1 Kings 1

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).

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.

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 1Kings 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 1Kings 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 2Kings 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 2Kings 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 2Kings 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 2Kings 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 2Kings 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 1Kings 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).

5. 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 1Kings 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 1Kings 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

Matthew 6:29

Solomon in all his glory

1 Kings 1-11

Matthew 11:14;

Luke 9:8

EIias=Elijah

1Kings 17

2 Kings 2

Luke 4:25-26

The famine in Israel for 3½years; Elijah’s visit to Sarepra=Zarephath

1Kings 17

Luke 4:27

Cleansing of Naaman

2Kings 5

Luke 9:54

Elijah calling down fire

2Kings 1

Acts 7:47

Solomon building the Temple

1Kings 6

Romans 11:2-4

7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal

1 Kings 19:10-18

Hebrews 11:35

Women received their dead raised to life again

1 Kings 17:17-24;

2 Kings 4:18-37

James 5:17

Klijah prayed for famine and later for rain

1 Kings 17:1

1 Kings 18:41-45

Revelation 2:20

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 2Samuel 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, 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

AAI

E. G. Kraeling, Aram and Israel. New York: Co- lumbia University, 1918.

ABH

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

ARI

AS

ASV

American Standard Version (1901).

BA

BAR

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

BBC

BC

BCc

BCOT

BCOTc

BETS

Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society.

BG

BGH

BH

BRP

BV

The Berkley Version in Modern Speech (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1945).

CGK

DOTT

DRNB

EBH

FSAC

FTK

HB

HBC

HBSKC

William D. Crockett, A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956 reprint).

HI

HPS

IA

IAC

IB

ICB

ICC

IDB

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal.

IOT

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature.

JCBR

JETS

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.

JFB

JL

James E. Smith, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Bible Study Textbook Series, Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1972).

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

JOT

JTEH

KJV

King James Version (1611).

LC

LJC

MAAI

MNHK

NASB

NBC

NBD

OLB

Michael Avi-Yonah and Emil Kraeling, Our Living Bible (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962).

OSJ

OTFD

OTH

William Smith, Old Testament History (revised by Wilbur Fields; Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1967).

OTI

OTIH

OTL

OTMS

OTOC

PC

PCc

PSQ

RSV

Revised Standard Version (1952).

SBA

Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).

SBB

SHLT

SOTI

Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964).

SSW

STE

SVT

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum.

UK

Charles F. Pfeiffer, The United Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970).

UOT

WBC

Charles R. Wilson, Kings in vol. I, part I of The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, ed. Charles W. Carter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967).

WMTS

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.

CHAPTER TWO SOLOMON’S CORONATION

1 Kings 1:1-53

The passing of a powerful monarch was always a crucial time in ancient empires. This was particularly the case when David died. Monarchy was relatively new in Israel and no long-established tradition of succession existed to guide the nation through the transfer of power. It would seem that the people expected David to nominate his successor (1 Kings 1:20); but the tribal elders reserved for themselves the right of final endorsement.[73] Though David had privately tapped Solomon to succeed him, he does not appear to have made any public, formal announcement of his decision. This left the door open for Adonijah, David’s eldest son, to make a bid for the throne. The first two Chapter s of Kings relate how the efforts of Adonijah were foiled and how Solomon was anointed and established as the third king of the United Kingdom. Details concerning the last days of David have been included for the purpose of (1) closing the account of David’s reign; (2) setting the stage for the dramatic coronation of Solomon; and (3) providing an explanation for the bold moves made by Solomon at the outset of his reign (chap. 2).

[73] Cf. 2 Samuel 5:3; 1 Kings 12:1 ff.

The material contained in chapter one lends itself to the following analysis: (1) the conspiracy of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:1-10); (2) the counter-measures of Nathan (1 Kings 1:11-27); and (3) the coronation of Solomon (1 Kings 1:28-53).

SPECIAL STUDY THE CHRONOLOGY OF SOLOMON’S ACCESSION

This study deals with the question much debated among commentators, viz., Had David publicly designated Solomon as his successor prior to the Adonijah revolt? That it was known privately that Solomon should succeed his father is obvious from a reading of both Kings and Chronicles. With a great deal of assurance it can be affirmed that at least five people knew that David’s choice for his successor was Solomon: David himself, Nathan, Bathsheba, Adonijah, and Solomon.

In 1 Chronicles 22:7-10, David relates to his son, that even before his birth God had designated Solomon to be the builder of the Temple and the ruler of Israel. God had said: I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever (1 Kings 1:10). Scholars generally assume that David had reference to the oracle delivered to him by Nathan the prophet which is recorded in 1Chronicles 17 and 2Samuel 7. Solomon, however, is not specifically mentioned in either version of the Nathan oracle. Furthermore, some time appears to have elapsed between the proclamation of the Nathan oracle and David’s marriage to Bathsheba. For these reasons one must entertain the possibility that David received directly or through Nathan subsequent revelation specifying which of his sons was in view in the original Nathan oracle of 1Chronicles 17 and 2Samuel 7.

Scripture also states that David had given an oath to Bathsheba that her son Solomon would succeed to the throne (1 Kings 1:13; 1 Kings 1:17). There is no indication when this oath was taken. That it necessarily would have to follow the marriage to Bathsheba and precede the Adonijah rebellion is obvious. The oath may have been taken even before Solomon was born, in which case Bathsheba would have known for fifteen or more years that her son would be king.

Nathan certainly knew prior to the revolt of Adonijah that Solomon would be king. He had either been present when David gave his oath to Bathsheba, or was told of it by the one or the other (1 Kings 1:13). Even before that, Nathan may have known that Solomon would be king. It is quite reasonable to assume that the word of God which came to David concerning the future reign of Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9-10) was brought by Nathan.

That Adonijah recognized Solomon as the king’s choice is evidenced in the fact that he was the only brother of Adonijah not invited to the En-rogel banquet (1 Kings 1:10). Had David made an announcement to his family and members of the court? Or had Adonijah drawn this conclusion from the favoritism shown to Solomon? There is no way to answer these questions.

But the important question is, Had there been any public, formal announcement that Solomon would succeed David prior to Adonijah’s revolt? The answer to this question depends on where one places the events of 1 Chronicles 23-29 in the reign of David. More specifically, the question hinges on the interpretation of 1 Chronicles 23:1: Now when David reached old age, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. Immediately following this verse the Chronicler has recorded that David called a great national convention at which he reorganized the religious and civil officers (1 Chronicles 23-27), rose to his feet (1 Chronicles 28:2) and delivered a lengthy and magnificent farewell speech (1 Chronicles 28:1 to 1 Chronicles 29:19). These events are followed by a second anointing of Solomon: And they made Solomon son of David king a second time, and they anointed him as ruler for the LORD, and Zadok as priest (1 Chronicles 29:22).

