (act5 sc6 L42 –Macduff). The character of Macbeth is a study of how one person can degenerate from ‘Bellona’s bridegroom’ (act1 sc2 L55) to ‘this dead butcher’ (act5 sc6 L108). Ambition is his fatal weakness. He allows, first the witches’ prophecy act1 sc3 L46-50 and then his wife’s ambition for him, to undermine his integrity act1 sc5 L58-68. He is not easily won over by evil, his love and respect for Duncan is evident throughout the play. Because Banquo knew the prophecy of the witches, he ordered his death in case he thought that he might have killed Duncan, act3 sc1 Line start – 10 Banquo says he has all three as the witches predicted. Under his reign of tyranny, he kills and slaughters. A dominant feature about the play is that when there is a bad king, the country as well suffers, and many characters talk of how Scotland is suffering act4 sc3 L168-169 ‘Where sighs, and groans, and shrieks that rent the air, are made, not marked’. Act4 sc3 L40-41 Malcolm says, ‘it weeps, it bleeds, and each new day a gash is added to her wounds.’ In the same scene Macduff also says, ‘bleed, bleed poor country.’ Also, ‘Each new morn, new widows howl, new orphans cry, new sorrows strike heaven on the face, that it resounds as if it felt with Scotland, and yelled out like a syllable of dolour.’ People don’t talk highly of Macbeth unlike Duncan, words like ‘black’ and ‘treacherous’ and also ‘tyrant’ are to name but a few. Macduff comments, ‘not in the legions of horrid hell can come a devil more damned in evils, to top Macbeth.’ In act4 sc3 L57-60 Malcolm says, ‘I grant him bloody, luxurious, avaricious, false, deceitful, sudden, malicious, smacking of every sin that has a name.’ Macduff shows a point that he believes that a king should be chosen by divine right (this also shows that Shakespeare as well believes in divine right) in act4 sc3, ‘with an untitled tyrant…’ But this is very different from the start of the play where words like ‘worthy thane’ were used to greet Macbeth. Also totally different to what is said about Duncan, ‘my liege’, ‘great king’ and after his death he is called an ‘angel’.

Duncan is Shakespeare’s idea of a perfect, impartial king. Shakespeare shows Duncan to be an example to all other kings and people, he shows love for his country when he asks the captain news from the war. He speaks to people with respect and dignity when the bleeding captain brings news of the war act1 sc2 L24 ‘o valiant cousin, worthy gentleman!’ People talk to him with the utmost respect, they know that he is a truly great king ‘my liege’, ‘great king’ and cries of ‘god save the king’ are dominant in act1 sc3. He also shows that he can be fair and rewarding because he praises the brave Captain and he also puts the Thane of Cawdor to death for betrayal against his country and then awards Macbeth his title for his heroic doings against Norway. He also can be a charmer and very polite when he is greeted by Lady Macbeth at their household act1 sc6 L10-15. Even after his death people still speak highly of him, even Macbeth refers to Duncan as ‘gracious’ (act3 sc1 L65) and when Macduff argues with Malcolm, he appeals that his father ‘was a most sainted king’ (act4 sc3 L109). Malcolm also says, ‘angels are bright still, though the brightest fell.’ This means that there still are good kings to come although the best has gone. Therefore the view of Duncan is consistent throughout the play (unlike views of the Macbeths) –all attest to his worth and merits.

He seems decisive as a king, and clearly inspires loyalty in his Thanes. If he has a weakness it is a consequence of his goodness – his trust. He comments himself that it is impossible to see ‘the minds construction in the face’ (act1 sc4 L12-14), but this recognition does not cause him to behave, perhaps, with a little more discretion. Trusting Macbeth, he too readily steps into his house without appropriate safeguards, which ends up being fatal for him. It is awful to reflect that our final view of Duncan is him kissing Lady Macbeth (his hostess) (act1 sc6) to whom we subsequently learn he has sent a diamond to her by means of a present. After his death, Macbeth still talks highly of king Duncan. Duncan wasn’t only a great king but a loving and caring father of his heir, Malcolm. This is shown because Malcolm emerges similar to his father.

