The posterity of Jacob, while remaining in
Egypt, maintained, notwithstanding the augmentation of their numbers,
that patriarchal form of government which is so prevalent among the
nomades. Every father of a family exercised a father’s authority over
those of his own household. Every tribe obeyed its own _prince_, נשיא,
who was originally the first-born of the founder of the tribe, but who,
in process of time, appears to have been elected. As the people
increased in numbers, various heads of families united together, and
selected some individual from their own body, who was somewhat
distinguished, for their leader. Perhaps the choice was made merely by
tacit consent; and, without giving him the title of ruler in form, they
were willing, while convinced of his virtues, to render submission to
his will. Such a union of families was denominated “the house of the
father;” and “the house of the father of the families,” Num. iii, 24,
30, 35. In other instances, although the number varied, being sometimes
more and sometimes less than a thousand, it was denominated, אלף אלפים,
_a thousand_. “Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your
tribes, and by your _thousands_;” “the thousands of Judah;” “the
thousands of Israel,” &c, 1 Sam. x, 19; xxiii, 23; Judges vi, 15; Num.
xxvi, 5–50. The heads of these united families were designated “heads of
thousands,” Num. i, 16; x, 4. They held themselves in subjection to the
“princes of the tribes.” Both the princes and heads of families are
mentioned under the common names of זקננים, _seniors_ or _senators_, and
ראשי שבטים _heads of tribes_. Following the law of reason, and the rules
established by custom, they governed with a paternal authority the
tribes and united families; and, while they left the minor concerns to
the heads of individual families, aimed to superintend and promote the
best interests of the community generally. Originally, it fell to the
princes of the tribes themselves to keep genealogical tables:
subsequently, they employed scribes especially for this purpose, who, in
the progress of time, acquired so great authority, that under the name
of שוטרים, translated, in the English version, _officers_, they were
permitted to exercise a share in the government of the nation. It was by
magistrates of this description that the Hebrews were governed while
they remained in Egypt; and the Egyptian kings made no objection to it,
Exod. iii, 16; v, 1, 14, 15, 19.
2. The posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were set apart and
destined to the great object of preserving and transmitting the true
religion, Gen. xviii, 16–20; xvii, 9–14; xii, 3; xxii, 18; xxviii, 14.
Having increased in numbers, it appeared very evident that they could
not live among nations given to idolatry without running the hazard of
becoming infected with the same evil. They were, therefore, in the
providence of God, assigned to a particular country, the extent of which
was so small, that they were obliged, if they would live independently
of other nations, to give up in a great measure the life of shepherds,
and devote themselves to agriculture. Farther: very many of the Hebrews
during their residence in Egypt had fallen into idolatrous habits. These
were to be brought back again to the knowledge of the true God, and all
were to be excited to engage in those undertakings which should be found
necessary for the support of the true religion. All the Mosaic
institutions aim at the accomplishment of these objects. The fundamental
principle, therefore, of those institutions was this,--that the true
God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, and none other, ought to
be worshipped. To secure this end the more certainly, God became king to
the Hebrews. Accordingly, the land of Canaan, which was destined to be
occupied by them, was declared to be the land of Yahweh, of which he
was to be the king, and the Hebrews merely the hereditary occupants. God
promulgated, from the clouds of Mount Sinai, the prominent laws for the
government of his people, considered as a religious community, Exod. xx.
These laws were afterward more fully developed and illustrated by Moses.
The rewards which should accompany the obedient, and the punishments
which should be the lot of the transgressor, were at the same time
announced, and the Hebrews promised by a solemn oath to obey, Exodus
xxi-xxiv; Deut. xxvii-xxx.
3. In order to keep the true nature of the community fully and
constantly in view, all the ceremonial institutions had reference to
God, not only as the Sovereign of the universe, but as the King of the
people. The people were taught to feel that the tabernacle was not only
the temple of Yahweh, but the palace of their King; that the priests
were the royal servants, and were bound to attend not only to sacred but
to secular affairs, and were to receive, as their salary, the first
tithes, which the people, as subjects, were led to consider a part of
that revenue which was due to God, their immediate Sovereign. Other
things of a less prominent and important nature had reference to the
same great end. Since, therefore, God was the Sovereign, in a civil
point of view as well as others, of Palestine and its inhabitants, the
commission of idolatry by any inhabitant of that country, even a
foreigner, was a defection from the true King. It was, in fact, treason;
was considered a crime equal in aggravation to that of murder; and was,
consequently, attended with the severest punishment. Whoever invited or
exhorted to idolatry was considered seditious, and was obnoxious to the
same punishment. Incantations also, necromancy, and other practices of
this nature, were looked upon as arts of a kindred aspect with idolatry
itself; and the same punishment was to be inflicted upon the
perpetrators of them as upon idolaters. The same rigour of inquiry after
the perpetrators of idolatry was enforced, that was exhibited in respect
to other crimes of the deepest aggravation; and the person who knew of
the commission of idolatry in another was bound by the law to complain
of the person thus guilty before the judge, though the criminal
sustained the near relationship of a wife or a brother, a daughter or a
son.
