_History of the Hebrew Commonwealth_.
Form of Government after the Death of Joshua; In Egypt; In the Wilderness;
Princes of Tribes and Heads of Families; Impatience to take Possession
of Promised Land; The Effects of it; Renewal of War; Extent of Holy
Land; Opinions of Fleury, Spanheim, Reland, and Lowman; Principle of
Distribution; Each Tribe confined to a separate Locality; Property
unalienable; Conditions of Tenure; Population of the Tribes; Number of
Principal Families; A General Government or National Council; The Judges;
Nature of their Authority; Not ordinary Magistrates; Different from Kings,
onsuls, and Dictators; Judicial Establishments; Judges and Officers;
Described by Josephus; Equality of Condition among the Hebrews; Their
Inclination for a Pastoral Life; Freebooters, like the Arabs; Abimelech,
Jephthah, and David; Simplicity of the Times; Boaz and Ruth; Tribe of
Levi; Object of their Separation; The learned Professions hereditary,
after the manner of the Egyptians; The Levitical Cities; Their Number
and Uses; Opinion of Michaelis; Summary View of the Times and Character
of the Hebrew Judges.
Learned men have long exercised their ingenuity with the view of
determining the precise form of the social condition which was assumed by
the Israelites when they took possession of the Promised Land. The sacred
writer contents himself with stating, that "it came to pass a long time
after the Lord had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round
about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age; and he called for all
Israel, for their elders, and for their heads, and for their judges, and
for their officers." The purport of the address he delivered on this
occasion, and which is given at length in the twenty-third chapter of the
book which bears his name, was solely to remind them of their religious
obligations as the chosen people of Jehovah, and of the labors that they
had yet to undergo in subduing the remainder of Canaan. Neither in this
speech, nor in the exhortation with which he afterward at Shechem
endeavoured to animate the zeal and constancy of his followers, did he
make any allusion to the form of government that it behoved them to adopt;
declining even to direct their choice in the appointment of a chief, who
might conduct their armies in the field, and preside in the deliberations
of the national council.
The first events which occurred after the demise of Joshua appear to
establish the fact, that to every tribe was committed the management of
its own affairs, even to the extent of being entitled to wage war and make
peace without the advice or sanction of the general senate. The only
government to which the sons of Jacob had hitherto been accustomed, was
that most ancient and universal system of rule which gives to the head of
every family the direction and control of all its members. We find traces
of this natural subordination among them, even under the pressure of
Egyptian bondage. During the negotiations which preceded their deliverance
under the ministry of Moses, the applications and messages were all
addressed to the patriarchal rulers of the people. "Go gather the elders
of Israel together," was the command of Jehovah to the son of Amram, when
the latter received authority to rescue the descendants of Isaac from the
tyranny of Pharaoh.
But during the pilgrimage in the wilderness, and more particularly when
the tribes approached the confines of the devoted nations of Canaan, the
original jurisdiction of the family chiefs was rendered subordinate to the
military power of their inspired leader, who, as the commander of the
armies of Israel, was esteemed and obeyed by his followers as the
lieutenant of the Lord of Hosts. In truth, the martial labours to which
his office called him, placed the successor of Moses at the head of his
countrymen in quality of a general, guiding them on their march or forming
their array in the field of battle, rather than as a teacher of wisdom or
the guardian of a peculiar faith and worship. Until the conquered lands
were divided among the victorious tribes, Joshua was a soldier and nothing
more; while, on the other hand, the congregation of the Hebrews, who
seconded so well his military plans, appear at that juncture on the page
of history in no other light than that of veteran troops, rendered hardy
by long service in a parching climate, and formidable by the arts of
discipline under a skilful and warlike leader.
From the exode, in short, till towards the end of Joshua's administration,
we lose sight of that simple scheme of domestic superintendence which
Jacob established among his sons. The princes of tribes, and the heads of
families, were converted into captains of thousands, of hundreds, and of
fifties; regulating their movements by the sound of the trumpet, and
passing their days of rest amid the vigilance and formality of a regular
encampment. But no sooner did they convert the sword into a ploughshare,
and the spear into a pruning-hook, than they unanimously returned to their
more ancient form of society. As soon as there appeared a sufficient
quantity of land wrested from the Canaanites to afford to the tribes on
the western side of the Jordan a competent inheritance, Joshua "sent the
people away, and they departed;" and from this moment the military aspect
that their community had assumed gave way to the patriarchal model, to
which in fact all their institutions bore an immediate reference, and to
the restoration of which their strongest hopes and wishes were constantly
directed.
Actuated by such views, it cannot be denied that the Hebrews manifested
an undue impatience to enjoy the fruits of their successful invasion.
They had fought, it should seem, to obtain an inheritance in a rich and
pleasant country, rather than to avenge the cause of pure religion, or
to punish the idolatrous practices of the children of Moab and Ammon. As
soon, therefore, as the fear of their name and the power of their arms
had scattered the inhabitants of the open countries, the Israelites
began to sow and to plant; being more willing to make a covenant with
the residue of the enemy, than to purchase the blessings of a permanent
peace by enduring a little longer the fatigue and privations of war.
