108 Handbook of Organization Theory and Management
The Mormons have an inspired translation of the Book of Genesis as revealed to Joseph Smith that begins with a conversation between God and Moses about Jesus.33 Muslims agree with the Jews that God revealed his word to Moses but contend that the Hebrew Bible does not record the word accurately. According to one story in the Koran, it was Ishmael (rather than Isaac) who was offered for sacrifice by Abraham. In the Muslim source, Abraham and Ishmael are said to have built the Kaaba in Mecca. This has modern political relevance with respect to Jewish claims of a biblical heritage.34
The diversity of political behaviors and norms apparent in the Hebrew Bible seem appropriate to the unenviable setting in which it was pro- duced. Its authors and compilers were preoccupied by their own survival amidst a chronic condition of invasion and foreign domination.35 Their Promised Land was small and poor, had a substantial foreign population, and was desired by nearby great powers.36 The Israelites aspired to rule themselves but were usually dominated by others. International relations were a constant preoccupation of Israelite leaders. Usually they paid tribute to an imperial capital. Occasionally they sought to play off one empire against another. This led to national disaster on more than one occasion. National heroes had to develop their capacity to think, express themselves, and behave flexibly. The demands of physical and cultural survival may have fostered a capacity to recognize and cope with numer- ous perspectives and severe threats. Simple ideas or rigid intellectual categories would not last for long as national guidance in the shifting and dangerous environment.
The composition and literary character of the Hebrew Bible complicate any clear linkages with public administration in the narrow sense of that profession concerned with the organization and management of govern- ment offices. Yet the same traits of the Hebrew Bible proclaim their relevance for public administration defined broadly as a concern for how a polity is governed. The nature of the Hebrew Bible expresses a tolerance for diversity in story telling, with nuances of meaning depending on interpretation, as well as a pragmatic concern to work in behalf of the community’s survival and its image as the people of the Almighty. Viewed in these terms, the Hebrew Bible is a primer for the student and practitioner of public administration.
The Hebrew Bible and Public Administration 109
relates to the regimes of a tiny population, much of it written 2,500 years ago. Details concerned with economics, law, social relations, gender, and politics differ greatly from those that prevail in modern Western societies.
With all these appropriate reservations, however, we can find in the Bible several themes that impinge on contemporary problems of governance.
Prominent is a concern for limiting the government with respect to individual and community freedom. Related to this is the value accorded to the prophets (who directed their shrill criticism at the most highly placed of national leaders), a pragmatic willingness to r ecognize the timeliness of assessment and action, plus a recognition of coping as likely to be more useful than heroic, but risky, actions.
Problematic Authorities
A concern to limit government appears in several features of the Hebrew Bible. There is skepticism toward the principle of monarchy, and no king of ancient Israel or Judah escaped without severe criticism. The suspicion of authority extended to the greatest of them all. Not even the Almighty was above concern.
A distinguished political scientist and my good friend, the late Daniel J. Elazar, wrote about what he called the republicanism, constitutionalism, and even federalism described in the Hebrew Bible. (See, for example, Daniel J. Elazar and Stuart A. Cohen, The Jewish Polity: Jewish Political Organization from Biblical Times to the Present, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985; and Daniel J. Elazar, “The Book of Joshua as a political classic” Jewish Political Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1–2, 1989, pp.
93–150). I think that he exaggerated greatly in the details, but there is a truth underlying his scholarship. Even while the Hebrew Bible revered the Almighty and emphasized the power and occasionally the wisdom of kings, the Judaic polities were not as authoritarian in practice as their formal structures suggest. The Bible gives expression to a diversity of politically relevant perspectives. It also includes episodes that provide support for the values of skepticism with respect to figures of authority.
It offers legitimacy of divine origin to the prophets who were severe critics of the kings and other elites. It limits and qualifies the autocracy of the Almighty and the kings. If constraint of government fits somewhere in the prerequisites of genuine constitutionalism, then ancient Judaic regimes may figure in the development of constitutionalism, even if they did not measure up to modern concepts.
