Notes
[1] Generally, one may simply use the original four-digit Strong’s number to identify words in tools using Strong’s system. If a Tyndale-Strong’s number is followed by a capital letter (e.g., TG1692A), it generally indicates an added subdivision of meaning for the given term. Whenever a Tyndale-Strong’s number has a number following a decimal point (e.g., TG2013.1), it reflects an instance where new research has yielded a separate, new classification of use for a biblical word. Forthcoming tools from Tyndale House Publishers will include these entries, which were not part of the original Strong’s system.
[2] First Kings 15:26 (Nadab); 15:34 (Baasha); 16:19 (Zimri); 16:25 (Omri); 16:30 (Ahab); 22:52 [53] (Ahaziah); 2 Kgs 3:2 (Joram, with some mitigation in the condemnation); 10:31 (Jehu, but only in an indirect sense; contrast 10:30); 13:2 (Jehoahaz); 13:11 (Jehoash); 14:24 (Jeroboam II); 15:9 (Zechariah); 15:18 (Menahem); 15:24 (Pekahiah); 15:28 (Pekah); and finally 17:2 (Hoshea, but again with some mitigation in his condemnation: “He did what was evil in the LORD’s sight, but not to the same extent as the kings of Israel who ruled before him”). Indeed, 16 of the 19 northern kings are condemned in some formulaic way (see Halpern and Vanderhooft 1991:199-203). Of the three kings not so condemned, Jeroboam I (see 1 Kgs 12:20–14:20) and to a lesser extent Elah (see 1 Kgs 16:8-14) are still pictured in very negative terms overall. Only Shallum, who reigned but one month (2 Kgs 15:10-15), and who brought an end to the Jehu dynasty in the fourth generation as had been prophesied, is given no clear evaluation at all (but he was soon assassinated by Menahem anyway).
[3] Second Kings 8:18 (Jehoram); 8:27 (Ahaziah); 21:2 (Manasseh); 21:20 (Amon); 23:32 (Jehoahaz); 23:37 (Jehoiakim); 24:9 (Jehoiachin); 24:19 (Zedekiah); cf. 1 Kgs 14:22, LXX (Rehoboam; but MT reads “the people of Judah did what was evil in the LORD’s sight”). But eight of the southern kings “did what was pleasing in the LORD’s sight”: Asa (1 Kgs 15:11); Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:43); Joash (2 Kgs 12:2 [12:3]); Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:3); Uzziah (2 Kgs 15:3); Jotham (2 Kgs 15:34); Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:3); and Josiah (2 Kgs 22:2). The only southern kings not accounted for here are Abijam, who “committed the same sins as his father [Rehoboam] before him” (1 Kgs 15:3, which goes on to contrast him with his ancestor David), and Ahaz, who “did not do what was pleasing in the sight of the LORD his God, as his ancestor David had done” (2 Kgs 16:2; cf. virtually the same criticism found for Solomon in 1 Kgs 11:33).
[5] “Yahweh” is the commonly accepted vocalization of the so-called Tetragrammaton, YHWH (yhwh [TH3068, ZH3378]), the most common name of the God of Israel found in the OT. Most English translations, including the NLT, render this name by the phrase “the LORD,” in all but a few exceptional instances (e.g., Exod 3:15, NLT). (For further discussion of this translational choice, see the Introduction to the New Living Translation under the section entitled The Rendering of Divine Names [found in the introductory material of any NLT Bible].) I will generally use “Yahweh” except when quoting directly from the NLT, since I think the proper name better conveys the sense of the original Hebrew.
[6] Second Chronicles 21:12-15 does contain an independent Elijah tradition about a prophetic letter of condemnation sent to King Jehoram of Judah, but apart from this, the only reference outside of 1–2 Kings to the prophet Elijah is at the end of the Minor Prophets scroll (see Mal 4:5-6). There is no mention of Elisha anywhere else in the OT besides the books of Kings.
[7] Scholars use the term cultic in its original Latin sense of referring to “a system of religious worship or ritual”; the corresponding noun is “cult” or, more traditionally, “cultus.” There is no negative connotation whatsoever meant to be connected to these terms as used in the scholarly literature.
