Public administration according to the laws of Moses

The people of Israel, consisting of twelve independent tribes, represented in their external organization a union united by theocratic principle, political interest and blood kinship. Such an organization, with the historically established and long-existing representative government of the people in individual tribes, also presupposed for the general state life of the people a form of government in which each tribe, while maintaining its independence, would participate in the general government of the people through its representatives. This was indeed the case. National affairs were usually decided by representatives of all tribes, elected from among themselves by the people. The representative system of the Mosaic state was developed gradually, depending on the requirements of historical circumstances, but always on the basis of those already given for it, which were presented both in the very organization of the people and in their legal customs. Therefore, it has a close connection with the internal organization of the people. According to the division of the people into 12 tribes, it was headed by twelve of their representatives, chosen one from each tribe (excluding the tribe of Levi, which, due to its special purpose and position, did not participate in the political affairs of the people). These are the so-called “chosen men of the congregation, the rulers of the tribes of their fathers, the heads of 2 thousand of Israel” (Numbers 1:16). Each of them occupied the position of a prince in his tribe, and in general among the people - the position of a representative of his tribe. The meeting of these representatives constituted the first highest group at the head of the government of the people. It was convened on important political matters that were important for the entire people 3. The second group of representatives of the people consisted of selected 70 men. "And the Lord said to Moses, Gather for Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be elders and officers thereof, and take them to the tabernacle of meeting, that they may stand there with thee. I will go down and speak with thee there, and will take of the Spirit that is upon thee, and will put it upon them, that they may bear with thee the burden of the people, and not thou alone bearest." These seventy men were chosen, as can be seen from the text, from among the elders of the people of Israel. It is difficult to determine what served as the criterion for their election and why exactly 70 of them were chosen. In accordance with the organic division of the people, according to which each tribe was divided into tribes or generations, one can think that these seventy men were none other than the leaders of the tribes or generations. According to the genealogical table (Num. 26), compiled after a careful calculation of the people, it turns out that the number of ancestors of generations, if such ancestors are considered the sons and grandsons of the ancestors of the tribes, and in the tribes of Joseph and great-grandsons (from Gilead), will be 58. Since the law does not say that 70 elders were chosen in addition to the 12 heads of the tribes, the representatives of these 58 generations, together with the 12 heads of the tribes, in all likelihood constituted that assembly of seventy men (58 + 12 = 70), which was called upon to share with Moses the burden of ruling the people. This view of the composition of this assembly of 70 elders seems simpler and more natural than, for example, Ewald’s view, according to which this assembly was composed of representatives of the tribes, six from each tribe, a view that forces the number of elders to be changed by adding two more members 5 . These representatives of the people constituted, as Salschutz says, 6 a permanent senate, which Moses constantly had with him as advisers and assistants. And such an institution was fully consistent with the legislative goals of Moses, since the consent of the elders and representatives of the people and the trust that they inspired in the measures taken by the legislator and in the laws he established, in any case, could have great moral significance for the people. They also, fully knowing the people and their needs, could serve as the best representatives of the interests of the people, which the legislator had to keep in mind when achieving the most lofty state goals. This council of the seventy seems to be clear in Num. 16:25, which says that Moses, on the occasion of the well-known indignation of Korah, Dathan and Abiron, was followed by the “elders of Israel.” Salschutz suggests that this “council had only moral significance, and was not intended to replace the full assembly of representatives of the people, in whose hands, both before and after, legally recognized power remained and whose number was incomparably greater 7.” But such an opinion is hardly grounded: this council could exist and have independent significance, not replacing the general people's assembly, but constituting the main part of it and retaining for itself a political significance corresponding to its position, just as the council of 12 representatives of the tribes, also being part of the council of 70 and the general assembly, had independent political significance, as can be seen from Chapter 1. the book of Numbers, where only this council was convened on the matter of counting the people. Finally, the third and largest group of representatives of the people were the so-called “chiefs” or “judges” of the people. This position was established by Moses in the desert, on the advice of his father-in-law Jethro, to facilitate the work of governing the people. When Jethro saw that Moses, every day from morning to night, was forced to deal with small matters that arose between the people, and in general to delve into all the details of governing them, so that because of this he could lose sight of the highest interests of the people's life, he said to him: “You are not doing this well. You will exhaust both yourself and the people, for this matter is too difficult for you: you alone cannot correct it. So listen to my words: I will give you advice: be