“Qualified autocracy” is an appropriate label for the polities of the Hebrew Bible.37 “Autocracy” refers to a regime governed by one person.
By implication, the ruler’s authority is not controlled by laws or other countervailing sources of power. Political scientists recognize variations
DK834X_book.fm Page 109 Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:11 AM
110 Handbook of Organization Theory and Management
from ideal types at every point along the scale from absolute to democratic regimes.38 Even despotic rulers are likely to exhibit some dependence on advisors and be unable to implement their desires without the cooperation of a professional bureaucracy that, by the nature of things, acquires a degree of independent discretion. Biblical laws and norms directed against the leaders of Judaic polities went beyond these obvious limitations of pure autocracy.
The principal autocrats of the biblical regimes were God, as the source of creation and law, and the kings, whose rule derived from God’s grant of authority. The Bible describes a number of covenants between God and the people, as well as an impressive range of laws directed at officials and economic elites. There are provisions that describe qualifications for kings and limit the monarch’s possessions. There are rules of judicial procedure; rights of debtors, women, widows, slaves, orphans, the poor, and foreigners; and laws dealing with killing and theft. Ther e is an extensive scholarly literature on these laws, some of which seeks to describe the extent to which each law was actually enforced during the biblical period.39
While some passages of the Bible indicate that the Israelites should have a king, numerous other passages are skeptical or outright condemn- ing with respect to the monarchy. In chapter 17 of Deuteronomy, we read, “When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me.” However, the very same chapter warns against a king who will take too much property, too many wives, and depart from the word of the Lord.40 The Book of First Samuel includes the prophet’s warning to a people who wanted a king to rule them:
This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you:
He will take your sons.… And he will take your daughters.…
And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them.… And he will take your menser- vants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.… And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.41
As if to assert the credibility of this warning, the first king anointed by Samuel turns out bad. There are early hints of Saul’s problems. “An evil spirit from the Lord troubled him,” and the king’s aides sought to bring comfort by asking the young David to play the harp.42 More substantial signs of the king’s instability appeared when the people
DK834X_book.fm Page 110 Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:11 AM
The Hebrew Bible and Public Administration 111
shouted greater praise for David than for Saul as a warrior. Saul alternately pursued David, swore he would do him no harm, and then pursued him again.43 Several scenes provide comic relief, and demonstrate that leaders are no more than human. One has the king urinating within sight of the concealed David;44 another describes David stealing some of the sleeping king’s equipment in order to prove that he could have killed him.45
It is not clear whether Saul’s madness derived from shoddy treatment by the prophet Samuel, or if Samuel’s treatment of him reflected the prophet’s perception of the king’s madness. One story begins with the Israelites in one of their usual difficult situations. In what was probably a case of biblical hyperbole, the Philistines are said to have amassed 30,000 chariots, 6,000 horsemen, and as many men as there are grains of sand at the seashore. In a wise maneuver to save themselves for a more promising battle, the Israelites scattered. Some went across the Jordan;
others hid in caves, thickets, rocks, high places, and pits.46
The story continues to a sacrifice that had to be performed by Samuel before Saul could engage the enemy. Saul waited seven days for the prophet to arrive, and the military situation continued to deteriorate. Still without Samuel, Saul performed the sacrifice himself. Then the prophet appeared, denounced the king for acting against the commandments of the Lord (i.e., performing the sacrifice himself), and proclaimed the end of his monarchy.
