The Kingdom of God. John Bright
covenant. When it is used of God, it is very nearly the equivalent of “grace.” It refers to the favor of God which summoned Israel into covenant and the steadfast love which he shows them even in spite of unworthiness. When used of man, the word denotes that proper response to grace which is utter loyalty to the covenant God and obedience to his will. Cf. N. H. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1946), ch. v; and, more briefly, idem, in A Theological Word Book of the Bible, A. Richardson, ed. (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1951), pp. 136-37.
19 Cf. Eichrodt, op. cit., I, 8, et passim. This does not mean that we may read either the New Testament doctrine or later Old Testament concepts of the kingship of Yahweh back into this primitive theocracy.
20 In fairness to the reader it must be said that there is the widest divergence of opinion regarding the origins of Israelite eschatology. W. Eichrodt (op. cit., I, 240-57) has splendidly expressed what is essentially my own position, which has been briefly stated in an article, “Faith and Destiny” (Interpretation, V-1 [1951], 9-11). The effort of Gunkel, Gressmann, Breasted, and others (see references in above article) to explain Old Testament eschatology as a borrowing from Egypt or Babylon seems to me unsuccessful—so also that of Mowinckel and others to find its origin in an annual Enthronement Festival supposed to have taken place during the monarchy. Although Hebrew eschatology is superficially paralleled in pagan texts, and although a royal ideology and the frustration of national political hopes no doubt stimulated it and gave it shape, its origin must be sought in the very nature of Israel’s faith itself.
21 She was very like a Grecian amphictyony, such as the Delphic league, numerous examples of which are known, many of them with twelve members. The basic discussion is M. Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1930); in English, W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1942), pp. 95-110.
22 See especially A. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina (Leipzig: A. Edelmann, 1930). The term is originally Max Weber’s.
23 I find it impossible to agree with those commentators (e.g., G. F. Moore, Judges [International Critical Commentary; New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1895, 1923], p. 230) who regard the verse as the reflection of late, antimonarchical sentiment. It is part of an unimpeachably old narrative.
24 In I Sam. 8–13 the historian has woven together two parallel stories of the rise of Saul (see the commentaries), one of them tacitly favorable to the monarchy, the other bitterly hostile. Ch. 8 belongs to the latter. But it is not on that account to be regarded as a late, even exilic production (so, e.g., H. P. Smith, Samuel [International Critical Commentary; New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1899, 1909], p. 55) reflecting disillusionment with the state. On the contrary, the two stories accurately reflect the tension which was there from the beginning.
25 Cf. note 2 above. Perhaps a date some fifteen years later would be more correct.
26 It is interesting that the old narrative of I Sam. 9 refrains from using the word “king” (melek), preferring instead the word “leader” (nāgîd). Cf. Eichrodt, Israel in der Weissagung des Alten Testaments (Zürich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1951), p. 22; cf. also II Sam. 5:2.
27 His service to the people of Jabesh-gilead won their undying devotion (cf. I Sam. 11; 31:11-13). Perhaps the campaign against Amalek (I Sam. 15) was designed partly to woo Judah. At any rate, there were those in the south who preferred Saul to their own David (I Sam. 23:19-23; 26:1-2).
28 David had been a Philistine vassal (I Sam. 27), and he could hardly have taken such a step without at least their tacit approval. No doubt the Philistines wished to keep Israel divided between David and the house of Saul. A unified Israel was the last thing they wanted (II Sam. 5:17).
29 Cherethites and Pelethites are mentioned on several occasions (II Sam. 8:18; 20:23; 15:18). These were, as the names indicate, contingents recruited from the Aegean peoples of the coastal plain. With them on one occasion (II Sam. 15:18) are mentioned six hundred Gittites (men of Gath, a Philistine city).
30 One of Solomon’s chariot cities, Megiddo (I Kings 9:15), has been excavated by archaeologists of the Oriental Institute. Large stables for horses were found. For a popular discussion cf. Robert M. Engberg, “Megiddo—Guardian of the Carmel Pass,” Part II, The Biblical Archaeologist, IV-1 (1941), 11-16; cf. G. E. Wright, “The Discoveries at Megiddo, 1935-39,” ibid., XIII-2 (1950), 28-46.
31 W. F. Albright has suggested that “Gezer” is a corruption of “Gerar” (in the Hebrew very similar in appearance), a town near the Egyptian frontier of Palestine (Gen. 26:1); Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 214, and references there.
32 Reading the Hebrew of I Kings 10:28, “And the source of the horses which Solomon had was . . . from Que [Cilicia]; the king’s merchant’s got them from Que at a [set] price.” Cf. most recently W. F. Albright, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXI (1952), 249.
33 These are known from the excavations of Nelson Glueck. Surprisingly the Bible does not mention them. Cf. N. Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1940), pp. 89-113.
34 The work of A. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palästina, is basic. For a brief discussion of the Davidic state in English see my article, “The Age of King David,” Union Seminary Review, LIII-2 (1942), 87-109.
35 For further reading on the architecture and symbolism of the temple the following may be suggested: W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, pp. 142-55; G. E. Wright, “Solomon’s Temple Resurrected,” The Biblical Archaeologist, IV-2 (1941), 17-31; idem, “The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East,” Part III, ibid., VII-4 (1944), 65-77; P. L. Garber, “Reconstructing Solomon’s Temple,” ibid., XIV-1 (1951), 2-24; also F. M. Cross, “The Tabernacle,” ibid., X-3 (1947), 45-68.
36 Strong arguments have been made, especially by certain Scandinavian scholars, for the existence of the notion of the divine king in Israel, and of an annual Enthronement Festival patterned upon the Babylonian New Year. Discussion of this complex issue is forbidden, but the evidence for these things seems to me tenuous in the extreme. See the judicious remarks of G. E. Wright, The Old Testament Against Its Environment, pp. 62-68. Cf. also H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 337-44; A. Alt, “Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda,” Vetus Testamentum, I-1 (1951), 19-22; M. Noth, “Gott, König, Volk im Alten Testament,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, 47-2 (1950), 157-91.
37 Egypt as well as Canaan would be a likely source of such ideas (cf. Alt, ibid.). Solomon was a son-in-law of the pharaoh, and at least some of the organization of the court at Jerusalem was patterned on Egyptian models. See the writer’s article mentioned in note 34 (pp. 93, 98) and references there, especially K. Elliger, “Die dreissig Helden Davids,” Palästinajahrbuch, 31 (1935), 29-75; R. de Vaux, “Titres et fonctionnaires égyptiens à la cour de David et de Salomon,” Revue Biblique, XLVIII (1939), 394-405.
CHAPTER TWO
A Kingdom Under Judgment
WE HAVE SEEN HOW THE VERY NATURE OF HER COVENANT FAITH HAD GIVEN ISRAEL A DEEP SENSE OF DESTINY AS THE PEOPLE OF GOD AND, WITH IT, THE hope and the confidence that God would bless her and establish his rule over her in the Promised Land. We have also seen how the rise of the Davidic monarchy, although it drastically altered the tribal structure of Israel and made changes which effected every aspect of her society—changes bitterly resented by some—nevertheless made much of that