Their eagerness to get possession of the land flowing with milk and
honey seems to have compelled Joshua to adopt a measure, which led at no
distant period to much guilt and suffering on the part of his people. He
consented that they should occupy the vacant fields before the nations
which they had been commissioned to displace were finally subdued; that
that they should cast lots for provinces which were still in the hands
of the native Gentiles; and that they should distribute, by the line and
the measuring-rod, many extensive hills and fair valleys which had not
yet submitted to the dominion of their swords.
The effects of this injudicious policy soon rendered themselves apparent;
and all the evils which were foreseen by the aged servant of God, when he
addressed the congregation at Shechem, were realized in a little time to
their fullest extent. The Hebrews did indeed find the remnant of the
nations among whom they consented to dwell proving scourges in their
sides and thorns in their eyes, and still able to dispute with them the
possession of the good land which they had been taught to regard as a
sacred inheritance conferred upon them in virtue of a divine promise made
to their fathers. For example, the author of the book of Judges relates,
"the Amorites forced the children of Dan into the mountains;" for, he
adds, "they would not suffer them to come down to the valley." Hence arose
the fact, that the Israelites did not for several hundred years complete
their conquest of Palestine. The Canaanites, recovering from the terror
which had fallen upon them in the commencement of the Hebrew invasion,
attempted, not only to regain possession of their ancient territory,
but even to obliterate all traces of their defeat and subjection. What
movements were made by the petty sovereigns of the country, in order to
effect their object, we are nowhere expressly told; but we find, from a
consultation held by the southern tribes of Israel, soon after the death
of Joshua, that the necessity of renewing military operations against the
natives could no longer be postponed. It was resolved, accordingly, that
Judah and Simeon should unite their arms, and take the field, to prevent,
in the first place, an inroad with which their borders were threatened,
and, subsequently, to reduce to a state of entire subjection the cities
and towns that stood within the limits of their respective districts. "And
Judah said unto Simeon his brother, come up with me into my lot, that we
may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with thee into
thy lot."[11]
But, leaving these preliminary matters, we shall proceed to take a survey
of the Hebrew commonwealth, as it appeared upon its first settlement under
the successors of Joshua; endeavouring to ascertain the grounds upon which
the federal union of the tribes was established; their relations towards
one another in peace and in war; the resources of which they were
possessed for conquest or self-defence; their civil rights and privileges
as independent states; their laws and judicatories; and, above all, the
nature and extent of their property, as well as the tenure on which it
was held by families and individuals. Closely connected with this subject
is a consideration of that agrarian law which was sanctioned by Moses
and acted upon by Joshua, and which will be found, not only to have
determined, but also to have secured, the inheritance of every Israelite
who entered the Promised Land.
The extent of that portion of Syria which was granted to the Hebrew nation
has been variously estimated. On the authority of Hecataeus, a native
of Abdera, who is quoted by Josephus, the limits of the territory
possessed by the Jews are fixed at three millions of acres, supposing
the _aroura_ of the Greeks to correspond to the denomination of English
measure just specified. Proceeding on this ground, the Abbé Fleury and
other writers have undertaken to prove that the quantity of land mentioned
by Hecataeus would maintain only three millions three hundred and
seventy-five thousand men,--a computation which is liable to many
objections, and has not therefore been generally received. It is obvious,
for instance, that the Abderite, who lived in the reign of Alexander the
Great, and is said to have afterward attached himself to the person of the
first Grecian king of Egypt, described the country of the Jews as he saw
it, under the dominion of the Syrian princes of the Macedonian line. He
accordingly beheld only the inheritance of the two tribes which had
returned from the Babylonian captivity, and of consequence confined his
estimates to the provinces that they were permitted to enjoy; taking no
account of those extensive districts that formerly belonged to the Ten
Tribes of Israel, and which, in his days, were in the hands of that mixed
race of men who were descended from the Assyrian colonists whom
Shalmaneser placed in their room.[12]
Confiding in the greater accuracy of Spanheim, Reland, and Lowman, we are
inclined to compute the Hebrew territory at about fifteen millions of
acres; assuming, with these writers, that the true boundaries of the
Promised Land were, Mount Libanus on the north, the Wilderness of Arabia
on the south, and the Syrian Desert on the east. On the west some of the
tribes extended their possessions to the very waters of the Great Sea,
though on other parts they found their boundary restricted by the lands of
the Philistines, whose rich domains comprehended the low lands and strong
cities which stretched along the shore. It has been calculated by
Spanheim, that the remotest points of the Holy Land, as possessed by King
David, were situated at the distance of three degrees of latitude, and as
many degrees of longitude, including in all about twenty-six thousand
square miles.[13]
If this computation be correct, there was in the possession of the Hebrew
chiefs land sufficient to allow to every Israelite capable of bearing arms
a lot of about twenty acres; reserving for public uses, as also for the
cities of the Levites, about one-tenth of the whole. It is probable,
however, that if we make a suitable allowance for lakes, mountains, and
unproductive tracts of ground, the portion to every householder would not
be so large as the estimate now stated. But within the limits of one-half
of this quantity of land there were ample means for plenty and frugal
enjoyment. The Roman people under Romulus and long after could afford only
two acres to every legionary soldier; and in the most flourishing days of
the commonwealth the allowance did not exceed four. Hence the _quatuor
jugera_, or four acres, is an expression which proverbially indicated
plebeian affluence and contentment,--a full remuneration for the toils of
war, and a sufficient inducement at all times to take up arms in defence
of the republic.