you for the people. mediator before God and present his work to God. Teach them the rules and laws, show them the path they should follow and the things they should do. But you, out of all the people, choose capable people, truthful people who hate self-interest, and make them leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties. Let them judge the people at all times, and report to you about every important matter, and judge all small matters themselves: and it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you." 8. Moses listened to the wise advice of his father-in-law. He proposed this matter to the people and, when he said that it was a “good matter,” he allowed the people themselves to choose for themselves “wise, understanding and tried men according to the tribes” and made them leaders 9. These “Chiefs,” as can be seen from the very motive of their appointment, were obliged to deal with small private affairs, and cases of greater or lesser importance were referred to the judgment of one or another of the bosses - in an ascending or descending line. To determine the nature and significance of these small authorities, it is important to determine their relationship to the natural gradation of the division of the people's body, as shown above, to the first two degrees of division - tribes and generations. gradations - families? There is no clear guidance on this in the legislation; moreover, the mathematical harmony of the decimal system of this hierarchy obviously immediately makes it impossible to assume that these newly elected leaders are identical with the heads of families, since families, naturally, never represent such numerical certainty and harmony. Nevertheless, this system is close to the third degree of division of the folk organism, namely families. Each family had at its head a representative, the so-called “elder,” who, before the establishment of the new system, of course managed the affairs that concerned exclusively one of his family, although this management did not have an official, legally defined character. The number of such elders, in accordance with the number of families, was numerous, which can be seen from the fact that 250 of them participated in the Korah conspiracy 10 . Now, when the choice of new leaders was proposed, the people first of all, of course, turned to the elders with their choice, since they were accustomed to seeing in them those “wise, prudent and experienced men” whom Moses proposed to elect. If there could not be a number of elders that would be sufficient to fill new positions, then the missing number could be selected from ordinary men who possessed the indicated qualities. This, in all likelihood, was the case, since “families” were, in any case, a larger group than a dozen, and therefore there could not be enough heads of families or elders to fill all the official positions, so many leaders, of necessity, had to be elected from ordinary men, non-elders. And such a choice did not contradict the natural division of the people into three degrees, did not destroy the ancient order of self-government, but, on the contrary, gave it greater harmony of the social structure, introduced a new “communal” element into the tribal principles, giving greater freedom to the individual, freeing it from the exclusive dominance of the tribal principle. This order was fully consistent with the theocratic principle, which proclaimed complete freedom of the individual. From the above it is clear what a harmonious and correct system of representation was introduced in the Mosaic state. Thanks to her, the entire people (almost literally) ruled their state. The normal character of Jewish representation will appear even more clearly if we pay attention to the widespread dominance of the elective principle. Despite the fact that the Jewish people were apparently still at that stage of development when the clan principle predominates in its organization, due to which a person is usually valued not by his personal dignity, but by his position in the clan, so that individual parts of the people were headed by natural members (by gender and seniority), the wise legislator and founder of the Jewish state was able to quickly raise the people to a new, higher stage of development, giving them complete freedom to choose their leaders, and, moreover, having surrounded the elective principle with such conditions that, of necessity, as we saw above, forced the choice to transcend the boundaries of the generic principle. The elective principle gained strength not only at the lower levels in relation to the lower leaders, but also to the supreme heads of the tribes. Although there are no definite indications that the representatives of the tribes were appointed by choice, this is presupposed even by the very name of their “chosen men of the community” (Num. 1:16), and the epithet “elect” has the meaning not only of superiority in quality in the sense of nobilissimi (according to the Vulgate), praeclarissimi (according to the Syriac translation), nominatissimi (according to the Arabian translation), but chosenness in the proper sense of the word, in the sense ἐπίϰλητοι (in Greek LXX), nuncupati (according to the Targum of Onkelos), or, as the Jewish-Samaritan text most clearly expresses it, in the sense - deputati a congregatione 11. Regarding the election by the people of the council of 70 elders, who make up the second group of representatives, it is also not clearly stated, although perhaps because the people's election was considered such an ordinary matter that it was considered unnecessary to mention it 12. Something similar to this, for example, appears in the history of the election of petty bosses. In the very narrative of the establishment of new officials, it is not said that they were elected by the people, but on the contrary, apparently the selection or appointment of leaders is attributed exclusively to Moses alone, 13 as is done in relation to the council of 70 elders; and yet Deuteronomy 1:13 directly states that the choice of leaders was left to the people themselves. In any case, even if Moses himself appointed people to the council, in addition to the people's choice, the