Theology on the Web helps over 2.5 million people every year to find high quality theological resources that will help to equip them to serve God and to know Him better (2 Timothy 2:15). Like other websites that provide free services, it is dependent on donations to enable it to grow and develop and only 0.004% of visitors currently do so. If you would like to support this site, please use one of the options to the right of this message.
Bibliotheca Sacra 158: 632 (2001):406-414.
[Reproduced by Permission]
[Gershon Galil is Senior Lecturer and Chairman ofthe Department of Jewish History, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa,Israel.]
[406]
Why was the Book of Kings written and what was its message?Various opinions concerning this issue have been suggested by scholars.[1] It is clear that this book presents a confession of sinand a justification of divine judgment. It is also clear that the author wasintensely interested in the fulfillment of the word of God in history. However,one should ask whether the author of Kings presented the destruction ofJerusalem as a final end or as a new beginning? Did he view the relationshipbetween God and Israel as an everlasting bond or did he
[407]
regard the catastrophe as the last station on a long, painful, anddisappointing path?
If the author of 1 and 2 Kings focused only on the past,expressing no hope for the future, as Noth and other scholars suggest,[2] the message of this book is negative. The readers wouldthen comprehend the futility of obeying God's orders, since their fate had beenalready determined by their ancestors and therefore could not be changed.Indeed such a view was prevalent among the exiles: "The parents have eaten sourgrapes, and the children?s teeth are set on edge" (Ezek. 18:2).[3]
Did the author of the Book of Kings in fact compose this text ofsuch broad scope only to tell his readers that their relationship with God hadceased? Is Kings nothing but a gloomy and pessimistic accusation that containsno hope, consolation, or clemency?
The fall of the kingdom of Judah and the destruction of the Lord'scity and temple had created a profound crisis in Judah. The elite of Jerusalemand Judah suffered great economic and social losses and were driven from theirland, deposed from their positions, and cast into a foreign land. Yet thegreatest loss of all was their disillusionment, the loss of the belief in theimmunity of Jerusalem, and in the idea that God would never harm His city orabandon His land (Jer. 7:14). The relationship between God and Israel sufferedfrom a severe and unprecedented crisis: The prophets? warnings were fulfilledand the people of Judah were exiled.
One of the main questions the exiles asked was whether the breachbetween God and His people was final, or if there was still hope, with theExile being simply a passing phase in their complex relationship. Some exilesfelt despair and hopelessness and sensed that they had reached a dead end.Others, however, believed that God would again pardon His people and returnthem to their land. They viewed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile as atemporary nadir that could be healed. Since God had previously chosen to placemercy before justice, why should He not do so again?
The Bible contains clear data regarding these two views. Thefeeling of despair seems to have enveloped the majority. The exiles
[408]
knew that the thousands of Israelites and Judeans who had beenexiled at the end of the eighth century by the Assyrian kings (in 733-732, 720,and 701 B.C.) had never returned to their homeland, and many actually remainedin exile for more than 150 years. Moreover, their land was settled byforeigners. Had God forsaken them forever? Would they ever recover? Many exilessaid to Ezekiel, ?Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost: we are cut offcompletely? (Ezek. 37:11). On the other hand the prophets, emphasizing the needfor repentance, inspired the exiles with the hope of returning to theirmotherland (e.g., Jer. 29:4-14).
The message of the Book of Kings is clear: The author did notpresent the history of the relationship between Israel and God as a processleading toward destruction and loss, but rather as an intricate and complexrelationship that has its ups and downs, with sin, repentance, and forgiveness.The message is one of hope and consolation: The Lord forgave His elected peoplein the past and He would forgive them in the future. The Exile did not mean theend of relations between God and His people. Hope was not lost. Therefore thosewho were exiled needed to regain their belief in God and pray to Him, and Hewould rescue them and return them to their land.[4]
The importance of warning and repentance is emphasized in manypassages in Kings. The following three examples will suffice.