The territory of the Hebrews was ordered to be equally divided among their
tribes and families according to their respective numbers; and the persons
selected to superintend this national work were Eleazar, the high-priest,
Joshua, who acted in the character of judge, and the twelve princes or
heads of Israel. The rule which they followed is expressed in these
words,--"And ye shall divide the land by lot, for an inheritance among
your families; and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance; and to
the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance
shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of
your fathers ye shall inherit."
Every tribe was thus put in possession of a separate district or province,
in which all the occupiers of the land were not only Israelites, but
more particularly sprung from the same stock, and descendants of the
same patriarch. The several families, again, were placed in the same
neighbourhood, receiving their inheritance in the same part or subdivision
of the tribe; or, to use the language of Lowman, each tribe may be said to
have lived together in one and the same country, and each family in one
and the same hundred; so that every neighbourhood were relations to each
other and of the same families, as well as inhabitants of the same place.
To secure the permanence and independence of every separate tribe, a law
was enacted by the authority of Heaven, providing that the landed property
of every Israelite should be unalienable. Whatever encumbrances might
befall the owner of a field, and whatever might be the obligations under
which he placed himself to his creditor, he was released from all claims
at the year of jubilee. "Ye shall hallow," said the inspired legislator,
"the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all
the inhabitants thereof. It shall be a jubilee unto you, and ye shall
return every man to his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his
family. And the land shall not be sold for ever; for the land is mine,
saith the Lord; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me."[14]
The attentive reader of the Mosaical law will observe, that though a
Hebrew could not divest himself of his land in perpetuity, he could
dispose of it so far as to put another person in possession of it during a
certain number of years; reserving to himself and his relations the right
of redeeming it, should they ever possess the means; and having at all
events the sure prospect of a reversion at the period of the jubilee. In
the eye of the lawgiver this transaction was not regarded as a sale of the
land, but merely of the crops for a stated number of seasons. It might
indeed have been considered simply as a lease, had not the owner, as well
as his nearest kinsman, enjoyed the privilege of resuming occupation
whenever they could repay the sum for which the temporary use of the land
had been purchased.[15]
The houses which were built in fields or villages were, in regard to
the principle of alienation, placed on the same footing as the lands
themselves; being redeemable at all times, and destined to return to their
original owners in the year of jubilee. But, on the contrary, houses in
cities and large towns were, when sold, redeemable only during one year;
after which the sale was held binding forever. There was indeed an
exception in this case in favour of the Levites, who could at any time
redeem "the houses of the cities of their possession," and who, moreover,
enjoyed the full advantage of the fiftieth year.
The Hebrews, like most other nations in a similar state of society, held
their lands on the condition of military service. The grounds of exemption
allowed by Moses prove clearly that every man of competent age was bound
to bear arms in defence of his country,--a conclusion which is at once
strikingly illustrated and confirmed by the conduct of the Senate or Heads
of Tribes, in the melancholy war undertaken by them against the children
of Benjamin. Upon a muster of the confederated army at Mizpeh, it was
discovered that no man had been sent from Jabesh-gilead to join the camp;
whereupon it was immediately resolved that twelve thousand soldiers should
be despatched to put all the inhabitants of that town to military
execution. And the congregation commanded them, saying, Go and smite
Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and children; and
the only reason assigned for this severe order was, that "when the people
were numbered, there were none of the men of Jabesh-gilead there."[16]
The reader will now be prepared to accompany us while we make a few
remarks on the civil constitution of the Hebrews, both as it respected
the government of the several tribes viewed as separate bodies, and as
it applied to that of the whole nation as a confederated republic.
The tribes of Israel, strictly speaking, amounted only to twelve,
descended from the twelve sons of Jacob. But as the posterity of Joseph
was divided into two tribes, it follows that the host which entered the
land of Canaan under Joshua comprehended thirteen of these distinct
genealogies. Viewed in reference to merely secular rights and duties,
however, the offspring of Levi having no part nor lot with their brethren,
are not usually reckoned in the number; while on other grounds, and
chiefly an invincible propensity to idolatrous usages, the tribe of Dan at
a later period was sometimes excluded from the list. In the twenty-sixth
chapter of the book of Numbers, we have an account of the enrolment which
was made on the plains of Moab; from which the numerical strength of the
eleven secular tribes may be exhibited as follows:--
Joseph (including Ephraim and Manasseh) 85,200
Judah 76,500
Issachar 64,300
Zebulun 60,500
Asher 53,400
Dan 46,400
Benjamin 45,600
Naphtali 45,400
Reuben 43,730
Gad 40,500
Simeon 22,200
This catalogue comprehended all the men above twenty years of age, to
which may be added 23,000 of the tribe of Levi, "all males from a month
old and upward: for they were not numbered among the children of Israel,
because there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel."
The whole amounted to six hundred and six thousand seven hundred.[17]
In every tribe there was a chief called the Prince of the Tribe, or
the Head of Thousands; and under him were the Princes of Families, or
Commanders of Hundreds. For example, we find that at the muster which
was made of the Hebrews in the Wilderness of Sinai, Nahshon, the son of
Amminadab, was Prince of the Tribe of Judah. This tribe, again, like all
the others, was divided into several families; the term being used here
not in its ordinary acceptation, to signify a mere household, but rather
in the heraldic sense, to denote a lineage or kindred descended from a
common ancestor, and constituting the main branches of an original stock.
