The original of tliis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924029283342 
 
LEADING CASES 
 IN THE BIBLE 
 
 BY 
 
 DAVID WERNER AMRAM, M.A., LL.B. 
 
 Member of the Philadelphia Bar 
 
 " If by any means we can determine the early forms 
 of jural conceptions, they will be invaluable to us. 
 These rudimentary ideas are to the jurist what the 
 primary crusts of the earth are to the geologist. They 
 contain, potentially, all the forms in which law has 
 subsequently exhibited itself." 
 
 Sib Heney Sumner Maine. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 JULIUS H. GREEKSTOlSrE 
 
 1906 
 
Copyrighted 1905 
 By David "Werner Amkam 
 
 PiiEsa or 
 
 The New Eua PRtHTtRc Cohpaii^ 
 lAMCASTCa, Pa. 
 
DEDICATED 
 
 MOST AFFECTIONATELY TO MY DEAR PARENTS 
 
 WERNER D. AMRAM 
 
 ESTHER AMRAM 
 
 ON THE 
 
 FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THEIR WEDDING 
 
 MAY 6, 1905 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 A Leadi]Qg_^ase is_one ''which^eci^^^^ par- 
 
 ticular point in question, and to which reference is 
 constantly or frequently made, for the purpose of 
 determining the law in similar questions." (Bou- 
 vier.) In the strict sense of this definition the eases 
 in this volume cannot be called leading eases, al- 
 though they have been frequently cited, not only in 
 the Jewish lawbooks, but also in the ecclesiastical and 
 civil courts of Christendom. Although many of them 
 are legendary accounts and not actual records of 
 eases decided in courts of law, I have chosen the title 
 Leading Cases for them because they are the first 
 records of their kind and, by reason of the fact that 
 they are embodied in the Biblical literature, have 
 maintained throughout the centuries a position of 
 preeminence as authorities, not only in questions of 
 law, but also in matters of doctrine, of faith and of 
 history. 
 
 My views of the nature of the cases and the scope 
 
Vi PREFACE. 
 
 of the decisions— where decisions are made— are, as 
 a rule, not the views expressed in either the Jewish 
 or non- Jewish religious or legal literature. They have 
 been considered from the historical point of view, read, 
 as far as possible, in the light of their own times, with- 
 out regard to the interpretation which later ages have 
 placed upon them. There has never been a uniform 
 system of interpreting the Bible, and every possible 
 construction has been given to these cases, according 
 to the knowledge, the religion or the prejudice of the 
 interpreter. I offer my guess as to their meaning 
 with all due deference to the opinion of the many who 
 will disagree with me, both among the orthodox and 
 the heterodox interpreters of the Bible. I have re- 
 ceived a few suggestions from the Hebrew commenta- 
 tors and from some of the moderji higher critics, but 
 the bulk of the commentaries and works on exegesis 
 that I have examined are entirely valueless for my 
 purpose. 
 
 Thirteen of the cases appearing in this volume were 
 published in the "Green Bag" of Boston during the 
 years 1900 and 1901. "The Trial of Jeremiah" 
 
PREFACE. vii 
 
 appeared in the "Biblical World" of Chicago in 
 December, 1900. The other cases have never before 
 been published. Those heretofore published have 
 been revised, some of them rewritten. Eepetitions 
 wiU no doubt be found, although a conscientious effort 
 has been made to eliminate them. This and other 
 faults are left to the indulgence of the considerate 
 reader, to whom this book is presented with the hope 
 that he may find in its perusal a little of the pleasure 
 that I have found in its preparation. 
 
 I gratefully acknowledge the assistance given me 
 by my wife, who revised the manuscript, read proof 
 and prepared the index. 
 
 David Weener Amram. 
 
 May 6, 1905. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Preface HI 
 
 Introduction 1 
 
 The Case oi- Adam and Eve 19 
 
 The Mdedeb of Abel 34 
 
 The Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah 44 
 
 The Sale of Esau's Bietheight 55 
 
 In the Matter of Isaac's Will 63 
 
 The Covenant of Jacob and Laban 75 
 
 The Blasphemy of the Son of Shelomith 91 
 
 The Case _of_.Zelophehad's Daughters. _...,._. ys,._^. . .._^. 101 
 
 The Trial of Achan by Lot 113 
 
 The Case of Jephthah's Daughter 121 
 
 The Case of Boaz and Ruth 131 
 
 The Case of Adonijah, Abiatiiar and Joab 145 
 
 The Judgment of Solomon 157 
 
 The Case of Naboth's Vineyard 167 
 
 A Conveyance of Land to the Prophet Jeremiah 177 
 
 The Trial or Jeremiah 185 
 
 The Trial of Job in the Court op Heaven 196 
 
 Job's Appeal from the Judgment of God 204 
 
 Index 216 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 He who believes that the Bible was literally inspired 
 by God, reads and examines it by the aid of canons 
 of criticism differing from those applied to other 
 documentary remains of antiquity. He reads the 
 Bible in a spirit of devotion, seeks in it precept and 
 illustration in support of his views of right and 
 wrong and finds in it weapons of offense and defense 
 with which to fight the battles of his religious convic- 
 tions. But this theory of direct and immediate divine 
 inspiration, although it may give the Bible a peculiar 
 sanctity, cannot fail to render its content for the most 
 part unintelligible. The Bible may or may not have 
 been written in a manner different from other produc- 
 tions of the human understanding, but it is certain 
 that it has value only if studied by the rational and 
 critical method that is applied to all other historical 
 documents and records. 
 
 The Bible is a collection of legends, chronicles, 
 myths, historical narratives, laws, moral precepts, 
 I 1 
 
2 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 orations, rhapsodies and proverbs, written at different 
 times during a period of probably over a thousand 
 years. Much of this material existed as folklore and 
 oral tradition long before it was written down ; some 
 of it probably first appeared in writing very nearly 
 in the form in which it has been handed down to us. 
 In these records many stages of civilization have left 
 memorials of their painful progress in religion, in 
 morals and in law. The striving of the human mind 
 in its conquest of the physical world, the growth of 
 the sense of right from its crude origin to its sublime 
 perfection in the prophetic literature, the progress of 
 society as revealed in the customs and laws of many 
 generations of nomads, farmers, citizens, ecclesiastics 
 and kings, the history of a remarkable people of 
 Semitic origin, small in number, but of extraordinary 
 ability to master its environment and survive under 
 conditions which clearly pointed to annihilation— all 
 this may be read in this remarkable collection of docu- 
 ments, the Bible. 
 
 Generations have come and gone since the biblical 
 code was completed. Clnirches, religions, sects and 
 
INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 individuals have interpreted and misinterpreted it, 
 and have read into it. every possible and impossible 
 conception of the human mind in their effort to find 
 sanction and authority in its dicta. It has rarely 
 been subjected to sane exegesis. A priori theorizing, 
 hysterical raving and cruel fanaticism have made the 
 Bible the play ground of fancy, the battle ground of 
 speculation and the burial ground of freedom of 
 thought. In modern times, much superstitious rever- 
 ence for the ancient words still prevails. Preachers 
 still use Bible texts torn from their context for 
 parenetic purposes; revivalists still make capital of 
 miracles that the human mind has long ago rejected 
 as impossible and untrue; and all sorts of men hold- 
 ing briefs for all sorts of theories, dogmas, self- 
 delusions, hypocrisies, prejudices and falsehoods still 
 point with pride to the Bible as the basis of their 
 authority and the source of their illustration. Alas 
 for the good, gray, old book, its history is the saddest 
 chapter of the history of mankind. 
 
 But the nineteenth century witnessed the emanci- 
 pation of the intellect of a great and influential pro- 
 
4 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 portion of civilized men from the shackles of super- 
 stition. The work of the martyrs of the middle ages, 
 vitalized by the spirit of the Eenaissance, has at last 
 born fruit, and those principles of liberty which find 
 formal expression in the First Amendment of the 
 Constitution' of the United States have grown ever 
 stronger and more effective among the nations of the 
 earth. Even those who still have a predilection for 
 deductive reasoning are no longer fanatical in their 
 insistence upon the truth of the conclusions which 
 they reach. The spirit of free, scientific inquiry 
 which marked the nineteenth century has affected, 
 often unconsciously, even those who have approached 
 the Bible with preconceived notions of its teachings. 
 It is happily true that the good old days of theological 
 domination have passed away never to return; and 
 though many a revival of religious hysteria, Christian 
 Science, ecclesiastical dominion and popular folly may 
 give apparent reason for loss of faith in the perma- 
 nent uplifting of the human race to a higher plane of 
 sane and truthful thought and utterance, we may 
 confidently rely on the conclusions based upon the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 evidence furnished by history that progress goes on 
 in spite of temporary relapses. 
 
 The historical, ethical and religious aspects of the 
 Bible have been well considered by many scholars of 
 note and by a host of students of humbler capacity 
 and more modest achievement, but the legal aspects 
 of the Bible records have been practically ignored. 
 The Bible has been studied almost exclusively by 
 theologians and rarely by lawyers. The fact that 
 lawyers, or men with legal training, have not found 
 the Bible an object worthy of their serious attention 
 has contributed not a little to its misinterpretation 
 and to the misconceptions that have arisen out of it. 
 The long continued misinterpretation of the biblical 
 records in the interest of theological dogma, falsely 
 called religion, or of race prejudice falsely based on 
 the science of comparative sociology, has helped to 
 bring the Bible and biblical study into disrepute. 
 Men of modern times who love freedom in thought 
 and in expression— and among this class lawyers are 
 by training and professional practice easily among 
 the first— have revolted from the influence of dog- 
 
6 LEADING OASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 matic religion and its superstructures of vanity and 
 ■vexation of the spirit. "With this revolt has come a 
 concomitant loss of all interest in the Bible for 
 its own sake, as a valuable record of history, custom 
 and law. Thus the Bible has suffered for the sins of 
 the churches and of the official expounders of the 
 word of God. The pages of history are overburdened 
 with testimony showing how every villainy practiced 
 by officialdom and hierarchy, every intolerant edict 
 of king or prelate, every special plea for vested rights 
 founded on class privilege, every oppression of the 
 many by the few, has been ably defended by the 
 official mouthpiece of many a church. And even in 
 our own day and time we see so-called ministers of 
 religion encouraging and supporting similar wicked- 
 ness and like their forerunners appealing to the Bible 
 as though it really gave support to their wretched 
 special pleading. The result of all this has been that, 
 to the opponents of the church, the Bible has become 
 an object of contempt, but to its adherents it has 
 remained an object of veneration. The former class 
 do not read it at all ; the latter read it in the light of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 official exposition, which is quite as bad, if not worse 
 than not reading it at all. 
 
 Examined from the legal point of view and read 
 with no other immediate purpose than to understand 
 the nature of the legal institutions that are described 
 in it and are illustrated by its eases, legends and 
 chronicles, the Bible becomes an object of renewed 
 interest. For the biblical records are the deposits 
 left by the receding waters of time, by the examina- 
 tion of which the laws and customs of past ages may 
 be understood. In these records may be found the 
 very beginnings of an institution, its gradual unfold- 
 ing and its full development. These data are not set 
 forth separately and clearly, but, like the residuum 
 on the seashore, scattered without order, partly buried 
 in foreign matter, ofttimes entirely concealed from 
 the eye of the superficial examiner and exhumed 
 only by the skill and patience of the delving student. 
 
 In reading these records, care must be taken to 
 examine them, as far as possible, by the light of their 
 own days and to refrain from reading into them the 
 ideas and thoughts of a later age. The common 
 
8 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 method of the lawyer in presenting a brief to the 
 Court, where, for the purpose of bringing out a prin- 
 ciple or drawing an analogy, he cites cases of early 
 and later dates, statutes and judicial dicta cunningly 
 mingled without regard for their chronological order, 
 may serve a practical purpose, but it is fatal to a 
 true knowledge of the history and principles of juris- 
 prudence. It has been well said that "the warning 
 can never be too often repeated that the grand source 
 of mistake in questions of jurisprudence is the im- 
 pression that those reasons which actuate us at the 
 present moment in the maintenance of an existing 
 institution have necessarily anything in common with 
 the sentiment in which the institution originated." 
 In the biblical records the mere contiguity of the 
 material is absolutely no indication of its true chrono- 
 logical order. There can be little doubt, for example, 
 that the law concerning the Sabbath as recorded in 
 Exodus XXXIV, 21, is hundreds of years older than 
 the law recorded in Exodus XXXI, 12-17. The com- 
 mon biblical chronologies, as taught in Sunday schools 
 and as set forth in current religious literature, are 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 absolutely worthless. They assiune the literal exact- 
 ness of the words of the Bible, of the present order of 
 the biblical books and of the events recorded in them. 
 Intelligent criticism has proven that neither the words 
 nor the order of the books nor their content are cor- 
 rect beyond doubt, and that, in part at least, their 
 historical accuracy is exceptionable, above all in mat- 
 ters of chronology. The Book of Judges contains 
 records which in many instances are older by cen- 
 turies than many of the events recorded in the earlier 
 books. The traditions in the Book of Genesis have 
 at least two, if not three, original sources; part of 
 them are of remote antiquity and part of a much 
 later date. Much of the material in the Bible is 
 legend and folklore, stories told by herdsmen of the 
 desert and simple farmers of ancient Canaan, and 
 upon this basis attempts have been made these many 
 centuries to construct a history. The discretion 
 necessary for the proper writing of history can never 
 be realized by the orthodox theologian who accepts 
 as literally true the legend of Jonah and the whale 
 or of Eve and the serpent, nor by the "higher" 
 
10 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 critic, armed with knowledge of philology, but 
 ignorant of economics and law. 
 
 But although a story may be mere fable, poetry or 
 mythology, it may, nevertheless, be deeply interesting 
 to the lawyer and sociologist, for all men who speak 
 and write are unconsciously testifying to the influ- 
 ences by which they are surrounded. The Nomad 
 uses phrases in his stories which reflect his views of 
 custom and law and picture the institutions by which 
 he is surrounded and in which he moves and has his 
 being; his testimony thus recorded is of the highest 
 value because it is unconscious testimony. "When 
 the primitive orientals entertained each other with 
 the story of the events of the Garden of Eden, it is 
 quite certain that their purpose was not to explain 
 the method of investigation pursued by the Deity as 
 recorded in that story, and yet this legend reflects 
 the notions of justice, some of the methods of pro- 
 cedure, the status of women and of slaves and other 
 matters relating to a very early stage in the history 
 of the Hebrew Nomad. Although the Court of 
 Heaven mentioned in the Book of Job is mythical, its 
 
INTRODUCTION. H 
 
 procedure is not; for it was the procedure familiar 
 to the writer of the book and by him projected into 
 the High Court of Heaven. 
 
 Nearly all of the legends recorded in the Bible are 
 etiological in their nature, but their legal value is not 
 only not impaired thereby but rather increased. The 
 great Bible critics of modem times have passed by 
 the legal aspect of these records for quite obvious 
 reasons. Nearly all of the leading biblical scholars 
 are theologians, although very liberal ones. In fact 
 when reading their books one wonders how they can 
 remain theologians in good standing in any church 
 that has any notions on the subject of biblical criti- 
 cism. In Germany, for instance, Professor Noesgen, 
 of Eostock, is said to be distinguished "as the only 
 German University theologian who still believes in 
 the literal inspiration of the scriptures." The most 
 highly educated churchmen of the German, English 
 and American churches repudiate doctrines of their 
 faith which have always been considered of funda- 
 mental importance. In spite of all this, liberal though 
 they are, they are not lawyers and, therefore, have 
 
12 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 never been especially interested in or attracted to the 
 legal aspect of the subject matter of their studies. 
 The result of this has been a one-sided development 
 of biblical knowledge, based largely on mere philo- 
 logical theories, and the substitution of a pseudo- 
 scientific dogmatism for the dogmatism of orthodox 
 interpretation. 
 
 The true ethical meaning of the biblical stories 
 can never be grasped without a thorough foreknowl- 
 edge of the real facts related so far as they can be 
 deduced or reconstructed, and without an accurate 
 conception of the motives that govern the action of 
 the personages of whom these stories are told. It has 
 become a matter of commonplace knowledge among 
 educated men that there is no such thing as absolute 
 morality. The historical method of investigation ap- 
 plied in the realm of ethics has shown that morality, 
 like all other elements of civilization, has had a 
 growth and that its standard varied from age to age 
 until it reached its full fruition in the system of 
 ethics to be found in the Bible of the Hebrews, in the 
 analects of Confucius and in the teachings of Buddha. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 13 
 
 These three systems of ethics were perfected at some 
 time between the eighth and the fifth centuries before 
 the Christian era. Since then the problem has been 
 one of mere application of these old principles to new 
 conditions, and practically nothing has been added to 
 our conception of right and wrong. A knowledge 
 of the biblical legends that antedate the latest period 
 in the development of the conception of right and 
 wrong is important as an illustration of the growth 
 of this conception. Illustrations may be found 
 among the early customs of European nations which 
 show that even in comparatively late times the taking 
 of human life was merely an offense that might be 
 condoned upon payment of a certain amount of 
 money or a certain number of cattle. It would be 
 unjust to condemn as immoral the age in which so 
 low a value is placed on human life. The point to 
 he remembered is that among the people who held 
 this comparatively low view it was the highest view, 
 and, therefore, what from our point of view is 
 immoral was from their point of view quite moral 
 and proper. 
 
14 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 These Leading Cases are merely raw material 
 ■which may be of use to the student of the history of 
 civilization and the philosophy of law. They have 
 been arranged in the order of their appearance in 
 the Bible. Five of them involve the legal status of 
 women and in them may be traced the growth of the 
 law on this subject from the exercise of patria 
 potestas by Jephthah and Laban, through an inter- 
 mediate stage, illustrated in the case of Ruth, show- 
 ing the right of women to transmit title to property, 
 to the important case of Zelophehad's daughters, in 
 which the legal status of women is vastly improved, 
 they appear as plaintiffs in legal proceedings, and, 
 through the precedent established, modify the law 
 of intestate succession. In the ease of Jacob and 
 Laban there is also some indication of a state of 
 society, the matriarchate, in which power and prop- 
 erty are transmitted through the females instead of 
 the males. 
 
 The development of courts of law and their pro- 
 cedure is illustrated by many of these cases. In the 
 case of Adam and Eve we see the patriarch exer- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 cising his power and authority in conducting a ju- 
 dicial investigation. His method of examination is 
 capricious, and in inflicting punishment he does not 
 hesitate to modify the law which he himself has laid 
 down, for in the early patriarchal society, as in 
 ancient Rome, the law of the family was the will of 
 the patriarch. He was responsible to no man for 
 his actions and was restrained only by that innate 
 reverence for precedent which has, at all times, but 
 most especially in primitive ages, characterized the 
 human mind. The existence of a family court for 
 the purpose of settling disputes between clansmen 
 is hinted at in the case of Jacob and Laban. The 
 Court of the Elders, the ancient Hebrew Curia, based 
 originally on the consanguinity of its members and 
 later on their territorial propinquity, exercises juris- 
 diction in the cases of the Son of Shelomith, of Jere- 
 miah and of Boaz and witnesses the conveyance of 
 the Cave of Machpelah to Abraham. In the case of 
 Boaz it is likewise merely a court called together to 
 attest the validity of a legal transaction. In these 
 cases the Court of the Elders is not seen in its 
 
16 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 primitive form; there are indications that its an- 
 cient jurisdiction was modified by the interference 
 of royalty. In the case of the Son of Shelomith, 
 Moses represents quasi royal power; he sits with the 
 court and indeed is the most important figure in it. 
 In the trial of Jeremiah, the Elders have been rele- 
 gated to the rear and the royal princes occupy the 
 foreground. In the case of Naboth, the Elders are 
 the mere tools by means of which the forms of law 
 are complied with, to enable royal aggression to sub- 
 vert the law of the land. It is the story of the 
 Senate of Rome in the days of the Caesars; an insti- 
 tution of great antiquity is preserved, but its real 
 authority has departed and it is dominated by the 
 power of the crown. The origin of this royal power 
 may be seen in the case of Adonijah, Abiathar and 
 Joab, where the judge is the King himself, exercising 
 sway in the most arbitrary manner, not even respect- 
 ing the ancient right of sanctuary. This royal power 
 existed concurrently with the ancient jurisdiction of 
 the Elders, except that in the immediate vicinity of 
 the throne, in the city containing the royal resi- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 7 
 
 dence, the jurisdiction of the Elders was naturally 
 dwarfed into insignificance by the great power con- 
 centrated in the hands of the monarch. No patriarch, 
 however liberal, would have dared to go as far as the 
 King in the exercise of his authority. But between 
 the patriarch and the King lies the history of cen- 
 turies which changed little family organizations and 
 tribes into constituent bodies of a great nation, and 
 with the newer and broader political basis came 
 progressive departure from tradition, weakened re- 
 spect for the influence of the law and the exercise 
 of autocratic power resulting in all sorts of usurpa- 
 tions. The Courts of the Elders existing contem- 
 poraneously with the kings were hardly more than 
 mere anachronisms, survivals of a former vigorous 
 institution, now existing with merely a shadow of its 
 former power. But with the decline of the royal 
 power and the destruction of the Jewish state in the 
 fifth century before the Christian era, the old au- 
 thority of the courts of the Elders, long in abeyance, 
 revived, and in the period after the return from the 
 Babylonian captivity this ancient institution was re- 
 
18 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 established and became the archetype of the two 
 great courts of the Jews, the "Men of the Great 
 Synagogue" and the "Sanhedrin. " 
 
 Similariy the growth of other laws and legal insti- 
 tutions may thus be traced from stage to stage, pre- 
 paring the way for that magnificent code of the law 
 in which high principles of justice and refined 
 theories of law and procedure finally culminated. 
 This is the code of the Mishnah as expanded and 
 interpreted in the Gemarah, both of which together 
 constitute the Talmud. 
 
THE CASE OP ADAM AND EVE. 
 Genesis II, 4 -III, 24. 
 
 The legend of Adam and Eve is one of a class of 
 legends well known to the student of folklore, in 
 which men in the early stages of civilization, under, 
 the influence of primitive ideas, told the stories which 
 attempt to account for the beginnings of things. 
 
 The story of Adam and Eve is obviously not his- 
 torical; but, despite its legendary character, it con- 
 tains elements interesting to the sociologist and the 
 lawyer. Its suggestions of legal procedure and sub- 
 stantive law reflect the views of the people among 
 whom the legend was current, and by whom it was 
 finally reduced to writing. There are two accounts 
 of the legend in the Book of Genesis. In the first 
 account (I, 26-29) the man and the woman were 
 created at the same time and there is no reference 
 to the Garden of Eden. The second account is found 
 in the second and third chapters, and it is this record 
 
 that is now made the subject of inquiry. 
 
 19 
 
20 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Taking the story as though it were a record of 
 actual facts, an examination gives us the following 
 history of the case. 
 
 God made man of the dust of the ground and 
 breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. He 
 then planted a garden in Eden and placed the man 
 in charge of it "to dress it and to keep it." Among 
 the many trees of this garden, fair in appearance and 
 good for food, there was the tree "of the knowledge 
 of good and evil," concerning which God laid the 
 following command upon the man, namely, "Of 
 every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but 
 of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou 
 shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest 
 thereof thou shalt surely die." Thereafter God 
 created a woman and gave her to the man to be his 
 wife. To the woman came a serpent and tempted 
 her to eat of the forbidden tree. To this end the 
 serpent said to the woman, "Hath God indeed said. 
 Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" And 
 the woman said unto the serpent, "We may eat of 
 the fruit of the trees of the garden ; but of the fruit 
 
ADAM AND EVE. 21 
 
 of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God 
 hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye 
 touch it, lest ye die." The serpent said unto the 
 woman, "Ye will surely not die; for God doth Imow, 
 that, on the day ye eat thereof, your eyes will be 
 opened, and ye will be as gods, knowing good and 
 evil. " " And when the woman saw that the tree was 
 good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, 
 and a tree desirable to look upon, she took of its 
 fruit, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband 
 with her, and he did eat. And the eyes of them both 
 were opened, and they knew that they were naked; 
 and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made them- 
 selves aprons. And they heard the sound of the 
 Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the 
 day; and the man and his wife hid themselves from 
 the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of 
 the garden." 
 
 Thus far the history of the case as recorded, before 
 the commencement of the investigation. Although 
 the command of God not to eat of the tree of the 
 knowledge of good and evil had been given to Adam 
 
22 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 before the creation of Eve, Eve and the serpent, in 
 discussing this command, speak of it as though it 
 had been directed to both Adam and Eve. God had 
 said to Adam, "Thou shalt not eat of it," but the 
 serpent said to the woman, "Ye shall not eat," and 
 the woman, likewise assuming that the command was 
 addressed to her as well as to Adam, quotes the com- 
 mand, "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch 
 it, lest ye die," although there is nothing in the 
 original command concerning touching the tree. 
 This statement indicates the introduction of the per- 
 sonal equation into the testimony of witnesses. It 
 may have been a mere unintentional exaggeration, 
 or it may have been the result of the practice which 
 actually grew out of the original commandment. It 
 can easily be conceived that if a person is directed 
 not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree on pain of 
 death, that he would, for his own protection, estab- 
 lish the practice of not even touching the tree, lest 
 he be thereby led into temptation to commit the 
 crime. It is a case which illustrates the Rabbinical 
 maxim, "Make a fence about the law," and finds its 
 
ADAM AND EVE. 23 
 
 justification in the inherent weakness of human 
 nature. 
 
 The record then proceeds to give an account of the 
 trial, conviction and sentence of the oiSenders, "And 
 the Lord God called unto the man and said unto 
 him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy 
 sound in the garden and I was afraid because I was 
 naked, and I hid myself. And he said, "Who told 
 thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the 
 tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest 
 not eat? And the man said, The woman, whom 
 thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, 
 and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the 
 woman. What is this that thou hast done? And the 
 woman said, The serpent beguiled me and I did eat. ' ' 
 Thereupon God, without making any inquiry of the 
 serpent and without hearing anything that it might 
 have said in its defense, punished it by decreeing, 
 "Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above 
 all cattle and above every beast of the field; upon 
 thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all 
 the days of thy life; and I will put enmity between 
 
24 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her 
 seed ; he shall bruise thy head and thou shalt wound 
 his heel." Then turning to the woman he pro- 
 nounced judgment against her in these words, "I 
 will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; 
 in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy 
 desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule 
 over thee." Finally turning to the man he said, 
 "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy 
 wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I com- 
 manded thee, saying. Thou shalt not eat of it ; cursed 
 is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat 
 of it all the daj^s of thy life. Thorns also and thistles 
 shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the 
 herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
 eat bread till thou return unto the ground, for out 
 of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou art, and unto 
 dust shalt thou return." 
 
 The first question to be determined is, what crime 
 was committed and what was the relative degree of 
 guilt of the three offenders. Since the command not 
 to eat of the tree had been given to Adam alone, he, 
 
ADAM AND EVE. 25 
 
 strictly speaking, was the only law-breaker. The 
 woman, although her talk with the serpent implies 
 that she also was bound to obey this command, was, 
 strictly speaking, merely an accessory before the fact. 
 The serpent was only morally responsible and, as its 
 only fault was in inducing Eve to eat of the tree, it 
 was legally guilty of no offense at aU. If Eve had 
 not induced Adam to do the same, no crime would 
 have been committed; so that the serpent's action is 
 seen to have been merely the remote cause of Adam's 
 breach of the law. 
 
 But it must be remembered that this legend re- 
 flects a state of society and a system of jurisprudence 
 in which such nice distinctions did not exist. God 
 tries this case in the manner of the oriental patriarch 
 investigating the misconduct of some member of the 
 family or tribe, bound by no other law than that 
 which he himself made, and restrained only by more 
 or less vague traditions of which he himself was the 
 sole authoritative expounder. Hence his method of 
 procedure in the investigation of the case would be 
 determined solely by the exigencies of the occasion. 
 
