KINGS,
BOOKS
OF
C'-").
Each
man
must
have
his
own
last
day,
and
each
one
be
made
manifest
and
answer
for
himself
before
the
judgment-seat
of
Christ.
And
when
all
things
are
ultimately
put
in
subjection
unto
the
Christ,
then
also
shall
the
Son
of
God
Himself
have
perfected
His
redemptive
reign,
and
God
shall
be
all
in
all.
See
Authority,
Dominion,
Parousia,
Power.
M.
S.
Terry.
KINGS,
BOOKS
OP.—
1.
Title,
etc.
—
This
is
the
name
of
two
well-known
narrative
books
of
the
OT.
In
Heb.
MSS
and
early
printed
editions
they
appear
as
one
book,
and
even
to
the
present
day
the
Massoretic
note
appears
at
the
end
of
the
second
book
only.
The
division
into
two
was
made
for
the
convenience
of
Greek
readers,
and
passed
from
the
LXX
to
the
Vulgate,
and
so
to
the
Church.
In
fact,
the
division
between
the
parts
of
the
great
Biblical
narrative
which
extends
from
Genesis
to
2
Kings
is
more
or
less
arbitrary,
—
there
is
no
clear
line
of
demarcation
between
2
Samuel
and
1
Kings,
any
more
than
between
1
and
2
Kings.
2.
Method
and
sources.
—
What
we
have
just
said
does
not
imply
that
the
Books
of
Kings
are
exactly
like
the
other
historical
books.
They
differ
in
their
method,
and
in
the
way
in
which
the
narrative
is
presented.
The
most
striking
feature
is
the
attempt
to
date
the
events
recorded,
and
to
keep
two
parallel
lines
of
history
before
the
reader.
The
period
of
time
they
cover
is
something
over
400
years,
and
when
it
is
remembered
that
these
books
give
us
almost
the
only
light
we
have
on
events
in
Israel
for
this
period,
their
historical
value
will
be
evident.
At
the
same
time,
the
light
they
throw
on
the
method
by
which
the
Biblical
authors
worked
is
almost
equally
great.
To
estimate
the
historical
value,
it
will
be
necessary
to
look
at
the
literary
method.
The
phenomenon
which
first
strikes
the
reader's
attention
is
the
unevenness
of
the
narrative.
In
some
cases
we
have
an
extended
and
detailed
story;
in
others
a
long
period
of
time
is
dismissed
in
a
few
words.
The
reign
of
Solomon
occupies
eleven
chapters
—
about
a
fourth
part
of
the
work;
while
the
longer
reign
of
Manasseh
is
disposed
of
in
sixteen
verses.
From
our
point
of
view
there
is
reason
to
think
that
the
reign
of
Manasseh
was
quite
as
interesting
and
quite
as
important
as
the
other.
Still
closer
examination
shows
that
there
are
well-
marked
characteristics
of
style
in
certain
sections
which
are
replaced
by
equally
marked
but
totally
different
ones
in
other
sections.
Moreover,
there
are
seemingly
contradictory
assertions
which
can
hardly
have
come
from
the
same
pen,
though
they
might
have
occurred
in
different
documents,
and
have
been
retained
by
a
compiler
who
did
not
fully
realize
their
force.
Thus
the
account
of
Solomon's
forced
labour
'raised
out
of
all
Israel
'
seems
inconsistent
with
the
other
declaration
that
Solomon
made
no
bond-servants
of
Israel
(1
K
S""-,
of.
IP'andg^).
One
passage
says
without
qualification
that
there
was
war
between
Rehoboam
and
Jeroboam
all
their
days;
another
tells
us
how
Rehoboam
gathered
a
mighty
army,
but
dismissed
it
at
the
word
of
a
prophet
without
making
war
(1
K
I221-"
and
143").
These
indications
of
a
compilatory
activity,
such
as
we
find
also
in
other
parts
of
the
OT,
are
confirmed
by
the
author's
reference
to
some
of
the
books
from
which
he
has
drawn.
Two
of
these
are
mentioned
so
often
that
they
attract
the
attention
of
every
reader.
They
are
the
Books
of
Annals
(in
our
version
'books
of
chronicles')
of
the
kings
of
Israel
and
of
the
kings
of
Judah.
To
these
we
may
add
the
references
to
the
Book
of
the
Acts
of
Solomon.
The
author
had
these
three
books
in
his
hand,
and,
what
is
of
more
importance,
he
thought
his
readers
were
likely
to
have
them
at
their
command.
This
is
the
reason
why
he
refers
to
them
—
that
those
readers
who
are
curious
for
further
details
may
find
them
in
these
books.
It
follows
that
these
sources
of
his
are
not
the
archives
of
the
two
kingdoms,
but
regular
books
circulated
and
read
among
the
people
at
large.
But
it
is
clear
that
other
sources
were
drawn
upon.
KINGS,
BOOKS
OF
Some
of
the
material
cannot
have
come
from
either
of
the
books
named.