[8] First Kings 8:4; 12:31. And in the Old Greek of 8:4 (regarded as identical with the LXX in this verse), any reference to the Levites is lacking—the editor of BHS takes the MT here as a gloss (a later addition). In contrast, the books of 1–2 Chronicles mention the Levites over 100 times.
[9] The noted conservative author Gleason Archer (1974:289), on the other hand, speaks approvingly of the prophet Jeremiah as the possible author of 1–2 Kings (in light of the Talmudic evidence), with the exception of the last chapter of 2 Kings compiled by someone dwelling in Babylonian exile (since Jeremiah went into exile in Egypt). An intriguing argument from silence for this suggestion is that there is no mention whatsoever of Jeremiah himself in the chapters dealing with King Josiah and his successors—something hard to account for in the light of Jeremiah’s prominence as prophet and his unquestionable literary ability, unless it be from modesty on the part of the prophet. (Of course if Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe, is the author, this too might account for Jeremiah’s absence from the text.) Friedman also suggested at one time that Jeremiah was the Deuteronomistic author of Kings (1997:147), but he now thinks it was Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. For a recent, intriguing study of the relationship of Jeremiah to King Josiah’s reform efforts (c. 622 BC), see Leuchter (2006).
[10] This objection, in my opinion, is not fatal. Biblical texts are famous for their interpolations, additions, and (going by what we find in otherwise parallel texts) omissions (e.g., even the famous Ps 51, apparently an individual lament by the psalmist David, has as its final stanza a communal lament clearly datable much later to the Judahite exile (see Ps 51:18-19 [51:20-21]). Although I see the author of 2 Kgs 25:27-30 (i.e., the end of the book) as having a significant impact on the chronological notices found throughout 1–2 Kings, the author need not have been Baruch or Jeremiah. In any case, positing an Egyptian origin for the present, longer book of Jeremiah (as found in the MT; LXX is significantly shorter) makes the addition of the final chapter in both the Hebrew and the Greek traditions (Jer 52 // 2 Kgs 25) more problematic for the assertion of Jeremiah or Baruch as author.
[11] Jack R. Lundbom (1986:99-104), following S. Mowinckel, has made a strong case that Baruch was the major compiler of the present book of Jeremiah, and that the “expanded colophon” found in Jer 45, MT (Jer 51:31-35, LXX) indicates as much (he takes the LXX ordering as more original, so this “colophon” essentially ends the book, since Jer 52 in both traditions undoubtedly comes from 2 Kings). But another “expanded colophon” is to be found in Jer 51:59-64, MT (cf. Jer 28:59-64, LXX) where Jeremiah conveys a personal word to Seraiah, Baruch’s brother, which in the MT concludes Jeremiah (again, Jer 52 being a later addition). Indeed, this text concludes with the statement, “This is the end of Jeremiah’s messages.” Lundbom then points out that Seraiah, although not termed a scribe in Jer 51:59 (NLT translates, “a staff officer”; Lundbom suggests the term “quartermaster”), probably had some such professional competence, since he presumably belonged to a scribal family. (Dearman [1990:403-421] has recently explored this topic at length; cf. Lipinski 1988:157-164.) I have toyed with the feasibility of Seraiah as the one adding the concluding passage of 2 Kings about Jehoiachin’s release from prison (and the one possibly behind the exilic king-list phenomenon with its 480-year total [see “Excursus on Chronology,” under “Literary Style,” below]), since we know for certain that he (unlike his brother Baruch) did make it to Babylon at least once in his career (cf. Jer 51:59-64, where Seraiah is said to have accompanied King Zedekiah to Babylon in the king’s fourth year of reign; it was at this time he threw into the Euphrates River a scroll listing all the terrible disasters Jeremiah had predicted Babylon would soon face). But this idea that Seraiah was the author of the conclusion of 2 Kings remains conjectural.
