V. This second book of Samuel bears an exact relation to the preceding, and is likewise connected with that which succeeds. We see throughout the effects of that enmity against other nations, which had been implanted in the minds of the Israelites by the Mosaic law, and which gradually tended to the extirpation of idolatry. "This book, likewise, as well as the former, contains other intrinsic proofs of its verity. By describing without disguise the misconduct of those characters, who were highly reverenced among the people, the sacred writer demonstrates his impartial sincerity; and, by appealing to monuments that attested the veracity of his relations when he wrote, he furnished every possible evidence of his faithful adherence to truth. The books of Samuel connect the chain of sacred history by detailing the circumstances of an interesting period. They describe the reformation and improvements of the Jewish church established by David: and, as they delineate minutely the life of that monarch, they point out his typical relation to Christ. Many heathen authors have borrowed from the books of Samuel, or have collected from other sources, many particulars of those accounts which he gives." In the falls of David we behold the strength and prevalence of human corruption; and, in his repentance and recovery, the extent and efficacy of divine grace. The two books of Samuel are of very considerable importance for illustrating the book of Psalms, to which they may be considered as a key. Thus, Psal. iii. will derive much light from 2 Sam. xv. 14., &c.; Psal. iv. from 1 Sam. xxii., xxiii., xxvi.; Psal. vii. from 2 Sam. xvi. 2, 11.; Psal. xxiv. from 2 Sam. vi. 12., &c.; Psal. xxx. from 1 Sam. v. 11.; Psal. xxxii. and li. from 2 Sam. xii.; Psal. xxxiv. from 2 Sam. xxi. 10-15.; Psal. xxxv. from 2 Sam. xv., xvii.; Psal. xlii. and xliii. from 2 Sam. xvii. 22-24.; Psal. lii. from 1 Sam. xxii. 9.; Psal. liv. from 1 Sam. xxiii. 19. and xxvi. 1.; Psal. Iv. from 2 Sam. xvii. 21, 22.; Psal. lvi. from 1 Sam. xxi. 11-15.; Psal. lvii. from 1 Sam. xxii. 1. and xxiv. 3.; Psal. lix. from 1 Sam. xix. 11.; Psal. Ix. from 2 Sam. viii. 3—13. and x. 15-19.; Psal. lxiii. from 1 Sam. xxii. 5. and xxiii. 14-16.; Psal. lxviii. from 2 Sam. vi. 3-12.; Psal. lxxxix. from 2 Sam. vii. 12., &c.; and Psal. cxlii. from 1 Sam. xxii. 1. and xxiv. 1., &c. [There are references to the books of Samuel in the New Testament, e. g. Acts vii. 46., xiii. 21, 22.; Heb. i. 5.] SECTION VI. ON THE TWO BOOKS OF KINGS. I. Order and title of these books.-II. Author, and sources.-III. Argument and synopsis of the first book of Kings-IV. Argument and synopsis of the second book of Kings.-V. General observations on these books. I. THE two books of Kings are closely connected with those of Samuel. The origin and gradual increase of the united kingdom of Bp. Gray, Key, p. 181. Israel under Saul and his successor David having been described in the latter, the books now under consideration relate its height of glory under Solomon, its division into two kingdoms under his son and successor Rehoboam, the causes of that division, and the consequent decline of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, until their final subversion; the ten tribes being carried captive into Assyria by Shalmaneser, and Judah and Benjamin to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. In the most ancient editions of the Hebrew Bible, the two books of Kings constitute but one, with a short space or break sometimes between them. Some of the early fathers of the Christian church seem to have begun the first book of Kings at the death of David (ii. 12.). The more modern copies of the Hebrew Bible have the same division with our authorized version, though in the time of the Masoretes they certainly formed only one book; as both (like the books of Samuel) are included under one enumeration of sections, versions, &c., in the Masorah. They have evidently been divided at