4. Many things in the administration of the government remained the same
under the Mosaic economy, as it had been before. The authority which
they had previously possessed, was continued in the time of Moses and
after his time, to the princes of the tribes, to the heads of families
and combinations of families, and to the genealogists, Num. xi, 16;
Deut. xvi, 18; xx, 5; xxxi, 28. Yet Moses, by the advice of Jethro, his
father-in-law, increased the number of rulers by the appointment of an
additional number of judges; some to judge over ten, some over fifty,
some over a hundred, and some over a thousand, men, Exodus xviii, 13–26.
These judges were elected by the suffrages of the people from those who,
by their authority and rank, might be reckoned among the rulers or
princes of the people. The inferior judges, that is, those who
superintended the judicial concerns of the smaller numbers, were
subordinate to the superior judges, or those who judged a larger number;
and cases, accordingly, of a difficult nature went up from the inferior
to the superior judges. Those of a very difficult character, so much so
as to be perplexing to the superior judges, were appealed to Moses
himself, and in some cases from Moses to the high priest. The judges, of
whom we have now spoken, sustained a civil as well as a judicial
authority, and were included in the list of those who are denominated
the elders and princes of Israel: that is to say, supposing they were
chosen from the elders and princes, they did not forfeit their seat
among them by accepting a judicial office; and, on the contrary, the
respectability attached to their office, supposing they were not chosen
from them, entitled them to be reckoned in their number, Deut. xxxi, 28;
Joshua viii, 33; xxiii, 2; xxiv, 1. The various civil officers that have
been mentioned, namely, judges, heads of families, genealogists, elders,
princes of the tribes, &c, were dispersed, as a matter of course, in
different parts of the country. Those of them, accordingly, who dwelt in
the same city, or the same neighbourhood, formed the _comitia_, senate
or legislative assembly of their immediate vicinity, Deut. xix, 12; xxv,
8, 9; Judges viii, 14; ix, 3–46; xi, 5; 1 Sam. viii, 4; xvi, 4. When all
that dwelt in any particular tribe were convened, they formed the
legislative assembly of the tribe; and when they were convened in one
body from all the tribes, they formed in like manner the legislative
assembly of the nation, and were the representatives of all the people,
Joshua xxiii, 1, 2; xxiv, 1. The priests, who were the learned class of
the community, and beside were hereditary officers in the state, being
set apart for civil as well as religious purposes, had, by the divine
command, a right to a sitting in this assembly, Exod. xxxii, 29; Num.
xxxvi, 15; viii, 5–26. Being thus called upon to sustain very different
and yet very important offices, they became the subjects of that envy
which would naturally be excited by the honour and the advantages
attached to their situation. In order to confirm them in the duties
which devolved upon them, and to throw at the greatest distance the mean
and lurking principle just mentioned, God, after the sedition of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram, sanctioned the separation of the whole tribe, which
had been previously made to the service of religion and the state, by a
most evident and striking miracle, Num. xvi, 1–7.
5. Each tribe was governed by its own rulers, and consequently to a
certain extent constituted a civil community, independent of the other
tribes, Judges xx, 11–46; 2 Sam. ii, 4; Judges i, 21. If any affair
concerned the whole or many of the tribes, it was determined by them in
conjunction in the legislative assembly of the nation, Judges xi, 1–11;
1 Chron. v, 10, 18, 19; 2 Sam. iii, 17; 1 Kings xii, 1–24. If one tribe
found itself unequal to the execution of any proposed plan, it might
connect itself with another, or even a number of the other tribes,
Judges i, 1–3, 22; iv, 10; vii, 23, 24; viii, 1–3. But, although in many
things each tribe existed by itself, and acted separately, yet in others
they were united, and formed but one community: for all the tribes were
bound together, so as to form one church and one civil community, not
only by their common ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not only by
the common promises which they had received from those ancestors; not
only by the need in which they stood of mutual counsel and assistance;
but also by the circumstance that God was their common King, and that
they had a common tabernacle for his palace, and a common sacerdotal and
Levitical order for his ministers. Accordingly, every tribe exerted a
sort of inspection over the others, as respected their observance of the
law. If any thing had been neglected, or any wrong had been done, the
particular tribe concerned was amenable to the others; and, in case
justice could not be secured in any other way, might be punished with
war, Joshua xxii, 9–34; Judges xx, 1, &c.