correctness of their representation was determined by the fact that Moses appointed members of the council from “elders and overseers”, undoubtedly elected by the people themselves. Regarding the third group of representatives of the people, there is, as shown above, direct indications that they were elected by the people themselves. “Choose for yourselves from among your tribes men who are wise, understanding, and tried, and I will make them rulers over you,” 14 Moses said to the people. Moses himself possessed only the right to appoint those chosen to positions, as if the right to approve the choice. Such is the governmental system of the Mosaic state in its relation to the natural organization of the people. In this harmonious system, the two most important conditions necessary for the normal development of the body are met: the strength and unity of the whole and the independence of its parts. The independence of the parts of the body was determined both by their very origin and by their strict demarcation from each other. Considered separately, each tribe seemed to be a completely independent republic - with its own special government, its own special public life, with its own special relationships and interests. It had at the head of the administration a representative of the tribe, elected by the people themselves 15. This chief of the tribe was an independent, independent prince of his independent republic, although due to both the electoral principle to which he was subject and the extraordinary development of self-awareness in the lower divisions of the tribe, his power was limited: he ruled the tribe as its elected representative, and not as its autocratic ruler. His power was limited to the elders of the tribe, as representatives of its lower divisions - generations and families. Each tribe was thus governed by representatives of all its parts - the elders of generations, families and representatives of parts of the decimal system, i.e., commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds and commanders of tens, who together constituted the people's assembly of the tribe, with the prince of the tribe at the head, as if the chairman of the assembly 16. Such an assembly was in charge of and considered matters relating to the entire tribe, and in this regard the tribes were given complete independence. There are several examples in history showing that the general meeting of a tribe decided issues about the war of its tribe with surrounding peoples and in general about relations towards them. Thus, when deputies from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (“the sons of Joseph”) told Joshua that the inheritance given to them was not enough for them, he left them to obtain lands for themselves through conquest from neighboring nations (Joshua 17:14–18). Similar examples of independent warfare by individual tribes are presented in Judges 4:10; Court.18, Court.19 and Court.20. The most remarkable example of this kind appears in the testimony of 1 Chron. 5:19–23, according to which the Trans-Jordan tribes (two and a half tribes), even during the reign of Saul, independently fought a very important war, in which the other tribes took almost no part - only “help was given to them against their enemies” (1 Chron. 5:20), i.e., help was given in the sense that one state gives it to another. The 1st book of Chronicles also speaks of the wars that one tribe of Simeon fought at its own peril 17 . Twelve such free republics constituted one common state, one common national body. The general unity of these free communities found strong support both in the natural kinship among themselves, and in the common history they had just experienced, rich in great memories, in the unity of the slavery they endured and the liberation they received. The supreme link between them was the theocratic principle, by virtue of which all the tribes became one “kingdom of Jehovah,” one people of God, with whom Jehovah entered into an agreement that imposed on all tribes the same obligations and gave the same rights, binding them by the unity of moral and material interests. Due to all these conditions, which gave support to the consciousness of unity, the people of Israel, despite the extraordinary development of independence in its individual parts, were always clearly aware of their unity and always responded vividly to all events that were significant not only for the entire people, but also for its individual parts. So, for example, the tribe of Ephraim considered itself offended when the tribes beyond Jordan went to war against the Ammonites without waiting for his help 18 . But the strongest connecting element for all tribes were the so-called general people's assemblies, which met on important matters affecting the entire people. These meetings, both in terms of their significance in the socio-political life of the people and in terms of their composition, deserve special attention. The national assembly was important in a theocratic state. It was the highest expression of the people's will and could not have been more consistent with the basic structure of the people's body. The Mosaic state, as shown above, consisted of several parts that lived an independent life, independently deciding all private matters that concerned each of them separately. But there were also matters that concerned and had significance for all the tribes together and, therefore, required a decision that would be the decision of all of them, the decision of the whole people. To reach such a decision it was necessary to know the will of all the tribes, or the will of the entire people. The expression of this will was the national assembly. There are almost no legal definitions regarding this assembly, its establishment, composition and order of business in the law: it was such a common occurrence for the Jewish people that it did not need such definitions. The law, completely leaving for it those orders that were established by customary law, makes only one regulation regarding the assembly, namely on the procedure for convening its members (Num. 10: 1-4). History provides many indications regarding the existence of a national assembly. It is sometimes called simply “meeting” 19, sometimes “society”, which is sometimes called with the prefix “all” - the whole society 20. The expression “the whole congregation” seems to be sometimes used in the sense of “the whole people,” as in Exod. 12:47, which says that “the whole congregation” of the children of Israel should keep the Passover, obviously meaning the whole people - in Ex. 16:1, 17:1, which says that “the whole congregation” came to such and such a place. But such an identification does not deny the existence of “society” as a special institution. On the contrary, there are many places in which the expression "the whole society" is clearly distinguished from the whole people, as a special institution. So, for example, in Numbers. 