Government under Judges (pol. phil.)

[Claudiu]

Before Israel became a monarchy, what did the government of Israel look like? Was the period of judges and before an era of:

(i) no state* (anarchy, or strictly local government with some hierarchical judicial oversight),
(ii) small state* (libertarian, or limited government), or
(iii) a state (something closer to our modern conception of it)

["State" as understood from an anarchist perspective].

The anarchist will make the argument that there wasn't a state per se. It was God who ruled directly, and certain leaders maintained some martial and/or judicial position for a limited time. But this doesn't qualify as there being a state. When Israel wanted a King like the other nations, it was, in effect, desiring a state, as opposed to the rule of God. Therefore, during the time of the judges there was no state (anarchy), and then there was a state (monarchy).

On the libertarian side, one might say that there was in fact a state, even if only limited to some judges or leaders. This state may have been local, leading to a hierarchy that stretched to the highest judge, and ultimately, to the supreme judge, God himself. In this case, one can't say there wasn't a state. At the same time, one cannot maintain that a full-fledged state existed. If anything, it was a limited government that ultimately rested on God.

Lastly, the statist will say that both position (i) and (ii) are incorrect. There was in fact a state. On this view, even if Israel later wanted a King, which was a rejection of the rule of God, one cannot deny that there was a state beforehand. Whether or not there was extensive power to be found in this state, is besides the point. The statist position can be thought of as being close to position (ii), the difference being in how limited the government actually was.

 

[Philip]

It was a theocracy, with a delegated executive (the judge) appointed from time to time. This state of affairs, however, has little bearing on modern governmental forms, given that no current nation that I am aware of has been directly chosen by God to bear his blessing to the nations and fulfill a plan of redemption. The governmental forms of Ancient Israel were directly tied to the Abrahamic/Mosaic covenant. The legal code produced is, therefore, not analogous to anarchist, libertarian, or modernist conceptions of the state.

That said, the desire for a king was not bad. After all, God had promised Abraham that there would be kings from his seed. Judah is told that there will be monarchs from his seed (Gen 49) and the law has rules regarding the obligations of a king (Deut 17). What was sinful was the desire for a king like the nations.

 

[Mushroom]

They had a King. They rejected Him.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I wouldn't choose (i), (ii), or (iii) as framed. Nation states (according to the way we typically conceive of them) are relatively recent and so I wouldn't select that as an option because it was not how we currently view a state.

It's not immediately apparent to all but there were actually both princes within each tribe as well as those who were elected by the people as elders. Not only was God the King but he had (through Moses) appointed a delegated system of applying the law to the people. One has to completely ignore even the surface of the text after Jethro points out to Moses how crazy it is for one man to do be local and Supreme Court all rolled into one.

Incidentally, even through the time of David and after the captivity, this tradition of having "princes" and elders continued. The rich young ruler is an example of the former while Nicodemus is an example of the latter.

 

[Philip]

It should also be noted that the Mosaic system is not a complete law code. Many of the laws in it assume a system of common law underlying it. For example, inheritance and f amily law are assumed, not stated, and only those things which would require legal penalties are directly addressed.

 

[Claudiu]

Saying Israel was a theocracy can be both good and bad, depending on how we define theocracy. Regardless, it is not necessary for there to be a state for there to be a theocracy. If by theocracy we mean that God is the civil ruler, anarchy is still possible. If, on the other hand, by theocracy we imply some kind of state, then anarchy is necessarily out.

The difficulty arises from the religious-civil distinction during the time. Was the law and the judges limited to the religious realm only, or religious and civil, or only civil? The law is certainly religious, but it also has a lot to say about the day-to-day happenings of man, which would seem to spill over into the civil realm. Although the law covered both religious and civil realms, in my opinion, the mere existence of a law that was commonly accepted as binding on the people with respected arbitrators (judges) does not automatically imply a bureaucracy (or state). To say that there was a state, I think one would have to look beyond the religious make up (which definitely spilled into the civil), and focus on the civil. How was the society structured outside the tabernacle? Was there some other binding law(s), taxation, means of deciding the law, coercive monopoly on enforcement? If these things were missing, can we still saying, in a meaningful way, that a state existed?

 

[Peairtach]

God was King over Israel.

God doesn't lay down for New Testament nations, Christian or non-Christian, what form their civil government should be, but what works best for them at their stage of national development, including spiritual and ecclesiastical development.

 

[Claudiu]

God was King over Israel.

Yes. But I'm trying to get at the state issue. Was there a state or not? If there was, what did it look like?

God doesn't lay down for New Testament nations, Christian or non-Christian, what form their civil government should be, but what works best for them at their stage of national development, including spiritual and ecclesiastical development.

I'm not asking these questions as a means to an ideological end. That would be reading too much into my posts. My intention is merely historical. I am already fairly set in my philosophical views in regards to politics.

 

[Philip]

The difficulty arises from the religious-civil distinction during the time. Was the law and the judges limited to the religious realm only, or religious and civil, or only civil?

In the ancient world, that distinction did not exist. That's a modern distinction.

There was no state in a sense of a fixed center of political power with a standing army, a beauracracy, and taxation. This is because the people of Israel were supposed to let the Lord lead, not a fixed state.

 

[Claudiu]

The difficulty arises from the religious-civil distinction during the time. Was the law and the judges limited to the religious realm only, or religious and civil, or only civil?

In the ancient world, that distinction did not exist. That's a modern distinction.

There was no state in a sense of a fixed center of political power with a standing army, a beauracracy, and taxation. This is because the people of Israel were supposed to let the Lord lead, not a fixed state.

I think that is what I was trying to get at!