State and Society According to the Laws of Moses (part 2)

By Professor Alexander Pavlovich Lopukhin

Contents: Chapter III; Chapter IV

Chapter III

Equality of rights within the state is necessarily linked to equality of obligations toward it. Here, too, the Mosaic state stands in stark contrast to the abnormally developed ancient states: in them, there was typically no correspondence between rights and obligations, as required by state justice. On the contrary, classes or castes with full rights enjoyed complete freedom from obligations and burdensome state duties, while the disenfranchised classes bore all the burdens of state. This state of affairs is inconsistent with simple state justice, and even more so with the supreme theocratic principle that animated the Mosaic state. In this state, a just correspondence of rights and obligations was realized—and since the rights of all members of the state were equal, their obligations toward the state were also equal. The first and foremost duty to the state, even now, and especially in the ancient world, is the duty to protect the state. Hence, military service is the most important and at the same time the most difficult of state duties, and its fair distribution is one of the most important tasks of the legislator. In the Mosaic state, its fair distribution, thanks to the simplicity of social relations, was simple: since all members of the state equally enjoyed the rights granted by the state, then, of course, everyone was obliged to defend and protect it. Hence the principle of universal military service: every Israelite from the age of 20 and above was subject to it (Numbers 1:3; 26:2). The universality of military service, in addition to state justice, was also dictated by the political conditions of the people’s condition, since the country assigned to them for habitation had to be acquired by arms; But even after the conquest and settlement of the country, the people, surrounded on all sides by enemies, had to be constantly ready to defend themselves from attacks, often unexpected (Exodus 17:8; Judges 6:3). As for the order of fulfilling military service itself, it was distinguished by its harmonious organization. Military service was enlisted equally in each tribe, generation, and family (Numbers 1:2), and different parts of the army were formed according to these sections of the people. The entire army was apparently divided into two conscriptions, the first of which consisted of young men 20 years of age and older, and the second of the rest of the male population. Separate lists were maintained for both sections of the army, according to which it was conscripted in wartime. – The universality of military service, however, should not be understood in an absolute sense, but only in relation to the obligation of everyone to it. The law allows for some limitations on universality. Thus, the Levites were completely exempt from military service, which was due both to their special purpose and to their lack of land ownership in the state; therefore, they were not counted when censusing the people for military service (Numbers 2:33). Those for whom, due to the special circumstances of their family life, it was especially difficult to part with their family or household were also exempt from military service. Before the start of the war, the overseers were to announce exemptions to all who fit into certain categories defined by law. “The overseers shall proclaim to the people, saying, ‘Whoever has built a new house and has not renovated it, let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and someone else renovate it. And whoever has planted a vineyard and has not used it, let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and someone else use it.’” (In this case, an Israelite was therefore exempt from military service for four years, since according to the law, the fruits of the crops could only be enjoyed in the fifth year after planting. Lev. 19:25). And whoever has betrothed a wife and has not taken her, let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another take her” (Deut. 20:5-7). Likewise, a newly married man was exempt from military service (as from all other service). “If a man,” says the law, “have recently taken a wife, he shall not go to war; but he shall remain at home one year and make merry with the wife whom he has taken” (Deut. 24:5). Moreover, no one was strictly speaking forced into military service, and therefore all who felt themselves incapable of war, lacking the courage necessary for military affairs, were exempted. “And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and fainthearted, let him go and return unto his house, lest he make the heart of his brethren faint, as his heart” (Deut. 20:8). Thus, in the Mosaic kingdom, while military service was universal, justice was nevertheless observed in relation to certain individuals for whom, due to the particular circumstances of their social, family, or personal situation, this service might be especially burdensome.

