| Back to Home Page | Back to Book Index
|
Introduction
to 2 Kings
This summary of the book of 2 Kings provides information about the
title
author(s)
date of writing
chronology
theme
theology
outline
a
brief overview
and the chapters of the Book of 2 Kings.
Below is an outline for 2 Kings. For an outline of both 1 and 2
Kings see Introduction to 1 Kings: Outline.
I.
see 1 Kings Outline
V. Israel and
Judah from Joram/Jehoram to the Exile of Israel (8:16;17:41)
VI.
Judah from Hezekiah to the Babylonian Exile (chs. 18-25)
──《New International Version》
00 Overview
2 KINGS
INTRODUCTION
The Character and Scope of the Book of Kings
The book was clearly designed to be a continuation of the history
contained in the Book of Samuel. The writer records the fulfilment of the
promises which God had made to David and his line. A son was to succeed David
whose kingdom should be established of the Lord
who should build a house for
the name of Jehovah
and to whom God would be a Father
and from whom the mercy
of the Lord should not depart (2 Samuel 7:1-29.). To show that this
prophecy was fulfilled is the object of the Book of Kings
and whatever does
not conduce thereto is passed over by the compiler with but little notice.
There elapsed
no doubt
some considerable time between the plague in
Jerusalem
with which the Book of Samuel closes
and the weak age of David
described in the opening paragraph of the Book of Kings. But to give historical
events in their full and complete order is no part of our writer’s aim
as we
can see from every portion of his work. He therefore begins his narrative with
so much
and no more
of the story of David’s later days aa serves to introduce
the accession of Solomon. Thus he takes up the thread of the previous book
and
his subject once opened
he follows the same line throughout. The glory
and prosperity of Solomon at first; then his decline from God’s ways
and the
divinely sent chastisements that followed thereupon
fill a large part of the
early chapters. When the kingdom is divided
and the Northern tribes have
adopted a forbidden form of worship
the history follows Israel in her long
line of wicked princes till sin has brought destruction
while the fortunes of
the line of David are so traced as to bring prominently before us the
constantly preserved succession; while the closing record of the book tells how
in Babylon one of the royal line still remained
and was lifted up and kindly
dealt with by the successor of the monarch who had led him away captive. “What
God hath promised to the house of David He has thus fulfilled
” expresses the
main character of the book
and
except where political and military matters
illustrate the subject with which he deals
the compiler gives them a very
passing notice
and
as we can see from a comparison with Chronicles
he has
left out altogether large passages of such history
which he had before him. (J.
R. Lumby
D. D.)
The Unity of the Historical Books of the Bible
The division into two books
being purely artificial and
as it
were
mechanical
may be overlooked in speaking of them; and it must also be
remembered that the division between the Books of Kings and Samuel is equally
artificial
and that in point of fact the historical books commencing with
Judges and ending with 2 Kings present the appearance of one work
giving a
continuous history of Israel from the time of Joshua to the death of
Jehoiachin. It must suffice here to mention
in support of this assertion
the
frequent allusion in the Book of Judges to the times of the Kings of Israel ( 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25)
the concurrent evidence of chap. 2.
that the writer lived in an age when he
could take a retrospect of the whole time during Which the judges ruled (verses
16-19)
i.e.
that he lived after the monarchy had been established; the
occurrence in the Book of Judges
for the first time
of the phrase “the Spirit
of Jehovah” ( 3:10)
which is repeated often in the
book ( 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6)
and is of frequent use in Samuel
and Kings (e.g. 1 Samuel 10:6; 1 Samuel 16:13-14; 1 Samuel 19:9; 2 Samuel 23:2; 1 Kings 22:24; 2 Kings 2:16)
; the allusion in 1:21 to the capture of Jebus
and the continuance of a
Jebusite population (2 Samuel 24:16); the reference
(20:27) to the removal of the ark of the covenant from Shiloh to Jerusalem
and
the expression in those days pointing
as in 17:6
to remote times; the
distinct reference
in 18:30
to the captivity of Israel by Shalmaneser; with
the facts that the Books of Judges
Ruth
Samuel
and Kings
form one unbroken
narrative
similar in general character
which has no beginning except at 1:1-36.
