It is the author’s purpose in this volume to review briefly the histories of the kings of Judah, as recorded in the inspired books of the Kings and Chronicles. These histories are given to us in more or less detail, and do not read exactly the same in each book. God has surely a purpose in this, and it is the glory of saints to search out these matters and to discover, if possible, why these differences exist. There can be no contradiction for “there is one Spirit,” and He who inspired the historian of the Kings also controlled and directed the writer of the Chronicles.
These two historical books of the Old Testament bear a relation to each other somewhat similar to that existing between the four Gospels of the New Testament. In the gospels we have a quartet of evangelical biographers, all giving glimpses of the Lord’s life, no two in just the same way. They did not even record any single event of that marvelous life of God incarnate in the same way; nor did they report verbatim any discourse of the divine Master. The evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are like the four parts in some sublime musical composition. Each part differs from the other, yet together they form a most perfect harmony because they are arranged by one master musician. Each part is perfect in itself, yet requires the others to give the intended fullness. The one part expresses sweetness; the other, strength; another, pathos; and still another, profundity. Each part is essential to the proper expression of the other three and in the combination of the four we have the full, grand harmony. So the four Gospels, though differing, are all the compositions of one author-the Holy Spirit. Each is perfect, yet requires what the others contain to give to the fourfold record the surpassing beauty that every anointed eye beholds in the four evangelists. Each record, being perfectly proportioned to the others, produces that sublime anthem of praise to Heaven’s beloved One of whom they speak.
And He was the King. In the two books into which we are about to glance we have kings-some comparatively good, and others exceedingly bad; some who made fair beginnings, and foul endings; others who commenced badly, but made a good finish. All, however, came short of God’s glory and the divine ideal of what a king should be. He who was, according to the expectation of the Gentile magi, “born King of the Jews,” and to the Jew Nathanael “the King of Israel,” fulfilled that ideal perfectly. So He is called by Jehovah “My King.” And in the fast-approaching day of His kingdom and power He will be known and acknowledged as King of nations (see Matt. 2:2; John 1:49; Psa. 2:6; Rev. 15:3).
Let us now look at the real differences between the Kings and Chronicles, and their significance. In the LXX (Septuagint) 1 and 2 Kings are called “The third and fourth of the Kingdoms.” Originally, in the Hebrew, they were one book like 1 and 2 Samuel. In the Numerical Bible Grant wrote, “Samuel and Kings, as we name them, should be, however, as they were originally, but one book each” (volume II, Page 287). The opening word of 1 Kings, Now, indicates that it is really a continuation of Samuel. The history recorded in 1 and 2 Kings is carried on past the middle of the captivity, and ends with Jehoiachin restored to liberty, and his throne set above that of the other kings that were in Babylon-a beautiful, though perhaps faint, shadow of Israel’s restoration and exaltation in the coming millennial day. This, as someone has said, is “in happy consonance with its design.” It is as “the first ray of God’s returning favor,” a slight pledge that David’s seed and kingdom would (as God said), in spite of past failure, endure forever. Fausset said, in reference to Kings relation to Chronicles, “The language of Kings bears traces of an earlier date. Chaldee forms are rare in Kings, numerous in Chronicles, which has also Persicisms not found in Kings.”
The writer of the books of the Kings is not known. The Talmud ascribes it to Jeremiah, which seems somewhat unlikely since the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin (the last date in the book) would be sixty-six years after his call to the prophetic office. Besides, the prophet probably died in Egypt with God’s rebellious people, whom he so deeply loved and served. On the other hand, as Fausset stated, “The absence of mention of Jeremiah in Kings, though he was so prominent in the reigns of the last four kings, is just what we might expect if Jeremiah be the author of Kings.” He remarks further: “In favor of Jeremiah’s authorship is the fact that certain words are used only in Kings and in Jeremiah: baqubuqu, cruse (1 Kings 14:3; Jer. 19:1, 10); yagab, husbandman (2 Kings 25:12; Jer. 52:16); chabah, hide (1 Kings 22:25; Jer. 49:10); avar, to bind (2 Kings 25:7; Jer. 39:7).”
