Theopolítics in the Davidíc monarchal system A pilot study

Theopolitics in the Davidic monarchal system. A pilot study Albeit the nomenclature theopolitics appears to be new to Old Testament studies, it has been and it is still being used extensively under other appellations. It is the postulate o f this article that in the sphere o f the historiography o f Old Testament monarchical politics, the dialectic essence o f theopolitics is unmistakable, namely the combination o f two theoretically contradictory elements: the spiritual and the mundane aspects o f human existence. In this article the claim in 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34^ that Josiah was a king like no other including the adored David will be examined. It will be argued that Josiah was indeed unlike any other Davidite, because he lacked the courage to act independently and autonomously. He was a king like no other, because he was no king at all, only a puppet par excellence.


I. Introduction
This article comprises the preliminary deliberations o f a study concerning theopolitics in the Old Testament and especially as it manifests in the Davidic monarchical history.According to Reventlow et al. (1994) politics and theo politics fonn an integral part o f the greater part o f biblical literature.This supposition is endorsed by an analysis o f the role o f and the manner in which divine manipulation is applied in the Israelite monarchical history.Whereas this pilot study represents the initial findings of this analysis, it also supports the premise o f this article, namely that from its inception an invisible force manipulated the Davidic monarchy.In a symbiotic state o f interdependence, the secreted party steered and manipulated the visible Davidites.This manipulation o f the visible by an invisible force triggered religious and political tensions easily discernible in the histories of different Davidic kings in specific situations.This tension always functions on two opposing levels o f human existence, i.e. the spiritual and the mundane.The spiritual manipulates the people's assessment of 1 All textual references are to BHS (see Elliger & Rudolph, 1984).

H offman, Ouspensky, W eber and theopolitics
In concurrence with Hoffinan (1994:85-86) it is the postulate o f this article that theopolitics should be understood as the determination and the manipulation o f politics by the supposed will o f God in order to justify or condemn certain political decisions by a leader at a given point in history.Furthermore, it would appear from the various cases examined as if the prerequisites and/or the circumstances o f a specific situation require a certain standard and a certain category of leadership.Jointly, situation and circumstances provoke and stimulate determination to achieve a specified goal.At the same time they also assess and determine the measure of manipulation necessary to achieve a preconceived objective.While determining the standard and type o f leadership, situation and circumstances also manipulate the elected leader's identified talents as well as his/her inherent competence or incompetence.Ouspensky's (1967: 340-345) model o f two strands o f history corresponds with these acts o f manipulation o f theopolitics.But at the same time the inherent elements o f theopolitics concur with W eber 's (1965:223-245) presupposition concerning the inevitable tension between religion and politics, especially when in a situation o f having to determine or negotiate a power base.

Tension between the spiritual and the mundane
Hoffinan (1994:85-87) theorises that theopolitics combine two theoretically contradictory elements: the spiritual and the mundane aspect o f human existence.He cites Weber (1967:223-248) who does not use the word theopolitics, but who argues in a similar vein that tension is experienced as soon as religion progresses to a status o f equality with the sphere o f political associations.An inevitable question that needs to be addressed, is whether this tension is between religion and politics p e r se or between certain elements in religion and politics.It should be kept in mind that religion as well as politics comprises a multitude o f divergent elements that could all cause tension.Therefore, in any discussion o f theo politics, the elements perceived to be responsible for the tension should be identified before one can continue with the investigation.It is the presupposition of this article that tension cannot be defused unless these elements are determined.

Two strands of history
In the same trend o f reasoning the Russian philosopher, Ouspensky (1967:344-345), avers that in any society there are always two distinct yet concurrent strands o f history active.The one is visible, violent, well documented, while the other is silent and invisible.While this invisible manipulative force steers the visible strand, at the same time it uses structures erected by the visible strand to further its own interests.The inference is that the visible strand is well known, but that the invisible force is usually only hinted at -even when there are suspicions o f its strength, its power and its manipulative abilities (c f inter alia 2 Chr.33:21-25).It could be argued, therefore, that in this symbiotic state of interdependence the visible Davidites were steered by the secreted am ha-aretz or the country Levites, and then in particular, the descendants o f Caleb, the Judaean Levites o f Hebron.
A major shortcoming in this philosophical discourse is the fact that Ouspensky neglects to address the issue o f leaders and led.However, notwithstanding the fact that without using the word theopolitics their presuppositions in fact introduced the current discourse, Ouspensky and Weber did manage to outline certain elementary aspects that form an integral part o f that process, presently termed theopolitics.

