The Kingdom of God. John Bright
and survive through centuries of time. Because this is so, it is not irrelevant what policies a nation pursues; and we ought to pray that our nation may choose its course wisely. Amos, however, is not concerned with political realities, but with moral ones. And his verdict stands: a society which flouts the righteous laws of God is none of his and cannot forever endure. No comfort there, to be sure, but the alternative mankind must face. And if that alternative seems to brush aside the political realities which conditioned Israel’s survival, and which govern ours, it may nonetheless be accorded a deeper relevance. For the choice before man remains this: to enter anew into covenant with God to live as his people under his rule—or the judgment of history without end.
So Israel yearned for the Day of Yahweh, the day of the victory of God’s Kingdom. And week by week our prayer goes up: “Thy kingdom come.” It is well that we so pray; it is our proper prayer. But how is it that we dare to pray it except as his obedient children? If we are to pray, “Thy kingdom come,” we must also learn to pray, and to mean it quite seriously, “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
1 This can be suspected rather than proved. A court and harem such as Solomon had inevitably breeds favoritism. Certainly Solomon did not stint his household any luxury. Favored wives, such as pharaoh’s daughter, naturally received preferred treatment (I Kings 7:8-12). While we know nothing of the merits of the two sons-in-law who were made district governors (I Kings 4:11, 15), their presence certainly indicates a desire to consolidate power in the family.
2 David had also subjected conquered peoples to forced labor (II Sam. 12:31).
3 I Kings 5:13 speaks of a levy of thirty thousand Israelites. It has been estimated that this would be comparable to five million Americans today. Cf. W. F. Albright, “The Biblical Period,” The Jews: Their History, Culture and Religion, L. Finkelstein, ed. (New York: Harper & Bros., 1949), p. 28. This article, incidentally, is highly recommended as an accurate thumbnail sketch of Israel’s history.
4 The background of the transaction is not clear. A casual reading would leave the impression that the cities were ceded to Hiram in payment for materials received (vs. 11), but vs. 14 (Hiram pays Solomon!) shows that the real purpose was to raise cash. Cf. most recently J. A. Montgomery, The Books of Kings (International Critical Commentary [New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1951]), p. 204; he believes that the towns were pawned against a cash loan.
5 Concerning the temple cf. Chap. I, note 35.
6 A. Alt (“Israels Gaue unter Salomo,” Alttestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Kittel; Beiträge zur Wissenschaft des alten Testaments, 13 [1913], 1-19) has argued that Solomon exempted his own tribe, Judah, from his district organization. W. F. Albright (“The Administrative Divisions of Israel and Judah,” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, V-1 [1925], 17-54) has disagreed. The debate hinges about the very ambiguous verse, I Kings 4:19. Regardless of the correct reading of the verse in question, one may doubt if Solomon could have afforded to favor his own tribe to such an extent.
7 Cf. J. Morgenstern, Amos Studies I (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1941), pp. 202-5.
8 The extent of Shishak’s depredations is known from his own inscription, found at Karnak, which lists over 150 places—many of them in northern Israel and Edom as well as in Judah. Cf. Albright, “The Biblical Period,” p. 30. The reader will find excerpts from Shishak’s list conveniently in G. A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible (7th ed.; Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1937), pp. 456-57.
9 Dates given for the kings of the Divided Monarchy are those of W. F. Albright and will be found in table form on the back cover of the reprinted article mentioned in note 3 above. Cf. idem, “The Chronology of the Divided Monarchy of Israel,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 100 (1945), 16-22.
10 A. Alt (“Das Königtum in den Reichen Israel und Juda,” Vetus Testamentum, I-1 [1951], 2-22) has recently related the inability of the northern state to achieve a stable dynasty to the lively charismatic tradition that existed there. It seems to me that Alt is correct. But the dynastic stability of Judah cannot be explained by the supposition that such a tradition was largely lacking in the southern state. The strong prestige of the Davidic house, and the growing influence of the “David idea” must be taken into account.
11 On the function of the cherubim and the winged bulls cf. Graham and May, Culture and Conscience (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), pp. 248-60; W. F. Albright, “What Were the Cherubim?” The Biblical Archaeologist, I-1 (1938), 1-3.
12 The Samaria ostraca are a group of inscribed potsherds which list quantities of oil and wine received as revenue at the court. They date from the reign of Jeroboam II (contemporary of Amos), but the administrative system which they represent may be assumed to be much older. Cf. W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1942), pp. 141-42. For a translation of some of them with bibliography cf. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, J. B. Pritchard, ed. (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 321.
13 The Bible speaks of Jezebel’s father as “king of the Sidonians.” The power of the Sidonian Phoenicians (Canaanites) was now at its height. Tyre was the chief city. Cf. Albright, “The Biblical Period,” p. 33. For an excellent, brief discussion of Phoenician civilization, idem, “The Role of the Canaanites in the History of Civilization,” Studies in the History of Culture (Menasha, Wis.: Banta Pub. Co., 1942), pp. 11-50.
14 Cf. Chap. I, p. 38.
15 Far our richest source of knowledge are the texts discovered at Ras Shamra on the Syrian coast in the decade prior to World War II. For a useful introduction cf. C. F. A. Schaeffer, The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra-Ugarit (London: Oxford University Press, 1939). For a complete translation of the texts cf. C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949); cf. idem, The Loves and Wars of Baal and Anat (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1943) for a popular treatment. For an excellent and brief discussion of Canaanite religion cf. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ch. III.
16 Cf. Chap. I, pp. 23, 37.
17 For a thorough discussion of the prophet orders cf. A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1944).
18 That one of them should curse Ahab for sparing the life of Ben-hadad is to be explained only in the light of the strongly nationalistic and isolationist bias of the early prophets. Ahab’s clemency would ordinarily seem not only humanitarian but politically wise in view of the impending Assyrian menace. Cf. note 21 below.
19 Although the prophets did not themselves go so far, some of them—especially Hosea and Jeremiah—to an extent sympathized with their feelings. After all, Jeremiah highly commended their loyalty to their principles; cf. Jer. 35; 2:1-2; Hos. 9:10 ff.; 11:1-7. Cf. W. F. Albright, “Primitivism in Western Asia,” in A Documentary History of Primitivism, Vol. I (A. O. Lovejoy and G. Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1935]), pp. 421-32.
20 Albright, “The Biblical Period,” p. 38, points out that proper names compounded with Baal are quite frequent in the Samaria ostraca of the next century. In any case a reading of Hosea alone is enough to show that Baal worship was far from uprooted.
21 The Bible does not mention this battle at all, but we know of it from Shalmaneser’s own inscriptions. Awareness of the danger which the Assyrian posed for them both is the best explanation for Ahab’s desire to make peace with Ben-hadad (I Kings 20:31-34). For translation of relevant portions of the cuneiform texts, cf. Pritchard, op. cit., pp. 278-79.
22 In 841 B.C. This too is known from Shalmaneser’s inscriptions; cf. Pritchard, op. cit., p. 280.
23