Seek the Peace of the City! Biblical and Theological Perspectives on the City in Ancient Times" (2013, draft ongoing).

DRAFT!

"Seek the Peace of the City:

Biblical Paradigms of Urban Social Justice"

By, Clinton E. Stockwell, PhD.

Chicago Semester/Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education (SCUPE).

REVISED, July 2013

1

Chapter IThe City in the Ancient Near East

The Bible is very much a city book, and a book of majorimportance for those of us who at some level are engaged inministry in an urbanized world. Sociologists like J. John Palen,have coined the phrase, "urban world" to describe the phenomenonthat we are facing today. Cities are very much the centers ofculture, and for good or ill are the centers of civilization.Indeed, the history of the world, is very much a history ofcities, from "Ur of the Chaldees" to "world-class cities" such asNew York, Tokyo or Berlin.

Today, the fastest growing cities are in the less developedworld, in cities like Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, Niarobi,Cairo, Tehran, Bangkok or Beijing. While cities of ten millionpersons and more is unprecedented in human history, we will have23 such cities worldwide by the turn of the century. We are verymuch entering an age that is characterized by large cities. Andthese cities are now more interconnected than ever. Perhaps byturning again to the biblical stories can we perhaps find someinsight for the purpose and meaning of cities, and how pilgrimpeople might live out their faith in urban contexts.

2

Cities have always played a prominent role in recordedhistory. The earliest civilizations boasted major cities ascapitals. Like ancient Greece in classical times, Sumeria wasnoted for its city-states. In Sumer, perhaps the cradle ofcivilization, its major cities included Ur and Urek. In Egypt,cities like Memphis or Thebes dominated the rule of the Pharaohs.Cities were prominent in the Far East too. In ancient India,Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were significant centers of urbanculture. The biblical story thus did not happen in a vacuum.

But even these great urban centers were not the first cities.The oldest city according to archaeologists is likely that ofancient Jericho. Long before the story of Joshua, thissettlement, known as Tell es-Sultan, dates back to 8000 to 7000BCE, the stone age.1 Jericho dates back to a period that is evenin comparison with ancient Mesopotamian civilizations.

However, it was not until the fourth millennium BCE thatPalestine began to assume a densely settled landscape asencountered by the first Israelites including migrants such asAbraham. Sumerian civilization, historically the oldest, did notbegin until 3500 BCE. Thus, argueably the real cradle ofcivilization may be associated with ancient Palestine well before

1    See Kathleen Kenyon, "Jericho," in Archaeology and OldTestament Study, edited by D. Winton Thomas (New York: Oxford,1967): 264-275; and Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 1967.

3

Israelite conquest.However, Jericho seemed to exist in a relatively isolated situation in Palestine, not like the "city-state" or "city-

kingdoms" of ancient Sumer. Hanoch Reviv defines the city not asjust any permanent settlement, but "a settled community with asocially stratified population following a variety of trades andprofessions, and capable of producing surpluses of food forthose of its members who were not engaged in agriculture."2 Revivdistinguishes between a mere "settlement" and a "city" by arguingthat a city has the presence of common buildings and publicprojects. In short, a city has a viable public life thattranscends the life of tribal and familial networks (privatelife). Most often, the major public buildings in the ancient NearEastern city included the temple, the palace, and thefortifications.3

A city requires social stratification, a class system if youwill. For no city could be built unless an organized labor forcebuilt it at the direction and control of a social elite or aruling class. Further, every urban settlement is characterizedby a specialization of the labor force, and by a public life thatdraws people together in ways that transcend their domestic

2    Hanoch Reviv, "City," in Encyclopedia Judaica (New York:MacMillan, 1971), 5: 583.3    Ibid., 584.

4

relationships. In this respect, urbanization in the ancient NearEast and in Palestine really dates to the fifth millennium BCE."The first settlement that displayed distinctive urban features(the existence of a temple) was the city of Uruk [in ancientSumer]."4

The reasons for urbanization are probably innate to thenature of human beings as social animals. However, Gordon Childehas isolated some major factors that needed to be present beforecities could be imaginable.5 These included first of all anagricultural surplus. Before a city could be possible, the peopleneeded to produce a surplus of food so that others might attend tothe building of a city. Second, the new society would requireindustry so that tools could be made, and objects could befashioned so as to erect walls, houses and so forth. In thefourth millennium BCE, metal-working became possible, just asmasonry developed as a new craft in Mesopotamia. These twoindustries provided the means to develop tools and buildingsupplies.

The agricultural surplus would have contributed to asubstantial surplus labor supply necessary to contribute the worknecessary for city-building. The labor supply could be procured

4    Ibid.5    Gordon Childe, "The Urban Revolution in Mesopotamia," in WhatHappened in History (New York: Penguin Books, 1942), 97 ff.

5

from the poorer population, and also from other tribal groups thatwere subject to a ruling elite. Thus, a social stratification, orclass structure would also be necessary, as there had to be anelite that both drew up the plans and manifested the power orleadership necessary to coerce subjects to build according totheir desires.

The surplus produced by the new economy was, in fact,concentrated in the hands of a relatively small class. Such

concentration was doubtless necessary for the accumulation ofabsolutely small individual contributions into reserves sufficientfor the great tasks imposed on civilized society. But it splitsociety into classes and produced a further contradiction in thenew economy. For it limited the expansion of industry andconsequently the absorption of the surplus rural population.6

There had to be something about the topography or the placeselected to build a city. The city had to be easy to defend, andnear a water body for both drinking water and a means for traveland commerce. In Sumeria, this meant brick walls. In Palestineit meant that the city was built on a hill, and stones were moreavailable to build walls than they were in Mesopotamia. The soilhad to be fertile enough to provide for good crops, and hence theagricultural surplus as well.

The surplus crops would allow people time enough to develop

6    Ibid., 107.6

their crafts, hence abetting the specialization of labor. All ofthis works together. For Childe, "the artisans, labourers, andtransport workers may have been 'volunteers' [read "slave labor"]inspired by religious enthusiasm. But if they were not paid fortheir labour, they must at least have been nourished while atwork."7

Cities were religious institutions in the ancient Near East.All of them had religious temples and an accompanying priesthood.The priesthood formed associations to maintain themselves inpower. They were the ones that planned not only for the buildingof the temple, but for the layout of the city, which naturallyfeatured religion as central to the idea of an ancient civiccommunity.

For Childe, this brings one to perhaps the most importantcentral feature of urban civilization, the invention of writing.In addition to plans, there were accounts, receipts, laws andcontracts that were the bedrock of urban civilization. ForChilde, urban civilization required a way to standardize behavior,and for the development of building plans. All of these requiredthe invention of writing, first in pictographs (cuneiform), andlater with a more advanced symbol system as invented by theAkkadians.

Writing gradually developed to handle more tasks. Writes

7    Ibid., 100.7

Childe, "the invention of a system of writing was just theagreement on the meanings to be attached to the symbols thesociety using them for its common ends."8 Writing, or a system ofrational symbolization, was needed to standardize weights andmeasures. Trade required some way to standardize the value ofobjects being bartered.

Second, building plans required also an agreed upon unit ofmeasure. The larger number and scale of building projectsrequired a uniform understanding of distance. Finally, an agreedupon symbol system was necessary to judge time. Such measurementswere attached primarily to the movement of astral bodies, therising and setting of the sun, and the going and coming of a fullmoon. In either case, writing and a standardized weights andmeasurement system became essential for the rational function ofurban civilization.

City life would contribute to the development of agovernment, and eventually of a public life. Initially, thecommons or the public would include first of all the temple, andthen the granaries, magazines, workshops, store centers, streets,and on the outside, the pasturelands which were used in common.On the inside of the city walls, the elite and artisan populationswould build their houses, while the poorer populations would livein more temporary dwellings outside the walls.

8    Ibid., 112.8

Economic surplus might eventually give way to a surplus ofgoods and crafts, thereby stimulating trade. Trade wouldinitially occur between a network of Sumerian cities, and thenwould branch out to Africa, Palestine, Syria and India."Trade . . . was, indeed, so extensive and so active that itbrought from the cities in the Indus valley manufacturedarticles--seal-amulets, beads, and, perhaps, even pottery bases."9

Such trade would contribute to both the growth in theaggregate numbers of the population, as well as a growth in itsdiversity. Trade would contribute very early to the developmentof a heterogenous community. This would naturally lead to cross-cultural encounters not only with different objects by trade, butalso with different religious ideologies and practices.

While there were great contests over which religion was best,there seemed to have developed two distinct religious patterns inthe ancient Near East. First of all, the smaller cities seemed tohave developed an affinity with a particular deity, and may havebeen known as the place where one went to worship a particulargod. Haran, for example, was known as the place where one went toworship the moon god. The second pattern was probably more truefor the larger cities. With the increase in trade and inpopulation, the larger cities succumbed to polytheism, thetoleration of the worship of many gods in a complicated pantheon.

9    Ibid., 104.9

Yet, religious conflicts were inevitable. In the earliestrecords of war, it was the deities that went to war with eachother, representing their respective cities. Peace treaties weredrawn up in the name of the gods, and the spoils went to thepriests or to the city governor who claimed to be acting on behalfof the gods. This would naturally help to justify corruption, asthose who acted for the gods, and for the people of a particularcity, would have the enviable task of taking care of the spoils ofvictory. Religion thus could be a justification for political andeconomic self-aggrandizement. In either case, the worship of a single, universal supremegod (monotheism), was rare in the ancient Near East. Deities wereeither local gods, or were a part of a vast pantheon of godsrepresenting a variety of religious views and practices. The"urban revolution" in Mesopotamia would also influence life inother parts of the Ancient Near East. Cities influenced tradingpatterns, and hence the spread and variation of socialsettlements. Urban refugees and other migrants would connect oneend of the fertile crescent with the other end. This wouldcontribute to the spread of urban civilization to Palestine, andthe subsequent relocation of one of history's most significantrefugees, Abraham of Ur.

Urbanization in Palestine10

Beginning in the third millennium BCE, settlements withdistinctively urban characteristics began to appear in Syria andin Palestine. These settlements emerged at the junctures oftrading routes and highways. They were built "on the plains, inplaces easy to defend, and close to natural water supplies."10 Inthe first half of the next millennium, the process of urbanizationwas accelerated, and threatened, as numerous tribes soughtincrease their power by invading other lands. These invadinghoardes included the Elamites, the Hittites, the Hyksos, theAmorites, and ultimately the armies of the great empires such asEgypt.

To protect themselves from these invasions, or to establishthemselves after invasion, the populations of Syria and Palestinedeveloped cities with impressive fortifications.

In the course of the second millennium, there gradually emerged all over Syria and Palestine a type of city known to

scholars as the "city-state" or the "city-kingdom," which continued in existence, with certain modifications, on a

reduced scale, in the first millennium B.C.E."11These were theCanaanite "city-states." They were modeled after what occurred inSumeria, but on a smaller scale, as every tribe had a small city,and every small city sought to control the area around it.10    Reviv, "City," 584.11    Ibid., 584-5.

11

Sometimes these cities and their kings would unite on a temporarybasis in coalitions to achieve common ends, but for the most partthe Canaanite city-state was very autonomous.

Nor was the Canaanite city-state much like the polis of theGreeks. Characteristics of the "city-kingdom" were as follows:First of all, the city-states were territorial, politicalorganizations that demanded the dependence of the outlyingsettlements on the mother city. Second, they ruled over arelatively small and restrictive territory. Third, they werenoted for monarchic, dynastic or even oligarchic rule.

Fourth, a privileged and economically powerful social elitegoverned the city-state. At first, the elite had a definitemilitary character, which gradually became a more plutocratic andmercantile character. Fifth, the city-state developed a veryrigid social and professional heirarchy. Finally, the specificrights and obligations of the various classes were spelled out,usually in the interest in the control by the elite.12

These were the cities that the Old Testament patriarchs firstcame in touch with. Also, it was these same city-states that theIsraelite tribes stormed in their struggle to occupy Canaan. Inthe Pentateuch, the cities of the Canaanites are described as"fortified and very large" (Num. 13:28). They were also noted tobe "large with walls sky-high" (Dt. 1:28).

12  Ibid., 585.12

During the period of the Conquest [discussed below in chapterV], it does appears, that due to the impact of marauding tribalgroups, and the weakening of Egypt as a world power, that theCanaanite city-states had been seriously weakened. This allowedthe Israelites to get control of the hill country, and graduallythe whole of Palestine later under the monarchy. The conquestappears to have been a long and arduous process, lasting severalhundred years.

The Canaanite city-kingdoms were replaced directly byIsraelite settlements which either took over conqueredsettlements, or were built on top of the ruins of previouslyoccupied sites. Even so, the urban culture of the Israelites wasslow to develop, and it was not until David's reign that a unifiedempire was forged out of a loose tribal confederation. "At alater stage, with the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, thecity was brought into close relation with the central power andits administration."13 The sovereignty of the individual tribaldivisions was gradually replaced by a new phenomenon in Palestine,a centralized monarchy and single nation-state.

With the establishment of the monarchy, the autonomy andrelative independence of the city-state system was replaced by acentralized government based in the capital city of Jerusalem.Tribal representatives to the Israelite federation were replaced

13    Ibid., 586.13

with appointed officials. While some of these officials may havebeen the tribal elders, there appointment was not on the basis oftheir tribal affiliation, but on the basis of their acknowledgedeconomic and political power useful to the king, and their loyaltyto the king.

Most of the appointments were men that the king trusted,those closer to the military establishment and governmentbureaucracy. Under this arrangement, the city of Jerusalem as thecapital city became more significant. Other cities were built orrefortified, but only as specialized cities to abet the power anddefense of the monarchy. This would insure the growth of theurban population in Palestine among the Israelites, but only inconnection with the consolidation of the monarchy.14

The City in Ancient IsraelThe rise and formation of the people we now know as

Israelites occurred on the stage of world history with other greatempires. The biggest threats to their existence came theseempires, and they were dominated by great cities such as Babylonand Nineveh. The success of the Israelites was thus dependentupon its ability to carve out a peculiar identity amid the riseand fall of great empires and cycles of military conflict. Therelative success of the Israelites is a tribute, not to its

14    Ibid., 586.14

military might, but to its ability to forge an identity based onreligious ideas and practice. The following is an attempt to putsuch a story into its larger context.

Most cities prior to 1800 AD were related directly toagriculture, and it was not until after the industrial revolutionthat a clear distinction between urban and rural economies wasperceived. Cities prior to 1800 were "preindustrial cities."15

Gideon Sjoberg, a social historian, defined the city as "acommunity of substantial size and population density that sheltersa variety of nonagricultural specialists, including a literateelite."16 Sjoberg noted that cities were centers of literacy andrational ordering, the product of human genius.

Preindustrial cities were "walking cities," being relativelysmall and homogenous, and were capable of being traversed on foot.Industrialization is a relatively recent phenomenon, contributingto the expanse of the city, both in terms of its spatial size andin the aggregate numbers of its population. For the most part,the cities of the ancient and classical periods were not the sizeof the modern industrial city. Yet, cities then and now were

15    Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City (New York: The FreePress, 1960); and "The Origin and Evolution of Cities," ScientificAmerican 213 (Sept. 1965), 54-62.16    Sjoberg, "The Origin and Evolution of Cities," in AmericanUrban History, ed. by Alexander B. Callow, Jr. (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1982(, 7.

15

places where a variety of peoples congregated. They were also thecenters of power and religious significance.

Religion was at the heart of the ancient city. In Ur, as invirtually all cities of the ancient near east, the temple, or theziggurat was in the heart of the city. The temple typically had ahuge rectangular base with the ziggurat winding its way upward asthe place where the priest and the gods met. It was the largestand most important building in the city, and city belonged to itschief god, to whom the city was dedicated at its origin.

The palaces of the kings were later developments, as theruling elite projected a combination religious-political presence.In later stages, the palace rivaled the temple as ultimateauthority.17

Not all of these cities small towns. Lagash, a rival of Ur,may have been a city of 100.000 people,18 and Ur itself was atleast 200,00019 people, and may have been a city of as many as360,000 people.20 Ur had a public square and crowded lanes with

17    Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians: Their History, Cultureand Character (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), 73-74.18    I.M. Diakanoff, Sumer: Society and State in AncientMesopotamia (Moscow, 1959).19    Kramer, The Sumerians, 89.20    C. L. Wooley, "The Urbanization of Society," Journal of WorldHistory IV (1957): 246-247.

16

booths and bazaars. However, it lacked the town planning of thepolis, the Greco-Roman city. Rather, Sumerian cities had narrowwinding streets and its buildings were mostly one story in height,although some would reach two or three stories. Large and smallbuildings were sometimes side by side, reflecting little in theway of regulation or town planning.

Southern Mesopotamian civilization featured not just one ortwo cities, but a network of cities. In ancient Sumer, theimportant cities of Ur, Eridu, Larsa and Uruk were visible to eachother. The landed elite lived in the city, and controlled itspolitics and religion. The elite owned and controlled the fields,estates and countryside which were worked by serfs, slaves, orlow-ranking family members.

Sumerian city-states were relatively more hierarchical thanthe Greek polis, although the former enjoyed a much longerduration. This was because the ancient cities of Sumer sufferedfrom less competition than cities of later centuries. The city-states of ancient Sumer were relatively more self-sufficient. Itappears that the ancient Sumericn cities were able to assure adegree of stability that the Greek city-states could only hopefor.21

21    A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a DeadCivilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 113-115.

17

There were three portions of the Sumerian city. First, therewas the older city within the walls. This was the location of thepalace, the temple, and the residences of the leading citizens.Government occurred at the city gates "where the assembly ofcitizens or of the pertinent city quarter convened and the mayorexercised his office."22 This practice of making decisions ortrading at the city gates was also something that carried over tothe cities of the Old Testament.23

The second part of the city was the outer city, "thesuburbs," where the poorer populations lived together with theirfarms, fields, gardens and cattle-folds. Some of the suburbs mayhave been protected by another set of walls, but most wereprotected only by sentries and outposts, and the residents likelyhad to run into the city for the protection of its city walls uponattack by foreign armies.

The third part of the city-states were the lands and theharbors controlled by the central city. Urban elites controlledagricultural production in the land, even as they controlled tradeand distribution from the harbors. Sumerian cities were builtnext to gulf and river harbors and thus functioned astransportation and commercial centers. Thus, the ancient city

22    Oppenheim, 115-116.23    Note reference in The Mighty from Their Thrones to citygates.

18

reflected a stronger relationship and interdependence between cityand countryside. Although the economy was largely agricultural,it was related to the city. Until the industrial revolution, thepoorer residents of the city lived outside of the city walls.

Today, cities in the "developing world" share this pattern.The rich live "downtown" near the centers of political andeconomic power, while the poor live in the barrios or favelas on theoutskirts of town. In the "developed world," cities such asChicago, the epitome of an industrialized city, reflect a verydifferent pattern. While some of the rich live on the city's"gold coast," most of them have followed transportation networksto nearby suburbs such as Evanston and Oak Park, two suburbs thatborder Chicago, Illinois in the US. Today, "edge cities" are hometo the more affluent, while the "inner cities" are home to thepoor and recent immigrants. The ancient city reflects the patternof the cities of the developing world more closely.

In ancient Israel, cities resembled very closely the patternof Sumerian cities. Cities were usually constructed on hills,called "tells," as high places of religious and militarysignificance. Whether Babylon or Jerusalem, cities played animportant part in Biblical history and mythology. In the Bible,the beginnings may occur in a garden, but very quickly the contextshifted to urban environments.

The city in the Bible was important, not so much because of19

size as according to function. In the early stages, the citieswere the property of the tribes, and were related morecomprehensively to the needs of the tribal federation. During themonarchy, cities in Israel developed more specialized functions,and related more directly to a capital city, Jerusalem.

Cities played a variety of important roles in the Biblicalliterature. In the Old Testament, there are about 300 differentcities and towns mentioned by name. The Hebrew word for city isthe word, 'Ir. It occurs about 1,090 times in the Hebrew Bible.24

The city could be either a village, town or larger settlement, andno determination in size was necessarily meant by the word. The'Ir was simply a settlement or place where people dwelt and livedtogether. The Hebrew word could translate as "city," and also asa hamlet or mere enclosure. The city thus signified a "wide rangeof settlements without any reference to size."25

The root of the word meant either mountain or fortification,and such settlements were either walled cities or unwalled towns.26

The Canaanite word for city meant "to protect," and also referred24    Euan Fry, "Cities, Towns and Villages in the Old Testament,"Bible Translator 30 (October, 1979), 434; and, Walter C. Kaiser,Jr., "A Biblical Theology of the City," The Urban Mission 7(Sept., 1989), 7.25    Ibid.26    Don C. Benjamin, Deuteronomy and City Life (New York:University Press of America, 1983): 4.

20

to a mountain or a well-rounded place." It was a fortress andfunctioned as a place of protection.27 Most cities were on hillsor "tells," and even today such tells dot the landscape of Israel.Cities in ancient Israel were primarily military installations asa means of protection, usually with a massive wall and towers.However, even ancient cities assumed the wide range of functionsthat today's cities have.

The center of the walled city was the acropolis, a largerectangular area built at the highest point of the tell. Theacropolis was also often built up for effect. It was the centerof the government and the military stronghold. On the acropoliswas built the temple and the palace to the king. The acropolisenabled sentries to view what was transpiring in the city as wellas the surrounding countryside. It was a symbol of dominance andauthority.

On the inside, houses were packed close together. Residenceswere built around narrow winding streets, and some of them weretwo, even three stories high, contributing to the density of thecity. The entrance was a narrow gate protected by walls made ofstone, mud bricks and hardened earth. The population size of thecity was not the most important variable, but the extent to whichthe city provided protection.

This meant that usually a city, especially a walled city, was

27    Kaiser, 7.21

most notable by its fortications. That is, the most significantthing about the ancient city was the character of its walls andcitadels. Although defense was most important, ancient citiesassumed a variety of other important functions as political,military, administrative, economic, social and religious centers.There were a few open spaces in the cities, called rechovot, butmost open spaces were built adjacent to the gates. The open spacenear the city gates was known as the "square at the city gate" andwas the place for public assembly (Neh. 8:1; II Chron. 32:6). The"square at the gates" functioned as the commons for the Israelitecity.

The primary distinction between a city and the countryside isalso traceable to function. In the city, kinship ties arereplaced more by social and economic roles. Cities were,nonetheless, more interdependent with the countryside for survivalthan in the modern era. However, the city, ancient and modern,was distinct--not merely due to size, density or populationheterogeneity, but due to its political and economicorganizational functions.28

In the ancient city, communication ties were relatively

28    For classic definitions of the city, see Lewis Wirth,"Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44(July 1938): 1-24; Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial City: Pastand Present (New York: The Free Press, 1960); and Max Weber, TheCity (New York: The Free Press, 1958).

22

restricted, and each city and region was self-sufficient and moredependent on local conditions. This is in stark contrast to themodern city and its international connections. Cities today aremore globally interdependent than they were in ancient times. Keyvariables for a prosperous city included the availability ofwater, building materials, food, fertile land, and above all,defensibility. Today's military technology makes walls bothunnecessary and irrelevant. Witness for example the bombings ofSarajevo or Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.Ancient cities could hold out for years against a siege due solelyto the massive nature of its walls. The ancient city was built ona hill so as to better prepare for and resist invasion. Jesusused ancient city imagery to suggest how the disciples were topresent themselves to the world. "You are the light of theworld.... A city on a hill cannot be hidden" (Mt. 5:14).

In the Hebrew lexicon, the word hazer described open villagesas opposed to the ir mibsar, the "fortified city" (Jer. 34:7).

A hazer was a group of houses or temporary settlement close toa city as is clear from the verse "houses of the hazerim that havenot encircling walls" (Lev. 25: 31; cf. with "and the field of thecity and its hazerim" (Josh. 21:12)). Apparantly then, the"city" comprised not only the built-up area but also thecultivated fields and the pasture lands in the vicinity. The linedemarcating the whole urban district was called "the territory of

23

the city" (Judges 1:18; cf. also with "Gaza and its territory" (IIKgs. 18:8); "the Pastureland around their towns" (Num. 32:2, 5);and the "fields of the city" (Josh. 21:12)).29 Legal differencesexisted between the walled city and unwalled town. Naboth'svineyard in I Kings 21 was a hazer, and was an enclosure or a yard,but not defended usually by a wall.

One scholar distinguishes between a wall and an enclosure. In one passage (Lev. 25:31), the village, hazer, is

distinguished from the city, Ir, by its having no walls, and as toredemption, its houses were under the same law as the walled city,and could not be permanently alienated, but must be returned inthe year of jubilee. A house in a walled city, on the contrary,if sold, was open to redemption during one year only. After ayear, if not meantime redeemed, it became the property of thebuyer in perpetuity (Lev. 25:13-17, 25-31)".30

City gates were also very significant, both as a socialfunction, as well as for purposes of defense. The gates of thecity were places where peddlers could sell their wares, andpeasants their produce. The gates also functioned as the newscenter, and the place where legal cases were heard and triedpublicly (Dt. 21:19; 22:24; Ruth 4:1, etc). Elders, ministers,priests, and kings made their public pronouncements at the gates29    Reviv, "City," in Encycylpedia Judaica, 5: 588.30    C.C. McCown, "City." IDB 1(1962): 633.

24

of the city.It was at the city gate at Hebron that Ephon the Hittite

publicly announced the sale of the Cave of Machpelah to Abraham sohe could bury his deceased wife, Sarah (Gen. 23:10, 19). It wasalso at the gates that Absalom sought to gather a followingagainst his father charging that David no longer came to the gateto give justice (II Sam. 15:1-6). Finally, David gathered hisarmy at the city gates to help recover their morale after hearingof Absalom's death (II Sam. 19:1-8).

The gates signified the commercial center or market (II Kings7: 1, 18); or the place where the elders, judges or the king madeofficial pronouncements (Dt. 21:19; 22:15; II Sam. 18:24ff; Is.29:21); or the court of judgment (Dt. 22:15; Amos 5:12, 15). Acondition of restoration for wayward Israel is whether or notjudges would "establish justice at the gate" (Amos 5:12).

Throughout, the gates were the centers of commercialtransaction (Neh. 3:1, 28; 12:39). The business of the city andthe markets were conducted at the gates (Song, 3:2). The squaresadjacent to the gates were open during the day, but closed atnight (Eccles. 12:4). Adjacent to the square were streets whichran into the city from the gates. Some of the streets were notedfor particular crafts or activities such as the "baker's street"as mentioned in Jeremiah (37:21).

The "gates" were so important in the Old Testament that they25

achieved religious significance as well. In the New Testament,"gates of hell" referred likely to urban gatekeepers; thereligious, political and military authorities who determined whowould get in or out of the city, just as heavenly authoritieswould determine who gained entrance into the kingdom of God (Matt.25: 31-46).

The villages that surround the city were called its"daughters," banoth, which portrays the interdependence betweentown and countryside in Israelite culture. The "daughters" wereno doubt unwalled villages dependent on the walled city forprotection (Nu 21:25, 32; 35:42; II Samuel 20:19; II Chron. 28:18;Ezekiel 16; Ne.11:25-31). The fields and pastures were places ofwandering where one ventured from the security of the cities. Thecities were thus necessary to secure the lands around them.

To speak of these ancient "suburbs" as daughters suggeststhat the major cities and surrounding towns were interdependentand interconnected, likened to kinship or family ties. Althoughthe economy in ancient Israel was agricultural, 95% of the peoplelived in the towns and their villages (Josh. 15:32-62). Asarchaeologist Euan Fry put it succinctly: "It is important toremember that the towns of Israel were the places where all ormost of the people lived."31

The high degree of interdependency between agricultural

31  Fry, "Cities, Towns and Villages in the Old Testament," 437.26

lands, owned by urban-based landowners, and the settlementsreflected an ancient cultural practice necessary to counter thedangers of marauding tribes. This was particularly true of theCanaanite city-states, the urbanized cultural context that theIsraelites faced during their "conquest" of Palestine.32

Various types of cities are mentioned in the Old Testament ascities in the Bible performed a variety of positive functions.While the most prominent distinction was whether of not the citieswere walled or unwalled, there were other cities that had veryspecific functions and reputations. These early city typesincluded the storage city, with royal stacks of supplies andequipment (I Kgs. 9:19; II Chron. 8:6; 11:11-12; 17:12, etc). TheIsraelites were building store cities for the Pharaoh just priorto the liberation (Ex.1:11).

Since cities were built as defensive citadels, one mightconjecture that some cities would be built specifically to provideprotection for the empire under the monarchy. Solomon built afortified cities (Num. 13:19; II Kings 17:9; 18:8); cities forchariots (I Kings 4:26), as well as cities for his horsemen (IKings 9:19; 10:26; II Chron. 1:14; 8:4-6; 9:25; and, 17:12). Aroyal city was the name for the capital city or the city where aking resided (Josh 10:2, I Samuel 27:5; II Sam. 12:26).

32    Perspectives on the Israelite "conquest" will be treated inchapter Five.

27

In addition, there were forty-eight cities that were known as"Levitical cities" in the Old Testament (Num. 35:1-8; Josh. 21; IChron. 6:31 ff). These were cities set aside for the habitationof the Levites who were not given land in the tribalconfederation. There were four Levitical cities for each tribe,for the exclusive use of the Levites. Six of the Leviticalcities, three on each side of the Jordan River, were set aside as"cities of refuge." These cities were sanctuaries for individualswho accidently killed one of their kinsmen, a serious matter inancient Israelite society.

There were also cities of other kinds, beyond those mentionedexplicitly in the Old or New Testaments. These includedindustrial, seaport or caravan cities. Ezion-Geber, for example,was unique as an industrial city in biblical times, and there issome evidence that copper smelting occurred there during the reignof Solomon. Caravan cities included Gaza, Tyre, Damascus, andPetra. There were also important seaport cities such as Joppa,Caesarea, Stratonis and Ptolemais.33 Also, there were some guildcities mentioned, such as the "city of merchants" mentioned inEzekiel (17:4).

Cities were sometimes traded from one state to another assingle entities (I Kings 9:10-14; 20:34). Solomon, for example,gave Hiram of Tyre twenty cities for the cedar, cyprus and gold

33    C. C. McCown, "City," in IDB 1 (1962): 635-6.28

used to build the King's temple and palace. Also, citiessometimes formed part of a marriage dowry for Kings (I Kings9:16).

In the same way, cities were gifts of Yahweh for Israel'scovenant faithfulness in the Book of Deuteronomy.34 Contrary toperspectives of some theologians, biblical scholars haverecognized that, in the Old Testament, cities almost always hadpositive images, with a variety of types and functions.35

Architecturally, ancient cities were known not just by theirhouses, which were built both inside and outside the walls, but bythe wall itself, the towers, the gate, and usually the temple. Butinside the city, public and private space was divided by theresidences, a typical four-room house. By 1984, there were 39cities in ancient Palestine from the 12th to 8th century BCE thatperfected the four-room house, demonstrating that such anarchitectural pattern was common.36

While archaeology generally portrays the nature of the cityby land use, a horizontal feel, cities were basically known34    The theme of Don C. Benjamin, Deuteronomy and City Life (University Press of America, 1983).35    See for example, Frank S. Frick, The City in Ancient Israel (Missoula, Montana: Society for Biblical Literature, 1977).36    Yigal Shiloh, "The Casemate Wall, the Four-Room House, andEarly Planning in the Israelite City," Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriential Research 268 (1987-1988): 3-15.

29

according to ancient texts by their vertical dimension.37 Theverticality of cities stressed the visual prominence of the walls,towers, houses, the temple and palace. Cities were strong(Numbers 13:28 and Isaiah 26:1) due to their impressive heights.The vertical dimensions and strength of city walls motivatedseveral of the wisdom sayings: "A man who controls his temper [isbetter] than one who takes a city" (Proverbs 16:32).

Cities could be seen from a distance. They were already ontells and ridges on "high places." The city walls and houses werebuilt on the top of the hill. Also, the towers or gates weregenerally massive. In many cases, such as the picture of Jericho,the wall was made larger by houses that were built on top of them.Hence, many of the walls had windows in them, as they reflectedthe practice of building houses on top of walls to both conservespace, and to add to the defensive capacity of the city (Josh.2:15; I Sam. 19:12).

Often, an acropolis or palace was built at the highest placein the city, on a platform, which added to the vertical feel ofthe city. The height of the citadel also pointed to the stationof the king, as above other townspeople, a symbol of political andeven religious power. The height of the palace both pointed tothe king's preeminence, and also had the practical effect of

37    Cornelius Geus, "The Profile of an Israelite Town," BiblicalArchaeologist 49 (1986): 224-227.

30

allowing the magistrate and the magistrate's guards opportunity toview the countryside around the city.

Geus hypothesizes that the city may have been characterizedalso by two-story houses, as there have been discoveries ofnumerous outside staircases in cities such as Hazor or Lachish.Two-floor residences would help explain the reason why palaceswere sometimes built on platforms. Also, two-story dwellingswould allow for a greater population within the walls of the city.For Geus, the ancient Israelite city must be considered for itsvertical dimension, not just its horizontal configuration.38

The vertical dimension may contribute to an increase inpopulation estimates for the Israelite city. However, for themost part, these cities were small. Euan Fry estimates that theaverage city in ancient times had between 160 to 240 people peracre. So, most of the towns in ancient Palestine ranged from 1000to 3000 in population. Jerusalem may have had 2000 people at thetime of David, and this probably increased to 5,000 during thereign of Solomon, and perhaps 25,000 by the reign of Hezekiah.39

Other cities such as Nineveh or Babylon were much larger. Babylonmay have had several hundred thousand people. But for the mostpart, the cities and towns in Israel were small, with a few largercapital cities such as Samaria and Jerusalem. 38    Geus, 227.39    Fry, "Cities, Towns and Villages in the Old Testament," 436.

31

Chapter II

Theological Perspectives on the City

Towards a Theology of the City

In the recent past, there have been many attempts to forge a

theology of the city. We now know that cities were important

contexts of biblical history, from Abraham to David to Jesus to

Paul, cities have played an important part of the biblical story.

Indeed, the story of civilization is the story of cities. One may

only mention the great cities of Ur, Thebes, Nineveh, Babylon,

Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, Berlin, London, Washington, Beijing, and

Moscow, to note the importance of cities in the shaping of

civilization. This again has been a mixed blessing. Theologians

32

have tried to wrestle with the city biblically and theologically.

They have come up with a variety of answers, some negative, some

idealistic, many functional, as to the meaning of the city in

theological perspective. What follows is a theology of the city

that notes the perspectives in the recent past, but moves further

to a theology that takes seriously the post-modern, global,

intertnational phenomenon of cities. We now live in what for many

is the Global City, and we need a theology as big as the globe to

understand what is happening to all of us, to see the city once

again, as the place of community for people, but in a larger

ecological, global context.

A. Jerusalem and Babylon: The Two Cities of Biblical History

Ancient cities were by definition religious and theological

in function. Almost all of them had holy places, ziggurats,

temples, or sacred shrines in the central places of the city.

Cities such as Babylon or Jerusalem in ancient times were actually

rival holy places. Babylon was the city of the towers, the

33

pillars, the holy places that reached to the sky. It was also the

city of pagan religion, of imperialism, of materialism and

majestic splendor. For most of the Old and New Testament writers,

Babylon was the city of consummate evil, the sinful city in

rebellion against God. In the Book of Revelation, Babylon

represented the evil empire of the first century, Rome. Rome, of

course was known for its military might, its road system, its

architecture, and its civil polity. Initially, the Apostle Paul

was proud to be a Roman citizen, as it seemed to invite civic

participation from all citizens.

By the time of the Revelation, it seemed rather clear that

Rome was not going to be the city to protect all its citizens.

Indeed, there were requisites to citizenship that made it

extroadinarily difficult to be both Christian and Roman citizen.

These included loyalty to Rome and worship of the spirit of the

empire, the image of the Caesar. In short, Rome became like Old

Testament Babylon. It became the "oppressing city," the evil and

cruel city that terrorized the world and prohibited freedom of

34

expression politically, and freedom of religious practice. Like

Babylon, this Rome too would be destroyed, for it was not the city

built on the foundations of the city of God. It was not the city

of justice, of righteousness, but a city of bribery, idolatry,

corruption, murder, and vice.

Jerusalem in purpose was to be a city of peace, a city of

justice and righteousness. It was to be a city where all the

nations might come to learn the truth and words of Yahweh. It was

to be Yahweh's city, a city who's builder and maker is God.

Jerusalem, the ideal city, would be the place where the rulers

ruled justly, where peace and righteousness reigned supreme. It

would be the city that protected the vulnerable, the poor and the

oppressed, the widow and the orphans, the Levite and the stranger.

Jerusalem was to be "the light unto the nations," a place where

the truth of God would be proclaimed. Of course, like Babylon,

the sins of the city would often show themselves, even in

Jerusalem. Even here, a place that was to be a city of

righteousness, had become a city corruption, a city given over to

35

idolatries. As a result, for prophets like Jeremiah, Jerusalem

came under judgment, and ironically, the Israelites were to seek

the shalom of their captor city, rather than the chosen capital.

In these two "urban biographies," the tale of the two most

prominent biblical cities contain elements of an urban theology.

What makes for a just city? What kind of city is constructed by

God? What is the good city? And on the contrary, what is the

evil city, the oppressing city? We are desperate for constructive

theological images in a world that has become increasingly more

urban. We look for a coming city, a city where the ideals of the

kingdom of God are realized, if only in microcosm, if only in

smaller communities that point the way to greater visions of what

cities can be.

B. Interpreting the Biblical City

Under Judgement: The Theology of the City According to Jacques

Ellul

In terms of perspectives on the cities of the Bible, there

36

are a few major perspectives on cities of bible that have been in

currency in the past twenty-five years. Jacques Ellul, in his

book, The Meaning of the City (Eerdmans, 1970), has written the

most popular book on the city in theological perspective. His

view is that the city is consummate evil, because cities are by

definition man-made. The attempts to scale the heavens with the

towers, asherahs, pillars, and ziggurats reflect human attempts to

scale the heavens. Following Karl Barth, Ellul believes that

religion is always flawed, as it represents the human attempt to

climb to God, reflecting an ideology of works, rather than faith.

For Barth, and for Ellul, religion is the opposite of revelation.

In revelation, it is God who discloses the Supreme Self to man,

and this God does in grace, not in response to human achievement.

Hence, God's act in Christ is the contradiction to human religion.

It is the repudiation of all human attempts to image God, a

repudiation of idolatry and its accompanying immoralities.

For Ellul, the city represents the judgment of God. It

stands in alienation, in rebellion against God and God's self-

37

disclosure in the Law, the prophets, and ultimately in Jesus of

Nazareth. Human religion is thus in opposition against God, and

is understood as hostile, at enmity, or at war against God's

purpose for the world. Ellul points out that in Genesis, cities

like Babylon, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities of the empires

such as Nineveh or Tyre and Sidon, stand under the judgement of

God. Rather than places of "true religion," or places where the

demands of God are manifest among a people, cities to Ellul seem

to only represent corruption, cruelty, evil, and injustice. For

Ellul, cities are idolatrous and vain attempts to fashion an order

in alienation from God.

For Ellul, cities are symbols of power and conquest. Cities

also have religious significance for Ellul, as in the city, "man

conquers time, space, power" (14). For Ellul, the city is a break

with creation, and is at enmity with the church. City-building

was a sign of opposition to God. "The city is cursed. She is

condemned to death because of everything she represents."40 For

40    Ellul, The Meaning of the City, 45.38

Ellul, Babylon as a city sums up human civilization in hostility

to God. Like all cities, Babylon is under judgement, and her fate

is waste and desolation.41 "All the merchants of the earth were

made wealthy by the greatness of her wealth." Hence, when the

city is destroyed, so also are the merchants who weep and share in

the destiny of the city. For Ellul, the city is the symbol of

wealth and pride, and pride always results in a fall as a

consequence of the divine judgement.

However, Ellul overdoes it. "All the inhabitants of the city

are destined sooner or later to become prostitutes and members of

the proletariat."42 Ellul believes that wars are always between

cities.43 Cities frequently become the targets, perhaps even the

victims of warfare. Remember the burning of Dresden, or the

bombing of Hiroshima! However, wars in human history have

41    Ibid., 51.42    Ibid., 55.43    Ibid., 51, 62.

39

frequently been between tribes, between clans, and between peoples

over lands and borders, not just over the city.

Ellul believes also that unemployment is a city problem.

Unemployment is "essentially an urban problem, found only in the

country only because of the contagious and gangrenous growth of

the city."44 However, at least in the American experience the

phenomenon of unemployment is due to economic realities, which

influence city life, but can not be simplistically reduced to the

city. The black migration to the cities was due to the closing

down of the plantations, and the rise of scientific technology.

Similarly today, the loss of the "family farm," is due to the rise

of corporate farming. If anything, it is the rise of science, and

changing economic realities such as the rise of corporations, and

the globalization of the economy that causes unemployment.

Capitalism, it may be argued, requires a surplus labor force.

Cities are victims of an economic system, but are not the causes

of unemployment. The unemployed rush to the cities to find work,

44    Ibid., 61.40

when it can't be found anymore in the rural south, or in the rural

parts of southern Europe.

Even for Ellul, the cities seem to be a product of necessity.

