Is the authority of King David of the same as the authority of the magistrate? I argue that their authority is not exactly the same. There are similarities but there is a qualitative difference between the two. My argument in “The Genesis of Authority” was that all authority is derived from God. I wish to add to that; there are different degrees of the authority, which God grants. This helps us avoid a simple transfer of descriptions of Davidic authority to descriptions of magisterial authority.
Let us start by identifying one of the basic similarities. Both King David and the civil authorities of Romans 13 are servants of God. God gives both the sword to protect the righteous and punish the wicked. This is evident in Psalm 101 concerning King David and it is evident in Romans 13 concerning the civil magistrate.
What is the difference? Time and place are not the only difference. David ruled over Israel. This or that magistrate rules over Winnipeg. Rather, David has a special role as a Prince of God. David is a centralizing figure. He has a monopoly on the practice of justice in the land of Israel. We can gather this from 1 Samuel 8. There, Samuel warns against the dangers of centralizing power in a king. Similarly in the actions of David: There is an expectation that eventually all Israel will serve him because he is the Lord’s Anointed.
He is not like Barak or Ehud or Gideon, whom God raised up for a short time. God does not intend to centralize the land of Israel through these judges, merely to rid the land of oppressors and restore proper justice. God has established a dynasty through David. David has a monopoly over justice in Israel and Judah Israel and Judah owe him allegiance because God has personally selected him for the task of ruling over his people. It is only because God sanctions the breaking of the kingdom that the Davidic throne may no longer reign over Israel.
Jesus has fulfilled the role that David had. There are others who had a similar role ot David. Solomon is an example. Nebudchadnezzar is an example and so is Cyrus. Even Moses has a similar role. Christ, however has fulfilled that role or we might say, God has given Christ the role these emporers and kings once had. That much is clear from Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. Christ has replaced these Emporers and Kings as the King to whom all must give service.
In fact, the role of the civil authorities has a much closer relation to the role of the judges of the book of Judges or even the elders that are set up in Exodus 18. They are still “sacral,” in that God ordained their service, but they are not the “centralizing” figures of David or Moses. They do not have monopolies on justice.
David and your average civil magistrate, not only have a quantitative, but also a qualitative distinction in authority. Though both are servants of God, Jesus Christ fulfills David’s role. David’s line has a monopoly over justice in Israel; a monopoly, which Jeroboam is eventually allowed to question. Even then David’s line has a monopoly over the people of Judah and Benjamin. I don’t have an answer to the precise practical difference that makes, but generally, I would understand David’s power as monopolistic while the power of the civil magistrate is not so.