government theory

Chapter 24 Who is this heir? (7)
150．After our author tells us that "patriarchy continued in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob until the time of historical enslavement in Egypt," he goes on to say, "We can trace this patriarchal government by until it entered the Egyptians and the Israelites. Once in Egypt, this exercise of supreme patriarchal power was interrupted, for they had been conquered by a mighty prince." The footsteps of patriarchal government in our author's mind— —that is, the footsteps of the absolute sovereign power descended from Adam and based on patriarchy as we have seen—for two thousand and 290 years—does not exist at all, because in all that period he could not find any For example, to prove that any one claimed or exercised the kingship by virtue of the right acquired by "fatherhood", or to point out that any one who was a prince was an heir of Adam.All the evidence he could give was that at that time there were fathers, ancestors, and kings in the world.But whether fathers and ancestors have absolute arbitrary power, and what qualifications those kings have their power, and how great this power is, is not mentioned in the Bible at all.Obviously, they did not and could not claim the right to rule and the eligibility to the throne on the basis of the "fatherhood" claim.

151．To say that "the exercise of the highest ancestral dominion was interrupted was chiefly because they were subject to a stronger sovereign" proves nothing but what I had previously suspected, namely, that "the patriarchal dominion "This statement is absurd, and in our author's opinion, it cannot express the power of "father" and "king" he used to imply, because the absolute sovereignty he assumes belongs to Adam himself. of.

152．And how can he say that "the patriarchal dominion ceased in Egypt" when there was a king in Egypt, and the Israelites were under his kingship?Unless "patriarchal right" is "absolute sovereign right".If it is something else instead of this, why does he spend so much time on a power that is neither in question nor relevant to his purpose?If "patriarchal authority" is "royal authority", then when the Israelites were in Egypt, the exercise of "ancestral" ruling authority was never interrupted.It is true that the entitlement to kingship was not then in the hands of the God-elected sons of Abraham, but I know it did not exist before that.

Unless our author feels that only the line of Abraham, chosen by God, has the right of succession to Adam's dominion, what does this have to do with the interruption of the "royalty from Adam" he mentioned above?Besides, what use is his example of the 72 rulers—those who retained the father's power during the time of Babel's accent disturbance—and Esau and the twelve kings of Edom?Why list them, along with Abraham and Judas, as examples of true "patriarchy" in action?If he thinks that at any time, as long as Jacob's descendants do not have supreme power, the exercise of "ancestral dominion" in the world will be interrupted.According to this way of thinking, I guess that the rulership of the monarch belongs to the Egyptian pharaoh or someone else, which can meet his needs.But in any one place, it is difficult to find what purpose he wants to discuss, especially what he wants to achieve when he says "exercise the highest paternal authority in Egypt...", or why this word can Proving that Adam's dominion passed to the ancestors, or otherwise, is incomprehensibly vague.

153．I had thought he was giving us some proofs and examples from the Bible of a patriarchal monarchy descended from Adam, rather than giving us a history of the Jews who were going to Many years later, when they became a people, they found that they had kings, and history never mentions that these kings were descended from Adam, or that they became kings by patriarchy when they had patriarchy. .I thought, since he has told so much about the Bible, he must have enumerated a series of princes from there: they all clearly possessed the conditions required by Adam's fatherhood, and they, as his heirs, Enjoy and exercise patriarchal rule over their subjects, so this is a completely patriarchal government.Who knows that he neither proves that the ancestors were kings, nor does he mention at all that the kings or ancestors are the heirs of Adam, even if they are false heirs.This, rather, proves that the patriarchs were absolute sovereigns, and that the power of patriarchs and princes was only patriarchal, and that this power was descended to them from Adam.All these propositions, I believe, can be derived from Ferdinando Soto's rambling record of a group of petty kings in the West Indies, or from any kind of modern history of North America, or from our author's reference to Homer's Greek It is confirmed in the story of the seventy kings.The effect is as good as the multitude of princes which our author has drawn from the Bible and enumerated in detail.

154．I think it would be better for him to leave Homer and his Trojan War alone, since his passion for truth or for monarchy had produced such a rage against poets and philosophers that he wrote in the preface Tells us: "Today there are innumerable numbers who like to run in the footsteps of poets and philosophers. They seek in them a doctrine of the origin of government which will give them some liberty, disgrace Christianity, and begin spread atheism.” But these pagan poets and philosophers—such as Homer and Aristotle—could not offer anything that seemed to satisfy his needs, and were not accepted by us. opposed by a zealous Christian statesman.