A simple reading of the text indicates that Samuel was late, and that Saul had to perform the sacrifice in order to go to battle and preserve his nation against a strong enemy. If Saul did violate God’s command- ments, it seemed to be for a good cause. For this, however, Samuel proclaimed that Saul must lose the Lord’s blessing for himself and his family.47 Another episode that is also described as the cause for Saul’s loss of the monarch may be more weighty. (Characteristically, the Bible does not explain why two different episodes are described as the cause for the end of Saul’s rule. Neither does it assign more importance to one or the other.) After a battle against the Amalekites, Saul did not destroy all of the enemy and their possessions as instructed, but spared the king and the best of the livestock, “everything worth keeping.” When chal- lenged by Samuel, Saul protested that he had taken the livestock to sacrifice to the Lord. This led Samuel to rage that the Lord desires not sacrifice but obedience. The prophet then renounced Saul and killed the Amalekite king with his own hands.48
Religious commentators assert that Saul’s downfall reflects the severity of his faults and his lack of suitability to be king.49 For a believer in God’s justice, the fact of Saul’s severe punishment by a prophet of the Lord signifies the gravity of Saul’s sin. On the face of things, however, Saul’s sins were less severe than that attributed to Aaron in the story of the
DK834X_book.fm Page 111 Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:11 AM
112 Handbook of Organization Theory and Management
golden calf, for which there appears to have been no commensurate punishment. (“They gave me their gold, I threw it into the fire, and out came this bull calf.”50) Aaron’s creation of an idol to be worshiped would seem to violate the most prominent of the Ten Commandments (“I am the Lord thy God.… Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”51), which supercede in Jewish tradition almost everything else in their weight. Perhaps Saul’s greatest problem was to precede David. This may be sufficient explanation for the story of Saul’s guilt. Whatever Saul did, those who finally compiled the Book of Samuel, perhaps a half millennium or more after its events are supposed to have occurred, had to justify the end of his kingdom to make way for David.52
David’s story also shows the willingness of the Bible’s authors to recognize that a great national hero may have undesirable traits. David was tested and ultimately worn down by the problems of seizing power, maintaining control, managing subordinates and his children, and then passing on authority to the next generation. His immoral personal behavior was matched by flaws in his public activities.
The young David was not only a chivalrous innocent who spent his time in song, in battle with Philistines for the sake of the Israelites, and then foregoing opportunities to harm his mad king. He also gathered around him a force numbered at one point as 400, and at another as 600:
“… every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and everyone that was discontented.”53
One episode depicts David and his gang of desperadoes or bandits selling protection. Nabal’s wife Abigail pleaded with David not to take revenge on her husband for refusing to pay. By the end of the story, Nabal was dead and Abigail was David’s wife.54 The item reinforces the image of Saul’s weakness, and his inability to protect the countryside from David and his ilk.
Another episode casts doubt on David’s loyalty to the Israelites. He allied himself with Achish, the son of a Philistine king, and received for his services the town of Ziklag.55 When Achish asked David to join him in a campaign against the Israelites, David agreed.56 Before the battle could be joined, however, other Philistine commanders refused to fight alongside an Israelite.57 David protested his loyalty to Achish: “What have I done … that I should not come and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?”58 Achish listened to his Philistine colleagues and sent David back to Ziklag.59
The mature David also had problems as a military commander and monarch. In the early details of the Bathsheba story, even befor e the adultery and killing, it is apparent that the once-brave warrior was at home in the palace while Joab, Uriah, and other troops were fighting
DK834X_book.fm Page 112 Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:11 AM
The Hebrew Bible and Public Administration 113
in Ammon. David’s use of Joab to implement the death of Uriah depicts a dependence of the king on his military commander that repeats itself on several occasions. At times, it is difficult to tell who is superior and who subordinate.