It is right and proper, is it not, when one is chief of state, to

build fortresses? It is right and proper to cover the principal

access routes into the country and to keep watch over them. It is

right and proper to establish commercial centers at the main

crossroads and to put storehouses there, just as it is proper

to have an army and equipment for war.45 For Ellul, the existence

of cities seems reasonable, even necessary, but not enough to

escape the judgement of God. Ellul admits that cities are the

product of "good will," the efforts of the "well-intentioned."46

Cities have purposes, to enable people to live better, to have

access to homes, leisure activities, for community, for work and

employment, for protection, and "to ensure him more comfort and

45    Ibid., 41.46    Ibid., 60.

41

what are called the joys of life, with all the guarantees of

science, medicine, and pharmacology at his doorstep."47 But this

is not enough, for it is the city built without proper foundation.

It is the city built for itself, without reference to God as judge

or savior.

The Functional View of the City

Ellul's theology of the city is not the only view of the city

in the Old Testament. In fact, Ellul is not an Old Testament

scholar, he is a theologian and social ethicist. He reveals much

that is significant about the city, but his view is skewed and

partial. Pervasive also throughout the Old Testament can be found

the functional city, or the city as gifts of God's grace. Cities

are not always corrupt, and often embody positive imagery. Frank

Frick, for example, in his, The City in Ancient Israel,48 argues

that the city is basically morally-neutral. Rather, it depends on

47    Ibid.48    Frank S. Frick, The City in Ancient Israel (Missoula,Montana: Scholars Press, 1977).

42

what people do in the city as to whether the city is a good or

oppressing city. In this perspective, the city does not have

necessarily a positive or negative value, but it depends on the

practice of community in the place that determines the character

and reputation of the city.

There are, for example, several different kinds of cities in

the Old Testament. There were forty-eight Levitical cities, for

example. These were cities that were designated as homes or bases

of operations for the Levites. Further, it was the job of the

Levites to visit neighboring cities to publish and proclaim

Yahweh's Law. It was their job to instruct the children of Israel

in all the decrees, ordinances, rituals, commands, and duties of

the Torah, the oral and written revelation of Yahweh to the

covenant people. Among the covenant duties were to remain

faithful as a "peculiar people," known by their fidelity to the

law of God and their practice of the law as revealed. Also, they

were to take special care of the vulnerable. There would always

be poor in the land, but the poor were never to be needy (Deut.

43

15). Finally, idolatry was expressly forbidden. Israel was to

never build shrines to other deities. Not only would such be the

religious apostasy of the people, but it would have vast social,

political and military consequences. They could be destroyed from

within, or taken captive to a foreign city.

There were other cities of importance in biblical times.

There were also six "cities of refuge." These were cities on

either side of the Jordan River where a manslayer could flee for

protection against the avenger. It was a place where a person

could receive the judgement of the priest, and if not guilty,

could stay in the city for reasons of safety, until the high

priest of the city died. There were also cities of military

importance. King Solomon, for example, built chariot cities to

protect his empire. These were in cities like Gezer, Hazor, or

Megiddo. They were walled, and staffed with a garrison, horses,

and chariots. They were situated on the edges of the empire to

protect it from invasion from enemy countries (II Kings 4:19).

There were also grain or storage cities. These were cities

44

where food and grain were stored to avert famine and to enable the

country to survive economic depressions. The great example is

with the patriarch Joseph, who instructed all of Egypt to bring a

portion of their crops to storage cities. When the depression

became even more severe, Joseph relocated the people, including

his own people, near one of the cities, so that they could survive

the famine. Storage cities made good sense economically, and were

also of major religious significance. It was a sign of

faithfulness and obedience to bring a tenth of one's crops, and of

one's livestock to the storehouses of the city.

However, store cities could be corrupt. It was the

enslavement of Israel in Egypt and their task of building store

cities in Pithom and Rameses that provided the context for the

Exodus. Also, under Solomon, store cities were built, with the

assistance of slave labor.

"... And Solomon built Gezer, Lower Beth-Horon, Baalath and

Tamar in the wilderness of the land, and all his own store-

cities, and the cities for his chariots, and the cities for

45

his horsemen" (I Kings 9:15ff). But it is here that Solomon's

first unfaithfulness may be noticed. He founds the cities in

slavery. And, forgetful of what happened in Egypt, forgetful of

the Mosaic legislation for slaves, he enslaved "the foreigner who

is within... (his) gates" for his purposes of power: "these

Solomon made a forced levy of slaves."49

In Deuteronomy, tithing principles are described, and the

proceeds are to benefit the Levites, as well as the dependent poor

in the city. Also, there is the note of protection of the

stranger, because Israel was once a slave in Egypt.

You shall not forsake the Levite who is within your gates,

for he has no part in the inheritance with you. At the end

of every third year you shall bring out the tithe of your

produce of that year and store it up within your gates. And

the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you,

and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow who are within

your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the Lord your

49  Ellul, The Meaning of the City, 31.46

God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.50

The next chapter, Deuteronomy 15, describes the responsibility of

Israel for the poor in the land. There might be poor and

dependent in Israel, but they would have no needs. The tithing

principle is reiterated in Malachi. The command to "bring all the

tithes into the storehouse, that they may be food in my house"

(Mal. 3:15) continues the theme of laying aside provisions for the

vulnerable of society. Just as there were storehouse cities, so

the Temple also became a place where food and grain were stored,

so as to provide food for the hungry in their time of need.

There were other cities beyond these. Certainly Bethel and

Jerusalem among others provided an important religious function.

It is there where shrines to Yahweh were built, and there where

religious rituals occurred. Ultimately, at Jerusalem a Temple was

built by David and Solomon, noting that the capital of the

kingdom, indeed the kingdom itself had religious significance.

Indeed, most towns in ancient Israel were built on "tells," small

50    Deut. 14:27-29.47

mountains, for reasons of defense, as well as around holy places

of religious significance. If not temples and shrines, places of

sacrifice and prayers were found in the center of the towns.

Cities in the Old Testament were significant in other ways.

Cities like Tyre, Sidon, and Joppa were port cities. Cities like

Gaza, Beersheba, or Damascus were important caravan cities, cities

of commerce. The city of Ezion Geber was the only real industrial

city, and was the place where Solomon built his ships, and may

have also been a place of copper smelting as well.

Similarly, cities today are important in how they function.

Cities have symbolic significance as places of government, trade

and commerce, leisure, religion, industry, or shipping.

Washington D.C. for example is a capital city, noted for its

function for government and politics. Chicago historically, was

known as the city of the broad shoulders, the industrial-

manufacturing city. Now it is becoming the city of finance, the

headquarters of corporate giants like Amoco, Sears, Wards, and

several of the Fortune 500 companies in the suburbs to the West

48

and North. Jerusalem and Mecca certainly function as religious

centers, just as Rome combines religious with governmental

significance. Some cities like New Orleans or Alexandria, Egypt,

are known for shipping and ship building. Others, such as Las

Vegas or Miami are known for leisure, gambling or resorts for the

wealthy. Cities differ also by reputation. Just as Montreal,

Seattle, or Minneapolis are reputed to be good cities, so cities

like Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles or noted for crime and murder.

Cities like Chicago are noted for racial antagonism, and strife

between labor and capital, whereas Tokyo is now the city with the

highest and most costly standard of living on earth, followed

closely perhaps by San Francisco.

Just as Frick has noted the importance of city function in

the Old Testament, so Wayne Meeks has noted the importance of city

function in New Testament times.51 For Meeks, Paul was very much a

city person, and the cities of the Roman world form the context

for Paul's ministry. Paul established churches in each of the51    Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social Worldof the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

49

cities of the Roman world. This was of strategic significance,

and early Christianity, following the contours of Greco-Roman

civilization to the cities, became very much an urban movement.

Paul and the apostles went to the cities, not because cities

represented something either good or evil, but because,

functionally, they were the places where the gospel was

proclaimed, and seeds of a new social order were planted in the

churches, each of which was identified in particular with its

city, such as the "Church at Corinth," and so forth. Paul

believed in the possibility that the pax christi could triumph over

the pax romana. The assumption carried by Paul seemed to be that

if he captured the city, he would in essence capture the province

around it. In the Greek city state system, built upon by the

Romans, the city controlled the state and, in Rome, the province

around it. Hence, in the first century urban world, Paul planted

churches in the cities, as a strategy for the evangelization of

the world.

The miracle of early Christianity is that, among the many

50

choices available, it managed to become the choice of Constantine,

and later the "Holy Roman Empire." There were many other options,

including Greek philosophical schools, mystery religions, the

civil religion of the Roman Caesar, Judaism, and by the sixth

century, Islam. Yet, Christianity, despite persecution, became

the religion of the Roman Empire by the fourth century CE. Why

did this happen? In the early part of the twentieth century, the

church historian, Shirley Jackson Case of the University of

Chicago, argued that there was a functional relationship between

the triumph of early Christianity and the cities of the empire.

Despite the numerous persecutions under Caesars Nero, Domitian,

Decius, and Diocletian, Christianity survived.

For Case, there were three major reasons why Christianity

triumphed in the Roman world, and the other options did not.

First, the Christians planted churches in the cities. Second,

they practiced compassion for the poor and the needy. Third, they

included anyone and everyone, including Gentiles, slaves,

prostitutes, sinners, outcasts of society, and even children

51

abandoned in Greco-Roman cities.

Gentile Christianity gained its foothold first in the cities

and among the lower strata of society. Slaves were

conspicuous among its early adherents, yet their contribution

to its economic success was in the nature of the case rather

limited.... But converts from among manual laborers, skilled

artisans, and small traders, of the freedman class, etc, were

also numerous at an early date; and their earning ability was

measurably increased and stabilized as a result of membership in

the new association.52

Case points out that the reasons for the triumph of the early

church in the Roman Empire. First, early Christianity was rooted

in the cities. By the fourth century, each of the major cities

had Bishops, and the three competing "schools of theology" were in

cities, notably Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Constantine's

conversion was as much politically motivated as religious, for the52    Shirley Jackson Case, The Social Triumph of the AncientChurch (New York: Allen and Unwin, 1934), 69. See also, ShirleyJackson Case, The Social Origins of Christianity (Chicago:University of Chicago, 1923).

52

church had captured much of the city among the artisan classes by

the early fourth century, making conversion to Christianity

politically expedient.

The other reasons were also significant. The church

practiced radical inclusion, and compassion for the poor. Their

reputation is that the church adopted the throw away children of

society. They took care, not only of the poor of the churches,

but the poor of the empire, noted Emperor Justinian. Thus, early

Christianity triumphed, because of its strategic location in the

cities. It spread there among the poor, the slaves, and

ultimately among people of social standing. The result was a

social force that has been dominant for two millennia.

Because of the inclusiveness of the gospel, early

Christianity achieved a universal appeal that rival religions

envied. Rites of initiation were open to anyone, not closed to a

chosen few. Christianity was not a religion of a race, or for a

particular class of people, such as the appeal of Mithraism to

Roman soldiers. Christianity had a universal appeal, to both Jews

53

and Greeks, slaves and freedmen. Because of this inclusivism, one

could be rich or poor, male of female, Jew or Gentile, or even a

person of color. It mattered little initially, for the gospel was

perceived as breaking down barriers between the classes, races,

and the nations, resulting in the creation of a new people, the

people of God. Christianity succeeded in the Roman world, because

it captured the cities as its bases of operations, because of its

radically inclusive gospel, and because its practice of community

gave social status to the faithful, regardless of social location,

and because its compassion supplied the needs of those on the

margin, economically.

The Divine City: Cities as Gifts of God

Cities were often viewed with utmost significance, even as

gifts of God. In Genesis 4:17, the city was as much a safe place

for nomads in the time of trouble, as they were symbols of human

power and dominance or the exclusion of the divine. Cities had

positive functions in the Old Testament. They were places of

community and socialization. They were places of protection and

54

defense against one's enemies. They were also places for food,

water and sustenance in a time of need. Finally, cities had

religious significance, as the place of a temple, or religious

shrine, or symbol of justice and righteousness, as a model of a

just community to the nations. While Jerusalem, in particular,

did not always live up to this purpose, the city continued to hold

an ideal purpose for most of biblical history.

Cities were gifts of Yahweh to the Covenant people as they

came into the land of Canaan. In the book of Deuteronomy, the

following is found.

And when the Lord your God brings you into the land which he

swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to

give you, with great and goodly cities, which you did not

build, and houses full of all good things, which you did not fill,

and cisterns hewn out, which you did not hew, and vineyards and

olive trees, which you did not plant, and when you eat and are

full, then take heed lest you forget the Lord, who brought you

55

out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.53

Clearly from this passage, the cities of Canaan are portrayed as

rewards for Israel's covenant faithfulness. They are gifts of

Yahweh. Also, it is clear that the cities, and even the goods

found in cities necessary for life such as water cisterns and

food, are regarded as "good things." The cities are called

"great and goodly cities," not bad or evil in themselves, but

places of value and significance. Finally, just like all gifts

and graces of Yahweh, these are goods that Israel did not build,

but must be received as a gift. Symbolic of God's work of grace

in selecting Israel, cities are given to a people, undeserving and

unmerited. Like the promised land, Israel did not build or even

merit these good cities, they were rather given to her as gifts of

God.

Cities in the Book of Deuteronomy were therefore symbols of

God's grace. Israel was chosen of God to be the people of God,

not because she was a mighty are even a righteous people, but

53    Deut. 6:10-12.56

rather because God chose Israel in fulfillment of the promises

made to early patriarchs. In the same way, Israel was delivered

from captivity, given the Law, provided food to eat in the

wilderness, given the Shekinah glory, the visible presence of God

to be with them on the trip, and given prophets and leaders such

as Moses to guide the way. Similarly, Israel, because of the

promise to Abraham, was given a land, a land not just flowing with

milk and honey, but containing goodly cities for habitation. In

this land was all the provisions of life, including water and

food. In this land was also to be found fertile lands for crops,

and cities to live in. These were all gifts of God, unmerited

favors to the covenant people. Even the city of Jerusalem,

prominent in biblical history, was not built by Israel, but was

given to Israel, and in essence was adopted as the divine city in

the process.

Some of the prophets may have been rural, and may have had

prejudices against wayward kings, false prophets, and priests

schooled to tell those in power what they wanted to hear.

57

However, the "true prophets" were not anti-city; they were against

the evils of the city as practiced by wicked and self-serving

individuals. They were against systems of injustice, as evidenced

by corruption and bribery. They were against the lack of

compassion and lack of justice rendered towards the poor,

particularly the widows and the orphans. "They did not condemn

the city, but self-sufficiency, misuse of power and domineering

economic systems as rebellions against Yahweh. The sin was not

the city itself, nor its walls, nor its towers, but the trust

urbanites frequently placed in these fortifications."54

Israel's mistake is that she trusted often in her kings,

walls, armies, priests, prophets, and diplomatic relationships.

These were considered by God to be a betrayal of trust, and a

misguided attempt to fashion security in a world without God.

These efforts were made more abominable because they were often

accompanied by the recognition of other deities, and a tacit

54  Don C. Benjamin, Deuteronomy and City Life: A Form Criticismof Texts with the word CITY ('ir) in Deuteronomy 4:41-26:19 (NewYork: University Press of America, 1983).

58

acceptance of other cultural practices. Instead of trust in

Yahweh, Israel rebelled by trusting in her military might,

economic power, or in her diplomatic relationships. The result as

well was idolatry and immorality. Other deities took the place of

Yahweh, threatening the gifts Yahweh had given them, particularly

their status as a chosen people, and the gifts of the promised

land and the goods in the land, including the cities. Because of

her idolatries, the cities would be laid waste and desolate, taken

back Israel's idolatry, corruption and injustice.

Cities could be of benefit, if Yahweh was worshipped, and if

the Law was taught and practiced. The Psalmist mused, "unless the

Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless

the Lord watches over the city the watchman stays awake in vain."55

Other Psalms describe the city as a fit place for the people of

God to dwell, and a fit symbol for Yahweh in person. Yahweh is

identified with the foundations, the bulwarks, the citadel. "A

Mighty fortress is our God." If Israel acknowledged God and the

55    Psalm 127:1.59

Law, then God could be identified with her cities and her

fortresses. In Psalm 48, this identification is captured.

Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, in the city of

our God, in his Holy Mountain. Beautiful in elevation, the

joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion on the sides of the

North, in the city of the great King.... As we have

heard, so we have seen, In the city of the Lord of hosts, in

the city of our God. God will establish it forever....56

The city is therefore the place where God dwells, the place

of sacrifice and praise. It is the place of protection, a refuge

from invasion and marauding tribes. It is the place of the

temple, of the sanctuaries, of the courts of law and justice. The

cities are the place where, in the gates, judgment is delivered,

and the law is instructed so that the people can walk in its

light, practicing what is just and right.

In the Old Testament, a "Zion theology" emerges with King

David. Zion is the name of the fortress city, the city of

56    Psalm 48:1-2, 8.60

Jerusalem. David was given Jerusalem, and made it the capital of

his kingdom. Jerusalem became, not just the capital of David's

empire, but also the place where Yahweh dwells, the place of the

temple, and the center of religious ritual and the publication of

the Law of Yahweh. Initially, Zion as Yahweh's fortress was

attached literally to the city of Jerusalem. However, with the

destruction of Jerusalem at hand, the prophets of the exile spoke

of a heavenly Jerusalem, a New Jerusalem, an eschatological

Jerusalem that would come at the end of history. After the exile

to Babylon in 586 BC, Zion as the symbol of God's presence was

thus transferred from literal Jerusalem, to the spiritual or final

Jerusalem at the end of history.

The Zion theme is thus a remarkable example of the

persistence of ideas, even when they have been shown beyond any

doubt to be completely wrong in one manifestation. Despite the

embarrassment of the fall of Jerusalem, and with it the end of

all that Judeans trusted in; despite their eventual acceptance

of the tragedy as fully merited judgment for their own sins, they

61

could not, it seems, abandon that symbol of the city of God built

on his holy mountain in favor of something better.... That

continuing potency of the concept of the city of God as an

eschatological symbol, throughout history to our own day, is

another reason for emphasizing Zion as the center of Israel's

hopes.57

From the time of the prophets, Amos, Hosea, Jeremiah,

Ezekiel, and Isaiah and onward, Israel looked for a restored and

redeemed Jerusalem, as the center of prophetic tradition, and the

hope for the future. In the Old Testament, before the Exile,

Jerusalem was always seen as an improved earthly city, but never

as supernatural and heavenly.58 Both Jesus and Paul recognized the

importance of Jerusalem as the city of God, and both recognized

the city's shortcomings, and potential. Jesus would weep over

Jerusalem because it was the place that stoned the prophets. Paul

57    Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 9.58    H. Schmidt, "Jerusalem," in New International Dictionary ofNew Testament Theology II (1976), 326.

62

himself would concede the authority of the Jerusalem apostles, but

not their theology with respect to the Gentiles. For Jerusalem

was to be a "light unto the nations," not a symbol for an

exclusive Judaized Christianity.

In both testaments, Jerusalem as the city of God had utopian

and eschatological dimensions. It was the place where the ideal

Messiah would reign, and the place that would also be the hope for

the nations. Despite the city's rejection of Jesus, the Messiah

would still return to Jerusalem to set things right.59 In

Galatians, "Jerusalem" is used in two ways, to signify the

differences between the law and the gospel. Paul distinguished

Jerusalem "from below," and Jerusalem "from above." The city from

below was the captive city, under the law. The city "from above"

was the free city, redeemed and restored as the city of salvation,

for Jews and Gentiles, freedman and slaves. The old Jerusalem

represented slavery and bondage, whereas the New Jerusalem

represented salvation and peace. In the stream of biblical

59    Matthew 23:39.63

history, the old Jerusalem was the earthly city with its dashed

hopes, whereas the new Jerusalem was the coming ideal, utopian

city, that would manifest the justice of God.

In the letter to the Hebrews, believers are told that the

patriarchs and the prophets looked for a city "who's builder and

maker is God."60 Of course, Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees, the

most prominent city of the time, to look for another city.

Abraham did not find one in Canaan, although he "waited for a city

that has foundations." The disciples are said to have approached

"Mount Zion, and to the City of the living God, the heavenly

Jerusalem."61 This again is a metaphor, but a view of an ideal

city that could potentially impact all cities. The theme of the

heavenly Jerusalem is reiterated in the book of Revelation. In

Revelation, the hope for a new city is realized, as the New

Jerusalem descends to earth from above. The heavenly city becomes

once again the earthly city. The Revelation depicts the final

60    Hebrews 11:10; 12:22.61    Hebrews 12:22.

64

image of the reign of God, and it is the image of a city. In the

new city, there would be no more sorrow, death, pain, or weeping,

"for the former things are passed away."62

Rather, in the ideal city, the New Jerusalem, there would be

peace, joy, beauty, and shared wealth. In the foursquare city,

the hopes of humankind are finally fulfilled. Justice and mercy

finally reign, for God is present in the new city, for the rule of

God finally comes to earth. All the hopes of a coming ideal city

are finally realized, and God reigns on earth in the city of God.

Usually a biblical theology of the city is considered in a

dichotomous form. In the Old and New Testaments, "Babylon" and

"Jerusalem" are both literal and metaphorical cities. However,

theologically, they are often understood symbolically as opposite

paradigms.63 Since St. Augustine's classic, The City of God,

theologians have often read the city in the bible dualistically as

62    Revelation 21:4.63    For a dualistic view of the city, see Walter Kaiser, Jr.,"Biblical Theology of the City," The Urban Mission 7 (Sept.,1989): 6-17; and Robert C. Linthicum, City of God, City of Satan:A Biblical Theology of the City (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991).

65

either the "city of God," or the "city of man." However, the

portrayal of the city in the Old Testament goes beyond a dualistic

notion. Biblical urbanology is much more complex and

comprehensive.

Literally, Babylon was the capital of the Babylonian Empire,

and metaphorically, represented often idolatry and injustice.

"Jerusalem," which means "city of peace," was both the capital of

David's kingdom, and metaphorically, the symbol of the good city.

Cities could have metaphorical meanings in the New Testament, as

St. Paul could even speak of two Jerusalems as a way to describe

the old and new covenants.

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother" (Gal.4:25-26).We may wonder concerning Paul's choice of two women as a way todepict the shifting paradigm of his covenant theology, but theurban imagery is plain given Israel's experience in Jerusalem ofthe free air, and Babylon of the captivity.

Jesus of course would weep over Jerusalem, for it was she66

that stoned the prophets, and did not recognize her own Messiah.The Seer of Revelation would portray the final picture of a "newworld order," and it was symbolized by the "New Jerusalem," theperfect city coming down from the heavenlies.

There are at least three ways that we can approach the cityin the Old Testament. The First approach is to assume that citiesare human instrumentalities, and therefore represent all that isevil and unjust in society. This is the view championed byJacques Ellul.64 The second view is to assume that cities are"gifts of Yahweh," a reward for Israel's covenant faithfulness,and a fulfillment of a promise to the patriarch, Abraham.65 Thethird view holds that cities are neutral places, that have withinthem neither moral or divine qualities. Cities essentiallymanifest the morality or injustice of the inhabitants, but citiesin and of themselves are morally neutral environments.66

Ellul assumes that cities are consummate evil, the epitome ofrebellion against God. And there is evidence that cities can be

64    Jacques Ellul, The Meaning of the City. (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 1970); and David W. Gill, "Biblical Theologyof the City," in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, FullyRevised (Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans, 1979) I: 713-715.65    This is the view of Donald C. Benjamin, Deuteronomy and CityLife (New York: University Press of America, 1983).66    For this view, see Frank S. Frick, The City in Ancient Israel (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977).

67

evil and oppressive. Following Ellul, David Gill describes thetheological function of the city as follows:

From Genesis to Revelation, then, the city is under judgmentand a curse. It originated in the strivings of fallen men andwomen for security, power, carnal satisfaction, and glory, apart

from God. Separated from God it became the place ofviolence, moral corruption, economic oppression, slavery,idolatry, the absence of communication, the reduction ofindividuals to members of the crowd--in sum, the institutionalincarnation of evil.67

What Jacques Ellul and David Gill is describing is the problem of

the empire in the Bible. The emergence and meaning of empire and

imperial control and its relationship to capital cities is a

significant theme in both the Old and New Testaments.

67    Gill, "Biblical Theology of the City," 714.68

Chapter IIIThe Rise of the Empire: Imperialism and the Ancient Near East:

A Biblical Critique

Although the city in the Bible is portrayed in a morecomprehensive and complex manner, there is much to support theview that cities tend to be characterized by cruelty andinjustice. However, contrary to Ellul's point of view, whether ornot cities were righteous or wicked was measured in large part bythe actions of the inhabitants of the city concerned, and were notinnately connected to the city by definition. The city in and ofitself could function as God intended, as well as for reasons of"self-interest," bribery, corruption, and idolatry. A keyvariable according to the prophets was how well the cities and herrulers provided for the vulnerable, especially the widows and theorphans, and other poor of ancient Israel (Jer. 5:28; Is. 3:14-15;Amos 8:4; Ezek. 16: 49; etc.).

To the prophets the capital cities of the great empires ofSumer, Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria were anything but godly.Rather, they seemed to the writer of Genesis to represent theessence of cruelty, idolatry, militarism, and fallenness. Citiessuch as Nineveh or Babylon were considered the great capitals of

69

"evil empires," perhaps the original “axes of evil.”

The Politics and the Book of GenesisThe book of Genesis has been the subject of much discussion

regarding its purpose in the Old Testament and in the earlyhistory and identity of the Israelites.68 Genesis is first of alla declaration of monotheism versus the polytheism of the earlyempires of the Ancient Near East. God is depicted as the creator,redeemer, and the Lord of History. Not only history, but alsocreation and natural disasters are portrayed as part of the flowof "salvation history." Not only is God responsible for creation,and for the very existence of life on the planet, but God alsouses the great cataclysms of history to carry out the divinepurpose.

The story of Adam and Eve, and for that matter, the story ofhumanity in Genesis is the story of divine faithfulness amid humandisobedience and failure. Adam and Eve are cast out of thegarden, due to their disobedience. Due to the actions of Cain andAbel, "violence" is described as entering human history. "Genesis68    More radical perspectives on politics in the early chaptersof Genesis than suggested here are argued in Knut Holter, "TheSerpent in Eden as Symbolic of Israel's Political Enemies: AYahwistic Critique of the Solomonic Foreign Policy?" ScandinavianJournal of Theology 1 (1990): 106-112; and, James M. Kennedy,"Peasants in Revolt: Political Allegory in Genesis 2-3," Journalof the Study of the Old Testament 47 (1990), 3-14.

70

I-XI . . . teaches that men have an essentially violentcharacter." After human beings filled the earth, the result was"that the whole earth [was] filled with violence."69 The violenceof men is met with divine judgment; including the casting out ofthe garden; the curse on Cain, the great flood, and the dispersionof languages at the Tower of Babel.

To a large degree, the first eleven chapters of the Book ofGenesis is also a parable of the rest of human history. Willhuman beings set up a society that reflects the will of God, orwill they assert themselves against that will. For Limburg, theword "dominion" in Genesis 1:26-28 reflects the will of God, andits misuse. Dominion suggests the responsibility to community, asthe word means to rule, dominate, or have dominion.70 The word isused nineteen times in the Old Testament, and is used for theactions of a master over a hired servant, the rule of a foremanover laborers, of nations over one another, and of a king over thepeople.

Most occurrences of rdh [dominion] are in political contexts,having to do with the rule of the king or the rule of one nation

69    Eugene Combs, "The Political Teaching of Genesis I-XI," inStudia Biblica, edited by E. A. Livingstone (Sheffield, England:1978), I: 109.70    James Linburg, "The Responsibility of Royalty: Genesis 1-11and the Care of the Earth," Word and World 11 (Spring, 1991),125.

71

over another, which would be exercised through the king.71 Thesame word is used in Psalm 72 to describe the rule of a just kingover the people. The divine will is that the king would not ruleby injustice, but by justice. Such dominion or rule would becharacterized by peace, prosperity, righteousness and safety(Psalm 72: 3-7; I Kings 4:24-25). Also, the king is to have aspecial concern for the poor, needy and disadvantaged. The kingis not to rule with harshness and force, for the good ruler, thejust king is also like a good shepherd (Ezk. 34:8-31).

Thus, when Genesis One speaks of human beings exercisingdominion over the earth and its creatures, it combines the care ofthe earth with the care of fellow human beings. The word usage is"drawn from the sphere of politics and the exercise of kingship asit ought to be." The just king has "an active program of caringthat results in shalom."72 Genesis stresses the commonalitybetween human beings [adahm] and the earth [adamah]; betweenhumans and the natural environment.73

Also, just as human beings are called to "till the earth andkeep it," so the Lord tills [cares or nurtures] the city,depicting the Lord's care for the city (Psalm 127:1). Hence,

71  Ibid., 126.72    Ibid.73    Han Spykerboer, "God, the Earth and the Earthling in Genesis1-12," Colloquium 13 (1981): 36-46.

72

overtly and implicitly, the early chapters of Genesis not onlydescribe the political failings of human beings and theirinstitutions, but also the judgment and purpose of God forcommunity, peace, justice, and the interrelationship betweenhumanity, nature, and nature's God.

The Cities of CainThe first city mentioned in the bible is Enoch, named after

the son of Cain. Enoch means "dedicated or initiated" and has ledbiblical scholars to debate if this was a good thing or not. Cainof course, was punished, and banished from the Garden afterslaying his brother. Cain's punishment was first of all agrarian,as the soil would no longer yield its best fruit. Cain was"cursed from the earth," and also made to be a fugitive and awanderer for the rest of his years.

Cain worried that his banishment was too great to bear, soGod gave him a mark to protect him from his enemies. Cainwandered east of Eden to a land called, "nod" meaning "wandering."Eden was the land meaning "delight," a stark contrast. It wascondemnation enough to be banished from the presence of God. Yet,Cain's mark was a taboo, signifying God's mercy. If Cain was arootless wanderer, he did not wish such a fate for his son. In asense, the first city was a gift from a wanderer, perhaps in hopethat his son Enoch would be more settled and rooted than his

73

father. The building of the city never stops. The biblical textreads literally, he "was building a city," signifyingincompleteness and progressive action. As a commercial states,"we are work in cities we never stop building."

From Cain's linage came the first evidences of civilization.Cain built a city, and dedicates it to his son Enoch, calling thecity by the same name. Enoch's birth is the mark of a newbeginning, a new life for Cain. "Enoch" the city was possibly nota very large city, perhaps merely a settlement with severalfamilies, except that specialized occupations emerge signifyingspecialization and cultivation of the arts.

The city means "an enclosed space with fortified dwellings,"in contrast with the scattered tents of shepherds. Cain'ssettlement in a city does not square easily with his vagabondstatus, and is somewhat ironic, as Cain appears to settle in acity which he founds. The fugitive status is perhaps to beunderstood in that Cain is now alienated from God, having beendriven from his original habitat. Or, perhaps in the building ofa city, Cain expresses hope of a more civilized existence.

Cain's building of a city is no doubt an attempt to startanew, and also to neutralize the effect of his banishment.Alienated from God, Cain builds a city and starts a family--andwith it the foundations of civilization. However, the names ofCain's descendants also belie the effect of the curse. Cain's son

74

Enoch has children. The names of Enoch's sons are Irad(townsman); Jered (descendant); Mehujael (smitten of God);Methushael (man of prayer); and Lamech. It is Lamech who alsogives birth, beginning the first "artisan" class in history fromthe standpoint of biblical lore. Lamech takes two wives, Adah(the adorned) and Zillah (the tinkling).

Lamech's sons included a nomad, a musician, and a skilledcraftsman. Jabal (produce) was "the father of those who dwell intents and have livestock" (Gen. 4:20). Jabal is thus the fatherof tentmakers and herdsmen. His brother Jubal (sound) was the"father of all those who play the harp and the flute" (4:21).Hence, while the city may have given sanctuary to the accursed, itwas also the beginning of the arts and music. In effect, the cityis birth to both violence and great creativity when it comes toarts and culture. Finally, Zillah, the second wife, gives birthto Tubal-cain (hammering of all kinds of cutting things), whobecomes "the instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron"(4:22).

So, the third son becomes a skilled craftsman, a person ofindustrial skill. It is ironic again, that Cain's descendantswould produce a herdsman, an artist and an industrial craftsman--all from the same family. Cain thus gave birth to both pastoraland urban sons, the artist perhaps moved about in both worlds forinspiration. Tubal-cain's sister was Naamah, which by the way

75

means "lovely or graceful." These were cultivated people of greattaste and high culture.

These early cities were not built perhaps on the properfoundations. Yet, whether historical or theologically inducedstories, the ancient cities were the seeds of civilization,industry, culture, and even agriculture are portrayed as havingbegun in connection with these early cities. The cities are nothere condemned or judged by God, but rather are accepted asmodalities of human community and civilization. Human beings areculture producers, and we do this most significantly in our citieswhere other creative minds dwell.

Then we come to the downside of history. Lamech storms inhis household one day, and calls his two wives. He exclaims:

Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;O wives of Lamech, listen to my speechFor I have killed a man for wounding me,Even a young man for hurting me.If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold (Gen. 4:23-24).

Another tragedy in the Cain household. However, Lamech makes thepoint that, unlike his grandfather, he killed a man in self-defense. Hence, he should be avenged ten times that of hisgrandfather, who committed premeditated murder. The avengement inmind is a connection to sanctuary, for he must now seek a

76

sanctuary city to be protected from retaliation. The story of Lamech argues for the need of "cities of

refuge," a place for a manslayer to go for protection if he killsaccidentally. But, this is not an accidental killing, it israther a killing in self-defense. It is intentional, and doneapparently in a fit of rage. However, Lamech takes out his ownvengeance, he takes the law in his own hands. Despite the city ofhigh culture, of the specialization of labor and of the arts--human sinfulness seems to follow human beings where ever they go.Cities of course can be the setting for both evil, and for thedivine. The problem with the cities is with the people, not withthe setting.

The Cities of NimrodIn the biblical primeval story, God seems to have moved on

from Cain and Able to a third son, Seth. Seth is the replacementfor Abel, and becomes the new descendent and heir of the covenantpromise. While Cain's descendants built a civilization apart fromGod, laying the foundations of human culture, Seth begins a newlineage, building a family as a righteous remnant in a corruptgeneration. The descendants of Seth include Enosh, Jared, Enoch,Methusaleh, Lamech, and Noah. These are prophets who stand instark contrast to the violence of the past. And they are notwithout their cities or other places of settlement and habitation.

77

Noah's sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth were the fathers of thenations (10:1 ff.). The "table of nations" is a list of states,nations and empires, revealing anti-imperial sympathies. It isalso a socio-cultural categorization, just as the sons of Enochprovide such socio-cultural categories. Jabal is the father ofshepherds, tentmakers and nomads; Jubal is the father ofmusicians; and Tubal-cain is the father of craftsmen and smiths.74

If Genesis 1-6 tells the story of the "cultural origins" ofhumankind, the tenth chapter of Genesis depicts the origins oftribes and nations.

Nimrod is a hero and is "probably a king" whose domainincluded Babylonia and Assyria. "Nimrod is probably connectedwith the idea of the first empire."75 The linage of Ham is thelineage of empire and centralized political organizations. Accadand Egypt [Cush] represent the great political organizations[states and empires] of the settled population. Egypt andMesopotamia represent "the settled and politically organizedbranch of civilization, in contrast to the nomads and their tribalconfederations."76 The descendents of Ham, and Canaan, "are thesedentary population of Palestine, 'dwelling in cities which are

74    B. Obed, "The Table of Nations (Gen. 10)-- A Socio-culturalApproach," ZAW, 98 (1986), 17.75    Ibid., 28.76    Ibid.

78

great and walled up to heaven'" (Dt. 1:28).77 Ham also representedperhaps a multicultural element in history. The descendents arenot only a more settled population, but are linked to the blacksoil of the Nile. To make the descendents of Ham a racial tale,or even a tale of judgment is a simplistic interpretation andcharacterization.

Just as Enoch or Cain built a city, so Nimrod, a descendentof Ham, built cities. Ham represents "the agricultural-urbanpopulation and the organized states of the Ancient Near East, incontrast with the nomadic tribes and confederation of tribesrepresented by Shem."78 If Nimrod reigned in northern Iraq, wefind that the sons of Shem end up in cities as well, in SouthernIraq. A son of Ham was Cush, who begat Nimrod, "a mighty hunter inthe earth" (10:9-10). Nimrod was also the mythic harbinger ofempire. His name, "let us revolt," suggests both personal andcollective identification. Nimrod was a gibbor (powerful, mighty)and a sayid (hunter). Whether a single individual or collectivename for the empires, the composite picture of Nimrod is that hewas a "despotic and oppressive tyrant."79 Nimrod, if an

77    Ibid.78  Ibid.79    Kaiser, "A Biblical Theology of the City," 10.

79

individual, was a rebel and a bloodthirsty ruler. His citiesreflected imperial ambition, and were antithetical paradigms ofthe city of God.

The sequence of city names roughly reflects the politicalhistory of Mesopotamia. The cities of Genesis suggest theevolution of a political, economic and cultural hegemony; statecontrol with power concentrated in the hands of the kings orrulers of the great empires. Nimrod's kingdom included severalgreat cities of the time: Babel, the capital of the Babylonians;Erech, a major Sumerian city; and Accad, the capital of theAkkadian Empire. These cities were in the "land of Shinar,"identified as roughly northern and central Mesopotamia. If Nimrodmeans anything, it reflects the biblical writers preoccupationwith great rulers, great empires, and of course, great cities.

The Table of Nations is a remarkable list of 70 (or 71)nations throughout the then known world. They include some thatwe know of, including Egypt and Canaan; and a few that are stillunknown to us, Riphath and Anamim. Probably the best explanationfor the categorization of the nations is geographic. As such, thedescendents of Shem are all nomadic groups, while those of Ham arethe ones that enjoyed settled, urban culture. By contrast, thedescendents of Japheth are said to be seafarers.

The compiler of the table must have had knowlege of a map ofthe region. For Donald E. Gowan:

80

Quite likely such extensive knowledge of the peoples of theworld was the result of commercial activity that brought toIsrael the products of regions far away, and with them the namesand fragments of information about groups the Israelites had neverseen.80

The sons of Noah are Shem, Ham and Japheth--and from themissue the wide variety that becomes the family of nations. Fromthe strain of "Ham" issues the most urban of the tribes. Shem'sfamily is stateless and tribal. Japheth's family is moremaritime. The sons of Japheth "represent the maritime nations,"including the seafarers, island and seashore dwellers, including"Tarshish." "Japheth is the father of all the isles (coastlands)of the nations."81 In Genesis 10, it is Ham's family that is themost cross-cultural, and the group most identified with cities.The mention of celebrated cities, like Uruk, Accad, Ashur,

Calah, Nineveh, each having served as a major capital at onetime or another, is a prominent feature in the list of Ham,especially in the light, of and in contrast to, the tents andunfortified seasonal dwelling of bene Eber. The mention of melecha

80    Donald E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on theBook of Genesis 1-11 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988),112.81    Ibid., 29.

81

(kingdom) denotes well-organized state-societies.82

Calneh and Akkad were located north of Babylon, whereas Erechwas located about 110 miles southeast of Babylon. The "Tower ofBabel" was associated with one of these cities, and the kings thatruled these and subsequent empires were noted for their ferocity,cruelty, idolatry, and sheer terror. Although, archaeologistshave uncovered many such towers or temples on high placesthroughout the ancient middle east.

From Shinar, we note that Nimrod went further north toAssyria, and founded major Assyrian cities, including Nineveh,Calneh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resin.83 The last three wereperhaps "suburbs" of Nineveh, a huge city at the time. Thesecities are also the legendary capitals of the great empires.Hence, Nimrod is the legendary founder of the major cities of theSumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian Empires. Indeed, theearly civilizations were not just great empires, but were alsocenters of civilization, urban civilization.

Mesopotamian cities can almost be said to be coterminous withthe underlying conditions for civilized life as itmaterialized there. At the heart of cities were large,interlocking institutions administered by relatively self-conscious elites, whose thoughts and activities as individualsalone have come down to us through the clay tablets they left.82    Obed, 27.83    Genesis 10:8-12.

82

Only in the cities were to be found the monumentalrepositories of religious belief and tradition. Also virtuallylimited to an urban context were capabilities for abstract thoughtand hence for complex, long range decision-making, insofar asthese presupposed literacy and corporate, transmissiblememories embodied in written archives. Finally, it was citiesthat offered a strictly relative but still decisive degree ofprotection against natural disaster and military threat.84

The cities mentioned in Genesis 10 are said to be found byNimrod, the descendent of Ham. Yet, there is much debate aboutthe identity of Nimrod. Some say he was Sargon the Great, whoreigned from 2371 to 2316 BC. Others say that "Nimrod" must havepreceded Sargon, identifiable with the gods Marduk or Ninurta whowas also known as a slayer of monsters.85

Perhaps the name Nimrod, meaning "we will revolt," symbolizesthe actions of all of the great empires combined, and doesn'trefer to a particular person at all. However, the name hassurvived down to the present. The prophet Micah called the landof the Assyrians, the land of Nimrod, and one of the major cities,Calah, today is called "Nimrud," likely after the "mighty hunter"of Genesis. Nimrod is perhaps the collective name for Babylonian-Assyrian imperialism. If so, then the critique of cities in the84    Robert McC. Adams, Heartland of Cities: Surveys of AncientSettlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 248.85    K. van der Toorn and P.W. van der Horst, "Nimrod Before andAfter the Bible," Harvard Theological Review 83 (1990), 9-10.