In this respect the Israelites were guided by the same principle which
regulates precedency among the Arabs, as well as among our own countrymen
in the Highlands of Scotland.
It appears, moreover, that a record of these families, of the households
in each, and even of the individuals belonging to every household,
was placed in the hands of the chief ruler; for it is related that,
on the suspicion excited with regard to the spoils of Jericho and the
discomfiture at Ai, "Joshua brought Israel by their tribes, and the tribe
of Judah was taken; and he brought the family of Judah, and he took the
family of the Zarhites; and he brought the family of the Zarhites man by
man, and Zabdi was taken; and he brought his household man by man, and
Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe
of Judah, was taken."[18]
We may collect from the twenty-sixth chapter of the book of Numbers, that
the Heads of Families, at the time the children of Israel encamped on the
eastern bank of the Jordan, were in number fifty-seven. If to these we add
the thirteen Princes, the Heads of tribes, the sum of the two numbers will
be seventy; whence there is some ground for the conjectures of those who
allege, that the council which Moses formed in the Wilderness consisted of
the patriarchal chiefs, who in right of birth were recognized as bearing
an hereditary rule over the several sections of the people.
It is probable that the first-born of the senior family of each tribe
was usually received as the prince of that tribe, and that the eldest
son of every subordinate family succeeded his father in the honours and
duties which belonged to the rank of a patriarch. But the sacred narrative
presents too few details to permit us to form with confidence any general
conclusions in regard to this point. The case of Nahshon, besides, has
been viewed as an instance quite irreconcilable with such an opinion;
and it certainly seems to prove, that if the Prince of the Tribe was
not elective, he was not always, at least, the direct descendant of
the original chief. Nahshon, as has just been stated, was the son of
Amminadab, the son of Ram, who was a younger son of Hezron the son of
Pharez who was a younger son of Judah.[19]
From the particulars now stated, we find that every tribe had a head who
presided over its affairs, administered justice in all ordinary cases, and
led the troops in time of war. He was assisted in these important duties
by the subordinate officers, the Chiefs of Families, who formed his
council in such matters of policy as affected their particular district,
supported his decisions in civil or criminal inquiries, and finally
commanded under him in the field of battle.
But the polity established by the Jewish lawgiver was not confined to
the constitution and government of the separate tribes. It likewise
extended its regulations to the common welfare of the whole, as one
kingdom under the special direction of Jehovah; and provided that on
all great occasions they should have the means of readily uniting their
counsels and their strength. Even during the less orderly period which
immediately followed the settlement of the Hebrews in the land of their
inheritance, we find traces of such a general government; a national
senate, whose deliberations guided the administration of affairs in all
cases of difficulty or hazard; a judge, who was invested with a high
degree of executive authority as the first magistrate of the commonwealth;
and lastly, the controlling voice of the congregation of Israel, whose
concurrence appears to have been at all times necessary to give vigour and
effect to the resolutions of their leaders. To these constituent parts of
the Hebrew government we may add the Oracle or voice of Jehovah, without
whose sanction, as revealed by Urim and Thummim, no measure of importance
could be adopted either by the council or by the judge.
It has been justly remarked, at the same time, that however extensive the
power might be which was committed to the supreme court of the nation, and
how much soever the authority of a military judge among the Israelites
resembled that of a Roman dictator, the privilege of making laws was at no
period intrusted to any order of the Jewish state. As long as the Hebrews
were governed by a theocracy, this essential prerogative was retained by
the Divine Head of the nation. "Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the
statutes, and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that
ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your
fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments
of the Lord your God which I command you."[20]
It is the opinion of learned men, that the Council of Seventy, established
by Moses in the Wilderness, was only a temporary appointment, and did not
continue after the Hebrews were settled in the Land of Canaan. The only
national assembly of which we can discover any trace subsequently to that
event, is the occasional meeting of the Princes of Tribes and Chiefs of
Families to transact business of great public importance. Thus, in the
case of the war against Benjamin, of which we have a full account in the
book of Judges, we are informed that the heads "of all the tribes, even of
all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the
people of God." On that memorable occasion, the interests and character of
the whole Hebrew commonwealth were at stake; for which reason the natural
leaders of the tribes gathered themselves together at the head of their
kinsmen and followers,--even four hundred thousand men that drew the
sword,--in order to consult with one another, and to adopt such measures
as might be deemed most suitable for punishing the atrocities which had
been committed at Gibeah.
During the period to which this part of our narrative refers, the supreme
power among the Hebrews was occasionally exercised by judges,--an order of
magistrates to which nothing similar is to be found in any other country.
