The stadia in the development of this OT idea of the kingdom of God are those of the history of the chosen people itself. Kor Israel was, in the root conception of its history, a i>eople of God, a people whom God had chosen, ana called, and formed into a nation for His own praise (Ex IS)"", Is 43"). The name 'theocracy,' therefore, is properly given to ita constitution, as .losephus jierceived, when he framed this title for it ('•. Ap. li. 16). W. R. Smith, indeed, in his able work on The Prophets of Israel (pp. 51-53), is of opinion that 80 far from this title bringing out the distinctive feature of the religion of Israel, it rather denotes that which Israel had in common with all other nations of that time, — for these nations also had their supreme gods, whom they worshipped, ami under whose protection they placed themselves in their national undertakings (Chemosh, e.n. in Moab). This, however, hardly meets the point, for certainly no other nation ever rested its whole life a-s Israel did on the consciousness of a re- demption and covenant with Go<l, and fouml the whole reason of its existence in the calling t« love and serve Him, and to be a witness foi Him in the midst of the earth ; nor hml any othei nation such a story to tell of its origin, even id legend, aa Israel (ht 4"*'; cf. Schultz, OT Th^- olor)!/, i. pp. 136-1.38, ii. pp. 7-9). Within iij national theocratic form, besides, Israel rherisliiil, as we shall immediately see, the consch>iisness ol a universalistic destiny, ami this consi-ioMsiwsi goes back to the very toumlation of the nation') life. I'or the national form was not the lirst thin| in the history of Israel. It had lieen precediil hj an earlier form — the imtrinrchal— the days of th( covenants with the fatliers, Abraham, Isaac, am Jacob (cf. Schultz, ii. i>p. 6, 7). .\nd there alr.adj wo find the clear expres,sion of the idea that Israe
846
KINGDOM OF GOD
KINGDOM OF GOD
was a people called with a view to the ultimate blcssinj; of the whole world ('3^3J in Gn 12' 18'" 2S"; o-|;5in in Gn a-J" 21)').
3. It is now incuinhcnt on us to mark the chief steps in the historical develoi)nient of this idea in OT more exactly; and here in a general view we readily distinguish as successive the patriarchal, the Xlosaic, the royal, and the prophcfir periods in the growth of this conception, (a) The early records trace for us with careful particularity the narrowing down of tlie line of salvation from the posterity of Scth (Gn 4=»- ^) to that of Shem (Gn 9=« ^ ; cf. Schultz, ii. pp. 34G, 347), then to the family of Terah (Gn 1 !"-»=), till, finally, it con- centrates itself in one world-historical figure — that of yl6rn/io//i. Looming; through the mists of the past, the personality of Abraham arrests our attention as one of the great creative origins of time. With Abraham strictlj' historical revelation may be said to begin. Alike on the Divine and on the human side, the transactions with him are unsurjiassed in OT in interest and importance. He is the founder of the Heb. nation, — ' the religiously-elect nation of antiquity,' as Volkmar calls it ; the fountain-head of the three great monotheistic religions of the world ; to him in a special sense belonged the covenants and the promises ; out of his loins Christ came ; in him at this hour all families of the earth are being blessed. The call of Abraham — the covenants made with him — constitute, therefore, a new era in the religious history of mankind. As men multiplied and spread in the earth, they fell farther away from the true God, and there seems little doubt that, left to themselves, they would soon have lost altogether the knowledge of God which they pos- sessed (Jos 24-). This catastrophe was averted by the choice of Abraham. Separated from his kindred, he wab to be a ^Natness for the truth which the world was suft'ering to be quenched in universal idolatry. The covenant was at first with the individual, but its ultimate scope was the blessing of the human race (Gn 12'-' etc.). Neither did it stop witli simple declaration, but provided for the fulfilment of the promise by granting to him an heir, through whose descendants, multi- plied into a great nation, the promise should be realized (Gn IS*'" etc.). A special part of this promise was that kings should come out of him (Gn 17°). The line of promise was defined more exactly to lie through Isaac and subsequently Jacob (to the exclusion of Ishmael and Esau), with both of whom the covenant was renewed (Gn 26^"'' 28""" etc. } ; then by a succession of remarkable pro- vidences the descendants of Jacob were taKen down to Egypt, where, first in prosperity, after- wards under the sterner discipline of oppression, they grew to be a nation such as God required for the fulfilment of His purpose. We are aware of the boldness of the criticism which would dissi- pate the whole of this history into unsubstantial myth and legend. Against this revolutionary treatment we enter our respectful protest. What legend can do for the life of Abraham is sufficiently eridenced by the fables and stories in the Bk. of Jubilees, and in other Jewish, Mohammedan, and Persian accounts. The history of Abraham in the Bible stands, from internal evidence alone, on an entirely different footing from these. In its simple, coherent, divinely-elevated character, its organic unity with the rest of the history of revelation, its absolute freedom from the puerility and extravagance which mark the products of the myth-forming spirit, it approves itself as a grave, serious record of important events, the knowledge of which had been carefully preserved by family tradition, or even from an early date by written documenta (cf. Dillmann, Alttest Theol. pp. 77, 78 ;