Now how do these Chapter s in Chronicles fit with relation to the picture of 1Kings 1 of a bed-ridden, decrepit David being forced by circumstances to declare himself in favor of Solomon? Should one think of the great national assembly of 1 Chronicles 23-29 occurring earlier in David’s reign when the king was in much better health? Or should these events be placed after the Adonijah rebellion and the anointing at the Gihon? Does 1 Chronicles 23:1 describe a separate and distinct declaration of Solomon apart from his anointing in 1 Kings 1:39 and his second anointing in 1 Chronicles 29:22? On these questions commentators have taken four different positions.

1. According to Keil,[102] Solomon’s accession took place in three stages: He was nominated as king by David sometime prior to the rebellion by Adonijah (1 Chronicles 23:1). He was anointed king by Nathan and Zadok at the Gihon (1 Kings 1:39). He was subsequently anointed by the national assembly of leaders convoked by David before his death (1 Chronicles 29:22).

[102] Keil, BCOTc, pp. 252, 300-301.

2. Crockett[103] sees two stages in the accession of Solomon. In 1 Chronicles 23:1 Solomon was made king the first time at a national convention called by David before the revolt of Absalom. He thinks that 1 Chronicles 29:22 is parallel to 1 Kings 1:39 and over this material he places the caption, Solomon Made King -the Second Time.-'

[103] Crockett, HBSKC, pp. 142, 160-161.

3. Ellison[104] and others see 1 Chronicles 23:1 as nothing more than a literary device summarizing what is later treated more fully in 1 Chronicles 29:22. In this arrangement Solomon ascends the throne in two stages, the first being his emergency anointing at Gihon (1 Kings 1:39), and the second being his anointing at the national convention in 1 Chronicles 29:22.

[104] Ellison, NBC, pp. 350, 352.

4. Rawlinson,[105] Barker,[106] Edersheim[107] and many others see 1 Chronicles 23:1 as a summary of and brief allusion to the events of 1Kings 1. It grieved the Chronicler too much to record the circumstances under which Solomon was anointed the first time. Concerning the second anointing he goes into quite some detail in 1Chronicles 29.

[105] Rawlinson, BCc, p. 252. [106] Barker, PC, p. 374. [107] Edersheim, BH, V, 55.

If David had made a formal, official pronouncement in favor of Solomon prior to Adonijah’s attempted coup, it is difficult to explain why Nathan and Bathsheba were so concerned to secure from him such a pronouncement in 1Kings 1. Bathsheba’s words in 1 Kings 1:20 are the death knell to any view making 1 Chronicles 23:1 refer to an actual anointing of Solomon (Crockett) or for that matter to his formal nomination (Keil): And as for you, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are upon you that you might declare to them who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king after him. The best viewand the view of the majority of commentatorsis that 1 Chronicles 23:1 is an allusion to the events of 1Kings 1. The Chronicler deliberately has chosen to omit the grim details of how David was forced by the actions of his eldest son to elevate Solomon to the throne.

If, then, Solomon’s initial formal nomination and elevation to the throne is recorded in 1Kings 1, where do the events recorded in 1 Chronicles 23-29 fit in? The only conclusion can be that these Chapter s narrate actions taken by David subsequent to the anointing of Solomon recorded in 1Kings 1. Thus between chapter one and two of I Kings, David mustered enough physical strength and mental alertness to convoke a national assembly, initiate certain administrative changes, and deliver his final address to the leadership of the tribes. In the colorful language of Kitto:[108] The waning spark of David’s life gleamed up once again before it finally expired. It is then recorded that those present in the assembly made Solomon the king the second time and anointed him unto the LORD to be prince (1 Chronicles 29:22). After this it is said: Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him (1 Chronicles 29:23). The Chronicler emphasizes the universal acceptance of Solomon by adding: And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons of King David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king (1 Chronicles 29:24).

[108] Kitto, HB, p. 334.

If the preceding reconstruction of events is correct, then Kings records one anointing of Solomon the details of which Chronicles ignores, while Chronicles mentions a second anointing passed over in Kings. Concerning this, Robert Jamieson[109] has observed:

[109] Jamieson, JFB, p. 509.

This mention of a second anointing, in a historical book which does not record the first, and the description of the first in another historical book which does not contain any allusion to the second, forms an undesigned coincidence which furnishes a strong confirmation of its truth.

THE TWO CORONATIONS OF SOLOMON

First Coronation

Second Coronation

1 Kings 1:1 to 1 Kings 2:11

1 Chronicles 28-29

At Gihon

At the Palace

Necessitated by Adonijah’s actions

Planned by David’s authority

Made king by David

Made king by the assembly

Anointed by Zadok

Anointed by the assembly

Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father.. 1 Chronicles 29:23

REVIEW OF CHAPTER TWO

I. FACTS TO MASTER A. What role did each of the following play in the anointing of Solomon:

1. Abiathar

2. David

3. Abishag

4. Joab

5. Adonijah

6. Jonathan

7. Bathsheba

8. Nathan

9. Benaiah

10. Zadok

B. Know the significance of the following places mentioned in chapter 1:

1. En-rogel
2. Gihon
3. Shunem

II. QUESTIONS TO PONDER

What evidence is there in the life of David that he failed as a father?

Why did Adonijah’s cause gain such solid support even from those noted for their loyalty to David?

Why was Nathan so concerned about the activities of Adonijah?

What is the psychology behind the plan by which Nathan proposed to stir the aged king to action?

When had David given Bathsheba an oath that her son would be king?

When and how had God revealed to David that Solomon was the divine choice?

Why was the Gihon chosen as the scene of Solomon’s anointing?

What steps did David take to make sure the people knew he approved of Solomon’s anointing?

How many times and in what sequence was Solomon made king or anointed?

What oil was used in Solomon’s anointing? Why was oil used? Were kings always anointed?

Why was Solomon so magnanimous in sparing the life of Adonijah on the day of his anointing?

Lessons in Living

THE TWO BROTHERS

**ADONIJAII

SOLOMON**

Endued with Beauty

Endued with Wisdom

Admired of Men

Loved of God (2 Samuel 12:24)

Ambitious

Pious (1 Kings 3:3)

Sought to Force Events

Waited Patiently for the Lord

Rebelled against his Father

Reverenced his Mother

Rejected by God

Chosen by God

Lost Everything

Gained a Kingdom

1 Kings 1:1-4

I. THE CONSPIRACY OF ADONIJAH 1:1-10

David’s final years were full of turmoil and tribulation and even as he lay critically ill and at the point of death he was yet to experience one last heartbreak. His disgruntled eldest son, Adonijah, tried to take advantage of David’s condition and usurp the throne. By the way of background the author first describes (1) the decrepitude of David (1 Kings 1:1-4); and then (2) the designs of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5-10).