27:21 “the whole congregation” is clearly distinguished from “all the children of Israel.” In Ex. 12:2 – The Lord commands Moses and Aaron to pass on the law to “all the congregation,” and Exodus 12:21 shows that they passed on the law to “all the elders.” The book of Deuteronomy in chapter 31 says that Moses spoke the words aloud to “the whole assembly,” and from Deut. 31:28 it is clear that this “whole assembly” consisted of the elders of the tribes and overseers, therefore only of the representatives of the people, who constituted the state assembly. Such an assembly was composed of the elders of the people and in its organization fully reflected the general organization of the people. Both the heads of tribes and generations, as well as the rest of the elders and leaders of the people took part in it. Judging by the number of elders and leaders among the people, the national assembly was a huge meeting, consisting of more than 1/10 of the entire male population 21, since it also included the leaders of the tens 22. Despite such a large number of people, however, it did not represent a disorderly mass, and thanks to the strict gradualism in the importance of the representation of certain members of the assembly, it represented a strictly organized national assembly. It was divided primarily into two groups. These groups are clearly distinguished in law and could meet separately, as can be seen from the law on convening an assembly 23 . The first, highest, group was made up of the most important representatives of the people - the heads of tribes and generations. These elected men constituted the permanent council of the people's assembly 24. This council, in turn, was divided into two branches: higher and lower. The first consisted of twelve princes of the people, the leaders of the twelve tribes, and was sometimes convened separately from the second, as was the case, for example, on the occasion of the numbering of the people, when only these “chosen men of the congregation, the leaders of the tribes of their fathers, the heads of the thousands of Israel” were convened (Num. 1:16). The second department consisted of the leaders of the generations, but was not convened separately from the first, and together with it was part of the highest group of the meeting 25, constituting the “council of seventy.” This group apparently constituted an ordinary administrative assembly, dealing with the current affairs of state life, as can be seen in part from its appointment to “bear the burden” of governing the people (Num. 11:17). Another group of the national assembly consisted of the remaining representatives of the people - the elders of the families or, according to the new organization given by Moses - the overseers of the people and the heads of the decimal units, i.e., commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds and commanders of tens, or judges in general 26. This lower group is usually called “society” in contrast to the higher group called “princes” 27. In contrast to the highest, it was not permanent, but gathered on especially important occasions. In addition to the general division according to the importance of representation, the assembly, of course, also retained its division into tribes, tribes and families, so that each tribe could separately express its opinion on a well-known issue. According to Ewald, who presents the organization of the meeting somewhat differently 28 than as it is set out here, the order of the meeting in the meeting took place in such a way that the meeting in the proper sense took place only between the oldest representatives of the people, and the rest took part in it only in the sense that each of them conveyed his opinion to the senior representatives of his tribe. This idea does not contradict the basic structure of the “meeting” and, apparently, would provide the best conditions for maintaining order in the assembly, but it does not find confirmation for itself in the news that is available about the meetings. On the contrary, this news gives rise to a different idea. Thus, in the description 29 of the national assembly that met before the death of Joshua in order to receive the last instructions from him, the order of the meeting was in such a way that only the chief elders closest to him (the heads of tribes and generations) received instructions from the lips of the leader, and then they passed on what was accepted to the rest of the representatives, who expressed their agreement or disagreement with exclamations 30. It is most likely that meetings in general took place in a similar way: members of the highest group of the meeting consulted among themselves, made certain decisions, and then the result of these meetings was presented to the rest of the meeting, which expressed its agreement or disagreement. The meeting was convened with two silver trumpets specially prepared for this purpose (Numbers 10:2). “When they blow one trumpet, the princes and captains of 31 Israel will be gathered to you” (Num. 10:4), that is, members of the first group, the first two main sections of the assembly - the heads of tribes and generations; and when both trumpets were blown, then all members of the congregation were to gather - “the whole congregation” (Num. 10:3). This method of convening people's representatives into an assembly was, of course, only possible at a time when the people constituted another camp, crowded in one place; when he settled