But whoever the inspired penman may have been, he evidently wrote with a different purpose in view than the author of the Chronicles, who was probably Ezra, the priest. Two names, Akkub and Talmon, found in 1 Chron. 9:17-18, and mentioned in Neh. 12:25-26 as being porters “in the days of Nehemiah, and of Ezra the priest,” and Zerubbabel’s name with that of others in 1 Chron. 3:19, prove the writer lived and wrote after the restoration. The fact that the close of Chronicles and opening of Ezra overlap indicates one common author-as Luke and the Acts. Both 1 Chron. 29:7 and Ezra 2:69 mention the Persian coin dark (dram). “The high priest’s genealogy is given in the descending line, ending with the captivity, in 1 Chron. 6:1-15. In Ezra 7:1-5, in the ascending line from Ezra himself to Aaron is given, abridged by the omission of many links, as the writer in Chronicles had already given a complete register” (Fausset). So if a prophet (Jeremiah) wrote the Kings, and a priest (Ezra) wrote the Chronicles, it would readily account for the ministry of the prophets being so prominent in the former book, and of the priests and Levites in the latter. It might also furnish the key as to the meaning of the marked differences in many portions of the two records.
1 and 2 Chronicles, like Samuel and Kings, were originally one book. They are called in the LXX Paraleipomena, or “Supplements”. In Hebrew they are called “Words,” or “Acts of Days.” Its real history (after the genealogies) begins with the overthrow of Saul (1 Chron. 10), and reads, almost word for word, like the concluding chapter of 1 Samuel, with this marked difference: Saul’s body is mentioned in 1 Sam. 31:10 whereas in 1 Chron. 10:10 his head alone is spoken of. In Chronicles there is also a comment on the cause of his death, not found in Samuel, which would appear to indicate the author’s desire to point out moral lessons in his “supplements” (1 Chron. 10:13-14). These practical reflections are frequent in Chronicles; in Kings they rarely occur.
There are other marked differences between the two books, and all in perfect keeping with the design of each—divergent, though not contradictory—historian. Let us note a few of the most prominent. 2 Sam. 24:24 says “David bought the threshingfloor [of Araunah] and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver”; 1 Chron. 21:25 says, “David gave to Ornan for the place [not the threshing-floor and oxen merely] six hundred shekels of gold by weight.” The molten sea made by Solomon, 1 Kings 7:26 says, “contained two thousand baths.” 2 Chron. 4:5 says “it received and held three thousand baths” (its capacity). Frequently Chronicles has “God” where Kings has “LORD” (see 2 Sam. 5:19-25; 1 Chron. 14:10-16; 2 Sam. 7:3-4; 1 Chron. 17:23, etc.). “House of God” is found seven times in Chronicles; in Kings, not once. In 1 Chron. 14:3 there is no mention of David’s concubines, as in 2 Sam. 5:13. Nor does Chronicles mention his sin with Bathsheba, nor his son Amnon’s crime against Tamar, nor Absalom’s rebellion, nor Sheba’s revolt. The idolatries of Solomon and some of the early kings of Judah are less detailed in Chronicles than in Kings; Chronicles, in fact, scarcely hints at Solomon’s sin. Nor does it mention his somewhat questionable act of offering incense “upon the altar that was before the LORD” (1 Kings 9:25). Hezekiah’s failure, too, is only briefly touched on in Chronicles. Yet we must not think that there was any attempt made on the part of the writer of Chronicles to pass over, or wink at, the sins of the house of David. He records Hanani’s reproof of Asa, on which Kings is silent; also, Jehoram’s murder of his brethren, and his idolatry. Nor does Kings mention Joash’s apostasy and murder of Zechariah, Amaziah’s sin of idolatry, nor Uzziah’s sin of sacrilege. On the other hand, the refreshing account of Manasseh’s repentance is peculiar to Chronicles; yet no mention is made in that book of the liberation of the captive Jehoiachin.
Kings gives only seven verses to Uzziah’s reign, and but five to righteous Jotham’s. Chronicles, on the other hand, summarizes Jehoiakim’s reign in four verses, and Jehoiachin’s in two. Israel is in the background in Chronicles; Judah and Jerusalem are (with the priests and Levites) its principal subject. However in Kings, Israel and her prophets (as Ahijah, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, etc.), are prominent.
Another marked distinction between these two interesting books is the sources from which their writers obtained their material. In Kings it is evidently always derived from state records such as “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41); “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29); “the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings 14:19), etc. Chronicles embodies more the writings of (or selections from) individuals such as “Samuel the seer,” “Nathan the prophet,” “Gad the seer,” “the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite,” “the visions of Iddo the seer,” “the book of Shemaiah the prophet,” “the story of the prophet Iddo,” “the book of Jehu the son of Hanani,” “Isaiah the prophet,” etc. (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29;12:15;13:22; 20:34; 26:22).
The explanation of all this seems to be that the author of Kings wrote his book in Judah, where he would have access to the national archives; while the writer of Chronicles probably compiled his histories from the above-mentioned prophetical writings that were carried with the exiles to Babylon, or obtained after their restoration to the land. This would make the Chronicles peculiarly the book of the remnant; while the Kings would be more for the nation at large, particularly Israel. And if this be so, it would explain why the sins of the earlier kings are veiled in Chronicles, and those of some of the later ones detailed. Being under Gentile domination, the Israelites were more or less in communication with them, and in all probability they would come in contact with these records of the Hebrew kings. Their later history would be better known to Gentiles, and it would be well for them to know just why they were permitted to destroy Jerusalem and hold the nation in bondage; hence the record of the sins of Josiah, Amaziah, Uzziah, and others. There was no need to record the sins of David, Solomon, and their immediate successors, as this did not in any way concern the Gentiles. It was probably in view of Gentile readers that God is so frequently used in Chronicles, instead of His covenant name Jehovah, that they might know that He is “not the God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also.” This reaching out to the Gentiles is the branches of the blessing of Joseph beginning to hang over the wall (Gen. 49:22). Also perhaps this is the reason for the genealogical record given in 1 Chron. 1 where we read of some people who are not of Israel, but all extending back to Adam, common father of us all. Note, too, in view of this, Asa’s crushing defeat of Zerah the Ethiopian, recorded only in Chronicles, and his reproof by the prophet for relying on the king of Syria; Jehoshaphat’s triumph over the vast allied forces of Moab and Ammon; God’s (not Jehovah’s) helping Uzziah against the Philistines, Arabians, and Mehunims, and the Ammonites giving him gifts; Jotham’s victory over the Ammonites, and their tribute of silver, and wheat, and barley, rendered to him; and Manasseh’s repentance (that the Gentiles might know God’s grace) -all peculiar to Chronicles. On the other hand, Hezekiah’s weakness in first yielding to, and afterward rebelling against, Sennacherib (2 Kings 18) is carefully excluded from Chronicles. God never needlessly exposes the faults of His servants to the stranger. “Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon,” is His beautiful principle of action in such cases.
Then as to Kings, the sins of the house of David in its earlier history are faithfully and minutely recorded, that both Judah and Israel (for whose reading the book was primarily intended) might know the reason for their debased and divided condition. The book gives mainly the history of the northern kingdom, and it is delightful to see that though the terrible sins of its rulers are exposed, any acts of grace or goodness on the part of them or the people are also carefully recorded (see 2 Kings 6:8-23, etc.). Prophets were prominent among the Israelites because they had cut themselves off from the ministry of the priests and Levites (which naturally connected itself with the temple at Jerusalem), and God made merciful provision for their spiritual needs by the prophetic ministry of such men as Elijah, etc.
These, I believe, are the real differences between the Kings and Chronicles. They are by no means so easily defined as those existing between the four Evangelists, and I do not profess to explain all of the many and marked variations that have been pointed out. The differences that have been offered in the foregoing may not be entirely satisfactory to all, but if they afford the reader any real help or clue to further discoveries in this direction, the author’s main object will have been accomplished. What both writer and reader most need in these studies is to be more in touch with that blessed Master who, in the midst of His disciples, “opened their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures.”
Before closing this Introduction, it might be well to say a word about the authenticity of these books of Kings and Chronicles. As to the first, our Lord stamped it with His divine authority by referring repeatedly to it, as in the cases of the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian. Paul referred to Elijah’s intercession against Israel, and James mentioned his earnest prayer in connection with drought and rain. Heb. 11:35 alludes to the raising of the Shunammite’s son; and Jezebel is mentioned by our Lord in Rev. 2:20. Christ stamped the book of Chronicles with the seal of inspiration by alluding to the queen of Sheba’s visit to King Solomon, and the martyrdom of Zechariah, “slain between the temple and the altar” (Matt. 23:35).
The histories as given in these books are likewise confirmed by both Egyptian and Assyrian monumental records; Rehoboam being mentioned on Syrian monuments, and Omri, Jehu, Menahem, Hoshea, and Hezekiah in the inscriptions on the monuments of the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. But Scripture, like its great subject, Christ, neither receives nor requires “testimony from men.” The monuments do not prove Scripture to be true; it is only proved, when they agree with the Bible, that they are true, and not lies. As we read God’s word, “we believe and are sure,” because “holy men of God,” who wrote these records, “spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21). True, God’s Word is called “prophecy” in that verse, but it has been aptly said that “history as written by the prophets is retroverted prophecy.” “Moses and the Prophets” (like “the Law and the Prophets”) means the Pentateuch, the Old Testament historical books, and the writings generally designated as “the Prophets.” And “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man.” So we unhesitatingly declare ourselves, like Paul of old, as “believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets” (Acts 24:14).