Acts of Solomon.

1 Kings, chaps. xii.-xxii. Drawn by Jeremiah from the Books of the Kings of Israel and Judah.

the Kings of Israel and Judah,

2 Kings, chap. xvii. 7-41.

Written by Jeremiah himself.

2 Kings, chaps. xvii.-xxii. Drawn by Jeremiah from the Book of the Kings of Judah.

2 Kings, chaps. xxiii.—xxv. Written by Jeremiah himself.

The object proposed to himself by the author of Kings was the carrying on of the Israelitish history from the point to which he found it brought at the close of the Second Book of Samuel to his own time, in a compendious form, and in the spirit of the earlier sacred writers. He commences his work with the copulative conjunction "and," thereby indicating that it has the character of a continuation.' He then devotes his first section (1 Kings i.-ii. 1-11) to the closing years of David, less, however, with the object of completing David's history, which he perhaps found completed in Samuel, than with that of introducing to us the person and history of Solomon, which was what he especially proposed to set before his readers in the first great division of his narrative. That narrative really consists of three main portions-(1) A history of Solomon from his association by David to his death (1 Kings i.—xi.). (2) A history of the parallel kingdoms of Israel and Judah, down to the extinction of the former (1 Kings xii.—2 Kings xvii.); and (3) a history of the kingdom of Judah from the time of the downfall of the sister state to the final destruction of the Davidic monarchy by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon (2 Kings xviii.-XXV.).

(1) The history of Solomon is divided into two portions-(a) his history from his association in the king dom to his father's death (1 Kings i.-ii. 1-11); and (b) his subsequent history as sole monarch (1 Kings ii. 15 to end of chap. xi.). The first chapter gives an account of his association, and of the circumstances which brought it about; the second, to verse 9, gives the dying charge which David left him. Then, in two verses (10 and 11), David's death and the length of his reign are briefly mentioned. With verse 12 of chapter ii. commences the second portion of the history of Solomon's actual reign. This is carried on to the end of chapter xi., when Solomon's death is recorded in the usual terms, and the name of his successor is given.

The account of Solomon's reign thus occupies nearly ten chapters, or more than a fifth of the whole work. The author notes the piety and good promise of his youth, the glory of his manhood, and his miserable falling away in his old age. He sets before us the first in two chapters (ii.iii.), the second in seven (iv.—x.), and the third in one (xi.). He thus dwells mainly upon the

1 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Samuel, which are continuations of the previous history, are similarly commenced. Chronicles, which is not a continuation, but a re-writing for a particular purpose of the whole history, commences differently.

2 It is a reasonable conjecture that Samuel, as originally written, contained an account of the death of David, which was omitted subsequently on account of the more minute details accompanying the account given in Kings.

the fact that even at this most brilliant period, when "all the earth sought to Solomon to hear his wisdom," there was a canker of corruption in the state, which promised ill for the future. Fornication (iii. 16), idolatry (xi. 33), and rebellion (xi. 26) already showed themselves; plain precepts of the law were disregarded (x. 14-25, 27-29; xi. 2); idol-temples polluted the land (xi. 7); and rites were instituted of an impure and inhuman character. The warning voice of Solomon (viii. 46)—nay, of God Himself (ix. 6-9)-was raised to declare the dreadful punishment which the nation would bring upon itself by its apostacy, unless it returned and repented. The first judgment, the disruption of the kingdom of David, was plainly announced (xi. 13, 31, &c.). Altogether, we are prepared, even in the section treating of the glories of Israel, the time when the kingdom extended from the river of Egypt to the banks of the Euphrates, for the coming desolation, when Jerusalem "sat solitary as a widow, and wept sore, and had none to comfort her" (Lam. i, 1, 2).