6. When we remember that God was expressly chosen the King of the
people, and that he enacted laws and decided litigated points of
importance, Numbers xvii, 1–11; xxvii, 1–11; xxxvi, 1–10; when we
remember also that he answered and solved questions proposed, Num. xv,
32–41; Joshua vii, 16–22; Judges i, 1, 2; xx, 18, 27, 28; 1 Sam. xiv,
37; xxiii, 9–12; xxx, 8; 2 Sam. ii, 1; that he threatened punishment,
and that, in some instances, he actually inflicted it upon the hardened
and impenitent, Num. xi, 33–35; xii, 1–15; xvi, 1–50; Lev. xxvi, 3–46;
Deut. xxvi-xxx; when, finally, we take into account, that he promised
prophets, who were to be, as it were, his ambassadors, Deut. xviii, and
afterward sent them according to his promise, and that, in order to
preserve the true religion, he governed the whole people by a striking
and peculiar providence, we are at liberty to say, that God was, in
fact, the Monarch of the people, and that the government was a
theocracy. But, although the government of the Jews was a theocracy, it
was not destitute of the usual forms which exist in civil governments
among men. God, it is true, was the King, and the high priest, if we may
be allowed so to speak, was his minister of state; but still the
political affairs were in a great measure under the disposal of the
elders, princes, &c. It was to them that Moses gave the divine commands,
determined expressly their powers; and submitted their requests to the
decision of God, Num. xiv, 5; xvi, 4, &c; xxvii, 5; xxxvi, 5, 6. It was
in reference to the great power possessed by these men, who formed the
legislative assembly of the nation, that Josephus pronounced the
government to be aristocratical. But from the circumstance that the
people possessed so much influence, as to render it necessary to submit
laws to them for their ratification, and that they even took upon
themselves sometimes to propose laws or to resist those which were
enacted; from the circumstance also that the legislature of the nation
had not the power of laying taxes, and that the civil code was regulated
and enforced by God himself, independently of the legislature, Lowman
and Michaëlis are in favour of considering the Hebrew government a
democracy. In support of their opinion such passages are exhibited as
the following, Exodus xix, 7, 8; xxiv, 3–8; Deut. xxix, 9–14; Joshua ix,
18, 19; xxiii, 1, &c; xxiv, 2, &c; 1 Samuel x, 24; xi, 14, 15; Num.
xxvii, 1–8; xxxvi, 1–9. The truth seems to lie between these two
opinions. The Hebrew government, putting out of view its theocratical
feature, was of a mixed form, in some respects approaching to a
democracy, in others assuming more of an aristocratical character.
7. From what has been said, it is clear, that the Ruler and supreme Head
of the political community in question was God, who, with the design of
promoting the good of his subjects, condescended to exhibit his visible
presence in the tabernacle, wherever it travelled and wherever it dwelt.
If, in reference to the assertion, that God was the Ruler of the Jewish
state, it should be inquired what part was sustained by Moses, the
answer is, that God was the Ruler, the people were his subjects, and
Moses was the mediator or internuncio between them. But the title most
appropriate to Moses, and most descriptive of the part he sustained, is
that of legislator of the Israelites and their deliverer from the
Egyptians. If the same question should be put in respect to Joshua, the
answer would be, that he was not properly the successor of Moses, and
that, so far from being the ruler of the state, he was designated by the
ruler to sustain the subordinate office of military leader of the
Israelites in their conquest of the land of Canaan.
