THE REIGN OF GOD IN THE O.T.

THE REIGN OF GOD IN THE O.T.
by
MARCO TREVES

Florence, Italy


Jesus of Nazareth preached his Gospel: "The time is fulfilled and the Reign1 of God is at hand" (Mark i 14‑15, ix 1; Matt. iv 17, vi 10; Luke ix 27, xi 2, xxi 31). REIMARUS, one of the earliest but also one of the most perspicacious of New Testament critics, argued that as Jesus did not explain the phrase, he must have meant something not very different from the contemporary Jewish conception of the Reign of God.2
Be this as it may, it might be interesting to pass in review the chief O.T. passages which refer to God's Reign.
According to the Bible, the earliest Reign of God or theocracy3 was the regime existing in the days of the Judges. Gideon refused to accept an imitation of the Israelites to become their king because he did not wish to deprive the Lord of His kingdom (Judges viii 22‑23). When the elders of Israel asked Samuel to give them a king, the prophet reproached them, because the accession of a human king implied the rejection of the Lord (1 Sam. viii 4‑7, x 18‑19, xii 12). From these two episodes we may infer: a) that in the opinion of the authors of these passages a human monarchy and a divine monarchy were mutually exclusive; b) that according to tradition, God had been the king of Israel in the days of the Judges; c) that with the anointing of Saul God's Reign came to an end4
With Saul a series of human dynasties begins:
The first human dynasty (Benjamite) consists of Saul only.
The second human dynasty (Davidic) comprises David and Solomon (who reigned over all Israel) and the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah.
The third human dynasty (Chaldean) ruled Judea from 587 to 539 B.C.
The fourth human dynasty (Achaemenian) ruled from 539 to 332.
The Davidic princes, who had been kept first in prison and then in exile by the Chaldeans, were sent back to Judea and appointed governors of their ancestral land by the Persians. In 520 an attempt was made to crown the Davidic pretender Zerubbabel king of the Jews, but it failed.
The fifth human dynasty (Macedonian) includes Alexander the Great, his weak‑minded brother Philip Arrhidaeus, and the wars of the Diadochi (332‑312).
The sixth human dynasty (Lagid) ruled Palestine from 312 to 200.
The seventh human dynasty (Seleucid) ruled the Holy Land from 200 to 164.
In 166 B.C. an insurrection of religious Jews broke out, led first by Mattathias and then by his son Judas Maccabeus, who re‑occupied Jerusalem in 164 and governed it with dictatorial powers. However, Judas did not take the kingly title for himself, nor did he restore it to the Davidic family, which during the Seleucid rule had sinned seriously.5 We must suppose that he instituted the second Reign of God, because most of the O.T. verses that mention God's kingship appear to belong to his age. We shall list them here, beginning with the Psalms.
Psalm v is not by David, of course. It mentions the Temple (verse 7) with the implication that it is the only one, and therefore it presup­poses Josiah's reforms. A deadly strife is going on between the Apostates, who have rebelled against God (verse 10), and the good Jews, who observe the Torah (those who take refuge in God, who love His name, verse 11). Verse 5 probably means "the impious” (i.e. the priests who have profaned holy things) shall not stand before Thine eyes (shall not hold office in the Temple)"6, If Alcimus is the "evil man" of verse 4 and "the bloodthirsty and deceitful man" of verse 6, the date might be 161 B.C.
Psalms ix and x were originally a single poem, as is proved by the remains of the acrostic. They celebrate a victory over the impious and the Gentiles (ix 5‑6). The word goyim occurs in this poem in the post‑exilic sense of "Gentile individuals"; Ps. ix 17: all the nations could not be sent to Sheol; Ps. ix 20: the translation "let the nations know that they are but men" makes no sense; the Psalmist meant "let the Gentiles who set up for gods, as Antiochus does, realize that they are but men" (cf. 2 Macc. ix 11‑12); Ps. x 16: entire nations can hardly perish suddenly; individuals can. Other indications of a late date are the mention of atheism (x 4), which betrays the influence of Greek philosophy, and the "gates of Death" (ix 13), a translation of the phrase “” frequent in HOMER and other Greek poets. Psalm xxiii 22‑31 expresses the hope of a conversion of the whole world to Judaism. This hope is typical of the Maccabean age. It arose as a kind of ideal retaliation for Antiochus' attempt to convert the Jews to the pagan religion.
Psalm xxiv was probably composed for the official inauguration of God's reign and the dedication of the Temple in December 164,7 Since Judas was then the master of the city, we may assume that it was he who set up the new regime and arranged the ceremonies.
