And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David (1 Kings 3:1).
Likeness of an Egyptian princess, such as the one King Solomon brought to Jerusalem. Having regard to her royal upbringing, he provided for her special apartments of costly stones with cedar beams.
Solomon made also an house for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken to wife (1 Kings 7:8).
FROM: THE BIBLE AS HISTORY IN PICTURES
By Werner Keller - Wm. Morrow Co.
And Solomon built... all the cities of store. and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build. And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen (1 Kings 9:17; 1 Kings 9:19; 1 Kings 4:26).
Today anyone can visit the imposing and up-to-date stables of King Solomon, despite the fact that their existence has often been questioned. Only a few steps from the main gate of Megiddo one comes upon a paved road to the south-east, where the great stables were situated. The horses stood in double rows, with their heads towards the centre passage. They were tied to poststhe stumps in the picturewhich also served to support the roof. Between them were the stone troughs for food and water. The stalls were cobbled but the passage down the middle was treated to prevent the horses from slipping.
FROM: THE BIBLE AS HISTORY IN
PICTURES By Werner Keller - Wm Morrow Co.
BIBLE STUDY TEXTBOOK SERIES
I & 2Kings
By James E. Smith
College Press, Joplin, Missouri
Copyright 1975 College Press
Artwork unless otherwise indicated is by Robert E. Huffman
TO
FRED AND THELMA SMITH
My Parents
in the flesh and in the faith
who instilled within the hearts of four young men a deep and abiding love for the Word of Truth and the Church of Christ.
PREFACE
Can one learn from history? Does history have meaning? Some say not. Little more than the register of the crimes and follies and misfortunes of mankind declared Edward Gibbon. It is, to quote Shakespeare, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. With these evaluations of the significance of history the Biblical historians would sharply differ. For them history was not the assembling of interesting tales or the chronicling of facts and dates in neat and precise chronological sequence. In their view history was not cyclical, following the patterns of the celestial bodies or the rhythm of nature. History had a starting pointcreation; and a terminus ad quemthe eschaton, the day of the Lord. The historians of Israel are to be numbered among those who believe that the facts of the past, once gathered and collated, can be interpreted. From them lessons can be learned which men neglect to their own peril.
What is the task of the historian? Perhaps the best answer to this question was given by Macaulay.[1] It is the task of the historian
[1] Cited in Robinson, BG, p. 14.
to make the past present, to bring the distant near, to place us in the society of a great man or on an eminence which overlooks the field of a mighty battle, to invest human flesh and blood with reality, to call up our ancestors before us with all their peculiarities of language, manners and garb, to show us over their houses, to seat us at their tables, to rummage their old fashioned wardrobes, to explain the uses of their ponderous furniture. to extract the philosophy of history, to direct our judgment of events and men, to trace the connection of causes and effects, and to draw from the occurrences of former times general lessons of moral and political wisdom.
The Biblical historians do this and more. They add the God-dimension to history. Behind all the crises and decisive events of the past was God, carefully and graciously working out His divine purpose.
The average Christian finds the Old Testament historical books a bit difficult to master. The names are hard to pronounce and remember, the narrative is often tedious and repetitious, the accounts gruesome and vulgar. Yet here is the irrefutable record of God's faithfulness in dealing with an apostate and faithless people. These booksespecially Kingsform the background for the Old Testament prophets without whose testimony no man could intelligently confess that Jesus was Christ (Messiah). Thus it is imperative that the Christian diligently digest the narratives of Old Testament history. The present work is offered in an attempt to ease the digestion process and thereby prevent spiritual indigestion.
In this work, the format of the author's earlier commentary on Jeremiah (Bible Textbook Series, 1972) has been followed. Each major section of the book is introduced by a paragraph designed to give an overview of the entire section. This is followed by the author's own translation of the text and comments thereon.
The material here treated is divided into twenty-five Chapter s. A review section has been included at the end of each chapter except Chapter s one and five. Chapter one is introductory to the entire study; Chapter s five and six are properly studied together and hence the review section appears at the end of the later chapter. The review sections are divided into two parts: (1) facts to master; and (2) questions to ponder. The student who wishes to master this portion of God's Word should make sure he can identify every person, place, term or object in the facts to master. The questions to ponder are intended more for class discussion and often do not lend themselves to definitive answers.
In preparing this commentary on Kings the author is indebted to those scholars of the past who have treated this same material. Of the older works, the commentaries on the books of Kings by Hammond and Rawlinson in the Pulpit Commentary were most helpful. In general these two scholars are conservative, but their comments on the chronological passages in Kings are antiquated and needlessly skeptical. At times, however, the work of these two fine scholars has been paraphrased on the pages which follow.
Of the more recent works on Kings, the most thorough study is that of Gray in the Old Testament Library series. Liberal to the core, Gray nonetheless incorporates a wealth of linguistic and archaeological insights into his comments. A liberal Jewish commentary on I Kings by Leo Honor in the Jewish Commentary for Bible Readers series also proved beneficial. These two works have been cited frequently.
To condense footnotes as much as possible, a system of abbreviations has been employed. The abbreviations are listed in alphabetical order together with relevant bibliographical information at the end of the volume.
A special word of thanks is in order to those who assisted in the preparation of the manuscript of this book: to Rachel Smith and Brenda Holloway who labored faithfully on the typing; to Ed McKinney who spent many hours checking out the Biblical references.
James E. Smith
Cincinnati Christian Seminary
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO KINGS
To those who live in a twentieth century western democracy the Book of Kings is strange terrain. It is hard to imagine what life under an Oriental monarchy would have been like. When one tries to immerse himself in the study of this portion of the Word of God, he is quite likely to experience a certain amount of culture shock. The names are strange. The customs are sometimes perplexing, often times shocking. The language is sometimes distasteful, if not uncouth. But the monarchy period is crucial in the unfolding story of redemption. The Book of Kings is pivotal in the library of sacred literature. Therefore, the culture gap must be bridged and the contents of this book mastered if one is going to show himself approved as a student of God's Word.
Before undertaking a study of the text of Kings, certain preliminary matters must be discussed. It is essential that one know something of the book as a whole before he attempts to master the specific material which it contains. In this introduction seven items of importance are treated: (1) the history, (2) authorship, (3) literary sources, (4) content, (5) credibility, (6) purpose, and (7) background of the Book of Kings.
I. THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF KINGS
Every book of Scripture has its own unique and special history. The book came into being at a given point in history, and from that moment of birth the biography of that book commenced. The Old Testament books were first preserved and cared for, copied and translated by pious Jews. These books were then appropriated by the fledgling church which regarded them with a sanctity equal to that of the Jews. The focus in this section is upon the external history of the Book of Kings. Six topics need attention: (1) the date, (2) the title, (3) the division, (4) the canonization, (5) the text, and (6) the placement of the Book of Kings.
A. THE BIRTHDAY OF A BOOK
The language of Kings belongs unmistakably to the period of the captivity. Many words and phrases appear in the book which do not elsewhere occur in Scripture until the time of the captivity.[2] Such words and phrases as have been adduced to prove a date later than the captivity period can be shown in almost every instance to have been in use during that time or even earlier.[3] A close resemblance between the language of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Kings is evident. Hence, a general consensus among Hebrew scholars exists as to the date for the writing of Kings. Almost all critics assign the work on linguistic grounds to the sixth century B.C.[4]
[2] Rawlinson (BC, p. 469, n. 2) gives an extensive list.
[3] Ibid., p. 469, n. 3. Ibid., p. 469, n. 3.
[4] Ibid., p. 470.
From the standpoint of content the date of writing can be securely ascertained. The book must have been written between 562 B.C. when Jehoiachin was released from captivity, and 539 B.C. when Babylon fell.
The book in its present form could not have been published prior to 562 B.C., for the accession of Evil-merodach and subsequent release of king Jehoiachin are mentioned (2 Kings 25:27). The book could not have been published after 539 B.C., for it is inconceivable that the author would have omitted reference to the return to Palestine during the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Thus, on the basis of content a date of about 550 B.C. for the publication of the book as it exists today is generally adopted. If the last four verses of Kings be regarded as an historical appendix, then the remainder of the content could have been penned as early as 580 B.C.
B. THE SEARCH FOR A NAME
The ancients were not nearly so interested in titling their literary productions as are modern publishers concerned with capturing a market for their product. In the history of the book now called Kings, one finds several changes in the way the book was cited.
It is doubtful that the author of this book put any title over his work. Perhaps it was many years after his death before the book came to be commonly referred to as Kings. This title is most appropriate because the book treats of the kings of Israel and Judah from the accession of Solomon to the Babylonian exile.
In the middle of the third pre-Christian century, the Old Testament was translated into the Greek language. The Greek translatorsor those who copied their workdubbed this book Kingdoms. While the appropriateness of this title was questioned by the Christian scholar Jerome, Kingdoms seems also to be a useful designation for the book in that it contains for the most part the history of two kingdoms.
When the Old Testament was translated into Syriac in the second Christian century, this title was appended to Kings: The Book of the Kings who Flourished Amongst the Hebrews, Containing also the History of the Prophets who Flourished in their Times. This title, though somewhat cumbersome, is more accurate than the simple title Kings, for in large measure these books do in fact relate the history of the prophets.
A curious title for I Kings appeared in the Arabic version: The Book of Solomon. Certainly in the first eleven Chapter s, Solomon is the most prominent character. But this title seems to be inappropriate for the work as a whole.
Origen, the great church father of the third Christian century, represented what is today called Kings as being designated by the initial Hebrew words, vehammelech david (now king David). The Hebrews frequently called their books by the first word or phrase rather than by a separate title. Just how old this custom was of citing Kings by the first two words in the book cannot be ascertained.
C. AND THE ONE BECAME TWO
The two books of Kings;the eleventh and twelfth books of the English Biblewere originally one book. The division of Kings into two books of twenty-two and twenty-five Chapter s respectively was introduced by those scholars who translated the Old Testament into Greek in the third pre-Christian century. The reason for this division is very simple. Ancient Hebrew manuscripts contained no vowels. A Greek translation in which vowels were written required almost twice as much space as the Hebrew text which was being translated. While it was possible to contain the entire Hebrew book of Kings on one standard-size roll, two rolls would be required for the Greek translation.
The Greek translators divided the Book of Kings at a most unfortunate pointright in the middle of the reign of Ahaziah of Israel and of the ministry of Elijah. This arbitrary and artificial division of the material in the book might at first thought appear to be nothing more than a stupid blunder. But perhaps there was purpose in this madness. It may be that those who first instituted the bipartite arrangement desired to demonstrate the essential unity of 1 and 2 Kings.[5]
[5] Harrison, IOT, p. 719.
In the fifth century A.D., Jerome set out to translate the Old Testament from the Hebrew into Latin. He noted in his preface to Kings that the Hebrew manuscripts of his day constituted a single continuous work entitled, The Book of Kings. But since the earlier Latin versions had been translations of the Septuagint, Jerome felt he must follow the familiar arrangement of the Greek version. Thus, in the influential Vulgate version, the Book of Kings appeared as two books.
In the Greek translation (third century B.C.) and the Latin translation of Jerome (fourth century A.D.), Samuel and Kings are treated as one continuous history in four volumes. These volumes were designated as First, Second, Third, and Fourth Kings or Kingdoms.
Palestinian Jews resisted the innovations of the Septuagint or Greek Old Testament. For more than sixteen hundred years they refused to adopt the chapter and verse and book divisions of that version.[6] However, the frequent religious controversies between Jews and Christians necessitated ready reference to the Scriptures. About the middle of the fifteenth century of the Christian era, the Jews began to utilize the reference system which had long been employed by Christians. In the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible published by Daniel Bomberg in 1516-17 this footnote is found: Here the non-Jews begin the fourth book of Kings. From that day forward the Jews accepted the division of Kings into two books.
[6] Josephus and the Talmud visualize Kings as one book.
D. AN ADDITION TO THE SACRED SHELF
How did Kings come to be recognized as sacred Scripture? When did this recognition take place? It is not possible, of course, in these brief introductory paragraphs to deal with all the questions related to the subject of canonization. However a few broad statements in this area would seem to be in order.
1. It would appear from Joshua 24:25-26 and 1 Samuel 10:25 that the historical materials of the Old Testament were recognized immediately as being of divine authority.
2. This recognition came to these books because of the acknowledged status of the authors. They were known to have been written by men who held the office of prophet. The four books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are to this day regarded by Jews as prophetic books.
3. The historical books were a further extension of the historical materials of the Pentateuch, the foundational document of Old Testament religion.[7] The Pentateuchal precedent of historical narrative describing gracious acts of God in the distant past suggested the appropriateness of historical narrative of the more recent past in the divine library.
[7] A point stressed by Kline, SBA, pp. 53-57.
4. The historical books describe the dealings of the Lord with His chosen people. These books demonstrate how God was completely faithful to all of His promises, and how His people time and again failed to measure up to covenantal expectations. It was essential that these books be in the sacred canon to provide the theological vindication for the national tragedies which befell the Jews during the sixth century before Christ.
5. These books are written in the spirit of the Law and the prophets.
6. The obvious continuity between the historical books, especially Joshua through Kings, argued for the preservation of the whole. Each writer seems to have been conscious that he was continuing and completing the work of his predecessor.[8] The canonicity of one involves the canonicity of all.