8. But, although the Hebrew state was so constituted, that beside God,
the invisible King, and his visible servant, the high priest, there was
no other general ruler of the commonwealth, yet it is well known that
there were rulers of a high rank, appointed at various times, called
ושפט, a word which not only signifies a _judge_ in the usual sense of
the term, but any governor, or administrator of public affairs, 1 Sam.
viii, 20; Isaiah xi, 4; 1 Kings iii, 9. The power lodged in these
rulers, who are called judges in the Scriptures, seems to have been in
some respects paramount to that of the general _comitia_ of the nation,
and we find that they declared war, led armies, concluded peace; and
that this was not the whole, if indeed it was the most important part,
of their duties. For many of the judges, for instance, Jair, Ibzan,
Elon, Abdon, Eli, and Samuel, ruled the nation in peace. They might
appropriately enough be called the supreme executive, exercising all the
rights of sovereignty, with the exception of enacting laws, and imposing
taxes. They were honoured, but they bore no external badges of
distinction; they were distinguished, but they enjoyed no special
privileges themselves, and communicated none to their posterity. They
subserved the public good without emolument, that the state might be
prosperous, that religion might be preserved, and that God alone might
be King in Israel. It ought to be observed, however, that not all the
judges ruled the whole nation: some of them presided over only a few
separate tribes.
9. God, in the character of King, had governed the Israelites for
sixteen ages. He ruled them, on the terms which he himself, through the
agency of Moses, had proposed to them, namely, that if they observed
their allegiance to him, they should be prosperous; if not, adversity
and misery would be the consequence, Exod. xix, 4, 5; xxiii, 20–33; Lev.
xxvi, 3–46; Deut. xxviii-xxx. We may learn from the whole book of
Judges, and from the first eight chapters of Samuel, how exactly the
result, from the days of Joshua down to the time of Samuel, agreed with
these conditions. But in the time of Samuel, the government, in point of
form, was changed into a monarchy. The election of king, however, was
committed to God, who chose one by lot: so that God was still the Ruler,
and the king the vicegerent. The terms of the government, as respected
God, were the same as before, and the same duties and principles were
inculcated on the Israelites as had been originally, 1 Sam. viii, 7; x,
17–23; xii, 14, 15, 20–22, 24, 25. In consequence of the fact, that Saul
did not choose at all times to obey the commands of God, the kingdom was
taken from him and given to another, 1 Sam. xiii, 5–14; xv, 1–31. David,
through the agency of Samuel, was selected by Yahweh for king, who thus
gave a proof that he still retained, and was disposed to exercise, the
right of appointing the ruler under him, 1 Samuel xvi, 1–3. David was
first made king over Judah; but as he received his appointment from God,
and acted under his authority, the other eleven tribes submitted to him,
2 Sam. v, 1–3; 1 Chron. xxviii, 4–6. David expressly acknowledged God as
the Sovereign, and, as having a right to appoint the immediate ruler of
the people, 1 Chron. xxviii, 7–10; he religiously obeyed his statutes,
the people adhered firmly to God, and his reign was prosperous. The
paramount authority of God, as the King of the nation, and his right to
appoint one who should act in the capacity of his vicegerent, are
expressly recognized in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
10. On the subversion of the Babylonian empire by Cyrus, the founder of
the Persian monarchy, (B. C. 543,) he authorized the Jews, by an edict,
to return into their own country, with full permission to enjoy their
laws and religion, and caused the city and temple of Jerusalem to be
rebuilt. In the following year, part of the Jews returned under
Zerubbabel, and renewed their sacrifices: but the reërection of the city
and temple being interrupted for several years by the treachery and
hostility of the Samaritans or Cutheans, the avowed enemies of the Jews,
the completion and dedication of the temple did not take place until the
year B. C. 511, six years after the accession of Cyrus. The rebuilding
of Jerusalem was accomplished, and the reformation of their
ecclesiastical and civil polity was effected, by the two divinely
inspired and pious governors, Ezra and Nehemiah; but the theocratic
government does not appear to have been restored. The new temple was
not, as formerly, God’s palace; and the cloud of his presence did not
take possession of it. After their death the Jews were governed by their
high priests, in subjection however to the Persian kings, to whom they
paid tribute, Ezra iv, 13; vii, 24, but with the full enjoyment of their
other magistrates, as well as their liberties, civil and religious.
Nearly three centuries of uninterrupted prosperity ensued, until the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, when they were most cruelly
oppressed, and compelled to take up arms in their own defence. Under the
able conduct of Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, and his valiant brothers, the
Jews maintained a religious war for twenty-six years with five
successive kings of Syria; and after destroying upward of two hundred
thousand of their best troops, the Maccabees finally established the
independence of their own country and the aggrandizement of their
family. This illustrious house, whose princes united the regal and
pontifical dignity in their own persons, administered the affairs of the
Jews during a period of one hundred and twenty-six years; until,
disputes arising between Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, the
latter was defeated by the Romans under Pompey, who captured Jerusalem,
and reduced Judea to dependence, B. C. 59.