Psalm xxix. The mention of God's Temple with the implication that it is the only one proves that this Psalm is later than 621. The "sons of God" who worship the Lord are possibly angels, and recall Neh. ix 6; Job. i 6, XXXViii 7; Ps. ciii 20, and cxlviii 2. We have the developed angelology of the pest‑exilic period. The "voice of the Lord" may be an echo of Job xxxvii 4‑5 and xl 9, and the "God of glory" may be a reminiscence of Ethiopic Enoch xxv 3, 7, xxvii 3.
Psalm xliv was composed after the Jews had been scattered among the nations (verse 11), yet the psalmist is armed (verse 6) and fighting for his mother country (verses 5, 7, 10). The Jews have been sold (verse 12, see 1 Macc. i 34 and 2 Macc. v 14, 24) and slain (verse 22). Judea has not been liberated yet (verses 9‑16, 22‑26). The only possible date is 166‑165 B.C.
Psalm xlvii celebrates a military victory. The "Most High" is a Maccabean name of God. The shields in Ps. xlvii 9 and lxxxix 18 are those of 1 Macc. iv 57. The date is 163.
Psalm xlviii has post‑Deuteronomic phrases (Holy Mountain, City of God)8 2), but Jerusalem would hardly have been called "the city of the Great King" in the days of Josiah, as if the latter were a small king. Much less could this designation be used under the Persians or the Greeks. The last verse 'this God is our God for ever and ever" means that the apostasy is over and will never occour again. The human kings have fled (verses 4‑5).
Psalm lxviii is another war song. Verse 16 presupposes Josiah's reformation. The war is between the apostates (resaim) and the observant Jews (saddiqim). Here, too, the kings flee. The fact that the Jews entering the Temple are Judeans and Galileans only (verse 27) and the mention of the spoil (verse 12) indicate that this song was composed just after Simon's campaign narrated in 1 Macc. v 21‑23.
Psalm lxxiv possibly mentions a destruction of synagogues (verse 8).9 God has left Sion (verse 2). The enemy has entered the Sanctuary and broken the carved work thereof (verses 3, 6: see 1 Macc. i 23). A foolish people has blasphemed God's name (verse 18), i.e. has apostatized. The "poor and needy" (verse 21) is a conventional Maccabean designation for the good Jews. This Psalm mentions violence and blasphemy, but not war or deportation. The date is 169‑167.
Psalms xciii and xcv‑c form a single majestic hymn, as C. A. and E. G. BRIGGS recognized. This hymn is post‑Deuteronomic ("holy hill", xcix 9). A war is being fought (xcvii 3). It is victorious (xcviii 1‑3). The Hasidaeans are mentioned (xcvii 10). The strife between the apostates (resaim) and the observant Jews (saddiqim) is still going on (xcvii 10‑11). The ascription of human feelings to the fields, trees, floods, etc. (xcvi 11‑12, xcviii 7‑8) is an imitation of Greek poetic usage. The Temple will be holy forever (xciii 5), i.e. will never be profaned again.
Psalm ciii thanks God because He has forgiven Israel's sins (verse 3, 10‑14). The oppression is ended (verse 6). Some poetic images are borrowed from late books of the O.T. The poet's apostrophes to his own soul, here and in Ps. cxlvi, are imitations of similar Greek rhetorical figures, e.g. Odyssey XX 18, EURIPIDES, Medea 1056; THEOGNIS 1029; ARCHELOCHUS 67a Diehl; IBYCUS 4 Diehl; PINDAR, Ol. i 4; Nem. iii 26.
Psalm cxlv and cxlix are by Hasidaeans. The former refers to the fight between the good Jews and the Apostates (verse 20). The latter to a war against the Gentiles (verses 7‑8).
Psalm cxlvi was composed at a time when the Jews repudiated all human sovereigns (verse 3, which may be compared to Psalm cxviii 8--9).
