Why did God sometimes judge the entire nation for the actions of its king?

331 I wish to explain myself on this point, because it is important that all Christians should understand it. I have already said something about it in my pamphlets. That each is individually responsible for his conduct, and that each shall give an account of himself to God, is a principle upon this subject generally recognised, and I need not enlarge upon it. "Each of us," says the apostle, "shall give account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:12) - "Each shall bear his own burden" (Gal. 6:5) - "God will render to each according to his works in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" (Rom. 2:6, 16); but that is not the government of God in the world. In this God acts often towards masses, on the general result which the whole presents in His sight, and even in the sight of the world, if it is His people who should render a testimony for Him; for without this God would be identified with the evil, and His very character would be compromised. He can sustain while chastening; but, as He said of Israel, the nations shall know that Israel is gone into captivity, because of their sins. Sometimes the sin of a chief person, who draws others after him, but who himself is the most culpable, brings judgment upon his posterity and upon his people. "Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal," 2 Kings 23:26.

The king's place in Israel for all that was of no less, but rather of the deepest, interest and importance, and for this simple reason: had he gone right, all would have been right for and with the people. I am not at all speaking about the Israelites individually viewed. It is impossible that it should be well with any soul for eternity who is not right with God for himself. There must be individual and immediate links with God. There is nothing stable short of life in the soul. But we are speaking now, not of life, nor of eternity, but of the kingdom on earth; and I say that the prime idea, the chief central thought of that kingdom, was this — and it is a grand one — that if the one man, the king, had only stood firm and right with God, he had been always the means of blessing unfailingly and fully for the people of God. Is it to be supposed that God did not know what sort of stuff kings were? He knew right well what the ways would be, not merely of Saul, but of David. He knew perfectly of course what David's sons would come to. How comes it then that God sees fit to introduce such a principle as this, that the destiny of the people should turn on one person, even the king; that on his fidelity in glorifying God, on his standing true to Jehovah's name, should depend the well-being of Israel? Had the king of Israel been faithful in his office before God, there had always been an unfailing supply of blessing for the children of Israel as a people. It is no question simply now of his being a believer, or therefore of eternal consequences; but how are we to account for his astonishing public place in the early ways of God? Because the Holy Ghost is even here always thinking of Christ. When He comes, it will be so. And God, who is looking onward to this, had before His mind the one person who is the pivot on which turns our blessing, not only for eternity, but also for His people and all the earth in time.

Then, with respect to Solomon and the seed of David generally, on their faithfulness the blessing of the whole people was to depend. If the house of David should turn away from God, Israel should be rooted out of the land; and the house, which had been sanctified by the worship of Jehovah, should become a by-word among all nations, and a witness to the just judgment of God.

This divine communication shows clearly how everything from that moment depended upon the King. "As for thee, if thou wilt walk before Me, as David thy father walked … then will I establish the throne of thy kingdom … but if ye turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments … then will I pluck them by the roots out of My land, which I have given them." The subsequent history of Solomon is the more terrible as we contemplate these plain words. He should have realised that his departure from God would wreck the whole magnificent order of things which surrounded him. His foolish son Rehoboam did not help matters. Several of Solomon's successors were pious men, and God graciously granted revivals in their time; but others of his line — notably Ahaz, Manasseh, and Zedekiah, were the vilest of the vile, and they filled Judah's cup of iniquity to the uttermost. Josiah was the last king that was worth anything to the nation, and he foolishly threw away his life at the age of thirty-nine in a quarrel which belonged not to him (2 Chron. 35:20). Not long after, the princes of the royal house were eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon, and "our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee, is burned up with fire: and all our precious things are laid waste" (Isa. 64:11). These calamities were set before the people as far back as the days of Moses, and in due time they came to pass (Lev. 26; Deut. 28:29-30). Passers by who might enquire as to the cause of the ruin would be told: "Because they forsook Jehovah their God, who brought forth their fathers from the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped and served them: therefore has Jehovah brought upon them all this evil" (1 Kings 9:9).

