JUDGE
1071
JUDGE
for its exercise had passed away, and in no case could this unwonted supremacy be retained beyond a limited time (Livy.ix, 34) ; but the Hebrew judge remained in- vested with his high authority the whole period of his life, and is therefore usually described by the sacred his- torian as presiding to the end of his days over the tribes of Israel, amid the peace and security which his mihta- ry skill and counsels had, under the divine blessing, re- stored to the land.
It is usual to consider the judges as commencing their career with military exploits to deliver Israel from for- eign oppression, but this is by no means invariably the case. Eli and Samuel were not militarj' men; Deborah judged Israel before slie planned the war against Jabin ; and of Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, it is at least uncer- tain whether they ever held any mUitarj' command. In many cases it is true that military achievements were the means by which they elevated themselves to the rank of judges ; but in general the appointment may be said to have varied with the exigencies of the times, and with the particular circumstances which in times of trouble would draw the public attention to per- sons who appeared suited bj^ their gifts and influence to advise in matters of general concernment, to decide in questions arising between tribe and tribe, to admin- ister public affairs, and to appear as their recognised head in their intercourse with their neighbors and op- pressors. As we find that many of these jutlges arose during times of oppression, it seems to us that this last circumstance, which has never been taken into account, must have had a remarkable influence in the apiwint- ment of the judge. Foreigners could not be expected to enter into the pecuUarities of the Hebrew constitu- tion, and would expect to receive the proposals, remon- strances, or complaints of the people through some per- son representing the whole nation, or that part of it to which their intercourse appUed. The law provided no such officer except in the high-priest ; but as the He- brews themselves did not recognise the true operation of their theocracy, much less were strangers likely to do so. On the officer they appointed to represent the body of the people, under circumstances which compelled them to deal with foreigners mightier than themselves, would naturally devolve the command of the army in war, and the administration of .justice in peace. This last was among aJicient nations, and it is still in the East, regarded as the first and most important duty of a ruler, and the interference of the judges was probably confined to the cases arising between different tribes, for which the ordinary magistrates would find it difficult to secure due authority to their decisions.
In nearly all the instances recorded the appointment seems to have been by the free, misoUcited choice of the people. The election of Jephthah, who was nominated as the fittest man for the existing emergency, probably resembled that whicTi was usually followed on such oc- casions; and probably, as in his case, the judge, in ac- cepting the office, took care to make such stipulations as he deemed necessary. The only cases of direct diHne appointment are those of Gideon and Samson, and the last stood in the pecidiar position of having been from before his birth ordained " to begin to deliver Israel." Deborah was called to deliver Israel, but was already a judge. Samuel was called by the Lord to be a prophet, but not a judge, which ensued from the high gifts which the people recognised as dwelling in him ; and as to Eli, the office of judge seems to have devolved naturally, or, rather, ex-officio, upon him ; and his case seems to be the only one in which the high-priest appears in the character which the theocratical institutions designed for him.
The following clear summary of their duties and priv- ileges is from Jahn (Bibl. A rchdol. II, i, § 22 sq. ; Heb. Commonwealth, Stowe's transL, § 23) : " The office of judges or regents was held during life, but it was not hereditary, neither could they appoint their successors. Their authoritj' was limited by the law alone ; and in
doubtful cases thej- were directed to consult the divine King through the priest by Urim andThummim (Numb, xxvii, 21). They were not obliged in common cases to ask advice of the ordinary rulers; it was sufficient if these did not remonstrate against the measures of the judge. In important emergencies, however, they con- voked a general assembly of the rulers, over whicli they presided and exercised a powerful influence. Thej' could issue orders, but not enact laws ; they coidd neither levy taxes nor appoint oflicers, except perhaps in the army. Their authority extended only over those tribes by whom they had been elected or acknowledged ; for it is clear that several of the judges presided over separate tribes. There was no income attached to their office, nor was there any income appropriated to them, unless it might be a larger share in the spoils, and those pres- ents which were made them as testimonials of respect I (Judg. viii, 24). They bore no external marks of dig- nity, and maintained no retinue of courtiers, though some of them were very opulent. They were not only simple in their manners, moderate in their desires, and free from avarice and ambition, but noble and magnan- j imous men, who felt that whatever the}^ did for their 1 country was above all reward, and coidd not be recom- i pensed; who desired merely to promote the public good, and who chose rather to deserve well of their country ) than to be enriched by its wealth. This exalted patri- otism, Uke everj-thing else • comiected with politics in the theocratical state of the Hebrews, was partly of a , religious character, and these regents always conducted I themselves as the officers of God ; in all their enter- j prises they relied upon him, and their onlj' care was j that their countrymen should acknowledge the authori- ty of Jehovah, their invisible king (Judg. viii, 22 sq. ; compare Heb. xi). StiU they were not without faults, neither are they so represented by their historians; they relate, on the contrar}-, with the utmost frankness, the great sms of which some of them were guilty. They were not merely deliverers of the state from a foreign ' yoke, but destroyers of idolatry-, foes of pagan vices, promoters of the knowledge of God, of religion, and of morality ; restorers of theocracy in the minds of the Hebrews, and powerful instruments of divine Provi- dence in the promotion of the grg^t design of preserving the Hebrew constitution, and by that means of rescuing the true religion from destruction. ... By comparmg the periods during which the Hebrews were oppressed by their enemies with those in which they were inde- pendent and governed by their own constitution, it is apparent that the nation in general experienced much more prosperity than adversity in the time of the judges. Their dominion continued four hundred and fifty years; but the whole time of foreign oppression amounts only \ to one hundred and eleven yeai-s, scarcely a fourth part of that period. Even during these one hundred and eleven years the whole nation was seldom under the yoke at the same time, but, for the most part, separate tribes only were held in servitude ; nor were their op- pressions always very severe; and all the calamities terminated in the advantage and glory of the people as soon as they abolished idolatrj^ and returned to their king, Jehovah. Neither was the nation in such a j state of anarchy at this time as has generally been sup- posed. There were regular judicial tribunals at which j justice coidd be obtained, and when there was no su- 1 preme regent, the public welfare was provided for by the ordinary rulers" (Ruth iv, 1-11; Judg. viii, 22; x, 17, 18 ; xi, i-11 ; 1 Sam. iv, 1 ; vii, 1, 2).