3.6. The Political Organization of the Mosaic State. The Independence of the Parts and the Unity of the Whole. The National Assembly, Its Organization and Political Significance

The outline presented of the articulation of the national organism, with the definition for each member of the sphere and organs of its activity, shows what a harmonious system this organism represented both in its structure and in its vital functioning. In this harmonious system, the two principal conditions necessary for the normal development of an organism have been observed: the strength and unity of the whole, and the autonomy of its parts.

The autonomy of the parts of the organism was determined both by their very origin and by the strict delimitation of each from the others. Considered separately, each tribe represented, as it were, a fully independent republic—with its own particular government, its own distinctive national-communal life, with its own particular relations and interests. It had at the head of its administration a representative of the tribe, elected, as has been shown above, by the people themselves (Num. 1:4; 1:16). This tribal chief was the independent, autonomous prince of his self-governing republic, although by virtue both of the elective principle to which he was subject, and of the extraordinary development of self-consciousness in the lower subdivisions of the tribe, his authority was limited: he governed the tribe as its elected representative, not as its absolute sovereign. His authority was limited by the elders of the tribe, as representatives of its lower subdivisions—of the clans and families. Each tribe, therefore, was governed properly by the representatives of all its parts—the elders of clans, families, and the representatives of the decimal-system divisions, that is, leaders of thousands, hundreds, and tens, who together constituted the tribal popular assembly, with the tribal prince at its head, as its presiding officer.

Such an assembly administered and deliberated upon all matters pertaining to the entire tribe, and in this regard the tribes were granted full autonomy. History offers several examples showing that the general assembly of a tribe decided questions of war between its tribe and the surrounding peoples, and relations to them in general. Thus, when deputies from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (“the sons of Joseph”) told Joshua that the territory allotted to them was insufficient, he left it to them to acquire land for themselves by conquest from the neighboring peoples (Josh. 17:14–18; Judg. 4:10; 18–20). The most remarkable example of this kind is found in the testimony of 1 Chronicles 5:19–23, according to which the Trans-Jordanian tribes, even during the reign of Saul, independently waged a very important war in which the remaining tribes took almost no part—“help was given to them against their enemies” (1 Chron. 5:20), that is, help was rendered in the way one state renders it to another.

Twelve such free tribes formed together one common state, one common national organism. The general unity of these free communities found solid support in their natural kinship with one another, as well as in the common and recently experienced history rich in great memories—in the unity of the slavery they had endured and the liberation they had received. The supreme unifying bond between them was established in the theocratic principle, by virtue of which all the tribes became one “kingdom of Jehovah,” one people of God, with whom Jehovah had concluded a covenant that placed equal obligations upon all the tribes and gave equal rights, binding them in unity of moral and material interest. By virtue of all these conditions that gave support to the consciousness of unity, the people of Israel, despite the extraordinary development of autonomy in its individual parts, always clearly recognized their unity and always vividly responded to all events of significance not only for the whole people but for its individual parts as well. But the most powerful means that served as the binding element for all the tribes were the general popular assemblies that convened for important matters affecting the entire people. These assemblies deserve special attention both for their significance in the public-political life of the people and for their composition.