A. DAVID’S DECREPITUDE 1:1-4

**TRANSLATION

(1) Now King David was old, advanced in years; and they covered him with covers, but he could not make himself warm. (2) Therefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a maiden who is a virgin and let her stand before the king, and be his intimate companion; and let her lie in your bosom, that my lord the king may be warm. (3) So they sought for a fair maiden in all the borders of Israel, and they found Abishag the Shunammite, and they brought her to the king. (4) The maiden was exceedingly fair, and she became an intimate companion to the king, and she ministered to him; but the king knew her not.

COMMENTS**

At the outset two points of a somewhat technical nature need to be made. The chapter is introduced with the word now which renders the Hebrew particle vav. While this particle usually has a connecting force, it is frequently used at the beginning of a book where there is no connection whatever with any earlier writing (as in Esther, Ezekiel, Jonah, etc.). Therefore, one cannot argue on the basis of this particle that the author of Kings considered his work a continuation of preceding history (as Rawlinson argues) or that he has lifted this material from a writing containing the earlier history of David (as Keil argues). The second point concerns the title king which is given to David in this chapter. While this title is used infrequently in Samuel, it is characteristic of the author of Kings.

The Book of Kings opens with a sad scene. David the mighty hero of the books of Samuel has succumbed to the vicissitudes of his life and reign. He is an old man stricken in years (lit., entered into days). Since David began to reign when he was thirty years old, and since he ruled forty years (2 Samuel 5:4), he must have been seventy years of age at this time.[74] The hardships of his youth, the wounds of battle, the sorrows of his later years, and perhaps disease as well have all taken their toll. Even though blankets were piled upon him, the old king was not able to maintain normal body temperature (1 Kings 1:1).

[74] Of the kings of Judah only David, Solomon and Manasseh exceeded sixty years of age.

As a solution to the king’s desperate physical condition, the court servantsperhaps the royal physicians[75]suggested that a young virgin (lit., a maiden, a virgin) be secured to stand before the king, i.e., to become his servant. She was to be young so that her body might provide warmth to the ailing monarch; a virgin, as befitted a king. She was to become a companion (sekhenet) to the king, i.e., one who stands in intimate relationship with another.[76] Suggested in this Hebrew word is the idea that the maiden would become a concubine to the king (1 Kings 1:2).[77]

[75] Josephus (Ant. VIII, 19.3) regarded the advice to procure a maiden as a medical prescription.

[76] Slotki, SBB. p. 1. [77] While the evidence falls short of being conclusive, in the light of Solomon’s violent response to Adonijah’s request to marry Abishag it seems best to regard her as a member of the royal harem. Cf. Gray, QTL, p. 76.

With David’s consent, a search was conducted throughout the kingdom for a suitable maiden. Finally in the tribe of Issachar, the town of Shunem,[78] the royal committee found a girl named Abishag who met all the qualifications (1 Kings 1:3). She was very fair (lit., fair to exceeding), and apparently willing to become the intimate companion to the decrepit king. Abishag ministered unto the physical needs of David, but the king knew her not (v.4). This latter remark serves the dual purpose of indicating the wane of David’s physical faculties[79] and the legal grounds upon which Adonijah would dare to request the hand of this maiden after David’s death (1 Kings 2:17).

[78] Shunem is the modern Arab town of Sulem, located about seven miles from Nazareth. Another Shunammite woman appears in 2 Kings 4:8.

[79] Snaith (IB, pp. 19-20) feels that the Israelite king, like his Canaanite counterpart, had to prove his sexual potency or lose his right to govern. According to this theory, Abishag was procured in order to excite David sexually. Wilson (WBC p. 241) has fol lowed Snaith in this interpretation for which there is not the slightest warrant in the text. While the phrase lie in your bosom often refers to sexual intimacy, the meaning is here modified by the primary purpose of the suggested remedy, viz., the supplying of vital body heat by physical contact. See Matheney and Honeycutt, BC, p. 151.

1 Kings 1:5-10

B. ADONIJAH’S DESIGNS 1:5-10

**TRANSLATION

(5) Now Adonijah the son of Haggith was exalting himself, saying, Surely I will be king! And he prepared for himself a chariot, horses,[80] and fifty men who would run before him. (6) Now his father had not afflicted him all his days, saying, Why have you acted this way? And he also was very handsome, and furthermore he had been born after Absalom. (7) And he conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest; and they followed Adonijah and helped him. (8) But Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoida, and Nathan the prophet, and Shimei, and Rei and David’s Gibborim were not with Adonijah. (9) And Adonijah slew sheep, cattle and fatlings at the stone of Zoheleth which is by En-rogel; and he summoned all his brothers, sons of the king, and all the men of Judah who were servants of the king. (10) But Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the Gibborim and Solomon his brother he did not summon.**

[80] Heb. parashim. Scholars disagree as to whether the term here refers to the horses (Gray) which pulled the chariot, or to a mounted escort which accompanied Adonijah as he rode his chariot (Keil).

COMMENTS

Adonijah, the son of Haggith[81] was the fourth, and now apparently the eldest surviving son of David (2 Samuel 3:4). David’s firstborn, Amnon, had been slain in a plot instigated by his younger brother (2 Samuel 13:28 f.) Absalom, the third son of David, was slain in battle when he led a rebellion against his father (2 Samuel 18:15). Of David’s second son, Chileab (or Daniel as he is called in 1 Chronicles 3:1), little is known. It is likely that he died very young since nothing is recorded of him. According to the principle of primogeniture (that the oldest son should follow his father as king), Adonijah was now entitled to the throne. But God’s ways are not man’s ways, and the heavenly King had reserved for Himself the right to choose the earthly king. At his birth, God through His prophet had given a special name to SolomonJedidiah which means beloved of the LORD. David discerned in this that God had chosen Solomon to be his successor, and consequently he gave a solemn oath to Bathsheba that her son would follow him on the throne (cf. 1 Kings 1:13; 1 Kings 1:30).

[81] Haggith means dancer and perhaps is given to afford an indication of the weak and trifling character of the prince. Tuck, FTK, p. 72.

It must have been common knowledge about the palace that David desired Solomon to be his successor (cf. 1 Kings 1:13). His father’s preferences notwithstanding, Adonijah was determined to make a bid for the crown. While David’s physical condition became progressively worse, Adonijah was exalting himself. He boasted to himself and his confederates that one day he would be king. Confident in his claims to the crown, Adonijah made no effort to conceal his conspiracy. Borrowing a leaf from Absalom’s book of subversive tactics (cf. 2 Samuel 15:1 ff.), Adonijah prepared for himself a chariot and horses and fifty men to run before him to herald his coming (1 Kings 1:5).[82] With this dazzling display of regal pomp, the prince hoped to capture the allegiance of the people, and win the backing of the royal court.

[82] Chariots and horses in the days of David were a comparative novelty. When David captured horses, he had all but a few hamstrung (2 Samuel 8:4).

