GIFT OF 
 
 
 
3 191" 
 
 The Limitations upon the Power 
 of the Hebrew Kings 
 
 A STUDY IN HEBREW DEMOCRACY 
 
 Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
 University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfilment of the 
 Requirements for the Degree of 
 Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 BY 
 
 M. WILLARD LAMPE 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 1914 
 
The Limitations upon the Power 
 of the Hebrew Kings 
 
 A STUDY IN HEBREW DEMOCRACY 
 
 Thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
 University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfilment of the 
 Requirements for the Degree of 
 Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 
 
 BY 
 
 M. WILLARD LAMPE 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 
 1914 
 
* 
 
 TO MY FATHER 
 
 TO WHOM I OWE ALL MY INTEREST IN 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 28 8 v;. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
 
 For kindly interest and helpful sugges- 
 tion, I desire to acknowledge my indebt- 
 edness to Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr., 
 and Assistant Professor James A. Mont- 
 gomery, of the University of Pennsylvania, 
 and to Professor Albert T. Clay, of Yale. 
 
 To Thomas Nelson & Sons my thanks 
 are due for permission to quote from the 
 American Standard Bible. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Chapter I. Introduction. Origin and General Nature of the Limi- 
 tations. 
 
 1. The Hebrews' Estimate of Their Kingship. 
 
 2. Semitic Individualism, (a) Lack of Capacity for 
 
 Organized Government, (b) Popular Participa- 
 tion in Public Affairs. 
 
 3. Semitic Religious Beliefs and Practices. The Religion 
 
 of Yahweh: Its Priests, Laws and Prophets. 
 
 4. The Geography of Palestine. 
 
 Chapter II. The Period of the Judges and the First Attempts at 
 Kingship. 
 
 1. The Isolation of the Hebrew Tribes and the Assimi- 
 
 lation of Canaanitish Civilization. 
 
 2. The Rise and Activities of the Judges. 
 
 3. The Nature of Saul's Kingship. 
 
 4. Terms Used for the Hebrew Kings. 
 Chapter II I. The Kingdom of David and Solomon. 
 
 1. Its Organization and the Powers of the King. 
 
 2. Its Weaknesses and the Checks upon the King. 
 Chapter IV. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. 
 
 1. The Jeroboam Revolt. 
 
 2. Special Developments of the Period. 
 
 3. The Restrictions upon the Central Power. 
 Chapter V. The Ideal Kingship. 
 
 1. The King in His Relation to God. 
 
 2. The King in His Relation to the People. 
 
 3. Some Pictures of the Ideal King. 
 Bibliography. 
 
The Limitations upon the Power 
 of the Hebrew Kings. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. ORIGIN AND GENERAL NATURE OF THE 
 LIMITATIONS. 
 
 The estimate which the Old Testament puts upon the 
 Hebrew monarchy varies according to the age and point of 
 view of its different writers. On the whole, the earlier writers 
 seem more favorable to it than the later. When the later 
 ones praise it, the eschatological or ideal, not the historical 
 kingdom, is meant. Budde thinks that "bei weitem iiberwiegt, 
 am Anfang wie am Ende, und selbst in der Mitte nicht ohne 
 kraftige Vertretung, die giinstige Anshauung von Konigtums, 
 die es von dem Gotte Israels selbst seinem Volke zum 
 Segen eingesetzt weiss." 1 There are many passages which 
 lend support to this view ; e. g. the account of Saul's selection 
 in 1 Sam. 9-10: 16, the divine covenant with the House of 
 David in 2 Sam. 7, and the numerous passages in which David 
 is called "The Servant of Yahweh," and the Davidic kingship 
 viewed as a type of the glories of the coming age. 2 But so 
 far as the purely historic kingship is concerned, the growth of 
 a decidedly unfavorable view becomes apparent with the suc- 
 cessive writers. Indeed, the conception of a future ideal 
 monarchy was doubtless stimulated by a sense of the failure 
 of the historic monarchy. The Law of the King, in Deut. 
 17: 14-17, and the Manner of the King, in 1 Sam. 8: 11-18, 
 reveal the kind of grievances which led the people to complain 
 and the prophets to protest against their kings. Hosea's atti- 
 tude is very clear. In 2:2, he calls the coming king simply a 
 
 1 Budde : Schatzung des Konigtums im A. T., S. 32. 
 
 2 See also Gen. 17 : 6, 16 ; 35 : n ; 49 : 10, 26; Num. 23 : 21 ; 24 : 7 ; 
 Deut. 33: 1 6. 
 
, and his remarks in 13: 4, 10, 11, seem to indicate that he 
 thought there was no place at all for a human kingship in a 
 theocracy. Cornill interprets Hosea as teaching that the state 
 was "ein Anflehnung gegen Gott," and that in the future there 
 would be no king or princes or politics. 3 The Books of the 
 Kings, in their final form, condemn, without exception, the 
 rulers of the kingdom of Israel, who "departed not from all 
 the sins of Jeroboam," and as for the kings of Judah, the 
 majority are condemned for doing "that which is evil in the 
 sight of Jehovah." 4 Ezekiel utterly discards the term melek 
 in his description of the coming Davidic ruler, and substitutes 
 for it the colorless word nasi'f which can be used as a desig- 
 nation for any chief or distinguished man. 6 But some of the 
 prophets go even farther than this, and in their pictures of the 
 latter days fail to mention any kind of a human monarchy at 
 all. This is true e. g. of Isaiah 40-48, Joel 3 and Malachi 3-4. 
 These facts can be explained only on the theory that the mon- 
 archy never really became part and parcel of Hebrew life. 
 The institution was brought into being as a necessity, its 
 advantages were appreciated, and its greater representatives 
 called forth the praise and fostered the pride of the nation, 
 but all along one cannot avoid the impression that "the king- 
 dom could never find," as Graetz puts it, "a natural place in 
 the system of Israel's organization, but was at all times re- 
 garded by more discerning minds as a foreign element." 7 
 
 This view is further borne out by the fact, which it will 
 be the purpose of this thesis to show, viz : that the monarchy 
 in Israel was subject to certain checks and balances, which, in 
 varying degree, circumscribed the power of the kings and safe- 
 guarded the liberties of the people. In this chapter, it is pro- 
 posed to indicate the origin and general nature of these checks. 
 
 To understand Semitic temperament, one must study 
 Arabia and the Arab. Renan's opinion that "C'est vraiment 
 
 3 Cornill, Der Israelitische Prophetismus. S. 55. 
 
 4 All Bible quotations in English are from the American Standard 
 Version, published by Thomas Nelson and Sons. 
 
 5 See e. g, Ezek. 34 : 24 ; 37 : 25 ; 45 : 7. In 37 : 22, 24, melek is 
 used, but the LXX avoids the term. 
 
 *Comp. Gen. 23: 6; Ex. 16: 22; 22: 27; Num. i: 16, 44. 
 7 Graetz, History of the Jews, Vol. I, p. 81. 
 
 8 
 
1'arabie qui doit etre prise pour mesure cle 1'esprit semitique," 8 
 is shared generally by scholars today. In the pre-Islamic 
 Arab and the modern Bedouin, we see the type of the ancient 
 Hebrew. The outstanding trait of this type may be expressed 
 as a strong individualism zvithin the tribal bond. In the wil- 
 derness and desert of Arabia, every individual must, for his 
 own protection, attach himself to some tribe, but within the 
 tribe he is a free man. He is subject, of course, to the cus- 
 tomary law of the community, violation of which would mean 
 death or banishment, but he is under no necessity of yielding 
 to the external authority of any one or group of his tribes- 
 men. In spite of the strength of the religious and blood bonds, 
 the individual can leave one camp and join another, and whole 
 clans can desert one tribe and attach themselves to another. 9 
 No majority is big enough to coerce the individual. "Selbst 
 der Versuch," says E. Meyer, "ein einzelnes widerstrebendes 
 Geschlecht oder Individuum unter dem Willen der Mehrheit 
 zu zwingen, wurde als unberechtigte Gewaltsamkeit gelten, die 
 zu Blutfehde und Zersprengung des Stammverbandes fuhrt." 10 
 It cannot be claimed for the Arabs of the present day that they 
 compare favorably in all points with their progenitors of pre- 
 Islamic times, but this passion for individual freedom seems 
 to have remained unimpaired. Its fierceness has been dis- 
 played in connection with the attempts made by the Turkish 
 government to conscribe the Arabs in the Turkish army, and 
 in their preference for death rather than submission to this 
 abridgment of their personal freedom. 11 
 
 One of the corollaries of Semitic individualism is lack of 
 capacity for political government. Only strong pressure, such 
 as dire need, religious motive or despotic power, has ever 
 formed Semites into an organized state. Not until the time of 
 Darius, the Persian, did any government in western Asia pos- 
 sess corporate unity. 12 The Semites seem always to have pro- 
 ceeded on the theory of maintaining the independence of the 
 smallest social unit consistent with the demands of self-preser- 
 
 8 E. Renan, Histoire des langues Semitiques, p. 14. 
 
 9 See Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie. S. 295 ff. 
 
 10 E. Meyer. Geschichte des Altertums, Zweite Auflage, 1 : 2 ; S. 363. 
 
 11 See William T. Ellis, in The Continent for January 19, 1911. 
 
 12 See McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, I, p. 29 ff. 
 
 9 
 
vation and the instincts of kinship and religion. Whenever 
 the force of circumstances compelled the smaller units to com- 
 bine into a larger one, the resultant unity would be so artificial 
 that the removal of the immediate cause for its existence 
 would be followed, as a rule, by a falling away again of the 
 smaller parts. Within the clan or tribe itself there has been 
 little vested authority or political solidarity. From time im- 
 memorial the sheik has been, and still is, only a primus inter 
 pares. His duty is merely to be a leader whenever a leader is 
 needed, to act as umpire in disputes, to preside in the council 
 of elders, to represent his clan or tribe in negotiations with 
 others, and to direct in war, if he is able to do so. His deci- 
 sions and advice have no binding authority, and he "cannot 
 order the slightest punishment upon any member of the tribe." 13 
 The power of the elders, or leading men of the tribe, like that 
 of the sheik, is not the result of delegated authority, but is 
 dependent upon such factors as personal wisdom and bravery, 
 the amount of one's private property and the hereditary dig- 
 nity of the inner social group to which one belongs. 14 Such 
 an organization is clearly a very imperfect one, furnishing no 
 adequate protection either to the individual or the tribe. 
 
 Another corollary of Semitic individualism is the persist- 
 ,,ence of the popular voice in the affairs of established states. 
 G. W. Thatcher calls attention to an Arabian tradition con- 
 cerning Jabala ibn Aikam, prince of Ghassan, "who accepted 
 Islam, after fighting against it, but finding it too democratic, 
 returned to Christianity and exile." 15 The power of the As- 
 syrian kings, their boastful public records to the contrary not- 
 withstanding, was limited by the council of elders and by state 
 parties, chiefly the military and priestly. In the city-states of 
 Phoenicia, the merchant families were paramount from the 
 earliest times, the government being monarchical only in 
 form. The king had to act "nach dem Beschliissen eines 
 Beiraths, nach dem Willen der Vertreter einer patrizischer 
 Geschlechter." 16 The prevalence of the elective principle in 
 
 13 Benzinger, Article, "Law and Justice," in Ency. Bib. 
 
 14 See Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, Zweite Auflage, 1 : 2, 
 
 s. 363. 
 