In none of these Psalms a Jewish king is mentioned. It is a mistake to lump together the royal Psalms (ii, xx, xxi, xlv, lxi, lxiii and lxxii) with these Psalms which proclaim God's kingship.10 They presuppose opposite political situations.11
It is a well‑known fact that the Book of Isaiah includes pages by several prophets. One of them announced the Second Reign of God, which Judas set up shortly afterwards. I assign to this Prophet the following passages, among others: a) Is. xxiv 21‑23: the Prophet looks forward to the day when the Lord will reign in Jerusalem. Therefore, he must have been written after Josiah's reforms, in a period when God was not in his Temple. The punishment of the kings of the earth, none excepted, is incompatible with a date in the days of King Cyrus. God's glory (the shekinah) will shine before the city elders, as no Jewish king is expected to exist; b) Is. xxxiii 17‑24: the phrase "look upon Zion, the city of our feasts" rules out a date during the exile, when the Jews were not in Zion, and the conjecture that the Prophet was in Babylonia.12 The city is occupied by a fierce people who speak an unintelligible language (Greek). The arrival of a collector of tribute who demolished the city fortifications (cf. I Macc. i 30‑31) is a past event, but the forgiveness of the apostasy is expected in the future. The knowledge of nautical terms points to an age after Alexander, when the Jews, who previously were not a seafaring people, settled in the coastlands (JOSEPHUS, Against Apion, I xxii 194); c) Is. xli: the man from the east must be a Jew--perhaps Maccabeus-- since he calls upon God's name. He is not a king, but conquers kings. "The ends of the earth" is a Greek phrase (“”) not used in Hebrew before the Hellenistic period. Our Prophet must have read THEOPHRASTUS to know so many names of trees; d) Is. xliii 1‑13: the dispersion of the Jews to distant lands had already occurred. Seba, a city on the African coast of the Red Sea (perhaps Assab) was made known through the elephant‑hunting expeditions sent by Ptolemy II. They Jews are called blind and deaf because they refuse to see the facts and to listen to the words of God; e) Is. xliv 6‑8: "Rock" is a Maccabean designation of God; f) Is. lii 1‑12: the uncircumcised and the unclean could not have been kept out of the city in the days of the Persians, who were uncircumcised. The Prophet is in Sion, not in Babylonia. He even hears the voice of Jewish watch­men. Were there any under the Chaldeans ? The God of Israel (not of Persia) has shown his power and victory to all nations. The return of the Lord to Sion did not take place under Cyrus, but under Darius and later under Judas. The term "Assyria" here and elsewhere in the O.T. denotes Seleucid Syria. The real Assyrians never occupied Jerusalem. Our prophet may or may not have known SOPHOCLES' 1ine: “”13 In any case he was a contemporary of Judas Maccabeus.
Jeremiah x 1‑16 is recognized to be a late interpolation by many scholars. We may add that verses 7 and 10, in which the Lord's kingship is mentioned, are missing in the Septuagint. They appear to be an interpolation into an interpolation. The oracles against the foreign nations are considered spurious by a number of scholars. LODS and GELIN reject chapters l‑li 58. Since Jer. xlvi 18 and xlviii 15 lack the word "King" in the Septuagint, which may be based on an older Hebrew text, we feel justified in conjecturing that the prophet Jeremiah never gave this title to God, and that wherever it occurs in his book it was introduced by interpolators.
The Book of Obadiah is largely a cento of verses borrowed from the Books of Jeremiah, Joel, and others. The phrase "Holy Mountain" (verse 16) presupposes Josiah's reforms. The Jews deported to Sardes by Antiochus the Great will return (verse 20). Mount Zion will be holy, i.e. untrodden by heathen soldiers, and Israel will be independent (verse 17). The chief purpose of the book is to encourage the Jews in the war against Edom in 163 B.C.14
Chapter iv of ~licah is not authentic according to OESTERLEY and ROBINSON, LODS, KUHL, EISSFELT. The first part, which occurs also in Is. ii, has not only a definition of the Temple hill that presupposes Josiah's reformation, but also voices the Maccabean hope that all the nations will observe the Torah. Verse 6 predicts that the exiles will return. In iv 13 the Jews hope to destroy "many peoples" and in vii 2 a massacre of Hasidaeans is mentioned. We may conclude that the Book of Micah is in part by an eighth‑century prophet and in part by a Maccabean author.
The Deutero‑Zechariah has been analyzed by me elsewhere.15
Malacji is post‑Deuteronomic, for he calls God the Father of the Jews (i 6, ii 10), and this doctrine was introduced by the Deuteronom­ist (xiv 1). He appears to be acquainted also with the Priestly Code, for he mentions the covenant of peace with the Levites (Mal. ii 4‑5, 8; cf. Num. xxv 12‑13); the bread offered on the altar (Mal. i 7; cf. Lev. ii 1‑13); and the custom established by Nehemiah, of keeping the tithes in the storehouse (bet ha‑'osar) for the priests (Mal. iii 10; cf. Num. xviii 21, 24; Neh. x 38).16 The phrase "The Lord is terrible among the Gentiles" (i 14) implies that the Jews are independent and fighting. Judah is reproached for profaning the Temple and marrying the daughter of a foreign god (ii 11). Now, I know of many mixed marriages from the time of Moses to the present day, but I know of no Jew who married the daughter of a god. Besides, this girl was married to a whole nation. Obviously she is figurative and stands for the heathen religion espoused by Judea under Antiochus.17 The wife of Judah's youth (ii 14) is the Torah. The phrase is borrowed from Prov. v 18, a Hasidaean poem, where it has the same meaning. The universalistic predictions (Mal. i 11) are characteristic of the Maccabean age.18
The Song of Moses (Ex. xv) is a specimen of Hellenistic Romanticism. It does not date from the days of Moses, anymore than MACAULAY'S Lqys of Ancient Rome date from the period of the Roman republic or TENNYSON's Idills of the King from the days of King Arthur.19 Verse 17, where God's Mountain is Zion and not Horeb, and where the Temple is implied to be the only sanctuary, prove that this Song is post-Deuteronomic. The language is late and the style points to the second century.