In 1 Kings 1:6 the author attempts to explain the reasons for this reprehensible conduct on the part of Adonijah. In the first place, Adonijah, like Absalom before him, was a spoiled brat. While David was a success in most areas of life, abundant evidence exists that he was a failure as a father. He had never disciplined Adonijah, nor called him to account for his conduct. The young prince began to think of himself as his father’s favorite and presumptive heir. Since Adonijah was born when David ruled in Hebron, he must have been between thirty-three and forty years of age at the time of David’s grave illness. Still he acts like an arrogant and obnoxious brat. He had so little respect for his father that he would not allow the old man to go down to his grave without this last heartbreak. Bahr observes, a perverted parent love is self-punishment. If the father does not trouble the son, the son will trouble the father.[83]

[83] Bahr, LC, p. 27.

Secondly, because of his personal attractiveness Adonijah was bold in his pretensions to the throne. He, like Absalom, was a goodly man, i.e., a man of handsome physique. Josephus, the Jewish historian, makes mention of his stature. Perhaps Adonijah felt that his physical attributes made him the likely and logical candidate for the crown.

Then too, Adonijah’s seniority among the sons of David carried considerable weight in many circles. He was born after Absalom, and, since the latter was dead, Adonijah was now next in line for the throne. So the argument went. No doubt many people considered it a grave injustice that Adonijah had been slighted and Solomon groomed for kingship. In his mid-thirties at this time, Adonijah must have seemed much more qualified than his younger brother Solomon who was scarcely more than a teenager.

Last but not least, Adonijah was encouraged in his pretensions by powerful and influential national leaders. The prestigious general of David’s army, Joab, backed the claims of Adonijah. Throughout his career Joab, the son of David’s sister Zeruiah (1 Chronicles 2:16), was known for his unwavering fidelity to David. Even when he had disobeyed royal commands, he always had the best interest of his king in mind. Some have conjectured that Joab’s support of Adonijah was in his own best interest. According to this theory Joab knew that he was under David’s displeasure for his two cold-blooded murders, and for the battlefield execution of Absalom. He feared that Solomon would mete out to him the vengeance which David could not bring himself to execute. So, the theory concludes, by backing Adonijah Joab was acting in his own self-interest. No one, of course, can know for sure what motivated Joab to cast his lot with Adonijah. The present writer feels that acting in his own self-interest would be out of character for Joab. He feared no one, and there does not appear to have been a selfish bone in his body. Whatever other faults Joab may have had, he never tried to use his powerful position for personal advantage. Probably Joab felt that Adonijah was legally the successor of David and logically the man best suited for the job.

No less significant was the support which Adonijah received from Abiathar the priest (1 Kings 1:7). Abiathar was the sole survivor when Saul massacred the priests at Nob (1 Samuel 22:20). He shared the afflictions of David when the latter fled from the insane Saul (1 Samuel 22:23) and was rewarded under the reign of David by being named to a position of leadership in the priesthood. Zadok, who shared the priesthood with Abiathar, is usually mentioned first (2 Samuel 15:29; 2 Samuel 15:35-36; 2 Samuel 20:25) as though he were the more important and influential. Probably Zadok was the chief priest[84] and Abiathar the slightly less prestigious second priest. To secure the support of this influential religious leader, Adonijah may have promised to restore the high priesthood to the family of Abiathar exclusively. This, of course, is mere speculation. Once again it may have been simply that Abiathar felt that Adonijah had a legitimate claim to the throne.

[84] Zadok likely became high priest by succeeding Jehoiada who certainly had been high priest in the days of Saul. He and thirty-seven hundred followers joined David at Hebron after the death of Saul. See 1 Chronicles 12:27; 1 Chronicles 27:5.

While Adonijah was successful in enlisting the support of Joab and Abiathar, other prominent military and religious leaders remained steadfastly loyal to the express wishes of their dying king. Five are named in 1 Kings 1:8. (1) Zadok, the high priest, during the reign of David remained faithful as did (2) Benaiah, the commander of the royal bodyguard. Benaiah was the son of Jehoiada the high priest (1 Chronicles 27:5) and consequently a priest in his own right. But because of his military skill (2 Samuel 23:20-21; 1 Chronicles 11:22), he was given command of the bodyguard (II S8:18; 1 Chronicles 18:17). He probably was a near relative of Zadok. (3) Nathan, the prophetic conscience of David’s reign, did not budge in his loyalty to the wishes of the king. Nathan is famous for two prophetic oracles: In the first oracle (2 Samuel 7), Nathan promised David that his descendants would rule Israel forever. Jesus Christ, David’s greater son, is now ruling over His kingdom in ultimate fulfillment of this promise. Nathan is also famous for his fearless condemnation of David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12). A Jewish tradition identifies Nathan as the eighth son of Jesse. Various suggestions have been made as to the identity of (4) Shemi. Some think he may have been David’s brother Shammah (1 Samuel 16:9) or Shimeah as it is spelled in 2 Samuel 13:3; 2 Samuel 21:21. Others think he is the Shimei, son of Elah, in 1 Kings 4:18. A third view is that this is the same Shimei who once had cursed David, but who now was with Solomon (1 Kings 2:8). (5) Rei is completely unknown except for this passage.

Along with the five individuals named as being loyal to David, the author takes note of the fact that David’s mighty men refused to be swayed by the charm and charisma of Adonijah. The Gibborim (mighty men) seems to have been a military order for those who had performed valiant deeds on the field of battle. Thirty men had attained this honor and their names and exploits are recorded in 2Samuel 23 and 1Chronicles 11.

Undeterred by the lack of support from the key leaders mentioned in 1 Kings 1:8, Adonijah proceeded with plans to seize the throne. A great communal feast was to be the occasion at which Adonijah would have himself proclaimed king. En-rogel (lit., spring of treading)[85] was chosen as the location for the clandestine coronation. This spring, known today as the well of Job,[86] was located outside Jerusalem’s walls at about the point where the Kidron and Hinnom valleys meet southeast of the city. The spot was chosen because (1) it was politically advantageous for Adonijah to conduct his shady business outside Jerusalem which was literally the city of David; (2) the spring furnishes the best water available around Jerusalem; and (3) the spring was located in or very near the shady and cool king’s garden or paradise.[87] Even in modern times this area has been described as the prettiest and most fertile spot around Jerusalem.[88] The stone of Zoheleth (lit., stone of the serpent) mentioned in connection with En-rogel appears to be nothing more than a geographical landmark mentioned by the author to further pinpoint the spot where the feast took place.[89]

[85] Perhaps En-rogel was a spring where clothes would be washed by treading upon them with the feet. Several other possible explanations of the name are listed in Gray, OTL, pp. 81-82. [86] The oldest travelers to Palestine identified the well of Job as En-rogel and most modern scholars concur in their judgment. [87] Josephus (Ant. VII, 14.4) states that Adonijah feasted in the king’s paradise.