26 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 In every age and among every people conceptions 
 of the Deity are influenced by actual conditions of 
 life and society. On the one hand God is thought of 
 by the African savage as a piece of wood carved into 
 some resemblance to an ugly mask, and on the other 
 hand by a Matthew Arnold as "The eternal, not our- 
 selves, which makes for righteousness." In the Bible 
 God is frequently pictured as the judge, who, as in 
 the legend of Adam and Eve, dispenses justice in 
 the free-handed manner of the tribal chieftain. In 
 the story of Job, written at a much later period and 
 under the influence of an entirely different civiliza- 
 tion, he is pictured as an oriental monarch sur- 
 rounded by his court and the great officers of the 
 crown, listening to the charges of a public prosecutor. 
 In the case of Zelophehad's daughters he is described 
 as a supreme judge to whom the record of a case is 
 submitted for an opinion, who renders a decree and 
 then by virtue of his legislative authority enlarges 
 his decree into a general law. In the Talmud God 
 is often represented as sitting to do justice in the 
 Supreme Court of Heaven modeled upon the plan of 
 
ADAM AND EVE. 27 
 
 the great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges, hearing 
 the evidence, examining the witnesses and proceeding 
 in every way in accordance with the procedure that 
 was followed by the Sanhedrin. As these views of 
 the Divine Judge differ at different times among the 
 Jewish people so they vary among different peoples. 
 Mention need only be made of the different concep- 
 tions of the Deity held by Sophocles, by Milton and 
 by Goethe. 
 
 The oriental tribal chieftain administered justice 
 in the manner described in the case of Adam and 
 Eve. He reached conclusions in a swift and ready 
 manner, and meted out the punishment that he con- 
 sidered proper under the circumstances, often re- 
 versing his own decrees. The swiftness with which 
 the result is reached in this case may be likened to 
 Solomon's judgment, or to the case of Cain. God in 
 this legend takes the place of the tribal chieftain and 
 the persons represented by Adam, Eve and the ser- 
 pent are members of his family or tribe whose con- 
 duct is under investigation by him. The manner in 
 which this investigation is conducted is characteristic. 
 
28 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 The principal offender, Adam, is brought before his 
 judge and is immediately subjected to a cross-exam- 
 ination whereby he is compelled to criminate himself. 
 The very question, "Hast thou eaten of the tree 
 whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not 
 eat?" was intended to elicit confession, for when 
 Adam confronted his judge he showed obvious signs 
 of guilt. The legend states that after Adam and 
 Eve had transgressed, their eyes were opened and 
 "they knew that they were naked." This is the 
 belated wisdom of the criminal after the crime has 
 been committed. He then sees its consequences and 
 he fears, as in Cain's case, that every one that findeth 
 him will slay him, for his guilt seems to him to be 
 writ large on his forehead. This is the nakedness 
 that he seeks to cover, and in attempting it he, by his 
 very manner, bears testimony to his guilt. "He 
 covered, but his robe uncovered more." 
 
 Adam admitted his guilt, but pleaded subtly and 
 boldly, "The woman, whom thou gavest to be with 
 me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat. ' ' He thus 
 indirectly charges God himself with being responsible 
 
ADAM AND EVE. 29 
 
 for the crime in having placed the tempter by his 
 side in the form of a woman whom he had given him 
 to be his wife ; and it may be that this fact was con- 
 sidered by the judge subsequently in passing sen- 
 tence, for it will be remembered that, although the 
 punishment for Adam's transgression was to have 
 been death, there evidently were mitigating circum- 
 stances which, in the mind of the judge, warranted 
 a lesser punishment. In turning to the woman and 
 interrogating her, God makes no reference to the com- 
 mission of any crime by her, his question is simply 
 an indignant, "What is this that thou hast done?" 
 and the woman meekly responds, "The serpent be- 
 guiled me and I did eat." 
 
 In this legend the serpent, condemned unheard, 
 has the same status as the slave in the patriarchal 
 household; it is not sui juris and, therefore, has no 
 right to be heard at all. Although legally the ser- 
 pent is the least offender, it receives the greatest 
 punishment, since its moral obliquity set in motion 
 the series of causes which resulted in the breach of 
 the law. The severity of its punishment, therefore, 
 
30 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 is the result of the moral rather than the legal nature 
 of its ofEense. Furthermore, if we consider the 
 status of the slave in the patriarchal household, we 
 can easily understand how the indignation of the 
 tribal chieftain might pour itself out first upon the 
 helpless slave and so incline him to lessen the punish- 
 ment of the more guilty member of his household. 
 
 The offense of the serpent was a species of seduc- 
 tion which made it possible for Eve to become an 
 accessory to Adam's crime, and its punishment was 
 clearly excessive. Although it had been more subtle 
 than any beast of the field and had been permitted 
 to hold free intercourse with its human companions, 
 it was now degraded below every beast of the field, 
 condemned to crawl on its belly, eat dust and be in a 
 state of perpetual warfare with the human species. 
 Thus for some trivial offense the house slave of the 
 patriarch might be degraded below the most menial 
 slave of the field. The punishment of Eve was like- 
 wise excessive ; her solicitude for her husband led her, 
 unselfishly enough, to want him to participate in the 
 enjoyment of her new-found pleasure. Adam was 
 
ADAM AND EVE. 31 
 
 legally and morally the real offender. The command 
 had been laid upon him directly, and he broke it in 
 yielding most weakly to temptation. Yet in spite of 
 this the woman, who had been his equal, was now 
 made his subordinate, "thy desire shall be to thy 
 husband and he shall rule over thee." The real 
 offender was by this decree elevated above the com- 
 paratively innocent cause of his crime. According 
 to the ideas prevalent in ancient patriarchal society, 
 the status of woman was comparatively low. At 
 some periods, she was merely the purchased chattel 
 of her husband and master, and at all times, in that 
 state of society, power and authority were the heri- 
 tage of the males. This being the actual state of 
 affairs an attempt is made to account for it in this 
 legend by making the subordination of the woman a 
 punishment for crime committed by her. 
 
 In sentencing Adam, God uses a phrase which indi- 
 cates that he is the real law-breaker, "Because thou 
 . . . hast eaten of the tree of which I conunanded 
 thee saying. Thou shalt not eat of it . . .," a phrase 
 not used in the sentence of either the woman or the 
 serpent. 
 
32 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 According to the original commandment the pun- 
 ishment for Adam's transgression was death; "for 
 in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely 
 die." Yet in sentencing Adam the law was not 
 strictly applied, for instead of being condemned to 
 death he was condemned to work for a living, and 
 it seems that part of the wisdom of the serpent con- 
 sisted in its ability to anticipate this, for when the 
 woman told the serpent that God had said, "Te 
 shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye 
 die," the serpent answered her saying, "Ye shall not 
 surely die." It may be that the influence of Eve 
 was considered a mitigating circumstance. This sen- 
 tence is the archetype of the abolition of capital 
 punishment and the substitution of life imprison- 
 ment at hard labor. 
 
 For centuries this legend has been read as literally 
 true, churches and religions have founded infallible 
 doctrines upon it, it has become the basis for many of 
 the fundamental doctrines of current theology, and 
 yet it is merely an ancient fable told by primitive 
 herdsmen far back at the dawn of history, interesting 
 
ADAM AND EVE. 33 
 
 to the lawyer because it reflects ideas gf law and 
 justice in an early period of tlie deyelopment of the 
 Jewish race, whose institutions have profoundly af- 
 fected the law and ethics of civilized society. 
 
THE MURDER OF ABEL. 
 
 Genesis IV, 1-16. 
 
 The record of the first murder ease is found in the 
 fourth chapter of Genesis. The history of the crime, 
 its motive, the trial and sentence are aU given in a 
 few terse phrases, clearly enough to enable us, with 
 little effort, to reconstruct the entire incident. The 
 facts of the case are as follows: Cain and Abel were 
 brothers ; Cain was an agriculturist and Abel a herds- 
 man. At a certain time each of them brought an 
 offering unto the Lord; Cain's offering consisted of 
 the fruits of the ground and Abel's offering of the 
 firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. For some 
 reason not given, the Lord accepted the offering of 
 Abel and turned from the offering of Cain, "and 
 Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell." 
 His anger appears to have turned against his brother, 
 and although the Lord warned him against yielding 
 to it, he bided his time and "it came to pass when 
 they were in the field that Cain rose up against Abel 
 
 34 
 
THE MURDER OF ABEL. 35 
 
 his brother and slew him." This is the record of 
 the ease in all its simplicity ; a crime, common enough 
 at all times, committed under the influence of jeal- 
 ousy, hatred and anger. 
 
 The suggestion made in the case of Adam and Eve, 
 that the popular imagination conceived the Deity 
 administering justice in the manner of the patri- 
 archal chieftain of that time applies to this case also. 
 Here God cautioned the enraged Cain to govern his 
 anger, lest it be translated into action, but Cain re- 
 mained deaf to the voice of conscience and, taking 
 advantage of the opportunity when he was alone with 
 Abel in the field, killed him. The legend gives no 
 reason why the offering of Abel was accepted and the 
 offering of Cain refused, and assumes that there was 
 no sufficient justification for the crime. But what- 
 ever may have been the reason for God's refusal of 
 Cain's offering, it can hardly have any bearing on 
 the legal aspect of the case. Comparative sociology 
 and folklore suggest various reasons with which at 
 present we are not concerned. 
 
 It may be pointed out in passing that cattle herd- 
 
36 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 ing and agriculture were among the first occupations 
 of civilized men. In the earlier and ruder state of 
 society, hunting was the only source of livelihood. 
 There is something suggestive in the fact that Cain, 
 the agriculturist, killed Abel, the herdsman, for this 
 veils a great sociological truth and translated into 
 modern language may be taken to mean that the 
 farmer supplanted the herdsman; just as the story 
 of the sale of Esau's birthright suggests the fact 
 that the herdsman had supplanted the hunter. 
 
 The only witness to the crime was the blood of the 
 murdered Abel, which, according to the primitive 
 notion of the time, had a voice and cried out for 
 vengeance, and was heard by God, who appears for 
 the purpose of conducting an investigation. He 
 summons Cain to appear before him and, as in 
 Adam's case, immediately subjects him to a cross- 
 examination. The only facts that could have been 
 known were these, that Cain and Abel were seen 
 going out to the field together and that Cain returned 
 without his brother, of whom no trace was found 
 except the blood stains in the field. Suspicion nat- 
 
THE MURDER OF ABEL. 37 
 
 Tirally fell upon Cain, who was brought before his 
 judge, and addressed by one of those short incisive 
 questions which are the delight of the Cadi and 
 the admiration of the people, "Where is Abel thy 
 brother r' "When Adam was asked, "Hast thou 
 eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that 
 thou shouldest not eat?" he promptly confessed. 
 When Cain was asked, ' ' Where is Abel thy brother ? ' ' 
 he answered, "I know not. Am I my brother's 
 keeper?" This answer naturally strengthened the 
 suspicion that he was the murderer. An innocent 
 man accused of fratricide would hardly have given 
 an answer like this, which not only breathed defiance 
 and showed an unexpected and, therefore, highly 
 significant heartlessness, but even alluded sarcastic- 
 ally to his dead brother's occupation as a keeper of 
 sheep, whose duty it was to guard them from raven- 
 ing wild animals. "Am I my brother's keeper?" 
 asked Cain, sarcastically. "Is it my duty to look 
 after him as he looks after his sheep?" Cain made 
 no further attempt to defend himself, apparently 
 relying on the fact than no witnesses could be pro- 
 
38 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 duced against him, and that silence was his best de- 
 fense. But he forgot that he left a witness crying 
 out against him in the field, and his denial of the 
 crime is brushed aside in the next question put to 
 him, "What hast thou done? The voice of thy 
 brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." 
 
 The ancient notion of the cry of the blood may 
 be traced to the belief that the blood contained the 
 spirit of life and that it was a vital thing. Hence 
 the blood became an object of awe. It was used for 
 certain sacred and solemn purposes, such as sealing 
 a covenant, establishing relations equivalent to kin- 
 ship and the like, and the law of the three great 
 Semitic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Moham- 
 medanism, provides that blood shall not be eaten. 
 (Genesis IX, 4; Acts XV, 29; Koran V, 4.) 
 
 It can hardly be said that Cain was tried for his 
 crime, because the method of examination was the 
 merest rudiment of what subsequently became an 
 orderly system of procedure in judicial investigation. 
 As his guilt was assumed from the circumstances of 
 the case and, beyond a bare denial, he made no at- 
 
THE MURDER OF ABEL. 39 
 
 tempt to defend himself, the sentence of the Court 
 followed immediately. His punishment was not 
 death, but exile. 
 
 The first statute on the subject of homicide is 
 recorded in Genesis IX, 6, "Whoso sheddeth man's 
 blood, by man shall his blood be shed. ' ' Cain feared 
 death, saying, "every one that findeth me will slay 
 me"; but this had no reference to lawful punishment 
 for his crime, but to the fact that by being exiled he 
 was outlawed and compelled to wander away from 
 the settled habitations of men into the surrounding 
 wilderness, where there was neither family, nor law, 
 nor God to protect him. The sentence was pro- 
 nounced in these words, "And now art thou cursed 
 from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to 
 receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When 
 thou tillest the ground it shall not henceforth yield 
 unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond 
 shalt thou be in the earth. ' ' After this sentence was 
 pronounced Cain no longer denied the crime, but 
 impliedly confessed, saying, "My punishment is 
 greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven 
 
40 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 me out this day from the face of the earth ; and from 
 thy face shall I be hid ; and I shall be a fugitive and 
 a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass 
 that every one that findeth me shall slay me." And 
 the Lord said unto him, "Therefore, whosoever slay- 
 eth Cain vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." 
 And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any one 
 finding him should kill him. And Cain went out 
 from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land 
 of Nod, on the east of Eden. 
 
 It is difficult, if not impossible, for us, who travel 
 fearlessly to the ends of the earth, to understand 
 what exile meant in those primitive days. Then 
 every stranger was an enemy, and a stranger in a 
 strange land lived in constant fear not only of his 
 mortal foes, but of unfriendly demons and spirits 
 with whose worship he was unfamiliar and whom he 
 did not know how to placate. Banishment from the 
 tilled soil meant not only outlawry and separation 
 from friends and neighbors, but also removal from 
 the protection of the Deity. A primitive notion of 
 God localized him. God dwelt on the tilled land, and 
 
THE MURDER OF ABEL. 41 
 
 in the wilderness round about, other powers always 
 malignant were supreme. This primitive idea grew 
 into the notion of a national God whose jurisdiction 
 and power were coterminous with the national bound- 
 aries. Exile, therefore, in the early, as well as the 
 later, period was a punishment worse than death, for 
 it condemned a man to live without family, friends, 
 law or God. 
 
 At a later period in the development of ancient 
 Jewish law decrees of outlawry were modified and 
 the convict was not subjected to punishment at the 
 hands of every man, but was made an outlaw only 
 so far as the kinsmen of the person injured or killed 
 by him were concerned. The avenger of the blood, 
 as he was called, was the kinsman who punished the 
 crime by taking vengeance on the criminal, and even 
 after courts had been established and a regular sys- 
 tem of judicial procedure followed, there was a long 
 period in which the Court had neither sheriff, nor 
 executioner, nor keeper of the jail to punish the 
 criminal. He was simply turned over to the avenging 
 kinsmen, who inflicted the punishment for the crime. 
 
42 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 When Cain said, ' ' I shall be a fugitive and a vaga- 
 bond in the earth and it shall come to pass that every 
 one that findeth me shall slay me," he did not have 
 in mind a kinsman who vrould be avenger of the 
 blood, but he thought of himself as an outlaw in the 
 wilderness where every man's hand would be turned 
 against him. As it was obviously not intended that 
 Cain should be put to death for his crime, his fears 
 were allayed by the mark set upon him. The mark 
 of Cain is commonly spoken of as a brand marking 
 him as a murderer and condemned of God, and the 
 phrase has gone into common speech as the "brand 
 of Cain." But this mark was fixed upon him in 
 order to show all the world that his life must be 
 spared, and it seems from the context that this mark 
 was put on him at his own request, in order to obviate 
 the danger of his being killed by any one that found 
 him. A man thus marked was personally inviolate, 
 he belonged to the Deity. In addition to the mark 
 Cain had the further assurance, which practically 
 guaranteed his immunity, that "whosoever slayeth 
 Cain vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold." 
 
THE MURDER OF ABEL. 43 
 
 Seven kinsmen of the murderer would be called upon 
 to pay for the blood of Cain. An illustration of this 
 custom is found in the case of the Gibeonites who 
 appealed to King David to allow them to take ven- 
 geance for the blood of their kinsmen shed by King 
 Saul, and they said, "Let seven men of his sons be 
 delivered unto us and we will hang them up." (2 
 Samuel XXI, 6.) 
 
 The record of this case closes with the words, "And 
 Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and 
 dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." 
 From which it appears that the sentence of banish- 
 ment was great rather because of removal from the 
 presence of the Lord, in other words, from home and 
 household gods, than because of the inability to find 
 a resting place elsewhere, for Cain dwelt in the land 
 of Nod. 
 
THE PUECHASE OF THE CAVE OF 
 MACHPELAH. 
 
 Genesis XXIII, 1-20. 
 
 The twenty-third chapter of Genesis contains the 
 record of an ancient conveyance of land, possessing 
 characteristics similar to those of the Roman and 
 the Common Law, yet differing from them materially 
 in form. The old forms of procedure here recorded 
 are the groundwork upon which modern systems have 
 been established. They speak of the days when the 
 tribal ownership of land was still in force, M'hen there 
 were no written records, and when the public as- 
 sembly, the town or village council of elders, was 
 required to sanction the act of conveyance. 
 
 In those days formality was greater than in our 
 times. Since, in the absence of records, the memory 
 of witnesses was relied upon, there arose, in order 
 to impress the transaction indelibly upon the minds 
 of witnesses, the long and complicated formalities 
 common to all ancient systems of jurisprudence. 
 
 44 
 
PURCHASE OF CAVE OF MACHPELAH. 45 
 
 Some of these formalities were made necessary by the 
 religious element that entered into every transaction, 
 notably the case with certain symbolic acts at Eoman 
 law, and with many cases in the Bible also. In the 
 conveyance of the land to Abraham, however, the 
 formality seems to have been simply an ordinary 
 business transaction. There is no evidence in this 
 record that the conveyance was reduced to writing 
 at the time, but the writer who recorded the tradi- 
 tion in the book of Genesis used a formula of con- 
 veyance such as was probably used in legal documents 
 in his time and which bears some similarity to the 
 forms found in the Babylonian contract tablets. 
 
 Abraham, a nomadic Hebrew chieftain, had wan- 
 dered into the neighborhood of Hebron, a city well 
 known in later times in Jewish history, but at that 
 time belonging to the Hittites, the "sons of Heth." 
 With him were his wife Sarah, his children, his cattle 
 and his slaves, the entire famUia of the patriarch. 
 "And Sarah was a hundred and seven and twenty 
 years old; these were the years of the life of Sarah. 
 And Sarah died in Kirjath Arba (the same is Heb- 
 
46 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 ron), in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to 
 mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. And Abra- 
 ham stood up from before his dead, ' ' and went down 
 to the gate of the city where the town council of the 
 Hittites was in session. There the elders of the Hit- 
 tites, the "people of the land," in the presence of aU 
 who came and went through the forum at the city 
 gate, transacted the public business of their com- 
 munity. Abraham was recognized by them as a dis- 
 tinguished chieftain not of their tribe, temporarily 
 dwelling within their tribal domain, and was accorded 
 the honor of a seat in the midst of their assembly. 
 A favorable opportunity during the session of the 
 council having presented itself to Abraham, he ad- 
 dressed them "and spoke unto the sons of Heth, 
 saying, I am a stranger and a sojourner with you; 
 give me a possession of a burying-place with you, 
 that I may bury my dead out of my sight." 
 
 Since Abraham was an alien, he could not acquire 
 property rights in land which was tribal property, 
 held and used, it is true, in severalty by the members 
 of the tribe, but inalienable, especially to a strsmger. 
 
PURCHASE OF CAVE OF MACHPELAH. 47 
 
 except by common consent given by the tribal council. 
 Our land laws, restricting the right of aliens to 
 acquire real estate, are survivals of the days when 
 the alien was an enemy, and could not be permitted 
 to settle permanently, without the consent of the 
 people, which consent was practically a decree of 
 naturalization. It was to the people, therefore, and 
 not to any individual that Abraham addressed him- 
 self. 
 
 "And the sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying 
 unto him. Hearken unto us, my lord: thou art a 
 mighty prince among us; in the choice of our sep- 
 ulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold 
 from thee his sepulchre, so that thou mayest bury 
 thy dead. And Abraham stood up, and bowed him- 
 self to the people of the land, to the sons of Heth. 
 And he spoke to them, saying, if it be your mind 
 that I should bury my dead out of my sight, hearken 
 unto me, and entreat for me to Ephron the son of 
 Zohar, that he may give me the cave of Machpelah, 
 which he hath, which is in the end of his field. ' ' 
 
 Although Abraham knew that the owner of the 
 
48 LEADING OASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 place he desired was there among the members of the 
 council, he was prevented by the formalities of the 
 occasion from addressing his request to Ephron per- 
 sonally. It will be noted that his first request and 
 the answer of the council contained no intimation 
 of his intention to purchase the place for money. 
 This is usually attributed to the politeness of the 
 parties concerned. But it was not mere politeness 
 that governed the formalities of this occasion. It 
 seems rather to have been the formal way of striking 
 a bargain by question and answer, until the final 
 consummation of the matter, by acceptance of the 
 last ofi'er. And the absence of the price in the open- 
 ing phrases, the offer to give the land without price, 
 the counter-offer insisting upon payment, and the 
 final mentioning of the price casually, as it were, are 
 all part of the regular formal act preliminary to the 
 transfer of the title. The peculiar, use of the phrases 
 "hearken unto me" and "hearken unto us" (oyez) 
 by each of the parties in making his proposition, or 
 counter-proposition, seems to indicate that they were 
 not used merely to attract the attention of the per- 
 
PURCHASE OF CAVE OF JIACHPELAH. 49 
 
 son addressed, but were formal words necessary to 
 the legality of the transaction, which ended by 
 Abraham "hearkening unto Ephron," i. e., accepting 
 his offer. 
 
 Abraham, having thus indirectly called upon the 
 prospective grantor of the property to speak, adds, 
 "for as much money as it is worth he shall give it to 
 me for a possession of a burying-place among you. 
 Now Ephron was sitting among the sons of Heth." 
 He was one of the council and immediately took up 
 the word when Abraham had concluded. "And 
 Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing 
 of the sons of Heth, of all that went in at the gate 
 of his city {i. e., of all the lawful tribesmen), saying, 
 Nay my Lord hearken unto me: the field give I to 
 thee, and the cave that is therein, I give it to thee; 
 in the presence of the sons of my people give I it thee, 
 bury thy dead." It is probable that nothing would 
 have disconcerted Ephron so much as to have had 
 Abraham accept his apparently generous offer; and 
 indeed it is likely that had Abraham said, ' ' I accept, ' ' 
 it would not have been binding on Ephron, because 
 
 4 
 
50 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 he had not said, "without price I give it to thee." 
 The omission of these formal words led Abraham 
 to understand that the land was not to be given 
 without price, and that this important point had yet 
 to be fixed. 
 
 After this statement of Ephron, "Abraham bowed 
 down himself before the people of the land. ' ' Why ? 
 Out of thankfulness for the generous offer of 
 Ephron? If so, why did he not bow to Ephron? 
 This bow meant to indicate that he was prepared 
 with his next counter-proposition, to be made to 
 Ephron in the presence of the council. The bow 
 and the courteous words addressed to the judge by 
 the lawyer before addressing the jury is a ceremony 
 somewhat akin to the rising and the bow of Abraham 
 to the council. Abraham invariably rose and sa- 
 luted the council before speaking. He arose to make 
 his opening request. Then after they had given their 
 consent to his acquisition of a burial place he again 
 ' ' stood up and bowed, ' ' before making his next offer, 
 and, lastly, after Ephron had spoken he again "bowed 
 down," before making his final proposition. "And 
 
PURCHASE OF CAVE OF MACHPELAH. 51 
 
 he spoke unto Ephron in the hearing of the people 
 of the land, saying, But if thou wilt, I pray thee 
 hearken unto me; I -will give thee money for the 
 field ; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there. ' ' 
 Abraham no longer speaks of the cave, or the 
 burial place that he desired, but of the whole field. 
 He wanted a "possession for a burial place." This 
 meant, not merely the six feet of ground required, 
 or even the cave in which the body was entombed, 
 but an estate of inheritance, in which the family tomb 
 would be placed and which would be sanctified by 
 the dead buried there, and become a permanent pos- 
 session in the family. The evidence furnished by 
 the grave of the ancestor buried in the family estate 
 was the strongest that could be adduced to prove 
 title, and there is strength in the theory that this 
 legend was cherished by the Israelites as proof of the 
 lawful acquisition by their ancestors of territorial 
 rights in Palestine, thus justifying their subsequent 
 incursion and acquisition of the land, by force of 
 arms. "And Ephron answered Abraham saying 
 unto him, my lord, hearken unto me, the land is 
 
52 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that 
 between thee and me? Only bury thy dead." 
 Although four hundred shekels of silver was a for- 
 tune in those days, Ephron apparently speaks of it 
 as a mere bagatelle. But Abraham understood 
 Ephron. This was the formal hint that the price 
 was fixed and the negotiation about to close. Hence 
 Abraham "hearkened" unto Ephron, or, as it is 
 translated in the Leeser Bible, "Abraham under- 
 stood the meaning of Ephron." And, indeed, after 
 Ephron had fixed the price, there was nothing more 
 to be said. 
 
 "Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver which he 
 had named in the hearing of the sons of Heth four 
 hundred shekels of silver, current money with the 
 merchant." The weighing was probably done by 
 the public lihripois, a functionary well known to us 
 through the Roman law. The shekel here mentioned 
 is not a coin, but a weight. The word "shekel" 
 means weight. At a later time a certain weight of 
 silver became ihc shekel, the standard weight of 
 money, v(>ry much as a certain weight of English 
 
PURCHASE OF CAVE OF MACHPELAH. 53 
 
 gold became the pound. The act of weighing and 
 handing over the silver ended the formality, and 
 thereby the land became a possession for an inherit- 
 ance unto Abraham forever. 
 
 The chronicler in the book of Genesis was a care- 
 ful scrivener. He seems to take pleasure in record- 
 ing the transaction with technical nicety. "And 
 the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, which 
 was before Mamre, the field and the cave which was 
 therein, and all the trees which were in the field, that 
 were in all the borders round about, were made sure 
 unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the 
 sons of Heth,before all that went in at the gate of 
 his city." Very carefully does he enumerate the 
 field, the cave, the trees, even all those in all its 
 borders, lest any right to fell wood remain in the 
 grantor. All these, he says, were conveyed unto 
 Abraham before the public council of the Hittites, 
 by whose presence the conveyance was made sure. 
 Thereupon Abraham took possession and exercised 
 his first act of ownership. "And after this Abra- 
 ham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field 
 
54 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 of Machpelah, before Mamre : the same is Hebron in 
 the land of Canaan. ' ' It seems that this record was 
 made long after the event, for the memory of a later 
 generation had to be refreshed by the statement that 
 the place known to them as Hebron had formerly been 
 called Kirjath Arba, which was before Mamre. Both 
 the latter names were merely vague memories of 
 ancient days. 
 
 The record in the book of Genesis then ends with a 
 clause like a clause of warranty. "And the field and 
 the cave that is therein, were made sure unto Abra- 
 ham for a possession as a burying place by the sons 
 of Eeth." In the presence of the sons of Heth the 
 formal transfer of Ephron's rights was made, and 
 by the sons of Heth, representing the whole com- 
 munity, the title was made sure unto Abraham. 
 Thus after having received a grant of the land by 
 solemn covenant from God, the lord paramoimt (Gen. 
 XV, 18, etc.), specially mentioning the land of the 
 Hittites, Abraham fortified his title by a conveyance 
 from the terre tenants. 
 
THE SALE OF ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT. 
 Genesis XXV, 29-34. 
 
 The simple and well-known story of the sale of 
 Esau's birthright to Jacob contains much that is 
 hidden from the eye of the superficial reader. As it 
 is commonly taught in Sunday schools it becomes the 
 vehicle for the communication of a certain moral 
 truth and not less frequently for the communication 
 of a certain prejudice against the race of which 
 Jacob is the eponym. 
 
