Call (888) 555-5555 for more info:
Enter a short description of this item.
Name of Item
Name of Item
Enter a short description of this item.
Enter a short description of this item.
Keys
to
Ancient Israelite Culture
Some things in the Bible can be very puzzling unless you are familiar with some key aspects of ancient culture. It is important to know what the world was like at this time, but more often than not we find that people back then thought just like we do now; they only expressed it in different ways.
Thanks to archaeology, understanding of these basic building-blocks of Israelite society and how they fit together is much more available than it was only a few years ago. (Thanks especially to Roland deVaux's book, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, for many facts.) But we want to go beyond mere academic familiarity.
One of the problems the prophets raise about the Northern Kingdom of Israel is that the things in YHWH’s Torah seem strange or alien to us. (Hoshea 8:12) So our goal has to be to make the ancient ways seem less strange—to take away their “foreignness”. The more like our ancient forebears we actually come to live, the better we will understand exactly what someone Scripture meant when he said it, for it will become “second nature” to us, and it is indeed speaking about us, insofar as we reclaim our heritage as Israel.
To start, here are some videos that show how things were done in ancient times...
Greek vs. Hebraic Thought
To get back into context we need to learn to think like Hebrews. This is a bit different from understanding the cultural differences between East and West. Because we come from a Western mindset, we need more emphasis on the eastern aspects of Hebrew ways, but we also don’t want to carry it to the other extreme, because although it was Greece and Rome that defined the West as we know it, Hebrew culture strongly influenced both after the Classical period. So there are some aspects of Western thought that we don’t want to let go of. On the other hand, the gifts Avraham gave to his sons whom he sent eastward have also influenced eastern cultures.
So Hebraic ways are the perfect balance between the extremes of Eastern and Western ways. After all, Israel is in the “Middle East”. It is at the convergence of three interconnected continents, and therefore would interact with all of them in one way or another.
For example, the Western concept of time is that it is a straight line—it starts at one point and proceeds continuously to an assumed endpoint. Eastern peoples think of time as a circle that comes back to the same point, such as in the idea of reincarnation. The perfectly-balanced “middle” view is that time does proceed in cycles—there is repetition and often similar events occur on the same day in different years. But the circle is not all on one plane. It is more like a spiral-bound notebook or a spiral staircase that is mainly about the cycle of YHWH’s appointed times, but passes the same point on a higher level each time, so it is ascending in the process rather than just “going in circles” and getting nowhere.
Another way the Hebraic view of time differs from others is that time is not strictly punctiliar. In Exodus 23:16, we see the feast of Sukkoth called “the Feast of Ingathering, which is at the departing of the year”. Now Sukkoth is actually in the first month of the (creation) year. We’d consider it to be at the beginning! But in Hebraic thought, there is a gradual transition. It is not that this year ends today, then tomorrow the next year begins. The end of one year overlaps with the beginning of the next, just as seasons always do. Sukkoth is the closure for the harvest season, so it is an end, but it is also a tradition to begin praying at Sukkoth for the rain that will be needed for the next growing season.
Similarly, the Messianic Kingdom is seen both as “here now” and “not yet”. We start moving in its patterns even though it has not fully come, and this will make it easier to move fully into its ways, which are hard to fully enter into with our present societal structure, even in the Land of Israel.
When interpreting Scripture, while of course, context is a primary consideration, it does not necessarily have to be "either-or"; if a prophecy or a law can be interpreted in more than one way, a Hebrew mindset says it quite possibly should be, for different situations, unless it clearly contradicts other Scripture, especially the Torah.
To get into the frame of mind to best understand what Israel is about, we have to let go of some of our assump-tions about YHWH and humanity, and get back to the most basic fundamentals of what it means to be human.
The House
The first thing the Creator said about human beings is that it’s not best for us to live alone. Even if we had the relationship with Him, something more was needed. The whole world began with a husband and wife, so this is the most important human relationship. The first actual command is to be fruitful and multiply. So children come next, but not before one’s spouse. Once the family starts to grow, we have a household, and there has to be order and an authority structure.
The most basic component of the structure of Israelite society is the “family” or “clan” (mishpakhah). Another name is bayit, which means a house, and by extension, a household. The mishpakhah is patrilineal—it obtains its identity from the father (av). He is given the highest honor, with much given to the em (mother) too, because no man, however strong, cannot have a house without a woman.
But there is a clear-cut difference between the roles of men and women. They have the same goal, but are equipped differently. The cohesion of the overall society is preserved by keeping everyone in order under a clear chain of command. The woman has to keep the household functioning so men can go off to war, the hunt, or on a long journey as a trader, without concern for their households falling apart. When YHWH insults Egyptians by calling them women (Yeshayahu 19:16), it is not because women are not valued, but it is dishonorable for a man to act as YHWH has designed women to act—and vice versa. Women are not to rule over men. When YHWH says “women and children” are ruling His people (Yesh. 3:12), it means the men are not doing their job.
The husband, the head of the household, has title to his wife, so he is the one who demands the compensation if her honor is violated. Women still call their husbands “ba’al” (owner). When one has title to another, it is for the sake of benevolence, for a decent person protects what he owns. The idea that power can corrupt was not as important a consideration as the need to be under a covering so one is not vulnerable—especially a woman. If someone is not under someone’s headship, she was considered abandoned; one could do whatever he liked with her. When she is part of something bigger than herself, if someone treats her wrongly, he is up against all who back her up. In ancient society, women were not permitted to divorce their husbands, or even leave them. Without a supportive community to hold her husband accountable and pressure him to treat her rightly, she had no recourse if she was abused, unless her (father’s) family could defend or avenge her.
Women under a head can still own property. Sarah owned her maidservant, as did Rachel and Leah. A woman’s status was greatly enhanced as she bore children, especially sons.
A mishpakhah must begin with one man and one woman, but there can be more than one wife in a household. There is no ancient Hebrew term for polygamy, because it was normative until at least the time of the Judges, and still common thereafter. It is still practiced today among Bedouins and Arab cultures.
Why would a man have more than one wife? The most common reason was if the first wife cannot bear children, or if she bears no son to carry on the father’s name. Having a son was considered important for many reasons: The father’s name is perpetuated, whereas a daughter will leave the home and become part of another’s household to perpetuate her husband’s name. Sons are a way of extending one’s life, for they are seen as extensions of oneself. What my son accomplishes, I am seen as having done. He must also uphold his father’s reputation. While he had no heir, it seemed to Avram as if YHWH was taking back His blessings.
It was also advantageous in nomadic and agricultural societies to be able to have more children, because with many sons there is more protection and one can get more work done. And polygamy was an option to provide every woman with a covering when there are more men than women. (The default covering was her father, and if he died, her eldest brother or the eldest son of her father.) Scripture shows, however, that there tends to be animosity and political jockeying between the various wives. The first wife’s rights can never be diminished if her husband marries another. (Ex. 21:10; Mal. 2:14-15)
The eldest son becomes the head of the household when his father dies. The firstborn son is given a double portion of the inheritance, so an inheritance had to be divided by the number of sons one has--plus one. With this extra portion came the responsibility of upholding the family’s welfare if they should ever fall into poverty or debt. He is expected to give of himself more than the rest. He is especially responsible to care for his mother when aged if she is a widow. If he is the son of a maidservant, he cannot be considered the firstborn, but if one marries more than one wife, one is not permitted to transfer the special rights of the actual firstborn to the son of a later wife whom he now prefers. (Deut. 21:17)
The birthright is the right to head the household as cohen (priest) in the family after the father dies, unless he does something to forfeit his rights; then it can pass to son whom the father sees as most fit. Yaaqov’s dilemma was that his brother was to head up the family, but lacked the maturity and commitment to do so properly, so he found a legal way of getting around this custom: he bought the position. (Gen. 25:31ff)
A daughter only received an inheritance if she had no brothers. (BaMidbar/Num. 27, 36)
One’s place in Israelite society is usually based on genealogy. People did not have last names like we do today. They were called “Ben (son of) …” What followed might be their immediate father, but often many relatives were called after a more prominent ancestor further back. The descendants of Solomon went by the “House of David”; despite Solomon’s international renown, David was considered a better example of what they wanted to be known for.
A “house” has nothing to do with the size of a building, and a family is not always even related to DNA. It has to do with agreement—just as we now say, “If you live under my roof, you will follow my rules.” Avraham’s household is said to have “gained many souls”.
Why would one want to become part of a particular household?
First, being part of a house gives us a “covering” (both literally and legally). It was more obvious in a desert setting where the elements are harsh and thieves abound, and we are vulnerable to whatever is out there. To be part of a group rather than isolated gives us a higher degree of protection. This is especially true of women. In a mishpakhah every woman is joined to a man. If a woman is not married, her father or brother has jurisdiction over her safety and her honor.
Alliances were more often made between households than with individuals, and in times of attack by enemies, this brought aid which would have otherwise been impossible. (See Genesis 14.)
A household affords one the right of redemption: someone to make sure you receive justice if you have to, for example, sell your land or even yourself or your son to pay a debt. Each one in the family is designated a “closest kinsman” who, when possible, redeems what has been sold off, in order to keep it in the family. Even if one dies, nearest of kin is also designated as “redeemer of blood” to avenge your wrongful death and make sure your widow and children are provided for.
While ancient Israel was typically patriarchal, it reverted to a fratriarchal pattern if a man had no sons to succeed him. The redemption of a relative who sells himself into slavery to pay a debt (Lev. 25:47-49) also retains some fratriarchal order of precedence: a brother has the first right of redemption, then his uncle (brother of his father), then his uncle’s son, then if none of them can afford to buy him back, any blood relative may do so. The one who redeems, the go’el, would also redeem land that had to be sold away to pay debts, as in the book of Ruth. Since Ruth had joined herself to Naomi’s family, the redeemer of her land also had to fulfill the brother-in-law’s role of raising up a son for her husband, who had died childless.
Sometimes people would join another household through adoption simply because it was considered a more honorable one. This was based on whose household it was. Even if one was only a doorkeeper there in the House of David, this held higher honor than one could have had in his own family. If he committed himself permanently to this house, his ancestry was considered to have changed. Our ancestors saw no difference between a blood brother and an adoptive brother. If someone joined another house in order to uphold its honor, he was considered to have the same father as those naturally born into that house.
If someone becomes attached to a spiritual leader from a different tribe, he obtains a new “father” as far as his inheritance is concerned. A foreigner can become an Israelite, especially women captured in war, as long as they put away their foreign ways. But if one brought dishonor to the family, he could be killed, for whatever affects one will affect everyone in the household. In 2 Shmuel 21, King Shaul’s family broke a promise made centuries before by Y’hoshua, and this dishonor had to be paid for dearly. Those who had been under King Shaul—which in his case was all of Israel—had to pay for this one man’s breach of trust. Under Torah, a woman who murders can be executed, but it was more likely that her husband would be killed to avenge someone the wife inadvertently killed, as he is ultimately responsible for those in his house.
