Israel and Humanity - The idea of sovereignty in Israel

 Share 

IV.

Idea of sovereignty in Israel.

§ 1.

While Judaism is silent on the nature of priesthood that best suits the Gentiles, we see that it can nevertheless provide them with its own constitution is an example to emulate. The teaching that flows from the Jewish doctrine on special terrain of political legislation comes as several other issues, enrich Noachism. It does not enter our plans to completely exhaust all that the Gentile can learn about this course of Jewish institutions. But because of the extreme importance that this thing in the current conflict between religion and modern society, we feel obliged to emphasize the idea that Judaism is formed from the state and political sovereignty.

it clear to everyone that this study has a decisive value in relation to the compatibility of the biblical ideal with political institutions that Europe now believes inseparable from his public right. It can also form an opinion on decisions taken in this regard in the last ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, at least to see if it, in cases that have raised so much excitement, can claim I have accurately interpreted the ancient doctrine of Israel, therefore, should resign himself to declare, with the Syllabus, war on modern society and to abandon all hope of inspiring its political dogma as it continues to do so for religious beliefs. This is not all that empire Judaism has more or less on the religious beliefs of Christian nations would be seriously compromised if not lost forever, the day when they happen to be convinced that what he teaches as just and true in the political order is unacceptable to modern reason. Not only because the souls fall off him, but in general, convicted of error on a point so essential, it could certainly be regarded as a master in any other infallible truth. These are serious reasons that impel us to devote several pages to find the Jewish conception of political sovereignty, not, we repeat, we flattered ourselves that we can treat the subject thoroughly, but in the hope of less reproduce the main lines of the system and show that the Noachism, which is the true law Catholic receives this ground hands of Judaism.

To enter a prompt and secure the dominant idea of the Jewish doctrine on this vital point, it suffices to realize at first that it absolutely rejects, that is to say, to proceed by elimination . What is the seat of sovereignty in Israel? Resides Does a man or a family invested with supreme power? Both assumptions are false one than the other and there is nobody who can support. The very idea of a revelation embracing all of life, both public and private, excludes any possibility of this kind. We can not see the body more of this revelation of a single personality, whatsoever, whether a priest or a monarch. We have already explained why neither the king nor the Pope can not possess the fullness of sovereign power as they move one or the other in a sphere of definite and absolute limits are put to their respective action . One might even say at best they do not even participate in the exercise of supreme authority, except as private citizens, unless it is true the right belonging to the priestly class as the descendants David to be represented in the Sanhedrin, the supreme body of the state.

Sovereignty at least she sat in a privileged class, to a certain oligarchy or aristocracy? No more; the provisions of the Act, the history and design of the Revelation itself prove to us that the environment is not. She is not even in the universality of citizens, at least in the sense of absolute power which would be given so as to legitimize everything she could rule. As for the function of Revelation quibbles, interpreter authorized, no doubt it does not belong to the people deciding hierarchically according to established rules, the role of the community is the only one that is logically possible in a state that obeys a revelation. If the seat of sovereignty according to Judaism is neither in the high priest, nor among the monarch, nor in the elite of the nation or the whole people, where is she then? In God only, ie to use modern parlance, in reason and absolute justice. God alone is the legislator and the people alone is the interpreter on earth, this is the Jewish ideal. It matters little whether you want to call the system a theocracy. In the sense of sacerdotal government that is usually taken to the name, there is nothing further from the Jewish thought, but if we take this word in its true government of God, it is absolutely Certainly, as Josephus noted previously, the government of Israel is a theocratic true, and even the only, we believe that ever existed.

In reality, any system, even and especially among the most modern, based on reason, is a theocracy, as long as it recognizes an eternal intelligence that enlightens every man coming into this world. Just that we admit something superior to human will alone, that we reject despotism in all its forms, whether one believes in absolute rule of the principles of justice and morality, independent of every whim and interest either individually or even collectively, to ensure that, under any name or under another, it is in full accordance with the design Israelite theocracy. Whether they do or not up to these principles an external revelation and sensitive matter even being assigned a divine source or that refuses to admit them, the idea that men do not change things nothing in their nature. We are obliged either to deny any absolute principle of justice and morality while erecting a system of pleasure, in which a man's will or the whim of the crowd as the single rule, or to recognize that, if it does not always govern, at least is the Absolute, that is to say, God reigns. That's what positivists and materialists also testify in their own way when we see them reject every principle as an absolute theocracy disguised. A cursory glance at the constitution of Judaism enough to convince us that the two terms are synonymous for him.

We can not therefore deny that, after the Hebrew concept, sovereignty resides in God alone. But this concept does not imply seek the divine origin of law only in an external revelation and sensitive Judaism is also reflected in effect, a more metaphysical, in the personal connection of the Intelligence God, say even in the incarnation of the inner word of God from the world intelligible, therefore identical to Logos by which the universe itself was created. This follows not only Talmuds and Midrashim where we see the doctors teach several ways that contemplating the Torah God created the world, but especially many passages of Scripture in particular those of Proverbs and the book of Job we studied .