 The story contains an interesting chapter of ancient 
 law. It likewise reflects the historic fact that the 
 Israelites supplanted and conquered the Edomites, 
 who were at one time their superiors in men and in 
 territory, and of whose military prowess there are 
 many Biblical legends. The legend of Esau and 
 Jacob represents them as huntsmen and herdsmen. 
 As the Bible puts it, "Esau was an expert hunter, 
 a man of the field, and Jacob was a plain man dwell- 
 ing in tents. ' ' This description well fits the nomadic 
 
 66 
 
56 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Edomites, rough skinned, with the odor of the fields 
 and woods on their garments, and the herdsmen of 
 Israel dwelling in tents and engaged in a peaceful 
 occupation which required certain qualities of pru- 
 dence and forethought, qualities which distinguished 
 the Jacob of the legend from his heedless and rough 
 brother. Esau represented the old order of things 
 which was passing away, and Jacob represented the 
 new order that was taking its place. The primitive 
 nomads were hunters relying for their sustenance 
 upon their skill with weapons of chase. In the 
 course of their ordinary evolution they were con- 
 verted from huntsmen into herdsmen, even as the 
 latter were afterwards converted from herdsmen into 
 agriculturists (see "Murder of Abel") and as, in 
 our days, we see the agriculturists converted into 
 industrialists. 
 
 The sociological meaning of the story of Jacob and 
 Esau and the purchase of Esau's birthright by Jacob 
 is that the herdsmen supplanted the huntsmen, and 
 in that sense of the word Jacob is properly named 
 " Supplanter, " which is one of the meanings of the 
 Hebrew name. 
 
SALE OF ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT. 67 
 
 In the patriarchal family immemorial custom gave 
 to the eldest born certain rights over the other chil- 
 dren. There is some evidence in the biblical records 
 of an earlier custom according to which the youngest 
 born enjoys these rights and, indeed, this very legend 
 of Jacob and Esau, by which Jacob, the younger, 
 secures the birthright, is cited as evidence of the 
 survival of ultimogeniture in the period of primo- 
 geniture. However this may be, in a patriarchal 
 family the eldest born succeeded the father as head 
 of the family, and by virtue of his birthright ob- 
 tained a larger and better share of the patrimonial 
 estate. Until fixed by statute there was no uniform 
 custom governing the birthright and its incidents, 
 and, indeed, the most contradictory evidence may be 
 found in the Bible. The birthright was inalienable, 
 and it could be sold; it was enjoyed by the eldest 
 born, it was enjoyed by the youngest born and it was 
 disposed of by the will of the father. In the present 
 case it seems that Esau enjoyed the birthright as 
 first born and had the power to dispose of it to an- 
 other member of the family. The record of this sale 
 
58 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 is given in a few interesting sentences. "And Jacob 
 at one time boiled pottage, and Esau came from the 
 field and he was faint. And Esau said to Jacob, 
 Let me swallow down I pray thee some of yonder 
 red pottage for I am faint; therefore was his name 
 called Edom (the red one) and Jacob said, Sell me 
 this day thy birthright. And Esau said. Behold I 
 am going to die, and what profit then can the birth- 
 right be to me? And Jacob said. Swear to me this 
 day; and he swore unto him and he sold his birth- 
 right unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and 
 pottage of lentils and he did eat and drink and he 
 rose up and went his way; thus Esau despised the 
 birthright." 
 
 Esau, tired and faint from his hunt, threw himself 
 into Jacob's tent and burst out with the words, "Let 
 me swallow some of that red stuff for I am faint." 
 Jacob, who had probably long been considering the 
 acquisition of Esau's birthright and justifying his 
 longing for it by contrasting his sober and prudent 
 method of life with that of his boorish and heedless 
 brother, took advantage of the opportunity and said 
 
SALE OF ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT. 59 
 
 to him, "Sell me this day thy birthright." From 
 the modern point of view it would have been fairer 
 on Jacob 's part to have fed Esau first and purchased 
 his birthright afterwards. Jacob seems to have had 
 no scruples about the ethical aspect of the question, 
 nor did Esau question the propriety of Jacob's de- 
 mand. It was only afterwards that he showed his 
 bitterness against Jacob, who had secured the best of 
 the bargain. 
 
 Esau's attitude toward his rights as first born was 
 that of the rough man of the woods. He said, 
 "Behold I am going to die," which, translated into 
 modern phrase, means, I am so faint with hunger 
 that I may die this very minute. "And what profit 
 shall this birthright do to me." His words reflect 
 the attitude of rude men towards the rights estab- 
 lished by a higher order of society. It is the con- 
 tempt of the barbarian for the products of civil- 
 ization. 
 
 The birthright was an intangible thing that could 
 not pass by delivery. Had this sale taken place 
 publicly it would in all probability have been accom- 
 
60 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 panied by some symbolical act to give it validity. 
 Since there were no witnesses present to bind the 
 bargain recourse was had to the solemnity of the 
 oath. Jacob said to Esau, "Swear to me this day," 
 and by the oath which Esau swore he sold his birth- 
 right to Jacob. The execution of this contract of 
 sale is generally considered somewhat informal, and 
 yet, upon examination we find all the necessary for- 
 malities except the presence of witnesses. 
 
 The inadequacy of the consideration had no bear- 
 ing whatever upon the legality of the sale. The fact 
 that even Esau, who subsequently believed himself 
 to have been cheated, recognized the validity of the 
 sale, is to be credited not so much to his honesty as 
 to his fear of invoking the wrath of the higher 
 powers by breaking his oath. 
 
 In ancient days before the world became commer- 
 cial, when wealth consisted largely of cattle and the 
 products of agriculture, buying and cheating wore 
 almost synonymous terms. It was taken for granted 
 when men bought and sold that one or the other of 
 them was being outwitted. The contempt with which 
 
SALE OF ESAU'S BIRTHRIGHT. 61 
 
 certain classes of society still look upon those who 
 ' ' are in trade ' ' may be a survival of this feeling that 
 trading was essentially impossible for persons with 
 a nice sense of honor. 
 
 The consummation of the contract was the oath, an 
 invocation of the higher powers to attest the act. 
 The force and effect of an oath in ancient days was 
 much greater than it is to-day, because the higher 
 power was presumed to be present and to participate 
 in the transaction as a third party to the contract. 
 This is especially seen in the making of covenants 
 which are accompanied by a sacritice and other 
 solemn formalities, in addition to the oath calling 
 upon the ever-present Deity to witness. 
 
 A Jewish court of law under its "general equity 
 power>s" might readily have been able to relieve 
 Esau, and compel Jacob to restore the rights which 
 he had thus acquired. "If thou sell aught unto thy 
 neighbor or buy aught of thy neighbor's hand, ye 
 shall not overreach one the other" (Lev. XXV, 14). 
 "Thy money shalt thou not give him upon usury 
 nor lend him thy victuals for increase" (Id. 37). 
 
62 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 But courts of law did not exist in tke days of Jacob 
 and Esau, and the legislation above quoted was not 
 formulated until a much later time. Had Esau 
 appealed to Isaac, his father, to relieve him from the 
 obligation of his oath he would, no doubt, have been 
 met with a prompt and just refusal, for, according 
 to the legal notion of those times, the oath was in- 
 violable and the contract bound by it irrevocable. 
 
 In reading these ancient stories it must always be 
 remembered by whom and for whom they were told. 
 This legend was told before it was written and, no 
 doubt, was told as a joke on the stupid Esau, who 
 is gulled by the clever Jacob of his precious birth- 
 right for a dish of lentils. To read this story as 
 though it had been intended to justify itself ethically 
 is to miss its point entirely. 
 
IN THE MATTER OF ISAAC'S WILL. 
 Genesis XXVII, 1- XXVIII, 9. 
 
 Sir Henry Sumner Maine in his "Ancient Law" 
 expresses the opinion that testamentary disposition 
 of property, as known to modern jurisprudence, is 
 a creature of Roman Law. In speaking of the bless- 
 ing of Jacob and Esau by Isaac he says, "the bless^ 
 ing mentioned in the scriptural history of Isaac and 
 his sons has sometimes been spoken of as a will, but 
 it seems rather to have been a mode of naming an 
 eldest son. ' ' Assuming that Maine 's opinion is cor- 
 rect, it may well be asked what is the effect of 
 "naming an eldest son?" If there are any property 
 rights connected with the right of primogeniture, 
 then "naming an eldest son" might be fairly con- 
 strued to be a quasi-testamentary disposition of such 
 rights. 
 
 The facts of the case as reported are in substance 
 
 as follows: Isaac and Rebecca had twin sons, of 
 
 whom Esau was the first-born and Jacob the younger. 
 
 63 
 
64 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Esan was a hunter, and, it appears, had gained his 
 father's affection because of his skill in the cheise; 
 but Rebecca preferred her younger son because of his 
 domestic habits of life. 
 
 In his old age Isaac had grown blind, and fearing 
 the approach of death he determined to make provi- 
 sion for his favorite, Esau, by giving him his "bless- 
 ing." In order to mark this occasion he directed 
 Esau to go out to the chase and bring him some 
 veni.son such as he loved, "that my soul may bless 
 thee before I die." He thus meant to indicate by 
 this last solemn and formal act, not merely his pref- 
 erence for his eldest son, but also the satisfaction 
 and the pleasure that he had derived from Esau 
 throughout his life. Rebecca, who had overheard 
 this request and who was probably acquainted with 
 the fact that Jacob had secured Esau's birthright 
 by purchase, determined, by taking advantage of her 
 husband's blindness, to secure the coveted blessing 
 for him also. She ordered Jacob to fetch two kids 
 of the flock, from which to make a savory dish to be 
 carried in to Isaac "that he may eat; for the sake 
 
THE MATTER OF ISAAC'S WILL. 65 
 
 that he may bless thee before his death." Jacob, 
 although anxious to obtain the blessing, was not quite 
 satisfied with the method proposed and ventured to 
 express the fear that his father might curse him in- 
 stead of blessing him, but his mother's solemn words, 
 "Upon me be thy curse my son," reassured him, for 
 by this assumption of responsibility, the curse, if 
 uttered by the father, would fall upon her. This 
 vicarious assumption of responsibility is connected 
 with the ancient idea of sacrifice, according to which 
 the sacrificial animal bore the sins of the person who 
 offered it. Eebecca thereupon prepared the food 
 and then used Esau's garments and the skins of the 
 kids to disguise Jacob, in order that the father might 
 not recognize him when he appeared with his gift. 
 
 When Jacob appeared before his father he said, 
 "My father," and Isaac said, "Here am I. Who art 
 thou, my son?" and Jacob said unto his father, "I 
 am Esau, thy first-born. I have done as thou didst 
 speak to me; arise, I pray thee, sit here, and eat of 
 my venison that thy soul may bless me. ' ' 
 
 And Isaac said unto his son, "How is it that thou 
 hast found it so quickly my son?" 
 
66 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 And he said, "Because the Lord thy God brought 
 it to me." 
 
 And Isaac said unto Jacob, "Come here, I pray 
 thee, that I may feel thee my son, whether thou be 
 truly my son Esau or not." 
 
 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father and he 
 felt him and he said, "The voice is the voice of 
 Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau" and he 
 recognized him not, because his hands were hairy as 
 his brother Esau's hands, so he blessed him and he 
 said, "Art thou indeed my son Esau?" 
 
 He said, "I am." 
 
 And he said, "Bring it near to me and I will eat 
 of my son's venison that my soul may bless thee," 
 and he brought it near to him and he did eat and 
 he brought him wine and he drank, and Isaac his 
 father said unto him "Come near, I pray thee, and 
 kiss me my son," and he came near and kissed him, 
 and he smelled the smell of his garments and blessed 
 him and said, "See, the smell of my son is as the 
 smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed." 
 
 Three times did Isaac indicate his suspicion that 
 
THE IVIATTER OF ISAAC'S WILL. 67 
 
 there was something wrong and that he was being 
 imposed upon. First, in his surprise that Esau had 
 returned so quickly from the chase; then in his wish 
 to feel him, and even after he had noticed that his 
 hands were hairy like Esau's hands, he asked again, 
 "Art thou indeed my son Esau?" It is quite clear 
 that Jacob obtained the blessing by gross fraud in 
 impersonating his elder brother Esau. It was clearly 
 the intention of Isaac to give the blessing to Esau, 
 and if he had discovered the imposition in time there 
 can be no doubt that Jacob's fear, expressed to his 
 mother when she suggested the deception, "I would 
 bring upon me a curse and not a blessing," would 
 have been realized. 
 
 Isaac was now satisfied and blessed Jacob, saying, 
 "And may God give thee of the dew of heaven and 
 the fatness of the earth and plenty of corn and wine. 
 Nations shall serve thee and people bow down to thee. 
 Be lord over thy brethren and thy mother's sons 
 shall bow down to thee. Cursed be they that curse 
 thee and blessed be they that bless thee." 
 
 God's blessing could be disposed of by the head of 
 
68 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 the family, who was also the family priest and in 
 possession of those mysteries by which the gods could 
 be induced to act in certain ways. The priest was 
 at all times supposed to be able to control God's 
 blessing, and among the modern survivals of this 
 belief is that which exists in the Catholic church to 
 the effect that the church officially controls the doors 
 of heaven and hell and that its blessing and its curse 
 are entirely effective. 
 
 The first part of Isaac's blessing was a prayer to 
 God to give Jacob a plentiful harvest of the fields. 
 Following this donation of material wealth Isaac con- 
 veys to him leadership over other tribes and lordship 
 within his own tribe and family. The latter was 
 Isaac's personal gift. All of the property rights of 
 the family were centered in its head, and by convey- 
 ing the headship of the family, Isaac conveyed all of 
 his property rights to Jacob. 
 
 Hardly had Jacob departed, when Esau came in 
 and invited his father to partake of the venison that 
 he had brought him, and Isaac said unto him, 
 
 "Who art thou?" 
 
THE MATTER OF ISAAC'S WILL. 69 
 
 And he said, " I am thy son ; thy first-born, Esau. ' ' 
 
 "And Isaac trembled greatly, exceedingly, and 
 said, "Who was it? where is he that hath hunted 
 venison and brought it to me and I ate of all before 
 thou earnest and blessed him? Yea, he will remain 
 blessed. ' ' 
 
 When Esau heard the words of his father he ut- 
 tered a great and exceedingly bitter cry, and said 
 unto his father, "Bless me, also me, my father." 
 
 And he said, "Thy brother came with subtlety and 
 took away thy blessing." 
 
 And he said, "Hath he been therefore named 
 Jacob, because he hath supplanted me these two 
 times? My birthright he took away, and behold, 
 now he hath taken away my blessing," and he said, 
 "Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?" 
 
 And Isaac answered and sa-id unto Esau, "Behold, 
 I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have 
 I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine 
 have I endowed him, and what can I do now for thee, 
 my son?" 
 
 And Esau said unto his father, "Hast thou then 
 
70 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 but one blessing, my father? Bless me, also me, my 
 father." And Esau lifted up his voice and wept. 
 
 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, 
 "Behold thy dwelling shall be of the fatness of the 
 earth and of the dew of heaven from above; and by 
 thy sword shalt thou live and thy brother shalt thou 
 serve ; and it shall come to pass that when thou shalt 
 have the dominion, thou canst break his yoke from 
 off thy neck." 
 
 This remarkable dialogue between Isaac and Esau 
 indicates how completely in primitive times the mere 
 formal act was believed to have potency, irrespective 
 of the intention with which it was done. In modern 
 times intention is essential to confer validity upon an 
 act, but in patriarchal times the intention was not 
 at all essential. The formal act, whether it had been 
 induced by fair means or by fraud, was binding and 
 irrevocable! The notion that a formal act may be 
 nullified on grounds of fraud or mistake is com- 
 paratively late in the history of jurisprudence. 
 
 It is generally supposed that after Isaac had said, 
 "Where is he that hath hunted venison and brought 
 
THE MATTER OF ISAAC'S WILL. 71 
 
 it to me and I ate of all before thou earnest and 
 blessed him," he suddenly realized that it was his 
 younger son Jacob who had thus obtained the bless- 
 ing, and that, being overcome by a burst of affection 
 for him, he added the words: "Tea, he will be 
 blessed," as though they were a confirmation of the 
 blessing theretofore obtained by fraud. But it can- 
 not be presumed that this is the true meaning, for 
 Isaac undoubtedly intended to bless Esau, and his 
 entire interview with Esau indicates that he was 
 grieved at the fraud practiced upon him and at his 
 inability to do anything to correct it. Note the help- 
 lessness of his statement to Esau, "And what can I 
 now do for thee my son ? ' ' This phrase simply indi- 
 cates that Isaac felt that the blessing conferred upon 
 Jacob was irrevocable. 
 
 The blessing given by Isaac to his son Esau was 
 more nearly a curse than a blessing. There was in 
 fact only one blessing, as Esau's pitiful question pre- 
 supposed, and that one blessing had been fully given 
 to Jacob. The concluding words to Esau, "And it 
 shall come to pass that when thou shalt have the 
 
72 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 dominion thou canst break his yoke from off thy 
 neck," is an allusion to the Edomites and the Israel- 
 ites, whose political relations are thus supposed to 
 have been outlined by their ancestor. 
 
 It seems, from this ease, that the patriarch had 
 the right to dispose of the family estate to a member 
 of the family other than the oldest son. In the bless- 
 ing of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. XL VIII, 20) 
 Jacob preferred the younger to the older son of 
 Joseph, and in blessing Joseph he gave him a portion 
 above his brothers (Gen. XLVIII, 22), and the law 
 in the Deuteronomic Code (Deut. XXI, 15-17) indi- 
 cates generally that, until the right of the first-born 
 Avas firmly established by statute, the patriarch had 
 the power to prefer any of his children above the 
 first-born. 
 
 The blessing, so-called, was something more than 
 is connoted by the modern use of the word. It was 
 a quasi-testamentary gift, and like testamentary gifts 
 at Roman Law, it was public and irrevocable. The 
 right of testamentary disposition of property as 
 known in modern days was unknown among the 
 
THE ]\IATTER OF ISAAC'S WILL. 73 
 
 ancient Hebrews. The family was believed to be 
 immortal, and family property, therefore, survived 
 the death of the present holder and went to the law- 
 ful heir,. Hence the patriarch had no right to give 
 the family estate to strangers, although, as is said 
 above, it seems to have been within his power at one 
 time to divide it among his own children, preferring 
 the younger sons to the first-born. 
 
 An interesting question might have arisen if Esau 
 had obtained the blessing, and his right to the head- 
 ship of the family had subsequently been contested 
 by Jacob on account of his purchase of Esau's birth- 
 right, which was virtually an assignment of subse- 
 quently acquired property. Whether Esau would 
 have been willing to recognize his sale to Jacob after 
 he had obtained the blessing from Isaac is highly 
 problematical, for though he had bound himself by 
 a solemn oath to Jacob he had subsequently received 
 the blessing from Isaac by an equally solemn act 
 which could well have been interpreted to nullify the 
 effect of the earlier oath, for, after all, the patriarch 
 and head of the family was the one whose solemn and 
 
74 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 formal act finally determined all questions of right 
 and property in his family. 
 
 In Chapter XXVIII an entirely different account 
 is given of the blessing of Jacob. There Isaac called 
 Jacob and blessed him of his own accord. This ac- 
 count seems to be based upon an entirely different 
 tradition from the former one. In the account in 
 Chapter XXVII Jacob obtains the blessing by fraud 
 with the connivance of his mother, Rel)ecca. Isaac 
 is under the impression that he has blessed Esau, 
 and when Esau discovers the fraud he vows vengeance 
 and determines to kill his brother Jacob. Eebecca, 
 therefore, sends Jacob away until Esau's wrath shall 
 have been appeased. In the account in Chapter 
 XXVIII Isaac voluntarily blesses Jacob and sends 
 him away for the purpose of having him marry one 
 of the daughters of the house of Laban, and nothing 
 at all is said about Esau's hatred of Jacob because 
 the blessing had been bestowed upon him. 
 
THE COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. 
 
 Genesis XXXI. 
 
 Toward the end of Jacob's stay with Laban, after 
 he had married and had acquired a great deal of 
 property in cattle and slaves, Laban 's sons, jealous 
 of his increasing wealth, charged him with having 
 gotten it out of that which was their father's. This 
 charge evidently made an impression on Laban, for 
 "Jacob beheld the countenance of Laban, and behold, 
 it was not toward him as before." Whereupon 
 Jacob concluded that it was time for him to leave 
 Laban and go back to his home. He told his wives, 
 Rachel and Leah, of his determination, assigning as 
 a reason Laban 's ill-will and mistrust. They an- 
 swered him saying, "Is there yet any portion or 
 inheritance for us in our father's house; were we not 
 counted of him as strangers? for he hath sold us, 
 and he hath quite consumed also our money. For 
 all the riches which God hath taken from our father, 
 that is ours and our children 's ; now then, whatsoever 
 
 75 
 
76 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 God hath said unto thee, do." This answer of 
 Jacob 's wives sets forth clearly the position of women 
 at that time. 
 
 The biblical account, as it has come down to us, 
 was evidently written at a time when patriarchal law 
 and custom prevailed. But there is evidence in this 
 record of the story of Jacob and Laban that a matri- 
 archal system either had preceded the other or was 
 in some parts of Syria existing contemporaneously 
 with it, and thus exerting some influence in modify- 
 ing its provisions. From their answer to Jacob it 
 would appear that Rachel and Leah were living in 
 the patriarchal household, for their father had exer- 
 cised the absolute right of disposing of them as 
 though they had been slaves. They charged him with 
 having sold them and instead of endowing them with 
 the money received from their suitor, of greedily 
 consuming it himself. When they ceased to be mem- 
 bers of their father's household they came into the 
 manus of their husband. Hence their statement that 
 there was no longer any portion or inheritance for 
 them in their father's house. 
 
COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. 77 
 
 In the patriarchal society property descended to 
 male heirs only, and it was not until after the de- 
 cision in the case of Zelophehad's daughters that 
 daughters had the right of inheritance before collat- 
 eral kinsmen. Yet in this case the statement of Leah 
 and Rachel assumes that if they had remained mem- 
 bers of their father's family they would have had a 
 share in his estate. This is one of the indicia of the 
 influence of a system differing from the patriarchal 
 in which kinship was reckoned through the females 
 and property rights descended through them. 
 
 Jacob, having obtained the consent of his wives, 
 took advantage of Laban's absence from home and 
 secretly departed. Rachel stole her father's house- 
 hold gods, evidently for the purpose of carrying the 
 household luck with her. According to the primitive 
 conception of the Deity then current, the Lares and 
 Penates formed as important a part of the household 
 furniture as in much later days in Greece and Rome. 
 When Laban heard of the flight of Jacob and his 
 family, he pursued them and overtook them after a 
 seven days' journey. There was a great deal of 
 
78 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 bluster about Laban at their, meeting and the reasons 
 assigned by him for his pursuit were first, that Jacob 
 had led away his daughters "as captives taken with 
 the sword ' ' ; second, that he had stolen away secretly 
 so that Laban had been deprived of the privilege of 
 sending him away with the customary song and 
 music, with which oriental courtesy sped the parting 
 guest, and third, that he had stolen his gods. Laban 's 
 first reason implied that Jacob had no right to carry 
 oflE his daughters even though they were now Jacob's 
 wives. And there is in this a suggestion that, not- 
 withstanding the belief of the women that there was 
 no longer any portion or inheritance for them in the 
 house of their father, their father still had certain 
 authority over them and perhaps also over their hus- 
 band. In other words, the implication is that Jacob 
 by marrying Laban 's daughters had really entered 
 into Laban 's family, and that Laban as chief of that 
 clan had the patriarchal authority over him as well 
 as his wives. It will be seen, therefore, that the 
 legal status of Laban 's daughters after their mar- 
 riage is not clearly defined in this record. This may 
 
COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. 79 
 
 be explained, as above slated, by the fact that the 
 custom of this family was not purely patriarchal, but 
 modified to some extent by matriarchal institutions. 
 There is another explanation for this and other diffi- 
 culties in this record. It is the opinion of some 
 biblical scholars that the thirty-first chapter of Gen- 
 esis is a fusion of two separate traditions of the same 
 story. 
 
 In answer to Laban's first reason Jacob said that 
 he fled secretly because he was afraid that Laban 
 would exercise the patria potestas and take his 
 daughters from him by force. The second reason he 
 ignored as unworthy of a reply, probably because he 
 had no doubt of Laban's insincerity. To his third 
 reason he answered, "With whomsoever thou findest 
 thy gods let him not live: before our brethren seek 
 out thou what is thine with me and take it to thee." 
 And then the record adds, parenthetically, "but 
 Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them." 
 
 As to the right of the father to take his daughters 
 from their husband, illustrations may be found in 
 other portions of the Bible. King Saul took his 
 
80 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 daughter Miehal away from her husband David and 
 gave her to another, and in the same manner Sam- 
 son's father-in-law took his wife away from him. It 
 is quite unlikely that, unless Laban had the right by 
 virtue of prevailing custom to take his daughters 
 from their husband, Jacob would have feared the ex- 
 ercise of such extraordinary power There is nothing 
 in the record to show that Laban was so absolutely 
 conscienceless as to have been capable of compelling 
 his daughters to leave their husband, especially after 
 he had given them as wives to Jacob in return for 
 fourteen years of service rendered to him by Jacob 
 in caring for his flocks and herds. The real subject 
 of controversy between Jacob and Laban came down 
 to the question of the theft of Laban 's household 
 gods and upon this point the record contains much 
 interesting information upon the law then prevailing 
 concerning theft. "And Laban went into the tent 
 of Jacob, and into the tent of Leah, and into the tent 
 of the two maidservants but he found nothing. He 
 then went out of the tent of Leah and entered into 
 Rachel 's tent. ' ' Rachel, who had hidden the images 
 
COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. gl 
 
 under the saddle of her camel, prevented his search- 
 ing there for them by an ingenious subterfuge, "And 
 thus he searched but found not the images." It ap- 
 pears, therefore that, according to ancient custom, he 
 who alleged theft had to prove it by finding the stolen 
 articles in the possession of the thief and producing 
 them before witnesses, who in this case were their 
 "brethren." These "brethren" were probably the 
 older members of the family or clan who constituted 
 the family court for the settlement of all disputes 
 arising within it. It also appears that the prosecutor 
 had the right of search and had to be allowed free 
 access to the dwelling of the suspected person in his 
 effort to find the stolen goods. All this appears, fur- 
 thermore, in Jacob's angry outburst after Laban's 
 search, "What is my trespass? What is my sin that 
 thou hast so hotly pursued after me ? Although thou 
 hast searched all my goods what hast thou found of 
 all the articles of thy household? Set it here before 
 my brethren and thy brethren that they may judge 
 between us both." Jacob's indignation at the exer- 
 cise of the right of search carried him further. This 
 
82 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 was not the only grievance he had against Laban, it 
 was but the last of a series of oppressive acts which 
 he had suffered at the hands of his father-in-law. 
 During the twenty years in which Jacob had been 
 caretaker of Laban 's flocks and herds Laban had fre- 
 quently violated the law of master and servant and 
 particularly the law as it applied to the herdsmen 
 and shepherds. 
 
 Even in the most autocratic and tyrannical govern- 
 ments a system of private law arises based upon cus- 
 toms which are gradually established and universally 
 observed, and although such laws and customs may 
 be broken by the strong hand of a master, the natural 
 sense of right of the community is offended and will 
 not condone the fault. In the following sentences 
 we may find the record of a number of such legal 
 customs; Jacob said to Laban, "These twenty years 
 have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she-goats 
 have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock 
 have I not eaten. That which was torn of beasts I 
 brought not unto thee ; of my hand didst thou require 
 it, whatever was stolen by day or stolen by night. 
 
COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. 83 
 
 Where I was in the day the heat consumed me, and 
 the frost by night ; and my sleep departed from mine 
 eyes. These twenty years have I been in thy house ; 
 I have served thee fourteen years for thy two daugh- 
 ters, and six years for thy flocks; and thou hast 
 changed my wages ten times. Except the God of my 
 father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac, 
 had been with me, surely thou hadst now sent me 
 away empty. ' ' This was the law of the shepherd, he 
 was responsible for the care of the ewes and the she- 
 goats that they might not cast their young prema- 
 turely. He was forbidden to kill the rams of the 
 flock for food ; he was responsible for the loss of any 
 of the cattle under his charge which were killed by 
 wild beasts or stolen either by day or by night; he 
 was compelled, therefore, to be as vigilant during the 
 night as during the day, because the loss had to be 
 born by him. Hence Jacob said, ' ' my sleep departed 
 from mine eyes." The wages for the shepherd's 
 service were fixed by agreement and could not be law- 
 fully changed by the master except with the servant's 
 consent, but Laban changed Jacob's wages ten times. 
 
84 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 The property acquired by the servant while in the 
 employ of the master could not be lawfully taken 
 from him, and it appears that Laban would have 
 broken this law, as he had broken the others, had it 
 not been for the fear of Jacob's God. 
 
 The ancient code of law, the so-called "Book of the 
 Covenant," which is found in the twenty-first to 
 twenty-third chapters of Exodus, contains provisions 
 which are of interest in this connection. If the ser- 
 vant was given a wife by the master and she bore 
 him children, the woman and her children remained 
 with the master at the expiration of the period of 
 service and the servant went out alone (Exodus XXI, 
 2-^). This may account for the fear expressed by 
 Jacob that " Peradventure thou wouldest take by 
 force thy daughters from me." "If a man deliver 
 unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a lamb or any 
 beast to keep and it die or be hurt, or driven away, 
 no man seeing it; then shall an oath of the Lord be 
 between them both, that he hath not stretched out his 
 hand against his neighbor's goods; and the owner of 
 it shall accept this and he shall not make it good." 
 
COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. 85 
 
 Laban did not permit Jacob to offer any proof to 
 show that he was guilty of no negligence. "If it be 
 stolen from him he shall make restitution unto the 
 owner thereof. If it be torn in pieces then let him 
 bring it as evidence; that which was torn he shall 
 not make good" (Exodus XXII, 9-12). Laban 
 claimed damages from Jacob even for that which was 
 torn by wild beasts at night. 
 
 The charge that Laban had changed his wages ten 
 times is made not merely because of the general cus- 
 tom which required mutual consent to the change, 
 but upon the express contract of Laban. When 
 Jacob first entered his service Laban said to him 
 (Genesis XXX, 28), "Appoint me thy wages and I 
 will give them," and after Jacob had set forth his 
 terms Laban said (verse 34), "Let it be according 
 to thy word." 
 
 To all of Jacob's indignant charges Laban made 
 no reply, but relying on some peculiar customary 
 right he doggedly answered, "The daughters are my 
 daughters, and the children are my children, and the 
 flocks are my flocks, and all that thou seest is mine. ' ' 
 
86 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 To this claim, backed by a sufficient force of men to 
 make it effective, there could be no reply. Having 
 thus asserted his right and power, Laban was over- 
 come by another mood; either fear of the wrath of 
 Jacob's God or simple paternal affection for his 
 daughters and grandchildren suddenly overcame him 
 and he added, "But as to my daughters, what can I 
 do unto them this day or unto their children whom 
 they have born?" He felt that to have exercised 
 his alleged right would have wrecked their happi- 
 ness; he thereupon promptly determined not to 
 press his rights further, but to part in peace with 
 Jacob, and he invited him to enter into a covenant, 
 "and let it be for a witness between me and thee." 
 Thus all their disputes were to be settled and ended 
 and a solemn covenant of brotherhood was to bind 
 them to remain at peace with each other in per- 
 petuity. 
 
 The record proceeds to give the details of the 
 formalities constituting this covenant. This record 
 (verses 45-54) is evidently made up of two dif- 
 ferent accounts of the transaction. According to the 
 
COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. 87 
 
 first account "Jacob took up a stone and set it up for 
 a pillar," and he called it Mizpah (Hebrew: "watch 
 tower,")) for he (Laban) said, "The Lord shall watch 
 between me and thee when we are absent one from 
 the other; if thou shalt afflict my daughters, or if 
 thou shalt take other wives besides my daughters, 
 when there is no man with us: see, God is witness 
 between me and thee. . . . Jacob swore by the Fear 
 of his father Isaac. Then Jacob slew some cattle 
 upon the mountain and called his brethren to eat 
 bread and they did eat bread and abided all night 
 upon the mountain." The mountain referred to is 
 Mount Gilead, where Jacob had pitched his tent when 
 Laban overtook him. "And early in the morning 
 Laban rose up and kissed his sons and his daughters 
 and blessed them: and Laban returned unto his own 
 place. ' ' 
 
 According to this version of the covenant (which 
 is found by reading together verses 45, 49, 50 and 
 the end of 53 and 54 of this chapter) it was one of 
 private law. Laban concluded not to exercise the 
 patria potestas, but determined to leave his daughters 
 
88 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 with Jacob, and in order to guarantee that they would 
 receive fair treatment from their husband and that 
 he would take no other wives beside them, he com- 
 pelled Jacob to enter into this covenant with him. 
 The principal incidents of entering into a covenant 
 were first, the erection of some monument as a visible 
 symbol ; second, a solemn adjuration setting forth the 
 terms of the agreement for which the sanction of the 
 covenant was invoked; third, calling upon God to 
 witness the compact; fourth, taking the oath to ob- 
 serve the compact, and fifth, offering up a sacrifice 
 to the Deity and breaking bread together at the place 
 of sacrifice. 
 
 In the other version (verses 46, 47, 48, 51, 52 and 
 the first part of 53) the covenant was one of public 
 law. "And Jacob (Laban?) said unto his brethren, 
 Gather stones ; and they took stones and made a heap ; 
 and they ate there upon the heap. And Laban called 
 it Yegarsahadutha : (Chaldaic: "the heap of wit- 
 ness") but Jacob called it Gal-ed (Hebrew: "the 
 heap of witness"). And Laban said This heap is a 
 witness between me and thee this day. . . . And 
 
COVENANT OF JACOB AND LABAN. 89 
 
 Laban said to Jacob, Behold this heap which I have 
 cast up between me and thee; witness be this heap 
 that I will not pass by this heap and that thou shall 
 not pass unto me by this heap for evil. The God of 
 Abraham, and the God of Nahor (the God of their 
 father) shall judge between us." 
 
 In this version of the covenant there is no mention 
 of any private contract between the parties in refer- 
 ence to Jacob's treatment of Laban 's daughters. It 
 was a covenant entered into between two tribal chief- 
 tains dealing with each other as sovereign men, and 
 is equivalent to a modern treaty of peace. In the 
 patriarchal nomadic society there was no public law 
 in the modern sense. Each family was an indepen- 
 dent, autonomous state and the heads of the families 
 dealt with each other as sovereigns, who settled their 
 disputes either by an appeal to the sword, or by a 
 covenant or treaty of peace. When it is remembered 
 that in the land of Canaan, a territory not as large 
 as the State of New Jersey, Joshua found and over- 
 came thirty-one independent sovereigns it becomes 
 apparent that kingship in those days simply meant 
 the headship of a tribe or clan. 
 
90 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 In the first version of the covenant a single stone 
 was set up as a pillar; in this version stones were 
 gathered and a heap was made and the sacrificial 
 meal was eaten upon this heap. The making of this 
 little hillock of stones has this further significance: 
 According to primitive Hebrew notions the Deity was 
 sought for and found on the high places, and the map 
 of Palestine is, even to this day, dotted with names 
 indicating that at some time these localities were 
 sacred high places. Every mountain and hilltop had 
 its local divinity, its shrine and sanctuary. When, 
 therefore, Laban and Jacob entered into their treaty 
 of peace they built up a miniature high place as a 
 sacred symbol, and they made their sacrifice and 
 sealed their covenant and ate their sacred meal upon 
 this little "high place," thus invoking the presence 
 of the Deity in a place similar to that upon which 
 the Deity was supposed to dwell. 
 
 Covenants such as this were absolutely inviolable, 
 and, with this knowledge of the meaning of the cere- 
 mony of the covenant, we can understand the horror 
 of the phrase so often used by the prophets in Israel, 
 ' ' Ye have broken the covenant of your fathers. ' ' 
 
THE BLASPHEMY OP THE SON OF 
 SHELOMITH. 
 
 Leviticus XXIV, 10-23. 
 
 Among very primitive peoples, blasphemy as a 
 crime is unknown. The gods are superhuman powers 
 with superhuman attributes, who, however, conduct 
 their affairs very much like human beings. In such 
 a state of society any one, therefore, who offends the 
 gods either by improper words, by robbing them of 
 their sacrifices, or by desecrating their sanctuaries, 
 is left to deal with them exclusively, and public law, 
 so far. as it exists, takes no cognizance of the crime. 
 The gods are, so to speak, allowed to attend to their 
 own affairs without interference from their human 
 worshipers. If their sanctuaries are insulted, they 
 are expected to smite the offender with their light- 
 nings or with disease, or in some other way manifest 
 their displeasure and resentment. But when a people 
 has reached a national estate and has a national god, 
 any offense against the deity becomes a national 
 
 91 
 
92 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 r 
 
 crime, equivalent in some respects to high treason. 
 "When the national god is insulted, it is the national 
 pride that is wounded, and, when the sanctuaries are 
 robbed or desecrated, it is the national property that 
 is stolen. 
 
 The transition from the primitive condition to the 
 later stage in which the people take up the cause of 
 their god is found in an interesting story in the. sixth 
 chapter of Judges, where Gideon threw down the 
 altar of Baal and cut down the grove that stood by 
 it. "And when the people of the city beheld what 
 he had done and discovered who was the offender, 
 they went to his father and said : Bring out thy son 
 that he may die, because he hath cast down the altar 
 of Baal and because he hath cut down the grove that 
 was by it." And Joash, who was Gideon's father, 
 said to them, "Will ye plead for Baal? If he be a 
 god let him plead for himself because some one has 
 cast down his altar." Although Baal was a deity 
 worshiped by all the men of the city, yet the par- 
 ticular altar destroyed belonged to Joash, and inas- 
 much as Joash did not care to take vengeance for the 
 
BLASPHEMY OF SON OF SHELOMITH. 93 
 
 destruction of the altar, the men of the city allowed 
 themselves to be persuaded not to do so, by the plea 
 that if the offended deity did not avenge the wrong 
 done to him, they need not be zealous for him. 
 
 The beginning of national self-consciousness among 
 the Hebrews is shown in the case of the blasphemer, 
 which is recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter of 
 Leviticus. While the Israelites were in the wilder- 
 ness after the exodus from Egypt, there went forth 
 one of that "mixed multitude," the son of an Israel- 
 itish woman whose father was an Egyptian, and he 
 and a man of Israel strove together in the camp, 
 "and the son of the Israelitish woman pronounced 
 the Name and blasphemed, and they brought him 
 unto Moses. (And his mother's name was Shelo- 
 mith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) 
 And they put him in ward to ascertain the law ac- 
 cording to the mouth of the Lord; and the Lord said 
 unto Moses: Bring forth the blasphemer without the 
 camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands upon 
 his head, and let all the assembly stone him. . . . 
 And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they 
 
94 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 brought forth the blasphemer out of the camp and 
 stoned him with stones; and the children of Israel 
 did as the Lord commanded Moses." 
 
 That this was a case of first impression is shown 
 by the fact that Moses did not venture an opinion 
 off-hand, but had the prisoner put in ward until he 
 had consulted the Lord. Inasmuch as the court pro- 
 nouncing judgment spoke in the name of God, and 
 its judgment was considered the judgment of God, 
 the phrase here used, "to ascertain the law according 
 to the mouth of the Lord" is simply another way of 
 saying that the court deliberated for the purpose of 
 reaching a decision, which, ipso facto, was inspired 
 of God. The difftculties that the case presented to 
 the court were these : Was there a crime committed ? 
 "Was the offender punishable? What punishment 
 should be meted out to him ? 
 
 The fact that this man was arrested indicated that 
 public opinion had at this time been suiBciently crys- 
 tallized to warrant public oiBcials in taking cognizance 
 of the act as a crime. This man had pronounced 
 the name of God and cursed. We are not told what 
 
BLASPHEMY OF SON OF SHELOMITH. 95 
 
 he said, but it has been supposed that his crime con- 
 sisted in pronouncing the ineffable name of God ac- 
 companied by a curse. 
 
 The second question was a more difficult one. As- 
 suming that the offense was a crime if committed 
 against Israel's God, by one of the house of Israel, 
 what was to be done to a man whose father was an 
 Egyptian and whose status as a son of Israel was 
 therefore doubtful? Is it a crime to blaspheme the 
 name of a god in whom one does not believe ? Could 
 the son of the Egyptian be held amenable for this 
 crime? It appears that Moses' decision is based on 
 the general principle of the law which provided that 
 the child follows the status of the mother, and as she 
 was an Israelitish woman, her son was considered 
 an Israelite, irrespective of his paternity. This is, 
 furthermore, emphasized by the fact that the record is 
 careful to give his mother's name and pedigree. But 
 what would have been the decision had he been the 
 son of an Egyptian woman? The question is not 
 answered in this ease, but it evidently must have 
 arisen, for as we shall shortly see, in the general law 
 
96 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 that was promulgated on this subject, this case is 
 provided for. 
 
 The court consulted and decided that a crime had 
 been committed, that the offender was amenable to 
 the law, and that he should be stoned to death. In 
 the sentence of the court, the witnesses, that is, those 
 who heard the blasphemy, are directed to place their 
 hands upon his head. This was analogous to the 
 custom of sacrificing, where the persons bringing the 
 sacrifice placed their hands upon the head of the 
 sacrificial animal. The animal was offered by the 
 hands of the persons who sacrificed to the deity, and 
 their sins or offenses were to be atoned for. by the 
 sacrificial offering. Thus the persons who were in a 
 sense parties to the crime, merely from having heard 
 the blasphemy, offer the offender as a sacrifice to the 
 insulted deity, and thereby avert the divine wrath 
 from themselves. 
 
 The blasphemer was stoned to death by "all the 
 assembly (Hebrew: Edah), the select men of the 
 people, who acted as executioners, and perhaps were 
 also the associate justices with whom Moses deliber- 
 ated before rendering judgment. 
 
BLASPHEMY OF SON OF SHELOMITH. 97 
 
 After the sentence of the court was carried out, a 
 general law to cover, this and similar eases was for- 
 mulated. Judging from the proximity of the text 
 of this special ease and the general law, it might be 
 supposed that the latter was passed immediately 
 after, or even before, the execution of the sentence, 
 but, the mere proximity of laws or texts in the Bible 
 proves nothing regarding their chronology. The 
 general law was no doubt much later than the special 
 case which is here cited, and sums up the law on the 
 subject in a brief sententious manner, thus: "And 
 thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel saying. 
 Whoever eurseth his god shall bear his sin, and he 
 that pronounceth the name of the Lord shall be put 
 to death, and all the assembly shall stone him ; as well 
 the stranger as the native when he pronounceth the 
 Name shall be put to death." 
 
 The general law seems to have been especially made 
 to cover the point that was raised but not decided in 
 the ease of the son of the Egyptian. If he had been 
 the son of an Egyptian woman he would not have 
 been an Israelite; and the question as to whether he 
 7 
 
gg LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 could have been punished would have been a more 
 difficult one. This question is now settled. The 
 stranger as well as the native is punishable with death 
 if he blasphemes the name of the Lord. If the 
 stranger blasphemes his own gods the Jewish law 
 takes no cognizance of it. If a man blasphemes his 
 god let him bear his sin— let him suffer such punish- 
 ment as his god may mete out to him; but if he pro- 
 nounces the name of the Lord, and is, for the time 
 being under the jurisdiction of the Jewish law, let 
 him be punished with death. 
 
 That the crime of blasphemy was akin to the crime 
 of treason is shown in several other passages of the 
 Bible. Isaiah speaks of the people cursing their king 
 and their god (Isaiah VIII, 21), and in Naboth's case 
 (1 Kings XXI, 10), the crime with which he was 
 charged was "Thou didst blaspheme God and the 
 King." It indicates what was before stated, that 
 when the people attained national dignity the na- 
 tional god was guarded like the king, and offenses 
 against him were similarly punished. As long as 
 the people were living in a patriarchal state an offense 
 
BLASPHEMY OF SON OF SHELOMITH. 99 
 
 against the gods was an offense against the head of 
 the family, for the gods were household gods; and 
 this we see in the case of Gideon, whose offense really 
 was against his father in breaking down his father's 
 altar and sacred grove. 
 
 So careful were the Jews not to utter the sacred 
 name of God that the original pronunciation of the 
 name of Jehovah has been lost, and it is only as a 
 result of modern painstaking scholarship that its 
 probable sound "Yahweh" has been recovered. The 
 early translators of the Bible carefully avoided it; 
 the Greek translated it "Ho kurios"; the Latin 
 translated it "Dominus," both meaning "Master" 
 or "Lord"; and from these translations we have the 
 modern terms, "Lord," "Herr," "Sieur," and the 
 like. 
 
 Josephus, in his desire to curry favor with the 
 Eomans, went so far as to say that according to 
 Jewish law it was a crime to blaspheme other gods; 
 but the law in the Case of the Blasphemer is clearly 
 to the contrary. 
 
 The reader of the Bible will find appended to the 
 
100 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 law of the Blasphemer, and apparently forming a 
 part of it, certain laws (Leviticus XXIV, 17-22) 
 which have nothing to do with the law of the blas- 
 phemer, and have been interpolated because they also 
 refer to capital crimes, and lay down the general law 
 that the stranger and the native are equally liable. 
 
 In order, therefore, to read properly the Case of 
 the Blasphemer as it is recorded in the twenty-fourth 
 chapter of Leviticus, read first from verse 10 to verse 
 14 inclusive, and then read verse 23, which will be 
 found to connect directly with verse 14. Verses 15 
 to 22 are obviously interpolated. Verses 15 and 16 
 should be read after verse 23, and with these verses 
 the law concerning bla.sphemy is concluded. 
 
THE CASE OF ZBLOPHEHAD'S DAUGHTERS. 
 
 Numbers XXVII, 1-11, XXXVI, 1-13; Joshua 
 XVII, 1-6. 
 
 This ease is unique. It is the only case reported in 
 the Bible in which property rights are decided by a 
 regular judicial proceeding, and in which the parties 
 are known. It is unique, furthermore, because of 
 the reopening of the case upon the petition of the 
 defendants and the intrusion of a political question 
 to modify the original decision. The case is reported 
 three times, a fact which sufficiently indicates its im- 
 portance. The account in Numbers, chapter XXVII, 
 begins thus: 
 
 "Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son 
 of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the 
 son of Menasseh, of the families of Menasseh, the 
 son of Joseph : and these are the names of his daugh- 
 ters, Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, and Milcah and Tirzah. ' ' 
 Here for. the first time we have a record of women 
 appearing as plaintiffs. This is the more remarkable 
 
 101 
 
102 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 when we consider the status of women in the ancient 
 oriental society. "And they stood before Moses, and 
 before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes 
 and all the assembly, by the door of the tabernacle 
 of the assembly." The high court before which this 
 case was presented consisted of Moses, representing 
 the political power; Eleazar, the high priest, repre- 
 senting the ecclesiastical power, and the princes or 
 chieftains, representing the tribal organizations, and 
 the assembly or selectmen. The Court sat at the 
 door of the sanctuary. Anciently, the judgment 
 place was at the gate of the town where the market 
 place was ; later on it was at any one of the gates of 
 the city. Finally, the notion that judgment was 
 spoken at the gate had become so familiar that when 
 the court was removed to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, 
 it sat at the door of the sanctuary, even as in the 
 report of this ease it sat at the door of the tabernacle 
 in the wilderness. 
 
 The five women then approached the court in ses- 
 sion saying, "Our father died in the wilderness and 
 he was not in the company of them that gathered 
 
ZELOPHEHAD'S DAUGHTERS. 103 
 
 themselves together against the Lord in the company 
 of Korah"; hence was not attaint and could transmit 
 his inheritance, "but died in his own sin," a natural 
 death, "and had no sons." Hence his inheritance 
 would, under the old law descend to collateral kins- 
 men, and the name of the deceased would be for- 
 gotten in his family. Against this his daughters 
 protested, "Why should the name of our father be 
 done away from among his family, because he hath 
 no son?" Why should not the name be perpetuated 
 through the daughters and the family inheritance 
 descend to them? There was no equitable reason for 
 refusing their petition, "Give unto us therefore a 
 possession among the brethren of our father." It 
 seems that some of the tribal customs still showed 
 traces of the matriarchal state of society, in which 
 kinship was reckoned through the females and the 
 devolution of property followed a similar rule. The 
 matriarchate was not entirely unknown among the 
 ancient Hebrews and there are Bible references which 
 are inexplicable upon any other theory. Perhaps 
 some such traditional rights had persisted, unchanged 
 
104 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 by the common law of the nation, in certain families 
 of Menasseh, or perhaps in the whole tribe, just as 
 customs of the manor persisted in England, and local 
 customs everywhere survive the leveling tendency of 
 general legislation. At any rate, the problem pre- 
 sented to the Court was not one to be dismissed by 
 mere reference to the law limiting the right of in- 
 heritance to the males, and the court retired to con- 
 sult, "And Moses brought their cause before the 
 Lord." 
 
 If we follow the orthodox interpretation of this 
 verse, it means that Moses went to consult God to 
 obtain light in this case, and, as the next verse shows, 
 God gave him a decision. No doubt the writer of the 
 narrative in the Book of Numbers believed that this 
 was the manner of the procedure and that Moses ac- 
 tually was directed by God to decide the case as he 
 did. It is not unlikely, however, that the true pro- 
 cedure was simply this: That Moses retired with or 
 without the rest of the Court to consider the question, 
 and finally rendered the decision. The Oriental 
 looked upon the judge as the actual representative of 
 
ZELOPHEHAD'S DAUGHTERS. 105 
 
 God, and the judgment as ihe decision of God him- 
 self, probably because of the fact that the judge was 
 usually the priest. From this idea arose the notion 
 that judgment when rendered in righteousness is 
 divine, and that the mouth of the judge is as the 
 mouth of God. In the Talmud we find that the 
 general dictum, "The words of the rabbis are as 
 acceptable as the words of the Torah," means simply 
 that the rabbis, by virtue of the fact that they were 
 the lawful judicial authorities, had the right to render 
 decisions, and that their decisions had the same force 
 as the written word of God. This view is generally 
 accepted in the Talmud, and is commonly attacked 
 by non-Jewish theologians, because it minimizes the 
 importance of the written word of the Bible, and 
 hence interferes with the dogmatic superstructures 
 that theology has reared upon the biblical texts. But 
 no written law is sufficient for all times, and men 
 must interpret, extend, even repeal it, when the con- 
 ditions of human life compel, for the law was made 
 for man. 
 
 After Moses had "consulted God" he reached a 
 
106 LEADING OASES I?J THE BIBLE. 
 
 decision, "The Lord spoke unto Moses saying, The 
 daughters of Zelophehad speak right; thou shalt 
 surely give them a possession of an inheritance among 
 their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the in- 
 heritance of their father to pass unto them." Thus 
 far the decision in this case. No reason is assigned 
 for it and no general principle is laid down as its 
 foundation. It appears to have been a judgment 
 rendered in this case because of some circumstances 
 unknown to us— more than likely because of some 
 special rule of inheritance which existed in this fam- 
 ily or tribe. If we note the precision with which the 
 names of the parties and their pedigree are given in 
 the opening verses, we are strengthened in the view, 
 that the decision was one which was dictated by a 
 special custom obtaining in this family or tribe, more 
 especially when it is noted that in the report of this 
 case in Joshua XVII, 1-6, the following rule is 
 stated: "because the daughters of Menasseh had an 
 inheritance among his sons. ' ' It seems to distinguish 
 the tribe of Menasseh from the other tribes and limit 
 the rule to them. This is in full harmony with the 
 
ZELOPHEHAD'S DAUGHTERS. 107 
 
 theory that this was a special case, decided according 
 to a custom peculiar to that tribe, and that it was not 
 until afterwards that the decision in Zelophehad's 
 case became a general law. It is true that in the 
 biblical text the general law is cited immediately after 
 the decision. But, as has been said, the mere prox- 
 imity of laws in the Bible is no proof of their relative 
 chronological order. 
 
 The general law of intestate succession which was 
 based on this decision was as follows, "And thou 
 shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying. If a 
 man die and have no son then ye shall cause his in- 
 heritance to pass to his daughter, and if he have no 
 daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his 
 brethren. And if he have no brethren, then shall ye 
 give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And 
 if his father have no brethren, ye shall give his in- 
 heritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his 
 family, and he shall possess it: and it shaU be unto 
 the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the 
 Lord commanded Moses." 
 
 The decision rendered by the court was, however, 
 
108 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 not allowed to rest undisturbed. By it the daughters 
 of Zelophehad had been declared to be the lawful 
 heiresses of their father's estate. The parties ag- 
 -grieved were the next of kin, who, in default of male 
 issue, had, under the general custom, the right of 
 inheritance. They were, therefore, practically the 
 defendants in the original proceeding, which may be 
 likened to an action of ejectment brought by the 
 daughters to try the title to their father's estate. 
 The defendants appealed from the decision and sought 
 to have the case reopened. (Numbers XXXVI, 1- 
 13) "And the selectmen of the families of the chil- 
 dren of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Menasseh 
 of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and 
 spake before Moses, and before the princes, the select- 
 men of the children of Israel." The selectmen were 
 under the patriarchal system the representatives of 
 their respective families, the presidents, as it were, 
 of the several little corporations which constituted 
 the tribe, "and they said, the Lord commanded my 
 lord to give the land for an inheritance by Jot to the 
 children of Israel; and my lord was commanded by 
 
ZELOPHEHAD'S DAUGHTERS. 109 
 
 the Lord to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our 
 hrother unto his daughters. And if they be married 
 to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children 
 of Israel, then will their inheritance be taken from 
 the inheritance of our fathers and be added to the 
 inheritance of the tribe whereunto they shall be re- 
 ceived ; so will it be taken from the lot of our inherit- 
 ance. And when the jubilee of the children of Israel 
 shall be, then will their inheritance be added to the 
 inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received; 
 so shall their inheritance be taken away from the in- 
 heritance of the tribe of our fathers. ' ' 
 
 The point made by the defendants was based upon 
 the fundamental conception, of _the_,trjbal_-0wjiership 
 of land. The individual had the perpetual use there- 
 of in his own family, but land was inalienable, except 
 with the consent of the tribe. The decision in Zelo- 
 phehad 's case had unsettled this rule. By making 
 the women absolute heiresses in deJa.uit_of male issue, 
 it subjected the property to the danger of absorption 
 by other tribes in the event of the marriage of an 
 heiress outside the tribe of her father, and there 
 
110 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 would be eventually a mixing up of tribal lines that 
 would obliterate them altogether. The ease seems to 
 mark the transition from the tribal to the individual 
 ownership of land and from the old tribal organiza- 
 tions into the greater national union of all Israel. 
 The chiefs of the tribe of Joseph were not yet pre- 
 pared for this step, for, as they pointed out, at the 
 time of the jubilee, when every man's land returned 
 to him or his heirs, this land would no longer return 
 to the members of the tribe of Menasseh, but would 
 fall to some descendant of the daughters of Zelophe- 
 had, who would not be a member of the tribe of 
 Menasseh, but of the tribe to which the husband of 
 the heiress belonged. This had to be guarded against. 
 The court was impressed with the force of the argu- 
 ment, and apparently held the same conservative view 
 concerning the political question involved. It, there- 
 fore, reopened the ease and modified the decree al- 
 ready made. "And Moses commanded the children 
 of Israel according to the word of the Lord, saying, 
 The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. This 
 is the thing which the Lord doth command concerning 
 
ZELOPHEHAD'S DAUGHTERS. HI 
 
 the daughters of Zelophehad saying, Let them marry- 
 to whom they think best; only to the family of the 
 tr ibe of th eir fat her shall thes._marry . So shall not 
 the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from 
 tribe to tribe; for every one of the children of Israel 
 shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of 
 his fathers." This decision, therefore, prevented the 
 injury to the tribal rights of the defendants, and es- 
 tablished the right of inheritance of the daughters 
 upon the condition that they marry within their own 
 tribe. 
 