[88] Robinson, BRP, 1,419. [89] Perhaps the stone was used to allow the blood to drain from the slaughtered animals. Others think it may have been a huge overhanging rock that provided additional shade.

Animals in abundance were slaughtered[90] in order to provide meat for the numerous guests. All the king’s sons (except Solomon) and all the men of the tribe of Judah (Adonijah’s tribe) who served in David’s court were invited to the festivities (1 Kings 1:9). Of course those who opposed Adonijah were not invited (1 Kings 1:10). The fact that Solomon was excluded proves that Adonijah knew him to be David’s choice as successor.

[90] The Hebrew verb zabach means primarily to slaughter and does not necessarily carry the implication of sacrifice as some commentators wrongly suggest.

THE THRONE OF DAVID CONTESTED

Supporting Adonijah

Supporting Solomon

Joab (Captain)

Benaiah (Captain)

Abiathar (Priest) of house of Ithamar

Zadok (Priest) of house of Eleazar

Sons of the King

Nathan (Prophet)

King’s Servants (Men of Judah)

Bathsheba

King’s Servants

Jonathan

Shimei

Rei

Cherethites and Pelethites

Behold, a son shall be born to you. and his name shall be Solomon. and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 1 Chronicles 22:9-10

1 Kings 1:11-14

I. THE COUNTER-MEASURES OF NATHAN 1:11-27

Adonijah’s designs might have succeeded had it not been for the swift action of Nathan and Bathsheba. In narrating how the throne was made secure for Solomon, the author reports (1) Nathan’s wise counsel to Bathsheba (1 Kings 1:11-14); (2) Bathsheba’s impassioned plea to David (1 Kings 1:15-21); and (3) Nathan’s confirmatory speech before the king (1 Kings 1:22-27).

A. NATHAN’S WISE COUNSEL 1:11-14

**TRANSLATION

(11) Therefore Nathan said onto Bathsheba the mother of Solomon: Have you not heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith reigns, and David our lord does not know it? (12) Now therefore, come, let me, I pray you, give you counsel, that you may save your life and that of your son Solomon. (13) Go immediately unto King David and say unto him, Did you not, my lord, O king, swear unto your handmaid, saying, Surely Solomon your son shall reign after me, and shall sit upon my throne? Then why does Adonijah reign? (14) Behold while you are yet speaking there with the king, I also will come after you, and will confirm your words.

COMMENTS**

When Nathan heard of Adonijah’s coronation festivities, he took prompt and energetic action to thwart the conspiracy. To this prophet of God, Adonijah’s actions were an attempt to deliberately set aside the divine will. Very likely it was Nathan who had communicated to David that God had selected Solomon to be his successor, and hence he was properly anxious that the purpose of God should be fulfilled. Immediately he contacted Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, and informed her of the new developments. Already, it seems, Adonijah had announced his succession, or at least Nathan assumed this to be the case (1 Kings 1:11). Bathsheba was sought out as being the person, next to Solomon, most directly concerned, and also because she was, it seems, the favorite wife of the king. Nathan stressed the urgency of the situation by suggesting that unless the plot could be successfully countered, the life of both Bathsheba and Solomon would be in jeopardy (1 Kings 1:12). Nathan was not using scare tactics. Not inviting Solomon to his feast showed Adonijah’s feeling toward the latter, and indicated that he wanted no peaceful coexistence with his younger brother. Thus there was ample reason to believe that should the usurpation be a success, the lives of Solomon and all who supported him would be in grave danger. The custom of kings to secure their thrones by a massacre of their rivals is illustrated at least three times in the subsequent history of the kings.[91]

[91] 1 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 10:7; 2 Kings 10:14; 2 Kings 11:1.

Nathan’s skillfully arranged plan called for Bathsheba to approach the king first, and, with her womanly appeal, present the danger from the human standpoint. By means of a rhetorical question she was to remind her husband of a solemn oath which he had made to her, that her son Solomon would succeed him. This oath to Bathsheba is mentioned here for the first time. It is uncertain when David made that oath, but Nathan knew of it, and doubtlessly others at the court knew of it also. When David acknowledged that oath, she was by means of a second rhetorical question to inform him that Adonijah had already commenced his reign (1 Kings 1:13). Lest David think that Bathsheba had exaggerated the intentions of Adonijah and misrepresented his activities, Nathan would come in on her heels to confirm what she had told the king (1 Kings 1:14). The use of the expressions my lord the king (i.e., you) and your maidservant (i.e., I) are indicative of the usual polite and deferential address used when speaking to an Israelite king.

1 Kings 1:15-21

B. BATHSHEBA’S IMPASSIONED PLEA 1:15-21

**TRANSLATION

(15) Then Bathsheba went unto the king to the chamber (now the king was very old and Abishag the Shunammite was ministering unto the king). (16) And Bathsheba bowed, and did homage unto the king. And the king said, What is your concern? (17) And she said to him, O my lord, you surely swore by the LORD your God to your handmaid, surely Solomon your son shall rule after me, and shall sit upon my throne! (18) But now, behold, Adonijah reigns; and now, my lord the king, you do not know it! (19) And he has slam oxen, fatlings and sheep in abundance, and he has summoned all the sons of the king, Abiathar the priest and Joab the captain of the host; but Solomon your servant he has not summoned. (20) And as for you, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are upon you that you might declare to them who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king after him. (21) For it shall come to pass when my lord the king lies down with his fathers, that surely I and my son Solomon will become transgressors.

COMMENTS**

Bathsheba was more than willing to cooperate with Nathan. She went immediately to the bedchamber of her husband, the only place where the feeble king could hold audience. There, in the presence of his nurse and constant attendant (1 Kings 1:15), Bathsheba bowed herself and received David’s permission to state her business (1 Kings 1:16). Abandoning the rhetorical question technique suggested by Nathan, Bathsheba by direct affirmation reminded David of the oath he had given to her that Solomon would succeed him on the throne (1 Kings 1:17). She then informed him that Adonijah had proclaimed himself King (1 Kings 1:18). In support of her charge against Adonijah, she described the feast which he had prepared, listed the guests he had invited, (Joab and Abiathar were there) and, most important, the person he had not invited, viz., Solomon (1 Kings 1:19). That Adonijah would invite all the sons of the king except Solomon clearly showed that his banquet was something more than a fellowship supper!

Bathsheba’s appeal reached its climax in the carefully chosen words recorded in 1 Kings 1:20-21. She says in effect, Adonijah has made his move; but it is you (the Hebrew emphasizes the pronoun), O king, who must make the decision as to your successor. Bathsheba was not requesting David’s abdication, but rather she was suggesting that it was imperative that he appoint a coregent, or at least designate a successor. That all Israel was looking to the king suggests that the majority of the people had not yet attached themselves to the cause of Adonijah. It would appear from 1 Kings 1:20 that an Israelite king could nominate his successor. Only when the dead king’s wishes were unknown could the eldest son claim the right of succession.[92] If David took no action, the throne would go to Adonijah by default upon his death.[93] Then, Bathsheba reminded David, both she and Solomon would be regarded as political offenders, i.e., traitors (1 Kings 1:21). Bathsheba left to David’s imagination what she and her son might expect as offenders at the hands of the usurper.

