Deuteronomy 17:18

"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests and Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes to do them; that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel."

We are able to find no agreement whatever with the learned opinions to the effect that "That book" which the king was to study throughout his life was nothing more that two or three verses from this chapter in Deuteronomy! "The law of the kingdom is the law of God (Deuteronomy 17:18-20).[17] Davies listed the Book of Deuteronomy only as the book the king was to receive.[18] Even the usually dependable McGarvey gave as his opinion that "It was not a very long document!'"[19] The statement that the king himself was to "write him a copy of this law in a book," "is a Hebraism with the meaning that `there shall be written for him' a copy of this law, etc."[20]

In our opinion, neither a few verses nor a short document qualifies as "a book." Perhaps this is the reason that the Septuagint (LXX) translated this place in such a manner as to make the meaning "a copy of all the law of God." Of course, the critics have been screaming about that Septuagint (LXX) rendition, for the Septuagint (LXX) rendition is obviously incorrect. Recent knowledge of the suzerainty treaties and the resemblance to them found in Deuteronomy has shed some light on this, and, as Kline expressed it: "A duplicate copy of the suzerainty treaty was provided for each vassal king."[21] Moreover, that "copy" was not a few excerpts, but the whole document, the entire treaty. That is clearly what is indicated here. Canon Cook discerned this a long time ago, writing that, "What was given to the king was the whole Pentateuch, or at any rate the legal portion of it."[22] "Only the whole law of the covenant could preserve the king from the dangers of his position."[23] Note also, in this connection, what was to be copied: It was that which was laid up "before the priests and the Levites," (Deuteronomy 17:18) and that is a clear reference to ALL of the sacred law. Alexander also concurred in this view: "The priests were the custodians of the written Law (Deuteronomy 31:26), and from the text of their codex was the king's copy to be written.[24] Alexander also explained the error in Septuagint (LXX) thus: "Deuteronomy 17:18 has `a double of this law,' not, as in Septuagint (LXX) `the reiteration of the law,' but a duplicate or copy of the Pentateuchal law."[25] This mistaken rendition in the LXX, where reiteration occurs is actually "deuteronomy" from which the name of this Book is derived.

Dummelow further commented on the giving of God's law to the King, writing, "To this day, when a Christian monarch is crowned, the Bible is delivered to him with the words: `We present you with this book, the most valuable thing that the world affords; here is wisdom; this is the royal law: these are the living oracles of God!'"[26]

"He and his children, in the midst of Israel ..." (Deuteronomy 17:20). Many have noted that this seems to sanction a hereditary monarchy. Adam Clarke's comment on this was:

"From this it has been inferred that the crown of Israel was designed to be hereditary; and this is probably true. Long experience has proved in almost all of the nations of the world, that hereditary succession in the regal government is, on the whole, the safest, and best calculated to secure the public tranquility.[27]

Edward Gibbon has written the following on the advantages of the hereditary system in the succession of monarchs: Our most serious thoughts must respect the principle of heredity in the succession of kings, because it establishes a principle of succession that is independent of the passions of mankind ... Experience teaches us that in a large society the election of a monarch can never be entrusted to "the wisest" or "to the most numerous" of the people. The military is the only order of men that is sufficiently united and powerful enough to impose their choice upon the people, but the army, habituated to violence and slavery, renders them very unsafe guardians of a constitution?