Government

VIEW:42 DATA:01-04-2020

GOVERNMENT.—The purpose of this article will be to sketch in outline the forms of government among the Hebrews at successive periods of their history. The indications are in many cases vague, and it is impossible to reconstruct the complete system; at no period was there a definitely conceived, still less a written, constitution in the modern sense. For fuller details reference should be made throughout to the separate articles on the officials, etc., mentioned.
We may at once set aside Legislation, one of the most important departments of government as now understood. In ancient communities, law rested on Divine command and immemorial custom, and could as a rule be altered only by ‘fictions.’ The idea of avowedly new legislation to meet fresh circumstances was foreign to early modes of thought. At no period do we find a legislative body in the Bible. Grote’s dictum that ‘The human king on earth is not a lawmaker, but a judge,’ applies to all the Biblical forms of government. The main functions of government were judicial, military, and at later periods financial, and to a limited extent administrative.
1. During the nomadic or patriarchal age the unit is the family or clan, and, for certain purposes, the tribe. The head of the house, owing to his position and experience, was the supreme ruler and judge, in fact the only permanent official. He had undisputed authority within his family group (Gen_22:1-24; Gen_38:24, Deu_21:13, Jdg_11:34). Heads of families make agreements with one another and settle quarrels among their dependents (Gen_21:22; Gen_31:45); the only sanction to which they can appeal is the Divine justice which ‘watches’ between them (Gen_31:49; Gen_31:53, Gen_49:7). Their hold over the individual lay in the fact that to disobey was to become an outlaw; and to be an outcast from the tribe was to be without protector or avenger. The heads of families combined form, in a somewhat more advanced stage, the ‘elders’ (Exo_3:15; Exo_18:21, Num_22:7); and sometimes, particularly in time of war, there is a single chief for the whole tribe. Moses is an extreme instance of this, and we can see that his position was felt to be unusual (Exo_2:14; Exo_4:1, Num_16:1-50). It was undefined, and rested on his personal influence, backed by the Divine sanction, which, as his followers realized, had marked him out. This enables him to nominate Joshua as his successor.
2. The period of the ‘Judges’ marks a higher stage; at the same time, as a period of transition it appeared rightly to later generations as a time of lawlessness. The name ‘Judges,’ though including the notion of champion or deliverer, points to the fact that their chief function was judicial. The position was not hereditary, thus differing from that of king (Jdg_9:1-57 ff. Gideon and Abimelech), though Samuel is able to delegate his authority to his sons (1Sa_8:1). Their status was gained by personal exploits, implying Divine sanction, which was sometimes expressed in other ways; e.g. gift of prophecy (Deborah, Samuel). Their power rested on the moral authority of the strong man, and, though sometimes extending over several tribes, was probably never national. During this period the nomadic tribe gives way to the local; ties of place are more important than ties of birth. A town holds together its neighbouring villages (‘daughters’), as able to give them protection (Num_21:25; Num_21:32, Jos_17:11). The elders become the ‘elders of the city’; Jdg_8:6; Jdg_8:14; Jdg_8:18 mentions officials (sârîm) and elders of Succoth, i.e. heads of the leading families, responsible for its government. In Jdg_11:5 the elders of Gilead have power in an emergency to appoint a leader from outside.