Servants are an important component of the household. In Hebrew the term is the same as for slaves. But in Israel this term does not mean what we in the West think of when we hear the word. Usually, unless captured in war, one became a slave to pay off a debt. This status is not to diminish his dignity, but for the survival of his family. In Torah, slaves are given rights. Slaves in Israel are to be treated like one of the family, and as well as any of the children who have not yet come of age. Masters are commanded to treat slaves humanely (Ex. 21; Lev. 25:39-40), unlike the Egyptians, and this is often what makes the difference in our minds between a servant and a slave. After 6 years, a fellow Israelite slave must be set free unless he chooses to stay, in which case he becomes permanently part of the household. (Ex. 21:6) Yet it is dishonorable to a family to have one’s brother involuntarily serving in another house. If someone in the mishpakhah owes, the whole family is in debt. So it is incumbent on the family members to do their best to buy him back. But the debt does not disappear; it is trans-ferred. The one who gets himself in trouble and is redeemed is indebted to the redeemer, who now owns him.
Tribal Life
As the generations went on, there might be many family units within one household, but there was only one Av Bayit (“father of the household”). He is the leader or overseer, not just one among many equals. Everyone in the family is expected to put their weight behind his decisions.
The elders were spokesmen for the whole group. The tribe’s leadership would be made up of these, as the next natural step, especially when making judicial rulings. Since Israel’s land was divided according to tribe and clan, most of the inhabitants of a given city would be related by blood. This was wise planning, for this way one would be less inclined to try to cheat his fellow citizens.
Once an authority makes a ruling, it is absolute (so YHWH requires two witnesses before anyone is executed). This is why Moshe established rulers of 10, 50, 100, and 1000. Someone in another household would not judge you unless the head of your household felt he could not render a decision If the ruler of one house could not figure out how to rule justly in a situation, he could go to the ruler of ten households for additional wisdom. If he in turn cannot determine the best course of action, he can go to the ruler of 50, who was chosen for having demonstrated wisdom in the tribe’s experience. Only the head of the household has the right to appeal to a higher commander; you would not go “over his head” just because you did not like a ruling.
Elders are called z’kanim—literally, bearded ones, i.e., those wise enough to lead because of their long experience. Another word for a leader is nasi--one who rises up or is exalted, showing that leaders in Israel emerge from among us; YHWH would not allow a foreigner to be made king, because those who rule must not only be familiar to but also familiar with those he is to rule. This way he knows the strengths of each one under his authority, so he knows whom to choose for a particular job, or whom he should not trust in a given situation, knowing his tendencies.
YHWH commended the Rekhabites for loyalty to a distant ancestor’s wish, even when it meant they refused invitations from a priest and a prophet of YHWH. (Yirmeyahu 35:6-11) They were a “holdover” from an earlier stage of Israel’s history. Their ancestor told them to live this lifestyle because he foresaw that it would be best for them. That lifestyle was one of growing no crops and building no houses, but living in tents: i.e., nomadic.
Nomads travel great distances looking for a place to graze their flocks or herds. Sheep eat the roots of their pasture, so they must move on to other areas depending on access to water, which often was tied to the time of year. They would often stay in one place just long enough for crops to grow. They have little contact with settled people. They had to settle near a more constant supply of water. If there was a famine, they would move the whole community to another base, where they might have to compete with others for resources. They recognize how tent-dwelling keeps YHWH’s people pure. They have no security, but live from day to day. Israel is a people that keeps moving, following the cloud and fire of YHWH’s presence as it moves. When we live in tents, it is easy to pick up and move, as shepherds so often need to do. They, of all people, know best that they themselves are the real house.
Even after we received the Land, we remained semi-nomadic. During some seasons they might live in houses, but the deeded lots of land were quite large. The only way to care for a flock long-term is to live out among them; tents are the most practical way to do that. Even when reaping crops, which must be done as soon as they ripen lest birds or insects devour them, reapers live in a sukkah right in the field. (Yeshayahu 1:8)
We cannot have crops, animals, or even life without water (Gen. 13:5ff; 21:25-32; 26:17-25), so water is what people fought over most. To take a city by siege, one only had to cut off its water supply, so the water source was well-guarded. It was considered a sport to be able to steal from foreign peoples in a surprise raid, but still one was considered more successful the fewer people he had to kill in the process.
The nomadic code of survival requires guests to be considered sacred for 3 days. No matter who they are, they are to be treated with the utmost kindness and provided with the best the household has to offer. 3 days gives them enough time to be rehydrated or adequately nourished to continue on their journey. Then they are provided with an escort to the outermost boundaries of the host’s territory (Gen. 18:16), unless the visitor wishes to stay longer to be taught by the host. Then he is expected to not merely respect the Av, but to follow any ground rules that have been established for that household. As Avraham’s children, hospitality is expected to be our hallmark.
Ceremonies and Rituals
It is the differences in ceremony and ritual that define a culture most vividly. Many idioms in Scripture allude to these customs, so we need to know them well. The most foundational institution in Israel is marriage, and there are many Hebrew customs surrounding it that make statements in the prophets and New Testament make more sense.
Betrothal and Weddings
Many men in Scripture met their wives at wells. Since wells were held in common by several local clans, meeting a wife at a well often meant people married their distant cousins.
A man is said to “take” (choose, receive, or acquire) a wife. (Deut. 24:1) The wife calls her husband ba’al (owner), as he has title over her, but he does not have a right to sell her like any other possession he owns (though he can sell one of his children to pay a debt). A man may purchase another man’s daughter to be his wife, but if he does he is never permitted to divorce her or diminish her inheritance, no matter how many other wives he takes.
The betrothal ceremony included the presentation of tokens of intent, such as a ring and bracelets. (Gen. 24) The bride was then veiled to let all know that she was now set apart to a ba’al. The bride price (mohar) does not buy her. It is paid to her father, but it belongs to the wife as “insurance” in case she is ever widowed or divorced. (Gen. 31:14-16) It is stored up or invested by her family until needed. Like a bank that holds the note for a loan that is not yet paid off, the family holds the groom responsible to take proper care of their daughter. They can “recall” her if they feel she is not being treated rightly; the children that result from the marriage belong to the father regardless. The minimal bride price (paid for humiliating a virgin) is 50 sheqels of silver. (Deut. 22:28ff) The bride price might not always be monetary. Pharaoh even gave Shlomo a city as a dowry for his daughter! (1 Kings 9:10ff) Additional gifts were often given to the family of the bride to compensate them for the loss of her help in the household. (Gen. 24:52ff; 34:12) The proper protocol was that the groom-to-be proposed marriage to the woman’s father, who then discussed the matter with all her brothers and made inquiries to screen him before it would ever go any further. If they all agreed, her parents would then ask the woman herself if she was interested in marrying the man.
There are two stages to a Hebrew marriage. The first, betrothal (erusin), is like engagement, but much more binding. The woman is already “under contract” and responsible to be faithful. Neither party can back out of the arrangement without deep dishonor to both families. The betrothed woman is considered his wife, so laws pertaining to adultery apply at this stage. (Deut. 22:22-27; Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17) The groom, however, is not considered her husband until the second stage of the marriage; her father is still her ba’al until that point.
The first stage of the marriage could last for years, until the groom’s father determined that all was ready, which meant the groom himself did not know exactly when it would end either. (Compare Mat. 24:36.) He would be building the khuppah (wedding canopy) and the kheder (bridal chamber), and the bride would be learning to make herself beautiful for her husband and how to be a capable wife. One enters the covenant by an oath, though in Scripture the marriage is seen more as civil (before the people of Israel) than religious as such.
At the second stage (be’ulah) ceremony, both bride and groom would wear white. The bride wore a crown of gold, and the groom a garland of olive branches placed on him by his mother. (Song of Songs 3:11) The bride also wears a veil, for she is seen as a queen, to be most highly honored on that day. (Song 4:1-3) If she is not the first wife, she still has the right to receive the same ring and the same amount of jewelry as other wives. She is brought in wearing embroidered clothes, often with jewelry borrowed from many relatives or neighbors, and accompanied by unmarried companions with gladness and rejoicing. (Psalm 45:14) The groom comes out from his father’s house, where there has already been some measure of celebration, in a procession with his friends and brothers and much baggage, to be greeted by musicians. (1 Maccabees 9:39)
A written contract called the ketubah is signed. It was common to have the legal marriage document signed only by the male, though a few signed also by the wife have been found. Merely “taking” a woman without a legal document seems to be what makes the difference between her being a concubine and being a full-fledged wife.
There were two witnesses at the wedding. (Compare Z’kharyah 4; Rev. 11:3.) One escorts the bride to the khuppah, and the other accompanies the groom. The father of the groom gives a feast for his son (Mat. 22:2). The bride is entitled to a feast that lasts seven days. (Gen. 29:27) If someone is being honored very highly, the feast can last 14 days. (Tobit 8:20)
On the first night of the feast (Gen. 29:23), the couple goes into the wedding chamber for the yikhad (consummation—becoming one). Now he is finally her ba’al. The “friend of the bridegroom” (Yoch. 3:29-30) stands outside and listens for the groom to call out to him that the marriage has become complete. He then relays this information to the guests who are already celebrating at the father’s house (Yoch. 14:2), and of course this takes the celebration to a higher level.
The simple language of the ancient divorce certificate is found in Hoshea 2:2, in which YHWH is divorcing the Northern Kingdom: “She is not my wife; I am not her husband.” A get (bill of divorce) is required to annul even a betrothal (Yeshayahu 50:1), because it, too, is legally binding (Yirmeyahu 3:8), and without it, a woman could not remarry; with it, she could. The bride price then becomes her alimony.
Widows
Torah guarantees justice for widows and fatherless. (It does not say “orphans”, because even if they still had a mother, she might not be able to support them, having no real power in society.) Corners of the grainfields and any stalks the harvesters drop are left for them to glean, as well as some of the olives on the tree and grapes on the vine. They are not just brought to the widows; having to go work for it keeps them healthy and gives them the dignity of at least having harvested it themselves. If they were unable to work, food was still not just brought to them at home; they were designated a place to sit, stationed at a public place where others could come make their donations and be blessed in the giving. One was only licensed to beg if there was nothing else he could do, as when blind, deaf, or lame. This was not considered dishonorable, but rather was an open door for Israel to do the right thing.
The brother of a man who has died with no son to carry on his name must marry his widow. (Deut. 25:5) The first son born to them is considered his brother’s seed and takes on his name to perpetuate his inheritance. (25:6) It is not literally his brother’s seed, but is the closest thing possible, since it is their common father’s seed.
If there is no brother-in-law, the deceased husband’s uncle is the next of kin, then his uncle’s son. (Lev. 25:49) Through levirate marriage, an outsider like Ruth who married into Israel could also remain part of Israel.
If a widow had no family to go back to, but had a son, his inheritance would serve to support her as well. If she had only daughters, the land inheritance would be lost unless her daughters marry within the tribe to protect the inheritance. The Land was divided in a specific way for a particular purpose, and YHWH did not want it to move from tribe to tribe. The brother-in-law who fulfills his role also ensures that she remains attached to her late husband’s land. If she was not attached to some head of household, anyone could take advantage of her. There were no police as such; the males of her family would serve in this role. If she is childless, with no covering of any kind, she is a “true widow”, and would be cared for by the people of Israel through the mediation of the Levites. A priest’s widowed, childless daughter goes back to her father’s household. (Lev. 22:13)
If they had no family at all, the community supported them if they have proven deserving by their past. This way everyone remains responsible. If there was any way someone else could take care of them, they were not enrolled on the public dole list (v. 9), which was administered at the synagogue or other civil meeting place.
