Household: Household and the Israelite Monarchy

Israel functioned as a federation of tribes, clans, and households in early centuries, but with the rise of the monarchy (c. 1000 B.C.E.), the family and household came under increasing pressure. The centralized monarchy sought more control over every aspect of life. Leo Perdue writes in his essay The Israelite and the Early Jewish Family (in Families in Ancient Israel):

Royal exploitation of farm families led to the steady decline of the traditional household and undercut its system of economics, education, care, law, and protection, as well as the religious rituals and traditions that strengthened and legitimated its identity and solidarity (see the warning in 1 Sam. 8:10-18). A royal treasury, supported by military, booty, taxation, and offerings to the temple, and royal control of markets were strategic elements of a new economic system that provided the monarchy with enormous wealth and power. Royal “wisdom schools” undoubtedly emerged to educate scribes who could administer the kingdom, assume posts in the royal bureaucracy, and create new traditions that would authenticate religiously the ruler’s authority and power. The royal distribution of charity was designed to transfer the loyalty of the underclass and perpetual poor to kings and away from the households. The monarch as supreme judge and national benefactor established courts to administer the king’s justice in the royal state (2 Sam. 12:1-6; 1 Kings 3:16-28; Psalm 72), thus rivaling the system of justice carried out by households, clans, and tribes. Royal courts to enforce and carry out the governmental system led to the increasing confiscation of household estates and the ignoring of the rights of the poor (Isa. 10:1-4; cf. 5:8; Micah 2:2) Blood vengeance was circumscribed by more formal means of justice in royal and temple courts.(209-210)

Perdue notes the replacement of the tribal militias with conscripted standing armies. Taxation pressures to support the burgeoning state forced many smaller households to sell off members and assets, and ultimately land, to wealthy landowners. Deceit and disregard for property rights were common. (See the story of Naboth’s vineyard, 1 Kings 21.) [Paragraph here removed to comments]

Perdue goes on to make this interesting observation:

…before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. families and villages had largely come under the expanding and controlling orbit of towns, cities, royal districts, the kingdom, and ultimately the king himself. Without the abrupt end of the monarchy in the Babylonian conquest, the family household in its described form likely would not have survived. (211-212)

If you have read my blog for very long, you have no doubt read about subsidiarity. This is the idea that “…matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or the lowest) competent authority.” (Wikipedia) Each subsequent higher level of authority and power exists only to do what more localized levels cannot do for themselves or to intervene to restore health to more localized levels when problems arise. The family is the central institution, with ever-widening circles of voluntary associations and government functioning in support. It is a key piece of Roman Catholic social teaching articulated by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum in 1891.

The danger is that two things will happen when more centralized forms of authority begin to take on roles of more localized institutions. First, the centralized authority will tend to execute the role with decreased effectiveness and sensitivity. Second, the capabilities and capacities of the more localized institution whose role has been usurped will atrophy, requiring more intervention by centralized authorities. God had established the nation of Israel to be a people with a decentralized subsidiarity form of governance. The monarchy all but destroyed it.

Series Index

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

Michael, you, apparently following Perdue, ignore the very real question of whether this idea of local shrines presided over by local Levites etc was God's will or not. Indeed you imply that it was. But the book of Deuteronomy in particular implies that it was not. If you choose to go along with liberal scholarship which understands Deuteronomy as late and contradicting God's original plan for Israel, don't forget you are rejecting the authority of the Bible.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I'm not totally taken with Perdue's analysis on every aspect. I do think it is possible to do the right things for the wrong reasons. Deuteronomy prohibits this practice but what motivated action centuries later? Was it the desire to adhere to the biblical code that motivated the elimination of ancestor worship or was it the desire for centralization? I think it is a valid question.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Upon further reflection based on Peter’s comment the following was removed from the post:

********

Concerning religion, Perdue writes:

…the religious traditions and practices that strengthened families were restricted and at times even prohibited by royal design. During Josiah’s reform (2 Kings 22-23), the centralization of worship in Jerusalem sought to strengthen royal control of religion and thereby concentrate greater power in the hands of the king by eliminating not just pagan cults but also the local sanctuaries and priesthoods (country Levites) that were integrated into the social fabric of the households and clans. Transforming Passover from a household sacrificial meal to a national pilgrimage festival held at Jerusalem was designed to centralize religious control to the royal sanctuary and to negate the major cultic celebration that strengthened family identity and solidarity. The proscription of the veneration of the dead ancestors sought to break the link between the living members of the household and their ancestors who were thought to continue as members of the family throughout the generations. The attempts to replace the belief in the continuance of life after death with the view of the oblivion of death and to prohibit ancestor veneration also sought to destroy the family’s linkage with its past. The subverting of the material means by which families continued to exist cost them their future; prohibiting the veneration at the ancestral burial sited on a family estate helped negate the sense of the importance of the household’s land tenure and cost families their past. (211)

**********

Digging into another of Perdue's articles, I see that Perdue is basing his observations here on the theory that Deuteronomy was of c. 7th century construction. The prohibitions against ancestor worship and transforming Passover into a pilgrimage were allegedly added later to justify centralization. I’m not an OT scholar but this doesn’t comport with my understanding of the origins of the OT and Deuteronomy. I think the prohibitions were there centuries before the 7th Century but the aim of prohibiting ancestor veneration was to direct worship toward God. There is no question that this would have had the effect of disuniting the family from household loyalty but did it redirect loyalty toward God as was the intent, or did it redirect it toward the state (and admittedly the two would be hard to differentiate.) Not all evolution away from the household toward some centralization was bad. I think that religion was a tool used for centralization but I think the above paragraph confuses more than it clarifies.

[Sam Carr]

Michael, I disagree with the idea that upholding conservative traditions about 'how scripture should be viewed' is equivalent to upholding the authority of the bible. The bible is what it is and imposing external interpretations on it as necessary preconditions to its understanding is an exercise in futility especially when the text itself refuses to fall into the moulds into which one wishes to force it...

[Peter Kirk]

Michael, thank you for making the changes, which relieve my concerns.

Sam, from my point of view the important issue is not about the dating of Deuteronomy or how Scripture should be viewed. The post originally implied that God's original purpose for Israel included things which are clearly and unambiguously prohibited in Deuteronomy. I don't see how one can uphold the authority of the Bible and also take this line.

[Michael W. Kruse]

Thanks Sam. My intention with the post was to highlight the centralization of Israel's society. That is a given. The quote is based on a case for a late date for Deut. I have respectable sources in my library that are all over the map on this one.

The Bible is what is. We go where the truth leads us. It is not an "authority of the Bible question" for me. It is more that this is a peripheral point to the discussion which I'm unqualified to adjudicate. I don't want to get sidetracked into an "origns of the OT" debate and I think that is where Perdue's quote takes us.

Peter, you're welcome. This is what I love about blogging. I get to try out presentations of ideas to see how they fly (or in this case fall like a brick. *grin*)