83

table of nations has more to do with a critique of empires, andthe capital cities from whence tyrants ruled.

Genesis also has other depictions of biblical cities,notably, Babylon, as "Babel," which literally means the "gate ofGod," and the five cities of the plain, which includes not onlySodom and Gomorrah, but also Admah, Zebooim and Zoar. The firstfour cities were destroyed, and only Zoar, thanks to the plea ofLot, was spared. Ezekiel says that the reason that Sodom andGomorrah was destroyed was due to the cities' lack of compassionfor the poor and the vulnerable, and the practice of socialinjustice.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom, she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease,

but did not aid the poor and the needy. They were haughty and didabominable things before me, therefore I removed them (Ezek 16:49-50).

The name Nimrod, means "we will revolt," not the mostfavorable of descriptions. Nimrod became a mighty warrior, andwas able to assemble an empire, having subjugated the neighboringtribes under his authority. “Nimrod the hunter became Nimrod atyrant, a mighty hunter of men."86

Nimrod established an empire with several cities. Accordingto biblical legend, Nimrod was the founder of the great empires of

86    Keil and Deiltizch, Commentary on the Old Testament, I, 166.84

the Ancient Near East together with their prominent cities. Thesecities included Babel, Erech, Accad, Calneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir,Calah, and Resen. In short, the Sumerian, Babylonian, Akkadian,and Assyrian empires, according to Genesis, stem from Nimrod thefather of nations and empires, and their leading cities.

Mimrod, whose name means "rebelliousness," is themythological founder of an urban-based imperialism that sought totranscend the more localized city-state system. It was Nimrod whowas the founder, presumably by conquest, of an empire of cities.Nimrod sought to overcome by military might the divisions ofmankind, seeking to establish the first totalitarian state andall-encompassing empire, a realm controlled less by law andreason, and more by brute political and material force justifiedon the basis of an enforced civil religion.

In Micah, Assyria is called "the land of Nimrod" (Micah 5:6).It may be possible to read that the latter four cities, formed thegreat city, a tetrapolis, or that the "principle city" refers toonly one of the four cities. But, is it Resen or Nineveh, or allfour cities that the author has in mind?

Scholars vary as to the identification of Nimrod. Somebelieve that Nimrod was a mythological character and this was away of explaining the origins of the empires and of civilization.Others believe that Nimrod a separate personality predating theSumerian and Akkadian kings. Some interpreters are even more

85

specific, and conjecture that Nimrod is to be identified with oneof these kings, notably King Sargon the Great (ca 2600 BC).

Regardless, it is clear that the biblical writer(s) had greatcontempt for these empires and cities. They seem to represent theworst of imperialism, militarism, barbarism, and the abuse ofpower. These empires hardly represented the city that Abraham washoping to find.

Imperial CitiesWe will return to Babylon and Nineveh, but first lets look at

the other cities. Erech is the ancient city (Gen. 10:10; Ezek.4:9), known also as Uruk, one of the most important cities inancient Sumeria, a city state. Uruk was biblical Ereck, andmodern Warka. It has been identified as about 175 miles SE ofBaghdad, and was excavated in 1912 by the German Orient Society.87

Uruk was well known for it pottery, that was made from redclay, as well as some in black and grey. The pottery waspolished, but not painted. Here is likely the origin of theziggurat, the religious shrine of the ancient Sumerians. A WhiteTemple at the top of a mountain or hill was discovered, a typicalarchitectural pattern in Mesopotamia.88 The White Temple replaced87    This is summarized by R. North, "Status of WarkaExcavations," Orientalia 26 (1957): 185-256.88    Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (London: George Allen and Unwin,Ltd., 1964), 75.

86

six other temples below it, dating to the fourth millennium BC. Cylinder seals were also first found at Uruk, as a sign of

property ownership, and this practice continued in use for anotherthree thousand years. However, the most important contribution ofthe Uruk culture was the introduction of writing. The people ofUruk began a proto-literate pictographic form of writing withmonosyllabic word pictures, with one sign representing one idea.A precursor to cuneiform, the pictures later began to representnot just concrete symbols, but abstract concepts as well.89

Uruk also developed a system of paved roads made oflimestone. The city was later overshadowed by Ur, Abraham'shometown, but managed to survive as a city through the Persianperiod with occupation for over 4,000 years.

The next city mentioned in Genesis 10 is the city of Accad,later the capital of the Akkadian Empire. Akkad is the one royalcity not yet identified by Archaeologists. We know of itsexistence only from texts. In the Bible, Akkad was one of fourcities built by Nimrod "in the land of Shinar." The mostimportant ruler of Akkad was Sargon, who ruled from 2371 to 2316BC. Akkadia was the northern section of Babylonian, between theEuphrates and Tigris rivers, and is believed to be located amongsome ruins about 15 miles south of Baghdad. Sumeria was thesouthern half of Babylonia. When "the land of Akkad and Sumer" is

89    Roux, Ancient Iraq, 78.87

mentioned together, it suggests the area that was roughlycoextensive with Babylonia.

The Sumerian texts refer to Akkad as "Agade." Akkadian isnow used as a name for Semitic Assyrian and Babylonian languages.However, although the Sumerian and Akkadian languages wereslightly different, other aspects of culture including the systemof government, trade and commerce, and social organization seemedto be virtually identical. "The Akkadian domination in Sargonictimes altered the course of history; [but] it did notfundamentally alter the predominantly Sumerian character ofMesopotamian civilization."90

The Akkadians were distinct from the Sumerians, and had theirown language and capital city. Babylonian and Assyrian languagesemerged as dialects of Akkadian. Texts of the Akkadic period showthat this ancient language contained some of the earliest knownparallels to the Hebrew language. Such phrases as "king of theworld," or "king of kings" may be found. The texts also reveal acomplex society which mixed Sumerian and Semitic characteristics.The Akkadians were engaged in both agriculture and in trade andcommerce. Like most of these early civilizations, the city-statedominated the early political and economic practices, and theofficial religious cult and temple dominated the society. The

90    Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq (London: George Allen and Unwin,Ltd., 1964), 140.

88

texts reveal some details about economic relationships, withrecords of sales, leases, and inventories of goods.

Trade and travel over great distances are chronicled, as theAkkadians dominated the middle-east economically. Sargon'smilitary exploits are also well known, and his conquests extendedto Susa (Elam) to the northeast, and Syria to the West, a vastempire.91 Was Sargon "Nimrod the mighty hunter?"

He called himself "King of Universal Dominion," and ruled asmall portion of Mesopotamia. Historians call him "the Great,"for he invaded many cities, captured much booty, and killedmany men. Among his victims was Lugal-zaggasi . . . who haddespoiled Lagash and violated it goddess; him Sargon defeatedand carried off to Nippur in chains. East and west, north andsouth the mighty warrior marched, conquering Elam, washing hisweapons in symbolic triumph in the Persian Gulf, crossing westernAsia, reaching the Mediterranean, and establishing the first greatempire in history. For fifty- five years he held sway, whilelegend gathered about him and prepared to make him a god. Hisreign closed with all his empire in revolt.92

The political and economic hegemony of the region was reallynot broken until the conquest of Alexander the Great, fully two

91    Roux, Ancient Iraq, 142.92    Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage. The Story ofCivilization I (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935), 121-122.

89

millennia after the Akkad's golden years. Naram-Sin, a grandsonof Sargon, was one of the most famous emperors in the history ofthe Ancient Near East. Even Nebuchadnezzer, 1500 years later,would acknowledge the inscriptions, and deities of Akkadian kings."The Akkadians introduced into world culture many notions ofpolitics, laws, trade, and social organization, along with agraphic representation of Semite speech and a new realism in art"93

By 2230 BC, the Akkadian Empire was in disarray, and severalSumerian cities, once beholden to the Akkadians, becameindependent, as King Shar Kali Sharri was killed in a palacerevolution. The fall of Akkadia, like the empires after it,followed similar cycles, rapid expansion, ceaseless rebellions,palace revolutions, wars on the frontiers, and defeat by thehighlanders seeking to crush the cities of the Shinar plain, andits booty.94 Yet, this was the political and economic context ofAbrhaham, and perhaps also the context for our Book of Genesis.

However, the Sumerian-Akkadian culture, begun of legend byNimrod, left a rich legacy for Israel, and it was an urban legacy,a legacy of an advanced civilization. First, the spread oflanguage, with a Semitic flavoring would prepare the way for thecoming of Hebrew.

93    William White, Jr., "Akkad," New International Dictionary ofBiblical Archaeology, 14.94  Roux, Ancient Iraq, 147.

90

Second, like Alexander the Great later, Sargon the Greatcreated an empire with many shared assumptions about the world,and social organization, from the tip of Babylonia, to Iran, AsiaMinor, and the Syria-Lebanon, and possibly even as far as Cyprus.Third, the Akkadians spread throughout the ancient Near east theiradvanced culture, with implements of bronze, wood, silver andstone. Politically, the Akkadian Empire symbolized the transitionfrom small city-states to large empires, and finally, Sargonintroduced a written code of law.95

Genesis ten is thus in reality a critique of the greatempires. Genesis portrays the origins of the great empires andthe capitals of the major city-states as rooted in idolatry whilesymbolizing great power. The Tower of Babel is an explicitcritique of urban imperialism. It is the biblical critique of atotalitarian state with its strong urban center as capital.

The Tower of BabelPerhaps the most incisive critique of empire and urban

imperialism is the story of the Tower of Babel. The story of theTable of Nations in Genesis ten and the Babel story are closelyconnected. Although some scholars might question if the storiesshould be reversed. Genesis 10 indicates the dispersion ofnations as the natural result of the spread of the descendents of

95    Roux, 148.91

Noah's three sons. By way of contrast, the Tower of Babel storysuggests that the dispersion of nations was due to judgement ofGod on the attempt of the leaders to forge an all encompassinguniversal city.

The Tower of Babel is, of course, a parody of pretension.While the story of Babel begins with all humankind united as asingle people. This is in contradiction to the listing of some 70nations and cities in the previous chapter. The storyteller liftsup the unity of the human race, an exaggerated presumption thatthe "whole inhabited earth" had come to the Plain of Shinar.

However, "Babel" was not the only city, although theresidents perhaps thought so. They were intent, as Athenians andRomans were in subsequent eras, to develop a city that wouldcapture human imagination and envy. In Roman times, it was theApostle Paul who, ironically, said, "I must see Rome." The seerof Revelation would designate Rome as the mythological "Babylon",the great perversion of the ideal city. Babel was perhaps thefirst attempt to create the universal, imperial city.

Then they said, "Come let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name forourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the

earth" (Gen. 11:4). It is interesting to see that the builders donot look for stones as they might in Egypt, but rather to brick-making. This is accurate, as in Babylonia stones were not readily

92

available, and Mesopotamian cultures were known to have developedgreat skill in the firing of bricks and brick-making.

This has significance in that "fire is universally the symbolof the arts and crafts, of technology. Through the

controlled use of fire's transforming power, human beings areabout to alter the world, presumably because, as it is, it isinsufficient for human need. Imitating God's creation of man outof the dust of the ground the human race begins its own project ofcreation by warming and transforming portions of the earth."96

Babel is the attempt to build the universal city, the utopiandream. "The building of the city and the tower is an expressionof powerful human impulses, at first toward safety and permanence,eventually toward full independence and self-sufficiency, andaccomplished entirely by rational and peaceful means."97 But, itis not only the attempt to build a city. Babel is also noted forthe attempt of its builders to develop a "common language," andthe religious goal of building the tower. While the city saysmuch about the builders, it is the tower and the desire to forge acommon language that says much more. There is nothing in thestory that represents "a thorough-going anti-urban point of view,

96    Kass, "What's Wrong with Babel?" 47.97    Leon R. Kass, "What's Wrong with Babel?" American Scholar 58 (Winter, 1989), 42.

93

as some scholars have claimed."98

Nor is Babel just any city. It is rather "the paradigmaticor universal city, representing a certain universal humanaspiration."99 Such aspirations reoccur throughout human history.The Rome of the golden age, the Berlin of Hitler's archtect andconfident, Albert Speer. Babel is the sharing of a common view ofthe world, not unlike the forced harmony of Alexander's empire,networked by the polis, the Greek city. And, just as Alexanderattempted to create an empire with its center in the city, so thebuilders of Babel strive for such preeminence.

More than just a human artifact, Babel is also noted by theTower, a place of religious significance. The meaning of the cityis inextricably connected with the presence of the tower. Towersin Babylonia characterized Sumerian and Babylonian cities. TheZiggurats were the religious and cultural creations of theMesopotamians. Babel is thus not just an attempt to build a cityand a secular society, for the tower suggests a deeper symbolicmeaning for this city.

Thus it is clear that the Tower of Babel story does not deal with the people's attempt to build a secular society in their

"valiant self-reliance" and "will to fame." Worship of gods lay

98    Donald E. Gowan, From Eden to Bethel: A Commentary onGenesis 1-11 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988), 117.99    Ibid., 46.

94

at the heart of Babel's life, as the tower attests."100 The towerof Babel thus has cultic significance, for it was a means ofreaching out to and worshipping a Mesopotamian deity. Babel was auniversal city with political power, economic significance, andreligious meaning.

The universal city has its appeal. In the ancient world, itwas in the city where one found peace and security. Thewilderness was the place of threat of nature, wild beasts andraiding tribes. Cities seemed to be places where one might besafe and secure. The Tower of Babel story "encapsulates arecurrent human dream of universal human community living in peaceand freedom no longer at the mercy of an inhospitable or hostilenature, and enjoying life no longer solitary, nasty, poor,brutish, and short. The universal city is the embodiment of thisdream."101

The issue is not the building of the city, but it is with thebuilders who wanted to "make a name for themselves." The issue ispretension, the human desire not just to scale the heavens, but tomanipulate the deities so as to justify human action. The writeris concerned of where the builder's design might lead. Speaking100    Robert B. Laurin, "The Tower of Babel Revisited," in:Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of WilliamSanford LaSor, Edited by Gary A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids: WilliamB. Eerdmans, 1978), 143.101    Ibid.

95

for Yahweh: "Now nothing will be restrained from them which theyhave imagined to do" (Gen. 11:6). We know in the twentiethcentury the danger of unrestrained human imagination. One mightonly mention what happened at Auschwitz, or the nuclear holocauststhat faced two German cities. Unrestrained imagination and theabuse of power is potentially very destructive.

God does not approve of such unrestrained power, nor does Godsupport unrlimited imaginings and desires. The problem at Babelis more than just the building of a city. It is a problem ofunrestrained power, irreverence, and unrestrained humanimaginations that could potentially lead to destruction. Theproblem is human arrogance and pride, trust in technology, humanself-sufficiency and autonomy, and worst of all, the will topower. For Kass, "the city of man . . . is at best a form ofidolatry, and at worst, a great threat to the earth."102

According to Donald E. Gowan, cities in the ancient world aremost clearly the expression of power, political, religious andeconomic. Babel stands as the archetypical imperial city, and assuch stands under divine judgment. In the ancient world the citywas the first and the most obvious example of the human ability toconcentrate talent and resources so as to multiply power--commercial, political, social, and religious power. But thestory [Tower of Babel] does not represent a thoroughgoing,

102    Ibid.96

anti-urban point of view, for that would be out of harmony withthe general outlook of the Bible as well. The city isrecognized in scripture as a great human accomplishment, where thebest that we can produce may be found.103 The issue is power andthe abuse of power in urban-centered imperial civilizations. Theabuse of power, not just the phenomenon of the city, is clearlythe root cause of social dilemmas such as the awful affliction ofpain, suffering, injustice and he exploitation of people andnature.

The problem with Babel is that it is the paradigm of thetotal state. It is the pretension of power through an urbanimperialism. This is not the only time this theme will surface inthe biblical texts. This is a recurrent theme. When a stateasserts itself to become totalitarian, it receives the wrath ofGod. "Babylon" is brought low in the prophets (Is. 14: 1-21; Ezk.28: 1-19). The pride of nations leads to a great fall. This istrue not only o "Babel," but all the nations and empires thatfurnish the historical context of biblical history.104

The theme of Genesis is that nothing stands outside the realm

103    Donald E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on theBook of Genesis 1-11 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988),119.104    For an elaboration of this theme, see Donald E. Gowan, WhenMan Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament (Pittsburg: The Pickwick Press, 1975).

97

of the Creator. The elements, the astral bodies, the actions ofhuman beings and the flow of history are all subject to the willof the Creator. Genesis is also a judgment on failed humanexperiences: the revolt in the Garden, Cain's murder, the greatFlood, and here, the Tower of Babel. These are all failedexperiments at human autonomy and lawlessness. "The story of thecity and the tower of Babel is the culmination of this sequence;it shows the impossibility of transmitting the right way throughthe universal, technological, secular city."105

Another problem is that the builders boasted in having only"one language." Is this a slap at cultural diversity and thedifficulties with a multicultural society? Biblical scholarBernhard W. Anderson and the Roman Catholic writer Andrew Greelycelebrate a multicultural society, and appeal to Babel asjustification for this posture. Greely has called for a "theologyof pluralism" that celebrates ethnic and racial diversity, notjust in the four corners of the world, "but just down thestreet."106

For Greely, to be an American is not to be absorbed into ahomogenized society. Rather, the view of American government and

105    Kass, "What's Wrong with Babel?," 44.106    Andrew Greely, quoted in Bernhard W. Anderson, "Unity andDiversity in God's Creation: A Study of the Babel Story," inCurrents in Theology and Mission 5 (April, 1978), 70.

98

of democracy is that a government is the creation of a multitudeof groups and factions, through which individuals and groupsparticipate and discover a common life. However flawed, theAmerican experiment has solved the problem of ethnic and racialpluralism through political means. This is very different fromthe recent painful experience of the former Yugoslavia and inPalestine.

For Anderson, the plurality of Genesis ten is more normativethan the forced harmony of Babel. Babel is important "for ourcommon humanity," on the one hand, " and for the manifoldpluralism in the Creator's purpose," on the other hand.107 Rather,the tower portrays in one story God's rebuke of totalitarianismand the hope that a future city would realize not a homogenizedhumanity, but a human "diversity in unity."108

Subsequent biblical history is a rebuke to Babel. Abrahambecomes a father of many nations, for "all the nations of theworld" would be blessed in him (Gen. 17:5). Jerusalem, the idealcity of David and Solomon would be a "light to the nations." InIsaiah, "all the nations" will come to Zion to learn of the law ofGod. God would "judge between the nations, and shall decide formany peoples; and they shall beat their swords intoplowshares. . ., nation shall not lift up sword against nation,107    Ibid.108    Ibid., 71.

99

neither shall they learn war any more: (Is. 2:2-4). Hence, thedivine will is for a peace between many nations, not a forceduniformity based on military might and imperial expansion.

In the New Testament, the many nations came to Jerusalem onthe Day of Pentecost, only the gospel in their own language (Acts2: 5-12). These included "Medes, Elamites and residents ofMesopotamia," a clear repudiation of Babel. Further, the gospelaccording to Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, was one that wouldtranscend racial and ethnic barriers. For, such barriers would bebroken down in the gospel, and there would be "neither Jew norGreek, barbarian nor Scythian, male nor female," but a new nationin Christ. The gospel celebrates unity and diversity (I Cor. 12),a clear rejection of the forced uniformity of Babylonianimperialism.

For Anderson, the Babel story contains a particular thrust."Man strives to maintain unity, God's action effects diversity.Man seeks for a center, God counters with dispersion. Man wantsto be safe with homogeneity, God welcomes pluralism."109 InGenesis, "diversity" is not a condemnation. The thrust of Genesisis that variety has its source in the creator. "Ethnic pluralism"is welcomed as a blessing from God, just as we rejoice in the richvariety of the non-human creation such as the trees, animals, and

109    Ibid. 100

astral bodies.110

Looking backward to Genesis 10, the sons of Noah had alreadyproliferated into a diversity of peoples that were dispersedgeographically. Looking forward, Abraham of Ur represents the newparadigm. Abraham was "uprooted" from his home in Mesopotamia.He became "Abraham" as the "father of many nations." In the bookof Revelation, it is a diverse humanity that comes "from everynation, from all the tribes and peoples and tongues" to thekingdom of God and ultimately to the New Jerusalem (Rev. 7:9-12;21: 23-26).

To prevent the universal city, without foundations, Godintervened. God did not topple the tower on the people. Rather,God dispersed the people, scattering the people over the surfaceof the whole earth so that they had to stop building thisparticular city. Babel thus became not the "gate of the gods,"but Balal in Hebrew, meaning confusion. The people were scatteredfrom this metropolitan-religious center. Ultimately, the Babelstory is the story of a struggle for power, between competingreligions, and between man and God the creator.111

What caused the dispersion? There is some evidence that theBabel story and the dispersion of the people is connected with aparticular historical event. According to N. N. Sarna, the "fall110    Ibid., 79.111    Ibid., 73.

101

of Babel" is related to the founding of the First Dynasty ofBabylon. "The Bible deliberately selected the mighty city ofBabylon with its famed Temple of Marduk as the scene for a satireon paganism, its notions, muthology and religious forms."112

However, Dale S. Dewitt disagrees. DeWitt argues that thehistorical context for the Babel story is not the First Dynasty ofBabylonia, but the fall of the Third dynasty of Ur. It was thesack of Ur by the Elamites that constituted "the event that markedthe end of Sumerian civilization about 1960 BC."113 This authormakes a strong case that "Babel" is not a reference to a laterBabylon, but to a contemporary Ur. "The disintegration and mixingof the language," he writes, " reached its climax with theinvading Semites and the fall of Sumerian civilizationcorresponding to the overthrow of Ur III in about 1960 BC."114

In this line of thinking, the "dispersion of peoples" is thuslinked to an invasion, and the resulting scattering of [Sumerian]people to the far corners. References to fleeing peoples and theaccompanying horror and terror as a result of invasion and

112    N.M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: McGraw-Hill,1966), 74.113    Dale S. DeWitt, "The Historical Background of Genesis 11:1-9: Babel or Ur?," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (March, 1979), 17.114    Ibid., 20.

102

conquest is a major theme of texts that describe the fall of Ur.Following the view of John Bright, it is the fall of Ur that isthe historical context for the Babel story, as well as the storyof Abraham and the beginnings of the patriarchal era.115

There is just good reason for placing the story of the Towerof Babel between the Table of Nations and the call of Abraham. AsJack M. Sasson puts it:

In placing that tale [Babel] after the Table of Nations, thecompiler not only succeeded in recapturing a pattern (Gen. 1-6:18)with a clear goal and message, but was able to show how the birthof the Hebrew nation occurred at a junction in history crucial tothe future relationship between God and man. It is at this point,the Redactor implies, that God, despairing over recalcitrant manbut no longer wishing to destroy him, focused . . . hopes in acovenant with Abra(ha)m, ancestor of the Chosen People."116

115    Ibid., 25; and, John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959 edition), 34-36.116    Jack M. Sasson, "The 'Tower of Babel' as a Clue to theRedactional Structuring of the Primeval History," in: The BibleWorld: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, edited by GaryRendsburg, etal (New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1980),219.

103

Chapter IVUrbanization in Palestine at the Time of Abraham

Palestine and Canaan at the time of Abraham was experiencinga virtual urban revolution.

Abraham and the Lost City of UrIn Hebrews, the patriarch Abraham, an urban refugee, is

depicted as leaving his homeland in search of a city. However,104

Abraham's quest was conditioned by what was happening in his ownlifetime in his native Ur of the Chaldees. Ur had just beensacked by the Elamites forcing the migration of peoples, urbanpeoples, westward. Abraham and his family were among thoserefugees. With the fall of Ur, Abraham was on a quest--not foranother pagan city, but for a city that reflected moreintentionally the divine will.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance, and he went

out, not knowing where he was to go. By faith he sojourned inthe land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents withIsaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For helooked forward to the city which has foundations, whose

builder and maker is God (Heb. 11: 8-10).

In the book of Genesis, the major cities of the Ancient NearEast are mentioned. It seems that the whole context of the tableof nations and the "tower of Babel" was written to make sense ofthe problem of urban imperialism and the abuse of power. Thewriter thought that cities like Babylon and Nineveh were noted foridolatry and cruelty.

Abraham was born in Ur, the capital of the Sumerian empire.Sumerian civilization was essentially an urban civilization. Urwas not only the capital of the Sumerian Empire, but was thehometown of Abraham. The city was situated in SouthernMesopotamia, along the Euphrates River. Abraham was born in Ur,

105

and his father Terah, took his family out of the city to gotowards the North, after the death of Abraham's brother, Haran.According to Sir Leonard Wooley, archaeologist of the city, Ur wasa city of 250,000 inhabitants in 2000 BC.117

Wooley also demonstrated that this city was inhabited from4000 to 300 BC, and was the center of Sumerian culture. The thirddynasty of Ur (ca 2113 to 2006), very likely the time of thewanderings of Abraham, is called by Georges Roux "one of the mostbrilliant periods in the history of ancient Iraq," for the periodwas noted as the time when Ur-Nammu, the King, restored theAkkadian Empire, gave Mesopotamia a century of relative peace andprosperity, and ushered in a renaissance of Sumerian art andculture.118

Abraham, an ancient Iraqi refugee, thus very likely began hiswestward movement during a "pax Ur," one of the golden ages ofancient civilization. Ur was a prosperous religious andcommercial center. Archaeologists have unearthed a highlyadvanced civilization with clay documents, jewelry, crafts, china,and crystal. Ur was also the center of a pagan theocracy, and wasgoverned by the Moon God. In the third dynasty, Ziggurats were

117    Sir Leonard Wooley, Excavations at Ur: A Record of TwelveYears' Work (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1954); Ur of theChaldees, (1929).118    Roux, Ancient Iraq, 149-150.

106

built by King Ur-Nammu, with large temples set on raised terraces.Abraham, thus, likely left Ur for the West, settling ultimately inthe frontier regions, outside the reach of the Sumerian Empire.

And, why the ziggurats? A vigorous debate has occurredtrying to explain the importance of such towers. Some say thatthe towers were observatories for Chaldean astronomers. Otherssay that the Sumerians were originally mountain people, and in theabsence of mountains in the cities on the plain, built towers asreligious altars.

Others suggest that the towers allowed the main god to beelevated above the other gods of the city. Still others believethat the tower was built with a staircase, allowing the gods andpriests to meet when religious ceremonies occurred. The latterexplanation seems the best explanation for the religious mind ofthe Sumerians, as well as the story of the Tower of Babel inGenesis eleven. The ziggurats were "prayers of bricks." Theyextended to the gods a permanent invitation to descend on earth atthe same time they expressed one of man's most remarkable effortsto rise above his miserable condition and to establish closercontacts with the divinity.119

Ur-Nammu, was also a social reformer, as he initiated reformsto regulate weights and measures and to protect widows and orphansleft alone by disaster or disease. The King also had the

119    Roux, Ancient Iraq, 153.107

reputation of modeling out justice, which had as a goal"restitution," rather than punishment, being very humanitarian,similar to the laws later put together in the Old TestamentPentateuch. Ur-Nammu may not have worshipped the right God, buthe seemed to have some understanding of what God wanted, acommunity dedicated to social justice and mercy for the poor andvulnerable. This would become a major theme in the whole of theOld Testament.

Abraham thus came from an advanced urban society, the mostprominent city of the time, under the "Gorbachev" of theSumerians. It was a civilization noted for its architecture, art,culture, literature, and advanced legal system. Unfortunately, itwas also known for its idolatry, materialism, and it neverresolved the uneasy tensions with neighboring tribes whoeventually overtook the city in 1900 BC.

Perhaps it was the idolatry, perhaps the threat of war, orperhaps it was the opportunities of a pax Sumeria that led Terahto leave Ur for Northern Mesopotamia (Gen. 11:31). Haran, brotherof Abraham, died and was buried in Ur. Abraham's family thus hadroots in this center of ancient civilization. Terah apparantlybuilt his own city, and named it after Abrahaham's brother.

Terah called the city he founded in Northern Mesopotamia"Haran," after his son, in essence erecting a city in his memory.This is the "other strand" of biblical urban history to that of

108

Cain and Lamech. Abraham's immediate forebears in Mesopotamia taketheir names from cities that were to be found in Haran, "animportant city along the Balikh River in northwesternMesopotamia."120 Serug, Abraham's great grandfather (Gen. 11:22-26; I Chron. 1:26), was also the name of a city between Haran andthe River Euphrates. This city is also mentioned in cuneiformdocuments and later became an important Christian center."121

Nahor, the name of Abraham's grandfather and brother, "wasalso the name of a city located southeast of Haran on the upperBalikh River." It was also a prominent city [Nakhur] at the timeof Zimri-Lim of Mari in the eighteenth century BC.122 Finally,Abraham's father, Terah, was the name of a city in the BalikhRiver basin "known as Tilsha-Turakhi or Til-Turakhi in the ninthcentury cuneiform records." The name of Abraham, Haran, issimilar to but not identical to the name of the city of Haran(Haran, not Charan [hard H]). Thus, the immediate ascendents ofthe patriarch are all linked to ancient cities.

Also, Abraham's relatives are also identified with some of120    P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "The Historical Abraham,"Interpretation 42 (1988), 343.121    Roland de Vaux, "The Hebrew Patriarchs and ModernDiscoveries," Revue Biblique 53 (1946): 321-48; 55 (1948): 321-47;56 (1949): 5-36; especially 55 (1948), 324.122    E.G. Kraeling, "Terach," Zeitschrift for AlttestamentlichWissenschaft 40 (1922-1923): 153-154.

109

the major tribal groups in the region. Nahor's sons, for example,are identifiable with the twelve Aramaen tribes that settledwithin the Syrian desert. Haran's son, Lot, was the father ofMoab and Ben-ammi, the ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites(Gen. 19:37-38). These nations were all known as the "children ofLot' (Dt. 2:9, 19; Ps. 83:9). In essence, much of the internalpolitics of Palestine during the Judges and the kings, were reallyfamily squabbles.

Abraham's own descendents fall in three groups. Theseinclude the Ishmaelites (Arabs); the descendents of Isaac (theEdomites and the Israelites); and those descended from the sons ofKaturah (various Arab tribes). Abraham's sons by Hagar andKeturah were sent "to the east," that is to Arabia.123

In contrast to the other patriarchal names, Abraham is nevermentioned as a tribal or geographical designation. He is onlyreferred to as an individual. Abram or Abiram was a common name in the Late Bronze Age.Historically, Abraham in Palestine is associated geographicallywith the Judean hill country around the ancient city of Hebron,

123    For more information, see F.w. Winnett, "The ArabianGeneologies in the Book of Genesis," in Translating andUnderstanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of H.G. May (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970); and J.A. Montgomery, Arabiaand the Bible (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania,1934).

110

the traditional capital of Judah (Gen. 13:18; 14:13; 18:1). Lot'shome was associated closely with the Cities of the Plain, citiesalso with whom Abraham had close contact. The direct lineage ofAbraham thus derived from urban settlements, and were attached tourban settlements in Canaan. Hagar was probably an Egyptian, andIshmael's descendents were nomadic, unlike that of Sarah's.124

Abraham, wanting to strike out on his own, moved West towardsPalestine, taking with him Haran's son, Lot (Gen. 11:27). Whatmotivated Abraham to leave, is another matter of conjecture. TheBook of Hebrews helps us a bit, saying that he left, "seeking acity, who's builder and maker is God" (Heb. 11:8-19). If Hebrewswas right, Abraham's exodus was not a pastoral mandate, for he waslooking for a city. Indeed, his practice in Palestine showslittle antipathy for urban environments. Abraham's faith,advanced for the time, was clearly monotheistic, very differentfrom the polytheism of his contemporaries. He believed that Godwas the Lord of the Cosmos (Gen. 14:22; 24:3); the supreme judgeof humankind (15:14; 18:25); Lord of Nature (18:14; 19:24; 20:17);highly exalted (14:22); and eternal (21:33).

Most significantly, Abraham believed that through his seed hewould create a new people, a holy people, and that all the nations

124    Lawrence E. Stager, "The Archaeology of the Tamily inAncient Israel, " Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch 260 (1985): 1-35, esp. p. 3.

111

of the earth would benefit (Gen 12:1-3). This was a promise thatAbraham never forgot. Even though he was tempted to sacrifice hisown son, yet a covenant became the basis of a new nation and a newreligion. Abraham's faith was a faith shared by his nephew, Lot,and on this faith, a new civilization and a new religion was born,with Yahweh as King.

This was indeed very timely, for it was just as about thetime that Abraham was starting a new civilization and a new peoplein Canaan that Ur was being destroyed by neighboring tribes. Thegolden age of the Neo Sumerian empire had come to a halt in about2006 BC. A Lamentation for the city was uttered.

O Father Nanna, that city into ruins was made . . .Its people, not potsherds, filled the sides;Its walls were breached; the people groan.In its lofty gates, where they were wont to promenade,

dead bodies were lying about;In its boulevards, where the feasts were celebrated,

scattered they lay.In all its streets, where they were wont to promenade,

dead bodies were lying about;In its places, where the festivities of the land took place,

the people lay in heaps...Ur - its weak and its strong perished through hunger;

112

Mothers and fathers who did not leave their houseswere overcome by fire;

The young lying on their mother's laps,like fish were carried off by the waters;

In the city, the wife was abandoned, the son was abandoned,the possessions were scattered about.

O Nanna, Ur has been destroyed, its people have been

dispersed.125

Pray for the CityPatriarchs, prophets, kings, priests, and apostles all looked

for the good city, and they sought to create the good city in manydifferent ways. As Abraham left Ur, and later Haran, he toolooked for the good city, the city whose builder and maker wasGod. Instead of the good city, Abraham found, in Sodom andGomorrah, the oppression and injustice that worried most of theprophets. His tactic was simple, he pled his cause for thecities. Abraham tried to stop the destruction of the city.

"Would you also destroy the righteous with the wicked,"questioned Abraham? What if fifty righteous were found, would thecity be spared? To this, the Lord said fine, if fifty could befound, or forty-five, or thirty, or even ten. But none save the

125    Cited in Roux, Ancient Iraq, 163.113

family of Lot could be found as righteous. So the cities wereeventually destroyed. However, Lot didn't escape to thecountryside, he escaped to another city, the city of Zoar (Gen.19:22); although later he had to leave Zoar for the mountains(Gen. 19:30). Nonetheless, because of Lot's pleading, Zoar wasspared the devestation.

Cities of the PlainThis is a term used for five cities on the South end of the

Dead Sea (Gen. 14:2). Because of their evils, four of the fivecities were destroyed, only Zoar escaping total destruction. Thecities destroyed included Sodom and Gomorrah, Adman, and Zeboiim.At one time, the Cites of the Plain rested on one of the mostfertile and rich soil in the whole region. Now the region istotally barren.

Sodom and Gomorrah. Two of the five cities of the plain thatare mentioned throughout the OT and in the NT, reputed for theirwickedness and sins of rebellion against God (Gen. 10:19; Rom.9:29). Sodom wa part of the pentapolis of the plain, a circlearound the Jordan River at the base of the Dead Sea (Gen. 13:10;14:2). The Plain was once rich, "watered everywhere," (Gen.13:10), but the region was wasted when the cities were destroyed.Some scholars believe that the cities lay under the shallow endthe Dead Sea. Zoar, was the only city to survive, and was visibleto Josephus during the first century AD. In the NT, as well as

114

the OT, Sodom and Gomorrah were parables of divine judgement forcorporate wickedness. The ill-fated cities reminded hearers ofthe consequences of wickedness, and that cities as corporateentities could be judged, just as individuals who comprised thesecities. (Is. 1:9-10; Ezek. 16: 46-49; Amos 4:11; Rom. 9:29).

According to Ezekiel, Sodom's sin was that she failed to carefor the poor and needy, despite ostentatious wealth and plenty(Ezk. 16:49). The area shows evidence of earthquakes, and violentexplosions in the distant past, and repositories of salt, asphalt,and sulphur are found in large quantities in the region, tendingto give some credence to the biblical stories.

Zoar was the only one of the five cities to be spared ofdestruction. It was a smaller city, and provided a place ofrefuge for Lot, who intervened for the city. For this reason, thecity was spared (Gen. 19:22-23; 30). Zoar's original name wasBela, and it had its own king (Gen. 13:10; 14:2, 8). Zoar stillexisted in the days of the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (Is. 15:5;Jer. 48:34). Zoar existed in the days of Josephus (Antiquities xiii. 14. 4; xiv. 1, 4), and was at the time in the possession ofan Arabian Kingdom, and later functioned as a stop between Elathand Jerusalem, otherwise, save for Lot's plea, remained a town ofminor significance.

Bethel means literally the "house of God." In response toGod's Covenant, Abraham is promised a land, a people, and social

115

status. His name will be great, and he would be a blessing. Inresponse, Abraham built an altar to the Lord at a place calledBethel. What makes this piece of real estate special? Why isthis space, this land sacred? In a society where nothing issacred, and space is a commodity, what can we learn from thispassage?

There are a few "Christograms" here. First, in the NT, weread that the Word became flesh and dwelt (pitched his tent) amongus. So, Abraham pitches his tent near Bethel. Altars tooindicate sacred space. In a special way, the altar marks the spotwhere God intervened into human history, and promised great thingsto Abraham.

In Genesis 28, Jacob stumbles upon Bethel. Just as theMessiah had, "no place to lay his head," Jacob uses a stone for apillow, and dreamed a great dream. Jacob saw a ladder, and angelsascending and descending upon it, just as angels would ascend anddescend upon Jesus after he was baptized (Mark 1:9-11). InGenesis, the covenant is renewed through Jacob. God fills thespace, the land with unique presence, just as God was uniquely inChrist, reconciling the world. God is faithful to the promisemade to Jacob's forebears. Jacob's reply, "Surely the Lord is inthis place and I did not know it.... How awesome is this place!This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate ofheaven." The place was both Bethel, the house of God, and Babel,

116

the Gate of God. Unlike the Babel of Genesis 11, God here takesthe initiative, the space is sacred, because God is there. Theplace was previously called "Luz" (light), and now was calledBethel, the house of God.

Jacob erected a pillar at Bethel to mark the spot of thevision (Gen, 28:22; 31:13); and later built an altar Bethel, wherehe worshipped the Lord. Today, we sometimes mark historic places,as symbols of our history and identity. In the same way, Jacobcommemorates the spot where he encountered God, indicating thespecialness of the moment, and of God's faithfulness to thecovenant promise. During a civil war between the Israelites andthe Benjamites, the former returned to Bethel to burn incense(Judges 20:1-21:4). The result was wholesale slaughter on bothsides, the Benjamites getting the worst of it. God no doubt couldnot approve of such warfare between the tribes. "There was noking in Israel, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes"(Judges 21:25).

After the death of Solomon, Jeroboam of the N. Kingdom set upa calf of Gold at Bethel, and the place became not a holy place,but a place of idolatry. The house of God became a place ofidolatry and a rival sanctuary to the Temple in Jerusalem (I Kings12: 29; 32-33; 13:1-32; II Kings 10:29). The prophets laterdenounced Bethel for its idolatries (Jer. 40=8:13: Hos 10:5).Bethel became known as "Beth aven," the "house of harlotry." Even

117

sacred spaces can becom defiled, and can be transformed intosomething much less significant. The city was momentarilyrestored by King Josiah, the reform King who destroyed paganshrines and idols in the land (II kingds 23:15). The place wasresettled after the Babylonian exile (Exra 2:28; Neh. 7:32), butwas destroyed by a fire in 540 BC. The NT does not mentionBethel, although Jesus likely passed by it on his journeys.

Bethel, the house of God, was holy sacred space for Abrahamand Jacob. However, even sacred spaces can become defiled, andplaces of idolatry, depending on the attitude and interests ofpeople who visited there. In the Judges, we see that it ispossible that people can use a sacred space to pursue their owninterests, or to justify their own actions. Bethels are suchplaces, because the people who come there, come in faith and inhumility, not in the narrowness of their self-interests.

Joseph and the Storehouse Cities in the time of FaminePrayer was not the only thing that could be done for and

within cities. Joseph was able to develop another city strategy,as he was able to capitalize on his political position, to thebenefit of Egypt, and his own family. Joseph, after being soldinto captivity, ended up in Egypt. Some archaeologists siteevidence that suggest that Joseph was in the land of the Pharaohsat the time of Hyksos rule, a rule that reflected much Semitic

118

influence. Semites were employed in many levels of Egyptiangovernment at the time.126

Joseph had the good fortune of being able to explain thedream of the Pharaoh as seven years of plenty, and seven years offamine. Joseph advised the Pharaoh to appoint officers of theland to collect one-fifth of the produce during the seven years ofplenty, so as to be prepared for the seven years of famine. "Andlet them gather all the food of those good years that are coming,and store up grain under the authority of Pharaoh, and let themkeep food in the cities" (Gen. 41:36). This may be the beginningof the practice of designating store cities as a way to survivethe eventuality of famine.

