By Professor Alexander Pavlovich Lopukhin
Contents: Chapter I; Chapter II
The state, in the sense of a certain form of communal life, as far as history and experience show, is as ancient as humanity itself: its basic elements are found among all peoples and tribes. Even among savage peoples, essential features of state life can be discerned—in subordination to a common leader, in certain common mores and customs that regulate relations within the family and in external life. Therefore, the idea of the state lies, as it were, in the very essence of man and justifies Aristotle’s famous expression that man is by nature a state being (ἄνθρωπον φυσει πολιτικὸν ζῶον). Despite, however, a certain innateness of the idea of statehood in man, the immediate causes and purpose of founding a state still remain an unresolved question for philosophy and science. The foundation of the state is sought, sometimes in the voluntary surrender of a portion of its personal rights by individuals to the general state authority, sometimes in the mutual needs of people and the mutual relationships that flow from them, sometimes in the natural power of one person over another, based either on natural kinship or on physical or intellectual superiority. Once founded, the state is maintained in its existence, according to the views of, for example, Rousseau, by the so-called “social contract” between rulers and subjects—a contract that has some plausibility as an abstract idea, but is meaningless in terms of historical reality. The entire structure of state life is determined in accordance with one or another theory. But, as is evident from the very essence of all these theories, they suffer from one-sidedness and incompleteness, and, in any case, not one of them, taken separately, provides the conditions for the normal development of social life, presupposing in it a sharp dichotomy—between rulers and subjects. An entirely different principle underlies the Mosaic state. Here, this principle is the most general, exalted principle possible for human society—namely, the supreme headship of Jehovah, which reconciles the extremes of dominion and subordination. The reason for this uniqueness of the Mosaic state lies in the unique position it occupied in world history.
Chapter 1
The people of Israel were the only people in the Old Testament world whom Jehovah chose as “his kingdom,” so that among the universal corruption of humanity, He could preserve and cultivate the seeds of salvation, destined to later extend to all of humanity. To achieve this goal, He entered into a covenant with the Jewish people, by which supreme authority over the state was vested in Jehovah, as if He were the king of the people. The essence of this covenant is expressed in the law. When the Israelites were at the foot of the mountain (Sinai), “Moses went up to God (the mountain), and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, ‘Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me (λαὸς περιούσιος – 70) among all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:3–6). “All of you stand today before the LORD your God, the heads of your tribes, your elders (your judges), your officers, every man of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and your stranger who is in your camp, from the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water, to enter into the covenant of the LORD your God and into His sworn covenant, which the LORD your God makes with you today, to establish you as His people this day, and to have Him be your God” (Deut. 29:10-13). “There shall not be among you a man or a woman, or a family or a tribe, whose heart turns away from the LORD your God this day to go and serve the gods of the nations” (Deut. 29:18). The main purpose of establishing a special “kingdom of Jehovah” is, as is evident from the passages cited, the preservation of the idea of monotheism, the teaching and worship of the one true God, as opposed to the polytheism of other peoples. Jehovah’s covenant with the people also serves a corresponding purpose. To preserve the true teaching about God, Jehovah enters into a covenant with the people, so to speak, on the conditions that He, the King of all the earth, becomes the predominant king of the people of Israel, receiving supreme authority over them, becoming their lawgiver, whose decrees the people are obligated to accept and sacredly uphold. By maintaining this covenant with Jehovah as their supreme ruler, the people could expect special protection from Him. The essence of this solemn covenant between Jehovah and the people, the covenant that formed the foundation of the Mosaic state, was thus as follows: if the Jews voluntarily agree to acknowledge Jehovah as their Lord and King, to keep His covenant and fulfill His laws, to acknowledge Him as the one true God and to worship Him—in contrast to the idolatry of other nations—then Jehovah, being the God and Supreme Ruler of the entire world, of all the nations of the earth, will take the people of Israel under His special protection, will govern them with special laws, will ensure their enjoyment of the invaluable benefits of true religion, and will grant them, as the beloved and chosen people among all the nations of the earth, all the blessings of freedom, peace, and prosperity. The sum total of these relationships between Jehovah and his people is a “theocracy.” But from the above it is evident that theocracy is not some special form of government in contrast to monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy, as understood by Josephus, who first introduced this term4, but expresses only the special relationship of Jehovah to the people as chosen ones—a relationship expressed in His spiritual headship over the people through the obligation to preserve the covenant and execute the legislation. True, the headship of Jehovah as king and legislator penetrates into the entire life of the people, since, according to the covenant, the people were obliged in their entire life to conform to the voice of the supreme King and the decrees of the supreme Lawgiver, to obey his decisions as a judge (Isaiah 33:22), and to submit to him in war as a leader (Numbers 10:35, 23:21); nevertheless, all such relationships had for the people only a principled significance, since Jehovah could realize all these relationships with the people only through his organs taken from the people. Thus, theocracy should be understood not as a form of government, but as a principle providing a general norm for social life, in accordance with which the people enjoyed complete freedom of development and could develop, according to their needs, historical circumstances, and conditions, all particular forms of state and social life.