 We are assured, however, that the five young 
 women through whose case the law of Intestate Suc- 
 cession was established were wise enough not to for- 
 feit their inheritance, for, "even as the Lord com- 
 manded Moses so did the daughters of Zelophehad: 
 for Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah and Milcah, and 
 Noah the daughters of Zelophehad, were married 
 unto their father's brothers' sons; and they were 
 married into the families of the sons of Menasseh 
 the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in 
 the tribe of the family of their father." As in the 
 
112 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 former decision of this case, the ruling of the court 
 became the "basis for a general statute, "And every 
 daughter that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe 
 of the children of Israel shall be wife unto one of the 
 family of her father, that the children of Israel may 
 enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. 
 Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe 
 into another tribe ; but every one of the tribes of the 
 children of Israel shall keep himself to his own in- 
 heritance." Thus the special custom of the tribe of 
 Menasseh became, through the medium of the case of 
 Zelophehad's daughters, the general law for all 
 Israel. 
 
 The interest of this case lies in the fact that it is 
 a guide to the manner in which the ancient customs 
 of the wandering Hebrew tribes crystallized into law 
 and it shows how the local or special custom of the 
 dominant tribe might become the general law of the 
 land. For the influence of the tribe of Menasseh was 
 very great, since it was a division of the great tribe of 
 Joseph, the ruling tribe in northern Palestine. 
 
THE TRIAL OF ACHAN BY LOT. 
 
 Joshua VII, 1-26. 
 
 Among the Hebrews, God was supposed to be pres- 
 ent in the courts of justice, and judgment was pro- 
 nounced in his name. The trial of a case, therefore, 
 partook somewhat of a sacramental character. As 
 has already been suggested, this was due, no doubt, 
 to the fact that, at a certain period in the history of 
 the people, the offices of priest and judge were united ; 
 and the people went to the priest to decide their dis- 
 putes, even as they went to him for guidance in re- 
 ligious matters. Divination and sorcery in their 
 various forms were practiced, and decisions and 
 opinions obtained by these means were given by the 
 priests. One method of obtaining a decision was by 
 casting lots. ' ' Chance ' ' was not, as with us, deemed 
 fortuitous, but was supposed to be a direct result of 
 divine action. Hence, the easting of a lot, when 
 done by one in office, was supposed to be an expres- 
 sion of . divine will, and gave the issue in doubtful 
 
 matters. 
 
 8 113 
 
114 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 A remarkable instance of the use of the lot in the 
 determination of a question involving life and prop- 
 erty is furnished in the recorded case of Achan, in 
 the seventh chapter of the Book of Joshua. The cir- 
 cumstances of the case are as follows: 
 
 After the city of Jericho had fallen, the entire city 
 with all its inhabitants, and with all the property 
 contained in it was ordered to be destroyed. It was 
 "Herem," that is, devoted to God. It is recorded 
 (Joshua VI, 21) that the Hebrews "utterly destroyed 
 (devoted) all that was in the city, both man and 
 woman, young and old, and ox and sheep, and ass, 
 with the edge of the sword." It seems, however, 
 that one Achan had secretly appropriated some of 
 the spoils of the devoted city. As a result, God is 
 said to have been angry with the people, and to have 
 withdrawn his favor and assistance from them, so 
 that they could not maintain themselves against the 
 foe. 
 
 When Joshua was informed of this fact, he de- 
 termined to regain the divine favor by discovering 
 and punishing the offender, a problem that presented 
 
TRIAL OP ACHAN BY LOT. 115 
 
 no dififieulties to him, since he did not depend upon 
 human testimony to discover the criminal. He, there- 
 fore, notified the people, "Sanctify yourselves for 
 the morrow, for thus saith the Lord, the God of 
 Israel, There is Herem in thy midst, oh Israel; and 
 thou canst not stand before thine enemies until ye 
 take away the Herem from your midst. In the 
 morning therefore, ye shall be brought according to 
 your tribes and it shall be that the tribe which the 
 Lord shall seize shall come according to its families; 
 and the family which the Lord shall seize, shall come 
 by households; and the household which the Lord 
 shall seize, shall come man by man; and it shall be 
 that he that is seized with the Herem shall be burnt 
 with fire, he and all that he hath, because he has 
 transgressed the covenant of the Lord, and because 
 he has wrought folly in Israel. ' ' 
 
 God himself was going to discover the offender by 
 a means which is not fully expressed in the biblical 
 record, but which appears clearly enough. At the 
 central sanctuary of the camp, the priests were to 
 cast lots for the various tribes of Israel, and the tribe 
 
116 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 which was "seized," that is to say, which was marked 
 by the fatal lot, was to be balloted for according to 
 its families and the family according to its houses; 
 and the house according to its members, one by one; 
 and thus the lot would ultimately fall upon one man 
 who would thereby become known as the offender. 
 
 Skeptical critics see in this method of discovering 
 the offender merely a piece of chicanery on the part 
 of the priests, who are presumed to have discovered 
 the real offender by more natural means, and to have 
 resorted to this remarkable method of discovering 
 him merely for the purpose of overawing the people 
 and strengthening their own power over them. It is 
 more likely that the determination of the offender 
 by lot was resorted to, so as to obtain through fear a 
 confession from the guilty person. However it may 
 be, this procedure was followed, and the lot eventu- 
 ally fell on Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, 
 the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah. 
 
 Had this method of fixing the guilt on the real 
 offender been believed to be unfailing, Achan would 
 immediately have been put to death. The record. 
 
TRIAL OF ACHAN BY LOT. 117 
 
 however, shows that Joshua was by no means con- 
 vinced that Achan was the real offender, and he said 
 to him, "My son, give, I pray thee, honor to the 
 Lord, the God of Israel and make confession unto 
 him, and. tell me now what thou hast done. Do not 
 hide it from me." 
 
 Joshua, from his general experience in warfare, 
 probably knew that it was no uncommon thing for 
 the soldiers to appropriate some of the spoils of war, 
 and that, in all probability, many of the soldiers had 
 offended in this manner at the fall of Jericho. To 
 make an example of one was deemed sufficient, and 
 Joshua no doubt felt satisfied that, if the lot fell 
 upon any one of those who had been guilty, a con- 
 fession of guilt would eventually follow. It was, 
 therefore, unnecessary for Joshua to compel Achan 
 to confess by threat. His simple request for informa- 
 tion was followed by a full confession, "And Achan 
 answered Joshua and said, Indeed, I have sinned 
 against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and 
 thus have I done. "When I saw among the spoils a 
 goodly Babylonian cloak, and two hundred shekels 
 
118 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 of silver and an ingot of gold of five hundred shekels 
 weight, then I coveted them and I took them, and 
 behold they are now hid in the earth in the midst of 
 my tent; and the silver under it." Joshua there- 
 upon sent messengers to Achan's tent and discovered 
 the articles which he had described, and then there 
 was meted out to Achan the punishment for his 
 offense, in accordance with the law of the times which 
 "visited the iniquities of the fathers upon the chil- 
 dren, ' ' a law which was not changed until the promul- 
 gation of the Deuteronomic Code, wherein it was 
 ordained that "fathers shall not be put to death for 
 the children, neither shall the children be put to 
 death for the fathers: for his own sin shall every 
 man be put to death" (Deuteronomy XXIV, 16). 
 
 According to the old patriarchal notion, the family 
 was a unit and its members were held responsible for 
 the conduct of each other. Hence the children suf- 
 fered for the crime of the parent and vice versa. 
 Under this fierce law, a crime resulted in the blotting 
 out of an entire family, and it was not until late in 
 the time of the Kings that a more modern notion of 
 
TRIAL OF ACHAN BY LOT. Hg 
 
 the nature of crime prevailed. The individual was 
 made responsible for his acts, and the family was no 
 longer compelled to suffer for the crime committed 
 by any one of its members. The old notion, however, 
 of the solidarity of the family has not entirely died 
 out, even in our own 'day. It expresses itself very 
 often in social ostracism of the innocent members of 
 a criminal's household. Modern society uncon- 
 sciously testifies to the old belief, that blood rela- 
 tionship attainted all those who were connected with 
 the real offender. 
 
 Joshua then proceeded to execute the sentence of 
 the law and he took Achan and the silver and the 
 cloak, and the ingot of gold and his sons and his 
 daughters and his oxen and his asses and his sheep, 
 and his tent and everything that he had, and brought 
 them up to the Valley of Achor, and there Joshua 
 said to Achan, "As thou hast troubled us, the Lord 
 shall trouble thee this day; and all Israel stoned him 
 with stones and burnt them with fire, and stoned 
 them with stones, and they raised over him a great 
 heap of stones unto this day. ' ' 
 
120 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Although Joshua and the people of Israel were at 
 the time conducting a great military campaign in the 
 enemy's country, they, nevertheless, in stoning Achan 
 outside the camp, observed the old custom of taking 
 criminals outside the boundaries of the town for ex- 
 ecution. Later in the history of the Jewish people, 
 the larger towns had a regular place of execution 
 outside the walls, which was shunned by the people, 
 just as the people in later days shunned the gallows 
 tree. 
 
THE CASE OP JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER. 
 Judges XI, 29-40. 
 
 For the study of ancient law and custom, the Book 
 of Judges and the Book of Genesis are the most im- 
 portant in the entire Bible. The former especially 
 is replete with traditions hoary with age, reflecting 
 conditions of law and society remotely anterior to the 
 legislation found in the Pentateuch, and to the con- 
 dition of society described in the Book of Kings. 
 Much of the Pentateuchal legislation presupposes a 
 well-organized society, differing materially from that 
 described in the Book of Judges, when "there was no 
 king in Israel ; every man did that which was right in 
 his own eyes." 
 
 The fate of Jephthah's daughter was determined 
 by his success in his campaign against the Ammonites. 
 After he entered the enemy's country, "Jephthah 
 vowed a vow unto the Lord and said, If thou wilt 
 deliver the sons of Ammon into my hands, then shall 
 
 it be that whatsoever cometh forth out of the doors 
 
 121 
 
122 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 of my house towards me when I return in peace from 
 the sons of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's and I 
 will offer it up for a burnt offering." 
 
 It was no uncommon thing among the ancients, the 
 ancient Hebrews included, for men to seek the favor 
 of the Deity by making vows, the performance of 
 which depended upon the success of some contem- 
 plated undertaking. Such a vow was in the nature of 
 a contract, whereby the maker of the vow agreed that 
 in case success attended his enterprise, he would per- 
 form certain services or offer certain sacrifices or 
 subject himself to certain penance pleasing to the 
 Deity. These vows were made with solemn formality 
 and were absolutely binding and irrevocable, and, if 
 the wish of the person making the vow was granted 
 and his enterprise successful, the fear of offending 
 the Deity by breaking the vow was the only sanction 
 required to insure its fulfillment. Thus, Jacob on 
 his way to Laban's house, on the morning after he 
 had his dream of the angels ascending and descend- 
 ing the ladder reaching to heaven, was filled with 
 fear, and he sanctified the place in which he had been 
 
JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER. 123 
 
 sleeping by setting up a pillar there and consecrating 
 it with oil. Conscious of the proximity of the Deity, 
 he entered into a contract with him which was ex- 
 pressed in these words (Gen. XXVIII, 20-22) : "And 
 Jacob vowed a vow, saying, if God will be with me in 
 this way that I am going; and wiU give me bread to 
 eat and raiment to put on, so that I come again to 
 my father's house in peace, then shall the Lord be 
 my God, and this stone which I have set up for a 
 pillar shall be a house of God; and of aU that thou 
 shalt give me, I will surely give a tenth unto thee." 
 When Jephthah made his vow and promised to 
 offer up as a sacrifice whatever came forth to meet 
 him from the doors of his house, it is quite likely 
 that he meant a domestic animal, or a slave; and his 
 consternation and grief upon seeing his daughter 
 come forth to meet him strengthens this view. At 
 any rate, after having made his vow, "Jephthah 
 passed over unto the sons of Ammon to fight against 
 them, and the Lord delivered them into his hands. 
 And the sons of Ammon were subdued before the 
 sons of Israel." 
 
124 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 "And Jephthah came to Mizpah unto his house; 
 and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with 
 timbrels and dances; and she was his only child. 
 Besides her, he had neither sou nor daughter. And 
 it came to pass when he saw her, that he rent his 
 clothes and said, Alas, my daughter, thou hast 
 brought me very low, and thou art one of them that 
 trouble me, for I have opened my mouth unto the 
 Lord, and I cannot go back. ' ' So great was the fear 
 of offending the Deity by breaking the vow, that 
 Jephthah, this unconquered warrior, returning from 
 a victorious campaign, master of a great army, never 
 thought of escaping the consequences of his vow, even 
 though it involved the loss of his only child. He had 
 opened his mouth unto the Lord and he could not go 
 back. 
 
 Furthermore, there may be seen here the extent of 
 the patria potestas. There was no public tribunal 
 before which matters affecting the family could be 
 brought for decision; in each household the head of 
 the family was of indisputable authority, the absolute 
 arbiter, from whose decision there was no appeal. 
 
JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER. 125 
 
 Public law took no cognizance of family matters; 
 and family law, so far as it may be called law, was 
 simply the expressed will of the head of the house- 
 hold. The fact that the case of Jephthah's daughter 
 excites no comment on the part of the biblical writer, 
 even though she was offered up as a sacrifice by her 
 father in fulfillment of a vow, indicates that the 
 writer accepted the view that Jephthah's right to 
 kill his daughter was undisputed and indisputable. 
 
 It may be that if his daughter had pleaded for her 
 life, Jephthah might have been induced to brave the 
 wrath of God and break his vow; but her answer to 
 him is not only an illustration of sublime resignation, 
 but also a shining example of determination to fulfill 
 a contract solemnly entered into. She said unto 
 him, "My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth 
 unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath 
 proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord 
 hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemy, even 
 the sons of Ammon." It was not merely, therefore, 
 that she urged him to fulfill his vow, but also that 
 she caUed his attention to the fact that in the con- 
 
126 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 tract made between God and himself, God had ful- 
 filled his part, and it now behooved him to do like- 
 wise. And she said unto her father, "Let this thing 
 be done to me, and let me alone for two months that 
 I may go up and down the mountains and bewail my 
 virginity, I and my companions. ' ' This brief respite 
 before the execution of his vow was granted to her, 
 and at the end of that time, she returned to her 
 father, "And he did unto her according to his vow 
 which he had vowed. ' ' 
 
 Human sacrifice is alluded to several times in the 
 Bible, and it was not until after the time when the 
 theory of the rights and duties of the patriarchal 
 family had undergone considerable modification that 
 positive legislation put an end to it. As long as 
 the father was the master of his own family, ac- 
 countable to no man for his actions concerning 
 it, there was no way in which his power could be 
 limited. This theory remained in full force as long 
 as the Hebrews lived a nomadic life, and even some 
 time after they had settled in Palestine; but grad- 
 ually the requirements of a milder civilization, and 
 
JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER. 127 
 
 the influences of agricultural life, which requires 
 men to dwell together in harmony and peace, modi- 
 fied the ancient rights of patriarch. Under such con- 
 ditions public opinion became possible, and eventu- 
 ally public opinion became law. The father could no 
 longer put his children to death because public opin- 
 ion would not permit it; and thus gradually the un- 
 restricted right of the patriarch was modified, and 
 the members of his family obtained a legal status and 
 legal rights, until eventually the individuality of each 
 human being was respected and protected by the law. 
 
 The views of the Tabnudical authorities on the 
 law of the case of Jephthah's daughter are interest- 
 ing, because in their interpretation we may discover 
 fragments of the old Common Law of the Hebrews, 
 and observe something of the method by which the 
 written law was applied in actual practice. 
 
 For instance, there is a law that certain animals are 
 unclean and, therefore, unfit for sacrifice; a law that 
 is not alluded to in the record of this case. But a 
 Talmudist very pertinently asks: Suppose an un- 
 clean animal had come out of Jephthah's house to 
 
128 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 meet him. Would he have offered it as a sacrifice 
 to the Lord? The reply was that as an unclean 
 animal was unfit for sacrifice, Jephthah would not 
 have offered it had it come forth to meet him. An- 
 other Talmudist raises a more important question. 
 It was possible under the Talmudic law for a man 
 to have his vow annulled if it was made under mis- 
 take or under duress— a proceeding somewhat sim- 
 ilar to the rescission of a contract in our own, days, 
 upon the ground of accident, mistake and the like. 
 Hence the Talmudist asks: "Why did not Jephthah 
 go to the high priest and have this vow annulled?" 
 According to tradition, Phineas, the grandson of 
 Aaron, was high priest in those days, and Jephthah 
 might have applied to him as the supreme judicial 
 authority to annul his vow, and thus save his 
 daughter's life. Another Talmudist answers, that 
 Jephthah must have had some special reason for 
 not making such application, or that Phineas must 
 have had some special reason for not granting it, 
 presuming that it was made. Another lawyer, leav- 
 ing the safe ground of the law, reports soliloquies 
 
.JEPHTHAH'S DAUGHTER. 129 
 
 of Phineas and Jephthah concerning this ease. 
 Phineas, being high priest, said: "If Jephthah 
 wants his vow annulled, let him come to me," and 
 Jephthah, being commander-in-chief of the army, 
 was too proud to go to Phineas, and demanded that 
 Phineas should come to him; and thus between the 
 pride of these two dignitaries, the girl was sacrificed. 
 Then another lawyer took part in the discussion, 
 saying: "If it is true that Phineas and Jephthah 
 in their pride permitted the girl to go to her death, 
 then they were her murderers, and should have been 
 held responsible, and ought to have been punished." 
 Assuming the premises, the conclusion was not im- 
 properly drawn. The facts and legal ideas added 
 by the Talmudists to the biblical records were the 
 result of their knowledge of the unwritten legal tra- 
 dition, and not, as so many modern critics would 
 have it, of their overfondness for speculation and 
 theorizing. There is no doubt that the biblical rec- 
 ords are incomplete. Only a fragment of the writ>- 
 ten law has come down to us, and, since the bulk 
 of the law was transmitted by oral tradition, the 
 9 
 
130 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 entire written law, including such parts as may have 
 been lost, was only a fragment of the whole body of 
 the law. Hence the traditions, interpretations, cus- 
 toms, cases and opinions, transmitted from genera- 
 tion to generation by men whose business it was to 
 know the law and expound it, and finally gathered 
 in the Talmud, must ever be of the greatest value 
 in explaining and understanding the Bible. 
 
THE CASE OF BOA^ AND RUTH. 
 
 Buth I -IV. 
 
 The Book of Ruth contains only four chapters, but 
 because of the unaffected picture of ancient manners 
 that it presents, it is generally considered one of the 
 most interesting books in the Bible. The principal 
 legal questions presented in this book are the ones 
 involving the right of inheritance to land under the 
 law of intestate succession, and the questions arising 
 out of the right of redemption of an estate of inherit- 
 ance by the nearest kinsman so that it may not fall 
 into the hands of strangers, and that the "name of 
 the dead may be raised upon his inheritance." It 
 is probable that the Book of Ruth was written long 
 after the events which it narrates. There is slight 
 evidence of this in the peculiar phraseology of the 
 fourth chapter, seventh verse, "Now this was the 
 manner in former times in Israel." The facts of 
 the case, so far as they interest us in their legal 
 aspect, are these: 
 
 131 
 
132 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Elimelech, living in Bethlehem, owned an estate in 
 land. During a famine, he, together with his wife, 
 Naomi, and his two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, left 
 his home and went down into Moab and dwelt there. 
 Elimelech died, leaving his widow and two sons sur- 
 viving him. The latter married Moabitish women; 
 the name of the one was Orpah and the name of the 
 other Ruth; and they continued to live in Moab for 
 about ten years. Then both the sons, Mahlon and 
 Chilion, died, leaving no children, and their mother, 
 Naomi, was left with her two daughters-in-law. She 
 then determined to return to Bethlehem, and at- 
 tempted to persuade her daughters-in-law to return 
 each to her mother's house. One of them, Orpah, 
 did as she requested; the other, Ruth, insisted upon 
 accompanying her, saying, "Whither thou goest, I 
 will go; where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people 
 shall be my people, and thy God, my God; where 
 thou diest will I die, and there wiU I be buried." 
 So Naomi and Ruth returned to Bethlehem. 
 
 What was the legal status of the parties with ref- 
 erence to Elimelech 's estate of inheritance? 
 
BOAZ AND RUTH. 133 
 
 When Elimelech died leaving a widow and two 
 sons, his estate descended absolutely to his two sons, 
 the older of whom obtained a double share. It is 
 not known which of the two sons was the first to die, 
 but this is a matter of no importance, because either 
 would have inherited from the other. Both of them 
 being dead, the estate descended to the nearest male 
 kinsman of the sons of Elimelech, subject, however, 
 to a certain inchoate right existing in the widow of 
 the last owner, which will be considered later. 
 
 When Naomi and Ruth returned to Bethlehem 
 they were so poor that the younger woman had to 
 glean in the fields behind the reapers, for the purpose 
 of gathering enough food to maintain them. The 
 Poor Laws of the Jews provided that the gleanings 
 of the harvest should not be gathered by the owner of 
 the field, but must be left on the ground for the poor 
 and stranger; and it was by virtue of this beneficent 
 law that Naomi and Ruth were able to subsist with- 
 out demanding ahns. It chanced that Ruth gleaned 
 in the field of Boaz, a kiasman of Elimelech, and 
 when this was made known to Naomi, she conceived 
 
134 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 a plan of bringing Boaz and Ruth together, in the 
 hope that he, as her kinsman, would marry Ruth and 
 provide for them; and the plan succeeded. The 
 beauty and modesty of Ruth attracted Boaz, and he 
 promptly fell in love with her. Now came the real 
 difficulty. Boaz was not the nearest kinsman, and 
 hence had no right to Eliraelech's estate. There was 
 one nearer than he. Boaz determined to settle this 
 matter immediately, and to ascertain legally whether 
 or not the nearest kinsman was prepared to take the 
 inheritance, or whether he would renounce his rights. 
 This leads to the beginning of the fourth chapter of 
 the Book, in which the full procedure in this case 
 is given: "Now Boaz went up to the gate," this 
 being the place of public meetings and the seat of 
 the council of elders of the town, "and sat down 
 there, and behold the near kinsman (Hebrew: Goel) 
 of whom Boaz spoke, passed by, unto whom he said, 
 Ho, such an one! turn aside; sit down here; and he 
 turned aside and sat down." 
 
 Boaz then proceeded, "and took ten men of the 
 elders of the city and said. Sit ye down here; and 
 
BOAZ AND RUTH. 135 
 
 they sat down." The ten men thus selected from 
 among the elders constituted the court in whose pres- 
 ence the formalities attending the redemption of the 
 land were to be performed. Their duties in this case 
 were very simple. They were merely required to 
 attest the correctness of the procedure. It is inter- 
 esting to note that unto this very day among the 
 Jews ten men constitute a quorum in religious mat- 
 ters; thus, ten men are a congregation; ten men are 
 usually required to attest certain juridico-religious 
 acts, such as marriage, or the granting of a bill of 
 divorce, and the like. 
 
 When the court had convened, Boaz arose, "and 
 he said to the Goel: Naomi, who has returned from 
 the land of Moab is selling a parcel of land which 
 belonged to our brother Elimelech, and I thought to 
 inform thee saying, Buy it before those who sit here 
 and before the elders of my people. If thou wUt 
 redeem it, redeem it ; but if thou wilt not redeem it, 
 then tell me, that I may know; for there is none to 
 redeem it beside thee ; and I am after thee. And he 
 said, I will redeem it." Then Boaz said, "On the 
 
136 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 day that thou buyest the field from the hands of 
 Naomi, from Ruth also, the Moabitess, the wife of the 
 dead, must thou buy it, to raise up the name of the 
 dead upon his inheritance; and the Goel said, I can- 
 not redeem it for myself, lest I mar my own inherit- 
 ance; do thou take my right of redemption on thee, 
 for I cannot redeem it." 
 
 Although the land is spoken of here as though it 
 was going to be sold, the word "sell" does not truly 
 express the nature of the transaction. It was a 
 transfer of the possession of the land to the kinsman, 
 and it was coupled with the duty of marrying the 
 wife of the dead. By a legal fiction the son born of 
 this marriage continued the family of the dead and 
 thus "raised up the name of the dead upon his in- 
 heritance. ' ' 
 
 When Boaz first spoke to the Goel he made no 
 mention of Ruth, saying, ' ' Naomi is selling the parcel 
 of land which was our brother Elimelech 's. " Now, 
 it was known to the Goel that Naomi, the wife of 
 Elimelech, had two children, Mahlon and Chilion, 
 and, therefore, it would not have been necessary for 
 
BOAZ AND RUTH. 137 
 
 the Goel to marry her, this being required only in the 
 case of a childless widow; hence he expressed his 
 willingness to redeem or acquire the land; but when 
 Boaz added that "on the day that thou buyest the 
 field from the hand of Naomi, from Ruth the Mo- 
 abitess, the wife of the dead, thou must also buy it 
 to raise up the name of the dead upon his inherit- 
 ance," then the Goel refused to exercise his right of 
 redemption; he evidently did not want to marry 
 Euth. It was Ruth, the widow of the last owner, 
 who must be taken along with the land by the nearest 
 kinsman. Naomi was mentioned apparently because 
 she was known as the wife of Elimelech, whereas, 
 Ruth, who had been marjied to Mahlon in Moab, was 
 not commonly known as his wife ; and it may be, that 
 the fact that Ruth was a foreigner had something to 
 do with the precedence accorded to Naomi on this 
 occasion. There is no doubt, however, that although 
 Ruth was a Moabitess, she, by her action and by her 
 words in following Naomi to Bethlehem, in adopting 
 Naomi's country, her God and her domicile, became, 
 according to the ideas of those times, thoroughly 
 
138 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 naturalized; whereas, Orpah, the widow of Chilion, 
 who returned to her mother's house in Moab, re- 
 mained an alien. 
 
 The question may be asked : If the land was Elime- 
 lech's, and the nearest kinsman had to marry Ruth, 
 the widow of Mahlon, what is the meaning of the 
 phrase "that the name of the dead may be raised 
 upon his inheritance?" Jewish law considered the 
 family, and not the individual, as the unit. As long 
 as the family was kept up, the name of the individual 
 was of no consequence, so that the child of Ruth as 
 fully represented Elimelech as it did Mahlon ; and in 
 the same manner it represented all the ancestors of 
 Elimelech, and was simply a link in the chain of 
 descent, which by a legal fiction, thus became un- 
 broken. 
 
 When Ruth had a son, they called him Obed. It 
 wiU be seen, therefore, that the name was of no im- 
 portance, but this Obed, although he was the son of 
 Boaz and Ruth, was considered as the son of the dead 
 Mahlon or of Elimelech and continued the line of 
 Elimelech, although he had none of the blood. This 
 
BOAZ AND RUTH. 139 
 
 was the reason the neighbors said, "there is a son 
 born to Naomi." 
 
 "When the Goel refused to redeem the land after 
 he discovered that he would have to marry Ruth, he 
 excused himself, saying, ' ' lest I mar mine own inherit- 
 ance." This may be taken to mean that other prop- 
 erty which he owned would have to bear the burden 
 of improvement and maintenance of the particular 
 piece of land that came to him through this marriage, 
 because it had to be preserved for his son, who would, 
 in the eye of the law, be the son of the dead Mahlon ; 
 nor would this estate of inheritance descend to any 
 other children that he might have, but was entailed 
 upon the heirs of the body of Ruth. 
 
