Who wrote the book of 2 Kings? Who was the author of 2 Kings?

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).

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)."

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.

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?

Thus the acts of David are written in the words of Samuel the seer, in the words of Nathan the prophet, and in those of Gad the seer (cf. 1 Chr. 29:29 with 1 & 2 Samuel); the acts of Solomon, in the words of Nathan the prophet, in the prophecy of Ahijah, and in the vision of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat. (cf. 2 Chr. 9:29 with 1 Kings); the acts of Rehoboam, in the words of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer in the genealogical registers (2 Chr. 12:15); the acts of Abijah, in the treatise of the prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22); those of Jehoshaphat, in the words of Jehu the son of Hanani which are inserted in the book of the Kings of Israel (2 Chr. 20:34). The acts of Uzziah were written by Isaiah the son of Amoz (2 Chr. 26:22); those of Hezekiah, in the vision of Isaiah the prophet (cf. 2 Chr. 32:32 with 2 Kings 18-20 and Isa. 36-39). Finally, 2 Kings 24:18-25 corresponds to Jeremiah 52.

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.

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.

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 of 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 carefully recorded (see 2 Kings 6:8-23, etc.). Prophets are prominent among them, 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.

There is no thought of a development of religious ordinances from a relatively crude and imperfect state. The prophets recalled Israel to a well-known system: but it will be found that the blessings and judgments in Judah, which still owned the temple and Jehovah, were invariably dependent on the conduct of the king, under whom they were placed, and on whose conduct blessing or the contrary depended. We are told, indeed, that the proof of the development view "cannot here be reproduced." It is a pity: still the author does his best. I only remark that, while there was progressive prophetic light, the kings ordered the details of priestly service, as David did, and was inspired for it. As a system, the headship of the priest was given up in Shiloh, though not their exclusive service. We are told that the prophets, when they failed to produce immediate reformation, began from the eighth century, if not earlier, to commit their oracles to writing. Reformation of what? Who were these prophets? The eighth century was Hezekiah's reign. This was about four hundred years from Samuel. There were from time to time prophets who gave warnings; but what reformation were they attempting? All this is fable. David set up the new system, and "Solomon built him a house." Ten tribes went off because of the folly of the king, had no priests but false ones, and afterwards two most remarkable prophets, who wrought miracles authenticating their mission; which the Jewish ones did not, because Jehovah was publicly owned, and the whole system they recalled Israel to was fixed long ago, and owned by the people. The reforming prophets from Samuel to the eighth century is a fancy of the writer's. The former prophets (Samuel, and Kings) give us the history, and this was what God meant them to do. That they were the chroniclers is often repeated and easily shown.

We have insisted, in other Meditations, (Meditations on the Books of Samuel and Kings, by H. Rossier) upon the prophetic origin and bearing of the books of Samuel and Kings. The Chronicles do not have the same character although, remarkably, we continually find in them the activity of the prophets. Even the Jews did not count them among the prophetic books, to which the majority of the books of history belong, but rather classified them among the “holy writings” headed by the Psalms.