Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible: First and Second Kings

Roger Tomes, James D. G. Dunn

• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781467453547
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

This extract from the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible provides Tomes' introduction to and concise commentary on First and Second Kings. The  Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible presents, in nontechnical language, the best of modern scholarship on each book of the Bible, including the Apocrypha. Reader-friendly commentary complements succinct summaries of each section of the text and will be valuable to scholars, students, and general readers.
 
Rather than attempt a verse-by-verse analysis, these volumes work from larger sense units, highlighting the place of each passage within the overarching biblical story. Commentators focus on the genre of each text—parable, prophetic oracle, legal code, and so on—interpreting within the historical and literary context.
 
The volumes also address major issues within each biblical book—including the range of possible interpretations—and refer readers to the best resources for further discussions.
 

1 and 2 Kings

Roger Tomes

INTRODUCTION

1 and 2 Kings and the Former Prophets. Although in the Septuagint (LXX) 1 and 2 Kings formed two books (under the titles 3 and 4 Kingdoms), in the Hebrew Bible (HB) they originally formed a single book, the fourth of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings). It was composed according to a common plan, an account of the reigns of each of the kings of Israel and Judah. It may not originally have been intended as a continuation of the other Former Prophets, but it has at least been edited and read as such. There are frequent references back to the reign of David, including the promises made to him (2 Sam 7:1–17; cf. 1 Kgs 8:14–26) and “the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (2 Samuel 11; cf. 1 Kgs 15:5). The fulfillment of the sentence on the house of Eli is noted (1 Sam 2:27–36; 3:11–14; cf. 1 Kgs 2:27); and the circumstances of the rebuilding of Jericho are treated as a fulfillment of a prediction by Joshua (Josh 6:26; cf. 1 Kgs 16:34). In the Lucianic recension of the LXX, 3 Kingdoms (= 1 Kings) begins at what we know as 2:12: this is probably not evidence that any Hebrew mss. divided Samuel from Kings at this point, but a recognition by readers that 1 Kgs 1:1–2:11 is as much a conclusion to the story told in Samuel as a beginning to the story told in Kings.

The Text: Hebrew and Greek. The text translated in the English versions is the Masoretic Hebrew text. The LXX has some significant departures from the MT. After 1 Kgs 2:35 and 46 scattered pieces of information are brought together to illustrate the theme of Solomon’s wisdom; the account of Solomon’s building projects in 1 Kgs 6:1–7:51 is rearranged so that the account of the building of the temple is not interrupted by the description of other buildings; the account of the division of the kingdom in 1 Kgs 11:26–12:24 is followed by an alternative version; and 1 Kings 20 and 21 are transposed. These variations are probably in the main editorial; it is unlikely that they represent a superior Hebrew original. (There are few fragments from Qumran, and none that supports the LXX against the MT.)

A Deuteronomistic Compilation. The story of how 1 and 2 Kings were compiled is a matter of conjecture, but certain reasonable deductions can be made from the text itself. The fundamental structure is a summary account of the reign of each king: when he began to reign; sometimes how old he was at his accession; how long he reigned; in the case of the kings of Judah who his mother was; a verdict on his reign; where further information could be found; how he met his death and where he was buried; and who succeeded him. The verdict on each reign is always confined to the king’s religious policy. If he encouraged the worship of foreign gods or even tolerated any cultic activities outside Jerusalem, he is judged to have “done evil in the sight of Yahweh.” Only if he carried out religious reforms is he judged to have “done what was right in the sight of Yahweh.” This focus on religious practice, and in particular on the unacceptability of worship outside Jerusalem, suggests the standpoint of Deuteronomy’s law of one sanctuary (Deut 12:1–14), and hence the compilation of 1 and 2 Kings is attributed to a member or members of the Deuteronomistic school. This supposition is supported by the prominence given to the discovery of “the book of the law” in Josiah’s reign and the congruity of his reforms with the injunctions of Deuteronomy (2 Kgs 22:1–23:25); by the Deuteronomistic language of some programmatic passages (1 Kgs 9:1–9; 2 Kgs 17:7–18); and by some more or less direct quotations from Deuteronomy (1 Kgs 11:2; 2 Kgs 14:6).