[8] This argument is developed at length by Harris, ICB, pp. 167ff.
For these reasons the historical books, including Kings, were recognized for what they in fact were, the Holy Spirit-Inspired record of the history of Israel. So far as this writer is aware, the canonicity of the Book of Kings was never challenged in Jewish circles or in the Christian church.
E. A BOOK FAITHFULLY COPIED
The Hebrew text of Kings is in remarkably good condition. Scholars find it necessary to propose emendations to the text only in very rare instances. Such problems[9] as do exist are for the most part only of academic interest and do not affect the sense of the passage. There is no ground for suspecting that any extraneous material has been interpolated into the text. Nor is there any reason to think that any portion of the original history has fallen out of the text during the long centuries of handwritten transmission.
[9] Rawlinson (BC, p. 475) lists four verses where he feels there have been short omissions through the carelessness of the scribes. The same author lists a handful of passages where a single letter appears to have dropped from a word, or where two similar letters have been confused. Other authorities, however, do not agree with Rawlinson that these citations are in fact examples of textual corruption.
The earliest complete manuscript of Kings dates to the first half of the tenth century A.D. This manuscript is known as the Aleppo Codex. The text as printed today in Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (the standard scholarly edition of the Hebrew text) is based on the Leningrad Codex which dates to about A.D. 1000. Fragments of Kings were found among the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls.[10] These fragments are so small that they have only limited value in the textual criticism of the book.
[10] From Cave 5 three fragments of Kings on leather were found containing parts of fourteen verses in 1 Kings 1. These fragments are dated to about 110 B.C. Twenty-four fragments of the book on coarse papyrus were found in Cave 6. Several of these contain only a single word or parts of a word or two.
The Septuagint (Greek) version of Kings does present some problems. Differences between the Hebrew and Greek text is particularly noticeable in 1 Kings 3-12. These differences can be summarized as follows:
1. At times the Septuagint has additional material which is not represented in the Hebrew text. The most significant addition occurs in 1 Kings 12 where the Greek translators have interpolated what appears to be a second account of the disruption of 931 B.C. This material violently intrudes into the narrative as it appears in the Hebrew. It is an apocryphal addition which partly repeats and partly contradicts the earlier, standard account of the disruption. No scholar argues for the authenticity of this insertion. Apparently the Greek translators felt free to occasionally make these apocryphal amplifications which they wove together from Scriptural facts and traditions current in their own day.
2. In places the Septuagint rearranged the materials within Kings. This is most clearly evident in the closing events of Ahab's reign.[11] In the Hebrew text the events are found in this sequence: (1) Elijah's flight to Mt. Horeb (chap. 19); (2) the Aramean siege of Samaria (chap. 20); (3) the Naboth vineyard incident (chap. 21); and (4) the campaign to recover Ramoth- gilead from the Arameans (chap. 22). In the Greek version, however, the vineyard incident is narrated before the siege of Samaria. This leaves the account of the Aramean siege of Samaria side by side with the account of Ahab's final campaign against the Arameans.
[11] Also within 1 Kings 3-12 the Greek version at times represents a different grouping of verses.
It is not possible here to deal with all the problems of the relationship between the Hebrew text and the Greek translation of Kings. Certainly the Greek version is indispensable for textual studies in Kings. At times this version offers valuable insight regarding the original Hebrew text. Some of the Dead Sea fragments of Kings seem to be closer to the readings of the Septuagint than to that of the standard (Masoretic) text. Scholars are currently reassessing the relationship between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew text. Though studies continue in this area, it may cautiously be set forth that the standard Hebrew text will probably continue to be regarded as the best text of the Book of Kings.
F. PART OF A SERIES
Those who translated the Old Testament into Greek apparently regarded Kings as a unity with Samuel. The latter book was divided and called I and II Basileiai (reigns, dynasties, kingdoms), while the former was divided and called III and IV Basileiai. Certain manuscripts of the Septuagint carry II Basileiai (II Samuel) forward to what today is designated as 1 Kings 2:11; other Greek manuscripts divide between Samuel and Kings at 1 Kings 2:46 (the establishment of Solomon's throne).
In the Greek version, Kings immediately precedes I and II Paraleipomenon (Chronicles). From this it can be seen that the placement of Kings in the English Bible follows the arrangement of books in the ancient Greek version which was so popular in the early church.
In the Hebrew Bible, Kings is the fourth book of the second division of the Jewish canon, the so-called Former Prophets. That Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings would be classified as prophetic books is indicative of the Jewish tradition that these books are products of men who were prophets and that they reflect a prophetic outlook on history. In the Talmudic listing of books and in the modern Hebrew texts, Kings follows Samuel and precedes Isaiah, the first book of the Latter Prophets.
From this it can be seen that the books of Kings follow the books of Samuel in both the Hebrew and the Greek arrangement. The same is true in all ancient versions. This is the case simply because Kings is obviously the sequel to Samuel. In fact it is even possible that the first two Chapter s of Kings were originally the end of Samuel.
While in general it can be said that Kings belongs after Samuel, the exact relationship of these historical books to one another remains unclear. Certainly Kings breathes the same spirit as Joshua, Judges and Samuel, and together they form a closely connected series. But were these books originally planned as such a series? Were they once four parts of one large work all edited by the same hand? These are questions which cannot be answered definitively.
A popular position today is that Kings was never intended to be a distinct book, but was simply part of a massive history covering the period from the entrance into Canaan until the release of King Jehoiachin. Deuteronomy is viewed as the introduction to this historical work, and the entire corpus is dubbed The Deuteronomistic History.[12] In favor of this theory the following points are made:
[12] This is the thesis of the German critic Martin Noth. The Canadian conservative scholar R. K. Harrison has also argued for a single author for Joshua through Kings.
1. The continuity in the narrative of Joshua-Kings is obvious after even the most casual reading.
2. The theology of these four books is uniform.
3. A general resemblance in style in these four books can be observed. In each of these books one can see the tendency to punctuate the history at significant crises with passages reflecting the style and theology of the Book of Deuteronomy. These punctuating passages are sometimes in narrative form,[13] sometimes in the form of speeches[14] which anticipate the next phase of the unfolding drama.
[13] E.g., Judges 2:11 to Judges 3:6; 2 Kings 17:7 ff.
[14] E.g., Joshua 23-24; 1 Samuel 12; 1 Kings 8:14 ff.
4. One can also point to the employment of a certain number of common words and phrases in these four books.
5. Throughout Joshua-Kings the emphasis is on covenant renewal at significant junctures in the history.[15]
[15] Joshua 24; 1 Samuel 7:3-9; 2 Samuel 7:8-16. Covenant renewal is implied in the introductions to the deliverances narrated in Judges.
6. The unity of Joshua-Kings is further indicated by overlaps in subject matter. Joshua 23-24 anticipates the problems of the Settlement period. The Philistine oppression, in which Judges climaxes, is still the theme in I Samuel. I Kings continues the theme of the establishment of a hereditary monarchy under the house of David, which is the subject of 2 Samuel 7:28.
Now, certainly there is continuity between Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. But was it the original intention of the several distinct authors to pen continuations of the previous history? Or did this continuity become manifest only after the work of the final editor, Ezra? Certainly similarities in style can be observed in these books. But these similarities are regarded by the best Hebraists as slight, not exceeding that of other works which are confessedly by different authors (e.g., Psalms). The common words and phrases are not sufficiently peculiar nor sufficiently numerous to prove identity of authorship.[16]
[16] Rawlinson, BC, p. 468, n. 4.
On the other hand, Kings has several distinctive features which clearly distinguish it from the books of Samuel. In Kings one finds (1) numerous references to the book of the Law; (2) disapproval of high place worship; (3) precise dating; (4) allusion to sources; and (5) the title king prefixed to the names of monarchs. None of these elements appear in the books of Samuel, or else appear only rarely. Many characters, already well-known from Samuel, are introduced in Kings with a descriptive epithet as if previously unknown.[17] Thus while the division between I and 2Kings is artificial, the division between Samuel and Kings is real.
[17] E.g., Joab the son of Zeruiah; Nathan the prophet; Abiathar the priest; Zadok the priest; Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; Bathsheba the mother of Solomon; Abner the son of Ner.
The main argument for the continuity between Samuel and Kings is based on the character of the first two Chapter s of the latter work. It has been argued that the break at the end of II Samuel is completely arbitrary. Such an arbitrary conclusion to II Samuel must have been planned, argues Harrison,[18] to insure the continuity between Samuel and Kings.
[18] Harrison, IOT, p. 719.
RELATIONSHIP OF SAMUEL, KINGS AND CHRONICLES
The similarities between the first two Chapter s of Kings and the Book of Samuel cannot be denied. It is possible that 1 Kings 1-2 originally served as the conclusion to Samuel. If so, it was probably the final editor of the Old Testament, Ezra the scribe, who relocated them in order to underscore the continuity in the Old Testament history. Had the author of Kings himself simply copied the conclusion of Samuel, one would expect to find the same material still at the conclusion of the earlier book. Still another way of accounting for 1 Kings 1-2 would be that the author of Kings secured this material from the same sources utilized by the compiler-author of Samuel.
The period of history covered by the two books of Kings is parallel to that covered by the single book of II Chronicles. The Chronicler devotes nine Chapter s to the reign of Solomon; Kings gives him eleven Chapter s. During the Divided Monarchy period, Kings treats the reigns of the monarchs in both Israel and Judah; Chronicles focuses entirely on the kings of Judah, only mentioning the Northern kings incidentally.
II. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK
It has been established on the basis of both contents and literary characteristics that the Book of Kings emanates from the sixth century B.C. The author of the book is not known for certain. Jewish tradition assigned the book to Jeremiah the prophet. The Talmud states: Jeremiah wrote his book and the Book of Kings and Lamentations.[19] In this section the arguments for and against the traditional Jewish view will be examined together with the critical views of the origin of the book.
[19] Baba Bathra 14b.
A. THE CASE FOR JEREMIANIC AUTHORSHIP
In favor of the Jewish tradition regarding the authorship of Kings, the following points can be made:
1. A remarkable affinity exists between the language of Kings and that of Jeremiah. Even those who reject the Jeremianic authorship of the book are forced to acknowledge this correspondence. They must conclude that the anonymous author was a pupil and imitator of Jeremiah, or at the least that he had the writings of Jeremiah before him. A rather impressive list of verbal similarities between the Book of Jeremiah and the Book of Kings has been compiled by Havernick.[20] The following selective list of similar expressions is based on the work of Havernick:
[20] The list is reproduced in Rawlinson, BC, p. 471.
LANGUAGE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN JEREMIAH AND KINGS
KINGS
JEREMIAH
they would not bear, but hardened their necks (2 Kings 17:14).
yet they hearkened not to Me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck (Jeremiah 7:26).
and they followed vanity and became vain (2 Kings 17:15).
till He had cast them out of His sight 2 Kings 17:20(1Kings).
and I will cast you out of My sight (Jeremiah 7:15).
there shall not fail thee a man in My sight to sit on the throne of Israel (1 Kings 8:25).
David shall never want a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel (Jeremiah 33:17).
that whosoever hears of it. both his ears shall tingle (2 Kings 21:12).
that which whosoever hears, his ears shall tingle (1 Kings 19:3).
therefore My wrath shall be kindled against this place, and it shall not be quenched (2 Kings 22:17).
and My fury shall be poured out upon this place. and it shall not be quenched (Jeremiah 7:20).
Turn ye from your evil ways (2 Kings 17:13).
Turn ye now every one from his evil way (Jeremiah 18:11; Jeremiah 25:5; Jeremiah 35:15).
and I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria (2 Kings 21:13).
He has stretched out a line (Lamentations 2:8).
they shall be for a prey and for a spoil ill K 1 Kings 21:14).
they shall be for a spoil ... and for a prey (Jeremiah 30:16).
Manasseb shed innocent blood (2 Kings 21:16; 2 Kings 24:4).
and for to shed innocent blood (Jeremiah 22:17).
all the people from the least to the greatest (2 Kings 23:2; 2 Kings 25:26).
and all the people from the least to the greatest (Jeremiah 42:1-8; Jeremiah 44:12; Jeremiah 8:10).
to read words in the ears of all the people (2 Kings 23:2).
read in the roll. .. in the ears of all the people (Jeremiah 36:6; Jeremiah 36:10; Jeremiah 36:13).
with all the heart and all the soul (2 Kings 23:3; 2 Kings 23:25).
with my whole heart and with my whole soul (Jeremiah 32:41).
they that burnt incense to all the host of heaven (2 Kings 23:5).
they burnt incense to all the host of heaven (Jeremiah 19:13).
Topbetb, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom(2 Kings 23:10).
Topbetb, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom (Jeremiah 7:31).
2. The non-mention of Jeremiah in the account of the last days of Judah as recorded in the Book of Kings is another point of importance. The prophet is mentioned twice in the Chronicler's account (2 Chronicles 35:25; 2 Chronicles 36:12).[21] The role which Jeremiah played during those crucial days was so significant that it is hard to conceive of any impartial, not to mention pious and prophetic, historian ignoring both his name and his work. One can only conclude that the great prophet deliberately omitted his own name for the sake of modesty and because his own story was told in the biographical accounts being penned by Baruch.