One example is 1 Kings 13:1-10, 33-34. The hand of Jeroboam wasparalyzed as punishment for his sins. He asked a man of God to pray that hisparalysis would be cured. Indeed the man prayed and God forgave Jeroboam, andhis paralysis was healed.
A second example is 1 Kings 21:27-29. Ahab, king of Israel, whoenraged the God of Israel by worshiping Baal, repented after receiving a harshverdict against him and his house. Because of his repentance, the sentencing ofhis dynasty was delayed: "Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me?Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in hisdays; but in his son's days I will bring the disaster on his house."
A third example is 2 Kings 13:1-5, 22-24. Jehoahaz, son of
[409]
Jehu, sinned in the eyes of God and was punished severely by thekings of Aram. Yet, following his plea to God, "the Lord was gracious to themand had compassion on them; he turned toward them" (v. 23).
Seemingly it is not coincidental that repentance is expressed inthe book through wicked kings and their sins: through Jeroboam and,specifically, through Ahab, who "did more to provoke the anger of the Lord, theGod of Israel, worse than had all the kings of Israel who were before him" (1Kings 16:33).
Recompense in the Book of Kings is collective and accumulative.However, it is also conditional and delayed. God visits the sins of the fatherson their children only if they are His enemies. A villain would bear the sinsof his wicked fathers, but not a righteous son, and righteousness delays theverdict. The last king of Israel indeed sinned less than his predecessors, yethe sinned; Judah fell during the time of Zedekiah as a result of Manasseh'ssins, yet Zedekiah was not 'righteous.'
On the other hand God said that Jehu had "done well in carryingout what I consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart" (2Kings 10:30). As a result, four of his descendants would sit on his throne.Similarly Josiah - before whom there was no king who "turned to the Lord withall his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might" (23:25) - succeededin delaying the destruction of Jerusalem, and much like Jehu, he was fortunateto have four successors who reigned over Judah.
Solomon's prayer is essential to comprehend the message of thebook. The author of the Book of Kings intended for the words of Solomon to beheard at a key point in the relationship between God and His people, that is,at the time the temple in Jerusalem was dedicated. The following words ofSolomon's prayer would appeal to the exiles and would be a specific plea forrepentance because of the hope of returning to the motherland. This is theessence of this book's message. "Yet if they come to their senses in the landto which they have been taken captive, and repent, and plead with you in theland of their captors, saying, 'We have sinned, and have done wrong; we haveacted wickedly'; if they repent with all their heart and soul, in the land oftheir enemies, who took them captive, and pray to you toward their land, whichyou gave to their ancestors, the city that you have chosen, and the house thatI have built for your name" (1 Kings 8:47-48). Solomon then noted how theexiles could expect God to answer: "Then hear in heaven your dwelling placetheir prayer and their plea, maintain their cause and forgive your people whohave sinned against you, and all their transgression that they have committedagainst you; and grant them
[410]
compassion in the sight of their captors, so that they may havecompassion on them" (vv. 49-50).
The people's cumulative sins would result in the loss of theirland. However, even if the Israelites were defeated, their land ruined, andthey were exiled, God would still reveal Himself to them, accept their prayers,and return them to the land of their ancestors. "Then hear in heaven, forgivethe sin of your people Israel, and bring them again to the land that you gaveto their ancestors" (v. 34).
The author of Kings viewed the relationship between God and Israelas an everlasting bond. Even though the Israelites continually betrayed Him anddistanced themselves from Him - "They went after false idols and became false"(2 Kings 17:15) - God would remain attentive and forgiving. The destruction ofJerusalem and the exile to Babylon signified an additional low point in thepeople's relationship with God, and not a final end. Indeed it is one of thelowest points in the history of God's people. Yet such a crisis was not withoutprecedent. Other crises occurred at the end of Solomon's days, during the daysof the house of Omri, in the time of Ahaz, and during the reign ofManasseh.
Now that God had exhausted His fury and delivered rigorous justiceon them, exiles might expect His mercy.