[92] Slotki, SBB, p. 5. [93] The phrase lie down with his fathers in the case of David cannot mean that he was to be buried in his family tomb. These words suggest the belief that one joins his ancestors when he dies. The expression normally points to a peaceful death, being only once used otherwise (1 Kings 22:39 f.).

1 Kings 1:22-27

C. NATHAN’S TIMELY CONFIRMATION 1:22-27

**TRANSLATION

(22) And behold, while she was yet speaking with the king, Nathan the prophet came. (23) And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet. And he came before the king, and bowed to the king upon his face to the ground. (24) And Nathan said, My lord the king, you surely said, Adonijah shall reign after me, and shall sit upon my throne! (25) For today he has gone down, and slam oxen, failings, and sheep in abundance, and he has summoned all the sons of the king and the captains of the host, and Abiathar the priest; and behold they are eating and drinking before him, and they have said, Let King Adonijah live! (26) But me, me your servant, Zadok the priest, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada and Solomon your servant he has not summoned. (27) If my lord the king is responsible for this thing, (hen you have not informed your servants who shall sit upon the throne of my lord the king after him.

COMMENTS**

As Bathsheba was finishing her emotional appeal to her husband, Nathan entered the palace complex (1 Kings 1:22) and was announced to the king. Entering David’s bedchamber, Nathan bowed himself until he touched the ground (1 Kings 1:23). Frequently in the Assyrian monuments men are represented with their faces actually touching the earth before the feet of the king.

Nathan’s speech before David was a psychological masterpiece. He began with a strong affirmation (not a question as in KJV) designed to elicit from David an equally strong disclaimer: You must have said, Adonijah shall reign after me and he shall sit upon my throne! (1 Kings 1:24). Nathan innocently assumed that Adonijah could not have done all that he had done without David’s knowledge and sanction. Again the details of Adonijah’s feast were rehearsed before the king with two details not heretofore mentioned: captains of the host, i.e., other high ranking military officers besides Joab, were in attendance; and they eat and drink before him and say, Let King Adonijah live! (1 Kings 1:25). Let the king live was the customary acclamation with which kings were greeted following their anointing or coronation (cf. 1 Kings 1:39; 1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16 etc.).

To further indict Adonijah and make his aims crystal clear, Nathan mentioned those not invited to En-rogel. The names of David’s closest and most trusted friendsNathan, Zadok and Benaiahas well as that of Solomon had been omitted from the guest list (1 Kings 1:26). If David was responsible for what was transpiring outside the walls of Jerusalem, the king had changed his plans regarding a successor without consulting with and confiding in Nathan his spiritual counselor (1 Kings 1:27). By this last statement (or question as rendered in KJV), Nathan was suggesting that the king should officially make his decision and order his successor to be crowned.

1 Kings 1:28-37

I. THE CORONATION OF SOLOMON 1:28-53

The impassioned plea of Bathsheba and the timely confirmation of Nathan served to impress the ailing king with the urgency of royal action in favor of Solomon. David decreed that Solomon should immediately be taken to the spring Gihon and anointed king. By this swift action Adonijah’s conspiracy was nipped in the bud. In discussing this crucial coronation the author speaks of (1) the authorization by David (1 Kings 1:28-37); (2) the anointing of Solomon (1 Kings 1:38-40); and (3) the apprehension which seized Adonijah and his crew when news of the anointing reached them (1 Kings 1:41-53).

A. THE AUTHORIZATION BY DAVID 1:28-37

In order for Solomon’s coronation to be legal and meaningful, the full backing of David was required. Something dramatic and forceful needed to be done quickly. Stirred to action by the reports of Bathsheba and Nathan, David formulated a brilliant plan for countering the clandestine coronation of Adonijah. But even in this crisis David’s personal concern for Bathsheba took precedence over political action with regard to Solomon. Recalling his wife to the bedchamber, David solemnly reaffirmed the oath he had made some years earlier that Solomon would succeed him on the throne. Then in some detail he outlined the procedures to be followed in the coronation of Solomon. Benaiah, unable to restrain himself at this delightful turn of events, burst forth in a prayer for the young man who was about to be anointed. This paragraph lends itself to the following analysis: (1) The promise to Bathsheba (1 Kings 1:28-31); (2) the procedure regarding Solomon (1 Kings 1:32-35); and (3) the prayer of Benaiah (1 Kings 1:36-37).

1. THE PROMISES TO BATHSHEBA (1 Kings 1:28-31)

**TRANSLATION

(28) And King David answered and said, Summon to me Bathsheba. And she came before the king, and stood before the king. (29) And the king swore and said, As the LORD lives who has redeemed my life from all distress, (30) surely as I swore to you by the LORD God of Israel, saying, Surely Solomon your son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne in place of me; surely thus will I do this day! (31) And Bathsheba bowed with face to the ground, and did homage to the king, and said, May my lord King David live forever!

COMMENTS**

David showed no incredulity with regard to the indictment of his eldest son. He seemed to realize that Adonijah is quite capable of entering into just such a conspiracy as had been reported to him. For the moment mustering his physical energies and recapturing that decisiveness which had characterized his reign, David began to act. First, he summoned Bathsheba from a waiting room to which she had retired when Nathan had entered the king’s chamber (1 Kings 1:28). Apparently when the king granted an audience to his wife or one of his counselors, no third party was present unless the king required his assistance.[94] In the words of a solemn oath (As the LORD lives) David promised his beloved wife that her son Solomon would succeed him on the throne that very day (1 Kings 1:29-30). In response to this commitment on the part of David, Bathsheba bowed herself to the ground (cf. 1 Kings 1:23) and pronounced a blessing upon a king: May my lord King David live forever! (1 Kings 1:31). Such a blessing, never elsewhere used of a Hebrew monarch, was quite common later in the courts of Babylon and Persia (Daniel 2:4; Nehemiah 2:3, etc.). By these words Bathsheba conveyed to the king the thought that she did not desire his early death, but only the assurance that at the end of his life her son Solomon would follow him on the throne.

[94] Hammond, PC, p. 7.

2. THE PROCEDURE REGARDING SOLOMON (1 Kings 1:32-35)

**TRANSLATION

(32) And king David said, Summon to me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. And they came before the king. (33) And the king said to them, Take with you the servants of your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon my mule, and take him down to Gihon. (34) And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there to be king over Israel. Then you shall blow the tram-pet, and say, May King Solomon live! (35) Then go up after him, and he shall come, and sit upon my throne, and he shall reign instead of me; for him I have appointed to be prince over Israel and over Judah.