Theocracy, understood in the sense of a general principle, is the foundation of the Mosaic state. Since the theocratic principle, as an expression of divine dominion, is a set of higher principles, alien to human weakness and imperfection, it is natural that the state life formed under its influence and guidance should not have the shortcomings and imperfections that characterized it among all ancient peoples. The essence of ancient statehood lay in the irreconcilable division of rulers and ruled, expressed in the division of the people into castes, some of which occupied a dominant position and enjoyed all the rights and benefits of this position—legally and economically—while others, on the contrary, were the powerless tools of the former, serving merely as a means to secure their own privileged position. Such injustice should not have occurred in a theocratic state, where, by the very nature of the theocratic principle, there was no division of the people into full-fledged rulers and powerless subjects, because all members are equally subordinate to the Supreme King—Jehovah—and therefore, all are equal before Him, which is why all equally participated in the “sworn covenant with Him”: the heads of the tribes, elders, overseers, wives, children, and strangers, from the hewer of wood to the drawer of water. If, therefore, all members of the people participated equally in the covenant with Jehovah, which formed the foundation of the state, then, naturally, all should have the same rights in the state they themselves established; all should be equal. From this follows the main consequence of the theocratic principle for state life: the equality of all within the state. And this equality becomes the foundation of all state-social relations. The great legislator, who laid the theocratic principle with its aforementioned general consequence at the foundation of the state, extended this principle’s application to all private relations through specific decrees, so that in addition to religious equality (which is self-evident and requires no proof), he established economic, social, and political equality.
Viewed from this perspective, the Mosaic state, in its foundation and essence, is a sharp contrast to all ancient Eastern states, which were founded on violence and injustice. In contrast to these, which distorted the primordial truth of human relations, it represents the realization, within the limits of possibility, of the true idea of the state in its normal state—a realization conceivable, of course, only under the condition of the special guidance and care of the supreme King. To confirm the general ideas outlined above, we will examine the principles of Moses’ statehood in their application to the most important relationships of social life.
