© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
You are certainly onto something in discussing “charismatic” and “institutionalized” leadership, but a look at the political science of the OT can shed additional light.
“So far as I can tell,” the kingdom of Israel remained a federation, the central government competing with the tribal governments for authority. Rulership was based on popularity, which accounts for its “charismatic” character.
The kingdom of Judah was an autocracy, where the kings’ word was law, which would account for its “institutionalized” character.
And as a bonus, the Nephite Reign of the Judges, “SFAICT,” was also a federation, see Mosiah 29, which would account for the unstable nature of Nephite government.
Thank you so much for sending this. I will pass it along to our three Gospel Doctrine teachers. Colleen
Pingback: Could ancient Israel have avoided destruction? - Taylor Halverson, Ph.D.
Interesting article. I would suggest including a discussion of the opposing view that the Davidic Covenant was mistakenly interpreted as unconditional (no longer requiring high standards for Judah’s leaders) and that this erroneous and overly confident attitude was symptomatic of the moral decay that Lehi and Jeremiah opposed, decay which led to the fall of Judah as well.
Rather than “mistakenly interpreted,” I should say the unconditional Davidic covenant was questionable. 2 Samuel 7 appears to have been written by the Deuteronomists, who were mistakenly confident that Judah would never fall. Awareness of such an unconditional covenant for the security of the throne is not clearly found elsewhere such as in the Wisdom literature of the Bible.
Lehi may have stood in opposition to the Deuteronomists, preferring instead the older ways of ongoing revelation and conditional covenants. His warning that Jerusalem would be destroyed unless the people repented was clearly at odds with the popular but erroneous thinking of the day.
Pingback: Why Did Northern Israel Fall to the Assyrians? A Weberian Proposal - Taylor Halverson - The Mormonist