3. The Monarchy came into being mainly under the pressure of Philistine invasion. The king was a centre of unity, the leader of the nation in war, and a judge (1Sa_8:20). His power rested largely on a personal basis. As long as he was successful and strong, and retained the allegiance of his immediate followers, his will was absolute (David, Ahab, Jehu; cf. Jer_36:1-32; Jer_37:1-21). At the same time there were elements which prevented the Jewish monarchy from developing the worst features of an Oriental despotism. At least at first the people bad a voice in his election (David, Rehoboam). In Judah the hereditary principle prevailed (there were no rival tribes to cause jealousy, and David’s line was the centre of the national hopes), but the people still had influence (2Ki_14:21; 2Ki_21:24). In the Northern Kingdom the position of the reigning house was always insecure, and the ultimate penalty of misgovernment was the rise of a new dynasty. A more important check was found in the religious control, democratic in its best sense, exercised by the prophets (Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, etc.). The Jewish king had at least to hear the truth, and was never allowed to believe that he was indeed a god on earth. At the same time there is no constitutional check on misrule; the ‘law of the kingdom’ in Deu_17:14 deals rather with moral and religious requirements, as no doubt did Jehoiada’s covenant (2Ki_11:17). With the kingdom came the establishment of a standing army, David’s ‘mighty men’ quickly developing into the more organized forces of Solomon’s and later times. The command of the forces was essential to the king’s power; cf. insurrection of Jehu ‘the captain’ (2Ki_9:1-37), and Jehoiada’s care to get control of the army (2Ki_11:4). Side by side with the power of the sword came the growth of a court, with its harem and luxurious entourage, its palace and its throne. These were visible symbols of the royal power, impressing the popular mind. The lists of officers (2Sa_8:16, 1Ki_4:1-34) are significant; they indicate the growth of the king’s authority, and the development of relations with other States. The real power of government has passed into the hands of the king’s clientète. His servants hold office at his pleasure, and, provided they retain his favour, there is little to limit their power. They may at times show independence of spirit (1Sa_22:17, Jer_36:25), but are usually his ready tools (2Sa_11:14; cf. the old and the young counsellors of Rehoboam, 1Ki_12:6 ff.). The prophetic pictures of the court and its administration are not favourable (Amo_3:8; Amo_4:1; Amo_4:6, Isa_5:1-30 etc.). The methods of raising revenue were undefined, and being undefined were oppressive. We hear of gifts and tribute (1Sa_10:27, 2Sa_8:10, 1Ki_4:7; 1Ki_4:21-28; 1Ki_10:11-25), of tolls and royal monopolies (1Ki_10:15; 1Ki_10:28-29), of forced labour (1Ki_5:13) and of the ‘king’s mowings’ (Amo_7:1), of confiscation (1Ki_21:1-29), and. in an emergency, of stripping the Temple (2Ki_18:15). In time of peace the main function of the king is the administration of justice (2Sa_15:2, 2Ki_15:5); his subjects have the right of direct access (2Ki_8:8). This must have lessened the power of the local elders, who no doubt had also to yield to the central court officials. ‘The elders of the city’ appear during this period as a local authority, sometimes respected and consulted (2Sa_19:11, 1Ki_20:7, 2Ki_23:1), sometimes the obedient agents of the king’s will (1Ki_21:8; 1Ki_21:11, 2Ki_10:1; 2Ki_10:5). 2Ch_19:5-11 describes a judicial system organized by Jehoshaphat, which agrees in its main features with that implied by Deu_16:18; Deu_17:8-13; there are local courts, with a central tribunal. In Dt. the elders appear mainly as judicial authorities, but have the power of executing their decisions (Deu_19:12; Deu_19:21, Deu_22:15 etc.). The influence of the priesthood in this connexion should be noticed. The administration of justice always included a Divine element (Exo_18:15; Exo_18:19; Exo_21:6; Exo_22:8; cf. word ‘Torah’), and in the Deuteronomic code the priests appear side by side with the lay element in the central court (Exo_17:9, Exo_19:17; cf. Isa_28:7, Eze_44:24 etc.). But the government is not yet theocratic. Jehoiada relies on his personal influence and acts in concert with the chiefs of the army (2Ki_11:1-21; 2Ki_12:1-21), and even after the Exile Joshua is only the fellow of Zerubbabel. The appointment of Levites as judges, ascribed to David in 1Ch_23:4; 1Ch_26:29, is no doubt an anachronism. Cf. also art. Justice (ii.).
