The Kingdom of God. John Bright
sets? What is worse, will we, because we have churches and because our political forms are hospitable to their growth, assume that the present order is the God-ordained order which God—if he be just—may be called upon to defend always? The people that answers the question so, will see it as the sole function of religion to support and to hallow in the name of God its own material best interests. But it will never begin to understand the meaning of the Kingdom of God.
It is therefore of interest to see how that question was answered in Israel. And to that we must now turn.
1 Properly speaking, the messianic hope is the hope of the coming Prince (Anointed One) of the line of David, as in the passage just quoted. A messianic passage, then, is one that specifically mentions the Messiah. In a loose and popular sense, however, “messianic” has come to be a designation for all passages which speak of the future hope of Israel, whether the Messiah is mentioned or not.
2 For the sake of consistency the dates given for this period of Egypt’s history will follow those in W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1940), which are those of L. Borchardt. If the chronology of M. B. Rowton (Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 34 [1948], 57-74) be correct—and Albright himself is inclined to accept it (American Journal of Archaeology, LIV-3 [1950], 164, 170)—the date for Ramesses II must be lowered to 1290-1224, that for Ramesses III to ca. 1180-1150, and others correspondingly.
3 For the latest discussion see the article of Albright mentioned above: “Some Oriental Glosses on the Homeric Problem,” American Journal of Archaeology, LIV-3 (1950), 162-76.
4 What little had once existed had apparently been broken up some centuries previously by the Hyksos invaders; cf. A. Alt, Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina (Leipzig: Druckerei der Werkgemeinschaft, 1925).
5 For all matters of biblical geography the reader is urged to consult G. E. Wright and F. V. Filson, The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1945).
6 The Amarna Letters were written by vassal kings of Palestine and Syria to the court of Amenophis IV (1377-1360) at Tell el-Amarna, where they were found. The name Ḫabiru (in other texts ʽApiru or Khapiru) seems to be etymologically the equivalent of Hebrew, although there is much debate on this point. But the presence of the name over a span of centuries in places as far removed as Nuzi in Mesopotamia, Boghaz-Köi in Asia Minor, Ras Shamra in northern Syria, as well as in Egypt, forbids us simply to identify the two. Ḫabiru seems to have been a class, not a racial, designation. While the Hebrews of the Bible were no doubt Ḫabiru, the latter term included far more than the biblical Hebrews.
7 Josh. 24 seems clearly to reflect the integration of new blood into the Israelite tribal league. It will be noted that some of the participants, unlike the Israelites of the Exodus, were still pagans (vss. 14 ff.). That Canaanites were also gradually absorbed is witnessed by a variety of evidence: e.g., Canaanite cities such as Shechem (Gen. 34), Hepher, and Tirzah (Josh. 12:17, 24) appear also as subclans of Manasseh (Josh. 17:2-3).
8 Towns such as Bethel, Lachish, Eglon, and Debir (all mentioned in Josh. 10 or Judg. 1) are known to have been put to the torch and reoccupied at this time. Jericho and Ai (Josh. 6–8) raise particular problems but cannot be used to impeach the essential historicity of the Joshua narrative. For a statement of the evidence see W. F. Albright, “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 74 (1939), 11-23; cf. idem, The Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1949), pp. 108-9. For an excellent popular summary cf. G. E. Wright, “Epic of Conquest,” The Biblical Archaeologist, III-3 (1940), 25-40; cf. idem, “The Literary and Historical Problem of Josh. 10 and Judges 1,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, V-2 (1946), 105-14. The latest and most complete discussion of the whole problem of Exodus and conquest is H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (London: Oxford University Press, 1950). My views are expressed at greater length in the Introduction and Exegesis of Joshua in The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. II (New York and Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953).
9 For an excellent introduction to the mind of ancient paganism, pointing up its radical difference from that of Israel, cf. H. Frankfort, ed., The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946). A splendid statement of the peculiar nature of Israel’s faith is G. E. Wright, The Old Testament Against Its Environment (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1950).
10 It is no longer possible to view early Israel’s faith as a tribal religion which gradually evolved into monotheism, as was the fashion in the Wellhausen school; recently I. G. Matthews, The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel (New York: Harper & Bros., 1947). The authoritative statement of the evidence for Mosaic monotheism is W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, ch. iv. Unwilling to define Mosaic religion as more than an incipient monotheism, but strongly asserting the unity of Israel’s faith, are, e.g.: W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1948), I, 1-6, 104 ff., et passim; in popular language H. H. Rowley, The Rediscovery of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1946), ch. v.
11 The Decalogue, in a form underlying the parallel versions in Exod. 20 and Deut. 5, must, in the writer’s opinion, be regarded as the very charter of Mosaism. Cf. P. Volz, Mose und Sein Werk (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1932), pp. 20 ff., for a strong defense; in English, H. H. Rowley, “Moses and the Decalogue” (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 34 [Sept., 1951]) with full bibliography.
12 Jehovah (Heb. Yahweh) seems to be part of a formula (cf. Exod. 3:14) meaning, “He who causes to be what comes into existence.” Cf. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 197-98.
13 A much larger body of literature goes back to the earliest period (tenth century and before) than was formerly thought. This includes poems—e.g., the Song of Deborah (Judg. 5); Josh. 10:12-13; the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49); the Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33; cf. Cross and Freedman, Journal of Biblical Literature, LXVII [1948], 191-210); the Balaam poems (Num. 23–24; cf. Albright, idem, LXIII [1944], 207-33); the Song of Moses (Exod. 15; cf. Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, H. H. Rowley, ed. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950], pp. 5-6); numerous psalms (e.g., 29, 67, 68). Besides these are the David biography (II Sam. 9–20; I Kings 1–2) and no doubt others of the Samuel-Saul-David cycles. Further, even if we were to grant that the stories of the Patriarchs, Exodus, and conquest (in their oldest recension commonly called J) received final form only in the ninth century (the writer prefers an earlier date), they must be assumed to contain material and to rest on a chain of tradition centuries older.
14 The covenant idea is so important that W. Eichrodt, op. cit., has reconstructed the entire Old Testament theology around it. The writer is in fundamental agreement. It is true that the word “covenant” is rarely used in the earliest sources, but the idea is larger than the word. It is linked with Israel’s whole notion of election and with the very structure of the tribal league. Cf. Wright, op. cit., pp. 54-68.
15 On the Old Testament idea of election cf. H. H. Rowley, The Biblical Doctrine of Election (London: Lutterworth Press, 1950); also Wright, op. cit., ch. ii. The patriarchal narratives are not to be viewed with the once-fashionable hypercriticism: cf. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 179-89; Rowley, “Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age” (Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 32 [Sept., 1949]) with full bibliography.
16 Cf. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, pp. 189-96, for the evidence.
17 Perhaps somewhat as the traditions of early America have become normative for all Americans, even those but recently arrived. Thus the child of immigrant parents may speak—and with justice—of our Pilgrim Fathers.
18 The word ḥesed cannot be exactly translated. The usual rendition in the English