Who wrote the book of 1 Kings? Who was the author of 1 Kings?

The two books of Kings originally formed one book only in the Hebrew Bible. The translators of the Septuagint introduced the separation into two books and this separation was made also in the Vulgate. In the Hebrew manuscripts of the OT the division into two books first appeared in the 15th century. It was first used in a Hebrew print of the Bible by Daniel Bomberg. The two books of Kings are called the 3rd and 4th book of Kings in the Septuagint as well as the Vulgate.

The author of the two books is not mentioned. According to Jewish tradition in the Talmud the author was the prophet Jeremiah. It is remarkable to see the text of 2 Kings 24:18-25 nearly repeated word by word in Jeremiah 52.

In the LXX., First and Second Kings are called "The third and fourth of the Kingdoms." Originally, in the Hebrew, they were, like First and Second Samuel, but one book. Its opening word, "Now," indicates that it is really a continuation of Samuel. Its history of the kingdoms 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 some one 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 should (as God said), in spite of past failure, endure forever. Fausset says, in reference to its 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 book is not known. The Talmud ascribes it to Jeremiah, which seems somewhat unlikely, as 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 with whose "sins" his devotion to them caused him to "serve" (Isa. 43:24). On the other hand, as the above-quoted author states, "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 from that of 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 of the close of Chronicles and opening of Ezra overlapping, indicates one common author — as Luke and the Acts. Both 1 Chron. 29:7 and Ezra 2:69 mention the Persian coin daric (as "dram" should be translated). "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, abridged by the omission of many links, as the writer had in Chronicles already given a complete register." (Fausset.) So if a prophet (Jeremiah) wrote the Kings, and a priest (Ezra) the Chronicles, it would readily account for the ministry of the prophets being so prominent in the former book, and that of the priests and Levites in the latter. It might furnish the key, too, as to the meaning of the marked differences in many portions of the two records.

These books form but one in the Hebrew canon. In the Septuagint, Vulgate, and titles of our English Bibles they are spoken of as the third and fourth books of Kings; consequently, these kingdom records are a continuation of the history contained in the books of Samuel. The Jews assign the authorship to Jeremiah, giving as reason that the last chapter of that prophet covers the same ground as the concluding section of 2nd Kings (2 Kings 24:18-25). We consider it much more probable that Ezra was the inspired historian of these kingdom histories, which were written during the captivity, and probably in the reign of Evil-Merodach, king of Babylon (2 Kings 25:27).

Much has been written on the possible instrument who was used in putting these records together as we have them now. Critics have much to say on the different compilers, redactors, editors, etc., who all had a hand in putting these histories together. They speak of proximate sources and primary sources and later additions and redactions. To say the least it is bewildering and unprofitable to follow, what they term, their scientific method. That the author of these two books had certain sources or documents, besides traditional accounts at his disposal, cannot be denied. But we maintain that he was chosen by the Lord to write these records of the kings and was guided by the Holy Spirit as he wrote. The books of the Kings have the mark in every way of being the work of one person and not a number of persons, followed by others who edited their writings. Unity of style can be clearly followed throughout the books; there is uniform mode of expression which would be quite impossible with a number of authors or compilers. See and compare 1 Kings 22:43 with 2 Kings 14:3-4; 1 Kings 12:31 with 2 Kings 17:32; 1 Kings 11:43 with 2 Kings 13:13. Jewish tradition declares that the prophet Jeremiah was the instrument chosen to write the two books of the Kings. While no one can say with certainty that this is true, much is in favor of this view. There is a striking similarity of style and idiom between the language of Kings and the language employed by Jeremiah. Perhaps no one was better fitted to write the wonderful history of Solomon's failure, the division of the Kingdom, the apostasy of Israel, the chastisements of the Lord, than the prophet of tears, the man of God whose loving messages were to a backslidden Israel.

Strikingly Jeremiah's name does not appear in the descriptions of the lives of king Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, whereas Isaiah and other prophets who lived before this time are mentioned.

In various places reference is made to books, which contain more about the life of the king in question on which the writer may have based his accounts on. Reference is made for example to the book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), then several times to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19; 2 Kings 15:31) and to the book of the chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29; 2 Kings 24:5). Besides that the record of the life of Hezekiah or Isaiah 36-39 is to a large extent rendered in 2 Kings 18-20. The author of the books of Kings was able to use these "references" under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while writing his godly inspired work.

The events recorded in the two books of Kings embrace the time of the last days of David (around 970 BC) down to the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity in Babel (around 561 BC). This period covers around 400 years. The composition of the books of Kings therefore can at the earliest have been written or concluded during the Babylonian captivity.

The first book of Kings pursues the history of the kingdom, not only to the division under Rehoboam, but to the death of Jehoshaphat and the reign of Ahaziah. A design similar to 1 and 2 Samuel pervades it and its successor. So in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate they are together entitled the Four books of Kings. But they essentially differ from all other annals, in that prophets in this case were the historians: a character which rationalism does its utmost to doubt, darken, and destroy, but in vain. Only Christ stands, and will, in every relation in which the first man failed; and as king it will be displayed power and glory on earth as in the heavens. Who but an unbeliever cannot discern a greater than David in Him Who, delivered from the strivings of the people, is made Head of the nations?

Isn't it remarkable that it should be precisely the books of Chronicles, so contested and so attacked by the rationalists, that confirm the prophetic authority of our historical books? Now if it is true that the books of Kings are the work of the prophets, and that is enough for us since the Word of God does not tell us any more concerning the manner in which they were composed, we can expect to find in them not only the simple account of historical facts, and a perfectly exact statement of these facts since it is of divine origin, but also the features which form the substance of all prophetic writing: examples of the past sufferings and of the future glories of Christ.

This is what the books of Samuel and the first book of Kings have shown us superabundantly in the persons of David and Solomon. But this also explains for us why the prophets themselves play a preponderant role in these books. This fact, as we have already mentioned elsewhere, strikes us as soon as we enter into these books. Nothing but the activity of Elijah and of Elisha is dwelt upon in nineteen of the forty-seven chapters contained in Kings.

Another marked distinction between these two interesting books is the sources from which their writers obtained their material. In Kings it is always derived from state records, evidently, 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, 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 be would have access to the national archives; while the writer of Chronicles probably compiled his histories from the writings of the above-mentioned seers, prophets, etc., carried with the exiles to Babylon, or obtained after their restoration to the land. This would make the Chronicles peculiarly the Remnant's book; 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 (see above). Being under Gentile domination, they were more or less in communication with them, and they would, in all probability, 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." It is the branches of the blessing of Joseph beginning to hang over the wall (Gen. 49:22). Hence, too, perhaps, the genealogies of some not of Israel, and all extending back to Adam, common father of us all (1 Chron. 1). 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," note) 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, as recorded in 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.

The two books of Kings form the chronological sequence of the history of the people of Israel in Canaan in the sequence Joshua, Judges, First and Second Samuel. The description of the kingdoms in Israel (which was started in the books of Samuel) is carried on to the Babylonian captivity. The books of Kings tell us more about the ten tribes (Israel) while the second book of Chronicles tells us more about the history of the two tribes (Judah).

In the introduction to the books of Samuel we stated that the first and second books of the Kings are called in the Greek version of the Old Testament the third and fourth books of Kingdoms and in the Latin version the third and fourth books of the Kings. The two books, which were originally undivided and formed one book, contain the history of Israel under the government of the kings.

The same period of history is also covered in the two books of the Chronicles. However there is a great difference between the books of the Kings and the books of the Chronicles. The books of the Kings were written before the captivity; the books of the Chronicles after that event (1 Chron. 6:15). The books of the Kings trace the history of the kings from the prophetic viewpoint; the books of the Chronicles from the priestly. Kings gives the history from a human point of view, Chronicles from the divine standpoint.