A. 1. Did the Old Law Ordain Fitting Precepts Regarding Rulers?
We thus proceed to the first inquiry. It seems that the Old Law did not ordain fitting precepts regarding rulers, for the following reasons:
Obj. 1. “The right order of the people depends chiefly on the chief ruler,” as the Philosopher says in the Politics.1 But we do not find in the Law how the supreme ruler ought to be established, although we find prescriptions regarding inferior officials. First, indeed, we find the prescription in Ex. 18:21–2: “Provide wise men from all the people,” etc. And we find the prescription in Num. 11:16–7: “Gather for me seventy men from the elders of Israel,” etc. And we find the prescription in Dt. 1:13–8: “Give me wise and knowledgeable men from among you,” etc. Therefore, the Old Law inadequately ordained rulers of the people.
Obj. 2. “It belongs to the best to lead to the best things,” as Plato says.2 But the best regime of a political community or any people is to be governed by a king, since such a regime most represents the divine regime, in which God governs the world from its beginning. Therefore, the Law should have established a king for the people and not have left this to their choice, as Dt. 17:14–6 permits: “When you shall say, ‘I shall establish a king over me,’ you shall establish him,” etc.
Obj. 3. Mt. 12:25 says: “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be laid low.” And this was also evidenced by trial and error in the history of the Jewish people, regarding whom the division of the kingdom brought about its destruction. But law should aim chiefly at things pertaining to the commonweal of the people. Therefore, the Law should have prohibited division of the kingdom under two kings. Nor should even divine authority have introduced such a division, since we read in 1 Kgs. 11:29–31 that it was introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh.
Obj. 4. As priests are instituted for the benefit of the people regarding things that pertain to God, as Heb. 5:1 makes clear, so also rulers are {94} instituted for the benefit of the people regarding human affairs. But certain things (e.g., tithes and first fruits and many other like things) were allotted to the priests and Levites of the Old Law as a means of their livelihood. Therefore, certain things should likewise have been ordained for the rulers of the people to provide them with a livelihood. And this is especially so because the rulers were prohibited from accepting bribes, as Ex. 23:8 makes clear: “You shall not take bribes, which blind even the wise and pervert the responses of the just.”
Obj. 5. As a kingdom is the best regime, so tyranny is the most corrupt regime. But the Lord by establishing a king established tyrannical law, for 1 Sam. 8:11–7 says: “This will be the law of the king who will reign over you: he will take away your sons,” etc. Therefore, the Old Law made inappropriate provision regarding the institution of rulers.
On the contrary, Num. 24:5 commends the people of Israel for the beauty of its institutions: “How beautiful are your tabernacles, O Jacob, and your tents, O Israel.” But the beauty of the institutions of a people depends on the right institution of its rulers. Therefore, the Old Law made the right institution for the people regarding its rulers.
I answer that we should note two things regarding the right institution of rulers in any political community or people. The first is that all citizens should participate in the regime, since this maintains civic peace, and since all citizens love and protect such an institution, as the Politics says.3 The second is what we note regarding the types of regimes, that is, forms of government. And although regimes have different forms, as the Philosopher notes in the Politics,4 the chief forms are a kingdom, in which one person rules by reason of the person’s virtue, and aristocracy (i.e., government by the best), in which a few persons rule by reason of their virtue. And so the best institution of rulers belongs to a city or kingdom in which one person is chosen by reason of his virtue to rule over all, and other persons govern under him by reason of their virtue. And yet such a regime belongs to all citizens, both because its rulers are chosen from the citizens, and because all citizens choose its rulers. For this is the best constitution, a happy mixture of kingdom, since one person rules; and of aristocracy, since many govern by reason of their virtue; and of democracy (i.e., government by the people), since rulers can be chosen from the people, and since the choice of rulers belongs to the people.
And the divine law established such a regime. For Moses and his successors governed the people, individually ruling over all, as it were, and this regime is a form of kingdom. And seventy-two elders were chosen by {95} reason of their virtue, for Dt. 1:15 says: “I took wise and honorable men from your tribes and constituted them rulers.” And this was aristocratic. And the regime was democratic in that the rulers were chosen from all the people, for Ex. 18:21 says: “Provide wise men from all the people,” etc., and in that the people chose the rulers, and so Dt. 1:13 says: “Take wise men from among you,” etc. And so the best institution of rulers was the one that the Old Law established.