Children (Yeladim)
Sterility carried a great stigma, whereas to have a child in old age was counted a supreme blessing. Most ancient polytheistic peoples had one goddess dedicated specifically to fertility, and people had many methods of trying to appease her in order to guarantee fertility for themselves or their land. Sometimes they offered food. Sometimes they presented carved likenesses of the goddess to the temple. Sometimes they performed sexual rites with the priests or priestesses. Large stones were stood up outside the temples as phallic symbols to identify a place of worship. (These were later replaced with steeples for even greater visibility.)
If a child is born “on the knees of another”, this is an idiom for adoption, but often they literally got into this position using a birthing stool to allow the newborn to actually pass between the legs of the adoptive mother (Gen. 30:3) or even father. (Gen. 48:12; 50:23) It was considered an honor for a servant’s child to be adopted by a tribal chief, for example, because he would then have a higher place in society, though his parents were usually the ones to actually rear him.
At birth, a child was washed in water, then rubbed with salt (to draw pores shut, make him cry to get his lungs functioning well, and possibly to toughen his skin against the harsher climate he lived in), then wrapped in cloths (Y’hezq’el 16:4; Iyov 38:8)--not one large cloth, but tightly with many strips so he almost appeared mummified. This may have felt more like the womb to the infant. When the child was weaned (typically at 3 years old), there was a great feast. (Gen. 21:8)
Naming
Children were often named according to historical occurrences. After Eli died, his daughter named her newborn son Ichavod ("the glory has departed", 1 Shmuel 4:21). Prophets gave their children names that related to what YHWH was doing or about to do, or the condition of the people of Israel in His eyes. (e.g., Hoshea 1:4-5; Yeshayahu 7:3; 8:1).
During the early period of Israel’s history, a child was named at birth. Later, we see evidence of at least sons being named on the eighth day at their circumcision. (Luke 1:59) The delay may have been to seek insight into the spirit of the child by how he acted and inquire of YHWH about what he was meant to become.
The mother often named the children, but the father had authority to confirm (Luke 1:60-63) or overrule (Gen. 35:18). By Second-Temple times it was accepted practice to name someone after another relative. (Luke 1:61)
In the East, everything is about one’s tribe, and one’s name says something about his place (or simply his membership) within that community. People usually lived their whole lives within a few miles of their birth, so “last names” were not needed. They usually appended their father’s name (Y’hoshua ben-Nun) or that of a prominent ancestor (Yosef ben-David).
A king’s name often became a title to his dynasty: Pharaoh, Caesar, Avimelekh (which means “my father is a king”!) Many kings of nations included the name of their elohim in their name: Akhaz-YAH, YEHO-shaphat, BEL-shazzar, Ben-HADAD, Eth-BAAL, NEVU-khadnetzar. Sometimes the king was then seen as somehow possessing the essence of that deity. Other people also were given such “theophoric” names: Dani-EL, ELiYAHU, YEHO-shua. When someone gave his name, someone could immediately make some assumptions about where he came from, who he worshipped, and what his practices were.
Sometimes names were changed to reflect the changing direction of their path. Yaaqov was no longer to be thought of as a thief, but as Yisra’el--one who wrestled with Elohim and prevailed. In the same spirit, Moshe changed Hoshea’s name (which simply meant “salvation”) to Y’hoshua (“YHWH saves”, to change the focus slightly).
When people were taken captive in war or siege, their names were often changed by the conqueror: Daniel to Belteshazzar, etc. These names are based on the names of the elohim of the conqueror, Babylon, and reflected the captor’s new authority in their lives and his wish that they would assimilate.
When other peoples or their prevailing cultures occupied Israel, people sometimes appended foreign names to their Hebrew ones: Yochanan Marcus, Flavius Josephus, etc. Sometimes other prevailing languages influences their names in part: Bar-nabas, Bar Kochba, Shimon Bar-Yonah (Aramaic form instead of the Hebrew “ben”; later we see the Arabic “ibn” used in Jewish names because of the context in which they lived). In other cases, Hebrew people took Gentile names for themselves or gave their children Gentile names: Stephanos, Nicanor, Philip. Sometimes this was to gain more prestige or favor, and sometimes it was just a natural byproduct of several generations of living under occupation, whether forced or invited.
Circumcision
This is a ceremony in which the male foreskin is cut off. Often men circumcised their sons (or at least super-vised) but women are also held accountable to be sure it is done. The ceremony is a household one, not connected with the priesthood or temple (predating both). No priest needs be present, and no particular custom of celebration was mandated. The technique was to use a sharp stone (Ex. 4:25; Y’hoshua 5:2), often flint, since it can be sharpened like a knife. It was already the late bronze age when the command was given, and surgeons in Egypt had been using bronze for a thousand years. But the state-of-the-art knives were not used, since the custom was an ancient one, and it was considered preferable to do it in the way one’s ancestors had done it.
Why on the 8th day? (Lev. 12:3) The body doesn't produce enough vitamin K for the blood to coagulate quickly until that day, and the level of prothrombin (which speeds healing) is the highest in one’s whole life on this day! It can be done on the Sabbath. (Yochanan 7:22) If done to an older child or adult, it is very painful (Y’hoshua 5:8). One from outside Israel who wants to marry an Israelite woman needs to be circumcised. (Gen. 34:24) Even slaves bought by an Israelite household have to enter the covenant in this way. (Gen. 17:10-14) A few circumcised mummies have been found, but this is probably owing to Hebrew influence through Yosef, rather than because it was common in Egypt.
Education
The youngest children (up to age 4) were raised by their mothers (e.g. 2 Samuel 4:4). As they grew older, both parents taught them (Prov. 1:8; 6:20), and they would spend more time playing in the streets (Yirm. 6:11; Zech. 8:5; Matt. 11:16), which were safe then because few Israelites had horses, and the whole town knew one another. The elderly (often grandparents) would commonly be there with them, watching as well as teaching. (Zkh. 8:4-5) Young men would then typically be part of “cliques” (Yirm. 9:21) that would stick together around the town squares, where caravans would stop and make available not only merchandise but news and stories from other lands. Women continued to teach daughters. (9:20)
Most sons were expected to learn and carry on the same trade as their fathers.
Fathers and elders are especially responsible to teach their children and grandchildren the national history. Monuments and rituals were designed to make children ask questions about their heritage (Deut. 4:9; 6:7, 20; Y’hoshua 4:5-7) As they walked past them on long pilgrimages (1 Shmuel 1:21), there would be plenty of time to tell the complete story. It was often made exciting and easier to memorize through the means of song. (2 Shmuel 1:17; Ex. 15) Education was chiefly the responsibility of parents until King John Hyrcanus established mandatory formal schooling for children c. 130 B.C.E. This was the first such law in history, since elsewhere school was only for the privileged classes.
Unlike most ancient nations in which writing was forbidden to the masses and often even to kings, being limited only to the cultures’ religious priests, in Israel reading extended to the majority of the population so that they could understand the Torah, for in this case the whole nation is to be a “kingdom of priests”. (Ex. 19:6) Young children were taught to read and write. (Judges 8:14) There were special schools for scribes/recorders (Yirm. 36:4; 2 Sam. 8:17; 20:25; 1 Kings 4:3). Archaeologists have found countless commonplace potsherds and even walls used for practice. Women also learned to write. (1 Kings 21:8) When Israel turned away from the Torah, literacy declined, because people perceived little reason to need t o read.
The Levites are designated as the primary teachers in Israel (Mal. 2:7). Prophets taught the kings (2 Kings 12:2) Schools of the prophets (2:3-5) mainly taught the “sons of the prophets” Torah (the foundation for YHWH to work with), not how to foretell the future or speak in tongues. If a great teacher invited one to study under him, it was considered an insult to refuse. (1 Kings 19:19ff)
Customs Relating to Death
She’ol (the abode of the dead) is seen as a place of sorrows (Psalm 18:5; Yeshayahu 14:9-10), “lowering” and humiliation (Ps. 16:10), and is equated with the “lower parts of the earth”—a grave or sometimes even an “underworld”. (Y’hezq’el 32:17-18, 24) It is paralleled with a pit. She’ol comes from the verb sha’al, which means to ask for or enquire. It is a place that we enquire about, but no one knows exactly what follows. There were many ancient theories, and Israelites, especially after Dani’el, believed in a resurrection.
The Hebrew word for “soul” (nefesh) actually comes from a verb meaning to inhale or take in breath. In Lev. 17:11, where it says the “life of the flesh” is in the blood, the word for “life” is nefesh. So it is surprising that in BaMidbar (Numbers) 6:6; 19:3, and VaYiqra (Lev.) 21:1, a corpse is called a “dead soul”. Anciently, a person could be seen as a living soul (nefesh khai, Gen. 2:7) or a dead soul (nefesh met). It refers to the person as a whole. There was no mental distinction between one’s soul and his body as in Greek thought; the body is called a soul, even when dead, for it is an integral part of the person. The custom of closing one’s eyes at his death (Gen. 46:4) reflects the thought that death is seen as a state of sleep; it is temporary.
Kings were honored with a huge fire in their memory. (Yirmeyahu 34:5) Their bodies were not burned; incense was. (2 Chron. 21:19) Archaeologist Gabi Barkay found each king’s burning mound in a different location, except that of the evil Yehoram, for whom this was not done. (2 Chron. 16:14)
Burial
A dead body is treated with care because of a belief in the resurrection. In the cave of the letters, people were found buried fully clothed, for they were clearly expected to come back and were treated with respect.
As quickly as possible, the body was wrapped in clean linen and laid in a tomb. (Mat. 27:59) Feet and hands were bound with wrappings and the face bound with a separate cloth. This was not a quick process. It required washing, perfuming, and dressing the body in burial cloths, Myrrh and aloes were added to the wrappings to improve the smell. Sometimes the body would be wrapped in cloth strips soaked in resin so it formed something like the casts used to set broken bones today. This is why Yochanan believed that Y’shua had been resurrected when he saw a cast that was empty but not cut or split open.
If someone is not buried, it is counted a curse. Having the birds and dogs eat one’s flesh is a severe desecration (1 Kings 14:11; Yirmeyahu 16:4) Being thrown outside the city like a dead donkey (Yirmeyahu 22:19) is seen as a guarantee that this person will not have eternal life, which is why they do it to their enemies. When we see television images of Muslims dragging bodies through the streets, it is evidence that they still have the same beliefs. David rewarded those who risked their lives to “steal” Sha’ul and Yehonathan’s bodies from their enemies, and honored them by taking their bones to their ancestors’ tombs. (2 Shmuel 21:12) If someone’s body is burned, it is considered a disgrace. (Amos 2:1) Annihilating the royal seed like this was seen as eternally destroying one’s enemy. Being left in the open field was especially heinous to the Egyptians, who spent their entire lives preparing to be treated well at death. (Y’hezq’el 29:5) In Israel, only kings were buried within cities. (2 Chron. 16:14).
Israelites were not embalmed or mummified, except in the case of Yosef, who lived in Egypt. He is also the only ancient Hebrew whose body we ever see placed in a coffin. Israelites were normally carried on a stretcher or bier to be buried. (2 Shm. 3:31)
We are told that the mighty are buried in a “separate place”. (Y’hezq’el 32:27) They were not buried in a common grave, but in sepulchers, often with their battle-gear and armor (Egyptians saw the possessions buried with them as to be used right away, but Israelites at the resurrection.). This is one difference between she’ol (the low place where many are seen as thrown together in death) and a kever, which is a private tomb belonging to one family. Tombs can be dated by their style. They had a narrow opening and widened out inside.