The problematic relationship between David and Joab began with their victory over the forces of Saul’s son, Ishbosheth. There was a falling out between Ishbosheth and his commander Abner, and Abner offered to bring all of Saul’s realm with him to David.60 David granted Abner safe passage, but Joab killed him in revenge for Abner having killed Joab’s brother during the conflict between Ishbosheth and David. David pro- tested his own innocence in the death of Abner, and cursed Joab. Yet the only punishment that he imposed was an order that Joab attend Abner’s funeral.61
Sometime later Joab chastised his king for failing to lead his troops in battle and threatened him with an ultimatum. “You had better muster the rest of the army yourself, lay siege to the city and take it, lest I take it and name it after myself.”62
David’s flight during the rebellion of his son Absalom also indicates less-than-heroic behavior. The king organized a defense, but acceded to the troops’ call that he not endanger himself by taking part in battle.63 The rebellion ended with Joab’s killing of Absalom, again contrary to David’s explicit order.64 Not only did Joab escape censure, but when David mourned his son, Joab rebuked him severely and issued another ultimatum:
You have put to shame this day all your servants, who have saved you and your sons and daughters, your wives and your concubines. You love those who hate you and hate those that love you.… Now go at once and give your servants some encouragement; if you refuse, I swear by the Lord that not a man will stay with you tonight, and that would be a worse disaster than any you have suffered since your earliest days.
(II Samuel 19: 5–8) David’s weakness declined to its lowest point in his final days. Accord- ing to the story in the Book of First Kings, there was both a messy transition to Solomon’s reign, and a vignette that suggests that the once-virile monarch was senile and impotent. While David was still alive, his oldest surviving son Adonijah allied himself with Joab and took steps to have himself proclaimed king. A counterplot of Nathan the prophet and Baths- heba stopped Adonijah and put Bathsheba’s son Solomon on the throne.65 While this was happening, David was described as a very old man who was always cold. The solution was to employ the beautiful virgin
DK834X_book.fm Page 113 Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:11 AM
114 Handbook of Organization Theory and Management
Abishag to keep him warm. However, the biblical text says that David
“knew her not.”66 It appears that the man who once behaved like an
“oversexed bandit” could no longer function.67
The Bible offers two versions of David’s final actions. A saintly version appears in Second Samuel, where David praises the justice, glory, and reliability of God.68 In contrast is a settling of accounts by a bitter old man in First Kings. David is described as advising Solomon to do away with the problem of Joab: “[L]et not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace.”69 The key to this version may be Joab’s lapse of judgment in choosing to support the monarchical aspirations of the unsuccessful Adonijah.
Even God Is Not Almighty
An episode involving God, Moses, and pharaoh with respect to the freeing of the Hebrew slaves recognizes weakness in the ultimate authority. The assignment was no less than to remove human assets of sizable proportions from the Egyptian economy. The story indicates that the pharaoh was powerful and that slaves are likely to be passive. Moses is unsure of his ability to persuade pharaoh to release them or to persuade the slaves that he could lead them to a better life.
God instructed Moses not to ask for the slaves’ freedom, but for a holiday so that they might hold a religious feast in the desert.70 Should the request for a holiday be condemned as the kind of lie the Lord and his emissary should not tell, or should it be accepted as the dissembling appropriate to those who would free the slaves of a powerful state? God made no secret of his plans among the Israelites; he told Moses to encourage the Israelites by saying that God would release them from slavery and deliver them to the land that he promised their forefathers.71 An element that complicates the analysis is God’s concern to make the task difficult. He told Moses that he would harden the pharaoh’s heart so that he would not let the Israelites go readily. God said that he would do this in order to demonstrate his greater power for the benefit of the Egyptians.72 It also appears that the demonstration was meant to convince the Israelites that their God was powerful, and a fitting object of loyalty.
Several problems complicate the fit of this story with other biblical themes. If God is all powerful, why did he not simply change the pharaoh’s heart to facilitate the liberation of the slaves and lighten the damage done to the Egyptians? It is commonly explained that God limited his own power to provide humans with free will. Yet, if God was responsible for hardening the pharaoh’s heart, was not the pharaoh deprived of free will? There are no convincing answers. The Hebrew Bible is not a collection of absolutes. “Thou shalt not bear false witness
DK834X_book.fm Page 114 Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:11 AM