throughout the cities of Palestine, so that it became impossible to give information to different cities with two trumpets, then a national assembly was convened through special messengers 32. Meetings usually took place at some place especially sacred to the entire people. At first, the tabernacle usually served as such a place, the place in front of the entrance to it, which is why the tabernacle itself is often called the “tabernacle of meeting” 33 , and later in various cities, and mainly in the city of Mizpah 34 . The national assembly was convened for various important events; for solemn public worship 35, for general prayer for the aversion of threatening disasters 36, for the adoption of new laws 37, for the production of trials and the execution of sentences in important cases of crime 38, for the establishment of political relations with neighboring peoples, the declaration of war, the conclusion of peace and treaties 39, and in general, all the most important matters of the internal and external life of the people were under his jurisdiction. The considered organization of state government provided all the conditions for the free political development of the people: in the national assembly, which had the highest state and legal power, the people themselves spoke and, not constrained by any external form, took care of their interests and their government. Here there was people's self-government in the full sense. "The people of Israel, says Ewald 40 on this occasion, have long been a well-organized community, independently managing and deciding its internal and external affairs; and this communal structure was carried out with such consistency that even the smallest parts of the people, each tribe, each clan in the holy country, and upon resettlement, each district and each city, was organized accordingly and independently managed its affairs. For the people, nothing could become a binding law, so that before was discussed and accepted in the meeting. No more or less important regulation or legislative institution could be prescribed for the entire people without the consent of the representatives of the people - the “elders”; even a recognized and beloved prophet could not introduce any important change into the life of the people without the discussion and consent of the assembly. This truth is confirmed by a closer study of what we know about the Israelite people from their earliest history to the time of the kings; without it it is not even possible to fully understand the history of this people. Even if the Mosaic legislation, and with it the basis of all the best national life of that ancient time, according to the most ancient view, is a matter of free acceptance on the part of society and came out of an agreement between him and Jehovah, then already from this most important example one can see how deeply the idea of ​​free discussion and adoption of all laws in society has taken root among the people” 41 . As a complete expression of the original principles of people's life, the form of people's self-government formed the basis of the entire state life of the people and retained its significance throughout the entire history of the people's existence as a state. By its internal nature, this system of self-government is completely indifferent to the external form of government - whether it will be republican or monarchical. In both cases, self-government, which had taken root so deeply in the internal life of the people, fully retained its determining significance, so that the external form was entirely its product, caused by one or another degree of development of the people. Hence, despite the changing forms of government in the Jewish people - the rule of judges and the monarchy - self-government remained legally in full force and suffered restrictions not from the essence of one or another form of government, but from the abuse of its representatives. In the time of Joshua we find popular self-government in its full flowering. When ambassadors from the Gibeonites appear to conclude an alliance with the Israelites through cunning, in Josh. 9:6 says, “They came to Jesus and told the men of Israel,” to which “the Israelites told them.” From this alone it is clear that by the Israelis one must mean only a separate assembly. But then in Joshua 9:15 it is clearly narrated: “And Joshua made peace with them” and Joshua 9:18 “the rulers of the congregation swore by them. When the deception turned out, then “the whole congregation grumbled against the rulers,” to which “all the rulers said to the whole congregation: we swore by them,” and so on. (Joshua 9:19). Here the “national assembly” obviously appears in the form as we have described it - with its division into two groups. We find news of the same national meeting in the first books of Kings 42. “And all the elders of Israel assembled and came to Samuel at Ramah asking him to appoint a king.” This assembly of elders is further called “the people” (1 Samuel 8:7 and 1 Samuel 8:10): “And Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people asking for a king.” It is clear that the expression “people” here refers to the assembly of elders who constitute the people. And that this meeting really had political significance is evident from the fact that Samuel, contrary to his wishes, yields to the energetically expressed will of the people 43 . News of the people's assembly is also found in later history. Thus, it was convened on the occasion of the election of kings David, Jeroboam, Joash, Josiah, Joahaz and Uzziah 44, and on many other important occasions of state life. In view of all this, the main form of government in the Mosaic state must be considered, despite the changing appearance, the form of popular self-government through elected representatives of the people. Salschutz, choosing a name for this type of government, suggests that it is most convenient to call it patriarchal-democratic 45 . In governing the state, as we saw above, the entire people participated, but not personally, but through their elected representatives. The convenience or inconvenience of a form of government, then, depends on the extent to which what the representatives decide follows