In terms of the statutory law, no doubt this is the nation itself through its hierarchical organization, through its constituent bodies which, because of how they are recruited and their components, well represents the people as a whole, much better than the obligation of every Jew to learn in different parts of the Act was to give the company a power and a role similar to that of public opinion in modern times. God is God and King, and the people is his prophet, that is the real Jewish theocracy. It belongs to Jehovah's sovereignty and not to the priests, and is exercised by the nation whose delegates are judges of all levels as well as priests and the king himself. Anyone could aspire to the highest dignities of the state and even when he was still distant, it was possible to take part indirectly in the exercise of power or by his personal knowledge or through the formality of delegation that he gave to all public. In various functions, and even that of royalty, there are only servants of the public authority must serve the whole nation is the only sovereign when it is united in the person of its representatives. The theory that we present is said by some commentators, that of Moses himself, who gives the formula in the last words of blessing: "There is in a sovereign when Jeschouroun meet their rulers and all the tribes of Israel together This text is remarkable because it not only establishes the principle that we present, but it also enables us to understand the true meaning of the Book of Genesis in which critics have wanted to see an interpolation: "Here kings who ruled the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel ". This king of Israel, which is at issue here is to realize that political sovereignty, the establishment of a Jewish nationality at the time of Moses is as if the text said: "Before that Israel should be held in State ".

Words schofet (judge), nasi (Prince) melech (King) that are often taken as synonymous show that what has view is basically the sovereign authority which, under different names and forms, remains the same, the concrete is taken here for the abstract. These include, among many others, the testimony of a learned Italian writer: "The basis of the constitution that governed the Semitic race was representative. At certain times, the Jewish monarchy was absolute, but these were exceptions. The central institutions Hebrew is a meeting and by following the dispersion of the Jewish people, it was the synagogue became the heir and representative forms preserved traditions ".

The character of delegation of authority is not only in the principles of Jewish law, but in the election of kings in which people took a more or less considerable, and in the name of melech given to the sovereign and that is so similar to mal'ach (sent messenger, delegate). Hence, in our opinion, the various applications of this word that expresses the full extent of rights that the nation wanted to give the newly elected. Whether it under melech can designate and has actually designated sometimes an absolute monarch, it is undeniable, but we would remark that also gave the the paramount chief of the army and even to subordinate commanders. Thus Lieutenants Ben-Hadad king of Syria, are called kings ( Melachim </i ") and the governor sent by Edom kings of Judah is described in the same way.

The elasticity of the name of <i> melech (King), joined the faculty that belonged indisputably to the people to free choice of its form of government, explains how two former teachers have been interpreted if so contradictory that Samuel's famous painting is the Israelites of their future monarch. The first, which sees this description in a satire of the monarchy, the political constitution considers only dreamed of by Moses, the ruler according to the ideal of Judaism: the portrait of Samuel is a degeneration of The idea that painting was a warning given by the prophet to the Israelites, so they knew what they faced if their request was granted. The other doctor has seen the contrary in the passage referred to the charter of the new monarchy, the description of true royalty established, not according to the Mosaic ideal, but according to the wishes of the people driven by the passion of the dictatorship which at times pushes nations to be controlled by an iron hand A writer who generally shown a very safe trial, has also said that the famous painting is not a satire, but a true reflection of the social state of the east If by this we mean that Samuel states simply that the law was published at that time, royalty, nothing is more true, but if it pretends to find in his words the ideal Judaism, it is strangely mistaken. Indeed, by examining the context, we see that it is not only the abuses of monarchy but monarchy itself is at stake and that Samuel repudiates. A fortiori we can not accept that the prophet could see in the unlimited power he describes the exercise of a legitimate right. The words obviously exaggerated, the colors, so we loaded the portrait persuade enough of the contrary. In short, if the text does not present a satire, it contains a threat, or, if you will, a picture reminiscent of the social state of the East that was feared to see happen in Israel, but that has absolutely nothing inherently Jewish.

However, we will say it, the law of Moses requires or at least allow the election of a king. But we must see what he is king. The text states that this form of government can be explained as the most adamant about the nature of the monarchy. There is no power that is above the law, it must be the rule of the king as well as the humblest citizen and his continuing study will be the primary duty of the monarch. It will constantly upon him a copy of the Torah, to meditate, "said Moses, all the days of his life and not deviate to the right or left, so too, it added mosaic that his heart not lifted up above his brethren, as it is true that Judaism proclaims the identity of all persons before the law. It is these conditions that the Scripture promises to the sovereign for a peaceful reign he and his descendants in Israel.

