State and society according to the laws of Moses

Contents Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter The state in the sense of a certain form of community life, as far as history and experience show, is as ancient as humanity itself: its basic elements are noticeable among all peoples and tribes. Even among savage peoples one can already notice essential features of state life - in subordination to a common leader, in certain common morals and customs that regulate relations in the family and in external life. Therefore, the idea of the state lies, as it were, in the very essence of man and justifies the well-known expression of Aristotle that man is by nature a state being (ἄνθρωπον φυσει πολιτικὸν ζῶον) 1 Despite, however, the idea of statehood being somewhat innate to man, the immediate reasons and purpose of the founding of the state still constitute an unresolved question for philosophy and science. The basis of the state is sought either in the voluntary surrender by people of part of their personal rights in favor of the general state power, or in the mutual needs of people and the mutual relations arising from them, or in the naturally existing power of one person over another, based either on natural kinship, or on physical or mental superiority. Once founded, the state is supported in its existence, according to the view of, for example. Rousseau's philosophy, the so-called "social contract" between rulers and subordinates - a contract that has some plausibility in the sense of an abstract idea, but has no meaning in the sense of historical reality 2. The entire structure of state life is determined in accordance with one theory or another. But, as can be seen from the very essence of all these theories, they suffer from one-sidedness and incompleteness, and, in any case, not one of them separately represents the conditions for the normal development of social life, suggesting in it a sharp duality - rulers and subordinates. A completely different principle lies at the basis of the Mosaic state 3. Here this principle is the most general, sublime principle that is possible for human society - namely, the supreme supremacy of Jehovah, reconciling the extremes of domination and subordination. The reason for this peculiarity of the Mosaic state lies in the special position that it occupied in world history. The people of Israel were the only people in the Old Testament world that Jehovah chose “as his kingdom,” so that in it, among universally corrupted humanity, he could preserve and grow the seeds of salvation, destined to subsequently spread to all humanity. To achieve this goal, He concluded an agreement (covenant) with the Jewish people, according to which the supreme power over the state was given to Jehovah, as if He became the king of the people. This is how the essence of this agreement is expressed in law. When the Israelites were at the foot of the mountain (Sinai), “Moses went up to God (on the mountain), and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying: Thus speak to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel: You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you as if on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Me. So, if you obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My inheritance (λαὸς περιούσιος - 70 each) from all nations; for all the earth is Mine. And you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex. 19:3–6). “All of you stand today before the Lord your God, the rulers of your tribes, your elders (your judges), your overseers, all the Israelites, your children, your wives, and your strangers who are in your camp, from the hewer of your wood to the one who draws your water, to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God and the covenant with Him, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may make you His people this day, and He may be your God” (Deut. 29:10–13). “Let there not be among you any man or woman, or clan or tribe, whose heart will now turn away from the Lord your God, to go serve the gods of the heathen nations” (Deut. 29:18). The main goal of establishing a special “kingdom of Jehovah” is, as can be seen from the passages cited, the preservation of the idea of ​​monotheism, the teaching and worship of the one true God, as opposed to the polytheism of other peoples. Jehovah's agreement with the people also has a corresponding goal. In order to preserve the true teaching about God, Jehovah enters into an agreement with the people on the conditions, so to speak, that He, the King of all the earth, becomes primarily the king of the Israeli people, receives supreme power over them, becomes their legislator, whose decrees the people are obliged to accept and sacredly preserve. By maintaining this union with Jehovah as their supreme ruler, the people could expect special protection from Him. The essence of this solemn agreement between Jehovah and the people, the agreement which formed the basis of the Mosaic state, was thus this: if the Jews voluntarily agree to acknowledge Jehovah as their Lord and king, to maintain his covenant and fulfill the laws, to recognize and worship Him as the one true God - in contrast to the idolatry of other nations, then Jehovah, being God and the supreme ruler of the whole world, of all the peoples of the earth, will accept