Malcolm is the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland by divine right. He appears to be a worthy king as we get to see his character mostly in act4 sc3 where he has a long conversation with Macduff. Malcolm can see that the country is in turmoil and he rightfully blames ‘black Macbeth’ as he puts it. Also unlike Macbeth, we can see that Malcolm doesn’t act without thinking, as he tries to win some confidence out of Macduff saying that he himself mightn’t be fit enough to one day be king. Malcolm talks of his own faults in act4 sc3 saying that he can’t get adultery off his mind, he calls himself ‘voluptuous’ and with his carnal attitude also says, ‘your wives, your daughters, your matrons and your maids, could not fill up the cistern of my lust.’ He also says to win encouragement from Macduff that ‘black Macbeth will seem as pure as snow’ meaning that Macbeth will be a better king than he will. It is obvious to see that Malcolm will be a good king because he lists words that a good king must have. This also implies Shakespeare’s ideas to what qualities a good king should have

At the end of the play Shakespeare includes Malcolms last words of the play to be similar to Duncans speech when he was king, this proves that Malcolm becomes a good king, following in his footsteps and restoring Scotland to its former glory.

King Edward of England is the king least of all mentioned in the play, but still we can tell a lot about his character and what type of king he was. We can see that Edward was a good, loyal king, who wasn’t prepared to see others suffer. In act4 sc3 L141-145, a doctor comments on how some ill people touched Edward’s hand and were healed, Malcolm then after comments it is ‘a most miraculous work in this good king.’ Also, we can see that he is a good and caring king as he chooses to help Malcolm and Macduff in their Anglo-Scottish revolt.

I have really enjoyed studying this play and it is most probably the best I have read. It is amazing how Shakespeare can make one man fall into evil just because of his lust for power, and not just that it is also the way in which he is able to do it, using his imagination, he is able to enthral his audiences into disbelief. It is clear to see Shakespeare’s ideas towards kingship in the play as Malcolm lists the attributes towards a good king in act4 sc3. I think most of all that the moods of the people at the time would have been mostly in shock at this tragic tale and amazed at the way the playwright could achieve this most gripping story line.

The king's two bodies:A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology Ernst H. Kantorowicz

In 1957 Ernst Kantorowicz published a book that would be the guide for generations of scholars through the arcane mysteries of medieval political theology. In The King's Two Bodies, Kantorowicz traces the historical problem posed by the "King's two bodies"--the body politic and the body natural--back to the Middle Ages and demonstrates, by placing the concept in its proper setting of medieval thought and political theory, how the early-modern Western monarchies gradually began to develop a "political theology." The king's natural body has physical attributes, suffers, and dies, naturally, as do all humans; but the king's other body, the spiritual body, transcends the earthly and serves as a symbol of his office as majesty with the divine right to rule. The notion of the two bodies allowed for the continuity of monarchy even when the monarch died, as summed up in the formulation "The king is dead. Long live the king." Bringing together liturgical works, images, and polemical material, The King's Two Bodies explores the long Christian past behind this "political theology." It provides a subtle history of how commonwealths developed symbolic means for establishing their sovereignty and, with such means, began to establish early forms of the nation-state. Kantorowicz fled Nazi Germany in 1938, after refusing to sign a Nazi loyalty oath, and settled in the United States. While teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, he once again refused to sign an oath of allegiance, this one designed to identify Communist Party sympathizers. He resigned as a result of the controversy and moved to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, where he remained for the rest of his life, and where he wrote The King's Two Bodies. Ernst H. Kantorowicz taught at the University of California, Berkeley and was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey. His books include Frederick the Second and Selected Studies.

The King

Only a king, who is wise, disciplined, devoted to a just governing of the subjects & conscious of the welfare of all beings, will enjoy the earth unopposed.

"In the happiness of his subjects lies the king's happiness, in their welfare his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects" - Kautilya.

According to Kautilya, a Rajarshi is one who:

• Has self-control, having conquered the inimical temptations of the senses;
• Cultivates the intellect by association with elders;
• Keeps his eyes open through spies;
• Is ever active in promoting the security & welfare of the people;
• Ensures the observance (by the people) of their dharma by authority & example;
• Improves his own discipline by (continuing his) learning in all branches of knowledge; and
• Endears himself to his people by enriching them & doing good to them.

Such a disciplined king should: -

• Keep away from another's wife;
• Not covet another's property;
• Practice ahimsa (non-violence towards all living things);
• Avoid day dreaming, capriciousness, falsehood & extravagance; and
• Avoid association with harmful persons and indulging in (harmful) activities.