[21] The important place of Jeremiah in the history of the closing days of Judah is abundantly illustrated in Josephus-' reconstruction of the history of the time (Ant. X, 5-9).
3. Critics who have rejected the traditional belief that Jeremiah authored Kings have not been able to propose any more likely candidate for authorship. Among those who do try to connect some name (other than Jeremiah) with the book, Ezra is most frequently mentioned. But is it really likely that Ezra, who no doubt authored Chronicles, would compose two books relating to nearly the same period?
4. One other argument frequently advanced by those sympathetic to the traditional view regarding the authorship of Kings needs to be analyzed. The contention is made that Jeremiah 52 was lifted in total from Kings and appended to the Book of Jeremiah. This proves, so the argument goes, that at an early age Jeremiah was thought to be the author of at least the last chapter of Kings. Since the last chapter cannot be divorced from the former Chapter s, Jeremianic authorship of the whole of Kings is attested. On the surface this argument seems quite cogent. However, the following difficulties arise:
a) Jeremiah 52 contains information not contained in Kings, e.g., Jeremiah 52:10; Jeremiah 52:19-23; Jeremiah 52:28-30.
b) Certain words are spelled differently in Jeremiah 52 as compared with Kings. While most of these spelling differ ences are obvious only in the Hebrew, at least one is clear in the English text. In 2 Kings 24:11 the name of the king of Babylon is spelled Nebuchadnezzar while in Jeremiah 52 the spelling Nebuchadrezzar is used.[22]
[22] This spelling difference can be seen in KJV, RSV, and ASV, but not in NASB.
c) It would seem that in Jeremiah 52:28-30 the Babylonian system of counting the years of Nebuchadnezzar is employed, whereas in Kings the Palestinian system is used. It would be difficult to imagine one author using two different dating systems for the same king.
d) Even if one were to conclude that the differences between 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52 are not such as to preclude their having been written by one author, there yet remains one stub born fact. The last line of Jeremiah 51 declares, Thus far are the words of Jeremiah. The most obvious implication of this statement is that what follows (i.e., Jeremiah 52) is not written by Jeremiah.
e) Finally there would seem to be a logical fallacy of circular reasoning to this whole line of argument. Some writers argue for the Jeremianic authorship of Jeremiah 52 on the basis that the chapter was borrowed from Kings. Then they turn around and argue for the Jeremianic authorship of Kings on the basis that one chapter of Kings has been appended to the Book of Jeremiah.
The views of two eminent conservative scholars as to the relationship of 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52 must be noted. E. J. Young[23] argued that both Chapter s were abstracts from a larger work of which Jeremiah was not the author. Gleason Archer[24] has also suggested that Jeremiah was not the author of 2 Kings 25. In his view, Jeremiah composed everything in the book except this final chapter which seems, he thinks, to have been written in Babylon rather than Egypt where Jeremiah spent his last days. If these scholars are right, then Jeremiah 52 has no value as supporting evidence for the Jeremianic authorship of Kings.
[23] Young, IOT, p. 200. So also Keil.
[24] Archer, SOTI, p. 277.
In all due respect to the brilliant work of Young and Archer, the argument against the Jeremianic authorship of 2 Kings 25 appears to be weak. Their position is supported entirely by the occurrence throughout Kings of the phrase unto this day which indicates the pre-exilic perspective of the author. But is the phrase unto this day to be attributed to the author of the book or to the pre-exilic sources which he used? And even if one insists that the phrase must properly be assigned to the author, is it not true that Jeremiah lived and ministered for some forty years before Jerusalem fell? Could it be that he wrote the entire book up to 2 Kings 25 during his long ministry and then added the final chapter (at least through verse 26) after he had lived through those experiences?
B. THE CASE AGAINST JEREMIANIC AUTHORSHIP
Most modern scholars reject the tradition that Jeremiah authored Kings. Weiser feels that Jeremianic authorship cannot stand up to a scientific examination.[25] Williams remarks: Clearly Jeremiah's style differs from that of Kings.[26] Even conservative writers like Waite and Young prefer to assign Kings to an unknown author albeit, doubtlessly a contemporary of Jeremiah.[27]
[25] Artur Weiser, OTFD, p. 171.
[26] Jay Williams, UOT, p. 177.
[27] J. C. J. Waite, NBD, p. 697.
Against the Jeremianic authorship the following points are made:
1. Jeremiah would have been too old to write the Book of Kings as it now stands. His ministry began in the thirteenth year of Josiah, 627 B.C. The Book of Kings in its present form could not have been completed prior to 562 B.C., or sixty-six years after the call of Jeremiah. If Jeremiah was about twenty at the time of his call, he would have been about eighty-six in 562 B.C. Young calls this the principal objection to Jeremianic authorship.[28]
[28] Young, IOT, p. 200.
In response to this objection the following points need be noted:
a) Jeremiah may have been younger than twenty at the time of his call. This would mean he would be at least a few years younger than eighty-six in 562 B.C.
b) Then too, is it so incredible that a work like Kings could be written by an octogenarian? What of Churchill's monumental A History of English Speaking Peoples?
c) It is also possible that whereas Jeremiah wrote the main body of Kings, the final paragraph which carries the history down to 562 B.C. was appended by someone else. If this be allowed, no chronological difficulty exists regarding Jeremiah's authorship, for the main body of Kings concludes with the events of 582 B.C. when Jeremiah would have been less than sixty-five years of age.
2. The second alleged problem relating to Jeremianic author ship is geographical in nature. Some scholars contend that Kings was written in Babylon, a place to which Jeremiah, so far as is known, never traveled. The evidence which is supposed to demonstrate a Babylonian place of origin for the book is as follows:
a) The author was familiar with what transpired in the court of Evil-merodach in Babylon.
b) Kings contains no reference to the remnant of Jews which fled to Egypt sometime after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.
c) In 1 Kings 4:24 the region west of the Euphrates river (i.e., Syria-Palestine) is referred to as being (literally) beyond the river.[29] Therefore the writer must have been east of the Euphrates (i.e., in Mesopotamia).
[29] In KJV the phrase is erroneously translated on this side of the river.
The arguments respecting the alleged Babylonian derivation of Kings are easily met. With respect to the author's knowledge of affairs in the court of Evil-merodach: The argument assumes that the author of the main body of the book also wrote the concluding paragraph, an assumption which in the light of the conclusions of Deuteronomy and Joshua is unwarranted. Even if this paragraph came from the pen of the author of the body of Kings, it would prove nothing as to his whereabouts. Communication in the ancient world was more rapid than one might imagine. News of Jehoiachin's release could easily have reached the ears of an author living in distant Egypt.
With regard to the non-mention of the flight of the Jewish refugees to Egypt: Elsewhere the present writer has argued that as much as five years elapsed between the fall of Jerusalem and the flight to Egypt.[30] The main body of the Book of Kings may have been written during that five year interval. The author may have penned this last line at the very time the remnant emigrated to Egypt: Then all the people small and great and the captains of the forces arose and went to Egypt; for they were afraid of the Chaldeans (2 Kings 25:26). Another possibility is that considerations of subject matter caused the author to refrain from reporting on events in Egypt. He was concerned in this book to narrate the history of the monarchy. Furthermore, the information concerning the Jews in Egypt would be narrated as part of Jeremiah's own biography (Jeremiah 43-44).
[30] Smith, J. L., pp. 33-34.
With regard to the argument based on 1 Kings 4:24: In the period of the Babylonian and Persian empires and possibly throughout Old Testament history the phrase beyond the river seems to have been a designation for the area west of a river regardless of the geographical vantage point of the author. -Abhar nahara (beyond the River) became a technical designation for the area west of the Euphrates. In Ezra 8:36 this language is used by a Jew recently returned from Persia. Therefore, the phrase beyond the river in reference to Syria-Palestine is not conclusive proof as to the geographical whereabouts of the author. With the collapse of this argument the whole contention that the author of Kings must have lived in Babylonia is shown to be an unsupported speculation.
The present writer feels that the Jeremianic authorship of Kings is highly probable, but that the matter cannot be proved conclusively. After all, if Kings was compiled by one who was a prophet who lived in the sixth century as all scholars concede, who better than Jeremiah could be nominated for the honor of having contributed this book to the sacred canon?
C. CRITICAL VIEWS REGARDING AUTHORSHIP
According to Bible critics the history of the composition of Kings is quite complex. To understand their position regarding Kings, one must know what they say regarding the authorship of Deuteronomy. The majority of modern critics deny that Moses wrote Deuteronomy. This documentD as they call itcame into existence in the seventh century B.C., over seven centuries after the death of Moses. The historical books of the Old Testament are supposed to reflect the attitudes of the Deuteronomistic School which produced the Book of Deuteronomy.
Almost all scholars assume a double D-redaction of the Book of Kings.[31] D-redactors would be men who accepted the philosophy of Deuteronomy. One such redactor or editor issued the first edition of Kings sometime shortly before the death of Josiah.[32] The second D-redactionthe Book of Kings as it is presently knownwas then issued about 550 B.C.
[31] Snaith, OTMS, p. 102.
[32] Robert Pfeiffer, IOT, p. 378. However, other capable scholars (e.g., Bentzen) insist it was published shortly after the death of Josiah.
Now the gap between conservative and critical Bible scholars with regard to the origin of Kings is not nearly so great as with other Old Testament books. Conservative scholars would agree on the date suggested for the final edition of Kings. Furthermore, conservative scholars can concede without any compromise the Deuteronomistic flavor of Kings. Certainly Kings reflects many of the viewpoints of Deuteronomy,[33] because that book contains the God-given prophetic anticipation of the very days described in Kings. Most conservative scholars would probably reject the notion of an early redaction of Kings near the time of Josiah simply because the evidence for such a redaction seems insufficient.
[33] Harrison (IOT, p. 732) points out this difference in emphasis between Deuteronomy and Kings: In Deuteronomy Moses stresses that lessons can be learned from history; but in Kings, God has an absolute standard by which to judge men. That standard is the covenant ideal by which the deeds of men and nations are assessed. For this reason Harri son shies away from ascribing the term Deuteronomistic to Kings.
D. THE CASE FOR SINGLE AUTHORSHIP
That the book of Kings should be regarded as the product of a single author can be seen from the following considerations:
1. All through the book the same literary plan is followed. The author follows throughout the principle of treating with great fullness the parts of the history theoretically of most importance.
2. A general uniformity of style and language is evident throughout the book with two exceptions. Some slight irregularities are observable in 1 Kings 1 where peculiarities of diction more like that found in the Book of Samuel are found.[34] Also in 2 Kings 4:1-37; 2 Kings 8:1-6 some remarkable Aramaic forms occur. It would appear here that the author of Kings has preserved unaltered an ancient document from the Northern Kingdom where Aramaic had a greater impact upon the language. 3. Certain peculiarities of thought and expression appear throughout the books of Kings. A partial list of these follows:
[34] See Rawlinson (BC, p. 466, n. 1) for the four peculiarities in this chapter.
a) The formulas by which the reigns of kings are introduced and closed are essentially uniform throughout the book. The formula for the close of reigns runs as follows: And _______ slept with his fathers, and was buried________; and, _______ his son, reigned in his stead. The ordinary formula at the commencement of a reign is, during the existence of the two kingdoms, In the ____________ year of _______, King of Israel (or Judah), began __________ King of Judah (or Israel) to reign over Judah (or Israel); _______ years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned _________ years in Jerusalem (or Samaria). After the captivity of Israel the formula for Judah becomes simply: ________ was _________ years old when he began to reign, and he reigned ________ years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was ____________, the daughter of ____________ This last clause is also a part of the formula in the case of the kings of Judah before the Israelite captivity.
b) The formulas which describe the sinfulness of the Northern kings are similar throughout the Divided Monarchy period: He did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin; or, he did evil in the sight of the Lord, he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.
c)One sees uniformity of expression also in those formulas which stress the exceptions to the ordinary goodness of certain kings of Judah: Nevertheless the high places were not taken away; the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places.
d) Allusions to the Law of Moses appear throughout Kings.[35]
[35] See 1 Kings 2:3; 1 Kings 6:12; 1 Kings 8:58; 1 Kings 8:61; 1 Kings 9:4; 1 Kings 9:6; 1 Kings 11:2; 1 Kings 11:38; 2 Kings 10:31; 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Kings 17:13; 2 Kings 17:15; 2 Kings 17:34; 2 Kings 17:37; 2 Kings 18:6; 2 Kings 21:8; 2 Kings 22:8; 2 Kings 23:3; 2 Kings 23:21; 2 Kings 23:25.
e) God's choice of Jerusalem and of David is reiterated again and again.[36]
[36] See 1 Kings 8:16; 1 Kings 8:29; 1 Kings 9:3; 1 Kings 11:36; 1 Kings 14:21; 1 Kings 15:3-4; 2 Kings 20; 2 Kings 21:4; 2 Kings 21:7.
f) The constant use of the phrase man of God also indicates the unity of the book. This expression occurs in Kings at least fifty-three times, and is found in twelve different Chapter s.[37]
[37] By way of contrast, man of God is used five times in only two Chapter s of Samuel, and six times in only four Chapter s of Chronicles.
g) Still another evidence of the unity of Kings is the habit of the author of prefixing the name King to the names of the monarchs.[38]
[38] The author has used this prefix seventy-four times in twenty-five Chapter s. In Samuel King is prefixed eighteen times, and in Chronicles, thirty-six times.
h) Still another habit of the author is that of making repetitions for the purpose of adding some minute point or points to what he already has said.[39]
[39] E.g., 1 Kings 6:10; 1 Kings 6:22; 1 Kings 15:6; 1 Kings 16:7 etc.