The Carthaginians, indeed, had a description of rulers, whose names, being
derived from the same oriental term, appear to establish some resemblance
in their office to that of the successors of Joshua. But it will be found
upon a comparison of their authority, both in its origin and the purposes
to which it was meant to be subservient, that the Hebrew judges and the
suffites of Carthage had very little in common. Nor do we find any closer
analogy in the duties of a Grecian archon or of a Roman consul. These were
ordinary magistrates, and periodically elected; whereas the judge was
never invested with power except when the exigencies of public affairs
required the aid of extraordinary talents or the weight of a supernatural
appointment. On this account the Hebrew commander has been likened to the
Roman dictator, who, when the commonwealth was in danger, was intrusted
with an authority almost unlimited; and with a jurisdiction which extended
to the lives and fortunes of nearly all his countrymen. But in one
important particular this similarity fails. The dictator laid down his
office as soon as the crisis which called for its exercise had passed
away; and in no circumstances was he entitled to retain such unwonted
supremacy beyond a limited time. The judge, on the other hand, remained
invested with his high authority during the full period of his life, and
is therefore usually described by the sacred historian as presiding to the
end of his days over the tribes of Israel, amid the peace and security
which his military skill, aided by the blessing of Heaven, had restored to
their land.[21]
The Hebrew judges, says Dupin, were not ordinary magistrates, but men
raised up by God, on whom the Israelites bestowed the chief government,
either because they had delivered them from the oppressions under which
they groaned, or because of their prudence and equity. They ruled
according to the law of Jehovah, commanded their armies, made treaties
with the neighbouring princes, declared war and peace, and administered
justice. They were different from kings,--
1. In that they were not established either by election or succession,
but elevated to power in an extraordinary manner.
2. In that they refused to take upon them the title and quality of king.
3. In that they levied no taxes upon the people for the maintenance of
government.
4. In their manner of living, which was very far from the pomp and
ostentation of the regal state.
5. In that they could make no new laws, but governed according to the
statutes contained in the Books of Moses.
6. In that the obedience paid to them by the people was voluntary and
unforced, being at most no more than consuls and magistrates of free
cities.[22]
But it is less difficult to determine what the judges were not than to
ascertain with precision the various parts of their complicated office.
In war, they led the host of Israel to meet their enemies; and in peace,
it is probable they presided in such courts of judicature as might be
found necessary for deciding upon intricate points of law, or for hearing
appeals from inferior tribunals. Those who went up to Deborah for judgment
had, we may presume, brought their causes in the first instance before the
judges of their respective cities; and it was only, perhaps, in cases
where greater knowledge and a higher authority were required to give
satisfaction to the litigants that the chief magistrate of the republic,
aided by certain members of the priesthood, was called upon to pronounce a
final decision.
It belongs to this part of the subject to mention the provision made by
Moses, and established by Joshua, for the due administration of justice
throughout the land. "Judges and officers," said the former, "shalt thou
make thee in all thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee; and they
shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment;
thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind
the eyes of the wise and pervert the words of the righteous." To the same
purpose Josephus relates, in his account of the last address delivered by
Moses to the Hebrew people, that this great legislator gave instructions
to appoint seven judges in every city, men who had distinguished
themselves by their good conduct and impartial feelings. Let those who
judge, he adds, be permitted to determine according as they shall think
right, unless any one can show that they have taken bribes to the
perversion of justice, or can allege any other accusation against
them.[23]
Between the "judges" and the "officers" nominated by the Jewish lawgiver
there was no doubt a marked distinction; though from the remote antiquity
of the appointment and the obscure commentaries of the rabbinical writers
it has become extremely difficult to define the limits of their respective
functions. Maimonides asserts, that in every city where the number of
householders amounted to a hundred and twenty there was a court consisting
of twenty-three judges, who were empowered to determine in almost all
cases both civil and criminal. This is unquestionably the same institution
which is mentioned by Josephus in the fourth book of his Antiquities,
and described by him as being composed of seven judges and fourteen
subordinate officers, or assistants, selected from among the Levites;
for these, with the president and his deputy, make up the sum of
twenty-three specified by the Jewish writers. In smaller towns, the
administration of law was intrusted to three judges, whose authority
extended to the determination of all questions respecting debt, theft,
rights of inheritance, restitution, and compensation. Though they could
not inflict capital punishments, they had power to visit minor offences
with scourging and fines, according to the nature of the delinquency and
the amount of the injury sustained.[24]
Of the former of these judicial establishments, there were two fixed at
Jerusalem even during the period that the Sanhedrim of Seventy was
invested with the supreme authority over the lives and fortunes of their
countrymen, one of which sat in the gate of Shusan, and the other in that
of Nicanor. The place where these judges held their audience was, as
Cardinal Fleury remarks, the gate of the city; for as the Israelites were
all husbandmen who went out in the morning to their work, and did not
return till the evening, the gate of the city was the place where the most
frequently met; and we must not be astonished to find that the people
laboured in the fields and dwelt in the towns. These were not cities like
our provincial capitals, which can hardly subsist on what is supplied to
them by twenty or thirty leagues of the surrounding soil. They were the
habitations for as many labourers as were necessary to cultivate the
nearest fields; hence, as the country was very populous, the towns were
very thickly scattered. For a similar reason among the Greeks and Romans,
the scene of meeting for all matters of business was the market-place, or
forum, because they were all merchants.[25] Among the Jews, the judges
took their seats immediately after morning prayers, and continued till the
end of the sixth hour, or twelve o'clock; and their authority, though not
in capital cases, continued to be respected by the Israelites long after
Jerusalem was levelled with the ground.[26]
With the aid of the particulars stated above, the reader mad have been
enabled to form some notion of the civil and political circumstances of
the ancient Hebrews. They enjoyed the utmost degree of freedom that was
consistent with the objects of regular society, acknowledging no
authority but that of the laws as administered by the elders of their
tribes and the heads of their families. The equality of their property,
too, and the sameness of their occupations, precluded the rise of those
distinctions in social life which, whatever may be their use in older
nations, are opposed by all the habits of a people whose sole cares are
yet devoted to the culture of their fields and the safety of their
flocks. The form of government which suits best with such a distribution
of wealth and employment is unquestionably that which was established by
Moses on the basis of the ancient patriarchal rule. But it is worthy of
notice, that this model, so convenient in the earliest stage of social
existence, was imperceptibly changed by the increasing power and
intelligence of the people at large, until, as happened towards the
close of Samuel's administration, the public voice made itself be heard
recommending an entire departure from obsolete notions. They glorified
in the progress of the human race, that the simple authority of the
family-chief passes through a species of oligarchy into a practical
democracy, and ends at no very distant period in the nomination of an
hereditary sovereign.