[12] Both the late preexilic prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the early postexilic prophet Zechariah seem to hold out much hope for the future restoration of the northern and southern kingdoms (Jer 30–31; Ezek 37:15-28; 48:1-35; Zech 8:13; 9–11). Many scholars would see this as anachronistic, but Sweeney (2001:225-233) has recently argued strongly for a Josianic date for much of Jer 30–31. He maintains that Jeremiah had allied himself with Josiah’s reform efforts, and that the Benjamite prophet felt especially led to reach out to the former northern kingdom and urge them to rejoin the Jerusalem Temple and the house of David. Indeed, “the seeds for a message of restoration . . . are evident in the earliest preaching of Jeremiah” (2001:233; emphasis added). And so-called “Deutero-Zechariah” (Zech 9–14) may include at least one preexilic passage; cf. the suggested preexilic interpretations to Zech 9:1-6 found in Meyers and Meyers (1993:91, although the Meyerses themselves prefer a postexilic date for this text). Baldwin (1972:63-64) also has listed a number of scholars who preferred a preexilic date for the entirety of Zech 9–11 (she herself seemed to prefer a Hellenistic date and origin for the chapters). For the suggestion that (postexilic) “Deuteronomists” helped edit Deutero-Zechariah, see Person (1993).
[13] R. K. Harrison (1969:731-732) suggests the dating should be around 550 BC; Cate (1994:81) prefers c. 560 BC (cf. Lundbom 1999:101, citing D. N. Freedman [e.g., see 1997:151]). However, scholars such as Linville (1997:21-42) remain quite skeptical concerning any such close “exilic” dating, preferring to see 1–2 Kings as more likely a Persian or Hellenistic work of the Diaspora: “In my view, the ‘completion date’ of Kings is very much an open question and studies of Persian and even Hellenistic thought should include consideration of Kings” (Linville 1997:38-39). As A. G. Auld points out, “The fact that Kings ends with the fate of Judah’s last king tells us no more about the date of composition . . . than the fact that the Pentateuch ends with the death of Moses” (cited in Person 1993:43). For the suggestion that the reference to the release from prison of the Davidic Jehoiachin fits better in the early postexilic era when the Davidic Zerubbabel served as governor, see Person 2002:119-120.
[14] See this (“First Kings 15:26 [Nadab] . . .”) and this (“Second Kings 8:18 [Jehoram] . . .”) note for the specific references.
[15] For example, M. Noth emphasized the unity of the editing of 1–2 Kings (a part of a Deuteronomistic work comprising the books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, and 1–2 Kings), which took a decidedly pessimistic approach to the monarchy and its ever-intensifying decline until the Exile; he did see Josiah’s reign as a “golden age” in which the law was revered, but Josiah was only an “isolated” representative (1981:79-83; cf. Cogan and Tadmor 1988:330; also Cogan 2001:99-100; Long 1991:288-289). G. von Rad, however, was more optimistic; although emphasizing the terrible severity of the exilic judgment of Yahweh, he still held to Yahweh’s promises to the Davidic dynasty as being an important part of the Dtr work, seeing, for example, the closing note about the release of Jehoiachin from prison as one of special theological significance (von Rad 1953:89-91; cf. von Rad 1962:344-347; also cf. the helpful summary of Childs 1979:292-294). On the overall relatively positive “kerygma” of the Dtr work, see Wolff (1975:83-100; cf. note 28 below).
[16] This point is well stressed in Friedman (1981:189-191): “Egypt is plainly fundamental to the perspective of Dtr1; and so, in the full Dtr2 edition, Egypt becomes a constant and ominous presence, the setting of the last and worst of the Deuteronomistic curses. . . . [This] raises the possibility that Dtr2 is even a product of the Egyptian community, a possibility that is enhanced by the extreme similarity of style and interest between the Deuteronomistic History and the book of Jeremiah, summoning to mind the Rabbinic claim of Jeremiah’s authorship of the books of Kings. . . . Whatever the situation with regard to authorship, the Deuteronomistic History, in its final form, tells the story of Israel from Egypt to Egypt” (1981:191, emphasis added).
[17] Contrast I. B. Gottlieb, as cited in James Linville (1997:26 n. 11), who simply equated this concluding optimistic note to the English phrase “happily ever after.” Linville himself called the Jehoiachin note a common stylistic device in the OT, “a closure created by reference to a chronological cycle.” I myself expect there is a lot more truth in this “closure” comment than might first meet the eye (or ear) of the casual reader.