 The record then goes on to say, "Now this was the 
 custom in former time in Israel concerning redeem- 
 ing and concerning changing, to confirm all things; 
 a man drew off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor, 
 and this was a testimony in Israel; so the Goel said 
 to Boaz, Buy it for thyself, and he drew off his 
 shoe." The shoe was the symbol of possession, and 
 the foot planted upon the ground was the evidence 
 
140 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 of ownership; thus the shoe or sandal became the 
 symbol of ownership and title, and the handing of 
 the shoe from one to the other was evidence of a 
 transfer of a right or title. In this case, the Goel 
 who renounced his right to redeem in favor of Boaz, 
 the next in succession, handed the latter his shoe as 
 evidence of his transfer of the right of redemption. 
 Boaz, having obtained the right of redemption 
 through the renunciation of the nearest kinsman, 
 made a public statement in the presence of the elders 
 summarizing his rights, such a statement being neces- 
 sary in the absence of written records of the trans- 
 action; "And Boaz said unto the elders and unto all 
 the people, Ye are witnesses this day that I have 
 bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was 
 Chilion's and Mahlon's from the hand of Naomi." 
 There could be no doubt as to his title, and the fact 
 that it was the family estate rather than the estate 
 of the individual that was now being transferred is 
 indicated by the mentioning of the names of the 
 father and the sons. There was something in the 
 Jewish idea of the family estate as distinguished from 
 
BOAZ AND RUTH. 141 
 
 the rights of its possessor, akin to the modern notion 
 of the relation of a corporation to its members. The 
 family estate was an entity separate and apart from 
 the line of individuals who succeeded each other in 
 its possession. Like the corporation, the family es- 
 tate did not die, and to prevent the possibility of 
 the extinction of the family, a legal fiction was called 
 into requisition, as in this case, whereby the son of 
 the widow of the last occupant of the estate was 
 looked upon as though he were of the blood of the 
 last occupant; thus the owner of the land, for the 
 time being, was merely the legal representative of 
 the estate which would continue after his death. 
 
 We might, to carry still further the analogy be- 
 tween the Jewish notion of the estate and the modern 
 corporation, consider the owner of the estate like 
 the president of the corporation— its representative 
 clothed with certain powers over it, but unable prac- 
 tically to do anything whereby the estate would be 
 minimized or lost to the family. 
 
 Boaz went on addressing the elders as follows: 
 "Moreover, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, 
 
142 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 I have purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name 
 of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of 
 the dead be not cut off from among his brethren and 
 from the gate of his place. Ye are witnesses this 
 day ; and all the people that were in the gate and the 
 elders said, "We are witnesses." 
 
 Now, this was a lawful marriage, and required no 
 further ceremony. The wife went with the estate, 
 and indeed, in a measure, transmitted the estate 
 because her son would inherit it; her son would rep- 
 resent her former husband's family, and would take 
 his place as one of the heads of the families of the 
 town "in the gate of his place." 
 
 The right and duty of the nearest kinsman to 
 marry the widow and raise up the name of the dead 
 upon his inheritance was, in later times, limited, and 
 only the actual brother of the dead man was ob- 
 liged to marry the widow. Contemporaneously with 
 this change, came a change in the custom of draw- 
 ing off the shoe as evidence of title and ownership. 
 As stated in this record, "This was the custom 
 in former times in Israel," but in later times, the 
 
BOAZ AND RUTH. 143 
 
 custom of drawing off the shoe was limited exclu- 
 sively to the one case mentioned in the twenty-fifth 
 chapter of Deuteronomy; namely, where the brother 
 of the dead man refuses to marry the widow, she 
 plucks off his shoe in the presence of the elders, spits 
 out before him and says, "Thus shall be done to the 
 man who will not build up his brother's house; and 
 his name was known in Israel as the house of him 
 whose shoe was plucked off." Thus what was orig- 
 inally a general symbol of title, in the course of time 
 was modified, and eventually lost its significance as 
 such altogether, and became a symbol of contempt; 
 and that which was originally a general custom used 
 in all cases, came in the course of time to be limited 
 to a single case in which the actors changed places. 
 It was no longer he who transferred the title that 
 plucked off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor, but 
 it was the rejected woman who, in token of her con- 
 tempt for the man who refused to marry her, plucked 
 off his shoe. In the case of Boaz and Ruth we find 
 the custom of plucking off the shoe in its ancient 
 primitive form, and in the other case, in Deuter.on- 
 
144 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 omy, it has become modified and changed in the 
 course of centuries, until hardly recognizable as the 
 same custom. It is an interesting illustration of the 
 manner in which customs are changed in the course 
 of long periods of time; it is only -when we compare 
 the two extremes that we notice the remarkable 
 changes that have taken place. 
 
THE CASE OP ADONIJAH, ABIATHAR AND 
 JOAB. 
 
 1 Kings I, 5 -II, 34. 
 
 Several times during the beginning of the reign 
 of King Solomon the question ol the privilege of 
 sanctuary came up for decision. This privilege or 
 right was successively claimed by Adonijah, the 
 king's brother; Abiathar, the high priest, and Joab, 
 one of the mighty men of King David, and sometime 
 commander-in-chief of the army. The right of sanc- 
 tuary claimed by these men is one of the most ancient 
 legal institutions recorded in the Bible. It arose 
 with the very beginning of a belief in supernatural 
 powers, to whom it was a direct appeal for protection. 
 Every place that had been consecrated by the sup- 
 posed presence of God, or that had been used as a 
 place of worship, was saero-sanct; and violence com- 
 mitted in it was not merely an offence against the 
 person injured or against established law or custom, 
 but was likewise an insult to the Deity. Hence, in 
 10 145 
 
146 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 very earliest times, the sacred places became places 
 of refuge for those who were pursued and in danger 
 of their lives; and so great vcas the reverence and 
 fear inspired by the supernatural, that this appeal 
 for Divine protection was regarded as tantamount 
 to obtaining that protection, and kept the avenging 
 pursuer at a distance. 
 
 It appears that when King David had grown old 
 and was about to die, one of his sons, Adonijah, ap- 
 parently with the consent of the king, "exalted him- 
 self, saying, I will reign," and he appeared before 
 the people with chariots and horsemen, and generally 
 conducted himself not merely as heir-apparent, but 
 as though he were already king. He conferred with 
 Joab, the king's commander-in-chief, and Abiathar, 
 the high priest, both of them devoted to King David, 
 and they ' ' following Adonijah, helped him " ( 1 Kings 
 I, 5, etc.). By a palace intrigue, Bath-Sheba, as- 
 sisted by Nathan, the prophet, managed to obtain the 
 old king's favor for her son Solomon, and under their 
 influence King David directed that Solomon should 
 be anointed and proclaimed king over Israel (1 
 Kings I, 32-34). 
 
ADONIJAH, ABIATHAH AisTD JOAB. 147 
 
 When Adonijah, who had been entertaining the 
 princes and the king's officers, heard that the crown 
 had been given to Solomon he feared that Solomon 
 would put him to death, the favorite method em- 
 ployed by oriental potentates for disposing of dan- 
 gerous rivals, especially members of their own family, 
 who by virtue of their blood relationship might pre- 
 tend to a right to the throne. Adonijah sought refuge 
 in the tent of the tabernacle where the Ark of the 
 Covenant was resting and where the altar of God 
 stood, and laying hold of the horns of the altar, he 
 announced that he would not leave the place until 
 Solomon swore that he would not put him to death. 
 Although Solomon respected this appeal to the privi- 
 lege of the sanctuary, he declined to comply entirely 
 with Adonijah 's request, merely saying, "If he wiU 
 show himself a worthy man, there shall not a hair of 
 him fall to the earth ; but if wickedness shall be found 
 in him, he shall die." Adonijah understood this to 
 mean that if Solomon came to the conclusion that 
 Adonijah was a dangerous man, he would put him to 
 death, and he refused to leave the sacred premises. 
 
148 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Solomon then sent for him and "they brought him 
 down from the altar" (1 Kings I, 50-53)— removed 
 him by force. 
 
 Thereafter, King David died and Solomon sat on 
 the throne of his father. After the death of the old 
 king, Adonijah was guilty of a diplomatic blunder 
 that cost him his life. In an interview with Bath- 
 Sheba, the mother of King Solomon, he obtained from 
 her a promise to ask the king to give him as wife 
 Abishag, the Shunammite girl, who had waited upon 
 King David during his last days. Had Solomon com- 
 plied with this request, the people would have seen 
 in this marriage a confirmation of the claims of 
 Adonijah to succeed King David. It was customary 
 for the successor of a deceased king, as evidence 
 inter alia of his right to succeed to the sovereignty, 
 to take possession of the harem. 
 
 Solomon immediately saw the political bearing of 
 this request, and he said to his mother, "And why 
 dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah ? 
 Ask for him the kingdom also, for he is mine elder 
 brother" (1 Kings II, 22) ; whereupon Solomon had 
 
ADONIJAH, ABIATHAR AND JOAB. 149 
 
 Adonijali put to death on the same day, and fearing 
 the power of Abiathar and Joab, who had encouraged 
 Adonijah in his pretensions, he determined to rid 
 himself of them also. The priest he could not kill, 
 since the fact that he ministered at the altar and bore 
 the Ark of the Lord on his shoulder invested his very 
 person with a certain sacredness which the king felt 
 bound to respect. Abiathar, therefore, was banished 
 from the court and the capitol (1 Kings II, 26-27). 
 Then came Joab's turn. When Joab heard of 
 these occurrences, he fled into the tabernacle of the 
 Lord, and caught hold of the horns of the altar. But 
 Solomon's fear of Joab's influence over the army 
 overcame his fear of the Lord, and he gave orders to 
 have Joab killed even at the altar. The situation is 
 almost paralleled by the story of Henry II of Eng- 
 land and Thomas A'Becket. The king's officer, who 
 had gone down to the tabernacle to execute the com- 
 mands of his royal master, was afraid to do as the 
 king commanded, because of the sacrilege involved, 
 and he therefore sought to induce Joab to come forth, 
 but Joab said to him, "Nay, I will die here." 
 
150 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Eather than kill Joab by the side of the altar, the 
 officer returned to the king and reported what had 
 occurred, and the king, feeling that it was not only 
 necessary that he should justify himself, but also 
 satisfy the scruples of his officers, gave reasons for 
 his command. The true reason was the political one 
 of Joab's participation in Adonijah's usurpation, a 
 reason not strong enough, however, to destroy Joab's 
 right of sanctuary. After the king's officer had re- 
 ported to him that Joab had said "I will die here," 
 the king said unto him, "Do as he hath said and put 
 him to death and bury him, that thou mayest take 
 away the innocent blood which Joab shed, from me 
 and from the house of my father. And the Lord 
 shall return his blood upon his own head, who fell 
 upon two men more righteous and better than he, 
 and slew them with a sword, my father David not 
 knowing thereof, Abner, the son of Ner, captain of 
 the host of Israel, and Amasa, the son of Jether, 
 captain of the host of Judali. Their blood shall 
 therefore return upon the head of Joab and upon the 
 head of his seed forever; but upon David and his 
 
ADONIJAH, ABIATHAE AND JOAB. 151 
 
 seed and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall 
 there be peace forever from the Lord." (1 Kings 
 II, 31-33.) 
 
 By this piece of hypocrisy the king sought to 
 justify his command to kill Joab and to disregard 
 the right of sanctuary, for it was the law that this 
 privilege of sanctuary could not be claimed by a will- 
 ful murderer. This explanation satisfied the king's 
 oflfieer, and he thereupon returned to the tabernacle 
 and killed Joab by the altar. Solomon was a despot, 
 and it was not at all necessary for him to give reasons 
 for his commands to his subordinates ; but the terrible 
 nature of the command, which was apparently a defi- 
 ance of God and a violation of his sanctuary, required 
 some justification. 
 
 The sanctity of the altar or the temple, or any 
 other sacred place, is historically connected with the 
 saeredness of guest-friendship. Anciently every 
 man's house was a temple, the threshold of which 
 was a sacred place at which the family gods were 
 worshipped, and the family sacrifices made; and the 
 head of every family was a priest. Persons who 
 
152 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 crossed the threshold became, for the time being, 
 members of the family, and were entitled to aU its 
 rights and privileges. It was the sacred duty of 
 every member of the family to defend and protect 
 every other one. The stranger who crossed the 
 threshold, by a legal fiction having become invested 
 with the family rights, had to be protected by the 
 members of the family against any persons pursuing 
 him. Thus, Lot protected two men who had come 
 into his house and had partaken of his hospitality; 
 and he even permitted his house to be besieged by 
 the men of Sodom rather than give up the strangers 
 to their vengeance (Genesis XIX, 4-11). Similarly 
 the citizen of Gibeah protected the two strangers 
 from his townsmen, because he had lodged and fed 
 them in his house (Judges XIX, 22-23). Rahab 
 protected the two spies sent out by Joshua to the 
 city of Jericho. "When the king of Jericho heard 
 that these men were lodged at her house, he directed 
 her to produce them; but she concealed them in her 
 house and gave them the protection that guest-friend- 
 ship required (Joshua II, 1-7). 
 
ADONIJAH, ABIATHAR AND JOAB. 153 
 
 When, in the course of time, the union of various 
 patriarchal families resulted in the formation of 
 tribal organization, and in addition to the sacred 
 thresholds and altars of every man's house, public 
 places of worship were recognized, the same sacred 
 character was conferred upon them. The man who 
 took refuge in the house of God, which was really 
 the tribal house, was, in the eye of the law, invested 
 with certain rights which it was the duty of the 
 entire tribe to guard. Hence, merely crossing the 
 threshold of sacred places, and especially, standing 
 by the side of the sacred altar or laying hold of the 
 horns of the altar was sufficient to insure immunity, 
 even though there were no physical barriers to pre- 
 vent the seizure and punishment of the suppliant at 
 the sanctuary. But the peace of the community was 
 threatened by the privileges thus claimed and al- 
 lowed, inasmuch as any man might commit a murder, 
 safe in the assurance that he would be protected 
 merely by taking refuge in some sacred place. 
 Hence, we find in the oldest collection of laws in 
 the Bible this proviso: "He that smiteth a man so 
 
154 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 that he die, shall be surely put to death; and if a 
 man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his 
 hand, then he will appoint a place whither he shaU 
 flee; but if a man come presumptuously upon his 
 neighbor to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him 
 from mine altar that he may die" (Exodus XXI, 
 12-14). Thus the willful murderer was deprived of 
 the benefit of sanctuary, and it was limited to protect 
 the man-slayer from the hand of the avenging kins- 
 man only if the murder was not committed "pre- 
 sumptuously or by lying in wait." In other words, 
 no immunity was granted to him who had been guilty 
 of "murder in the first degree." 
 
 The Cities of Refuge were simply an extension of 
 the right of sanctuary, from a specific sacred place to 
 an entire city. The sacred character of these cities 
 is indicated by the fact that they were Levitieal cities. 
 The notion of the inviolability of the refugee, as soon 
 as he crossed the boundary of the city and entered 
 its gate, is an extension of the old notion of the 
 saeredness of the threshold and the duties of guest- 
 friendship to the stranger who passed over it. 
 
ADONIJAH, ABIATHAR AND JOAB. 155 
 
 The reason for Solomon's action in the case of 
 Adonijah, Abiathar and Joab can readily be distin- 
 guished. The only legal justification for his refusal 
 to recognize the right of sanctuary is given in Joab's 
 case ; to wit, the charge that Joab had been guilty of 
 willful murder, and therefore had deprived himself 
 of the right of sanctuary. In Adonijah 's case, Solo- 
 mon was obliged to make him a promise of partial 
 immunity, but this promise is couched in such terms 
 that shortly thereafter the king was enabled to use 
 Adonijah 's diplomatic folly as a pretext for putting 
 him to death. In Abiathar 's case, the sacredness of 
 the office of high priest amply protected him from 
 the king's vengeance, and Solomon was obliged to 
 content himself with the deposition of Abiathar from 
 his high office, and his exile to his patrimonial estate. 
 
 The juridical or legal character of the sanctuary 
 is attested by many biblical citations. The ark of 
 testimony containing the tables of the law was kept 
 in the sanctuary (Exodus XXXIX, 35), and was 
 placed in charge of the priests (Deuteronomy XXXI, 
 9). It was to the altar that men went for the pur- 
 
156 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 pose of having an oath administered to them (2 
 Chronicles VI, 22). So closely connected were the 
 notions of sanctuary and administration of justice 
 that the judges were known as Elohim [Hebrew: 
 God], and a case, therefore, was said to go before 
 Elohim— that is to say, before the judges who repre- 
 sented God and who spoke judgment in his name. 
 
 At Common Law in England, the privilege of sanc- 
 tuary survived until it was abolished by the statute, 
 21st James I, chapter twenty-eight, paragraph seven. 
 It may be that the exemption from civil arrest enjoyed 
 in our own times by parties, witnesses, attorneys, 
 judges, jurors and officers of the court, while attend- 
 ing court, and while going to and returning from 
 court, is a survival of the right of sanctuary, though 
 a different reason is now given for it. 
 
THE JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON. 
 
 1 Kings III, 16-28. 
 
 The wisdom of Solomon is the theme of writers of 
 the three great religions which sprang from Judea. 
 In legend and story he has been extolled as the wisest 
 of men, whose insight into the mysteries of life 
 transcended that of all other men; whose great prac- 
 tical sagacity made him the wonder of the world. Of 
 the many stories concerning his wisdom there is one 
 recorded in the Bible, which may or may not have 
 had a foundation in some actual occurrence, but 
 which in its recorded form must certainly be classed 
 with the legends. It presents Solomon, in the exer- 
 cise of his judicial function, as an oriental potentate, 
 dispensing justice to all comers, in the great Hall of 
 Justice. The narrative is the record of the decision 
 of an Eastern judge, whose judgment was rendered 
 after the peculiar manner of primitive tribunals, 
 which have not as yet established a system of law, 
 but which depend upon the inspiration of the mo- 
 
 157 
 
158 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 ment. Under the law, as codified in the Pentateuch, 
 such a proceeding would have been impossible, but 
 to the irresponsible king all things are possible; his 
 will is the law, and his sense of justice is his people 's 
 jurisprudence. In the biblical story of Solomon's 
 judgment the legendary elements are intertwined 
 with many interesting suggestions of the procedure 
 in such royal oriental courts of law, and it is curious 
 to note that many of the points of procedure that 
 may be found stated either expressly or by inference 
 in the account of the judgment of Solomon, find 
 confirmation in the opinions of the Talmudists. 
 
 The king was seated on the judgment seat in his 
 great hall, when two women that were harlots entered 
 and stood before him. "The one woman said. Oh, 
 my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house and 
 I gave birth to a child with her in the house, and on 
 the third day that I was delivered this woman was 
 delivered also, and we were together, no stranger was 
 with us in the house, save we two alone. And the 
 child of this woman died in the night for she over- 
 laid it, and she arose at midnight and took my child 
 
JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON. 159 
 
 from me and she laid it in her bosom, and her child, 
 the dead one, she laid in my bosom. And when I 
 arose in the morning to give suck to my child, behold, 
 he was dead, but when I had considered it in the 
 morning, behold, it was not my son which I did 
 bear." 
 
 Then said the other woman, "Nay, for my son is 
 the living one and thy son is the dead." And this 
 one said, "Nay, for thy son is the dead one and my 
 son is the living. ' ' Thus they spoke before the king. 
 
 Upon this state of facts the king was asked to 
 render judgment— a test worthy of his wisdom. 
 Here was the statement of one against the statement 
 of the other, no witnesses being produced by either 
 side, no husband, friend or relative to add to the 
 weight of the testimony of either of the parties. 
 The legend states the fact in such a manner as to pre- 
 clude any judgment based upon ordinary methods 
 of investigation, and requiring the exercise of extra- 
 ordinary sagacity to discover the truth. It may be, 
 that by cross-examination Solomon might have con- 
 founded the liar and brought out the truth, and it 
 
160 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 may be presumed that he was a cr.oss-examiner par 
 excellence, but this method would not have satisfied 
 the exigencies of the legend. What would have de- 
 lighted a lawyer would have bored a layman and 
 legends do not spring up among lawyers. The pop- 
 ular imagination does not follow the intricacies of 
 close reasoning, nor has it the patience to unravel 
 painfully the thread of a fine spun argument. It 
 delights in swift and sudden changes of situation 
 and in a sensational cutting of the Gordian knot. 
 In the popular mind, the great judge is he whose 
 methods are direct, swift and striking. 
 
 The king having heard the statements of the 
 women, fell a thinking about the case and repeated 
 their words. This one says, "My son is the living 
 and thy son the dead"; and that one says, "Nay, 
 thy son is the dead and mine the living." Some 
 Bible commentators find the clue to the judgment in 
 the manner in which the women made these state- 
 ments. The false woman, whose object was to retain 
 possession of the living child, shows it in her eager- 
 ness to claim him, saying, "Mine is the living and 
 
JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON. 161 
 
 thine the dead." It is the living child, the one she 
 has in her possession, that she emphatically names 
 first, whereas the true mother, who has the dead child 
 thrust on her, says, "Nay, thine is the dead child 
 and mine is the living." She desires to be rid of 
 the dead child and regain possession of her own 
 child. The value of this suggestion is left to psy- 
 chologists; it could hardly have been the means of 
 giving light in so difficult a case. But whether this 
 was the clue or not, the king, after having repeated 
 these words of the women, suddenly cried out, "Fetch 
 me a sword." 
 
 His repetition of the pleas before proceeding to 
 judgment is approved by the Talmudists, who made 
 it a rule that the judge, before rendering judgment, 
 must , publicly state the case of both sides, very much 
 in the manner in which a judge sums up to the jury. 
 On the other hand, his abrupt call for a sword is 
 severely condemned by some Talmudists as an act 
 unworthy of a judge, who sought by illegal means to 
 frighten the parties and who, had his sentence of 
 judgment been carried out, might have caused the 
 
162 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 death of an innocent child. It must be remembered 
 that the Talmudists who lived under a highly devel- 
 oped system of jurisprudence, which compelled judges 
 to follow an orderly and well regulated system of 
 procedure, could not countenance the capricious 
 methods of an irresponsible judge, even though he 
 were the king. Hence Rabbi Judah, a great master 
 of the law, and the compiler of the great code known 
 as the Mishnah, said, "If I had been present when 
 he said, ' Fetch me a sword, ' I would have put a rope 
 around his neck, for if God had not been merciful 
 and prompted the mother to give up her child rather 
 than see it die, it would surely have been kiUed by 
 him." Evidently the ancient methods of procedure 
 found little favor in the eyes of Rabbi Judah. In 
 fact the Talmudists were rather impatient of the 
 primitive methods of the biblical law, even of the law 
 of Moses, and they sought under the influence of more 
 refined theories of law and procedure to modify the 
 severity of the ancient Mosaic law, even going so far 
 as to abrogate it entirely when it was found to be out 
 of harmony with the conditions and requirements of 
 a later stage of civilization. 
 
JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON. 163 
 
 When the king cried out "Fetch me a sword," he 
 was probably eyeing the two women and noting the 
 effect of his order. At this point, one might suppose 
 that the false woman would have shown signs of 
 terror and could easily, by a question or two, have 
 been made to confess her fault. But, no, the legend 
 is not satisfied with such proof of Solomon's wisdom; 
 as yet there is no climax to the wrought up feelings 
 of the popular mind. And now comes the climax in 
 all its magnificence. Imagine the Eastern profes- 
 sional story teller telling this tale and gradually work- 
 ing up to the words, "Cut the living child in two, 
 and give one-half to the one, and one-half to the 
 other." The death of the child is to be the touch- 
 stone by which to discover the mother. Josephus, in 
 his account of this scene, makes the king order both 
 the living and dead child to be divided, so that abso- 
 lute equity shall be observed in the division. The 
 story would have had a sad ending if the mother had 
 fainted when the sword was prodiiced, and the sen- 
 tence had been carried out. However, the story teller 
 will not leave us in the lurch. It is his purpose to 
 
164 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 show that Solomon was wise, and he may be safely 
 trusted to get over the difficult places. 
 
 The king's threat had the desired effect, for the 
 mother of the living child cried out, "Oh my lord, 
 give her the living child and do not kill it," but the 
 other woman said, "Let it be neither mine nor thine; 
 divide it. ' ' Now what possessed the woman to make 
 such a statement? What reason was there for her 
 demand that the child should be killed. How lame 
 and impotent a conclusion to her case, which, up to 
 this time, she had conducted with so much pertinacity, 
 boldness and skill. She had stolen the living child 
 from its mother, presiunably because she wanted it; 
 she had resisted the mother's demands for it, pre- 
 sumably because she wanted to keep it; she had even 
 compelled the mother to go before the king himself 
 to get her child, and there in the royal presence she 
 had thus far, under great stress, maintained her right 
 of possession, and now at the very moment of her 
 triumph, when the mother publicly relinquished her 
 rights and acquiesced in her possession, she not only 
 declines to take it, but insists upon its destruction. 
 
JUDGMENT OF SOLOMON. 165 
 
 What can be the reason for such unreasonableness? 
 Let lis suppose that after the mother had said, 
 "Give her the living child but do not kill it," the 
 false woman had said nothing. Solomon would have 
 been compelled to give the child to the wrong woman 
 and a good story would have been spoiled, because 
 there would have been no way of determining whether 
 the true mother or the false claimant was the one who 
 said, "Give her the living child but do not kill it." 
 This might as well have been said by the mother who 
 was in terror lest her child be killed, as by the false 
 woman who was seized with remorse at the last mo- 
 ment and prayed that the child might not be killed. 
 Now the reason for the remarkable statement of the 
 false woman appears. The legend had to add these 
 words in order to make it clear to the popular mind 
 that the woman who wanted to save the child was 
 indeed the true mother, by contrasting with her words 
 those of the false woman who was thus made base even 
 to fiendishness. And thus the famous words of Solo- 
 mon, "Fetch me a sword," are justified and virtue 
 is triumphant, for the king said, ' ' Give her the living 
 child, and do not kill it; she is its mother." 
 
166 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 The judgment of Solomon may be based on fact, 
 but it is presented in the form of a legend such as 
 the people love to tell about their great men. Here 
 the king sits in all the pomp and glory of royalty, 
 exercising the most important office, that of the judge, 
 and doing justice, not according to the methods of 
 the tiresome lawyers, who talk and reason and quib- 
 ble, and whom the popular mind has at all times 
 condemned, but in the manner of the noble prince, 
 with royal dignity, with worldly wisdom and with 
 swift hand. 
 
THE CASE OP NABOTH'S VINEYARD. 
 1 Kings XXI, 1-29; 2 Kings IX, 22-26. 
 
 This case has been made famous on account of the 
 magnificent dramatic effect with which it is told in 
 the Bible, and more especially because of the manner 
 in which the Divine wrath took vengeance upon the 
 son of King Ahab for the crime committed by the 
 father, illustrating by a shining example the words, 
 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting 
 the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto 
 the third and fourth generation of them that hate 
 me." But apart from the dramatic and literary 
 interest of this story, and its value as an illustration 
 of certain ethical principles, it has many interesting 
 legal elements. 
 
 Naboth, a wealthy landowner in northern Palestine, 
 and one of the leading men of the city of Jezreel, 
 owned a vineyard next to the grounds surrounding 
 the summer palace of Ahab, king of Samaria. The 
 king, on one of his visits to his summer palace, cast 
 
 167 
 
168 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 a covetous eye on the vineyard of Naboth, and, having 
 sent for him, said, "Give me thy vineyard that I 
 may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near 
 unto my house, and I will give thee for it a better 
 vineyard than it, or, if it seem good to thee, I will 
 give thee the worth of it in money." This proposi- 
 tion, fair enough, judged from a modern point of 
 view, was not so pleasing to Naboth, whose natural 
 attachment to his patrimonial estate was strengthened 
 by the immemorial custom among the Hebrews, of 
 preserving the estate in the family, unless dire neces- 
 sity required its alienation. 
 
 Originally lands were entirely inalienable, but with 
 the growth of commercial life under the reign of the 
 kings, concessions were gradually made in favor of 
 the alienation of landed property, with a proviso, 
 however, that in the year of the jubilee all lands 
 were to revert to the family of the owner who had 
 aliened them. To men like Naboth, who had no 
 reason for parting with their estates, the very thought 
 of giving away or selling them was akin to sacrilege, 
 and thus Naboth answered the king, "It is forbidden 
 
NABOTH'S VINEYARD. 169 
 
 me by the Lord that I should give the inheritance 
 of my fathers unto thee. ' ' As the kingship was still 
 something new in Israel and the ancient liberties of 
 the people had not yet been entirely destroyed by 
 the monarchial rule, he had to be satisfied with this 
 answer. 
 
 When he returned to his capitol, however, he 
 showed such marked signs of displeasure at the treat- 
 ment he had received from Naboth, that his wife, 
 Queen Jezebel, whose name has since become a syn- 
 onym for deviltry, asked him, "Why is thy spirit so 
 sad that thou eatest no bread?" Thereupon the 
 king told her the story, quoting Naboth as saying, 
 "I will not give thee my vineyard." 
 
