1 & 2 Kings

By David B. Schreiner and Lee Compson

Kerux Commentaries enables pastors and teachers to understand and effectively present the main message in a biblical text

Each Kerux volume enhances the reader's ability to deliver a message that is biblical, cohesive, and dynamic.

Here Schreiner and Compson discuss reading and teaching from Old Testament historical books, including how Old Testament history relates to drastically different communities. In the case of 1 and 2 Kings, the historical players in Israel's divided monarchy are distinct from the Babylonian exiles for whom the text was compiled and even further removed from present-day readers. The biblical author of 1 and 2 Kings clearly teaches that human choice and divine sovereignty are not in conflict, nor do either absolve individual actors of the consequences they must face for their choices and actions.

1 and 2 Kings present an overarching view of Judah and Israel as kingdoms both in their glory and their degradation. By examining these books and presenting thorough exegesis within preachable units of text, Schreiner and Compson guide preachers and teachers in articulating biblical--and therefore eminently meaningful--applications for Christians.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Kregel Ministry
• Release date: Aug 16, 2022
• ISBN: 9780825469800

David B. Schreiner

David B. Schreiner (PhD, Asbury Theological Seminary) is an associate professor of Old Testament at Wesley Biblical Seminary in Ridgeland, Mississippi. He is the author of Pondering the Spade and publishes widely on issues of biblical history and interpretation.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION TO 1 & 2 KINGS

OVERVIEW OF 1 & 2 KINGS

Author: Likely multiple writers; possibly a single writer

Provenance: Multiple contexts associated with the place of the writers; final edition possibly in Mesopotamia but also possibly in Yehud early in the Second Temple period

Date: Earliest portions likely written early in the United Monarchy, and continued until shortly after the fall of Jerusalem

Readers: Israelites, Judeans, and the members of the Second Temple community

Historical Setting: In Israel and Judah, from the United Monarchy through the destruction of Jerusalem

Occasion: To explain the history of Israel and Judah, and ultimately the Babylonian exile

Genre: Ancient historiography

Theological Emphases: Legacies; effects of choices; differences between Judah and Israel; effects of perpetual covenantal disobedience

Kings details the exploits of Judean and Israelite kings, several prophets, foreign kings, as well as the twists and turns of two nations once united. Consequently, one can say that Kings is primarily concerned with people. From Solomon, to Ahab, to Elijah and Elisha, to Hezekiah, and beyond, Kings recounts the exploits of important people across the history of ancient Israel. And this biographical concern only supplements the historiographic intentions of the book. Given the recurring regnal formulas that form the backbone of the book’s structural divisions (see below), the book’s biographical concerns are presented in the form of a national history. Therefore, Kings argues that individuals are a part of something larger than themselves. The exploits and experiences, the faith or faithlessness, of individuals can shape the contours of a nation’s history.

But is Kings history? Should Kings be classified as proper history writing? The complexities of the debate notwithstanding, one should feel comfortable describing Kings as history writing, even good history writing. Indeed, one should be mindful of the differences between ancient and modern history writing, namely that ancient history writers operated by different canons and conventions. Nevertheless, as long as a modern reader can respect the differences and consider Kings in the vein of ancient history writing, the integrity of the account and the theological potency of the text can be appreciated. Kings is a historical account of Israel and Judah that documents their existence within the Promised Land and the rationale for their tragic exile.

AUTHORSHIP OF 1 AND 2 KINGS

Issues of authorship, audience, and date of composition are often intimately connected, and Kings represents a particularly frustrating case. In short, seeking clarity on issues of authorship, audience, and date of composition forces one to consider the literary history behind the final form of Kings, a discussion where ideas are diverse and potentially incompatible.

Jewish tradition holds that Jeremiah the prophet was the author of Kings (Baba Bathra, 15a). This is undoubtedly due to the literary connection between 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52, the historical connection between Jeremiah’s context of ministry and the fall of Judah, and perhaps the emphasis upon the prophetic institution within Kings. However, Jeremianic authorship is not widely held among modern scholars, although there are exceptions (e.g., Maier 2018, 6–25). Instead, perceptions of authorship and date of composition, which in turn affects audience, is greatly influenced by modern critical theories.¹

Ideas of authorship for Kings can be categorized in two broad categories.

One writer compiled several sources and traditions into a coherent whole. The debate in this category is when to date the work.