The epoch at which we now contemplate the Hebrew community is that very
interesting one when the wandering shepherd settles down into the
stationary husbandman. The progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who
themselves were pastoral chiefs, appear to have retained a decided
predilection for that ancient mode of life. Moses, even after he had
brought the twelve tribes within sight of the promised land, found it
necessary to indulge the families of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh so far as
to give them the choice of a settlement beyond the Jordan, where they
might devote themselves to the keeping of cattle. From the conduct also
of the other tribes, who showed no small reluctance to divide the land
and enter upon their several inheritances, it has been concluded, with
considerable probability, that they too would have preferred the erratic
habits of their ancestors to the more restricted pursuits which their
great law-giver had prepared for them amid cornfields, vineyards, and
plantations of olives. "And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, How
long are ye slack to go to possess the land which the Lord God of your
fathers hath given you?"[27]
Among the Arabs, even at the present day, the pastoral life is accounted
more noble than that which leads to a residence in towns, or even in
villages. They think it, as Arvieux remarks, more congenial to liberty;
because the man who with his herds ranges the desert at large will be far
less likely to submit to oppression than people with houses and lands.
This mode of thinking is of great antiquity in the eastern parts of the
world. Diodorus Siculus, when speaking of the Nabathaeans, relates, that
they were by their laws prohibited from sowing, planting, drinking wine,
and building houses; every violation of the precept being punishable with
death. The reason assigned for this very singular rule is, their belief
that those who possess such things will be easily brought into subjection
by a tyrant; on which account they continue, says the historian, to
traverse the desert, feeding their flocks, which consist partly of camels
and partly of sheep.
The fact now stated receives a remarkable confirmation from the notice
contained in the book of Jeremiah respecting the Rechabites, who, though
they had for several ages been removed from Arabia into Palestine,
persevered in a sacred obedience to the command of their ancestor,
refusing to build houses, sow land, plant vineyards, or drink wine, but
resolving to dwell in tents throughout all their generations.
In regard to these points, the Hebrews, in the early age at which we are
now considering them, appear to have entertained sentiments not very
different from those of the Arabs, from whose sandy plains they had just
emerged. The life of a migratory shepherd, too, has a very close alliance
with the habits of a freebooter; and the attentive reader of the ancient
history of the Israelites will recollect many instances wherein the
descendants of Isaac gave ample proof of their relationship to the
posterity of Ishmael. The character of Abimelech, the son of Gideon, for
example, cannot be viewed in any other light than that of a captain of
marauders. The men of Shechem, whom he had hired to follow him, refused
not to obey his commands, even when he added murder to robbery. Jephthah,
in like manner, when he was thrust out by his brethren, became the chief
of a band of freebooters in the land of Tob. "And there were gathered vain
men to Jephthah, and went out with him." But the elders of Gilead did not
on that account regard their brave countryman as less worthy to assume the
direction of their affairs, and to be head over all the inhabitants of
their land,--an honour which he even hesitated to accept when compared
with the rank and emolument of the less orderly situation which they
requested him to relinquish.
Nor did David himself think it unsuitable to his high prospects to have
recourse for a time to a predatory life. When compelled to flee from the
presence of Saul, he took refuge in the cave of Adullam; "and every one
that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that
was discontented gathered themselves unto him, and he became a captain
over them." It has been suggested, indeed, that the son of the
Bethlehemite employed his arms against such persons only as were enemies
to the Hebrews. But there is no good ground for this distinction. His
conduct to Nabal, whose possessions were in Carmel, proves, that when his
camp was destitute of provisions he deemed it no violation of honour to
force a supply for the wants of his men, even from the stores of a
friendly house. We may judge, moreover, of the character of his followers,
as well from the remonstrance that was made by the parsimonious rustic to
whom he sent them, as from the effect which a refusal produced upon their
ardent tempers. "Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? There be many
servants now-a-days that break away every man from his master. Shall I
then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my
shearers, and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be?--So David's
young men turned their way, and went again, and told him all those
sayings. And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And
they girded on every man his sword, and David also girded on his sword:
and there went after David about four hundred men, and two hundred abode
by the stuff."[28]
It is manifest, that in the simple condition of society to which our
attention is now directed, the profession of a freebooter was not in any
sense accounted dishonourable. The courage and dexterity which such a life
requires stand high in the estimation of tribes who are almost constantly
in a state of war; and hence, in reading the history of the ancient
Israelites, we must form an opinion of their manners and principles, not
according to the maxims of an enlightened age, but agreeably to the
habits, pursuits, and mental cultivation which belonged to their own
times.
It is farther worthy of remark, that during the period of the Hebrew
judges there is not the slightest trace of those distinctions of rank
which spring from mere wealth, office, or profession. From the princes of
Judah down to the meanest family in Benjamin, all were agriculturists or
shepherds, driving their own oxen, or attending in person to their sheep
and their goats. The hospitable Ephraimite, who received into his house at
Gibeah the Levite and his unfortunate companion, is described as "an old
man coming from his work out of the field at even." Gideon, again, was
thrashing his corn with his own hands when the angel announced to him that
he was selected by Divine Providence to be the deliverer of his people.
Boaz was attending his reapers in the field when his benevolence was
awakened in favour of Ruth, the widow of his kinsman. When Saul received
the news of the danger which threatened the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead,
he was in the act of "coming after the herd out of the field." Sovereign
as he was, he thought it not inconsistent with his rank to drive a yoke of
oxen. Every one knows that David was employed in keeping the sheep when he
was summoned into the presence of Samuel to be anointed king over Israel;
and even when he was upon the throne, and had by his talents and bravery
extended at once the power and the reputation of his countrymen among the
neighbouring nations, the annual occupation of sheep-shearing called his
sons and his daughters into the hill country to take their share in its
toils and amusements. In point of blood and ancestry, too, every
descendant of Jacob was held on the same footing; and the only ground of
pre-eminence which one man could claim over another was connected with old
age, wisdom, strength, or courage,--the qualities most respected in the
original forms of civilized life.[29]
We have been the more careful to collect these fragments of personal
history, because it is chiefly from them that the few rays of light
are reflected which illustrate the state of society at the era of the
Hebrew commonwealth. That the times in which the judges ruled were
barbarous and unsettled is rendered manifest, not less by the general
tenor of events, than by the qualities which predominated in the public
mind during the long period that elapsed between the death of Joshua and
the reign of Solomon. These notices also convey to us some degree of
information, in regard to the political relations which subsisted among
the Syrian tribes prior to the commencement of the regal government at
Jerusalem. The wars which were carried on at that remote epoch seem not
to have been waged with any view to permanent conquest, or even to
territorial aggrandizement, but merely to revenge an insult, to exact a
ransom, or to abstract slaves and cattle. The history of the judges
supplies no facts which would lead us to infer that during any of tie
servitudes, which for their repeated transgressions were inflicted on
the Hebrews, their lands were taken from them, or their cities destroyed
by their conquerors. It was not till a later age that a more systematic
plan of conquest was formed by the powerful princes who governed beyond
the Euphrates and on the banks of the Nile, and who, not content with the
uncertain submission of tributaries, resolved to reduce the Israelites for
ever to the condition of subjects or of bondmen.
The account which has been given of the political constitution of the
ancient Jews would not be complete were we to omit all notice of the tribe
of Levi, the duties and revenues of which were fixed by peculiar laws. It
may, perhaps, be thought by some readers, that this institution rested on
a basis altogether spiritual; but, upon suitable inquiry, it will be found
that the Levitical offices comprehended a great variety of avocations,
much more closely connected with secular life than with the ministry of
the tabernacle, or with the services which were due to the priesthood.
This sacred tribe, indeed, supplied to the whole nation of the Israelites
their judges, lawyers, scribes, teachers, and physicians; for Moses, in
imitation of the Egyptians, in whose wisdom he was early and deeply
instructed, had thought proper to make the learned professions hereditary
in the several families of Levi's descendants.
We find, in the first chapter of the book of Numbers, a command issued by
the authority of Heaven to separate the tribe now mentioned from the rest
of their brethren, and not to enrol them among those who were to engage in
war. It was determined, on similar grounds, that the Levites were to have
no inheritance in the land like the other tribes, but were to receive from
their kinsmen, in name of maintenance, a tenth part of the gross produce
of their fields and vineyards. The occupations for which they were set
apart were altogether incompatible with the pursuits of agriculture or the
feeding of cattle. It was deemed expedient, therefore, that they should be
relieved from the cares and toil connected with the possession of
territorial estates, and devote their whole attention to the service of
the altar and the instruction of the people.
To effect these wise purposes, it was necessary that the members of this
learned body should not be confined to one particular district, but that
they should be distributed among all the other tribes, according to the
extent of their several inheritances and the amount of their population.