One wanted to die near his home (2 Shmuel 19:37) and be “gathered to his fathers” (Gen. 49:29). There is a literal practice behind this idiom. One’s body was placed on a shelf cut into the tomb; there were often several shelves in case several family members died in one year. After the flesh decayed, one’s bones were placed in a hollowed-out space under the shelf where his ancestors’ bones had been deposited the same way in previous generations. The most common thing found buried with people is an oil lamp, possibly to light the tomb when the next family member was buried.
Between 100 B.C.E. and 100 C.E., the bones were placed in ossuaries like the famous one labeled “Yaaqov, son of Yosef, the brother of Yahshua”. Many have floral patterns. They were commonly dug out of soft rock (commonly limestone).
In ancient Israel, it was the family’s duty to bury a relative; there were no funeral homes, and one would certainly not entrust one’s relative’s body to a stranger as many pay exorbitant amounts to do today, and in many places is actually mandated by law. Sometimes burial societies have been formed to keep the care of the body within an Israelite context while allowing experts to prepare the body more quickly. Jews normally bury a body within 24 hours of death rather than embalming it to minimize contact. (Rather than viewing the dead body, one remembers the joyful times one had with the deceased while he was alive and well.) In ancient Israel, everyone would be more directly exposed to the process of preparing the body for burial than we normally are in today’s sanitized context, where we are insulated from death, even the slaughter of meat.
Mourning
The rituals involved in mourning are not spectator events; all who are present participate in them. Some examples of mourning practices in ancient Israel include:
- Torn garments. (Gen. 37:31-35; 2 Shmu’el 1:11ff) Clothing is an expression of one’s status; to tear it expresses the idea that these fancy things mean nothing when one has lost something truly important (a loved one).
- Putting on sackcloth (burlap or other rough, itchy material with the purpose of irritating, to express the sentiment that one cannot be comfortable in such circumstances.
- Weeping tears, sighing (Y’hezq’El was told to refrain from these when his wife died, as a sign, 24:16ff)
- Fasting until evening (2 Shmuel 1:11ff; Esther 4:16)
- Taking off one’s turban and sandals, going barefoot, and pining away (Y’hezq’el 24)
- Shaving one’s head bald (Iyov 1:20; Yeshayahu 22:12; Yirmeyahu 16:6-7) or cutting oneself (both later forbidden in Deut. 14)
- Not washing or anointing one’s body or changing one’s clothes as usual (2 Shmu’El 12:19-22; 14:2)
- Covering one’s lips (Y’hezq’El 24)
- Eating the “bread of sorrow” (Y’hezq’El 24) and an alcoholic “cup of comfort” (Yirmeyahu 16:7) –probably brought by friends because if the relative had died in the tent, any uncovered grain within it would have become ritually (and probably physically) defiled and have to be thrown out (Num. 19:14), so the mourner might have nothing to cook. Israelite settlements are often identifiable by a pattern of ditches lined with rocks and covered with stone. This was probably a place to keep food separate--and cool—where it would not be contaminated.
- A seven-day period of mourning is customary, especially for an honored father (Gen. 50:7ff) or a king. (1 Shmu’El 31:13; 1 Chron. 10:12) Hence the custom of friends coming from near and far (Iyov 2:11-13) to “sit shiva’ (seven days and nights)” to comfort the one who most keenly feels the loss (Gen. 37:31-35) and to express the fact that they, too, share the loss.
- Falling on the earth before YHWH and putting dirt, dust, or ashes on one’s head (Y’hosh.7:6; 1 Shmu’El 4:12)
- Howling like a jackal (Mikha 1:8), wailing in the streets—very noisily, but unaccompanied by musical instruments, for they are more symbolic of joy. The most bitter lament was when an only son died (Yirmeyahu 6:26; Amos 8:10), for then there was no heir left to the deeply-bereaved parents.
- Mourning was usually followed by singing of laments. Yoshiyahu’s lament was written down, taught to Yehudah, and used on many later funerary occasions.(2 Chron. 35:25), including that of the fallen heroes in the time of the Maccabees.
- Every family would mourn separately and the women separately from the men. (Z’kharyah 12:12ff) This allowed one to be freer to express his full emotions, which undoubtedly had a cathartic effect that people try to achieve through therapy today).
These are not prescribed in Torah, except to proscribe certain mourning rituals that are damaging or disfiguring. They were chiefly cultural and community events—civil rather than religious as such. Ancient Israelite funerals did not call on prophets or priests, but rather paid professional mourners (both male and female), for they would make the event an especially memorable affair.
Many of these same things are done when any very bad news, especially about the nation’s welfare, is received (Mikha 1:8), or during times of repentance (Iyov 42:6; Yonah 3:5), to beg YHWH for sympathy. (Lev. 23:27ff)
Prophets often sang when giving prophecies of doom. (Y’hezq’El 32:15-16) Each had his own style for which he was known, and they probably used songs recognizable as dirges. There were established tunes that evoked the theme of mourning.
Israel did not draw a religious connection at a time of death, for almost every ancient people had a cult of the dead, giving religious significance to their ancestors, as eastern cultures still do today. There were overtones of the resurrection, but there was not necessarily anything blatantly about YHWH in it. Of course, with Him as our people’s Elohim, everything we do centers on Him in one way or another. But Israelite laments as recorded in Scripture spoke of where the deceased had been, what they had done, the fact that they are no longer with us—but not where they are going.
Communities
If you visit a tel in Israel today, you might be amazed at how
small it is compared to modern cities. How could cities that
could not support a very large population have become so
important and influential? It’s because the walled section of
cities did not account for all the citizens. The wealthy, traders,
and merchants, as well as the city leadership could afford to live inside the walls; a much larger number lived in the outskirts and would take refuge inside the city walls if there was a threat to their safety there. But they were the first line of defense, and if they could not make it into the gates by the time the enemy’s approach could be seen, they would be caught outside.
Still, very few cities had more than 5,000 people. Assyrian general Tiglath-Pileser captured 732 towns in the Galilee, with a total population of 360,000, so they averaged only from 400 to 650 people per town. Of course, there were larger cities. Yet even Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom, had a population of only 30,000 when captured, and in Jerusalem’s heyday (the Second Temple period), only 30,000 actually lived within the walls.
Most cities were on hills for defense purposes. Roads would bypass them, not go through them, for safety reasons.
When David took a census, there were 800,000 who drew the sword among the House of Israel, and 500,000 within Yehudah (already counted separately before Yerovoam led the secession), for a total of 1.3 million men of war. This would translate to a total population of about 5 or 6 million within Israel—about the same as the number of Jews in the Land today, so it was relatively crowded, though, like today, there were still wide open spaces.
Many people would live their entire lives within a few miles of their birth. Except to travel to the pilgrimage festivals, there was little reason to go anywhere else. They had to stay near their crops and herds to defend them from predators. Even craftsmen still usually had farms.
Divisions of the Population
While nomadic, Israel was divided only by families. The head of the family’s name was attached to each one until an illustrious son reached a level of renown, and part of the family would call itself chiefly by his name, like the Makhirites, who grew large enough to be known in their own right rather than by their tribe of Menashe as such.
After the monarchy began, few still lived in tents. The emphasis on family never completely fell away, but people came to be known by where they were from rather than who their father was (Eliyahu the Gil’adite, Y’shua of Natzereth, etc.).
While some family names carried a nobler connotation due to wealth or accomplishment, still there were not social classes as such in Israel’s earliest history. Even slaves, who were included as part of the family, were not in a separate class per se. Everyone depended on each other to survive. The poor did not oppose the rich as a group; they would be glad to have a rich uncle when hard times came. There was a system of authority, but not “castes”. Importance was conferred mainly because of honorable behavior.
Levites were always seen as special, but as the ruling structure shifted from the father to choosing the wisest in a town to make its decision, new categories of elite began to emerge: Nasi (one “lifted up”), held in respect for deeds or wisdom, raised to a higher place of authority by those over--or under—him; Z’qanim (literally, “bearded”, hence, “elders”—not necessarily old, but with a certain level of maturity/experience); Sarim (princes in actual positions of royalty or from noble families), who would consult the elders for wisdom (Judg. 8:6, 16); Khorim (“white/those dressed in linen”)--“gentle” men who did not do manual labor or stay in the sun long (Yeshayahu 34:12) .
As the monarchy grew centralized, the king had “cronies” in the whole land as a support network when he needed allies. He kept his eyes open for strategic cities to garrison his troops in. These towns would become influential, but they would suddenly have new “bosses” from outside—an administrative class who had the king’s ear. These nobles could move things for him locally while he remained in the capital.
Proven heroes were called g’dolim (“great ones”). A gibbor khayil (able warrior) might be distinguished by his equipment. If he had an iron sword, he could cut through an enemy’s bronze shield; those both valiant and with better bows were in demand. Nagadim (“reporters” or “publishers”) might also have referred to those whose voices were heard because they stood out and commanded respect.
By the time of the Roman occupation, people were either at the “top of the pile” or the bottom; there was no longer a middle class. Mat. 22:16 mentions the Herodians—those who lived richly because they patronized Herod, but they were under his thumb. All whom he did not favor ended up very poor, though they worked very hard; Y’shua prays, “Give us this day our daily bread”, because most people to whom he spoke did not have any more than that stored up.
The majority of the population were called Am ha-Aretz (the people of the Land)—commoners who could be called out of daily work to fortify city walls or protect the water supply. “Peoples of the Land “ was a different term for the foreigners who moved into Israel during our exiles.
This type of foreigner was also known as a nokhri—someone who is passing through Israel or who deals with Israel in some way. He might be a traveling merchant or a guest for some other reason, and was usually friendly toward Israel. Not much is expected of him; he is not punished for owning idols, though he may not bring them into YHWH’s land. In turn, he cannot expect much from Israel except standard minimal hospitality.
Another category of foreigner, treated somewhat differently in Torah, is a ger--a “sojourner” or “exile” living more or less permanently in the midst of another people. A ger does not own land, but may lease it until the 50th year. Often a hired hand, he must be paid on time. (Deut. 24:14) He is to be judged with the same legal procedures as the native. (Lev. 24:22) He is permitted to eat of the corners of the field and, along with widows and fatherless, glean what is deliberately left (Deut. 24:17-21) or eat volunteer crops that grow the sabbatical year. (Lev. 25:6) He is even provided food from Levitical storehouses. (Deut. 14:29; 26:12) If circumcised, he may eat the Passover. (Lev. 22:10) He is a free man (not a slave) voluntarily dwelling in Israel, but does not have full civil rights. He is assimilating; but something still prevents him from being a “citizen”. He may just not have married into an Israelite household.
