The Law of Kin Rule

You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. [Deuteronomy 17:15]

This verse is cited by Kinists as a "law of kin rule." According to the Kinist interpretation, this verse teaches that a people must be ruled by one of their own kin, or a closely related family member. Hence, a black African could not be a ruler of a white European nation, and vice versa. For such a thing to happen would be a violation of God's Law. One example of this, as it is argued from the Kinist position:

...it is impossible for a multi-racial country to obey God’s law of kin rule in Deut 17:15. This is one of the reasons why ethno-nationalism is a Kinist position; one political country per one blood nation and one blood nation per one political country. [source]

In order to examine the context of this passage properly, let's first look at the full context.

"When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman. Moreover, he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor shall he cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never again return that way.’ He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself. “Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel." [Deuteronomy 17:14-20]

Verse 14 opens up with, "When you enter the land which the Lord your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it..." Immediately we must note that there is a historical context to this verse. This is talking about when God's people, under the old covenant, enter the land and take it from the pagan tribes therein. Similar language is found elsewhere in the book (cf., Deu 6:10; 7:1; 18:9; 26:1), and is always in the context of going into Canaan.

Verse 14 continues with: "and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me.'" Again, this is talking about a historical context, because God is foreseeing what will happen later on, after the period of Judges, when the people desire a king to rule over them (cf., 1 Sam 8). Indeed, practically the same phraseology is used by the people later in 1 Samuel 8:20.

God then gives a series of rules and standards for the king:

• He is to be the one "whom the Lord your God chooses" (v. 15).
• He is to be a fellow Israelite, not a foreigner (v. 15).
• He shall not "multiply horses for himself" (v. 16).
• He shall not make people return to Egypt to multiply horses (a symbol of military strength, and which Egypt was known for), as God has taken them out of Egypt and told them not to return (v. 16).
• He shall not "multiply wives for himself," because then "his heart will turn away" (v. 17).
• He shall not "greatly increase silver and gold for himself" (v. 17).
• He must know, and obey, the Law of God (vv. 18-20).

It's interesting that, of all the standards and rules listed, the only one Kinists harp on is that the king is to be a fellow kin member, rather than a foreigner. No Kinist, to my knowledge, cites verse 17 as a "minimal wives" law for rulers. No Kinist has ever taken verse 20 to demand that all world leaders follow the word of God. It also seems to be overlooked that, when God tells the Hebrews to set up a king who comes "from among your countrymen," this is specifically talking about Jews - it's not a general rule for every tribe everywhere.

Why the reference to kinsmen? As John Calvin (whom some Kinists often attempt to portray as one of their own) explains in his commentary for this passage, it had much more to do with religion than it did ethnicity.

Secondly, He commands that he should be taken from the people themselves, and excludes foreigners, because, if they had been admitted, a door was opened to apostasy; for each would have tried to force upon them his native gods, and true religion would have been persecuted by the force and threatenings of the royal power. Behold why God would not suffer a king to be sought elsewhere but from the bosom of His Church; in order that he might cherish and maintain that pure worship which he had imbibed from his childhood. [source]

This was often seen during the time period of Judges, where foreign peoples would rule over the Israelites, and enforce their foreign gods. This was likewise seen in the Hebrew kingdoms, when foreign wives (eg., Jezebel) would exert influence and control over the state worship. Worship of the true God was focused upon (but not isolated to) the Hebrew people.

If one studies these rules, one can see that all were broken at one time or another by the old covenant kings, or proved very relevant for them. For example, Deuteronomy 17:17 was violated by Solomon, who did indeed multiply his wives, who then turned his heart away from the true God (1 Kings 11:4; Neh 13:26). Likewise, Hezekiah's government, during the Assyrian invasion, was hoping for assistance from Egypt (2 Kings 18:21), and yet the prophet Isaiah, writing during the same period, criticized those "who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses," and do not instead "look to the Holy One of Israel" (Isa 31:1).