 Jezebel, who, as the daughter of a despotic Phoe- 
 nician king, the king of Sidon, had been brought up 
 in her father's house to look upon the mere whim 
 and caprice of the king as higher and stronger than 
 any law or custom, lost patience at her husband's 
 meek recital of Naboth 's refusal of his request. With 
 bitter, irony, she said to him, "Dost thou now indeed 
 reign over Israel?" adding, "Arise and eat and let 
 
170 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 thy heart be merry, for I will give thee the vineyard 
 of Naboth, the Jezreelite." 
 
 The manner in which she kept her promise showed 
 how deep were the inroads which royal usurpation 
 had made upon the liberties of the people. It must 
 be premised that imder the ancient constitution of 
 the Hebrew Commonwealth each community was 
 practically independent and was ruled by its own 
 elders. With the establishment of the kingship, new 
 officials appear, namely, the royal judges who sit with 
 the elders in the various cities of the kingdom. As 
 the kingship grew stronger, the autonomy of the 
 elders declined. By force of intrigue their authority 
 was undermined, and, as in the present case, corrupt 
 men were put into office under royal influence, who 
 became pliant tools in the hand of their royal masters. 
 
 The queen evidently knew upon whom she could 
 rely to carry out her purpose, for she issued orders 
 in the name of the king and sealed them with his seal, 
 and sent them to the elders and princes who were in 
 Naboth 's city and who sat with him in the local coun- 
 cil. It is not to be presumed that she issued these 
 
NABOTH'S VINEYARD. 171 
 
 writs or orders to all the elders indiscriminately. 
 She probably had several men in office in the town 
 of Jezreel upon whom she could rely to carry out her 
 orders. She wrote to them as follows : 
 
 ' ' Proclaim a fast and place Naboth in the assembly 
 of the people and let him be confronted with two 
 worthless fellows that they may testify against him, 
 saying, 'Thou didst blaspheme God and the king,' 
 and then let him be taken out to the place of execu- 
 tion and be stoned to death." 
 
 The order to place Naboth in the assembly was in 
 fact an order to place him on trial by his peers, the 
 members of the council of elders who "sat with him." 
 Her order to have witnesses suborned to perjure 
 themselves, and the fact that her orders were carried 
 out to the letter, throw a clear light upon the admin- 
 istration of the law under a despotic ruler. It is 
 probable that in her secret instructions to her tools 
 she told them what Naboth had actually said to the 
 king, and how this might be perverted into blasphemy 
 and lese-majeste. 
 
 Violent as was this debauchery of justice by the 
 
172 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 queen, it was, however, done according to strict form 
 of law, for the royal power in Israel was not yet 
 strong enough to violate all popular traditions and 
 forms of procedure, and accomplish its ends by arbi- 
 trary measures. 
 
 When the elders of Jezreel had received their 
 orders from the queen, they proceeded to carry them 
 out to the letter.. They gathered the assembly and 
 placed Naboth on trial, produced the perjured wit- 
 nesses, who testified against Naboth in accordance 
 with her instructions, "Naboth has blasphemed God 
 and the king," and thereupon he was convicted and 
 taken to the common place^of execution, -without the 
 city;^ajid stoned t.Q^deatll. 
 
 The elders in the case contented themselves with 
 following the mere form of procedure, and disre- 
 garded all the rules of practice which the Jewish law 
 had established for the protection of one charged with 
 crime. In this case the examination of the witnesses 
 seems to have been perfunctory and intended merely 
 to satisfy the multitude of onlookers and townsmen 
 of Naboth. 
 
NABOTH'S VINEYAED. 173 
 
 The judjcial^urder^sJhaYillg^gxeciitec^^ 
 
 writ^_niMe theiLretoiill.d'!i§-£2^™i to wit, ' ' Naboth 
 is stoned and is dead." 
 
 When the queen received this message, she said to 
 Ahab, "Arise and take possession of the vineyard of 
 Naboth, the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee 
 for money, for Naboth is not alive but is dead," and 
 Ahab went down to Jezreel for the purpose of taking 
 possession of the coveted land. 
 
 The question arises, Bx.jij^laai*.Mghi.. did Jhe king 
 
 o^ijer 1 If Naboth had children, they would inherit ; 
 in the absence of children his nearest kinsmen would 
 inherit, so that the inheritance of his fathers would 
 not pass out of his family or tribe. There evidently 
 were several versions of this affair current among the 
 people, for in the passage in Second Kings (IX, 26) 
 there is a reference to the fact that Naboth did have 
 sons who also fell victims to the covetousness of the 
 king. 
 
 It was the law, anciently, t hat the child xeiLJBgere 
 put to..J£ath-foiLt,he..Grime..Qi-the.jaaient. until the 
 
174 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 promulgation of the law "The parents shall not be 
 put to death for the children, and the children shall 
 not be put to death for the parents; each man shall 
 be put to death for his own crime." (Deuteronomy 
 XXIV, 16.) A§,_Na^oth_had„^£B,^p.a:sdcted_.ajid 
 sentenced to ,.4fiath, liis ^duLdrexi-^n fFer.ed J3ie» same 
 pim^ment. 
 
 As to the right of the king to take possession of the 
 inheritance, this may have been founded either upon 
 his kinship with Naboth or upon his right as uUimus 
 haeres in default of lawful heirs, but there is noth- 
 ing in the Jewish law to warrant the belief that the 
 King or the State had any right to inherit property 
 japori the death of the owner without lawful heirs, 
 nor is there any evidence of forfeiture of the estate 
 of the felon who has been convicted and put to death. 
 We must, therefore, assume that the king's possession 
 of Naboth 's vineyard was simply the act of an auto- 
 cratic despot. No doubt, Ahab himself would never 
 have dared to take such a step in violation of the 
 ancient custom and laws of his people, but Jezebel, 
 whose character and training had left in her no con- 
 
NABOTH'S VINEYARD. 175 
 
 scientious scruples on this score, did not_he§itate to 
 establish a^5ew__Ereeedent_^f or the jirggou 
 
 Although the people were, for the time being, pla- 
 cated by the apparent regularity in the form of the 
 trial of Naboth, they perceived the motive for the 
 prosecution as soon as the king took possession of 
 Naboth 's estate. The biblical account introduces the 
 prophet Elijah talking with Ahab on the highway 
 and denouncing the crime and threatening him with 
 divine vengeance. "Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou 
 killed and also taken possession? In the place where 
 dogs lick the blood of Naboth, shall dogs lick thy 
 blood, even thine." Ahab, overcome with contrition, 
 humbled himself and did penance for the crime, and 
 the prophet was then informed that not in Ahab's 
 day would vengeance be taken, "but in his son's 
 days, would the evil be brought upon his house"; 
 and later on (2 Kings IX, 25-35), when his son, 
 King Jehoram , was slain by Jeh3ij^Jiis^JjQdy,^W.as 
 thrown^ intQ,, the.j|el4».i>i=»iWiflJil»»~lii£^J^zreeH 
 "For," said Jehu to his companion, "I remember 
 how that when I and thou were riding together, after 
 
176 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Ahab his father, the Lord laid this burden upon him. 
 ' Surely I have seen this day the blood of Naboth and 
 the blood of his sons, ' saith the Lord, ' and I will re- 
 quite thee in this very plat of ground.' " 
 
 The words here put into the mouth of the prophet 
 Elijah, threatening Divine vengeance for Ahab's 
 crime, probably expressed the indignation of the 
 people at the enormity of the offense, and at the 
 prostitution of justice by the king and queen. It 
 was such unlawful assumption of authority on the 
 part of the kings that prevented the monarchy from 
 flourishing in Israel. The old customs and laws 
 which had been temporarily placed in abeyance dur- 
 ing the reign of the kings were revived immediately 
 upon the fall of the kingdom, and after the return of 
 the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity, and still 
 later, after the destruction of the second temple by 
 Titus, the reign of law revived and reestablished 
 itself among the Jewish people. 
 
A CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO THE 
 PROPHET JEREMIAH. 
 
 Jeremiah XXXII, 6-15. 
 
 The purchase of the Cave of Maehpelah, illustrates 
 the method of conveying land before the introduction 
 of written records. The conveyance to Jeremiah 
 shows the method followed during the last days of 
 the Jewish kingdom, at the beginning of the sixth 
 century before the Christian era. At this time the 
 art of writing seems to have been generally practiced, 
 and accordingly the form of procedure which was in 
 vogue during the earlier period was modified. The 
 procedure under consideration shows distinct traces 
 of the influence of Babylonian law, more especially 
 in the duplication of the deed of conveyance and in 
 the manner in which it was placed on record. 
 
 For the purpose of better understanding the reason 
 
 for the introduction of this fragment of ancient law 
 
 into the book of the prophet Jeremiah, it must be 
 
 borne in mind that the doom of Judea was impend- 
 
 12 177 
 
178 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 ing. The king of Babylon had entered the land, had 
 deposed the king of Judea and had placed his uncle, 
 Zedekiah on the throne. Babylonian soldiers, tax 
 gatherers and other officials appeared in all parts of 
 the land, and wise statesmen foresaw the end of Jew- 
 ish independence. Among these farseeing men was 
 Jeremiah, a man of noble descent, of priestly lineage 
 and of commanding position in the state, who had 
 been thrown into prison by King Zedekiah because 
 he had foretold the political destruction of the Jewish 
 state. Jeremiah's influence upon the people was very 
 great, and now that he had accomplished his purpose 
 in opening their eyes to the true condition of affairs 
 and impressing them with the fact that the state was 
 in its decline, he sought to console them with the 
 thought that although the present state was doomed, 
 a new state would be established upon its ruins. 
 
 For this purpose he used the incident about to be 
 described, as a symbol of the reestablishment of the 
 state. The point lay in the fact that he, Jeremiah, 
 although then in prison because of his prophecy of 
 the destruction of the state, nevertheless, by taking 
 
CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO JEREMIAH. 179 
 
 a deed of conveyance of land, manifested his belief 
 in the fact that the state would be reestablished, that 
 houses and fields would yet again be bought, and 
 that the people would be brought back out of their 
 captivity. Readers of Roman history will recall a 
 singular event recorded by Livy (Book XXVI, chap- 
 ter XI), which indicated faith in the ultimate su- 
 premacy of the Roman arms equal to Jeremiah's 
 faith in the ultimate return of the people of Israel 
 to their ancient habitations. Livy records the fact 
 that when Hannibal was approaching Rome, he was 
 startled by the information obtained from a Roman 
 prisoner, that the ground on which his army was then 
 camping, had been sold at Rome and that the price 
 had not fallen. 
 
 While Jeremiah was in the court of the prison, his 
 kinsman, Hanamel, came to him and said, "I pray 
 thee, buy my field that is in Anathoth, which is in 
 the land of Benjamin, for to thee belongs the right 
 of inheritance, and to thee belongs the redemption, 
 therefore buy it for thyself." When a man desired 
 to dispose of his inheritance, it was the right of his 
 
180 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 nearest kinsman to purchase it, and only after the 
 kinsmen, in the order of precedence, had waived their 
 right were strangers permitted to acquire it. This 
 right is spoken of as to the right of inheritance and 
 the right of redemption. Jeremiah as the nearest 
 kinsman of Hanamel, exercised his right to purchase 
 the field. The formalities consisted in weighing the 
 purchase money, delivering it to the seller, preparing, 
 sealing and attesting the deed of conveyance, and 
 placing the deed on record. Jeremiah thus describes 
 the proceeding: "I bought the field from Hanamel, 
 my uncle's son that is in Anathoth, and I weighed 
 out unto him the money, seventeen shekels of silver. 
 And I wrote it in a deed and sealed it up and had it 
 attested by witnesses, and I weighed the silver in the 
 balance. ' ' 
 
 The entire transaction was public and all the de- 
 tails were performed in the presence of witnesses. 
 The purchaser prepared the deed in duplicate, leav- 
 ing one copy open and the other to be sealed. They 
 were presented for inspection to the witnesses, who 
 attested them by making their mark or by signing 
 
CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO JEREMIAH. 181 
 
 their names. After the two deeds were inspected 
 and attested, one was carefully sealed and deposited 
 among the public records never, to be opened unless 
 the other was lost, tampered with or altered. It is 
 possible to infer from the account of this conveyance 
 that both deeds were placed on record, one of them, 
 sealed, and the other patent for public inspection. 
 If this is the manner in which the documents were 
 recorded, it is similar to the practice which now pre- 
 vails in the Registry of "Wills. The original will is 
 not open for public inspection, except under order of 
 the court, whereas, a copy of it in the Will Book is 
 open for the inspection of all the world. There is 
 some evidence from recent discoveries in Babylonia 
 that the latter method is the one alluded to in this 
 case. 
 
 Babylonian explorers have found legal documents 
 executed in duplicate on clay tablets, one of which 
 was enclosed within the other. In other words, a 
 tablet was first prepared and then a case was made 
 for it, and on the outside of the case a copy of the 
 enclosed tablet was inscribed; the case was then 
 
182 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 sealed and both copies, one within the other, were 
 filed away among the records. This method would 
 account for Jeremiah's words, "And I took the deed 
 of the purchase, both that which was sealed and that 
 which was open, and I gave the deed of purchase unto 
 Baruch, the son of Neriyah, in the presence of Hana- 
 mel, my kinsman; and in the presence of the wit- 
 nesses who had signed the deed of purchase; and in 
 the presence of all the Judeans who were sitting in 
 the court of the prison." This public delivery of 
 the document, thus thrice attested in the presence of 
 the seller, the subscribing witnesses, and the witnesses 
 standing round about, was accompanied by the fol- 
 lowing charge: "And I charged Baruch in their 
 presence as follows, Take these deeds, this deed of 
 purchase, both the sealed and the open deed and 
 place them in an earthen vessel (on record) in order 
 that they may last many days, for thus hath said the 
 Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, 'yet again shall 
 there be bought houses, fields and vineyards in this 
 land.'" 
 
 The earthen vessel was the receptacle in the record- 
 
CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO JEREMIAH. 183 
 
 ing office in whieh the documents were preserved. 
 The object of recording them was, as stated by Jere- 
 miah, that they might last many days, for it was pre- 
 sumed by him that, even in the troublous times which 
 were then impending, documents preserved in the 
 public record office were safer than if they had re- 
 mained in the possession of any individual. This 
 was the lesson that Jeremiah sought to inculcate, that 
 in spite of the approaching doom of the state, the 
 ordinary affairs of life would continue as theretofore, 
 and that eventually order would again be brought 
 out of anarchy and a stable government be re- 
 established. 
 
 This transaction took place in the court of the 
 prison in the city of Jerusalem, and it is to be pre- 
 sumed that the record office to which allusion is made, 
 was in the same city. Modern explorations in Jeru- 
 salem have not yet brought to light this public record 
 office, and there can hardly be any doubt that, some- 
 where down in the sub-soil of the present city, there 
 lie buried the record chambers of the ancient king- 
 dom and commonwealth of the Jews, and it is to be 
 
184 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 hoped that the day is not far distant when explora- 
 tions may be made on Mount Zion which will yield 
 invaluable treasure to the archeologist, the student of 
 the Bible and the historian. 
 
THE TRIAL OF JEREMIAH. 
 Jeremiah XXVI, 1-24. 
 
 In the trial of Naboth the forms of law were com- 
 plied with in order to give an appearance of validity 
 to what was in fact a mere mockery of justice. The 
 details of the trial are not given; we are simply told 
 that Naboth was put on trial and that two perjured 
 witnesses were produced to charge him with blas- 
 phemy and high treason, and that he was convicted 
 and stoned to death. The Court was composed of 
 the Elders of his city and the princes, who were 
 probably selected by the king to sit with them during 
 the trial. In Jeremiah's case the constitution of the 
 Court and the procedure followed are given with 
 more particularity. 
 
 Jeremiah, whose life had been devoted to a long 
 continued and vain endeavor to introduce reform 
 into the official life of the Jewish kingdom, made a 
 desperate attempt to rouse the Elders of the people 
 to a realizing sense of the impending political doom 
 
 185 
 
186 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 that his sagacity and statecraft foresaw. In this, as 
 through his entire public activity, he stood forth as 
 the avowed mouth-piece of God, never offering his 
 advice merely upon its merits, but always as the word 
 of God. Thus, it is recorded that in the beginning 
 of the reign of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, who was 
 one of the last kings of Judah, Jeremiah went out 
 into the great court of the Temple at Jerusalem, at a 
 time when there was some great convocation of the 
 people of all the surrounding cities, and in the pres- 
 ence of all he pronounced this doom, ' ' Thus hath said 
 the Lord, If ye will not hearken unto me, to walk in 
 my law, which I have set before you, to hearken unto 
 the words of my servants the prophets, whom I send 
 unto you, yea, making them rise up early and send- 
 ing them, while ye have not hearkened; then will I 
 render this house like Shiloh, and this city will I 
 render a curse unto all the nations of the earth." 
 This statement was made the basis of a charge against 
 Jeremiah for which his prosecutors sought to have 
 him put to death. His prosecutors were the priests 
 and the prophets, who were present and heard him 
 
TRIAL OF JEREMIAH. 187 
 
 speaking these words in the Temple court, and when 
 he had finished speaking they seized him, saying, 
 "Thou shalt surely die." A court was speedily 
 assembled to try Jeremiah "and all the people as- 
 sembled themselves about Jeremiah in the house of 
 the Lord." The phrase "all the people" is a trans- 
 lation of Hebrew words which I believe to have a 
 technical meaning equivalent to the word "court." 
 It is well known that the High Court of Justice in 
 Jerusalem sat in the Temple itself, and if its consti- 
 tution was at all like that of the Sanhedrin in post- 
 exilic days, it may be taken for granted that it con- 
 sisted of select men of the people of high standing 
 and ability. These men were joined by the princes 
 of Judah, who, when they "heard these things, came 
 up from the king's house" to the Temple and sat 
 with the court at the entrance of the new gate of the 
 Temple. The court was thus composed of select men 
 of Jerusalem and the princes of Judah, who were 
 either of royal blood or high officers of the crown. 
 The burden of the charge against Jeremiah is found 
 in the words with which his prosecutors addressed 
 
188 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 him immediately after his arjest, "Why hast thou 
 prophesied in the name of the Lord saying, Like 
 Shiloh shall this house be and this city shall be ruined, 
 without an inhabitant?" 
 
 Prom an examination of the words of Jeremiah 
 and from a consideration of the general state of 
 affairs at that time in the kingdom of Judah, it may 
 fairly be presumed that it was something more than 
 pious zeal that inflamed the priests and prophets 
 against him. The priesthood, against which many 
 of Jeremiah's fulminations were directed, was thor- 
 oughly corrupt, and the prophets were mere seekers 
 for popularity who prophesied what they believed 
 the people wished to hear. Jeremiah himself was of 
 priestly lineage and a prophet, but distinguished 
 among both these classes by his passion for righteous- 
 ness. It is, therefore, probable that the priests and 
 prophets were merely waiting for an opportunity to 
 sieze upon some statement of Jeremiah for the pur- 
 pose of putting an end to his prophetic ministry, and, 
 therefore, distorted his words on this occasion into a 
 blasphemous threat that both the house of the Lord 
 
TRIAL OF JEREMIAH. 189 
 
 and the city of the king would be utterly destroyed. 
 The crime, therefore, was both blasphemy and Use 
 majeste, and it is quite likely that it was only the 
 sacredness of the Temple that prevented his enemies 
 from inflaming the public against him to such an 
 extent as to cause his instant death. Standing before 
 the court, the priests and the prophets said, "This 
 man has been guilty of a capital offense, for he hath 
 prophesied against this city, as ye have heard with 
 your own ears." 
 
 Jeremiah's defense was simple and bold; he frankly 
 admitted the utterance of the words and boldly de- 
 clared that they were spoken in the name of God, 
 "The Lord hath sent me to prophesy against this 
 Temple and against this city all the words that ye 
 have heard. But now amend your ways and your, 
 doings and hearken to the voice of the Lord your God ; 
 and the Lord will bethink him of the evil he hath 
 spoken against you. As for me, behold, I am in your 
 hand; do with me as seemeth good and just in your 
 eyes. But know ye for certain that if ye put me to 
 death ye will surely place the guilt of innocent blood 
 
190 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 upon yourselves and upon this city and upon its 
 inhabitants, for in truth hath the Lord sent me unto 
 you to speak in your ears all these words." 
 
 The "guilt of innocent blood" shed in any place 
 rested not merely upon the head of him who com- 
 mitted the murder, but upon all of the inhabitants of 
 that place. This is a survival of the old theory of 
 blood guiltiness, whereby all the members of a man's 
 household and family were responsible for his deed; 
 a theory of law that was afterwards applied to the 
 inhabitants of the town, even though they had no 
 kinship with the murderer. In the Book of Deuter- 
 onomy (XXI, 1-9) an elaborate procedure is pre- 
 scribed in cases where a dead body is found and the 
 slayer unknown, and the Elders of the town, within 
 whose limits the body is found, must make the atone- 
 ment prescribed in this law in order to cleanse their 
 community of the blood guilt which rests upon it. 
 
 Jeremiah's confession removed all possible dispute 
 as to the facts of the case, and the question narrowed 
 down to a single point: Did Jeremiah in fact speak 
 in the name of God, as he professed, or was he one of 
 
TRIAL OF JEREMIAH. 191 
 
 the false prophets eoneerning whom the law in Deuter- 
 onomy (XVIII, 20) provides, "But the prophet who 
 may presume to speak a word in my name which I 
 have not commanded him to speak, or who may speak 
 in the name of other gods— even that prophet shall 
 die. ' ' The test provided by the law in Deuteronomy 
 could not be applied. ' ' If thou shouldest say in thy 
 heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord 
 hath spoken? That which the prophet speaketh in 
 the name of the Lord, and the thing do not happen 
 and come not to pass— this is the word which the 
 Lord hath not spoken." No sufficient time had 
 elapsed to enable this test of Jeremiah's authority to 
 be applied, hence it was a question for the court to 
 determine from the evidence before it, whether Jere- 
 miah was in fact a prophet of God or merely a blas- 
 phemer. Jeremiah's activity in the community was 
 probably well known to the members of the court. 
 His character and standing, both above reproach, 
 spoke eloquently in his favor and it is quite likely 
 that the character of his accusers was likewise well 
 known to the court. But Jeremiah was not com- 
 
192 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 pelled to rely merely upon his general standing in 
 the community and his own protestation of innocence, 
 for "There rose up certain men of the Elders of the 
 land" and addressed the court as follows: "Micah 
 the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah 
 king of Judah and said to all the people of Judah as 
 follows: 'Thus hath said the Lord of hosts; Zion 
 shall be plowed up like a field and Jerusalem shall 
 become heaps of ruins and the Temple mount like the 
 high places of the forest. ' Did Hezekiah the king of 
 Judah and all Judah attempt to put him to death? 
 Behold, he did fear the Lord and besought the Lord 
 and the Lord bethought him of the evil which he had 
 spoken against them. And shall we bring a great 
 wickedness on our souls?" These Elders probably 
 were among those whose authority in the community 
 had been diminished by the usurpation of the kings, 
 and probably represented the old nobility of the land 
 who sympathized with Jeremiah in his denunciation 
 of a corrupt priesthood and an upstart prophetical 
 school. In speaking on behalf of Jeremiah, these 
 men neither based their argument upon Jeremiah's 
 
TRIAL OP JEREMIAH. 193 
 
 character nor did they consider the principles of law 
 involved in the case, but they forthwith produced a 
 precedent, to wit, the case of Micah, who had made 
 statements similar to those of Jeremiah, who had been 
 tried before the king himself and been acquitted. 
 
 Another defender of Jeremiah is mentioned in the 
 record, probably a man of great importance in the 
 city and attached to the royal household. "The 
 hand of Ahikam the son of Shaphan was with Jere- 
 miah so as not to give him up into the hand of the 
 people to put him to death." What arguments 
 Ahikam used, if any, is not stated. It may be that 
 his mere appearance for the defense had its influence 
 with some of the "princes of Judah." 
 
 After the court heard the evidence and the argu- 
 ments it pronounced the sentence of acquittal which 
 is recorded in these words, "Then said the princes 
 and the court unto the priests and to the prophets, 
 This man has not been guilty of a capital crime, for 
 in the name of the Lord our God hath he spoken 
 unto us." 
 
 There is interpolated in this record the case of 
 13 
 
194 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 Urijah, who prophesied during the reign of the same 
 king, Jehoiakim, "against this city and against this 
 land according to all the words of Jeremiah," evi- 
 dently emboldened by the acquittal of the prophets 
 Micah and Jeremiah of the charges of blasphemy and 
 treason. But it appears that times had changed and 
 that, notwithstanding the precedent established, the 
 political condition of the kingdom of Judah, in the 
 judgment of the king and his ministers, no longer 
 warranted them in permitting such denunciation of 
 authority. The authorities eventually came to the 
 conclusion that for the peace of the city and of the 
 crown an example must be made and, like all tyrants, 
 they attempted to put down the truth by force. It 
 must be remembered that these events occurred in 
 the very last years of the kingdom of Judah. The 
 king was at that time already paying tribute to 
 Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and a few years 
 thereafter, the Babylonian armies overran Judea and 
 carried off the king and many of his people into 
 captivity. It, therefore, required men of the highest 
 type of courage to speak the truth about the condi- 
 
TRIAL OF JEREMIAH. 195 
 
 tion of the kingdom at that time. Urijah was one 
 of these men. "And when King Jehoiakim and all 
 his mighty men and all the princes heard his words 
 the king sought to put him to death : but when Urijah 
 heard it he was afraid and fled, and arrived in 
 Egypt." Unfortunately for Urijah he had chosen 
 a poor place for his refuge, for King Jehoiakim had 
 been given the crown of Judah by the king of Egypt, 
 who had made war upon Jehoiakim 's brother and 
 had deposed him. The king of Judah, therefore, 
 owed his throne to the Egyptian king and was prac- 
 tically his vassal. Having heard that Urijah had 
 taken refuge in Egypt he readily obtained his extra- 
 dition. "King Jehoiakim sent some men into Egypt, 
 . . . and they fetched Urijah out of Egypt and 
 brought him unto King Jehoiakim who slew him 
 with the sword and cast his dead body into the graves 
 of the common people." 
 
 As events subsequently proved it had been better 
 if the king had done justice to Urijah and given heed 
 to the repeated warnings of gifted and honest seers 
 concerning the administration of the affairs of the 
 kingdom. 
 
THE TRIAL OF JOB IN THE COURT OF 
 HEAVEN. 
 
 Job I, &-12, II, 1-7, XLII, 10. 
 
 The picture presented to us in the description of 
 the Court of Heaven in the Book of Job leads us back 
 to the days of a naive but splendid mythology. The 
 narrator describes the assembling of the court pre- 
 sided over by God himself. He attempts no descrip- 
 tion of the appearance of the court, but the imagina- 
 tion can readily supply the description omitted. The 
 palace of the king with its lofty chambers and ante- 
 chambers, monolithic columns supporting a massive 
 roof, huge images of fabulous monsters, part men, 
 part beast, guarding the entrances. "The white, 
 green and blue hangings with cords of fine linen and 
 purple on rollers of silver and pillars of marble; 
 couches of gold and silver upon a pavement of green 
 and white and yeUow and black marble," the mag- 
 nificence of the palace of Ahasuerus may well be 
 transferred in imagination to the temple in the iaind 
 
 196 
 
TEIAI, OF JOB. 197 
 
 of the author of the Book of Job, in which the Court 
 of Heaven assembled. Or perhaps there floated be- 
 fore his mind some image of the palace which Solo- 
 mon built for himself and which is described in its 
 details in the seventh chapter of the First Book of 
 Kings, and in it was ' ' The porch for the throne where 
 he might judge, the porch of judgment; and it was 
 covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the 
 other." The naive anthropomorphism of the writer 
 of the Book of Job pictures God himself sitting on 
 the judgment seat in his great hall of judgment like 
 the king in his royal palace awaiting the assembling 
 of his family, his lords and their retinue. "Now 
 there was a day when the sons of God came to pre- 
 sent themselves before the Lord and the Satan 
 (Accuser) also came among them." The sons of 
 God are the mythical personages who, under the 
 presidency of God himself, constitute the Court of 
 Heaven, fashioned like the court of the king which 
 was probably an outgrowth of the old tribal courts 
 which met in more primitive times under the presi- 
 dency of the tribal chieftain or patriarch. Among 
 
198 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 the officers of this court was one named the Satan, 
 who, in the rabbinical literature, is known as Satan 
 the Accuser, and whose functions seem to have re- 
 quired him to perform duties similar to those of the 
 chief of the detective police of the Russian empire. 
 It was his duty to go about watching the people and 
 noting their conduct and reporting thereon at the 
 next session of the court. It was his duty, further- 
 more, to act as prosecutor and inquisitor, not only 
 to note open breaches of the law, but even to question 
 the honesty of honest men and to put them on the 
 rack to test them. The entire atmosphere of this 
 description of the trial of Job in the Court of Heaven 
 is almost convincingly un-Jewish and in all prob- 
 ability a reflection of ideas prevailing in Babylonia, 
 where a cult existed in which such strange beings as 
 "sons of God" and Satan had their place. The court 
 having assembled, God singled out the Accuser and 
 asked for a report, 
 
 "And the Lord said unto the Accuser, Whence 
 comest thou?" 
 