Reply Obj. 1. The people were ruled under the special care of God, and so Dt. 7:6 says: “The Lord your God chose you to be a special people.” And so God reserved to himself the institution of the chief ruler. And Num. 27:16 relates that Moses sought this: “Let the Lord God of the spirits of all flesh provide a man to rule this people.” And so the ordinance of God established Joshua to rule after Moses. And we read about the Judges who succeeded Joshua, as Jgs. 3:9–10, 15 makes clear, that God “raised up a savior for the people,” and that “the spirit of God was in them.” And so the Lord did not commit the choice of a king to the people. Rather, he reserved the choice to himself, as Dt. 17:15 says: “You shall constitute as king the one the Lord your God has chosen.”
Reply Obj. 2. A kingdom, if it be not corrupted, is the best regime for the people. But a kingdom easily degenerates into tyranny because of the great power granted a king, unless the one granted such power should have complete virtue. For it belongs only to the virtuous to bear themselves well when favored by good fortune, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics.5 And few persons have complete virtue, and the Jews were particularly cruel and prone to avarice, through which vices human beings most fall into tyranny. And so the Lord at the beginning did not establish a king with complete power over the people but established judges and governors to protect them. But he, almost indignantly, granted the people a king when they petitioned for one, as 1 Sam. 8:7 makes clear by what he said to Samuel: “They have not rejected you but me, that I not rule over them.”
Nonetheless, he from the beginning established regarding the institution of kingship, indeed first of all, the means of choosing a king. And he established two things in this regard, namely, that they await the judgment of the Lord in choosing a king, and that they not make a foreigner king, since such kings are usually little attached to the people over whom they are appointed, and so do not care about them.
Second, he ordained regarding kings when established how they should conduct themselves regarding themselves, namely, that they not have many horses or wives or immense riches, since rulers descend to {96} tyranny and abandon justice by coveting such things.
Third, he established how they should dispose themselves toward God, namely, that they should always read and meditate on God’s Law and always fear and obey God.
Fourth, he established how they should dispose themselves toward their subjects, namely, that they not in their pride contemn or oppress their subjects, and that they not deviate from justice.
Reply Obj. 3. The division of the kingdom and plurality of kings was inflicted on the people as punishment for their many rebellions, which they especially undertook against the just David, rather than for their benefit. And so Hos. 13:11 says: “In my wrath, I shall give you a king.” And Hos. 8:4 says: “They reigned, but not by my will; rulers appeared, and I did not know them.”
Reply Obj. 4. Priests were appointed to perform the sacred ministry by successive generations from father to son. And this was done so that they be held in greater respect if not anyone of the people could become a priest, since the honor they received added to respect for the divine worship. And so special things, in tithes and first fruits and even oblations and sacrifices, needed to be allotted to them as the means of their livelihood. But rulers were taken from the whole people, as I have said,6 and so they had fixed possessions of their own as the means of their livelihood, and especially since the Lord also prohibited kings from having excessive wealth or displaying magnificence. The Lord prohibited these things both because it was difficult not to be incited by them to pride and tyranny, and because common people did not usually strive much for them if the rulers were not very rich, and if the rulers’ office was laborious and full of anxiety. And so the occasion for sedition was removed.
Reply Obj. 5. The divine institution of kingship did not give to the kings of Israel any right to make tyrannical law. Rather, the Lord foretold that the kings of Israel, who, degenerating into tyranny and preying on their subjects, made evil laws to suit themselves, would claim a right to make such laws. And 1 Sam. 8:17 makes this clear: “And you will be the king’s slaves,” which belongs strictly to tyranny in that tyrants rule over their subjects as if their subjects were their slaves. And so Samuel said this to deter the people from seeking a king, for a subsequent verse, v. 19, says: “The people would not listen to the voice of Samuel.”
But a good king may without tyranny have occasion to take sons away and establish them as tribunes or centurions, and to take many things from his subjects, in order to secure the common good.
1Politics III, 4 (1278b8–10).
2Cf. Timaeus 29A; 29E.
3Aristotle, Politics II, 6 (1270b17–9).
4Ibid., III, 5 (1279a32—b10).
5Ethics IV, 3 (1124a30—b4).
6In the body of the article.