Replies

“Israel was led for 400 years by prophet and judges.”

Wouldn’t that be a form of limited monarchy?

Wouldn’t that be a form of limited monarchy?

How so, there was no succession, God picked the prophets and judges. No taxes for the king, no conscription for a standing army. That was the plan until the people went to Samuel and wanted a king so they could be like the surrounding countries. The trade didn't always work out.

Alexander the Great's empire was divided by 4 of his generals. Additionally, the Romans had no king by the time they made it to Judea.

“Israel was led for 400 years by prophet and judges.”

Wouldn’t that be a form of limited monarchy?

No, I don't think so. The close comparison would be a common law system; more similar to the English common law system than a monarchy. You had the law God have given which was to be applied to each case by the judges. Without reading too much into scripture it seems that they precedents from a case carried over into the law. These factors lead to a much more stable system than a the whims or decrees of a monarch. Also no one in the system was above the law. Like the English Common law the main drawback was the corruption of the judges.