 "And the Accuser answered the Lord and said, 
 
TRIAL OF JOB. 199 
 
 Prom roaming over the earth and from wandering 
 through it. ' ' 
 
 "And the Lord said unto the Accuser, Hast thou 
 directed thy attention toward my servant Job, for 
 there is none like him on the earth. A man perfect 
 and upright who feareth God and escheweth evil?" 
 
 "And the Accuser answered the Lord and said. 
 Is it for naught that Job feareth God 1 Behold, thou 
 hast indeed placed a fence about him and about his 
 house and about all that he hath on every side. The 
 work of his hands hast thou blessed and his cattle are 
 far spread out in the land, but stretch only forth thy 
 hand and touch all that he hath and see whether he 
 will not renounce thee to thy face." 
 
 "And the Lord said unto the Accuser, Behold all 
 that is his be in thy power, only against himself shalt 
 thou not stretch forth thy hand." 
 
 And the Accuser went forth from the presence of 
 the Lord. 
 
 The words of the Accuser exemplify the sincerity 
 of bigotry. The honest man is not to be taken on 
 faith, but his very honesty is suspected and his stead- 
 
200 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 fastness is to be tested by persecution. In this an- 
 cient legend the Accuser, one of these splendid sons of 
 God, stalks through the land testing the righteousness 
 of men by inflicting pain. In a later age he reap- 
 pears as a cowled white-faced stern inquisitor who, 
 with rack and screw, seeks victims for the consuming 
 wrath of the God of love. 
 
 Job is placed in the hands of the Accuser and suf- 
 fers grievous pain and heartrending sorrow, not be- 
 cause of any wrong-doing, but as a test of his right- 
 eousness. In this legend, later ages found a pre- 
 cedent for the infliction of torture upon heretics, 
 witches, political suspects and other persons under 
 the ban of suspicion, and in the name of religion, 
 and of law, inflicted those horrible punishments upon 
 innocent persons which fortunately are now mere 
 historical memories except, perhaps, in that great 
 East European governmental system which continues 
 to apply to its hapless subjects methods of adminis- 
 tration and government, worthy of the darkness of 
 the Middle Ages. 
 
 Job saw his cattle destroyed, his herdsmen en- 
 
TRIAL OP JOB. 201 
 
 slaved, and his cMldren buried in the ruins of their 
 own house, and yet his piety rose triumphant, and 
 Job "did not sin and attributed no injustice to God." 
 "Again there was a day when the sons of God came 
 to present themselves before the Lord and the Ac- 
 cuser also came in the midst of them to present him- 
 self before the Lord." 
 
 "Then said the Lord unto the Accuser, Whence 
 comest thou now?" 
 
 "And the Accuser answered the Lord and said. 
 From roaming over the earth and from wandering 
 through it." 
 
 "And the Lord said unto the Accuser, Hast thou 
 directed thy attention toward my servant Job, for 
 there is none like him on the earth; a man perfect 
 and upright who feareth God and escheweth evil and 
 he is still holding fast to his integrity, and thou hast 
 incited me against him to destroy him without cause. ' ' 
 
 "And the Accuser answered the Lord and said. 
 Skin for skin. Yea, all that a man hath will he give 
 for his life. But stretch forth thy hand and touch 
 his bone and flesh and see whether he will not re- 
 nounce thee to thy face." 
 
202 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 "And the Lord said unto the Accuser, Behold, he 
 is in thy hand; only take care of his life." 
 
 ' ' Thereupon the Accuser went forth from the pres- 
 ence of the Lord and smote Job with a sore inflamma- 
 tion from the sole of his foot unto the crown of his 
 head." 
 
 In spite of these additional sufferings Job con- 
 tinued to hold fast to his integrity, and the result of 
 the trial showed that his steadfastness and his faith 
 were unshaken. He would not renounce God, even 
 though he believed himself to be unjustly punished 
 by him. As a result of this steadfastness his trial 
 ended in his complete rehabilitation. 
 
 "And the Lord received Job in favor, and the Lord 
 brought back the captivity of Job. . . . And the 
 Lord increased all that Job had had two-fold. . . . 
 And the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more 
 than his beginning. ' ' 
 
 Under all modern systems of law in which the 
 presumption of innocence of the accused prevails, 
 the possibility of such a trial has ceased. In the 
 Talmudic Code, the rights of the accused were 
 
TRIAL OF JOB. 203 
 
 guarded with such scrupulous care that conviction 
 upon charges of high crimes was rendered almost 
 impossible. The precedent established by this case 
 of Job was never followed in the Jewish courts of 
 law, and it was not until the period of the inquisition 
 that the church harked back to this ancient legend, 
 finding in it some shadow of an excuse for the intro- 
 duction of that system of procedure which was the 
 crowning disgrace of ecclesiastical organization and 
 the horror of which has effectually prevented the 
 reestablishment of ecclesiastical dominion among civil- 
 ized men. 
 
JOB'S APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF 
 GOD. 
 
 Although the Book of Job was written to point a 
 moral and expound a certain view of sin and punish- 
 ment, the author has cast it into a form which gives 
 it a distinctively juridical character.. Its language, 
 moreover, is full of legal phrases, and figures and 
 metaphors based upon proceedings in Courts of Law, 
 and the subject matter of the debate is tossed from 
 side to side in animated discussion and hammered 
 out in the heat of forensic conflict. 
 
 What is the real subject of the argument and the 
 theory upon which it is approached by each oi the 
 speakers? The prologue in heaven may be ignored 
 for the present, because it introduces matters im- 
 known to the real contending parties and, therefore, 
 presents an element which does not enter into their 
 argument. Let us take the facts of the case as 
 actually known to Job and his friends. 
 
 Job lived in the land of Uz, and was a man perfect 
 
 204 
 
JOB'S APPEAL. 205 
 
 and upright and one that feared God and eschewed 
 evil. He had sons and daughters, was rich in cattle 
 and possessed a very great household ; and was known 
 and honored as the greatest of all the children of the 
 East. So pious was he that after his children had 
 indulged in feasting it was his custom to sanctify 
 them and to offer burnt offerings in their behalf, not 
 only for any open sin that they might have com- 
 mitted, but also lest in their enjoyment and revelry 
 they had renounced God in their hearts. Now it 
 befell that suddenly on a certain day a series of 
 frightful calamities overtook Job. Breathless mes- 
 sengers came running to his house in quick succession, 
 telling him that robbers had killed his servants and 
 had stolen his cattle; that his sheep had been burnt 
 up by a fire from heaven; and, as a heart-rending 
 climax, that his sons and daughters, who were eating 
 and drinking in their eldest brother's house, were 
 killed in its ruins, in the midst of a great wind storm 
 from the wilderness. Upon receiving these tidings 
 of woe, Job's simple faith asserted itself, and he fell 
 down upon the ground and worshipped God, saying. 
 
206 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; 
 Blessed be the name of the Lord." Before he had 
 recovered from these misfortunes he himself was 
 smitten with sore boils, from the sole of his foot unto 
 his crown, and even as he sat among the ashes 
 scraping himself with a potsherd, he said to his wife, 
 in answer to her counsel that he renounce God and 
 die, "Thou speakest as one of the foolish women 
 speaketh. What, shall we receive good at the hand 
 of God, and shall we not receive evil?" Here the 
 author of the Book of Job adds, "In all this did not 
 Job sin with his lips." According to the author. 
 Job was probably already sinning in his heart. Job 
 looked upon these misfortunes as a judgment of God ; 
 but he knew that he did not deserve them and that, 
 therefore, the judgment of God must be at fault. 
 
 Now three great friends of Job— Eliphaz, Bildad 
 and Zophar— visited him and when they saw him, 
 sitting among the ashes, despoiled of his wealth, be- 
 reft of his children and foul with sores, they wept 
 and mourned and sat down with him upon the 
 ground for seven days and seven nights in silence. 
 
JOB'S APPEAIi. 207 
 
 each of them revolving in his mind the situation of 
 affairs, and trying to account for it. Job, as well as 
 his friends, had a theory, and the development of 
 this theory and its application to the facts of Job's 
 case form the important part of the entire book. 
 What was this theory? It was, that Job's suffering 
 was a punishment inflicted upon him in execution of 
 a judgment of God, rendered against him because of 
 some wrong doing of which he had been guilty. 
 There was no doubt in their minds that Job's inflic- 
 tion was the result of divine judgment, and as God 
 could not be conceived as unjust, the judgment must 
 have been a just one; and, therefore, the friends of 
 Job were constrained to assume that Job had been 
 guilty of wrong doing. As a matter of fact, they 
 knew that his whole life had been flUed with good 
 deeds; but whenever they were mentally confronted 
 by the dilemma that God was unjust or that Job was 
 a sinner, they chose the latter as the only possible 
 alternative. On the other hand, Job likewise believed 
 his sufferings to be the result of a judgment of God, 
 but knowing that he was innocent of wrong doing, 
 
208 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 he was driven to the conclusion that the judgment 
 was unjust. Of course, neither Job nor his friends 
 knew what the author of the book knew ; namely, that 
 the whole matter had been previously arranged in the 
 High Court of Heaven, and that both Job and his 
 friends were mere puppets in the hand of God. 
 
 Neither Job nor his friends were prepared to 
 argue the case, and consequently their theories of 
 the cause of his sufferings were not at first clearly 
 thought out eind expressed, but were developed and 
 perfected in the course of the argument. For the 
 purpose of the argument, therefore, we must assume, 
 as Job and his friends did, that a judgment had 
 been rendered against him— a judgment fr.om which 
 his sense of right and consciousness of innocence 
 prompted him to appeal. The word "appeal" is 
 not to be understood in the modern sense. Under 
 our system of judicature, courts are subordinated to 
 each other, and an appeal lies to a higher court from 
 the judgment rendered in the lower court. At Jewish 
 law there was no appeal from the judgment of a 
 court of law, since the judgment was rendered in 
 
JOB'S APPEAL. 209 
 
 the name of God. "Ye (judges) shall not be afraid 
 of the face of man, for the judgment is of God" 
 (Deuteronomy I, 17). Now, coming to the case of 
 Job, the question arises, In what way could he appeal 
 from the judgment of God? Only to God himself, 
 who had rendered the judgment. But upon what 
 ground could he appeal from the judgment of God? 
 On the ground of its injustice. When Job measured 
 this judgment of God by his standard of right, he 
 boldly took the ground that it was an unjust judg- 
 ment. Job, therefore, appealed from God to God. 
 
 The speeches of Job and his friends constitute an 
 argument upon the justice of the supposed judgment 
 and the infliction of punishment upon Job in the 
 course of which the three friends of Job— Eliphaz, 
 Bildad and Zophar— argiie in behalf of the justice of 
 the judgment of God. Toward the end of the argu- 
 ment a fourth speaker arises— Elihu— a sort of junior 
 counsel, who also takes up the argument for the 
 judgment. Job stands alone, in propria persona 
 arguing his ease with consummate ability and mar- 
 velous force, arguing against God himself. When it 
 
 14 
 
210 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 is considered that, despite his conviction of the use- 
 lessness of any argument against God, the mere con- 
 sciousness of his integrity emboldens him to present 
 his case freely and openly, we cannot but admire the 
 independence of thought which inspired him, and 
 which must have been characteristic of the author of 
 the book. 
 
 Job feels that his friends, from whom he ex- 
 pected comfort and consolation, have dealt deceit- 
 fully with him, in imputing to him wrong doing in 
 the face of the fact, necessarily known to them, that 
 he was innocent. Afraid to acknowledge his inno- 
 cence and, thereby impugn the justice of God, they 
 are prepared to sacrifice their friend, although they 
 cannot bring proof of any guilt which would warrant 
 such severe punishment. He has been tried by God 
 and punished, although he has been given no hearing; 
 he does not know the charge preferred against him, 
 and has not been confronted by witnesses. If, then, 
 his friends would successfully advocate the justice of 
 God's judgment, he demands that they abandon mere 
 rhetoric and present the facts upon which this judg- 
 
JOB'S APPEAL. 211 
 
 ment is based. His friends have argued in behalf 
 of the justice of this judgment by a specious plea 
 based upon a priori reasoning, that because the judg- 
 ment was rendered by God, therefore it must be just, 
 one of them going so far as to iavent facts for the 
 purpose of proving his case. Job has demolished the 
 rhetorical efforts of his adversaries, and standing 
 conscious of his innocence, he denounces the judg- 
 ment as unjust, and appeals from the judgment of 
 God to God himgelf who rendered it, basing his 
 appeal upon his ignorance of the charge against him 
 and upon his absolute innocence of any wrong doing, 
 and fortifying his plea by a solemn oath of purgation. 
 This is the climax of his argument. He resorts to 
 the means which the law allows to the hapless man 
 in his condition, by a solemn oath before God, to 
 protest his innocence and clear himself from guilt. 
 
 Is God just, or is Job just, and how shall we know ? 
 Only one can give the answer; and that is God him- 
 self, who is now introduced by the author of the book, 
 addressing Job out of a whirlwind. And what is the 
 answer that is given to the question? The ways of 
 
212 LEADING CASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 God are past understanding. On reading this speech 
 of God we are at once struck with the fact that he 
 does not answer Job's righteous demand to know 
 wherein he has sinned, nor does God seek to justify 
 himself. In a series of unanswerable questions he 
 overwhelms Job with evidence of his insignificance 
 in the great scheme of creation, describing, in a series 
 of marvelous word-pictures, the greatness and the 
 mystery of the universe and, inferentially, of its 
 Creator. Job is not convinced through his reason, 
 but is overwhelmed by the sense of his littleness. He 
 does not recant, but acknowledges the impossibility 
 of comprehending the ways of God. The argument 
 having been concluded. Job is still left under the 
 impression that his sufferings are the result of a 
 judgment of God, against which he no longer protests, 
 although still steadfast in the belief of his innocence. 
 The matter is too wonderful for him and too mys- 
 terious, and he bows before the power which he does 
 not comprehend. But although Job has been silenced 
 by awe of the Almighty, his appeal has not been in 
 vain. God sustains his appeal because, although 
 
JOB'S APPEAL. 213 
 
 based upon the erroneous theory that his sufferings 
 were the result of a judgment, it was founded upon 
 right and truth. He was innocent and his cause 
 must prevail. He is told that the things which he 
 had spoken of God were right, and Eliphaz is told 
 that he and his friends have spoken folly. And then 
 the sorrows of Job were turned to joy; he was re- 
 stored to his former estate and again became wealthy 
 and honored and blessed with children, and died old 
 and full of days. 
 
 Upon the theory that the sufferings of Job were 
 the result of a judgment, a theory which militates 
 against the facts of the ease, we are driven to the 
 conclusion which is suggested in the speech of God, 
 that this is one of the things which must remain 
 incomprehensible. But what if the theory upon 
 which the entire argument was based were an erro- 
 neous one? This, indeed, is the view of the author 
 of the book, who has told us at the very outset, in 
 the prologue in the Court of Heaven, that the suffer- 
 ings of Job were not the result of a judgment, but 
 were merely a trial of his righteousness. This is the 
 
214 LEADING OASES IN THE BIBLE. 
 
 solution that the author of the book offers of the 
 problem which beset Job and his friends, and which 
 has puzzled all men in all times, namely, why do the 
 upright and the righteous suffer, and the unrighteous 
 prosper ? 
 
 This solution is offered modestly. The author 
 might have placed his view in the mouth of God and 
 thus have given it a sanction above all other views 
 expressed in the argument, but the author was no 
 dogmatist, and hence did not presume to dictate the 
 words of God. But by describing the trial in the 
 Court of Heaven, wherein it appears that Job's mis- 
 fortunes were not the result of his unrighteousness, 
 but were merely a trial of his faith, he has sufficiently 
 indicated his own view and he presents the case 
 without attacking the agnosticism of Job, whose atti- 
 tude he undoubtedly admires. 
 
 Job's case contains this important point among 
 others, that although dogmatic theology freely asserts 
 things about God, yet, no man can know whether 
 they are true. Like Job, after listening to the con- 
 eluding speech of God, the unprejudiced mind must 
 
JOB'S APPEAL. 215 
 
 admit that these are things "which I understand not, 
 things too wonderful for me which I knew not." A 
 study of the ease leads to the same conclusion as that 
 expressed in the profound words of the high-minded 
 agnostic who wrote the book of Bcclesiastes, "Be not 
 rash with thy mouth and let not thine heart be hasty 
 to utter anything before God; for God is in Heaven 
 and thou upon earth, therefore let thy words be few. ' ' 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abel, Murder of, 34-^3 
 Abraham, conveyance to, 15, 45 
 Accessory, 25-30 
 Achan, trial of, 113-120 
 Adam and Eve, case of, 14, 19- 
 
 33,35 
 Adonijah, Abiathar and Joab, 
 
 case of, 145-156 
 Adoption, 152 
 Alien, 46, 47, 95, 137 
 Alienation of land, 168 
 Altar as place of refiige, 147-153 
 Appeal, none at Jewish law, 208 
 Arnold, Matthew, 26 
 Arrest, exemption from, 156 
 Assembly, 44, 96, 102 
 Attainder, 103, 119 
 Avenger of blood, 41 
 
 Babylonian captivity, return 
 from, 17, 176 
 contract tablets, 45 
 law books, 177 
 Banishment, 39, 40, 43, 149 
 Bargaining, 48 
 Bible, contents of, 1, 7, 9 
 ethical aspects of, 12 
 interpretation of, 35 
 legal aspects of, 5 
 legal study of, 5, 7, 11 
 methods of reading, 1, 6, 7 
 Bible Passages, referred to 
 Genesis 1:26-29, 34 
 2:4-3:24, 19 
 9:4, 38 
 9:6, 39 
 15:18, 54 
 19:4-11, 152 
 
 Bible Passages, referred to 
 Genesis 23:1-20, 44 
 27:1-28:9, 63 
 25:29-34, 55 
 28:20-22, 123 
 30:28, 34, 85 
 31:1-55, 75 
 48:20-22, 72 
 Exodus 21:2-4, 84 
 21:12-14, 154 
 22:9-12, 85 
 31:12-17, 8 
 34:21, 8 
 39:35, 155 
 Leviticus 24:10-23, 91 
 24:17-22, 100 
 25:14-37, 61 
 Deuteronomy 1:17, 209 
 18:20, 191 
 21:1-9, 190 
 21:15-17, 72 
 24:16, 118, 174 
 31:9, 155 
 Numbers 27:1-11, 101 
 
 36:1-13, 101 
 
 Joshua 2:1-7, 152 
 
 6:21, 114 
 
 7:1-26, 113 
 
 17:1-6, 101 
 
 Judges 11:29-40, 121 
 
 19:22-23, 152 
 2 Samuel 21:6, 43 
 1 Kings 1:5-2:34, 145 
 1:32-34, 146 
 1:50-53, 148 
 2:22, 148 
 2:26-27, 149 
 3:16-28, 157 
 
 217 
 
218 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Bible Passages, referred to 
 1 Kings 21:10, 98 
 21:1-29, 167 
 2 Kings 9:22-26, 167 
 
 9:25-35, 175 
 Ruth 1:1-4:22, 131 
 Isaiah 8:21, 98 
 Jeremiah, 26:1-24, 185 
 
 32:6-15, 177 
 Job 1:6-12; 2:1-7; 42:10, 196 
 2 Chronicles 6:22, 156 
 Birthright, 72 
 
 acquisition of, 64 
 advantage of, 57 
 sale of Esau's, 55-62, 73 
 Blasphemy, 91-96, 171, 185, 189 
 Blood, avenger of, 41, 43 
 Boaz and Ruth, case of, 15, 131- 
 
 144 
 Boundary, 154 
 Burning, 119 
 
 Cain, 27, 28, 36 
 
 brand of, 42 
 Children punished for parent's 
 
 crime, 173 
 Commutation, 32, 42 
 Confession, 28, 37, 39, 117, 163 
 Contract, consideration of, 60 
 
 express, 85 
 
 by vow, 123 
 
 obligation of, 125 
 Conveyance, form of, 53 
 
 of land, 44 
 
 to Jeremiah, 177-184 
 Court, deliberation of, 94 
 
 development of, 14 
 
 of Elders, 15, 17 
 
 family, 15, 81 
 
 of Heaven, 11,26, 196 
 
 of justice, 61, 102, 187 
 
 of the "men of the great 
 synagogue," 18 
 
 Court, patriarchal, 25, 27 
 
 Sanhedrin, 18 
 Covenant, 38, 54, 61, 86 
 
 of Jacob and Laban, 75-90 
 Cross-examination, 28, 36 
 Custom, local, 112 
 
 of patriarchal family, 57 
 
 tribal, 104, 106 
 
 Damages, 84, 85 
 
 David, 80 
 
 Death-penalty, 21, 29, 32, 39, 118, 
 
 172, 173, 191, 195 
 Deed of conveyance,44, 177,180,182 
 Deity, conception of, 26, 27, 35 
 
 40, 41, 43, 61, 77, 90, 9l| 
 
 98, 99, 113 
 Dowry, 76 
 
 Edomites, 55, 72 
 Elders, court of, 15-17 
 
 council of, 44, 46, 134, 170 
 Elijah, 175 
 
 Ephron the Hittite, 48 
 Esau, 64, 73 
 
 Eve, punishment of, 24, 30 
 Execution, place of, 120 
 Exile, 39-41 
 Extradition, 195 
 
 Family court, 15, 81 
 
 law, 25, 27, 43, 57, 68, 72, 89, 
 
 124, 138 
 property, 68, 168 
 solidarity, 118, 167, 190 
 
 Forum, 46, 102 
 
 Fraud, 67, 70 
 
 Gate, 46, 102, 134, 142 
 Gideon, 92, 99 
 Guest friendship, 151 
 
 Hannibal, 179 
 
INDEX. 
 
 219 
 
 Hebron, 45, 54 
 Herein, 114 
 High places, 90 
 Homicide, 13, 34, 39, 154 
 
 Imprisonment, 32, 93 
 Inheritance, 31, 51, 75, 77, 103, 111, 
 
 131, 133, 174, 180 
 Intention, 67, 70 
 Intestate Succession, 14, 107 
 Isaac's Will ; the matter of, 63-74 
 
 Jacob, 14, 64, 122 
 
 and Laban, 15, 75-90 
 
 and Esau. 64, 73 
 Jephthah's daughters, case of, 14, 
 
 121-130 
 Jehoram, 175 
 Jehu, 175 
 Jeremiah, 15, 16 
 
 conveyance to, 177-184 
 
 trial of, 185-195 
 Jezebel, 169 
 Joab, 145-156 
 Job, 26 
 
 appeal of, 204-215 
 
 trial of, 196-203 
 Josephus, 99, 163 
 Jubilee, 109 
 Judah, Rabbi, 162 
 Judge, king as, 15, 26 
 
 priest as, 105, 113 
 
 Kinsmen, law of, 38, 41, 43, 134 
 
 Laban and Jacob, 14, 15, 75-90 
 
 Land laws, 44, 45, 47 
 
 Legend and folk-lore, 10, 11, 13, 
 
 19, 31, 32, 35, 160 
 Levirate, 136 
 Lots, casting of, 115 
 
 Machpelah, purchase of, 15, 44, 177 
 
 .Maine, Sir H. S., 63 
 Marriage of heiresses, 111, 112 
 
 levirate, 136, 142 
 Master and servant, law of, 82, 84, 
 Matriarchate, 14, 76, 77, 78, 103 
 Men of the great synagogue, 18 
 Micah, case of, 192 
 Moses, 16, 93, 102 
 Murderof Abel, 34-43 
 Murderer, no right of sanctuary 
 for, 151 
 
 Naboth.caseof, 16, 98, 167-176 
 Naturalization, 47, 137 
 
 Oath, 60, 62, 84, 211 
 Outlawry, 40-^ 
 
 Parent and child, 95 
 Patria potestas, 14, 79, 85, 124 
 Patriarchal authority, 14, 17, 26, 
 127 
 
 court, 15, 25, 27, 38 
 
 custom, 57, 76 
 
 power, 72 
 Perjury, 171 
 Poor laws, 133 
 Possession, right of, 173 
 
 symbol of, 139, 143 
 Priest, 68, 105, 113, 149 
 Primogeniture, 57, 133 
 Prison, 182 
 Procedure, 15, 25, 27, 28, 44, 47, 
 
 50, 104, 108, 110, 161, 172 
 Property of servant, 84 
 
 testamentary disposition of 
 72 
 
 rights of women, 14 
 Prophet, false, 191 
 Public records, 181 
 Punishment of Adam, 32 
 
 blood vengeance, 41, 43 
 
 burning, 119 
 
220 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Punishment, commutation of, 32 
 of children, 173 
 death (see death-penalty) 
 of Eve, 30 
 exile, 39 
 
 immunity from, 42 
 imprisonment, 32, 93 
 outlawry, 41 
 of serpent, 29, 30 
 of slave, 29 
 stoning, 93, 119, 172 
 
 Rahab, 152 
 
 Recording Office, 183 
 
 Redemption, 135, 180 
 
 Refuge, place of, 147, 153, 154 
 
 Responsibility, 65, 173 
 
 Roman Law, 15, 44, 45, 52, 63, 72 
 
 Ruth, 14, 131-144 
 
 Sabbath, 8 
 
 Sacrifice, 65, 96, 123, 126 
 
 Sacrilege, 92 
 
 Sale of Esau's birthright, 55-62 
 
 Samson, 80 
 
 Sanctuary, right of, 16, 145, 155, 
 
 156 
 Sanhedrin, 18, 27, 187 
 Satan the Accuser, 198 
 Saul, 79 
 
 Search, right of, 80, 81 
 Slave, 29, 30, 76, 84 
 Solomon, judgment of, 27, 157-166 
 violation of sanctuary by, 
 
 145, 148, 155 
 Son of Shelomith, case of, 15, 16, 
 
 91-96 
 
 Spoils of war, 117 
 Stoning, 93, 119, 172 
 Stranger, 40, 46, 72, 98 
 Symbolic acts, 45, 60, 139-143. 
 178 
 
 Talmud, 18. 26 
 
 Talmudic view of authority, 105 
 of Jephthah, 127-129 
 of presumption of innocence, 
 202 
 Ten, quorum of, 135 
 Testamentary disposition, 63, 72 
 Theft, 79, 80 
 Threshold, 153 
 Title, 48, 51, 54, 108 
 Treason, 92, 185 
 Treaty, 89 
 Tribal, custom, 107 
 ownership, 44, 109 
 
 Ultimogeniture, 57 
 Ultimus Haeres, 174 
 Urijah, case, 194 
 
 Vows, 121-129 
 
 Wages, 83 
 
 Warranty, 54 
 
 Widow's estate in land, 133 
 
 AVill, 63-74 
 
 Witnesses, 22, 36, 38, 44, 60, 61, 96 
 
 Women, legal status of, 14, 31, 76, 
 
 102 
 Zelophehad's daughters, case of, 
 
 14, 26, 77, 101-112 
 
yaiSaj 
 
 ■