COMMENTS**

True to his word, David took immediate action. Orders were given for Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah to be summoned to the bedside of the king (1 Kings 1:32). From this it would appear that Nathan had withdrawn from the room at the time Bathsheba made her entrance in 1 Kings 1:28. Several specific instructions were given to the high priest, the prophet and the general: (1) They were to gather the servants of David, i.e., his personal bodyguard of mercenary troops called Cherethites and Pelethites (cf. 1 Kings 1:38). The presence of these troops would not only serve as a show of formidable force, but also would indicate that the coronation of Solomon had been authorized by the king. (2) Solomon was to ride on David’s own mule. God’s law stipulated that Israel’s king was not to multiply horses to himself (Deuteronomy 17:16), and it is only in the service of David’s wayward sons Absalom and Adonijah that horses are mentioned at this time. While commoners rode on asses (cf. 1 Kings 2:40), the mule was reserved to members of the royal family (cf. 2 Samuel 13:29; 2 Samuel 18:9). None but David had ever been seen to ride on this particular mule. The use of this animal would not only be a mark of honor but would serve notice to the populace all along the processional route that David had designated Solomon as his successor.

David ordered (3) that Solomon be taken down to Gihon for the public anointing (1 Kings 1:33). Some disagreement among scholars exists as to the location of this Gihon, but the best geographers identify it as the Virgin Spring which is in the Kidron valley, east of the old city of Jerusalem.[95] Because of its intermittent character this spring in ancient times was called Gihon which means gusher. During the rainy season this spring gushes forth for forty minutes or so four or five times a day. Because it produces up to 250,000 gallons of water a day, Gihon was vital to the life of Jerusalem from the very earliest times. Today the spring is used as a bathtub by local villagers.

[95] The best discussion is in Smith, JTEH, I, 101-111.

It is not entirely clear why David selected Gihon as the spot for the public anointing of Solomon. In Old Testament times Gihon was on the slope of the City of David somewhat above the bottom of the valley; but in the ensuing years the bottom of the valley has risen practically to the level of the spring. The text certainly does not indicate that the spring had any religious importance.[96] Avi-Yonah has suggested that public ceremonies were held at Gihon because of its life-and-death importance for the capital.[97] This suggestion has some merit particularly in view of the changes in topography which have taken place over the course of the centuries. George Adam Smith captured the feelings of the modern visitor to the spot when he wrote:

[96] J. Simons (JOT, p. 164) contends that the intermittent issue of this spring may have seemed sufficiently inscrutable to lend Gihon a sacred character. [97] Avi-Yonah and Kraeling, OLB, p. 128.

Upon the heaped rubbish at the foot of the now naked hill Ophel, and amid the squalid bustle which prevails there today, one forgets that this was the scene of Solomon’s coronation. But in that day the precipitous rock with the fortress above it, the open cave with the mysterious intermittent fountain. must have formed a fitting theatre for the first coronation of an Israelite King in Jerusalem.[98]

[98] Smith, JTEH, I, 108.

Zadok the high priest and Nathan the most famous prophet of the day were instructed (4) to anoint Solomon as king. The king, like the priest, was a sacred personage and consequently was set apart for his office by the solemn act of being anointed with oil. Sometimes a king would be anointed on more than one occasion. Saul was probably anointed twice (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 11:15). David was anointed on three occasions (1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 5:3). Solomon himself was anointed twice (cf. 1 Chronicles 29:22).

Following the anointing, David ordered (5) that a ram’s horn trumpet be blown and Solomon be acclaimed king by means of the standard coronation greeting May King Solomon live! (1 Kings 1:34). The proclamation of a new king seems to have been customarily accompanied by a blast upon trumpets (2 Samuel 15:10; 2 Kings 9:13; 2 Kings 11:14).

At the conclusion of the formal services at Gihon, (6) Solomon was to be escorted back up the steep hill into the capital where he was to sit on the throne of David. In every possible way David was trying to confirm the selection of Solomon. He virtually abdicates in favor of his son.

David closed his instruction to Zadok, Nathan and Benaiah with a formal and emphatic declaration that he had appointed Solomon prince over the United Kingdom (1 Kings 1:35). David used the Hebrew term nagid, literally, one placed in the forefront; hence, a leader, prince or ruler. Saul had been anointed nagid by Samuel (1 Samuel 10:1); he was made king by the people (with Samuel officiating) at Gilgal sometime later (1 Samuel 11:15). Perhaps David could nominate Solomon as nagid, but it was for the people to acclaim him as king. Solomon was to be prince over Israel and Judah. David was keenly aware of the two component parts of this United Kingdom, for he had himself been first king of Judah for over seven years before being recognized by the elders of the other tribes as king of Israel. Furthermore, during his reign he had been forced to suppress an uprising in Judah led by Absalom (2 Samuel 15-19), as well as an Israelite uprising led by Sheba (2 Samuel 20). It was David’s hope that both Israel and Judah would recognize Solomon as king simultaneously.

2. THE PRAYER OF BENAIAH (1 Kings 1:36-37)

**TRANSLATION

(36) And Benaiah son of Jehoiada answered the king, and said, Amen! Thus may the LORD God of my lord the king say! (37) As the LORD was with my lord the king, so may He be with Solomon, and make his throne become greater than the throne of my lord King David.

COMMENTS**

Benaiah responded to the king’s order with an expression of hearty consent and a prayer for God’s approval of what had been ordered. Amen was a legal term of endorsement (cf. Deuteronomy 27:15 ff). The thought in 1 Kings 1:36 is that God always performs His word. If David’s word is also God’s word, it is sure to be accomplished.

Benaiah’s support of Solomon was essential. With most of the military leaders backing Adonijah, it is doubtful that Solomon could have succeeded his father without the strong backing of the palace guard. All present in the royal bedchamber on that fateful day must have been greatly relieved when Benaiah’s response to the orders of his commander-in-chief was not merely perfunctory, but rather enthusiastic. This pious soldier realized that God had been with David, and he publicly prayed that God would make the throne of Solomon greater than that of his father (1 Kings 1:37). History records that God answered that prayer in a most wondrous way.

1 Kings 1:38-40

B. THE ANOINTING OF SOLOMON 1:38-40

**TRANSLATION

(38) So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites went down, and they caused Solomon to ride upon the mule of the king, and brought him to Gihon. (39) Now Zadok the priest had taken the horn of the oil from the tent, and he anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet, and all the people said, May King Solomon live! (40) And all the people went up after him, and the people were piping with pipes and greatly rejoicing; and the earth rent with their sound.

COMMENTS**

In short order Zadok, Nathan[99] and Benaiah organized the coronation processional. The Cherethites and Pelethitesthe royal palace guardprovided armed escort for the brief march to Gihon (1 Kings 1:38). These troops were of foreign extraction, probably Philistine. While the function of these soldiers is evident, the precise origin and meaning of the terms Cherethite and Pelethite are subject to dispute.