from the sense and will of the people. In this regard, the form of patriarchal democracy, according to the same researcher, 46 represents the greatest convenience. "The eldest member of the house, the family, stands in relation to those whom he represents in popular assemblies in the closest connection. Their interests are essentially his own interests, and what he has determined and advised is binding on them. Such was the government of the Jews, which Moses found ready-made and only gave it wider development. Thanks to such government, often one word of the prophet, for the dissemination of which at that time there were no such means as now, penetrated into the most remote corners of the state. What the elders, representatives of the people, decided and accepted became a sacred duty for the entire people. The law, thanks to the reasonable provisions of the legislator, was widespread among the people, and through the expedient organization of government, any new resolution could quickly be applied to the case." The expediency of this order of things is even clearer from the fact that the law itself was not imposed on the people as something alien to them, but was completely adapted to the spirit and history of the people, was "not inaccessible and not far" for the people, but "very close to them, in the mouths and in the hearts of the people" 47 . After settling in Palestine, the Israelis at first (during the time of the judges) constituted a union republic, in which the independence of individual tribes was brought to the level of independent states. At first, this form was useful to the people, since it provided each tribe with complete freedom to develop all the wealth of its moral and physical strength. But useful for internal development, this form did not provide any particular political benefits, since the complete isolation of the tribes sometimes undermined the unity and strength of the whole organism. Therefore, it was necessary to create a form that, while giving complete freedom of development to individual parts, would at the same time serve as a guarantee of strong unity. The expression of this form was royal power. The benefit of this form was recognized by the people themselves when, in the person of their representatives, they turned to Samuel 48 with a request for the installation of a king. This desire of the people was not some kind of illegal phenomenon, but had a certain law behind it. The wise legislator, foreseeing with his prophetic glance the historical conditions for the development of the people, gave in advance a law defining the circle of royal power. “When you come to the land that the Lord God is giving you, and take possession of it and settle in it, and say: I will set a king over me, like the rest of the nations that are around me: then, says the lawgiver, set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose” 49 . Having determined the general possibility of establishing the royal dignity, the legislator further determines the conditions for the installation of a king. In accordance with the principle of self-government rooted in the people, according to which all government bodies were elected by the people, the legislator, in this case, provides complete freedom of choice for the king to the people, which, although not directly defined, clearly follows from the limitations of choice. These restrictions consist, first of all, in the fact that the people should not appoint a foreigner as king, but certainly a natural Israeli. “Appoint a king over you from among your brothers; you cannot set a foreigner over you as king who is not your brother” (Deut. 17:15). Such a law was naturally caused by the special position and character of the Jewish people, which distinguished it from other peoples. To occupy such a high position among the people as the royal one, it was necessary to appoint a person who would fully understand both the spirit of the theocratic principle and the foundations of the people's organization. Such a person could only be a natural Israeli, brought up in the spirit of popular theocratic principles. His habits, affections and interests firmly unite him with the people, while the feelings, aspirations and interests of a foreigner often naturally tie him to a foreign country and alienate him from the one to which he is called. But even among the natural Israelites, only the one whom the Lord would choose could be installed as king. “Set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose.” This law can have a double meaning: either that the people were deprived of the right of election, which was exclusively assigned to Jehovah, who chose the king through the prophets or by lot, or that Jehovah was given the right of final approval of the election, which was also carried out through a prophet or lot. Judging by historical data, the law apparently needs to be understood in the first sense, since the first kings Saul and David were anointed as kings before the popular election. But such an understanding would put this law in conflict with the previous one, which granted the people the right to vote. It is most convenient to understand this law in such a way that the election truly belonged to Jehovah in the person of the prophets, but this election was always consistent with the will of the people; the one who, based on his merits, was most likely to find recognition from the people was elected. Thus, the first king Saul was anointed before the people's election, 50 although this time the people themselves did not want the election and left it to the prophet. However, not all Israelites obeyed the king chosen by lot. Saul found universal recognition only after he attracted attention with his victory over the Ammonites and when he was anointed for the second time 52. After the laws on the procedure for election to the kingdom, laws are set out that limit the power of the king. The limitation of royal power was especially necessary in the east, where monarchical power among all nations, wherever it existed, due to the established order of things, always tended to go and did turn into the form of despotic autocracy, with the elimination of the people's rights to