The Bible put a new political conception on the
table: a state of a single nation that is united, self-governing, and
uninterested in bringing its neighbors under its rule.
For centuries, the politics of Western nations have been
characterized by a struggle between two antithetical visions of world order: an
order of free and independent nations, each pursuing the political good in
accordance with its own traditions and understanding; and an order of peoples
united under a single regime of law, promulgated and maintained by a single
supranational authority.
In recent generations, the first vision has been represented by
nations such as India, Israel, Japan, Norway, South Korea, Switzerland—and of
course by Britain, in the wake of its turn toward independence. The second
vision is held by much of the leadership of the European Union, which
reaffirmed its commitment to the concept of an “ever closer union” of peoples
in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, and has proceeded since then to introduce
EU laws and currency into most member nations, as well as requiring the free
movement of populations among most member states.
The United States, committed from its founding to the ideal of an
independent national state, was for the most part able to maintain this
character until the Second World War. But in the face of competition with the
Soviet Union, and especially after the end of the Cold War, it has deviated
from this model of national independence and has increasingly sought the
establishment of a worldwide regime of law that would be enforced upon all
nations by means of American power.
The conflict between these two visions of the best political order
is as old as the West itself. The idea that the political order should be based
on independent nations was an important feature of ancient Israelite thought as
reflected in the Hebrew Bible (or “Old Testament”). And although Western
civilization, for most of its history, has been dominated by dreams of
universal empire, the presence of the Bible at the heart of this civilization
has ensured that the idea of the self-determining, independent nation would be
revived time and again.
Why the Bible Supports
National Independence
Why is the Bible so concerned with the independence of nations?
The world of Israel’s prophets was dominated by a succession of imperial
powers: Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, and Persia, each giving way to the next.
Despite their differences, each of these empires sought to impose a universal
political order on mankind as a whole, the gods having sent them to suppress
needless disputes among peoples and to create a unified international realm in
which men could live together in peace and prosperity.
“None hungered in my years or thirsted in them,” Pharaoh Amenemhet
I wrote a few centuries before Abraham. “Men dwelled in peace through that
which I wrought.” And this was no idle boast. By ending warfare in vast regions
and harnessing their populations to productive agricultural work, imperial
powers were in fact able to bring to millions a relatively reliable peace and
an end to the threat of starvation.
No wonder, then, that the imperial rulers of the ancient world saw
it as their task, in the words of the Babylonian king Hammurabi, to “bring the
four quarters of the world to obedience.” That obedience was what made
salvation from war, disease, and starvation possible.
Yet despite the obvious economic advantages of an Egyptian or
Babylonian peace that would unify humanity, the Bible was born out of a
deep-seated opposition to this very aim. To Israel’s prophets, Egypt was “the
house of bondage,” and they spared no words in deploring the bloodshed and
cruelty involved in imperial conquest and in the imperial manner of governing,
its recourse to slavery and murder and its expropriation of women and property.
All of this, the Israelite prophets argued, stemmed from Egypt’s
idolatry—from its submission to gods who would justify any sacrifice so long as
it advanced the extension of the imperial realm of peace and kept the
production of grain running at maximum capacity.
A Viable Alternative to
Universal Empire
Was there a viable alternative to universal empire? The ancient
Near East had much experience with localized political power in the form of
city-states. But for the most part, these were helpless before imperial armies
and the ideology of universal empire that motivated them. It is in the Bible
that we find the first sustained presentation of a different possibility: a
political order based on the independence of a nation living within limited
borders alongside other independent nations.
By nation, I mean a
number of tribes with a common cultural inheritance, especially a language or
religion, and a past history of acting as a body for the common defense and
other large-scale enterprises. The Bible systematically promotes the idea that
the members of a nation should regard one another as “brothers,” and Mosaic law
offered the Israelites a constitution that would bring them together in what
would today be called a national state.
The king of such a state would be drawn “from among your
brothers.” Its prophets, too, would be “from among you, from among your
brothers.” And so would its priests, appointed to guard the traditional laws of
the nation and teach them to the king “so that his thoughts should not be
lifted above his brothers.” Moreover, Moses sets boundaries for Israel,
instructing his people to keep their hands off the lands of neighboring
kingdoms like Moav, Edom, and Ammon, which deserve their own independence. As
he tells them in God’s name:
Take good heed of yourselves therefore. Meddle
not with [the children of Esau], for I will not give you of their land. No, not
so much a foot’s breadth. Because I have given Mt. Seir to Esau for a
possession. . . . Do not harass Moav, nor contend with them in battle, for I
will not give you of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to
the children of Lot for a possession. . . . And when you come near, opposite
the children of Ammon, harass them not, nor contend with them, for I will not
give you of the land of the children of Ammon any possession, for I have given
it to the children of Lot for a possession.
Nor are these passages unique. Throughout the Bible, we find that
the political aspiration of the prophets of Israel is not empire but a free and
unified nation living in justice and peace amid other free nations.
The Bible thus puts a new political conception on the table: a
state of a single nation that is united, self-governing, and uninterested in
bringing its neighbors under its rule. This state is governed not by foreigners
responsible to a ruler in a distant land but by kings and governors, priests
and prophets drawn from the ranks of the nation itself—individuals who are, for
just this reason, thought to be better able to stay in touch with the needs of
their own people, their “brothers,” including the less fortunate among them.
Israelite Kings Ruled
Under Law, Not Above It
In addition, because the Israelite king is one of the people, and
not the representative of some abstract universal ambition, his powers can be
circumscribed to prevent abuse. Unlike the kings of Egypt or Babylonia, the
Israelite king under the Mosaic constitution is not empowered to make the laws,
which are the heritage of his nation and not subject to his whim.
Nor does he have the power to appoint the priesthood, thereby
making law and religion subservient to him. Moreover, the Mosaic law limits the
king’s right to tax and enslave the people, just as the limitations on Israel’s
borders prevent the king from embracing the dream of universal conquest.
It is
important to notice that the Israelites’ conception of the nation has nothing
to do with biology, or what we call race. For
biblical nations, everything depends on a shared understanding of history,
language, and religion that is passed from parents to children, but which
outsiders can join as well.
Thus the book of Exodus teaches that there were many Egyptians who
attached themselves to the Hebrew slaves in fleeing Egypt, and that they
received the Ten Commandments (more accurately translated as the “Ten
Precepts”) at Sinai with the rest of Israel. Similarly, Moses invites the
Midianite sheikh Jethro to join the Jewish people. And Ruth the Moabite becomes
part of Israel when she is ready to tell Naomi “your people is my people and
your God is my God,” her son being the forefather of King David himself.
But the ability of Israel to bring these foreign-born individuals
into its ranks depends on their willingness to accept Israel’s God, laws, and
understanding of history. Without embracing these central aspects of Israelite
tradition, they will not become a part of the Israelite nation.
Adapted excerpt from
“The Virtue of Nationalism,” by Yoram Hazony. Copyright 2018. Available from
Basic Books, an imprint of Perseus Books, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group,
Inc.
Dr. Yoram
Hazony (@yhazony) is
president of The Herzl Institute in Jerusalem and author of “The Virtue of
Nationalism.”