Jotham’s parable describes the conditions of pre-monarchial Israelites who want a king. In the parable, the Israelites are the trees, and they look through a series of other highly productive trees to rule over them. But, the productive trees don’t want to stop being productive; they have better and more worthwhile things to do. So the trees ultimately ask the thornbush - an unproductive piece of shrubbery, to be their king. The thornbush offers “shade” under its “branches,” which of course offer no shade, but do offer to ensnare, injure, and hinder anyone caught in it, not to mention that trees are too tall for a thornbush to provide shade.
In it’s immediate context, it’s a warning about a particular king - Abimelech.
QUESTION: Though it’s immediate context is about Abimelech, is there something more here? Does this parable reflect a negative attitude about the monarchy in general?
ANSWER: It may.
The text offers a few clues that this parable may have already been in existence and been re-appropriated as a criticism of Abimelech (see Butler, “Judges,” WBC; Bluedorn, “Yahweh Versus Baalism”). The story does not correspond 1-to-1 to the way Abimelech became king or the way the parable is applied. Following Bluedorn:
The story does not hint at the offer to Gideon or his 70 sons (Jdg 8:22-23) since in the Gideon story the Israelites do not search for a king, but try to keep Gideon and his sons as their leaders.
Gideon’s reason for refusal does not correspond to the reasons for refusal in the parable
The Abimelech story does not show the Israelites searching for king and offering it to many candidates or asking Abimelech to be king - Abimelech first hatches the idea and asks the Israelites
Abimelech postulates an oligarchy (9:2) in existence where the parable assumes a monarchy.
The parable questions the sincerity of the offer of kingship to the thornbush, but in the application questions if the crowning corresponds with Jerubbabel (not Abimelech).
In the parable, making the thornbush king brings curses on the trees, not the thornbush, but in the application curses come on the trees and the king
(Inserting a thought of mine for a second: the text almost invites its reuse in order to criticize.)
The above reasons lead Bluedorn to conclude that the story was originally independent of its application to the Abimelech situation, though Bluedorn also emphasizes not focusing on this, but staying within the application to Abimelech. Bluedorn also notes the plural “gods” in 9:9 and 9:13 probably indicates it was originally a Canaanite parable. Thus, this may be Jotham using the Baalists (or Israelites) own parable against them.
The original point of an independent parable may have been to denigrate the institution of kingship itself. Though, in it’s current context, its specifically used to denigrate Abimelech and the Israelites (see see Gerbrandt, “Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History,” p130-131). Though the parable could also be used as a criticism for Jeroboam’s rebellion and kingship (see Butler, WBC).
Some have further noted that the parable seems to indicate that the only people who want to be king are like thornbushes, or that kingship was a necessary evil (see Butler, WBC; Niditch, OTL; Soggin, OTL). It may be suggesting that only the worst, the most unproductive, or the most useless people would want the role of king. Niditch notes that the parable is a comment on monarchy in general and Abimelech in particular. Soggin notes that this has features found in the genre of Ancient Near Eastern wisdom and is a parable derived from observational experience of the general problems and failures of monarchies. Spronk also notes the similiarities with other Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom literature (Spronk, HCOT p275-276; ANET p 429-430, 592-593)
Some have noted that the parable assumes legitimate leaders are made by divine election, have a contractual sort of arrangement between leaders and the people, and cannot take the throne by murdering rivals (Niditch, OTL).
The ideal political arrangement for Israel seems to be that Yahweh was supposed to be their king (Dt 33:5; Num 16:13, 23:21; Jdg 8:23; 1 Sam 12:12; Mal 1:14, etc..). The institution of human kingship in Israel may have been seen, by some at least, as a rejection of Yahweh’s kingship, and thus have a very negative view of the human institution of kingship (1 Sam 8:7).
One could point to the statistical failure of Israelite and Judahite kings. Out of 42 kings between Israel and Judah, all but a few (David, Solomon?, Asa, Josiah, Hezekiah, Jehoshaphat) are viewed positively - a pretty low success rate.
There is an important question about the refrain in Judges, “in those days there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” This has traditionally been taken by many as evidence of anarchy and chaos that pointed to the need for a human king. There are alternatives to this understanding, but I’ll have to leave this for a future post.
Several commenters/scholars conclude, to various degrees, that this is probably a broader criticism of the institution of kingship (Butler, WBC; Niditch, OTL; J.B. Jordan, “Judges”; M. Buber, “Kingship of God,” p 75; n.30 in E. Assis, “Self-Interest or Community Interest: An Ideology of Leadership in the Gideon, Abimelech and Jephthah Narratives”, p144-145; Soggin, OTL )
The criticism of kingship in Jotham’s Parable seems strikingly similar to observations made much later by FA Hayek in his chapter in the Road to Serfdom (Why the Worst Get on Top) where he tries to explain why it is that the worst leaders always seem to rise to the top, especially in authoritarian regimes. It also seems related to the popular addage, “power corrupts, absolutely power corrupts absolutely.” It shouldn’t be surprising if someone in the ancient world happened to observe this too.
A 1927 book by Garet Garrett also uses Jotham’s Parable as a criticism of socialism (Harangue: The Trees Said to the Bramble Come and Reign Over Us)
More could certainly be said, but those are some notes.