Kautilya says that artha (Sound Economies) is the most important; dharma & kama are both dependent on it. A Rajarishi shall always respect those councillors and purohitas who warn him of the dangers of transgressing the limits of good conduct, reminding him sharply (as with a goad) of the times prescribed for various duties and caution him even when he errs in private.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra


The community may concentrate all spiritual and political power in the sovereign, or power may be shared constitutionally with other government institutions. Some kings are heads of state but not heads of government. In the past, some were regarded as semidivine representatives of God on Earth; others were viewed as gods in their own right or supernatural beings who became gods after death

http://www.answers.com/topic/king


divine kingship

Religio-political concept that views a ruler as an incarnation, manifestation, mediator, or agent of the sacred. In some nonliterate societies, members view their rulers or chiefs as inheritors of the community's own magical power. The ruler may exercise this power either malevolently or benevolently, but he is usually responsible for influencing the weather and the land's fertility to ensure the harvest necessary for survival. In other societies, particularly those of ancient China, the Middle East, and South America, the ruler was identified with a particular god or as a god himself; in Japan, Peru (among the Inca), Mesopotamia, and the Greco-Roman world, the ruler was regarded as the son of a god. In either case — whether the ruler embodies his own magical power or that of the community — the ruler protects the community from enemies and generally feeds and cares for his people. A third form of divine kingship, one practiced in Europe, is that of the ruler as mediator or executive agent of a god. In this form it is the institution of kingship, more than an individual ruler, that bears the mark of the sacred.

The King's of China

THEOSOPHY, Vol. 14, No. 7, May, 1926
(Pages 308-312; Size: 16K)
(Number 7 of a 59-part series)ANCIENT LANDMARKS
VII
THE KINGS OF CHINAIN his Ocean of Theosophy William Q. Judge speaks of "ancient and honorable China" -- ancient it is, for as the Secret Doctrine tells us, the Chinese reached their highest civilization when the fifth Aryan race had hardly appeared in Asia. The original Chinese belong to the seventh sub-race of the Atlantean Race, and from them branched off not only the Malayans, Mongolians and Tibetans, but also Hungarians, Finns and even the Esquimaux. These true Chinamen are of the inland, the aborigines who, in their purity, form the highest and last branch of the fourth Race, whose headquarters are in the province of Fo-kien where H.P.B. reports the existence of a "sacred library" which contains some most ancient Mss. in the Lolo language. The other Chinese are one of the oldest nations of our fifth race, whose latter-day Emperors are the degenerate successors of the Dragons or Initiates who ruled the early races of that fifth humanity. As to China being honorable, who has not heard of the integrity of the Chinese? In such spheres as commerce and politics they have a reputation for honesty and honor worthy of emulation by the modern world. Ancient and honorable China is dying, but her spiritual resources will be inherited by those who evolve out of that branch race.
The wisdom of China comes to us in certain great books, withstanding the ravages of time. In spite of changes and more omissions than interpolations, these texts are not so fragmentary and disconnected as those of Zoroastrianism, examined in previous articles. We are indebted to Confucius for this.
The Chinese divide their eras into three antiquities -- the most recent commences with the period of Confucius, who was contemporary with the great Buddha; the second, called the middle antiquity, goes back from Confucius to about 1200 B.C.; while the highest covers a period of 2200 years, commencing with Fu-hsi 5000 years ago. It will not be far wrong to regard Fu-hsi, as the Krishna of China, the opener of its Kali Yuga, first in the line of earthly rulers who "broke up the Primal Unity," of the preceding age.
Beyond the three antiquities is the "fabulous" and "mythological" era. It covers millions of years. Beginning with the epoch of Pan-ku in whose time "heaven and earth were first separated," we come to the 12 Tien-hoang, Kings of Heaven, 12 To-hoang, Kings of Earth, and 9 Gin-hoang or Kings' men, who ruled for some 500,000 years. These 12 Tien-hoang are "the twelve hierarchies of Dhyanis or Angels, with human Faces and Dragon bodies; the dragon standing for Divine Wisdom or Spirit; and they create men by incarnating themselves in seven figures of clay -- earth and water -- made in the shape of those Tien-hoang, a third allegory." (S.D. II, 26-7.) Among these mythical beings is one Sui-zan, "The Man of the Burning Speculum," the Fire-Producer, the Prometheus of China. Superb culture, heavenly knowledge and high civilization are reported in these prehistoric eras. Very scanty is the information about them available to the non-Chinese. These mythical figures, truer than their historical counterparts, remain unknown and unappreciated by the modern world, whose culture is too gross and narrow to grasp the meaning of the cosmic and evolutionary events which they embody.
Fu-hsi, also called Po-hsi, the first Human Ruler of the Chinese people, is even today regarded as a superhuman being. To his credit stands the task of recording the Eight Kwa or Trigrams. In the Yi King, an ancient work "written by generations of Sages" says H.P.B., which theTheosophical Glossary describes as the Kabbalah of China, it is said:

Anciently, when Pao-hsi had come to the rule of all under heaven, looking up, he contemplated the brilliant forms exhibited in the sky, and looking down he surveyed the patterns shown on the earth. He contemplated the ornamental appearances of birds and beasts and the (different) suitabilities of the soil. Near at hand, in his own person, he found things for consideration, and the same at a distance, in things in general. On this he devised the eight trigrams, to show fully the attributes of the spirit-like and intelligent (operations working secretly), and to classify the qualities of the myriads of things.