4. Post-exilic period.—Under the Persians Judah was a subdistrict of the great province west of the Euphrates and subject to its governor (Ezr_5:3). It had also its local governor (Neh_5:14), with a measure of local independence (Ezr_10:14); we read, too, of a special official ‘at the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people’ (Neh_11:24). The elders are prominent during this period both in exile (Eze_8:1; Eze_14:1; Eze_20:1) and in Judah (Ezr_5:9; Ezr_6:7; Ezr_10:8, Neh_2:16). The chief feature of the subsequent period was the development of the priestly power, and the rise to importance of the office of the high priest. Under Greek rule (after b.c. 333) the Jews were to a great extent allowed the privileges of self-government. The ‘elders’ develop into a gerousia or senate—an aristocracy comprising the secular nobility and the priesthood (1Ma_12:6; 1Ma_14:20); it is not known when the name ‘Sanhedrin’ was first used. The high priest became the head of the State, and its official representative, his political power receiving a great development under the Hasmonæans. Owing to the growing importance of the office, the Seleucids always claimed the power of appointment. In b.c. 142, Simon is declared to be ‘high priest, captain, and governor for ever’ (1Ma_14:27-47). The title ‘ethnarch’ (see Governor) is used of him and other high priests. Aristobulus becomes king (b.c. 105), and Alexander Jannæus uses the title on coins (b.c. 104–78). Under Roman rule (b.c. 63) the situation becomes complicated by the rise to power of the Herodian dynasty. Palestine passed through the varying forms of government known to the Roman Imperial constitution. Herod the Great was its titular king, with considerable independence subject to good behaviour (rex socius). Archelaus forfeited his position (a.d. 6). Thenceforward Judæa was under the direct rule of a procurator (see next article), except from a.d. 41 to 44, when Agrippa i. was king. Antipas was ‘tetrarch’ of Galilee and Peræa; Mark’s title of ‘king’ (6:14) is corrected by Matthew and Luke. The position was less honourable and less independent than that of king. The high priest (now appointed by the Romans) and the Sanhedrin regained the power which they had lost under Herod; the government became once more an aristocracy (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XX. x.). Except for the power of life and death the Sanhedrin held the supreme judicial authority; there were also local courts connected with the Synagogue (Mat_5:22). Its moral authority extended to Jews outside Palestine. In the Diaspora, the Jews, tenacious of their national peculiarities, were in many cases allowed a large measure of self-government, particularly in judicial matters. In Alexandria, in particular, they had special privileges and an ‘ethnarch’ of their own (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XIV. vii. 2). For the cities of Asia Minor, see Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, chs. xi. xii.
For ‘governments’ (1Co_12:28) see Helps.
C. W. Emmet.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

God is the supreme ruler of the world and he desires that all countries be governed orderly and justly. He is the source of all authority and he has given to governments, as his representatives on earth, the authority to administer society (Jer_27:5; Dan_4:17; Joh_19:11). Citizens therefore have a responsibility to obey the laws of their country (Rom_13:1-2; cf. Jer_29:4-7). Christians share in this responsibility. Since they know that the authority of government comes from God, they should give their obedience willingly (Rom_13:5; 1Pe_2:13-15).
The role of government
Two of the basic functions of civil government are to promote the well-being of society and to restrain wrongdoing in society. God has given to governments the right to reward good conduct and punish wrongdoing (Rom_13:4). Governments exist for the benefit of the people, and should want to control affairs so that citizens can live peacefully and contentedly (1Ti_2:1-2).
Christians are taught to cooperate with the government in pursuing these goals, and at the same time to maintain their loyalty to God (Mar_12:17; Rom_13:5-7; Tit_3:1; 1Pe_2:17). They have a duty to pay taxes to the government for the benefits they receive from it, and a duty to be loyal to God because of all he has done for them (Luk_20:25; Rom_13:6-7).
Tensions will arise, however, when the ruling authorities pass laws that are unjust or anti-God. The only obligation to absolute obedience that God’s people have is obedience to God. They may find that if they are to maintain their loyalty to him, they have to disobey the government. As a result they may suffer penalties (Dan_3:8-12; Dan_6:13; Dan_6:16; Mat_10:18; Act_5:29; Act_5:40; 1Pe_4:12-16). If that is the case, they must, like Christ, accept suffering without retaliation, praying for their persecutors and committing their cause to God (1Pe_2:20-23; cf. Exo_3:7; Dan_3:16-18; Luk_6:28; Luk_23:34; 1Ti_2:1-2; see PERSECUTION).
At the same time God’s people should be concerned about the government’s behaviour. At times they may decide to speak and act in support of the principle of justice that the government is supposed to administer (Isa_3:14; Isa_5:22-23; Mic_3:1-3; Act_16:35-39; Act_22:25; Act_25:10-11).