The Message of the Book of Kings and The Book ofDeuteronomy
The outlook of the author of Kings is similar to those found inother books, such as Deuteronomy and Jeremiah. Deuteronomy 4:6-30 stresses theimportance of repentance in exile. The words in verses 27-29, 31 would raisethe exiles' spirits and inspire them with the hope of returning to the PromisedLand.[5]
"The Lord will scatter you among the peoples; only a few of youwill be left among the nations where the Lord will lead you. There you willserve other gods made by human hands... From there you will seek the Lord yourGod, and you will find him.... Because the Lord your God is a merciful God, hewill neither abandon you nor destroy you; he will not forget the covenant withyour ancestors that he swore to them" (vv. 27-31). See also 30:1-3, 5: "If youcall them [the blessings and the curses] to mind among
[411]
all the nations, where the Lord your God has driven you, andreturn to the Lord your God, and you and your children obey him... then theLord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, gatheringyou again from all the people among whom the Lord your God has scatteredyou.... The Lord your God will bring you into the land that your ancestorspossessed."[6]
The message is clear: The destruction and Exile did not signify aconclusion, nor did they end the relationship between the people and God. Therewas still hope and a way out. Moreover, Moses, who predicted the Exile, alsopredicted future redemption.
The Book of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomistic History
Scholars long ago recognized "Deuteronomistic" strata in the Bookof Jeremiah.[7] These strata were written in accordwith concerns stated in the Book of Deuteronomy or in a style that reflectedthat of Deuteronomy. The explanation of the destruction in both books issimilar, and the books include speeches that are similar. Most important is thefact that within the speeches found in Jeremiah lies the expressed hope toreturn to the homeland (Jer. 29:12-14; 33:7-11). This fact strengthens theassumption that the Deuteronomistic author of the Book of Kings directed hiswords to the future, expressing a positive message to his readers.
I agree with Martin Noth that the "Deuteronomistic history" wasedited by one person. Yet I disagree with him on many issues, including thedate and the extent of the pre-Deuteronomistic and post-Deuteronomisticelements.
In my opinion the Book of Jeremiah is an integral part of theDeuteronomistic history. Jeremiah has more Deuteronomistic elements than otherbooks suggested by Noth, for example, 1 and 2
[412]
Samuel.[8] It is clear that the Book ofJeremiah was "Deuteronomistically" composed.[9]
There are slight variations between the Deuteronomistic editing inJoshua-Kings on the one hand and in Jeremiah on the other. Differences arefound mainly in two idiomatic expressions.[10] Thisdistinction might derive from Jeremiah's vocabulary and there is no need todistinguish between these editorial strata because of these slight changes instyle.[11] On the contrary the distinct resemblancesin content and form demonstrate that the Deuteronomistic work in Joshua-Kingsand Jeremiah may have been that of a single person, who prepared an extensivecomposition describing the history of Israel from Joshua to Jeremiah.
Deuteronomy serves as an introduction to the Deuteronomistichistory, whereas the Book of Jeremiah concludes it. In Deuteronomy the path wasdelineated and norms were determined. The main body of Joshua-Kings records themany ups and downs in Israel's relationship with God. And the epilogue (theBook of Jeremiah) focuses on the destruction and Exile in an attempt to explainthe events and inform the exiles of the message of redemption.
[413]
In the Hebrew Bible Jeremiah follows Isaiah. However, in anancient tradition these books were arranged differently. The Book of Jeremiahfollows the Book of Kings, and the Book of Isaiah comes after Jeremiah(Babylonian Talmud Baba Batra 14b).