some unknown period, into two parts, for the convenience of reading. The titles to these books have been various, though it appears from Origen that they derived their name from the initial words 777, Now king David'; in the same manner as (we have seen) the book of Genesis does. In the Septuagint Greek version, it is simply termed BAZIAEIÓN, of reigns or kingdoms, of which it calls Samuel the first and second, and these two the third and fourth. The Vulgate Latin version intitles it: Liber Regum tertius ; secundum Hebræos, Liber Malachim, that is, the third book of Kings; according to the Hebrews, the first book of Malachim. The old Syriac version has: Here follows the book of the kings who flourished among the ancient people; and in this is also exhibited the history of the prophets, who flourished in their times. In the Arabic it is thus entitled: In the name of the most merciful and compassionate God; the book of Solomon, the son of David the prophet, whose benedictions be upon us. Amen.2 II. [The books of Kings form a complete whole3, in which the author has represented the progressive development of the theocracy, according to the principle of God's promise to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12 -16. This promise is the thread running through the history from Solomon to the captivity. How the Lord fulfilled this gracious word, how, though he chastised the house of David for their transgressions, he yet preserved them an inheritance, and did not rend away all the kingdom, how he bore long with Israel as well as with Judah, and how, even after Judah, not warned by the fall of the sister kingdom, had provoked him to remove them from their land, he yet took not away for ever his mercy from David's line - all this the author designs to exhibit. And such an exhibition was of precious value, inasmuch as, wrapped up in the promise of temporal "Oréρ èσTI, Baσiλela Aavld. Orig. Op. Par. 1718-1738. tom. ii. p. 529. 2 Dr. A. Clarke, Pref. to 1 Kings, p. 1. It has been imagined that there is a great similarity of diction in 1 Kings i., ii., and 2 Samuel; but it is not enough to justify the attributing of both to the same writer: see before, p. 632. blessing, there was yet an indication of that spiritual glory in which one of David's descendants should sit upon his throne, ruling a kingdom of which there was to be no end. In conformity with this principle, the books of Kings evince a sufficient unity to show that they were composed by one and the same author. They are compiled indeed from particular annals, but they are no mere compilation, but a whole wrought out after a settled plan, in method and in style giving a substantial proof of their independent completeness. The writer refers to his sources in the same terms, marks carefully the chronology of the most important events, estimates the character and administration of the kings by the rules of the Mosaic law, describes the commencement, tenor, and close of each reign, and the death and burial of the sovereigns in the same phraseology. Keil produces the following proofs of these several particulars. For chronological reckoning, 1 Kings ii. 11.; vi. 1, 37, 38.; vii. 1. ; viii. 2, 65, 66.; ix. 10. ; xi. 42. ; xiv. 20, 21, 25.; xv. 1, 2, 9, 10, 25, 33.; xvi. 8, 10, 15, 23, 29.; xviii. 1.; xxii. 1, 2, 41, 42, 51.; 2 Kings i. 17.; iii. 1.; viii. 16, 25, 26.; ix. 29.; x. 36.; xi. 3, 4.; xii. 1, 6.; xiii. 1, 10.; xiv. 1, 2, 17, 23.; xv. 1, 2, 8, 13, 17, 23, 27, 30, 32, 33.; xvi. 1,2.; xvii. 1, 5, 6.; xviii. 1, 2, 9, 10, 13.; xxi. 1, 19.; xxii. 1, 3.; xxiii. 23, 31, 36.; xxiv. 1, 8, 12, 18.; xxv. 1-3, 8, 25, 27. References to the law, 1 Kings ii. 3 ; iii. 14.; vi. 12. &c.; viii. 58, 61.; ix. 4, 6.; xi. 33, 38.; 2 Kings x. 31.; xi. 12.; xiv. 6.; xvii. 13, 15, 34, 37.; xviii. 6.; xxi. 8.; xxii. 8. &c.; xxiii. 