There were multiple writers, who worked in different social and historical contexts, responsible for the composition of Kings. In this category, there is a host of opinions. Were there two primary historians who each produced an edition respectively? Were there more than two historians, which in turn implies more than two editions? When did the writers produce those editions? Before the exile? During the exile? After the exile? Or, some combination thereof?

DATE OF WRITING

Assuming the two broad categories just mentioned, if one accepts a single author, the issue is determining when the author worked, even though the ending of Kings (2 Kings 25:27–30) suggests the middle of the sixth century as the ending point. For example, Martin Noth argued that a singular historian wrote Kings in the middle of the sixth century (Noth 1991) while Van Seters argued that a singular historian wrote closer to the Hellenistic period (Van Seters 1983).

If one holds to the idea that Kings is the result of a lengthy and complicated history of development, then questions about a date of writing will yield multiple answers. For instance, one historian could have worked in the seventh or sixth centuries with a final historian working later in the fifth. Or, there remains a possibility for an initial historian to have worked during the exile with subsequent historian(s) working after the exile. Options and reconstructions are legion.

Second Temple Period

The Second Temple period is defined in several ways. Generally, it designates the time that the second temple existed. Dedicated in 516 BCE, the second temple stood until the Roman general Titus razed it when he sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE. The period was a time of foreign occupation (Persians, Greeks, and Romans) but also a relatively brief period of Jewish independence under the Hasmoneans. As detailed by the Old Testament books traditionally dated to this period (1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) and the host of intertestamental literature, the primary concerns of the Jewish community during this period included questions of theology and identity in light of a community that was being spread throughout the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean world. Without an independent kingdom in the Promised Land and a perpetual state of foreign occupation, such questions became critical.

OCCASION FOR WRITING AND AUDIENCE

Predictably then, the question of audience is also complicated. The possibility of a preexilic edition of Kings notwithstanding, the book of Kings in its final form was originally compiled and written for the exilic and Second Temple communities. It was written to give an account of Israelite history and explain the Babylonian exile. It sought to explain who Judah and Israel were and why Israel no longer exists. It also intended to explain what caused the schism between the once-unified countries, and the role of the Mosaic covenant and Davidic promise in the unfolding of these events. Perhaps most importantly, it sought to discuss if there was any hope for Judah and the Davidic line.

As the Second Temple period progressed, so too did the book’s importance for the community. Perhaps Ezra’s prayer best demonstrates how the book continued to edify the community. Responding to the egregious shortcomings of the Judean leadership, Ezra draws from the lessons found in the book of Kings to declare humiliatingly that his community is on the path to committing the same deeds that precipitated the Babylonian exile (Ezra 9:5–15). Thus, Howard is surely on target when he suggests that the book of Kings functioned in something other than a purely historical capacity. The book of Kings sought to keep the past at the forefront of the mind of the Second Temple community, perpetually reminding them of the consequences of covenantal infidelity and the enduring quality of God’s Word (Howard 1993, 196–97).

Yet the Second Temple period ultimately produced social developments and questions that were not directly addressed by the book of Kings nor relevant to the original audience, such as the rising questions about Israel’s relationship to an ever-expanding geographic frame of reference. The period produced new questions about the Davidic dynasty’s role in an increasingly dominant imperialistic context. But despite these developments, the book of Kings was not abandoned by subsequent generations as an authoritative text. It remained a concise and honest explanation of Israel’s darkest moments. But it also became the foundational source for a new historical reflection, 1 and 2 Chronicles. So, while the occasion for writing of Kings is best fixed to the context of the early Second Temple period, its message continued to affect the Judean community well beyond the sixth and fifth centuries.

Deuteronomistic History

The Deuteronomistic History is a scholarly term that refers to a range of books that display theological and thematic uniformity, and there is reason to believe that they may have been composed together. According to the theory classically defined, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings were composed with Deuteronomy in the middle of the sixth century BCE to explain the Babylonian Exile. Deuteronomy, as the lead in the historical account, articulated the theological standard against which Israel and Judah would later be judged. Both countries’ inability to live in accord with Deuteronomy’s theology secured the destruction of Israel and the exile of Judah.

A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF KINGS

Articulating the specifics about who wrote Kings, when they wrote it, and for whom it was written thrusts one into an arena where there is no clear winner. Therefore, the question, How does one even discuss the question of authorship, date of composition, and audience? is worth asking.

The way forward is to first frame the boundaries of the debate and allow the conversation to progress within that framework. As such, one must first accept that the canons of history writing and literary composition, including notions about authorship, were different in antiquity (Rollston, 2010; Schniedewind, 2004; Walton and Sandy, 2013). Thus, we cannot assume that modern ideas of authorship equate to those in antiquity. Second, writing in Israel was a controlled skill that required a certain economic and political infrastructure. Therefore, any statement of dating must account for social and historical contexts that would have been conducive to large-scale literary development. Third, whoever was responsible for the composition utilized source material. Fourth, the ideological imprint of Deuteronomy upon Kings is beyond question. In the words of Richter, Deuteronomy is the theological foundation of Israel’s self-understanding and represents the political agreement that dictates the precepts by which Yahweh and Israel had agreed to govern their relationship (Richter, 2005, 228). Fifth, there is significant literary-critical evidence to suggest that the so-called Deuteronomistic History was published in both preexilic and postexilic editions.

Applying this framework to Kings, the book was likely the product of a literary endeavor that transcended the boundaries of Kings. It was likely composed along with traditions that came to constitute elements of other biblical books, namely the books of Deuteronomy and Samuel. The quintessential proof is the Deuteronomic ideology that permeates Kings and the legacy of David that demands a frame of reference offered in the books of Samuel. Also, it is reasonable to think of at least two editions of Kings before the final form. This is based on a few considerations. First, 2 Kings 18:5 states that Hezekiah trusted in the Lord the God of Israel; so that there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah after him, or among those who were before him. Similarly, 2 Kings 23:25 proclaims that before Josiah there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might according to the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him. These incomparability statements are often understood as climactic statements reminiscent of older editions of Kings.² Second, as just alluded, scholarship has produced a variety of literary critical studies that demonstrate 1) that Israelite historians employed ancient Near Eastern literary conventions and 2) that Kings developed analogously to other historical works in antiquity. What started with the work of Cross gave way to Nelson, Halpern, and others. Moreover, Halpern and Vanderhooft have studied the variations within the regnal framework and concluded that there is evidence of subtle shifts in style that are indicative of three editions of Kings: a Hezekian, a Josianic, and a final edition. The cumulative effect of such studies translates into the likelihood that Kings manifests a lengthy and complex history of development punctuated by two editions before the final one.

Nevertheless, to what degree of certainty can one speak of older editions before the final form? And, to what extent do these ideas play into the present task? Admittedly, terms of certainty can only proceed so far. There is no extant manuscript that evidences either a Hezekian or Josianic edition of Kings. Moreover, critical studies are, by nature, tentative and debatable. However, there is a consensus around the idea of a Hezekian and Josianic edition among those who accept the probability of large-scale literary development between 1000–586 BCE. In other words, circumstantial evidence and critical theory establish the warrant to refer to Hezekian and Josianic editions of Kings.³ However, this does not imply that our exegetical focus will be on a reconstructed early edition of Kings. Rather, the exegetical focus for this project will fall upon the final form of Kings. The literary history of Kings will be considered only when it is deemed to explain or illuminate the final form.

Ultimately, the answer to the question of authorship, audience, and date of composition for Kings is threefold. The first edition of Kings was likely a Hezekian History. This account climaxed with an account of Hezekiah’s reign, which included an emphasis upon Jerusalem’s salvation. It was likely sanctioned by the Judean royal court in the wake of Sennacherib’s third military campaign to answer questions likely circulating about Judah’s place moving forward and to emphasize the superiority of Judah versus Israel. Thus, one can speak of a date of composition at the very end of the eighth century or the beginning of the seventh. The Josianic History constitutes the next edition, and it sought to celebrate the exploits of Josiah and Judah during the waning years of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The difficulty with the second edition is when to date the composition. Josiah’s sudden death occurred shortly before the Battle of Carchemish (605 BCE). Thus, one can make a general statement of composition being at the end of the seventh or at the beginning of the sixth century BCE. The final edition of Kings is the final form, and it, in the vein of Noth, explained Judah’s exile to Babylon in 586 BCE. As to a date of composition, the final verses are informative. Because 2 Kings 25:27–30 recounts the house arrest of Jehoiachin, the final edition of Kings was likely not finalized before the middle of the sixth century