The voice of the people in self-government appears also in the appointment of the judges who were to administer the law in courts of justice. We have seen how the old patriarchal system was enlarged and modified at the suggestion of Jethro (Ex. 18: 13–26). This first narrative seems to rest the appointment of these judges entirely with Moses; but his own more detailed account (Deut. 1: 9–18) shows that the people were heard in the nomination: “Take you wise men and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me and said—The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. So I took the chief men of your tribes, wise men and known, and made them heads over you,” etc. Plainly these men had acquired position by merit, and held their place and power (before this special appointment) by the general consent of the people.——The general law in the case runs—“Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, etc., and they shall judge the people with just judgment” (Deut. 16: 18).
Self-government is further developed in the independent action which we may notice occasionally in the several tribes. Especially in the period from Joshua to Saul, the several tribes acted singly, or in union with one or more of their fellow-tribes at their option (Judg. 1: 1–3, 22 and 4: 10 and 7: 23, 24 and 8: 23, and 20: 11–46). Special cases of this independent action appear in 1 Chron. 4: 41–43 and 5: 18–23.——On great occasions, the people convened en masse for deliberation and united action as in Josh. 22: 12, 16 and 23: 2 and Judg. 20 and 21.——Obviously they assumed the right to disapprove the action of their princes as in the case of the Gibeonites (Josh. 9: 18, 19)—“All the congregation murmured against the princes.”
V. The Fundamental Principles of this entire System.
1. Jehovah being their Supreme King, supreme love and worship must be rendered to him.
2. Idolatry was a state offense, nothing less than high treason, and therefore a capital crime, punishable with death. Any one of their cities, given to idolatry, must be utterly exterminated (Deut. 13: 1–18 and 17: 2–7).
3. The most stringent laws ordained non-intercourse with idolatrous nations and non-conformity to their customs. Inter-marriages with them were strictly prohibited; trade and commerce were at least discouraged if not forbidden. These laws may be seen in Ex. 34: 11–17 and Deut. 7: 1–5, 16, 23–26; and cases of their application in Num. 25 and 31; also in Ezra 9 and 10 and Neh. 13: 23–31.
Sundry customs, some of which might in themselves be of small account, were prohibited, apparently because associated with idolatry in the usages of other nations and in the ideas of the people of Israel (Deut. 14: 1–21 and Lev. 20: 23–26). The distinction between clean and unclean beasts seems to fall under this principle.
4. This Hebrew Theocracy was engrafted upon a previously existing patriarchal government, and therefore it recognized this previous system as substantially the common law of the land, to be in force except so far as modified by special legislation under the new regime given from the Lord through Moses. This principle is illustrated in the powers and functions of the elders, known as “heads of the house of their fathers”; “princes”; “heads of the thousands of Israel” (Ex. 6: 25, and Num. 3: 24, 30, 35, and 1: 16, and 10: 4).
5. It was manifestly an accepted principle, underlying the entire system, to give the people as wide a range of free responsible action as a theocratic government would admit. Democracy must of necessity be subordinate to theocracy; the self-ruling of the people must find its place under the supreme ruling of Jehovah. Consequently the law must come entire from God, not from the people. The chief executive must receive his commission from God, though he might be formally accepted and his appointment in this way ratified by the people. The Lord sought the willing homage of thepeople—the obedience of their heart—and therefore encouraged the most cheerful and hearty expression of their will and of their homage in entering into covenant with himself, and from time to time in solemnly renewing it. He would have them feel that they were the people of the Lord by their own real consent and hearty acceptance. So much democracy therefore entered into their scheme of national polity. So much there might be. In the nature of a theocracy, there could not be more.
6. As elsewhere shown, the statutes were within certain limits graduated in moral tone to the moral status of the people, being as high as they would bear—as near theoretical perfection as could be made effective—i. e. as could secure a general obedience.