the people of Israel under his special protection, will govern them with special laws, will ensure their enjoyment of the invaluable advantages of the true religion and will give them, as the beloved and chosen people among all the peoples of the earth, all the benefits of freedom, peace and prosperity. The totality of such relations between Jehovah and the people is “theocracy”. But from the foregoing it is clear that theocracy is not any special state form of government as opposed to monarchy, oligarchy or democracy, as Josephus Flavius ​​understood it, who first introduced this term into use 4, but expresses only Jehovah’s special attitude towards the people, as the chosen one - an attitude expressed in His spiritual supremacy over the people through the obligation to maintain the treaty and implement the legislation. True, the primacy of Jehovah as king and legislator penetrates into the entire life of the people, since according to the agreement the people had to conform throughout their lives to the voice of the supreme King and to the decrees of the supreme Lawgiver, to obey his decisions as a judge (Is. 33:22) and to obey in war as a leader (Num. 10:35, 23:21); nevertheless, all such relations had only the meaning of principle for the people, since Jehovah could carry out all these relations with the people only through his organs taken from the people. Thus, theocracy must be understood not as a form of government, but as a principle that provides a general norm of social life, in accordance with which the people had complete freedom of development and could develop from themselves, according to their needs, historical circumstances and conditions, all particular forms of state and public life. Theocracy, understood in the sense of a general principle, is the basis of the Mosaic state. Since the theocratic principle, as an expression of divine dominion, is a set of higher principles, alien to human weakness and imperfection, it is natural that the state life formed under its influence and leadership should not have those shortcomings and imperfections that characterized it among all ancient peoples. The essence of the statehood of ancient peoples consisted in the irreconcilable separation of rulers and subordinates, expressed in the division of the people into castes, of which some occupied a dominant position and enjoyed all the rights and conveniences of this position - legally and economically, while others, on the contrary, were powerless tools of the former, serving only as a means to ensure their best position. Such injustice should not have taken place in a theocratic state, where, by the very essence of the theocratic principle, there was no division of the people into full-fledged rulers and powerless subordinates, because all members are equally subordinate to the Supreme King - Jehovah - therefore, everyone is equal before Him, which is why everyone equally participated in the “sworn agreement with Him”: the leaders of the tribes, elders, overseers, wives, children, and strangers, from the chopping wood to scooping water. If in this way all members of the people participated equally in the agreement with Jehovah, which formed the basis of the state, then, naturally, they should all have the same rights in the state they themselves established, they should all be equal. From this follows the main consequence of the theocratic principle for state life - the equality of everyone in the state. And this equality becomes the basis of all state-social relations. The great legislator, who laid the theocratic principle with its indicated general consequence as the basis of the state, by private regulations extended the action of this principle to all private relations, so that in addition to religious equality (which goes without saying and does not require proof), he established economic, social and political equality. Considered from this side, the Mosaic state, in its basis and essence, is a sharp contrast to all the ancient eastern states, which were based on violence and injustice. In contrast to them, which perverted the primitive truth of human relations, it represents the realization, within the limits of possibility, of the true idea of ​​the state in its normal state - a realization conceivable, of course, only under the condition of special guidance and care on the part of the Supreme King. To confirm the general thoughts stated above, we will consider the beginnings of the statehood of Moses in their application to the most important relations of social life. Moses placed agriculture as the basis for the economic well-being of his state. The choice of such a basis for the state belongs rather to the legislator himself than to the people, who in their previous history knew little about agriculture. Although the first people - Adam, Cain and Noah - were already engaged in cultivating the land, in the subsequent patriarchal period the predominant occupation was cattle breeding, which is evident, among other things, from the history of Abraham. There is news that Isaac and Jacob were also engaged in agriculture (Gen. 26:12; 37:7), but their main occupation was still cattle breeding, so after moving to Egypt, despite the Egyptians’ aversion to cattle breeding, Joseph’s brothers answered Pharaoh’s question: what is their occupation? - They answered: “Your servants