KING

(2) The duties of the Mng are partly indicated by tlie liistory of tlie rise of tlie kingsliip. Tlie Idng was (a) leader in war. He acted as general, and in person led the troops to battle (cf. Saul on Mt. Gilboa, 1 S 312; Ahab at Ramoth-gilead, 1 K 22'^). By and by a standing army grew up, and fortresses were placed on the frontiers (cf. 1 K 122"-, 2 Ch I72). (b) Besides being leader of the army in war, the king was the supreme judge (cf. 2 S 14s \5\ 1 K 3i«). Before the institution of the monarchy judicial functions were exercised by the heads of the various houses — the elders. These elders were gradually replaced by ofiScials appointed by the king (2 Ch 195-"), and the final appeal was to the king himself, who in Am 2' is called ' the judge.' (c) Further, according to the usual Semitic conception, the king was also the chief person from a religious point of view. This idea has been lost sight of by later Jewish writers, but there is little doubt that in early times the king regarded himself as the supreme religious director, the chief priest. Thus Saul sacrifices In Samuel's absence (1 S 13»-" 1433»), so also David (2 S 6'»- " 242s); while both David and Solomon seem to appoint and dismiss the chief priest at pleasure (cf. 2 S 8>', 1 K 2W- "■ »), and both bless the people (2 S 6", 1 K 8"). Jeroboam sacrifices in person before the altar in Bethel (1 K 12^- ^), and Ahaz orders a special altar to be made, and offers in person on it (2 K 16'2). In later times, however, the priestly functions of the kings were less frequently exercised, priests being appointed, who are usually regarded as royal officials and numbered among other civil servants (2 S 20'^).

(3) The kingship hereditary. It was a fixed idea in ancient Israel that the olBce of the kingship passed from father to son, as the judgeship passed from Gideon to his sons (Jg 9"), or from Samuel to his sons (1 S 8'). Although Saul was chosen by the people and David invited by the elders of Judah to be king, yet Saul himself regarded it as the natural thing that Jonathan should succeed him (1 S 203"). Adonijah assumed that, as David's son, he had a right to the throne ( 1 K 2i5) , and even the succession of his younger half-brother Solomon was secured without any popular election. It is impossible to speak of an elective monarchy in Israel. The succession in Judah remained all along in the house of David, and in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes father always succeeded son, unless violence and revolution destroyed the royal house and brought a new adventurer to the throne.

(4) Power of the king. While the monarchy in Israel differed considerably from other Oriental despotisms, it could not be called a limited monarchy in our sense of the term. The king's power was limited by the fact that, to begin with, the royal house differed little from other chief houses of the nation. Saul, even after his election, resided on his ancestral estate, and came forth only as necessity caUed him (cf. 1 S 11*"). On the one hand, law and ancient custom exercised considerable restraint on the kings; while, on the other hand, acts of despotic violence were allowed to pass unquestioned. A powerful ruler like David or Solomon was able to do much that would have been impossible for a weakUng Uke Rehoboam. Solomon was practically an Oriental despot, who ground down the people by taxation and forced labour. David had the power to compass the death of Uriah and take his wife, but public opinion, as expressed by the prophets, exerted a considerable influence on the kings (cf. Nathan and David, Elijah and Ahab). The idea was never lost sight of that the office was instituted tor the good of the nation, and that it ought to be a help, not a burden, to the people at large. Law and ancient custom were, in the people's minds, placed before the kingly authority. Naboth can refuse to sell his vineyard to Ahab, and the king is unable to compel him, or to appropriate it till Naboth has been regularly condemned before a judicial tribunal (1 K 21"). Thus the king himself was under

KINGDOM OF GOD (OR HEAVEN)

law (cf. Dt. 17" -2"), and he does not seem to have had the power to promulgate new enactments. Josiah bases his reform not on a new law, but on the newly found Book of the Law (2 K 23i-»), to which he and the elders swear allegiance.

(5) Royal income. The early kings, Saul and David, do not seem to have subjected the people to heavy taxation. Saul's primitive court would be supported by his ancestral estate and by the booty taken from the enemy, perhaps along with presents, more or less compulsory, from his friends or subjects (1 S 10" 16™). The census taken by David (2 S 24') was probably intended as a basis for taxation, as was also Solomon's division of the land into twelve districts (1 K 4'). Ezekiel (45'- * 482') speaks of crown lands, and such seem to have been held by David (1 Ch 2T^«). The kings in the days of Amos laid claim to the first cutting of grass for the royal horses (Am 7'). Caravans passing from Egypt to Damascus paid toll (1 K 10"), and in the days of Solomon foreign trade by sea seems to have been a royal monopoly (1 K 10"). It is not quite certain whether anything of the nature of a land tax or property tax existed, though something of this kind may be referred to in the reward promised by Saul to the slayer of Goliath (1 S IT^); and it may have been the tenth mentioned in 1 S 8". ". Special taxes seem to have been imposed to meet special emer-gencies (cf. 2 K 2355), and the kings of Judah made free use of the Temple treasures.

(6) Royal officials have the general title 'princes' (sarlm). These included (a) the commander-in-chief, 'the captain of the host,' who in the absence of the king commanded the army {e.g. Joab, 2 S 122'). (j,) Tjjg prefect of the royal bodyguard, the leader of the 'mighty men of valour' of AV (in David's time the Cherethites and Pelethites, 2 S S's 20^). (c) The 'recorder,' lit. 'one who calls to remembrance.' His functions are nowhere defined, but he seems to have held an influential position, and was probably the chief minister, the Grand Vizier of modern times (cf. 2 S 8", 2 K 182«). (<2) The ' scribe ' (sBpher) frequently mentioned along with the 'recorder' seems to have attended to the royal correspondence, and to have been the Chancellor or rather Secretary of State (2 K 18"- ", 2 Ch 348). (e) The officer who was 'over the tribute' (2 S 202<) seems to have superintended the forced labour and the collecting of the taxes, (f ) The governor of the royal household, the royal steward or High Chamberlain, seems to have held an important position in the days of the later monarchy (Is 36'- 22 22"). Mention is also made of several minor officials, such as the 'king's servant' (2 K 22i2), the 'king's friend' (1 K #), the 'king's counsellor' (1 Ch 27^3), the 'head of the ward-robe' (2 K 22"), the head of the eunuchs (AV 'officers,' 1 S 8"), the 'governor of the city' (1 K 222«). We hear much from the prophets of the oppression and injustice practised by these officials on the poor of the land (cf. Am 2»- ', Is 5', Jer 52a, Mic 3" etc.).

W. F. Boyd. KINGDOM OP GOD (or HEAVEN).— The Biblical writers assume that the Creator of the heavens and the earth must needs be also the everlasting Ruler of the same. The universe is God's dominion, and every crea-ture therein is subject to His power. And so the Hebrew poets conceive God as immanent in all natural phe-nomena. Wind and storm, fire and earthquake, lightnings and torrents of waters are but so many signs of the activity of the Almighty Ruler of the world (Ps 18'-" 68'-" 104). The same heavenly Power is also the supreme Sovereign of men and nations. ' The kingdom is Jehovah's, and he is the ruler over the nations' (Ps 2228). 'Jehovah is king over all the earth' (Zee 142). ' He sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers ... He bringeth princes to nothing' (Is 4022). This general idea of God's dominion over all things receives various forms

516