These eight trigrams are lineal figures of great interest to the student of universal metaphysics and occultism, both of which form such an important part of H.P.B.'s Secret Doctrine. These figures are made up of three lines: the first is made up of three unbroken lines, and is followed by one broken and the remaining unbroken lines, till the eighth is evolved, which is composed of three broken ones. These represent (1) Heaven (2) Still Waters (3) fire (4) Thunder (5) Air (6) Running Waters (7) High land or mountains, and (8) Low land or earth -- the eight-fold universe described by the Bhagavad-Gita. Each of these is representative of a material plane and a hierarchy of conscious beings who all play their shadow-game on the illusory eighth, the earth, this man-bearing globe. Therefore, each also has its corresponding virtue. These eight form a circle, the first at the South and the last at the North.These eight result from Four Hsiang or Emblematic Symbols, which in their turn come from the Two Elementary Forms, and the two from the One, the Great Extreme. James Legge, the well-known Chinese authority asked in 1882: "Who will undertake to say what is meant by 'the Great Extreme' which produced the two elementary forms?" The Secret Doctrine did undertake to answer him, and the student will find an explanation in Vol. I, 440-41, and Vol. II, 554.
Further, to the credit of Fu-hsi stands the construction of musical instruments and the spread of the Science of Sociology; he was par excellencethe advocate of a pure family life and the dignity of the home. His successor invented agricultural implements, and thus gained for himself the title of "the Divine Labourer." Yi-King attributes the discovery of Agriculture to "the instruction given to men by celestial genii." (S.D. II, 374.) Hwang-Ti, the third of the prehistoric, semi-divine emperors was the builder of sacred shrines and libraries. Under his influence arose a regular board of historians, the chief of whom was the reviser and amender of the hieroglyphic writing. Hwang-Ti also regulated the calendar, to which he added the intercalary month. His wife is credited with the invention of the several manipulations in the rearing of silkworms and the making of silk.
All this in the night of time. For thousands of years China has been famous for her discoveries -- artesian-wells, compass, glass, gunpowder, paper, printing, porcelain, etc. Much of this knowledge has come down from these mythical periods. Most probably it is to the board of sage historians of the reign of Hwang-Ti that the Chinese owe their habit of preserving records and their custom of maintaining archives. Our knowledge of ancient China comes from certain great books which have been transmitted with faithful care down the generations.
The first of these ancient volumes is the Shu King, which is history with proper chronology, which chronology is based on a very accurate astronomical knowledge; their astronomical sphere is assigned an antiquity of 18,000 years (S.D. I, 658; also II, 620). The book acquired this title in 202 B.C., before which period it was known only as Shu -- "the Pencil speaking." A fourteenth century General Examination of Records and Scholars by Ma Twan-lin says that "the Pencil of the Recorders was busy from the time of Hwang-Ti" which is 2697 B.C. But the Secret Doctrine tells us that it was derived from the "very old Book" referred to in Isis Unveiled. Therefore it contains pointed references to events in the third and the fourth races. (S.D. Vol. II, 280-81; also Vol. II, 372.)
The first two books of the Shu King are regarded as legendary. They deal with the rules of Yaou and of Shun who had to contend against the floods and the deluge. Of Yaou, the ancient book narrates that when he found a handful of his subjects a little discontented, he said. "The fault is mine. I must study to increase my virtue and see wherein I have departed from the Way of Heaven." And again on hearing some sage advice, thus:

"We come by many branching roads and devious ways to the understanding of wisdom ... I perceive that the forest trees are of many sorts and sizes and that those which bear fruit do not put it all forth upon a single branch. I will think upon it." And this was what he had heard from the Keeper of the Hwa Mountain: "If you have many sons and they be well occupied, what need is there to fear? If you are rich, you can distribute your wealth to others, and then what need is there for care? And if you live a long while and follow the true way, should the empire prosper you will flourish with the rest. But if you live a long while, and the world is filled with wickedness, you have only to retire into obscurity and cultivate your virtue, then when life is done and human ties are severed, you will go to join the gods. And thus transcending the clouds, you will attain the regions of the Supreme; so what occasion is there for decline?"

