- Why, when Jacob had prophesied in Gen. 49:10 that God intended an abiding monarchy in Judah, was the notion of kingship apparently so abhorrent in Israel until the time of Samuel?
In the time of the Judges, thirteenth century Israel in Canaan was hardly a nation. It was more of a tribal league, a loose confederation of clans united about a common worship. With no central government, their focal point was the Ark at Shiloh (1 Sam. 1-4). They were a brotherhood ruled by the Covenant Law. In time of danger there would rise a hero, upon the spirit of the LORD rushed (e.g. Judges 3:10; 14:6), who would rally the surrounding clan and deal with the foe. His authority was the charisma of the spirit.
This tribal theocracy was incredibly stubborn and tenacious, as you have observed. Gideon said, “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the LORD will rule over you”. (Judges 8:23). Jotham’s fable in the next chapter (9:7-21) implies that only a worthless bramble of a man would aspire to be a king.
But when the Philistines arrived, the tribal theocracy was really put to the test. Hitherto, humanly speaking, the league had succeeded because the foe had been petty kinglets, a kind of bedouin raider that an informal rally of clans had been sufficient to deal with. But times (under divine providence) changed, and at the appointed time a well-organised military state arrived on Israel’s border, threatening the chosen people with permanent slavery. As a result of her decisive defeat at Aphek (Ciro. 1050 BC) Israel was cut to pieces, the ark of the covenant league was captured, Hophni and Phineas the priests of the ark were killed, and Shiloh and the shrine were razed.
So, in the time of the nation’s deepest military and spiritual humiliation to date, God moved to give them the king that He had so long foreshadowed. Saul, God’s choice for king, was the first step towards statehood.
- In a previous issue you have stressed the fundamental importance of “the Kingdom of God” to the message of the Hebrew prophets (see August ‘Believer’, 1974, p.5). How come the term (“the Kingdom of God”) does not occur in the O.T. at all, and is quite rare in the N.T. outside the Gospels?
The term may not occur in the O.T., but the idea is everywhere present; and the idea is broader than the term. Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of God and saying… “the Kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:14-15). Clearly it was the burden of his preaching, to announce the Kingdom of God. So important, that it is better to mutilate oneself and enter it maimed than not to attain to it. And so important, that it is impossible to understand Jesus without it. Yet the Lord never defines it. Nor is he ever asked to. He assumes it is understood and is part of the common vocabulary of every Jew. It is ubiquitous in both Old and New Testament and involves the notion of the rule of God over his people, and particularly the vindication of that rule and people in glory at the end of history. It is the true “Elpis Israel” (hope of Israel).
- Similarly, the expected redemption often expressed in the Old Testament prophets makes no mention of Messiah. Why?
I hope you are not implying that the Coming Messiah is neither important, nor taught, in the O.T.? On the contrary, it was taught (e.g. Isa. 9:6) and Messiah’s coming to set up his kingdom was the earnest expectation of all the Jews. The subject is as wide as the whole future hope of Israel, the hope of the coming Kingdom of God.
- What do you think of the new view being put forward that history is not necessary (or even relevant) to an understanding of the gospel, or Bible prophecy?
Sheer nonsense. Are you sure that you have heard correctly? I can’t imagine anyone seriously putting forward such a view. Since the Christ is spoken of by the prophets as “a Prince of David’s line” then we must go back to David if we wish to understand what is meant. The hope for a future kingdom of God upon the earth must be built on a knowledge of a past kingdom (and that is history). And our hope for the future goes all the way back (in history) to the primordial promise in Eden (Gen. 3:15). How can anyone understand the gospel or the prophets without history? Jesus said, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). Have you ever considered how much of “Moses” (the five books) is history?
My view of the view? — Too new to be true.
- Do you think that the Hebrew prophets gradually developed a concept of God that finally surpassed the concepts of their pagan neighbors?
No, I certainly don’t. Though God gave the revelation of Himself partitively through the prophets (Heb. 1:1), the parts, though incomplete, were pure and hence superior to paganism from the first. The Bible revelation of God was startlingly other than the concepts of pagan people. From the beginning God made the sharpest break by proclaiming that He controlled history by righteous judgment and saving power. He is a moral being whose will cannot be manipulated in ritual for tangible benefits. He controls the sun, moon and stars. He works through fire and storm; yet He is not identified with them. He comes to the aid of His people in Egypt, Sinai and Canaan, and cannot be appeased by ritual. He is the Moral Being who controls nature and history, and in them reveals His righteous will and summonses men to obey it. He commands the plagues (Exod. 7:12), the sea and the wind (Exod. 15:1-7), the sun, the moon and the stars (Josh. 10: 12-13), and the rain (Jude 5:4). He, too, when His people have sinned, turns the battle against them, and delivers them to their foes (Josh. 7: 1 Sam. 4).
From the start the true God is revealed as moral, whereas all other “gods” in the universe are noneenities, mere personifications of the forces of nature with supposed cosmic function, but no moral character. His call? Be ye holy because I am holy.
- Is it possible that the Jews were chosen to be God’s people because they were genetically superior to other people? Or that, perhaps, their genetic superiority is a result of their calling?
I know of no evidence for saying that the Jews are genetically superior to other people”. And certainly God did not call them for any merit on their part, whatever. Their calling (the history of ELECTION) goes back to Abraham. But I presume that you are referring to that historical act, when He chose Israel at Sinai, entered into covenant with her and made her His people? That act was an act of sheer grace (Heb. hesed), absolutely unmerited.
The O.T. never suggests Israel had any merit. Actually, they were cowardly, ungrateful, and utterly unworthy. It was, rather, an act of God, who chose for Himself a people, that they might choose Him. The covenant at Sinai can only be understood as a response to grace (Exod. 19:5), a bilateral compact promising Israel a destiny, if she obeyed. The Covenant gave her a glorious hope that no tragedy could defeat, and wrongly instilled in her a fatuous, popular optimism that the prophets could not demolish. She had such robust confidence in the future, she was so saturated with the notion that she was God’s chosen, favoured people, that the prophet-preaching of doom, from Amos to Jeremiah, could not penetrate the conceit, and they regarded it as utter nonsense.
Yet the glory is that God will make of them a future mighty nation (Gen. 12:2), in the Promised Land (Exod. 3:8), defend them from all foes (Num. 23:21), make them great (Num. 24:5), give them peace and plenty (Gen. 49:25; Deut. 33:13), provide from them a leader for all nations (Gen. 49:10) and give them a destiny in the world (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18). But it will be all of God, by Grace.
The Solution