Thus it would appear that the Book of Kings was written by a single author living in the mid-sixth century. Jeremiah of Anathoth would seem to be the most likely candidate for this honor.
III. THE SOURCES OF THE BOOK
Since Kings covers something like four hundred years of history, the book is obviously and necessarily a compilation from other sources. More than thirty times the author refers to his three basic documents: (1) the book of the acts of Solomon; (2) the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah and (3) the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. It is necessary here to discuss the nature, origin, content and usage of these known sources as well as to raise the question as to whether the author may have utilized other sources which he fails to identify by name.
A. THE NATURE OF THE SOURCES
What was the character of these sources? From the way in which they are cited one can infer that they were separate and independent works. Further, one can infer that they contained more extended accounts of the reigns of several of the kings.[40] But the big question is this: Were these chronicles official state paperspublic archives prepared by crown officers? Or were they private memoirs of different prophets?
[40] This is evident by the use of the phrase the rest of the acts which is used when these sources are cited.
1. The official annals view. The view that the chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah were state documents is supported by many scholars.[41] In Judah an officer known as the recorder held cabinet rank. It was perhaps his job, among other things, to serve as a court historian. Certainly one can point to the existence of court historians in other monarchies of the ancient Near East. Furthermore, the very names of these documentschronicles of the kings of Israel (or Judah)would seem to point in the direction of their being official state papers.
[41] E.g., Gleason Archer, SOTI, p. 277; Szikszai, IDB, K-Q, p. 34.
On the other hand, a formidable number of arguments against the official document view can be assembled.
1. It is far from certain that the recorder or remembrancer (Heb., mazkir) in Judah was a court historian. He is never associated with public records. He appears rather as an adviser to the king, perhaps the one who reminded the king of state affairs which needed attention (cf. 2 Kings 18:18; 2 Kings 18:37; 2 Chronicles 34:8). Furthermore, no trace of any such state functionary in the Northern Kingdom of Israel is attested. Finally, if one could prove that the mazkir were a court historian, that in itself would not prove that the author of Kings had made use of his work.
2. Even though David instituted the office of state scribe (2 Samuel 8:17), yet his history was recorded by prophets (1 Chronicles 29:29). Had any such officer in charge of recording history existed, David's history would surely have been recorded by him.
3. State archives could hardly have escaped the sack of Samaria and burning of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kings 25:9). All public records must have perished. Yet the books cited in Kings seem to have been available to the author and his readers after the destruction of Jerusalem.
4. The tone and language of the material taken from these sources would seem to weigh against the supposition that they were the records of court historiographers. These sources apparently recorded the sins of the various kingstheir conspiracies, murders, and other shameful acts. Is it likely that such things would have been recorded in the official state documents? (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:8).
2. The prophetic memoirs view. In the light of these observations the only conclusion that seems to be justified is that the author of Kings made use of documents compiled by the prophets rather than by the politicians. Now it may well be, as Eissfeldt[42] has argued, that these prophetic documents were based on official governmental records. Yet the documents themselves were not official, but were private publications since it is presupposed that they can be consulted by anyone.
[42] Eissfeldt, OTI, p. 286.
That the prophets did act as historians can easily be established. In the Book of Chronicles several prophets are explicitly said to have written the history of certain kings. In fact, it is not too much to say that for the prophetic office, the tracing of God's hand in past history was just as essential as predicting future divine visitations. Prophets regarded the composition of theocratic history as one of their main duties.[43]
[43] See 2 Chronicles 26:22; Isaiah 36-38; Jeremiah 39-43.
B. THE ORIGIN OF THE SOURCES
Which prophets wrote the documents known as the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel and the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? It is not always possible to tell. But by analyzing the parallel passages in Chronicles, a few clues emerge. In 1 Kings 11:41 the author refers to the book of the acts of Solomon. After the parallel passage in Chronicles the following citation appears:
Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chronicles 9:29)
This would suggest that the book of Solomon, if not identical with the writings of Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo, was at least based on their writings.
For the reign of Rehoboam, the author of Kings cites the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29). Parallel passages in the Book of Chronicles indicates that Shemaiah and Iddo were the prophets who recorded the history of Rehoboam's reign.
The Chronicler frequently cites two sources in his work: (1) the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chronicles 16:11, etc.); and (2) the book of the kings of Israel (2 Chronicles 20:34). These may be identical with the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (or Judah) so often quoted in the Book of Kings. It does not seem that the author of Chronicles borrowed directly from the Book of Kings as it appears in the Old Testament. Rather it would appear that both Kings and Chronicles utilized the same primary sources, viz., the prophetic memoirs relating to the reigns of the various kings.
C. ANALYSIS OF THE SOURCES
It is impossible to know exactly what the book of the acts of Solomon was, for it has long since passed out of existence. From the material in Kings which obviously came from it, one would conclude that it was more or less an intimate description of Solomon and a report on his reign. The most part of the first eleven Chapter s of Kings is based on this ancient work. This source seems to have been an amalgam composed of extracts from state and Temple records, popular stories about Solomon's wisdom and wealth, dream accounts which are essentially autobiographical in character, and various lists. That this source was not entirely pro-Solomon is indicated by the content of 1 Kings 11 which tells of Solomon's apostasy and troubles.
The book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel is not to be confused with the biblical Book of Chronicles. This source is cited seventeen times by the author of Kings. The first citation comes at the conclusion of the reign of Jeroboam I (1 Kings 14:19), and the last at the conclusion of the reign of Pekah (2 Kings 15:31). The following citations reveal the kind of information which this document contained:
Regarding Jeroboam: how he warred and how he reigned (1 Kings 14:19).
Regarding Zimri: the conspiracy which he made (1 Kings 16:20).
Regarding Ahab: the ivory house which he built, and all the cities that he built (1 Kings 22:29).
Regarding Joash: the might with which he fought against Amaziah king of Judah (2 Kings 13:12).
From these citations it would seem to be a reasonable inference that this document was annalistic in nature and most probably contained all the memorable events of the reign of every king and perhaps a prophetic evaluation of his religious policy.
The third named source is the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah. It is first mentioned with reference to the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:29), and last cited in connection with Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:5). In all, this source is cited fifteen times in Kings. The lack of citation in reference to the kings Ahaziah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah can easily be explained. Because of the circumstances of the deaths of these kings the entire concluding formula (in which the reference to sources is contained) does not appear. The content of this source can be deduced from some of the references to it:
Regarding Asa: all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built (1 Kings 15:23).
Regarding Jehoshaphat: his might that he showed, and how he warred (1 Kings 22:45).
Regarding Hezekiah: all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city (2 Kings 20:20).
Probably neither of the books cited as sources by the author of Kings was a narrative work compiled according to a comprehensive plan. Rather they appear to have consisted of random notes pertaining to the reigns of the various kings and perhaps the ministries of the prophets as well.
D. THE QUESTION OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES
What of other sources used by the author besides his three main sources? Szikszai[44] confidently names six additional sources which the author must have employed: (1) a Davidic court narrative; (2) an Elijah source; (3) and Elisha source; (4) an Ahab source; (5) an Isaiah source; and (6) a prophetic source. All of these were incorporated into the original Book of Kings alongside the accounts from the three named sources. Dogmatism is, of course, out of the question on a matter like this. However, if the three named sources were in reality private prophetic memoirs as has been argued above, might they not have included much if not all of the material which Szikskai attributes to these hypothetical sources? Since the author did mention three sources rather frequently, one would expect that he would have made mention of other sources too had he used them.[45]
[44] IDB, K-Q, p. 32.
[45] Keil (BCOT, p. 13) forcefully makes this point: The assumption that there were other sources still, is not only sustained by no historical evidence, but has no certain support in the character or contents of the writing before us.
E. THE USAGE MADE OF THESE SOURCES
The author does not claim that he has drawn his material from these sources, but only refers his readers to them for further information. Still it is a reasonable assumption that his own history derived from these sources. That such was the case is conceded by all scholars. The author seems to have functioned mainly as a compiler rather than a composer. His genius was in selecting and arranging the material and inserting the necessary connecting links.
At times the author slightly modernized the material in the sources before him so as to make the narrative more understandable to the people of his own day.[46] But he did not recast the entire history as a modern historian might have done. He sewed together rather than wove together his sources.[47] He used his sources almost verbatim. That such is the case is proved by the following considerations: (1) He retained certain forms which in his day would appear to have been obsolete; (2) he includes a number of statements which were inappropriate in the post-exilic period;[48] (3) he extracted without alteration either from the Book of Isaiah or from the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah the account of the reign of Hezekiah;[49] and (4) he apparently made verbatim extracts from the same authority which was utilized by the author of Chronicles.[50]
[46] E.g., Samaria-' (1 Kings 13:32); As yet (2 Kings 13:23).
[47] Robinson, BG, p. 26.
[48] Rawlinson (BC, p. 474, n. 11) provides a list. The most obvious example is the phrase unto this day which in most cases cannot refer to the period of the captivity (when Kings was written), but must belong to the period when the Southern Kingdom was still in existence and the Temple still standing.
[49] Compare Isaiah 36-39 and 2 Kings 18:13 to 2 Kings 20:19.
[50] This would account for the verbal similarity between much of Chronicles and Kings.
The historian did not sew his sources together at random. He exercised his choice, and that choice was controlled immediately by his outlook and attitude, and ultimately by the Holy Spirit. The author saw a pattern running through the events of the past, and he shaped and stressed his sources so as to emphasize that pattern.
IV. THE CONTENT OF THIS BOOK
The content of any book can be analyzed from several different standpoints. In a historical work it is important to note the range of the materialthe amount of time covered. An analysis of the types of literature found in the book and the style of writing employed is also useful. These points must now be taken up.
A. CHRONOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
The Book of Kings covers about four centuries of the history of Israel, from just before 971 B.C. to just after 562 B.C. Excluding that material which appears as an appendix at the end of the concluding chapter, Kings covers the story of God's people from the accession of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem. At the beginning of Kings the Temple is being built; at the conclusion, it is being burnt.
The monarchy or crown period covered by Kings may be further subdivided into three divisions: (1) Solomonic Kingdom, (2) the Sister Kingdoms, and (3) the Surviving Kingdom. The following chart illustrates the way the author of Kings has allocated his material to these three periods.
ALLOCATION OF MATERIAL IN KINGS
Solomonic Kingdom
Sister Kingdoms
Surviving Kingdom
40 Years
210 Years
136 Years
971-931 B.C.
931-722 B.C.
722-587 B.C.
David to Solomon
In Judah Rehoboam to Ahaz In Israel Jeroboam to Hoshca
Hezekiah to Zedekiah
11 Chapter s
28 Chapter s
8 Chapter s
1 Kings 1-11
1 Kings 12 - 2 Kings 17
2 Kings 18-25
A brief survey of the three major historical periods covered in Kings would seem to be in order.
1. 1 Kings 1-11. The first major section of Kings is concerned with the last third of the United Monarchythe forty-year reign of Solomon. The glory of this reign is elaborately depicted, probably on account of its typical significance. The successful wars of David recorded in II Samuel were the prelude to the eventual victory of God's kingdom. So also the peaceful reign of Solomon foreshadowed the glory and blessedness which awaited the people of God under that One who was greater than Solomon.
2. 1 Kings 12 -2 Kings 17. The largest section of Kingstwenty-eight Chapter sdeals with the 210 years of the Divided Monarchy. This is admittedly the most difficult part of the book both for the scholar and the average reader. Here the author faced the problem of weaving together the history of the nineteen kings of Israel and the twelve contemporaneous kings of Judah. At times he even had the problem of the con temporaneous kings in the North and in the South having the same name. It was a monumental task which the author faced! One may be critical of how he handled the material, but it is difficult to conceive of how this period could have been narrated in any more readable way.
3. 2 Kings 18-25. The final eight Chapter s of the book are devoted to the history of Judah after the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. The emphasis here is on the two grand reformations launched by Hezekiah toward the end of the eighth century and by Josiah toward the end of the seventh century B.C. Sandwiched between these two reformations is the godless reign of Manasseh, the most wicked king who ever sat on the throne of David. This section, and indeed the entire Book of Kings, reaches its climax in the detailed description of the disastrous fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.
4. The appendix (2 Kings 25:27-30). The last four verses of Kings have been referred to as an appendix to the book. That is an appropriate description of these verses if one is thinking in terms of authorship. This section was probably not written by the one who wrote the bulk of the book. However, from the standpoint of content, these verses are an integral part of the book. The Jehoiachin account brings the history of the kings to a close on a note of hope. God would not abandon His exiled people. The release of King Jehoiachin in 562 B.C. was a pledge of the ultimate release of Israel which the author of this book never lived to see. The last verses also intended to say in effect, God has not totally rejected the Davidic line.
