NIMROD was the first “mighty one in the earth.” He was the first one of men to assert power and force, unrestrained, upon men; the first man to assert the absolutism of authority over men. This is evident from the fact, as we have seen, that those before him had not the boldness to assume openly and decidedly the title and prerogative of king, which they knew belonged, by right, only to God. this unwillingness to assume the title of king, and the willingness to assert authority only as viceroy of the king, even though their own idols were held to be the king, shows the recognition of the restraint of a superior authority, and the recognition of that authority above them to which they were responsible and under which they acted only as agent; or viceroy. But with Nimrod, all this was thrown off. He himself would be supreme. He would recognize no superior. He alone would be king. The title and prerogatives of king should merge in him. And this position was taken by him in view of the fact that before this, the title and prerogatives of king merged only in God. This was at once and openly the putting of himself in the place of God. He was assuming the title, the prerogatives, and the absolute authority that belonged only to God; which only God can exercise in righteousness; and which can be exercised by man only in a cruel, wicked despotism.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.1

And all this, which in principle lay in Nimrod’s assumption of the title of king, is demonstrated in his career. For, though Babel was the city in which, and over the people of which, he began the assertion of this absolute authority and power, yet he was not content with the assertion of this over Babel alone and leaving it for others to follow his example in their own particular cities; but with Babel he at once grasped by this his kingly authority “Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” Thus he asserted his absolute dominion over the whole of the land of Shinar.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.2

Nor was he content even with this. It was not enough for him to be king—supreme, unrestrained monarch; but he must extend his authority to the farthest limits. For “out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calab.” He was not content with a kingdom only; but he must expand kingdom into empire, and so assert his authority to the widest possible limit, to be indeed supreme and absolute everywhere.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.3

With the setting up of Nimrod’s kingdom, the entire ancient world entered a new historical plane. The original tradition which makes that warrior the first man who wore a kingly crown, points to a fact more significant than the assumption of a new ornament of dress, of even the conquest of a province. His reign introduced to the world a new system of relations between the governor and the governed. The authority of former rulers had rested upon the telling of kindred, and the ascendancy of the chief was an image of parental control. Nimrod, on the contrary, was a sovereign of territory, and of men just as far as they were its inhabitants, and irrespective of personal ties. Hitherto there had been tribes—enlarged families—society; now there was a nation, a political community—the State. The political and social history of the world henceforth are distinct, if not divergent.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.4

Distinction between Kingship and Imperialism

It is notable, as above remarked, that a peculiar characteristic of this impartial sovereignty was the assertion of it primarily over territory, and, accordingly, over people as they might be inhabitants of the territory. Herein lies the essential distinction between kingship and imperialism.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.5

Nimrod’s bold example in assuming the title and prerogative of king in the place of God was promptly imitated everywhere, but only as king of a tribe, or associated tribes, or of a city. But plainly, in such an association there was necessarily involved the idea or the consent or voice of the people of the tribe or city concerned. But when the authority and power of king thus asserted over a community or a city was extended over territory, without respect to the tribes or peoples who might be inhabitants of the territory, and was asserted over these simply as a consequence of their being within the territorial limits claimed, this at a stroke swept away all idea or possibility of the people’s having any choice or voice in the matter. And that was but the assertion of the completest possible absolutism. In the first there might be room for some lingering thought of limitation upon the monarchy, but in the latter, all this was completely eliminated. This was absolutism complete.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.6

And even in this its ultimate phase, Nimrod’s bold example has been diligently followed ever since. The history of the world, yea, even the history of government and of governments, is a history only of kingdoms expanding into empires; kingships by the voice of the people, expanding into imperialism to the exclusion of all possibility or thought of the voice of the people; limited monarchy expanding into absolute monarchical despotism.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.7

Kudar-Nanhandi, king of Elam, was the first one of record to imitate Nimrod’s imperialism, tho his success was small. Urkh, king of Ur, was the next to imitate Nimrod’s imperialism, and he succeeded in establishing his imperial supremacy over the whole Babylonian plain. The next one was another king of Elam, Kudur-lagamer—the Chedorlaomer of Genesis 14—who surpassed even his exemplar; for he succeeded in establishing his imperial authority not only over the whole of the Mesopotamian plain, but over all the territory westward to the Mediterranean Sea, and almost to the border of Egypt, and kept it all in subjection for twelve years.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.8

And so has proceeded the course of imperialism from Nimrod until now. But having discovered the principle and essential character of imperialism, the history and the practise of it will be discussed in other studies.SITI January 20, 1904, page 3.9

January 13, 1904

January 27, 1904