A toshav (“settler”) is often mentioned as a subcategory of ger, that is, a ger toshav. Most often this is someone who immigrates to Israel to learn from her, intending to adopt her ways, and often goes on to become a full-fledged Israelite. In most cases, his children are considered Israelites. He does not have the right of redemption unless he has attached himself to an Israelite household (cf. Deut. 1:16)—in which case, he is no longer a ger. In the kingdom, the stipulation for a ger to be considered the same as a native-born, having rights of inheritance as well, is that his children are born among us. (Ezek. 47:22)
When a toshav is mentioned in isolation there are some noteworthy differences. More is expected of him than of a nokhri (he can be stoned for blaspheming YHWH’s name, Lev. 24:16), but he does not have strong religious leanings toward the people he is among, but lives on the land. He could be called an “expatriate”; he still maintains many foreign customs. He is not given some of the rights the others enjoy; like a nokhri, he may not eat of the Passover lamb, nor may he eat what is holy even if he lives with a priest. (Ex. 12:43ff; Lev. 22:10) But like a ger, he may flee to a city of refuge if he kills someone accidentally. (Num. 35:15)
The lines between these are somewhat fuzzy at times, because many people moved from one category to another. A person from another tribe of Israel who was living in another tribe’s land was considered a ger. (Judg. 19:16) Of course they had the full rights afforded by Torah. A Levite who left his Levitical city is considered a sojourner in Yehudah since he has no land there. (Judg. 17:17)
There is a different kind of outsider: a zur (“stranger”). He is more than simply someone unknown; in fact, its usage rather suggests someone who is known to Israel by virtue of having once been part of it, but who then turned away—someone not so much “strange” as “estranged”.
Common Occupations
(a) The Wage-Earner (Sakhir)
This is a free man who hires himself out for a definite job, at a set wage, for a set time—in short, a contractor. He is not expected to do other types of work than what he has agreed to do. The Hebrew term comes from a root (sakhar) meaning “to purchase, hire, bargain, or lease”. Most were paid the same day they worked. He is not necessarily a foreigner. He may be an Israelite, and even a landowner.
Why would a landowner become a sakhir? His crops might fail and he would thus need another way to pay his debts or provide for his family. His father might have leased the land he inherited out for 50 years, and he does not currently have access to it. He might have made bad business decisions, or had too few children to work his land or tend his flocks.
Most often the sakhir is an agricultural worker, but not always. Yahshua mentions the practice of finding day-laborers at the local marketplace in one of His parables. (Mat. 20) A different type of sakhir is the yearly wage, The price of release of someone who sold himself as a servant is based on how many years are left until the yovel (50th) year. (Lev. 25:50-53) Prior to Israel’s united kingdom a going rate was 10 sheqels of silver per year, plus a suit of clothes and his sustenance. (Judges 17:9) If he is killed by someone else’s animal, the one who hired him is to be paid 30 sheqels of silver. (Ex. 21:32; compare Mat. 26:15) This is some indication of what he was worth to his master. Yeshayahu (Isaiah) 16:14 implies that he was hired for exactly one year at a time. Most employers would prefer the annual rather than daily laborer, because he would be more interested in getting the job done right, since he had to stay with it longer. The wise employer would tie his wage to the success of the venture—i.e., a share of the crop—because then he would be better motivated to perform well.
(b) Craftsmen (Khoreshim)
The term khoresh actually means a “fabricator”, and in the most precise sense, “engraver”, but it is used in a general sense for any skilled artisan. We see numerous types mentioned in Scripture:
-Ofeh: Baker (Hoshea 7:4).
-Yotzer: Potter (Yeshayahu/Isa. 29:16). The term means “one who shapes” or “forms”.
-Worker of fine flax (Yeshayahu 19:9)
-Khoshev: Weaver of fine textiles (Yeshayahu 19:9; Ex. 35:35)
-Khoresh Nekhoshet: Bronze-worker (1 Kings 7:13ff)
-Roqem: Tapestry-maker or embroiderer (Ex. 35:35)
-Tzoref: Goldsmith or smelter (Yeshayahu 40:19)
-Raqakh: Perfumer (Nehemyah 3:8). Josephus says most of them also made alabaster
bottles to contain their product.
-Fuller (Yeshayahu 7:3): a special term referring to making a sheep’s wool “full” by
shrinking it with water, stomping on it, pressing it out, and cleaning it with soap.
-Cheesemaker (known by the valley by the same name in Greek—Tyropean—that runs
through the middle of Yerushalayim)
-A tanner would live and work outside the population center because of the stench from
the dog excrement he used to obtain the type of acid that worked best for his trade.
Most people could do most of these things to a limited degree; everyone had to know how to grow their own crops and work the land they inherited. Until the Babylonian exile, most people were fairly well-rounded subsistence farmers rather than specializing in a trade. It was usually only the king who would hire specialists before that; other people built their own houses, etc. After the exile, the concept of division of labor became more popular in Israel, being brought back from Babylon.
Also, as families grew larger, each family member had a smaller percentage of the clan’s homestead, they either had to combine their farmland or sell the other kinds of resources they found on their land to exchange for more food. If someone could make a sword well, he could afford more food more quickly. If he found copper on his land, he could use it to make more and more swords to sell. If a king heard of his skill and ordered a large quantity of swords, he would have to employ others to get the job done quickly enough.
Hired workers might live in the same house as the one they worked for, because one’s workshop was generally part of his household. Sometimes families clustered around a common trade. In 1 Chron. 4:21 we read of the “families of the House of the Linen Workers (Beyt Avodat haButz)”.
Often all of the craftsmen of a particular trade would cluster in the same part of town to share or access resources more easily as part of a guild—for example, “the Bakers’ Street” (Yirmeyahu 37:21) An ancient shopping mall was even discovered at Caesarea Philippi. We see goldsmiths and merchants clustered in the same part of town (Nekhemyah 3:31ff), in symbiosis because of the convenience of merchants bringing gold back from their travels and merchants making products out of it for them to sell on their next trip.
Sometimes a whole village would specialize in a particular craft because of the local resources. If there was a forest nearby, they might start a bronze-works, because they would need a lot of firewood for fuel. If there was a lot of high-quality clay in their area, they might all be potters. If sheep were regularly sheared in a particular area, weavers would set up their looms there. The name “Valley of the Craftsmen (Khoreshim)” indicates that everyone who lived there was a craftsman or metal-worker. (Nehemyah 11:35)
A carpenter would know wood-working, but be more familiar with stone masonry, because stones were much more plentiful and last much longer. Since most people built their own homes, it was usually the public works for which specialized craftsmen would be hired. It was more of a specialty to be able to do wood-paneling, etc.; Shlomo had to hire panelers from Levanon , as many there were skilled in this area because of the huge trees that grew there.
Craftsmen hired by the king—the cream of the crop--would move to wherever his workshop was. One huge pottery works of this type has been unearthed by archaeologists at Netanim-Gadarah. This pottery had HaMelekh (the king) stamped on the handles much like a brand name today. These pots have also been found in other locations as well.
As kings took additional lands (Y’hezq’el 45:7-10; 46:18), the drive for power separated Israel from her Land. After the return from exile, most of the land was no longer divided by tribe, but was owned by the “highest bidder”. One’s job rather than his ancestry came to define who one was, for one’s hours would be filled with this specialization.
(c) Merchants
In the most ancient times, people would sell their wares or skills within the village, but not on the national or international level. Caravans of traders would pass through Israel from other nations. (Gen. 37:28) The only Israelite exception was the kings. Traders would travel on the king’s behalf. Yehoshaphat built a merchant fleet. (1 Kings 22:48) Two kings could make a trade treaty, allowing their people to trade with one another as well. (1 Kings 20:33ff)
People from other nations were brought in as skilled laborers for Shlomo’s grandiose building projects (1 Kings 5:13ff), including 70,000 water carriers and 80,000 who quarried stones. But there really were no international corporations as such until well into the 1600s C.E. , and if they wanted to be funded, they had to be under the king or queen’s authority.
But in general, middlemen were unheard of in Israel. People bought directly from the craftsman who made an item. There were no “dealers”. So where did this idea come from? Babylon. The term “merchant” was never used of an Israelite until after the captivity there was over. (Nekhemyah 3:31)
(d) Slaves
Israel left behind the cruel Egyptian form of slavery, but there was still slavery in Israel, though nothing like the modern kind of slavery known in American or European history or in present-day Africa. The Hebrew term for slave (eved) simply means “one who serves”. The term does not always apply in the strictest sense of someone who is another’s property (being bought or sold). So the term can mean what we think of as “servant”, but still connotes being under the authority or power of another.
Slaves could be taken in war as part of the plunder. (Num. 31:26; Judges 5:30) David made the Moavites his slaves, but did not take them all home, but required a portion of whatever profit they might gain. (2 Shmu’el 8:2) They could be bought from other nations. (Lev. 25:44ff) Children of strangers born among Israel might be bought if the family needs to sell them to survive, but not sold to other nations. A distinction is made in Scripture between slaves who were bought and those who were home-born. The latter tended to be more loyal to the household, having grown up in it. The only time an Israelite was to be enslaved was when he had debts he could not pay, and needed to compensate the debtor in some other way. He would sell himself to the debtor, and a time limit was placed on how long he could remain enslaved, and he could buy his freedom sooner, either by his own industry (he might have a side job or work as an artisan and split the profits with his master) or a relative’s redemption. (Lev. 25:48-49)
In Israel a slave was treated much like a member of the family. He got the Sabbath off along with the family. (Ex. 20:10) A day off every week for a slave was unheard of anywhere else in the world! Also, no “slave quarters” have been found either in the Scriptural text or by archaeologists; they lived in the house with the family. The slaves of the priest could eat of the food the priest brought from the Temple for his family. (Lev. 22:11) Slaves could be inherited from a father. Evidence has been found that slaves were marked with a brand or tattoo. Slaves could also own slaves.
The more sons and servants someone had, the more powerful he was considered, for they were all available to protect the household if necessary. Those with more riches would be better-armed, and might own a horse or even a chariot. (People went to war by villages, and usually brought their own weapons.)
In Israel, slaves have rights. His master is punished if he strikes him so that he dies immediately. (Ex. 21:20) But if his eye is destroyed or his tooth is knocked out, he is allowed to go free. (21:26) This may be because his eyes and his teeth are what someone who might later buy him would look at first, and this is how he was valued. (In ancient times tiny basalt grains would fall into the flour when it was milled, and this would wear down people’s teeth quickly. The age at which a person died can be estimated by how far they are worn down when their skeletons are found.)
There was not usually a hostile relationship between masters and servants. Every slave received the protection of the house he was connected to. One was often better off as a slave of a wealthy house than as a freeman on his own. He ate at the table of the house, and received clothing and shelter. One was respected more if he came from a certain house, even if he was a servant, and he might be less likely to be harmed if from a prestigious or powerful house. Though a slave, he might be treated better than the head of some other households, and, more importantly, could partake of the covenant of Israel. He got to rejoice with the family at festivals (Deut. 12:12), could eat of their tithe (12:18) and went up to Yerushalayim at the pilgrimage feasts. (16:11, 16) He was not a second-class citizen during YHWH’s festivals. If the master had no son, he might even become heir to the householder. (Gen. 15:2) A slave born in the household was considered closer to the family than one who was bought, for the one born in the household would have been circumcised on the eighth day. A slave’s children legally belonged to the mistress (or master), unless married before he became a slave and unless the owner allowed the maidservant to marry. If she was given to one of the master’s sons, her status was then raised to that of a daughter, and her children would be free. If a free man wanted her as a wife, he could buy her.
Maidservants were very common for people who could afford them. (1 Shmu’el 25:42) It was not unusual to have maidservants nurse children (which meant they had already had children of their own). Such a wet nurse was essentially the personal servant of the child to assure his well-being from infancy. (2 Shmu’el 4:4) A special bond developed between the child and the one whose face they looked at while being nursed. Often the nurse remained the child’s companion into adulthood. (Gen. 24:59)
Runaway slaves from other nations are to be given hospitality by Israel. (Deut. 23:15ff) They can choose which tribe to settle among, and are allowed to become part of Israel. After all, at one point our whole nation was made up of “runaway slaves”.
