more closely to coincide: the state supports the cult, and the cult in turn exists for the state. It is the business of the cult to intercede with the Deity on behalf of the state, with the aid of its ritual to maintain that harmonious balance which would protect the state from ill fortune within and without. If this be done, the state need have no fear; for it is God’s “kingdom,” composed of God’s chosen people, and ruled by his anointed “son,” the king: God will eternally defend the state. Thus are all the purposes of God in history equated with the existing order and made realizable in terms of it.
Such was the temptation. Would Israel succumb to it wholly? Would her sense of destiny as the people of God be transferred lock, stock, and barrel to the state? Would that cohesive sense of peoplehood that was hers be satisfied by the privilege of citizenship in the Kingdom of Israel? Would that robust confidence in the future which had activated her and driven her on toward a Promised Land, and written in her spirit—though she may not have known it—the vision of a city not made with hands, be satisfied with the city of Jerusalem and the material plenty which Solomon could provide? In other words, would Israel mistake the Davidic state for God’s, and imagine that in it God had established his Kingdom?
That was Israel’s question. It is a question which is neither ancient nor irrelevant, but is asked of us today. We are, it is true, in no external particular to be compared with the people Israel. But we, like them, are a people not very far from our origins, from the patterns of the past and the great faith of the past—yet very far indeed. Like Israel we were lured on by a vision and a promise: a land of plenty, of freedom and human dignity. And we pressed toward that goal as if to that Promised Land “flowing with milk and honey.” We have created a nation greater than David’s, prosperity such as Solomon never dreamed of, and with it a complete metamorphosis of the national character. A few years have brought many changes.
So it is that the question before us is not unlike that which the monarchy posed for Israel. Perhaps, so far, it is only a question. But it is a question which cannot be evaded, and it matters greatly how we answer it. Will our destiny as a nation which calls itself Christian be satisfied in terms of the economic prosperity and the national might which we have created? Will we seek no higher salvation than the present order can provide in terms of increased income, automobiles, and television 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”
