BIBLE STUDY --- BOOKS OF THE TANAKH {NEVI’IM}

BOOKS OF 1 AND 2 KINGS --- PART 2

THEOLOGY AND PURPOSE

The books of Kings record the history of the Covenant people from the end of the reign of David {961 BC} through the fall of the southern kingdom {586 BC}. Yet it is not history written in accord with modern expectations for history textbooks. Rather than concentrating on economic, political, and military themes as they shaped the history of the period, the compiler of Kings is motivated by theological concerns. Evaluation of the theology and purpose of the books of Kings is made easier by the fact that there is a parallel history for much of Kings found in the books of Chronicles. By comparing the two accounts, especially where the later Chronicler adds or deletes material found in Kings, the interests of both histories are thrown into clearer relief. The books of Kings were composed during the exile, likely between 560 and 539 BC. Jerusalem had been turned into rubble, and there was no longer a throne of David. Those two pillars of the popular theology -- the inviolability of the temple and the throne of David {Jeremiah 7:4; 13:13-14; 22:1-9; see 1 Kings 8:16, 29} -- had tumbled. If Israel’s faith was to survive, the burning questions that had to be answered were “How did it all happen? Can’t YHVH keep His promises to David and to Zion? Have the promises failed?” The writer of Kings aims to deal with the bewilderment of the chosen people in response to the disasters of 722 BC {fall of Samaria} and 586 BC {fall of Jerusalem}. Kings, like the book of Job, is a theodicy, a justification of the ways of YHVH to men. In order to answer the question “How did it happen?” the compiler adopts the procedure of recounting the history of the Covenant people in light of standards propounded in the Law. For this reason, Kings could be called Torah history, or even more pointedly, Deuteronomic history, for standards propounded only in the book of Deuteronomy in the Torah are used by the compiler to measure the kingdoms. Among the prominent themes selected from Deuteronomy and applied to the kingdoms are the centralization of worship, the institution of the monarchy, the efficacy of the prophetic word, and the outworking of the Covenant curses on disobedience.

CENTRALIZATION OF WORSHIP

The primary concern of the writer is the purity of the worship of Adonai. His major criterion for measuring this purity is the attitude of the kings toward centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple as opposed to the worship of Adonai elsewhere and the continuation of Canaanite cults mingled with YAHWISM at the high places. Centralization of worship at the central shrine is called for in Deuteronomy 12. Perhaps “centralization of worship” is a misnomer, for worship was always centred around the tabernacle in the periods prior to the temple; the change that is envisaged in Deuteronomy is not the centralizing of worship but rather the fact that the shrine would no longer be mobile but stationary. For the kings of the northern kingdom, this criterion becomes virtually a stereotyped formula that “he did that which was evil in the sight of Adonai and walked in the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat, who sinned and made all Israel sin along with him” {see 1 Kings 14:16; 15:30; 16:31; 2 Kings 3:3; 10:31; 13:2, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22}. The compiler of Kings sees the rival altars with the golden calves at Dan and Bethel as the great sin of which the northern kings never repented {1 Kings 12:25–13:34}. Rejecting the primacy of Jerusalem, these altars became the rod with which to measure the northern kings. All the kings of Israel are condemned by this standard {except for Shallum, who reigned but a month, and Hoshea, the last of the northern kings} -- even Zimri, the murderer of Elah, who ruled only one week before committing suicide in the flames of his own palace {16:9-20}. For the kings of Judah, a different standard is used: what their attitude was to the high places where heterodox worship was allowed to flourish in the environs of Jerusalem. Only Hezekiah and Josiah receive the compiler’s unqualified endorsement for following the ways of David {2 Kings 18:3; 22:2}. Six others are commended for their zeal in suppressing idolatry, though they did not remove the high places {Asa, 1 Kings 15:9-15; Jehoshaphat, 22:43; Jehoash, 2 Kings 12:2-3; Amaziah, 14:3-4; Azariah, 15:3-4; Jotham, 15:34-35}. The remainder of the Judean kings are condemned for their participation in the high places and their desecration of the temple itself. This one theme is the preeminent motif in the book.

HISTORY OF THE MONARCHY

A second prominent interest for the compiler was to trace the history of the monarchy. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 provides for the day when Israel would ask for a king and charges that king with the basic religious responsibility for the people. This provision for a king, again a feature found only in Deuteronomy, becomes the basis for the compiler’s intense interest in the history of the monarchy, and particularly the religious fidelity of the kings. David becomes the model of the ideal king, the one by whom the others are measured, the one whose sons “continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel” {17:20; see also 1 Kings 15:11; 2 Kings 18:3; 22:2 for following in the ways of David, and 1 Kings 14:8; 15:3-5; 2 Kings 14:3; 16:2 for the reverse}. The compiler wanted to show that YHVH had been faithful to David even though David’s sons were not faithful. While both kingdoms had about the same number of kings, the northern kingdom is marked by repeated dynastic changes and regicide through its 200 years, while the dynasty of David is maintained as a lamp in the south through 350 years {1 Kings 11:13, 32, 36; 15:4-5; 2 Kings 8:19; 19:34; 20:6}. It is the disaster that had befallen the house of David, and the consequent doubts about the promises of YHVH, that prompted the compiler to write.

EFFICACY OF THE PROPHETIC WORD

Another reason why Kings can be called Deuteronomic history is its concern with the efficacy of the prophetic word. There are three passages in the Pentateuch that deal with the institution of the prophetic order: Numbers 12:1-8; Deuteronomy 13:1-5; and Deuteronomy 18:14-22. It is only in Deuteronomy 18 that the test of a true prophet is given: that what he has spoken comes about, that his words are fulfilled. Notice the number of instances where the writer calls attention to the fulfilment of the words of the prophets: {2 Samuel 7:13 in 1 Kings 8:20; 1 Kings 11:29-36 in 12:15; 1 Kings 13:1-3 in 2 Kings 23:16-18; 1 Kings 14:6-12 in 14:17-18 and 15:29; 1 Kings 16:1-4 in 16:7, 11-12; Joshua 6:26 in 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Kings 22:17 in 22:35-38; 1 Kings 21:21-29 in 2 Kings 9:7-10, 30-37 and 10:10-11, 30; 2 Kings 1:6 in 1:17; 2 Kings 21:10-15 in 24:2; 2 Kings 22:15-20 in 23:30}. The writer is concerned to show that the words of the prophets were efficacious, powerful words. His concern with the prophetic order is also seen in the material devoted to Elijah and Elisha and to other prophetic figures.

FULFILLMENT OF THE CURSES

Another aspect of the compiler’s interest in Deuteronomy is seen in his concern to trace the fulfilment of the Covenant curses on disobedience. YHVH’s Covenant with Israel would issue in curses or blessings depending on the obedience of the people; the compiler of Kings sees the curses inflicted on the two kingdoms because of their failure to meet the demands of the Covenant. He takes care to show that most of the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15-68 had some historical realization in the life of the people. Moses had warned that disobedience would “bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down” {Deuteronomy 28:49}, and the Assyrians came to Samaria and the Babylonians to Jerusalem {28:52}. The siege of Samaria lasted from 724 to 722 BC, and the siege of Jerusalem from 588 to 586 BC. The dire conditions of the siege would drive the people to devouring their own children; women would feed on their afterbirths. It happened to Israel in the siege of Ben-hadad {2 Kings 6:24-30}. Just as Adonai had delighted to prosper and multiply his people, so he would not refrain from destroying them and scattering them among the peoples of the earth {Deuteronomy 28:63-67}. In these and other ways the writer of Kings set out to write the history of Israel and Judah to solve a theological dilemma. How was one to reconcile the exile with YHVH’s promises to the nation and David? His answer is twofold:

1 -- the problem was not with YHVH but with the people’s disobedience -- YHVH remains just;
2 -- the end of the state does not equal the end of the people or the house of David.

Here the ending of the book is instructive: evil-Merodach releases Jehoiachin from prison, elevates him above the other kings, and provides his rations {2 Kings 25:27-30}. Even during the exile, though cut down to almost nothing, the house of David still enjoys the favour and blessing of YHVH. YHVH has not abandoned His promises; the people should keep hope. Other themes in Kings also show the theological motivations underlying the compiler’s selection and arrangement of the data, particularly his use of Deuteronomy as a framework for examining the history of the people. Compare the laws governing the observance of Passover in Exodus 12:1-20 and Deuteronomy 16:1-8: whereas the Passover is centred in the family in Exodus, it is celebrated at the sanctuary in Deuteronomy. The writer of Kings is careful to show that the Passover during the reign of Josiah was celebrated in accordance with the requirements of Deuteronomy {2 Kings 23:21-23}. A passage in Deuteronomy is explicitly cited with reference to Amaziah’s keeping the Law {Deuteronomy 24:16 in 2 Kings 14:6}.

CONTRAST WITH CHRONICLES

The interests of Kings are further highlighted when compared with the parallel accounts in Chronicles. While the writer of Kings worked in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and had to answer the “how?” and “why?” questions, the Chronicler is part of the restoration community. Here the burning theological questions were not “how?” and “why?” but rather “What continuity do we have with David? Is YHVH still interested in us?” The need is not to account for the exile but rather to relate the postexilic and the preexilic. The building of the second temple and the ordering of worship there show up in increased detail in Chronicles in any matter pertaining to the former temple. Chronicles is a history of Judah and of the Davidic line, reflecting the fact that it alone survives after the exile. Interesting too, are the things omitted from the account by the Chronicler. Since he is not building a case for an indictment, as was done in Samuel and Kings, he is free to omit references to David’s sin with Bathsheba {2 Samuel 11} or to Solomon’s difficulties in gaining the throne {1 Kings 1–2}. Since in his day the northern kingdom had not survived, the Chronicler did not go into detail about the sins of Jeroboam {chapters 13–14}. Chronicles are interested more in the affairs of the temple and does not show the marked interest in prophetic matters found in Kings, so that the lives of Elijah and Elisha are omitted {1 Kings 16 -- 2 Kings 10}. Nor does the Chronicler recite the sins that led to the demise of the northern kingdom {2 Kings 17:1–18:12}. In all these examples one can see the interplay of the historical moment and theological concerns of the people and the compilers. Each compiler has selected and arranged the data in accordance with the concerns and needs of the community in which he was a member; comparing the two accounts throws the interests of each into sharp relief.