It should be noted also that the law on the monarchy comes immediately after that concerning the supreme body of the state and its high duties, for to him belongs the right to make the final call for any challenge and to be strictly obeyed by all. There is nothing similar to the sovereign on the contrary, we see that it is itself subject to duty which has been declared for the entire people. A verse of this same chapter of Deuteronomy provides for the punishment of the man who will not listen to the judge . Is it the king that the text is referring to? In our opinion the term is collective, like the priest that we read a little higher. Thus the sovereign is not excluded from high judicial office and the name of schofet does not mean only, it is nevertheless exactly suited to his special function in society, as proves the history of the Judges who ruled Israel after Joshua and especially that of Deborah, which the formal testimony of Scripture, administered justice . The Talmudic tradition is therefore entitled to assign to the king, together with the quality of nasi speaks Leviticus that of hereditary judges, and we do not see why the rationalist critics refuse to admit that the law of that part of the Pentateuch does the monarch, since his say it dates from the destruction of the First Temple, is a time when the kingdom had existed for several centuries among the Jews. If instead we accept the Five Books of Moses as a homogeneous or even simply as a collection of several ancient documents, it is as natural recognize that the editor or compiler, in Deuteronomy, provides the monarchy, there may well have also referred to in Leviticus, were it only to establish a certain harmony in the book. The name Nasi (prince, leader) could be used instead of that of melech (King) simply because the monarchical form is not essential was chosen in preference to a word applied more generally.

We find in the history of modern nations an example of what should be the royalty according to Jewish law. The first parliaments of European states had to be composed of lords, peers such as France and the king in every country, in part as primus inter pares . This was precisely according to the constitution of Israel, the nasi , the name given to the sovereign is considered the head of the Sanhedrin, while melech may be designated specifically as Leader military. The identity of the two names seems to be formally consecrated by Ezekiel, is predicted that when David will be perpetually nasi Israel , or even when dictating laws that will now govern the nation, he always gives the same name elected monarch.

The old Jewish law known first union executive and the judiciary and when the inconveniences of that state of affairs came to check the original plan gave way to the separation, the king was neither judge or litigant and his situation in the state became the true picture of the principle of irresponsibility allowed in modern monarchies. There is new evidence that, in the form of government like all other matters of civil law and politics, the people remain entirely free to choose the constitution that suits him best. A royalty of this kind certainly in no way contradicts the concept of sovereignty that we have described as that of Judaism it is instead the most eloquent confirmation. We see in fact a protest centered on the idea of absolute power of one man whose ancient East and modern gives us many examples which Moses the sovereign seems to foresee in advance, but rather the type of the servant king and executor of the law, ie the constitutional monarchy.

We know that Samuel, despite his opposition manifested at first, eventually obey the will of the people and that taking responsibility for putting himself a king on the throne and to extend its protection, it sufficiently showed that the desire of its citizens do not derogatory to the Law of Israel. But why then, do we ask, he received such bad grace the first overtures made to him about it? This is primarily because Moses seems to subject the introduction of the monarchical form in the solemn expression of the will of the people, which gives this part of the social aspect of a full-ing different from what other Mosaic commandments which are never subject to such conditions. The portion of the Pentateuch on the monarchy can not be interpreted as an order, but as a prediction, the phrase "You say: I would be a king like all the nations that are around me ", lends itself to at least the latter sense and it involves the recognition of complete freedom regarding the choice of form of government. It is this political independence enshrined in the Mosaic law envisages that Samuel and seeks to enlighten the people on its responsibilities.

We must not lose sight of Moses in predicting the motive attributed to the popular will in choosing the monarchy is the desire to imitate other nations and that assumption does not appear to offend the great legislator. Or by the way he puts it, is the solution he suggests, it seems to only be seen as a legitimate reason he has no intention to blame the Jews. True to this spirit, Ezekiel v. rebuke later Israel for not having followed the laws of the peoples who surrounded and Drs commenting on his speech said that this is the good laws of the Gentiles that the Jews did not always complied, slums they have often taken the wrong ones. We see how these statements of Moses and Ezekiel confirm our theory of assimilation that the Mosaic operates in all that is really good in the Gentile world. This is another point which justifies the resistance of the first Samuel and his warnings to the Israelites when making their claim of a monarch "to be tried as in all nations."

The form in which the popular will expressed in this circumstance, therefore, also explains the opposition of the prophet. The king believes that the people want to draw upon him the ruler who brings his hands all the powers, the political leader is not expected that Moses, if indeed its empire extends as far as the law, even by limiting it these civil laws, it is inevitable that sooner or later impinge on the field of consciousness and that in any case it will undermine the dignity and interests of citizens. Moses makes no mention of the judicial functions when he speaks of the future king, Israel seems slums specifically ask for the monarch that he wants, then that award without rule and control, which leads to the exercise of power legislature itself. If this were not the subject of the application of the Hebrews, Samuel had not drawn a portrait so dark we could not explain that he depicted as an evil tyrant king subject to a simple political law as well as religious law. The biblical text also leaves no doubt in this regard: "Samuel was displeased they said, Give us a king to judge us ". this repetition is obviously significant, but the answer of God to the prophet is not least: "It's not you they reject," said the Lord, that they reject me, so I would not rule more about them ". God alone is the lawgiver of Israel, is a kind of rival to God that the people calls for reckless.

We understand and Samuel protested indignantly against this reckless abdication that the Jews would make their noblest rights and that they deliberately portray the colors in the darkest consequences of their caprice.