B. FORM ANALYSIS
Kings does not manifest the variety of literary forms which other Old Testament books display. The book is almost entirely written in prose.[51] Most of the material falls into the broad category of narrative. But within that narrative one finds incorporated a number of other types of literature, prominent among which is the speech form.
[51] The RSV prints only three passages in poetic verse.
1. Types of narrative in Kings. Biblical historical narrative differs quite radically from the first person account of the king that was the dominant form elsewhere in the ancient Near East. In Kings it is conversational narrative that is prominent. The direct speech of the various characters lends life and adds color to the narrative. At times the author of Kings utilizes reportorial narrative in which he simply reports on the actions of the characters in the story. In prophetic narrative the focus is on a particular prophet-hero and the events of his ministry. Since this material contains miraculous elements, modem critics are prone to classify prophetic narrative as legend.
Two other types of narrative can be identified in Kings. Dream narrative by its very nature must be based ultimately upon autobiographical accounts. The classic dream account in Kings is that of Solomon at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4-15). A second dream experience of Solomon is related in 1 Kings 9:1-9. Other types of revelational accounts are akin to the dream narrative in that they relate matters which were experienced by only one man. The angelic visitation to Elijah under his juniper tree (1 Kings 19:5; 1 Kings 19:7) and the subsequent theophany at Horeb (1 Kings 19:9-18) fall into this category. Those passages which commence, the word of the Lord came are of this nature. So also the vision of Micaiah (1 Kings 22:17; 1 Kings 22:19-22).
Throughout Kings there are passages in which the author reflects upon the history he is relating and interprets it in the light of his overall theme. Modern scholars refer to this material as the Deuteronomistic Framework. Perhaps a more accurate designation would be historical exposition. It is this element that gives continuity or flow to the book and which sets it apart from being merely a compendium of data.
2. Types of speeches in Kings. Next to narrative, speeches take up the most space in the Book of Kings. Several types can be identified in the book. In apolitical speech the conduct of present leaders is condemned, and the devastating consequences of their actions are graphically depicted. A beautiful example of such a speech is found in 2 Kings 18:18-35 where an Assyrian envoy engages in psychological warfare aimed at the beleaguered citizens of Jerusalem. The farewell speech form is represented in David's last words to Solomon (1 Kings 2:1-9). The messenger speech is always introduced by Thus says so and so. Benhadad sent messengers to Ahab to make known his demands (1 Kings 20:2-3; 1 Kings 20:5-6) and later to present his petition (1 Kings 20:32). Hezekiah sent messengers to seek the aid of Isaiah (2 Kings 19:3-4). Letters sometimes accompanied the messengers (2 Kings 19:9-14).
For the purposes of literary analysis, a sermon can be defined as a speech about God or religious matters. It will usually, but not always, contain an exhortation. Solomon's opening remarks at the dedication of the Temple might be classified in the broad sense as a sermon (1 Kings 8:15-21) in which the king praised God for having been faithful to His promises. The royal petition was directed by a subject to his king. Examples of this kind of speech couched in formal court etiquette, abound in Kings. Perhaps the best examples are to be found in 1 Kings 1the speeches of Bathsheba (1 Kings 1:17-21) and Nathan (1 Kings 1:24-27). In the directional speech a superior gives instructions, usually couched in the imperative mood, to an inferior. David's instructions concerning the anointing of Solomon is a case in point (1 Kings 1:32-37).
The prophetic oracle is always in poetic verse, and is usually introduced with Thus says the Lord (the so-called messenger formula). Only one true prophetic oracle is to be found in Kings, that of Isaiah the prophet (2 Kings 19:21-28). But prose summarizations of numerous prophetic oracles are found in abundance in the book.[52]
[52] 1 Kings 11:31-39 (Ahijah); 1 Kings 12:21-24 (Shemaiah); 1 Kings 13:2; 1 Kings 14:7-16 (Ahijah); 1 Kings 16:2-4 (Jehu); 1 Kings 20:13-14; 1 Kings 20:22; 1 Kings 20:28; 1 Kings 21:17-19; 1 Kings 21:21-24 (Elijah); etc.
Prayers are speeches of a special kind. By definition any statement, comment or petition directed to God is prayer. At a number of spots the author has incorporated prayers into his narrative. The longest is that of Solomon at the Temple dedication (1 Kings 8:22-61). At Gibeon (1 Kings 3:6-9) Solomon offered a prayer of petition to the Lord in which he reminded God of his former gracious acts and then made this the ground of his petition for wisdom. Other prayers of petition which are summarized in Kings are: Elijah's prayer on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:36-37), under the juniper tree (1 Kings 19:4), and atop a hill near Samaria (2 Kings 1:10; 2 Kings 1:12). One prayer is attributed to Elisha (2 Kings 6:17-18). Two beautiful prayers are placed on the lips of good king Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:15-19; 2 Kings 20:2-3).
3. Other types of literature. Besides the narratives and speeches, other types of literature are found in the book. These are:
a) Ancient poems. The short poem spoken by Solomon at the dedication of the Temple is regarded even by critical scholars as being very early (1 Kings 8:12-13). The Septuagint translation records the tradition that this poem was taken from The Book of the Song, whatever that might have been. It is more likely, however, that these verses were found in the book of the acts of Solomon which the author of Kings acknowledges using. The other important poem in Kings is Isaiah's taunt- song against Assyria (2 Kings 19:21-28). The taunt-song was a form of satire and invective used by the prophets against foreign enemies.
b) Lists. From his source, the book of the acts of Solomon, the author has taken the list of Solomon's court officials (1 Kings 4:1-6) and administrative officers (1 Kings 4:7-19).
c) Chronological notices. The author of Kings was interested in and concerned about dates. He indicates in 1 Kings 6:1 the number of years which elapsed between the Exodus from Egypt and the construction of Solomon's Temple. In the period of the Divided Monarchy he painstakingly synchronizes the reigns of the various kings of Israel and Judah.
d) Obituaries. At the conclusion of the reigns of most of the Kings, a brief note is appended which, for want of a better term, may be called an obituary.
e) Fable. One bona-fide fable is recorded in Kings. It is found in a message which Jehoash of Israel sent to Amaziah of Judah (2 Kings 14:9).
f) Building specifications. For the specifications regarding the Temple and its furnishings (1 Kings 6-8), the author is indebted to his source, the book of the acts of Solomon. Those prophets who composed this source may in turn have taken this material from some Temple chronicle.
g) Letters. The origin of the letter form can be seen in 2 Kings 19:9-14. This passage speaks of the messengers of the Assyrian king who were told, Thus shall you say to Hezekiah; but according to 2 Kings 19:14, a letter containing the message was handed over by these messengers at the same time. From this it can be seen that the letter in the ancient Near East was an extension of a messenger's oral communication. The written form served the purposes of attestation, examination, and preservation.[53] In Kings one finds excerpts or summaries of letters written from the king of Aram to the king of Israel (2 Kings 5:5-6); from Jehu to the rulers of Samaria (2 Kings 10:2-3); and of Jezebel to the elders of Jezreel (1 Kings 21:8-10).[54]
[53] Fohrer, IOT, p. 84.
[54] Letters are probably involved, though not explicitly mentioned, in 1 Kings 5:1-9; 1 Kings 15:18-19.
C. STYLISTIC ANALYSIS
The author of Kings has thoughtfully constructed his history by careful extracts from his written sources. Kings is not a free and original composition, and yet the author was not merely a compiler. The book is more than a collection of extracts, just as an automobile is more than the sum total of the various parts out of which it was constructed. Certainly the author wrote the history of his own times. For those centuries which preceded, the author has demonstrated his skill by producing a carefully planned unity.
1. An overview of Kings. For the most part the style of writing in Kings is level and uniform and without pretension. Occasionally the author of Kings rises to great literary heights.[55] But the general format has a rather dampening effect upon the style of the book as a whole. The average reader probably finds the review of the various kings somewhat dull and unproductive. But in fairness to the author it should be said that highly complex material is being discussed, material which does not lend itself well to simple treatment. Regardless of its literary demerits, Kings provides a great deal of highly important information within a very few pages.
[55] E.g., 1 Kings 19:11-12; 2 Kings 19:21-31.
The mantle of gloom has been thrown over the whole history recorded in Kings. This pervading spirit of deep melancholy is not thrown off even when the most pious monarchs are its subject. From this Rawlinson[56] draws a most interesting inference:
[56] Rawlinson, BC, p. 478.
The tone of the work thus harmonizes with that of Jeremiah's undoubted writings, and furnishes an additional argument in favor of the prophet's authorship.
The author shows particular ability in his treatment of the Divided Monarchy. Here he keeps the history of the two kingdoms running parallel, alternating between Israel and Judah. His methodology is logical and systematic if not imaginative. West[57] has the most colorful description of the author's treatment. It was written, it seems, after the fashion of a man walking, advancing first one foot and then the other. The author carries forward the history of one kingdom for a number of years, then turns to the other kingdom and traces its history up to and beyond that point, then returns to the former, and soon.
[57] West, IOT, p. 196.
The plan of the book is prevailingly chronological, although occasionally the material is arranged topically. The topical arrangement is readily apparent in 2 Kings 2:1 to 2 Kings 8:15 which treats the ministry of Elisha.
The author's own original composition in the Book of Kings is somewhat meager. He composed the framework of the bookthe formulas at the beginning and end of the various reigns. In 2 Kings 17:7-41 he gives his own inspired explanation as to why the kingdom of Israel was destroyed and carried away captive. The remarks regarding the reign of wicked king Manasseh (2 Kings 21:7-16; 2 Kings 23:26-27; 2 Kings 24:3-4) are also likely to have been composed by the author himself. Finally, the author himself composed the accounts of the last two kings of Judah, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:8 to 2 Kings 25:26).
2. The framework of the book. One distinctive feature of Kings is not pleasant to the modern reader. The reigns of many of the kings are introduced and concluded with a somewhat stereotyped formula. Some parts of the framework as it is called appear in connection with the earliest kings.[58] But the complete formula does not appear until it is introduced in the case of Rehoboam, first king of the Divided Monarchy period (1 Kings 14:21-31).
[58] Cf. 1 Kings 2:10-12; 1 Kings 11:41-43; 1 Kings 14:19-20. Part of the introductory formula appears for Solomon as early as 1 Kings 3:2-3.
The introductions to the various kings usually consist of the following elements: (a) a synchronistic dating of the king's accession in terms of the reigning king in the sister kingdom; (b) the king's place of residence; (c) the length of his reign; (d) an evaluation of his religious attitude. In addition, the formula for the kings of Judah adds (e) the king's age at his accession; and (f) the name, and occasionally the home of the king's mother.
The conclusion part of the framework usually contains: (a) a reference to the historical sources, frequently with observations concerning the content of those sources; (b) mention of the king's death and (c) place of burial; and (d) the name of his successor.
Sometimes part of the stereotyped formula is missing because of the nature of a particular king's accession or death. In the case of Joram and Ahaziah who were murdered, the concluding formula is missing. Hoshea, Jehoahaz of Judah, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah were all violently deposed, and for this reason no concluding formula appears for them. On the other hand, no introductory formula is used for King Jehu who came to the throne in a rebellion. For the usurper Athaliah of Judah, both introductory and concluding formulas are missing.
D. THEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Perhaps the most significant part of the concluding formula for the various kings is the judgment which the author pronounces concerning the monarch's religious policy. Without equivocation, Kings condemns the religious shrines founded by Jeroboam I in the Northern Kingdom (cf. 1 Kings 12:26-33). The worship at these shrines is stigmatized throughout the book as the way of Jeroboam or the sin which he (Jeroboam) committed, making Israel to sin (cf. 1 Kings 15:26; 1 Kings 15:34; 1 Kings 16:19). Thus all the kings of Israel are condemned in Kings for not doing what was right in the sight of the Lord (cf. 1 Kings 15:26; 1 Kings 15:34; 1 Kings 16:25). Even Shallum, who reigned but one month, falls under the negative criticism of the author for his religious policy! The condemnation also falls on Jehu, the greatest partisan of Yahweh in the North (2 Kings 10:29-31), though it is tempered a bit as it is also in the case of Jehoram (2 Kings 3:2) and Hoshea (2 Kings 17:2).
The author's evaluation of the religious policy of the kings of Judah is only slightly less condemnatory. Judgments unqualifiedly appreciative appear only for Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:3-7) and Josiah (2 Kings 22:2). Favorable decisions were rendered for Asa (1 Kings 15:11-14), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:43), Jehoash (2 Kings 12:2-3), Azariah (2 Kings 15:3-4), and Jotham (2 Kings 15:34-35). The other twelve kings of Judah are condemned as having done evil (cf. 2 Kings 8:18; 2 Kings 8:27; 2 Kings 21:2; 2 Kings 21:20).