[18] Cf. the additions of the so-called Solomonic “miscellanies” found in the LXX at 3 Reigns 2:35a-o (the versification is Rahlfs’s [1935], located after 1 Kgs 2:35, MT); also 2:46a-l (cf. Gooding 1976 for a careful study of both of these texts). Another brief but valuable text is 3 Reigns 8:53a; cf. Swete (1914:247-248), who says it is “of the highest interest,” and must be a translation from a Hebrew original. Finally, note the varying order of the narratives concerning King Ahab in 1 Kgs 20–21, MT (see Gooding 1964:269-280), as well as the additional material (or at least the varying traditions) concerning the rise of Jeroboam I to power, 3 Reigns 11:26–12:24 and 12:24a-z (see Cogan 2001:355-356; Gooding 1967b:173-189). (For other minor variations in the ordering of the texts, cf. Swete 1914:232 as well as the helpful chart found in DeVries 1985:lx-lxiv.) More controversially, Shenkel (1968) has argued strongly for a differing, and possibly more accurate, chronology of the Omride kings attested in the Old Greek (see note on 1 Kgs 16:28; cf. my comments in Barnes 1991:23-25, 154-155).
[19] Recently, Rendsburg has, with some success, isolated a northern Hebrew dialect (or set of dialects) to be found in parts of the books of Kings (2002:17-26). He termed this dialect “Israelian,” and he suggested that it characterizes the Elijah-Elisha narratives, as well as most of the portions of 1–2 Kings dealing with the northern monarchs (also cf. Friedman 1998:358-359, and the references cited there, for recent discussions of the linguistic evidence concerning preexilic vs. postexilic Hebrew).
[20] As conveniently summarized in Smith (1991:27-33); he, however, argues that these trends can be seen as already taking place in the spoken language of the preexilic period.
[21] For example, probably the most vivid case of such sophisticated editing in the books of Samuel would be the sequence of “pro-” and “antimonarchical” texts in 1 Sam 8–12, where 1 Sam 8 and 12 contain strong indictments against the institution of monarchy in Israel, whereas most or all of 1 Sam 9:1–10:16 as well as 1 Sam 11 present much more positive material concerning the kingship of Saul (but 1 Sam 10:17-26 [MT] attests an antimonarchical viewpoint). Thus, anti, pro, anti, pro, anti. Therefore, are we to conclude that 1 Samuel is for or against the institution of monarchy? The answer, as I tell my students, is “yes”! More seriously, unless one reads or hears the text of 1 Sam 8–12 in its entirety, one will not get a balanced understanding of the message of the book concerning this central topic. Childs (1979:277-278) has an excellent discussion of this phenomenon.
[22] The poem was probably added to the account “at a late stage in its development,” according to Williamson (1996:47-52), who concurs with Cogan and Tadmor (1988:257) that the Kings version of these Hezekiah traditions must predate those found in the book of Isaiah.
[23] For the north: 1 Kgs 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27; 22:39; 2 Kgs 1:18; 10:34; 13:8, 12 [= 14:15]; 14:28; 15:11, 15, 21, 26, 31 (thus a total of 17 different kings). For the south: [Solomon’s unique source already mentioned, 1 Kgs 11:41] 1 Kgs 14:29; 15:7, 23; 22:45 [22:46, MT; cf. 16:28c, LXX]; 2 Kgs 8:23; 12:19 [12:20]; 14:18; 15:6, 36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17, 25; 23:28; 24:5 (a total of 15 kings, not counting Solomon). The source citations often include some brief “additional elements” such as a reference to the “prowess” of the king (see 1 Kgs 15:23; 16:5, 27; 22:45 [22:46]; 2 Kgs 13:8, 12; 14:15, 28; 20:20; and cf. 2 Kgs 10:34—these references are translated in the NLT, “[and] the extent of his power”). Again, all of the various elements of these source citations are carefully categorized in Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991:216-221); and these two scholars again find evidence here of the three redactional levels for Dtr, especially in the variations found in the “additional elements” material.
[24] See Barnes 1991:138-140 for a summary of the Israelite versus the Judahite formulas (but note that footnote 7 on p. 139 should read only “12,” not 13 examples of the “short Israelite” formula, with 2 Kgs 10:36 not belonging in this category). With that correction (the error was mine, not Bin-Nun’s), we find a total of 17 examples out of the 19 northern kings fitting into Bin-Nun’s two northern categories (Jeroboam and Jehu being the exceptions; cf. 1 Kgs 14:20 and the aforementioned 2 Kgs 10:36); and (being a bit less strict than Bin-Nun herself) all 12 southern kings from Rehoboam to Hezekiah fall into the one southern category (cf. Barnes 1991:139 n. 9; Bin-Nun would not include Rehoboam, Jeroboam [MT], or Jehoash). And I would add that the final 7 southern kings (from Manasseh to Zedekiah) all have the expected southern accession formulas, but without the opening synchronisms, of course.
