The term “government” may refer to the philosophy
that shapes a nation or people’s institutions, customs, and
laws or, more specifically, to actual offices and structures to enact
this philosophy. Generally speaking, government serves to bring order
and direction to a people. This can be accomplished through the rule
of one, or a few, or many. As a constituent portion of bringing
order, some sort of entity for enforcement and protection must be
created. This usually takes the form of a military or police force.
The
biblical worldview emphasizes the rule of God over everything,
inherent in his position as the Creator. Since, however, God did
imbue humanity with authority over creation and with the capacity for
relationship, his government can find expression in the actions and
decisions of human beings (1 Sam. 8:7–9; Rom. 13:1–4).
The successful ruler will be the individual who understands his or
her place before God and who desires to lead God’s people with
humility and justice (1 Kings 3:7–9).
Before
the Monarchy
Clan.
The earliest forms of governmental relations apparently were in the
extended family or clan. The progenitor of the clan normally was the
patriarch, who led several families, all of which were to some degree
related to him. The patriarch was responsible for land allotments and
maintenance of the family’s spiritual life and well-being (Gen.
13:8–9; 31:22–35; Job 1:4–5). He was responsible
for forming contractual agreements under which the family functioned,
in relation both to land acquisitions and to marriages (Gen.
21:22–34; 24:1–11; 26:26–33). He alone decided to
whom the patriarchy passed when he died, and his power was almost
absolute (Gen. 27), though there is some indication that God desired
a husband’s first responsibility to be to his spouse rather
than to his father (Gen. 2:24).
Tribe.
Beyond the clan, the next larger societal unit was the tribe.
Although tribes were for the most part still related genetically, the
distance of the relationship permitted the inclusion of persons from
outside the family. This may have been the case with Caleb, who is
identified both as a member of the tribe of Judah (Num. 13:6) and as
a descendant of the Kenizzites, who were Edomites (Gen. 36:9–11;
Num. 32:12). If modern nomadic tribes are any indication, the
governmental structure of the related tribes was a type of
confederation coming together for defensive purposes. The decisions
would have been made by a group of elders from the various clans.
Like the clan chief of the smaller structures, the tribal elders
could make covenants and were responsible for keeping order in the
tribe (Deut. 21:19; Ruth 4:1–12; 2 Sam. 5:3).
During
the period following the exodus and before the time of the judges,
Israel’s tribal structure was maintained, though with a single
leader. The leadership of Moses and Joshua was in many ways a
precursor to the offices of both judge and king. The men had
considerable power, and opposition to their leadership often was
dealt with harshly (Num. 12; 16). Yet, their rule was established
through presence of the Spirit of God rather than physical lineage.
The weight of leading such a large body of people had its
difficulties, and it is related that Moses delegated some of his
authority to judges who rendered decisions for the people (Exod. 18).
Judges.
The period of the judges witnessed a devolution of sorts in the
governmental structures of Israel. The relationship between the
various tribes was somewhat strained, and it seems clear from the
narrative that no judge ever led more than a handful of tribes.
Although these judges were like Moses and Joshua in that they were
imbued with power by the Spirit of God, their focus was almost solely
military in nature, and the everyday aspects of governance seem to
have been left to the individual tribes. There was little sense of
ordered society, and lawlessness and anarchy seem to have been the
order of the day. In two cases, those of Gideon and Abimelek,
attempts were made to found petty kingdoms (Judg. 8:22–23,
30–31; 9:1–21). Similarly, Jephthah seems to have
established a minor kingdom east of the Jordan, in Gilead (Judg.
11:6–11). However, these attempts were transitory in nature and
lacked the stability that grows out of a unified identity. Indeed,
one of the roles of the judges seems to have been to solidify the
people’s resolve for permanent leadership in the form of a
monarch, which they hoped would raise them to greatness and standing
in the world (1 Sam. 8:1–6).
The
Monarchy
The
period of the monarchy represented a strong centralized government
invested in the mind and decisions of a single man. The term “king”
was applied symbolically to any great leader, but above all it was
applied to God, to whom Israel’s throne rightfully belonged
(1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; Ps. 2). With the office of the king came
a bureaucracy designed to increase efficiency, but which sometimes
involved corruption.
Establishing
the monarchy.
The first ruler called “king” was Saul, son of Kish,
though he is often referred to as a prince or a chieftain rather than
a king (1 Sam. 13:13–14). It is difficult to say whether
this related specifically to the level of office that he possessed or
if it was a sort of disparaging comparison to David, who was viewed
by the biblical writer as a true king. As king, David took possession
of the great fortress of Jerusalem. In many ways, he combined the
ecclesiastical and the military headship of the nation through the
movement of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem and the purchase of
the threshing floor for the temple. Solomon attempted to further
break down the old tribal divisions by dividing the whole country
into administrative districts (1 Kings 4:7), not according to
tribal divisions, but instead after the pattern established during
the Egyptian hegemony of Canaan that had existed several centuries
earlier. The kingdom was divided into two separate kingdoms at the
death of Solomon, but for the people of God the monarchy had become
the standard of government through which God ruled. This monarchial
expectation found expression in the messianic hope of Israel
(Ezek. 47).
The
role of the king.
The chief duty of the king was to act as the commander in chief of
the army. With the establishment of a monarchy, the people gained a
standing army that could be kept in the field for protection of the
nation (1 Sam. 13:2). The king was also intimately connected
with the religious organization of the people. He was considered a
central component of the cult, so that major moments in his life were
cause for worship (Pss. 2; 45; 110). It is certain that the king,
especially after David, performed priestly functions. David wore an
ephod (1 Chron. 15:27), and Solomon addressed the people in the
temple (1 Kings 8:14). Indeed, the coronation itself identified
the king as both priest and king (Ps. 110:4). The fact that Solomon
built the temple and played a significant role in its dedication
shows the intimate relation that the king had with the national
sanctuary, which was attached to his palace. The king also served as
judge (1 Kings 3:16–28; 7:7) over his people, and he
determined the economic structures of the society, including taxes,
monetary weights, and covenants with other nations. The king did not
hold absolute authority, however, and like the rest of Israel, he was
subject to the law (Deut. 17:14–20).
Successors
and officers.
Once the kingship had been established, the hereditary principle
arose naturally. Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth maintained a small
kingship of northern tribes for some time after Saul’s death
(2 Sam. 2:8–10). Still, the king appears to have had the
right to select which of his descendants would be his successor
(1 Kings 1). When the decision was made, the people often
proclaimed their satisfaction at the result (1 Kings 1:25;
2 Kings 14:21), and a ceremony of anointing took place.
Sometimes the anointing was a private affair (2 Kings 9:6), but
the presence of certain psalms related to the ceremony itself
suggests that, generally speaking, it was a national event and time
of worship (Ps. 2:2).
The
bureaucracy that came with the king meant the installation of several
new offices. The chief officer of the king was the commander of his
army (2 Sam. 2:8; 8:16). Another high-ranking military officer
was the captain of the bodyguard, who was not placed under the orders
of the commander of the army (2 Sam. 8:18; 23:22–23). The
king also had more domestic officers, such as the officer over the
household (2 Kings 18:18), the court historian, the court
secretary, various deputies and advisers, and the king’s friend
(2 Sam. 8:16–18; 1 Kings 4:1–6).
Revenue.
The means of sustaining the state varied by era and king. While it is
true that the king had his own flocks and land (1 Sam. 8:15–17;
1 Chron. 27:25–28), he could also, depending on how strong
he was, raise revenue through gifts from vassals (1 Kings 4:21;
10:25) and through the spoils of war (2 Chron. 27:5). Starting
with the control and regulation of trade routes during the reign of
Solomon, the king maintained a stream of revenue through taxation of
merchants moving through the land and trade with other nations.
After
the Exile
The
period following the exile witnessed a transition in the government
of Israel. Apart from a very short period from about 160 to 60 BC,
Israel was under the control of foreign powers. These various empires
ruled with a variety of methods, determined by their own philosophy
of government.
Persian
rule.
The Persians established a rule based largely on a sort of benevolent
dictatorship, though there are multiple accounts of vicious responses
to any notion of rebellion from its vassals. In 539 BC Cyrus
permitted the Jews to return from their captivity in Babylon to
Jerusalem and showed them certain favors. One of his successors,
Darius I (r. 522–486 BC), continued the liberal policy of Cyrus
toward the Jews and played a major role in the rebuilding of the
temple at Jerusalem (Ezra 5:13–17; 6:1–15). He also
organized the Persian Empire to facilitate the easy collection of
tribute from subject nations. He ultimately divided the kingdom into
twenty provinces ruled by governors, a system maintained through the
remainder of his dynastic line. Another important development during
this period was the increase in power of the Jewish priesthood. With
no Jewish monarchy in place, governmental power in Israel became
concentrated in the office of the high priest.
Greek
and Roman rule.
Alexander the Great and his successors brought Hellenism into the
Jewish experience. His acquisition of power was distinctly different
because it was not simply a political one. Its cultural and spiritual
influence was much more significant. The people were subjected to new
language, art, thought, and philosophy. The struggle that ensued
divided the Jewish population into competing groups, one dedicated to
the preservation of the old ways and one more receptive to the
Hellenistic life.
The
coming of the Romans brought with it a more complex balance of power,
with authority shifting between the high priest, vassal kings
appointed by the Romans, and Roman governors called “prefects”
and “procurators.” Among the kings of this period, Herod
the Great was the most successful and important. Herod gained control
of the region with the help of Augustus Caesar and Marc Antony, being
invested with the office by the Roman senate and then winning an
important military victory over Jerusalem in 37 BC. Herod was hated
by the Jews because of his pagan commitments, his cruelty, and his
desire to Hellenize Judea. His children did not enjoy his success or
his power, however, and following his death Roman influence and
intervention in Judea became more direct and significant.
The
priestly class also held significant power in the office of the high
priest and in the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin
addressed issues such as legal procedure, verdicts, and decrees of a
political nature and also dealt with questions relating to the
temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. The Sanhedrin was in many
respects the highest political authority (although its control was
always mitigated by Roman power and presence). It could deal with
most criminal cases, though its authority was limited in capital
cases.
The
Roman presence in the region was represented by the governance of
prefects and procurators. These governors were appointed by Rome over
Judea after the removal of Archelaus in AD 6, and over all of
Palestine at the death of Herod Agrippa. Prefects and procurators
were the highest power in their province, but they answered to the
legate and ultimately to Caesar. They lived primarily in Caesarea,
but they traveled to Jerusalem for high festivals or in the case of
civil unrest. They tended to have as little contact as possible with
the Jews unless their own personal interest demanded it. Decisions
concerning everyday life were left to the Jewish authorities. With
Roman citizens living in their areas, the procurators had direct
influence; however, such citizens could go over the procurator’s
head and appeal to Caesar if they did not receive the sentence that
they desired.