As a result of Joseph's wisdom, the Pharaoh made him Governorof the whole state of Egypt, and gave him a wife as well. Josephis given the king's signet ring as a sign of the king's authority.Joseph does not have the power or the king, but he did representthe king's authority. As promised, Joseph gathered up grain forseven years in anticipation of the coming of seven years offamine, "and laid up in every city the food in the cities; he laidup in every city the food of the fields which surrounded them"(Gen. 41:48). The famine was severe "all over the face of theearth," and so all countries came to Joseph to buy grain, as only

126    Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Joseph Narrative and its EgyptianBackground.

119

in Egypt was their bread, whereas in the rest of the world therewas famine.

This was the context for the brothers of Joseph to come toEgypt's aid. Joseph uses his cunning to get his family to settle"in the land of Goshen" to ride out the famine. The emotionalreconciliation with his brothers, encounter with his father, andfuneral procession to the Cave of Machpelah, the burial place ofAbraham, Rachel and Rebekkah is recounted. Joseph's familyreturns to live a four century wait. According to the Psalms, theIsraelites settle "in the fields of Zoan," the Hyksos capital ofEgypt at the time (Ps. 78:12, 43). Zoan is known also as Avaris,and as Tanis, the capital of Egypt later under Ramses II (1290-1224), the likely Pharaoh of the Exodus. Amosis I captured Tanisand chased out the Hyksos in ca 1560 BC.

Meanwhile, the famine came upon Joseph's Egypt, and thepeople around the city soon ran out of grain, and came to Josephfor assistance. Joseph responded by selling bread to the peoplefor money, for livestock, and ultimately for their land, thecommodities given to the Pharaoh. "So the land became Pharoah's.And as for the people, he moved them into cities, from one end ofthe borders of Egypt to the other end" (Gen. 47:20-21).

This was carried out as a survival mechanism, with thecentral government becoming the modus operandi for saving thepeople from famine and death. While not stated in the text, it is

120

possible that Joseph returned the livestock and the land to thepeople after the famine was completed. Joseph did not relocatepeople from one city to another, such uprootedness was notnecessary. Rather, the people were relocated near one of thecities that had abundant grain.

In the meantime, Joseph initiated a self-help project to movethe country out of the depression. Joseph gave the people seed,so that the people could begin again to grow their own grain, withthe stipulation that 20% of the produce was given to the Pharaoh(Gen. 47:23-24). All the land in the meantime became the land ofPharaoh, except for the land of the priests, which was notpurchased. Instead, the priests received rations for food fromthe Pharaoh, and their lands were not sold to the state.

For Joseph, his enslavement, and later rise to prominance inEgypt was not the consequence of the sins of his brothers, whosold him into slavery, but was the action of God, so as topreserve the family, and many others in Egypt and the region fromsure starvation. Joseph's action suggests that, at this time, theaction of the central government was necessary to prevent thefamine from having its most devestating impact.

Joseph also established a precedent, setting up a far sightedlaw and practice of storing grain and food, for hardtimes, andsharing such food to the people in need when the need was self-evident. Joseph's was a political economy that had the common

121

good as the end. It was a political economy that served the needsof the people, rather than the people serving the needs of thepolitical economy. Several practices among the later Israelitesfind their origins in Joseph. The practice of leaving the fieldsof grain for the poor, and the practice of bringing the tithes ofgrain to the storehouses, which in turn would be given to thevulnerable can be found here. Also, the favorable practice ofleaving lands for priests preserved the importance of faith andreligious instruction in the community of the people.

Another point is that cities in the life of Joseph, eventhought they are Egyptian cities, had important functions. Thecities are not mentioned here by name, but we see that the citiesfunctioned as store cities, as distribution centers of grainduring the time of famine. Cities and the administration of theof the state were thus subservient to the needs of the peopleduring the time of crisis.

This is different than the earlier cities of Genesis, wherecities appear as ends in themselves. Those cities have name andreputation, and the people are made to serve the rulers and tobuild cities as end in themselves. The "good city" and goodpolitics are such that serve the people. Bad politics and theevil city is that which demands worship and service of those inpower, while the welfare of the citizens becomes secondary to theend of subservience to power. Power is good if it serves the

122

interests of the people, but when power exists to serve its owninterests at the expense of the common good, the result isoppression.

Chapter VSlavery in the Cities:

The Children of Israel at the time of the ExodusCities can sometimes represent oppression. It wasn't long

after the death of Joseph, that the relatively good standing in aforeign country was replaced by the harsh experience of slavery.430 (Ex. 12:40-41) years is a long time, twice as long as theentire history of the United States. It was long enough for theIsraelites to increase in number to such an extent as to become athreat to Egyptian nativists. It was long enough for manyPharoahs to come and go, just as vast empires come and go, overtime.

Thus, after four centuries, "there was a new King in Egyptwho did not know Joseph" (Ex. 1:8). The new Pharaoh noticed thatthe minority of Israelites in the land was threateningnumerically, at least in the fields of Zoan, to become the

123

numerical majority. In response, he ordered his local militia toround them up, and "set taskmasters over them to afflict them withburdens. And they built for Pharaoh supply cities, Pithom andRaamses" (Ex. 1:11). This is ironic, for Joseph himself builtsupply cities, so that the people would become equipped to survivefamine. This Joseph did through a system of taxation, thatassessed each farmer with a 20% tax on grain. The new Pharaohdecided to embellish his empire with store cities, using forcedlabor from the Israelites.

Yet, despite the hardships, the Israelites continued to growin number. The Pharoah "made the children of Israel serve withrigor," and the Egyptians "made their lives bitter with hardbondage- in mortar, in brick, and in all manner of service in thefield" (Ex. 1:13-14). Slavery is never pleasant. It isinvoluntary servitude, it is the forceful employment of a peopleto serve the whim of those in power. But, the Israelitesnonetheless grew in number, still threatening to the Egyptians.The Pharoah attempts his own version of birth control, desiring tostop the multiplication of male slaves, threatening even to drownal male babies in the river.

Parallels with Herod's paranoia in a later epoch arestriking. One cannot resist noting also certain parallels withAfrican-American slavery in the U.S. We remember how slavery wasdehumanizing, and how fear of rebellion led to bitter cruelty and

124

racial stereotypes. Even today, a vicious slave trade isoccurring in Southeast Asia, as thousands of young Asian girls aresold into slavery as prostitutes and entertainers.127 Slavery is acruel, but very ancient institution.

Raamses and Pithom were cities built by the Israelite slaves.Most scholars regard Zoan, Avaris, Tanis, and Raamses as thesuccessive names of the same city, and this became their point ofdeparture, of liberation from enslavement. The Psalms reportsthat Yahweh "worked... signs in Egypt, and ... wonders in thefield of Zoan; turned their rivers into blood, (and) sent swarmsof flies among them, which devoured them, and frogs, whichdestroyed them. He also gave their crops to the caterpillar, andtheir labor to the locust" (Ps. 78: 43 ff). Thus, the nation washit by a series of plagues, and even Ramses' store cities werelittle help.

Moses appears as God's anointed, to lead the Israelites outof captivity, and direct them toward a new land. This is met withgreat resistance by the Pharaoh. No slaveholder will willinglygive up his slaves, the labor a slave population gives isvaluable, and impossible to cheaply replace. Moses is thusforced, not to reasonable negotiation, but to a show of force and

127    See, for example, series in the Chicago Tribune (Nov. 17-21,1991), including "China's slavers willing to murder to covertracks" (Thursday, November 21, 1991, pp. 1, 22).

125

power, with the help of Yahweh. Finally, after ten plagues, theIsraelites left, together with the flocks, herds, kneading bowls,as well as Egyptian articles of silver, gold, and clothing. "Thusthey plundered the Egyptians" (Ex. 12:36). The Pharaoh hadalready been humiliated, and now he saw not only his army of slavelabor, but also much wealth in terms of livestock and goods leavefor a new land.

The Israelites escaped the Pharoah, but not the wilderness.For forty years, they faced a nomadic existence, having to wanderfrom place to place, not having a place of their own. The sojournin Egypt and the Exodus remained an object lesson for theIsraelites. While they were in bondage, they were set free byYahweh. This was not their own doing, but the result of an activeGod. Israel's liberation was, further, not because of militarypower, or even the power of diplomacy, it was rather due to thesovereign action of a beneficent God, Yahweh the Warrior whofights before the people. Israel's posture could thus only behumility, for their status was given, not achieved. There was noground for boasting.

Since Israel was as a stranger in Egypt, this history becamean object lesson for how to treat the vulnerable in their midst.They were to remain dedicated to Yahweh, who would satisfy theirneeds, and deliver them from want. Since it was Yahweh who wasresponsible for this, "I will have compassion upon whom I will

126

have compassion" (Ex. 33:19), Israel's response was to beobedience to the Torah, the revelation of God's will for Israel.

Because Israel was in bondage in Egypt, they should bemerciful upon those who find themselves in bonds, and no bondageshould be in perpetuity. For the Exodus, "You shall neithermistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in theland of Egypt" (Ex. 22:21). And again, "you shall not oppress astranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were astranger in Egypt" (Ex. 23:9). The same protection is due to thewidow and the orphan (Ex. 22:22); the poor (Ex. 22:25; 23:3-6); orto male or female servants (Ex. 21).

Rather, they were to be a holy people, a kingdom of priests,all knowledgeable regarding the Law, and publishing the truth forall (Ex. 19:6). There was a strict law to refrain from thetemptation to idolatry, the worship of other gods, which includedthe assimilation of other cultures or intermarriage, for suchwould naturally lead to entangling alliances, and idolatrousworship of foreign deities as a sign of apostasy from the Torah asthe will of Yahweh. It was thus in the wilderness, that the lawsfor city life were revealed. As Israel began to encounter othernations, and conquer their cities, the significance of the Lawwould become more clear.

While enslaved, the Israelites built store cities for thePharaoh. The city thus became a symbol of oppression, and

127

ministry in that city became impossible. Thus, Israel had toleave the cities of Pharaoh to wander in search of their owncities, cities that would be given to Israel as a consequence ofsettling in a new land.

The experience of being a stranger in the land of Egypt, ofbeing in bondage to the Pharaoh, and of wandering in search of thepromise-land continued to be object lessons for Israel. The justand good cities of the Settlement would be administered with thememory of the sojourn in a foreign land. The actions toward thevulnerable, including the stranger, the Levite, the widow, theorphan, the poor, and the hired hand, should reflect thecompassion and deliverance of Yahweh as the model for the goodsociety. Just as Yahweh was merciful to Israel while she was inbondage, so should Israel act with mercy on those who were poor, astranger, or in bondage among the covenant people. Guy S. Benjamin has noted that in the book of Deuteronomy,cities were mentioned as "gifts of Yahweh," as rewards forcovenant faithfulness.128 Benjamin is therefore up to somethingfar different than Jacques Ellul. Cities for Benjamin epitomizedwhat God was trying to do in the promised land. Cities wereplaces where Yahweh would be worshipped, and where the law wouldbe taught. Cities were given to Israel for an inheritance (Dt.20:16), as strategic centers for which to settle the new land.

128    Gus S. Benjamin, Deuteronomy and City Life.128

The Book of Deuteronomy assumes an urban environment. As theIsraelites began their conquest of the new land, a promised land,they were guaranteed certain benefits of the covenant promise.Cities were given as signs of God's covenant faithfulness.

Cities were given to Israel, as a means of settling the land.There were cities of specialization, and cities that were usedfunctionally to promote awareness of the Torah, and subservienceto the King in a volatile age, threatened within by palacerevolutions, and from without by the great and mighty empires suchas Assyria and Babylon.

Cities had positive roles and significant functions in OldTestament times. While cities could be viewed as oppressive, oridolatrous, cities as places were really neutral. Whether citieswere cities of righteousness, or cities of injustice, thecharacter of the city depended upon the actions of the rulers, thepriests, the kings, and the people as a whole. In Deuteronomy,cities were the gifts of Yahweh as a reward for faithfulness tothe covenant. Deuteronomy reflects the urban character of Canaanat the time of the Conquest.

And it shall be, when the Lord your God brings you into the land of which He swore to your fathers, to Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob, to give you large and beautiful cities whichyou did not build, houses full of all good things, which you didnot fill, hewn out wells which you did not dig, vineyards and

olive trees which you did not plant- when you have eaten and

129

are full- then beware, lest you forget the Lord who broughtyou out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage" (Dt.6:10-12).

Notice that these cities were called large and beautiful.Again, cities were not always identified as wicked, that dependedon the nature of the inhabitants. Meanwhile, Israel was toremember that she did not have military power, or a modern army,rather she was to depend on Yahweh the Warrior, who would fightfor the people.

First of all, if the people believed and lived up to theircovenant responsibilities, they would be assured of their specialstanding with God, with the many concrete benefits. The peoplewere "God's chosen people," special and elect, not on the basis ofwho they were, but because of God's grace and God's steadfast loveand commitment to remember the promises made to the forefathers,Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

See, I have set the land before you, go in and possess theland which the Lord swore to your fathers--to Abraham, Isaac andJacob--to give to them and their descendents after them (Dt. 1:8).

As a chosen people, the Israelites would be forgiven apromised land, and with the land, cities would be given to thepeople as a dowry. Israel's election was not her own doing.Israel was to be a holy people, a particular people, a specialchosen people. Election or “chosenness” also impliedresponsibility. Israel was to be a "special treasure above all

130

the peoples of the earth" (Dt. 7:6). This was a special gift, andimplies that Israel would herself be faithful to her calling asGod's special people.

The law required purity in social customs as well as inbelief and liturgical expression. First, there was to be nointermarriage with women of pagan cultures. Religion and culturewere deeply held, and marriage was a religious rite. Today, thisseems terribly exclusive, elitist, self-righteous, and intolerant.However, in patriarchal times, it was a matter of survival.Marriage was not just a civil matter. It was at once a religious,social and cultural bond. It often had serious economic andpolitical implications as well.

Since marriage in the ancient world was so fused with othercultural assumptions and practices, the rite necessarily opened upthe door to religious and cultural syncretism. Hence marriagebetween cultures was assumed to be destructive of community life,opening up the door to idolatry and entangling politicalalliances.

The other issue was the issue of religious apostasy. In theancient world, religion and national identity were fused. Eventoday, we recognize the power of civil religion and nationalism.Nations often assume that God is on their side, and that nationalinterests are on the side of truth and justice. Therefore,dissent historically has never been tolerated, even in an advanced

131

liberal democracy. Even more so, was such not tolerated in areligious theocracy. The competition for empire in the ancientworld was also the struggle between rival tribal religions. Inthe ancient world, idolatry implied more than just the worship ofother deities, troublesome enough, but also implied the compromiseof culture and national identity.

Israel, of course, arguably invented the whole notion ofmonotheism. It is in the book of Deuteronomy that the Shema isfirst recorded. "Here on Israel: The Lord our God; the Lord isOne" (Dt. 6:4). Israel assumed that there was only one supreme,sovereign, just, and merciful God. All other deities were assumedto be false, untrue, mere imaginations and fabrications.Therefore, Israel was to "love the Lord your God with all yourheart, with all your soul, and with all your might" (Dt. 6:5).

Idolatry was thus forbidden absolutely. It is mentioned asone of the ten taboos of early Israelite society (Dt. 20:4-5; Dt.5:8-9). "You shall not go after other gods, the gods of thepeoples who are all around you" (Dt. 6"14). And "You shall haveno other gods before me" (Ex. 20:4-5). This meant that the chosenpeople were such, because God chose them, and demanded absoluteand unwavering loyalty and reverence to the one God. "No othergods" meant that Israel could not bow down to images, sculptures,altars, statues, pictures, or any rite or ritual associated withpagan religion.

132

Throughout the Old Testament, and appealing to the second lawin the Book of Deuteronomy, the prophets condemned the worship ofother deities. Idols were ridiculed, and their impotency wasnoted (Is. 2:9; 18-21; 40"19=20; 44:9-20; and Jer. 10:3-5). Idolsare representations of pagan gods, and symbols of foreigndomination. They were made of wood, silver and gold, and werecategorically repudiated as symbols of faithlessness and apostasy.Moses and the "true prophets" consistently called Israel toworship the one true God as revealed in the Torah.

As a consequence, Israel was admonished to "destroy theiraltars, and break down the sacred pillars, and cut down theirwooden image, and burn their carved images with fire" (Dt. 7:5).Israel was exhorted to "burn the carved images with fire," and notto covet the silver and gold, nor to take the idols as"souveniers" of conquest; for idolatry was "an abomination to theLord" (Dt. 7:25).

Again, such absolute intolerance seems strange to modernreaders. However, readers need to appreciate the seriousness ofthe context. Idolatry to Deuteronomy meant not only the worshipof pagan religion, but also entanglement with other nations,customs, cultures, ethics, and lifestyles. It meant in short adangerous compromise that would threaten Israel's very identity.Idolatry threatened the very survival of the state. Idolatry alsoopened up the door to immorality and entangling political

133

alliances. Israel was exhorted to trust in Yahweh rather thanpacts with states such as Egypt or Assyria. To participate insuch implied a lack of faith and spiritual apostasy, a perpetualproblem throughout Old Testament history.

Israel was chosen by God, not because of who they were, butbecause of who God was and is. Israel was not a military power,and was not the most numerous of peoples. She could not boast inher political savvy or military might. There were certainly otherchoices available if the criterium for chosenness is a strongdefense. One my mention only the great "superpowers" of the day,including Babylon, Egypt, or Assyria to note that there were othercandidates for a chosen people if political might was thecriteria.

No, Israel was not chosen because of her military ofpolitical superiority. "The Lord did not set His love on you norchoose you because you were more in number than any other people,for you were the least of all peoples . . ." (Dt. 7:7). Israel,of course, was in bondage in Egyptian storehouse cities. ThatIsrael was "the least of all peoples" was actually an importantpoint in God's choosing them. First, it meant that Israel'sliberation from slavery and her later prosperity had nothing to dowith her, and there was nothing to boast about before God.

Rather, her freedom and prosperity were manifestations ofGod's grace and action in history. The result would be,

134

hopefully, the practice of humility and loyalty to the covenantbecause of the sovereign and beneficent actions of the covenant-keeping God. Israel had no basis for arrogance, pride, conceit,or boasting. Her liberation and status before God was given, notachieved.

Secondly, Israel would hopefully be in a better position torecognize her need for God and the Torah. God's law and specialinstruction was a reminder of her history, her purpose, and hercovenant obligations. Thirdly, Israel, because of her chosenness,should remember that she as once "the least of all nations," had aduty to remember her story and roots. Israel was once oppressed,enslaved, powerless, and marginalized. Hence, Israel had theresponsibility to keep the law, which meant practicing justice andcompassion, especially for others who were in bondage, includingthe poor, the stranger, the widows, and the orphans. Israel'scalling thus implied an elevated demand, to practice justice andcompassion for those who were poor and vulnerable.

Israel was of course not more moral than her rivals. Inherself, she was not more righteous or ethical. However, she wascalled to be a "holy nation," a peculiar people, with a differentfaith and ethical practice than what seemed to be commonplace.Yet, Deuteronomy reminded Israel that she was often quite theopposite. She was often a "stiffnecked people," a hardened,insensitive, disloyal, unfaithful people (Dt. 9:6). They often

135

provoked God, they rebelled, they dishonored God by buildingidols, challenging gthe leadership, and often practicingimmorality and injustice (Dt. 9:6-29).

Israel was sometimes corrupt, idolatrous, immoral, andunfaithful, and prophets like Amos and Hosea would later callIsrael back to her covenant responsibilities. The building of thegolden calf in Exodus was sadly a symbol of Israel's tendency toforget her roots and her calling. Israel often took matters intoher own hands instead of trusting the Torah or heeding the wordsof the prophets.

For Moses, the first great prophet, Israel was "rebelliousagainst the Lord from the day I knew you" (Dt. 9:24). Moses thuspled to God not to destroy the people. "Remember your servants,Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," he pleaded. "Do not look on thestubbornness of this people, or on the wickedness of their sin."For, "they are your people and your inheritance, whom you broughtout by your mighty power and by your outstretched arm" (Dt. 9:24,27, 29).

Israel's standing before God was thus not because of anyinherent righteousness, but because of God's faithfulness to thecovenant, and the transcendence of God's purpose. It was notbecause of the power of God. It was not because of Israel'sfaithfulness to the covenant, or loyalty to her leaders; butbecause of the steadfast mercy and loyalty of their God.

136

Yet, if Israel was often immoral and unrighteous, it was evenmore so for the pagan nations. At least Israel was thebeneficiary of the covenant to Abraham. At least, Israelwitnessed the mighty acts of salvation-history in her own story.At least, Israel was the glad recipient of the Torah, God's self-revelation. Israel was also the beneficiary of a land "flowingwith milk and honey," and a land with "mighty and goodly cities"given to Israel for her own habitation. However, such gifts werenot for Israel alone, for she was commissioned to publish theTorah, and to present herself as a light to the nations.

Such a high purpose was certainly intimidating. For the mostpart, the other nations were hostile to Israel's status, and weregreedy for Israel's land and possessions. Israel's history wouldbe a drama, a contest to see if she could remain steadfast. Inthe scheme of things, Israel might one day be the great example ofjustice, righteousness and of Yahweh's protection. God wouldfight for her against the nations as necessary. Israel mightbecome the light to the nations, the harbinger of truth andjustice for all peoples.

However, Israel first of all had to survive the temptation tobe like the other nations. She had to resist the pagan religions,political threat, imperial competition, and the wanton violencebetween tribes and empires. Israel must first survive before shecould be the agent of evangelization.

137

Do not thing in your heart, after the Lord your God has cast them out before you, saying, "Because of my righteousness the

Lord has brought me in to possess the Land; but it is because ofthe wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them outbefore you . . . (Dt. 9:4).” “It is not because of yourrighteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in topossess the land, but because of the wickedness of these nationsthat the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and thatHe may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, toAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Dt. 9:5).”

The pagan nations were known for their idolatry, cruelty,immoralities, and corruption. Yes, there were notable exceptions,such as Rahab the Harlot at Jericho. However, in ancient Israel,tribes were often understood as corporate personalities, asmonolithic entities. There was little of a "rugged individualism"in the ancient world. Survival needs were communally provided,and the practice of mutuality and interdependence was a necessity.

Since tribes, including Israel were corporate personalities,individual autonomy and resistance was both unthinkable andintolerable. Individual personalities were identified with thewhole. The leaders, including the kings and the priests, had aninseparable relationship to the people as a collective. Kingswere but representatives of the tribe. Loyalties and tribalidentity was so interdependent that to act independently was

138

understood to be both treasonous and as an apostasy. Thus, the "holy war" with other tribes was conducted against

the tribes as a whole, together with their cities. Nothing couldbe spared, for tribes acted as a single mind, a mutuallyinterdependent whole. Tribal practices demanded the loyalty ofeach individual member. The whole was absolute, and the partswere judged as a consequence of the linkage with the whole oftribal culture.

In a world of intense tribal conflict and corporateidentities, peaceful coexistence as in a liberal democracy was animpossibility. Also, the toleration of the tribes with theirpresumed wickedness and idolatry would have dire consequences forIsrael. It would threaten Israel's existence as a nation. Inthis environment, holy war and absolute victory seemed the onlyreasonable option.

Chapter VICities and the Rules of WarfareHoly Warfare in Ancient Israel

Conquest and SettlementThe Career of Joshua, Son of Nun

Moses did not conquer the land, but the mission of conquestwent to Moses' general, Joshua. Joshua was given the task to"cause the people to inherit the land which I swore to their

139

fathers, to give them." Joshua was to lead the Israelites, for"every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I havegiven to you, as promised to Moses" (Josh. 1: 6, 3).

Old Testament JerichoJericho is the oldest city in Palestine, and perhaps the

oldest settlement in the world. There may be three differentsites for Jericho, an Old Testament, New Testament and modernsite, all in the same area. The Old Testament site has beenidentified by archaeologists as Tell es Sultan, 16 km NW of themouth of the Jordan River at the Dead Sea, and 27 km ENE ofJerusalem. The New Testament site was built by Herod the Great asa winter palace, a mile West of the modern town, and south of theOld Testament site. Remains of the settlement date to 8,000 BC.

The name may be connected to the Canaanite moon god, and theHebrew word for Moon is very similar.129 The city is 800 feetbelow sea level, and has a very hot, tropical-like climate. Inthe Old Testament, it was called on occasion, "city of palms," andmay have been the source for the palm branches that accompaniedJesus on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Dt. 34:3). BothBethany and Jericho were noted for their date palm trees.130

129    William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (1953), 83, 91-92, 197 note 36.130    John W. Klotz, "Plants," in Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible

140

Jericho first appears in biblical times in Numbers 22:1;26:3. The Israelites were described as being across the Jordanfrom Jericho, prior to their invasion of Palestine. In the OldTestament, Jericho is best known as the first city taken by theIsraelites as they came into the promised land from Sinai. It wastargeted as an initial military objective by Moses' general,Joshua. Joshua sent spies on a reconnaissance mission to checkout the situation, and were hidden by Rachel the Harlot (Josh. 2:1ff).

Upon deliverance, Rahab implored the spies to spare herfather, mother, brothers and sisters, whom she was supporting byway of her profession. This was promised, if Rahab would tie acord of scarlet in the window. The Lord later appeared to Joshuaas a military commander, and gave directions for the capture ofJericho.

Joshua, his army and seven priests with rams horns. Theywere to march around the city six times, and on the seventh, thepriests were to blow their horns, and the people were to shout,and the walls would fall down. This was done, and the walls felldown. Joshua then with his army rushed into the city, anddestroyed all, men and women, ox, sheep and donkey, "with the edgeof the sword." Noone was spared except the household of Rahab theHarlot. Then the city was burned, except for the gold, silver,

II (1988): 1719-1720.141

and bronze, which was added to the temple treasury.131

Joshua cursed the city (Josh. 6:26), and this was carried outwhen Hiel the Bethelite rebuilt it, costing him his two sons inthe process (I Kings 16:34). Viviano notes that some scholarsthink that Hiel used his sons as foundational sacrifices, whileothers believe that the sons132 The prophets, Elijah and Elishafrequented the area (II Kings 2:4-5; 18-22), and Zedekiah wascaptured on the plains of Jericho by the Babylonians (11 Kings25:5; Jer. 52:8). After the exiles, some 345 of the formercaptives returned to Jericho (Ezra 2:2, 34; Neh. 7:36) withZerubbabel. Their descendants helped Nehemiah repair the walls ofJerusalem (Neh.3:2).

Joshua employed a military strategy to conquer this Jericho,with "a warrior God" giving assistance. What do you think of thistactic? Is this also the God of Abraham and Isaac, the God ofJesus Christ? How do those who are against war today interpretthis passage?133

131    Archaeologists are able to identify destruction in Jerichoca 1600 BC, but are not able to find destruction of the city ca1300, the approximate date of Israelite conquest. For moreinformation, see Kenneth A. Kitchen, "Jericho," in IllustratedBible Dictionary II (London: IVP), 749.132 Pauline A. Viviano, ‘Hiel,’ in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol III (1992): 194.133 See the discussion in: James B. Pritchard, "Excavations ofHerodian Jericho," AASOR 32/33 (1958); and BASOR 123 (1951): 8-17;

142

Joshua's conquest was a case study of the "Holy War" inaction. The first test was against a city, Jericho. Joshua wasgiven instruction to march around the city for six days, and tomarch around the city on the seventh day seven times. Afterwards,the priests would blow the trumpets, and the Lord would take careof the rest. This was practiced as instructed, and on the seventhday, the people shouted as the trumpets were blown.

As soon as the people heard the sound of the trumpet, thepeople raised a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so thatthe people went up to the city, every man straight before him, andthey took the city (Josh. 6:20).

Everything inside was killed, except Rahab the Harlot and herfamily, who hid two Israelite spys. Perhaps there was a fault inthe walls of the city that collapsed at the mighty sound oftrumpets. Regardless, and for God's own purposes, the city wasdestroyed, together with its people, oxen, sheep, and asses (Josh.6:21). Meanwhile all the silver, gold and vessels of bronze wereadded to the Israelite treasury of the Lord.

J. L. Kelso and D.C. Baramki, "Excavations at New TestamentJericho," AASOR 29/30 (1950); and BA (14 (1951): 33-43; and,Excavations at New Testament Jericho and Khirbet en-Nitla (1955);Kathleen Kenyon, "Jericho, Its Setting in Near Eastern History,"Antiquity (Dec., 1956): 184-95; and, Digging Up Jericho (1957);and E. Netzer, "The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at the Endof the Second Temple Period," BASOR 228 (1977): 1-14.

143

Meanwhile, the city was burned with fire, and Joshua gave acurse to anyone that would rebuild on this site. The next town onthe list was Ai, which means "ruin." Unfortunately, not all thespoils of victory from Jericho was turned over to the Lord, for acertain Achan took some of the treasures for himself. This was anindication that some of the Israelites wavered in their faith andobedience. The result was when "3,000" Israelites came up againstAi, they were routed. It was not until Achan confessed, and histreasure surrendered was the trouble corrected.

Meanwhile, Joshua came up with a plan for Ai. Some of thearmy would approach Ai, and then flee as before, whereas the bulkof the army would await in ambush, encircling the army of Ai.

So we shall flee from them; then you shall rise up from the ambush, and seize the city; for the Lord your God will give it into your hand. And when you have take the city, you shall set the city on fire, doing as the Lord has bidden;

see, I have commanded you (Josh. 8:6-8). This was done ascommanded, with predictable results. The King of Ai came out ofthe city to the Arabah to make war with Joshua, and Joshua and histroop acted as if they were roundly defeated, and were pursued bythe King of Ai towards the wilderness. The soldiers of Ai andBethel were "drawn away from the city," and "they left the cityopen, and pursued Israel" (Josh.8:17).

Then, the army of Israel that was in hiding ran into the144

city, and took it, alighting the city a blaze. When the men of Ailooked back, they saw their city on fire behind them. "So, whenthe men of Ai looked back, behold the smoke of the city went up toheaven; and they had no power to flee this way or that, for thepeople that fled to the wilderness turned back upon the pursuers"(Josh. 8:20). Joshua was joined by those in ambush, so that therewas no escape for the King of Ai's army, and they were soundlydefeated. The King of Ai was brought to Joshua and later hungthat evening.

According to the account, "12,000 men and women" were slainthat day. "Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel tookas their booty, according to the word of the Lord which hecommanded Joshua. So Joshua burned Ai, and made it forever a heapof ruins" (Josh. 8:27). The King's body was deposited at thegate of the razed city, and buried under a heap of stones as areminder and a warning.

The word got out what Joshua and his army did to Jericho andto Ai. The cities of Gibeah decided that their fate might bebetter if they tried something else rather than fight with theIsraelites. They put on provisions that made them appear as poortravelers from afar, and tricked Joshua to make a covenant withthem. Preferring to be servants, than victims to Joshua's army,they managed to get Joshua to make a covenant, "and Joshua madepeace with them, and made a covenant with them, to let them live,

145

and the leaders of the congregation swore to him" (Josh. 9:15).Three days later, the Israelites discovered that the ones who

came to Joshua were not from a far country at all, but wereneighbors from the cities of Gibeon, Chephirah, Beroth, andKiriath-jearim. The congregation of Israel were upset with theleaders, who nonetheless argued, that since they had made acovenant, it was better to let the Gibeonites live, rather thandestroy them. The result was that the Gibeonites remained asIsrael's servants, and so "they became hewers of wood and drawersof water for all the congregation, as the leaders had said ofthem" (Josh. 9:21). So the cities of the Gibeonites were spared.

Adonizedek, the king of Jerusalem heard how Joshua haddestroyed Jericho and Ai, and how the Gibeonites had submitted tothe Israelites rather than be destroyed by the sword, thenAdonizedek was afraid, for "Gibeon was a great city, like one ofthe royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all itsmen were mighty" (Josh. 10:2). However, the King of Jerusalem didnot do as the Gibeonites did, and rather summoned four otherAmorite Kings to fight against Gibeon.

Summarily, the "men of Gibeon" requested military protectionand assistance from Joshua. So Joshua and his army met the fivekings of the Amorites at Gibeon, and the Amorites panicked, andwere pursued to the towns of Bethhoron, Azekah, and Makkedah. TheLord caused the sun to stand still so that the pursuers could

146

catch up with the Amorites, and "there were more who died becauseof the hailstones than the men of Israel killed with the sword"(Josh. 10:11).

The five kings were trapped in a cave at Makkedah, andseveral great stones were rolled against the cave, and the fivecities of the Amorities: Jerusalem, Hebron, Eglon, Jarmuth andLachish were all conquered. Joshua went on to conquer Debir,Libnah, so that "Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill countryand the Negeb and the lowlands and the slopes, and all theirkings, and all their cities, and Joshual returned with his army toGilgal (Josh.10:28-43).

Meanwhile, Jabin, King of Hazor heard of Joshua's success,and assembled another coalition of kings in the northern hillcountry. A great army of Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites,Jebusites came together "with many horses and great chariots" towage war against Joshua. Again, the Lord fought for Israelagainst these kings, "and the Lord gave them into the hand ofIsrael" (Josh. 11:8).

Finally, Joshua took Hazor, and "all the cities of thosekings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and smote them with theedge of the sword. . . . But none of the cities that stood on themounds did Israel burn, except Hazor only." And all the cattleand spoils of these cities Israel took as booty. Joshua goes onto record that all the Anakim of the hill country were destroyed,

147

except the Anakim of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod, three of the fivecities of the Philistines. "And the land had rest from war"(Josh. 11:12-13, 21-23).

The next task for Joshua was to divide up and settle theland. Each of the tribes received a land, "with their cities andvillages" (Josh. 13:23). However, the Levites were given no landsas such, but they were given cities! The Levites received "onlycities to dwell in, with their pasture lands for their cattle andsubstance" (Josh. 14:4). These "Levitical Cities" would havespecial significance in Israelite history.

Meanwhile, one of the great spies of the conquest, Caleb, theson of Jephuneh, came to Joshua. Even though, like Joshua, Calebwas advanced in age, he requested land of his own. "So now giveme this hill country of which the Lord spoke on that day; for youheard on that day how the Anakim were there, with great fortifiedcities; it may be that the Lord will be with me, and I shall drivethem out as the Lord has said" (Josh. 14:12). Joshua responded byblessing Caleb, and gave him an inheritance--a city. "So Hebronbecame the inheritance of Caleb. . . because he wholly followedthe Lord, the God of Israel" (Josh. 14:13).

Thereafter, the inheritance of the tribes of Judah weregiven, totalling in all 114 cities (Josh. 20-63). All the citiesof Judah were now in the hands of Judah and Benjamin, except forJerusalem, for Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, "so that

148

the Jebusites dwell with the people of Judah at Jerusalem to thisday" (Josh. 15:63). This would be King David's great conquestyears later. The conquest was not complete, as the Cannaniteswere not completely driven out from their cities either, includingDor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Instead, the Cannanites wereput to forced labor.

In celebration, "The whole congregation of the people ofIsrael assembled at Shiloh." From there, Joshua determined thatthe tribes would get cities as tokens of their inheritance. ToSimeon went seventeen cities (Josh. 19: 6-7); to Zebulon went"twelve cities and their villages" (Josh. 19:15); to Issachar,"sixteen cities with their villages . . . the inheritance of thetribe of Issachar, according to its families--the cities withtheir villages" (Josh. 19:23); to Asher, "twenty-two cities withtheir villages" (Josh. 19:30); and to Naphtali, the "fortifiedcities" of Ziddim, Zer, Hammath, Rakkath, Chinnereth, Adamah,Ramah, Hazor, Kedesh, Edrei, Enhazor, Yiron, Migdalel, Horem,Bethanath, and Beth-shemesh--nineteen cities with their villages"(Josh. 19:35-38); and to Dan, eighteen cities "with her villages"(Josh. 19:48).

When all this was settled, Joshua requested his part of theinheritance, and he was given, "by command of the Lord . . . thecity which he asked, Timnathserah in the hill country of Ephraim;and he rebuilt the city, and settled in it" (Josh. 19:50). Now

149

that all the tribes, Levites, and leaders were settled--incities-- it was time to set aside some of the cities in each partof the country for the execution of justice and for theadministration of the emerging kingdom.

For this task, Joshua was commanded to speak to the people,and "appoint the cities of refuge, of which I spoke to you throughMoses, that the manslayer who kills any person without intent orunwittingly may flee there; they shall be a refuge from theavenger of blood" (Josh. 20: 2-3). So, six Cities of Refuge wereestablished; and the Levites were given a total of forty-eightcities (Josh. 21:3-42).

Thus, "the Lord gave to Israel" and her tribes, priests, andleaders the land that was promised, and in each case the land wasnoted as having particular cities, given to Israel to live anddwell therein. Just before Joshua's death, the general gatheredall the tribes of Israel to Shechem, including the judges, theelders and other officers of Israel. Joshua recounted the historyof Israel's sojourn and conquest of the land

"I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and citieswhich you had not built, and you dwell therein; you eat the fruitof the vineyards and oliveyards which you did not plant" (Josh.24:13). Joshua made a covenant with the people at Shechem thatday, together with statutes and ordinances. Thereafter, Joshuadied, and was buried at his own town of Timnathserah. And, the

150

bones of Joseph "which were brought up from Egypt were buried atShechem in the portion of the ground which Jacob bought from thesons of Hamor, the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces ofmoney" (Josh. 24:32). A "Holy War" is a war that God declares, fights, leads and wins(Ex. 17:16; Num. 31:3). Warriors consecrated themselves to Godand abstained from certain activities, such as eating, drinking orsexual relations (II Sam. 11:11). Single-minded devotion wasrequired, and those frightened, newly married, or those havingrecently built a house, or planted a vineyard were exempt, andcould return to his home (Dt. 20:5-9).

In Deuteronomy 20: 10-20, the rules for war versus cities aredescribed, as outcomes of a Holy War. First, if a besieged citysurrenders, the occupants were spared, but became the slaves ofthe conquerors. If the city refused to agree to peace terms, andhad to be taken by force, then all the males (warriors) werekilled, and the rest were enslaved. However, if a city lay withinthe boundaries of Israel, "nothing that breathed shall remainalive."

There are two important things about Holy War in ancientIsrael. First, the Holy War is a war declared and fought byYahweh. This tradition is based on the Exodus, and is bestillustrated in the seizure of Jericho. Israel did not have amodernized army with chariots, horses, and weaponry. Nor did

151

Israel have a king and rulers like the other nations and tribes.Rather, they were to trust in Yahweh, the Warrior, who would fightfor Israel. Yahweh was the Warrior, and God was the power-basedfor Israel. Yahweh fought for the people, and not through them.134

Neither wisdom, wealth, nor military might determinedIsrael's status. Warfare was the deed of Yahweh, and social orderwas maintained, not by military might or political power, but bythe prophetic word, and the mighty acts of God.

Yahweh's Kingdom is founded not upon military power, nor upon manipulation of power through diplomacy, nor upon concentration of wealth that husbands national and socialresources, nor upon human wisdom that enables one to make decisions in relation to all the above for one's nationaladvantage. Yahweh's Kingdom is founded rather upon Yahweh'spromise and miraculous act, upon his covenant structure of Torah and prophetic word.135

Second, it was perceived as an imperative to eliminateheathen influence from the land, for idolatry, and foreign customsepitomized in their religions, threatened Israel's very existenceas a nation. The Holy War was thus the action of Yahweh to purifythe land of the evils associated with pagan religion and culture.

134    Millard Lind, Yahweh is a Warrior.135    Millard Lind, Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfarein Ancient Israel (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1980), 168.

152

While scholars debate as to whether or not the conception of"God the Warrior" was present in the experience of the earlyIsraelites, or was the creation of later redactor-critics, theyagree that the texts as passed down to us supports the thesis thatYahweh was the one who would fight for Israel, and Israel's rolewas to trust in Yahweh, not in a strong military, diplomacy, orhuman leadership, whether kings, princes or military leaders.136

Israel was not greater or mightier than her foes, nor did shehave any reason to boast of success, for the glory belonged toYahweh. However, while in the Land, Israel had to remember thatall that she possessed were gifts of God. She was therefore notto boast in her accomplishments, not to pursue other gods, nor totrust merely in the wisdom of Kings or the power of the military,she was rather to trust in God and obey the Torah.

It was Yahweh who would fight Israel's battles, and woulddeliver her adversaries into her hands, including cities with arebellious population. It was the "commander of the Lord" whowould fight Joshua's battles (Josh. 5:13-15). The Israelites wereto march around the city once for six days, and then on theseventh day, "you shall march around the city seven times, and thepriests shall blow the trumpets. Then it shall come to pass, whenthey make a long blast with the sound of the trumpet, that all the

136    See also, Gerhard Von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1991 reprint).

153

people shall shout with a great shout; then the wall of the citywill fall down flat" (Josh. 6:4-5).

So the city was destroyed, with the inhabitants, except forRahab the Harlot, who pled to the captors for mercy, for she hidJoshua's spies from the army of the King of Jericho. And the citywas burned with fire, and destroyed, whereas the gold and thesilver was collected, and iron vessels, and they were placed inthe Temple treasury.

Deuteronomy laid down rules of warfare as they affectedcities. If cities were outside the province of the promised land,and the city rulers responded to the peace, then peace would begranted, though the people of the said city would have to paytribute to Israel. However, if the city would not make peace withIsrael, then "the Lord your God will deliver it into your hands."The result is that the males would be destroyed, but, "the women,the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, allits spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat theenemies plunder wich the Lord Your God gives you" (Dt. 20:14).

These cities, which are "far from you, not of the cities ofthese nations," would therefore be given to Israel, together withits goods and persons. However, if the cities were in theterritory of the promised land that was promised to the childrenof Israel, through the patriarchs, then another fate was in store.

But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God154

gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathesremain alive.... lest they teach you to do according to all theirabominations which they have done for their gods, and your sinagainst the Lord your God" (20: 16, 18). At issue here is theproblem of idolatry, and the corruption of the people by otherreligions and cultures. To protect Israel from the negativeimpact of contact with pagan religions, Israel had to subjugatethe tribes and nations militarily. However, curiously enough,regardless of what our view is of war in the Old Testament, thecities are spared, and given to the Israelites "as aninheritance." Thus, even with the pernicious influence ofCanaanite religion, cities in and of themselves were notconsidered evil. Rather, the problem was with pagan shrines andthe asherah, which could be destroyed without destroying thecities, with their walls, cisterns, houses, and so forth.

Even in the midst of a long siege, at least the environmentwas protected somewhat against devastation. "You shall notdestroy its trees by welding an ax against them, if you can eat ofthem, do not cut them down to use in the siege, for the tree ofthe field is man's food. Only the trees which you know are nottrees for food you may destroy and cut down, to build siegeworksagainst the city that makes war with you, until it is subdued"(Dt. 20: 19-20).

Hence, the rules of warfare were for the most part designed155

to preserve both the environment and the city structures. Theinhabitants and their religious relics had to be destroyed, so asto purify the land from pagan influence. However, every effortwas made to preserve the environment, including the cities ofconquest, for they were held to be gifts of Yahweh, an inheritancepromised to Israel. Again, the principle, regardless of what wething of warfare practices in the Old Testament, is that thecities as places are neutral, and even have value as gifts ofYahweh, assuming the relics of pagan religion can be removed anddestroyed.

The places of worship, not the cities, had to be destroyed.You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations whichyou shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains,and on the hills and under every green tree. And you shalldestroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burntheir wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carvedimages of their gods and destroy their names from that place (Dt.12:2-3).

However, if the inhabitants of a city, "one of your citieswhich the Lord your God gives you to dwell in," decide togetherthat they will not obey the words of Yahweh and of the Torah, asthe revealed will of Yahweh, and decide to go serve other gods,then a fate awaited not only the inhabitants, but also the placeas well. In such city, not only would the inhabitants bedestroyed, but all the idols would be gathered in the middle of

156

the central street, and burned, "the city and all its plunder ,..and it shall be a heap forever. It shall not be built again" (Dt.13:13-16). Idolatry was a serious problem, constituting theunforgivable sin in ancient Israel.

At the same time, certain individuals who proved to otherstheir extraordinary difference from their tribe might receivemercy from captor Israel. Due to Israel's own memory ofenslavement and oppression, she might show mercy to those whoshared similar experiences. In this respect, Israel's practicetowards others might have been more "compassionate" than thepractice of the other nations or other empires, but perhaps not bymuch. Israel's chosenness, of course, implied specialresponsibilities, and special blessings.

Also today, the Lord proclaimed you to be His special people,just as He has promised you, that you should keep all Hiscommandments, and that He will set you high above the nationswhich He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that youmay be a holy people to the Lord your God, just as He has spoken(Dt. 26:18-19).

If Israel would keep the statutes, obey the judgments, andobserve the Torah, "therefore . . . [to be] careful to observethem with all your heart, and with all your soul" (Dt. 26: 16),then God would bless them, and give them many things. God wouldgive them a land, livestock, prosperity, and even entire cities astheir possession. If Israel were to practice justice and would

157

remain faithful to her covenant responsibility, she would avoidfamine and disease, she would avert captivity and the possibilityof national calamity and extinction. If not, perhaps a remnant offaithful people would keep them from these most terrible of fates.

The last we hear of Moses, Israel's prophet and liberator, isfrom Mount Nebo. There Moses is able to see the Land promised tothe people due to God's covenant with the forefathers. Mosesbrought the people to the Land, but would not have opportunity toenter it, that would be left to the next generation led by Joshua,son of Nun, Moses' field general. The Land was foremost in themind of Israel, and for forty years they had struggled in thewilderness as itinerant nomads. Now it was time for this people,a people with an urban tradition, to conquer cities, and claim theland that God had promised them.

The Book of Deuteronomy was rediscovered by King Josiah inthe seventh century BCE. Josiah (641-609 BC) led a reform crusadein Israel to rid the nation of pagan shrines and foreignentanglements. Deuteronomy was the second law, and was a rewriteof the wilderness journey anticipating the urbanized environmentof Palestine during the time of the conquest. Central to Israel'sexperience was coming to grips with the meanning of her choseness,and the benefits of the gift of a land, including the cities.Other prophets and kings would try to implement the vision of theDeuteronomic historian as a way to realize covenant blessing, and

158

remember covenant responsibility.Cities in the Old Testament represented community, and were

places where one could become instructed in the Law. The quasi-socialist society described in Deuteronomy centered about thecities. It was in the city that grain and other foodstuffs werebrought to the poor. It was also in the city that the law wastaught, the rights of the poor were defended, and the wicked wereto be brought to justice. In the Old Testament, the cities wereplaces where God's law was taught, and communal responses tocovenant responsibilities were carried out.

Indeed, cities had very important and positive functions inthe Old Testament. There were cities of refuge, Levitical cities,storehouse cities as well as Solomon's chariot cities. Not onlywere cities gifts of God to the covenant people, but there weredifferent kinds of cities, and they were important to Israel'ssettlement in the new land.

159

Chapter VIISpecialized Cities: Urban Contexts of Law and Religion

Levitical CitiesWhen the land of Canaan was divided among the twelve tribes,

no land as such was given to the tribe of Levi, the tribe ofLevitical Priests. Instead, the tribe of Levi, with the task ofserving the spiritual and intellectual needs of the other tribes,were spread out throughout Palestine. This distribution was inproportion to each tribe, and was located in strategic cities,called Levitical Cities.

These were forty eight cities distributed proportionatelythroughout Israel, four for each tribe. These cities were to beset aside for the tribe of Levites, in lieu of having anyterritory of their own (Numbers 35:1-8). The pastures, flocks,fields and vineyards, were to be used exclusively by the Levites.The city was to be in the center, with the pasture lands extendingfrom it in each direction 1000 cubits, roughly 500 yards from thecity walls. This seems like a great deal, but all totaled thiswas only 15 square miles, with the bulk of the lands owned by theother tribes. Since land was wealth, the Levites, though having

160

their own lands, were still dependent upon the other tribes forsustenance.

In addition, six of these cities, three on each side of theJordan River, were to be established as Cities of Refuge. Thesecities were sanctuary cities for persons who accidentally killedanother person. The cities of refuge provided a safe place forthe manslayer, until a trial by the congregation determinedwhether or not the slayer killed another accidentally, or withmalicious intent. A testimony of two witnesses was required toconvict a person of murder, and no bribes or ransom could be takenby either party. The six Cities of Refuge, also Levitical Cities,were spread out over the land, so as to provide easy access.

The 48 Levitical Cities are mentioned in several texts of theOld Testament, including Joshua 14:14; I Chron. 13:2; II Chron.11:14; 31: 15, 19). But, the major texts are in Joshua 21: 1-42,and I Chronicles 6:54-81- which list each of the Cities given tothe descendants of Aaron. These cities were to be divided amongthe four groups of Levitical priests, including AaronicKohathites, other Kohathites, Gershonites, and Merarites. Theyincluded:

From Judah and Benjamin, nine cities 1. Kiriath-arba- Hebron- a city of refuge for the

slayer2. Libnah3. Jattir

161

4. Eshthemo'a5. Holon (Helen, I Chron)6. Debir7. A'in (Ashan)8. Juttah9. Bethshemesh

From the tribe of Benjamin

10. Gibeon11. Geba12. Anathoth13. Almon (Alemeth)

From the tribe of Ephraim

14. Shechem- also a city of refuge for the slayer15. Gezer16. Kibzaim (or Jokmeam)17. Beth-horon

From the tribe of Dan

18. Elteke19. Gibbethon20. Aijalon21. Gath-rimmon

From the Tribe of Manasseh

22. Taanach (Aner in I Chronicles)23. Ibleam (Bileam in I Chronicles)24. Golon, a city of refuge for slayers25. Beeshterah (or Ashtaroth)

162

From the tribe of Issachar

26. Kishon27. Dabareth28. Ramoth (or Jarmuth ?)29. En-gannim

From the tribe of Asher

30. Mashal (or Mishal)31. Abdon32. Helkath (or Hukok in I Chronicles)33. Rehob

From the tribe of Naphtali

34. Kedesh, also a city of refuge for the slayer35. Hammoth-dor (or Hammon in I Chronicles)36. Kartan or Kiriathaim

From the tribe of Zebulon

37. Jokneam38. Rimmon (or Rimmono in I Chronicles)39. Nahalal40. Tabor

From the tribe of Reuben

41. Bezer42. Jahaz43. Kedemoth44. Mephaath

From the tribe of Gad

163

45. Ramoth Gilead, also a city of refuge for the slayer46. Mehanaim47. Heshbon48. Jezer137

In Leviticus (25:32-34), rights and privileges are given toLevites, so as to protect them from dispossession, as the Leviteswere beholden to the protection of the community where found forbasic sustenance. The sale of the pasture land was forbidden, andthe Levites were granted an unlimited right of redemption, unlikeother tribes. Finally, the homes reverted to the original ownersin the year of Jubilee. Beyond that, the Levites do not "own" thecity, nor do they have any other property such as land.Deuteronomy (14:28 ff) gives provisions of charity for theLevities, as other dependents in ancient Israel. This has ledsome scholars to suspect that the provision of cities isinconsistent with other forms of charity. However, the situationin Deuteronomy may have been different than the situation at thetime of the Monarchy, the time when the cities may have beenallotted.138

137    "List of Levitical Cities," in G.P. Hugenberger, "LeviticalCities," in the New Interntational Bible Encyclopedia 3 (1986),110.138    According to William F. Albright, the cities were not in thepossession of Israel prior to David's monarchy, and a time laterthan David as proposed by others, Solomon or post-exilic dates,

164

The Levitical cities functioned as "mission stations" for theLevites. The Levites had a special ministry of teaching among thetwelve tribes, so that the Israelites would all be knowledgeableof the Torah (Dt. 33:8-10; II Chron. 35:3; Neh. 8:7-9). TheLevitical cities were not to be places for shrines or holy places,but were bases of operations for the Levites whose responsibilityit was to see that all the cities and tribes were infiltrated withthe knowledge of the covenant. The bases were actually located inareas least accessible to a sanctuary. The Levitical teachingalso had political significance, as we see from the example ofKing Jehoshaphat (II Chronicles 17:7-9), who sent out Levites toteach in the cities the law of Yahweh, so that peace would reignand rebellion curtailed.

The strategy thus had educational and political significance,and enabled the Israelites to maintain their unique teachings andreligious practices.139 The Levites "taught in Judah, having thebook of the Law with them; they went about through all the citiesof Judah and taught among the people" (II Chron. 17:9). Thus,

are too late. See for example, W. F. Albright, Archaeology andthe Religion of Israel (1942), 121-124; and, "The List of LeviticCities," in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume I (1945), 49-73.139    For more information, see William F. Albright, "The List ofLevitic Cities," in S. Lieberman, etal. Louis Ginzberg JubileeVolume I (1945), 49-73; and B. Mazar, "The Cities of the Priestsand the Levites," SVT 7 (1960), 193-205.

165

"the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the land thatwere round about Judah, and they made no war against Jehoshaphat"(II Chron. 17:10). Jehoshaphat was a just king. In addition tocommissioning the Levites to teach the Law in Judah, he also went"among the people," and "brought them back to the Lord." "Heappointed judges in the land in all the fortified cities of Judah,city by city, and said to the judges...." "Consider what you do,for you judge not for man, but for the Lord; he is with you ingiving judgment. Now then, let the fear of the Lord be upon you;take heed what you do, for there is no perversion of justice withthe Lord our God, or partiality, or taking bribes."

Moreover, in Jerusalem, Jehoshaphat appointed certain Levites and priests and heads of families of Israel, to give judgmentfor the Lord and to decide disputed cases. They had their seatin Jerusalem. And he charged them: "Thus you shall do in thefear or the Lord, in faithfulness, and with your whole heart:whenever a case comes to you from your brethren who live intheir cities, concerning bloodshed, law or commandments, statutes

or ordinances, then you shall instruct them, that they maynot incur guilt before the Lord and wrath may not come uponyou and your brethren. Thus you shall do, and you shall not incurguilt. And behold, Amaziah the chief priest is over you allmatters of the Lord; and Zebediah the son of Ishmael, thegovernor of the house of Judah, in all the king's matters; and

the Levites will serve you as officers. Deal courageously,and may the Lord be with the upright!" (II Chron. 19: 4-11).

With Jehoshaphat, a centralized notion of justice emerges,

166

replacing the more decentralized tribally-based systems ofjustice. While Jerusalem became the center of Jehoshaphat'sjudicial reform, with a supreme court comprised of a high priest,Levites, and leading family heads. Nonetheless, the Leviticalcities and the fortified cities remained as cities of justiceunder Jehoshaphat, with the Levites, the chief priests, and theheads of family entrusted with the important task of executingjustice in the land, and enforcing the laws of Yahweh throughoutall the principle cities.140

The Levites were helpful under the reform administration ofJosiah, as they were commissioned to teach all Israel regardingthe commandments, testimonies, and statutes of Yahweh (II Chron.35:3). Levitical cities were of utmost importance. Uponsettlement, 48 cities were given to the Levites, the sons ofAaron, as "mission stations" in the empire.141 The Levites had the

140    For discussions of Israelite Law, see A. Alt, "Origins ofIsraelite Law," in Essays on OT History and Religion (1968); D.Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (1947); Z. Falk, Hebrew Law inBiblical Times (1964); A. Phillips, Ancient Israel's Criminal Law (1970); G.C. Macholz, ZAW 84 (1972), 314-340; G. Mendenhall, Lawand Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (1955); MartinNoth, Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies (1966); W.A.Whitehouse, The Biblical Doctrine of Justice and Law (1955); K.W.Whitelam, The Just King (1979), 185-206; and A.D. H. Mayes,Commentary on Deuteronomy, comments in reference to Dt. 16:18-17:13.141    Joshua 21:1-42; I Chronicles 6:54-81.

167

responsibility to see that all the tribes were saturated with theTorah, the laws and teachings of the Pentateuch, that all thepeople in all the cities would be knowlege of God's laws,statutes, principles, and ordinances.142 The 48 Levitical citieswere evenly distributed throughout the North and the South ofPalestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, among all thetribes, and near to other population centers.

The Levitical cities also had political as well as religioussignificance. The good king Jehoshaphat recognized theirimportance. He commissioned the Levites to teach in all thecities of the Kingdom, so that all Israelites knew the law ofYahweh. The result he knew, would be peace, and the reign ofjustice on the basis of Yahweh's law. It was a law of course,that protected the vulnerable of that society, including theLevites, the widows and orphans, the strangers, the hireling, theday laborer, the poor, and even the persons guilty of accidentalslaying.

Cities of RefugeAnother kind of city was the city of refuge. There were six

cities of refuge, including Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan, East of theJordan River (Dt. 4:41-43); and Kadesh, Shechem and Hebron, Westof the Jordan River (Josh. 21:7; 21:32; I Chron. 6:67). These

142    Deut. 33:8-10; II Chron. 35:3; Neh. 8:7-9.168

cities were also Levitical cities, and were governed by Levites.Deuteronomy 19 and Numbers 35 give regulations for the cities ofrefuge. They were sanctuaries for the manslayer who accidentallykilled his neighbor or acquaintance. The manslayer could flee hisavenger to one of the six cities, and seek the protection and atrial from the Levites and the "congregation" present.

If the manslayer could prove that the killing was anaccident, and was not done from hatred nor was it premeditated,then the defendant was acquitted, but would have to stay in thecity until the death of the high priest, who's death was inessence an atonement for the guilt of the defendant. If in thepresence of at least two witnesses, it was determined that themanslayer was guilty, then he would be turned over to the avenger,and his city, for execution.

Cities were places of justice and mercy in ancient Israel.If a manslayer accidentally slayed his neighbor, or cohort, hecould flee to one of six "Cities of Refuge" to avoid theretaliation of the avenger. There, he could receive an "order ofprotection" from the Levitical priest, and the congregation ofthat city, if innocent. If guilty, the avenger would have to showthe court that the defendant had maliciously intended to kill thevictim, of this would have to be proved with the testimony of twoor more witnesses (Dt. 19:1-13). Then the slayer would be turnedover the avenger, where justice would be carried out in his city.

169

If innocent, the crime was serious enough that the slayer stillhad to stay in the City of Refuge until the death of the HighPriest. Killing, whether murder or accidental, still required anatonement for life was special.

Cities were also places of justice in other ways. Supposethat a murder was committed, but the case remained unsolved (Dt.21: 1-9). In such a situation, the elders of the closest citywould take a blameless heifer, and bring the animal "to a valleywith flowing water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and theyshall break the hiefer's neck there in the valley" (Dt. 21:4).Then the elders will wash their hands, saying, "our hands have notshed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it." The elders wouldthen pray to Yahweh to "Provide Atonement" for the slaying of thisinnocent blood, but "do not lay innocent blood to the charge ofthe people of Israel" (Dt. 21:6-7).

Life was precious, even in ancient Israel. To slay aninnocent person was a hienous crime, and a sacrifice was presentedso that the community could deal with its own sense of guilt, andneed for forgiveness. The slain heifer was also a symbol thatindicated the importance of the life slain, and the seriousnessthat Yahweh, and the people of Israel was to look upon such acrime. It was the responsibility of the elders, of the nearest city, tobury the person, and to engage in the ritual of atonement andsacrificial cleansing.

170

Similarly, suppose a man has sexual relations with a woman inthe city, and the woman does not holler, for in the city of thosedays, such a yell would wake up the whole town, then both the manand the woman would be stoned. The woman "because she did not cryout in the city," and the man, "because he humbled his neighbor'swife; so you shall put away the evil person from you" (Dt. 22:24).However, if a man finds an engaged woman in the countryside, and"forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with hershall die. The reason, the man found her in the countryside, "andthe betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to saveher" (Dt. 22:27). The assumption in the latter case is that thewoman would have cried out in the city, and the woman would havebeen heard by the residents, and would have responded in kind.Cities were therefore places of protection for women in ancientIsrael. There was the assumption of civic responsibility, and thebelief that people in cities looked out for each other, and wouldquickly react in the public interest when a crisis or emergencywas at hand. The countryside was considered less safe, not onlydue to wild beasts, but also because city residents were notaround to keep watch, and to protect each other, especially thevulnerable.

There were several different kinds of cities in the OldTestament, including Royal Cities, Levitical Cities, and alsoCities of Refuge. The purpose of Cities of Refuge was to function

171

as sanctuaries for persons who accidentally killed a friend,neighbor or accomplice. The person, called in the bible, amanslayer, could then flee to one of the Cities, and receive afair trial under the protection of the City. The story revealsalso the nature of the Law in old Testament times, and the concernto limit the shedding of innocent blood as much as possible.

These were six Levitical cities that were set aside toprotect those guilty of accidental manslaughter. If a person"kills his neighbor unintentionally, " he might flee to one ofthose cities for protection. These cities included, to the Eastof the Jordan River, Bezer, Ramoth and Golan (Dt. 4:41-43). Thethree cities to the West of the Jordan included Kadesh, Shechem,and Hebron (Josh. 21:7; 21:32; and I Chron. 6:67).

Deuteronomy 19:1-13 and Numbers 35 give regulations for the"Cities of Refuge." They were available for the manslayer who wasfleeing his avenger after an accidental killing. The manslayer inthis instance was not guilty, if "he had not hated the victim inthe past" (Dt. 19:6). However, if the killing was premeditated,or done from the motive of hatred, then the manslayer was turnedover to the avenger by the Council of Elders for purposes ofexecution (Dt. 19:11).

Numbers chapter 35 details the nature of the trial in thiscase. The Levites, who were the permanent inhabitants of thecities of refuge, were responsible to admit such manslayers, and

172

then to try them. Upon safe arrival in one of the six cities,the "congregation," representing the whole of Israel, would judgebetween the manslayer and the avenger, as to whether or not thepersons killed was killed accidentally, or was murdered. Thetestimony of two or more witnesses was acceptable, whereas thetestimony of one witness was insufficient. The congregationsought to find out if the defendant in this case, committed theact, and if the act was committed from premeditated anger andhatred, or whether it was an accident.

If found guilty, then the manslayer would be turned over tothe Avenger. If acquitted, then the manslayer would have to stayin the City of Refuge until the death of the reigning high priest.The death of the high priest was ransom for the manslayer,foreshadowing the atonement doctrine and practice in the NewTestament. It was the death of the high priest that expiates thekilling, even if accidental, by the manslayer.143 If the manslayerleft the City before the death of the High Priest, he could belegally hunted and killed by the avenger. It was illegal toaccept a ransom from either party. The Law prohibited corruption.Rather, it was the purpose of this Law to keep the land from beingdefiled or polluted by the shedding of innocent blood.

The law here reaffirms the sanctity and holiness of human

143    Makkoth 11b; M. Greenberg, "The Biblical Concept of Asylum,"JBL 78 (1959), 125-132.

173

life, and the commandment, "thou shalt not kill," whether murderor manslaughter. Both pollute the land, and both requireatonement, murder by the execution of the murderer, andmanslaughter through the natural expiration of the high priest.

Cities of MercyThe Israelites were to make provision for the poor and the

vulnerable in the cities. Just as with the example of Joseph, sothe Israelites were to tithe "all the increase of your grain thatthe field produces year by year" (Dt. 14:22). This anticipatesthe great verse in Malachi, "to bring all the tithes to thestorehouse, that there may be food in My house... and all thenations shall call you blessed, for you will be a delightfulland," says the Lord of Hosts (Mal. 3:10, 12). That is, surplusgoods and foodstuffs were to be housed to feed the poor, theLevite, or anyone suffering from the danger of starvation. It wasa way of taking care of the hunger problem in ancient Israel.

And not only the grain, but the new wine, oil, firstlings ofthe herds and flocks, all had to be tithed, "that you may learn tofear the Lord your God always" (Dt. 14:23). The Israelites werenot to forsake the Levites who resides in the gates of the city,because he does not have the land inheritance like the othertribes. Also, it was the designated duty of the Levites, topublish and teach the Law to all Israel, and to judge over the

174

people. Because of these duties, it was assumed that the Leviteswould not have time to carry the responsibilities of a farm, norwould they have the time to conduct themselves in business.Hence, the other tribes had to provide food for the Levites.

But, not only the Levite, but other ones poor and vulnerablewould be taken care of by such tithes of food and livestock.

And the Levite, because he has no portion nor inheritancewith you, and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow whoare within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that

the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your handwhich you do (Dt. 14: 29).

Is this capitalism, socialism, communism or something else? True,the bible probably doesn't prefer one political system overanother. However, it seems clear that the care of the Levites andthe poor of the time was believed to be a public, a communityresponsibility. The Law stated that the tithes were to be broughtto the storehouse, to the temple, so that the poor and dependedwould not want for food.

This may not have been a political program, but was the justdemands for the poor in society, and represented the high idealsof social and economic justice, and the practice of unrequitedcompassion for the needy, including the Levites, and alsostrangers, and especially the widows and the orphans, the mostdepended of any society. In short, Israel had a responsibility to

175

care for the needs of the poor and the vulnerable of society.The writer of Deuteronomy, as divine interpreter of the Torah

as God's revealed revelation, had a particular interest on behalfof the poor. Compassion was due these people, it was their rightunder the Law.

Jubilee YearIn this economy, private property was a temporary privilege,

but not a permanent right. After seven years, debts were to bereleased, and the lands were restored to the original owners.This anticipates the Jubilee Year of the Book of Leviticus,described below.

This is called the "Lord's release." Debts are forgiven ofthe debtor, at least for the kinsmen, the brother, or theneighbor, not the foreigner who may own goods or land in Israel.Those debts would not be forgiven, or forgotten. However, thehigh communal ethic in Israel required an egalitarianism, and amutual responsibility to the needs of others among those whocalled themselves Israelites, and worshippers of Yahweh orcovenanters responsible to obey the commandments, keep theordinances, and practice the teachings of the Torah.

This practice of forgiving debts, while restricted to theIsraelites, should not be encumbered by entanglements with othernations, politically or economically. The goal, rather was

176

economic independence. "For the Lord your God will bless you justas He promised you; you shall lend to many nations, but you shallnot borrow, you shall reign over many nations, but they shall notreign over you" (Dt. 15:6). Some may attack this as"protectionism," or a "favorable balance of trade." But, supposeeach nation did this. Then, nations, to a large degree, would allbe economically self-reliant, and none would desire the goods ofother countries, whether raw materials, minerals, or rain forests.Israel was to be, rather, dependent upon Yahweh to provide herneed, and she was instructed, in the process, to provide for theneeds of others, not allowing a brother to fall finally to asituation of utter dependence, or to go without food or shelter.

Nor was any Israelite permitted to act in a callous,condescending, or demeaning manner toward the poor. "You shallnot harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother"(Dt. 15:7). While there was a system to take care of the hungry,the pardoning of debts, and the relief of poverty and destitutionwas an individual and communal responsibility.

For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore Icommand you, saying, 'You shall open your hand wide to yourbrother, to your poor, and your needy, in your land' (Dt. 15:11).

Yes, there would likely always be the poor in the land, butthe bible doesn't blame the poor or needy for their condition.

177

Just as there is poverty, so also is there always theresponsibility of the community to provide for those in need.There may always be the poor, but there should never be any one inneed in such a system, for the tithe, and the responsibility ofthe Israelites to each other, together with the seventh year as ayear of release, would always prevent destitution. The vulnerablewould be protected, and the needy would have no need in such asystem.

Finally, there are times in human history, whether byindenture, or forced condition, that some human beings findthemselves enslaved to others. Even in the twentieth century, acentury and more after the end of chattel slavery in America,there is yet forced slavery to prostitution all over SoutheastAsia, Japan, and the Philippines. If such a thing happened, forreasons of economics in ancient Israel, all (Hebrew) slaves wouldbe manumitted at the seventh year, the year of release (Dt. 15:12).

Further, the freed individual would not be set free, withoutprovisions. He or she would not be sent away empty handed.Rather, the previous owner, or indenturer, must "supply himliberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and fromyour winepress, from what the Lord has blessed you with, you shallgive to him" (Dt. 15:14). The rationale for such generous termsis the memory of God's graciousness at the Exodus, when Israel as

178

a nation was set free from bondage. The object lesson still influences the way Israelites relate

to each other, as well as to those around. Rather than forcedslavery "in perpetuity," the Israelite was to remember, that as acommunity, they were all once a slave in the land of Egypt. So,just as the Lord redeemed and liberated Israel from bondage toEgypt, so too must Israel remember to set free their fellows atthe end of each seventh year. The threat of taking an "awl andthrusting it through his ear to the door" was no doubt a way ofdiscouraging enslavement on the part of the slave, as unlikely asthat would be under the terms given (Dt. 15:16-17).

Cities in the Book of Deuteronomy were gifts of Yahweh. Theywere centers of the worship of Yahweh, and the centers ofinstruction in the Torah, as well as centers whereby the "trulyneedy" of Israelite society would be restored to their formerstanding. While we don't know for certain if the Law was everpracticed to the extent described here, we do know that suchremained a hope, and an expectation in both the prophecy of Isaiah(Is. 61:1-3), and in Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 4:13-18).

In Deuteronomy, cities were not only gifts of Yahweh, asYahweh's dowry to Israel, but cities also had specialsignificance. Some of these cities had special purposes, ascities of refuge, or Levitical cities. Cities in Deuteronomy werepreserved, even when an idolatrous people, together with her

179

idols, were destroyed. Cities were places of law, instruction,compassion, and community. Cities were places where thevulnerable were protected, and where the poor were provided for. Cities in the Book of the Judges:

Cities provide the context and the stage for the stories ofthe Judges. Judges begins by noting the unfinished business ofconquest left since the death of Joshua. Canaanites were still inthe land, "but were reduced to forced labor," but were notcompletely driven out of the land. Also, the Philistine citieswere still independent and Jerusalem remained in the hands of theJebusites, "for the people of Benjamin did not drive out theJebusites who dwelt in Jerusalem" (Jud. 1:21).

The Judges were the "dark ages" of Israelite history.Instead of finishing the job of conquest, the people often wentback on their word, and worshipped pagan gods, serving the Baals."They forsook the Lord and served the Baals and the Asheroth."So, Yahweh gave them over to plunderers, and they were oppressedand placed into slavery. "Then the Lord raised up judges whosaved them out of the power of those who plundered them. And theydid not listen to their judges; for they played the harlot afterother gods and bowed down to them" (Jud. 2:16).

As always, the "Lord was moved to pity by their groaningbecause of those who afflicted and oppressed them" (Jud. 2:18).Things were restored when a judge lived, but whenever a judge

180

died, the same vicious cycle occurred, with the people going backto the Baals, and serving other gods, with the result that theyagain were judged and oppressed by others. "So the Lord leftthose nations, not driving them out at once, and he did not givethem into the power of Joshua" (Jud. 2:23).

In one cycle, Jabin, king of Canaan and a commander inSisera's army ruled with 900 chariots of iron, and Israel was"oppressed for twenty years" (Jud. 4:3). It took this time aprophetess, Deborah, and a reluctant leader, Barak, to drive outSisera. Other judges arose, including Gideon, Jephthah, andSamson.

Chapter VIIIThe Cities of the Kings of Israel

First and Second Samuel are two historical books of the Old

Testament that cover the transition from a loose tribal form of

181

government of the "Judges" to an organized Kingship under David,

Solomon and heirs. While the bulk of First and Second Samuel deal

with the life and times of some of the notable personalities of

Israelite history, there is much material that also points to the

importance of material. The first issue has to do with

solidifying the conquest after the period of Judges. Israel is

still threatened to the East by the Philistines, and to the West

by the Syrians. Also, other tribes of Ammonites, Edomites, and

Moabites are roaming in the land, and a solution must be found to

strengthen Israel's security.

Most dramatic, however, is the establishment of Kingship.

For Samuel, Kingship is something that other nations are

accustomed to, but not so Israel. Theoretically, the only King

for Israel is Yahweh, the sole Lord God of the Israelites.

However, the nation asks for a King, as a better way, perhaps, to

ward off attacks from Israel's enemies. Kingship is thus a

reluctant concession. A third issue is the Kingship lineage.

Initially, it is to the house of Saul. But after that works out,

182

it is transferred to the house of David, the son of Jesse.

Intrigue is the order of the day in David's house, and after civil

wars, domestic strife, and conspiracies by David's own children,

Solomon is eventually nominated to the throne as David's

successor. However, Solomon is illigitmate in two ways. He is

the son of David through the ill-advised relationship with

Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, one of David's thirty

mighty men. Also, Solomon is not the eldest. In David's last

years, Adonijah is the eldest, but he tries to have himself

crowned King without his father's knowledge, a mistake that costs

him the throne.

David eventually defeats all his enemies. But as he becomes

more and more successful in the area of foreign policy, his

household was on the verge several times of falling apart. David

successfully defeats the Philistines, the Ammonites, the Syrians,

and all the other less significant tribes in the land. Yet, the

stories of Israel as recorded in these two books revolved around

cities. Throughout, the land is controlled by cities and towns.

183

These cities are of religious, cultural, and strategic importance.

David was not trying to capture the wilderness or the pasture land

for Israel, but rather he was up to capturing the cities in the

land. For if he controlled the cities, and the people who lived

in those cities, he knew that of consequence he would also control

the land. Other issues of importance, especially for today's

readers, are the role of women in the Old Testament, and the

problem of war and the execution of justice.

The Birth of Samuel

Samuel was born to Elkanah of Ramah of Ephraim. This was not

the Ramah of the Benjaminites (Josh. 18:25). It was the hometown

of Samuel and his father, Elkanah. It was the site where the

elders of Israel later demanded a King (I Sam. 8:4), and the place

where Saul, Israel's first King, met Samuel (I Sam. 9:6, 10).

David later sought refuge from Saul in Ramah (I Sam. 19:18; 20:1).

In the New Testament, the town was known as Arimathea, the

hometown of a certain Joseph of Arimathea, the member of the

184

Sanhedran Council who allowed Jesus to be buried in his own tomb.

Elkanah regularly went up to Shiloh to worship and

participate in religious ritual. Shiloh was first mentioned in

Genesis (49:10), and was a place where Joshua set up a tent of

meeting to deal with what he thought was a rebellion for building

a rival altar (Josh. 18:1). Shiloh as a town was connected with

Shechem, about nine miles North of Bethel. It was there where Eli

and his two sons were active as priests, Hophni and Phineas.

Elkanah had two wives at the time, Peninnah and Hannah.

Hannah was barren for most of her adult life, and sought for a

son. Bearing a son for a woman in the ancient world was the most

important function of a wife, or a concubine. Hannah felt much

shame for not having born a son, and was regularly provoked by

Elkanah's other wife. The impact was pretty heavy, as Hannah

exhibited many of the signs of what today we would call

depression. She "wept and would not eat." The text of First

Samuel further describes her condition as "deeply distressed,"

"afflicted," "sorely troubled," and spoke to the Lord about this

185

matter with "great anxiety and vexation." Hannah appealed to Eli

the Priest about bearing a son, and with great relief, Eli

promised: "Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant your

petition. . . ." (I Sam. 1:17). Afterwards, Elkanah and Hannah

went back to Ramah and there gave birth to Samuel.

Samuel, Judge and Prophet

After the birth of Samuel, Hannah and Samuel went back to

Shiloh to give thanks to the Lord and to Worship there. She

declares: "For this child I have prayed, and the Lord has granted

me my petition. . . . Therefore, I have lent him to the Lord,

for as long as he lives, he is lent to the Lord" (I Sam. 1:27-28).

What follows is one of the great prayers of the Old Testament, and

reveals Hannah's deep spirituality. Women were oppressed and were

subject to the control and protection of men at the time, but this

did not seem to hinder Hannah's spiritual growth. Her prayer in

many ways introduces the history of the Kings of Israel that

follows.

186

In this prayer (I Sam. 2:1-10), a remarkable theology was

articulated. For Hannah, God is a God of knowlege, power and

justice. God feeds the hungry, grants conception of children,

makes the poor rich, lifts up the poor and the needy, and judges

the "ends of the earth." Hannah understood issues of power that

few men understood, that it was not by might that a man shall

prevail, but it is the Lord who gives "strength to his king, and

exalt[s] the power144 of his anointed" (2:9, 10). Hannah's prayer

suggests what a true kingship should entail. In Hannah's prayer

are all the elements of Jesus' teachings of the Sermon of the

Mount delivered centuries later. It is Hannah who gave vision and

inspiration to the public ministry of the Messiah.

Prosperity and "peace" to Hannah is also linked to the growth

of Samuel. "And the Lord bisited Hannah, and she conceived and

borhe three sons and two daughters. And the boy Samuel grew in

the presence of the Lord," and Samuel "continued to grow both in144    The word for power here, is the word Charan (horn), and wasthe word for the horn[s] of a wild animal. It symbolized power,strength, dignity, liberation (Ps. 18:2), as the power to dosomething, the ability to be strong.

187

stature and in favor with the Lord and with men" (I Sam. 2:21,

26). Samuel was the last Judge of Israel, and was groomed to be a

priest and a prophet. Hannah would make a robe for Samuel and he

went up with Elkanah to Shiloh to offer a yearly sacrifice. As

Eli grew old, and Eli's own sons were evil, there was a visitation

to Samuel while he was sleeping in the Temple at Shiloh. And

Samuel was called to be a prophet of the Lord, initiated to the

prophetic ministry at Shiloh.

The power issue surfaces again in I Samuel. There, the

elders of Israel confer, noting that the Israelites were being

routed by the Philistines. The Philistines were encamped at

Aphek, located on the Northern edge of what was once Canaanite

territory. The Philistines settled in Palestine in the 12th

Century BCE, and established themselves in the land along the

coast with a network of five cities, a petopolis, including

Ashkelon, Gath, Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza. The land was known a

Philistia, and the Philistines were the major challengers to the

188

Israelites for control of Palestine up through the reign of

Solomon. The Israelites worried that the "power of our enemies"

(I Sam. 4:3) might overtake them. They therefore proposed that

the "Ark of the Covenant" be moved from Shiloh to Ebenezer.

The Ark was so moved, and the Philistines heard of it, and

were much disturbed. The Israelites, after tranferring the Ark,

let out a great shout, and the earth trembled with the great

sound. The Philistines responded: "Woe to us, for nothing like

this has happened before. Woe to us, Who can deliver us from the

power of these mighty gods?" (I Sam. 4:7-8). As it turned out,

the Israelites would have done better by leaving the Ark at

Shiloh, and approached God there, rather than merely assuming that

the presence of the Ark would grant sure victory. The Philistines

were afraid that they might become "slaves to the Hebrews," and

fought with the Israelites, roundly defeating them. To add insult

to injury, the Ark was captured by the Philistines, and the two

sons of Eli, Hophni and Phineas were killed in the process for

they were priestly caretakers of the Ark.

189

The news of the Philistine victory and the capture of the Ark

made its way to Shiloh and to Eli. A man came to the city "and

told the news, and the city cried out" (I Sam. 4:13). Eli

wondered what had happened, and the messenger told Eli of the fate

of the Ark, and his two sons. This was a severe shock to an old

man, for Eli was 98 years of age. "When he mentioned the ark of

God, Eli fell over backward from his seat by the side of the gale;

and his neck was broken and he died, for he was an old man, and

heavy. HJe had judged Israel for forty years" (I Sam. 4:18). The

wife of Phineas, Eli's son also cried out that "the glory has

departed from Israel, for the ark of God has been captured"

(4:22).

However, the Philistines would quickly regret that they had

captured the ark in the first place, and it would reak havoc in

each city of the pentopolis. The Ark was first brought to Ashdod,

and to the house of Dagon, the god of the Philistines. The god

collapsed before the Ark, and its hands fell off. This was enough

of a calamity for the Philistines, but "the hand of the Lord"

190

created more problems by terrifying and afflicting the residents

of Ashdod with tumors. The "men of Ashdod" decided that was

enough, and then sent the Ark to Gath and to Ekron, with the same

result. The men of Ekron decided it was better to give the thing

back to the Israelites, for "there was a deathly panic throughout

the whole city. The hand of God was very heavy there; the men who

did not die were stricke with tumors adn the cry of the city went

up to heaven" (5:11-12).

The Philistines called for the priests and the diviners to

figure out what to do. They concluded that they should send the

Ark back to the Israelites with mules, and better with a guilt

offering for offending the god of the Israelites. They sent five

"golden tumors" and "five golden mice" representing the plagues

that they had encountered because of the presence of the Ark of

the Covenant.

These are the golden tumors, which the Philistines returned

as a guilt offering to the Lord: one for Ashdod, one for Gaza,

one for Ashkeloon, one for Gath, one for Ekron; also the golden

191

mice, according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines

belonging to the five lords, both fortified cities and unwalled

villages (6:17-18).

Hence, what the army of Israel failed to do, much was

accomplished by the mere presence of the Ark across enemy lines.

The Ark ended up at Bethshemesh, fifteen miles west of Jerusalem

on the Philistine border, and the residents rejoiced. With the

Levites, the people in the town "offered burnt offernings and

sacrficed sacrifices on that day to the Lord. And when the five

lords of the Philistines saw it, they returned that day to Ekron"

(6:16-17). The Ark was then moved to Kiriath-jearim (city of

forests), a fortified city that once belonged to the Gibeonites as

part of the Gibeonite confederacy (Josh, 9:17). Afterwards, all

the tribes of Israel "lamented before the Lord" (7:2) for twenty

years. David brought the Ark to Jerusalem from Kiriath-jearim (II

Sam. 6:2-3; I Chron. 15:25).

In effect, Israel had sinned. The doctrine of the holy war

was still viewed as the norm for the waging of war. It was God

192

who did the fighting as necessary, and the armies of Israel, ill-

equipped in comparison with other armies, were called to trust and

remain faithful to the covenant. God would do the rest. The

problem was that the people did not trust in Yahweh. They trusted

in outward ritual, and in the symbol and power of the Ark, not

realizing that the power rested in God alone, not in an object,

however sacred. Yahweh fought for Israel regardless. The issue,

nonetheless, was not whether Israel would remain faithful, but

whether the Philistines would recognize and acknowlege the God of

Israel as the true God. Meanwhile, Samuel charged Israel to

return to Yahweh "with all your heart, then put away the foreigh

gods and the Ashtaroth from among you, and direct your heart to

the Lord, and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the

hands of the Philistines" (7:3).

The Ark was left under the care of Eleazar, the son of

Abinadab. Meanwhile, Samuel called for the elders of Israel to

meet him at Mizpah. This town was near Ramah and Gebah in

193

Benjaminite territory. Samuel visited Mizpah regularly on his

annual circuit to judge Israel. Samuel would later install Saul

as King from Mizpah, and King Asa fortified the town in Judah's

civil war with Israel (I Kings 15:22). Meanwhile, Samuel judged

Israel at Mizpeh, and the Israelites confessed their sins of

idolatry and unfaithfulness as they prepared for war versus the

Philistines. God "thundered with a mighty voice" amid the

Philistines, throwing them into confusion. So, "the men of Israel

went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, and smote them, as

far as below Beth-car (7:11).

The result of the victory was severe to the authority of the

Philistines in the region. First, of all, all "the cities which

the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored to Israel,

from Ekron to Gath; and Israel rescued territory from the land of

the Philistines." In other words, the conquest and reclamation of

territory was a consequence of restoring to Israel cities captured

previously by the Philistines. Secondly, a "peace" existed

"between Israel and the Ammonites." Third, Samuel judged Israel,

194

"and he went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, Gilgal, and

Mizpah, and he judged Israel in all these places" (7:16).

Samuel's ministry as a priest and a prophet was an urban ministry.

Afterwards, Samuel would regularly return to his hometown of

Ramah, and "he administered justice to Israel, and he built there

an altar to the Lord" (7:17). Israel's peace and prosperity were

linked to the people's practice of spirituality and justice was

administered by Israel's last judge and prophet, Samuel.

As Samuel became old, he appointed his sons as judges in

Israel, Joel and Abijah. They were stationed in the city of

Beersheba, to the far south of the kingdom. Unfortunately, Samuel

could not maintain control over his sons, and they "took bribes

and perverted justice" (8:3). Like the sons of Eli, so the sons

of Samuel acted with injustice. The sons were tempted by greed

and bribery. Power has the tendency to corrupt, and absloute

kingship could pose and even greater danger. The effect must have

been destructive to the nation and undermined the unity and

integrity of Israel. With Samuel's son proving a discredit to the

195

people, the question naturally arose as to who would succeed

Samuel? Also, it seemed that threats from neighoboring tribes and

nations were such that a king was needed, with a standing army.

The result was that "all the elders" of the people came to

Samuel at Ramah. The conference is more political in nature than

economic, as the question of who will lead the people after

Samuel's death is foremost on their minds. They pointed out that

Samuel's sons "do not walk in your ways," and therefore, "appoint

for us a king to govern us like all the nations" (8:6). This was

a problem for Samuel, as Israel was to be different from all the

other nations, holy (set apart for a special religious function),

and beholden to covenant responsibilities. Samuel's faith as a

prophet was linked to the belief that Yahweh only was a fit king

for Israel, and to be like other nations would also open up the

door to idolatry and apostacy. Having a king was thus

problematic. The decision for a monarch was for Samuel a tacit

rejection of the will and purpose of Yahweh. For Samuel, Yahweh's

word was "they have rejected me from being King over them" (8:7).

196

Samuel acknowleges the demands of the elders, and gives them

a warning. So they want a king, then they shall have it. What

would it mean? The Deuteronomic historian records that, after the

tribes settle in the land, they would request a king. This the

lord would do, but warns that the king would stumble if he

"multiplies to himself horses," tries to return to Egypt, adds to

his harem wives, or seeks to add silver and gold to his treasury.

Kings are after all human beings, and without restraint, would

seek after money, wealth, power, and sex (Dt. 17:14-17). These

are the ways of a king.

Kingship thus had severe consequences. It would mean a

military dictatorship and a repressive economic system with forced

labor and centralized government. Samuel states, sarcastically,

"this will be the justice (Mishpat) of a king." This will be more

than they bargain for. They will be conscripted for military

service, impressed for agricultural work and the making of arms,

many would be reduced to domestic servants, their fields would be

taxed, and the best fields, servants, and animals would be

197

expropriated to the king's service. In short, kingsip would mean

the worst form of totalitarianism and tyranny. Only then would

they be like the other nations. King David put much of this in

operation, and Solomon's reign was so oppressive as to pave the

way for the succession of the Northern Kingdom (I Kings 12:4) and

the division of Israel. The warning was not heeded, the elders

wanted a king "to fight our battles for us," irrespective of the

doctrine of holy war as assumed. Samuel reluctantly concedes, and

wishes time to appoint such a king. Until then, he instructs the

elders: "Go every man to his city" (8:22).

The lot fell upon Saul, the son of Kish. Kish is described

as "a Benjaminite, a man of wealth," and Saul, "a handsome young

man." The Hebrew implies that Kish was a man of wealth and power,

of social standing in the community. We might say also that Saul

was "head and shoulders" above all his appears. On the surface,

Saul was an excellent choice as ruler over others. But, what

about his "character" and faith? "There was not a man among the

people of Israel more handsome than he; from his shoulders upward

198

he was taller than any of the people" (9:2). Meanwhile, Saul was

looking for some lost animals, and was told to seek help from "a

man of God in the city (Ramah)." So they went up to the city. As

they were entering the city, they saw Samuel coming out toward

them on his way up to the high place (9:15).

Meat could only be eaten if dedicated and blessed by way of a

religious act of sacrifice. All food, animals or grains, were

understood by Samuel as the bountiful gifts of God. Saul eats

with Samuel, as Yahweh revealed to Samuel that Saul would rule

over the people, and would drive out the Philistines, "for I have

seen the affliction of my people because their cry has come to me"

(9:16). This was not the best solution, but the solution that

would be most workable, given the mentality and expectation of the

people.

Samuel and Saul left Ramah, and as they were "going down to

the outskirts of the city" (9:27), Samuel indicated that he had

something to tell Saul. Saul was told that he was anointed as

"prince" over Israel, and will "reign over the people . . . and

199

you will save them from the hand of their enemies round about"

(10:1). Saul was thus anointed by Samuel and accompanied him to

Gilgal as part of the prophet's annual circuit. Leaders in

ancient Israel were charismatic, anointed by the Holy Spirit.

Like the ideal king and Messiah (anointed one) that would come to

pass, "the spirit of the Lord will come mightily upon you, and you

shall prophesy . . . (10:6)." Hannah, the wife of Eli, had

prophesied at the birth of Samuel years ago that the power of God

was mightier than the power of military garrisons. It would

remain to be seen if Saul would remember the source of his power

and authority as King of Israel.

At Gibeah, Saul was met by other prophets, and "God gave him

another heart," and "the spirit of God came mightily upon himm,

and he prophesied among them" (10:10). This was shocking to the

people, and many wondered what had come over the son of Kish. "Is

Saul also among the prophets? (10:12)." Meanwhile, Samuel

continued on his annual journey, and came to Mizpah. There,

Samuel called the people. Samuel mentioned that it was God who

200

delivered people from oppression, not an earthly king. "But, you

have this day rejected your God, who saves you from all your

calamities and your distresses; and you have said, 'No! but set a

King over us'" (10:19). Saul was reluctant to accept such

responsibility, and hid himself among the baggage. But he was

found, and presented before the people. Despite Samuel's warning,

Saul was chosen as King, as God's anointed. "He was taller than

any of the people from the shoulders upward . . . . There is none

like him among all the people," stated Samuel. And all the people

replied: "Long live the king!" (10:24).

Samuel then proceeded to teach Israel, and Saul, regarding

the rights and duties of kingship. As the Lord's anointed, the

King was to be an executor of justice for the people. The King

had the awesome responsibility to represent Yahweh among the

people. This responsibility reflected the office of kingship, not

necessarily the character of the king. The king was to be God's

servant and the only earthly representative. He was expected to

know and teach the law (Dt. 17:18-20); and was to judge wisely and

201

justly (I Kings 3:28; II Chron. 17:7). Christ's ideal kingship

derives from this vision of a charismatic king and prophet.

Thereafter, Saul went to Gibeah, his hometown, together "with

men of valor whose hearts God had touched" (10:26). Gibeah was

also the place where Saul was called to become King of Israel. It

was formerly a town of the Benjamites (I Sam. 13:2; II Sam. 23:29)

and was the scene of the abuse and murder of the Levite's

concubine. The offenders were unrepentant Benjamites, who were

defeated for the deed by Israelites in battle (Judges 19-20).

Gibeah was completely destroyed for this heinous evil (Judges

20:40), but was later rebuilt, and known for its relationship to

Saul (I Sam. 14:16).

Gibeah remained Saul's capital during his reign (Is. 10:29; I

Sam. 15:34; 22:6; 23:19). It was located on the highway from

Jerusalem to Ramah (Judges 19:13). It may have been the city

mentioned as the "hill of God" in I Samuel (10:5), which was also

identified with the career of Saul. This was "Tell el- Ful,"

three miles north of Jerusalem. Saul's fortress, built about 1015

202

BC, was originally a fortress of the Philistines, whom Saul

defeated, thereafter rebuilding the fortress for his own purposes

(I Sam. 13: 3, 16). After the capture of the Northern Kingdom by

Assyria, the Assyrian army camped at Gibeah, just before their

swift attack upon Jerusalem.145

Saul's first test as King was a military challenge. Nahash

the Ammonite beseiged Israelites at Jabesh-gilead, and threatened

a humiliating truce. The Israelites would of necessity submit to

having their right eyes gouged out. The news made it to Saul at

Gibeah, and the King was enraged. "And the spirit of God came

mightily upon Saul when he heard these words, and his anger was

greatly kindled" (11:6). Saul, with threats of recompense,

assembled a huge army, and the Ammonites were defeated and

scattered. Thereafter, Samuel beckoned Saul and his army to

Gilgal, for the purpose of "renewing" the kingdom (11:14). Here,

even Saul's detractors (10:27; 11:12) are invited to participate145    Gibeah was the site where General Titus of the Romansencamped in AD 70, just prior to the assault upon Jerusalem. In1965, King Hussein of Jordan chose this place to build his royalpalace.

203

in peace offerings. Enmities are put behind them, and the kingdom

is unified under Saul's leadership. For the moment, Israel is at

peace.

Samuel gives his final address to the Israelites. Israel has

a King, but the prophet is old and gray. Samuel asks them if he

has ever been unjust or dishonorable. Samuel never oppressed, but

consistently was God's prophet and judge among the people. Samuel

notes that God has consistently delivered the people from

oppression, and the election of a King also has that potential.

Samuel, despite reservations, insists that if the people "and the

king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, it will be

well; but if you will not hearken to the voice of the Lord, then

the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king" (12:14-

15). Like prophets that would come later, Samuel warned them to

"serve the Lord with all their heart," and "do not turn aside

after vain things which cannot profit or save, for they are vain"

(12:21). Samuel remained confident that Yahweh would remember the

promises made to the forefathers. "For the Lord will not cast

204

away his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased

the Lord to make you a people for himself" (12:22). Samuel

pledged that he would continue to pray for the people and promised

to instruct them "in the good and the right way." However, if the

people would forget their covenant, they would be swept away,

"both you and your king" (12:25).

Saul went on to divide his army, keeping his main force at

Michmash, and a smaller number with Jonathan at Gibeah. Mishmash

was seven miles northeast of Jerusalem. Jonathan defeated the

Philistines at Geba, six miles northeast of Jerusalem. Geba would

later become fortified by King Asa (I Kings 15:22). Meanwhile,

Saul was forced to flee to Gilgal, and there he was impatiently

waiting for Samuel. As Samuel was later than the seven days

agreed, Saul made his first mistake as King. He took matters into

his own hands, and offered a burnt offering to Yahweh, as his

troops were deserting him. Thereafter, Samuel arrived, and Saul

admitted that he "forced" himself, and offered the sacrifice

(13:12). Samuel rebuked Saul, and left Gilgal for Gibeah. Samuel

205

indicated that Saul's kingdom would not survive for his

imprudence.

Saul was no doubt depressed over the matter, and Saul escaped

to the outskirts of Gibeah, under a pomegranate tree. Meanwhile,

Jonathan gathered a group secretly, and attacked the Philistines.

The Lord caused a great confusion among the Philistines and they

were roundly defeated. Saul's history of King shows much

arbitrariness and impatience. He consistently took matters into

his own hand, not waiting for the Lord. For Saul, the power of

the military was more significant than the power of God. Still,

Saul's assumption of kingship led to numerous military victories,

and "he delivered Israel out of the hands of those who plundered

them" (14:48). "There wa hard fighting against the Philistines

all the days of Saul; and when Saul saw any strong man, or any

valiant man, he attached him to himself" (14:52).

Despite Saul's military victories, he continued to act in

isolation from Samuel and the will of Yahweh. At Gilgal, Samuel

chastised Saul for not fulfilling the will of God versus the

206

Amalakites. The Amalekites were to be punished for "opposing"

Israel when they were escaping Egypt (15:2). Saul was to utterly

defeat the Amalekites, but instead Saul kept Agag, the king of the

Amalakites, as a trophy of war. Saul also erected a monument to

himself at Carmel. This was utterly repugnant to Samuel. At

Gilgal, Samuel confronted Saul for the last time:

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken thanthe fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of

divination, and stubbornness is an iniquity and idolatry. Becauseyou have rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected youfrom being king (15:22-23).

Saul tried to get out of it. He said he sinned, "for I

feared the people and obeyed their voice" (15:24). Saul was

reluctant really accept responsibility for his actions, and

preferred to lay the problem on others. Samuel's reply was not

comforting: "The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you

this day" (15:28). It would be a few years before Samuel's

prophecy would be fulfilled. As a final jesture, Samuel called

for Agag, and slays him publicly: "As your sword has made women

207

childless, so shall your mother be childless among women" (15:33).

With that, Samuel departed to Ramah, and Saul went back to Gibeah.

Samuel then proceeded to travel to Bethlehem, and hearing of

Samuel's fury, "the elders of the city came to meet him trembling,

and said, 'Do you come peaceably'" (16:4). Samuel stated that he

came to sacrifice to the Lord, and consecrated Jesse and his sons,

save David, who was tending sheep outside of the town. Jesse

presented each of his sons to Samuel, from Eliab, the oldest, on

toward the youngest. David, the youngest was not in the city, and

the unlikely new prince was summoned by Samuel. Samuel instructed

Jesse to find David, and he was brought to Samuel and secretly

anointed as the new king. Thereafter, "the spirit of the Lord

departed from Saul," but "came mightily upon David" (16:13).

Saul's tragedy was slow to develop. There are patterns in

his reign that would contribute to his downfall. First, he was

impatient and hasty. He could not wait upon the Lord, and took

matters in his own hands. Second, he was deceitful, to others and

even to himself. He redefined reality to justify his actions.

208

This did not sway or deceive Samuel, who knew the truth and

pursued it. Saul was highly presumptuous. He was vain, and

erected a monument to himself. Under stress, rather than seeking

out God, he took it upon himself to offer sacrifices, thinking

that outward show and religious ritual would be enough. What

really mattered was obedience to Yahweh and the practice of

justice with a sincere heart. But, this seemed to escape Saul.

Finally, and this was the end of the matter for Samuel, Saul's

repentance was shallow and insincere. He blamed the people for

his own mistakes and lack of leadership. He was reluctant to

accept responsibility for his own actions. Samuel spoke the truth

consistently, whereas Saul didn't know what the truth was. Saul

was ambivalent, half-hearted, and self-serving. These character

problems were unacceptable for a King who's awesome task was to

represent Yahweh among men. Saul's greatest sin was his inability

to listen to Yahweh and Yahweh's prophet, Samuel. These problems

cost Saul his life, his lineage, and his kingship as "prince" over

Israel.

209

David

David was a Benjaminite from the town of Bethlehem. He was

also apparantly an accomplished musician and poet. When Saul had

his fits of distemper, he sought someone to sooth him with music,

someone who could play the lyre. The lyre is the earliest musical

instrument mentioned in the bible (Gen. 4:21). The comforter to

the troubled king was none other than his own successor, David.

David was regarded highly by his peers. To Saul's request, David

was summoned as the king's musician. David was renown already as

"the son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skilful in playing, a

man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good

presence, and the Lord is with him" (16:18). David, even in his

youth, is respected as a man of talent, wisdom, and great ability.

He was evidently an able speaker and a commanding leader, even at

a youth.

Jesse was a respected citizen of the city of Bethlehem. He

was a grandson of Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 4: 17, 22). His mother was

210

remembered with great fondness and respect (Psalm 116:16; 86:16).

As Jesse's youngest of eight children, he was the keeper of his

father's sheep. In the ancient world, it was common for

landowners to raise crops and herds from an urban residence. In

the preindustrial city, the city was interconnected with the

countryside. David was known to be ruddy and handsome, and was

well-known both as musician and as a warrior who killed both a

lion and a bear that attacked his father's flocks. Saul thus

employed David as his own private court musician and armor-bearer.

David's music helped to sooth Saul's evident manic depressive

illness.

Meanwhile, Saul continued to fight against the Philistines.

The Philistines included in their number descendents of the

anakim, the giants in the land that so frightened the Israelites

and inhibited their conquering and settling the land (Joshua

11:22). There was one in their number, a certain Goliath.

Goliath hailed from Gath, one of the great cities of the

Philistine pentapolis. Goliath was reportedly almost nine feet

211

tall (six cubits and a span), a bronze helmet and vest weighing

126 pounds.146 This was enough to scare any foe. Goliath had

trouble attracting a challenger. Saul was "head and shoulders"

above all others, but did not accept the challenge. Goliath was

the champion of the Philistines, and came for forty straight days

defying anyone to fight him, one on one. Overhearing this, David

took up the challenge. "For who is this uncircumcised Philistine,

that he should defy the armies of the living God?" (17:26).

To the victor goes the spoils! Rather than fight Goliath

himself, Saul offers a reward of money, rank and one of his

daughters in marriage to the one who defeats the champion of the

Philistine. David accepted the challenge, despite taunts from his

eldest brother, Eliab, still no doubt jealous that it was David

whom Samuel anointed. David argued that he would defeat Goliath,

with his staff, five smooth stones, and his sling. Despite

Goliath's taunts, David remarked that the battle was not just a

stuggle between two men, but "the battle is the Lord's and he will146    Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel (Downers Gove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 125.

212

give you into our hand" (17:47). David was cognizant that Yahweh

is the warrior-God, and it is the "Lord of Hosts" who does the

fighting. David's confidence was less in his ability, and more in

the promise that God would deliver Goliath, for the name of Yahweh

was at stake. Goliath's test was a case of which God was the

living God, "that all the earth may know that there is a God in

Israel" (17:47, 46). David knew something that Saul didn't know,

that the power of God is greater than the power of armies. David

prevailed.

David's conquest paved the way for the army of Israel, and

the Philistines were chased to the gates of two of their great

cities, Gath and Ekron. David brought the head of Goliath to

Saul. Saul's son, Jonathan, was so impressed by David's gallant

act, that he bequeathed himself to David. Jonathan gave his armor

to David, and David became as a result Saul's greatest general.

Wherever David went, enemies were defeated in Saul's name. After

David slew Goliath and the armies of Israel, "the women came out

from all the cities of Israel" singing "Saul has slain his

213

thousands, and David his ten thousands" (18:6, 7).

This aroused anger and envy in Saul, for it made David appear

as a mightier warrior than the king. "What more can he have but

the kingdom," Saul questioned unwittingly? Saul in his rage threw

a spear at David while he was playing his lyre. David, paranoid

and envious, made David a commander, and sent him away, hoping

that David might die in obscurity. Not so, David had great

success wherever he went, much to the displeasure of King Saul.

Saul eventually gave Michal to David as wife, but secretly hoped

that the David might perish while fighting the Philistines.

David, not having a bounty, thought himself a "poor man and of no

repute." Saul wanted 100 foreskins of the Philistines as a

marriage present. David more than complied, delivering 200

foreskins. Not only did David fulfill his obligation, but all

Israel loved him more than the king.

From thenceforward, Saul sought David's life. Jonathan

forewarned David of Saul's intention, and Michal also. Michal

under duress, indicates that she was forced to help David escape,

214

for the latter threatened her. David fled to Ramah to meet with

Samuel the prophet. David provided protection and sanctuary, and

Saul himself came to Ramah looking for David, forcing David to

flee. Saul's son Jonathan tries to appeal to his father, with no

avail, the result being that David is forced to a life of a

refugee and a fugitive.

David assembled a small band of men, including "every one who

was in distress, and every one who was in debt, and everyone who

was discontented," he gathered to himself (22:2). David thus

attracted a band of potential revolutionaries, of those men who

were oppressed by King Saul. David fled first to his hometown of

Bethlehem, and then to Nob, a city of priests. There, he met with

Ahimelech, and David and his companions are given bread to eat.

David is also given the sword of Goliath whom he had slain, and

then courageously flees to King Achish of Gath. However, the

Philistines were slow to consider David as a refugee in their

midst, and David fled to another city, Mizpeh of Moab (22:3)

hoping to find sanctuary, but again this was denied, forcing David

215

to flee to the forests of Hereth.

Meanwhile, Saul in his anger prevailed upon his soldiers to

slay the priests of Nob for providing sanctuary to David,

outrageously accusing the priests of conspiracy. But, Saul's own

men refused to kill the priest in one of the few acts of civil

disobedience recorded in the Old Testament, and the deed was left

to a foreigner, Doeg the Edomite. Doeg slew 85 priests together

with Nob's women, children and animals. Saul continued to pursue

David, and even so, David was forced to defend a town, Keilah,

against the Philistines, a task that was really the king's

responsibility. After the victory, David is again forced to leave

Keilah, lest the town fall to the paranoid anger of Saul, and

David was forced to the wilderness of Ziph, and eventually to En-

gedi in the Arabah.

David remained unbelievably loyal to Saul, and twice refused

to kill the king, even though he had the chance to do so. "I will

not put forth my hand against my lord; for he is the Lord's

anointed," said David (24:10). On at least one occasion, Saul was

216

forced to admit publicly to David: "You are more righteous than

I; for you have repaid me good, wheras I have repaid you evil"

(24:17). Meanwhile Samuel died, and was buried at Ramah.

David, as a consequence, was forced to the wilderness of

Paran. There he sought refuge and assistance from a certain

Nabal, who refused to give assistance. Abigail, wife of Nabal,

sought to assist David, but Nabal, her husband proved to be a

fool, and met an untimely death due to an unfortunate illness. As

a reward, David took Abigail and Ahionam of Jezreel as his wives,

for Saul had given Michal as a wife to Palti, the sone of Laish of

Gallim. David knew that to attempt to retaliate versus Saul was

not God's will, for the Lord was the avenger, it was not the duty

of David. "AS the Lord lives," said David, "the Lord will smite

him; or his day shall coem to die; or he shall go down into battle

and perish" (26:10). David's confidence in the "Lord of Hosts"

remained unshaken. God was the one who fought the battles, and

vindication would be delivered by the Lord, not by the hand of

man. David refused to raise a sword against the Lord's anointed,

217

and remained loyal and faithful throughout the hardship of

escaping the king's unjust pursuit. David knew that it was "the

Lord [who] rewards every man for his righteousness adn his

faithfulness" (26:23).

David, weary of flight, decided that it would be better to

trust his life to the Philistines than continue to flee from Saul.

He therefore came again to Achish, King of Gath, begging for

sanctuary. and David was given refuge. Achish thought, trusting

David, "he has made himself utterly abhorred by the people Israel,

therefore he shall be my servant always" (27:12). Yet, fearing

reprisal, and desiring his own place, David asked of Achish if he

could have one of the towns that surrounded Gath as his own. So,

Achish gave David the town of Ziklag, and David made the town his

own while seeking to escape the hand of Saul. Ziglag was in the

Negev (Josh. 15: 1, 31; 19:5; I Chron. 4:30) and became David's

base of operations while he raided nomadic tribes in the region (I

Samuel 27:.1-12). Many of Saul's followeres defected to David at

Ziglag (I Chron. 12:1-22). Ziglag is "Tell-es-khuwilfeh" ten

218

miles northwest of Beersheba and five miles southwest of Debir.

Meanwhile, Achish was faced with the task of fighting Israel,

and beckoned David to fight on the side of the Philistines against

Israel. David consented, showing loyalty to the Philistine king,

only to be questioned by the commanders of the Philistines.

Achish reluctantly asked David not to fight against Israel, so as

not to offend his own commanders. This was providential in

several ways. First, David was spared the task against fighting

against his own kinsmen, including Saul and Jonathan. Second,

upon reaching Ziglag, David discovered that the town had been

razed by the Amalekites and burned with fire. His wives were now

captive by this marauding tribe, and headed toward the Negev.

David was thus forced to pursue the Amalekites, overcoming the

band, and recovering everything stolen in the raid, including his

wives.

David, an astute polititian and builder of coalitions, passed

the spoils of victory over the Amalekites around. He sent spoils

219

to the elders of Judah, some to Bethel, Ramoth of the Negeb, some

to Aroer, to Racal, and to "the cities of the Jerahmeelites," and

to "the cities of the Kenites," to Hebron, and "to all the places

where David and his men had roamed: (29:26-31). Rather than keep

the spoils to himself and reap the enmity of these tribes and

cities, David wisely chose the course of action to provide a gift

for those who had given him refuge. Such a wise action would pay

huge dividends politically.

Saul had made a huge mistake, as he revealed his lack of

loyalty to God by seeking advice from a medium, the so-called

witch of En-dor, rather than waiting from a true word from God

regarding the battle. This was a fatal mistake, for it revealed

Saul's utter desperation, and lack of trust in Yahweh, the God of

Israel (I Chron. 10:13-14). The witch was able to bring up

Samuel, or some semblence of Samuel. Saul had the chance, and the

responsibility to listen to the words of the prophet while he was

alive, and now he insults the dead with such an action. The

apparition's retort to Saul was not the comfort he sought. Saul

220

was told again that "the Lord has turned from you and become your

enemy. . . . The Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and

given it to your neighbor, David" (I Sam. 28:16, 17).

Saul's fate was now sealed. The Philistines under Achish

were encamped at Aphek, and overtook Saul and his sons at Mount

Gilboa. Saul's sons, including Jonathan, were killed, and Saul

was wounded by Philistine archers. Saul asked his armor-bearer to

slay him, lest he fall to the hands of the Philistines. The

armor-bearer could not do so, and Saul was forced to commit

suicide, falling on his own sword. The armor-bearer accepted the

same fate. Upon seeing this, the "men of Israel . . . forsook

their cities and fled; and the Philistines came and dwelt in them"

(I Sam. 31:7; I Chron. 10:1-7).

Cities were the ultimate spoils of victory. What had been

recaptured by Israel had returned again to the Philistines. As a

sign of victory, the Philistines presented the armor of Saul to

their idols, and fastened Saul's beheaded body to the walls at

Beth-shean. Beth-shean was a Canaanite fortress city not captured

221

by the Israelites, and was in Philistine hands at the time of Saul

(Josh. 17:11). Hearing of this, certain inhabitants of Jabesh-

gilead recovered the body, and the body of Saul and his sons were

taken from the wall of Beth-shean to Jabesh. At Jabesh, the

bodies were cremated and buried there under a tamarisk tree, and

the residents fasted for seven days (I Sam. 31: 11-13).

Eventually, the remains of Saul and his sons were dug up and

reburied in a family tomb (II Sam. 21:12-14).

David heard the news while he was in Ziglag. A man came to

David with the news, thinking that his news to David would be

received joyously, and the bringer of news would be richly

rewarded. The man made the mistake of claiming that he was the

one who finished off Saul, instead of the true story of Saul's

suicide. David's anger was against the unfortunate messenger, a

self-confessed Amalekite, of the tribe that had recently destroyed

his exile town of Ziglag. David was incensed, and ordered the man

killed, while the entire camp went immediately into mourning for

Saul and his sons. David was overcome by grief and lamentation.

222

"How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" (II

Sanuel, 1:27).

David inquired if he should "go up into . . . the cities of

Judah?" David was led to go up to Hebron, and there he

established his administration. "And David brought up his men who

were with him, every one with his household; and they dwelt in the

towns of Hebron" (II Samuel, 2:3). David was approached by the

men of Judah, who anointed David King of Judah. Meanwhile, Abner,

Saul's general, brought Ishbosheth, son of Saul to Mahanaim, and

made him king over Israel. Ishbosheth reigned but two years,

whereas David was king over Judah from Hebron for seven years

(2:11). A Civil War broke out between the house of Saul and the

house of David, and the house of David grew stronger (3:1).

Meanwhile, David married wives given to him as the result of

political alliances.

David's loyalty to Yahweh and to Saul was now only surpassed

by a desire for his women. Sons were given to David from his

223

wives and concubines, including Amnon, Chileab, Absalom, Adonijah,

Shephati and Ithream while David was in Hebron. Not satisfied,

David was approached by Abner at Hebron, "to bring all Israel" to

David, despite the kingship of Ishbosheth. David's only condition

was that Abner deliver Michal, now married to a disappointed

Paltiel. David's military conquests were renown, but domestic

problems would haunt David for the rest of his life. Meanwhile,

Abner would be killed by Joab, David's general; and Ishbosheth was

murdered by two of Saul's captains. David was thus reluctantly in

position to become king of all Israel, and was crowned such at

Hebron. "David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and

he reigned for forty years. At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven

years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel

and Judah thirty-three years" (5:4-5).

The next task for David was to take Jerusalem from the

Jebusites, and to make it his capital. Jerusalem was not the only

choice. At the time of David's conquest, there were other options

that could have been considered as proper for a capital city.

224

"Other urban centers both north and south were larger and, for

economic life, more important. Such cities now included Lachish

and Beersheba in the south, and Megiddo, Hazor, and Samaria in the

north. Jerusalem remained a citidel, a royal center, and a

shrine, but not a city."147 Whether for strategic reasons for for

grounds for boasting, David wanted Jerusalem.

The king promised that whoever would capture Jerusalem would

become his general. Joab accepted the challenge and stealthily

made his way up a water shaft into the city, and opened up the

gates so that David's soldiers could capture the city for the

king. Jerusalem was known from thenceforward as the "city of

David," and David rebuilt the city around the "millo," likely a

fortification with a wall and tower (5:8-9). The "millo" was

strengthened by Solomon with conscripted labor (I Kings 9:15), and

later Hezekiah repaired it in anticipation of a seige (II Chron.

32:5). King Joash was killed "in the house of the millo" which

suggested that the millo may have been the guardhouse that147    Michael M. Eisman, "A Tale of Three Cities," BiblicalArchaelogist (June 1978): 47-60.

225

overlooked the valley around Jerusalem.

David thus moved his capital to Jerusalem, and Hiram of Tyre

sent to David cedar trees with some carpenters and masons. David

thus built to himself his own house, while neglecting the subject

of building a temple. Meanwhile, David's appetite for sex was not

yet quenched. Upon moving to Jerusalem, he took several other

wives and concubines, gaining an additional eleven sons. The

Philistines tried in vain to curb David's power, but every time

David went to war, he war victorious. "And David did as the Lord

commanded him, and smote the Philistines from Geba to Gezer"

(5:25). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Olde

Testament, says that David defeated the Philistines from "Gibeon"

to Gezer. Gezer remained a Canaanite city until given to Solomon

as part of a dowry from the Pharoah of Egypt (I Kings 9:16), but

the Philistines ceased to be a major problem for David. David's

problems became more domestic and internal in nature. Thus, David

solidified his position as King over all of Israel.

David's next act was to make Jerusalem not only the political

226

capital, but the religious capital as well. David built a house

for himself at Jerusalem, and now it was time to do something of

religious significance. A tent was erected to house the Ark of

the Covenant; "David pitched a tent for it" (I Chron. 15:1).148

The Ark was previously held on a hill at at the house of Abinadab

undert the supervision of Eleazar in Keriath-jearim twenty years

previously (I Sam. 7:1-2). It was now time to bring the Ark to

Jerusalem. Upon transfer, the Ark began to topple, and a certain

Ussah tried to stop the Ark from falling, only to meet death in

the process. This troubled David, and the king wondered if anyone

could possibly transfer the Ark without dire consequences. "How

can the ark of the Lord come to me?", David asked (II Sam. 6:9).

As a result, the ark stayed in the house of Obededom the Gittite

for three months. The Ark had to be transported by Levites, and

Obededom was probably a Levite. It was Levites who carried the

Ark to Jerusalem with long poles three months later, causing great148    This is the metaphor used by St. John to speak of theincarnation of Jesus of Nazareth as the anointed, God being withus. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (literally,"tabernacled among us" or "pitched his tent")" (Jn. 1:14).

227

rejoicing and celebration. The Levites were also the musicians,

and added to the celebration with lyres, bronze cymbols and harps.

The Ark thus entered Jerusalem with shouting to the sounds of

horns, trumpets and cymbols, and the Levites made "loud music on

harps and lyres." The event was accompanied not just by dancing

and music, but also religious rites such as fasting, worship, and

sacrifice. First Chronicles in its revisionist history points out

the importance of the Levites who were appointed as "ministers,"

responsible to "invoke, give thanks, and give praise" to the Lord,

the God of Israel (I Chron. 16:4). Asaph was appointed chief, and

Zechariah, second in command. The song sung by Asaph gave homage

to God as deliverer, creator, sustainer and protector. God went

before the Israelites in battle, and made sure that other kings

would not oppress the people (I Chron. 16:21). The Levites gave

support to David, saying "touch not the anointed ones [and] do my

prophets no harm" (16:22). Chronicles plays up the role of the

Levites in Israel. They were the muscians, poets, priests,

teachers, and administrators. The Levites were the ones who

228

rendered judgement and taught the law. They were responsible to

the nation to help the people remember that their role in the

world was more than just civil or military, but inherently

religious as well.

David was different from his predecessor, Saul. David came

to Jerusalem dancing with the people. David's first wife, Michal,

saw this and was horrified. David then proceeded to offer burnt

and peace offerings for the people, and then came to his own

house. Michal confronted David regarding his actions, wondering

why the King uncovered "himself today, uncovering himself today

before the eyes of his servants' maids, as one of the vulgar

fellows shamelessly uncovers himself" (II Sam. 6:20). This was

too much for Michal. She was probably already angry at David's

having forced her back to his quarters, leaving a loving Paltiel

(3:15-16), only to find David's quarters filled with other women,

wives and concubines. David's response to Michal indicated the

defacto end of the relationship. David replied that it was the

"Lord" that chose him above Michal's father, and he would make

229

merry in celebration as he so chose. And further, he stated to

his wife that he "would make myself yet more contemptable than

this, and I will be abased in your eyes; but by the maids of whome

you have spoken, by them I shall be held in honor." Michal had no

children by David, as the relationship ended. David was probably

justified as a populist king, dancing with his people. However,

one can surely feel Michal's disappointment, as David's

relationships with women seemed to know no moral boundaries.

With the Ark safely in place in Jerusalem, David was now free

to organize his kingdom. David had wanted to build a house for

the Temple, but Nathan the prophet warned David that he was not

the one who would build the Temple, for that honor would fall to

his successors. In First Chronicles, the rhetorical question

follows: "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?" (I Chron.

17:6). Rather, David built a house first for himself, and did not

consider the Lord. Also, David was told that his reign was not an

appropriate reign to build a temple. "But the word of the Lord

came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great

230

wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have

shed too much blood before me upon the earth." Rather, the temple

would be built by his son, who would be a "man of peace." For,

"I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days" (I Chron. 22:

8-9).

There seems to be in Chronicles a movement away from a

celebration of war as the way to solidify a nation. As such,

David was not qualified to be the one to build a temple to Yahweh.

That would be the role of Solomon. David organized his empire on

a military model. Joab was general of the army. Jehoshaphat was

recorder; Zadok an Ahimeleck were priests; Shavsha was secretary;

and Benaiah was captain of the court guard. David the proceeded

to press for still more victories over his enemies, including Gath

of the Philistines, Moab, Hadadezer, king of Zobah; Syria; Edom,

and finally the Ammonites. Upon defeat, the Maobites, like

presumably each of the nations routed by David, "became servants

to David and brought tribute" (I Chron. 18:2). The Ammonites and

the Syrians had formed a coalition to lessen the growing might of

231

David, but to no avail. Joab, David's chief general remarked to

Abishai, his brother: “Be of good courage, and let us play the

man for our people, and for our cities of our God; and may the

Lord do what seems good to him” (I Chron. 19:13).

While Joab was leading the army against the Ammonites and the

capital city of Rabbah, David was home in Jerusalem, not exactly

minding his own business. David's problems were linked to his

love for women. David, a "peeping Tom?" noticed a beautiful woman

bathing, Bathsheba, and sent for her. She was the wife of one of

David's valiant warriors, Uriah the Hittite. David and Bathsheba

became more than friends, and Bathsheba sent word back to David

that she was pregnant. David tried to cover up the issue, calling

Uriah back to Jerusalem, but Uriah in his faithfulness to his task

as a warrior, refused to comply. David then arranged for Uriah to

lead in battle on the front lines, and Uriah was the unfortunate

victim of David's war. David then was able to accept Bathesheba

as his wife, joining the growing ranks of the king's harem.

Nathan the prophet confronted the king about this deed, and this

232

is but one of two times where David confesses that he had sinned.

David's household was thus in severe trouble because of this:

"Now, therefore the sword shall not depart from your house,

because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the

Hittite to be your wife" (II Sam. 12: 10).

Following the death of Uriah, Bathsheba had a miscarriage.

David actually showed great feeling for both the child and

Bathesheba, and fasted for seven days. However, the servants

noticed that after the death of the child, David discontinued the

fast. This was noticed by the servants: "What is this thing that

you have done? You fasted and wept for the child while it was

alive; ut when the child died, you arose and ate food" (12:21).

The servants detected a note of insincerety in David's actions.

Meanwhile, David "comforted" Bathesheba, no doubt promising

another child, and that this child would be the successor to

David, despite other elder sons, and Solomon was conceived and

born.

Joab followed this with a raid on the Ammonites, defeating

233

them at Rabbah. Yet, Joab was very loyal to David, and feared

that if he took the city without David's participation, it could

lead to serious problems.

And Joab sent messengers to David, and said, ' I have fought against Rabbah; moreover, I have taken the city of waters.

Now, then, gather the rest of the people together, and encamp atainst the city, and take it; lestt I take the city, and it be called by my name. So David gathered all the people

together and went to Rabbah, and fought aganist it and too it. And he took the crown of their king from his head; he weight

of it was a talent of gold, and in it was a precious stone; andit was placed on David's head (II Sam. 12: 27-30).

David thus participated in the last stages of the battle, gaining

credit for it. He looted the city of its wealth, and forced the

inhabitants not killed in battle to become his forced labor. "And

he brought forth the spoil of the city, a very great amount, and

he brought forth the people who were in it and set them for

labor--with saws and iron picks and axes; and thus David did to

all the cities of the Ammonites" (I Chron. 20:2-3). Cities were

both the targets of warfare, and represented its rewards as well.

David's generals thus did a yeoman's work in the defeat of

234

the nations around them, with their cities. The cities

constituted the spoils and the bounty of victory. The wars were

done on behalf of "the cities of our God." So, those who were

defeated by David also became his captives, and were made to do

force labor to develop the king's kingdom. The Syrians also

became servants to David, and brought tribute, and in the process,

David put a garrison of troops in Damascus (18: 6).

With the Syrians and Ammonites roundly defeated, there were

few other military challenges to David's authority in the region.

"So David reigned over all Israel; and David administered justice

and equity to all his people" (II Sam. 8:15). Yet, David's

administration of justice would be undermined by growing domestic

problems. Absalom, David's son, would question if David was still

in touch with his people as judge. To Absalom, David became less

accessible, was no longer found judging in the gates, and could

not be counted on to judge the rights of individuals or to give

justice as mandated (II Sam. 15:4). This was undoubtedly a just

critique of David's administration.

235

After the defeat of the Ammonites, David's domestic problems

began to multiply. Amnon, the eldest son of David, raped his

Tamar, his half sister and full sister of Absalom. Amnon "forced

her and lay with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great

hatred; so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater

than the love which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her,

'Arise, be gone'" (13:14-15). The tragedy of the matter is that

Amnon could have had her legitimately, but would not even bother

to ask the king for her hand. Humiliated, Tamar left Amnon

putting ashes over her head, "a desolate woman."

David was angered by this, but did nothing to Amnon. The

problem did not go away, however, as Absalom vowed in his heart to

get vindication for the wrong done to his sister. The result was

vigilante justice, for Absalom managed, two years later, to get

his half brother drunk, and then instructed his servants to kill

him, which they did. David was distressed, but Absalom fled from

the court of the king, fearing reprisal. But, "the spirit of the

king longed to go forth to Absalom; for he was comforted about

236

Amnon, seeing he was dead" (13:19). David's own sins were finding

him. Amnon did not behave unlike his father, and the David's

reluctance to deal with Amnon after he raped Tamar led to the

reprisal by Absalom. Absalom was now in rebellion against his own

father, for his refusal to execute justice when he should have.

David no longer came to the gates to give judgment, and his own

household was not disorder.

At the instigation of Joab, Absalom was found in Geshur, and

brought back to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, David did to Absalom

what he should have done to Amnon. He made him stay in a house

separate from the king's palace, and Absalom did not come into the

king's presence (14: 23-24). After two years, Absalom asks of

Joab the right to see his father, as he was wondering why he was

brought back from Geshur? Not satisfied, Absalom stood in the

gates of the city, raising questions as to why the king was not

there to hear the cases of his subjects. Absalom would say: "Oh,

that I were judge in the land! Then every man with a suit of

cause might come to me, and I would give him justice" (15:4).

237

Absalom was still distrought that his father had not dealt justly

with Amnon, and yet felt guilt that he was forced to take justice

in his own hands. "And Absalom stole the hearts of the men of

Israel" (15:6).

Absalom then requested of the king permission to go down to

Hebron to offer sacrifice, and the king gave his permission.

Unknown to the king, Absalom sent secret messengers throughout

Israel, declaring that Absalom was King at Hebron. The conspiracy

grew strong, and soon enough David was told, and was forced to

leave the capital in the wake of civil war. Absalom was very

sensitive to issues of justice, and now acts outside that fear,

not only taking matters into his own hands, but began to conspire

against the king. So, David was forced to leave Jerusalem,

leaving ten of his concubines to keep house while he was absent.

Absalom was eventually killed by David's general, Joab. This

resulted in a time of mourning for the king, and the people slowly

made it back to Jerusalem. Joab challenged the king to speak to

the people, and not to despise them. For it seemed that David

238

"loved the ones that hated him, and hated the ones that loved

him." David then assembled representatives of Israel at the

gates.

David did not do well in the gates, and his favoritism to his

own tribe meant exclusion to the tribes of Israel. First, David

deposed Joab, replacing him with Amasa, the general of Absalom's

troops. David must have been resentful that Joab would dare kill

his son. Perhaps also he feared the growing power of the

professional soldiers. David also appeals to the men of Judah,

and the ten tribes of Israel seem to be neglected. The result is

that Sheba, a "foolish man," incites a rebellion of Israelites

against Judah, and those who would follow David. In the pursuit

of Sheba, Joab gains some vindication by murdering Amasa, and

challenges all who would follow David to follow him. Joab pursues

the rebel Sheba to a city, Abel of Bethmaacah. Sheba at this

point is supported only by the Bichrites, Sheba's own tribe.

Beth-maacah is about 13 miles north of Lake Huleh. The city

apparantly has a reputation as a city of refuge, and a city of

239

justice. It was a fortified town in the province of the tribe of

Dan. Attacked here by Joab, it was later acctacked by Ben Hadadad

(I Kings 15:20) and King Tiglath Pileser of Assyria (II Kings

15:29). It had a reputation: "let them find counsel in Abel!" A

"wise woman" of the city called out to Joab, stating, "I am one of

those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel; you seek to

destroy a city which is a mother in Israel; why will you swallow

up the heritage of the Lord?" (II Samuel 20:19). Such a city

commanded the countryside around it, and would provide refuge for

surrounding towns (daughters) in a time of seige. Joab was at the

gates, and was beginning to topple the gate with ramparts. The

woman, truly wise, promised to give over to Joab the head of the

rebel, which she forthrightly accomplished, staving off the siege.

Gibeah of SaulThe story of the great kings of Israel, was interconnected

with their cities. Saul's hometown, and the place where Saul wascalled to become King of Israel (I Sam. 10:26). It was formerly atown of the Benjamites (I Sam. 13:2; II Sam. 23:29). Gibeah was

240

the scene of the abuse and murder of the Levite's concubine. Theoffenders were unrepentant Benjamites, who were defeated for thedeed by Israelites in battle (Judges 19-20).

At this time, Gibeah was completely destroyed for thisheinous evil (Judges 20:40), but was later rebuilt, and known forits relationship to Saul (I Sam. 14:16).

Gibeah was Saul's capital during the time of Isaiah and Hosea(Is. 10:29; I Sam. 15:34; 22:6; 23:19). The city was located onthe highway from Jerusalem to Ramah (Judges 19:13). It may havebeen the city mentioned as the "hill of God" in I Samuel (10:5),which was also identified with the career of Saul. This was "Tellel- Ful," three miles N. of Jerusalem.

Saul's fortress, built ca 1015 BC, was originally a fortressof the Philistines, whom Saul defeated, thereafter rebuilding thefortress for his own purposes (I Sam. 13: 3, 16). After thecapture of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria, the Assyrian armycamped at Gibeah, just before their swift attack upon Jerusalem.General Titus, just before his beseige of Jerusalem in AD 70,likewise encamped at Gibeah. King Hussein of Jordan chose thissite as a place to build his royal palace in 1965.

Jerusalem in the Old TestamentJerusalem was the capital and principal city of the ancient

Israelites, the capital of the kingdom of Judah, the chief city ofJudaism in Greco Roman times, and the city where Jesus was tried,

241

sentenced and executed. Jerusalem, was also, by tradition,visited by the prophet Mohammed prior to his ascension. It is theholiest city for Jews and Christians, and next to Medina andMecca, is the third holiest city in the Muslim world. Jerusalemis important in the Old Testament as the place where the idealKing reigns, and the place where the reign of God comes in afuture age.

The name "Jerusalem" today means city of peace (shalom), butthat was probably not the original meaning. It combines twosemitic words, uru, meaning "foundation," and salim, meaning "ofshalem," a permanent home for a god or divine name.149 Shalem,according to Ugaritic texts, may have been a Canaanite god whodwelt in the twilight. The city has been given several othernames in scripture and in history, including "salem," "Jebus,""City of David," "Zion," "Moriah," "Ariel," "Yahweh is there," and"Aelia Capitolina." and "El-Quds."

First settlements in Jerusalem (Jebus) date to about 4,000BC. Jerusalem may be mentioned in Genesis as Salem (Gen. 14:18);or perhaps as Mount Moriah (Gen. 22:2; II Chron. 3:1). It is149    For example, see discussions of Barry J. Beitzel,"Jerusalem" in Baker's Encyclopedia of the Bible II (1988): 1123;Millar Burrows, "Jerusalem," in Interpreter's Bible Dictionary II(1962): 843-844; William Sanford LaSor, "Jerusalem," inInternational Standard Bible Encyclopedia Revised Edition. II(1986): 999-1000; and, D. J. Wiseman, "salim," in IllustratedBible Dictionary III (1980): 1370.

242

first mentioned explicitly in the bible as the capital of theJebusite kingdom. During the time of Israelite invasion andconquest in Palestine, Adoni-Zedek, the "king of Jerusalem" pledfor help from his neighbors against the Gibeonites who made treatywith the insurgent Israelites (Joshua 10:1 ff).

Joshua came to the rescue of Gibeon, and defeated thecoalition of five kings against him. However, Jerusalem at thetime was not seized by the descendants of Israel. The residentsof Jerusalem prior to conquest by David were called Jebusites, oneof many Canaanite tribes in Palestine (Gen. 10:15; Josh. 18:16).

The Jebusites presented the last great challenge to David ashe sought to consolidate his kingdom after the death of Saul (IISam. 5:6; II Chron. 11:5). David's first capital was at Hebron,but he needed a place more centrally located, and better defended.In a surprise attack via the water shaft, David's captain, Joabson of Zeruiah, conquered Jerusalem and later was responsible forrebuilding much of the city (I Chron. 11: 4-9). The city becameknown the "city of David (I Chron. 11:7)." It was also called"zion" (II Samuel 5:7), referring to the hill where the fort waslocated.

David, impressed with the capacity of defense versusinvaders, thus moved his capital to Jerusalem. There, he built apalace, improved the fortifications, and installed the ark of thecovenant. David used technology, materials and skilled labor from

243

King Hiram of Tyre to build his palace, just as the same resourceswere tapped by Solomon. Hiram sent cedar wood, woodcraftsmen, andskilled masons to assist with David's palace, and with Solomon'stemple (II Sam. 5:11; I Chron. 14:1).

In the next generation, Solomon continued to improve thefortifications of the city, but his most notable achievement wasthe building of the Temple. In exchange for material andtechnological assistance from Tyre, Solomon gave Hiram wheat, oil,and twenty cities in Galilee, although Hiram didn't like thecities (I Kings 5:1-11; 9:10-14).

In the period of the divided kingdom, following the death ofSolomon, the city became capital of the southern kingdom of Judah,and was sacked initially by Shishak of Egypt (I Kings 14:25 ff)who confiscated much of the wealth of the temple, and the goldshields of Solomon. Jerusalem was raided by the Philistinesduring the reign of Jehoram, and managed to escape captivity tothe Assyrians in the eighth century. However, the city wascaptured by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, 597-587 BC,destroying the city and the temple.

After the captivity to Babylon, Cyrus of Persia allowed theJews to return to Israel (536 BC). Nehemiah led the pilgrimage,and the resettled exiles rebuilt the walls and Temple in the fifthcentury BC.

Solomon's Chariot Cities244

There were many “specialized cities” in the Old Testament.Among these were Solomon's chariot cities. To protect Israel frominvasion, "Solomon built store-cities..., cities for his chariots,and the cities for his horsemen" (I Kings 9:19). These citiesincluded Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. Other types of cities arealso identifiable. Storage cities were cities where grain andother supplies and foods such as grain was stored. Solomon likelyhad only one industrial city, and that was Ezion Geber, which mayhave been the center for copper smelting, as it was also the cityfor Solomon's Navy. Gaza, Tyre, Damascus, and Petra were known ascaravan cities, centers of trade and commerce in ancient Palestineand Arabia. Principal seaport cities included Tyre and Sidon,Joppa, Dor, and Gaza. Cities also functioned as holy places, likeBethel, or Hebron; and as capitals of the kingdoms of Israel andJudah, as Samaria and Jerusalem.

Cities had positive roles and significant functions in OldTestament times. While cities could be viewed as oppressive, oridolatrous, cities as places were really neutral. Whether citieswere cities of righteousness, or cities of injustice, thecharacter of the city depended upon the actions of the rulers, thepriests, the kings, and the people as a whole.

Whether or not cities were righteous or wicked was measuredin large part by the actions of the inhabitants of the cityconcerned. The city in and of itself could function as God

245

intended, as well as for reasons of "self-interest," bribery,corruption, and injustice. A key variable according to theprophets, was how well the cities and her rulers provided for thevulnerable, especially the widows and the orphans, and other poorof ancient Israel (Jer. 5:28; Is. 3:14-15; Amos 8:4; Ezek. 16: 49;etc.).

Samaria in the Old TestamentWhen the Northern and Southern kingdoms were divided from

each other, Samaria became the capital of the Northern Kingdom,and Jerusalem became the capital of Judah. Samaria is mentionedmore times in the Bible than any other city except Jerusalem andBabylon. Samaria appears to be the only city founded by thepeople of Israel, the rest taken over from other nations by theIsraelites during the periods of conquest and settlement, when theIsraelites settled in the land of Palestine after the wildernessjourneys. Samaria was the prominent capital of the NorthernKingdom, and founded by Omri, the sixth king of Israel (876-869BC),150 in 870 BC. Omri was King of Israel at the time of the twokingdoms, Judah and Israel (Samaria), 50 years after the death ofSolomon, and just prior to the ministry of the great ninth centuryprophet, Elijah the Tishbite.

The first capital of the N. Kingdom was established by

150    H. B. MacLean, "Omri, King," IDB Vol. 3 (1962): 600.246

Rehoboam at Shechem, before being moved to Penuel (I Kings 12:1,25) by Baasha. Baasha later moved the capital to Tirzah (I Kings15:24-27), and Omri reigned in Tirzah for six years. At that timehe purchased a hill for two talents (150 pounds) (equal to 6,000drachmas in New Testament times) of silver from a man named Shemer(I Kings 16:24). There, he built a new capital, naming it Samariaafter its original owner.

Samaria was located about 42 miles N. of Jerusalem, and only25 miles East of the Mediterranean Ocean. The city stood about300 feet above the surrounding valleys, and was excellent for thepurpose of defense. Built in 870, Omri built a palace andcourtyard enclosing a huge area of 584 by 292 feet. The capitalwas enclosed by two additional walls, one just outside the palace,and a third lower on the hill.

Ahab remodeled the palace to the west and north. He added alarge rectangular tower to the South, and a strong casemate walloutside the palace. Archaeologists have unearthed nearly 500fragments of ivory plaques, inlays from wooden wall paneling andfurniture portraying Egyptian and Syro-Phoenician Gods andGoddesses (I Kgs. 22:39; Amos 6:4). Samaria was considered byIsrael's prophets to be a center of idolatry (Is. 8:4; 9:9; Je.23:13; Ezk. 32:4; Hos. 7:1; Mi. 1:6).

Omri himself is reported to have allowed the Syrians ofDamascus to set up bazaars in the streets of Samaria, and Ahab

247

later erected a pillar (asherah) to pagan deities which Jehoramlater removed. Samaria later became synonymous with a kingdom ordistrict, and served to designate the Northern Kingdom as againstJudah. Hence, the "king of Samaria," or "mountains of Samaria"are familiar in the writings of the Old Testament.

Jehoshaphat, King of Judah (873-849 BC), was the son andsuccessor of King Asa. Jehoshaphat was one of the few good kingslisted in either kingdom. He managed a treaty with the NorthernKingdom, allowing both kingdoms peace and a rare chance foreconomic prosperity. He managed to control trade routes comingfrom Arabia, thus bringing increased wealth to Judah (II Chron.17:5; 18:1).

He also instituted a juridical reform, establishing a supremecourt in Jerusalem. Jehoshaphat appointed judges of the Levitesand leading families in all the "fortified cities" in the land.At the time, there were essentially two kinds of cities, thosewalled, and those unwalled. In Jerusalem, the king established asupreme court. The king charged the court as follows:

Thus you shall do in the fear of the Lord, in faithfulness,and with your whole heart: whenever a case comes from your

brethren who live in their cities, concerning bloodshed,law or commandments, statutes or ordinances, then you shallinstruct them, that they may not incur guilt before the Lord andwrath may not come upon you or your brethren. Thus shall youdo, and you shall not incur guilt. And behold, Amaziah the chief

248

priest is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebediahthe son of Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah, in allthe king's matters; and the Levites will serve you as officers.Deal courageously, and may the Lord be with the upright (II Chron.19:4-11).

Finally, Jehoshaphat began a systematic effort to bring thelaw of Yahweh to every city in Judah. He appointed priests,Levites and members of some of the leading families to visit eachof the cities, to instruct the people "in the book of the law ofthe Lord" (II Chron. 17:7-9). The result was that Judah had anincreased knowlege of the Torah, were not provoked to rebelagainst the King, so that peace prevailed in the kingdom.Jehoshaphat also appointed administrative elders, including hisown sons, in each of the fortified cities, and he built otherstore cities and fortress cities to protect the nation (II Chron.17:12-13; 21:2-3).

The Levitical cities also had political as well as religioussignificance. The good king Jehoshaphat recognized theirimportance. He commissioned the Levites to teach in all thecities of the Kingdom, so that all Israelites knew the law ofYahweh. The result he knew, would be peace, and the reign ofjustice on the basis of Yahweh's law. It was a law of course,that protected the vulnerable of that society, including theLevites, the widows and orphans, the strangers, the hireling, theday laborer, the poor, and even the persons guilty of accidental

249

slaying. These are just a few examples to show how cities functioned

in the Old Testament. As someone said, the conquest in the Bookof Deuteronomy assumes and urban environment. Cities were givento Israel, as a means of settling the land. There were cities ofspecialization, and cities that were used functionally to promoteawareness of the Torah, and subservience to the King in a volatileage, threatened within by palace revolutions, and from without bythe great and mighty empires such as Assyria and Babylon.

Following the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians after a three-year siege (723 BCE), foreigners were imported to Samaria torepopulate it to insure loyalty to the Assyrian King, Sargon II(721-705 BCE). The new population combined the worship of the Godof Israel with Assyrian gods (II Kgs. 17: 24-41). With theconquest of the N. Kingdom by Assyria, over 20,000 inhabitantswere said to have been deported, and these were replaced byforeigners from ten different countries, including Babylonia,Syria, and Elam.

Yet, while thousands of members of the ruling class weredeported, thousands of the peasant class remained in Samaria, andthe region gained reputation for intermarriages among thediffering repopulating peoples. Eighth-century prophets used thefate of Samaria as a warning to Jerusalem (Is. 8:4; 10:9-11; Micah1:1-9).

250

The Assyrians ruled the region until the late Seventh centuryBCE, when their control disintegrated. Josiah of Judah (ca 640-609) then invaded Samaria and other cities of the Northern Kingdomdestroying the asherim and other high places in the cities ofSamaria (II Kgs. 23:19).

With the fall of Nineveh and the end of the Assyrian Empirein 612 BCE, Samaria became part of the Babylonian Empire, andfunctioned as a provincial administrative center. According toEzekiel, the city was still under a curse (Ezk. 16:44-55),although there were still some Yahweh worshipers there (Jer.41:5).

In 539, the province became part of the Persian Empire as aSatrapy, an official administrative unit. With the release of thecaptives by Cyrus, officials of the Samaritan region soughtunsuccessfully to stop the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the south bystirring up the "people of the land" against Jerusalem (Ezra 4:8-24; Neh. 2:9-20; 4:1-9; 6:1-14). Judah in the South, and the hillcountry to the North became separate provinces from the days ofEzra and Nehemiah, and the schism between Jews and Samaritans wasintensified at that time.

In 332 BCE, Alexander the Great attacked and defeatedSamaria, ultimately conquering all of Palestine. The city wasstrengthened with a number of strong towers. For the next 250years, the city belonged successively to the Macedonian,

251

Ptolemaic, Seleucid and Judean Kingdoms. According to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews. 11, 302-47),

exiled priests from Jerusalem, rendered impure due to their mixedmarriages, constructed a temple to Yahweh on Mt. Gerizim in thefourth century BCE. Permission was granted these priests byAlexander the Great for their support of Sanballat in Shechem toestablish a shrine there. Other temples outside Jerusalem inpost-exilic times were known to exist in places like Elephantineand Leontopolis in Egypt.

The temple at Mt. Gerizim represented a significant politicalaction and posed a challenge to the temple cult in Jerusalem, andthe Samaritan priesthood and cultus was dismissed by the Jerusalemauthorities as illegitimate.

However, in response to political pressure of Antiochus IVEpiphanes, Samaritans in 167 to 166 BC, allowed the temple at Mt.Gerizim to be dedicated to Zeus Hellenios as a politicalexpedient. The Samaritans thus temporarily escaped persecutionfrom the Seleucids, only to find themselves at odds with theHasmoneans who resisted Hellenization. In 129/128 BCE, JohnHyrcanus destroyed the temple as Judean Nationalists assertedtheir power. (Josephus, Ant. 13. 255ff; War 1. 63).

When Pompey invaded Palestine in 63 BCE, the Samaritans sidedwith Rome against Judea, and later supported Herod the Great, andHerod's pro-Roman policies. Samaria regained its earlier

252

prominence, because they supported Herod against Antigonus. Herodleft his mother and children in Samaria for reasons of safety,married Mariamne there, entertained Agrippa, and there also puthis sons to death. From 30 BCE, Herod began an extensiverebuilding of Samaria, and renamed it Sebaste, (Sebastos is Grk.translation of "Augustus") in honor of Augustus Caesar. Herodenclosed Sebaste with a new city wall, built a large temple, and astadium.151

Chapter IX

The Prophets and the City151 Bibliography: K. Haacher, "Samaria/Samaritan," in TDNNT III(1978); K.M. Kenyon, Royal Cities of the Old Testament (1971); M.Gaster, The Samaritan Eschatology (1938); J. Macdonald, TheTheology of the Samaritans (1964); J. A. Montgomery, TheSamaritans: The Earliest Jewish Sect. Their History, Theologyand Literature (1907); and J. D. Price, "Samaria," in Major Citiesof the Biblical World, ed. by R. K. Harrison (1985).

253

Prophetic inspiration has a long history in ancient Israel.

After the settlement, the first real prophet was Samuel, who was

inspired by the holy spirit to bring the word of God to the

people. Saul and David were both inspired of the spirit to do the

same thing, ordained to bring the word of God to Israel. After

Solomon things changed. The kings seemed no longer possess the

spirit of God, and there were too few of them who bothered to seek

the will of Yahweh for the people. With Elijah and Elisha, the

prophets were the ones anointed of the spirit to bring such a

word, not the kings. The kings appointed official prophets to

"rubber stamp" the policies of the kings, but they were often in

conflict with the true prophets who would dare declare a message

unpopular to the existing regime.

The kings do not often mention the role of the prophets. In

addition to Elijah and Elisha, prophets such as Jeremiah or Isaiah

are mentioned, but few of the others' names appear. There seem to

be two competing and parallel traditions. One tradition supported

254

the authority of the king and the official priesthood. This

tradition also emphasized the importance of the city of Jerusalem

and the temple. This was the tradition of "royal Yahwism," one

tied more closely to the official leaders of the Israelites. The

other tradition, ever more pronounced as the nations moved toward

conquest by Assyria and Babylon was the tradition of "prophetic

Yahwism." Prophetic Yahwism was not oriented to the past, or to

existing institutions. Rather, it was oriented more to the

future. It reinterpreted secular history as Israel's sacred

history. That is, the history of the nations, not just Israel, is

portrayed as part of the history of God's heilgeschichte, the

history of God's redemption of the people. That is, the prophets

believed that God's history with Israel was impacted by the rise

and fall of the great empires. Indeed, the empires, such as

Assyria and Babylonia were portrayed as the "rod of my anger," or

as even having a messianic role in both punishing and ultimately

delivering the chosen people.

The prophets had therefore a more universal understanding of

255

God's role in history, whereas "royal Yahwism" had a more

particular and national understanding of God's special concern for

the covenant people. After the exile, Ezra and Nehemiah would

continue this tradition, as would certain prophets such as Haggai

and Malachi. For the royal tradition, the temple and a rebuilt

Jerusalem were essential to a revitalized worship. For the

prophets, the world of secular history and the rise and fall of

empires was a manifestation of God's actions in the world. The

old sacred history expressed itself in mercy, in sacrifice, and in

ordained festivity and liturgy. The new sacred history reflected

concerns for justice, and for the "new covenant" of a spirituality

directed not by outward ritual, but by actions of mercy and

justice that pointed to an inward spiritual reality. For the old

sacred history, Israel was special because of their unique history

and covenant relationship with their God. For the new sacred

history, only a righteous remnant would be saved. "The 'new

thing' in Prophetic Yahwism is the terrifying declaration tht the

whole people of God is disobedient and now under the sentence of

256

death" (Amos 5:1-2).152

This leads to the question of whether or not the prophets

were social revolutionaries, eschatological visionaries, or

something else? In his classic work on the subject, the German

sociologist Max Weber argued that the prophets of the Old

Testament were not really social revolutionaries, but essentially

charismatic religious reformers. Heaton suggests that there are

three types of innovators--the reformer, the revolutionary, and

the radical.

The reformer seeks to introduce change, while maintaining continuity with the existing tradition; the revolutionary

seeks to overthrow tradition and substitute something entirely new; while the radical seeks to uncover the roots of

tradition and abandon everything which does not spring from themdirectly. In these terms, the Deuteronomonists (with their

"royal Yahwism") were more like reformers than theprophets.153

The promoters of pagan religion such as Ahaz or Manasseh were in a

sense more "revolutionary" than the prophets. "It is the term

152    E. W. Heaton, The Hebrew Kingdoms (Oxford University Press,1968), 57.153    Ibid., 58.

257

radical which best describes the prophets' unprecedented to the

Mosaic tradition."154

Prophetic Yahwism is forward looking to the new age, but also

retains the best elements of the past. Prophetic radicalism is

thus different from revolutions in that there is continuity with

previous traditions. Yet, it does not accept the institutions and

structures of the existing order, it rather challenges reformism

and liberalism to consider the roots of the tradition, rather than

accommodating it contemporary historical forces. For prophetic

Yahwish, the roots of the tradition stem from Yahweh, the supreme

other. "It is Yahweh--and none other--who is active in secular

history and, moreover, active (as Mosaic Yahwism had always

maintained) in direct and special dealings with [God's] own

particular people."155 The prophets do condemn Israel for her

failure to live up to the mandates of Mosaic Yahwism. But the

solution is not outward ritual, but an authentic living of the

154    Ibid.155    Ibid.

258

spirit of the law, the practice of compassion and the pursuit of

justice. But, for the prophets, judgment is not the end of

history, but inaugurates a new beginning. For, God would bring

back Israel to the law. A "new covenant" meant that the

restoration would be spiritual, not just formal. The people's

faith would be effected, not just their outward practice.

Prophetic Yahwism was thus oriented to the future, to hope in

the salvation and restoration of a purified covenant people. The

radicalism of prophetic Yahwism was thus "eschatological." The

prophets were not just proclaimers of doom and gloom, but were

also heralds of a new age. Yahweh was "inaugurating a new action

in history" for a remnant of the people. "The essence of

prophetic Yahwism is that the old order of Yahweh's dealing with

Israel is being done away with and that a new one is about to take

place. As an historical phenomenon, the independent prophets of

the eighth and seventh centuries were as new as their message.

They embodied what they preached."156 Prophetic inspiration was

156    Ibid., 59.259

based not on pragmatic or expedient political concerns, but on a

radical vision of the coming kingdom of God. This inbreaking new

reality was not the accomplishment of "might and power, but by my

spirit says the Lord." Further, prophetic imagination was not

confined or delimited to the judgment of present, but oriented to

the future. "For without a vision the people perish." The

prophetic vision of a new future would give the people of Israel

hope to endure the temporary shackles of enslavement, oppression

and exile.

Is Saul Also Among the Prophets?

There is much debate about the origin of prophecy. Moses in

the final analysis was the greatest of the prophets. But, he

established no institution, school or movement. A "tradition"

stemming from the Mosaic corpus was the basis of later prophetic

utterance. However, the prophets claimed to have a divinely

inspired special message given directly from God. In this

respect, the prophetic imagination interpreted the Mosaic

260

tradition in a way that was uniquely appropriate and relevant to

the experience of the people along the way. The prophets were not

just reporting or declaring the laws of Moses to the people, that

was the role of the Levitical priesthood. Rather, the prophets,

inspired as they were by the Holy Spirit, were proclaiming a word

for the people that was based in the Mosaic tradition, but was

uniquely addressed to the people in their historical situation.

The prophets thus "contextualized" the traditions of Yahweh as

inspired agents of the spirit.

The institution of prophetism emerges early in the history of

Israel at the time of Samuel and Saul. Samuel anointed Saul with

a vial of oil, saying, "has not the Lord anointed you to be prince

over the people Israel?" (I Sam. 10:1). Then Saul went to the

city of Gibeathelohim (the hill of God), and there encounted a

band of prophets coming to the king with musical instruments.

"Then the spirit of the Lord will come mightily upon you, and you

shall prophesy with them and be turned into another man" (I Sam.

10: 6). Saul was thus anointed at Gibeah, and the people

261

responded in astonishment: "What has come over the son of Kish?

Is Saul also among the prophets?" (I Sam. 10:10-11). Kingship was

thus inaugurated as a prophetic office, not just a royal one. The

king was to seek Yahweh, and would judge the people with justice,

acting as one led by the spirit of God, not by one's own

inclinations.

Independent and Institutional Prophets

Other indications of the nature of early Israelite prophetism

are notable in these texts. First, prophetism was located in a

group of people who carried out their functions as a band, as a

charismatic group of people. Second, prophetism was a charismatic

activity. Saul would "become another man," and would be inspired

by the spirit to say and act on Yahweh's behalf among the people.

Third, the pneumatic character of early Israelites prophetism was

characterized by ecstatic frenzy, often encouraged by music and

song. The prophets were considered not just unconventional, but

highly eccentric. Often, their eccentricity seemed to exact fear,

262

if not awe of their words and representations. Elisha, for

example, was known as a miracle-worker, a clairovoyant, and some

were dismissed as madmen (II Kings 9:11; I Samuel 19:24). The

prophets were depised because they did not support the status-quo,

and hence would have been dismissed as madmen. But, the very

personna of prophetic presence incited awe and fear, as the

prophets spoke as if God were uniquely present.

Early Israelite prophetism was connected with certain holy

place, such as Bethel or the temple of Jerusalem. However, as

these places became more known for corruption and idolatry,

prophetism evolved as a two-tiered phenomenon. On the one hand,

the institutional or professional prophets functioned as

consultants to the kings. They were sometimes diviners, miracle-

workers, seers or dreamers. But, for the most part, the

institutional prophets gave advice to the king, and they rarely

gave the king advice that he didn't want to hear, at the cost of

his life. The pnuematic or radical prophets such as Amos, Hosea,

or Micah were of a different breed. Like Jesus of Nazareth in a

263

later day, these prophets were charismatic, not official advisers

to the king. They were less predictable, and would give advice

that was not always favorable. The charismatic prophets spoke a

word of God to the people, and to the rulers, but were not

necessarily officially sanctioned or even welcomed. The

charismatic prophets were more critical, more visionary, and spoke

a word that was often far more unsettling. Their role was not to

tell the kings what they wanted to hear, but to speak the truth of

Yahweh to the principalities, even though that truth was at times

unbearable.

The independent prophets or the radical charismatic prophets

were thus often critics of the regime. They spoke against

injustice, immorality, idolatry, corruption, and oppression as

they saw it. The distinction between a "true" and "false" prophet

emerges in the literature, not as to whether or not one has

official station with the governing authorities, but as to whether

or not what one says is true or comes to pass. Unlike the

official prophets, the independent prophets stand alone, they are

264

not connected with any official guilds. They are remembered for

what they said, or what was recorded of them, more than what they

did. They were not paid consultants to the king, but took the

initiative to speak the truth as they saw it, even if they weren't

asked.

Unlike the early prophets, the independent prophets were not

miracle-workers, clairovoyants, nor practitioners of ecstatic

frenzy. They were controlled social critics, radical

reinterpreters of the existing social order. They were critical

also of the work and words of the institutional prophets, and saw

them as contributing to the problems and the woes facing the

nation. As outsiders, they condemned the temple cult, and

described the hypocrisy of religious ritual if not accompanied by

justice and compassion (Micah 6:8). The independent prophets were

distinguishable from the institutional prophets, in that their

message was an attempt to interpret the word of God to the

people--not to pacify or justify the actions of those in power.

The "true" prophets were noted for their both their personal

265

integrity and the quality and inspiration of their messages.

Prophets and the City

For the most part, the prophets of the Old Testament related

to the contexts of cities. Some of them, such as Jeremiah or

Isaiah, spent most of their time in the city of Jerusalem.

Others, such as Amos of Tekoa, came from a more rural setting, but

their prophetic pronouncenents were largely directed to city

dwellers. Many of the prophets were born in small towns, but for

the most part, their prophecies were carried out within or

directed at large cities such as Samaria, Jerusalem and Nineveh.

The themes varied a great deal, but included the apostacy of

Israel and Judah; judgement on the nations for their brutality and

cruelty; and exhortation to the people to rebuild the city, walls

and the temple after the captivity. The prophets were concerned

about loyalty to God, compassion for the needy, social justice,

and demanded repentance from both idolatry and spiritual malaise.

The prophets, their dates, and contexts of their ministries

266

are outlined as follows:

The Prophets and Their Contexts

Prophet Date Hometown Prophetic Setting

Moses (14th Cen BC) Raamses, Egypt Wilderness of Sinai

Samuel (1070-1030 BC) Ramah Bethel, Gilgal,

Mizpah

Ahijah (930-900 BC) Shiloh Shiloh

Elijah (875-840 BC) Tishbe Zerephath, Samaria,

Bethel

Micaiah (880-869 BC) ------- Samaria

Elisha (850-800 BC) Abel-Moholah Jericho, Samaria

Jonah (790-760 BC) Gath-Hepher Nineveh

Joel (ca 600 BC) Jerusalem Jerusalem

Amos (775-750 BC) Tekoa N. Kingdom

Hosea (755-722 BC) Samaria? Samaria/ N. Kingdom

Isaiah (740-700 BC) Jerusalem Jerusalem

Micah (750-687 BC) Moresheth-Gath Jerusalem/Samaria

267

Zephanaiah (627-610 BC) Jerusalem Jerusalem

Nahum (664-612 BC) Elkosh (N) Against Nineveh

Habakkuk (615-600 BC) -------- Jerusalem?

Jeremiah (620-580 BC) Anathoth Jerusalem/Mizpah

Ezekiel (592-562 BC) Jerusalem/Gilgal In Captivity

Obadiah (c 587 BC) Jerusalem Against Edom

Haggai (ca 520 BC) Babylon Jerusalem /Rebuild

the Temple

Zecharaiah (ca 520 BC) Babylon Jerusalem

Malachi (ca 460 BC) Jerusalem

Jerusalem/Renewal of Worship

The Ninth Century Prophets

The prophets of the ninth century BC, including Elijah,

Micaiah, and Elisha were less concerned about issues of social

justice, and were more concerned about faithfulness to Yahweh.

Unlike the Eighth Century prophets, the prophets of the ninth

century were in fairly direct contact with the kings and the

268

established institutional leaders. The ninth century prophets

were not as literary, and did not publish a book named after them,

although the material in the Kings and Chronicles gives a close

description of their ministry.

Elijah's ministry is recorded in I Kings 17-19, 21; and in II

Kings 1-2. The ministry of Elisha is recorded in II Kings 2-9:3;

13; 14-21. The Elijah stories are broken by the seige of Samaria

by Damascus (I Kings 20); and the story of Micaiah ben Imiah (I

Kings 22). The Elisha stories are interrupted by the story of

Jehu's purge (II Kings 9: 4-10:35) and the reigns of Athaliah (II

Kings 11) and Joash (II Kings 12). The Elijah and Elisha stories

are depicted in grand, graphic style. Their ministry is couched

in stories of conflict between the prophet and the ruling elites,

including the kings, princes and official prophets and priests.

The actions are bold and the stories are epic in character. The

ministry of these prophets is captured in vivid story-form.

Elijah is depicted as the enemy of the king, Ahab, and his

pagan wife, Jezebel. Elijah is propelled by the spirit of God to

269

counter the baals and pagan religious institutions supported by

the monarchy. The crux for Elijah is the contest for the land.

To whom does the land belong? Is it Baal's or the Lord's? The

stories are fantastic. The prophet, a vagabond and a refugee, is

fed by ravens (I Kings 17:3-7). He finds sanctuary with a foreign

woman (17:8-16). He is protected by the steward Obadiah, while

hiding from his enemies. Elijah has control over nature; he is

able to summons the rains to end the famine. He is able to call

down fire from heaven to destroy the priests of Baal. It was the

fire of Yahweh that consumed the sacrifice, not the fires of Baal.

Elijah's message is a religious one. There is no God but Yahweh,

and the Lord God is the Lord of all.

Elijah's radicalism is in his message. For the mercy of the

Lord is not confined to Israel only. God's care is manifest also

for the Tyrian woman and her child, and for Namaan, the Syrian

general and leper. Jesus himself appeals to the Elijah stories

in Luke 4, to illustrate that the gospel he carried was for all

people, including the poor, the lame, the sick, the widows and the

270

orphans. The self-righteous Jews of Nazareth are depicted as

wanting to rid themselves of a Jesus who would dare argue that the

gospel is for others, including the nations. Elijah was thus

radical in a number of ways. First, there was no God but Yahweh.

The Baals and idols of other nations were not to be tolerated.

Second, Elisha believed in a transcendent deity, who was the God

of all the nations. Elijah's god was the one universal god of

all, even of the nations, the poor, the diseased, and for women

and children. This universalism is portrayed in another way. Not

only is Elijah commanded (although it is Elisha who executes) to

anoint Jehu of Israel; as well as Hazael of Damascus. Yahweh both

anoints and directs the affairs of nations. It is the prophet who

acts on behalf of Yahweh in this regard.

The stories are crude, and seem to countenance the practices

of the pagans. "Elijah did not hesitate to oppose violence with

violence, killing the discredited prophets of Baal as ruthlessly a

Jezebel executed Yahweh priests and as he would have died had he

271

lost the ordeal at Mount Carmel."157 Warfare was the only method

of survival, yet, in "Holy War" tradition, it is once again Yahweh

that fights the battles. The miracles of Elijah testify that it

is Yahweh who contests with the Baals. In Elijah's contest with

Jezebel, the prophet flees. The bold prophet is fearful, and

seeks to hide in a cave, and under a juniper tree. The prophet is

not superhuman, but merely a human after all. The miracle stories

point to the actions of Elijah's God, not the actions of the

prophet in isolation. The stories are primitive when compared to

later prophets, but testify to the single issue that it is Yahweh

who must stand alone and supreme over other religious deities.

The kings who were righteous would seek to destroy the high places

and the priests of pagan religions. Elijah was righteous because

he stood his ground against such religion without compromise.

157    Gottwald, Light Unto the Nations, 262.272

Chapter TenThe City in the New Testament

The Roman EmpireThe Roman Empire was far less centralized than most empires

in world history. It also had a small bureaucracy, and for the size of the empire, a relatively small army. Much depended upon

273

the good will of client kingdoms, who in turn were treated leniently. Beginning with Augustus Caesar (26 BC - 14 AD), the Empire was divided into two kinds of Provinces, Senatorial and Imperial. The Senatorial provinces were older, and nearer the central city of Rome. They were governed by Roman senators, called proconsuls, and did not require a standing army. Imperialprovinces were located more on the frontier, in areas of conflict. A standing army was needed to preserve law and order.

Rome was also a city of cities, an urban civilization. Mostof the provinces were connected with a central city, and there were several free cities that ruled independently. Rome, with administrative practicality, utilized the Greek city state system, called the polis, to govern the empire.

The Emperor was the official designation of the Sovereign ruler of the Roman Empire, beginning with Augustus Caesar (Octavian). Caesar is taken from the family name of Julius Caesar, "father of the Roman Empire."

Augustus Caesar, 27 BC- 14 ADTiberius, 14-37 AD

Gaius Caligula, 37-41 AD, Claudius, 41-54 AD,

Nero, 54-68,Galba, 69,Otho, 69

274

Vitellius, 69,Vespasian, 69-79,Titus, 79-81,Domitian, 81-96Nerva, 96-98

Trajan, 98-117.Augustus set up a jurisdiction with Provinces,

geographically, and administered by local authorities where possible, Roman Proconsuls where feasible, and Roman Procurators and the Roman Army, where necessary. Most of the Provinces had capital cities, and the cities would be the primary entity that Rome would relate with in the Province. In those Provinces wherethere was not a city, the Empire would relate to a tribal unit. Several cities were free cities, and could govern themselves, whereas other cities were Roman Colonies, suggesting a stronger Roman military province. Yet, a Colony was considered by Rome to be favored, at it was a place where Roman soldiers would settle in retirement. Philippi and Corinth were such cities.

Provinces in Roman times were of two major kinds: Senatorial and Imperial Provinces. Senatorial Provinces were usually the older provinces of the Empire, and were more stable. There were advantages to cities and provinces that could demonstrate their loyalty to Rome, and their reverence for the Emperor (see Emperor Cult), for they had the chance of achieving

275

political freedoms including self-government, freedom from taxation, and the right to have their own local religion practiced. Hence, any threat to the social order might be crushed from the local leadership, as well as from the Roman Armyand officials present.

The Senatorial Provinces were ruled by Proconsuls (Acts 19:38), and did not require an army. Imperial Provinces were generally newer provinces, were relatively less stable, and required an occupying force of Roman Soldiers. In the first century of the common era, Senators were chosen by lot to rule inthe Provinces. Since the Proconsul was appointed for only a one year term, they ruled by choices of expediency, seeking to enrichthemselves as much as possible before returning to Rome where they remained involved politically.

In Imperial Provinces, the Proconsul had the power to command the army. The Governor would have several subordinate rulers, including a legate, to command troops, a Quaester, responsible to collect taxes and other revenue, and a several Prefects, in command of non-Roman auxiliary troops. The Senatorial Provinces mentioned in the NT include Achaea, Asia, Bithynia, Pontus, Crete, Cyrene, Cyprus, and Macedonia. Two governors are mentioned in the Acts, Junius Gallio of Achaia (Acts 18:12); and Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Acts 13:7, 8, 12).

Imperial provinces, such as Judea, required a large standing276

army directly under the authority of the Emperor who appointed a governor. At the time of Augustus, there were eleven senatorial provinces, under Senatorial supervision; and 21 imperial provinces, under the direct supervision of the Emperor, who appointed his own agents who were responsible directly to the Emperor. The larger Imperial Provinces were administered by a Legate (legatus Augusti pro praetore), and smaller provinces wereadministered by a prefect, or a governor (procurator Augusti). In NT times, Quirinius was Legate in Syria.

The Procurators were relatively low ranking rulers, of the Equestrian order, but not of the rank of Senator. Whether Proconsul, Legate or Prefect/Procurator, these rulers had the responsibility to respect the arrangements of tax exemption, or in the allowance of relative religious freedom, as was the case of Jews in Judea. Beyond that, he had police power, and the goalwas to maintain, at virtually all costs, law and order in the Province, while taking advantages of any chances for personal aggrandizement. He might hear cases of capital crimes or sedition, but would prefer that the local leadership handle most of the problems, becoming the court of last resort.

In addition to Judea, other Imperial Provinces mentioned in the NT include Syria, Galatia, Cappodocia and Egypt. Egypt was ruled by a viceroy, who represented the Emperor and was considered a successor to the Pharaohs and the Kings of the

277

Ptolemaic period (Ptolemy I was one of the generals of Alexander the Great).

Other administrative entities included client kingdoms. Themost prominent in Roman times was Herod the Great, and other Kings such as Antipas, Agrippa are mentioned in the New Testament. These petty kings were allowed autonomy as long as they observed the foreign policy of Rome. Some cities answered directly to Rome, or were granted independent status. Roman colonies such as Corinth were inhabited populated by a large number of Roman soldiers, and its citizens had the same status and privileges as those in Rome. The colony was given autonomy and allowed local self-government. The privileged status was also given to Philippi, and the local magistrates were not wanting to jeopardize their status in the empire. Rome made treaties with cities directly, such as Thessalonica and Ephesus, and granted these cities exemption from taxation, and self-government under a local constitution.

For nearly 1000 years, this system worked, as it granted localities a degree of autonomy, with minimal responsibilities tothe Empire. Rome could then concentrate its forces in localitieswhere localities were less, and where the chance of rebellion wasmore immanent. For those loyal to the empire, a great deal of "freedom" was possible. For those who rebelled, a brutal crushing of the revolt and its people would occur, and this

278

threat functioned as a strong deterrent, just as relative autonomy was a lure to remain loyal to the Empire for those cities, colonies and provinces loyal to Caesar.

The Empire was officially ruled by a Senate, a hereditary body for legislative, administrative, and judicial purposes. In time of Augustus, the Senate was comprised of 600 members of the Roman Aristocracy. Membership in the Senate was limited to people who had holdings of at least one million sisterces. The body met twice a month. Senators administered directly certain provinces, "senatorial provinces," and some of them functioned incivil and official religious capacities. Roman Law was approved by the Senate, and implemented in the Provinces by Procurators, Proconsuls, and the Roman Army.

Procurators were administrators, heads of government departments, usually financial administrator from the equestrian order. Assigned to collect revenues in provinces where a strong judicial and military presence was necessary. In addition to collection of finances, and administration of the province, the procurator was responsible also to maintain law and order in his jurisdiction. In the New Testament, the seat of government was to be found in a prominent town or city where the procurator resided and had local jurisdiction, responsible to Rome. If they were incompetent, the Empire would send in an army to bring insure the social order and to send in another ruler if the first

279

one was ineffective. In the New Testament, Pilate, Festus and Felix are listed as Procurators. In New Testament times, the following were known procurators of Judea before AD 66.

Coponius 6-9 AD,M. Ambiblius. 9-12,

Annius Rufus, 2-15,Valerius Gratus, 15-26.Pontius Pilatus, 26-36.Marcellus, 36-37.Marullus, 37?C. Cuspius Fadus, 44-46.Tiberius Julius Alexander, 46-48.Ventidius Cumanus, 48-52,Antonius Felix, 52-58.Porcius Festus, 58-62.Albinus, 62-64.Gessius Florus, 64-66).The Proconsul was the regional or provincial governor.

Often a proconsul would have been an ex-Consul (Senate) member, holding offices for one year, under review of the Senate. In theNew Testament, two proconsuls are mentioned, Gallio in Achaia andSergius Paulus in Cyprus. Proconsuls ruled Senatorial provinces where an army was not necessary.

Although there was “no King but Caesar,” there were many 280

smaller rulers who called themselves Kings in the Roman Empire. In reality, they were really Governors of particular Roman Provinces, appointed by the Emperor. Herod the Great was called King (Matt. 2:1); as was Herod Agrippa (Acts 25:24). In the Empire, the King was more of a title, and in fact Kings were onlypuppets of Imperial rule. In smaller, less significant areas, the local magistrate was given the title of Ethnarch or Tetrarch.Herod Philip was a tetrarch, meaning literally a "ruler of a fourth part." The Tetrarch was a designation in Roman times of apetty prince.

The Praetorian Guard was the official guard of the Emperor of Roman Empire. They were the elite corps of the Empire, who'ssalaries, privileges and so forth were better than other Roman soldiers. Originally, the Praetorian Guard was in Rome, but theywere later dispersed throughout the Provinces. The Guard was discontinued in the third century AD, because they had become toopowerful, threatening the Emperor himself.

The Centurion was a non-commissioned officer, commanding at least 100 soldiers. A centurion was usually among the most loyaland experienced men in the Army. The rank was the highest that an ordinary soldier could aspire. His social standing was less than that of the Equestrian Order, the Roman aristocracy. Other less important officers included the Sergeant, a local policeman,enforcer of the law.

281

There were ten centurions in a cohort, a battalion of 600 soldiers, and sixty in a legion, a force of 6,000 soldiers. The Senior Centurion, primus pilus, was the first of ten cohorts in a legion, and was the dream of most soldiers as well as other Centurions. Centurions were lifers who often stayed longer than the required 20 years. Centurions are treated with respect in the NT. The first encounter of Jesus with a gentile is with a Centurion (Luke 7:2 ff); and it is a Centurion that confesses that Jesus is the son of God on the cross (Matt. 27:54: Mark 15:39). Cornelius, a Centurion, is converted by Peter, and is depicted as a man of high character ( Acts 10-11); and it is a Centurion that is entrusted to deliver Paul safely to Rome (Acts 27:1).

In addition to these official Roman rulers, each region would have its own local leadership that might wield power on a more local level. These leaders might include priests, landlords, and guilds of quasi wealthy merchants. Beneath these leaders, the rest of the population would try to survive. Conflicts between rival sects trying to gain attention or specialfavors from the empire, and conflicts between local leaders and leaders designated by Rome created a dangerous situation, especially in the Imperial provinces on the Roman frontier.

Political Parties in Palestine in the Age of Jesus Christ282

If you lived in Palestine in the first century AD, how wouldyou vote? Would you vote the straight party ticket for the Pharisees? Would you espouse the conservative politics of wealthy businessmen like the Sadducees, or the conservative politics of the Herodians? Or, would you withdraw from the worldlike the Essenes, or try to start a revolution like the Zealots?

What was the politics of Jesus? Was Jesus close to the religion and politics of the Pharisees, or was he more radical, like the Essenes or the Zealots. Did Jesus condemn violence, or was he really like Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi today, espousing nonviolent resistance. Was Jesus really political at all, or did He espouse a non political, otherworldly utopia? What did Jesus think of nationalism, of other forms of political fanaticism? Was Jesus interested in what we might call "citizenship" or "democracy?" Was Jesus in any way a reactionary, or a revolutionary, a liberal, a conservative, or something else?

The Herodians were the descendants of Herod the Great (73-4 BC), and the people who supported them. Herod's descendants mentioned in the NT include Herod Philip, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Herod Agrippa I, Herodias, Agrippa II, Berenice, Drusilla, and Salome.158 The Herodians were generally supportive

158    See, "Herod," in Illustrated Bible Dictionary I (1980), 643;and S. Sandmel, "Herod," in IDB II (1962): 585-594.

283

also of Hellenization, and of Roman policies in Palestine. The Herodians were hostile to any persons or groups that challenged the status quo, whether zealots, or messianic prophets like John the Baptist or Jesus of Nazareth.

The Herodians joined forces in a plot to kill Jesus (Mark 3:6; 12:13; Matt 22:16), and Jesus warned of the evil deeds of the Pharisees and of Herod (Mark 8:15). The Herodians, like the Pharisees, were in favor of local political autonomy, and were afraid that any disturbance might lead to intervention by Rome, and the loss of local authority. Hoehner thinks, however, that the Herodians had more in common with a sect of the Sadducees, called the Boethusians, who among the Sadducees were loyal to thehouse of Herod.159

The Sadducees were a Jewish faction, hostile to Jesus and his followers, representing the aristocrats, the priesthood, merchants and the urban elite in Jerusalem and other cities in Judea. The high priests were mostly Sadducees (Acts 5:17). The Sadducees may derive from Zadok, high priest during the reign of David. Unlike the Pharisees, the Sadducees deny belief in the

159 See, also B.W. Bacon, "Pharisees and Herodians in Mark," JBL XXXIX (1920), 102-112; and H.H. Rowley, "The Herodians in the Gospels," JTS XLI (1940), 14-27; and H.H. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (1972); and, "Herod/Herodians," in NISBE II (1982), 688-698.

284

resurrection, and the tradition of the elders. They believed only in the law of Moses as supreme authority, the first five books of the bible.

The Pharisees, in contrast, believed in the resurrection, and held that the entire OT, law, writings and prophets were authoritative. The Sadducees also rejected belief in the immortality of the soul, and life after death, whereas the Pharisees believed both. The Pharisees were the doctors of the law, the scribes in the NT, and were more middle class, whereas the Sadducees were more wealthy. The Pharisees accommodated for their relatively low station by advancing in the law, and in understanding the tradition of the elders, later compiled as oraltraditions as the Talmud and the Mishnah, commentaries on the Torah, the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, the Sadducees tried to trick Jesus with a trap question regarding the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; and Luke 20:27-40). Jesus argued that the Sadducees were "Greatly mistaken" for disbelief in the resurrection, siding theologically more with the Pharisees. The Sadducees played a role in the Sanhedrin Council, and heard Jesusbefore sending him own to Pilate (Mark: 14:60-64). They also opposed the apostles (Acts 4:1-3; 5:17-18). St. Paul, following his arrest in Jerusalem, purposely caused dissension in the Sanhedrin Council over the issue of the resurrection. The issue

285

caused great dissension between the rival sects (Acts 23:6-10).The Pharisees were derived during the Maccabean period from

a group of the faithful called the Hasidim. The Essenes were members of this group who favored separation from the Greco Romanworld, and withdrew to communities like Qumran ( the Dead Sea Scrolls). The Pharisees ("to separate") shared similar views, but chose to stay within Greco-Roman society. Many Pharisees lost respect in the priesthood due to corruption, and began to study the law on their own.

They were known for their piety, their self-discipline and their knowledge of the law. Some interpreters believe that the Pharisees were different from the scribes, the former being laymen, and the latter being those more formally trained in the law.160 Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees revered the "tradition of the elders," and were responsible for collecting much of the oral tradition and commentaries on the OT, gathered as the Talmud, a combination of the OT Torah, and commentaries onit, the Mishnah. The Talmud comprises some 36 volumes and 36,000pages of material.

The Pharisees, by reputation, were strict keepers of the lawas they understood it, to the point of legalism and literalism (Acts 26:5). They were strict regarding the keeping of the sabbath (Mark 2:24), marriage (Mark 10:2); and oaths (Matt.

160    R.J. Wyatt, "Pharisees," in NISBE III (1986), 823.286

23:16-22). They were especially interested in maintaining ritualpurity and the laws of tithing (Matt. 23:23-26: Mark 7:1-13); Luke 11:37-42); 18:12). The Pharisees were orthodox to the pointof fanaticism, and refused to eat with Gentiles, or even non-Pharisees for fear of being contaminated by food not rendered ritually clean. The Pharisees kept themselves aloof from those who did not keep the law as well as they claimed, treating such as inferiors and "sinners" by definition (Mark 2:16: Luke 7:39: 15:2; 18:11).161

Another key difference is the Pharisees attitude towards fate and divine providence. The Pharisees believed that God was in control of history, and their fate was in God's hands. Everything was governed by God, and had a divine purpose. The Sadducees denied this, insisting rather on the freedom of the will, and the responsibility to make wise choices by the law. The Pharisees, also had an elaborate angelology, and believed that angels intervened in human affairs. The Sadducees denied this out of hand. The Pharisees understanding of the coming kingdom was also a literal one, as they believed in a "this worldly" kingdom, and a literal fulfillment of the promise to David of a coming Kingdom. The Sadducees rejected these views,

161    Jewish scholars are critical of the NT portrayal ofPharisaism as too hostile, as in E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution (1978); and K. Weiss, "Pharisaios," in TDNT Vol. IX; and J.Neusner, op cit.

287

denying both everlasting punishment and a literal kingdom.162 Jesus resisted this rigidity, and was far less legalistic

than the Pharisees. However, on matters of doctrine, such as theauthority of the law, prophets and writings; belief in resurrection and after life; and hope in coming Messiah; Jesus and the early Christians had more in common with the Pharisees than with the other parties at the time. Paul could describe himself as a "Pharisee of the Pharisees, advancing in Judaism beyond his contemporaries." Yet, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as hypocritical, lacking compassion and mercy, and committed to areligion that was highly legalistic.

Similarly, Paul, while expressing affinity with Pharisaism (Gal. 2:11-14; Phil. 3:5 ff), departed from Pharisaism on a number of key points. He rebuked Peter for refusing to eat with Gentiles, a practice that was common with Pharisees. He did not insist on the circumcision of Gentiles, as he was not interested in making his Gentile converts into Jews.

Also, Paul did not seem to be compelled to keep holy days, dietary food restrictions, tithing or sabbatarianism. While he kept these rules on occasion, for the most part he did not for fear of alienating the Gentiles from the gospel. Hence, both in the ministry and teachings of Jesus and the early apostles, especially Peter, James and Paul, their appears to be an affinity

162    Matthew Black, "Pharisees," IDB III (1962), 778.288

with Pharisaism. However, their commitment to the gospel, and practice of compassion for those either less unfortunate or for the unorthodox, from the standpoint of Pharisaic traditionalism, was a remarkable departure from the party line.163

The Essenes were radical Pharisees who chose to live apart from a world that was becoming dominated by Hellenization, the culture of Greco Roman civilization. The sect flourished betweenthe middle of the second century BC to the Jewish Roman War, AD 66-70. Our chief knowledge of the group comes from secondary sources of Philo, Josephus and Pliny the Elder. The Essenes according to these accounts were a communal society, paying closeattention to ceremonial purity and holding property in common.

The Essenes may have been the first Utopian Socialist community. They apparently practiced celibacy, did not hold slaves, took care of those in sickness and old age, did not participate in military activity, nor did they participate in commerce beyond their own sect. Yet, other interpreters of the community at Qumran site evidence that marriage was allowed, and the "War Scroll" is evidence that this group was not pacifist; 163 See, for more information, J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (1973); L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees. 2 Vols. (1962), and "The Pharisees, their Origin and Philosophy," HTR XXII (1929); J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (1973); and H. Odeberg, Pharisaism and Christianity (1964)); R.J. Wyatt, "Pharisaism," in NISBE III (1986): 822-829.

289

although this document may be understood allegorically. These are all highly debatable points, and point in general to a disparity in evidence and a variety in interpretation.

While Josephus records that the Essenes lived in the cities of Palestine, as well as in communities, Pliny and Philo record that the Essenes lived in separate communities around the Dead Sea. The Essenes of the city, according to Josephus, practiced hospitality for strangers who traveled from one place to another.This has led most scholars to connect the Essenes with the sectarians of Qumran, and the authors of the now famous Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the caves of Qumran in 1947, one of the most significant finds in the history of Archaeology. If it is true that the Qumran sectarians were Essenes, the Dead Sea Scrolls give readers primary evidence of the theology and practical polity of this group. It is also possible that John the Baptist,in particular, was influenced by the Essenes, and may in fact have been associated with one of the communities.

The Essenes were noted for simplicity, in meals and in theirdress, as they shunned ostentatious display. However, in some ways they were more strict than the Pharisees, and carefully guarded the sabbath. Like the Pharisees, the Essenes believed inthe immortality of the soul, angels, and were interested in eschatology, looking for up to three different Messiahs. They practiced ritual baptism, and a communal dinner, called the

290

messianic banquet. These rituals likely influenced the early rituals of the Christians.

In addition to the practicing a community of goods, the Essenes were dualistic, believing that they were the true children of light, and that everyone outside were children of darkness. They looked forward to a coming "Teacher of Righteousness," who would judge the nations, and establish justice.164

The last of the political parties in Palestine in the age ofJesus Christ were the Zealots. The zealots were radical Pharisees, ardent nationalists, and committed to participating ina violent revolution to throw off the yoke of Rome. Two of the apostles and followers of Jesus were Zealots, including "Simon Zealotes" (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), and "Judas Iscariot." The zealots were "sicarii," dagger-men, who awaited the opportunity to participate in a revolt against Rome. Simon the Zealot was also called "Simon the Canaanite" (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18),

164 For more information, see G.W. Buchanan, "Essenes," in NISBE II (1962): 147-155; Matthew Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (1961); Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (1955); Jerome Murphy-O'Conner, Paul and Qumran (1972); Andre Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings from Qumran (1961); Geza Vermes, The DeadSea Scrolls In English (1962); Theodore Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (1957); Krister Stendahl, editor, The Scrolls and the New Testament (1957).

291

although his name could also mean simply "Simon the Zealous."The Zealots were in agreement with the Pharisees, and

supported the Jewish law. They disagreed with the Herodians and the Sadducees, who tried to maintain the status quo politically; and were intolerant with the Christians and the Essenes for theirtendency toward pacifism. Although, Josephus records that a "John the Essene" was among the zealots fighting against Rome at Massada. Also, some interpreters believe that Jesus actually hadmore in common with the zealots than with any of the other rival parties. His advice, to "take up a sword" in the last days leadssome to believe that Jesus was a zealot (view of Brandon below). Jesus, also like the zealots, seemed to believe that one should not pay taxes to Caesar, nor should one pay the temple tax (Mark 12:14-17).

Brandon argues (1968) that Jesus was tried for sedition as azealot, and this was the correct charge.

A more recent interpretation suggests that Jesus was not a zealot in the political sense, but was a social revolutionary, opposed to violence.165 For Cassidy and Horsley, Jesus was 165    See, Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence:Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (1987); and RichardJ. Cassidy, Jesus, Politics and Society: A Study of Luke's Gospel (1978); Richard J. Cassidy, editor, Political Issues in Luke Acts (1983). Compare also with John Howard Yoder, The Politics ofJesus (1972), and Donald Kraybill, The Upside Down Kingdom forpacifist readings of Jesus' politics.

292

opposed to violence, but not toward revolution. Jesus "actively opposed violence, particularly institutionalized oppressive and repressive violence.... Jesus was apparently a revolutionary, but not a political revolutionary." Jesus was a social but not apolitical revolutionary, and therefore not a zealot in the strictsense, although Jesus seemed to be influenced by the zealot critique of oppression, although he did not seem to buy their solution. Rather, Jesus "espoused radically new social patterns and by refusing to defer to existing political authorities, Jesuspointed the way to a social order in which neither the Romans norany other oppressing group would be able to hold sway."166

The first zealots of note include Judas the Galilean (6 BC) who tried to get his fellow Jews to resist the census and to resist paying taxes to Rome (Acts 5:37; Josephus, Antiquities XVII and XX). Josephus indicates that the entire anti Roman movement of the zealots goes back to Judas the Galilean, which gave Galilee the reputation as the seedbed of revolutionaries.

166    Cassidy, Jesus, Politics and Society (1978), 79.

293

Josephus is highly critical of the zealots, who in their misguided fanaticism contributed to the collapse of Judea under the power of Rome in the Jewish Roman war of AD 66-70). For Josephus, the zealots degenerated into mere assassins, similar tothe terrorists of present day.

The most important teaching in the gospels is Jesus' teachingregarding the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is the centralto the public proclamation of Jesus (Mark 1:14-15; Matt. 4:23;

9:35; Luke 8:1; 9:11; and 4:43-44). Jesus linked the kingdom ofGod and the cities and towns, as he described his purpose aspreaching the kingdom of God to the cities (Luke 4:43-4). The

disciples also understood their task as centered in theproclamation of kingdom of God (Matt.

Chapter ElevenJesus and the City:

The Kingdom of GodThe most important teaching in the gospels is Jesus'

teaching regarding the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is thecentral to the public proclamation of Jesus (Mark 1:14-15; Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Luke 8:1; 9:11; and 4:43-44). Jesus linked the

294

kingdom of God and the cities and towns, as he described his purpose as preaching the kingdom of God to the cities (Luke 4:43-4). The disciples also understood their task as centered in the proclamation of kingdom of God (Matt. 16:28; Mark 13:36; and Mark9:1).

The Kingdom theme is mentioned, primarily in the gospels, asan expression of the rule of God on earth. Subject to much debate and interpretation, some scholars understand the kingdom of God as referring to a transcendental heavenly state, while others see the kingdom as, actually or potentially, having some realization in space and time. However, the basic meaning of thekingdom of God is the sovereignty of God or God's rule, and secondarily it refers to a sphere or realm where the rule operates.

The Kingdom of God in the Old TestamentAmong contemporary scholars, the debate regarding the nature

of the kingdom of God in the OT is the extent in which the kingdom of God is "abstract," a theological metaphor; or "concrete," referring to an actual kingdom on earth. Many scriptures seem to support the abstract view. In the Psalms, thekingdom "is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endures throughout all generations" (Ps. 145: 11, 13). Also, "the Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules

295

over all" (Ps. 103:19). Yet, the kingdom of God also refers to the rule of God among the chosen people Israel, and the rule of God by his servant, first the in the kings, such as David, and finally in the coming servant, the Messiah. The kingdom of God seemed to combine the abstract and concrete views in the Old Testatment.

In the Old Testament, the reign of God could become identified with an earthly realm or domain, as in the commonwealth of Israel. Yet, it could never be wholly identifiable with any earthly rule, and itt could stand outside space and time, influencing a nation's policy, referring primarily to the transcendent rule of God that stood above and beyond nations and empires.

In ancient Israel, the kingdom was identified with David's rule, and was expected to return in a more complete manifestationin a coming Messiah, a descendent of David. It primarily described the character of a rule, or the person who rules, but rarely referred to a realm, a spatial area or territory.

The kingdom could nonetheless relate to a realm, and could mean on occasion a political kingdom (II Samuel 20:31); the Davidic kingdom (I Chron. 29:23; II Chron. 9:8); or an expectation of an apocalyptic age in which things on earth would be set right (Dan. 7:16f). However, the primary meaning referredrather to the rule, the government, and the authority and power

296

of the king (Dan. 6:29; Rev. 17:12). Yet, there were times when the rule of God could break into history and assume an earthly form.

In the New Testament, the kingdom theme is mentioned almost 100 times, with over 80% of the references are found in the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. In most cases, a religious or theological meaning is in view. However, there are occasions when the kingdom theme refers to kingly dignity (Luke 19:12; 15; Rev. 17;12); a territory (Matt. 4:8; 12:25; 24:7; and Mark 6:23); or to a literal kingdom promised to Israel (Mark 11:10; Acts 1:6).

In the Gospel of Matthew, the phrase, "kingdom of heaven" ismentioned over 33 times; whereas the kingdom of God is mentioned only four times. While there is much debate, these are likely interchangeable terms. Some interpreters understand "kingdom ofheaven" as locational and therefore spiritual in nature; others see the phrase as indicating the source and authority of this kingdom.

It is possible that Matthew's choice of kingdom of Heaven was out of respect for the Jewish practice of addressing God in the abstract rather than with a personal name. Other scholars, such as Joachim Jeremias, believe that Jesus did not use "kingdomof heaven," but rather the phrase, kingdom of God so that the phrase in Matthew is derived from a later editor.

297

In either case, God's kingdom is not derived from earthly rulers, but from the transcendent God, the source of the kingdom.The Kingdom of heaven comes from a source beyond human governments and institutions. This kingdom of God indicates thatthis rule is linked to God, and has its authority in God. It will break into history, and set things right.

Yet, while the source of the kingdom is heaven, not by way of human instrumentalities; theologically, this does not mean that the kingdom of God is necessarily otherworldly. In fact, the disciples were taught to pray for the kingdom. They were taught to pray: "Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10). Why were the disciples taught to pray for an earthly kingdom?

As a consequence of such a prayer, the disciples would receive bread, their debts would be cancelled, and they would be delivered from evil. Evil in the bible was always a combination of supernatural forces and human institutions.167 As a result of the coming kingdom, the disciples would have food, poverty would be lifted, and oppression would be replaced by peace. The divinely established rule and accompanying institutions would do what they were created to do (Rom. 13:1-7), to promote justice and human welfare, and God's heavenly rule would be realized on earth. In short, the kingdom of God on earth would result in

167

298

justice, compassion for the poor and the oppressed, and a new community of people living new values befitting a new world and anew society.

The Kingdom of God is a phrase that is mentioned 32 times inLuke, and 14 times in Mark, four times in Matthew and 6 times in Acts (1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 28:23; and 28:31). Jesus often revealed the nature of the kingdom of God in parables- stories that suggested the deeper meaning of the kingdom ideal. In Matthew's Gospel, the mysteries of the kingdom were shared in parable-form to the disciples. In the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:1-9), Jesus revealed that the reception of the kingdom of God depended on the soil, on the receptivity of the hearers. Some seed landed on good and fertile soil, other seed fell by thewayside, or on thorny or scorched soil, and never took root.

In the parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matt. 13:24 f), the king finds that tares, which look like wheat but are really imitations, have been planted in the field. The king separates the tares from the wheat at harvest time, just as truth and fiction are separated by a judge. In the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus suggests that while the beginnings of the gospel and the manifestation of the kingdom are inconspicuous, they will reach larger dimensions and have greater effect in due time.

Like the mustard seed, the kingdom works outward and enlarges. Like the leaven, the kingdom works inwardly and

299

eventually spreads throughout the the whole of the bread, having the positive effect of leavening the whole meal. The kingdom of heaven is finally, like the hidden treasure or the pearl of greatprice, more valuable than anything. For those who recognize its value, anything would be sacrificed in order to possess it. The parables of the kingdom reveal the kingdom as dynamic, growing, and of ultimate value and consequence.

There is much debate about the kingdom of God, as to whetheror not it is present or future, "now" or "not yet." In some passages, it seems that the kingdom is present. It is said to benear, at hand or among the disciples; "the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20; and Matt. 12:28). Jesus announced the presence of the kingdom of God, citing evidence of its presence because "the blind see, the deaf hear, the lepers are cleansed and the poor have the gospel preached to them" (Matt. 11:2 f.; Luke 7:24; 11:20).

Yet, for Jesus, the kingdom was not "here or there," but "the kingdom of God is within you." Clearly, Jesus did not identify the kingdom with the earthly reign of temporal rulers, but saw it emerging in the faith of the disciples. The presence of the kingdom is also revealed in Jesus' encounter with evil. Jesus casts out demons as evidence of its presence (Luke 11:20); and, breaks the power of Satan in the process (Matt. 12:29).

The kingdom of God was coming, in the future, "not yet". 300

John the Baptist related the coming of the kingdom to the coming of judgment day, and implored his followers to repent (Luke 3:7-19). Similarly for Jesus, it would come "in the clouds with great glory and power" (Matt. 16:28; Mark 13:36; and Mark 9:1). It was linked with Jesus' death, burial and resurrection (Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18).

The stories of the messianic banquet, the Lord's supper and the brides awaiting the coming of the groom are perhaps most revealing of the stories connected to the kingdom of God. (Matt.8:11; Luke 13:8-9; Matt. 22:1-14; Luke 14:16-24; and Matt. 25:1-13). The message is that the kingdom is imminent, and could be revealed at any time, so that one must be ready at all times.

In the parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:15-24), the invitation first goes to those who are well to do, of means and high social standing. But they are busy with commerce or family matters. The master of the house then says, "Go out quickly intothe streets and the lanes of the city, and bring here the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind...." And when this wasdone, there was still room, so that the master said, "Go out intothe highways and the hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."

The kingdom of God is both urban and rural, as those from the streets and lanes of the city join those from the highways and the hedges. It combines a spiritual with a social and

301

material message in one gospel. Spiritually, all those who come in faith are served, regardless of their social station. Materially, the gospel breaks through barriers of race, class andgender, and the social needs of the people are met in the new community (Acts 2:44-45). The hungry are fed in the kingdom. "Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God" (Luke 14:15). In the kingdom, the naked are clothed, those in prison are visited and set free, those who thirst are given water, and those who are strangers are received as family in a new community. In Matthew, the kingdom of God is reserved for those who minister "to these the least of these my brethren," the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the sick and the imprisoned (Matt. 25:34 ff). In Acts, the kingdom of God denotes both the presence of Godwith the disciples, as evidenced by mighty signs and wonders, andthe content of the apostolic preaching, particularly as the kingdom related to Jesus as Messiah and manifestation of the kingdom ideal.

The Kingdom is mentioned 8 times in the writings of Paul (Rom. 14:17; I Cor. 4:20; 6:9-10; 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Col. 4:11; and II Thes. 1:5). Paul shifts the meaning of the kingdom of God to the person of Christ and the practice of community and Christian ethics. For Paul, the kingdom was the goal of the faithful, and would not include persons deemed unworthy, either

302

due to false doctrine or immoral practice. The kingdom in Paul is more theological than social, and related more specifically tothe person of Chist as the "kingdom of Christ" (Col. 1:13; I Cor.15:24).

The kingdom of God in the New Testament is larger than the church. The kingdom is the whole of God's redeeming activity in in Christ in the world. In contrast, the church is the assembly of those who belong to Jesus Christ. The church is included in the kingdom, but is not the kingdom. The church, comprising of those who accept the gospel of the kingdom in faith, represents the kingdom on earth visibly - as the salt of the earth and the light of the world. The church is therefore the sign of the kingdom and its organ on earth in the present age while awaiting the full manifestation of the kingdom in the future.

In the Gospel of John, the kingdom of God is mentioned threetimes (Jn. 3:3,5; and 18:36), and three times in the Revelation (1:9; 11:15; 12:10). In John, one had to be born again to see thekingdom, as it was not to be found in the party factions or the political institutions of the day. Yet, the kingdom of God had the potential to break into human history, destroying all rule and authority.

In the Revelation, the kingdoms of the world would be replaced by the kingdom of God. Persecution and oppression wouldcome to an end, and the reign of God would begin in a new aeon.

303

The final expression of the kingdom in the Revelation is the coming of the New Jerusalem. In the New Jerusalem, the kingdom of God is identified with God's new urban reality, and the peace and justice of God reign on earth.

Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwellwith them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes, there will be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying; and there shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away (Rev. 21: 3-4).

The Kingdom of God is the reign of God among all peoples, nations and things. It will ultimately become the domain or realm of God that will eventually reign on the earth and throughout the universe (Col. 1:13-18).

ConclusionsIn the New Testament, the kingdom has come in Jesus, who is

proclaimed as messiah. Yet, the kingdom, which begins in seed form in the faith of the disciples, is yet to come in it fullest manifestation. In the Revelation, the martyrs hope for the coming kingdom of God which will replace the kingdoms of the world, and the Lord reigns in a new heaven and a new earth.

Basically, the kingdom of God may be understood as the creation of a new community, the people of God, with new rules and patterns of behavior. It has the potential for occupying andinfluencing a spatial area, a realm, but is not limited to any

304

spatial area. It is primarily the realm of God. The kingdom of God has its source in God who is its creator.

It is thus interchangeable with the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of God cannot be created by human agency, and is neither identifiable with any human institution (I Th. 5:8, 19). The kingdom of God is therefore not limited to any national government. The kingdom of God is related to the gospel. The gospel is the "gospel of the kingdom" (Mk. 1:14; Mt. 4:23; Lk. 4:43; Acts 8:12).

The kingdom is good news for the alienated and the marginalized. It is for the poor, the oppressed, and the persecuted. It is the rule of God in the hearts of a covenantedpeople and is characterized by justice, compassion, mercy and peace. In the Old Testament this community was the nation Israel, and in particular a faithful remnant. In the New Testament, the kingdom is represented by a new people, a holy nation of both Jews and Gentiles, the church.

The kingdom of God is both present and future, it is "now" and "not yet." The kingdom is "near," and yet "will come" in thefuture. It is identifiable with the person and work of Christ, who proclaimed it to be "among you" or "in your midst" (Mt. 21:9;Luke 18:29; Mark 10:29; Matt. 19:29). At the end of the age, the"son of man" will come again, bringing judgement upon the nations(Mt. 25; Mk. 13; 14:25).

305

The kingdom of God is the gift of God (Lk. 12:32). It is taken from some and given to others (Mt. 21:43). God calls a newpeople to the kingdom (I Thes. 2:12), and one can receive the kingdom only as a child (Mk. 10:15). Believers share in the reign of God as kings and priests (Rev. 1:6), and some will rule over cities and nations in the coming age.

The kingdom of God is costly, and worth every cost. It is more important than wealth and property, more important than priceless treasure, and even more important than family ties or marriage. Those who are believers in Christ, the annointed presence of the kingdom in person, are granted entry. Central tothe teachings of Jesus, the gospel cannot be understood without reference to the kingdom of God. Today, the kingdom still gives believers hope and promise. The new community possesses in its life the values and reality of the kingdom, and its mission is tospread to the whole of the created order, in word, deed, and authentic presence, its message of peace, justice, and the possibilities of a new world.

306

Chapter TwelveSt. Paul and the Cities of the Roman World

The gospel of Paul was no "private" gospel. It was a gospelthat had relevance in the marketplace, the courts, the theater, the Academy, the prisons, and the synagogues of the day. Paul's gospel was an urban gospel, as it developed in the cities of the Roman world. Sir William Ramsay, writing at the turn of the century, was the first serious scholar to note the importance of cities in the life of St. Paul. For Ramsay, Paul was a traveler and Roman citizen. His missionary journeys took Paul to the major cities of the Roman empire.168 Ramsay was perhaps the firstto note the importance of the public life of St. Paul.

168    Sherman E. Johnson, St. Paul and His Cities (Wilmington,Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987).

307

Paul, of course, was born in Tarsus, "no mean city," and thefirst time we hear of Paul in the New Testament, he is consentingto the death of Stephen, the Christian martyr, just outside of Jerusalem. Paul was to have his conversion experience on his wayto another city, Damascus.

While some scholars make a distinction between the religion of Jesus, and the Christianity of Paul, few question the urban roots of Paulinism. Paul was more "Community organizer" than "wandering charismatic,"169 and his contribution to early Christianity was influenced in no small part by his urban roots.

"Paul, it seems, only went from city to city and scarcely worked at all as a missionary in the rural villages. In part that is because in such regions the older ethnic languages still prevailed while in the cities Greek would be understood, althoughfor Greece itself this distinction would naturally not be relevant. Another reason is that Paul was himself rooted in urban culture. For him, cities are representative of the entire world: Corinth of Achaia (I Cor. 16:15), for example, or Ephesusof Asia (16:19."170

169    Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). Theissen draws a distinctionbetween the religion of Jesus as rural and the organizing effortsof Paul as more urban in character.170    Gerd Theissen, "Legitimation and Subsistence: An Essay onthe Sociology of Early Christian Missionaries," In Social Setting

308

That Paul's missionary journeys led him to the major, and minor, cities of the ancient world is also widely accepted. William Ramsay, beginning as a skeptic in the early part of this century, traced the journeys of Paul to the cities, utilizing archaeological data, and information from the bible, and from classical literature.171 For Ramsay, Luke's narrative in the Actsis a history of the first rate, for "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness."172

While more recent scholars raise questions regarding aspectsof the narrative, and Acts is primarily a missionary and even an apologetic document, yet the material in Acts compliments well what we know of the Roman world. Luke's knowledge of geography, his use of Roman provincial titles such as the use of Politarch in Acts 17:6, and information regarding Roman political figures such as Gallio (Acts 18:12ff.) are consistent with classical evidence.

For Ramsay, archaeological evidence supported the biblical narratives regarding the spread of Christianity, and noted the

of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: TheFortress Press, 1982), 38.171    William M. Ramsay, St. Paul: The Traveller and the RomanCitizen (London, 1897).172    William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on theTrustworthiness of the New Testament (Reprinted by Baker BookHouse, 1953), 81.

309

importance of St. Paul, "the achilles heal" of early Christianity. St. Paul was born a Roman citizen, an educated Jew, and was an individual at home in the cities of the Roman world.173 More than just incidental contact, the urban culture ofGreco-Roman civilization influenced the theology, rhetoric and practice of the first Christians.

"When Pliny the Younger writes that Christianity spread 'notonly through the cities, but also through the villages and countryside' (Ep. X 96.9), it is clear where Christianity has itsfocal point. Developing cities with their new increase in population were more open to the new message that the country, with its traditionalist attitudes. Groups of this kind in particular, whose roots in the cities were not too deep, could find security and support in the communities. It is probably a consequence of the change from country to city that the vivid concrete pictures of the synoptic tradition increasingly give place to abstract argumentation: primitive Christian literature becomes more theological, more speculative, more reflective."174

Further, the spread of Christianity to the cities made good

173    F.F. Bruce, Paul: The Apostle of the Heart Set Free (GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1977); New Testament History (NewYork: Doubleday and Company, 1971), 234 ff; and William Ramsay,St. Paul: The Traveler and Roman Citizen (1920); and The Citiesof St. Paul (1907).174    Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity, 117.

310

strategy for the evangelization of the Roman world. Paul went tothe cities, to unite the church, Jew and Gentile; to take up a collection for the poor saints at Judea; and as a means to fulfill the great commission. City people were usually more opento new ideas, and there were synagogues already in place.

Also, artisans of every type, including tentmakers, were present in large numbers. Artisans would not only sale their wares in the marketplace, but share the same living quarters, as urban areas were often segregated by crafts.175 Paul identified with the artisan class as a tentmaker, and this vocation allowed to meet up with others like Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:1ff), and it provided the means for Paul to function as an apostle, without becoming a financial burden on struggling churches. Paulwas a bi-vocational minister and apostle in the first century. Paul seemed to carry the belief that, by planting a church in strategic urban centers, the gospel would eventually spread tothe provinces and the countryside as well. At the time, the town and countryside in the Roman world were more interdependent, and the travel of merchants to and from the cities contributed to a symbiotic relationship.

175    Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The SocialWorld of the Apostle Paul (Philadelphia: The Fortress Press,1983), 29. For a discussion of the significance of Paul's vocationas tentmaker, see, Ronald Hock, The Social Context of Paul'sMinistry: Tentmaking and Apostleship (Fortress, 1980).

311

It was thus no accident that Paul's "missionary journeys" took him to the ancient cities. First to Antioch of Syria, then to Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, and ultimately Rome, and most of the towns and villages in between. St. Paul's urban strategy brought him into contact with the diversity of peoples and cultures in the ancient world. The result was a gospel that proclaimed not just a resurrected Christ, but an emerging community of faith that was "neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian norScythian, male nor female" (Gal. 3:28).

The gospel in such a context would welcome pluralism in a new community that transcended barriers of race, class, ethnicity, and even gender. Paul proclaimed an urban gospel, a gospel born within, and addressed to the urban multitudes of the Roman world. The cities of St. Paul provided the context for mission and the social setting for the fulfillment of the great commission in his generation.176

Luke presents a Paul who is comfortable in the cities of theRoman world. As a Roman Citizen, Paul believed that he could appeal to the Roman legal system, and he would eventually get justice, just as he would attract an audience. Paul valued his citizenship, and operated on the assumption that the gospel had

176    See also, Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul's orOurs? (London, 1927); and Wayne A. Meeks, The First UrbanChristians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (Yale, 1983).

312

relevance to the political, economic and religious institutions of the day. He traveled to the stadia of Ephesus, the schools ofAthens, the marketplace of Corinth, and the jails of Philippi andRome. He believed in the urban system as he found it, and believed that governments were gifts of God to be obeyed (Romans 13). The state at the time of Paul had not yet become the beast of emperors Nero and Domitian, and the book of Revelation.

Paul's ethic of accommodation is well known, and Paul was willing to become a Jew to the Jews, or a Greek to a Greek, for the sake of the Gospel. But this was no insincere ethic. Paul states that he advanced beyond his contemporaries in his study ofJudaism. "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught accordingto the strictness of our father's law, and was zealous toward Godas you are today" (Acts 22:3).

Yet, he also held his Roman citizenship in high esteem. He replied to a centurian while in jail in Philippi, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman, and uncondemned” (Acts 22: 25)? Paul proudly boasted of his Roman citizenship, and was confident that the Roman judicial system would hear him fairly, and find him innocent. It would also be opportunity for Paul to address some of the mighty and powerful in the empire. Paul seemed to believe that the "pax Christi" would eventually triumphover the "pax Romana."

313

Paul was sent from Jerusalem where he was arrested to Felix and later Porcious Festus, Governors of Caesarea, where he appealed to Caesar. Paul in essence exercised his right as a Roman citizen to receive a fair trial, including his right to appeal to Caesar if necessary. For Paul, there was no private gospel. The gospel was as much public as religious. It was relevant for the jails, courts, judgement seats, the theater, themarketplace as well as the philosophical schools and the Academy.

F.F. Bruce sums up the importance and result of Paul's urbanmission. "So Paul travelled along the Roman highways, the main lines of communication, preaching the gospel and planting churches in strategic centers. From those centers the saving message would be disseminated; thus Thessalonica served as a basefor the further evangelization of Macedonia, Corinth for Achaia and Ephesus for proconsular Asia.177

Paul's strategy of capturing the cities as "beachheads" for the gospel made sense then, just as a similar strategy is needed in a world today that has become increasingly more urban. Paul could translate the gospel so that his hearers, including the political authorities, could understand and, if they chose, couldappreciate its contemporary relevance for the cities and the empire. Today, the gospel still has the power to break down the walls that divide races and ethnocentrism. It still has power to

177    Bruce, The Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 315.314

bring peace to cities, and justice to those marginalized. The apostles looked for a new city, a city built upon principles and values realized in the kingdom of God.

315