Before Israel became a monarchy, what did the government of Israel look like? Was the period of judges and before an era of:
(i) no state* (anarchy, or strictly local government with some hierarchical judicial oversight),
(ii) small state* (libertarian, or limited government), or
(iii) a state (something closer to our modern conception of it)
["State" as understood from an anarchist perspective].
The anarchist will make the argument that there wasn't a state per se. It was God who ruled directly, and certain leaders maintained some martial and/or judicial position for a limited time. But this doesn't qualify as there being a state. When Israel wanted a King like the other nations, it was, in effect, desiring a state, as opposed to the rule of God. Therefore, during the time of the judges there was no state (anarchy), and then there was a state (monarchy).
On the libertarian side, one might say that there was in fact a state, even if only limited to some judges or leaders. This state may have been local, leading to a hierarchy that stretched to the highest judge, and ultimately, to the supreme judge, God himself. In this case, one can't say there wasn't a state. At the same time, one cannot maintain that a full-fledged state existed. If anything, it was a limited government that ultimately rested on God.
Lastly, the statist will say that both position (i) and (ii) are incorrect. There was in fact a state. On this view, even if Israel later wanted a King, which was a rejection of the rule of God, one cannot deny that there was a state beforehand. Whether or not there was extensive power to be found in this state, is besides the point. The statist position can be thought of as being close to position (ii), the difference being in how limited the government actually was.
(i) no state* (anarchy, or strictly local government with some hierarchical judicial oversight),
(ii) small state* (libertarian, or limited government), or
(iii) a state (something closer to our modern conception of it)
["State" as understood from an anarchist perspective].
The anarchist will make the argument that there wasn't a state per se. It was God who ruled directly, and certain leaders maintained some martial and/or judicial position for a limited time. But this doesn't qualify as there being a state. When Israel wanted a King like the other nations, it was, in effect, desiring a state, as opposed to the rule of God. Therefore, during the time of the judges there was no state (anarchy), and then there was a state (monarchy).
On the libertarian side, one might say that there was in fact a state, even if only limited to some judges or leaders. This state may have been local, leading to a hierarchy that stretched to the highest judge, and ultimately, to the supreme judge, God himself. In this case, one can't say there wasn't a state. At the same time, one cannot maintain that a full-fledged state existed. If anything, it was a limited government that ultimately rested on God.
Lastly, the statist will say that both position (i) and (ii) are incorrect. There was in fact a state. On this view, even if Israel later wanted a King, which was a rejection of the rule of God, one cannot deny that there was a state beforehand. Whether or not there was extensive power to be found in this state, is besides the point. The statist position can be thought of as being close to position (ii), the difference being in how limited the government actually was.