The sort of response that God’s people make to unjust government action will depend to some extent on what rights citizens have in their country. In some countries Christians are in a similar position to Christians of New Testament times, having no rights in deciding who governs them or how they are governed. In other countries the citizens themselves decide who governs them, and they can openly try to influence government decisions. In such countries Christians can not only pray for God’s will to be done on earth, but they can actively work for those values of justice, freedom, morality, honesty and compassion that God desires for human society (Mat_6:10).
One difficulty in all societies is that those in a position to bring about social change are the least likely to want it, for they are the ones who benefit most from the existing order (Isa_3:14-15; Eze_34:4; Amo_5:11-12). Jesus refused to use violence, either to protect what was good or remove what was bad (Mat_26:52; Joh_18:36), but he did not keep silent when he saw disadvantaged and defenceless people ignored or exploited (Mat_21:13; Mat_23:4; Mat_23:23; Mat_25:42-45; Mar_12:20; Luk_6:24-25; Luk_16:19-26; cf. Amo_2:6-7; Mic_2:1-2; Zep_3:3; see JUSTICE).
This does not mean that the church should try to govern society. That is not the church’s job. God has entrusted the government of society to civil authorities, not to the church (Rom_13:1; Rom_13:4). When governments misuse their God-given authority, God holds them responsible (Joh_19:10-12). In due course he will deal with them, in whatever way and with whatever means he chooses (1Ki_11:29-37; Isa_1:23-26; Dan_5:24-28; Amo_6:4-7; Mic_3:1-4; Rev_18:1-2; Rev_18:24).
Limitations of government
Although governments can help society by their efforts to promote good and oppose evil, the basic problems of human sin cannot be overcome merely through government action.
The primary concern of Christianity is not to change society in the hope that people might improve, but to change people so that through them society might improve. The gospel is basic to God’s work among the people of the earth, and Christians must proclaim that gospel (Eph_4:17-24; Tit_2:14; see GOSPEL). But they cannot ignore problems in a society of which they are part (Amo_6:4-6). They have a joint responsibility to work positively for what is good (Mat_5:13) and openly condemn what is wrong (Mat_14:4; Eph_5:11).
As Christians understand more of God and his Word, they will understand more of the sort of life God wants for people. The Creator knows what is best for his creatures, and his standards are best, not just for Christians but for everyone.
Yet if Christians, even with the help of God’s indwelling Spirit, cannot live perfectly according to God’s standards, non-Christians have much less chance. Because of the hardness of the human heart, God’s ideal may be too high a standard to aim at in the laws that a government makes for society as a whole (Mat_19:8). While Christians may seek the highest standards for themselves and may try to persuade others to accept those standards, they cannot expect the government to enforce those standards by law (e.g. Mat_5:39-42).
Human society has been so spoiled by sin that when a government makes laws, it may be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. That does not mean there is a change in God’s standards. What was formerly evil is still evil. It does not become good simply because the government makes laws to regulate it (e.g. Mat_19:3-10).
Christians, therefore, should not be satisfied merely with doing what is legal (for something that is legal may still be morally wrong), but with doing what is right (Mat_5:21-24; Mat_5:46-48). The laws of the state may represent the minimum requirements for an ordered society; Christian morality goes beyond that, even to a person’s thoughts and motives (Mat_5:27-29; see ETHICS).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

guv?ẽrn-ment: The government of the Hebrews varied at different periods, of which we may distinguish seven: (1) The nomadic period, from the Exodus to the entrance into Palestine; (2) The period of transition from nomadic to civil life; (3) The monarchy; (4) The period of subjection to other oriental nations; (5) The period from Ezra to the Greeks; (6) Greek rule; (7) Roman rule.