Introduction
According to the Old Testament (c f inter alia 2 Sam.2:4a, 1 Kings 1:28, 1 Chr.5:2) the Davidites were the divine chosen leaders and they were usually accepted as such by their people.In their assessments the biblical writers openly and quite honestly (apparently) label a number o f these Davidic kings as excellent leaders comparable to or on a par with the great David (c f 2 Chr.14:1-8, 34-35).Others are tagged as mediocre in the sense that they were not too religious and not too evil (c f 2 Chr.12:13-16; 16:7-13; 17:3-4).There are also many Davidites who, without much ado, are rated and denigrated as evil (c f 2 36:5,9,[11][12][13].O f only one king, namely Josiah, is it said that he was one of a kind.Not even the great David could be compared to him.

MacGregor Burns and leadership
MacGregor Bums (1979:1-5) avers that a hunger for compelling and creative leadership is one o f the most universal human cravings.He maintains that in any discussion or investigation o f leadership it is imperative to determine who is the leader and who is the led.According to his postulate leader and led enter into a relationship o f power, mutual needs, aspirations and values (c f inter alia 1 Sam.19-22; 16:1; 1 Chr.11:1-3).Paraphrased, Bums' premise appears to equate the role o f leader-led to an archetype of parasitic coexistence.In this symbiotic relationship it is impossible for the one to exist or survive without the other.Without a leader there are no followers.Without followers there is no leader.
Theopolilics in the Davidic monarchal system.A pilot study When transposed into biblical histories, events like that of inter alia Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:6-11; Chr.10:6-11) and Amon (2 Kings 21:19-26; 2 Chr.33:21-25) lead to the inevitable question whether the visible king is in fact the real leader.Is he not perhaps the led, the perfect or imperfect follower?For instance, were the real leader(s) not perhaps the unidentified friends o f Rehoboam or perhaps the unidentified people of the land who snatched the throne from Amon's assassins?

Leadership and situation
It would appear from this pilot study that an essential element in the assessment of leadership is that at a particular point in time a situation develops demanding a capable and competent leader to take control of the people and the consequences of the situation.Therefore, without fail the circumstances o f a people at a given point in history determines the type o f leader and the specific qualities he/she should have that would be necessary to meet the demands o f the situation (cf.David in inter alia 1 Chr.11:1-3, 12:1-40; Solomon in 2 Chr.1:8-12).To illustrate this point, in a certain situation qualities like charisma, authority, statesmanship and even military expertise may be regarded as essential to successftjl leadership.The moment that the circumstances change these qualities may no longer be rated as important or as necessary.

Old Testament leadership in a situation of transformation
It is the postulate of this article that the assessment of Old Testament leadership is very simple and completely one-sided.Leadership qualities and abilities are only measured in terms of fidelity and devotion to God.The circumstances, the importance and the timing o f the situation are seldom mentioned.According to the analysis o f certain Old Testament leaders, undertaken for tlie purposes o f this article, it became increasingly clear that leadership and situation like leader and led, are inseparable.

Moses
An excellent example o f the above-mentioned is the history o f Moses as leader (Ex.1-4) and also that o f Aaron (Ex.4:27-5:1) and their interaction with their situation.Instructed by God to lead a group o f people to the Promised Land, M oses' charisma, his assertive leadership, his influence and the example he set in his devotion and fidelity to YHWH enabled a group o f oppressed runaway slaves to transform themselves into a group o f liberated freemen, the core o f a nation-tobe.Their situation enabled him to employ his leadership qualities in such a way that it led to a transformation of their circumstances.Because o f this shift in their circumstances because o f leadership, the situation o f a heterogeneous group of runaway slaves changed to such an extent that their bargaining power increased and the rudimentary beginnings o f a feeling of solidarity began to develop.It would take many more years and many other leaders before this process would be completed and they could be labelled a true nation.However, the journey through the desert wilderness under the leadership of a Moses gave them a common heritage o f traditions that would form the foundations o f a nation.