(2) The history of the double monarchy, or the two parallel kingdoms of Israel and Judah, which forms the subject of the second main section of Kings, is treated by the author with much skill and ability. An ordinary writer would have narrated the two histories separately, completing the one before he entered upon the other. The writer of Kings-no ordinary author-combines the two histories in an artistic and highly elaborate way, making each reflect light on the other, treating of each in its turn, but never dwelling so long upon the one as to cause the other to be forgotten, and particularly bringing into prominence the points in which the two histories were connected. The unwise severity of Rehoboam leads to the revolt of the Ten Tribes, to the establishment of Jeroboam as "King of Israel," and the setting up of an unauthorised worship at Dan and Bethel to rival the authorised ritual of Jerusalem (chap. xii.). The open rivalry naturally leads to war (xii. 21— 24; xiv. 30; xv. 6—7, 16); and war leads to the calling in of foreign allies on the one side or the other (xiv. 25; xv. 18-20), whereby each kingdom is in turn weakened. At length, after three generations of strife, the rival kingdoms, under the pressure of foreign aggression, come to terms; amity and alliance take the place of constant jealous hostility; Jehoshaphat, the fourth King of Judah, marries the daughter of Ahab, the seventh King of Israel; and the two powers are, for the space of three reigns, close allies and friends, undertaking conjoint enterprises (1 Kings xxii. 48, 49), going out to battle together (1 Kings xxii. 2—32; 2 Kings iii. 7-27), and exchanging visits of congratulation, condolence, or ceremony (1 Kings xxii. 2; 2 Kings viii. 29; x. 13). But this cordial intercourse is in its effects worse than the precedent hostility. A foreign

3 In Chronicles all mention of Solomon's sins is avoided.

idolatry, a more gross and open defection from Jehovah than the anterior "calf-worship," has been introduced into Israel by Ahab; and the affinity contracted by Jehoshaphat with this king, and the connection thereby established, naturally lead on to the adoption of this fearful abomination by Judah also, and so to the corrup tion and ruin of both kingdoms. The evil is indeed stayed in both cases-in Israel by the establishment on the throne, through prophetical agency, of a dynasty hostile to the house of Ahab, which continues in power for above a century; in Judah by a priestly revolution, issuing in the execution of the princess who has brought the corruption in, and the placing upon the throne of an infant prince, during whose minority the high priest is regent, and the worship of Jehovah is restored. The taint, however, had penetrated too deep to be eradicated. In Israel the house of Jehu, though staunch against the Baal-worship, maintained the idolatry of Jeroboam (2 Kings x. 31; xiii. 2, 11; xiv. 24; xv. 9); and the later kings permitted the introduction of strange cults and rites from all the surrounding nations. The author of Kings, in his history of the double monarchy, treats more especially of Israel, to whose affairs he devotes eighteen whole chapters out of twenty-eight, and more than the half of seven others. He traces especially the sins and the warnings of this portion of the promised people; and then, having completed his narrative by relating their conquest by the Assyrians, he appends a remarkable passage, consisting of reflections upon the history, justifying the ways of God thus far, and showing that the nation brought upon itself its own destruction.

(3) Having concluded his account of the double monarchy, the writer of Kings (in 2 Kings xviii.) enters upon the third great division of his work, and proceeds to trace the remaining history of the kingdom of Judah through eight reigns,' from the accession of Hezekiah, six years before the extinction of the kingdom of Israel, to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. He dwells especially upon the histories of Hezekiah and Josiah, the two best kings of this period, the latter of whom he had probably known personally (Jer. i. 2). He delivers the history of Hezekiah, almost in the exact words of Isaiah (Isa. xxxvi.—xxxix.), in three chapters (2 Kings xviii.-xx.); that of Manasseh and his son, Amon, in one (chap. xxi.); that of Josiah in two (xxii. and xxiii.); and that of his successors, also in two (xxiv. and xxv.). In this section, as in the preceding one, he notes especially the sins of the chosen people-the popular worship of the brazen serpent (xviii. 4), the ostentatious exhibition of his wealth by Hezekiah (xx. 13), the cruelties and manifold idolatries of Manasseh (xxi. 2—17), the similar iniquity of Amon (xxi. 20-22), the persistent opposition to Jehovah of Jehoahaz (xxiii. (32), Jehoiakim (ib., verse 37), Jehoiachin (xxiv. 9), and Zedekiah (ib., verse 19). Having thus prepared his readers for the final catastrophe, which could not but

1 The reigns of Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, Jehoalaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah.

follow upon such obstinacy in evil, be in his last chapter (2 Kings xxv.) narrates with extreme brevity the closing scene-the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, the captivity of the people, the fate of Zedekiah and his sons, the burning of the Temple, the carrying off of its treasures, the massacre of the chief prisoners at Riblah, the establishment of Gedaliah as governor over the "remnant left in the land," his murder, and the retreat of the "remnant" into Egypt. Here his narrative might seem naturally to come to an end. All was over. Sin had worked out its natural result of suffering. A complete apostacy had provoked an entire destruction. But the writer will not leave his readers in the dreary darkness to which he has conducted them, without cheering them with a gleam of light. God had promised that, at the worst, he would never wholly fail David. David's throne and kingdom, if in abeyance for a time, should be re-established, and should in some true sense continue for ever (2 Sam. vii. 16). Bearing this in mind, the writer ends his work with a section which seems to say that the worst is past, the deepest darkness gone by, the day-dawn approaching. He notes how, after a weary captivity of thirty-seven years, the last scion of the house of David, ere his death, passed from a prison to a palace, from a dungeon to a "throne," exchanged his wretched life in the confinement of a Babylonian gaol for a seat with other kings at the banquet-table of the Great Monarch, who " spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; and changed his prison garments," and gave him bread to "eat continually before him all the days of his life" (2 Kings xxv. 28, 29). Thus the cloud lifts ere the scene closes upon us; a promise of better things to come appears; the nation which has been told so plainly-even sternly—the truth, that its own sins have brought it to ruin, is encouraged to hope in the long-suffering mercy of God, and to look forward to a time when it too, like Jehoiachin, may find its captivity terminated and itself restored to a position of honour.

Such is the general outline of the history contained in Kings. The peculiarities of the writer are not many. Like the other sacred historians, he occupies what has been called "the religious stand-point "—that is, he views the events of history in their religious and moral, not in their mere civil, aspect. He "regards the Jews, not as an ordinary nation, but as God's people. He does not aim at exhibiting the political progress of the kingdoms about which he writes, but intends to describe to us God's treatment of the race with which He had entered into covenant. Where he records the events of the civil history, he does not record them for their own sake, but simply as illustrative of the nation's moral condition, or of God's dealings with it." Hence it follows that he often omits altogether (or treats with the utmost brevity) events which the ordinary historian would have considered as of primary importance. Thus he takes no notice at all of the expedition of Zerah the Ethiopian,

2 Speaker's Commentary, vol. ii., p. 477.

the great event of Asa's reign (2 Chron. xiv. 9-15; xvi. 8); he omits wholly the war of Jehoshaphat with Moab, Ammon, and Edom (2 Chron. xx. 1-25); that of Uzziah against the Philistines (ib., xxvi. 6-8), and that which ended with Manasseh's capture by the Assyrians (ib., xxxiii. 11-13). He describes with extreme brevity the conquest of Jerusalem by Shishak (1 Kings xiv. 25, 26), the war between Abijam and Jeroboam (ib., xv. 7), that of Amaziah with Edom (2 Kings xiv. 7), and that of Josiah with Pharaoh-nechoh (ib., xxiii. 29). As a general rule, he passes lightly over the military history of the two kingdoms, contenting himself with referring his readers to the "Books of the Kings of Israel" or "Judah" for the events to which an ordinary secular historian would have given the greatest prominence.

It has been regarded as “characteristic" of him, that he makes the activity of the prophets in the state, and the narrative of their miracles, leading topics in his history; and undoubtedly it is true that the prophets, their words and acts, do occupy a considerable space in his narrative, and attract to themselves much of the attention of the reader. The doings and sayings of Elijah the Tishbite occupy four entire chapters (1 Kings xvii.—xix.; 2 Kings i.) and a considerable portion of two others (1 Kings xxi. 17—29; 2 Kings ii. 1-11). Those of Elisha, the son of Shaphat, are related even at greater length, occupying four chapters completely (2 Kings iv.-vii.) and portions of six others (1 Kings xix. 19 21; 2 Kings ii. 12—25; iii. 11—25; viii. 1—15; ix. 1— 10; and xiii. 14-21). Two chapters (2 Kings xix. and xx.) are almost wholly concerned with Isaiah. Besides nameless prophets, whose doings occupy most of two chapters (1 Kings xiii. and xx.), we have mention in the history of Ahijah the Shilonite, Shemaiah, Jehu the son of Hanani, Micaiah the son of Imlah, Jonah the son of Amittai, and Huldah the prophetess. Altogether, nearly a third of the entire work is concerned with the activity of the prophets, with their miracles, and the part which they played in the history of the two kingdoms. It does not appear, however, that the prominence of the prophets is due to any particular bias of the writer's mind, or to any determination on his part to assign them an undue place in his narrative. It is simply due to the fact that the time was one of remarkable prophetic activity, and that during it the religious history of the Israelitish nation was largely affected by the exertions and influence of the prophets. We know that of the four greater prophets, three, and of the twelve minor ones, nine, lived during the period; and we hear in Chronicles of seven other persons as prophesy ing under the kings, who are not included in either of these lists, or mentioned by our author. Thus an honest history of the time, and of its religious phenomena, necessarily included frequent reference to the prophets, to their teaching, their influence, and their miracles, which were so largely instrumental in giving them their influence.

A more special characteristic of the Book of Kings, as it has come down to us, is its elaborate and apparently

that

exact chronology. In no other part of Scripture has anything like the same degree of attention been paid to the chronological element which underlies the history; nor is it common to find even in profane writers of this same early age, such constant and particular notes of time as occur in this composition. In Judges and Samuel the estimates of time are palpably incomplete; and the numbers, which are most commonly round ones, have an appearance of inexactness. In Kings round numbers do not occur with any frequency; no intervals of time are unestimated; and in the main section of the work, the central one (1 Kings xii.-2 Kings xvii.), a system of double notation of a complicated character prevails, an attempt being made to synchronise exactly the parallel histories of Israel and Judah. It may be doubted, however, whether this peculiarity is, at any rate in its present pronounced form, an original feature of the work, or whether it has not rather been superadded on some revision. Strong reasons have been alleged for regarding the first date which occurs (“It came to pass, in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt Solomon began to build the house of the Lord"-1 Kings vi. 1) as an interpolation; and it may be suspected that a similar character attaches to the entire series of synchronisms between the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. These synchronisms are always parenthetic; and in many cases the sense would be cleared, and the grammar improved, were they omitted. "So Tibni died, and Omri reigned; in the thirty and first year of Asa, King of Judah, began Omri to reign over Israel twelve years" (1 Kings xvi. 22, 23), is scarcely a satisfactory sentence. Nor are the following any better:"In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah, King of Judah, began Menahem, the son of Gadi, to reign over Israel ten years in Samaria" (2 Kings xv 17); "In the fiftieth year of Azariah, King of Judah, Pekahiah, the son of Menahem, began to reign over Israel in Samaria two years" (ib., 23), where our translators interpolate the words "and reigned" before "ten years" and "two years," because otherwise the sentences are incongruous and have no clear sense. It may be added that the chronology is thrown into inextricable confusion by the synchronisms, which cannot be reconciled one with another, excepting by a long series of violent and most improbable suppositions, as that the initial year of a king is reckoned differently in different passages, and that long interregna occurred of which the historian says nothing.

The authenticity of the general narrative of Kings is scarcely questioned by any writer, ancient or modern. No one doubts that from the time of David the Jews were familiar with writing, and adopted the practice of keeping state records; nor is it questioned that, in the main, the writer of Kings honestly drew from this source. Certain exceptions to the general rule are, however,

1 See the Speaker's Commentary, vol. ii., p. 515.

Others will be found in Clinton (F. H., vol. i., pp. 315–329) and 2 Some of these are given in the margin of many of our Bibles. in the Comment on Kings by Keil.