The general national assembly held great importance in the theocratic state. It was the highest expression of the people’s will, and it corresponded as perfectly as possible to the fundamental structure of the national organism. The Hebrew state, as was shown above, consisted of several parts living autonomous lives, independently deciding all particular matters pertaining to each of them separately. But there were also matters that concerned and had significance for all the tribes together, and consequently required a decision that would be the decision of all of them—the decision of the entire people. To achieve such a decision, it was necessary to know the will of all the tribes or the will of the entire people. The expression of this will was the general national assembly. There are almost no juridical definitions in the law concerning this assembly—its establishment, composition, and order of proceedings: it was such a common occurrence for the Hebrew people that it had no need of such definitions. The law, while fully leaving to it the customs established by common law, makes regarding the assembly only one provision, namely concerning the manner of summoning its members (Num. 10:1–4). Regarding the existence of the popular assembly, history offers many indications. It is called sometimes simply the “assembly” (Deut. 31:30; Num. 16:2), sometimes the “congregation,” which sometimes appears with the prefix “all”—the whole congregation (Exod. 12:3; Num. 27:21; Deut. 31:30). The expression “the whole congregation” is apparently sometimes used in the sense of “the entire people,” as for example in Exodus 13:47, where it is said that “the whole congregation” of the children of Israel must observe the Passover, evidently meaning the whole people; or in Exodus 16:1; 17:1, where it is said that “the whole congregation” came to such-and-such a place. But such an identification does not deny the existence of the “congregation” as a particular institution. On the contrary, there are many passages in which the expression “the whole congregation” is clearly distinguished from the entire people, as a distinct institution. Thus, for example, in Numbers 27:21, “the whole congregation” is clearly separated from “all the children of Israel.” In Exodus 12:2, the Lord commands Moses and Aaron to transmit the law to “the whole congregation,” while from Exodus 12:21 it is evident that they transmitted this law to “all the elders.” In Deuteronomy 31 it is said that Moses spoke the words in the hearing of “the whole assembly,” while from Deuteronomy 31:28 it is evident that this “whole assembly” consisted of the elders of the tribes and the overseers—consequently, only of representatives of the people who constituted the administrative assembly. Such an assembly was composed of the elders of the people and in its organization fully reflected the general organization of the people. In it participated both the chiefs of the tribes and clans, and the remaining elders and leaders of the people. Judging by the great number of elders and leaders among the people, the general national assembly represented a vast gathering comprising more than one-tenth of the entire male population, since even the leaders of tens were included in it. Despite such large numbers, however, it was not a disorderly mass; thanks to the strict gradation in the importance of the representation of this or that member of the assembly, it represented a harmoniously organized popular assembly. It was divided first of all into two sections. These sections are clearly distinguished in the law and could convene separately, as is evident from the law concerning the summoning of the assembly (Num. 10:1–4). The first section was composed of the most prominent representatives of the people—the chiefs of the tribes and clans. These chosen men constituted the permanent council of the popular assembly (Num. 11:16–17). This council in turn was divided into two divisions: a higher and a lower. The first consisted of the twelve princes of the people, the chiefs of the twelve tribes, and was sometimes convened separately from the second, as happened, for example, on the occasion of the census, when only these “chosen men of the congregation, princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of thousands of Israel” were convened (Num. 1:16). The second division consisted of the heads of the clans, but did not convene separately from the first; rather, together with it, it formed part of the higher section of the assembly (Num. 10:4; 11:16; Exod. 24:1), constituting together with it the “council of seventy.” This section appears to have constituted the ordinary administrative assembly that dealt with the current affairs of national life, as may be partly seen from its designation as bearing “the burden” of the administration of the people (Num. 11:17). The other section of the general national assembly consisted of the remaining representatives of the people—the elders of families, or, according to the new organization given by Moses, the overseers of the people and the chiefs of the decimal divisions, that is, the leaders of thousands, hundreds, and tens, or generally the judges (Deut. 29:10; Josh. 23:2). This lower section is usually called the “congregation” (coetus) in distinction from the higher section, called the “princes” (praelati) (Num. 10:3; 27:2). In contrast to the higher section, it was not permanent but convened on especially important occasions. Besides the general division according to the importance of representation, the assembly of course maintained its subdivision by tribes, clans, and families, so that each tribe could separately express its opinion on a given matter. In Ewald’s view, which presents the organization of the assembly somewhat differently from how it has been set out here, the order of deliberation in the assembly was such that actual deliberation in the proper sense took place only among the most senior representatives of the people, while the rest participated in it only in the sense that each of them conveyed his opinion to the senior representatives of his tribe. Such a conception does not contradict the basic structure of the assembly and would apparently provide the best conditions for maintaining order in it, but it finds no confirmation in the accounts we have of the assemblies. On the contrary, these accounts give occasion for a different conception. Thus, in the description (Josh. 23:2; 24:1, 16, 21) of the popular assembly that gathered before the death of Joshua to receive his final instructions, the order of deliberation was such that the instructions were received from the lips of the leader only by those closest to him, the most senior elders (chiefs of tribes and clans), who then conveyed what they had received to the remaining representatives, who then expressed their agreement or disagreement by acclamation (Josh. 24:1, 16, 21). It is most probable that general assemblies likewise proceeded in a similar fashion: the members of the two principal sections of the assembly deliberated together, made certain resolutions, and then submitted the result of these deliberations to the judgment of the remaining assembly, which expressed its agreement or disagreement.

The assembly was convened by two silver trumpets specially prepared for that purpose (Num. 10:2). “When they blow with one trumpet, the princes and the leaders of thousands of Israel shall assemble to you” (Num. 10:4)—that is, the members of the first chamber, the first two principal sections of the assembly—the chiefs of the tribes and clans; but when they blew both, all the members of the assembly were to gather, “the whole congregation” (Num. 10:3). Such a method of summoning the people’s representatives to the assembly was of course only possible at a time when the people still formed one camp, concentrated in one place; but when they spread out among the cities of Palestine so that it was impossible to inform various cities by means of two trumpets, the national assembly was convened by means of special messengers (2 Chron. 30:6). The assemblies usually took place at some site especially sacred to the whole people. At first this role was ordinarily served by the tabernacle, or the area before its entrance (Num. 10:3), which is why the tabernacle itself is frequently called the “tabernacle of the congregation” (Lev. 4:4–7); and afterwards in various cities, and especially in the city of Mizpah (Judg. 11:11; 20:1; 1 Sam. 7:5; 10:17). The general national assembly was convened on various important occasions: for solemn national worship (Exod. 12:47), for general prayer against threatening calamities (Num. 25:5–6; Joel 2:15), for the adoption of new laws (Exod. 9:7–8; Lev. 8:3–5 and others), for the conduct of trials and the execution of sentence in important cases of crime (Num. 15:32–35; Lev. 24:14), for the establishment of political relations with neighboring peoples, the declaration of war, the conclusion of peace and treaties (Josh. 9:18), and in general all the most important matters of the people’s internal and external life fell within its purview.