Egypt, maintained, notwithstanding the augmentation of their numbers,
that patriarchal form of government which is so prevalent among the
nomades. Every father of a family exercised a father’s authority over
those of his own household. Every tribe obeyed its own _prince_, נשיא,
who was originally the first-born of the founder of the tribe, but who,
in process of time, appears to have been elected. As the people
increased in numbers, various heads of families united together, and
selected some individual from their own body, who was somewhat
distinguished, for their leader. Perhaps the choice was made merely by
tacit consent; and, without giving him the title of ruler in form, they
were willing, while convinced of his virtues, to render submission to
his will. Such a union of families was denominated “the house of the
father;” and “the house of the father of the families,” Num. iii, 24,
30, 35. In other instances, although the number varied, being sometimes
more and sometimes less than a thousand, it was denominated, אלף אלפים,
_a thousand_. “Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your
tribes, and by your _thousands_;” “the thousands of Judah;” “the
thousands of Israel,” &c, 1 Sam. x, 19; xxiii, 23; Judges vi, 15; Num.
xxvi, 5–50. The heads of these united families were designated “heads of
thousands,” Num. i, 16; x, 4. They held themselves in subjection to the
“princes of the tribes.” Both the princes and heads of families are
mentioned under the common names of זקננים, _seniors_ or _senators_, and
ראשי שבטים _heads of tribes_. Following the law of reason, and the rules
established by custom, they governed with a paternal authority the
tribes and united families; and, while they left the minor concerns to
the heads of individual families, aimed to superintend and promote the
best interests of the community generally. Originally, it fell to the
princes of the tribes themselves to keep genealogical tables:
subsequently, they employed scribes especially for this purpose, who, in
the progress of time, acquired so great authority, that under the name
of שוטרים, translated, in the English version, _officers_, they were
permitted to exercise a share in the government of the nation. It was by
magistrates of this description that the Hebrews were governed while
they remained in Egypt; and the Egyptian kings made no objection to it,
Exod. iii, 16; v, 1, 14, 15, 19.
2. The posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were set apart and
destined to the great object of preserving and transmitting the true
religion, Gen. xviii, 16–20; xvii, 9–14; xii, 3; xxii, 18; xxviii, 14.
Having increased in numbers, it appeared very evident that they could
not live among nations given to idolatry without running the hazard of
becoming infected with the same evil. They were, therefore, in the
providence of God, assigned to a particular country, the extent of which
was so small, that they were obliged, if they would live independently
of other nations, to give up in a great measure the life of shepherds,
and devote themselves to agriculture. Farther: very many of the Hebrews
during their residence in Egypt had fallen into idolatrous habits. These
were to be brought back again to the knowledge of the true God, and all
were to be excited to engage in those undertakings which should be found
necessary for the support of the true religion. All the Mosaic
institutions aim at the accomplishment of these objects. The fundamental
principle, therefore, of those institutions was this,--that the true
God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, and none other, ought to
be worshipped. To secure this end the more certainly, God became king to
the Hebrews. Accordingly, the land of Canaan, which was destined to be
occupied by them, was declared to be the land of Yahweh, of which he
was to be the king, and the Hebrews merely the hereditary occupants. God
promulgated, from the clouds of Mount Sinai, the prominent laws for the
government of his people, considered as a religious community, Exod. xx.
These laws were afterward more fully developed and illustrated by Moses.
The rewards which should accompany the obedient, and the punishments
which should be the lot of the transgressor, were at the same time
announced, and the Hebrews promised by a solemn oath to obey, Exodus
xxi-xxiv; Deut. xxvii-xxx.
3. In order to keep the true nature of the community fully and
constantly in view, all the ceremonial institutions had reference to
God, not only as the Sovereign of the universe, but as the King of the
people. The people were taught to feel that the tabernacle was not only
the temple of Yahweh, but the palace of their King; that the priests
were the royal servants, and were bound to attend not only to sacred but
to secular affairs, and were to receive, as their salary, the first
tithes, which the people, as subjects, were led to consider a part of
that revenue which was due to God, their immediate Sovereign. Other
things of a less prominent and important nature had reference to the
same great end. Since, therefore, God was the Sovereign, in a civil
point of view as well as others, of Palestine and its inhabitants, the
commission of idolatry by any inhabitant of that country, even a
foreigner, was a defection from the true King. It was, in fact, treason;
was considered a crime equal in aggravation to that of murder; and was,
consequently, attended with the severest punishment. Whoever invited or
exhorted to idolatry was considered seditious, and was obnoxious to the
same punishment. Incantations also, necromancy, and other practices of
this nature, were looked upon as arts of a kindred aspect with idolatry
itself; and the same punishment was to be inflicted upon the
perpetrators of them as upon idolaters. The same rigour of inquiry after
the perpetrators of idolatry was enforced, that was exhibited in respect
to other crimes of the deepest aggravation; and the person who knew of
the commission of idolatry in another was bound by the law to complain
of the person thus guilty before the judge, though the criminal
sustained the near relationship of a wife or a brother, a daughter or a
son.