David
David's leadership was conferred on him because o f an existing situation: a leaderless group o f tribes (the Israelite tribes) feared nihilism because of oppression suffered under the Philistines.Once again the circumstances o f their situation demanded competent leadership to free them from Philistine oppression.Saul's leadership abilities were not sufficient to perform this task.To prevent fijrther military domination by their enemies, it became imperative for the Israelite tribes to be united in a nation.Because he could meet the demands o f the situation, David emerged as leader-elect.Because the existing situation demanded it from him, his first function was that o f military commander.Once he had managed to unite all the tribes in his person, he could emerge as nation-builder (2 Sam.5:1-5; IChr.11:1-3; see Alt, 1930:1-66).
According to his historiographers, in the process o f establishing a people, a dynasty and an empire, David would continue to rise to meet the needs o f the situation as and when such needs became evident.Or could it be that he was prodded into action every time another silent force sensed that the circumstances and therefore the requirements o f the situation had changed and that there were other demands that needed other leadership characteristics and abilities?It is even possible to argue that a militarist like David would probably not have anticipated the establishment o f a bureaucracy.Once this silent force had appraised the nation's needs for structures and proper organisation, a rudimentary bureaucracy began to develop that involved the Levites o f the Levitical cities to such an extent that they became David's watchdogs, his eyes, and eventually his civil service (c f inter alia Haran, 1961:45-51;Hauer, 1982:33-50;Nel, 1989: 257-271).
It is the viewpoint o f this article that the fact that such a bureaucracy was established cannot be ascribed to David's far-sightedness.The circumstances of the situation at that point in the histoiy of the newly united Israelite tribes manifested a need for certain governmental structures outside Jerusalem.Once

Leadership, Levites and the people of the land
One of the most interesting, and also a very important fact that keeps on emerging, is the intimate interaction between the Davidites and the Levites.From the rudimentary beginnings o f David's career there are signs that his leadership carried the blessings o f the country cult officials (c f 1 Sam.21:1-9; 22:11-23).

Am ha-aretz
The expression am ha-aretz or people o f the land is very problematic.It is a collective noun that is never applied to an individual.A íïer taking into account most o f the available literature on this topic, it was concluded that a multitude of divergent and compliant interpretations concerning the meaning o f this term exists.No scholar has, however, as yet been able to identify the group with absolute certainty or has been able to determine beyond any doubt what role they played in the Davidic kingship and in the Israelite society.This situation is primarily due to the fact that the Old Testament provides no definitive information.Even so, the presence o f the people o f the land is felt and it can be discerned like a thin continuous thread running through the monarchical history.
There is no reference to the political, social or religious nature o f this group.The biblical authors take no stand; they do not evaluate or assess these people.
References to the am ha-aretz relate to different historical periods (even from the time o f the patriarchs -Gen.23:12 -to Daniel -Dan.9:6).Although the term usually refers to Israelites, there are a number o f occasions where it is also used to describe non-Israelites (inter alia Gen. 23:12; Ezr.3:3; Neh.9:30; c f Reviv, 1979:283-297;Asher, 1997:85), Apparently there was a continuous interaction and interdependence between the people o f the land and the Davidite rulers.However, this interaction and interdependence is never clearly or openly discussed or mentioned.Talmon (1967:71) notes that this term was never applied in a specifically Ephramaite setting.If this was indeed the case, then it is correct to argue that the am haaretz was specifically connected with Judaean politics and especially with the House of David (c f inter alia Japhet, 1993Japhet, :1013Japhet, -1014;;Malamat, 1953:26-29;Nielsen, 1967:129-137;2 Kings 21:21-26, 2 Chr. 33:22-25).Analogous with Ouspensky's two strands of history, it is therefore the opinion expressed in this article that the term am ha-aretz could well be understood as representative o f the invisible strand of history where the Davidites form the visible, well documented Strand o f history.Or the am ha-aretz could even represent the religious element that causes tension when in contact with politics in order to negotiate for a power base.

Leadership and statesmanship
The perception o f the quality and the presence/absence o f religious devotion of the Davidic kings, is always coloured by a theopolitical assessment of the different kings by biblical authors/historiographers.It is always the individual, the person, the king that is judged.Statesmanship is never at stake and therefore it is never judged -not even according to any divine principles or codes.It is as if the chroniclers' only concern was the measure o f the leader's adherence to religion.Whose religion, is never mentioned.That o f the Jerusalem cult or that of the Hebron Levites and the other rural Levites?And what role did the politics o f the day played in this assessment?

Manasseh
An excellent example o f the above-mentioned is the history o f Manasseh who ruled for fifty-five years.
Although the duration o f his rule could be taken as indicative o f the quality o f his statemanship, yet 2 Kings 21 describes him as the most evil o f all kings o f Judah.The leading theme o f the annals o f his reign are his transgressions (c f 2 Chr.33:1-20).As far as the Deuteronomistic history is concerned, Manasseh was evil and he remained evil until his death (c f Kings 21).However, the Chronicler sketches M anasseh's conversion while in exile in Nineveh (2 Chr.33:11-13).
The issue is not whether this was a conversion as understood today, but rather whether his conversion should not be translated as a change in his rationalisation concerning the continuance of the Assyrian hegemony.On the other hand, did an existing situation at a later point in time, perhaps demanded a re-thinking o f why Manasseh reigned for so many years despite the fact that he is denigrated as being so very evil?
It is important that during the latter part of his rule the situation changed considerably in the Ancient Near East.The hegemony o f the Assyrians was drawing to an end.Already other powers were beginning to emerge and one of them would eventually replace the Assyrians.Is it not perhaps a fact that historiographers' view o f Manasseh's long period o f reign demanded an acceptable explanation?His conversion would then meet the needs o f an existing situation.This might quite possibly have been a particular moment in the history o f the people.The kings' assessment of the decline o f the power o f Assyria could also have been subject to the measure and manner o f co-operation between the Davidic royal house and the people o f the land or Ouspensky's invisible strand of history.

Levite state administrators
If Nel's (1989:257-271) hypothesis is tenable concerning the Levites being state administrators, the inevitable question is whether Bum s' real leaders could not be equated with the am ha-aretz.But who were the Davidites?Do they constitute the led, the perfect followers of their invisible leaders?The hypothesis o f this article is that the judgement and the assessment o f the different Davidic kings might quite possibly have been intimately linked to and influenced by the way in which they toed the line of the am ha-aretz.

A stabilising force
Asher (1997:85-86) avers that according to the various references to the am haaretz the impression is created that they were always loyal to the Davidites and that they always acted as a stabilising factor in Judah.Concurrent with this premise, this article postulates that the group who formed the structures that supported the theocracy (c f 1 Clir.23-27;Nel 1991) were not pro-Assyria, pro-Egypt or pro-Babylon.Their allegiance belonged exclusively to the House o f David.By supporting and defending the Davidic dynasty o f the Southern King dom they promoted their own interests, their own fiiture and fortune (c f inter alia 2 Kings 11:14,[18][19][20]15:5;16:15;21:24;2 Chr. 24;32:13,19), Ironically, without the Davidic empire there was no reason for their existence.Even more ironic, without their expertise in matters o f government, the Davidic kings could not rule effectively.

Introduction
Certainly one o f the very best illustrations o f the way that theopolitics has been applied in the Old Testament, is the history of Josiah, scion from the House o f David.

Protégé of the am ha-aretz
As the protégé o f the am ha-aretz, Josiah succeeded his father Amon when only a mere eight years o f age (2 K in p 21:24; 2 Chr.33:25).Despite the fact that the people o f the land were responsible for the counter coup d 'etat following Amon's slaying, it would appear as if apparently there were no objections when they accepted responsibility for the tutelage o f the child king.

Josiah and the biblical historiographers
The only member o f the House of David not denigrated by biblical historio graphers, Josiah, is portrayed as a highly acclaimed king.Because of this idealistic view o f him and based on Ouspensky's premise o f history as well as the hypotheses o f Weber and Hoffman, it is the postulate of this article that Josiah was no leader at all.He is an example of the perfect follower.Although to all outward appearances he was chosen by the am ha-aretz to continue the Davidic reign and rule o f law (2 Chr.33:25), it is the hypothesis o f this article that it was the people o f the land who formed the real power base.They were the power behind the Davidic throne.Josiah reigned by virtue o f the am ha-aretz and therefore he could not be faulted but could only be loudly acclaimed.
TheopoUtics in the Davidic wonarchal system, A pilot study Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon, Naphtali as well as the ravaged districts around these towns.If we measure these events against Ouspensky's model o f history it is very likely that the am ha-aretz in the name o f Josiah planned and executed a full-scale purge througli tiie former united kingdom o f David.
It is a question whether this zealous drive was indeed a religious fervour to clear the land of idolatrous abominations or do we detect a political undertone?Did the situation in the former Northern Kingdom call for a purge?Or did the South need to rethink its situation in terms o f the characteristics required o f the Davidite on the throne?It is possible to argue that this purge was not a sanctifying religious drive at all, but that it represented a fiill-scale attempt to occupy territories that the am ha-aretz rightfiilly or wrongfully regarded as part and parcel of the Davidic kingdom.The catharsis during the first phase o f his rule was not at all Josiah's religious fervour to purify idolatrous towns and districts.
According to the postulate o f this article this purge introduced the first steps to realise the prodigious dream of the people o f the land to re-possess and to re establish the demarcation o f the original Davidic realm.In order to achieve their aim they manipulated the name o f God when they used the name o f Josiah as leader of their zealous purification and thus once again employed religion to manipulate politics.

Phase Two
Undoubtedly this phase covers the most important part o f Josiah's rule.
According to his historiographers this phase was initiated in the eighteenth year of his reign (2 Chr.34:8).It was preceded by a drive to purify the land and the Jerusalem Temple.During this process the Book o f Law was found in the precincts of the Temple.This finding would eventually result in a re-deliberation and a re-definition o f the role o f the cult officials and also o f which group should act as overseers of the Davidic dynasty.
Politically this was one o f the most crucial periods in the politics o f pre-exilic Judah.Like all historiography concerning the Davidites, the Chronicler presents this purge (2 Chr.34:8-33) as a purely religious act.However, all the indications are there that this purge portrays a transition o f power.It is the premise o f this article that this purge was in fact a coup d'etat during which the seat o f power o f the am ha-aretz was re-established and re-located from Hebron to Jerusalem.From now on the town o f Hebron and its Judaean Levites would no longer be the power behind the throne.The Jerusalem am ha-aretz hijacked the Hebronites' hegemony.By extolling the finding of the so-called Book o f Law in the Temple precincts, a deceptive religious hue was given to this revolution.From this moment onwards Jerusalem would no longer be the city o f David, the city o f YHWH, the city of Judah (in that order) with Hebron as the legislate.Jerusalem now became tlie legislate and the executive seat o f power o f whoever appeared on the surface to rule the country.
A study o f the results of this power struggle between Hebron and Jerusalem indicates that this struggle determined and also terminated the destiny of Judah and o f the House o f David.The only influence this struggle initially had on the House o f David was political.
Despite the biblical portrayal of Josiah, a study o f the politics and o f the tension between Hebron and Jerusalem shows that he was indeed never an autonomous king.From that moment when the am ha-aretz staged the coup d'etat against his father's assassins, Josiah was but a pawn in the hands of the one or the other secreted force behind the throne.All that happened to Josiah the perfect king, was that, like any other pawn, the hands that manipulated and kept him in check changed because the power behind the throne changed from Hebron to the Jerusalem cult.From that point onwards the Davidites would be the puppets of Jerusalem.To Josiah it would make no difference who his manipulators were and who the actual leaders of the land and its people were.Josiah was indeed a king like no other -only because he was no king.
Their lack o f experience and expertise in foreign politics show in the manner the Jerusalemites erroneously assessed international events.Eventually it would be their inexperience and shortsightedness that forced the Southern Kingdom into such a precarious comer that Josiah lost his life in the unequal battle against pharaoh Necho o f Egypt.This debacle set Judah on a road o f disaster that eventually culminated in defeat by the Chaldeans and in exile in Babylon (cf Malamat, 1973:267-278).

God and leadership
Hoffman (1994:85-99) and Amit (1994:28-40) argue that in theopolitics, God's name and his interference in the mundane is used to sanction the leader, his acts o f leadership and his abilities to rise to the needs of the situation.Hofiman and Amit do not identify the manipulative force they mention.The question that immediately arises is whether one can equate their unidentified force with the invisible strand o f Ouspensky?Or is this unidentified force, this invisible strand o f history, not perhaps a certain element in religion that creates tension in the political sphere?
When investigating the appearance and the use o f theopolitics in the Old Testament, it is important that the only visible fiat and also the only acceptable and valid judgement o f leadership, is the extent to which a leader is perceived to observe G od's requirements.The two most pertinent questions thus are: In the eyes of whom or which beholder does the leader meet or fail to meet God's