1. The Nomadic Period
The government of the primitive period is that proper to nomadic tribes composed of families and clans, in no wise peculiar to the Hebrews, but shared in its essential features by the most diverse peoples at a corresponding stage of civilization. Though we might draw illustrations from many sources, the government of the Bedouins, Semitic nomads inhabiting the steppes of Arabia, affords the most instructive parallel. In the patriarchal state the family is the household (including slaves and concubines) of the father, who is its head, having power of life and death over his children (Gen 22; Jdg_11:31). A clan is a collection of families under a common chieftain, chosen for his personal qualifications, such as prowess and generous hospitality. The composition of the clan was essentially shifting, subject, according to circumstances, to the loss or accession of individuals and families. Although the possession of the same grazing-grounds doubtless played a large part in determining the complexion of the clan, the fiction of descent from a common ancestor was maintained, even when kinship was established by the blood covenant. In all probability community of worship, which cemented the tribe, served as the most effective bond of union also in the clan. Vestiges of such clan cults are still to be detected (1Sa_20:5; Jdg_18:19). The familiar tradition of the twelve tribes must not be allowed to blind us to the evidence that the tribe also was not constant. Mention of the Kenites (Jdg_1:16) and the list of tribes in the Song of Deborah (Jdg 5) remind us that such organizations vanished. In the readjustment incident to the change from the pastoral life of the nomad to that of the settled agricultural population of Palestine, many units were doubtless shifted from one tribe to another, and the same result may be assumed as following from the endless strife between the tribes before and during the period of the kings. The large and powerful tribe of Judah seems to have originated comparatively late. The union of the tribes under the leadership of Moses was essentially similar to the formation of a new tribe out of a group of clans actuated by a desire to accomplish a common end. Many such temporary aggregations must have originated, only to succumb to the centrifugal forces of jealousy and conflicting interests. Even after the entrance of the Hebrews into Palestine, their history for long is that of kindred tribes, rather than that of a nation. The leadership of Moses rested on personal, not on constitutional, authority, and was rendered precarious by the claims of family and of clan, as in the case of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Nu 16). The authority of Moses naturally extended to the administration of justice, as well as to matters pertaining to war and religion. He appointed officers to assist him in this judicial function (Exo_18:21), but the laws according to which they rendered judgment were those of custom and usage, not those of a written code. As among the tribal chieftains, important matters were referred to the leader, who, in cases of doubt or in default of recognized custom, resorted to the lot or to the oracle.

2. The Period of Transition
When the nomad tribes settled in Palestine to become an agricultural people, there ensued a period of unrest due to the necessity for read-justment to changed conditions. The old tribal organization, admirably adapted to the former, ill suited the new requirements. These may be summed up in the demand for the substitution of local organization, based on the rights of individuals, for the tribal government, which had regard solely to the interests of family, clan and tribe. Such readjustment did not, of course, at once ensue, but came piecemeal in answer to the gradually realized wants of the community. Nor was the development entirely from within, but was unquestionably in large measure influenced by the institutions existing among the Canaanite population, only a part of which had been expelled by the invaders. Although the tribes still clung to the fiction of descent from a common ancestor, which was embodied in the accepted genealogies with their filiation of clans into tribes and of tribes into a nation, that which henceforth passed as a ?tribe? was less an aggregation of kindred units than a geographical unit or group of units. The times were turbulent, disturbed by contending elements within and by foes without the tribes. Then it was that there arose a class of chieftains of strongly marked character, called by a new name. The ?judge? (שׁפת, shophet) was not the ruler of a nation, but the chieftain of a tribe, winning and maintaining his authority by virtue of his personal prowess. The cases of Gideon and Abimelech (Jdg 8, 9) show that the authority of the ?judge? was not hereditary. Agreeably to the generally changed conditions, the ?elders? (זקנים, zeḳēnı̄m), who were formerly heads of families or kindreds, now came, possibly under the influence of the Canaanites, to be constituted an aristocratic upper class, with certain functions as administrative officers and councilors. Cities also grew and acquired importance, so that the adjacent hamlets were subordinated to them, probably even ruled from them as executive centers. In all this there is a certain similarity to the process by which, in the period just preceding the beginning of real history, Athens became the metropolis of Attica, and conventional tribes supplanted those based on kinship, while the rise of the purely local organization of the demos led speedily to the appearance of the ?tyrants.? The high places of clans and tribes continued to be frequented, and certain ?seers? (1Sa_9:6) enjoyed considerable prestige by virtue of their peculiar relation to the tribal god.