Of Shun it is written:

Wherever he ploughed the people forgot their landmarks, wherever he fished, the people took in their lines. He made pottery on the banks of the Hwang-Ho that was perfectly smooth and non-porous. He made implements at Show-shan. Wherever he lived for a year, the people formed a community; wherever he lived for two years they built a city; and wherever he resided for three years they erected a capital.

Then came Yu when the chronological accounts begin. Of this ruler H.P.B. writes:

The Emperor Yu the "Great" (2207 B.C.), a pious mystic, is credited with having obtained his occult wisdom and the system of theocracy established by him -- for he was the first one to unite in China ecclesiastical power with temporal authority -- from Si-dzang. That system was the same as with the old Egyptians and the Chaldees; that which we know to have existed in the Brahmanical period in lndia, and to exist now in Tibet -- namely, all the learning, power, the temporal as well as the secret wisdom were concentrated within the hierarchy of the priests and limited to their caste.

Yu was also the inspirer of nine urns with engravings on them which in a later age became the basis of Shan-Hai-King, i.e., Wonders by sea and land by Chung-Ku, B.C. 1818. H.P.B. adds that in the last quarter of the third century of our era Kwoh P'oh wrote a commentary on the same. Besides these historical records of Shu-King there are the Odes (Shi-King) and the Books of Rituals (Li-Chi).To the Theosophical student of today what is of paramount interest in Chinese literature is the ethical philosophy of this ancient race. Our task is somewhat difficult but we will not lose our way in the labyrinthine maze of records if we keep these landmarks in mind. Three great rivers of religious, philosophic, and mystic tradition empty themselves in the ocean which today is China. Confucianism resulted from the activity of the sage who has played the most important role in Chinese history. He was the resuscitator of the Wisdom of his ancient people. He stitched the loose pages of old records in a coherent volume; he explained the metaphysics of Fu-hsi, of Yaou, of Yu; above all he taught noble ethics equal in rank to those of Jesus and even Gautama. The second is the Tao, the Path that Lao Tze and his school walked and advocated others to tread. The third influence is that of Buddhism, which took root in the Chinese soil in the first century of our era. Like three sacred rivers in a confluence, these meet reaching a profounder depth and become more inspiring. The three rivers lose their different courses and become one in the life of the people. The current gathering force becomes clear of dross and in it the whole past of this great people is mirrored. These rapid and engulfing waters contain for the daring soul an experience not to be met elsewhere in the ocean of worldly knowledge.
The influence of the "Brothers of the Sun", as the Masters are called in the Chinese literature, has exerted an immemorial influence on the race and its achievements. Says H.P.B.:

The aphorisms in the oldest books of China, moreover, say plainly that the "Dragon" is a human, albeit divine Being. Speaking of the "yellow Dragon," the chief of the others, the Twan-ying-T'u says: "His wisdom and virtue are unfathomable ... he does not go in company and does not live in herds (he is an ascetic). He wanders in the wilds beyond the heavens. He goes and comes, fulfilling the decree (Karma); at the proper seasons if there is perfection he comes forth, if not he remains (invisible)." .... And Kon-fu-tyu is made to say by Lu-lan, "The Dragon feeds in the pure water of Wisdom and sports in the clear waters of life." 

The King's attributes

Adapted from Sichos of

Shabbos Parshas Shoftim, 5750

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/timeless-patterns/51.htm

"I am My Beloved's"

Our Rabbis[1] note that the name "Elul" is an acronym for the Biblical phrase,[2] Ani Ledodi V'Dodi Li - "I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine." In other words, the intense love between G-d and the Jewish people comes to the surface during Elul. This particular verse also indicates that during Elul, it is man who takes the initiative in his relationship with G-d. In chassidic thought[3] this verse is contrasted with a similar verse,[4] "My Beloved is mine and I am His," which reflects a different expression of this love relationship. "My Beloved is mine" suggests the initiative is taken by divine revelation, which then evokes a response from man. "I am my Beloved's," by contrast, suggests an expression of love initiated by man, to which G-d responds.

Is the Initiative Man's or G-d's?