The fact is, there is yet again a historical context to these rules. Note that one of the requirements for a king of Israel is that it be one "whom the Lord your God chooses" (v. 15). This was first seen with Saul (1 Sam 9:17), then with David (1 Sam 16:12). Although some Kinists might argue that all kings and rulers are "established by God" (Rom 13:1), there is nonetheless a difference between the passive appointment by God through divine providence, and the active appointment of God through direct interaction with His creation; this latter sort of appointment is what God is speaking of here. God directly appointed Saul and David to kingship, as He promised to do in Deuteronomy 17:14. This automatically disqualifies it as a law that extends beyond the borders of ancient Israel into other nations.

The appointment of David to the throne, we must remember, established the Davidic Covenant. The Davidic Covenant was often referred to by God during the course of Judah's history (cf., 1 Kings 8:25; 2 Kings 8:19; 19:34; 20:6; etc.). The Davidic Covenant was likewise fulfilled with the coming of Christ, a descendant of David in the flesh (Rom 1:3; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 22:16). Gabriel says as much to the Virgin Mary when he says "the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David" (Luke 1:32).

Deuteronomy 17:15 also seems to have been referenced through the prophet Jeremiah, during a prophecy of the coming Messiah:

“Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and have compassion on his dwelling places; and the city will be rebuilt on its ruin, and the palace will stand on its rightful place. From them will proceed thanksgiving and the voice of those who celebrate; and I will multiply them and they will not be diminished; I will also honor them and they will not be insignificant. Their children also will be as formerly, and their congregation shall be established before Me; and I will punish all their oppressors. Their leader shall be one of them, and their ruler shall come forth from their midst; and I will bring him near and he shall approach Me; for who would dare to risk his life to approach Me?’ declares the Lord. ‘You shall be My people, and I will be your God.’” Behold, the tempest of the Lord! Wrath has gone forth, a sweeping tempest; it will burst on the head of the wicked. The fierce anger of the Lord will not turn back until He has performed and until He has accomplished the intent of His heart; in the latter days you will understand this. [Jeremiah 30:18-24; verse 21 in bold]

This is emphasized by an earlier part in the chapter, when God says that His people "shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them" (Jer 30:9). From here it becomes even more clear that the passage from Deuteronomy is meant to point us not only towards the temporal reign of those lines from Saul and David, but to the permanent reign of Christ. Christ is the continuation of the Davidic kingdom, under the new administration, and hence is our new Davidic king. Christ was shadowed in Deuteronomy 17 and the Davidic line, and Deuteronomy 17 was used by Jeremiah to prophesy the coming of the Messiah, who would be the complete fulfillment of that passage.

Therefore, Deuteronomy 17:15, let alone this entire passage from Deuteronomy, is not a standard or rule of law for all leaders everywhere. Rather, it was a guideline for the kings who would reign over God's people, and was a shadow for the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of David whose kingdom would truly have no end. To apply this to all kingdoms or nations everywhere is erroneous; like many theonomists, Kinists are forced to pick and choose which parts of the civil and judicial laws they wish to keep in place, and which they wish to ignore. However, to apply Deuteronomy 17:15 to all nations worldwide is to not only misapply the passage out of context, but to distract us from Jesus Christ and the Gospel to focus instead of race and ethnonationalism... something which Kinism, unfortunately, does by its very nature. 

Of God and Government

The separation of church and state is a perpetual discussion in modern western democracy that can often lead to heated arguments. On the one hand, someone always drops the Spanish Inquisition card, while, on the other hand, many will point to the persecution of various religions by communist and socialist governments.

In regards to religion itself, there can be a fine weakness in seeking government support in toto for your faith: your are at the whim and mercy of the government itself. The emperors of Rome throughout the fourth century meddled in the affairs of the church, both for good and bad. This might lead to an interesting the Arians sought their power from governmental support, and so when the empire eventually came to side completely with the Nicene faith, the Arians completely lost power. By contrast, the Nicene faith based itself on the grounds of scripture disregarding the opinion of the government, and so it could survive the tides of emperors who were oppositional, neutral, or supportive. God's word is eternal; political powers are not. Yet even ignoring the actions of individual Christians in regards to government involvement, I think a deeper question here is one that is not often addressed: God's involvement within the actions of a government system.