Chapter II
Moses based the economic well-being of his state on agriculture. The choice of such a foundation for the state was more likely the legislator’s own than the people’s, who had little previous knowledge of agriculture. Although the first humans—Adam, Cain, and Noah—had already cultivated the land, in the subsequent patriarchal period, livestock raising became the predominant occupation, as is evident, among other things, from the story of Abraham. There are reports that Isaac and Jacob were also engaged in agriculture (Genesis 26:12; 37:7), but their primary occupation was still livestock raising. So, after migrating to Egypt, despite the Egyptians’ aversion to livestock raising, Joseph’s brothers, when Pharaoh asked them what their occupation was, replied, “Your servants, we and our fathers, are shepherds” (Genesis 47:3). Livestock raising remained the main free occupation of the Israelites in Egypt, as is evident from the fact that the brothers begged Pharaoh’s permission to settle in the land of Goshen precisely because of its convenience for livestock raising. They were renowned as the best herdsmen, so much so that Pharaoh himself chose them as caretakers of his own flocks (verses 4-6). The people, out of necessity, also engaged in livestock raising during their 40-year wandering in the desert. Thus, the idea of founding a state primarily based on agriculture belongs to Moses. The impetus for this was both the country’s geographical conditions and higher considerations of state. Palestine in ancient times was distinguished by its extraordinary fertility, and therefore already encouraged its inhabitants to utilize its products through cultivation. Fertile soil, of course, also provides conveniences for livestock raising; But livestock raising also requires vast expanses of land, while Palestine, designated as the home of the Jewish people, with its three million inhabitants, did not offer such favorable conditions for livestock raising. Judging by the population’s size, land holdings could not be large, and therefore, to obtain sufficient produce for sustenance, cultivation and agriculture were necessary. But even more important in founding a state on agriculture were higher state considerations. Until then, the Israelite people had been a nomadic tribe, lacking the firm foundations of civic life—they were in a position that made proper statehood impossible. But now they had received a higher calling, becoming the “kingdom” of Jehovah, the chosen people destined to serve as the guardians and disseminators of the highest principles of history. Therefore, nomadic life, neglected by the then civilized world (Gen. 46:34), could not meet the people’s elevated position. They had to begin a new, civilized life, and therefore, in place of the nomadic way of life, necessarily linked to pastoralism, they had to choose an agricultural way of life, as offering greater potential for social development. For state purposes, agriculture offers incomparably greater benefits than pastoralism: it develops a love of labor—the main lever of social development—ties man to the inhabited land, thereby, on the one hand, making possible the establishment of certain principles of civic life, and on the other, it develops love of country, or patriotism, which constitutes the soul of the state—in short, it provides all the conditions for the development and strength of the state organism. These conditions, apparently, were what the legislator had in mind when founding his state on agriculture. But agriculture itself can only truly benefit the state when it is based on economic justice, by virtue of which every member of the state must be granted equal ownership of the land and full enjoyment of all the products of their labor. Ancient states knew no such justice: land was typically owned only by privileged castes, while the remaining castes, lacking land, necessarily fell into slavish economic dependence on the former, cultivating their lands and, naturally, receiving not the full value of the products of their labor, but only what the ruling castes allocated to them—that is, just enough to keep them from starving. Hence the astonishing extremes of wealth and poverty, luxury and misery, encountered in ancient Eastern states even during their periods of greatest prosperity. The Mosaic state knows no such injustice. Founding the state on agriculture, the legislator simultaneously defined it with regulations that would make it a source of equal well-being for all. Since all members of the nation participated in the covenant with Jehovah, and since one of the conditions of the covenant on Jehovah’s part was the granting of the promised land, it was natural that all members of the state should have equal use of the land—there should be no arbitrary seizures or legally enforced advantages for some over others. Based on this theocratic principle, the legislator divided the land equally among all Israelites. The unit of land division was taken to be apparently, only large collective units of the people—tribes and tribes (Numbers 26:55; 33:54)—were distributed in such a way that the more numerous tribes received more land, while the smaller tribes received less (Numbers 26:54), so that ultimately, with the individual division of the inheritance allotted to one tribe or another or another, equal parcels could be obtained for each Israelite (male), as the head of a private household. Under this system of land ownership, each Israelite was the owner of a certain plot of land assigned to him, from which he could receive the entire sum of the products produced by his free labor. And since land was to serve as the main source of wealth, the equal distribution of land among the Israelites necessarily presupposed equality of status, or economic equality.
If, upon entering the land, previously accumulated wealth (in herds) could have given some individuals an advantage over others who lacked herds, this disruption of economic equality was eliminated by the tribes richest in livestock remaining in the lands beyond the Jordan, seemingly separating themselves from the main body of the people, where a theocratic state was primarily expected to develop, and therefore unable to influence its economic relations.