A Variety of Sources. This framework is filled out from a variety of sources. Three are mentioned: “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kgs 11:41), “the book of the annals of the kings of Israel” (1 Kgs 14:19, etc.), and “the book of the annals of the kings of Judah” (1 Kgs 14:29, etc.). Many of the details of Solomon’s reign and the briefer notices of events in other reigns are probably taken from these sources. But it is likely that other sources have been used as well, particularly for the longer accounts. 2 Kgs 18:17–20:19, for example, since it is almost identical with Isaiah 36–39, could well be taken from the book of Isaiah at some stage in its development, or from some earlier collection of Isaiah legends. The stories of Elijah and Elisha are unlikely to have come from official royal records: the kings are sometimes anonymous (2 Kgs 5:5; 6:9, 26) and the stories often critical of them (1 Kgs 21:1–16; 2 Kgs 1:3; 3:13).

A Variety of Material. Whatever the nature of the sources used, the material is very varied in character: lists of officials (1 Kgs 4:1–19), popular legends (1 Kgs 3:16–28; 10:1–13), detailed description of the temple (1 Kgs 6:1–7:51), a prayer at the dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8:22–53), long narratives relating significant political events (1 Kgs 1; 12:1–20; 2 Kgs 9:1–10:27), and reflection on political events (2 Kgs 17:7–23).

Date of Compilation. The books of Kings must of course have been completed after the last event recorded in them: the release from prison of Jehoiachin in the thirty-seventh year of his exile, that is, 560 BC. However the process of compilation may have begun earlier: one view is that a “first edition” was produced in the time of Josiah, making the discovery of the lawbook and the subsequent reforms the climax of the story, and that it was later supplemented with the account of the events leading up to the fall of Jerusalem and the fall of the city itself. Much depends on the interpretation of passages which seem to betray no knowledge of those events: the ark and its poles are said to be “there [in the temple] to this day” (1 Kgs 8:8); Solomon’s prayer, while it envisages the possibility of exile (1 Kgs 8:46–53), assumes that the temple will still be standing (v. 48); the promise that David would always have descendants on the throne of Judah (2 Sam 7:12–16) is periodically repeated, sometimes indeed conditionally (1 Kgs 9:1–9; 2 Kgs 21:7–8) but sometimes without any indication that there were conditions attached or that events had put it in doubt (1 Kgs 11:36; 2 Kgs 8:19). It may be that the final compilers decided to leave their sources and the earlier stages of compilation as they found them, believing that there was some value in keeping even the misplaced hopes of earlier generations on record, and relying on their own occasional commentary (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:1–9; 2 Kgs 17:7–23; 21:10–15) to put them in perspective in the light of subsequent events. Some compilation of material from northern Israel probably took place before the fall of Samaria: 2 Kgs 13:23; 14:27 do not seem to know that this would happen.

1 and 2 Kings as History. The overall category into which the books of Kings fall is undoubtedly that of history. They represent a considerable achievement. That they have produced a reasonably accurate chronicle of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah over nearly four centuries has never been seriously challenged, and one cannot fail to admire the skill with which for much of that period the histories of the two kingdoms have been intertwined. This is not to say that the chronology they provide is completely accurate: some adjustment is needed both to make the figures self-consistent and to relate them to the dates which sources outside the Bible provide. But there is no comparable continuous account over such a long period from anywhere else in the ancient world. No doubt the material used is not all of equal value or reliability as history. For example, modern readers will always have problems with stories (such as that of Elijah on Carmel) which rely heavily on miracle; one story about Solomon (1 Kgs 3:16–28) not only has a more realistic counterpart later in Kings (2 Kgs 6:26–31) but also has parallels in other literatures; there is no archeological confirmation of Israel’s legendary prosperity in the time of Solomon.

Comparison with 2 Chronicles. As with all historical writing, it is necessary to allow for the historians’ bias. Ideally one should be in a position to compare 1 and 2 Kings with other accounts of the same events, but this is rarely possible. There is of course a parallel history in 2 Chronicles, but this has generally been supposed to be dependent on 1 and 2 Kings for its outline. The comparison favors Kings. Not only does the Chronicler ignore the history of the Northern Kingdom almost entirely, but it is difficult to avoid the impression that he is often rewriting history as he would have liked it to be, for example, in giving David a major role in the plan to build the temple, in ascribing far-reaching reforms to the time of Hezekiah, and in postulating repentance on the part of Manasseh to account for his long reign. Only occasionally does the Chronicler appear to preserve important material not available to the compilers of Kings (e.g., the account of Uzziah/Azariah in 2 Chr 26:1–15).

Other Sources for the Period. Nonbiblical sources offer material for the period which is useful in a number of ways. Some events related in Kings, such as the fall of Samaria (2 Kgs 17:1–6; 18:9–12) and Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37), are also related in the annals and inscriptions of the Assyrian kings. We know of other events in which Israelite kings were involved, such as Ahab’s participation in the battle of Qarqar and Jehu’s submission to Shalmaneser III, only from Assyrian sources. (See the commentary on 1 Kgs 16:15–34 and 2 Kings 9–10.) The accounts of relations between Israel and Moab (2 Kgs 1:1; 3:4–27) can be compared with the inscription of Mesha, king of Moab. The discovery of the Lachish letters gives some insight into the situation in Judah outside Jerusalem in 587 BC.

Not a Social History. The extrabiblical evidence does not give grounds for any radical distrust of the history in 1 and 2 Kings. We may regret, however, that it is a history of the kings and not a social history of the whole people. To some extent this deficiency can be made up through a study of settlement patterns (e.g., Jamieson-Drake 1991); through information gleaned from the Samarian ostraca (see the commentary on 2 Kings 14); above all, perhaps, from the allusions the prophets make to social, economic, and religious conditions in their time. Even in 1 and 2 Kings some of the stories about Elijah and Elisha are informative about social conditions.

Political Factors Underplayed. Another reservation we may have about the historical value of the history in 1 and 2 Kings is that it explains events in theological terms, ignoring political factors. “In those days Yahweh began to send King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah against Judah” (2 Kgs 15:37). But what were their conscious motives? Most commentators say that they wanted to force Judah into an alliance against Assyria, but we are not told that. In the biblical period there was nothing unusual about theological explanations of events: Mesha king of Moab explained his country’s subjection to Israel by saying, “Chemosh was angry with his land”; the Assyrian kings attributed their victories to the help of their gods.

Religious Policy Overstressed. A more serious criticism is that the offenses with which the kings are charged nearly always concern their religious policy rather than their treatment of their subjects. The rare exceptions are Rehoboam’s refusal to reduce the burden of forced labor, Ahab’s acquiescence in the murder of Naboth (both probably deriving from the source material), and Manasseh’s shedding of innocent blood. We know from Jer 22:13–17 that Jehoiakim was accused of oppression and violence and contrasted with Josiah, who “judged the cause of the poor and needy,” yet in Kings Jehoiakim is not blamed for the one course nor Josiah praised for the other.

Worship of the Right God. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that religious policy was a matter of indifference to everyone but the Deuteronomists. Everything from the anointing of kings to the survival of the poorest family was ultimately a religious matter. The fortunes of the nation depended on the worship of the right god in the right way. There was general agreement that deities could be appealed to for guidance, protection, and deliverance from dangerous and desperate situations. There was less agreement about which deity might be appealed to. A common assumption was that each people had its own deity to look after its interests: Astarte for the Sidonians, Chemosh for the Moabites, and Milcom for the Ammonites. But what should happen when people from neighboring countries settled in Jerusalem? Should they be allowed to have their own places of worship (1 Kgs 11:1–8)? Should a king introduce chapels for foreign deities into the temple to reflect the pluralism of his kingdom (2 Kgs 21:4–5, 7)? And what should the foreigner do, when convinced that “there is no God in all the earth except in Israel,” on his return home (2 Kgs 5:15–18)? The books of Kings provide evidence that the worship of a plurality of deities was at different times and in different circles tolerated, stamped out with fanatical zeal, and disapproved of rather helplessly.

Worship in the Right Way. There was disagreement, too, about the way in which Israel’s God, Yahweh, should be worshiped. Could the God who had brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt be legitimately represented by golden bull images (1 Kgs 12:28–30)? Could he be worshiped at local shrines or only in the temple in Jerusalem? Were stone pillars and wooden poles the conventional cult objects of any shrine (2 Kgs 17:10; 18:4; 23:14) or the symbols of Baal and Asherah respectively (1 Kgs 16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6; 21:3; 23:15)? God might be expected to communicate his intentions and the outcome of critical situations through prophets, and perhaps also through dreams (1 Kgs 3:5–15), but other forms of divination had a more ambiguous status (2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6). That God welcomed sacrifice was taken for granted, but was the relatively rare practice of human sacrifice really regarded as service to a god Molech (2 Kgs 23:10)? If so, why were prophets at such pains to insist that Yahweh had not commanded it (Mic 6:6–8; Jer 32:35) or so anxious to explain why he had (Ezek 20:25)?

Yahweh’s Character. Although the Deuteronomists at first sight appear to have theological beliefs as definite as any in the Bible, the portrayal of Yahweh’s character in Kings is not as straightforward as might be expected. Certain ideas can of course be ruled out: that he is a god of the hills but not of the valleys (1 Kgs 20:23, 28) or that he is the god of the land, who can be worshiped alongside others (2 Kgs 17:24–33). Israelites (1 Kgs 8:23, 60; 18:39) and foreigners (2 Kgs 5:15) alike confess that he is the only God. But his relationship to his people is problematical. It is not clear whether he has promised not to “blot out the name of Israel from under heaven” (2 Kgs 14:27; cf. 13:23) or whether a stage may be reached when he has to “remove them out of his sight” (2 Kgs 17:18, 20, 23; 24:3). Similarly, it is not clear whether the promise to David that his dynasty will endure forever is conditional (1 Kgs 2:1–4; 9:1–5) or unconditional (1 Kgs 11:36; 2 Kgs 8:19). Yahweh has commanded that children shall not be put to death for the sins of their parents (2 Kgs 14:6), yet he himself can punish the sins of some of the northern kings by blotting out their whole families (1 Kgs 14:10–11; 15:29; 16:3–4, 11–12; 21:21–22, 24; 2 Kgs 9:8–9; 10:10–11). Yahweh’s prophets are expected to tell the truth (1 Kgs 22:16), yet he can apparently countenance deception (1 Kgs 13:18) and actually use it to lure a king to his doom (1 Kgs 22:19–23). Through his prophets he calls both for compassion toward enemy prisoners (2 Kgs 6:21–22) and for their destruction (1 Kgs 20:31–34, 42). These conflicts arise partly from the variety of source material employed, but also from unresolved tensions in the minds of the Deuteronomists themselves. Yahweh’s compassion and forgiveness are by no means to be taken for granted, but are still the object of hope and prayer in the most desperate situations (1 Kgs 8:27–53).

Influence of 1 and 2 Kings. The books of Kings have been influential in the history of Europe in seeming to provide models for the good and bad behavior of rulers and their subjects. Monarchs have wanted to be thought as wise as Solomon and have not lacked courtiers willing to make the comparison. The division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death was at the time of the Reformation taken as both condemning and justifying the schism in the church. That kings could dedicate temples, inaugurate festivals, and appoint and dismiss priests and were held responsible for religious practice seemed to...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• 1 and 2 Kings
• Get the complete commentary!