Government
There were three major forms of political structure in the most ancient times: city-states (as in Canaan, where each king ruled over one strongly-fortified city, along with the territory and villages surrounding that city, including farmland and pastureland) , empires (one king dominating other kings for tribute, trade, or access to resources, including better soldiers), and nation-states (usually a group of cities based on common ancestry).
A city-state might be ruled by a local dynasty or by foreign captors. It was common for a city to be taken by a foreign power, and the city to remain intact. The headship changed, but the population remain the same—a Hittite city with Kanaanite rulers, for example. Kanaanites from one city might fight against other city-states of the same ethnicity, but usually they were allied along ethnic lines.
Tthe Edomites’ capital moved around as each chief died (Genesis 36), for it was not a hereditary dynasty, but rather the rule of the strongest city-state king by the consensus of the whole alliance. The city ruled by the strongest king when the former chief died would now become the capital of all Edom. They were kings for life, but did not pass this position on to their sons. Sha’ul was chosen because of his prominence, being a head taller than anyone else in Israel. (1 Shmu’el 8:5)
Nations were usually named after an ancestor. Sub-groups would form from them if a group from within the nation left their homeland. They would take on a new name in their new location. Often their ancestry can be traced through similarities in pottery style and decoration.
In Israel, government took form in a different way. What we call religion did not really exist at that time. (Actual “religion”—in the original sense of reattachment—has more to do with a personal relationship, ideally.) People saw all the forces at work around them as deities to be appeased. They had no concept of religion, as much as which deity or deities someone chiefly served. In both Rome and Egypt, most of the time, each person had deity they favored, and which they thought favored them. Sailors, merchants, and even prostitutes had their own patron deities, and each recognized the other deities as valid for other people. In Egypt or Babylon, one could usually worship what one wanted, without any persecution unless he disparaged someone else’s deity. There were temples to everything—weather, fertility of body, flocks, and crops, or wealth. The priestly class essentially drove the economy. They had more privileges than anyone. There were even temples that the Pharaohs were not permitted to enter. It was only when nations recognized the advantage of having everyone in the nation or empire worship the same deity that “infidels” were persecuted. This way their energies would not be dissipated toward many different agendas, and it fostered greater unity toward their national goals. YHWH did not say the Moabites or Edomites could not worship other deities; He said Israel couldn’t, because He saw Israel as a whole in the role of a wife to Himself. He did not want other temples in His Land, because He knew His people would be tempted to run after them. He was the central focus of the life of Israel’s camp.
Judges
Moshe had established judges while still in the wilderness, but prophets were sent to bring special knowledge to Israel or direct us back to the Torah. He did not intend Israel to have a king until a particular point in our history. YHWH intended to be Israel’s King.
Much of the Torah said, “When you come into the Land…”, but now they were there, and were not all in one camp as they had been under Moshe, so the format of the covenant had to change slightly under Y’hoshua.
At first there were many minor judges, who “ruled” as military leaders whom all of Israel could rally around because they were strongest in their tribe. There was no political system of organized rule, but they were very influential.
Kings
A king, in contrast, judged the whole nation, not just one tribe. He brought the strongest from all tribes into his army, forming a professional army enhanced by tribal militias. Under Sha’ul there was still not a true centralized government, for there was still enmity between tribes, and tribal rulers were still able to decide whether or not to support Sha’ul.
Before he was king, David was captain over 400 men who brought their whole households with them. This was a substantially-sized army in those days, as the typical army was comprised of a single household with all its servants as militia. Yehudah and Shim’on made a mutual defense treaty. (Judges 1:3)
71 elders had been chosen in the wilderness (Y’hoshua 24:31), Some of whom outlived Y’hoshua, but when they died off, they were not replaced. David appointed 24 elders. He subjugated Moav, Aram, Ammon, Amaleq, Tzobah, and Edom. (2 Shmu’el 8) They brought him tribute. He was starting to form not just a nation, but an empire. Assyria and Babylon were not yet world-class powers, allowing united Israel-Yehudah to rule most of the Near East above Egypt, and when they allied with those who later came to be called Phoenicians, the world’s best seafarers, their military might and trade literally extended worldwide. Shlomo appointed 12 governors, each responsible to bring the food for the king’s household one month out of the year. (1 Kings 4:12) The wisest way to be an emperor was to marry the daughters of foreign kings so that they would all be family, and neither would wish to attack the other.
Israel’s kings tended to wander away from YHWH, so He had to keep sending prophets to correct their direction. David could not have survived without Nathan, because inherent in a king’s heart is worldliness and a bit of arrogance, as well as the mundane concerns and worries of the kingdom. Nathan bowed to David, but David knew he was in the superior position in YHWH’s eyes. David recognized that he deserved his correction. In the days of the kings, it was common for someone to go see a prophet on the New Moon or Sabbath. (2 Kings 4:23) This suggests that people would assemble on those days to hear them teach. It is the job description of the priest to teach the Torah to the common people (Malakhi 2:7), but this may have been a rote teaching, whereas a prophet would teach the underlying meaning.
The king was seen as having been chosen by YHWH--a line of reasoning common in most ancient cultures. Rulers’ names were often changed to reflect the name of the elohim who had put them in power. Even if they were wicked, this was seen as something the people deserved. This recognition did not mean that rivals to the throne did not still try to jockey for the position, though, since their own desires came into play as well.
In a dynasty, the eldest son was expected to be the next king, but it did not always turn out that way. Adoniyah went to Shlomo’s mother with the request that Shlomo give him Avishag as a wife. When Shlomo heard this, he asked why she did not go ahead and ask that Adoniyah be given the throne as well, and had Adoniyah executed. Why? Avishag was the virgin chosen to warm David on his deathbed. (1 Kings 1) She would have been present to hear every bit of instruction David gave in his final days, and he might have even shared some of his secrets with her. As the last woman to share David’s bed, she would have been held in high esteem, and if Adoniyah became attached to her, he could probe the inner workings of David’s mind from someone who was in the know. Shlomo immediately saw through this treasonous power play.
Adoniyah had assumed the king would not refuse any request of his mother’s. The king bowed to her when she approached his throne. It was her political ambition to which he owed his throne. In that sense, she was more powerful than he. If a king had five wives, he would essentially have five families, all living together. Rich families often had their own armies, and if a king married into that family, he would assumedly never be militarily threatened by that army. If one of these families had connections in a neighboring country, a king might be able to march his armies through it in the name of his son-in-law.
There was really no such role as “queen” in Israelite society. Athalyah ended up in the position of “king” because she (assumedly) had killed all the brothers of her late husband’s deceased son, who had been king. (2 Kings 11:1) Just as there is no feminine form of the word adon (master) in Hebrew, even the favorite wives of Israel’s and Yehudah’s kings were never called queens (except in some faulty translations). Even in Psalm 45, which describes the wedding of a king, the bride is simply called the sh’gal (consort, from a term meaning one who will be copulated with). She is told to worship the king, and though she was the daughter of royalty, she was told to forget her father’s house because the king was now the one she served. There was a much more pragmatic, less emotional approach to marriage, with some exceptions. The main reason to marry was to have many children, because then one has more return on his labor and has someone to care for him in old age.
Frequently with the kings of Yehudah, but only occasionally with the kings of Israel, the king’s mother’s name is listed. Queens were common in Egypt, but most Semitic nations had a “queen mother”. Since in Scripture, people are usually listed in order of rank, it is most instructive to note the following lists:
“And he carried off Yehoyakhin to Bavel, along with the king’s mother, the king’s wives, his chamberlain (court official), and the leaders of the Land.” (2 Kings 24:15)
“…after Yekhoniyah, the g’virah, the chamberlains, the princes, of Yehudah and Yerushalayim, the artisans, and the smiths had gone out of Yerushalayim. ” (Yirmeyahu 29:1)
The g’virah (which we could translate as “queen mother” or “great lady”) is ranked after only the king. This shows us that the most important woman in the king’s household is not his wife but his mother:
“Tell the king and the g’virah, ‘Humble yourselves! Take a seat, because the crown of your splendor has come down from your place of headship!’” (Yirmeyahu 13:18)
This tells us that the g’virah had much power to rule in the Land, and much influence over how the kingdom is run. The king is usually the one in whose presence people stand up, but he stands when his mother enters the room. Not only this, but he bows and sets a throne at his right hand for her—the highest honor there can be from a king. (Psalm 110:1) Athalyah was also able to accomplish a coup and take the rulership instead of any other potential heir to her son when he died because she already had this high rank.
Aviyam’s mother, Maakhah, is called the mother of Aviyam’s son Asa. (2 Chron. 15:16; compare 1 Kings 15:8) She was actually thus his grandmother. This shows that just because there is a change of king, the g’virah does not necessarily change, though when she made an idol, Asa removed her from her office of g’virah. (15:13 ) So g’virah is a rank and title controlled by the king, that can be rescinded if one abuses it.
The one time the king’s wife in Israel is known to have acted in the role of g’virah is with Ahav and Yizevel, but this is because she brought her Canaanite ways to Israel.
In Yehudah, the incumbent king was the one who would name his successor. The one who did end up king often killed anyone else who might have a right to the throne, especially those who had a different mother.
King Yoshiyahu (Josiah) was killed in battle. He had not named an heir to the throne, so the people chose his son Yehoakhaz as successor. (2 Kings 23:29ff) He was not the eldest, and this turned out badly, so the Egyptian emperor in whose line of fire his father had died captured him and put his elder brother, Elyaqim, on the throne in his place. He exercised another prerogative—that of changing the name of the king he had set on the throne. Interestingly, he replaced the “El” in his name with a derivative of YHWH’s name, calling him Yehoyaqim. He thus gave him a name that might make the people respect him more. This effectively made Yehudah a vassal state to the Egyptian empire.
Shlomo began to reign while his father was still alive because David was very ill; Yotham the son of Azaryah (Uzziyah) began to reign before his father died because he had been struck with leprosy and could no longer function in a public role. Yehoram became king when his brother died because his brother had no male heir (2 Kings 1:17ff).
The Coronation
In Yehudah, a new king was anointed by the High Priest (or possibly another priest on some occasions). This symbolized the transference of power or authority from one man to another. The new king was given possessions that belonged to his ancestor David. Shlomo was given his mule. Yoash was given the crown and the testimony or witness (eduth)—possibly the Torah scroll David had written--as well as David’s spears and shields. A related concept is the hoq (decree), a scroll containing those prophecies which would be fulfilled in that particular king’s days. His accession to the throne was acclaimed with shouting and rejoicing, including applause. (Psalm 47) They also used flutes, and sounded shofars and other trumpets. The people bowed down before him. Hundreds to thousands of animals were slaughtered for a feast at the palace of David after he was enthroned there.
Throughout the Near East, when a king took the throne, he took on the name of his nation’s supreme deity in one way or another. A Pharaoh was given five names, the last two being the name of the elohim his family was most attached to and the supreme deity of Egypt, Ra. These names are called “theophoric”, that is, giving tribute to the deity. Iyzevel’s name is another form of theophoric name, meaning something like “Ba’al exalts.”
