| 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》