With this view the law provided that a certain number of cities should be
set apart for them, together with such a portion of soil as might seem
requisite for their comfort and more immediate wants. "Command the
children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites, of the inheritance of
their possession, cities to dwell in; and ye shall give unto the Levites
suburbs for the cities round about them. And ye shall measure from without
the city, on the east side, two thousand cubits, and on the south side two
thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the
north side two thousand cubits; and the city shall be in the midst: this
shall be to them the suburbs of the cities. So all the cities which ye
shall give to the Levites shall be forty and eight cities; them shall ye
give with their suburbs."[30]
It was not till after the conquest and division of Canaan that the
provisions of this enactment were practically fulfilled. When the other
tribes were settled in their respective possessions, the children of Levi
reminded Joshua of the arrangement made by his predecessor, and claimed
cities to dwell in, and suburbs for their cattle. The justice of their
appeal being admitted, the Levitical stations were distributed as
follows,--
Cities
In the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin 13
In Ephraim, Dan, and the half-tribe of Manasseh 10
In the other half-tribe of Manasseh, Issachar,
Asher, and Naphtali 13
In Zebulun, Reuben, and Gad 12
--
48
Every reader of the Bible is aware, that six of these cities were invested
with the special right of affording refuge and protection to a certain
class of criminals. The Jewish doctors maintain that this privilege,
somewhat limited, belonged to all the forty-eight; for, being sacred, no
act of revenge or mortal retaliation was permitted to take place within
their gates. Into the six cities of refuge, properly so called, the
manslayer could demand admittance, whether the Levites were disposed to
receive him or not; and on the same ground he was entitled to gratuitous
lodging and maintenance, until his cause should be determined by competent
judges. It is added, that they could exercise a discretionary power as to
the reception of a homicide into any other of their cities, and even in
respect to the hire which they might demand for the house used by him
during temporary residence. But the institution of Moses, afterward
completed by Joshua, affords no countenance to these rabbinical
distinctions; and we have no reason whatever to believe that the benefit
of asylum was granted to any Levitical town besides Hebron, Shechem,
Ramoth, Bezer, Kedesh, and Golan.[31]
As learning and the several professions connected with the knowledge
of letters were confined almost exclusively the tribe of Levi, the
distribution of its members throughout the whole of the Hebrew
commonwealth was attended with many advantages. Every Levitical city
became at once a school and a seat of justice. There the language, the
traditions, the history, and the laws of their nation were the constant
subjects of study, pursued with that zeal and earnestness which can only
arise from the feeling of a sacred obligation, combined with the impulse
of an ardent patriotism. Within their walls were deposited copies of their
religious, moral, and civil institutions; which it was their duty not only
to preserve, but to multiply. They kept, besides, the genealogies of the
tribes; in which they marked the lineage of every family who could trace
their descent to the father of the faithful. Being carefully instructed
in the law, and possessed of the annals of their people from the earliest
days, they were well qualified to supply the courts with magistrates and
scribes, men who were fitted not only to administer justice, but also to
frame a record of all their decisions. It is perfectly clear that, in
the reign of David and of the succeeding kings, the judges and other
legal officers were selected from among the Levites; there being in
those days not fewer than six thousand of this learned body who held
such appointments.
Michaelis represents the Levitical law among the Hebrews in the light of
a literary noblesse; enjoying such a degree of wealth and consideration
as to enable them to act as a counterpoise to the influence of the
aristocracy; while, on the other hand they prevented the adoption of
those hasty measures which were sometimes to be apprehended from the
democratical nature of the general government. They were not merely a
spiritual brotherhood, but professional members of all the different
faculties; and by birth obliged to devote themselves to those branches
of study, for the cultivation of which they were so liberally rewarded.
Like the Egyptian priesthood, they occupied the whole field of literature
and science; extending their inquiries to philosophy, theology, natural
history, mathematics, jurisprudence, civil history, and even medicine.
Perhaps, too, it was in imitation of the sages of the Nile that the
Hebrews made these pursuits hereditary in a consecrated tribe; whence
flowed this obvious advantage, that the sons of the Levites, from the
very dawn of reason, were introduced to scientific researches, and
favoured with a regulated system of tuition suited to the occupation
in which their lives were to be spent. In short, the institution bears
upon it all the marks of that wisdom for which the Mosaical economy is
so remarkably distinguished, when viewed as the basis of a government
at once civil, religious, and political.[32]
The youngest reader of the Sacred Volume cannot fail to have perceived,
that the character and government of the Hebrew judges withdraw the
attention from the ordinary course of human events, and fix it on the
marvellous or supernatural. These personages were raised up by the special
providence of god, to discharge the duties of an office which the peculiar
circumstances of a chosen people from time to time rendered necessary; and
the various gifts with which they were endowed, as they constituted the
main ground of vocation to their high employment, so were they suited to
the difficulties that they had to overcome, and to the achievements they
were called to perform. The sanctity of their manners did not, indeed, in
all cases correspond to the dignity of their station; and the miracles
which they wrought for the welfare of their country were not always
accompanied with self-restraint and the due subordination of their
passions. Their military exploits were worthy of the highest admiration;
while, in some instances, their private conduct calls forth only our
surprise and regret. For examples of heroism and bravery, we can with
confidence point to Gideon, to Samson, and to Jephthah; but there is not
in their character anything besides that a father could recommend to the
imitation of his son, or that a lover of order and pureness of living
would wish to see adopted in modern society. We observe, in the greater
number of them, uncommon and even supernatural powers of body, as well as
of mind, united with the gross manners and fierce passions of barbarians.
We applaud their patriotism, admire their courage and talent to the field,
and even share in the delight which accompanied their triumphs; yet, when
we return to their dwellings, we dare not inspect too narrowly the usages
of their domestic day, nor examine into the indulgences with which they
sometimes thought proper to remunerate the ails and cares of their public
life. Divine Wisdom, stooping to the imperfection of human nature,
employed the instruments that were best fitted for the gracious ends
which, by their means, were about to be accomplished; though it does not
appear to have been intended that mankind should ever resort to the
history of the Judges for lessons of decorum, humanity, or virtue.