But economic well-being depends not only on the amount of land but also on the amount of labor applied to it, thrift, and a multitude of specific, accidental factors. And since diligence, thrift, and other qualities dependent on the personal characteristics of different individuals are naturally not identical, the well-being that depends on them cannot permanently remain at the level of equality established during the division of the land: the well-being of some, thanks to their diligence and thrift, gradually increases, while the well-being of others, due to their opposite qualities, decreases. Gradually developing along these opposing lines, the prosperity of some may rise to the point of being able to acquire new plots to begin farming on a larger scale. Others, on the contrary, will become so impoverished that they can no longer cultivate their own plots and are therefore forced to sell them in order to obtain anything in return. Consequently, while some become large landowners, others become completely landless and, after consuming the money received for the sold plots, must necessarily go to work for the former, thereby becoming economically and personally dependent on them. Such is the usual process of developing economic and social inequality. In the Mosaic kingdom, however, such inequality was not to be tolerated, as it would have violated the equality of the members of the state before Jehovah and would have broken the covenant with Him, in which all equally participated. Therefore, the legislator framed land ownership with regulations that significantly limited this process of developing inequality. This process only gains its full force if the land, the main source of wealth, is the full property of its owner, so that he can dispose of it at his own discretion and, consequently, sell it. But such full ownership of the land was inconsistent with the supreme supremacy of Jehovah, who alone is the full owner of the land, and the Israelites are merely settlers within it. “The land is mine,” says Jehovah, “you are strangers and sojourners with Me: therefore the land shall not be sold forever” (Lev. 25:28). By virtue of this law, an Israelite could sell his plot only up to a certain period, the Jubilee Year (established every 50 years), during which the sold plot was returned to its original owner (v. 18), thus restoring equality in land ownership. Under such a state of affairs, economic equality could not be significantly disturbed. In any case, extremes of wealth and poverty, a landowning aristocracy and a proletariat, could not arise. Many other regulations and institutions in the Mosaic state, as will be shown below, were also aimed at maintaining possible economic equality.
If the state thus consisted of equal landowners with an equal source of wealth, then of course, distinct classes of the people, distinguished by differences in economic well-being and social status, could not develop. In this regard, the Mosaic state represents a striking contrast to other ancient states. In these latter cases, the resulting inequality was reinforced by law, recognizing as normal a social structure in which some classes, having seized all power and all the land, were considered born to power and wealth, while others were considered born to slavery and poverty. Hence the formation of castes, which constituted a flagrant violation of individual rights. In the Mosaic state, which was governed by the theocratic principle, such violations of individual rights did not occur. Here, just as everyone participated in the covenant with Jehovah at the founding of the state, so too everyone was to enjoy equal rights in the state they founded. Here, all members of the state were equally free citizens of the state and were not constrained by any restrictions in their development. Civil equality was conditioned by equality before the law. Since Jehovah is the legislator, before whom all are equal, then, of course, his laws are the same for everyone, and this equality before the law was implemented with such consistency that it was recognized even for the settlers living among the people of Israel. “One law and one rule,” says the legislator, “shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”7 As a result, in the Mosaic state there was no lack of rights at all individuals, such as those assumed by Roman laws regarding slaves, which completely denied personality and made them into things, and who would have been completely subject to the arbitrary will of others, such as wives and children among the Romans, who were completely dependent on their husbands and fathers. Here, on the contrary, the law recognized the full personality of all members of the state and, accordingly, equally guaranteed and protected the rights of all. A master who mistreated his slave lost all rights over him and was obliged to set him free.
Here, parents had no right to the lives of their children, and the father’s authority, contrary to Roman law, was limited to the point that he could not even dispose of the inheritance at his own discretion, but was forced to obey specific inheritance laws. Generally speaking, the rights of the sexes were also equal.8 Based on economic equality, this legal or civil equality acquired its full meaning and strength. Hence the absence of division into castes in the Mosaic state in the Eastern sense of the word. But the principle of equality here is carried even further: not only are there no castes in the Eastern sense, but there is no division into estates in the sense of privileged and unprivileged classes. The Mosaic legislation knows nothing of the hereditary aristocracy and democracy that existed in ancient Greece, nor the division of the people into full-fledged patricians and politically unequal plebeians permitted by Roman law, nor feudalism in the medieval sense: it grants social equality to all citizens.9
The only distinct class in the Mosaic state is the priesthood and Levites, who descended exclusively from the tribe of Levi. However, a closer examination does not allow us to ascribe to this priestly class the significance that parallel priestly castes in other peoples had. While the latter constituted a special class of people, distinguished by their very origin (from the deity), endowed with all manner of public and governmental rights and privileges, placing them above other classes and, consequently, granting them enormous political significance and a high social status, in the Mosaic state all the rights and privileges of the priesthood pertained exclusively to the religious sphere, and by no means to social or political ones. The very separation of the tribe of Levi exclusively to religious service, according to the meaning of the Mosaic Law, was conditioned by the desire to have constantly prepared servants of Jehovah, raised from childhood in respect and reverence for their work—although even with this separation, the priestly class did not have exceptional significance, because the people of Israel in their entirety are a “holy nation,” a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:5 and 6; Deut. 7:6). In the social and political spheres, the rights of the priestly class were even limited in comparison with those of other peoples. Thus, economically, they were placed in a lower position than the people, because they were not given land allotments when the land was divided (Numbers 26:62). In terms of material support, they were thus made dependent on the people, subsisting on the altar, tithes, and gifts (Numbers 18:20–24, and generally 8–32). The socioeconomic status of the tribe of Levi is sufficiently determined by the fact that the law, when speaking of the support of widows, orphans, aliens, and generally disadvantaged members of the state, always mentions “Levites” among them (Deut. 14:27–29; 16:11, 14). In civil matters, the rights of the Levites were also limited. True, they sometimes held the office of judge (Deut. 17:9), but these positions were not their exclusive property, but were granted to them only in view of their close acquaintance with the law: judges were mainly elected from among the people themselves (Ex. 18:25, 26; Deut. 1:13-16). They were completely excluded from state affairs proper, so that we do not see their participation even in the “general” state assemblies, and there was no representative from them in the assemblies of “chosen men of the congregation, the heads of the tribes of their fathers, the heads of thousands of Israel” (Num. 1:16), although at the same time the high priest, as the highest religious official in a theocratic state, in important cases stood at the head of the court, which had a theocratic character (Num. 27:2; 2 Chronicles 19:8-11). In general, as can be seen from the above, if the priestly tribe did exist as a separate class, then, in any case, this did not violate the general social and political equality: all members of the state had equal rights in the state.
* * *
Notes
1. Abrens, “Naturrecht oder Philosophie d. Rechts und d. Staates.” Vol. II, p. 270. Vienna, 1871
2. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, art. “Law of Moses.”
3. The people of Israel began their national existence, transformed from a nomadic tribe into a state-governed people, under the leadership and influence of Moses. Therefore, the origins of their statehood can rightly be called Mosaic, as can the state itself.
4. S. Ar. II 16: Οἱ μεν μοναρχίαις, οἱ δε ταῖς ολίγων δυναστέιαις, ἄλλοι δε τοῖς πλὴθεσιν ἐπετρεψαν τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῶν πολιτευμάτων. Ὁ δ’ὴμέτερος νομοθέτης εἰς μεν τούτων οὐδοτιο ῦ ν ὀπεῖδεν, ως δ’ὰν τις εἴποι βιασάμενος τον λογον θεοκρατίαν ἀπέδειξε το πολίτευμα, θεῷ τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ το κράτος ἀναθείς καὶ πείσας εἰς ἐκεῖνον ἃπαντος ἀφορᾶν. Oehler, Theol. d. A.T.S. 306
5. Gen.26:12.
6. Saalschutz, Mosaisches Recht, car. 2, § 1, s. 28.
7. Num. 15:16, 29. Lev. 24:22. Ex. 12:49. Christ’s Reading, Nos. 3–4, 1879
8. Saalschutz, Mos. Recht car. 99, § 1. See also “Christ’s Reading,” 1878, September–October, article “Family Relations,” and 1879, January–February, article “Marriage and Associated Relations According to the Laws of Moses.”
9. N. Rozhdestvensky, Lithographer, Summary of Basic Theology, 187/0, p. 105.
Source in Russian: A.P. Lopukhin, “State and Society According to the Laws of Moses.” // Christian Reading. 1879, Nos. 3–4. P. 332–353.