4. Many things in the administration of the government remained the same
under the Mosaic economy, as it had been before. The authority which
they had previously possessed, was continued in the time of Moses and
after his time, to the princes of the tribes, to the heads of families
and combinations of families, and to the genealogists, Num. xi, 16;
Deut. xvi, 18; xx, 5; xxxi, 28. Yet Moses, by the advice of Jethro, his
father-in-law, increased the number of rulers by the appointment of an
additional number of judges; some to judge over ten, some over fifty,
some over a hundred, and some over a thousand, men, Exodus xviii, 13–26.
These judges were elected by the suffrages of the people from those who,
by their authority and rank, might be reckoned among the rulers or
princes of the people. The inferior judges, that is, those who
superintended the judicial concerns of the smaller numbers, were
subordinate to the superior judges, or those who judged a larger number;
and cases, accordingly, of a difficult nature went up from the inferior
to the superior judges. Those of a very difficult character, so much so
as to be perplexing to the superior judges, were appealed to Moses
himself, and in some cases from Moses to the high priest. The judges, of
whom we have now spoken, sustained a civil as well as a judicial
authority, and were included in the list of those who are denominated
the elders and princes of Israel: that is to say, supposing they were
chosen from the elders and princes, they did not forfeit their seat
among them by accepting a judicial office; and, on the contrary, the
respectability attached to their office, supposing they were not chosen
from them, entitled them to be reckoned in their number, Deut. xxxi, 28;
Joshua viii, 33; xxiii, 2; xxiv, 1. The various civil officers that have
been mentioned, namely, judges, heads of families, genealogists, elders,
princes of the tribes, &c, were dispersed, as a matter of course, in
different parts of the country. Those of them, accordingly, who dwelt in
the same city, or the same neighbourhood, formed the _comitia_, senate
or legislative assembly of their immediate vicinity, Deut. xix, 12; xxv,
8, 9; Judges viii, 14; ix, 3–46; xi, 5; 1 Sam. viii, 4; xvi, 4. When all
that dwelt in any particular tribe were convened, they formed the
legislative assembly of the tribe; and when they were convened in one
body from all the tribes, they formed in like manner the legislative
assembly of the nation, and were the representatives of all the people,
Joshua xxiii, 1, 2; xxiv, 1. The priests, who were the learned class of
the community, and beside were hereditary officers in the state, being
set apart for civil as well as religious purposes, had, by the divine
command, a right to a sitting in this assembly, Exod. xxxii, 29; Num.
xxxvi, 15; viii, 5–26. Being thus called upon to sustain very different
and yet very important offices, they became the subjects of that envy
which would naturally be excited by the honour and the advantages
attached to their situation. In order to confirm them in the duties
which devolved upon them, and to throw at the greatest distance the mean
and lurking principle just mentioned, God, after the sedition of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram, sanctioned the separation of the whole tribe, which
had been previously made to the service of religion and the state, by a
most evident and striking miracle, Num. xvi, 1–7.
5. Each tribe was governed by its own rulers, and consequently to a
certain extent constituted a civil community, independent of the other
tribes, Judges xx, 11–46; 2 Sam. ii, 4; Judges i, 21. If any affair
concerned the whole or many of the tribes, it was determined by them in
conjunction in the legislative assembly of the nation, Judges xi, 1–11;
1 Chron. v, 10, 18, 19; 2 Sam. iii, 17; 1 Kings xii, 1–24. If one tribe
found itself unequal to the execution of any proposed plan, it might
connect itself with another, or even a number of the other tribes,
Judges i, 1–3, 22; iv, 10; vii, 23, 24; viii, 1–3. But, although in many
things each tribe existed by itself, and acted separately, yet in others
they were united, and formed but one community: for all the tribes were
bound together, so as to form one church and one civil community, not
only by their common ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; not only by
the common promises which they had received from those ancestors; not
only by the need in which they stood of mutual counsel and assistance;
but also by the circumstance that God was their common King, and that
they had a common tabernacle for his palace, and a common sacerdotal and
Levitical order for his ministers. Accordingly, every tribe exerted a
sort of inspection over the others, as respected their observance of the
law. If any thing had been neglected, or any wrong had been done, the
particular tribe concerned was amenable to the others; and, in case
justice could not be secured in any other way, might be punished with
war, Joshua xxii, 9–34; Judges xx, 1, &c.