[25] As already noted, there is a close correspondence between most of 2 Kgs 18:13–20:19 and Isa 36–39. More precisely, in each of these books we find the apparently nonchronological arrangement of three major sections of the Hezekiah tradition, which may be entitled “Victory over Assyria” (2 Kgs 18:13–19:37 // Isa 36–37), “Victory over impending death” (2 Kgs 20:1-11 // Isa 38), and “Future defeat by Babylon” (2 Kgs 20:12-19 // Isa 39). I say “nonchronological,” inasmuch as we find Isaiah’s prophetic response to King Hezekiah’s impassioned prayer asking for longer life (2 Kgs 20:2-3 // Isa 38:2-3) including the references that Yahweh has heard his prayer, and that he will add 15 years to Hezekiah’s life and deliver the city from the Assyrian king. This is found in 2 Kgs 20:6 (// Isa 38:6), in a text that directly follows the passage that had just described dramatically the city’s miraculous deliverance from the Assyrians and the eventual assassination of the Assyrian king. Also note how Hezekiah showed off his wealth to the visiting Babylonian envoys in 2 Kgs 20:13 [// Isa 39:2], although we have been told previously that he had to empty the Temple and palace treasuries and even strip the gold from the doorposts of the Temple to pay off the Assyrian king (2 Kgs 18:13-16, but here there is no parallel in Isaiah). Thus, the editorial sequencing in these Hezekiah stories is evidently not chronological, but I certainly do not think it is at all haphazard. Rather, theology trumped chronology in the organization of the passage. (For more detailed discussions of these sections, and the possibility of two Assyrian invasions, see the commentary below.)
[26] Noth (1981:18-25) was fixated on this number, maintaining that the Deuteronomistic historian “did not see 480 as a fabrication; it is founded on the copious information about dates which he found in his sources and used in his work, and on a series of dates—the 40 year periods—which he himself inserted but which spring from the traditional view of the course of history. . . . This, then, is another proof—and the reason for our detailed consideration of chronology—that Dtr’s history is a planned self-contained unity and that Dt. manifestly organized the broad outline and the chronological framework before working out the details” (the quote is from p. 25, near the end of an entire chapter discussing the chronological framework of Dtr). For other attempts at chronological schematization, see Barnes (1991:147 n. 24).
[27] Concerning the Deuteronomists, see “Author” in the Introduction. The eminent German scholar Martin Noth (cf. the English translation, 1981:1-153; the German edition of his work entitled Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien was first published in 1943) still deserves pride of place in connection with the theory that Joshua through Kings was put into present form by the same group of exilic editors.
[28] The best study of this phenomenon is that by Halpern and Vanderhooft (1991:179-244; especially pp. 199-212). As noted in endnote 1 above, all but one of the 19 northern kings are given negative evaluations, or are at least pictured in very negative terms (in fact, 15 out of the 19 northern kings are condemned particularly for “continuing” or “refusing to turn from” the sins of Jeroboam). Of the 8 southern kings condemned by the editor of Kings (see endnote 2 above, and putting aside Rehoboam), 2 specifically “followed the example of the kings of Israel/King Ahab’s family” while 5 “followed the practices of the pagan nations/example of his father” or “did what was evil . . . just as his ancestors/father had done” (Zedekiah did evil, “just as Jehoiakim had done”).
[29] The classic text in my opinion remains Jer 18:1-12, the “potter’s house sermon,” where, in what is usually considered Deuteronomistic style, the author takes pains to emphasize the conditionality of prophecy, indeed of “the very word of Yahweh.” To put it most boldly: I think most, if not all, of Yahweh’s prophecies of judgment are given through the prophets, not so they may come to pass, but so they might not come to pass. Yahweh wishes desperately that his people might still somehow repent, might “turn away” (shub [TH7725, ZH8740]) from their sin (cf., especially, Jer 18:7-8), so that the threatened disaster does not have to take place. I also suspect Wolff (1975:83-100) is correct to point to this emphasis on turning back to Yahweh, as perhaps nothing less than the main message of the Deuteronomists (cf. also von Rad 1962:346).
