Of this we have illustrations in the cases of Moses, Joshua, the Judges, and the kings. These cases show that they were precisely the Lord’s prime ministers, commissioned to execute his will. If a law touching the case existed and its application was clear, they simply adjudicated the case and put the law in force. If no statute touching the case was extant, they sought one. If the application of the law baffled their wisdom, they sought counsel from God. Hence the Scriptures speak of these prime ministers as the Lord’s “servants,” to serve him in this high capacity. (See Num. 12: 7 and Heb. 3: 2, 5 and Josh. 1: 1, 2, and 5: 13–15 and 2 Sam. 7: 8, etc.)
Of the officers holding under the chief executive there is no occasion to speak in great detail. The system of subordinate judges—lower courts—has come to view in the history of Jethro (Ex. 18). In Canaan they held their courts in the gates of large cities, and (for certain criminal cases) in the cities of refuge which were cities of the Levites—from which tribe judges seem largely to have been drawn.
The “elders”—“heads of the house of their fathers”—held important responsibilities—a fact due largely to the influence of the patriarchal system which had come down from the earliest times, the usages of which, therefore, had essentially the force of common law in Israel. It was in great measure due to them that after the death of Joshua the processes of government went on without any chief executive, with no king, and with no Supreme Judge except as the High Priest may have performed that function.
III. The General Assembly or Congregation, and the Elders.
We read of great conventions, congregations, assemblies, in which it is not definitely said that all the people were there; and also of convocations in which “all the people” were present. In some at least of the cases of the latter sort, the elders seem to have acted distinctly from the masses of the people, being the media of communication (as the case may be) between the Lord or his servant Moses of the one party and the people at large of the other. Thus shortly before the giving of the law from Sinai when God ratified a national covenant with the people, we read—“Moses called for the elders of the people and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together and said—All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Ex. 19: 7, 8). Moses spake to the people through their elders. It was naturally impossible that any one human voice could be heard by six hundred thousand men.——So in 1 Sam. 8: 4–10 “the elders gathered together and said to Samuel, Make us a king;” “and the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people.” “And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.”——These elders—chiefs of the people—seem to have been a well-defined class. Note how they are designated (Num. 1: 16); “These are the renowned [Heb. the called ones] of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands in Israel.” Also Num. 16: 2: “Two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation” [Heb. the called ones of the congregation, i. e. the men summoned to represent their constituents], “men of renown.”——The question will arise whether these called men, the recognized heads and representatives of the people, held specially delegated powers; whether they were appointed for an occasion and were instructed by the people: or whether they held the headship, this representative power, by virtue of the ancient usages of the patriarchal system. The latter is the true view, for the patriarchal system had the prestige of common law; and we find not the least hint of any election of these “heads of the house of their fathers” for any specialfunction—no notice of their receiving special instructions to act as delegated representatives of the people.——Let it be noted carefully that on all really great occasions when the vital issues of their covenant relation with God were pending, “all the people”—the solid masses—were convened, and of course their elders and high officers with them. We see such a case before Sinai (Ex. 19); another, shortly before the death of Moses, in a solemn ratification of their national covenant: “Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders and your officers, with all the men of Israel” (Deut. 29: 10–12), “that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God,” etc.——Again; after they had entered Canaan in the scene of rehearsing the blessings and the curses of the law from Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal: “And all Israel and their elders and officers and their judges, stood,” etc. (Josh. 8: 33). See also Josh. 23: 2 and 24: 1 and Judg. 20: 1 and 1 Sam. 8. It was supremely appropriate that every man of Israel should give his voice and heart in these great national consecrations of themselves to their nation’s God. The Lord sought to call into action every mind—to make a deep moral impression on every heart. Therefore none could be exempted; no man could be excused for absence.
IV. The scope afforded under this system for self-government—democracy.
It is readily obvious that under this theocracy, the function of legislators was out of the question. The people did not make their own laws: these were given them—made by the Lord alone. It only remained for them to say whether they would accept the Lord their God as their Lawgiver and Supreme King. Such assent and consent on their part was appropriate; and precisely this they gave—as we may see in the case of the moral law of Sinai (Ex. 19: 3–8 and Deut. 5: 27, 28); and of all the statutes and judgments of their civil code (Ex. 24: 3). This national recognition of God as Supreme Lawgiver was renewed from time to time with subsequent generations of Israel (Deut. 29: 10–15 and Josh. 24: 15–27 and Neh. 10: 28, 29), etc.
Thus it appears that the laws under which they lived were not arbitrarily imposed upon them without their consent—much less, against their will; but only with their formal and solemn consent. So far forth, their government involved an element of freedom and of self-control. They were not tyrannously coerced into subjection to laws which they repudiated. A system of law, in itself most excellent and entirely unexceptionable, was presented to them for their adoption or rejection. They adopted it—apparently with the warmest approbation.
Essentially the same principle obtained in regard to their highest human executive officer. They did not nominate and choose Moses of their own motion. No caucus, no primary meeting, no formal election brought out his name as the choice of the people. The Lord alone raised up Moses, prepared him for the position he was to hold and brought him before the people. Then they received him as their leader (Ex. 4: 29–31 and 20: 19 and Deut. 5: 27). In the same manner they accepted Joshua (Josh. 1: 16–18). In the case of Saul, their first king, the Lord nominated, and the people ratified his nomination (1 Sam. 10: 24 and 11: 14, 15). The Lord called David also (1 Sam. 16: 1–12), but the people accepted him as king and cordially ratified his divine nomination (2 Sam. 5: 1–3). Through his prophet Nathan the Lord gave the kingdom to David’s posterity (2 Sam. 7) and prophetically indicated Solomon (1 Chron. 22: 8, 9 and 1 Kings 1: 13, 29, 30); but the people still gave their full-hearted consent (1 Kings 1: 39, 40). The same powers were asserted by the people in the case of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12: 1–20).
It should be specially noted that when the government assumed the form of a human monarchy—an earthly king reigning under God in this real theocracy, it was a limited, not an absolute monarchy. The Mosaic law anticipated this change and imposed certain constitutional limitations upon the prospective king (Deut. 17: 14–20). He must be one whom the Lord should choose; of native and not foreign birth; must not multiply horses, nor wives, nor treasures of silver and gold; must keep by him a copy of the law given through Moses, must read it and regard it as the constitutionunder which he reigned. When the demand for a king arose Samuel forewarned the people of the assumptions of power which, by the usages of mankind, they must expect in their king (1 Sam. 8: 10–17), and took the precaution to put in writing “the manner of the kingdom”—the constitutional provisions and safe-guards under which he was to reign (1 Sam. 10: 25). No copy of this constitution has come down to us; but it doubtless corresponded essentially with the limitations made by the law of Moses as in Deut. 17: 14–20.