The most severe denunciation is reserved for those kings who tolerated or encouraged the worship of foreign gods. Ahab of Israel was apparently the first king to actively pursue Baal worship (1 Kings 16:31-33), and in this digression he was followed by his son Ahaziah (1 Kings 22:53). In Judah, Jehoram and Ahaziah, both of whom were related to kings in the North through marriage, also are condemned for pagan worship (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Kings 8:27). Three other kings of JudahAhaz, Manasseh and Amonare also said to have pursued a pagan course (2 Kings 16:2-4; 2 Kings 21:2-9; 2 Kings 21:20-22).
V. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE BOOK
Can the information in the Book of Kings be accepted as authentic, sober history? For the most part the credibility of the book has not been questioned. Even radical critics are forced to concede the historical character of the several kings, the reality of most events, and the accuracy of the representations of neighboring nations. The constant allusion to the prophetic annals which were written by contemporaries of the events narrated is a sure pledge of the historical fidelity of the accounts which have been taken from them. For the believer, two lines of evidence support the credibility of KingsNew Testament citations and archaeological confirmations. At the same time there are two particular areas where the credibility of the book has been challenged.
A. NEW TESTAMENT CITATION
Christ and the apostles refer to the events of Kings, including the miraculous portions, as being factual. The following chart sums up the New Testament evidence in this regard.
NEW TESTAMENT CITATION OF KINGS
NT References
Description of Event
OT References
Solomon in all his glory
1 Kings 1-11
EIias=Elijah
The famine in Israel for 3½years; Elijah's visit to Sarepra=Zarephath
Cleansing of Naaman
Elijah calling down fire
Solomon building the Temple
7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal
Women received their dead raised to life again
Klijah prayed for famine and later for rain
Jezebel
1 Kings 19:1, etc.
B. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONFIRMATIONS
The history of Kings time and again has been confirmed by the monuments of antiquity and profane historians. A few of the remarkable and minute corroborations of the book are listed below.
1. Discoveries relating to the reign of Solomon. While little direct archaeological data pertaining to the reigns of Saul and David have been forthcoming, a good deal of material from the reign of Solomon has been unearthed. Solomonic stables have been discovered at Hazor and Tell el-Hesi (cf. 1 Kings 9:19; 1 Kings 10:26). Numerous discoveries in Syria and Palestine have enabled scholars to form a fairly good idea of the appearance of Solomon's Temple and especially of its ornamentation. Nelson Glueck believed for many years that he had found a Solomonic blast furnace at Ezion-geber. However, the structure was later identified as a fortified storehouse, albeit still Solomonic in date.
2. Discoveries relating to the Divided Monarchy. Pharaoh Shishak left an account of his invasion into Palestine on the walls of a temple in Karnak. This account mentions the names of many towns in both Israel and Judah which the Pharaoh claims to have captured (cf. 1 Kings 14:25 ff.).
In the Assyrian annals the names of several kings of Israel are mentioned. Shalmaneser III refers to Ahab as one of the combatants in the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.). Jehu paid tribute to the same king in 841 B.C. Adad-nirari III makes mention of Jehoash of Israel and Samaria. This is the earliest reference to the capital of Israel outside the Bible. Tiglath-pileser III refers to the reception of tribute from Menahem. The same Assyrian mentions the fall of Pekah and the elevation of Hoshea to the throne of Israel. Sargon II tells of carrying off 27,290 people captive at the time Samaria was captured.
In the Assyrian annals references to kings of Judah can also be found. The first reference to a king of Judah by name is found in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III where Azariah (Uzziah) is mentioned. The same Assyrian refers to Ahaz under his full name of Jehoahaz.
The names of several kings of the Divided Monarchy period have turned up on seals found in Palestine. These include the names of Uzziah, Jotham, and Ahaz of Judah; and Jeroboam II of Israel.
Of all the excavations in Palestine, the work of Harvard University at Samaria has been most productive of information regarding the Northern Kingdom. In one building some seventy ostraka were found, all containing dockets originally attached to shipments of wine and oil to the palace. These ostraka contain a great many place-names and personal names from the eighth century B.C. and therefore are of enormous value geographically and linguistically. Another remarkable discovery at Samaria was the many pieces of carved ivory inlay, used for the decoration of costly wooden furniture (cf. 1 Kings 22:39; Amos 3:15).
The most valuable inscription ever found in Palestine remains the Mesha Stone, discovered in 1868 at Dibon in Moab. The text contains some thirty lines and throws considerable light on the history of eastern Palestine in the ninth century B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 3:4 ff). Mention is made of Omri of Israel in this inscription.
3. Discoveries relating to the Judaean period. Archaeological material for the study of Judah after 722 B.C. is abundant. Assyrian inscriptions by Sargon II and Sennacherib record various invasions of Judah and mention specifically king Hezekiah. Esarhaddon in his annals mentions Manasseh as a tributary. An Assyrian tablet published by Gadd in 1923 has clarified the political significance of Pharaoh Necho's northern campaign of 609 B.C. to which reference is made in 2 Kings 23:29 ff.
Of the inscriptions found in Palestine, the Siloam inscription must rank as one of the most important. This inscription undoubtedly comes from the reign of Hezekiah about 700 B.C. It refers to the excavation of the water tunnel mentioned rather indirectly in 2 Chronicles 32:3-4. Perhaps an even more sensational discovery was made in Lachish in 1935. More than a dozen ostraka were found in the debris of the last destruction of the city by the Chaldeans in 589 B.C. The documents were part of a military correspondence between the commander of the garrison at Lachish and his superior in Jerusalem. The letters date from the days of Jeremiah and offer a remarkable supplement to the picture of conditions in Judah which is found in his book, and less directly, in Kings.
Many shorter inscriptions have also been found in Judah. The seals of King Jehoiachin and of other high officials mentioned in Scripture have been found.[59]
[59] E.g., the seals of Shebna, Jaazaniah and Gedaliah.
Jehoiachin is also alluded to in the Babylonian Chronicle and his successor, Zedekiah, is mentioned by name. Texts found in Babylon refer to the release of Jehoiachin from captivity and the rations which he and his sons subsequently received.
To summarize the evidence above: Of the forty kings of Israel and Judah who are named in the Book of Kings, fifteen are explicitly named in the inscriptions thus far unearthed by archaeologists.
C. THE MIRACULOUS ELEMENT
Modern critics are prone to question the reliability of the miraculous portions of the Bible. In Kings the focus of attack is on the Elijah-Elisha narratives. The accounts of these prophets, permeated as they are with the miraculous, are thought to be collections of traditions made many years after the deaths of these men of God.[60] The material is branded as legendary. It is, of course, a gratuitous assumption that these accounts were collected by someone years after the deaths of the prophets. The probability is quite the reverse. Prophets were themselves the historians of Israel. It would only be natural that at the end of an illustrious prophet's life, the chief activities of his ministry should be put on record either by his successor or by one of his close disciples.[61] As for the miracles recorded in these Chapter s, they certainly have the air of descriptions derived from eye-witnesses. These events are described in minute circumstantial detail.
[60] Kuhl (OTOC, p. 150), however, concedes that the Elijah-Elisha materials are very old, dating to 800 B.C. soon after the deaths of the prophets.
[61] Rawlinson, BC, p. 479.
D. PROBLEMS IN CHRONOLOGY
Two kinds of chronological figures are found in Kings. For most kings an absolute figure of the total number of years of reign is given. During the period of the Divided Monarchy, the author has employed what has been called the synchronistic interrelating method for establishing the data of the kings of Israel and Judah. One example of this method at this point will suffice: Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat, Abijam began to reign over Judah (1 Kings 15:1). Already in the second Christian century evidence exists that the devout and scholarly Jewish rabbis were fully aware of a number of apparent discrepancies in the figures as they stand in Kings.
The criticism of the chronology in the Book of Kings has gone through three stages. In the nineteenth century almost to a man the critics maintained that the chronological data in Kings was completely worthless. Further study led scholars to conclude that the absolute figures (total number of years that a king was said to reign) were correct; but the synchronist figures were at the same time regarded as an artificial calculation of the author. But then came the discovery of the library of Ashurbanipal which contained Assyrian literature dating back to the beginning of the second millennium B.C. (the time of Abraham).[62] Among this literature were documents using the same system of synchronization as was used in Kings. This and other archaeological discoveries forced a complete turn around of critical opinion. The synchronist system of Kings has now been studied in the light of these discoveries and has been pronounced old and basically reliable.[63]
[62] The discovery of the library came between 1848 and 1876. Selections of this material can be found in ANET, pp. 272-74; 301-303.
[63] Eissfeldt, OTL, p. 283.
Those who study the Hebrew monarchy owe an incalculable debt to the Seventh-Day Adventist scholar Edwin Thiele who has done such painstaking work on the chronological data of this period. His Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings first published in 1951 was soon adopted by most Evangelical Old Testament scholars as the authoritative work in this very difficult field. Thiele was able to resolve satisfactorily almost all the problematical issues raised by the chronological notations in Kings. His work is firmly grounded in the computational methods known to have been used by ancient scribes. In the present work, the conclusions of Thiele have been followed except for the period 750-715 B.C. and for the date of the fall of Jerusalem.
1. Problems in the chronological notations. Basically, the problems in the chronological notations are three in number. First, what appear on the surface as discrepancies exist between the synchronist data and the absolute regnal years of the individual kings which the author elsewhere gives. For example, Omri is said to begin to reign in the thirty-first year of Asa (1 Kings 16:23). He reigned twelve years. But this twelve year reign is said to end in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (1 Kings 16:29) which would indicate a reign of only eight years.
Another type of superficial discrepancy sometimes exists between the regnal years and/or the synchronistic years and the established dates of Babylonian and Assyrian history. For example, the period from the revolution of Jehu to the fall of Samaria according to Assyrian chronology is a hundred twenty years. But when one adds up the regnal years of the kings of Judah for this period he exceeds this figure by forty-five years!
Still another problem appears in that the sum of the regnal years for the kings of Israel for a given period fails to tally with the years of the Judaean kings of the same period. The following examples will illustrate:
IN JUDAH
NOTES
IN ISRAEL
REHOBOAM
to
Both of these kings began to reign the same day
JEROBOAM
to
AMAZIAH
Both of these kings died the same day
JEHORAM
adds up to 95 years
adds up to 98 years
Here it is obvious that a three year difference in the figures exists. A bigger difference occurs in the problematical period from the revolution of 841 B.C. to the fall of Samaria.
IN JUDAH
NOTES
IN ISRAEL
ATHALIAH
to
This queen of Judah and king of Israel began to reign the same day
JEHU
to
HEZEKIAH Year 6
The City of Samaria fell in the sixth year of Hczekiah (2 Kings 18:10)
FALL OF SAMARIA
adds up to 165 years
adds up to 143 years
2. Principles for dealing with royal chronology. The chronological problems of Kings disappear for the most part when certain facts and principles are observed.
a) The parallel Assyrian data has forced recognition of the possibility of coregencies in both kingdoms. Coregencies are specifically indicated only on two occasions (1 Kings 1:34-35; 2 Kings 15:5). But apparently coregency was the ancient means of guaranteeing succession and thus was quite common. Furthermore, it is now recognized that the years of a coregency would be reckoned in the total number of years attributed to both kings. Thus if a father and son shared the rule for ten years, that ten years would be counted in the total number of years of both kings-' reigns.
b) Differences also existed in the way of reckoning the regnal years in the two kingdoms. In one systemthe so called accession year methodthe remainder of the calendar year in which a king was crowned was called his accession year and was not counted as part of the numbered years of his reign. In the non-accession year method of counting, the remaining months of that coronation year were counted as year one. The second year of the reign began on New Years day.
c) To further complicate this whole matter, the two king doms were not consistent in the use of one or the other of these systems of reckoning regnal years. Those who have made the most careful study of these matters feel that Israel switched from the non-accession to the accession year method of counting sometime about 800 B.C. Judah utilized the accession year system throughout its history except for the half century from 850 to 800 B.C. The reason for the switches in both kingdoms is obscure.
d) Another factor which helps account for some of the difficulties in the figures in Kings is that different calendars were used in the kingdoms. The Northern Kingdoms began the new year in Nisan (spring), the first month of the religious year. Judah, on the other hand, began the year in Tishri (fall). Why this difference existed it is impossible to know. Nevertheless, it must be taken into account when there appears to be a one year discrepancy in the figures of the two kingdoms.
e) One must always remember that chronology is a branch of historical science and as such is subject to constant revision. Even among conservative scholars there is not always agreement. Thiele dates the disruption of the kingdom in 931 whereas Payne concludes it was in 930 B.C. Archer appropriately observes: A certain amount of flexibility must always be preserved and appropriate adjustments made as new evidence comes in.[64]
[64] Archer, SOTI, p. 280.
f) Those problems that still remain when all the above factors have been taken into consideration are few in number. Nonetheless, problems do exist. Perhaps some of these figures were accidentally altered in the course of the centuries during which this book was copied by hand. The present writer is convinced by the overwhelming weight of the evidence that the Scriptures are inspired of God and inerrant in the autographs. No real error or discrepancy could have existed in the original manuscripts. Even though there are Biblical difficulties which cannot be satisfactorily solved for the present, this writer is not inclined to abandon the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy.
3. The problem of the accession ages of certain kings. Another problem area in the Book of Kings concerns the ages of the kings at the time of their accession. The age at which some of the kings took the throne seems to place their births too early in their fathers-' reigns. When the figures are carefully analyzed it appears that Josiah was born when Amon was sixteen, and Jehoiakim to Josiah at age fourteen. Some have alleged that Hezekiah was born to Ahaz at age eleven!
Now in Eastern lands young people seem to mature faster and marry earlier than in Western lands. It was particularly important for kings to marry and procreate as soon as possible so as to preserve the dynasty. The birth of a child at age sixteen or fourteen does not appear to be impossible. The conclusion that Ahaz was only eleven when Hezekiah was born depends on the way 2 Kings 16:2; 2 Kings 18:2 are interpreted. Certainly it is not a necessary inference that Ahaz became a father at such a young age. The fact of coregencies with regard to both Ahaz and Hezekiah plays havoc with any attempt to dogmatize here. See comments on these verses for further discussion.
VI. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
Why was Kings written? One can only look at the book as it has come down to the presentthe points of emphasis and the omissionsto make this determination. It would seem that the author had at least seven aims. His purpose was (1) historic; (2) didactic; (3) polemic; (4) Davidic; (5) prophetic; (6) priestly; and (7) evangelistic.
A. THE HISTORIC PURPOSE
That the Book of Kings is intended to be an historical account of the kings of Israel and Judah is obvious. The book has been properly classified as one of the historical books of the Old Testament and has its proper place alongside the books of Samuel. At the time Kings was written no comprehensive treatment of the monarchy period had ever been undertaken. A number of private documents written by prophets and dealing with particular kings were available. For the period of Saul and David the great Book of Samuel had been published. But nothing comparable had been produced for the long and important period from Solomon to the exile. In hindsight it is now obvious that God wanted His people to have an inspired and trustworthy history of Abraham's descendants from the call of that great patriarch out of Ur of Chaldees to the return of his sons from bondage in the same geographical area. To this end the Holy Spirit inspired a godly prophet to pen the important link in this historical chain known as Kings.
The historical importance of the Book of Kings is also seen in the fact that it contains the only account of Israel. The Book of Chronicles gives no separate history of the Northern Kingdom.
The Old Testament historical writings are somewhat unique in the literature which has come down from ancient (pre-classical) times. The Israelites were the first people of antiquity to develop a true historiography. Annalistic writing is attested in Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia; but only the Hittites among the Gentile nations attempted historical writing.
All the difference in the world exists between the Holy Spirit-Inspired history of Israel and that history which was recorded on the monuments of other peoples in antiquity. Years ago the great Orientalist Layard commented on the difference:
In the first place, the care with which the events of each king's reign were chronicled is worthy of remark. They were usually written in the form of regular annals, and in some cases, as on the great monoliths at Nimroud, the royal progress during a campaign appears to have been described almost day by day. We are thus furnished with an interesting illustration of the historical books of the Jews. There is, however, this marked difference between them, that while the Assyrian records were nothing but a dry narrative, or rather register, of military campaigns, spoliations, and crueltiesevents of little importance but to those immediately concerned in themthe historic books of the Old Testament, apart from the deeds of war and blood which they chronicle, contain the most interesting of private episodes, and the most sublime of moral lessons. It need scarcely be added that this distinction is precisely what we might have expected to find between them, and that the Christian will not fail to give it due weight.[65]
[65] Layard, DRNB, p. 539.
B. THE DIDACTIC PURPOSE
The historians of Israel were prophets. History in their hands had purpose, i.e., religious aim. What they wrote was ecclesiastical or theocratic rather than civil history. Hebrew antiquity knows no secular historian. The religious orientation of the author of Kings helps to explain several features of the book. This interest in things religious explains, for example, the prominence given to Elijah and Elisha and the rather frequent insertions of prophetic interpretations of various crises in the histories of Israel and Judah. The author's religious outlook is also seen in his constant reference to the Pentateuch and to the previous history of the nation, as well as in his constant comparison of each king with the king after God's own heart.
Kings is a historical archipelago. The author never intended this book to be merely the cold recitation of facts. He intended rather to teach important theological and practical truths here. This is history written, not from a civil, but from a religious point of view. Events which an ordinary historian would have considered of great consequence are passed over or only briefly alluded to. The military history of the two kingdoms for the most part is omitted. Thus the author completely ignores that crucial battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.) in which king Ahab and his confederates were able to turn back the advancing Assyrian armies.
The author, aided by the Holy Spirit, could see the hand of God at work in the period of the monarchy. He saw history as theonomous, i.e., governed by God. It was spiritual rather than political lessons that he was trying to teach. For this reason he especially focuses his attention on the two crisis periods, the reigns of Ahab in the North and Hezekiah in the South. Also for these reasons he gives considerable attention to the three theocratic institutions which symbolize the presence of God among His peoplethe Temple, prophetism and the Davidic dynasty.
It was clearly not the objective of the author of Kings to narrate the naked facts of monarchical history. Still less was it his intention to glorify Israel's heroes out of nationalistic motives. Rather it was his purpose to demonstrate that the rise and glories, the decline and fall of the Hebrew kingdoms were causally related to the piety and faithfulness or the irreligion and idolatry of the kings and their subjects. Writing during the captivity, the author attempts to demonstrate that the miseries of invasion, the destruction of the Temple, the overthrow of the monarchy, and the deportation to foreign soil were judgments of God upon their sins, the bitter fruits of national apostasy. The nation, having rejected her divine King, attempted to govern herself and failed utterly. That is the message of Kings. Perhaps the most prominent feature of Kings is the way in which the author assesses the significance of the individual kings according to their religious policies, not political achievements. The religious orientation of the author helps to explain the prominence given to certain kings and the almost total disregard for others. Actually, most of the space in Kings is devoted to six kings. To Solomon the author devotes eleven Chapter s. Considerable space is also devoted to Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:25 to 1 Kings 14:20), Ahab (1 Kings 16:29 to 1 Kings 22:40), Jehoram (2 Kings 3:1 to 2 Kings 9:26), Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-20) and Josiah (2 Kings 22-23). These kings were chosen for special attention, not because of their political significance, but because they are pivots on which theocratic history moves.[66]
[66] Rawlinson, BC, p. 466.
C. THE POLEMIC PURPOSE
The building of the Temple was of immense significance to the author of Kings. This is immediately evident in the amount of space devoted to the construction of this holy edifice and the furnishings thereof. Furthermore, before the Temple was built the author of Kings viewed the various high places or worship centers with tolerance; but after the Temple was dedicated, he brands those high places as illegitimate (cf. Deuteronomy 12:5-14). Throughout the book one finds reference to the failure of even some of the better kings to remove those high places. The author is obviously committed to the concept of a centralized sanctuary as the only legitimate spot from which to conduct formal worship. God had chosen Jerusalem and its Temple as the spot at which He would manifest Himself.
Not only does Kings polemize against the high places, the book also attacks the infiltration of Baal worship into the kingdoms. It was his concern about the deteriorating effect of Jezebelian Baalism that caused the author to devote so much spaceone third of his materialto the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. To the author of Kings, Elijah's contest on Mt. Carmel was a pivotal event in Israel (Northern Kingdom). From that point on his interest shifts from the nation, and the spotlight of attention focuses on Elijah and Elisha and their efforts to build up the remnant in Israel. The name of the king is frequently suppressed in this section of the book. The author abandons the chronological order of presentation. Spiritual considerations override those of chronology.
In addition to his attack on the high places and Baal worship, the author of Kings lashes out again and again against the established, state-controlled worship of Yahweh in the North. For the Northern Kingdom the decisive sin was that of Jeroboam in setting up the golden calves at Bethel and Dan and instituting all the other features of this apostate worship. Jeroboam was the prime example and prototype of the godless king of the North. Every subsequent king in the Northern Kingdom is described as walking in the sins of Jeroboam. The divine sentence against that kingdom was pronounced at the time of Jeroboam's defection. But the execution was delayed because of individual kings like Ahab (1 Kings 21:29), Jehu (2 Kings 10:30) and Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:26 f.) in whom God found some redeeming qualities.
Did the author of Kings accomplish his polemic purpose? When Jerusalem fell and the Jews were carried away to Babylon, the religion of Yahweh was put to its most severe test. Ancient mentality regarded the fall of a nation tantamount to a discrediting of that nation's gods. This, together with the fact that in Babylon the Jews were thrown into a seductive pagan environment, indicates the gravity of the situation. The Book of Kings was one of the tools used by the prophets to help the people put all of their historyincluding the captivityin proper perspective. By studying Kings the exilic Jews began to see that their one hope lay in strict obedience to God and observance of the Law. The fact that the Jews were well cured of their paganism when they returned to Palestine would seem to indicate that this book had very great influence upon their thinking.
D. THE DAVIDIC PURPOSE
In Kings the chief concern is Davidic monarchy. Kings of Israel are treated as a matter of secondary interest. To the author of this book, David was a God-fearing, ideal king (1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 11:38; 1 Kings 14:8). He is the standard by which all the Southern kings are measured.[67]
[67] 1 Kings 15:11; 2 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings 16:2; 2 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 22:2.
The glorious promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 formsin the words of Keilthe red thread which runs through the history of the kings from Solomon to the exile. It is the author's intention to show in the history of the kings how the Lord fulfilled this gracious word. He first shows how God chastised the seed of David and snatched away from them the larger portion of the kingdom. But the descendants of David continued to transgress the conditions of the sacred covenant of 2 Samuel 7, and so God cast them off. Only the reform efforts of three or four godly rulers postponed temporarily this tragic judgment. It was for the sake of David My servant that God exercised such patience with Judah.[68]
[68] This phrase occurs in 1 Kings 11:13; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Kings 19:34; 2 Kings 20:6. The same basic thought, though not precise words, occurs in 1 Kings 11:12; 1 Kings 15:4-5.
E. THE PROPHETIC PURPOSE
The author of Kings viewed the roles of the prophets as crucial in the history both of Israel and Judah. The teaching and activity of these servants of God exerted an important influence upon the history of the theocracy. Owing to them, the apostasy of the people was without excuse. By dwelling on the prophets the author shows that the guilt of the people was intensely aggravatedthe destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity were justified in spite of God's promise to David. The accounts of the prophets are the spiritual leaven which pervades this portion of the Word of God. This prophetic activity stamped upon the Israelite monarchy the character of the theocracy or divine rule in Israel.
F. THE PRIESTLY PURPOSE
Scholars generally refer to Chronicles as priestly history and to Kings as prophetic history. In general this distinction is useful. But nonetheless, a major theme in Kings is the significance of Jerusalem, the place chosen by God as the site for His Temple. In the several Chapter s devoted to the reign of Solomon, for example, the most important single theme is the building of the Temple (1 Kings 6:1-38), its furnishings (1 Kings 7:13-51), and dedication (1 Kings 8). Thirty-eight verses describe the building of the Temple; only twelve verses treat all the other building accomplishments of Solomon.
Throughout the history of Judah events associated with the Temple receive a disproportionate amount of attention. The cultic innovations of Ahaz are noted (2 Kings 16:10-18). The appropriation of Temple treasure for foreign tribute never fails to be mentioned.[69] While Hazael's invasion of Judah gets only scanty reference (2 Kings 12:17), Joash's reform of Temple finances is treated at length (2 Kings 12:4-16).
[69] See 1 Kings 14:26-28; 1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 2 Kings 14:14; 2 Kings 18:16; 2 Kings 24:13; 2 Kings 25:13-17.
Attention given to priests in Kings is not insignificant. In the opening Chapter s Zadok and Abiathar, men who apparently shared the high priesthood, play significant roles. Jeroboam is condemned for having departed from the Pentateuchal stipulations in making priests of the very lowest classes of society (1 Kings 12:31; 1 Kings 13:33). Jehoiada the high priest during the minority of Joash (c. 835) is a great hero in Judah's history, as is Hilkiah about two centuries later. The priestly interest of the author of Kings has not heretofore been sufficiently emphasized. Perhaps this emphasis suggests that the author of the book was a priest! (cf. Jeremiah 1:1).
G. THE EVANGELISTIC EMPHASIS
It was the goal of the author of Kings not merely to report events of the past, but to give an evaluation and criticism of the past as an admonition for his contemporaries. By retelling the apostasy and ensuing trials and visitations, Kings called men to repentance, conversion and total commitment.
VII. THE BACKGROUND OF THE BOOK
In the Book of Kings one finds the monarchial institution in full bloom. It is everywhere taken for granted that Israel and Judah should be ruled by kings. It was not always so among the people of God. How did Israel come to have a king? What was the previous history of kingship in the Old Testament?
A. ANTICIPATIONS OF KINGSHIP
From the very earliest period there existed in Israel the expectation that some day the nation would be ruled by a king. Part of the promise made to Abraham was that kings shall come forth from you (Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16). The same promise was repeated to Jacob (Genesis 35:11). Moses was confident that Israel would some day have a king, and so in Genesis 36:31 he comments: Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the sons of Israel. Mosaic provisions for the regulation of the future kingship are set forth in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.
During the Settlement period (time of the Judges) attempts were made to appoint a king. The crown was offered to Gideon, but he rejected it with the comment: the Lord shall rule over you. (Judges 8:23). Nevertheless, Gideon seems to have been a king in everything but name.[70] His son Abimelech actually was recognized as king over the region around Shechem. His rule lasted three years (Judges 9:22).