while
it may be added
the Book
of Judges is not a continuation of Joshua
but opens with a repetition of the
same events with which Joshua closes. In like manner the Book of Ruth clearly
forms part of those of Samuel
supplying as it does the essential point of
David’s genealogy and early family history
and is no less clearly connected
with the Book of Judges by its opening verse
and the epoch to which the whole
book relates And generally the style of the narrative
ordinarily quiet and
simple
but rising to great vigour and spirit when stirring deeds are
described
and the introduction of poetry or poetic style in the midst of the
narrative
constitute such strong features of resemblance as lead to the
conclusion that these several books form but one work. (W. Smith
D. D.)
Contents of the Book
The history comprehends the whole time of the Israelitish
monarchy
exclusive of the reigns of Saul and David
whether existing as one
kingdom under Solomon and the eight last kings
or divided into the two
kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It exhibits the Israelites in the two extremes of
power and weakness; under Solomon
extending their dominion over tributary
kingdoms from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt (1 Kings 4:21)
; under the last kings
reduced to a miserable remnant
subject alternately to
Egypt and Assyria
till at length they were rooted up from their own land. As
the cause of this decadence it points out the division of Solomon’s monarchy
into two parts
followed by the religious schism and idolatrous worship brought
about from political motives by Jeroboam. How the subsequent wars between the
two kingdoms necessarily weakened both; how they led to calling in the stranger
to their aid whenever their power was equally balanced
of which the result was
the destruction first of one kingdom and then of the other; how a further evil
of these foreign alliances was the adoption of the idolatrous superstitious of
the heathen nations whose friendship and protection they sought
by which they
forfeited the Divine protection--all this is with great clearness and
simplicity set forth in these books
which treat equally of the two kingdoms while they
lasted. (W. Smith
D. D.)
The Framework of Kings
The first step in the analysis of the book must be to trace the
process by which it was first thrown into something like its present shape. It
so happens that this inquiry is facilitated by a very clear indication of
editorial activity
namely
the recurrence of a regular series of notices by
which the different reigns are introduced and concluded. This set of formulas
constitutes a sort of framework
by which the narrative is at once held
together and at the same time divided into definite compartments; and its
structure is so uniform as to make it practically certain that the scheme was
carried through by a single writer. It will appear afterwards that the author
of the “framework” was the first to arrange the material in its present order
and is therefore entitled to be regarded as the main compiler of the Book of
Kings. It is worth while to look somewhat closely at the structure of this
framework. The complete Introductory Formula for the kings of Judah embraces
the following items:
(a)
the
date of accession according to the year of the contemporary king of Israel
(which we shall call
for brevity
the Synchronism);
(b) the age of the king at his accession;
(c) the duration of the reign;
(d) the name of the queen-mother;
(e) a judgment on the religious character of the reign. The
corresponding formula for the kings of Israel is similar in form as regards a
c
and e; but is simplified by the omission of b (the age of accession)
and d
(the name of the queen-mother)
The Concluding Formulas contain
(a) a reference to the proximate source from which the author has
drawn some of his materials;
(b) a notice of the king’s death and burial; and
(c) the name of his successor.
With the exception of the Synchronisms
which were possible only
for the period of the divided monarchy
the framework is applied consistently
and with few intermissions to the whole history
from the death of David (1 Kings 2:10) to the accession of
Zedekiah
the last king of Judah (2 Kings 24:18 f.). The entire
absence of either formula is extremely rare. And although fragments from the
annals are frequently taken up into the framework
there is only one case (or
at most two) where any considerable part of the narrative has been allowed
as
it were
to slip out of the framework altogether
i.e.
to appear
between the conclusion of one reign and the introduction of the next: 2 Kings 2:1-25. (2 Kings 13:14-25). How far these
irregularities are designed
and how far they are due to alterations of the
text
is a question that has to be considered for each case separately. Now
even in the bare
and formal statements of the framework there are several indications that its
author is the person mainly responsible for the selection and disposition of
the historical material of which the book is composed.
1. The chronology of the framework furnishes the key to the somewhat
peculiar arrangement of the parallel histories of Israel and Judah. The method
adopted is to treat the affairs of each kingdom independently
and carry
forward the narrative till it reaches the end of a reign in which a change of
sovereign has occurred in the sister kingdom. Then the records of the other
monarchy are taken up
and continued in like manner
till they have gone beyond
the date at which the first series stopped. Such an arrangement is obviously
impossible without the control of a systematic chronology; and since the order
corresponds perfectly with the data of the framework
there is a presumption
that both proceed from the same author.
2. The manner in which the writer of the framework refers to written
documents for information which is not to be found in the book strongly
suggests that he has exercised his personal judgment as to the matters that
ought to be embodied in the history.
3. But the most important point is that in the religious judgments of
the introductory formulas the writer reveals a definite theory or point of
view
which could hardly fail to exert an influence on the historical
presentation as a whole. These judgments involve several religious principles
e.g.
the duty of whole-hearted loyalty to Yahweh
and the sinfulness of idolatry in
all its varied forms and degrees. (Twentieth Century Bible.)
Chronological System
It is plain that the author had a chronological system within
which his materials were arranged. The chronological scheme is only
approximately
and not strictly
precise. Both in the Book of Judges and here
we have striking examples of the free use of numbers. In 2 Samuel 5:4-5
it is stated that
David reigned forty years
and then that he reigned seven years and mix months
over Judah
and thirty-three years over all Israel. It would appear that
according to the chronological system observed in this book
the whole history
of Israel
from the Exodus to the close of the Babylonian Exile
fell into two
great cycles of 480 years each
or twelve times forty. The first of these great
periods extended to the beginning of the building of the temple
and this is
given as a leading date in 1 Kings 6:1. Unless
however
we are
to regard this as merely a rough approximation based on the convenient
reckoning by forties
it is difficult to reconcile the date with computations
of the details and with statements of other books. The perplexity of the
chronology increases when we come to details of the several reigns. For
example
the book gives the synchronism of the two kingdoms
as we have seen.
Yet if we add up the numbers given in detail
from the disruption of the
kingdoms to the extinction of the Northern line
we obtain a total of 242 years
for the kingdom of Israel
while the total for the kingdom of Judah up to the
same point is 259. Or again
if we count from the disruption of the kingdom to
the death of Ahaziah of Judah and Joram of Israel
who were killed at the same
time by Jehu (2 Kings 9:24-27)
we get ninety-five years for the Judaean kings and ninety-eight for the
Israelite; and from
that date onward to the fall of the Northern kingdom
the number is 165 years
for the Judaean and 144 for the Israelite. It is evident that there is not
precise accuracy either in the synchronisms or in the statements as to the
duration of the reigns; and it seems
on the whole
probable that parts of
years were not reckoned
and also that
in the synchronisms
the last year of
one reign was sometimes counted as the first of another. We must
in short
be
content to take the numbers as approximate
and not shut our eyes to the
evident partiality for what was apparently a Hebrew habit of reckoning by
forties. (The Temple Bible.)
Date of Composition and Authorship
The Book of Kings bears on the face of it that it is a compilation
of materials
of the nature of which we shall have to speak presently. A work
covering so long a period could be nothing else. The question now to be
considered is--At what time the materials
relating to different times
and not
all coming within the personal cognizance of the writer
were brought together
to form the connected work before us? The latest date mentioned in the book
as
has been already stated
is the thirty-seventh year of he captivity of
Jehoiachin
or
say
the year 562 b.c. That was about twenty-four years later
than the final deportation and the downfall of Jerusalem
and about twenty-four
years before the Edict of Cyrus permitting the return of the Jews to their own
land. And as there is no mention of the return
nor indication of the close of
the Exile
we may conclude that the last touch was given to the book in the
Captivity. The question is whether the whole work received shape at this late
date
or whether the late writer was merely an editor who brought up to date a
work which had been written at an earlier period. On the one hand
we find not
only the closing notice of the release of Jehoiachin from prison
but brief
intimations and expressions here and there which may be taken as implying the
time of the Exile. Thus
under the reign of Solomon
we read that he “reigned over
all the kingdoms from the river” (i.e. the Euphrates)
“unto the land of the Philistines
” that “he had dominion over all the region
on this side the river
from Tipheah even unto Azzah” (1 Kings 4:21; 1 Kings 4:24). The expression here
used in the A.V. “on this side the river” must be rendered “beyond the
river
” and the context shows that the writer is estimating the limits from the
Euphrates westwards
and so
presumably
his own standpoint is on the east of
the river
namely
in the land of Exile. The passage
however
from verse 20 to
verse 25
has the appearance
of an insertion. Other passages that have been taken by some writers as proving
an Exilian date cannot be relied on as establishing that inference
for they
are such as are frequently found in the prophets who threaten Judah with the
extremity of Divine displeasure long before the time of the Exile. See
for
example
1 Kings 9:7-9; 1 Kings 11:39; 2 Kings 20:17-18; 2 Kings 21:11-15; 2 Kings 22:15-20; 2 Kings 23:26-27. On the other hand
there is a note of time
expressed in the words “unto this day
” which recurs
pretty frequently in the narrative; and
although in not a few cases it is
employed in such a general way that we cannot deduce from it any conclusion as
yo date
in several other cases it is used in connections which conclusively
imply a pre-Exilian date. For example
in the account of the dedication of the
temple
after saying that the staves for bearing the ark were drawn out till
the ends were seen in the Holy Place
the narrative continues
“and there they
are unto this day” (1 Kings 8:8)
a statement which
could only apply so long as the temple was standing. Again
in regard to the
descendants of the old Canaanite inhabitants of the country
it is said that
Solomon laid upon them a service of taskwork “unto this day
” implying a time
before national independence came to an end (1 Kings 9:21). We even read in one
place
“So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day” (1 Kings 12:10)
apparently implying
the co-existence of both kingdoms
and certainly implying the survival of the
“house of David.” So also “Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this
day” (2 Kings 8:22). And
to mention only
one other passage in the description of the fate of the Northern kingdom
we
are told that the mixed people who were settled in the territory formerly
occupied by the ten tribes
“unto this day do after the former manners”--a
description which
no doubt
would be applicable after the Exile
although the
terms would be more suitable if coming from one living near to the locality and
observant of the events. On the whole
therefore
it is most probable that
though the book received an editorial addition at the end
and a few
explanatory insertions after the Exile
yet it was composed substantially as it
lies before us while the kingdom of Judah was still in existence
though not
long before its extinction. (The Temple Bible.)
──《The Biblical Illustrator》