There wasn't originally supposed to be a King of the Jews.

"Rabbi, thou art the son of God; thou art the King of Israel" (John 1:49). So said Nathanael when he recognized Jesus as the Messiah, because that's what Messiah meant: King, heir to the throne of David.

When Jesus appeared before the Roman governor Pilate, they had this interesting exchange regarding his status as King of the Jews (John 18:22-29):

Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, "Art thou the King of the Jews?"

Jesus answered him, "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?"

Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?"

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

Pilate therefore said unto him, "Art thou a king then?"

Jesus answered, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Pilate saith unto him, "What is truth?"

And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, "I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?"

"Thou sayest" is ambiguous and has been interpreted variously as a confirmation ("You said it!") or as a disavowal ("That's what you say!"). On balance I would say that Jesus probably does in some sense accept the title King of the Jews, but one thing he makes tolerably clear in this passage is that, whether he accepts the title or not, he didn't come up with it. "Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?" -- Pilate is the one giving him this title, and he most likely got it from the Jews.

From this point on, Pilate keeps pushing this King of the Jews idea -- perhaps somewhat sarcastically, but nevertheless persistently: "Behold your King! . . . Shall I crucify your King?" (John 19:14-15). The Jews respond that they have no king but -- no, they don't say "God"; they say "Caesar."

Pilate puts a sign on the Cross identifying Jesus as the King of the Jews.

Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, "Write not, 'The King of the Jews'; but that he said, 'I am King of the Jews.'"

Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written" (John 19:21-22)

Pilate was right, and the priests were wrong; their proposed modification of the sign would have been a lie. Jesus isn't the one who said he was the King of the Jews. He appears to have accepted the title -- he said nothing to contradict Nathanael, or the crowds on Palm Sunday who hailed him as "the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord" (John 12:13) -- but he repeatedly made it clear that it wasn't his idea.

⁂

If we go back in the Old Testament to the origin of the office of King of Israel, we find a strikingly similar story: that it was definitely not God's idea, but that in the end he decided to go along with it.

When the prophet-judge Samuel was getting old, and his sons were not seen as worthy heirs, the Israelites asked him to appoint a king.

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

And the Lord said unto Samuel, "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. . . . Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them."

And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king (1 Sam. 8:6-10).

Samuel tries to dissuade the people, telling them how a king would tax and oppress them, but they insist.

And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.

And the Lord said to Samuel, "Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king" (1 Sam. 8:21-22). 

Samuel installs Saul as king, telling the people,

And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore . . . see ye him whom the Lord hath chosen" (1 Sam. 10:19, 24).

I find this fascinating. It is very clear that neither Samuel nor the Lord wants the people to have a king. When they insist, the Lord says through Samuel, "Fine, have it your way" -- but does not leave them to their own devices. Instead, the Lord himself chooses who the king will be and reveals it to Samuel. From then on, King Saul is simultaneously "the Lord's anointed" (i.e. messiah, 1 Sam. 24:6, 10) and someone accepted by the people in defiance of the will of the Lord. The Lord never wanted the Israelites to have a king, but once they did have a king, those who followed that king were "men whose hearts God had touched," while those who were skeptical or contemptuous of the new monarch were "children of Belial" (1 Sam. 10:26-27).

Later, Samuel gives a speech in which he again emphasizes (a) that asking for a king was wrong and was an affront to the Lord, (b) that the king was nevertheless set over them by the Lord himself, and (c) that despite their repentance, the plan is now to go forward with a king, in accordance with their wrong choice.

"And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, 'Nay; but a king shall reign over us': when the Lord your God was your king. Now therefore behold the king whom ye have chosen, and whom ye have desired! and, behold, the Lord hath set a king over you.

"If ye will fear the Lord, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall both ye and also the king that reigneth over you continue following the Lord your God: But if ye will not obey the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against your fathers. . . ."

And all the people said unto Samuel, "Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king."

And Samuel said unto the people, "Fear not: ye have done all this wickedness: yet turn not aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart" (1 Sam 12:12-15, 19-20).

Saul quickly became an unsatisfactory king. First he began encroaching on the priestly authority of Samuel, and eventually he became mentally unstable and unpredictably violent. This would have been a perfect time for the Lord to say, "See, this is what it's like having a king. Do you see now why it was the wrong choice? Let's go back to the old system we had when Samuel was in charge."

But the Lord doesn't do that. Instead, he appoints them a new king to replace Saul. And that king is David -- the central figure of the Old Testament, second only to Jesus in terms of how often he is mentioned in the Bible. And David, this great king chosen by God, became the prototype for the Messiah; the Messiah's primary role, as anticipated by the prophets, was to be a second David. The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus repeatedly hailed as the "son of David" and even present him as the literal descendant of David and heir to the throne of Israel -- even though God had never originally intended for there to be a throne of Israel.

⁂

What to conclude from all this? That "God's plan" is flexible and responds to the free choices of men -- even when it comes to something as fundamental as the Messiah. What is true of David is true also of the other main figure on whom the idea of the Messiah was based: Moses. The career of Moses would have been impossible, or incalculably different, if Joseph's brothers had never sold him into slavery. As Joseph later told his brothers, "ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good" (Gen. 50:20) -- not that having Joseph sold into slavery was God's plan all along, but that the plan is adaptable and responds to human freedom. Even a choice that is unambiguously the wrong choice -- and Samuel makes it very clear that asking for a king was such a choice -- can be exapted to the very highest ends.

I mean, it has to be that way, right? Otherwise, either (a) human misdeeds could frustrate and bring to nought the plans of God or else (b) God could achieve his purposes only by undoing the wrong choices of men, making human freedom meaningless. The Israelites got a king because they chose to have a king, and God respected that choice and eventually turned it to good. Ideally, Creation is, as an American politician once said of life, "the art of drawing without an eraser."

Another thing to learn from this is that there is no contradiction in saying that a given thing was inspired, chosen, and directed by God -- but that it wasn't what God really wanted. Saul was the Lord's anointed, the king chosen by God -- but also God didn't want them to have a king at all. What else might this be true of? The Catholic (or some other) Church is God's true church -- but also an institutional church was never what God wanted. The U.S. Constitution was inspired by God -- but also systems based on voting are bad. I'm not asserting either of those things, just pointing out that they are possibilities.

This applies to our personal lives as well. Perhaps you have made some serious misstep in life -- chosen the wrong career, married the wrong person, whatever -- but, be that as it may, God's plans for you now very likely involve working through those originally-wrong choices and turning them to good, not trying to undo them and make them as if they had never been.

Fear not. Ye have done all this wickedness, yet turn not aside from following the Lord.