In Likkutei Torah,[5] the Alter Rebbe describes the tightening of the bond between G-d and the Jewish people in the month of Elul with the following parable:Before a king enters his city, its inhabitants go out to greet him and receive him in the field. At that time, anyone who so desires is granted permission [and can][6] approach him and greet him. He receives them all pleasantly and shows a smiling countenance to all....
This parable appears to contradict the direction suggested by the phrase, "I am my Beloved's," for the parable seems to indicate that in Elul it is G-d Who initiates the relationship, by revealing His Thirteen Attributes of Mercy. (The Sages explain that these Attributes refer to an unlimited expression of Divine love.) In contrast, the verse "I am my Beloved's" indicates that the initiative is taken by man.
In chassidic thought,[7] this difficulty is resolved by explaining that the revelation of the king in the field, i.e., the expression of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in the month of Elul, generates the potential for the initiative to be taken by man. Otherwise the people of the field, ordinary men whose spiritual attainments are modest, would be incapable of turning to G-d with the inspired commitment expressed by the phrase, "I am my Beloved's."
Though the potential is initially granted from above, the nurturing of the love relationship depends on man's initiative. The revelation of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy is merely a catalyst. In going out to the field, the king makes himself accessible to his people. It is the people, however, who take the step of turning to him.

Why the King Goes Into the Field

In Likkutei Torah, the parable is further used to explain the difference between the revelation of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy in the month of Elul, and the revelation of these attributes on Yom Kippur. On Yom Kippur, the king is in his palace; G-d reveals Himself in all His majesty. During Elul, however, the king is in the field; G-d reveals Himself at a level which can be apprehended by man within the framework of his mundane reality.However, G-d descends to this level not only in order to make Himself accessible to man. Rather, to borrow the terms of the analogy, the king meets his people in the field because a field has intrinsic value.
A field is a place where grain grows. Growing grain and converting it into the food which sustains us requires a great deal of effort. And this effort symbolizes the full scope of our activities within our mundane sphere.[8]
The value of these activities can be seen from the fact that most of our time is spent dealing with our material needs and earning the means by which to provide for them; as it is written,[9] "Six days shall you work, and the seventh day shall be a Shabbos unto the L-rd, your G-d."
Faced with this state of affairs, we are inclined to wonder why G-d designed a world in which man is forced to involve himself primarily in material rather than in spiritual activities. The reason for this seemingly problematic apportioning of time is that it reflects the purpose of creation. G-d created the world so that He could have a "dwelling place in the lower worlds."[10] In accordance with this desire, our service of G-d has to center on the ordinary details of existence for the purpose of infusing them with G-dliness, and not on the purely spiritual as it exists on an abstract plane.[11]
In light of this, we can appreciate the significance of our parable to the month of Elul. The king's presence in the field represents the ultimate purpose of creation. Our efforts must be directed towards bringing G-dliness into our material world. G-d's Presence must be found not only in the royal palace, i.e., where spirituality is manifest; rather, even the lowest realms of existence must be transformed into a dwelling place for Him.[12]

G-d's Smiling Countenance

The parable of the king in the field expresses the importance of our divine service within the framework of the ordinary, but it also underscores the unique relationship between the king and His subjects. In the field, "He receives them all pleasantly and shows a smiling countenance to all." In the "field", G-d allows His subjects to relate to Him as His presence is manifest.[13]Throughout the year, we emphasize the importance of carrying out our service of G-d in the field with the intent that this should lead to the revelation of the King's Presence. In Elul, which marks the culmination of this service - and the preparation for the coming year - our efforts are rewarded by the perceptible revelation of the King's Presence.

Expressing Our Love Relationship with G-d through Torah Study

In light of this, we can understand the importance of increasing our Torah study during Elul,[14] for the revelation of the King's Presence is dependent on the study of the Torah. As mentioned above, our service of G-d in the field involves primarily mundane matters. We concern ourselves with activities which are not in and of themselves holy, but are performed "for the sake of the King." As our Sages state,[15] "All your deeds should be for the sake of heaven." And it is likewise written,[16] "Know Him in all your ways."Because G-d desires a dwelling place in the lower worlds, this mode of divine service is valuable, but because it involves materiality, G-dliness is not manifest within this framework.[17] It is, however, revealed through the study of Torah, because the Torah, the embodiment of G-d's will and wisdom, is one with Him.[18]
G-d's will is that His Presence be revealed "in the field"; i.e., that we recognize our world as His dwelling place. This revelation depends upon the Torah study of the people of the field. Although they may be engaged in mundane activities for most of the day, the fixed times that they set aside for Torah study[19]suffuse their entire day with Torah. In this manner, manifest G-dliness is drawn down into every aspect of their lives, even into the day-to-day activities of "the field."
The "men of the field" need not forego their ordinary activities entirely and devote themselves solely to Torah study. This is not what G-d desires. In the parable, when the king passes through the field, the people pause from their work and approach him.[20] Similarly, during Elul, although the "men of the field" continue their daily activities, because they are aware of the King's Presence they should also increase their Torah study.
Hence the emphasis during Elul on Torah study as well as prayer, for they are both associated with the verse, "I am my Beloved's."[21] In fact, our love relationship with G-d is most completely expressed through the study of the Torah. Thus the verse,[22] "He kisses me with the kisses of His mouth," alludes[23]to Torah study, a time at which G-d's words are in one's mouth.
By intensifying our love relationship with G-d during Elul, we ensure that the entire Jewish people is inscribed with a kesivah vachasimah tovah, and is granted abundant blessings in the coming new year. May those blessings include the most fundamental and necessary blessing - the coming of the Redemption, and may this take place in the immediate future.