6. When we remember that God was expressly chosen the King of the
people, and that he enacted laws and decided litigated points of
importance, Numbers xvii, 1–11; xxvii, 1–11; xxxvi, 1–10; when we
remember also that he answered and solved questions proposed, Num. xv,
32–41; Joshua vii, 16–22; Judges i, 1, 2; xx, 18, 27, 28; 1 Sam. xiv,
37; xxiii, 9–12; xxx, 8; 2 Sam. ii, 1; that he threatened punishment,
and that, in some instances, he actually inflicted it upon the hardened
and impenitent, Num. xi, 33–35; xii, 1–15; xvi, 1–50; Lev. xxvi, 3–46;
Deut. xxvi-xxx; when, finally, we take into account, that he promised
prophets, who were to be, as it were, his ambassadors, Deut. xviii, and
afterward sent them according to his promise, and that, in order to
preserve the true religion, he governed the whole people by a striking
and peculiar providence, we are at liberty to say, that God was, in
fact, the Monarch of the people, and that the government was a
theocracy. But, although the government of the Jews was a theocracy, it
was not destitute of the usual forms which exist in civil governments
among men. God, it is true, was the King, and the high priest, if we may
be allowed so to speak, was his minister of state; but still the
political affairs were in a great measure under the disposal of the
elders, princes, &c. It was to them that Moses gave the divine commands,
determined expressly their powers; and submitted their requests to the
decision of God, Num. xiv, 5; xvi, 4, &c; xxvii, 5; xxxvi, 5, 6. It was
in reference to the great power possessed by these men, who formed the
legislative assembly of the nation, that Josephus pronounced the
government to be aristocratical. But from the circumstance that the
people possessed so much influence, as to render it necessary to submit
laws to them for their ratification, and that they even took upon
themselves sometimes to propose laws or to resist those which were
enacted; from the circumstance also that the legislature of the nation
had not the power of laying taxes, and that the civil code was regulated
and enforced by God himself, independently of the legislature, Lowman
and Michaëlis are in favour of considering the Hebrew government a
democracy. In support of their opinion such passages are exhibited as
the following, Exodus xix, 7, 8; xxiv, 3–8; Deut. xxix, 9–14; Joshua ix,
18, 19; xxiii, 1, &c; xxiv, 2, &c; 1 Samuel x, 24; xi, 14, 15; Num.
xxvii, 1–8; xxxvi, 1–9. The truth seems to lie between these two
opinions. The Hebrew government, putting out of view its theocratical
feature, was of a mixed form, in some respects approaching to a
democracy, in others assuming more of an aristocratical character.
7. From what has been said, it is clear, that the Ruler and supreme Head
of the political community in question was God, who, with the design of
promoting the good of his subjects, condescended to exhibit his visible
presence in the tabernacle, wherever it travelled and wherever it dwelt.
If, in reference to the assertion, that God was the Ruler of the Jewish
state, it should be inquired what part was sustained by Moses, the
answer is, that God was the Ruler, the people were his subjects, and
Moses was the mediator or internuncio between them. But the title most
appropriate to Moses, and most descriptive of the part he sustained, is
that of legislator of the Israelites and their deliverer from the
Egyptians. If the same question should be put in respect to Joshua, the
answer would be, that he was not properly the successor of Moses, and
that, so far from being the ruler of the state, he was designated by the
ruler to sustain the subordinate office of military leader of the
Israelites in their conquest of the land of Canaan.
8. But, although the Hebrew state was so constituted, that beside God,
the invisible King, and his visible servant, the high priest, there was
no other general ruler of the commonwealth, yet it is well known that
there were rulers of a high rank, appointed at various times, called
ושפט, a word which not only signifies a _judge_ in the usual sense of
the term, but any governor, or administrator of public affairs, 1 Sam.
viii, 20; Isaiah xi, 4; 1 Kings iii, 9. The power lodged in these
rulers, who are called judges in the Scriptures, seems to have been in
some respects paramount to that of the general _comitia_ of the nation,
and we find that they declared war, led armies, concluded peace; and
that this was not the whole, if indeed it was the most important part,
of their duties. For many of the judges, for instance, Jair, Ibzan,
Elon, Abdon, Eli, and Samuel, ruled the nation in peace. They might
appropriately enough be called the supreme executive, exercising all the
rights of sovereignty, with the exception of enacting laws, and imposing
taxes. They were honoured, but they bore no external badges of
distinction; they were distinguished, but they enjoyed no special
privileges themselves, and communicated none to their posterity. They
subserved the public good without emolument, that the state might be
prosperous, that religion might be preserved, and that God alone might
be King in Israel. It ought to be observed, however, that not all the
judges ruled the whole nation: some of them presided over only a few
separate tribes.
9. God, in the character of King, had governed the Israelites for
sixteen ages. He ruled them, on the terms which he himself, through the
agency of Moses, had proposed to them, namely, that if they observed
their allegiance to him, they should be prosperous; if not, adversity
and misery would be the consequence, Exod. xix, 4, 5; xxiii, 20–33; Lev.
xxvi, 3–46; Deut. xxviii-xxx. We may learn from the whole book of
Judges, and from the first eight chapters of Samuel, how exactly the
result, from the days of Joshua down to the time of Samuel, agreed with
these conditions. But in the time of Samuel, the government, in point of
form, was changed into a monarchy. The election of king, however, was
committed to God, who chose one by lot: so that God was still the Ruler,
and the king the vicegerent. The terms of the government, as respected
God, were the same as before, and the same duties and principles were
inculcated on the Israelites as had been originally, 1 Sam. viii, 7; x,
17–23; xii, 14, 15, 20–22, 24, 25. In consequence of the fact, that Saul
did not choose at all times to obey the commands of God, the kingdom was
taken from him and given to another, 1 Sam. xiii, 5–14; xv, 1–31. David,
through the agency of Samuel, was selected by Yahweh for king, who thus
gave a proof that he still retained, and was disposed to exercise, the
right of appointing the ruler under him, 1 Samuel xvi, 1–3. David was
first made king over Judah; but as he received his appointment from God,
and acted under his authority, the other eleven tribes submitted to him,
2 Sam. v, 1–3; 1 Chron. xxviii, 4–6. David expressly acknowledged God as
the Sovereign, and, as having a right to appoint the immediate ruler of
the people, 1 Chron. xxviii, 7–10; he religiously obeyed his statutes,
the people adhered firmly to God, and his reign was prosperous. The
paramount authority of God, as the King of the nation, and his right to
appoint one who should act in the capacity of his vicegerent, are
expressly recognized in the books of Kings and Chronicles.
10. On the subversion of the Babylonian empire by Cyrus, the founder of
the Persian monarchy, (B. C. 543,) he authorized the Jews, by an edict,
to return into their own country, with full permission to enjoy their
laws and religion, and caused the city and temple of Jerusalem to be
rebuilt. In the following year, part of the Jews returned under
Zerubbabel, and renewed their sacrifices: but the reërection of the city
and temple being interrupted for several years by the treachery and
hostility of the Samaritans or Cutheans, the avowed enemies of the Jews,
the completion and dedication of the temple did not take place until the
year B. C. 511, six years after the accession of Cyrus. The rebuilding
of Jerusalem was accomplished, and the reformation of their
ecclesiastical and civil polity was effected, by the two divinely
inspired and pious governors, Ezra and Nehemiah; but the theocratic
government does not appear to have been restored. The new temple was
not, as formerly, God’s palace; and the cloud of his presence did not
take possession of it. After their death the Jews were governed by their
high priests, in subjection however to the Persian kings, to whom they
paid tribute, Ezra iv, 13; vii, 24, but with the full enjoyment of their
other magistrates, as well as their liberties, civil and religious.
Nearly three centuries of uninterrupted prosperity ensued, until the
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria, when they were most cruelly
oppressed, and compelled to take up arms in their own defence. Under the
able conduct of Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, and his valiant brothers, the
Jews maintained a religious war for twenty-six years with five
successive kings of Syria; and after destroying upward of two hundred
thousand of their best troops, the Maccabees finally established the
independence of their own country and the aggrandizement of their
family. This illustrious house, whose princes united the regal and
pontifical dignity in their own persons, administered the affairs of the
Jews during a period of one hundred and twenty-six years; until,
disputes arising between Hyrcanus II, and his brother Aristobulus, the
latter was defeated by the Romans under Pompey, who captured Jerusalem,
and reduced Judea to dependence, B. C. 59.