Report Template - Jubilee Centre

THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN EARLY MODERN BRITAIN:
Orders of the Hebrew Commonwealth:
Power of Israel — Genealogical and
Geographic Divisions
“All political methods,” Harrington states, “that are
collective of the people must necessarily begin with a
distribution or division of the people.” 120 He locates
Israel’s method of genealogical tribal division in
Exodus 1:1-4, and tribal rankings in Numbers 1:1-2.
The twelve tribes of Israel were also divided
geographically as to land allotments to be distributed in
Canaan, and fixed by an agrarian law as indicated in
Numbers 26:53-56 and 33:54.
Genealogical Division of Israel was
Popular
From Numbers 1, Harrington explained that Israel was
first divided by “ten tribes, houses or families,” with all
the first born as tribal princes or “phylarchs,” while the
“princes of families” were “patriarchs.” The tribe of
Levi was the exception given its unique service before
the altar of God. 121
When Moses called for Israel’s census in Numbers 1:18,
he ordered the “congregation,” or as Harrington
referred to it, “the political convention of the people,”
to assemble “after their families by the house of their
fathers.” He then conflates the list of tribal heads or
princes of Numbers 1: 5-15 with the number of military
men counted within each tribe from Numbers 1:20-43,
and arrives at the census tally of 603,550 of
Numbers 1:46. Harrington referred to Israel’s military
population as the “muster-roll in the twelve tribes.” 122
The phylarchs then led Israel’s “armies of the
commonwealth,” into battle, which were divided further
into “four brigades” containing three tribes, all
surrounding the tabernacle as they proceeded. 123
Harrington found a second genealogical division from
Numbers 26:5-50, noting the twelve tribes with their
various and numerous families and patriarchs. These
genealogical divisions represented the “assemblies of the
people” who were called together in the wilderness on
specific occasions “by trumpets (Numbers 10:7) unto
the congregation.” When the “congregation of the
people of Israel assembled in a military manner
(Judges 20:2)” she “had the result of the
commonwealth, or the power of confirming all their
laws, though proposed even by God himself, as where
they make him king (Exodus 19).” 124 Israel’s
genealogical division was a ‘popular’ one, but which
needed a popular balance in the land to settle a
commonwealth.
Geographic Division of Israel was the
Agrarian Balance in Canaan
Israel’s next division was geographic, or local, and by
lots in the land of Canaan among the twelve tribes. 125
This represents an order of division which
Numbers 26:53-56 and 33:54 indicate Israel was
commanded to execute when she entered Canaan.
Harrington concluded the establishment of popular
government from Israel’s local order of tribal divisions,
or the popular division according to families,
accompanied by a fixed agrarian law. 126 The institution
of an agrarian law for Canaan, known as the Jubilee
Land Law, settled the popular distribution of lands
allotted to families such that they “were immovably
entailed upon the proprietors and their heirs forever.”
But should land be transferred, through sale or
otherwise, the Jubilee Law required it to be returned to
the original proprietor after fifty years. 127
Harrington’s use of Israel’s agrarian to prove a
commonwealth troubled his Royalist opponents,
especially Matthew Wren who asserted that the
Scriptures failed to reveal the political nature of Israel’s
agrarian, or any land law for that matter. 128 Harrington
countered, arguing that Israel’s agrarian was both
political and fundamental to her government and
identified three scriptural methods of dominion in
support, one of which he claims to have incorporated
into Oceana.
Harrington’s first proof of an agrarian performing the
political function of a popular balance is situated in
Canaan’s division by lot, and from which he concluded
that God “intended popular government.” The second
is located in the alteration of the popular balance in
favour of the nobility, and affected when Israel
requested a king in 1 Samuel 8:14. God commanded
Samuel to explain to Israel “the manner of the king,” who
“will take your fields and your vineyards, and your olive-yards,
even the best of them, and give unto his servants.”
Harrington claims that the text demonstrates that “from
the balance to the superstructures, a more perfect
description of a monarchy by a nobility” cannot be
124
Harrington, Oceana, 175.
120
Harrington, Art, 621.
121
Harrington, Oceana, 174-175; Art, 644.
122
Harrington, Art, 621-622.
123
Ibid., 623.
125
Ibid., 174-175.
126
Harrington, Oceana, 632.
127
Ibid., 634.
128
Matthew Wren, Considerations on Mr. Harrington’s commonwealth
of oceana (Oxford, 1657), 73.
26