Time is Love

Essence is I
Like a blanc page
with all my attributes
A whole human being in seed
the full structure
Connected to the cosmos
Walking on Earth
Growing in all dimensions
Including the one you see

Subject to every law
of absolute freedom
Of absolute being
Of Absolute

A child
life
In its purest form

Angel hair
Sprinkled from heaven
An infinity
In being

Were we not children enough to remember our self’s self?
The other being within, that had no name before we were ever baptised to this world?
Were we not there enough before mother and father, brothers and sisters, friends, enemies and people at large?
Don’t you remember Being without a name?

Did we not exist before we were given into the hands of man
Through mother and father
The legacy – complete?
Placed in a moment in time incarnating within our selves everything before us?

Nothing is more complete than a child than a human being

And then the gradual descent into multiplicities trying to find the image that would fit into the unknown world
Funny we thought the unknown world was elsewhere and not here when we lost contact with our selves and separated into individuals that we were supposed to not know and “fall” in love the less we knew them.

No wonder they call it the Fall for what else is it but the descent to desire? The fragmented world of everything one was not and wished to become?

Was not love precisely that recognition of the incomprehensible both within and without. Identifications in the mirrors of our beings meant to signal our complexes, identified with the pieces of people crystallized in imaginary pictures of what they might have become had they not been fortunate enough to fail?

They laugh above when we slide down in our exotic nudity only to dress it up and hide ourselves with textiles trying to reinvent our selves over and over again as if every fashion could make more of us become while at the same time the body inside comes undone.

Yes,
undone
Like the shell of every seed giving birth to the invisibility of our totality, dissolving our self in our selves, terrified of loosing the cover and protection that was once our identification.

Men and women suffering endlessly because the shell is almost gone and they haven’t yet accomplished a third of what dictated desire, loosing themselves without realizing that time is not money but love.

They’ll forgive us one day for having lived the lowest descent when time was money and not love and people desperately run out of their lives trying to make money without love.

They’ll thank us for having served our selves as victims of our own invention fixed in the world of matter without understanding the miracle of time to actualize our selves self every day of our lives

Time will come when every man extends a hand out and it is an extended hand not just an arm doing exercises to win the next competition betting our souls for how much more we get paid.

Time will come when movement is sacred
When food is sacred
When people are sacred
When music is life giving
When Art is life itself
When no one will die without having been embraced by the rest

We will walk out of our families, towns and nations into our selves
We will walk into families, towns and nations no matter what town or nation we find ourselves in, beyond our blood, one human being.

We are not too old to remember the great people
Every man and woman in each nation remembers the great people,
The human people
Nor too young to forget them, our essence
We are just right to be great people like the people before and after us
We are each and everyone right enough to be a human being

Time is love
It is love when we wake up in the morning and when we go to bed at night
And love when we sit besides each other
And there’s more love in each man and woman’s work than in the sheets of every bed
And more love in every meal than in a thousand drinks
There’s more love in each other’s company than in a million things.

Time is love
And life trickles through our hands in shades of blue and green
While children grow their little feet
And there’s no need to run a mile to be
But sit within

Time is love
And there’s no need of things to be
There’s plenty now and it’s not about more but about being able to look after what there is
Before we trash the whole of our nature making things that we don’t need to feed our greed
And the people
the young people and the old people and the children
all need us to help them be

No time will be as crazy as ours when nations throw away their communities and communities throw away their families and families throw away their children and old people so that men and women can make more money for somebody else’s greed. We will never be as crazy as today when we throw our lives out with our loved ones convinced that time is money in an individualism without reigns.

And I am not talking about America or Americans. We are all equally American and time is money was the reality of our lives everywhere. How much more damage can we do to our selves and our place? Our Earth?

Time is love
And death is eternity

From the King to the Individual- Objective qualities and realities

Another way to look at your question could be: How is objectivity actualized in our lives?

What are facts? And “realities”? Are we not born to a “reality” that has been “objectified” no matter how subjective it in fact might be? But is it not from that objectified subjectivity that our psychological make up is structured on our essence?

The fact that we are born in pseudo democracies is an objective fact that makes our psychological make up completely different to what it would have been had we been born in the times of Kings. In those times the individual didn’t matter but the King had enough relevance for many to be willing to give their lives up for him. In the pseudo-democracies of our times the individual doesn’t matter as much as individualism but “institutions” are nevertheless able to supply a greater number of individuals with “things” that previously were the privilege only of the nobility. I personally don’t believe our lives are necessarily more “just” or “noble” than they were in those days, (the values have been shifted) what I think is that what democracy is offering is the possibility of acquiring the status of human beings with equal rights to that of kings, as if we were introverting in our social and psychological make up what we extroverted in the hierarchic structure of royalty. As if we “lived” monarchy externally to now become the “monarchs” of our lives. The shift of consciousness from the “clan” to the individual.

Every individual has a “right” to the qualities of royalty that are no other than the qualities of being human. Not power to “submit” others but power to submit one’s self to the whole. The objectified subjectivity that we seem to have “inherited” in our times seems to be the authoritarism of the dictator without the nobility of the King. In the struggle from the King to the individual what has given guarantees to the individuals is the “institutions” but within them the structures still function with more authoritarism than consciousness. Was the failure of monarchy the “failure” of the king? Or the gradual transference of authority from the King to the individual?

If we look at dialogue and speech within that framework we find that the King could Speak. Speech was one of his attributes.Then only those in power could speak and now, with the internet, we can all speak! We can all speak but we don’t all have a right to speak nor are we necessarily heard if we speak, nor can many avoid still being killed if they speak more than is desired by those who are questioned by their speech. “Speech” is still the right of whoever is the authority and we still move within frameworks of subjective hierarchic structures. What is subjective about them? Mostly the differences. All our illusory differences from each other are aspects of our subjectivity. The fact that we think we have more rights than others because we are blue, yellow and pink while others are magenta, beige and green, is one of the aspects that makes us subjective, the other is the objective position in which we happen to be to think that we have more rights than others. The “position” we happen to be in makes us as subjective as it “codifies”, if we become identified with it, i.e. if we are “white” in the South of the States in Pre-Lincoln’s time, there’s a strong tendency to identify with racist ideology. Identification with genre, family, society and nationality is what conditions our own subjectivity and when we are “fundamentalistically” identified with them we cannot see the human beyond the identification. The inhumanity and depersonalization of war today is an aspect of such identifications. People justify inhumanity because of their so called “superior” identifications. If the human beings of today carried their “identity” in their humaneness, the scale of destruction and self-destruction current today, and its justification to satisfy the greed of the few in every nation, could not take place. What “the few” are holding on to is the illusory objective qualities of the King: The economic and political power without the authority or the consciousness. What becomes “subject” to their control is the power of objective realities such as Speech that are in fact “qualities” inherent to every human being. How “Speech” is allocated reveals how the economy is distributed. As long as Speech is muzzelled to power, human beings will continue to live in the subjectivity of our pseudo-democracies. We do not let each other speak because we don’t acknowledge each other as human beings. By not acknowledging our humaneness, we justify every atrocity.

Speech is not only the possibility of greeting each other and saying hello. We can all almost “do” that. What we are still far from is understanding Speech as an objective reality with power of its own, with structural power to mould our psychological life and hence, our social life. Today only “educated” people can speak, only “authorities” in the “subject” can speak, only a few are given the microphone. The rest are “muzzled” in the identification with their status while we are all living the same “LIFE” or lifelessness, we are all suffering the same consequences of our unconsciousness but only a few are authorized to decide what to do about it: The so-called “political” or “economic” or “academic” authorities. The majority of us are identified with our “powerlessness”, conditioned by our “position” in the “play”. Nothing conditions individuals more than the fact that they have or don’t have a voice.

The “voice” or “Speech” is there but people cannot “access” it because they are themselves not conscious of Speech as the rightful quality of their humanity. They let others speak and think for them afraid of doing so for themselves. The situation today is such that it is easier for most to take an arm and shoot others indiscriminately than to scream or speak. That is how far we are from our humaneness or becoming objective about our selves.