3, 21, 24. &c. For the way in which the death, burial, and succession of kings are noticed, we find among others, 1 Kings xi. 43. ; xiv. 20, 31.; xv. 8, 24.; xxii. 50, 51.; 2 Kings viii. 24.; xiii. 9.; xiv. 29.; xv. 7, 38.; xvi. 20.; xx. 21.; xxi. 18.; xxiv. 6. The kings of Judah are characterized, 1 Kings xv. 3, 11.; xxii. 43.; 2 Kings xii. 3.; xiv. 3.; xv. 3, 34.; xviii. 3.; xxii. 2.; and xvi. 2.; xxi. 2, 20.; xxiii. 37.; xxiv. 9, 19.; the kings of Israel, 1 Kings xiv. 7, 8.; xv. 26, 31.; xvi. 19, 26, 30. &c.; xxii. 53.; 2 Kings iii. 3.; x. 29, 31.; xiii. 2, 11.; xiv. 24. ; xv. 9, 18, 24, 28.; xvii. 21. &c. Then there are expressions used respecting the choice of Jerusalem and the temple in 1 Kings viii. 16, 29.; ix. 3.; xi. 36.; xiv. 21.; 2 Kings xxi. 4,7.; xxiii. 27.; attachment to Jehovah, 1 Kings viii. 61.; xi. 4.; xv. 3, 14.; 2 Kings xx. 3. The same usages in point of language are found throughout; as 1, 1 Kings xiv. 10.; xxi. 21.; 2 Kings ix. 8.; xiv. 26.; the frequent use of the particle 1, 1 Kings iii. 16.; viii. 1, 12.; ix. 11, 24.; xi. 7.; xvi. 21.; xxii. 50.; 2 Kings xii. 18.; xiv. 8.; xvi. 5.; ivy app, 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25.; 2 Kings xvii. 17. Peculiarities of later speech-usage are words: as P, 2 Kings xii. 6., &c., xxii. 5.; P, 2 Kings xxv. 1.; for, 1 Kings v. 2, 25.; ni, 1 Kings xx. 14., &c.; m, 1 Kings x. 15.; xx. 24.; 2 Kings xviii. 24. ; 7, 2 Kings xv. 10.; 27, 2 Kings xxv. See Keil, Commentary on the books of Kings (translated by Martin), vol. i. Introd. pp. 9-11. Comp. also Davison, Discourses on Prophecy (6th edit.), diss. v. part ii. pp. 140, 141, 151-153. 8., &c.; word-forms, as y, 1 Kings xi. 33.; 17, 2 Kings xi. 13.; ab, 2 Kings viii. 21.; &c. &c.' Some critics, however, though admitting the substantial unity of Kings, imagine that they see examples of discrepancy and repetition, which go to prove, in their opinion, that the author did little more than bring his materials into juxta-position. Thus it is said that there is a contradiction between 1 Kings ix. 22. and xi. 28.; the former passage asserting that Solomon made none of the Israelites bondmen, while the latter describes Jeroboam as ruler of the charge of the house of Joseph. But the objection confounds two things. In 1 Kings v. 13. (Heb. 27.), it is said that Solomon imposed certain tasks on the children of Israel (D is the word used), and in xi. 28. there was a burden, p, on the house of Joseph; whereas the declaration ix. 22. is ay by in, he did not make bond-slaves. They worked only by courses (v. 14.); while the bondmen were continually employed. Another contradiction is alleged between 1 Kings xxi. 19. and xxii. 38. compared with 2 Kings ix. 25, 26. It was threatened that the dogs should lick Ahab's blood where they had licked Naboth's. This, it would seem, was at Jezreel; whereas, after Ahab had been killed, it was when his chariot was washed in the pool of Samaria that his blood was licked up by the dogs. But it is distinctly said on Ahab's repentance, imperfect as it was, that the threatened evil should not be inflicted in his days. We have other examples in the scripture history of punishment being modified or remitted on the repentance of those who had been sentenced. See, for instance, the case of the Ninevites who repented at the preaching of Jonah; so that the destruction of their city did not take place within the specified time. And yet, in the case before us, so weighty is the word uttered by the prophet, that, though to Ahab himself there is some mitigation granted, yet his blood is licked up by dogs after he had died a violent death, and his son's carcase is contemptuously cast into the very plot of ground that had been Naboth's. Surely there is no appreciable contradiction. 2 These are the only instances alleged of what critics have called "direct contradiction; " but Thenius has industriously collected a variety of other, as he is pleased to term them, "indirect" discrepancies. They are, however, for the most part so utterly trifling, as hardly to deserve a refutation. Thus, things are described as subsisting "to this day," 1 Kings viii. 8., ix. 21, xii. 19.; 2 Kings viii. 22., whereas at the time the work was written the Jewish polity had ceased, and such relations no longer existed. The answer is, that the author retained the expressions from the sources he used. Then it is said that Jeroboam's residence in Tirzah, 1 Kings xiv. 17., does not agree with xii. 25., where Shechem and Penuel alone are mentioned as his residences. Now, first, it is not asserted that he lived at Penuel, but merely that he built it; and next, even if it was, it by no means follows that, during some part of his reign at least, 'Keil, Einleitung, § 58., Comm. on Kings, vol. i. Introd., pp. 9, 10; Stähelin, Krit. Unters. p. 150. 2 See Thenius, Die Bücher der Königo. Leipzig, 1849. Einleit. pp. ii. iii. he did not reside elsewhere. It is useless to encumber the pages of this book with more examples: they may be found, with satisfactory replies, in Keil.' There are also a few instances of repetition; as 1 Kings ix. 27, 28. and x. 22.; 2 Kings viii, 28, 29., and ix. 14-16.; also xiii. 12, 13, and xiv. 15, 16. If these are not to be accounted for by the frequent practice of oriental writers, who were accustomed to repeat their statements, they merely show, what is readily admitted, that the author really availed himself of the sources to which he refers. It is futile to object a want of exact chronological order, as in 2 Kings xiii. 14--21.; where the account of Elisha's death is placed after that of the decease of Joash. No comprehensive history ever was, or ever could be written in precise chronological sequence: had the penman even attempted this, it would have been urged as a ground of objection, as strongly and with more justice, by those who now censure him. The time of the composition of these books may be very nearly ascertained. It was after the Jews had been carried captive (2 Kings xxv. 27—30.), but probably before the return to Judæa; else that great event would no doubt have been alluded to. Some critics have pointed to 1 Kings vi. 1, 37, 38. as an additional proof of this; for the names (Zif and Bul) of months were not in use after the exile. But this has little weight: the names were retained from the original sources, as the added explanations "which is the second month," ," "which is the eighth month," seem to indicate. That the author wrote in Babylon is argued from 1 Kings iv. 24., and 2 Kings xxv. 27-30.; but this is nothing more than conjecture. And, though the writer was probably of Judah, Israel having been previously dispersed, yet it is useless to allege, in support of this, that he details more particularly the history of the smaller kingdom, and attributes the misfortunes of the nation to the division between the tribes (2 Kings xvii. 21.). This is all that can be ascertained: the individual writer is uncertain. Jewish tradition fixes on Jeremiah; but it is unlikely, as the closing verses of Kings could not have been composed less than sixty-six years after Jeremiah was called to the prophetical office. It is true that the section, 2 Kings xxiv. 18— xxv. 30., is nearly identical with Jer. lii.3 But Keil has shown that there are variations in style. The probability is that there was some common source from which the author of Kings derived his statement, and that a final editor added chap. lii. as an appendix to Jeremiah's prophecies. Other conjectures, that a pupil of Jeremiah and that Ezra wrote the books of Kings, are but conjectures.* The sources from which the author mainly drew his materials are indicated by himself. At the close of Solomon's history, he refers for fuller particulars to the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 41.), for every king of Judah to the book of the Chronicles of the kings Einleitung, § 58. See De Wette, Einleitung, § 185, note c. compared with § 147 a., note c. 'See Keil, Einleitung, § 59., Comm, on Kings, vol. i. Introd. pp. 8-13. |