3. The Monarchy
While the succession of tribal chieftains and of the ?judges? depended on personal qualifications, the principle of heredity is essential to the institution of monarchy, which originated in the desire to regulate the succession with a view to having an assured authoritative leadership. This principle could not, of course, be invoked in the appointment of Saul, the first king (מלך, melekh), who won this distinction in virtue of his personal prowess, supported by the powerful influence of the ?seer,? Samuel. His son Ishbosheth ruled two years over Israel, but lost his throne through the disaffection of his subjects (2 Sam 2 through 4). The accession of David, king of Judah, to the throne of all Israel was likewise exceptional, owing as much to the character of the heir presumptive as to his own qualifications. Solomon, as the choice of his father David, succeeded by right of heredity with the support of the military and religious leaders. In the Southern Kingdom of Judah, heredity was henceforth observed because of its homogeneity and the consequent absence of internal discord; whereas the principle often failed in the turbulent Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was distracted by tribal jealousies. But even when not effectually operative, heredity was recognized as constituting a claim to the succession, although the popular voice, which had been supreme in the institution of the monarchy, was a power always to be reckoned with.
(1) Royal Prerogatives
The history and functions of monarchy defined the prerogatives and duties of the king. Just as the head of the family, or the chieftain of a tribe, functioned as representative of those subject to him in matters of religion, war, and the administration of justice, so also was it with the king. In all these spheres he was supreme, exercising his authority either personally or through representatives who thus became part of the royal establishment. It is to be noted that the sacerdotal or sacral character of the king, which was merely an extension of his privileges as individual and head of a household, was not emphasized among the Hebrews to a like extent as among other oriental peoples; and the priests whom he appointed were perhaps in the first instance court chaplains, though in time they came to assume greater authority. The responsibility of the king for the public safety carried with it the obligation to guard the state treasures, to which the treasures of the temples were felt to belong; and it was his privilege to use them when necessary for defense. The levying of taxes, also, and the collection and use of revenues from various sources likewise fell of necessity to the king and his representatives.
(2) Officers
In regard to the constitution of the king's court under Saul and David we learn comparatively little; even touching that of Solomon we are not fully informed, although we know that it must have been far removed from the original simplicity. We may classify the known officers as follows: (a) religious: priests (2Sa_8:17; 2Sa_20:23); (b) household: cupbearer (1Ki_10:5); master of the vestry (2Ki_10:22); master of the household (1Ki_4:6), who probably was a eunuch (1Ki_22:9 m; 2Ki_8:6 m; 2Ki_9:32); (c) state: scribe or clerk (2Sa_8:17; 2Sa_20:25, etc.); recorder, or prompter (1Ki_4:3); king's counselor (2Sa_15:12); and, perhaps, the king's friend (2Sa_15:37; 2Sa_16:16); overseer of taskwork (2Sa_20:24); (d) military: commander-in-chief of the army (2Sa_8:16); commander of the king's guards (?) (2Sa_8:18; 2Sa_20:23).
(3) Fiscal Institutions
The simplicity of Saul's rule was such as to make slight demands upon the resources of the people. He lived in the manner of a tribal chieftain on his ancestral estate, receiving from his subjects voluntary gifts (1Sa_10:27; 1Sa_16:20), and also, without doubt, his due share of the booty. Whether he instituted a regular tax (compare 1Sa_17:25) is not certain. With the growth and prosperity of the nation, David changed the character of the court, imitating in a measure the state of other oriental potentates. It is not clear whether he levied a regular tax, although it may be surmised that he had it in view, together with the regulation of taskwork, in ordaining the census taken in his time (2Sa_24:1). We know that he received his portion of the booty (2Sa_8:11; 2Sa_12:30). The increasing luxury of Solomon's court required the imposition of additional taxes. It is probable that some income was derived from the enforced cultivation of crown lands (1Sa_8:12), although the taskwork, which became extremely burdensome and subsequently provoked the secession of the Northern Kingdom, was chiefly applied to public works. The tribute of subject peoples (1Ki_4:21) was considerable (1Ki_10:14). We now for the first time hear of taxes upon caravans and merchants, although it was in all probability a source of income even in the time of the nomad chieftains; there was also revenue from the carrying trade of his merchant fleet (1Ki_10:11, 1Ki_10:22) and from the trade in horses and chariots carried on with Egypt (1Ki_10:28). Solomon also divided his kingdom into twelve provinces commanded by prefects, who should provide victuals for the king and his household: each prefect had to make provision for a month in the year (1Ki_4:7). It does not appear whether Judah, which is not included in the list of provinces, was as a mark of special favor exempted from this tax, or whether the omission is to be otherwise explained. The seizure of the vineyard of Naboth by Ahab (1 Ki 21) makes it seem not improbable that the property of persons condemned on certain charges was confiscate to the king.