The view that the Book of Jeremiah was an integral part of theDeuteronomistic history may explain why Josiah's reform is not mentioned in theBook of Jeremiah,[12] and it may also explain whyJeremiah's name is not mentioned, even once, in the Book of Kings. Furthermorethis helps explain why only one chapter is given in the Book of Kings to thelast ten years of Judah's kingdom and to the most traumatic event of the book(2 Kings 25). Moreover, this chapter provides no explanation for thedestruction. However, there are several verses in the book that deal with thisissue (17:19-21; 21:10-16; 22:16-17; 23:26-27; 24:3-4). Yet at the end of thebook, following the gruesome depiction of the burning of Jerusalem and thehouse of God, no explanation is given for the catastrophe. If the Book ofJeremiah is included as part of the Deuteronomistic history, this shows thatthe reason the last years of the kingdom of Judah and the destruction ofJerusalem are recorded so briefly in Kings is that these are discussed morethoroughly in the Book of Jeremiah.
The similarity between Jeremiah 52, which concludes that book, and2 Kings 25, which ends the Book of Kings, was intended to tighten the bondbetween Jeremiah and previous parts of the Deuteronomistic history.Jehoiachin's release from captivity (Jer. 52:31-34) is also recorded in 2 Kings25:27-30, where it seems out of context. Therefore some scholars view this as alater addition to Kings. However, it is appropriate at the end of both books;the exiles would have regarded it as an opening for hope and the realization ofJeremiah's prophecies, much like the chronicler who viewed the return to thePromised Land as a realization of ?the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah? (2Chron. 36:22).
The absence of an explanation for the destruction of Jerusalem inthe end of the Book of Kings need not be questioned further, for it is providedextensively in many chapters in Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 2:4-4:2), which may beviewed as a direct continuation of 2 Kings 25:30. Several Deuteronomisticclichés appear in these chapters, mainly in Jeremiah 2:4-8. Especiallynoteworthy is the parallel between Jeremiah 2:5 and 2 Kings 17:15: "They wentafter false idols and became false." It is therefore possible that the authorof
[414]
the Deuteronomistic history composed a complex literary unit(Jer. 2:4?4:2), which on the one hand justified the divine judgment (chap. 2),and yet on the other (chap. 3), expressed hope for the future.[13]
In the Book of Jeremiah the author of the Deuteronomistic historydistinctly clarified the message of his extensive work - that a merciful Godhas made an everlasting bond between Him and His people. "I will restore thefortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and rebuild them as they were atfirst. I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and Iwill forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me... there shallonce more be heard the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice ofthe bridegroom and the voice of the bride... for I will restore the fortunes ofthe land as at first, says the Lord" (33:7-8, 10-11).
References
[1] The main issuespresented in this article were discussed during a seminar held in honor ofMoshe Weinfeld at the University of Haifa on June 12, 1999. The lecture ispublished here with minor changes. The following are some of the many worksreleased in the last decade on this subject: Lewis Vale Alexander, "The Originand Development of the Deuteronomistic History Theory and Its Significance forBiblical Interpretation" (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, Fort Worth, TX, 1993); A. Graeme Auld, Kings without Privilege:David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings (Edinburgh: Clark, 1994);Erik Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of theDeuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill, 1996); Gray N. Knoppers, TwoNations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the DualMonarchies, 2 vols. (Atlanta: Scholars, 1993); Steven L. McKenzie, TheTrouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the DeuteronomisticHistory, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1991); Steven L.McKenzie and M. Patrick Graham, eds., The History of Israel's Traditions:The Heritage of Martin Noth, Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement 182 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994); James Richard Linville, Israel inthe Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity, Journal forthe Study of the Old Testament Supplement 272 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1998); Linda S.Schearing and S. L. McKenzie, eds., Those Elusive Deuteronomists: ThePhenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentSupplement 268 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1999); and Ernst Würthwein, Studienzum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (Berlin: de Gruyter,1994).
[2] "Clearly he saw thedivine judgment which was acted out in his account of the external collapse ofIsrael as a nation as something final and definitive and he expressed no hopefor the future, not even in the very modest and simple form of an expectationthat the deported and dispersed people would be gathered together" (MartinNoth, The Deuteronomistic History, trans. J. Doull et al., Journal forthe Study of the Old Testament Supplement 15 [Sheffield: JSOT, 1981],97).
[3] Scripture quotationsare taken from the New Revised Standard Version.
[4] For emphasis on thepositive and optimistic message in the Book of Kings see Gerhard von Rad, "Dasdeuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königsbücher," Deuteronomium Studien, B (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1947), 52?64; Hans Walter Wolff, "Das Kerygma des deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerk," Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 171-86; Eep Talstra, Solomon's Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony inthe Composition of 1 Kings 8:14-61 (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharaos,1993); and Alexander, "The Origin and Development of the DeuteronomisticHistory Theory," 237-40.
[5] Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary,Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 48?50, 215-21.
[6] For a differentinterpretation of Deuteronomy 30:1-10 see Marc Zvi Brettler, "Predestination inDeuteronomy 30:1-10," in Those Elusive Deuteronomists,171-88.
[7] Bernhard Duhm, DasBuch Jeremia (Tübingen: Mohr, 1901), xxff; W. Rudoph, Jeremia(Tübingen: Mohr, 1947); James Philip Hyatt, "The Book of Jeremiah," in The Interpreter's Bible, ed. George W. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon,1956), 5:775ff.; idem, "The Deuteronomic Edition of Jeremiah," in Leo G. Perdueand Brian W. Kovacs, eds., A Prophet to the Nations: Essays in JeremiahStudies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 247-67; Winfried Theil, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1-25 (Neukirchen Vluyn:Neukirchener, 1973); idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia26-45 (Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981); William McKane, A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah I-XXV, International CriticalCommentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1986), lxii-lxxxiii; and T. C. Roemer, "How DidJeremiah Become a Convert to Deuteronomistic Ideology?" in Those ElusiveDeuteronomists, 189-99.
[8] See Walter Dietrich,"Martin Noth and the Future of the Deuteronomistic History," in The Historyof Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth, 170; cf. Ronald ErnestClements, "Jeremiah 1?25 and the Deuteronomistic History," in UnderstandingPoets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A.Graeme Auld, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 152(Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 93-113.
[9] See Richard ElliotFriedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit, 1987), 146-47; andNorbert Lohfink, "Gab es eine deuteronomistische Bewegung?" in Jeremia unddie "deuteronomistische Bewegung," ed. Walter Gross (Weinheim: BeltzAthenäum, 1995), 359.
[10] The Deuteronomistspoke of "burning incense to foreign gods" whereas the Book of Jeremiah refersto "pouring libations to foreign gods" (Jer. 7:18; 19:13; 32:29; 44:17). Andthe Deuteronomist wrote of the king "sitting upon the throne of Israel" (1Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5), whereas the Book of Jeremiah refers to the king "sittingupon the throne of David" (Jer. 13:13; 17:25; 22:2, 4) (Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School [Oxford: Clarendon, 1972], 6,355).
[11] Some scholarssuggest that one should distinguish between the Deuteronomists of theDeuteronomistic history, who were "traditionalists" and "hardliners," and theDeuteronomists of Jeremiah, who were more open-minded. See R. Albertz, "DieIntentionen und Träger des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks," in Schöpfung und Befreiung: Für Claus Westermann zum 80Geburstag, ed. Rainer Albertz et al. (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1989), 37?53;idem, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, II, Fromthe Exile to the Maccabees, trans. J. Bowden (Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox, 1994), 382?99; and Hermann-Josef Stipp, "Probleme desredaktionsgeshichtlichen Modells der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches," in Jeremia und die "deuteronomistische Bewegung," 225-62.
[12] See JosephSchreiner, "Jeremia und die joschijanische Reform: Problem-Fragen-Antworten,"in Jeremia und die "deuteronomistische Bewegung," 11-31.
[13] For recentdiscussions on Jeremiah 2:1-4:2 see the articles by Nancy C. Lee, A. R. PeteDiamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor, and Marvin A. Sweeney, in TroublingJeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O'Connor, and Louis Stulma,Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 260 (Sheffield: JSOT,1999), 87-122, 123-45, 200-218.