 15 Ency. Brit., nth Ed., Art, "Arabia," p. 265. 
 
 16 Pietschmann, Die Phonizier. S. 258 
 
 10 
 
Semitic governments is one of the best evidences of their 
 democracy. In the records of the South Arabian kingdoms, 
 there are references to seven electoral princes. 17 The king- 
 dom of Israel had its birth in a popular election, and its fre- 
 quent change of dynasties warrants Ewald's assertion that 
 "dieses Reich wesentlich ein wahlreich blieb." 18 In Islam the 
 first Khalifs were freely elected by the Community of the 
 Faithful. The Kharijite sects originated in a protest against 
 the willingness of AH, who had been regularly elected, to 
 arbitrate his claim with Muawiya, his rival. The validity of 
 the principle of election has been recognized by the orthodox 
 Moslems down to this day, the Shi'ite sects alone holding to a 
 divine appointment or hereditary legitimacy superior to it. 19 
 
 This strand of individualism, with its fibers of loose gov- 
 ernment and popular participation in public affairs, thus runs 
 through Semitic history generally. Nowhere, however, is it 
 more strikingly prominent than among the Hebrew people. 
 Its course to the end of the monarchy we will trace in the fol- 
 lowing chapters, but we must not suppose that it disappeared 
 with the monarchy. Individualism has been characteristic of 
 the Hebrews as a race. It is a trait which has appeared in all 
 their history, and is as marked today as ever. "No Jewish 
 people or nation now exists," writes Zangwill, "no Jews 
 even as sectarians of a specific faith with a specific center of 
 authority such as the Catholics or the Wesleyans possess; 
 nothing but a multitude of individuals, a mob hoplessly 
 amorphous, divided alike in religion and political destiny. 
 There is no common platform from which the Jews can be 
 addressed, no common council to which any appeal can be 
 made." 20 
 
 Another class of checks upon the power of the king in 
 Israel grew out of the religious beliefs and practices of the 
 people. As the most disintegrating factor among Semites 
 
 17 See D. H. Muller, Art., "Sabeans," in Ency. Brit., nth Ed., 
 P- 957- 
 
 18 Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Ill, S. 447. 
 
 19 See MacDonald, Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Consti- 
 tutional Theory, p. 54. 
 
 20 Israel Zangwill, "The Jewish Race," in The Independent, Aug. 
 10, ipri. 
 
 II 
 
has been lack of capacity for organic government, so the strong- 
 est bond has been religion. It was a deep conviction with every 
 Semite in ancient times that the social group to which he 
 belonged, be it clan, tribe or nation, was dependent for its 
 very existence upon a close solidarity with its god. This belief 
 appears, for example, in the explanation which the Syrians 
 gave of their defeat by the Israelites : "Their god is a god of 
 the hills; therefore they were stronger than we, but let us 
 fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger 
 than they" (1 K. 20: 23). A change of clan relationship or a 
 transfer of residence involved the adoption of new gods, 21 
 for prosperity was impossible to those "who know not the law 
 of the god of the land" (2 K. 17:26). The idea of the god 
 of a community being its real king and land-owner goes 
 back to the earliest times among Semitic states. Among the 
 early Babylonians "when one city made war upon another, it 
 was because their gods were at feud ; the territory of the city 
 was the property of the city god, and when a treaty of delimi- 
 tation was proposed, it was naturally the gods themselves who 
 arranged it and drew up its provisions." 22 As for the Hebrews, 
 Piepenbring is fully justified in stating that "La tendance 
 theocratique fut si profondement enracinee en Israel qu'elle a 
 du faire partie de sa foi primitive." 23 
 
 Such religious concepts made the will of the deity, as 
 communicated through the oracle, of binding authority upon 
 all classes of the people. The usual recipients and custodians 
 of the oracle were the priests, and as in the primitive family 
 the father was chief priest, so in the early state the king held 
 this office. Frazer regards the king as essentially a priestly 
 personage, a development from the magician or medicine man 
 of earlier society. 24 This view finds support in the history of 
 Semitic states. In the South Arabian kingdom of Saba, the 
 earlier rulers were called mukarrib, which means presenter or 
 offerer, i. e., priest-king. This has its parallel in Babylonia, 
 where the early rulers bore the name patesi, a distinctively 
 
 21 See Ruth 1 : 16, and I Sam. 26 : 19. 
 
 22 King, History of Sumer and Akkad, p. 101. 
 
 23 Piepenbring, Histoire du Peuple D'israel, p. 225. 
 
 24 Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship, pp. 
 149-152. 
 
 12 
 
religious term, indicating of the one to whom it was applied 
 that he was the representative of his god. With the increase 
 of the secular power of the patesis, they took the title king, 
 but this was not accompanied by any limitation of their priestly 
 functions. On the contrary, they came to be looked upon as 
 incarnate gods, worshipped both before and after death. 
 Naram-Sin, e. g., is called the "god of Agade." 25 This extreme 
 position was modified with the coming of the Kassites, but the 
 distinctively priestly character of Babylonian and Assyrian 
 kings was never lost. It is to be noted, however, that the royal 
 priesthood in these countries did not carry with it the support 
 of the priesthood at large. On the contrary, the priests, own- 
 ing as they did a large part of the landed property, and engag- 
 ing extensively in trade and industry, possessed the power, 
 which they often used, of causing trouble for the throne. 
 From the reign of Tiglath-pileser III to the end of the As- 
 syrian Empire, e. g., the internal politics of Assyria centered 
 about the conflict between two parties, the secular or military 
 nobles, and the priests, who were represented chiefly in Baby- 
 lon. In this conflict, with its series of revolutions, only two 
 of the kings, Sargon and Esarhaddon, supported, and were 
 supported by, the priestly class. 26 
 
 The Old Testament shows that in Israel, too, the kings 
 were priests. The passages, however, are so few in which 
 priestly functions are assigned to royalty that it is fair to sup- 
 pose, as does Benzinger, 27 that this feature of the king's pre- 
 rogative was not as marked here as elsewhere a view sup- 
 ported also by the fact that in many contexts where both kings 
 and priests are mentioned there is a clear differentiation of 
 persons and functions. 28 However, the priests, as a class, cer- 
 tainly constituted a check upon the throne. Although they 
 were subject in the royal towns to appointment and removal 
 by the king, their hereditary rights were generally respected, 
 and the integrity of their position is indicated by the existence 
 of a definite organization among them. 29 Much of their cor- 
 
 25 See King, History of Sumer and Akkad, pp. 106, 251, 298. 
 
 26 See Winckler, History of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 243-245. 
 
 27 Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie, S. 307. 
 
 28 See e. g. Jer. 2: 8; Micah 3: n; Ezek. 7: 26, 27. 
 
 29 Note the phrase, "Elders of the Priests," in 2 Kings 19: 2, and 
 Jer. 19: i. 
 
 13 
 
porate strength was due to their intimate association with the 
 people as the custodians of their health, the guardians of their 
 shrines, the directors of their religious observances and repre- 
 sentatives in general before Yahweh. Their greatest power, 
 however, issued from their relation to the divine law or torah, 
 of which they were the mouthpieces, interpreters, teachers 
 and custodians. Thus, they, and not the king, were looked 
 upon as constituting the original fountain of justice, and 
 every one, including the king, was subject to the law devel- 
 oped by their oracles and judicial decisions. 
 
 The kings, indeed, possessed judicial authority. In an- 
 cient times the chief military or political power was ipso facto 
 supreme judge. In Ps. 2 : 10, and Hosea 7 : 7, melek and sophet 
 are used synonymously. As in Babylonia, so also in Israel, 
 appeal from a local court to the king was perfectly in order. 
 But the independent judicial power of the Hebrew priests not 
 only is suggested by the constant reference throughout the Old 
 Testament to their judicial activity, but is clearly asserted in 
 Deuteronomy where the duties of both kings and priests are 
 defined and superior judicial functions assigned to the latter. 
 In Deut. 17:8-13 e. g. the priests are given the priority in the 
 composition of the nation's supreme tribunal, while the king, 
 here called sophet, although included, seems to be mentioned 
 almost incidentally. 30 The exact relation between priestly and 
 other jurisdiction is not clear, but enough is known to warrant 
 the opinion of Stade that the king would have suppressed the 
 priestly courts, if he had had the power to do so. 31 
 
 Of all the checks, however, which religion supplied to 
 limit the growth of despotism in the Hebrew monarchy, the 
 most prominent and unique was that furnished by the growth 
 of the prophetic office. The origin of this office and its early 
 development do not concern us here. Suffice it to say that 
 what was at first an order of men, whose utterances were 
 ecstatic, and whose methods probably analogous to those of 
 the whirling dervishes of our day (e. g. 1 Sam. 19:24), de- 
 veloped, contemporaneously with the monarchy, into a group 
 of individuals who, for religious insight, ethical perception, 
 moral courage and strength of personality, stand out in boldest 
 
 30 See also Deut. 19: 16-19; 21: 1-7. 
 81 .Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. I, S. 412. 
 
 14 
 
relief against the whole background of ancient times. Nothing 
 fairly analogous to them can be found in any nation of an- 
 tiquity. Their power is to be explained by various considera- 
 tions. In the first place, they claimed to be, and generally were 
 accepted to be, the direct representatives of Yahweh. Indeed, 
 the prophetic deliverance was torah, possessing the same au- 
 thority and requiring the same obedience as that of the priest. 32 
 Thus saith Yahweh, was the imprimatur of the prophet's ut- 
 terance, and on the strength of this he could raise his voice 
 with confidence against kings and dynasties. In the second 
 place, the prophets were the champions of the people against 
 all forms of social wrong. Their spirit was intensely demo- 
 cratic and fervidly human. They came from the people, being 
 confined to no caste or even sex. Untrammeled by any official 
 connection with church or state, they could speak according to 
 the dictates of conscience alone. They were the outstanding 
 patriots of their time. In their prophecies they frequently 
 identified themselves with the people, as in Isa. 53, and the 
 depth of their interest in the national welfare was revealed in 
 outbursts of passion, like Jeremiah's, "O that my head were 
 waters and my eyes a fountain of tears that I might weep day 
 and night for the slain of the daughter of my people" (9: 1). 
 Finally, if to these two sanctions of the prophetic office, viz: 
 the divine and the popular, one adds the personal traits of the 
 prophets themselves, their fearlessness and independence, he 
 can understand the influence they were able to exert upon the 
 rulers of the nation. There were, indeed, counter-checks to 
 this influence. The official prophetic guilds, which became 
 increasingly aristocratic and subservient to the state, the false 
 prophets "which divined for money" (Mic. 3:11), and the 
 caprice and fickleness of the people, frequently thwarted the 
 purpose of the writing prophets and their like. But even 
 when their purpose was thwarted, their voice was heard with 
 fear, and they remained to the last the most vigilant sentinels 
 of the nation and the most intrepid denunciators of evil in 
 high and low alike. 
 
 The religion of Yahweh was the strongest bond between 
 the B e ne Yisra'eL It was a force, however, which as strongly 
 resisted aggression as it fostered union. It developed a spirit 
 
 32 See Isaiah i: 10; Jer. 26: 4-6. 
 
 15 
 
of violence against yokes of all kinds, whether imposed from 
 within or without. In the course of its history, unfortunately, 
 it became adulterated with beliefs and practices of a lower 
 grade than its own, and this admixture weakened the nation's 
 resistive force against personal aggrandizement ; but, even then, 
 the actual result did not seem to be so much a growth of des- 
 potism as a general demoralization of the nation entire. 
 Throughout the course of the monarchy no Hebrew king ever 
 entirely released his throne from checks sanctioned and sus- 
 tained by the religion of Yahweh. 
 
 To complete this general survey of the factors of limita- 
 tion upon the central power in Israel, a glance must be taken 
 at the geography of Palestine. For of the checks thus far 
 discussed, the political especially received strong reinforce- 
 ment from the physical features of this land. Geographically, 
 Palestine is as broken as Greece. The Lebanon ranges and the 
 low-lying Jordan valley between them form three well-defined 
 parallel sections running from north to south. The western 
 Lebanon range is broken by the Plain of Esdraelon, north of 
 which lie the plateaus and small east-and-west running ranges 
 of Galilee, and south of which are the mountains of Samaria, 
 which converge to form the high and broken table-land of 
 Judaea. The range to the east of the Jordan is not so broken 
 as its western counterpart. It is made up principally of high 
 plateaus ; but in Gilead, which is the part of this section figur- 
 ing most in Hebrew history, the cross-valleys are more numer- 
 ous than in either Hauran, to the north, or Moab, to the south. 
 The diversity of physical features in Palestine is sharp within 
 small compass. The average altitude of the table-land of 
 Judaea is 2400 feet; the Dead Sea lies 1300 feet below sea- 
 level. The soil of Samaria produces husbandmen; that of 
 Judaea, shepherds. From the Jordan valley, in summer, with 
 the temperature at 100 F., one can see snow on Hermon. In 
 view of such diversity of soil, climate and land-formation, it 
 is not surprising that the peoples which have inhabited Pales- 
 tine have been of diverse types, and that there can be main- 
 tained there side by side, as at the present day, the most dis- 
 tinct forms of culture and life. The Hebrew monarchy 
 throughout its history suffered from this lack of geographical 
 homogeneity. It could never fully overcome the barriers which 
 
 16 
 
nature had placed between the different sections of the land. 
 The defence of the borders was- always difficult, and it was 
 next to impossible to carry on any uniform internal adminis- 
 tration or effectively to quell any local insubordination or 
 revolt. 33 
 
 33 See G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 
 In Chap. II will be found the source of some of the above material. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES AND THE FIRST ATTEMPTS AT 
 
 KINGSHIP. 
 
 The entrance of the Hebrews into the land of Canaan 
 was accompanied by momentous changes in their habits of life 
 and in their relations to each other. The abandonment of 
 nomadic life for permanent settlements and agricultural pur- 
 suits involved isolation from each other. This was increased 
 both by the physical features of the country and by the pre- 
 occupation of the Canaanites, whom the Israelites were able 
 only partially to dislodge. The Canaanite cities of Beth-shean, 
 Taanach, Dor, Ibleam and Megiddo, situated in the Plain of 
 Esdraelon, separated the northern from the central tribes, 
 while these latter were shut off from their more southern kins- 
 men by Har-heres, Aijalon and Shaalbim. (Jud. 1:27, 35.) 
 Perhaps the best single evidence of this tribal isolation is 
 Deborah's song of victory over the Canaanites, in which it 
 appears that some of the tribes very close to the scene of con- 
 flict did not participate in it. (Jud. 5: 15-17.) 
 
 Isolated thus from each other, the Hebrews gradually 
 came to associate with their Canaanite neighbors. The cities 
 which they failed to capture in war they assimilated in peace. 
 Intermarriage, commercial relations, political and religious 
 alliances broke up to a considerable extent the old tribal 
 arrangements and formed new social units. In the town of 
 Shechem, for example, Canaanites and Hebrews freely inter- 
 mingled and called their common god by the significant name 
 ba c al-b e nth. (Jud. 8: 33; 9.) This amalgamating process, 
 however, did not destroy tribal and clan consciousness among 
 the Hebrews, but only added a new element to it. The subse- 
 quent development of the Hebrew state may be said to have 
 resulted from the union of two bonds; a spiritual one, the 
 sense of racial and religious kinship, and a material one, the 
 prepared Canaanite soil upon which the Hebrews settled. It 
 is literally true that the Hebrews developed their distinctive 
 
 18 
 
civilization because they remembered Yahweh when they came 
 to possess cities which they had not built, houses which they 
 had not filled, cisterns which they had not hewn, vineyard and 
 olive trees which they had not planted. (Deut. 6: 10-12.) In 
 other words, the evolution of civilization here, as elsewhere, 
 resulted from the coalescence of two different kinds of 
 civilization. 
 
 The Canaanites influenced Hebrew life most in furnishing 
 a model for the organization of government on a local terri- 
 torial basis. Were it not for this, the tribes could not have 
 passed so readily or uniformly from nomadic to settled life. 
 The territorial unit adopted was the city with its daughters, 
 i. e., its dependent villages and environs, and the government 
 of this was vested in the heads of all the free families within 
 it. The general name applied to these officials was 2 e qenim 
 (elders), and the number in each city varied according to the 
 number of clans or families. In the small town of Succoth 
 there were seventy seven. (Jud. 8: 14.) The existence of a 
 select group of officials among the elders themselves is indi- 
 cated by the use of sanm in connection with s e qenim, a datum 
 made use of by Sulzberger in support of his thesis that the 
 Hebrews had a bi-cameral parliament, known in early times 
 as the Edah, and in later times as the Am-ha-Aretz. 34 
 
 The functions of the city elders, although different in 
 form and of greater variety, were essentially the same as 
 those of the elders of the tribe. They were, first and fore- 
 most, representatives of the whole body of citizens. This is 
 evidenced, for example, by the fact that a sentence of death, 
 pronounced by them, was carried out by the community 
 (Deut. 17: 2-7). They were both judges and executives, being 
 called in the former capacity soph e tim, and in the latter 
 sot e rim. S5 They were also the directors of military policy 
 (1 Sam. 11:3) and mediators between their constituencies 
 and outsiders (1 Sam. 16:4). 
 
 Thus the cities with which the Hebrews became identified 
 after their entrance into Canaan were self-governing com- 
 
 3 *M. Sulzberger, The Am-ha-Aretz. 
 
 * 5 See Deut. 16 : 18 ; Joshua 8 : 33 ; and Nowack, Hebraische 
 Archaology, p. 322, with note. 
 
 19 
 
munities. Their relation to the monarchy when it arose will 
 be discussed in the sequel, but it may here be added that the 
 vigor with which they maintained their rights is indicated by 
 the persistence of the elders' office and functions throughout 
 the monarchy and beyond. In the settlements of the exile, the 
 elders were still the representatives of the people and the 
 directors of their affairs; 36 they led in the return from exile 
 and in building the temple ; 37 it was with them that the Persian 
 governor dealt, 38 and general administrative powers were still 
 in their hands. 39 Indeed, the Gerousia of the Greek period 
 was without doubt a development of the Council of Elders, 
 for "the Gerousia, the Great Synagogue and the Sanhedrin 
 were not mushrooms which sprang up over night, but giant 
 trees whose seeds were planted centuries before, in the minds 
 and hearts of the people." 40 
 
 The disorganization among the Hebrews prior to the 
 monarchy is well described by the historian who wrote: 
 "There was no king in Israel ; every man did that which was 
 right in his own eyes." The force which did away with this 
 condition was the religion of Yahweh acting under the 
 stimulus of foreign oppression. The fields and flocks belong- 
 ing to the Hebrews invited raids which they found them- 
 selves unable to ward off. This meant not only destitution 
 and oppression for them, but humiliation for Yahweh ! Hence 
 the wars of Yahweh, to defend his honor and free his land 
 from the possession of those who were not his servants. The 
 united effort which was thus secured was at first only local 
 and temporary. Under the rallying cry of one who was a fit 
 leader, the Hebrews of a certain locality would resist a raid or 
 throw off an oppression, and, their object accomplished, con- 
 ditions would resume much as before. The leader of such a 
 move was called sophet, in conformity with the ancient prac- 
 tice of associating the right to judge with the ability to rule. 
 There is no evidence that the earlier of these sdph e tim 
 
 36 Ezek. 8: i; 20: T; Jer. 29: i. 
 
 37 Ezra 6 : 7, 14. 
 
 38 Ezra 5: 95 6: 7. 
 38 Ezra 10 : 7, 8, 14. 
 
 40 Sulzberger, The Am-ha-Aretz, p. 7/. 
 
 20 
 
attempted to retain special powers after their specific mission 
 was performed, but as time went on, marked tendencies 
 appeared in two directions; the unions of resistance became 
 wider in scope, and the soph e tim showed disinclination to 
 resign all their powers when the crisis which called them forth 
 had been successfully met. 
 
 The first extensive federation of the tribes was under 
 the leadership of Deborah of Ephraim, and Barak of 
 Naphtali, and was directed against the Canaanites of the 
 Plain of Esdraelon and the north. The nucleus of the federa- 
 tion seems to have been Zebulon and Naphtali (Jud. 4:10; 
 5:18), but assistance was furnished by Ephraim, Benjamin, 
 Manasseh, Issachar and probably Reuben (Jud. 5:14-16). 
 However, the leaders and the federation itself disappear from 
 view after a single victory is won. 
 
 Gideon of Manasseh also secured support in his campaigns 
 from other tribes than his own (Jud. 6:35; 7:23, 24). But 
 the important fact about him is that he was the first sophet 
 actually to establish permanent personal authority over his 
 tribe. He became to all intents and purposes a king, as is 
 evidenced by the offer of an hereditary kingship to him 
 (Jud. 8:22), by the priestly functions which he exercised 
 (vs. 27), and by the name of his son, Abimelech, who also 
 became king, although not without difficulty (Jud. 9:1-6). 
 With the death of Abimelech, however, there was no attempt 
 to secure a succession, but "the men of Israel departed every 
 man unto his place" (vs. 55). 
 
 Jephthah was another sophet who retained his power 
 after the performance of aj special task (Jud. 11:8-11). 
 Indeed, he would not consent to act as leader at all without 
 the promise of continued recognition as such. He was not 
 called king, however, but only ro's. 
 
 It is important to note that in all these miniature king- 
 ships the initiative was taken by the people themselves or by 
 their representatives. The crown was offered to Gideon by 
 the men of Israel (Jud. 8: 22) ; Abimelech was made king by 
 the men of Shechem (Jud. 9:6); and it was the elders of 
 Gilead who said to Jephthah "thou shalt be our head" (Jud. 
 11:8). 
 
 21 
 
The path to national kingship was prepared by these 
 soph e tim, and to a real federation of the tribes by these occa- 
 sional alliances. Fortunately, this path had been prepared by 
 the time of the appearance of the Philistine menace, for the 
 Philistines were not an enemy which could be kept at bay 
 by any makeshift means. It required permanent leadership, 
 even in times of comparative peace, to secure military effi- 
 ciency against them. An individual possessing the qualifica- 
 tions for such leadership was found by the patriot-seer 
 Samuel in Saul of Benjamin, who, accordingly, was anointed 
 by him to be naghidh over the inheritance of Yahweh (1 Sam. 
 10: 1). The people, however, would not fully accept Saul 
 until he had proved his worth. An opportunity of doing this 
 was presented in the siege of Jabesh-Gilead, to the relief of 
 which he roused the tribes, winning a glorious victory. Then 
 it was that "all the people went to Gilgal, and there they 
 made Saul king" (1 Sam. 11: 15). 
 
 The kingship of Saul was of a purely military kind. He 
 did practically nothing in the way of internal administration. 
 There was no court or cabinet, properly speaking, much less a 
 system of royal district officials. Gibeah, Saul's farmer- 
 home, was kept as his seat of government, a place "der weder 
 Vergangenheit noch Zukunft hatte . . . der beste Beweis 
 dass Saul das Organ zum Konig fehlte." 41 Even in military 
 affairs his organization was very loose. There was nothing 
 which could fairly be called a standing army, although indi- 
 vidual military geniuses attended him (1 Sam. 14: 52). Local 
 and tribal distinctions remained very marked. Because of this 
 the king had to rely chiefly upon his own family and tribe 
 for support. He appointed his cousin Abner, e. g., to the chief 
 position, next his own, in the army, and selected all his officials 
 from Benjamin, his own tribe (1 Sam. 14:50; 22:7). The 
 free outlaw life of David in Judaea, and the ready election of 
 David by the Judseans after the death of Saul show how 
 limited was Saul's control of the south of the country. Indeed, 
 the influence of the king over his immediate attendants seems 
 to have depended upon his ability to supply them with the 
 rewards of booty and position (1 Sam. 22:7-8). The power 
 
 Kittel, Geschichte der Hebraer, II, S. 134. 
 
 22 
 
of the elders remained intact, and the wholesome respect with 
 which they were regarded by Saul is reflected in the request 
 he made of Samuel to honor him in their presence (1 Sam. 
 15:30). For the priesthood, at least under provocation, he 
 did not show the same regard, slaughtering in one instance 
 the priests of Nob because of their dealings with David 
 (I Sam. 22:llfT). But undoubtedly acts of this kind only 
 weakened his rule by alienating from his support not only the 
 priestly class, but the rank and file of the people, to whom it 
 was a sin thus "to fall upon the priests of Jehovah" (vs. 17). 
 Moreover, the breach between Samuel and Saul was due to 
 religious causes, whatever their precise nature may have been, 
 and Saul's perception of the weakening effect upon his own 
 position of the loss of Samuel's favor is clearly preserved in 
 the tradition (1 Sam. 15 : 35), and without doubt was account- 
 able in part for the melancholia of his later days. 
 
 The evidence thus indicates that not only was the sphere 
 of Saul's kingship very limited, but within that sphere his 
 authority rested upon precarious ground. He owed his eleva- 
 tion to a realization by the tribes that they needed a permanent 
 military chief. No organic union was formed, only a federa- 
 tion for the one purpose of fighting common enemies. His 
 rule, however, was both continuous and of an inter-tribal 
 character, and so marked an advance over the achievement 
 of any sophet, and in turn paved the way for the greater work 
 of unification accomplished by his successors. 
 
 As this brings us to a consideration of the fully estab- 
 lished monarchy, a note may be added on the terms by which 
 the Hebrew kings are designated. The ordinary term is 
 melek. The corresponding Arabic root means to possess or 
 own exclusively, and the Assyrian malaku signifies to counsel 
 or to advise. These analogies, with the facts to which atten- 
 tion has already been called, viz., the growth of patesis into 
 kings in Assyria, the rise of kings after mukarribs in South 
 Arabia, and the synonymous use of melek and sophet in the 
 Old Testament, suggest that the underlying idea in the term 
 is the possession of such political power as to make judicial 
 decisions of binding authority. 
 
 23 
 
The term naghidh is used of six of the Hebrew kings, 
 viz., Saul (1 Sam. 9: 16), David (1 Sam. 13: 14+), Solomon 
 (1 K. 1:35+), Jeroboam I (1 K. 14:7), Baasha (1 K. 16:2) 
 and Hezekiah (II K. 20:5), and almost invariably in pro- 
 phetic passages in which their appointment over Israel or 
 over his people, or over my people Israel is attributed to 
 Yahweh. The term has the general sense of leader or com- 
 mander* 2 and is used of rulers in various capacities, political, 
 military and religious. 43 Its use as a substitute term for 
 melek seems to be only another indication of prophetic dis- 
 approval of the whole idea of human kingship. 
 
 The term nas? ', which, with one doubtful exception, 44 
 is used exclusively by Ezekiel so far as it refers to occupants 
 of the Hebrew throne, and the term masiach, which designates 
 one as a representative of the deity, will be referred to more 
 fully in the chapter on the Ideal Kingship. 
 
 42 See Isaiah 55 : 4, where naghidh h parallel to m e sawweh. 
 
 43 Comp. Jer. 20: i; Ezek. 28: 2; T Chron. 12: 27; 26: 24; 2 
 Chron. 32: 21. 
 
 44 i Kings ii : 34. The Heb. back of the Gr. text did not have 
 the word. 
 
 24 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 THE MONARCHY OF DAVID AND SOLOMON. 
 
 After the death of Saul, Abner secured the recognition of 
 Ish-baal, Saul's son, as king "over all Israel" (2 Sam. 2:9). 
 It was found impossible, however, to check the growing 
 power of David, who was accepted as king in Judah, and who 
 was popular even in the north. Hence, when Abner finally 
 deserted Ish-baal, and the latter himself was killed, the way 
 was open for "all the elders of Israel" to go to Hebron and 
 anoint David king over the entire land (2 Sam. 5:3). 
 
 David's purpose to act as a national king, and, moreover, 
 his genius for such a role, appear in the first act recorded of 
 his reign, viz., the selection of Jerusalem as capital. Hitherto 
 no tribe had been able to dispossess the Jebusites of this city; 
 hence it was neutral ground and fitted to forestall prejudice. 
 Then, too, it occupied a splendid position for defense, thereby 
 inspiring confidence and pride. Finally, it was situated in the 
 border land between Benjamin and Judah, and so kept David 
 in close touch with his naturally most loyal constituents, the 
 Judaeans. 
 
 The military organisation developed by David was as 
 much superior to Saul's as his conquests were wider and more 
 brilliant. Saul had a "captain of the host" and a loose body- 
 guard (I Sam. 22:6, 17), but no standing army. David, on 
 the contrary, had a commander-in-chief of the army, a well- 
 organized bodyguard (2 Sam. 20:23; 23:23), groups of 
 chieftains called The Three and The Thirty (2 Sam. 23: 13, 
 19, 23, 24), and, most important of all, a permanent fighting 
 force with settled garrisons in conquered countries (2 Sam. 
 8:6, 14). With this organization he was able to win con- 
 tinued military successes, and at the end of his reign bequeath 
 to his successor a kingdom of substantial peace. 
 
 The development of the monarchy is seen, furthermore, in 
 the multiplication and growing importance of state officials. 
 
 25 
 
Comparing 2 Sam. 20:23-26 with 1 K. 4:1-6, we see that 
 the chief officers, outside of the military, were the mazkir, 
 or historiographer; the sopher, or writer of state documents 
 and the king's correspondence ; the 'aser c al-hannnas, or over- 
 seer of the task-workers ; and the royal priests. In addition 
 to these, Solomon had an officer over the house (1 K. 4:6), 
 who is probably to be identified with the household soken, or 
 treasurer; a chief in charge of the administrative officers of 
 the provinces (1 K. 4:5, 7); cupbearers and the numerous 
 other servants who invariably accompany an oriental court 
 (1 K. 10:5). As theoretically all the state officials were 
 entirely dependent upon the king, and the mere instruments 
 of his will, a certain amount of centralism was bound to result 
 from this system. It both developed a growing seclusion of 
 the king from the people at large, 45 and at the same time 
 enabled him to keep in close touch with the country's affairs, 
 as was indicated by the current saying, "there is no matter 
 hid from the king" (2 Sam. 18: 13). 
 
 For purposes of internal administration David took a 
 census of the people of the land (2 Sam, 24:4fT), and 
 Solomon divided it into thirteen districts, 46 with a royal repre- 
 sentative in each. In each case the object was the same, viz., 
 provision for tax-levies, war-service and work upon public 
 enterprises. Solomon's extensive building operations and the 
 gratification of his tastes generally bear witness to the effi- 
 ciency of the methods used. 
 
 As further indications of the strength and enterprise of 
 the monarchy, there may be cited its commercial activity and 
 the flourishing condition of its foreign relations. As to the 
 former, there are references to a system of royal weights 
 (2 Sam. 14:26) and to extensive trade operations, which 
 were a source of royal revenue (1 K. 9:26; 10: 11, 15, 22). 
 The stability of foreign relations is seen in the final cessation 
 of the Philistine menace, in treaties such as those with Tyre 
 and Egypt, in the story of the visit of the Queen of Sheba and 
 in the prevailing peaceful conditions of Solomon's reign. 
 
 45 Note the phrase, "beholders of the face of the king 1 /' 2 K. 
 25: 19. 
 
 46 The twelve enumerated in i K. 4 : 7 ff, and jjudah. 
 
 26 
 
Both David and Solomon exercised priestly functions. 
 The former, on the occasion of the bringing of the ark to 
 Jerusalem, offered sacrifices and blessed the people (2 Sam. 
 6: 17, 18) ; the latter, at the dedication of the temple, blessed 
 the people and prayed (1 K. 8: 14, 23, 55), and on various 
 occasions offered sacrifices (1 K. 3:4, 1 5 ; 9 : 25 ) . The sons 
 of David are explicitly called priests (2 Sam. 8: 18). More- 
 over, under the sponsorship of Solomon, the cults of the 
 surrounding nations were introduced into Jerusalem and given 
 official protection (1 K. 11:1-8), this being an outcome of the 
 alliances he made with the nations concerned. 
 
 Large judicial powers were wielded by both David and 
 Solomon. Absalom is represented as having "stolen the 
 hearts" of the nation through his influence over those who 
 "came to the king for judgment," and a good interpretation of 
 the kingship is found in his plea, "Oh, that I were made judge 
 in the land that any man who hath any suit or cause might 
 come unto me, and I would do him justice!" (2 Sam. 15 : 1-6). 
 As for Solomon, his reputation came to rest largely upon his 
 renown as a judge (1 K. 3:28). Indeed, it was because of 
 the well-recognized judicial authority of the king, coupled 
 with the common practice of appeal to him, that Solomon 
 was able to extend the royal estates as he did; for this was 
 undoubtedly done through travesties on justice, by which land 
 was arbitrarily appropriated and its owners reduced to serf- 
 dom. In the records preserved to us such proceedings are 
 freely acknowledged so far as the non-Israelitish inhabitants 
 of the land are concerned (IK. 9:20-21), and the sequel to 
 Solomon's reign leaves little doubt that the same policy was 
 pursued toward the Israelites themselves. Other seemingly 
 arbitrary acts of the king, for most of which, however, there 
 was much more justification, were based upon his judicial 
 authority. Among these may be mentioned David's execution 
 of Rechab and Baanah (2 Sam. 4: 12), his disposition of the 
 property of Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 16:4; 19,: 29), Solomon's 
 dispatching of Joab, Adonijah and Shimei, and his deposition 
 of Abiathar (1 K. 2: 13-46). 
 
 The government of David and Solomon, therefore, 
 achieved no small success in overcoming the disintegrating 
 forces existent in Israel, and in centralizing in the king large 
 
 27 
 
powers which under Solomon became, in some ways, despotic. 
 But it is to be remembered that this period in Israel's history 
 lasted for only two generations, and was followed by a violent 
 reaction, and, furthermore, that even during this period there 
 were checks upon the king which operated with considerable 
 force. It is to these that we now turn. 
 
 In the first place, we note the continuance of local self- 
 government. The eldership remained unimpaired. 47 There 
 was nothing in Solomon's division of the country into thirteen 
 districts to suggest any change in the management of ordinary 
 local affairs. As to the relations existing between the local 
 officials and the royal representatives, nothing very definite 
 can be said, but it is safe to assume that outside of special 
 tasks assigned them, the work of the king's officers was pri- 
 marily to collect revenue, and secondarily to act as appellate 
 judges in cases where the local authorities could not or did not 
 afford relief. This was far from destroying local initiative 
 or self-government. 
 
 In the rise of David to power we see plainly the influence 
 of the local units at that period. Abner, strong as he was, 
 could not, merely by his defection, hand over the northern 
 tribes to David, but it was necessary to enter into communica- 
 tion with the elders of Israel as to their desires in the matter 
 (2 Sam. 3: 17ff), and as David was made king over Judah by 
 the "men of Judah" (2 Sam. 2:4), so "all the elders of 
 Israel" made him king over the whole land (2 Sam. 5: 1-3). 
 In the accession of Solomon we see the workings of an estab- 
 lished monarchy with its implication of the hereditary idea, 
 but with no suppression of the popular voice. David's choice 
 could not have been made effective without popular approval 
 (1 K. 1 :39, 40) any more than the schemes of Adonijah could 
 have succeeded without the same sanction. Wines makes the 
 interesting remark "that the right of setting aside the first 
 born by the arbitrary will of the king is not usual in hereditary 
 monarchies, and therefore it is probable that it was conferred 
 upon David by the terms of the capitulation" (of the tribes 
 at Hebron). 48 But this supposition is not at all necessary. The 
 
 47 See e. g., 2 Sam. 17: 4, 15; i Kings 8: 1-3. 
 
 48 Wines, Laws of the Ancient Hebrews, p. 562. 
 
 28 
 
success of David's rule was sufficient guarantee that the mon- 
 archy would remain in the possession of his family, while the 
 strength of his personal influence, coupled, doubtless, with the 
 popularity of Solomon, was sufficient to secure the latter's en- 
 dorsement by the people against the claims of all others. 
 
 The independent power of the people, as expressed in 
 their local associations, appears indirectly in the attitude of 
 both David and Solomon toward the nation at large. This atti- 
 tude was one of positive distrust. David refused to commit 
 the defence of his throne and his personal safety to his own 
 countrymen, but entrusted it to foreigners the Pelethites, 
 Cherethites and Gittites. These constituted his bodyguard, 
 and to them he turned in the hours of greatest danger (2 Sam. 
 15: 18; 20: 7). Moreover, when he selected his officials from 
 among the Hebrews, he preferred his own kinsmen to all 
 others (2 Sam. 19: 11-13). In the case of Solomon, it was 
 this same distrustful spirit which led him to ignore the natural 
 divisions of the country for administrative purposes. There 
 is every reason to believe that the wholesome respect for ex- 
 isting local authority, which David showed at the very begin- 
 ning of his reign in sending presents to the elders of the cities 
 of Judah, remained a characteristic of the kingship throughout 
 this period of the monarchy (1 Sam. 30: 26-31). 
 
 Still again, the throne's limitations were revealed by the 
 instigation of rebellions against it. In David's time the chief 
 of these were Absalom's, in which the original conspirators 
 were Judsean tribesmen of the king (2 Sam. 15:9-12), and 
 Sheba's, in which the line of cleavage was tribal (2 Sam. 20). 
 Hence, we note the unchecked insubordination of the Hebrews 
 both as individuals and in their group connections. During 
 the reign of Solomon, there was no revolution so far as the 
 records go, but the factors which make for revolution were 
 present; they were kept in check, indeed, by the glories of a 
 reign which fascinated the popular mind in spite of the hard- 
 ships imposed, but with the hand of Israel's grand monarch 
 removed, the old intolerance of restraint again appeared in 
 revolutionary form. 
 
 Furthermore, it cannot be supposed that the state officials 
 themselves did not possess and assert rights which tended to 
 check the free exercise of the royal will. Solomon, at the be- 
 
 29 
 
ginning of his reign, made use of his personal popularity and 
 of the pretext afforded by Adonijah's attempted usurpation, 
 to clean the slate of political enemies, and the glitter of his 
 court seems to have dazed his servants into a considerable 
 degree of submissiveness as long as he lived ; but the action of 
 Jeroboam, who, while still a state official, had the courage "to 
 raise his hand against the king" (1 K. 11 : 26), and the advice 
 of Solomon's ministers that Rehoboam should be more lenient 
 than his father (1 K. 12:6, 7), show that Solomon could not 
 keep all of his servants in an attitude of fawning approval. 
 David found it impossible to curb the arbitrary conduct of his 
 general, Joab, who, against the king's wish and with impunity, 
 murdered both Abner and Amasa, and who felt free to criticise 
 his lord (2 Sam. 3 : 2*4, 25). The plaint of David that "these 
 men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me" (2 Sam. 3 : 39), 
 may well express the attitude of both David and Solomon 
 toward other ministers whose names have not come down to us. 
 Finally, religious forces were active in combating royal 
 arbitrariness during this period. It was not yet the time of the 
 great prophets, but in the activities of men like Gad, Nathan 
 and Ahijah, we see the beginnings of that fierce condemnation 
 of social wrong, and of the courage to put the blame where it 
 belongs, so characteristic of the later messengers of Yahweh. 
 Gad protested against an enumeration of the people for reve- 
 nue purposes (2 Sam. 24) ; Nathan condemned David for the 
 violation of another's home and for murder (2 Sam. 12) ; 
 Ahijah protested against the oppression of Solomon (IK. 
 11 :26ff), and in no one of these cases is there any evidence 
 that the prophet was harmed for his conduct. On the con- 
 trary, the royal attitude was, and continued to be, one of re- 
 spect for the prophetic office. Moreover, Solomon's introduc- 
 tion of foreign religious cults into the land, accompanied as 
 this was, not only by the inflow of foreign wealth and 
 ideas, but by a growing moral and religious laxity, only 
 tended to undermine his monarchy. For, on the one hand, the 
 strongest national bond which existed the religion of Yahweh 
 was thereby weakened, and on the other, the ire of the Yah- 
 wistic party, which stood for the old civilization as against the 
 new, was so aroused that it did what it could to hasten the 
 disruption of the monarchy and to discourage attempts at re- 
 
 30 
 
union after the break had come (1 K. 12 : 22-24). The religion 
 of Yahweh encouraged union among its true adherents, but 
 it preferred disunion to surrender. 
 
 The supreme proof, however, of the restricted nature of 
 David's and Solomon's power is found in the Jeroboam revolt, 
 and in the permanent national schism which was created 
 thereby. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 THE KINGDOMS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH. 
 
 The split of the Hebrew monarchy into two parts was 
 occasioned by the oppression of Solomon, but its fundamental 
 causes lay much deeper. From the very beginning of the 
 Hebrew occupation of Canaan, Judah had maintained its 
 identity as against the tribes to the north. It had fought its 
 way into southern Palestine with the help only of Simeon, 
 and throughout the period of the Judges pursued its own 
 course. Deborah failed even to mention it as a source from 
 which aid might be expected for the alliance formed by her- 
 self and Barak. Nominally Judah was a part of Saul's king- 
 dom, but we have seen how uncertain its support was. Con- 
 versely, when the kingdom under David was established on a 
 Judaean base, the loyalty of the north became subject to sus- 
 picion a suspicion confirmed by the jealousies and rebellions 
 of David's reign, and by Solomon's method of districting the 
 land. The fact that the terms Judah and Israel, as designa- 
 tions for the south and north, respectively, are used conjointly 
 to express the idea of all Israel, even in early narratives, 49 
 shows how deep-seated this distinction was. The basis of the 
 Jeroboam revolt was as old as the settlement in Palestine ; nay, 
 older. The real preparation for it is to be found in those indi- 
 vidualistic traits which were prominent in Hebrew character 
 from the beginning, and which, although checked, could not 
 be subdued by an oppression such as Solomon's. 
 
 The circumstances attending the accession of Rehoboam 
 and Jeroboam's revolt reveal several facts germane to our 
 thesis. In the first place, we note that Rehoboam went to 
 Shechem to be made king by "all Israel" (1 K. 12:1). This 
 procedure in itself showed a lack of cordial support on the 
 part of the northern tribes. David could have selected no 
 better capital than Jerusalem, but evidently neither its natural 
 
 49 See e. g., i Sam. n : 8; 17: 52; 2 Sam. u: n. 
 
 32 
 
fitness nor the prestige which it had acquired by two long and 
 brilliant reigns were able to remove tribal prejudice. With- 
 out doubt, Rehoboam was acclaimed king in Jerusalem, but his 
 journey to the north is explained only on the ground that, what- 
 ever the local enthusiasm of this acclamation may have been, 
 it lacked all signs of possessing a national character. Further- 
 more, in the deliberations between king and people in Shechem, 
 it is clear that the people, while recognizing the hereditary 
 claims of Rehoboam, retained the right to accept or reject him, 
 according as he promised or refused to rule in harmony with 
 their desires. Rehoboam theoretically recognized this right 
 when he took the people's proposals into consideration for 
 three days, and no finer definition of the Hebrew idea of king- 
 ship can be found than that which the tradition assigns to 
 Rehoboam's elderly advisors, who said: "If thou wilt be a 
 servant unto this people this day and wilt serve them, and 
 answer them and speak good words to them, then they will 
 be thy servants for ever" (1 K. 12:7). The protest of the 
 tribes was not against the kingdom per se, but against royal 
 arbitrariness, and when the protest was not heeded, they re- 
 belled, and Jeroboam was raised by popular acclaim to the 
 throne (vs. 20). The ease with which the revolution was ac- 
 complished shows how artificial the centralism of David and 
 Solomon was. By such simple means as the rehabilitation of 
 ancient shrines to counteract the influence of the Jerusalem 
 temple, the breach between the north and the south was made 
 permanent (vs. 26-29). 
 
 It is no part of our purpose to trace the varying fortunes 
 of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. It is sufficient to point 
 out, by way of contrast between the two, the greater stability 
 of the kingdom of Judah. This was due to many causes, 
 among which may be mentioned a greater racial and geograph- 
 ical solidarity, less exposure to attack because of better natural 
 protection and more isolated position, and, lastly, the prestige 
 of a permanent royal line with direct descent from David and 
 Solomon. But of necessity the two kingdoms influenced each 
 other, and, in general, their resemblances exceeded their dif- 
 ferences. There were corresponding social and religious devel- 
 opments in each, and, so far as the king was concerned, similar 
 restrictions and powers. 
 
 33 
 
We note, first, certain demoralizing tendencies of the period 
 with their results upon the position of the king. The most 
 important of these was the break-up of the social democracy 
 of the nation. . Class distinctions arose the inevitable outcome 
 of the protracted wars of the two kingdoms, and intensified by 
 their commercial activity. The system of state officials only 
 aggravated the situation by offering an opportunity for selfish 
 aggrandizement under royal protection, with resulting cruelty 
 and injustice. Hence, the poor and the rich, the officials and 
 those without court connections, became hostile toward each 
 other. This development was not prominent for some time 
 subsequent to the division of the monarchy. In Judah espe- 
 cially, there seems to have been a reaction against Solomon's 
 orientalism and a resumption of simple ways, which lasted for 
 upwards of a century. During the second quarter of the 
 8th century, however, in the contemporary reigns of Uzziah 
 and Jeroboam II, comparative peace prevailed, trade flourished, 
 wealth rolled into Samaria and Jerusalem, and marked social 
 classes appeared. The princes or officials henceforth assumed 
 a most important role in both governments, and in the last 
 days of the Judsean state, practically turned the monarchy 
 into an oligarchy. The whole movement, of course, weakened 
 the nation's democratic spirit, but so far as the king was con- 
 cerned, it gave rise to the new check of a rich and well-en- 
 trenched aristocracy a check well illustrated in the relation 
 of Zedekiah to his princes, to whom he said, "the king is not 
 he that can do anything against you" (Jer. 38: 5). 
 
 Foreign interference, with its accompanying wars and 
 rumors of wars, was another devitalizing force. The Syrians, 
 Assyrians, Egyptians and Babylonians, by appropriating terri- 
 tory, imposing tribute or simply depleting the population, grad- 
 ually wore out the Israelites and Judseans. These things not 
 only impoverished them, but led to many distractions and much 
 party wrangling, and in the end to the humiliation of having 
 their kings appointed for them by foreign rulers. But here 
 again the situation gave rise to a new form of check upon the 
 royal power. Parties arose which were differentiated from 
 each other according to their proposals of self-defense, alli- 
 ance or submission. The king was not only unable to control 
 these parties, but his very safety depended upon his attach- 
 
 34 
 
ment to the one which at the time was strongest. Pekahiah in 
 Israel lost his life because the pro-Assyrian party, to which 
 he and his father belonged, fell into disfavor (2 K. 15: 19-26, 
 29), and probably the murder of Amon in Judah was due to 
 the increasing strength of the prophetic party, which, in Josiah's 
 reign, stood for self-reliance and opposed all foreign connec- 
 tions. During the last days of both kingdoms, the king was 
 little more than a puppet alternately in the hands of foreign 
 rulers and local parties. 
 
 A third disintegrating factor was the continuance of com- 
 promise in religion. During the periods of Phoenician, Syrian 
 and Assyrian influence, religious innovations from these sources 
 took their place beside Yahweh worship, becoming entrenched 
 even in the sacred precincts of the Jerusalem temple (Ezek. 8). 
 Such compromises could not but impair the national unity, for 
 they weakened the strongest bond which held the Hebrews to- 
 gether. The sin of Jeroboam was his degrading of the cult in 
 Israel to a plane lower than that which the best Yahweh wor- 
 ship had reached, for in setting up the worship of Yahweh 
 under the image of a bull, there was a clear adaptation to 
 Canaanitish nature-worship, from which the Jerusalem temple 
 at the time was free, and in the selection of priests "from 
 among all the people" (1 K. 12: 31 ; 13: 33), the king showed 
 clearly enough that his purpose in religious supervision was of 
 a political nature. This policy, though temporarily successful, 
 was bound to result disastrously to both the nation and the 
 throne ; to the nation, because of the demoralization which Sy- 
 rian nature-rites inevitably produced ; and to the throne, because 
 of the reaction against this policy on the part of the spiritually 
 minded, under the leadership of the prophets of Yahweh. The 
 sin of Jeroboam was an important contributing cause in mak- 
 ing the northern kingdom for a long time the scene of much 
 greater prophetic activity than the southern. But in Judah, 
 too, the prophets, when they did appear, were called forth 
 largely in opposition to religious compromise, so that this 
 tendency also, like the others we have mentioned, may be said 
 to have called into being new checks upon royalty, while 
 vitiating to some extent the old. 
 
 These special tendencies, however, modifying though 
 their influence was, did not destroy the old forces and con- 
 
 35 
 
ditions which were restrictive of centralized power. Local and 
 tribal separateness was never overcome. The ease with which 
 the Syrians, and later the Assyrians (2 K. 15:29), overran 
 the territory north of Esdraelon shows what a breach there was 
 between Galilee and its southern neighbors. The territory 
 east of the Jordan received the same scant protection against 
 invaders, and its practical independence is illustrated in the 
 statement, which is given as a special note, that Pekah, in his 
 rebellion against Pekahiah, had the assistance of "fifty men 
 of the Gileadites" (2 K. 15:25). Isaiah portrayed the antag- 
 onism even of tribes closely related, in the striking passage 
 "they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm ; Manasseh, 
 Ephraim ; and Ephraim, Manasseh ; and they together shall be 
 against Judah" (Isa. 9: 20, 21). The isolation of the cities of 
 the land was just as great in the Assyrian campaigns as at the 
 Hebrew conquest (2 K. 15:29; 18: 13), and in the organiza- 
 tion of the military by city-units it is possible to detect a fur- 
 thering cause of this isolation (Amos. 5:3). 
 
 This separateness of existence was accompanied by inde- 
 pendence of local administration. The elders remained in high 
 esteem and of great importance. According to Isaiah, they 
 were among the most valuable assets of Judah and Jerusalem 
 (Isa. 3:1, 2), The kings took counsel of them in matters of 
 foreign (1 K. 20:7,8) and domestic (2 K. 23:1) policy. 
 Their judicial rights remained intact. Ahab, for example, 
 found it impossible to secure the property of Naboth without 
 judicial authorization by the people's representatives, viz., the 
 s e qenhn and the horim (1 K. 21) ; and in the trial of Jeremiah 
 it is notable that his accusers did not go to Jehoiakim for judg- 
 ment, but to the c am, whom Sulzberger, with great plausibility 
 in this passage, argues to be elders or representatives of the 
 people 50 (Jer. 26:8ff). In the organization of the courts at- 
 tributed to Jehoshaphat, there is no indication that he inter- 
 fered with the customary rights of local officials. He was con- 
 cerned mainly with establishing a system of appeal, and so far 
 as his lay appointments are specified, they were from "the 
 heads of the fathers' houses" (2 Chron. 19: 5fT). Stade asserts 
 that it was in judicial matters that the old clan organization 
 
 50 Sulzberger, The Am-ha-Aretz, yp. 42 50. 
 
 36 
 
gave the longest and most powerful opposition to the king. 51 
 This is doubtless true, and, of course, it would be just at this 
 point where such opposition would involve the greatest check 
 upon the royal power. 
 
 The independent strength of the people as a whole is seen, 
 furthermore, in the control which they kept over the succes- 
 sion of their kings. In Judah the royal line was fixed ; never- 
 theless each succeeding king was raised to the throne by the 
 people, as is expressly stated in the case of Joash (2 K. 11 : 12', 
 13); Uzziah (2 K. 14:21); Josiah (2 K. 21:23,24) and 
 Jehoahaz (2 K. 23: 30). The kingdom of Israel started in a 
 popular election, and the elective principle never became sub- 
 ject to a fixed hereditary line. Indeed, so democratic were the 
 tribes of the north that one wonders if Solomon's succession 
 to David without their formal consent, or if Rehoboam's suc- 
 cession to Solomon, prior to any consultation with them, did 
 not have something to do with the Jereboam revolt. But not 
 only did the people control the succession of their kings; on 
 occasion they deposed them. In Judah, under the leadership 
 of Jehoiada, they deposed Athaliah (2 K. 11 : 13-16). In Israel 
 the overthrow of the successive dynasties was accomplished by 
 military chieftains, usually captains of the host, who ranked 
 next to the king (2 K. 4: 13), and who were thus in a position 
 to curry personal favor from the fighting strength of the na- 
 tion (1 K. 16:9, 16; 2 K. 9:5; 15:25). It is true that the 
 success of their intrigues was due as much to their individual 
 genius as to any spontaneous popular action, but this only 
 makes clearer the fact that the throne rested upon very tran- 
 sient values and was practically without guarantees of support. 
 In Judah there was a counter-check in the people's inbred loy- 
 alty to the established Davidic line, but in Israel there was little, 
 if any, restraint to keep them from withdrawing their alle- 
 giance at will. 
 
 The kings continued to exercise priestly and religious 
 functions. They were the chief supervisors of religion, setting 
 up altars, high places, asherim and pillars, (1 K. 
 16: 32; 2 K. 21 : 3ff), or destroying the same (2 K. 3 : 2; 18: 
 4). They sacrificed and burnt incense (IK. 12:27-33; 2 
 
 51 Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, S. 411. 
 
 37 
 
Chron. 25: 14). They collected money for religious purposes 
 (2 K. 12:4ff; 22:4), and exercised freedom in the use of 
 temple treasures (2 K. 16: 8; 18: 15). Ahaz not only acted as 
 a priest himself, but issued commands for the whole arrange- 
 ment of the temple cult (2 K. 16 : lOff). The priests, as a class, 
 however, although at times manifesting subservience to the 
 king (e. g. 2 K. 16: llff), at other times exhibited splendid 
 aggressiveness. It was Jehoiada, the priest, who inspired and 
 directed the conspiracy which removed Athaliah and put Joash 
 on the throne (2 K. 11), and possibly the prestige acquired 
 for the priesthood by this memorable act had something to do 
 with the struggle between it and the throne, vouched for by 
 the Book of Chronicles. There it is recorded that Zachariah, 
 the son of Jehoiada, outspokenly opposed Joash and in so doing 
 lost his life (2 Chron. 24:15-22), while later an encounter 
 between Uzziah and the priesthood led to consequences which 
 were serious for the king (2 Chron. 26: 17-20). Kittel is cer- 
 tainly right in saying that there is no good reason summarily to 
 reject this tradition. 52 It is not inconsistent with the repre- 
 sentation of Kings and it harmonizes well with the independent 
 spirit of the Hebrew people. 
 
 The restrictions which were imposed upon the kings of 
 this period by customary and written law have already been 
 referred to in part. Such acts as the purchase of the hill of 
 Samaria by Omri (1 K. 16: 24) show that the right of private 
 property was respected. Indeed, this right was so well en- 
 trenched that when Ahab tried to override it in his dealings 
 with Naboth, he was at his wits' end and accomplished his 
 purpose only by a resort to underhanded methods, which, how- 
 ever, were carried out in full conformity with the law (IK. 
 2:1). It is certain, moreover, that this manifest perversion of 
 justice was one of the causes which led to the overthrow of his 
 dynasty by Jehu (2 K. 9 : 25, 26) . The safety of private prop- 
 erty to the very end of the Judaean kingdom is indicated by 
 Jeremiah's purchase of real estate from his cousin (Jer. 32: 
 6-15). Such facts as these suggest that the picture of the 
 kingdom drawn in 1 Sam 8 : lOff has to do only with special 
 periods and individual instances and not with the usual con- 
 
 52 Kittel, Geschichte der Hebraer, II, S. 281. 
 
 38 
 
dition of affairs. The Deuteronomic law of the king, to which 
 Josiah at least definitely subscribed (2 K. 23:3), stated that 
 the king was as much subject to law as the people, and, indeed, 
 that it was his special duty to study the law and obey it "that 
 his heart be not lifted up above his brethren" (Deut. 17 : 18-20). 
 The covenant which Josiah and all the people made before 
 Yahweh implied a common recognition of the divine sanction 
 of law and involved an obligation on the part of the king to 
 the people, and of the people to the king, to obey it (2 K. 23 : 
 1-3). The same was true of the covenant which Jehoiada 
 made "between Jehovah and the king and the people that they 
 should be Jehovah's people; between the king also and the 
 people" (2 K. 11 : 17). The position of the priesthood in both 
 of these transactions is noteworthy. In the case of Jehoiada, it 
 was a priest who administered the covenant, while in the case 
 of Josiah, it was a priest from whom was secured the law to 
 which the king subscribed. 
 
 We come finally to a consideration of the prophets in their 
 relation to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. For the first 
 two centuries after the disruption, their activities were much 
 greater in the north than in the south a fact which is to be 
 attributed partly to the existence of schools of the prophets in 
 the north, and partly to the reaction against the Tyrian proph- 
 ets of Baal introduced by Ahab. But with the rise of the 
 great writing prophets in the 8th century, Judah also came 
 under their spell and remained so to the downfall of the state. 
 There was no class of men which the kings of Judah and Israel 
 more respected or feared. Their spirit of freedom in denounc- 
 ing kings as well as others was irrepressible. Amos prophesied 
 against the house of Jeroboam and the royal sanctuaries of 
 Israel with impunity, for seemingly the only thing which Ama- 
 ziah, the priest of Bethel, could do was to advise him to return 
 to Judah (Amos. 7:8ff). Jeremiah uttered his prophecies of 
 destruction within the temple area adjoining the royal palace, 
 but when he was imprisoned, it was for a supposedly treacher- 
 ous act, and not for his words (Jer. 37: 11-15). The influen- 
 tial standing of the prophets appears in the fact that the kings 
 repeatedly went to them for advice. Ahab inquired of them 
 whether he should go up against the Syrians (1 K. 22:6); 
 Hezekiah sent to Isaiah at the time of Sennacherib's invasion 
 
 39 
 
(2 K. 19: 2) ; and although Jeremiah censured "the shepherds" 
 because they did not "enquire of Yahweh" (Jer. 10: 21), Zede- 
 kiah brought him secretly from prison to ascertain 
 what the divine will was (Jer. 37:16-17). In the field of 
 politics the prophets 'worked actively, and on questions of 
 national policy their notions were very set. The division of 
 the kingdom was favored and promoted by Alii j ah (1 K. 11 : 
 29ff), and by Shemaiah (1 K. 12: 22-24). Elijah and Elisha 
 undoubtedly had much to do with the revolution of Jehu (1 
 K. 19: 16; 2 K. 9:1-6). Isaiah antagonized with great zeal 
 the idea of any alliance with Egypt, and the strength of his 
 influence at court is shown by the fact that the preparations for 
 such an alliance were concealed from him (Isa. 30: 1-5; 31: 
 1-3). Jeremiah preached his politics incessantly, and in the 
 royal presence with as much freedom as elsewhere, as when 
 he said to Zedekiah, "Bring your necks under the yoke of the 
 king of Babylon, * * * and live" (Jer. 27: 12). Of course 
 the degree of success achieved by the prophets varied accord- 
 ing to such factors as the strength of their own personalities, 
 the measure of popular support which they received, and the 
 vindication in one way or another of their prophecies. Heze- 
 kiah's reform, for example, was the result of the prophetic 
 leadership of men like Isaiah and Micah (Jer. 26: 18, 19), in 
 conjunction with the vindication of Yahweh's power as seen in 
 the deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, and the con- 
 sequent popular support given to prophetic measures. Con- 
 flicts of opinion between the prophets themselves, such as that 
 between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jer. 28), weakened their in- 
 dividual and combined strength. It was of this that Jeremiah 
 complained when he said "the prophets prophesy falsely, and 
 the priests bear rule by their means ; and my people love to 
 have it so" (Jer. 5 : 31). Yet this plaint itself bears witness to 
 the dignity and power of the prophetic office at its best. The 
 kings of Israel and Judah could neither ignore nor suppress it. 
 Indeed, Ewald calls the most characteristic feature of the 
 northern kingdom "der Gegensaz der koniglichen und der pro- 
 phetischen Gewalt," 53 and of Judah the same may be said from 
 the days of Isaiah on, if with the king is included the aris- 
 
 53 Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III, S. 448. 
 
 40 
 
tocracy. The prophets owed their authority to no official po- 
 sition, but simply to the common right of free speech in the 
 name of God. No better proof could be had of the democracy 
 of the Hebrew people or of the continuance of their early in- 
 dividualistic spirit throughout the period of their single and 
 separate kingdoms. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 THE IDEAL KINGSHIP. 
 
 Their experience with the rule of kings made it natural 
 for the Hebrews to express their deepest longings, particularly 
 when a crisis was on, in monarchical terms. Thus there arose 
 ideals of kingship, and no sketch of the Hebrew monarchy 
 would be complete were these not considered. Important for 
 our purpose, a study of them will reveal the ideal limitations 
 put by the people upon their kings, and thus throw light upon 
 the actual limitations as we have observed them to exist, and 
 bring into clearer relief the whole political genius of the na- 
 tion. It will not be necessary for us to trace the development 
 of these ideals during the monarchy, nor the modifications to 
 which they were subjected in post-monarchical times. The im- 
 portant fact is that however they differed in detail, there ran 
 through them, from first to last, certain great governmental 
 principles in which we see confirmed our thesis of a limited 
 monarchy in Israel. 
 
 These principles may be summed up in two propositions : 
 First, the king is the true representative of the nation's God; 
 and, second, the king is the true representative of the nation 
 he rules. Hence, the checks upon his power are fundamentally 
 two, viz., the divine will, and the social conscience. In the 
 course of the chapter we shall first consider the king in his 
 relation to God, then in his relation to the people, and finally 
 give some concrete idealizations of him in which may be seen 
 the expression of both these relationships. 
 
 The real king of Israel was Yahweh a thought abun- 
 dantly expressed in the Psalms and the Prophets. When the 
 human kingship arose, Yahweh's rule did not cease, but was 
 only modified by making the human king his representative. 
 Their relationship to each other is revealed by the titles and 
 descriptive epithets which were applied to the human king. 
 Important among these was masiach, anointed one. The oil, 
 by the use of which in anointing, kings were consecrated to 
 
 42 
 
their office, symbolized the Spirit of Yahweh himself. The 
 anointing of Saul, e. g., was attended by the coming of the 
 Spirit of Yahweh upon him (1 Sam. 10: 1, 6, 10), and when 
 David was anointed, it is stated that the Spirit of Yahweh 
 "came mightily" upon him "from that day forward" (1 Sam. 
 16: 13). Hence, a masiach, possessing Yahweh's spirit, was 
 ipso facto his representative, even to the extent of being inviol- 
 able ( 1 Sam. 24 : 7 ; 26 : 9) . All the kings of the Hebrews were 
 undoubtedly inducted into office with the ceremony of anoint- 
 ing (e. g. 1 K. 1 : 39; 2 K. 11 : 12), but it is a striking fact that 
 the title masiach is not given to any of them except, as it were, 
 idealistically. Outside of the Saul and David narratives, it is 
 used only in late passages, probably all post-monarchical. At 
 any rate, it is never applied to a Hebrew king in a contempo- 
 rary historical or prophetic passage. It is employed only by 
 fond memory or hopeful anticipation. This throws light upon 
 the Hebrews' estimate of their monarchy. They probably 
 never denied, in their thinking of any individual king, the 
 implicates of the title masiach, but their use of the title shows 
 that it represented conditions which were more ideal than real. 
 In the later hopes of the Jewish people it came to be the 
 designation, par excellence, of their ideal king. 
 
 Two other titles which designated the ideal king as Yah- 
 weh's representative were ben, son, and c ebhed, servant. Ex- 
 amples of the former are found in 2 Sam. 7 : 14 and Ps. 2:7; 
 of the latter in 2 Sam. 3 : 18 and Jer. 33 : 21, 26. These words 
 have two features in common ; they refer, as titles of royalty, 
 only to David or the Davidic dynasty, and they are used of the 
 people as a whole as well as of the king. Israel is called 
 Yahweh's son, e. g., in Ex. 4:22, 23 and Hosea 11: 1, and 
 Yahweh's servant in Isa. 41 : 8 and Jer. 46: 27, 28. Hence, as 
 the nation itself was representative of Yahweh, so also the 
 nation's kings. It is interesting to note that the titles c ebhed 
 and masiach are used virtually as synonyms in Ps. 89: 51, 52. 
 
 The perfect harmony between Yahweh and the ideal king 
 is revealed furthermore in expressions where the two are 
 closely associated or even identified. The following may serve 
 as examples : "They shall serve Jehovah, their God, and David, 
 their king" (Jer. 30:9) ; "In that day * * * the house of 
 David shall be as God, as the angel of Jehovah before them" 
 
 43 
 
(Zech. 12:8) ; 'Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah 
 as king" (1 Chron. 29:23). In the development of the doc- 
 trine of the Messianic King, he and Yahweh seem almost in- 
 terchangeable. Now one and now the other acts as the direct 
 leader and protector of their people. To quote Gressmann: 
 -"Die Funktionem beider sind fast noch identisch. Der Messias 
 wird mehr als ein zum Gott erhobener Konig, Jahwe mehr als 
 ein zum Konig erhobener Gott beschrieben." 54 
 
 Hence, a clear limitation upon the power of the king in 
 the ideal monarchy was the will of God, whose representative 
 he so truly was. This limitation may be illustrated by two 
 verses from the Psalms: "If thy (David's) children will keep 
 my covenant and my testimony * * * their children also 
 shall sit upon thy throne" Ps. 132:12. "If his (David's) 
 children forsake my law, and walk not in mine ordinances 
 * * * then I will visit their transgression with the rod" 
 Ps. 89:30, 32. 
 
 The ideal king, moreover, was a true representative of the 
 people. This is suggested by the fact to which reference has 
 already been made that the same terms, viz., ben and c ebhed, 
 were used to describe the relation in which both king and 
 people stoofl to their God. Furthermore, we have such expres- 
 sions as "their ruler shall proceed from the midst of them" 
 (Jer. 30:21), and "he (the Branch) shall grow up out of his 
 place" (Zech. 6:12). But most important of all are those 
 passages which refer to the ideal king as being of the seed of 
 Abraham, or, more specifically, of the line of David. Among 
 these may be mentioned the Genesis covenant passages (17: 6; 
 35: 11) ; those in which the coming king is directly called "my 
 servant David" (Jer. 33 : 21 ; Ezek. 37 : 25), and those in which 
 his descent from David is clearly stated (Micah 5:1; Jer. 23 : 
 5). The idea of this organic connection between king and 
 people arose early ; we find it expressed e. g. in the Deuteron- 
 omic law of the king (17: 5) ; but nothing shows better how 
 deep-seated it was than this close and long-continued associa- 
 tion of the coming ruler with David, around whom clustered 
 the most popular traditions of the Hebrew people. It may be 
 
 54 Gressmann, Ursprung der Israelitisch-Juedischen Eschatolog^c, 
 S. 301. 
 
 44 
 
added that in the sublimer reaches of prophecy the ideal king 
 became in a way the representative of the nations at large. 
 He was to transcend the Aaronic priesthood and become "a 
 priest after the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4). He was 
 also to be a "light to the Gentiles" (Isa. 42:6; 49:6), for 
 although this expression was originally used of Israel as the 
 servant of Yahweh, harmonistic exegesis applied it also to the 
 Messianic King (Enoch 48:4; Luke 2:32). 
 
 As the true representative of the people, the ideal king 
 was subject to the demands of the social conscience. He was 
 to express in his own person and try to perfect in the life of 
 the nation its highest ideals. He was to be a king who would 
 "reign in righteousness" (Isa. 32: 1), hating wickedness (Ps. 
 45 : 8) and executing judgment and justice in the earth ( Jer. 
 23 : 5 ) . He would fight to deliver his people from oppression 
 and then inaugurate a reign of peace (Micah 5:5; Jer. 23: 
 6). The idea of a suffering Messiah, and the application of 
 such a passage as Isa. 53 to the Messianic King did not have 
 any vogue until the Christian era, 55 but the ideal king's fullest 
 sympathy with the sufferings of his people is assumed every- 
 where. Probably the best single picture of the ideal king, so 
 far as his relations with the people are concerned, is that pre- 
 served in the 72d Psalm. There we see a ruler who judges 
 with perfect righteousness, whose full sympathy is with the 
 poor and oppressed, whose chief glory is in righting human 
 wrong, whose reign is attended by the prosperity of peace and 
 plenty, and whose name is revered by all he rules. 
 
 Israel's ideal king, therefore, represented two parties, viz., 
 his God and his people, to both of whom he was faithful. It 
 is remarkable to what extent this double relationship under- 
 lies all the descriptions of him which have come down to us. 
 It appears even in single verses, such as 2 Sam. 23 : 3, "One 
 that ruleth over men righteously, that ruleth in the fear of 
 God"; or Jer. 30:21. "And their ruler shall proceed from the 
 midst of them, * * * and he shall approach unto me" 
 (Yahweh). Isaiah, in the description of 11:1-5, starts with 
 a statement of the ideal king's relation to the people "there 
 shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse" ; then 
 
 55 See Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 
 Div. 2, II, pp. 184-6. 
 
 45 
 
comes a statement of his relation to Yahweh "the spirit of 
 Jehovah shall rest upon him"; and the conclusion (vs. 3-5) 
 is a statement of the logical outworkings of this double rela- 
 tionship. 
 
 The most notable feature of the future ruler described by 
 Ezekiel is the humility of his position. This appears in his 
 title, which was nas? instead of melek, and in a corresponding 
 limitation of his functions. Indeed, he was to be little more 
 than the chief patron of the church. Ezekiel's conception was 
 undoubtedly due to his total lack of sympathy with the con- 
 duct of the monarchy in his own day. It is really an indica- 
 tion of the strength which the monarchical institution had in 
 the minds of the people that he incorporated it, even in modi- 
 fied form, in his ideal state. However, this nasi' , with all his 
 limitations, was yet Yahweh's servant (34:23, 24), and by 
 providing sacrifices on all the feast days for the nation at 
 large, he showed, in about the only way open to him, his 
 national representative capacity (45:17, 22). His actions, 
 furthermore, were to be free from oppression and in accord 
 with the principle of righteousness (45:9-12; 46:18). 
 
 Little is said of the ideal king in the Apocryphal Books of 
 the Old Testament, but with the rise of Apocalyptic, especially 
 after the overthrow of the Maccabean dynasty, he comes into 
 prominence again, only in a changed form. The harsh treat- 
 ment to which the Jews had been subjected begot a harsh 
 disposition toward their oppressors, and, indeed, toward all 
 who were outside the pale of their faith. Hence the ideal 
 king assumed a more terrible aspect. He became more closely 
 associated with the power of God, and, particularly, more 
 severe in his treatment of the heathen. And yet he remained 
 the representative, par excellence, of the deity and the nation, 
 and continued to rule in accord with the divine will and the 
 principle of justice to all men. In the Sibylline Oracles he is 
 a king, sent of God, who will put a stop to all war, and, in 
 everything he does, will act "not according to his own counsel, 
 but in obedience to the decrees of the Great God" (III : 652-6). 
 In the Psalms of Solomon, he is a son of David, "a righteous 
 king and one taught of God" (XVII:35). 56 A discussion of 
 
 56 See Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, 
 Div. 2, II, p. 140 ff. 
 
 46 
 
Daniel's Son of Man (7: 13) as a messianic title 57 does not 
 come within our bounds, but unless one regards its use as 
 purely mechanical, it indicates another point of contact 
 between the ideal king and the people he rules. Finally it is 
 interesting to note that the recorded words of Jesus which 
 describe the general nature of his mission, imply a recog- 
 nition of the two-fold relationship and corresponding obli- 
 gations of the ideal king. "My meat is to do the will of him 
 that sent me and to accomplish his work" (John 4: 34). "The 
 Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" 
 (Matt. 20:28). 
 
 These idealizations did not arise merely because of a gen- 
 eral dissatisfaction with the rule of the historic kings. The 
 shortcomings of the kings and the final destruction of the 
 monarchy undoubtedly had much to do with throwing the 
 ideal picture into clearer relief. But the principles involved 
 were nation-old. The Hebrew genius in government always 
 displayed two sides ; it was religious and it was democratic. 
 The historic monarchy never measured up to the ideal, but it 
 could not overthrow the ideal. From first to last, though suc- 
 cessively modified by the personal equation of each king and 
 his contemporaries, it was hedged about by two cardinal limi- 
 tations, viz., God's law and the people's will. 
 
 57 See Enoch 46 : I, 2 ; 48, 2, etc. 
 
 47 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 E. Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums, 2nd Ed., ist V., Cotta, 
 1907-08. 
 
 G. H. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Vol. 2-3. Gottingen, 
 1864-66. 
 
 B. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2 V. Berlin, 1887-88. 
 
 C. Piepenbring, Histoire du peuple d'Israel. Paris, 1898. 
 H. Graetz, History of the Jews, ist V. Philadelphia, 1891. 
 
 E. Renan, Histoire generate et systeme compare des langues 
 Semitiques. Paris, 1863. 
 
 R. Kittel, Geschichte der Hebaer, 2nd V.. Gotha, 1892. 
 
 W. Nowach, Lehrbuch der hebraischen Archaologie. Freiburg, 1894. 
 
 J. Benzinger, Hebraische Archaologie. Freiburg, 1894. 
 
 E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nfichbarstamme. Halle, 1906. 
 
 C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserts. Cambridge, 1888. 
 
 G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land. London, 1894. 
 
 G. A. Smith, Jerusalem : the Topography, Economics and History. 
 London, 1907. 
 
 J. G. Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship. 
 London, 1905. 
 
 S. Oettli, Das Konigsideal des Alten Testament. Greifswold, 1899. 
 
 K. Budde, Schatzung des Konigtums im Alten Testament. Mar- 
 burg, 1903. 
 
 L. W. King, History of Sumer and Akkad. London, 1910. 
 
 C. F. Kent and F. K. Sanders, Growth of Israelitish Law, Yale 
 Biblical and Semitic Studies, 1902. 
 
 E. C. Wines, Laws of the Ancient Hebrews. New York, 1855. 
 J. Benzinger, Art., "Law and Justice/ in Ency. Bib. 
 J. F. McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the Monuments, 3 V. 
 New York, 1894-1901. 
 
 D. B. MacDonald, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurispru- 
 dence and Constitutional Theory. New York, 1903. 
 
 D. H. Miiller, Art, "Sabaeans," in Ency. Brit., nth Ed. 
 R. Pietschmann, Geschichte der Phomzier. Berlin, 1889. 
 
 E. Meyer, Art., "Phoenicians," in Ency. Bib. 
 
 C. H. Cornill, Israelitische Prophetismus. Strasburg, 1906. 
 
 D. W. Amram, The Zekenim or Council of Elders, Jour. Bib. 
 Lit., 1900. 
 
 M. Sulzberger, The Am-ha-Aretz. Philadelphia, 1909. 
 
 E. Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus 
 Christ, 5 V. Edinborough, 1890-91. 
 
 H. Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Escha- 
 tologie. Gottingen, 1905. 
 
 48 
 
INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
JC67 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY