24. Political Institutions

Political Institutions

1. The theory of the Hebrew constitution supposed that God himself was the King and General Governor of the nation; the high priest being his minister, and the interpreter of his will. From the time of Joshua to that of the kings, there was not a regular succession of human governors; for the authority of the “Judges” was by no means general, and was often intermitted. There were, however, an internal government and authority, in the several tribes, sufficient for domestic purposes. Each of the tribes was divided into “families,” and these were again divided into “houses of fathers,” and each section had its head or chief, called an “elder” (Jos 23:2; Jos 24:1). There appears also to have been a paternal chief, who represented the eldest branch of the whole tribe, and to whom the sectional chiefs were subordinate. We find these “princes” of tribes still subsisting in the time of David (1Ch 18:1); but their authority declined and passed away when a strong central government came to be established.

2. By the constitution, as originally established by Moses, the consent of all the tribes was required to give effect to public measures. As it was impossible to bring a matter efficiently before a whole nation at once, a certain number of persons must have been deputed to represent the tribes and families in the general convention or “assembly.” These representatives are mentioned more than once (Num 1:16; Num 16:2), and they appear to have been the heads of families and houses, already mentioned, together with the judges and officers (Deu 29:10; Jos 23:2). By the advice of Jethro his father-in-law, Moses appointed judges of thousands, hundreds, and tens, allowing an appeal from one to another. and, in the last instance, to himself. As the judges of tens were in number sixty thousand, it is most likely that the judges of thousands only were called to the convention. This was in the wilderness. When settled in Canaan, they were to have magistrates in every city (Deu 16:18). The persons named “officers,” or scribes, existed among the Israelites in Egypt (Exo 5:6-14), and appear to have had the duty of keeping the genealogical tables of the Israelites, and of apportioning to individuals their share of the services which were required of the nation. This class of men subsisted long afterwards, with modified duties, and seems to have been chiefly composed of members of the Levitical tribe.

3. The offices of Moses and Joshua were merely temporary; that of the one being to organize the nation, and that of the other to establish it in Canaan. These were different offices; and Joshua had no successor. But anticipating that the people would ultimately desire to have a king, like other nations, Moses tools care to provide for that contingency. He reserved the right of nomination to God, the supreme King, yet not so as to preclude the exercise of elective choice by the people; and he laid clown certain general principles by which the conduct of the future monarchs should be guided. Among other things, the king was to be a native Israelite; he was not to maintain a numerous cavalry; and he was not to take many wives (Deu 17:15-17). The first king, Saul, was accordingly nominated by God, through his prophet, then chosen by lot, and finally accepted by the people. After the rejection of Saul, the house or dynasty of David was established. He was accordingly nominated, by anointing, in Saul’s lifetime, and was afterwards called to the throne by the people, who knew of this nomination. The king was far from being an absolute monarch. When Saul was made king, the prophet Samuel drew up certain rules and limitations according to which he was to govern (1Sa 10:25); the eleven tribes, in receiving David for their king, required and obtained his assent to a similar compact (2Sa 10:3); and the refusal of Rehoboam to submit to some further limitations, caused ten of the tribes to renounce their allegiance to the house of David (1Ki 12:1-20).

4. At his inauguration, the king went in state to some public place, or to the Temple, where he was anointed (1Sa 10:25; 2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 5:1-3; 2Ki 11:12-20; 2 Chronicles 23) crowned, took the sceptre (2Sa 1:10; Psa 45:6; Eze 21:26), and received the kiss of homage (1Sa 10:1; Psa 2:12), after which he returned to the palace, amid the acclamations of the people (1Sa 10:24; 1Ki 1:39), and seated himself upon the throne (1Ki 1:35; 1Ki 1:48; 2Ki 9:13; 2Ki 11:19). On the same occasion, he took an oath to govern according to the law of Moses, and accepted the covenant which defined the principles on which the government was to be conducted. He was thus not only bound to keep the law himself, but he had not the power of making new laws, though he might promulgate temporary edicts. But, notwithstanding these limitations, the power of the ancient Hebrew kings was very great. They assumed the power of life and death, without the forms of judicature (2Sa 1:15; 2Sa 4:12), but appear to have exercised it only where the guilt of the offender was manifest. They also levied taxes for the support of the government (1Sa 17:25; 1Ki 12:14). The revenues of the Crown arose not only from this source, from the spoils of successful wars, and from the tribute of subject provinces, but also from the produce of arable lands and vineyards, of plantations, of olive and fig trees, of herds of kine, camels and asses, and of flocks of sheep (1Ch 27:25-31). The estates of traitors lapsed to the Crown, by the accumulation of which forfeitures, and by purchases, a valuable royal demesne seems to have been ultimately formed.

5. Saul and David, and the kings of Israel, appear to have lived with much plainness and simplicity, but Solomon and the succeeding kings of Judah affected more state and splendor. When they appeared in public, they were attended by guards and runners (2Sa 15:1; 1Ki 1:5), whose duty it was not only to defend the palace and to protect the sovereign himself, but to convey messages, edicts, and orders, to execute the royal commands, and to inflict death when awarded by the king. When the culprit was a person of rank, the captain of the guard executed the king’s judgment upon him with his own hand (1Ki 2:25; 1Ki 2:34).

6. Several of the ministerial and household officers of the Hebrew kings are named in Scripture, from which some notion may be formed of the organization of the government. There was a body of royal councilors, apparently chosen for their sagacity, and whose opinion was taken in public measures (2Sa 16:15-23; 1Ki 12:6-11; 1Ch 27:32, etc.). The officer of state, corresponding to our prime minister, seems to have been the personage who is called the next (or second) to the king (1Sa 23:17; Est 10:3; 2Ch 27:7). The Mazkir, or recorder, appears to have performed the duty of recording in the royal archives all the transactions of the court and government (2Sa 8:16; 2Ki 18:18; 2Ki 18:37). The Sopher, or scribe, was the secretary of state, who prepared and issued the edicts and orders of the Crown (2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 20:25; 2Ki 18:18). The Governor of the Palace was the steward of the royal household, who is a very high and influential officer in the East (1Ki 4:6; 1Ki 18:3; 2Ki 18:18). The King’s Friend, or companion, was the intimate and endeared associate, with whom the king conversed most freely and familiarly (2Sa 15:37; 2Sa 16:16; 1Ki 4:5). There was an “Officerover the Taxes” (tribute), who seems to have been the minister of finance, receiving and accounting for all the revenue of the Crown (2Sa 20:24; 1Ki 4:6). The Captain of the Guard was another court officer, who has already been mentioned. There was also an officer in each of the provinces, called the Prince of the Province, whose duty it was to collect the provisions required for the royal establishment (1Ki 4:5; 1Ki 4:7-19; 1Ki 9:22-23; 1Ki 20:15; 1Ch 27:25-31).