Elazar, Daniel J. Covenant and Polity in Biblical Israel: Biblical Foundations and Jewish Expressions Vol 1. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick. 1998

At each of the cyclical covenant institutions and renewals in the third constitutional epoch of Israel, God’s covenant is never fully changed or replaced but rather called to new life by the institution of new political structure. Elazar labels this a republican solution “designed to guarantee the continuation of limited, popular government along with renewed national energy, based upon the continued distribution of powers between the tribe, on the one hand, and the national authorities, on the other. Its republicanism is particularly marked since it was developed as an answer to the monarchists who argued that the only solution to the problem of effective government was centralized monarchy.”

This centralized monarchy enters the scene of Israel politic with the arrival of the third constitutional epoch and the ordination, or election, of the nagid. The Nagid, or together the negidim, are referred to by Israel’s prophets as “God’s high commissioners” or nesi’im “ God’s elected ones.” 357. With the advent of monarchical reign, however, we still do not see the abolition of covenant between God and his people. The institution of a king, or more appropriately the high commissioner, does not negate the other centers of power within the Israelite political system, mainly that of the prophets. At the heart of the nagid is the placement of the individual to rule in the stead of God. An indirect Theocracy replaces direct Theocracy.

Because of the overshadowing sovereignty and ruling authority of God, each particular monarchical regime must be anchored in God’s covenant. The concept of heredity was ruled out by the constitutional covenant, and particularly the limited form in which it was instituted. Each individual making claim to the throne had to demonstrate the presence of God’s charisma and national leadership to the state. In the Davidic tradition, this was fulfilled by personal charm, claim to God’s charisma, appeals to the people of Israel, and his personal image built by the military and musical success he enjoyed against the philistines and in the court of Saul, respectively.

The limited constitutional monarchy was enforced by other centers of power, namely the parallel authority of the prophets and priests. This relationship structure always provided tension. For example between the struggle between Samuel and Saul set the stage for political struggle in monarchic period. This nature of limited government reemerges in what we know as the separation of powers. The king does not have divine rights, but is bound both by the covenant and constitution both. In this light David is considered the first King of Israel, even though Saul was anointed the first head of the monarchical state. HE was rather more a part of the older federal republican tradition.

The end of the Tribal system in the from the first epoch of Jewish constitutional history signaled the transition to a framework of federated national polity underneath the association of the twelve tribes, which in turn set the stage for the third epoch’s monarchical institutions. The Mosaic paradigm of the second epoch presents a contrast to the Davidic paradigm in the third, which never was god’s intention, but was able to be satisfied still underneath the heged covenant.