[30] A similar phenomenon may perhaps be seen in 1 Sam 2:30 concerning the previously promised “eternal” nature of Eli’s priesthood.
[31] In 1 Kgs 15:4, KJV, nir [TH5216, ZH5775] is translated “a lamp”; in all four passages, RSV also translates nir as “a lamp” (cf. NRSV); JPS does the same. The more common Hebrew term, ner [TH5216A, ZH5944], is usually translated “a lamp” (BDB 632d); cf. 2 Sam 21:17; Ps 132:17 for interesting usages of ner in reference to King David or to the Davidic line (the NLT translates these two references as “light”).
[32] Both Pss 89 and 132 are important royal Davidic psalms, and therefore one would expect that they would also share phraseology typical of the Davidic tradition. Cross (1973:94-97) dates Ps 132 quite early (“an old hymn of the royal cult”), where there is allusion to a procession of the Ark when Yahweh first took up his abode on Mount Zion in the time of David himself. (On the unity and integrity of Ps 89, see Clifford 1980:35-47.)
[33] Noth (1981:89-99); cf. Eichrodt (1961:243, 469); Friedman (1981:167-192); Gray (1970:9-10); von Rad (1962:334-347); also note the intriguing discussion found in Hobbs 1985:xxxiii-xxxviii.
[34] In the books of Kings as we now have them, there is no completely successful king depicted as such. Evil kings are in abundance; good kings are fewer. But even King David himself, as far as 1 Kings is concerned, is pictured ambivalently at best (see, especially, 1 Kgs 1:4, 6; 2:5-9). King Solomon is rich, wise, and militarily at peace, yet the last words concerning him (1 Kgs 11, especially v. 33) are remarkably negative. No king of the northern kingdom is “good,” although, as we have seen, some of the judgmental language is occasionally leavened with concessions (2 Kgs 3:2; 17:2). A number of southern kings were categorized as “good” (see endnote 2 for details), but even these have critical comments appended to their regnal accounts (usually formulaic references to the pagan shrines not being removed; see 1 Kgs 15:14; 22:43b [22:44]; 2 Kgs 12:3 [12:4]; 14:4; 15:4, 35). And even the accounts of the “best” kings of all, namely Hezekiah and Josiah (cf. the above discussion, “Earlier Editions of Kings?”), include negative comments—I take the final significant story about Hezekiah showing off his wealth to the Babylonian emissaries as judgmental in tone (“at least there will be peace and security during my lifetime,” 2 Kgs 20:19); and King Josiah, he of the powerful Passover, the relentless purifier of the cult, and clearly the “hero” of the books of 1–2 Kings, can only postpone the Exile to after his own generation (2 Kgs 22:20; cf. 23:25-27). No wonder Noth was so negative about the books of Kings—seemingly, there is no hope. (Of course, I have at length cited the responses of Childs and Wolff in reply to his view.) Perhaps Noth is largely correct: The message of Kings is that kings are not the answer. Not even David, Solomon, Hezekiah, or even Josiah could forestall the inevitable. Yahweh and his people are probably better off without kings (even Davidic kings) on the throne at all!
[35] By all appearances, Solomon did not recognize his actions as implementing the ideal of one place of worship seen in Deuteronomy, a Mosaic tradition that in his day was more carefully preserved in the north (in prophetic circles) than in the south. The more basic issue of polytheism was the problem for Solomon’s reign.
[36] The italicized portion was inscribed in the KJV on the United States’ “Liberty Bell,” which was originally cast in 1753 and, now cracked, is currently located at the Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[37] I have slightly modified the wording of Leithart’s palistrophe.
[38] Some time ago, my mentor, the late Thomas E. McComiskey [1992:18-22], argued that these verses in Hosea should rather be understood as merely equating historically the bloodshed at Jezreel in Jehu’s time with the later prediction of bloodshed in the same location bringing Jehu’s own dynasty to an end (cf. the second note on 2 Kgs 15:10 for details). Although my respect for Professor McComiskey is considerable, I suspect that the traditional understanding of Hos 1:4-5 is still to be preferred.