First, it should be established that God has, in the past, plainly stated that He was the one truly in control of the affairs of state. When the Assyrian king was looking at his massive, expansive empire and saying, "By the power of my hand and by my wisdom I did this" (Isa 10:13), God replied:

Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it? Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it? That would be like a club wielding those who lift it, or like a rod lifting him who is not wood. [Isa 10:15]

When Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and was boasting to the Jews of what he had done with his empire, and all the successes he had won against nations bigger than Judah, God replied through the prophet Isaiah:

"'Have you not heard? Long ago I did it; from ancient times I planned it. Now I have brought it to pass, that you should turn fortified cities into ruinous heaps.'" [2 Kings 19:25]

God's point in both these passages is clear: though the leaders boasted that it was they who had done these great things, it was actually God who was in control the entire time. On the one hand, the king was simply the axe which God wielded to exercise His judgment; on the other hand, the king only had so much success during his reign because God had long ago planned that it should occur. In neither scenario was God merely reacting to what the kings had done, nor was God utilizing earthly means outside of His control to His own personal ends.

An even greater example is found in Paul's epistle to the Romans, where he speaks of Pharaoh being raised up by God:

For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." [Rom 9:17; ref. Exo 9:16]

Let me expel a common straw man right off the bat: this does not mean that God controls political leaders like puppets or robots that He controls with a remote control. Pharaoh, the kings, etc., had as much control as they believed they had. However, God's will and purpose was sovereign over their individual wills and purposes. The kings of Assyria, for certain, all believed that they were really the ones in charge of their own destinies and empires, but in actuality God had complete, sovereign control over their fate. Their growth in power was merely part of God's purpose for His will.

This leads us to discuss how God interacts with governments in our modern day and age. Over the past few days, I've heard some rather peculiar things in regards to this, and, living in a democracy, they are very relevant: 1) God only involves himself within a democracy if people pray for the results; 2) God did not bring any president to power because the previously mentioned passages in the Bible are referring to hereditary kings and not elected officials.

Responding to the latter first, this is a blatant example of begging the question. Nowhere does God say that He only has power over a government if there is a hereditary monarchy in place. The only reason hereditary monarchies are focused on in the Old Testament and partially in the New is because no real democracies were interacting with the land and people at that time. Likewise, it was never emphasized that the kings were used solely because they belonged to a hereditary form of government - God emphasized that it was their power He was raising and utilizing, not their monarchical structure.

Might I propose that this, logically speaking, also means man found a way to usurp God's will and purpose? Since representative democracies, republics, etc., are all man-made forms of government, reason follows that we are now arguing that man found a form of government which God's will and purpose cannot touch. Man, in essence, found a loophole in the system, in which governments can act contrary to God's final purpose.

Moving to the first part second, nowhere is it shown that God is limited by the collective decisions of individuals. To understand this, let's review one of the biggest "elections" in the New Testament:

Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Crucify Him!" [Matt 27:22]

Pilate held one of the biggest referendums in history: should Jesus be crucified? The resounding answer from the population: yes. Was this something God could not control? On the contrary - God had already predestined this to occur.

For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. [Acts 4:27-28]

Even in the willful decision of the Jewish population, Christ was in control. The election, in fact, was part of God's purpose. The Jews did not pray before "electing" to crucify Christ, yet their decision still fulfilled His purpose (the crucifixion, resurrection, etc.). To the disciples and many others, things were not going the way they had hoped. Everything seemed lost. Yet, to put it colloquially, it was, for God, "all part of the plan." Even in the lowest moment of man's treatment of God, God was nowhere near thwarted, and the will of those who crucified Christ was still subservient to the ultimate will of God. Even in the case of elections, referendums, or general public decisions, God is as much in control as He is in the general decisions of hereditary monarchies.

The point of all this is to present that, regardless of governmental decisions, God is still in control. Whether the president whom we want to be elected is elected or not, God is not thwarted. This also means, whether we like the president or not, he is there by God's will and purpose. We will not know how he fits there until perhaps decades after his terms are over, but nonetheless this is a theological truth we cannot deny.

In all things - whether we discover the truth sooner or later - soli Deo gloria.