But let's go back to his biblical history.Our author then tells us: "When the children of Israel came back from oppression, God took great care of them, and successively chose Moses and Joshua as kings to rule over them, instead of the highest father." If the Israelites in the text" To return from the oppression of Egypt" is true, they must return to a state of freedom, and it certainly implies that they were free before and after oppression, unless our author thinks that the change of master is It is called "get rid of oppression and go back", or when a slave is moved from one slave ship to another ship, it is called "get rid of oppression and go back".Suppose, then, that they "returned from oppression," it is evident that in those days—even if our author says something to the contrary in his preface—there was a difference between a son, a subject, and a slave, whether Whether the patriarchs before being oppressed by Egypt or the rulers of Israel afterward, never "regarded their sons or subjects as their property" and ruled with absolute dominion as they dealt with "other property" them.

155．Reuben's offering of his two sons to Jacob as surety, and Judah's giving of the surety for the eventual safe escape of Benjamin from Egypt, are clear examples.If Jacob had dominion over all his household, as he has dominion over his ox or ass, or as a master over his own property, all the above would be idle talk, superfluous, and mere jokes, And the fact that Reuben or Judah came out as surety to secure Benjamin's return is like a man who takes two sheep from his master's flock and takes one as surety that he can get the second sheep in good condition. Send back in general.

156．And what after the Israelites escaped this oppression? "God is very concerned about them." It is very good that once in his book God starts to care about people, because elsewhere he talks about human beings as if God doesn't care about any of them. One, and only care about their monarch, as for other people, human society, he regards as a few groups of domestic animals, only for their monarch to enslave, send and enjoy.

157．God's electing successive kings, Moses and Joshua, to reign, is a clever argument thought up by our author to confirm God's concern for the father's authority and Adam's successor.Here, in order to show God's concern for his own people, he chose to be their princes who were not qualified to be princes at all, because Moses was in the family of Levi, and Joshua was in the family of Ephraim. , have no fatherhood.Our author, however, says that they were substitutes for the highest fatherhood.If God has anywhere declared that he made such a father ruler as clearly as he chose Moses and Joshua, we can be sure that Moses and Joshua were "in their place."However, this is a matter that is still being debated, and until this issue is better argued, Moses was chosen by God to be the ruler of his people, and it is impossible to prove whether the rulership is due to the descendants of Adam or to the "fatherhood". "All, just as God chose Aaron of the Levitical family to be a priest, there is no way to prove that the priesthood belongs to Adam's heirs or to the "highest father"; God still had a choice over Adam's heir or fatherhood, Aaron as Israel's priest and Moses as ruler.

158．Then our author says: "In the same way, shortly after choosing them, God appointed judges, that they might guard his people in case of danger." was passed on from Adam to his successors.Here, however, our author seems to admit that the magistrates, who were then the rulers of the people, were mere valiant men, whom the people elected generals to guard in times of danger.Could it be that patriarchy is the only basis for governing power, otherwise God could not have installed these personnel?
159．Our author, however, says that when God chose a king for Israel, he re-established the original and age-old right of patriarchal government through generations.

160．How is God re-established?Is it a law?Or is it a written order?We cannot find such grounds, so our author expresses that God "re-established the right" etc. when he made kings for them.To allow a man to take possession of the rights which his ancestors had enjoyed to which he himself is entitled by hereditary right is what is called the substantial re-establishment of hereditary right to patriarchal rule.The reasons for this are, first, that any government other than that which his ancestors had originally had should be said to be beginning a new right, rather than inheriting an "ancient right."If a prince, besides bestowing upon a man the early inheritance which his family has long since plundered over the years, also bestows property which their ancestors had not previously appropriated, in this case only the It can only be said that it is "re-establishing the rights inherited from generation to generation" in the industry. As for other industries, the same cannot be said.So, if the kings of Israel had more power than Isaac or Jacob had, it would not be "re-establishing" an inheritance of power in them, but giving them new powers--whatever you want to call them. This kind of power, whether it is "patriarchy" or not "patriarchy".As for whether Isaac and Jacob have the same power as the kings of Israel, please consider carefully with reference to the above mentioned. I don’t think he can find any evidence that Abraham Isaac or Jacob has any kingship.

161．Secondly, the person who has acquired this power cannot have the so-called "re-establishment of ancient and original hereditary rights" in everything unless he really has the right of succession and is the real heir of the next generation of those he inherits.Can it be said that starting something in a new family is a re-establishment?Can it be called a re-establishment of an ancient hereditary right to confer the throne on a man who has no right to inherit it, and who, when the succession of generations has not been interrupted, is at all incapable of arguing for it?Saul, the first king God gave to the Israelites, was of Benjamin origin.Didn't the "long and original generational succession" be "re-established" in him?The second king was David, the youngest son of Jesse, who was the third son of Jacob, a descendant of Judah.

(End of this chapter)