(4) Administration of Justice
The king, like the tribal chieftain of the steppes, still sat in judgment, but chiefly in matters of moment; less important cases were decided by the prefects of provinces and other officers. Under the earlier kings there was no code except the Book of the Covenant (Ex 20 through 23), but judgment was rendered on the basis of the law of custom or usage, the function of the judge being essentially that of an arbiter. For the later code see DEUTERONOMY.
(5) Religion
The king was regarded as the natural representative of his people before God; but while he did exercise certain sacerdotal functions in person, such offices were generally performed by the priest whom he had appointed.
(6) Secular Administration
The authority of the king in matters of state was exercised partly by him in person, partly through his ministers, the ?princes? (1Ki_4:2). Among these functions are to be classed the communication with subject and foreign princes and the direction of the taskwork, which was employed for public improvements, partly military, as in the fortification of cities, partly religious, as in the building of the temple. Local affairs had always been left largely to the tribes and their subdivisions, but, with the gradual increase of royal authority, the king sought to exercise it more and more in the conduct of the village communities. Conversely, the ?elders of the people,? as the (albeit aristocratic) representatives of the communes, occasionally had a voice even in larger matters of state.

4. Israel Under Oriental Potentates
The principle of local autonomy; was widely observed in the oriental states, which concerned themselves chiefly about political and military organization and about the collection of revenues. Hence, there is no occasion for surprise on finding that the Jews enjoyed a large measure of autonomy during the period of their subjection to other oriental powers and that even during the exile they resorted, in matters of dispute, to their own representatives for judgment. Under Persian rule Palestine formed part of the satrapy lying West of the Euphrates and had, for a time, its own governor.

5. After the Restoration
Ezra and Nehemiah endeavored to introduce a new code, which, after a period of perhaps two centuries, established a dual form of government subject to the supreme authority of the suzerain power. By the new code the secular officers were subordinated to the high priest, who thus virtually assumed the position of a constitutional prince, ruling under the Law. The ?prince,? however, as the representative of the tribes, and the ?elders of the people,? as the representatives of the communes, continued to exercise a certain limited authority.

6. The Greeks
Under the Greek rulers of Egypt and Syria the Jews continued to enjoy a large measure of autonomy, still maintaining in general the type of internal government formulated under Ezra and Nehemiah. We now hear of a council of ?elders? presided over by the high priest. The latter, appointed by the kings, was recognized as ethnarch by both Ptolemies and Seleucids and held accountable for the payment of the tribute, for the exaction of which he was, of course, empowered to levy taxes. The brief period of political independence under the Hasmoneans (see ASMONEANS) did not materially alter the character compare the government, except that the high who had long been a prince in everything but in name, now openly so styled himself. The council of the ?elders? survived, although with slightly diminished authority. In other respects the influence of Greek institutions made itself felt.

7. The Romans
When Pompey terminated the reign of the Hasmoneans, the government still continued with little essential change. Following the example of the Greek kings, the Romans at Romans first appointed the high priest to the ?leadership of the nation.? He was soon, however, shorn for a time of his political dignity, the country being divided into five districts, each governed by its ?synod?; but Caesar once more elevated the high priest to the office of ethnarch. Under Herod, the high priest and the synedrium (Sanhedrin), appointed or deposed at will as his interests seemed to require, lost much of their former prestige and power. After the death of Herod the land was again divided, and a procurator, subordinate to the governor of Syria, ruled in Judea, having practical independence in his sphere. In their internal affairs the Jews now, as under former masters, enjoyed a large measure of freedom. The high priest no longer exercising any political authority, the synedrium, of which he was a member, now gained in influence, being in fact an aristocratic council in many respects not unlike the Roman senate. It combined judicial and administrative functions, limited in the exercises of its authority only by the provision that its decisions might be reviewed by the procurator. (See GOVERNOR.) Naturally the outlying jurisdictions were organized on the same model, each with its synedrium competent in local matters. The synedrium at Jerusalem served also as a governing board for the city.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores