go HEBREW LIFE AND CUSTOM
ofjustice was a matter of absorbing interest to the ancient
Hebrew population of Palestine. Lest the Hebrews be,
however, unduly blamed for being addicted to litigation
it must be remembered that they lived in an age when
there was no idea of the prevention of crime or of any
system of police, but each man had as far as possible to
protect his life, his property, and his right, and in the
event of any injury done to him he could only obtain
redress by bringing his case to be legally decided. Accord-
ingly a duly organized system of government and the
administration of justice was held to be a matter of para-
mount importance. It is extremely significant that the
historical retrospect with which the Book of Deuteronomy
begins starts at the organization of government by Moses,1
in the appointment of duly constituted officials and judges;
and in contrast to such organized government we have
the well-known description of the anarchy which some-
times prevailed in the days of the ‘Judges ’, anarchy which
was to some extent repeated when the Hebrew monarchy
came to an end. ‘ In those days there was no king in Israel ;
every man did that which was right in his own eyes.’ 2
It is not my object to trace the gradual unification of
the tribes under one king. Even before the election of
Saul, in a state of things which reminds us of the Saxon
Heptarchy, there was some rough administration of justice.
Samuel indeed is represented as virtually ruler of the
district represented by Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh,3 and
as going on circuit like a modem judge. Indeed, if we may
trust I Sam. viii. 1-3, his rule might have become heredi-
tary, had it not been that his sons whom he made judges
were of unsatisfactory character.
Samuel’s rebuke of the people for asking to have a king
is clearly the work of one who perhaps belonged to the
age of Nehemiah, and who desired that the government
should be in the name of the priestly class. It is, however,
1 Deut. i. 9-17. ’ Judges xvii. 6, xviii. ɪ, xix. ɪ, xxi. 25.
3 i Sam. vii. 16.
KINGS, JUDGES 91
noteworthy that he represents the demand for a king as
made by the ‘ elders of Israel What constituted a man
an ‘ elder ’ is not quite clear. The Seventy Elders on
whom the spirit came,1 and Eldad and Modad who re-
mained in the camp, are elders before what may be
regarded as their solemn commission, and it is clear from
Num. xi. 16 that they are considered as already possessing
some secular authority. The whole number seventy-two
implies an ideal of six such officials for each tribe. The
Deuteronomic law 2 orders the appointment in all cities of
judges and officers,3 and it would seem that the ‘ elders ’
were those recognized as possessing the tradition of the
customary law and that they acted as assessors to the
judges.
What was the exact function of the kâsîn, as distinct
from the shôphët, is not clear. In Judges xi. 6, ɪɪ, and
Isa. iii. 6, 7, he appears to be what we should call a
dictator in a time of national distress. But in Isa. i. 10,
xxii. 3 ; Mic. iii. ɪ, 9, the kâsîn seems to have some
recognized authority, unless indeed the word is here used
of those who have arrogated to themselves power.
The king, after the institution of the monarchy, was
the head of justice and of the judicial system. Even when
he was the vassal of a foreign potentate he was in his own
kingdom absolute. The sketch of a king in ɪ Sam. viii.
i ι-ι7 seems to be founded on fact. Saul has certain
Gibeonites put to death apparently without any judicial
sentence, and he threatens death to any one who has
broken his rash taboo on food. David arbitrarily puts to
death seven of Saul’s descendants to satisfy a blood feud.
Solomon, on the flimsiest of pretexts has his half-brother
Adonijah, the rightful heir to the throne, put to death,
and Joab with even less justification.
In Northern Israel, however, a somewhat more demo-
cratic spirit seems to have prevailed. It is significant that
Naboth, who is accused of blasphemy (which will bring
* Num. xi. ι6, 24. ’ Deut. xvi. 18. з SMptftim and sMterim.