[99] The prophets from Samuel (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 16:13) to Elisha (2 Kings 9:1-6) had a prominent part in designating and rejecting kings. Nathan thus conferred on Solomon the authority of prophetic designation.

At Gihon Zadok took a horn of the holy anointing oil which he secured from the tabernacle on Mt. Zion (2 Samuel 6:17) and ceremoniously poured it over the head of Solomon. The holy anointing oil had been compounded in the days of Moses of special ingredients (Exodus 30:23-25). It was preserved in the Tabernacle for just such occasions. Jewish tradition says this special oil lasted until the days of the Babylonian captivity. As the oil trickled down the bearded face of Solomon, the coronation trumpet sounded and the great throng which had been attracted by the processional shouted their approval of the transaction: May King Solomon live! (1 Kings 1:39). Solomon returned to Mt. Zion and the palace in triumph with hundreds, perhaps thousands, following behind singing and playing their pipes. The ground seemed to rumble as in an earthquake because of the noise generated by the jubilant throng (1 Kings 1:40).

1 Kings 1:41-53

C. THE APPREHENSION OF ADONIJAH 1:41-53

While Jerusalem was jubilant at the coronation of a new king, the assembly at En-rogel was filled with fear and apprehension. The two paragraphs of this section deal with (1) the report of Jonathan to the conspirators (1 Kings 1:41-48); and (2) the flight of Adonijah to the altar for safety (1 Kings 1:49-53).

1. THE REPORT OF JONATHAN (1 Kings 1:41-48)

**TRANSLATION

(41) Now Adonijah and all the guests who were with him heard, yet they finished eating. But when Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, then he said, Why is the noise of the city as an uproar? (42) While he was yet speaking, behold Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest came. And Adonijah said, Come in for you are a man of honor, and you bring good news. (43) But Jonathan answered and said to Adonijah, Not so for our lord King David has made Solomon king. (44) And the king sent Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada and the Cherethites and the Pelethites, and they have caused him to ride on the king’s mule. (45) And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him as king at Gihon. And they have gone up from there rejoicing so that the city is in commotion. That is the sound which you have heard! (46) Moreover Solomon has sat down upon the throne of the kingdom. (47) And also the servants of the king have come to bless our lord King David, saying, May God make the name of Solomon better than your name, and his throne greater than your throne. And the king bowed down upon the bed. (48) And also thus said the king: Blessed is the LORD, the God of Israel who has given one today to sit upon my throne, and my eyes are seeing it.

COMMENTS**

Adonijah and his guests finished eating, even though they heard the clamor at near-by Gihon.[100] In hushed anxiety they strained their ears in an effort to make some sense out of the sounds. When Joab heard the sound of the trumpet, he raised the question which was on everyone’s mind, but which as yet no one had dared to ask: Why is the city in an uproar? (1 Kings 1:41).

[100] En-rogel was seven hundred yards farther south in the Kidron valley. The two spots were out of sight of each other owing to the terrain of the valley, but within ear-shot.

Adonijah had posted a man in Jerusalem to keep an eye on developments there, and at that very moment that manJonathan, son of Abiatharappeared breathless and exhausted at the entrance of the tent. Trying to maintain a cheery and optimistic attitude, Adonijah invited his messenger into the tent with a cliche which may be paraphrased in English as a good man like you always brings good tidings! (1 Kings 1:42). The word verily in KJV is unfortunate as the Hebrew word would be better rendered on the contrary! Jonathan, in effect is saying, I am sorry to disappoint you, but my news is bad and not good. Then he blurted out the key fact: David has made Solomon king! (1 Kings 1:43).

In stunned silence the conspirators listened to the details of the counter coup. In addition to the facts previously related by the author of Kings (1 Kings 1:44-46), Jonathan related how David’s servants (probably his chief ministers) had indicated their approval and support of David’s action and had, in words similar to those spoken earlier by Benaiah, pronounced their blessing upon the reign of Solomon. In response to their blessing (in reality a prayer) David had bowed himself in worship upon his bed (1 Kings 1:47) and praised God for having allowed him to see his successor upon the throne (1 Kings 1:48).

2. THE FLIGHT OF ADONIJAH (1 Kings 1:49-53)

**TRANSLATION

(49) And all the guests of Adonijah feared, and they arose, and each one went his way. (50) And Adonijah feared because of Solomon, and he arose and went and seized the horns of the altar. (51) And it was told Solomon, saying, Behold, Adonijah fears King Solomon, and behold he has seized the horns of the altar, saying, Let King Solomon swear to me now that he will not kill his servant with the sword. (52) And Solomon said, If he shall become a man of integrity, a hair of him shall not fall to the ground; but if evil be found in him, he shall die. (53) So King Solomon sent, and they brought him down from upon the altar, and he came, and paid homage to King Solomon; and Solomon said to him, Go to your house.

COMMENTS**

Upon hearing that Solomon had been enthroned, and that he had wide support from both the general public and the officers of state, the guests of Adonijah departed in fear and trembling (1 Kings 1:49). They knew the penalty that could well be theirs for sitting at that treasonous table! Adonijah himself was no less afraid, and hastily made his way to an altar where he hoped he would find sanctuary. The horns of the altar (1 Kings 1:50) were small protrusions resembling animal horns on the four corners of the altar. It is uncertain to which altar Adonijah fled. At this time there was an altar on Mt. Zion (2 Samuel 6:17), one at Gibeon (1 Kings 3:4) and one recently erected by David on the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24:25). By clinging to the horns of the altar, one was placing himself under the helping grace of God.[101] Adonijah’s earlier ostentation and boasting ended in cringing.

[101] Although the right of sanctuary is not expressly mentioned in the law, it is implied by Exodus 21:14 (NBC, p. 303).

Word came to Solomon concerning Adonijah’s whereabouts. Adonijah refused to leave his place of sanctuary until Solomon swore that he would not execute him. The words of Adonijah in 1 Kings 1:51 are interesting from two respects. First, he addressed Solomon as king which is in effect a recognition of the new monarch. Second, in demanding an oath that Solomon would not slay him, Adonijah is indirectly confessing that his actions merited the death penalty.

Solomon responded to Adonijah with a simple promise (not an oath). As long as Adonijah proved himself to be a loyal subject (lit., a son of integrity), he would have nothing to fear from Solomon; but if he committed any fresh crime he would be executed (1 Kings 1:52). In view of the fact that Solomon had granted a conditional pardon to him, Adonijah was persuaded to come down from upon the altar to which he was still clinging. The words come down from upon imply that the altar was elevated. A ramp rather than steps would have led up to it (cf. Exodus 20:26). Adonijah was brought before Solomon, to whom he rendered homage as king. Solomon had little to say to his former rival. He simply instructed him to go to his house (1 Kings 1:53). While withholding punishment justly deserved, Solomon still felt it was necessary to banish Adonijah from the court to private life.