The principle of equality in the Mosaic state also retained its significance in other obligations to the state. Alongside military service, imposed on citizens by the duty of external defense of the state, there was another obligation imposed by the duty of maintaining and preserving the state’s internal institutions—taxation. In the Mosaic state, this obligation, too, was not imposed exclusively on any one class of people, but was universal in nature, equally applicable to all members of the state. Taxation, however, thanks to the simplicity of state organization, which did not develop institutions requiring outside support, did not have a specifically governmental character under Moses, or even under the judges. The only institution that required support at that time, and for which taxation was specifically established by law, was the religious institution with its tabernacle and priestly class; therefore, taxation also had an exclusively religious character. This type of duty included, first of all, the so-called redemption tax, which was paid by everyone “who entered the numbering list,” i.e., on the list of those fit for war (Numbers 1:2, 3). It consisted of half a shekel of silver (Exodus 30:12-14) and was used “for the service of the tent of meeting” (v. 16). Then came the tithe of all the produce, which went to the Levites “for their service, because they performed the service of the tent of meeting” (Numbers 18:21); another tithe “of all the produce of the seed,” wine and oil, large and small livestock for the public celebration (Deut. 14:22 and 23); the first fruits of all produce, which were also brought for the organization of the public celebration, in which, among other things, the poor members of the state took part (Deut. 26:1-15). All these religious duties were equally obligatory for everyone—the law does not differentiate between those subject to taxes and those not subject to taxes. Another noteworthy aspect of the tax laws is that the tax, determined by the tithe, was income-based—that is, it was not determined once and for all, but was constantly adjusted according to the amount of income. Only an insignificant redemption tax of half a shekel was paid equally by both rich and poor (Exodus 30:15). The law, however, permitted private exemptions from all duties in special cases of family life. “If a man has recently taken a wife, he shall not go out to war, and nothing shall be laid upon him; 13 he shall remain free in his house one year, and shall make merry with the wife whom he has taken” (Deut. 24:5). This law exempted newly married men not only from military service but also from all other obligations, and consequently, from taxes for one year. The legislator granted these men the freedom to devote their full attention and labor to the well-being of their newly established household and the consolidation of their newly contracted marriage. This exception to the law of universal taxation in favor of individuals did not violate equality, as every Israelite could equally enjoy the benefit it provided after marriage.

Thus, as can be seen from the above, under the influence of theocratic principle, the Mosaic state achieved the highest social justice, expressed in the consistent equality implemented in all spheres of public life. The members of this state are all equally equal—in status and position, in rights and responsibilities. If all members are equally equal and have full rights within the state, then obviously they all have the right to participate in the governance of their state. A sharp distinction between rulers and ruled typically exists where, due to unique historical circumstances, distinct privileged classes have developed, which, thanks to their wealth and education, naturally assume the status of hereditary rulers of the state. Where such privileged classes do not exist, and where all are equally equal in all respects, all members of the state naturally participate in important state affairs or in the governance of the state, although, of course, through elected representatives. Hence, representation as the primary expression of the form of government in the Mosaic state.

This form was particularly significant here given the fact that in the Mosaic state, partly on the basis of ancient law and partly on the direct laws of Moses, the elective principle existed on a broad scale, applying it to all spheres of state and public life. The specificity and character of the elective principle and the representative form of government will become clear when the internal structure of the social organism of the Jewish people is revealed. The fundamental features of the internal structure of the national organism of the Jews were formed even before the conclusion of the covenant with Jehovah, and therefore outside the influence of the theocratic principle, so that when the state was founded on the theocratic principle, the internal organization of the people was already ready material from which the legislator established the new state. Therefore, to understand the peculiarities of the new state’s organization, it is necessary to examine the fundamental features of the historically established and strengthened organic structure of the people themselves.

Chapter IV

The people of Israel descended in Egypt from 12 brothers—the sons of Jacob. These founders of the people, despite their blood relationship, bore such distinct marks of individuality, characteristically distinguishing them from one another (which, incidentally, was expressed in their father’s prophetic blessing, foretelling their distinct destinies based on their individual character—Genesis 49). Even in their descendants, they did not form a single, amorphous mass, but produced 12 distinct generations,14 each retaining its own distinct identity and forming the basis of the people’s organization. These generations, or tribes (schebet), as they are commonly called, constituted the first division of the people, the largest members of the national organism, possessing their own genealogy, history, internal structure, and self-government. Each tribe, in turn, was subdivided into several smaller units, gradually descending organically to the most basic collective unit—the family or household. The first of these divisions is the tribe (mischpachoth) or generation, which represented a whole group of families, linked together by descent from one common ancestor, who in turn descended from the main ancestor, the father of the tribe. The generation was thus divided into families or houses of the fathers (batlim or belli aboth), understood in a broad sense, since each of these houses was subdivided into several separate households and houses. 15 But in general, this unit was apparently considered the last one, having political significance in public life, since the main place on which the described division is based completes the gradation of divisions, presupposing behind it individual individuals. This is the order in which these divisions appeared in a single criminal case, therefore, with all the rigor of legal process: “Come forward, all of you, according to your tribes: and the tribe which the Lord shall indicate, let him come forward according to his tribes: the tribe which the Lord shall indicate, let him come forward according to his families: “The family which the Lord shall appoint, let them come forward, one by one” (Josh. 7:14. Cf. 16-18). Thus, in official public life, only three degrees of division of the national organism were taken into account and had social significance: tribe, tribe, and family. The political structure of the people developed in accordance with these degrees.

During the patriarchal period of the people’s existence, when it did not actually constitute a nation in the political sense, but was an insignificant tribe, it was naturally governed on the principles of tribal life, when all power, both political and religious, is concentrated in the hands of the head of the tribe, the father of the family. This is how the people were governed under the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But already in Egypt, when twelve distinct tribes emerged from a single family, each conscious of their own identity as a nation, the patriarchal order proved outdated and inadequate for the nation’s development. It was therefore replaced by a representative system, in which the nation was governed not by a single head but by representatives of the tribes—the so-called “elders (sekenim) of the sons of Israel” (Exodus 3:16; 4:29). These “elders,” composed of men wise and experienced, were no longer the heads of individual tribes in the patriarchal sense—that is, as sovereign rulers of the tribes, deriving their authority solely from their lineage—but as representatives of the people in a social sense, as chosen ones and spokesmen for their consciousness. Representation was already fully established in Egypt. Thus we see that Moses, with his proposal to free the people from slavery, addresses himself to the “elders of the children of Israel,” fully convinced that their consent or decision would be the consent and decision of the entire nation (Exodus 4:29). Indeed, when Aaron (who spoke for Moses due to his well-known linguistic impediment) conveyed Jehovah’s words to the elders, and Moses performed signs before them,16 the elders believed the message of their great brothers, and their decision so fully expressed the decision of the absent people that the text completely identifies the elders with the people, stating: “And the people believed. And when they heard that the Lord had visited the children of Israel, and had seen their affliction, they bowed their heads and worshiped” (Exodus 4:29–31).

Such was the historical, everyday foundation upon which the legislator had to build a new state.

Notes

10. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, Kar. 34, § 2.

11. Saalschutz, ibidem.

12. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht, Kar. 35, § 1.

13 According to the interlinear translation from Hebrew: neque transibit super eum omne verbum; according to the Vulgate: nec ei quidpiam necessitatis injungetur publicae; according to translation 70: οὐκ ἐιτιβληθήσεται ἀυτῷ οὐδεν πράγμα; the other translations express themselves closely to the Vulgate, only the Syriac modifies the thought: nec abeat ad ullum negotium. Waltonus, Biblia Polyglotta, 1. p.

14.There were actually thirteen tribes, since, due to special circumstances, the generation of Joseph, descended from his two sons—Ephraim and Manasseh—formed two tribes. However, in the political life of the people, which is the subject of our proper consideration, only twelve tribes were significant, since the tribe of Levi was excluded from political life.

15. Oehler, Theologie d. A. Test. § 101, p. 347.

16 The text says “signs in the eyes of the people,” and “the people” obviously refers to the elders, since verse 29 indicates that only the elders were present.

Source in Russian: Lopukhin, A.P., “State and Society According to the Laws of Moses.” // Christian Reading. 1879. No. 3–4. pp. 332–353.