King of Kings

Even though the people of Israel were under the leadership of the almighty God, they were not pleased.   They wanted a human king, someone fallible and imperfect to lead them.   Even then, God was forgiving and appointed a human king over them.   As I intend to prove, kingship was not a good thing for the nation of Israel because kings were corrupt and sinful.   They imposed harsh labors and laws on the people who followed them.   But most importantly, by having a king, they were turning their backs on God.   There were a few benefits that came from having a king, but these proved to be an illusion.


Many will argue that a king was good for Israel.   Proponents for a king argue that kings brought political stability to the country.   By imposing taxes and labors, they argue that the economic stability of the country was established.   A king would unite all the tribes of Israel into a single country under his leadership.   A human king was someone whom all the people could approach and talk to, whereas God only appeared to a select few people.


While David was king over Israel, the kingdom reached its peak in territory and conquests.   He captured the strongholds of Zion and Jerusalem; 2 cities which held great importance to the people of Israel.   Solomon, with the knowledge God gave him, was perhaps the wisest man of his time.   He was a great arbiter of justice and the depths of his knowledge amazed all who came to seek his counsel.   A king was also the leader of the army and would lead his troops into battle.   Even though these were beneficial aspects of having a king, they did not overcome the negative aspects of kingship.


I will argue that having a king was bad for the nation of Israel.   I will refute the arguments that supporters of a king.   Even though the Israelites made many territorial conquests under the leadership of King David, these gains would only be temporary.   They would later lose much of the lands they gained.   David, though he was...