God himself was king. In every respect the supreme power was his. Precisely this is the sense of the term “theocracy”—a government of God.
This comprehensive fact appears in the following particulars:
1. God demanded supreme homage as their king (Ex. 19: 6 and Deut. 6: 4–15, and 7: 6–11, and 10: 12–21, and 33: 4, 5 and 1 Sam. 8: 6–8, and 10: 18, 19 and Judg. 8: 23).
2. God enacted the statutes. He was the Supreme Lawgiver. We sometimes speak of the “Mosaic code,” of the “statutes of Moses,” meaning by these phrases only that the statutes came from God to the people by the hand of Moses; never that Moses was himself theauthor of these statutes—the true legislator. (See Ex. 21: 1 and Deut. 6: 1).
3. God nominated the chief executive. He called Moses (Ex. 3: 10, 12, and 4: 16 and 1 Cor. 10: 2); and Joshua (Num. 27: 18–23 and Deut. 3: 28, and 31: 3 and Josh. 1 and 5: 13–15). The same was true of the Judges, raised up for special emergencies (Judg. 2: 16, 18, and 3: 9, 15, and 4: 6, and 6: 12, etc., etc.) God called the kings:—Saul (1 Sam. 9: 17, and 10: 1); also David (1 Sam. 13: 14, and 16: 1 and 2 Sam. 5: 2 and Ps. 78: 70, 71); and to name no more, Solomon (1 Chron. 28: 5).
4. In all cases not otherwise provided for, the ultimate appeal was to God. In point we have (Num. 16 and 17) a case of resistance to the authority of Moses—incipient rebellion. God interposed with his supreme authority. We have a case in civil law, not reached by the statutes, viz. the entailment of real estate in a family of daughters only. Moses brought it before the Lord for adjudication (Num. 27: 5). A special provision respecting the marriage of daughters holding property in land became necessary: this new law was sought from God (Num. 36: 6).——A criminal case occurred in which the law was not explicit; “it was not declared what should be done” with the criminal (Num. 15: 32–36). The Lord gave them the law for the case.——In the case of Achan (Josh. 7) the Lord interposed, not so much because there was no law for its decision as because the sin was flagrant and the demand for exemplary punishment was very great.——In cases which would appropriately require the calling of a Supreme Council, the people sought direction from God. (See Judg. 1: 1, and 20: 18, 27, 28 and 1 Sam. 14: 37, and 23: 2, 4, 9–12, and 28: 6, and 30: 8 and 2 Sam. 2: 1). God made provision through the prophets for a direct revelation of his will to the people in special cases not otherwise provided for (Deut. 18: 18).
5. In later times the demand of the people for a human king seemed to be constructive treason. It might be so understood, and therefore the Lord reasserted his prerogative, although he yielded to their demands (1 Sam. 8: 6–9, and 10: 17–25).
6. It scarcely need be said that God bound himself by promise to reward the people with all national prosperityif obedient, and by threatening, to punish them with national calamity for disobedience. These points are expanded fully Lev. 26 and Deut. chapters 27–30.——That God inflicted these threatened punishments early in their nation’s history may be seen Num. 11: 33, and 16: 1–50.
Thus it appears that in every appropriate way and in numerous vital respects God manifested his supreme authority over his people Israel.
II. The powers of Jehovah’s vicegerent.