are shepherds of the sheep, both we and our fathers” (Gen. 47:3). Cattle breeding remained the main free occupation of the Israelites in Egypt, as can be seen from the fact that the brothers asked Pharaoh for permission to settle in the land of Goshen precisely in view of its convenience for cattle breeding, and were famous as the best cattle breeders, so that Pharaoh himself chose from among them caretakers of his own herds (vv. 4-6). The people, of necessity, also engaged in cattle breeding during their 40-year wandering through the desert. Thus, the idea of ​​​​founding a state, mainly on agriculture, belongs to Moses. The motivation for this was both the geographical conditions of the country and higher state considerations. Palestine in ancient times was distinguished by its extraordinary fertility, 5 and therefore, by this, already called upon its inhabitants to use its products through the cultivation of the land. Fertile soil certainly provides convenience for cattle breeding; but for cattle breeding, large expanses of land are also needed, while Palestine, designated for the habitation of the Jewish people, with its three million population, did not provide such conveniences for cattle breeding. Judging by the number of people, the land plots could not be large, and therefore, in order to obtain enough fruits for food, it was necessary to engage in cultivation of the land, agriculture. But higher state considerations were of even greater importance when establishing a state based on agriculture. Until that time, the Israeli people were a nomadic tribe that did not yet have strong principles of citizenship - they were in a situation in which correct state life was impossible. But then he received a higher calling, became the “kingdom” of Jehovah, the chosen people, who were supposed to serve as the guardian and disseminator of the highest principles of history. Therefore, the nomadic life, which was neglected by the then civilized world (Gen. 46:34), could not correspond to the height of the people’s position: they had to begin a new, cultural life, and therefore, in place of the nomadic, necessarily associated with cattle breeding, they had to choose an agricultural way of life, as having more inclinations for social development. For state purposes, agriculture provides incomparably more benefits than cattle breeding: it develops a love of work, this main lever of social development, ties a person to the inhabited land and thus, on the one hand, makes it possible to establish certain principles of citizenship, and on the other, develops love for the country or patriotism, which constitutes the soul of the state - in a word, it represents all the conditions for the development and strength of the state organism. These conditions, apparently, were what the legislator had in mind when he founded his state on agriculture. But agriculture itself can only serve the true benefit of the state when it is based on economic justice, by virtue of which each member of the state should be given equal ownership of the land and full use of all the products of his hands. Ancient states did not know such justice: usually only privileged castes owned land, and the remaining castes, not having land, necessarily entered into slavish economic dependence on the former, cultivated their lands and themselves naturally did not receive the entire amount of the products of their labor, but only what the ruling castes allocated to them, i.e., as much as was enough not to die of hunger. Hence the amazing extremes of wealth and poverty, luxury and misery, which we encounter in the ancient eastern states even during their period of greatest prosperity. The Mosaic state knows no such injustice. Having founded the state on agriculture, the legislator at the same time defined it with such regulations, thanks to which it could become a source of equal well-being for all. Since all members of the people participated in the agreement with Jehovah, and since one of the conditions of the agreement on Jehovah’s part was the granting of the promised land, then naturally all members of the state had to use the land equally - there should have been no arbitrary seizures, no legalized advantages of some over others. Based on this theocratic principle, the legislator divided the land equally among all Israelites. Apparently, only large collective units of the people - tribes and tribes - were accepted as the unit of division of the land (Num. 26:55; 33:54), but the division was carried out in such a way that whichever tribe was more numerous received more land, and whichever was smaller received less land (Num. 26:54), so that in the end, with the private division of the inheritances that fell to one or another tribe or generation, equal plots could be obtained for each Israeli (male), as the head of a private household. Under this order of land ownership, each Israelite was the owner of a plot of land known to him, from which he could receive the entire amount of products produced by his free labor. And since land was supposed to serve as the main source of wealth, in view of the even distribution of land among the Israelis, equality in status or economic equality was necessarily assumed. If, upon entering the land, the previously accumulated wealth (in herds) of individuals could give them an advantage over others who