The
description
of
the
Temple
might
supposedly
have
been
embodied
in
the
Acts
of
Solomon,
though
this
seems
improbable.
But
it
is
quite
certain
that
the
extended
life
of
Elijah
and
the
equally
diffuse
life
of
Elisha
never
had
a
place
in
the
history
of
the
kings.
There
must
have
been
a
Life
of
Elijah
circulated
by
some
of
his
disciples
or
admirers
after
his
death,
and
the
probabiUty
is
strong
that
there
was
also
a
separate
Life
of
EUsha.
Whether
these
two
may
not
have
been
embodied
in
a
general
work
on
the
Lives
of
the
Prophets,
whence
the
sections
which
in-terested
him
were
taken
by
our
author,
we
may
not
be
able
to
determine.
That
these
sections
did
not
come
from
the
source
with
which
they
are
most
nearly
combined
is
evident
from
the
difference
in
tone
and
point
of
view.
Ahab
appears
very
differently
in
the
EUjah
sections
and
in
the
chapters
which
treat
of
the
Syrian
wars.
The
narratives
which
deal
with
Isaiah
suggest
reflex-ions
similar
to
those
which
come
to
us
in
looking
at
Elijah
and
Elisha.
They
look
like
portions
of
a
biography
of
Isaiah.
This
biography
was
not
our
Book
of
Isaiah,
in
which
some
sections
are
duplicates
of
what
we
find
in
the
Second
Book
of
Kings.
But
other
portions
of
the
Book
of
Isaiah
seem
to
have
been
drawn
from
the
same
Life
of
Isaiah
which
furnished
the
duplicate
material
of
which
we
have
spoken.
Although
some
of
the
points
that
have
been
touched
upon
are
more
or
less
obscure,
we
are
justified
in
saying
that
the
Books
of
Kings
are
a
compilation
from
at
least
five
separate
sources
—
three
which
the
author
cites
by
name,
a
Temple
chronicle,
and
a
History
of
the
Prophets.
The
hypothesis
of
compilation
explains
some
of
the
discrepancies
already
noted,
and
it
also
explains
some
of
the
violent
transitions
in
the
narrative.
Ch.
20
of
1
Kings
is
inserted
between
two
passages
which
belong
together,
and
which
were
once
continuous.
This
chapter
introduces
Benhadad
as
though
we
knew
him,
when
in
fact
we
have
not
heard
of
him.
In
like
manner
Elijah
appears
suddenly
in
the
narrative,
without
the
slightest
intimation
as
to
who
he
is
or
what
he
has
been
doing.
These
indications
confirm
the
theory
of
com-pilation,
and
they
show
alsothat
the
author
has
in
no
case
(so
far
as
we
can
discover)
embodied
the
whole
of
any
one
of
his
sources
in
his
work.
He
used
his
freedom
according
to
his
main
purpose,
taking
out
what
suited
that
purpose
and
leaving
the
rest
behind.
3.
Purpose.
—
The
next
inquiry
is,
What
was
the
purpose
which
explains
the
book?
In
answer
to
this
it
is
at
once
seen
that
the
purpose
was
a
religious
one.
The
author
was
not
trying
to
write
history;
he
was
trying
to
enforce
a
lesson.
For
those
who
were
inter-ested
in
the
history
as
history
he
gave
references
to
the
books
in
which
the
history
could
be
found.
For
himself,
there
was
something
more
important
—
this
was
to
point
a
moral
so
plainly
that
his
people
would
take
heed
to
it
and
act
accordingly.
This
comes
to
view
plainly
in
the
recurring
sentences
which
make
up
what
has
been
called
the
framework
of
the
book.
These
are
not
always
exactly
alike
—
sometimes
they
are
scantier,
sometimes
they
are
fuller.
But
they
are
the
same
in
purport.
A
complete
example
is
the
following:
'
Jehosh-aphat
reigned
over
Judah
in
the
fourth
year
of
Ahab,
king
of
Israel.
Thirty-five
years
old
was
Jehoshaphat
when
he
began
to
reign;
and
twenty-five
years
he
reigned
in
Jerusalem;
and
his
mother's
name
was
Azubah,
daughter
of
Shilhi.
He
walked
in
all
the
way
of
Asa,
his
father;
he
turned
not
from
it,
doing
right
in
the
eyes
of
Jahweh.
Only
the
high
places
were
not
removed,
—
the
people
continued
sacrificing
and
offering
at
the
high
places.
.
.
.
And
the
rest
of
the
acts
of
Jehoshaphat
—
and
the
mighty
deeds
which
he
did
—
are
they
not
written
in
the
Book
of
Annals
of
the
kings
of
Judah?
.
.
.
And
Jehoshaphat
slept
with
his
fathers,
and
was
buried
in
the
city
of
David,
and
Jehoram
his
son
reigned
in
his
stead'
(1
K
22"-<i'-
«■
«»).
The
first
part