self-government. Such an order of things would be in conflict with both the theocratic principle and the structure of social and state life rooted in the Jewish people, where self-government was one of its best and most developed aspects. And it is remarkable that this restriction is mainly directed against what especially distinguished the eastern monarchs, namely, against the accumulation of personal wealth and the development of luxury, which always entail moral corruption and oblivion of the law and the people. The very form of limitation seems to presuppose an external legal code, for which the legislator gives only general outlines, and the detailed elaboration of which is left to the people themselves. “Appoint yourself a king, but only so that he does not” do this and that, says the legislator, that is, limit him according to the instructions given by the legislator. “Appoint yourself a king, only so that he does not multiply horses for himself and does not return the people to Egypt to multiply horses for himself” (Deut. 17:16). The meaning of this law is that they are prohibited from entering into relations and an alliance with Egypt, which in ancient times was famous for its horse breeding 53 . The desire to have the best horses - one of the main objects of vanity of eastern monarchs - would force them to enter into relations with the pharaohs, and then into a political union with Egypt, while such a union due to the geographical location of Palestine could be disastrous for the Jewish people, which was later justified by history. In addition, the multiplication of horses, almost unnecessary in a mountainous country, would not serve to protect the interests of the people (eg. during the war), but only to satisfy the vain pride of the king. - “So that he does not multiply wives, lest his heart be corrupted” (Deut. 17:17), or according to the interlinear literal translation: neque declinabit cor ejus 54. Harems in the east still constitute one of the most vile court institutions, in which despot monarchs lose their last moral and physical strength, plunging into the grossest debauchery. Therefore, the decree prohibiting having harems is understandable. - “And so that he does not multiply silver and gold for himself excessively.” Excessive accumulation of wealth could lead, as can be seen from the history of Solomon, to extensive trading enterprises that would be incompatible with the true interests of the people, would contribute to the development of inequality in wealth and thus would violate the fundamental law of Moses, which established socio-economic equality; would have introduced luxury at court, incompatible with the democratic system of the state, and thus would have alienated the tsar from the people. “But when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he must copy out for himself a copy of this law from the book that is kept by the priests and the Levites, and he shall have it, and he shall read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and be diligent to do all the words of this law and these statutes” (Deut. 17:18-19). The king was not a legislator and had to rule the state not according to his personal arbitrariness, but according to the given law, from which he had to have a correct list, so that, constantly having it before him, he would not deviate either to the right or to the left (Deut. 17:20), therefore, in general he had to rule according to the law recognized by the people. This decree put an end to the despotism into which eastern governments so easily fall 55 . Finally, the legislator gives a general definition of the relationship of the royal power to the people. In Eastern monarchies the relationship between rulers and people is usually characterized by arrogant contempt on the part of the ruler and slavish reverence on the part of the people. In the Mosaic state such an attitude should not have taken place, therefore the legislator demands from the king “that his heart should not be puffed up before his brothers” (Deut. 17:20), or, in applying these words to government, that he rule over his subordinates with meekness and love, not as slaves, but as brothers. The best kings were faithful to this rule. David, for example, in his address to the people called his subjects brothers: “And King David stood on his feet and said: Listen to me, my brothers and my people!” 56. – In addition to the considered regulations limiting the power of the king, there was also a special book defining the rights of the royal power. In 1 Samuel 10:25 speaks of a book in which Samuel wrote “the rights of the kingdom” and laid it before the Lord; but from this evidence it is difficult to judge the nature and content of this book. One can, however, think that its content is not identical with the considered decrees of Moses on royal power, because otherwise it would be unnecessary to rewrite these decrees into a separate book. In all likelihood, it was a detailed development, with application to all the particular conditions of the then situation of the people, of those fundamental laws that were given by Moses. In any case, one cannot accept the opinion of Josephus, according to which this book expounded the despotic rights of kings, as they are described by Samuel in 1 Samuel. 8:11–17, because, as Michaelis rightly notes, 57 there Samuel described the rights of kings not as they should be, but only as they existed among neighboring peoples, and described them with the aim of rejecting the people from the establishment of royal power. Probably the Israelis would not have wanted a king who would take away their property, slaves and slaves. And if, as we see from history, despite the threatening speech, the people insisted on their own, then, of course, when establishing the royal dignity, they took all measures to protect themselves from abuses of the established power, and, based on the Law of Moses, limit it to detailed regulations, which constituted a special book of “the rights of the kingdom.” Thus, the power of kings in the Mosaic state was limited by strict regulation - in the spirit of ancient democratic principles. This is how she appears in history. To make the regulation more binding for