I am aware that this review of Biblical texts is too brief to be convincing. The reader will get the impression that a Maccabean date for some of the passages quoted is certain, but for others is merely probable or possible. In order to give convincing proofs I should require hundreds of pages. In any case, I do not find any moment in the history of Israel between the days of Samuel and the days of Judas in which a theocracy is conceivable. If such moments were discovered I might have to revise some of my dates, but certainly not all.20
Someone might object that the canon of the O.T. - or at any rate of the Pentateuch - is supposed to have been fixed by Ezra. But no evidence for such a fixing of the canon exists. Ezra may have read from an edition of the Book of the Law o£ Moses (Neh. viii), but we do not know which chapters it contained. Later editions contained additional material. The Song of Moses is not the only chapter of the Pentateuch which Is later than the age of Ezra.21
MOWINCKEL (vol. II, p. 198) writes that our Psalter must be earlier than Ca. 130 B.C., when the Greek translator of Ben Sira wrote his preface. The translator's words allegedly presuppose the existence of the canon. Here MOWINCKEL makes two mistakes: 1) Ben Sira's grandson says that he visited Egypt in 132 B.C., but does not say when he wrote the preface. He may have written it 50 years later; 2) he does not say a word about any canon, although one modem translator adds the adjective "holy" to the word "books" of the preface. We do not even know whether these books included any Psalms.22 The Dead Sea Psalms scroll published by J. A. SANDERS proves that about 30-50 A.D. neither the number nor the order of the Psalms had been fixed yet. Various collections were in use. Actually the Hebrew canon of the Prophets and Hagiographa was settled at the Synod of Jabneh, about 97 A.D.23 The canon of the Greek translation is perhaps half a century later.
Another objection is based on the Septuagint. A legend asserts that the Pentateuch - not the whole O.T.-was translated under Ptolemy II. But this legend is based on the Letter of Aristeas, a shameless forgery. KAHLE24 has proved that out Greek Pentateuch dates from the end of the second century. We may conjecture that John Hyrcanus or one of his sons, when he had conquered many Greek and Samaritan cities, wishing to unify the religion of his State and to induce his new subjects to obey the High‑Priest in Jerusalem, had new editions of the Pentateuch prepared in Hebrew and in Greek.
Others might object: Don't you attribute too large a portion of the O.T. to the second century? No. Antiochus Epiphanes carried out a thorough destruction of Jewish books (I Macc. i 59‑60). Prob­ably some perished entirely; of others a single copy may have survived; of others only fragments. Judas collected whatever books he could find (2 Macc. ii 14‑15) and presumably had new editions prepared, in which damages were repaired, faults amended, fragments complet­ed, and titles added. In some cases works of two or more authors were mixed; in others the fragments w ere wrongly arranged. If we compare the fate of our Scripture with that of the Avesta, we must deem it providential that so much of pre‑:Maccabean Hebrew literature survived. Of course, many new books were composed in the days of Judas and later.
After Judas' death (160 B.C.) the Seleucid dynasty ruled Palestine again. Jonathan, though de facto independent, was nominally a vassal of the Seleucids.
In 140 the high‑priest Simon proclaimed the independence of the Jewish State (1 Macc. xiii 41). I conjecture that this State was a nominal theocracy (the Third Theocracy in Jewish history, 140‑104 B.C.). I base my conjecture on the following facts:
1) Simon, though he was the hereditary absolute head of the State, clad in purple and gold (1 Macc. xiv 41‑47), never called himself "king"; much less did he give the throne to any other person; neither did he recognize the suzerainty of any foreign ruler; and the State was certainly not a republic. So the theocracy is the only alternative left.
2) Simon is variously styled in 1 Macc. "great high‑priest and general and leader of the Jews" (xiii 42), "leader and high‑priest" (xiv 35 and 41), "high‑priest, general and ethnarch of the Jews" (xiv 47), "great priest and ethnarch" (xv 2). Once we find "high‑priest in asaramel" (or saramel, according to another ms., xiv 27‑28). As 1 Maccabees is an official history, translated from the Hebrew, I am inclined to interpret this mysterious word as ha‑sar 'am 'El "the commander of God's people" and to conjecture that the Jews during Simon's pontificate, were called God's people i.e. the people ruled by God.
3) In the Book of Jubilees (i 28), dated by CHARLES between 109 and 105 B.C., God is called "King on Mount Zion for all eternity", whereas the Hasmoneans are styled "princes and judges and chiefs of all the seed of the sons of Jacob" (xxxi 15), but not "Kings".25
The Blessing of Moses (Deut. xxxiii) is one of the latest chapters of the Hebrew O.T. The ten thousands of angels (verse 2, if the text is sound and the interpretation is correct) belong to the post‑exilic developed angelology and have a parallel in Dan. vii 10. In any case, the attribution of the Torah to Moses (verse 4), the mention of the Covenant (verse 9)26, the designation of the Israelites as God's holy ones (qedosim, verse 3) are borrowed from Deuteronomy and presup­pose the publication of the main sections of this book. The twelve Israelitish tribes had formed a federal nation in the days of David and Solomon. But on Solomon's death (tenth century) the federation was split into two, then in the ninth century the Trans‑Jordan districts were lost to the Syrians (2 Kings x 32‑33), and in the eighth all the Northern tribes were deported by the Assyrians and replaced with Cutheans and other non‑Israelites. Thereafter Palestine never formed a political or administrative unit before the age of John Hyrcanus. In our Blessing all the tribes are praised with friendly words and appear to be united, happy and independent ("all the tribes of Israel together", verse 5, "dwelling in safety", verse 28) and are even defeating their enemies in war (verses 7, 27 and 29). We are obliged to assign it to Hyrcanus' pontificate, and--assuming that the tribes represent districts, rather than genealogical clans--after the High Priest had conquered Medeba and Samega--that is why Reuben is mentioned in our poem--and Shechem and Samaria--that is why Joseph and Manasseh are mentioned. Hyrcanus' pontificate is the only period in Jewish history that fits the data of this Blessing.27 A second proof of the date we are suggesting is to be found in verse 11. It was only with the Hasmoneans that the tribe of Levi ruled over Israel and it was in the time of Hyrcanus that the Pharisees rose up against Levi. We conclude that this poem must be assigned to the period of the Third Theocracy (alluded to in verse 5) and probably to the years 107‑104 B.C.
The eighth human dynasty (the Hasmonean kings and Queen Alexandra) ruled from 104 to 63 B.C. In some books written in this period--2 Maccabees and the Letter of Aristeas -- in order to avoid offending the human sovereign, God was promoted to be "King of kings" or "King of the universe".28
From 63 to 40 B.C. Judea was subject to the Roman republic, its triumvirs and dictators. Hyrcanus II remained high‑priest and later also ethnarch with little political power. Local affairs were entrusted to the Jewish aristocracy.
Antigonus (40‑37 B.C.) was the last Hasmonean king.
The ninth human dynasty (the Herods) ruled from 37 B.C. to 6 A.D. It includes Herod the Great, who was king, and his son Archelaus, who was ethnarch of Idumea, Judea and Samaria.
The tenth human dynasty (Julio‑Claudian) ruled Judea from 6 to 41 A.D. Soon after the annexation to the Empire, Quirinius, the legate of Syria, proceeded to assess the property of the Jews in order to levy taxes on the new subjects. Judas the Galilean stirred up a revolt asserting that taxation was no better than slavery and that God was to be the only Ruler and Lord of the Jews. His followers would endure any kind of death rather than call any man "Lord". (JOSEPHUS Antiq. XVIII i 1, 6; War II viii 1, xvii 8). So Judas the Galilean strove to set up a fourth theocracy.
The Assumption of Moses, composed between 7 and 29 A.D.29, which I attribute to a follower of Judas the Galilean, describes the future Reign of God in its chapter x. This description includes many wonderful and supernatural features and shows how one Jew at least of that generation imagined the Reign. Of course, others may have imagined it differently.
From 41 to 44 Agrippa I, a grandson of Herod the Great, reigned over all Palestine. He was the last national king of the Jews.
From 44 to 68 the Julio‑Claudian dynasty ruled Judea again.
The hope for the Reign of God did not die out with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Modified by various interpretations it survived among both Christians and Jews. See Rev. xii 10, the Paternoster, still recited by the Christians, and the Eighteen Benedictions and the Kaddish, still recited by the Jews.30 The Eleventh Benediction reads: "Restore our Judges as in former days, and our counsellors as at the beginning, And be Thou alone Ruler over us."