The consequences of disobedience are not limited to himself, yet all hangs upon him; his turning away involved that of the people. That, vast outlook of glory and power and dominion was presented to Solomon as the reward of his obedience. But as resting on his faithfulness it was but a house built on the sand. The floods of idolatry overthrew it, and great was the fall thereof.

Nevertheless Solomon is reminded of his own responsibility. The continuation of the kingdom, as it was given to him, hung upon his own faithfulness. God says, "If thou," etc., and adds, "if ye turn away," for the people would assuredly follow their king. And the consequent judgment would (and did) fall upon all Israel. "I will root up them": even the house called by His own name should become a reproach. But the nations, the Gentiles, would know why God so dealt with them.

Jeremiah's prophecy was continued. In Jeremiah 21 the denunciation of Jehovah is directed particularly against the royal house of David. The sin of Zedekiah was still more serious. The guilt of the people and the priests and prophets has already been exposed, but now the responsible head of the nation is condemned. There was no exception; the ruin of Judah is complete.

Royalty was always the last stem of blessing in the history of Israel. If only the king had been right, though the people and the prophets were ever so wrong, God would still send blessing to Israel. Everything depended upon the king, the seed of David. God might have chastised the prophets and priests and people, but He would have held to them for His servant David's sake. But when not only they went astray but the king himself was the leader of the wickedness, it was utterly impossible to hold to them, and it was the sorrowful task of Jeremiah to pronounce this divine decision. This responsibility resting on Zedekiah's shoulders gives its true importance to what he says: "Touching the house of the king of Judah, say, Hear ye the word of Jehovah; O house of David, thus says the Lord; Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest My fury go out like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings" (Jer. 21:11-12).

That which is here in question is the government of God. Now the principles of this government are laid open to us in the revelation made to Moses, when he went up the second time to Mount Sinai (Ex. 33). There was, first of all, goodness and mercy; then the declaration that the guilty shall not be held innocent; and, thirdly, a principle of public government, which caused the effects of misconduct to be felt, namely, that their children should bear its consequences (a principle which could not be applied where the soul is in question); but this principle important and salutary in the outward government of the world is verified daily in that of providence. This government of God was in exercise in the case of the kings; but the condition of Israel depended on the conduct of the kings.

We have already seen that the fall of the priesthood and the demand for a king had placed the people in this position — a position which will be one of blessing when Christ shall be their King; but, meantime, God had set up prophecy, a more intimate and real connection between the counsels of God and His people. The existence of a king placed the people under the effect of their governor's responsibility.

In an external way they were putting a wider interval between God and themselves; for the priest connected the people with God in a more intimate way than the king. The prosperity of the nation was not said to depend upon the faithfulness of the priest in the time past, but all for the future did depend upon the king. And this is also according to the wise purpose of God, for when the true King comes, all their blessing will come through Him. But kingly rule must be tested in man first, so that the Lord Jesus might be manifest as the only Man that could have the government upon His shoulders, and that because His name is the Mighty God. The king is the nation's representative before God. If he did evil, or if he did good, so did the judgment or the blessing of God rest upon the nation. Under this aspect the king had a higher and more responsible position than the priest, though forbidden to intrude into his office. The coming Seed will be a Priest upon the throne. All glory will unite in Him. Both links will be in His person. Man is seen in both, and fails in both, so that God's Man — the Man of His right hand (Ps. 80:17) — may be seen as the only One that can perfectly maintain both.

Let us note here that the relationship with the Lord differs under the priesthood and under the kingdom. Under the priesthood, this relation was immediate, for the priest represented the people before God, whereas the kingdom is an authority established over the people. The people were subjected to the king who was to govern according to the mind of God. It was the king whom God expected to be faithful; he it was who was responsible before God for Israel's unfaithfulness, and the destiny of the people depended on his conduct.