An emperor (“king of kings”) could change the name of a king whom they conquered or made a vassal. For example, Pharaoh changed the Judean king Elyaqim ‘s named to Yehoyaqim, as mentioned above. (2 Kings 23:34) In the same way, the “emperor” of Babylon changed Mattanyah’s name to Tzidqiyahu. (2 Kings 24:17) Why didn’t they give them Babylonian or Egyptian names? Possibly to still give some honor to YHWH while the kings were still in their own land. But it’s possible that they simply followed an existing Jewish custom of changing or adding another name to a king at his accession to the throne. (2 Shmu’el 12:24-25, et al)
More titles of the kings of Israel were “Messenger of Elohim” (2 Shmu’el 14:17, 20), Savior (Psalm 72:4, 13), YHWH’s Anointed (Mashiakh or Messiah), Son of Elohim (1 Shmu’el 18:21; 2 Shmu’el 7:12ff; 1 Chron. 22:9ff; 28:6), and Firstborn (Psalm 89:23ff) So when Y'shua is called all these things, it is not saying he is a deity, but rather emphasizing that he is in David's dynastic line.
Several psalms were specifically written for the above-mentioned celebration upon the king’s accession to the throne: Psalm 2 describes how YHWH will uphold the king He has set up when other nations try to rebel. He will rule with a rod of iron—an unbending standard. Psalm 89 speaks of the covenant YHWH made with David , who would become "the highest of the kings of the earth". Psalm 101 appears to be an oath made by the king at his coronation to uproot evil and keep YHWH’s kingdom pure. Psalm 110 was written by David, probably for Shlomo’s coronation, as his successor to the throne. He bowed down to his own son. David’s prayer for Shlomo (Psalm 72) includes the hope that his reign will bring justice for the poor, peace, the flourishing of the righteous, that he needy would be redeemed from violence, that other nations would serve him and bring him tribute--and attributes the success he will experience to YHWH (v. 18)
The Household of the King
Harem is an Arabic word with a Hebrew equivalent, from a root meaning to enclose or seal off (to other men). In other nations, a king’s harem was usually guarded by eunuchs. Israelites did not make eunuchs, but polygamy was usually tolerated if someone could afford to have more than one wife. Kings usually did. This was a sign of wealth and power. It means one has the potential to have many children to carry on one’s name and legacy. In a time when there were many wars and much pillaging, having a large number of sons would ensure that at least some of them would survive to provide one with heirs and preserve the memory of his name. But the more wives one has, the more responsibilities he has. So Yoash, who was focused on repairing the Temple and restoring the worship of YHWH in the Land, took only two wives. (2 Chron. 24:2ff)
When David became king, he inherited Sha’ul’s wives and concubine. What belonged to one king became the property of any king that conquered him. (2 Shmu’el 12:7-8) It was common for one king to even take another’s wives when he conquered him. (1 Kings 20) When Sha’ul’s son Ish-bosheth complained that Avner had declared himself king in Sha’ul’s place after Sha’ul died, Avner (who was acting king of Israel) turned the Kingdom over to David (who was already king of Yehudah). But David would not even speak to him until he promised to give back the daughter whom Sha’ul had retracted and given to another man after he began to hate David. Otherwise, David would have no honor in the eyes of the Northern Kingdom.
Avshalom’s mother was the daughter of the king of Gesher, probably in order to seal a political alliance. (1 Kings 3:1) It would assure the loyalty of the vassal state. Since he was the son of royalty on both sides, this is probably why Avshalom saw himself as more worthy than his brothers to be king.
A concubine (Heb., pilgash) differs from a wife in that she is not offered the same protections; she came into the relationship without a contract. When Avshalom revolted and David had to flee Yerushalayim, he took his wives (at least 8 by now) and children and left ten concubines there to take care of the household. (2 Shm. 15:16) So we can see that they were lowest in rank. By taking his father’s harem, Avshalom (16:20) was declaring himself king and David’s conqueror. When David returned, because of the dishonor this would bring him, he ended any relations with them. He did not neglect them; they were supported, but they lived as if they were widows until the day of their death. (20:3ff) Since they did not have the rights of a wife, but were closer to being slaves, they were not issued divorce certificates so that they could marry anyone else.
The Royal Children
Unmarried daughters of David lived in the palace, while sons of the king often lived in their own houses when grown—each in his own house. (2 Shmu’el 13) Some of King Shlomo’s daughters married men who worked for the king in the positions of senior officials. (1 Kings 4:11, 15) Others married the sons of kings who were allied with him. Almost any vassal king would give his daughter to the sons of the conquering king.
The royal court included men who instructed the royal sons so they could be upright leaders. (1 Chron. 27:32) Those sons who were not appointed to be the next king still received very valuable gifts from the king –even whole cities, and more than one city. (2 Chron. 21:3) Their provision as well as inheritance comes from the king himself. (Y’hezq’el 45:16) Avshalom owned fields and estates that he could tax. (2 Shmu’el 14:29) He had sheep that needed more than one person to shear. (2 Shmu’el 13:24-27)
Some of the king’s sons would be first officers over the business beneath the king’s own, i.e., someone in the court who helped run the affairs of the kingdom themselves. (2 Shmu’el 8:18; 1 Chron. 18:17) Since there was no widespread retail market until after the return from Babylon except by kings’ household, it was often this type of business that the king’s sons would be involved in.
When is the king’s son not a son?
In 1 Kings 22:26-27 we read that someone is sent to the king’s son to be put in prison. Yerakhme’el is called the “son of the king” (Yirmeyahu 36:26), but nowhere is he listed among the sons of the incumbent king, and the task he is charged with is arresting Yirmeyahu the prophet and his scribe. (Yirm. 38:6) Why would the king have his son do these things? Didn’t he have other servants to do so?
Maaseyah is called the king’s son during the reign of Akhaz (2 Chron. 28:7), but nowhere else is he included in lists of this king’s sons. Instead, he is paralleled with the governor of the household and the one next to the king. It appears from all of these passages that “son of the king” (ben hamelekh) is a title for the chief of police who worked directly for the king, because many with this title were involved in arresting or jailing people. Many ancient seals bearing the inscription “son of the king” have been found by archaeologists.
The Royal Court
“Servant of the King” (eved ha-melekh) was a term that had many varied applications. When David sent a prophet and high priest to anoint Shlomo king, the “servants of their master” (David) were also sent with them. (1 Kings 1:32ff) These were people within his household who were not related to him. The same term is often used of slaves, but these servants were not menial laborers.
Those with a taste for war, even from enemy nations, became his mercenaries. In this way, many great houses in Israel were established. Each nation had its battlefield specialties, and David would have picked and chosen according to their skills. Those in active service for David slept at the door to his house. (2 Shmu’el 11:9-11) This may have meant in a courtyard or altogether outside of it, possibly in tents. They kept life simple so they could be ready to act if he needed something. This might include a courier, a soldier, or an executioner! (2 Shmu’el 20:6)
“Servant of the king” was no mean designation; it was a title that ranked with priest and scribe in importance. (2 Kings 22:12) The “servant of the king” is also described as one who “saw the king’s face”. (2 Kings 25:18ff) This was said of those who were his closest associates. (Yirmeyahu 52:25) The seven men who ranked highest in the Persian Empire were called the ones who “saw his face”. (Esther 1:14) In other words, they had relatively easy access to him. In many cases one had to be a ruler himself to be in this category.
Sarisim was another highly-ranked title of some of the king’s servants. (1 Shmu’el 8:15; Yirmeyahu 34:18) Sometimes the term is translated “officers”. They were at the king’s beck and call when he wanted someone to be summoned and brought before him. (1 Kings 22:9) They were called upon to ensure that justice was done for a widow who had lost her land when she had left the country during a famine. (2 Kings 8:6) They were included with the king’s mother, princes, and officers (2 Kings 24:15) Some had charged of the men of war. (2 Kings 25:19) At one point, a saris even lived in the Temple (2 Kings 23:11), though this was not necessarily YHWH’s will.
Hizqiyahu was told that his sons would be made sarisim in the palace of the king of Babylon. (2 Kings 20:18) He understood this as a punishment. Why?
The actual meaning of the word sarisim is “castrated ones”. Originally, it referred to those eunuchs who oversaw the harems and were in charge of the royal children. If they were castrated, the king knew he could absolutely trust his wives or daughters into their care. But the term is of foreign origin, appearing in many ancient cuneiform documents, especially Assyrian ones, where the form is she-reshi, which means “he who is the head”. In Egyptian documents, Persians officials at every level are called by this title. In general it would be considered repulsive in Israel to castrate men, and in most cases the term probably only related to someone loyal enough to be trusted by the king to the degree that he would trust his wives and daughters to someone who had no way to carry out sexual desire with them. I.e., it was one who would “give anything” to serve his king. Potifar was called a saris, and he had a wife—something he would not need if he was a eunuch.
Nehemyah was a cupbearer, who would taste the wine before serving it to the king, which could also prevent the king from being poisoned. The king also had butchers and chefs on his staff. Their lives were on the line every day dependent on how well they pleased the king. Shlomo must have had a huge food preparation staff, since for just one day he would prepare 30 bulls, 100 sheep, as well as deer, gazelle, roebuck, and fattened fowls—more than 140 animals in all. (1 Kings 4:21) Considering that one bull can weigh 800 pounds and feed 75 to 100 people, and one sheep can feed 20 to 30, he could be feeding three to four thousand people per day in his royal dining hall! David was not as lavish as Shlomo, since he often went out to battle.
Those permitted to partake were held in especially high esteem. To be one who “sat at the king’s table” was a very special honor. As a very shrewd political move, David allowed the only surviving descendant of Sha’ul to sit at his table—which this grandson of Sha’ul (Mefibosheth) considered such an honor that he felt he it was not right to ever ask any other favor from the king. (2 Shmu’el 9:7-13; 19:28) Only those with whom the king shares an intimate bond are allowed to eat with him.
Barzillai tied together the fact that he could no longer taste food with no longer being able to hear musicians (2 Shmu’el 19:33ff), suggesting that “dinner music” was one of the impressive features of Shlomo’s dining room. His male and female singers were one of his special treasures that brought him great delight. (Qoheleth/ Eccles. 2:7) In addition to the Temple musicians, David chose some people to be his own private musicians. He must have been very picky about their skills, being an accomplished musician himself.
Kings were often chosen because of their prowess in battle, so it only made sense to be the one who led his troops to war.
The Armor-bearer (noseh-kelim) is a task for which David was hired by King Sha’ul after he pleased him with his harp-playing. (1 Shmu’el 16:21) He would carry spare swords and other weapons, since one would never know until he was up against his enemy exactly what weapon would be needed. It was important to have an arsenal of various weapons available and ready, though the king could not carry them all himself. But the one with this title did more than just carry the king’s armor. He helped strategize. Wars are won by weighing out what is in front of one and choosing the right weapon. He had to be very knowledgeable in battlefield techniques. He was chosen for his skill in planning. He fought alongside the king, putting the king’s life before his own. Indeed, the king’s life was often in his hands, so he would have to be one whom the king thoroughly trusted. Generals had armor-bearers also. (2 Shmu’el 23:37)
The “captain” or “officer” (as commonly translated from the Hebrew shalish) actually means “third”. But it does not mean “third in command”. This term is only used in the context of chariots. (2 Kings 9:24; 10:25) Though YHWH had told Israel’s kings not to amass many horses or chariots, King Shlomo did. (1 Kings 9:22ff) The shalish was the third man in the chariot after the driver and the man who was doing the fighting (in this case, the king). His function was very much like that of the armor-bearer. He chose the weaponry, watched the field, looking for targets, told the driver where to go, and guarded the one fighting. He was called one “on whose arm the king leaned”. (2 Kings 7:2) Sometimes this may have been meant literally, such as in supporting him while he aimed his bow while the chariot was in motion. The king would have his back turned to him while in battle, so he had to be someone the king could trust to be dedicated and loyal to him. The Syrians had chariots too small for three people, but they used the same term, so it came to mean “the man in charge” in a more general sense.