the tsar, a procedure was even established that upon ascending the throne, the tsar entered into an agreement with the people, in which he, in all likelihood, undertook to fulfill the laws defining the limits of his power 58 . In addition to written restrictions, tsarist power also found a living limitation in the ancient “national assemblies” of the elders of the people, which undiminishedly retained their significance even under the tsars. The People's Assembly continued to meet on the most important occasions and, among other things, upon the accession of a new king to the throne - to conclude an agreement with him. The importance of the people's assembly can be seen from the history of Rehoboam's accession to the throne. When the “entire assembly” of the people, in an agreement with Rehoboam, demanded that he ease the duties on the people, and when the king responded to this with a sharp refusal to the elders, the people’s assembly considered itself entitled to separate from the descendant of David. "And the people said to the king, What share have we in David? We have no share in the son of Jesse; according to our tents, O Israel!" “And Israel revolted from the house of David,” called Jeroboam into the assembly and made him king over him 59 . In history there are also facts of the opposite nature 60, when kings became despots; but these facts are obviously illegal in nature, and therefore cannot serve as a refutation of the legal, legal definitions of the circle of royal power. But it is remarkable that the Israeli kings, even in the worst periods, did not dare to openly act against the laws of the state, they were aware of their dependence on them and tried to somehow bypass them by legal means. This can be seen in the example of one of the most wicked kings, Ahab. Despite all his desire to take possession of the vineyard of one of his subjects, Naboth, he did not dare to openly act against the laws of the country, which prohibited the alienation of lands from one tribe or family in favor of another, and therefore could not take possession of the vineyard until, through bribed false witnesses, he achieved the legally correct conviction and execution of Naboth for alleged blasphemy and treason, which gave the right to confiscation of property 61. Finally, the principle of theocratism served as a powerful obstacle to the development of absolutism of royal power in the Mosaic state. According to the meaning of this principle, the king of the Israeli people in the proper sense is Jehovah 62, therefore all the powers of the people, and therefore the kings, are only the organs of Jehovah, His vicegerents. As a result, the kings could not arbitrarily introduce new laws or change old ones. Thus, the government of the people, despite the external monarchical form, in essence remained democratic in relation to the people, and theocratic in relation to Jehovah. This article has a close connection with the article contained in the previous book. entitled “State and Society under the Laws of Moses.” "A thousand" is often used in the sense of an indefinite number; in this case in the sense of the knee. Evald, Alterthumer, s. 328. Mosaisches Recht, Kap. 3, § 4. Waltonus, Polyglotta, ed. 1657 an. in loco citato. There is no exact indication of such a “meeting,” but it is presupposed both by the communal structure of the people’s organization and by frequently occurring expressions that necessarily imply representation. Thus, the expressions are often found: “the sons said” of such and such a tribe (Joshua 16:14). Obviously, here we do not mean all the Israelites of a certain tribe, but only its deputies, elected members of the assembly. See also Milman, The History of the Jews, Vol. 1, p. 166. 1 Par. 4:41–43. Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, § 46, S. 171. Exodus 12:3; Numbers 27:21; Deut.31:30. To the Court. 20 appears to be a case where the assembly consisted of 400,000 “foot soldiers drawing sword.” But this meeting obviously consisted not only of representatives, but also of the people themselves, and was of an extraordinary nature - a meeting of the people for military purposes. Deut. 31:22. – Michaelis, in view of the inconvenience that may arise from the extreme large number of the assembly, assumes that of the minor leaders in the assembly only the commanders of thousands and, perhaps, the commanders of hundreds were present, and the leaders of tens were excluded from it (see Mos. Recht. § 49). But such an assumption does not have solid foundations; the inconveniences could not manifest themselves strongly due to the already harmonious organization of the meeting; Moreover, full meetings are expected only on the most important occasions, and therefore not often. In some cases the meetings consisted, as can be seen from the Court. 20 gl., even out of 400,000 people. Numbers 10:4, 11:16; Ex.24:1. Ewald, Alterthumer d. V. Israel. S. 327. Here, in all likelihood, we need to understand not the leaders of thousands, but the leaders of tribes or generations. Wed. Number 1:16. Lev.4:4, 5, 7; Numbers 10:3. Judges 9:2, 20:1; 1 Samuel 7:4, 10:17. Ex.19:7, 8; Lev.8:3–5, etc. Numbers 5:32;35; Lev.24:14. Ewald. Alterthumer d. Volkes Israel, S. 326. The unlimited power of Moses and Joshua seems to contradict the idea of ​​popular self-government. But this contradiction is imaginary, since these leaders of the people represented temporary power, caused by temporary special circumstances of the situation of the people. These were dictators who controlled more the external destinies of the people than their internal life, and, as caused by temporary circumstances, their power naturally ceased with the change in the position of the people. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, Cap. 3, § 8. 2 Samuel 5:1 ; 1 Kings 12:20; 2 Kings 9:19, 21:1, 23:30; 2 Chronicles 26:1. Saalschutz, Mosaisches Recht, Kap. 3, § 1 and 10. Michaelis, Mosaisches Recht, § 51, 3. 1 Samuel 11:14,15. Waltonus, Biblia Polyglotta, l. c. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, Cap. 7, § 6. Michaelis, Mos. Recht, § 55. 1 Samuel 10:25; 2 Samuel 5:3; 2 Kings 9:17. 1 Samuel 22:17, 18; 1 Kings 2:26, 27, etc. You might be interested in: