Introduction

THE HISTORY OF 1 AND 2 KINGS is a direct continuation of the account of the kingdom of David told in Samuel. The division between Samuel and Kings is somewhat artificial, as is evident in ancient editions of the books of Kings. The Greek translators of the books of Kings found the end of the book of Samuel at 1 Kings 2:11 in our Bibles.1 This was a sensible division in the narrative, because that verse gives a summary of the reign of David from the time he was made king in Hebron (cf. 2 Sam. 5:1–5) until the time he died. This is comparable to the regular notations in the books of Kings, which provide summaries of the reign of a king at his death and then begin a new section with the introduction of the next king. The accession of Solomon was regarded as a continuation of the story of David’s reign and introduced the narrative divisions in the manner typical of Kings. A break after 1 Kings 2:11 divides the long history of the kingdom, which began with Samuel and Saul, into two equal parts at a point where there is a natural division in the narrative. David has died, after a reign of forty years, seven in Hebron and thirty-three in Jerusalem.

It is also important to know that the Hebrew Bible adopts a different order of books than that familiar in the English Bible. The order of books in the English Bible has been largely influenced by early church tradition, which had the Old Testament in Greek and Latin translations. Complete Greek Bibles in book form (called a codex as opposed to a scroll) are known as early as the fourth century. The codex required that books be bound in a certain order. The Hebrews resisted the binding of their sacred scrolls in book form for centuries. The oldest Hebrew codices come from approximately A.D. 900, but as early as the first century the order of the Hebrew canon is partially known from the writings of Josephus.2 His threefold division of the Hebrew Scriptures as the writings of Moses, the prophets after Moses, and the hymns is also found in the New Testament (see Luke 24:44). The standard order of the Hebrew Scriptures came to be Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings as “the Former Prophets.”

The church largely ignored the Hebrew Scriptures until the time of the Reformation. Origen in the third century did an elaborate comparison of the Greek Bible with the Hebrew (the Hexapla), and Jerome in the fourth century consciously used the Hebrew to assist in his revision of the Latin. However, influence on the Greek and Latin Scriptures was minimal, as is evident from the text of the Old Testament and the continuous use of the Apocrypha as part of the Scriptures—writings that were never used as part of the canonical books by the Hebrews. The Reformers went back to the Hebrew Scriptures for their translations and commentaries and regarded the Apocrypha as outside the canon. Their work gave new shape to the Scriptures, which came to be much more widely distributed because of the advancement of printing, but they never went back to the order of the Hebrew Scriptures in their publications of the Bible.

The result is that most contemporary readers of the English Bible read Kings more in association with Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah-Esther than they do with Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. The continuous narrative of Deuteronomy through Kings tends to be somewhat compromised and the many literary associations minimized. Kings also tends to be read as history in a more modern sense of the term rather than as prophecy, which was the way it was regarded in Hebrew. The books of the Former Prophets have much in common with the Latter Prophets. Both are concerned with the preaching of the prophets to the people bound to God by their covenant at Mount Sinai. The Former Prophets begin with the entrance to the Promised Land and end with the Exile, while the Latter Prophets begin with the demise of the kingdom of Israel (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah) and end with the restoration during the time of Ezra-Nehemiah (Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi).

There is a chronological overlap of about two hundred years as well as an overlap in content. The account of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17–20:19) is found almost word for word in Isaiah (Isa. 36:1–39:8), which is a prominent example of the influence of the prophet Isaiah in Jerusalem. The Latter Prophets are a prophetic analysis of the way God was at work in the history of the people, just as the Former Prophets. The basic difference is that the Former Prophets are more chronological in their presentation, while the Latter Prophets are anthologies.

Historical Progression in the Former Prophets

THE FORMER PROPHETS must not be read as straightforward chronological progression relating God’s judgment on political events from Conquest to Exile. The book of Joshua shows how God gave the land to the Israelites, a process that took much longer than the lifetime of Joshua (cf. Josh. 13:1). The book of Judges repeats events from Joshua in showing how the Israelites became Canaanite once they were in the land. The main point is that there was initial covenant faithfulness while Joshua was alive (Josh. 24:28–31), but that apostasy began once the leader had died (Judg. 2:6–10). The repetition of the death of Joshua distinguishes the purposes of the writings, which overlap in events they report. Samuel tells of David’s rise to the throne after the death of Saul (2 Sam. 2:1–5:5) and gives a summary of David’s reign (8:1–18). The narrative then returns to the earlier part of David’s reign and the sin with Bathsheba, which led to continual conflict in David’s household (11:1–12:12). That struggle did not end until David’s death; Kings begins with the conflict for the throne between Solomon and Adonijah. This is the conclusion of the succession of David, a narrative that followed the description of David’s reign.

The book of Kings follows the same pattern of emphasizing those events that were critical in the destiny of the nation. One of the most powerful and influential kings in ancient Israel was Omri, whose reign is related in a mere six verses (1 Kings 16:23–28). The achievements of Omri are known through various Assyrian records,3 which also provide a reference for an absolute chronology of the kings of Israel. Omri established a dynasty in Israel that was continued by Ahab (1 Kings 16:29), Ahaziah (22:52), and Joram (2 Kings 3:1). The dynasty came to a violent end with the revolt of Jehu, who killed all the seventy sons of Ahab in Samaria and every last survivor of the house of Omri (10:1–17). Ahab is named in the Aramean coalition against the Assyrians in the battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C.4 The beginning of the reign of Jehu is known from the reference to him on the Assyrian Black Obelisk, which can be dated to 841.5

The account of the dynasty of Omri, which lasted about forty years, occupies fifteen chapters in Kings, or about one third of the total narrative, which covers four hundred years. This disproportion is understandable in a prophetic work like Kings. The burden of Kings is to show the reason for the Exile, which was the violation of the covenant of Mount Sinai, through alliances and the worship of the Canaanite god Baal. The reign of Ahab was characterized by his alliance with the Phoenicians through his marriage to Jezebel. It was the most prominent example of the proliferation of the evils of the Baal cult, and the efforts of the prophets to counter such an influence were at peril to their own lives. This short period of time characterized the dangers of a foreign religion, a central concern of the prophetic writing of Kings.

It must further be observed that within this period of two generations the events do not appear to be arranged in chronological succession. Kings tells us of the ascension of Elijah (2 Kings 2:1) before the alliance of Joram king of Israel, Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and the king of Edom against the Moabite king (3:1–27). Chronicles tells us of the death of Jehoshaphat, the accession of his son Jehoram (2 Chron. 21:1), and the revolt of the king of Edom (21:8–10a). After this Elijah sends wicked Jehoram a severe letter (21:12–15), warning him of an awful death because he assassinated his brothers and followed in the ways of Ahab. If we accept the chronology of Edom offered within Kings, the Elijah—Elisha stories are not placed in chronological order.6 Rather this cycle of stories serves as examples of prophetic activity in the midst of apostasy. As a prophetic work, the narrative of Kings shows the faithfulness of God and the disaster of the failure to keep the covenant.

Prophetic Character of Kings

THE STUDY IN HISTORICAL TRADITIONS by Martin Noth drew attention to the continuous narrative that extends from Deuteronomy through Kings.7 Noth believed that this lengthy account of the whole history of Israel was originally the creation of a single writer who was both author and editor, bringing together material from highly varied traditions and arranging it according to a carefully conceived plan. He assumed that this author lived in the Exile, since that is the end point of the books of Kings. The novelty of Noth’s model was not in the perception of the continuity of these books or in the observation of their being edited in a style conforming to Deuteronomy. Rather, Noth believed that the original work of Deuteronomy through Kings was a continuous whole that was only later divided into books.

The influential study of Noth dramatically altered the scholarly conception of the earliest histories of the nation Israel. Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings came to be recognized as continuous by design; they were not a patchwork created from two or more previous histories (sources) going back to Mosaic times. It became common to speak of a Deuteronomistic History in reference to the Former Prophets and to speak of the writers as the Deuteronomistic Historians. It should be noted that what Noth called the Deuteronomic History is not the present form of the Former Prophets, but an original composition found within these writings.8 Noth found numerous later additions to the original work, some of them quite large (e.g., Joshua 13–22), but he made no attempt to relate them to each other or to the systematic revisions of later editors. Since Noth a great deal of study has been devoted to authorship and date of the composition process; it is usually assumed that there were at least two stages in the Deuteronomistic History: one at the time of Josiah, and one during the Exile.

Prophetic Speeches

NOTH CORRECTLY OBSERVED the important role that speeches play in the narrative of Israel. In the course of the history a leading person is introduced with a speech, long or short, which looks forward and backward in an attempt to interpret the course of events and draws the relevant practical conclusions.9 At the beginning of the book of Joshua, after the introductory challenge of God, Joshua addresses the tribes east of the Jordan, outlining their responsibility in the task of occupation until Yahweh gives rest to all the rest of the tribes (1:12–15). Rest becomes a theological term for the fulfillment of the promise of inheritance of the land (cf. Deut. 3:20; 12:9–10; Josh. 21:44; 22:4; 23:1; 2 Sam. 7:1, 11; 1 Kings 5:18). Joshua gives a long solemn speech formulating critical instructions for conduct in the land they have come to possess (Josh. 23). This speech initiates the transition to the time period of the judges of Israel.

The books of Joshua and Judges are conscious contrasts of faithfulness to the covenant. Joshua tells of how the land of Canaan became the land of Israel under the leadership of Joshua because the people were faithful (Josh. 24:28–31). Judges is the account of how the land of Israel became Canaanite because of the failure of the people to keep the covenant (Judg. 2:6–10). The failure of the judges was a failure of leadership; there was no king in Israel (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). The transition to kings is introduced by a lengthy speech by the prophet Samuel (1 Sam. 12). The people are gathered to learn the lessons of past history and are admonished to be faithful in this new opportunity (12:20–25). Finally, after the completion of the temple in Jerusalem, Solomon gives a long speech in the form of a prayer (1 Kings 8:14–53), expounding the significance of the temple and emphasizing the importance of prayer and forgiveness for their failures. These speeches are prophetic admonitions and instructions to the three major periods of the history of Israel.

There are other summarizing reflections on the history presented as part of the narrative. Joshua provides a summary of the occupation of the land (Josh. 12); the cyclical and degenerative cycles of the judges are introduced with a description of covenant violation and judgment in spite of repeated divine intervention in mercy (Judg. 2:11–19). In the introduction of the well-known story of Gideon and the Midianites, an unnamed prophet provides the explanation for the devastation of their land (6:7–10); in the typical vocabulary and style of Deuteronomy this prophet rehearses the basic message of God’s redemption and Israel’s rebellion. This is an example of the retrospective reflection given for the grim outcome of the monarchic period in Israel and Judah (2 Kings 17:7–23). Yahweh had warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets (v. 13) to turn from their evil ways; their refusal to do so had led to their Exile, just as the prophets had said (v. 23).

The emphasis in this prophetic history is the voice of God, which manifests itself in the covenant requirements of integrity in relationships, with both God and people. As Noth pointed out, it is remarkable that there is no concern for the actual practice of the temple rituals, even after the dedication of the temple by Solomon.10 There is, of course, an acknowledgment that sacrifices were a part of the customary form of worship, but the focus of the whole is on the practice of covenant requirements.

Covenant Obligation

THE ESSENTIALS OF COVENANT instruction are found in what Deuteronomy refers to as “this law.” This expression is found eighteen times in Deuteronomy, most of them in the concluding chapters on maintaining the covenant (Deut. 27–32). The introduction to Deuteronomy makes clear that “this law” is the content of the book itself (1:5; 4:44–45), the teaching of Moses in Moab just before the entrance of Israel into the Promised Land. “This law” stands as the envy of all the nations (4:8), who may observe the wisdom of the ways of the people that follow it. It is further described as “the covenant written in the book of this law” (29:21). The renewal of the covenant at Shechem (between Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim) is a solemn oath to observe the teaching of the law written out before them (27:3, 8). Grievous curses rest on all those who fail to maintain this law (7:26; 28:58, 61).

The essence of the covenant is to reverence Yahweh exclusively. The covenant is the voice of God written in “the book of this law” (Deut. 30:10); their God demands uncompromising devotion of their mind and desire (cf. 6:1–6). The words of the covenant are to be kept with the ark (31:25–26) as a permanent testimony to their oath of commitment. The priests as the custodians of this book of the law are responsible to renew the covenant every seven years (31:9–13); they review its teaching to all the assembly (women, children, and the sojourners are included), gathered at the Feast of Booths.

According to Deuteronomy, the book of this law is the particular responsibility of the king, whom Yahweh will choose. When they come to the land, they are to install their king in accordance with the divine choice (Deut. 17:15). The king is required to make a copy of “this law” from the book, which is in the charge of the priests (v. 18), and the king must read it regularly, so he will learn to reverence Yahweh and learn to observe its requirements (v. 19). The king is one with his brothers in the requirement of subservience to the covenant, but the king is responsible to ensure that the practice of the covenant is carried out in the regulations of the kingdom. This becomes the sole criterion of evaluation applied to each of the kings of Israel and Judah in the history written about them.

Deuteronomistic Theology

IN A DETAILED AND COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, Moshe Weinfeld has identified nine theological tenets found in the Deuteronomistic presentation of history:11 (1) the struggle against idolatry; (2) the centralization of the place of worship; (3) exodus, covenant, and election; (4) the monotheistic creed; (5) observance of the law and loyalty to the covenant; (6) inheritance of the land; (7) retribution and material motivation; (8) fulfillment of prophecy; (9) the election of the Davidic dynasty. All of these tenets are articulated in jargon that is distinctly Deuteronomistic.12

The kings of Israel and Judah are the chosen heirs of the covenant and the land. Their loyalty to the covenant is measured in terms of absolute allegiance to Yahweh; this exclusivity is unlike that of all the other religions, and it is a standard that is impossible to achieve (Josh. 24:16–20). The Israelites will constantly adopt the level of loyalty required by Canaanite gods, they will compromise their worship of Yahweh, and they will suffer the consequent judgment. The judgment passed on kings is not an evaluation of achievements and failures. The prophets are not concerned with good and evil actions, but with the one fundamental decision on which salvation and judgment depend. In the end the nation will fall, but the work of God will not fail.

The catastrophes of the exile of Israel (722 B.C.) and of Judah (586 B.C.) are of the most profound theological significance. The theological interpretation of these events is that Israel has cumulated an ever-increasing burden of guilt and faithlessness until at last Yahweh leaves his people to the ultimate judgment. This results in a considerable perplexity about the future of saving history. David was promised that the kingdom of God would be realized through an eternal dynasty of his descendants (2 Sam. 7:12–17). The grace of God was a mitigating factor for covenant failures, but there were limits. The fate of the kingdom of Israel was determined by the abomination of Jeroboam in setting up the calves at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 14:16). In spite of this the kingdom continued for another two centuries. Even so wicked a king as Ahab humbled himself at the word of judgment (21:29), so the judgment on his house was not fulfilled in his lifetime.

During the times of severe oppression by the Arameans, Yahweh showed mercy and granted reprieve for the sake of his covenant (2 Kings 13:23; 14:25–26). The one enduring hope was the promise to David, a promise passed on to Solomon by David (1 Kings 2:4). In his prayer at the consecration of the temple, Solomon declared this promise to have been realized (8:20), though it was followed with a prayer acknowledging the condition of covenant obedience (vv. 25–26). Solomon himself followed the ways of the Sidonians (11:5–6), so the kingdom was taken from him, though for the sake of David one tribe remained (11:11–13, 32, 36). This promise was repeated to Abijah (15:4), the faithless successor to Rehoboam.

David is the model of covenant loyalty and integrity in the history of Kings,13 the one who is worthy to receive the promise of the eternal dynasty. The dynasty of David survives in Judah, but in the end Judah does not survive. The survival of the nation has been conditional to keeping the covenant. The future of an eternal dynasty is left in tension with the demise of the temporal kingdom.

The promise of the eternal dynasty had its roots in the covenant of Sinai and in the promise to the patriarchs.14 David was the servant of God (2 Sam. 7:5), in the manner of Moses (cf. Josh. 1:2, 7), and received rest (2 Sam. 7:1, 11), just as Moses had led the people into rest (Josh. 1:13, 15; 23:1). The divine obligation of the promise is not dependent on the human obligation to keep the covenant.15 The demise of the nations of Israel and Judah is the consequence of covenant violation, but this does not annul the promise, which will be realized in a new covenant. The new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34) needs to be of a different order; it cannot simply be the nation being given another opportunity to fulfill the covenant responsibility.16 In the dying days of the city of Jerusalem the prophet Jeremiah holds out the hope that God will supply the fundamental change required in the hearts of the people.

The transformation of the people will be entirely an act of divine grace; it will be the means of the divine promise coming to fruition. This hope is not explicit in the story of the nation as related in Kings; essentially it falls outside the scope of the history of the nation, since its realization will not be in nationalistic terms. At the same time the eternal promise to David is prominent in the account of the history of the nation and is one of the important tenets of the intellectual form in which the nation understands its significance and its corporate identity.

Prophetic Activity

IN THE CHRONICLES OF THE KINGS, the prophets are responsible to hold the kings accountable to maintain the covenant. They appear chiefly as opponents of the kings, to confront the rulers who are apostates, or inclined to become apostate, with an unambiguous statement of the word and will of God. The narratives of the prophets account for a considerable amount of the material in Kings; most notable are the stories of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 8) and the prophecy of Isaiah in the Assyrian crisis (2 Kings 18–21). Though other prophets are not as prominent, their role is no less significant.

The division of the kingdom begins with Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who becomes the prototype for the covenant failure of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 16:26, 31, etc.), but the division of the kingdom takes place under the direction of the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh (11:29). Jeroboam is enlisted in the service of Solomon as responsible for transportation of goods (v. 28). He revolts against Solomon and is forced to flee to Egypt (11:26; 12:2), but it is likely that he is encouraged in his rebellion by the prophet Ahijah. Ahijah declares that ten tribes will be given to Jeroboam (11:30–33) because of the failure of Israel to keep the covenant. The refusal of Rehoboam to conciliate the people and the successful coup of Jeroboam is part of the divine purpose (12:15), as spoken by the prophet. But Jeroboam leads the ten tribes into apostasy with the establishment of the calves at Dan and Bethel (12:26–31). The message of the prophet Ahijah to him is not only that his sick son will die, but also that the rule of his house will come to an end (14:10–11).

Another prophet, Micaiah son of Imlah (1 Kings 22:8), is summoned at the request of Jehoshaphat when Ahab is seeking his help to recapture Ramoth Gilead from the Syrians. Micaiah prophesies that Ahab has been lured into his own death by lying prophets (22:19–23). Ahab has him thrown into prison (v. 26), but the word of the prophet is fulfilled in that the king is killed in battle in spite of his efforts to disguise himself (vv. 37–38).

Prophetic Fulfillment

THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY is thus one of the central themes of the books of Kings. The word of Yahweh concerning the requirement of the covenant is clear, although at times the summary judgment is given in general terms, simply saying that the king did not comply with the covenant requirement completely (1 Kings 11:4; 15:3, 14). With this determinative principle there is the certain efficacy of the word of God, which does not fail but is invariably fulfilled.17 Ahijah tells Jeroboam that his family will be terminated (14:10–11), an event that is noted as fulfilled when the usurper Baasha destroys the royal house (15:29). The judgment against Jeroboam finds its ultimate fulfillment in the end of the nation of Israel (14:15–16).18 An unknown prophet at Bethel specifically tells the idolatrous Jeroboam that a descendant of David named Josiah will kill the priests of his altar and burn human bones on it (13:1–3); this is fulfilled when Josiah purges the cultic places (2 Kings 23:16–18).

Some of the fulfillments are in reference to prophetic words antecedent to Kings. Joshua placed a curse upon Jericho, saying that anyone who rebuilt it would do so at the cost of an eldest and youngest son (Josh. 6:26); in disregard of this, Ahab incites an individual named Hiel of Bethel to rebuild it, with the result that he suffers precisely the penalty prescribed (1 Kings 16:34). On the positive side, Yahweh has determined the temple will be built by a son of David (2 Sam. 7:13), an achievement brought about by Solomon (1 Kings 8:20). Deuteronomistic theology views history as a fulfillment of the will of the Lord and therefore can be announced by the prophetic word. This prophetic word is not so much predictive as declarative of the requirement of the covenant and the consequences of failing to observe it.

Kings as Ancient History Writing

THE HISTORY OF THE BIBLE embodies a variety of incidental detail, but its central issues are the larger questions of life and destiny. As Speiser points out, the Bible is not so much a chronicle of events worth recording, or thought to be worth recording, as it is an interpretation of significant happenings. Thus it is essentially a “philosophy of history,”19 with the purpose demonstrating a divinely ordained way of life. Its central theme is the quest of a life worth living, and if need be, worth dying for. The Scriptures are never intended to be a mere history of events or the biography of a nation.20 The reader interested in such things is told where to find them, such as the “Book of the Wars of the LORD” (Num. 21:14), the “Book of Jashar” (Josh. 10:13), the “book of the annals of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19), and the “book of the annals of the kings of Judah” (2 Kings 23:28). The purpose of the Deuteronomistic History is to tell the story of a society in search of an enduring way of life, a life of universal validity.

It is important to define the concept of history. A concept of history is not an effort to set up scientific criteria by which writing may qualify as history, and not all literary forms dealing with the past can be classified as histories. The noted Dutch historian Johan Huizinga has defined history as “the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past.”21 The “intellectual form” of writing about the past may be referred to as history writing.22 Rendering an account of the past requires an assessment of responsibility for past actions, passing judgment on them and showing their consequences for the present state of affairs. A civilization rendering an account of its past provides a corporate identity. It expresses what a nation is and what it stands for; it shows the essential character of the people and evaluates their actions.

This definition of history distinguishes it from other forms of writing about the past. Historiography is a more inclusive category for all writings about the past, which may be incorporated in the task of history writing.23 History writing is corporate in character, considers the reasons for recalling the past and the significance given to past events, and plays a significant role in the tradition of the people.

The history of Kings, in which the respective histories of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are portrayed in a synchronistic patchwork, may have been influenced by Babylonian historiography.24 Mazar is surely correct in contending that this biblical history “has no peer for concise and persuasive expression, for the presentation of a clear picture of historical evolution, and for the evaluation of those personalities who have appeared on the stage of history.”25 The authors of Joshua through 2 Kings gathered material from stories, records, and royal chronicles to produce a work with structure and unity.

The history of Kings is presented in the form of a narrative. Since narrative is a literary creation, the credibility of the Scriptures as representing the events of the past has come under severe attack. Skeptical of narrative histories in general, various scholars have argued that little relation can exist between “biblical Israel” and “the Israel of the Iron Age.”26 While not all history writing is narrative, and certainly not all narrative is historiography, narrative is an important means of portraying history. Literature and history cannot be regarded as unrelated or mutually exclusive categories.27 Historical narrative is not the mere statement of discrete facts but is the creation of a sequence of events to depict past reality. Such history writing is not mere invention, since it is not possible to construct the past in just any way at all.

Biblical historiography is in its own way as sophisticated as early modern history writing.28 It distinguishes between individuals, groups, and nationalities; it understands actions as motivated by greed, jealousy, and power; it attempts to present conjunctions of events by indicating simultaneous sequences.29 Events of the past are presented out of a sense that significant lessons can be learned from the past and applied to the time of writing. The partially accessible past of human interactions is broken down into causes and effects. The repetitive patterns of major events are explained in terms of divine causality.

Literary creation and religious imagination are joined in history in biblical narrative such as that of Kings, because it purports to be accounts of things that happened in historical time.30 It becomes obvious that “literary understanding is a necessary condition of historical understanding, and both literary and historical understanding are necessary conditions of competent biblical interpretation.”31 The questions historians should ask, in understanding a narrative such as Kings, are similar to the questions that literary readers should ask.32 The task includes the identification of the hero and his quest, observing the role of the narrator and the dialogues, and following the plot and the development of the narrative structure. Attending to the literary elements of historical narrative is necessary to understanding the medium through which the lessons of history are given.

The Process of History Writing

UNLIKE THE FIFTH-CENTURY historian Herodotus, whose writings to explain the Persian wars earned him the reputation among later Greek historians as the “father of history,” the writings of the Former Prophets were left anonymous. Any knowledge of the time and circumstances of the writings must be inferred by literary analysis. Van Seters has proposed that the

Like Herodotus, the prose narrative within Joshua through Kings is made up of larger and smaller units in a loosely connected chain with little subordination of major and minor themes. Similar episodes are associated by analogy with interpretive introductions and summary statements rather than arranged in temporal or logical sequence.34 Like Noth, van Seters believes that the original Deuteronomistic History was the creation of a single individual, but since it was anonymous, it has suffered the ignominy of being fractured into canonical books and, worse yet, of being hopelessly dissected into collections and redactions by modern scholars.

Van Seters regards the Deuteronomistic History as the first Hebrew example of “history writing,” that is, the conscious development of a national history with the purpose of providing a self-identity. There were various historiographic writings before this time, that is, other writings about past events that were a resource for this history writing. These would have included chronologies of events developed from king lists, royal inscriptions such as dedications or memorial texts, and chronicles that portrayed particular historical events. He disputes the presence of early historiographic works such as the “Story of Saul,” the “Story of David’s Rise,” and the “Court History” or “Succession Story” (2 Sam. 9–20; 1 Kings 1:1–2:46)35 during the early period of the kingdom of David and Solomon.

Joshua through Kings does not make a claim to being the work of one individual and has not been preserved in a form in which it is the work of one individual. Van Seters believes that a history was produced in the exilic period to provide a national identity for Israel by developing an ideology in which kings and people needed to be obedient to the covenant of Moses. It must be asked why such a history would first be produced in the Exile.36 Most notable is the prominence of preexilic perspectives and themes, especially the hope of the dynasty of David. Much can be learned from Herodotus about the method and purpose of ancient historians, which may help us to understand the Former Prophets, but the parallels that can be observed are not sufficient to establish more than a general similarity between the two works. It is too bold to identify these as being a common genre of writing. The writing of Herodotus never functioned as a prophetic proclamation, while the Hebrew composition is known only as a prophetic word canonized as Scripture.

In the Hebrew canon the entire narrative from Genesis to Kings is presented as a continuous history.37 A Deuteronomistic History seeking to develop a national identity on the basis of covenant loyalty has been incorporated in a much longer narrative. What other such sources were available in the exilic period to compose a history that concluded with the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27)? Brian Peckham maintains that the sources of the continuous history of Genesis to Kings were complete written works; these works were earlier versions of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History.38 In his view the entire historical work from Genesis through Kings was formed in a series of revisions of a continuous historical tradition.

Junctures of previous compositions are still evident in the present form of the Former Prophets. There are notable repetitions of material with transitional statements to indicate a thematic presentation of past events. In Joshua the boundary list of Judah (Josh. 15:1–63) includes the account of Caleb receiving the city of Hebron (15:13–14; cf. 14:13–15) and of Othniel conquering Debir (15:15–19), with the notation that Jerusalem was not taken from the Jebusites (v. 63). Judges places the capture of the territory of Judah after the death of Joshua (Judg. 1:1–21), repeating the story of Caleb and Othniel (vv. 8–15, 20), with the notation that the Jebusites stayed in Jerusalem (v. 21), even though the summary introduction said Jerusalem was captured by Judah (v. 8). Later we are told of how David captured Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6–9). The statement that the Jebusites continued to live with the Benjamites “until this day” (Judg. 1:21; cf. Josh. 15:63) indicates the importance of understanding the past in the present. It marks one of those histories, complete at the time of “this day,” written to explain how God was at work in the events that had taken place.

This Day and the Last Days

THE PHRASE “UNTIL THIS DAY” occurs fifty-five times in Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets, beginning with Deuteronomy 2:22 and ending with Manasseh (2 Kings 21:15); in the majority of cases it is a commentary added to a tradition to testify that the situation in question continued to the time of writing.39 It is comparable to the phrase “as it is this day” (1 Kings 3:6; 8:24, 61) to indicate significance and application to the present reality.

The phrase “until this day” appears to have been used to validate some aspect of the tradition that could be verified at the time of writing. It could have belonged to the sources of the Deuteronomistic History rather than to the history itself,40 or it could belong to a stage of the history. The detail about the district that Solomon annexed to Hiram of Tyre “called Cabul until this day” (1 Kings 9:13) may have belonged to the “book of the annals of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), which served as a source for the reign of Solomon. In a number of instances the phrase may have been part of the Deuteronomistic History, as the claim of Caleb to the city of Hebron (Josh. 14:14), since this could have still been true in the exilic period.

In two instances the phrase “until this day” is not part of a historical source and cannot have been true in the exilic period. The first is the reference to the poles for carrying the ark (1 Kings 8:8), and the second the details of the slave corvée of the surviving native populations (9:21). Even these have not been regarded as convincing evidence of a written form of the history in the preexilic period.41 The first is textually uncertain, as it is missing in the Old Greek versions. Burney, however, argues that it was deliberately omitted by the Greek translator because it was no longer true in his day.42 The second has the appearance of being a revision from the book of the annals of Solomon.

The phrase “until this day” appears in virtually all the sources that can be identified in the Deuteronomistic History, whether northern or southern, annalistic or literary. The majority of objects said to exist “until this day” are found in the area of Judah (Josh. 4:9; 7:26; 8:28–29; 10:27; 1 Sam. 6:18), reflecting a distinctive southern familiarity. The phrase “until this day” is consistently used to speak of specific Deuteronomistic interests in the preexilic period: the use of non-Israelite forced labor (1 Kings 9:21), the destruction of altars of false worship (2 Kings 10:27–29), the ark (1 Kings 8:8), and the rebellion of Edom (2 Kings 8:22, 14:7, 16:6). A thorough study by Geoghegan leads him to the conclusion that the phrase “until this day” was adopted from sources used by a preexilic composer in the days “when the temple still stood, the poles of the ark still protruded beyond the curtain of the holy of holies, and the nation itself was undergoing unprecedented cultic reforms and territorial expansions under Josiah.”43 This composition included a great diversity of material with diverse perspectives, written in support of the Davidic throne and the cultic reforms of Josiah in the centralization of worship at Jerusalem.

The treatment of themes in the books of Kings is additional convincing evidence for a version of the Deuteronomistic History at the time of Josiah.44 Obedience to the Mosaic covenant as expressed in “the book of this law” is central to the history of Kings, but this emphasis should not compromise the importance of the promise to David. David would always have a lamp (1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19) in Jerusalem. The apostasy of the house of Ahab and his alliance with the kings of Jerusalem almost extinguished that lamp when Athaliah, daughter of Ahab (2 Kings 8:18), attempted to destroy the entire royal family (11:1–3), but the dynasty was spared through Joash, grandson of Athaliah.

These two themes of covenant obedience and the promise to David reach their climax in the reign of Josiah. Josiah led the nation of Judah in covenant renewal (2 Kings 23:3), in the renewal of temple worship, in the removal of all the places of false worship (vv. 4–20), and in the renewal of the Passover (vv. 21–23). A sharp contrast begins with the death of Josiah. Manasseh receives the blame for the Exile (2 Kings 23:26–25:26), whose evil influence could not be removed by the reforms of Josiah. Judah had survived previous evil kings because of David’s faithfulness. The renewal of Josiah was the high point of hope, because he had corrected all the false worship that had been brought by Manasseh. If the reform of Josiah had been ineffective or if the people had reverted to their sinful ways, the theme of judgment for covenant failure would have followed through more consistently. These striking features of the success of Josiah and the condemnation of Manasseh give the impression that a history celebrating the covenant at the time of Josiah was complemented by an explanation of the destruction of Jerusalem in the time of the Exile.

The Composition of Kings

OTHER EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN EXAMINED for earlier stages in the development of the books of Kings. The regnal formulas exhibit patterns of variation, especially in the valuations of judgment. An examination of these patterns led Weippert to the conclusion that an edition of the history was completed in the time of Hezekiah, a second in the time of Josiah, and a third in the Exile.45 The first edition evaluated the kings of Judah from Jehoshaphat to Ahaz and the kings of Israel from Joram to Hoshea. The second edition evaluated the kings of Israel from Jeroboam I to Ahaziah and the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Asa, then from Hezekiah to Josiah. The third edition brought a negative evaluation to bear on the four last kings of Jerusalem. Lemaire extended the study of Weippert to propose an earlier composition at the time of Jehoshaphat in the ninth century.46 This ninth-century edition continued an earlier history of David and a work on the wisdom of Solomon. These were possibly part of the instructions of priests and prophets associated with the royal court at Jerusalem, serving as an encouragement for reform or correction.

Provan has complemented these studies with an examination of attitudes toward the high places.47 He concludes that two different themes may be found. The first of these in 1 Kings 3–2 Kings 18 viewed these as shrines belonging to Yahweh. A later view, found also in additions to the sections containing the first view, regarded these as idolatrous places of worship. This evidence suggests that a preexilic edition of the history ended with Hezekiah, corroborating evidence from the judgment formulas. Provan thinks that an edition of Kings was written at the time of Josiah, but it did not include any material on Manasseh, Amon, or Josiah himself. He suggests that this edition must have included the books of Samuel in much their present form and may have included the last chapters of Judges (Judg. 17–21). He regards the “antimonarchial” sections of 1 Samuel 7–12, the book of Judges, and the ending of Kings as part of an exilic revision of the history. The addition of Judges would have provided the literary structure for the addition of Joshua and Deuteronomy. Such observations are scanty indications of the stages of a complete history, but it is evident that a prophetic history of Israel began long before the exile, and it was complemented by the prophets as time went on.

A study of themes and formulas is critical to understanding Kings. Reflection on the significance of historical events for understanding the covenant relationship with God was necessary at critical times. The days of Josiah were a high point in achieving the purity of covenant worship. The present form of Kings retains much of the optimism of the blessing of covenant obedience celebrated at that time. The tragic end of Josiah and the rapid demise of Judah within a generation brought about sober reflection on the covenant relationship. The history of Kings completed in the Exile juxtaposed the elements of obedience and judgment, blessing and curse.

The basic thesis of Noth, that a single writer was both author and editor of a large composition called the Deuteronomic History, must acknowledge the presence of earlier versions of such a history.48 The ending of Kings, with its sharp contrast between the positive reforms of Josiah correcting all the wrongs of Manasseh and the blame for the exile assigned to Manasseh, is difficult to explain as the unified work of an exilic author. The portrayal of Josiah in Kings makes sense only as a version of the Deuteronomistic History before the Exile.

It is important to recognize a form of history writing in which a nation gives account to itself of its traditions. This history does not begin at the time of Josiah, but the optimistic outlook for the kingdom during the reign of Josiah is unmistakable. The catastrophe of the Exile then requires a revision of the history. The severity of covenant disobedience takes on tragic reality for the nation, but the Exile does not remove the hope of the promise. Whatever the future of the kingdom of Israel, the kingdom of God as promised to David will prevail.