The “king’s companion” (as commonly translated from the Hebrew re’a, which usually means “friend”). One of the men called by this title was Hushai the Arkite, David’s re’a. (2 Shmu’el 15:37) The re’a is listed along with officers, scribes, and priests, and one was even a priest. (1 Kings 4:32ff) Elsewhere he is listed along with those who oversaw the vineyards, camels, donkeys, flocks, herds, orchards, storehouses, etc. (1 Chron. 27:25-33), many of whom were, like Hushai, foreigners, since David had made many alliances over the years while a fugitive, and they had sworn allegiance to him. So the term has varied usage, and “friend” does not seem to adequately convey the meaning. One possibility is that it was a term borrowed from the Egyptian language, in which it means “known”. In Egyptian it was always used of a foreigner known by Pharaoh, usually an emissary—one trusted to carry out his business. (cf. 2 Shmu’el 16:16ff)I.e., the king knew his heart. According to Roland deVaux, this term was only used until King Shlomo’s time, probably since the entity of kingship was a very recent thing in Israel, so apparently they borrowed the word from Egypt. After Shlomo, a Hebrew term with the same meaning is found. (2 Kings 10:11) Meyudaim means “known ones”, that is, acquaintances of the king, but with this same specialized meaning.
The Kherethites and Pelethites were both foreign groups who had attached themselves to David—mercenaries under a different command from the professional army. They were essentially bodyguards, though they were much more. They formed a sort of “private army” for the king especially during the many times of family intrigue because of jealousies among his sons vying for his throne. After David there is no mention of them, but in 2 Kings 11:4, 19 we see a group called the kari, whose job is never defined, but who accompany the Pelethites on one occasion, and are thus assumed to be either connected to or successors to the Kherethites. Another group is called ratzim (“runners”). But they were not couriers to send communications; they ran in front a king’s chariot, partly as bodyguards, but also as part of the ceremony announcing the king’s arrival. It built expectancy of the one who was coming behind them. (1 Shm. 22:17). Rehav’am committed the armor that replaced Shlomo’s to the leader of the ratzim who guarded the door to the king’s house--the same job the Kherethites and Pelethites had, so since the kari replaced the Kherethites, the Pelethites may have come to be called ratzim.
The King’s Officials
Everyone in the king’s court, no matter how highly placed, is still Eved-haMelekh. That is, to the king, he is a servant. But to the people, the king’s officials are sarim (princes or, generically, rulers). The three highest political offices below the king in ancient Israel (and possibly therefore in the coming Messianic kingdom) are:
(1)Asher Al-haBayit – “[the one] who is over the house”. A modern Latin-based title that is the equivalent is “majordomo”. “Vizier” would be another synonym. The “house” in this case was the king’s palace, not the Temple or a government building as such. There are four people in Scripture (spanning a long time-frame) called by this title, and an ancient tomb in Yehudah has been found with this inscription, as has a seal (made by a signet ring). The title “officer (or ruler) of the house” (Nagid haBayit, as in 2 Chron. 28:7) may be another name for the same position. This person ran the affairs of the household of the king himself (the royal dwelling place as well as the everyday life of the king). Yosef had this position under Pharaoh, and he was considered the real ruler of Egypt, so it was no mean position. He had the keys to every room in the house, including the administrative offices. He even had his own chariots, but could be removed from his position if he tried to station himself above the king. (Yeshayahu 22:15ff) He carries heavy authority, but is still under the king. (This may explain the distinction made between the king and the prince in Yehezq’el’s vision of the Kingdom Temple.) When Uziiyahu became leprous and had to be quarantined though still officially the king, his son Yotham held this position and essentially ruled for him. (The son of the king usually did not hold nearly this much power while the king was still alive. Compare Gal. 4:1-3.)
Two sons of a priest from David’s administration continue in a dynasty of sorts under Shlomo. (1 Kings 4:1-6) One of David’s personal guards is placed over the army of Israel, the sons of David’s prophet are now priest and friend of the king, and another kept the same position he had held under David. This goes to show that the sons of those loyal to a previous king were likely to end up in a royal office themselves. They had upheld the king’s honor and proven trustworthy, so their sons were considered likely to do the same. And earlier than that, the priesthood had even more of a governmental function.
(2)Sofer – often translated “scribe”, but actually much more. He not only records the king’s words, but also has a great deal of administrative authority. Both the king’s scribe (as representative of the king himself) and the high priest had jurisdiction over the financial outlays for the repair of the Temple. (2 Kings 12:10, and this was still the case 100 years later, 2 Kings 22:3ff.) He had to be called to read some documents that the high priest and possibly even the king could not read. (When Israel began worshipping foreign elohim, the common people stopped being educated so that they could not read Torah and recognize that their leaders were not teaching them properly.) At least one scribe had a chamber in YHWH’s House (in the gate complex, from where he could read announcements in the hearing of all the people, as per Yirmeyahu/Jeremiah 36:10-12) There was a scribe’s chamber in the king’s house as well, where decision-makers met. So he had offices in both the Temple and the palace. One scribe’s house was later turned into a dungeon, indicating that it was highly fortified. (Yirmeyahu 37:15) So he was the equivalent of a prime minister or secretary of state as well as the king’s personal secretary.
Another title often translated “scribe” is shoter, which is based on the word for “writing”, but really refers to the fact that he is one who is very skilled at writing or composing, and really could be equated with an office-holder or politician of any type.
(3)Mazkir – He is really the one we would equate with a “scribe” in the usual sense of the word. Often translated “recorder”, the term means “one who causes to remember”—i.e., a historian. He remembers and records what needs to be recalled. He was a chronicler who gathered what was worth remembering about a particular administration and compiled it, though he covered it in much more detail than merely recording people’s words. He filled in the information necessary to understand the signifi-cance, often putting his own “spin” on it to enhance the current king’s image.
The Administration
David had rulers over each tribe. (1 Chron. 27:16ff) That is, he left in place the tribal leadership that had been established long before there was a monarchy when tribes for the most part governed themselves independently. But now each of the tribes’ leaders was required to bring men from his tribe up for the regular army and as guards for one month out of the year. David had twelve other “ministers” over the following areas of jurisdiction:
(1) The treasury – the financial matters of the nation
(2) The storehouses in the fields, cities, and villages – keeping the granaries in repair and making sure they
remained full for smooth flow of supply; the Levites would administer the storehouses for widows and the
fatherless.
(3) The workers in the fields for tilling the soil – ensuring that adequate seed was available as opposed to that
stored for food, that the oxen used for plowing were properly care for, and that plows, yokes, and harnesses
were maintained
(4) The vineyards - ensuring that the ground was cleared, soil was fertile, pests were kept under control, and that particulars in regard to the growing conditions for the production of different types of wine were taken care of
(5) The produce of the vineyards for the wine-cellars – overseeing the harvest, pressing, collection into vessels, aging of some, rationing to ensure that there would always be some available to the palace. (The Temple supply came from tithes.)
(6) Olive and sycomore trees – This type of sycomore (as contrasted with sycamore) is a type of fig tree, but its fruit is inedible unless each piece of fruit is pricked and smeared with olive oil (which sweetens it as it ripens), hence the reason the same person was in charge of both of these types of trees that work in tandem. The olive is also much too bitter to eat until it is pickled or pressed into oil.
(7) Storage of oil – Again someone different from the one in charge of production is in charge of the produce
(8) Herds that fed in Sharon – a very wide-open, accessible area along the coast and thus possibly more
readily exportable
(9) Herds in the valleys – between the mountains, so not as readily accessible
(10) Camels – This was essentially the “Department of Transportation”, because camels are not eaten, but used to carry the produce in large quantities over great distances with little need for water.
(11) Donkeys – For shorter-distance or smaller-scale transportation
(12) Flocks – That is, the sheep and goats.
Most of the jobs are agriculturally-related so that food could be available year-round.
In 1 Chronicles 28:1, we then see a synopsis of what constituted “all the rulers of Israel”:
(1)The leaders of the tribes
(2)The leaders of the divisions that waited on the king
(3)The leaders over thousands (a continuation of the order as structured by Moshe)
(4)The leaders over hundreds (again, established by Moshe)
(5)The stewards over all the property and possessions of the king
(6)The officials (sarisim)
(7)The mighty men (g’vurim)
(8)All the men of the army (khayil)
Various nations made peace with David and served him after he defeated them in battle (e.g., 2 Shmu’el 10:19), bringing him tribute—a certain percentage of all their produce as enforced by administrators. (2 Shmu’el 8:2) Some tributary nations needed to have troops garrisoned there (to enforce the tribute because either the people were less willing to pay or because David could not trust the governor to enforce his own people’s compliance.)
The administration had to grow as the kingdom expanded more and more into an empire. (Despite all the revenues, an emperor had to take care of his vassals, even if there were several wars or famines going on at the same time, especially if one became dependent on resources from those lands, and this was expensive.) There-fore Shlomo’s administration was a little bit different. Some of the same structure was left intact, but not all.
After the kingdom split, Yehudah was commonly called Beyth David (the House of David), at least by the northern kingdom. It had been somewhat distinct before David united Yehudah with the other tribes. In the prophets we again see two different kingdoms crowning one king, remaining distinct in a way yet seeing themselves as one people because of a common ancestry, history, and beliefs, and the same Elohim.
Weights and Measures
The ways of measuring in ancient Israel were very logical: measures used the human body itself. In private projects, a man could simply make measurements using his own built-in “yardsticks”: an amah (cubit) was the distance from his elbow to his fingertips. A handbreath was just that—the width of his hand with the thumb and fingers all straight and parallel, and a span was the distance from the tip of his thumb to the tip of his little finger when his hand was spread out, looking like a winnowing fork (as it is called in Hebrew). For grand civil building projects, the cubit had to be standardized, and it was—based on the length of the current king’s arm!
An omer is the amount of grain that results from one average-sized sheaf of
grain. A whole omer is sufficient to feed a person for a day, according to
the command regarding manna. (Ex. 16:16) An omer has the value of a
half-sheqel, the same price as the ransom for the soul of an Israelite, which
covers him from blood-guilt when he kills people in war.
Biblicically, a sheqel is not a currency (as in modern times), but a unit of
weight against which silver was weighed on a scale for the purpose of
making a purchase. A sheqel was the equivalent of twenty gerahs, though
to be the equivalent of average grains of barley.
Two other measures were used for offerings that could be brought to the Temple: an eyfah is a dry
measure, equal to ten omers, and a hin was for liquids. It was common for a merchant to select
the slightly-bigger “eyfah” when buying, so he could weigh out a larger amount of a product to
his advantage, and select a slightly-smaller one when selling, so he would still have the advantage.
The Torah forbids using two differing weights and call both an eyfah. (Lev. 19:36)
Drawn partially from Roland deVaux's Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, partly from the research of Neot Kedumim Biblical Landscape Preserve in Israel and Explorations in Antiquity center in Lagrange, Georgia, and partly from our own studies and visits to Israel.