did not have herds, then such a violation of economic equality was eliminated by the fact that it was the tribes richest in livestock who remained in the lands on the other side of the Jordan and, as it were, separated from the main part of the people, where statehood based on the theocratic principle was primarily supposed to develop, and therefore could not influence its economic relations. But economic well-being depends not only on the amount of land, but also on the amount of labor applied to the land, frugality and many private, random conditions. And since hard work, frugality and other qualities, depending on the personal characteristics of different individuals, are naturally not the same, then, of course, the well-being depending on them cannot always remain at the level of equality given during the division of land: the well-being of some, thanks to their hard work and thrift, gradually increases, while the well-being of others, thanks to their opposite qualities, decreases. Gradually developing in these opposite directions, the welfare of some may rise to the point that they will have the opportunity to acquire new plots in order to begin farming on a larger scale, while others, on the contrary, will become poorer to the point that they will no longer be able to cultivate their plots, and therefore, in order to get something for them, will be forced to sell them. Hence, while some become large landowners, others become completely landless, and after consuming the money taken for the plots sold, they must of necessity go to work for the former and thus become economically and personally dependent on them. This is the normal process of development of economic and social inequality. In the Mosaic state, however, such inequality should not have taken place, since it would have violated the equality of the members of the state before Jehovah, and the agreement with Him, in which everyone equally participated, would have been violated. Therefore, the legislator furnished land ownership with such regulations, thanks to which the presented process of development of inequality suffered significant restrictions. This process receives its full force only if the land, the main source of wealth, is the full property of its owner, so that he can fully dispose of it at his own discretion, and, therefore, can sell it. But such complete ownership of the land was incompatible with the supreme supremacy of Jehovah, who alone is the complete owner of the land, and the Israelites are only his settlers. “The land is mine, says Jehovah; You are strangers and sojourners with Me, therefore the land must not be sold forever” (Lev. 25:28). By virtue of this law, an Israelite could sell his plot only until a certain period, until the jubilee year (set for every 50 years), in which the sold plot was again returned to the first owner (Article 18), and thus equality in land ownership was restored. In this order of things, economic equality could not be significantly violated at all. in any case, extremes of wealth and poverty, landowning aristocracy and proletariat could not be formed. As will be shown below, many other decrees and institutions in the Mosaic state were also aimed at maintaining possible economic equality. If in this way the state consisted of equal landowners who had an equal source of well-being, then, of course, different classes of people could not develop, differing from each other in their economic well-being and social status. And in this respect, the Mosaic state represents a striking contrast to other ancient states. In these last times, the resulting inequality was consolidated by a law that recognized as normal that system of social life, according to which some classes, having seized all power and all the land into their hands, were recognized as if born for power and wealth, while others were born for slavery and poverty. Hence the formation of castes, which constitute a flagrant violation of individual rights. In the Mosaic state, which was under the influence of the theocratic principle, such violation of individual rights did not take place. Here, just as everyone participated in the agreement with Jehovah at the founding of the state, so everyone should have enjoyed equal rights in the state they founded. Here, all members of the state were equally free citizens of the state and were not constrained by any restrictions in their development. Civil equality was conditioned by equality before the law. Since the legislator is Jehovah, before whom everyone is equal, then, of course, his laws are the same for everyone, and this equality before the law was carried out with such consistency that it was also recognized for the settlers living among the Israeli people. “There is one law and one rights,” says the legislator, “let them be for you and for the stranger who lives with you.” 7 As a result of this, in the Mosaic state there were no persons without rights, such as, for example. are assumed according to the Roman laws on slaves, for whom these laws completely deny personality and make them a thing, and which would be completely dependent on the arbitrariness of others, such as for example. The Romans had wives and children who were completely dependent on their husbands and fathers. Here, on the contrary, the law recognized the full personality of all members of the state and, accordingly, equally ensured and protected the rights of all. A master who mistreated his slave lost all rights to him and had to set him free. Here, parents did not have the right to the lives of their children, and the power of the father, in contrast to Roman laws, was limited to the point that he could not even dispose of the inheritance at will, but had to obey certain laws on inheritance. In general, the rights of the sexes were equal 8. Based on economic equality, this legal or civil equality received full meaning and strength. Hence the absence of division into castes in the Eastern sense of the word in the Mosaic state. But the principle of equality here is carried even further: here not only are there no castes in the Eastern sense, but there is not even any division into classes in the sense of privileged and unprivileged classes. Neither the hereditary aristocracy and democracy that existed in ancient Greece, nor the division of the people into full-fledged patricians and politically unequal plebeians, allowed by Roman legislation, nor feudalism in the medieval sense - Mosaic legislation knows nothing of the kind: they are granted social equality to all citizens 9. A special class in the Mosaic state is only the class of priests and Levites, who came exclusively from one tribe of Levi. But closer examination does not allow us to attach to this priestly class the same significance that the priestly castes of other peoples had in the parallel case. While these latter constituted special classes of people, distinguished by their very origin (from the deity), endowed with all sorts of social and state rights and privileges, which placed them above other classes and, therefore, gave them enormous political significance and high social position, in the Mosaic state all the rights and privileges of the priests relate exclusively to the religious sphere, and not at all to the social or political. The very separation of the tribe of Levi exclusively for religious service, within the meaning of the Mosaic Law, was determined by the desire to have servants of Jehovah who were constantly ready, from childhood brought up in respect and reverence for their work, although even with such a separation the class of priests did not have exceptional importance, because the people of Israel in their entire composition were a “holy people,” a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:5 and 6; Deut. 7:6). As for the social and political sphere, the rights of the priestly class even suffer restrictions in comparison with other peoples. Thus, economically, they were placed in a lower position than the people, because during the division of the land they were not given land plots (Num. 26:62). In relation to the means of material support, they were thus made dependent on the people, fed from the altar, tithes and gifts (Num. 18:20–24 and generally 8–32). The socio-economic position of the tribe of Levi is sufficiently determined by the fact that the law, speaking about the provision of widows, orphans, aliens and generally disadvantaged members of the state, always mentions the “Levite” among them (Deut. 14:27–29; 16:11, 14). In civil terms, the rights of the Levites were also limited. True, they sometimes occupied the positions of judges (Deut. 17:9), but these positions were not their exclusive property, but were granted to them only in view of their close acquaintance with the law: mainly, judges were elected from the people themselves (Ex. 18:25, 26; Deut. 1:13–16). They were completely removed from state affairs proper, so that we do not see their participation even in “national” state meetings, and there was no representative from them in the meetings of “the chosen men of the community, the rulers of the tribes of their fathers, the heads of thousands of Israel” (Num. 1:16), although at the same time the high priest, as the highest religious person in a theocratic state, in important cases stood at the head of the court, which had a theocratic character (Num. 27:2; 2 Chron. 19:8–11). In general, as can be seen from the above, if the tribe of priests existed as a separate estate, then, in any case, this did not violate general social and political equality: all members of the state had the same rights in the state. Equality of rights in the state is necessarily associated with equality of responsibilities towards it. The Mosaic state here is also a sharp contrast to the abnormally developed ancient states: in them there was usually no correspondence between rights and duties, as required by state justice, but on the contrary, full-fledged classes or castes enjoyed complete freedom from duties and heavy state duties, and the powerless classes bore all the burdens of state. This order of things is incompatible with simple state justice, and even more so incompatible with the highest theocratic principle that animated the Mosaic state. It was in this state that a fair correspondence of rights and duties was realized - and since the rights of all members of the state were equal, then the duties in relation to the state were also equal. The first and most important duty in relation to the state, even now, and even more so in the ancient world, is the duty to protect the state - hence military service is the most important and at the same time the hardest of state duties, and its fair distribution is one of the most important tasks of the legislator. In the Mosaic state, its fair distribution, thanks to the simplicity of social relations, was simple: since all members of the state equally enjoyed the rights given by the state, then, of course, everyone had to defend and protect it. Hence the principle of universal conscription: every Israeli from 20 years of age and above was subject to it (Num. 1:3; 26:2). The universality of military service, in addition to state justice, was also caused by the political conditions of the state of the people, since the country that was assigned to them to inhabit, they had to acquire with weapons; but even after the conquest and settlement in the country, the people, surrounded on all sides by enemies, constantly had to be ready to defend themselves from attacks, often unexpected (Ex. 17:8; Judges 6:3). As for the procedure for performing conscription itself, it was distinguished by its harmonious organization 10 . They enrolled in military service evenly in each tribe, generation and family (Num. 1:2) and, according to these parts of the people, different parts of the army were formed. The entire army was apparently divided into two conscriptions, of which the first consisted of young men of 20 years or more, and the second of the rest of the male population. Separate lists were kept for both departments of the army, 11 according to which they were convened in wartime. – The universality of military service, however, must be understood not in an unconditional sense, but only in relation to the obligation of everyone to it. The law allows for some limitations on generality. Thus, the Levites were completely exempted from military service, which was determined both by their special purpose and by their lack of land ownership in the state; therefore, they were not included in the counting of the people for military service (Num. 2:33). Those for whom, due to the special circumstances of their family life, it was especially difficult to part with their family or household, were also exempt from military service. Before the start of the war, the guards had to announce benefits to everyone who fit into certain categories defined by law. “Let the overseers announce to the people, saying, “Whoever built a new house and did not renovate it, let him go and return to his house, lest he die in battle and another renew it.” And whoever planted a vineyard and did not use it, let him go and return to his home, lest he die in battle and another man take advantage of it. (In this case, the Israelite, therefore, was exempt from military service for four years, since according to the law the fruits could be enjoyed only in the fifth year after planting. Lev. 19:25). And whoever is betrothed to his wife and does not take her, let him go and return to his home, lest he die in battle, and another take her” (Deut. 20:5-7). A newly married person was equally exempt from military service (as well as from all others). “If anyone, says the law, has recently taken a wife, then let him not go to war, but let him remain in his house for one year and please his wife whom he has taken” (Deut. 24:5). In addition, strictly speaking, no one was forced into military service, and therefore everyone who felt incapable of war and did not have the courage necessary for military affairs was exempted from it. “And the overseers will also announce to the people and say: let him who is fearful and faint-hearted go and return to his home, lest he make the hearts of his brothers timid, like his own heart” (Deut. 20:8). Thus, in the Mosaic state, with universal military conscription, justice was observed in relation to some persons for whom, due to the special circumstances of their social, family or personal condition, this conscription could be especially difficult. The principle of equality in the Mosaic state retained its significance in other duties in relation to the state. Along with military service, imposed on citizens by the duty of external protection of the state, there is another duty imposed by the duty of maintaining and preserving internal institutions in the state - tax service. In the Mosaic state, this duty was not imposed exclusively on one class of people, but also had a universal character, equally extending to all members of the state. Taxation, however, due to the simplicity of the state organization, which did not develop into institutions that would need outside support, did not have a definite state character under Moses and even under the judges. The only institution that at this time needed support and for which taxation was actually established by law was a religious institution with its tabernacle and class of priests, therefore taxation has an exclusively religious character. This type of duty included, first of all, the so-called redemption tax, which was paid by everyone “entering the number,” that is, on the list of those fit for war (Num. 1: 2, 3). It consisted of half a shekel of silver (Ex. 30:12–14) and was used “for the service of the tabernacle of meeting” (v. 16). Then comes the tithe of all the fruits, which went to the Levites “for their service, because they perform services in the tabernacle of meeting” (Num. 18:21); another tithe “from all the production of seeds,” wine and oil, herds and flocks for the national celebration (Deut. 14:22 and 23); the first fruits of all productions, which were also brought for the organization of a public celebration, in which, among other things, the poor members of the state took part (Deut. 26:1-15). All these religious duties were equally obligatory for everyone - the law does not divide the people into taxable and non-taxable. What is also remarkable about the laws on taxation is that the tax, determined by the tithe, was an income tax - that is, it was not determined once and for all, but was constantly adjusted to the amount of income 12 and only an insignificant redemption tax of half a shekel was paid equally to both rich and poor (Ex. 30:15). The law allowed, however, private benefits from all duties for special cases of family life. “If someone has recently taken a wife, then he should not go to war, and nothing should be placed on him 13); let him remain free in his house for one year, and let him please his wife whom he has taken” (Deut. 24:5). By this law, a recently married person was exempted not only from military service, but also from all other duties, and, consequently, taxation for one year. The legislator gives this person the freedom to devote all his attention and labor to the improvement of his newly founded household and to consolidating the newly concluded marriage union. This exception from the law on universal taxation in favor of individuals did not violate equality, since the benefits it provided could be enjoyed equally by every Israeli after marriage. Thus, as can be seen from the above, under the influence of the theocratic principle, the highest social justice was realized in the Mosaic state, expressed in equality consistently implemented in all spheres of public life. The members of this state are all equally equal - in condition and position, in rights and duties. If all members are equally equal and have full rights in the state, then obviously they all have the right to participate in the governance of their state. A sharp distinction between rulers and subordinates usually exists where, due to special historical circumstances, special privileged classes have developed, which, thanks to their wealth and education, naturally take on the role of hereditary rulers of the state. Where there are no such privileged classes, and where everyone is equally equal in all respects, there naturally all members of the state take part in important state affairs or in the government of the state, although of course through elected representatives. Hence - representation, as the main expression of the form of government in the Mosaic state. This form was of particular importance here in view of the fact that in the Mosaic state, partly on the basis of ancient law, partly on the basis of the direct laws of Moses, there was a selective principle on a large scale, applied in all spheres of state and public life. The peculiarity and nature of the electoral principle and the representative form of government will become clear when the internal structure of the social body of the Jewish people is revealed. The main features of the internal structure of the Jewish national body were formed even before the conclusion of the agreement with Jehovah, and therefore outside the influence of the theocratic principle, so that when the state was founded on the theocratic principle, the internal organization of the people was already ready-made material from which the legislator established the new state. Therefore, in order to understand the peculiarities of the organization of the new state, it is necessary to consider the main features of the historically established and strengthened organic system of the people themselves. The people of Israel originated in Egypt from 12 brothers - the sons of Jacob. These ancestors of the people, despite their blood relationship, bore such sharp imprints of individuality that characteristically distinguished them from one another (which, by the way, was expressed in the prophetic blessing of their father, who, according to the characteristics of their character, foreshadowed a different fate for them - Gen. 49), that even in their descendants they did not form one shapeless mass, but produced 12 different generations 14 that retained their independent feature and formed the basis of the organization of the people. These generations, or as they are usually called, tribes (schebet), constituted the first division of the people, the largest members of the national body, which had their own genealogy, their own history, their own internal structure and self-government. Each of the tribes, in turn, was divided into several small parts, gradually descending in an organic progression to the very primary collective unit - the family or home. The first of these divisions is the tribe (mischpachoth) or generation, which was a whole group of families related to each other by descent from one common ancestor, who in turn descended from the main ancestor, the father of the tribe. The generation was thus divided into families or houses of fathers (batlim or belli aboth), understood in a broad sense, since each of these houses was divided into several separate farms and houses. 15 But in general, this unit was apparently considered the last one to have political significance in public life, since the main place on which the stated division is based ends the gradation of divisions, presuming behind it individual individuals. This is the order in which these units acted in one criminal case, therefore with all the rigor of the legal process: “Come up, all of you, according to your tribes; The tribe that the Lord will indicate, let it come up according to tribes; let the tribe that the Lord designate be suitable according to their families; Let the family that the Lord appoints be suited one person at a time" (Josh. 7:14. Wed. 16–18). Thus, in official public life, the gradation of only three degrees of division of the folk organism was taken into account and had social significance: tribe, tribe and family. In accordance with these degrees, the political system of the people was developed. During the patriarchal period of the people’s existence, when they did not actually constitute a people in the political sense, but were an insignificant tribe, they were naturally governed on the basis of tribal life, when all power, both political and religious, was concentrated in their hands by the head of the tribe, the father of the family. This is how the people were governed under the patriarch Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But already in Egypt, when 12 different tribes were formed from one family, recognizing themselves as independent members of the people, the patriarchal order turned out to be outdated, inappropriate for the degree of development of the people, and therefore was replaced by a representative one, when the people were no longer governed by one head, but by representatives of the tribes - the so-called “elders (sekenim) of the children of Israel” (Ex. 3:16; 4:29). These “elders,” consisting of people wise in life and experience, were already the heads of individual tribes, not in the patriarchal sense, i.e. not the sovereign rulers of the tribes, having the power assigned to them only by virtue of the tribal principle, but as representatives of the people in the social sense, as chosen ones and exponents of their consciousness. The representation in full force declared itself already in Egypt. So we see that Moses, with his proposal to free the people from slavery, addresses the “elders of the children of Israel” in full conviction that their consent or decision will be the consent and decision of the whole people (Ex. 4:29). And indeed, when Aaron (who spoke for Moses due to his well-known lack of language) conveyed the words of Jehovah to the elders, and Moses performed 16 signs before them, the elders believed the messenger of the great brothers, and their decision so expressed the decision of the absent people that the text completely identifies the elders with the people, saying: “And the people believed. And they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and saw their suffering, and they bowed down and worshiped” (Ex. 4:29–31). Such was the historical everyday basis on which the legislator had to create a new state. Abrens, Naturrecht oder Philosophie d. Rechts und d. Staates. Bd. II, s. 270. Wien, 1871 Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, art. "Law of Moses" The people of Israel began their national existence, transformed from a nomadic tribe into a state people, under the leadership and influence of Moses. Therefore, the beginnings of its statehood can well be called Moisean, as well as the state itself “Mosaic”. S. Ar. II 16: Οἱ μεν μοναρχίαις, οἱ δε ταῖς ολίγων δυναστέιαις, ἄλλοι δε τοῖς πλὴθεσιν ἐπετρεψαν τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῶν πολιτευμάτων. Ὁ δ’ὴμέτερος νομοθέτης εἰς μεν τούτων οὐδοτιο ῦ ν ὀπεῖδεν, ως δ’ὰν τις εἴποι βιασάμενος τον λογον θεοκρατίαν ἀπέδειξε το πολίτευμα, θεῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ το κράτος ἀναθείς καὶ πείσας εἰς ἐκεῖνον ἃπαντος ἀφορᾶν. Oehler, Theol. d. A.T.S. 306 Saalschutz, Mosaisches Recht, car. 2, § 1, s. 28. Number 15:16, 29. Lion. 24:22. Ref. 12:49 . Christ. Read No. 3–4 1879 Saalschutz, Mos. Recht car. 99, § 1. See also “Christ. Reading" 1878 September–October art. “Family relations” and 1879 January–February Art. “Marriage and related relationships according to the laws of Moses” N. Rozhdestvensky, Lithographer, notes on Basic Theology 187/⅘ g·p. 105. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, Kar. 34, § 2. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, Kar. 35, § 1. According to the interlinear translation from the Hebrew neque transibit super eum omne verbum, according to the Vulgate: nec ei quidpiam necessitatis injungetur publicae, no translation 70: ἐιτιβληθήσεται ἀυτῷ οὐδεν πράγμα; the rest of the translations are expressed close to the Vulgate, only the Syriac modifies the thought: nec abeat ad ullum negotium. Waltonus, Biblia Polyglotta, 1. c. Thirteen tribes were actually formed, since due to special circumstances the generation of Joseph, descended from his two sons - Ephraim and Manasseh, formed themselves into two tribes; however, in the political life of the people, which is actually subject to our consideration, only 12 tribes mattered, since the tribe of Levi was excluded from political life. Oehler, Theologie d. A. Test. § 101, s. 347. The text says “signs before the eyes of the people,” and “the people” obviously refers to the elders, since from v. 29 it is clear that only the elders were present. You might be interested in: