THE HEBREW THEOCRACY.
NATURALLY following the national covenant (Ex. 19) and the giving of
the law from Sinai (Ex. 20) and preliminary to the civil code――“the
statutes and judgments”――comes in the _Theocracy_――a term used to
designate the system of government established for the Hebrew people.
Here we may consider briefly the following points:
I. _The Supreme Power._
II. The powers of _Jehovah’s vicegerents_――his chief executive officers.
III. The _general assembly_ or congregation, and their _elders_.
IV. The scope afforded for self-government-democracy.
V. The fundamental principles of this entire system.
VI. Its union of church and state.
VII. Its principles and usages in respect to _war_, with a notice of
the war-commission against the doomed Canaanites.
I. _The Supreme Power._
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 the author
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 prosperity if 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._
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 special function――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 constitution under 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.
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 the people――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.
VI. _Its union of Church and State._
By this modern phrase is currently meant the subordination of the
church to the civil or state authorities. Such a union in the Hebrew
nation was a natural consequent upon a theocratic government. The civil
code coming from God himself, the religious code must come from him by
obvious fitness, not to say necessity. In his entire policy with Israel,
God sought the most effective moral culture. We find this purpose
underlying the entire civil government with its code of civil laws; it
must of course underlie their religious institutions. Hence the church
and the state were worked not only by the same hand but for the same
general purpose.
In practice certain crimes against the religious law were enforced
by the state. Idolatry was a state offense, punishable as other state
crimes. So of perjury and blasphemy. (Deut. 19: 16–19.)――――It was due
to the common relations of church and state that to a great extent the
religious orders were civil judges. In the absence of a king or other
chief executive, the High Priest seems to have held that function.
(See Deut. 17: 12 and 2 Chron. 19: 8–11). The subordinate judges were
largely taken from the priests and Levites (Deut. 21: 5, and 33: 10).
Since the system provided for an ultimate appeal to God, extreme cases
were taken up for the sake of such appeal to the one place which was
for the time the seat of God’s special manifestations to his people
(Deut. 17: 8–13, and 19: 17).
The wisdom of this joint action of the civil law with the religious
admits in their case of no question. It may suffice to refer in proof
to the omnipresent power of idolatry through all the ages from Moses to
the captivity, to show the vital need of the civil arm to sustain the
true worship of God and save the nation. On the other hand the state
was the stronger for her religious institutions. The great religious
festivals, bringing the masses of the male population from every
tribe three times a year for a sacred week of communion must have been
of priceless value in sustaining the national unity and a national
patriotism. Jeroboam was sharp enough to see that the calves at Bethel
and Dan must take the place of the festivals at Jerusalem, or his
kingdom would melt away from under him, and his people give their civil
fealty as well as their religious homage at the old center. Hezekiah
would have brought the ten tribes back if he could have drawn their
people in a body to the great Passover, as he sought to do.――――Hence
it is quite safe to say that the state was the stronger for the
national religion, and their religion the stronger for the aid of the
state.――――Yet let none rush to the inference that such mutual relations
of church and state are therefore wise and useful in the Christian
age of the world. The providences of God shut off from the primitive
church the possibility of such union and shut up Christianity to make
her first great conquests under the sturdy opposition of the greatest
civil power of the age. Experience has long since disproved the
inference above referred to. The cases are too dissimilar to admit of
any logical reasoning from that age to this.
In the Hebrew economy we are struck with the fact that both the
religious and the civil code were enforced chiefly by considerations
and influences, rewards and punishments, coming in from the present
world――not from the future. Let it be supposed that religious duties
were in our age enforced by such motives chiefly――and we should see at
a glance the change that has passed over the world since Moses uttered
the concluding chapters of Deuteronomy. Idolatry, then the head sin
of the ages, was fitly resisted, not only by the civil arm, but by the
most fearful array of civil pains and penalties. The capital sins of
Christendom are now of quite other sort; and the motives to repentance
come appropriately from the other worlds yet before us and not from
this. It may be difficult for us to realize how stern the necessity
was that God should in the earlier ages govern the world, and not least
his own people, by motives from the visible and not from the invisible
world――from earth and time and the present life, and not from the
eternal, the future and yet unseen state.
[This subject will receive further attention near the close of this
volume.]
VII. _The principles and usages of the Hebrew code in respect
to war_; with some notice of the _war-edict_ for the
extirpation of the Canaanites.
By their constitution the war-power was with God. The power and the
right to declare war rested in him alone. He forbade them to make
war on Edom; he commanded them to exterminate Amalek and the devoted
nations of Canaan, and to “vex the Midianites and smite them”. (As
to Edom, see Deut. 2: 5; as to Amalek, Ex. 17: 8, 14, 16 and Deut.
25: 17–19; as to the Midianites, Num. 25: 17, 18, and 31:).――――Their
rulers were expected to bring the question before the Lord――Shall I in
this case go up to battle, or shall I forbear? (Judg. 1: 1, and 20: 18,
23, 28).――――Any one tribe might go out to war alone, or might call in
the aid of another or of all:――a fact which shows that the tribes were
confederated rather than united and consolidated. On great occasions,
of common danger, all the tribes associated together, and, with certain
specified exceptions, every man able for war was required to go. The
exceptions are given (Deut. 20: 5–8); viz. the man who had built a
house, but had not dedicated it; he who had planted a vineyard but had
not eaten of its fruits; he who had betrothed a wife, yet had not taken
her; and finally, every fearful and faint-hearted man;――_i. e._ all
who had special attractions homeward which might tempt them to desert
the ranks, and they whose timid hearts made them worthless and might
be contagious:――in the words of the statute, “Lest his brother’s heart
faint as well as his heart.” Personal heroism was of prime account――a
heroism inspired by faith in Israel’s God. The history every-where
shows that such armies, fired with religious enthusiasm, strong by
faith in the mighty God, were terrible in battle, and for the most part
certain of victory. Often as we read these annals of the wars of Israel,
we can not resist the conviction that they were means of grace as well
as of manhood――an illustration of which may be seen in David before
Goliath the Philistine (1 Sam. 17).――――When only a small number of men
were needed, they were chosen, picked men, naturally the brave, skilled,
and renowned. See Joshua’s first battle (Ex. 17: 9); his assault upon
Ai (Josh. 7: 7), and the sifting of Gideon’s army (Judg. 7: 1–8).
* * * * *
_The grant of Canaan to Israel and the commission to extirpate the
Canaanites._
These points call for special examination.
It has been objected against the morality of the Old Testament
Scriptures that this war-law enjoining the extirpation of the
Canaanites was cruel and unjust; hence that it either misrepresents God
and therefore disproves the divine authority of the Old Testament; or
if it truly represents the God of the Bible, then he does not deserve
the homage and the love of his creatures.――――These are grave charges
and should be candidly examined.
The grant of Canaan and the commission to destroy the Canaanites have
been vindicated by Michaelis and others on the following grounds.
1. The right of prior possession and occupation.
2. This right kept good by burial there, and not by any means
relinquished when Jacob was driven by stress of famine into Egypt and
then detained there by force.
3. This right protected according to their ability by reassertion,
perpetually holding forth their purpose to return and their recognition
of Canaan as their land of promise.
4. That no argument prejudicial to their right of war against the
Canaanites can be drawn from the absence of formal manifesto, setting
forth the causes of the war, inasmuch as such a setting forth of
grounds and causes of war is a thing of modern and not of ancient usage.
* * * * *
This course of argument in defense of the war-law in question seems to
me defective and quite below the truth in the following points:
1. Its primary position――_prior occupancy_――seems not fully made out.
2. It makes too little account of God’s original and perfect title to
all the earth, and his consequent right to give his people any portion
of it at his pleasure.
3. It fails to give due prominence to the moral grounds assigned by
God himself for the extirpation of the Canaanites, viz. their extreme
debasement in character; their abominable wickedness; their horrible
violations of the common humanities of social life.
* * * * *
As to prior occupation, Michaelis says the original home of the
Canaanites was Arabia; that Herodotus testifies that at first they
dwelt near the Red Sea; Justin, that they had another country before
they came to Palestine; and Abulfeda that they dwelt in Arabia. But
in proof that they were in Palestine before Abraham was, Moses affirms
(Gen. 12: 6) that when Abram first passed through, “the Canaanite was
then in the land;” also that when Abram and Lot, being rich in cattle
and “the land unable to bear them,” “the Canaanite and the Perizzite
were then in the land” (Gen. 13: 7); and further still in his earliest
account of the location of primitive families after the flood, he
says――“The border of the Canaanites was from Sidon as thou comest
to Gerar unto Gaza as thou goest to Sodom and Gomorrah,” etc. (Gen.
10: 19). This is the oldest known historic testimony, and unquestionably
locates the Canaanites in the original land of Canaan.――――Moreover, it
is said that Abraham went with his flocks and herds wherever he would
as if lord of the country. It may be replied――So apparently did the
Canaanites also. If Abraham dug wells, so did they; if he buried his
dead there, so did they――with this incidental fact in their favor; viz.
that Abraham bought ground of them and paid money for his cemetery at
Macpelah. This special argument from prior possession can scarcely be
sustained.
But it may be maintained that Abram was there _very early_; and what is
more, God’s first call to him to leave his native country named Canaan
as his promised land; and every successive promise reaffirmed this
gift. Abraham’s title to Canaan therefore rests on God’s right to give
a perfect title. If the Lord of heaven and earth, the Great Creator of
all lands in all the ends of the earth had not a right to give Canaan
to Abraham and his posterity, then _he is not God_. Unquestionably
he assumed this right and in the exercise of it pledged Canaan to
the posterity of Abraham with perpetual reiteration and most solemn
covenant. This fact is the more significant because it is the first
step in a series of acts all of which aimed to reveal himself before
the world of mankind as the true God and the Lord of the whole earth.
With these ends in view he chose this people and made them his own;
manifested himself among them and before all the world as their
covenant-keeping God; gave them Canaan, and by manifold miracles helped
them to gain possession of it. Nor is this argument weakened by the
fact that by means of a special series of providences he led them down
into Egypt to dwell there 430 years; suffering the Canaanites meanwhile
to hold Canaan, not driving them out earlier because “the iniquity of
the Amorites was not yet full” (Gen. 15: 16). Here is suggested the
real ground on which the edict for extirpating the Canaanites was made
to rest. God suffered them to remain there until they had forfeited
their title not to Canaan alone, but to life itself and to any further
national existence.
This point is too vital to be passed without careful attention. In Lev.
18 we meet with a series of crimes against moral purity――violations
of the seventh commandment――culminating in sodomy and bestiality; and
classed with these is the burning of children in the worship of Moloch
(v. 21). Then God says――“Defile not yourselves in any of these things;
for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you,
and _the land is defiled_; therefore do I visit the iniquity thereof
upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.”――――The same
sentiments are repeated (vs. 26–30). Unnatural lusts had sunk both men
and women not only down to a level with beasts, but even below them.
Idolatry had so far quenched the sweet humanities from the parental
heart that fathers and mothers could burn their own sons and daughters
to Moloch. These horrible, unnatural crimes were not only an outrage
against the heart of God the Great Father; but, as he forcibly puts it,
they defiled the very land itself. The earth was nauseated with these
abominations and spued out such inhabitants. God’s fair and much abused
world could bear them no longer. Nature herself lifted her voice of
protest against such wickedness; or, as the strong figure suggests, her
stomach sickened even to nausea over such unnatural lusts and such a
torturing death of innocent sons and daughters. What could a holy and
righteous God do with such a people but wipe them out of existence and
wash the land they had defiled clean of such pollutions?――――Lev. 20
reiterates substantially the same list of abominations against which
God warns his people;――“Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes and
all my judgments and do them, that the land whither I bring you to
dwell therein, _spue you not out_. And ye shall not walk in the manner
of the nations which I cast out before you; for they committed all
these things, and therefore I abhorred them” (vs. 22, 23).――――Perfectly
definite and explicit is the repetition of the same point in Deut. 12:
30, 31. When the Lord shall have cut off the Canaanites before thee,
be not snared into their ways; inquire not after their gods and ways
of worship:――“Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God, for every
abomination to the Lord which he hateth have they done unto their gods;
for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in the fire
to their gods.” No fact could be more telling; none more damning. A
people so given up to devil-worship as to burn their own offspring at
his supposed behest, must be too debased and corrupt to live! The earth
itself cries out against them, demanding their utter extirpation!
A more full description of the varieties and forms of the devil-worship
and fellowship common among the Canaanites may be seen in Deut. 18:
9–14, to which it must suffice to refer the reader.
I am well aware that some Jewish doctors, wishing to vindicate their
fathers from crimes so unnatural have sought to prove that “causing
children to pass through the fire” was a rite of purification and
not actual murder. The attempt is futile:――――(1.) Because some of
the expressions are perfectly unequivocal; _e. g._――“Even their sons
have they burnt in the fire to their Gods” (Deut. 12: 31). See also
the cases in 2 Kings 17: 31, and 2 Chron. 28: 3, and Jer. 7: 31, and
19: 5.――――(2.) The phrase――“To make to pass through the fire unto
their gods” is used in the same sense as the phrase――“to burn in the
fire.”――――(3.) That the Phenicians and Carthagenians, closely related
to the ancient Canaanites, did offer human sacrifices is a well
established fact of history. (See Smith’s Bible Dictionary; “Moloch.”)
* * * * *
We have seen that the title of Israel to Canaan falls back upon
God’s prior title――upon his right to deed it to whom he would.
On the same principle the question whether it was right and just
for them to extirpate the Canaanites falls back upon two prior
questions――(a.) Was it right and just for God to extirpate
them?――――(b.) Was it wise for Him to command the Israelites to do
this work of extirpation, rather than do it himself by miracle, and
without human hands? Here are our two great questions.
(a.) As to the first――the right of God to destroy them for their
crimes and the justice of doing it――I see not how it can be denied
or questioned without denying to God the right to punish sin at all.
Has God any right to govern his own universe――any right to resist the
influence of sin and rebellion in his kingdom――any right to protect
innocent children from being burned to death in homage to the devil?
Alas for the universe if this doctrine can be maintained!――――Truly we
may say――If God has no right to exterminate from the earth any one
individual sinner, or a nation of many thousands who are too corrupt
to live, then he lacks the essential rights of a God! If he has not the
power to do it, he lacks the power necessary to a God. If he has not
the firmness――the nerve (shall we say?)――the sense of justice and right
that would forbid his evading the duty, then he lacks the essential
attributes of a God. If he has so little love for his offspring that
he can see their welfare sacrificed in the worship of the devil and in
the sweep of unutterable social pollutions, then he is incompetent to
govern a world of sinners!
(b.) But the objector will make his chief stand upon the secondary
question――Was it wise for God to employ Israel to extirpate the corrupt
Canaanites?
The objector will perhaps say――He might have sunk all Canaan under a
second flood like that of Noah’s time, and no complaint could stand
against him. He might have engulfed those cities in fire as he did
guilty Sodom, and all the living, cognizant of the moral grounds of
the act, would have said, Amen! But that he should set such an example
of _war_――the most horrid of all wars――before the nations of all
history――before the ages of all time, giving it his holy sanction――nay
more, setting his own most holy people to the bloody work――this is
unpardonable. That he should put them to such barbarities――subject them
to such demoralization of all the finer sensibilities of the human soul,
seems too horrid to be thought of!
It is perhaps well to meet this question in its strongest form, with
its objectionable points in their most revolting aspect.
I do not feel called upon to say one word to soften down any man’s
sense of the horrors of war. War _is_ horrid――but sin is more
horrid――certainly such sin as that of the old Canaanites. In fact war
is horrid――not mainly because of the suffering but because of the
_sin_ that may be in it. And this suggests the true and just reply to
be made to the objection now before us, viz. that such a war as that
of Israel against the Canaanites, waged in obedience to God; waged
for the destruction of such sinners and to cleanse the earth from such
unutterable abominations and pollutions, is _not_ demoralizing――is
not so either necessarily or even naturally; but if done in honest
obedience to God and with a due sense of the grounds on which God
commanded it, must have been the very opposite of demoralizing;
must have educated the nation of Israel to a juster sense of the
abominations of idolatry and of the righteous moral government of God
over the wicked in the present world. It can not be doubted that these
were the ends which God sought to secure in putting this service upon
Israel. A lower object to be reached was to vacate the land of Canaan
for Israel to occupy; but the far higher object was to wash the land
of its moral pollutions; to break down and blot out nations too corrupt
to live. The Lord devolved this extirpation upon Israel that they
might thereby get a deeper sense of his abhorrence of such sin――not
to say also, a juster view of the intrinsic abominations which God
commissioned them to punish.
Or we may put the argument thus: Given――the great historic fact,
the moral corruption of the nations of Canaan and the moral purpose
of God to exterminate those nations for their corruption. The
choice of methods lies between _miracles_ on the one hand, and the
war-force of Israel, backed up by God’s providential agencies, on the
other:――miracles as in the flood and on Sodom: or the war-commission
given to his people Israel.
Now consider.――――1. Miracles had already been employed repeatedly
before the eyes of mankind, and the Lord might for this reason wisely
vary his methods, for the greater and better effect.
2. As already argued, the moral effect upon Israel of being made the
executioners of God’s righteous justice may be presumed to have been
naturally wholesome. But not to push this argument――we may at least
maintain,
3. That seen historically――estimated in the light of the facts of
the case, this method _was morally impressive, instructive, elevating,
wholesome_. Recur to the first war――that against Amalek; and to the
scope it gave for illustrations of prayer, and to the sense it inspired
of their relations to their covenant God. Turn to the record of the
war against Moab and Midian (Num. 25 and 31). Mark its powerful protest
against the lewdness involved in those forms of idol-worship, and note
how Phineas arose to the sublime grandeur of the emergency and made
a record for himself and for his whole tribe indeed in the history of
the nation (Num. 25: 11–13 and Mal. 2: 4–7). Study the wars of Joshua
and the moral heroism developed there, and ask if any generation of
Israel appear on the page of her national history, exhibiting a truer
consecration to God or a more conscientious devotion to his will. And
what shall we say of Deborah and Barak, and of the heroism that shines
and gleams in the record of their achievements, or of the piety that
flavors their triumphal song? The same may be said of the wars under
David, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, and of the songs of praise and
of proud triumph in Israel’s God which gave expression to the moral
results of those wars and victories. That man reads the history of
the heroic age of Israel very imperfectly who does not see in it ample
demonstration that staunch obedience to God in this matter of war
against the idolatrous, corrupt Canaanites, fostered piety, developed
Christian heroism and toned up the standard of morality. When they
compromised, accepted tribute, and tried their own policy of living
side by side with such idolaters instead of God’s policy of vigorous
extermination, then came disaster, religious decline, and most perilous
moral corruption.
4. The great conflict of those early ages between God and Satan was
fought on the point of idolatry――the real question being whether God or
the devil should have the worship of men; whether the supremacy and the
moral right to rule the world are with God or with Satan. This being
the great conflict of the ages, it should not surprise us that God
should let Israel’s land of promise be in a sort the battle-ground, and
should bring into play the physical force of arms and let his covenant
people come into the fight hand to hand against the hosts of his foes.
This arrangement gave scope for his own hand in various providential
agencies――thunder, hail-storm, the day prolonged miraculously; panics
often smiting the hearts of his enemies, and victories that witnessed
visibly to Jehovah’s present hand. In an age when men were waiting
for God to manifest himself visibly and tangibly; when their spiritual
perceptions were but dim, and when of necessity the first step in the
process of revealing God to men demanded an appeal to the senses, it
was certainly no mistake in wisdom for God to suffer this great fight
to take on visible form and stand out palpably before human eyes. In
the result God made it unmistakably manifest that his soul abhorred
such unnatural and horrid crimes as those of the men of Canaan, and
also that he had both the power and the will to inflict on them the
extremest and most fearful judgments.