More Russian Ramblings on the Fourth!

Having checked out an old Russian Orthodox church, in the exact geographic center of Russia, I’m drawn back to the biblical text, with some random observations:

At the end of Joshua’s life, the Bible declares:

Now Joshua was old, going on in days. And the LORD said to him, You are old, far along in days, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed. (Joshua 13:1)

Instead of jihad and genocide, we find that a great deal of the Promised Land had yet to be conquered by the Israelites. We actually start to wonder how good a general Joshua was after all. In the final analysis, the picture that begins to emerge from the biblical account is a gradual, two-century long process of “conquest” that encompasses the books of Joshua and Judges together, as one ongoing narrative of migration, settling down, and occasional battles and skirmishes with the local Canaanites. The “real” history of the period doesn’t make as compelling a story as the glorified hero-stories of biblical lore, but it tells us a lot about the struggles, not only of ancient Israelites, but of early Americans, to form “a more perfect union.” 

But there’s yet something more going on in the account of Joshua-Judges than an homage to Israel’s conquering heroes. In fact the best way to understand the book of Judges, right from the outset, is to look at how it ends. There, in the last chapter, the very last verse, we read: 

In those days there was no king in Israel. Every one did the right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

The words sound pious and well-intentioned. What an indictment of the people’s apostasy, of their self-centeredness, their lack of trust in the Almighty. Surely, the two-hundred year period from the exodus from Egypt to Israel’s first kings – Saul and David – must have been very dark indeed. It must have been chaos epitomized, lawless and brutal, sort of an ancient version of the “Wild Wild West.” This, however, might amount to “somebody else’s” version of history, perhaps the work of an editorial hand, centuries removed from the events being described. The key piece of evidence, that any Sherlockian sleuth would point to, lies in the implicit comment that the period of the judges was so bad because Israel had no king. What? Can we believe our spiritual eyes and ears? In other words, the brave band of refugees from Egypt’s tyrannical pharaoh, whose only goal was “freedom,” were helplessly doomed to chaos and apostasy unless they had a king? How should we view this: truth or spin?

But who would spin holy narrative, and why? The answer is again, as Holmes would put it, “elementary.” Who but a royal scribe, living some two hundred years later, in the direct employ of the Jerusalem monarchy, whose principal task was to write a history that would justify the House of King David? The main rule in producing this history was simple. Whatever the period of the Judges may have been like, however noble the principles of the early Israelite confederation, it must be presented as an age that was out of control, pregnantly waiting the imposition of the Davidic monarchy. 

The reality, however, is that after the days of Joshua but before the people began clamoring for a king, there was what may best be described as a “confederacy” of tribes. They may not have known it, but they were taking part in a grand experiment in political theory that would one day serve as a model for the United States of America. Both ancient Israel and the American republic were founded on a single principle, namely, of avoiding tyranny, the rule of any single individual over the many. Their ideal was a conglomerate of self-governing units – Israelite tribes or American states. 

Thomas Paine, in his classic Common Sense, draws the analogy in the clearest of terms:

Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of Heaven.

Preserving the values that Thomas Paine and his comrades struggled for was the aim of the new nation’s earliest government. They insisted, as did ancient Israel, that “we have no king but God!” It is no accident that in Hebrew liturgy, down to the present day, God is referred to as “exalted King.” This isn’t just an elitist, sexist way of identifying the Divine; it’s a bold statement that we, down here, don’t have, nor will we accept any human potentate. We let God fill that role. That was the model the Founders looked to, which is why the Second Continental Congress selected a committee to formulate a series of “Articles” … of Confederation. Drafted during the revolution, they were sent to the states and finally ratified in 1781.   

Thirteen semi-independent, sovereign states, joined together by a loose “covenant” of sorts, twelve semi-independent, sovereign tribes, plus a “universal” priestly tribe of Levites, joined together by Moses’ commandments and Joshua’s statutes. Under the Articles, there was no executive branch of government, no president, and a very limited judiciary. The federal government had no power to wage war, raise armies, collect taxes, control trade, or pass any number of laws that might interfere with the powers of the local state governments. After all, power and authority were what took natural rights away, which is why they must be curbed. 

And curbed they were during the Israelite “confederacy.” Gone is the Levitical “Praetorian Guard” of “hit men,” such as existed under Moses. Instead the Levites seem to be in their proper place, acting as, of all things, priests! The semi-nomads of the previous generation become true “yeoman farmers,” adopting the Jeffersonian ideal before ever there was a Jefferson. We might think of them as the Bible’s “Libertarians.” Each tribe takes care of its own affairs, within more-or-less defined borders established by Joshua, from Judah and Simeon in the south to Asher and Naphtali in northern Galilee. All authority, all power, is local, deriving from the extended family units comprising the tribes. Each tribe of course has “elders,” tribal “chiefs” who coordinate among themselves and act as representatives in negotiating with other tribes, as the need arises. 

When trouble comes in the form of hostile invaders, what’s the answer? Since there is no standing army – something George Washington railed against in his Farewell Address – their only recourse is to mobilize a militia. They are Israel’s version of the “minute men,” who would spring into action at a moment’s notice. How’s that for a cool parallel with 1776? Happy Fourth!