[70] He had many wives (Judges 8:30), and introduced certain cultic innovations (Judges 8:27). It seems to have been taken for granted that his seventy sons would attempt to rule the nation after his death (Judges 9:2).
One purpose for the writing of the Book of Judges was to depict how urgently Israel needed a king. To the history of the Judges, the author appended two accounts[71] which reflect the lawlessness of this period of Bible history (Jude 1:17-21). Here he relates black tales of idolatry, lust, rape, civil war and various other heinous crimes. Four times in these Chapter s the author drives home his point: In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.[72]
[71] The Book of Ruth originally formed a third appendix to Judges.
[72] Judges 17:6; Judges 18:1; Judges 19:1; Judges 21:25.
B. THE PHILISTINE OPPRESSION
Chronologically, the last oppression recorded in the Book of Judges is that of the Philistines (Jude 1:13-16). Samson (c. 1069 1049 B.C.) inflicted heavy casualties on these mighty plains people; but he was unable to break their strangle grip on Israel. In the battle of Aphek (c. 1067 B.C.) the ark of God was captured and the national sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed (1 Samuel 4). Finally, after about twenty more years of humiliation at the hands of the Philistines, the people were ready to heed Samuel's call for national repentance. The people assembled en mass at Mizpah to publicly recommit themselves to the Lord. While this revival was in progress, the Philistines attacked. Because of the intercessory prayer of Samuel, God intervened on behalf of His people. The Philistines were driven out of Israel never to return during the days of Samuel (1 Samuel 7:13).
C. THE REQUEST FOR A KING
Only about five years after the great victory at Mizpah, the elders of the tribes met with Samuel and requested that he anoint a king. Their reasons were quite practical, if not spiritual. (1) Samuel was old and his sons were dishonest; (2) they wanted to be like all the nations; and (3) they wanted a leader in battle (1 Samuel 8:5; 1 Samuel 8:20).
Samuel was displeased with the request and took the matter to the Lord in prayer. The prophet was instructed to warn the elders about the nature of kingship. If they still persisted in their demands, Samuel was to comply. The sin of the people was not in having a king, but in prematurely asking for one. Their request cast aspersions on the way God had been governing them through the Judges.
The Lord directed Samuel to anoint Saul the son of Kish as Israel's first king. The initial anointing took place privately at Ramah (1 Samuel 10:1); then at Mizpah, scene of Samuel's greatest triumph, Saul was dramatically introduced to the nation and publicly anointed (1 Samuel 10:17-27). It was not, however, until after Saul proved his leadership in the rescue of Jabesh-gilead that he won universal acceptance among the people. After that successful campaign, Samuel directed the people to assemble at Gilgal to renew the kingdom (1 Samuel 11:14). This Gilgal assembly marked the end of the period of the Judges and the actual beginning of the monarchy.
D. THE REIGN OF SAUL
Actually not much information is contained in the Scriptures about the reign of Saul. He was able to drive the Philistines out of the land (1 Samuel 13-14). But during this effort Saul transgressed the instructions of Samuel, and the prophet announced that Saul's dynasty had been rejected by God. On a subsequent occasionperhaps some years laterSaul disobeyed a prophetic commission to exterminate the Amelekites. Again Saul was disobedient, and Samuel announced that God had rejected Saul as king (1 Samuel 15).
E. DAVID'S RISE TO POWER
David's rise to power began with a visit from the aged Samuel and a private anointing (1 Samuel 16:1-13). From that point on the spirit of God came mightily on David (1 Samuel 16:13) and the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:14). The turning point in the Book of I Samuel occurs precisely at this point.
David served while a youth in the court of Saul, and even as the king's armor-bearer (1 Samuel 16:19-23). Subsequently David proved his military prowess by single-handedly defeating Goliath (1 Samuel 17) and by leading first smaller and then larger units of the army (1 Samuel 18:5-9; 1 Samuel 18:13-16). As David's success became more obvious, so also did Saul's jealousy. Various attempts were made on David's life (1 Samuel 18:10-12; 1 Samuel 19:8-10). An order was issued for David's arrest and execution, but with the help of Michal, his wife, David was able to escape (1 Samuel 19:11-17).
David tried to rejoin Saul's court (1 Samuel 20), but found the hatred of the king implacable. He was then forced for some time to live the life of an exile and outlaw. On three occasions Saul mobilized the army in an all-out effort to apprehend David (1 Samuel 23:24, 1 Samuel 23:26). These efforts narrowly failed. David ended this phase of his life in the service of a foreign king, Achish of Gath (I S27:1-12).
F. THE REIGN OF DAVID
Saul met his end in the course of a desperate battle against the Philistines at Mt. Gilboa (1 Samuel 31). David was thereafter almost immediately recognized as king by his own tribe of Judah. He ruled over Judah for more than seven years in Hebron. The other tribes were reluctant to give allegiance to any sovereign, but gradually joined the cause of Ishbosheth, a son of Saul. When Ishbosheth met with a tragic death, the tribes had no recourse but to acknowledge David as king.
David initiated his reign over the united tribes by the successful capture of the Jebusite stronghold of Jerusalem (1 Samuel 5:6-9). He thereafter immediately faced a serious invasion threat from the Philistines. In two dramatic battles David defeated these old enemies. He then went on the offensive. Over the course of his reign, he successfully defeated Edom, Moab, Philistia, Ammon and several of the Aramean states to the north. At the end of his reign the borders of Israel extended from the Euphrates river in the north to the river of Egypt in the south.
David's accomplishments were considerable in areas other than military conquest. With his prolific production of psalms and hymns, David launched a great age of literature in Israel. He invented new musical instruments. He centralized the worship of God in Jerusalem. He prepared for the building of the Temple by gathering enormous amounts of gold, silver and construction materials.
David had his failings and paid dearly for them. His adultery with Bathsheba and subsequent murder of Uriah are well known. David also failed as a father to properly discipline his family. Because of this, he saw one son slain and another become a bitter and powerful adversary. In his last days David experienced rebellions led by his son Absalom and by a certain man named Sheba. The rather pathetic picture of David's last days is continued in the opening chapter of Kings.
SYNOPSIS OF PART ONE - THE SOLOMONIC KINGDOM
1 Kings 1-11
THE REIGN OF SOLOMON
971-931 B.C.
40 YEARS
1:1
3:3 SOLOMON'S WARRANT
3:4
4:34 SOLOMON'S WISDOM
5:1
7:51 SOLOMON'S WORK
8:1
10:29 SOLOMON'S WEALTH
11:1
11:43 SOLOMON'S WICKEDNESS
Chapter Two Coronation
Chapter Four Government
Chapter Five Temple Work
Chapter Seven Communication
Chapter Nine Transgression and -Trouble
Chapter Three Establishment
Chapter six Other Work
Chapter Light Glory
ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
AB
George Barton, Archaeology and the Bible (seventh edition; Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1937).
AAI
E. G. Kraeling, Aram and Israel. New York: Co- lumbia University, 1918.
ABH
Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History (ninth edition; Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press, 1966).
AI
Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961).
AJSL
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.
ANET
James B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (third edition; Princeton, New Jersey: University Press, 1969).
ARI
W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1942).
AS
J. Morgenstern, Amos Studies (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1941).
ASV
American Standard Version (1901).
BA
G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957).
BAR
David N. Freedman and Edward F. Campbell, Jr., (eds.), Biblical Archaeologist Reader (Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 1961, 1964, 1970).
BASOR
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
BBC
Harvey E. Finley, The Book of Kings, in vol. 2 of Beacon Bible Commentary, ed. A. F. Harper, et. al. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1966).
BC
M. Pierce Matheney, Jr. and Roy L. Honeycutt, 1-2 Kings, in vol. 3 of The Broadman Bible Commentary, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville: Broadman, 1970).
George Rawlinson, Kings, in vol. II of The Holy Bible with Explanatory and Critical Commentary, ed. F. C. Cook (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, 1873).
BCc
George Rawlinson, Chronicles, in vol. III of The Holy Bible with Explanatory and Critical Commentary, ed. F. C. Cook (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, 1873).
BCOT
C. F. Keil, The Books of Kings, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950 reprint).
BCOTc
C. F. Keil, The Books of Chronicles, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950 reprint).
BETS
Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society.
BG
Gordon Robinson, Historians of Israel (1), Bible Guides (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962).
BGH
C. F. Kent, Biblical Geography and History (New York: Scribners, 1911).
BH
Alfred Edersheim, Bible History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint).
BRP
Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1841).
BV
The Berkley Version in Modern Speech (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1945).
CGK
J. T. Barclay, The City of the Great King (Philadelphia: James Challen, 1858).
DOTT
D. Winton Thomas (ed.), Documents from Old Testament Times (New York: Harper and Row, 1961).
DRNB
Austen H. Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (New York: Harper, 1859).
EBH
Elmer W. K. Mould, Essentials of Bible History (rev. ed.; New York: Ronald, 1951).
FSAC
W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (second edition; Garden City, New York: Double-day, 1957).
FTK
Robert Tuck, The First Three Kings of Israel (London: Sunday School Union, 1875).
HB
John Kitto, An Illustrated History of the Holy Bible (Norwich, Conn.: Henry Bill, 1868).
HBC
Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Princeton: University Press, 1964).
HBSKC
William D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956 reprint).
HI
John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: West- minster, 1959).
HPS
A. T. Olmstead, History of Palestine and Syria (New York: Scribners, 1931).
IA
M. F. Unger, Israel and the Arameans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957).
IAC
B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis (London: SCM, 1967).
IB
Norman H. Snaith, The First and Second Books of Kings (Introduction and Exegesis) in vol. III of Interpreter's Bible, ed. George Buttrick, et. al. (New York: Abingdon, 1955).
ICB
R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957).
ICC
J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, The Books of Kings, The International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribners, 1951).
IDB
George Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962).
IEJ
Israel Exploration Journal.
IOT
Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, trans. David E. Green (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968).
R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969). Robert Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1948). James King West, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1971). E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960).
JBL
Journal of Biblical Literature.
JCBR
Leo L. Honor, Book of Kings 1, The Jewish Community for Bible Readers (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1955).
JETS
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.
JFB
Robert Jamieson, Joshua-Esther, in vol. II of A Commentary, Critical, Experimental and Practical (Philadelphia: Lippencott, 1868).
JL
James E. Smith, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Bible Study Textbook Series, Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1972).
JNES
Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
JOT
J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, (Leiden: Brill, 1952).
JTEH
George Adam Smith, Jerusalem; The Topography, Economics and History (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907).
KJV
King James Version (1611).
LC
Bahr, The Book of Kings, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. John Peter Lange (Grand Rapids: Zondervan reprint, n.d.).
LJC
A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church (new edition; New York: Scribners, 1892).
MAAI
R. R. Stieglitz, Maritime Activity in Ancient Israel, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University, 1971).
MNHK
Edwin Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (revised edition; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965).
NASB
New American Standard Bible (1963).
NBC
F. Davidson (ed.), New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953).
NBD
J. D. Douglas (ed.), New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962).
OLB
Michael Avi-Yonah and Emil Kraeling, Our Living Bible (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962).
OSJ
Nelson Glueck, The Other Side of Jordan (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1940).
OTFD
Artur Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development (New York: Association, 1961)
OTH
William Smith, Old Testament History (revised by Wilbur Fields; Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1967).
OTI
Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament, an Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (New York: Harper and Row, 1965).
OTIH
C. R. North, The Old Testament Interpretation of History (London: Epworth, 1946).
OTL
John Gray, I & 2Kings, The Old Testament Library, (Philadelphia: Westminister, 1970).
OTMS
N. H. Snaith, The Historical Books in The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951).
OTOC
Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament, Its Origin and Composition, trans. C. T. M. Herriott (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1961).
PC
G. Rawlinson, 2Kings, The Pulpit Commentary (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1909).
Joseph Hammond, I Kings, The Pulpit Commentary (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1909).
PCc
Philip Barker, Chronicles, The Pulpit Commentary (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1909).
PSQ
J. A. Sanders, The Psalms Scroll from Qumran Cave II (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).
RSV
Revised Standard Version (1952).
SBA
Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
SBB
I. W. Stolki, Kings, Soncino Books of the Bible (London: Soncino, 1950).
SHLT
F. W. Faraar, Solomon, His Life and Times (New York: Revell, n.d.).
SOTI
Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964).
SSW
Gustaf Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, trans. P. Levertoff (New York: Macmillan, 1935).
STE
John Whitcomb, Jr., Solomon to the Exile (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971).
SVT
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum.
UK
Charles F. Pfeiffer, The United Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970).
UOT
Jay Williams, Understanding the Old Testament (New York: Barron's Educational Series, 1972).
WBC
Charles R. Wilson, Kings in vol. I, part I of The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, ed. Charles W. Carter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967).
WMTS
Miller Burrows, What Mean These Stones? (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941).
And it came to pass, in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25). In a victory relief on the south wall of the great temple at Karnak, Pharaoh Sheshonk I, whom the Bible calls Shishak, has immortalised in stone his raid on Canaan referred to in I Kings. The god Amon, with his sickle sword in his hand, and below him his wife, the goddess of Thebes, are shown leading the conquered cities on cords to present them to the pharaoh.