Conclusion
In the power struggle between Hebron and Jerusalem the destiny o f Judah and the House of David was determined and also terminated.As long as the am ha-aretz remained the power behind the throne, the House o f David remained the ruling house albeit in name alone.While the people of the land were the steering force behind the Davidites, all kings were measured according to their faith and obedience to God, because the am ha-aretz used the name o f God as a manipulating power in politics.How religious they were is no longer possible to ascertain.Except in the case of David, no other king appears to have achieved anything commendable.If a king (like Josiah) followed his leaders obediently, he was allowed to remain the visible sign o f rule.If he did not conform to the requirements o f the country Levites, he was removed, but his removal would always be clothed in a religious pretext and camouflage.
This conjectured struggle between Hebron and Jerusalem is also seen as the beginning of the end o f Judah, one o f the most important minor kingdoms in the Ancient Near East.But the struggle to rule the Davidic House and Judah had many repercussions.It is postulated that this struggle caused the defeat at Megiddo and brought about the exile.In the power struggle between the Judaean Levites of Hebron and the Jerusalem cult, the Jerusalemites were undoubtedly victorious.But, as so often in iiistory, the cost o f their success was too high.Judah and Jenisalem could not last.The Jenisalem cult officials who had staged the coup d 'etat lacked expertise, experience and the essential structures to rule a country or a city-state.Judah and Jerusalem would not recover from the total subjugation and elimination o f the Hebronites and the leadership structures erected and maintained by the country Levites.The Jerusalem coup d 'etat assured that there would no longer be any loyal power base for the Davidites outside o f Jerusalem.Possibly they hoped that this would mean that all peoples would rally around the House o f David.Unfortunately they misconstrued the consequences o f their power iiunger.Therefore, the Kingdom of Judah quietly disappeared from the scene.The Kingdom o f Jerusalem was all that eventually remained.Indeed, the temple officials had ensured that Jerusalem became the city-state o f the Davidites.
On the national, political and societal structures of Judah p er se and o f Jerusalem in particular, this coup d'etat caused far-reaching changes.Because the expertise o f the country Levites in governmental matters was lost to the monarchy, certainly the most important result of the disbandenment o f the Levitical bureaucracy is that it left the monarchy too vulnerable to attacks by its enemies.
this need was identified by the silent strand o f history, the manipulation o f David was set into motion and a proto-bureaucracy was established.According to the postulate o f the current study the Levitical cities in general and Hebron in particular, the people o f the land, turned into protectors, manipulators and judges o f the monarchy and o f every Davidic ruler.However, their assessment of fidelity towards them and also their judgement o f the quality o f leadership o f the ________________________________________________________________________ H.W .Nel In die Skriflig 31(4) 1997:421-434 ~ 4 ^ Theopolitics in the Davidic monarchal system.A pilot study different Davidic kings were always clothed in religious terms to pacify and hoodwink the people.
The history o f Old Testament leaders p e r se and particularly o f the Davidic dynasty need to be examined further to determine the extent o f the application of divine manipulation by biblical historiographers in their assessment o f sacral and secular leaders and of situations.In concurrence with Ouspensky's model o f two different strands o f history, the silent role o f these theopolitical manipulators need to be considered very carefully and very seriously, especially because o f its relevance to the situation in South Africa today -especially in the light o f the findings o f the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee vis-a-vis a silent strand of manipulation, exploitation and the terror o f an invisible rule o f law in the previous regime.
TheopoliUcs in the Davidic monarcha!system.A pilot study demands?And in the second place, who or what alleges to have sufficient knowledge of God and his ways to be able to convey his demands, his judgements of a leader?Or is it a mere matter o f a political element that rallies around the leader that creates tension by provoking a religious response?Could we, therefore, deduce from the scant information in 2 Kings 21:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 33:21-25 that the coup d'etat o f the people o f the land against Amon's assassins was a theopolitical act?Or were theopolitics employed when the am ha-aretz intervened on behalf o f the Davidic tlirone?Gelander(1991:9-15)explores what turned David into an incomparable symbol o f ideal kingship and a measuring rod for righteous rule and leadership.He comes to the conclusion that the biblical historiographers felt the need to ascribe theological messages to David and that these messages form a single comprehensive theological concept.It is the postulate o f this article that Gelander's theological concept could very well be translated as theopolitics.The theological (or theopolitical) concept historiographers ascribe to David's rule is the portrayal of the manipulative function o f religion in politics.Therefore, the primary purpose of David's rule and his leadership abilities should be understood as a theological message clothed in politics.In accordance with Gelander's hypothesis, it is accepted that David's historiographers did not regard his rule as merely the foundlings o f a new form o f government.His reign represented to them a revolution in the realm of faith and religion.