In I. and II. Kings.

1. Solomon's Temple. The temple erected by Solomon was expressly intended to take the place of the movable tent of meeting, or tabernacle, which had previously been the center of Israel's worship. This is made clear by considering in connection what was said on the subject to David, and what was said by Solomon when he was about to build. When David was dwelling in his own house, and God had given him rest from all his enemies round about, he conceived the thought of building a temple, and said to the prophet Nathan, "See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains." Nathan, understanding his meaning, answered, "Go, do all that is in thy heart; for Jehovah is with thee." Nathan went his way, but returned the same night with a message from God, in which, among other things, he said: "I have not dwelt in a house since I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. . . . When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish thy kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (II. Sam. vii. 1-13). When Solomon was preparing to commence the building, he said in a message to Hiram of Tyro: "Thou knowest how that David my father could not build a house for the name of Jehovah his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until Jehovah put them under the soles of his feet. But now Jehovah my God hath given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary, nor evil occurrent. And, behold, I purpose to build a house for the name of Jehovah my God, as Jehovah spake unto David my father, saying, Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build the house for my name" (I. Kings v. 3-5). This shows that there was a perfect understanding on the part of David, the prophet Nathan, and Solomon, that this house was to supersede the movable tabernacle as the house for Jehovah's name. This understanding is further emphasized by the fact that as soon as the temple was completed, and in the process of dedication, "the ark of Jehovah, and the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent," were brought up into the temple, and the brazen altar was placed in front of the temple, as it had stood in front of the tabernacle (I. Kings viii. 1-4, 64). This was the end of a service which had continued for 480 years (vi. 1).  

That which thus appears from formal statements, is made equally clear from a consideration of the dimensions, the form and the contents of the temple, all of which were modeled after those of the tabernacle. Its length and width were just double those of the tabernacle, and its height, thirty cubits, was just double that of the tabernacle if the latter is measured, not to the top of its walls, but to its extreme height, the top of its ridge pole. (See Mr. Ferguson's draught of the tabernacle in Smith's Bible Dictionary.) The interior was divided into two apartments, as was the tabernacle, the holy and the most holy—the latter accessible only through the former. The inner face of the walls of both was covered with gold. The oracle in each was occupied by the ark of the covenant, and the holy place by an altar of incense, a golden lamp, and a golden table for the shewbread.  

In front stood the altar of burnt offerings, and the great brazen vessel called the sea occupied the place of the laver between the altar and the door of the temple. The only material differences in all these particulars were such as grew out of the greater magnificence of the temple and its intended greater durability. For the latter purpose its walls were of stone instead of wood, and both of its apartments were closed with wooden doors covered with gold, in place of embroidered curtains. For greater magnificence, it was supplied with ten golden lamps instead of one, a table and an incense altar of solid gold, and, in the oracle, gilded cherubim of gigantic proportions overshadowing the two much smaller which overshadowed the mercy-seat. No man can fail to see the intended modeling of the one structure after the other. The destructive critics see it as plainly as others do; but in order to save their theory, they have fallen into the absurd assumption, as we have stated before, that the tabernacle never had an existence, but that the many chapters in Exodus describing it were spun out of the imagination of some priests living in the days of Ezra, making of it a work of the imagination as idle and useless as the tales of the Arabian Nights, and as dry reading as any book on skulls and bones.  

2. the Service at the Temple As the temple and its contents presuppose the tabernacle after which it was modeled, so the service rendered to God in and before the temple presupposes the existence of the Levitical law for the execution of which it was evidently intended. Why was the ark, with its mercy-seat and the overshadowing cherubim, placed in the oracle but for the very purpose declared in the Levitical law, that it might symbolize the presence of God among his people? (Ex. xxv. 22). Why the table in the holy place, except to keep thereon the twelve loaves of bread, to be changed on every sabbath as required by the same law? (xxv. 30). Why the lampstands, except to keep a symbolic light shining in the temple as the Levitical law required? (xxv. 37; xxvii. 20; xxx. 7, 8). And why the altar of incense, except that the burning of incense morning and evening, which is prescribed as a part of the duty of the priests, may be done becomingly? (xxx. 7-9). Why the vessel of water called the sea immediately in front of the temple, but for the washing of the hands and feet of the priests, ere they approach the altar or enter the holy place, as commanded in the law? (Ex. xxx. 17-21). A post-office building of the present day, with its money-order department, its registered-letter department, its boxes for receiving and delivering mail, its distributing clerks, its mail-pouches, its stamps and its envelopes, no more presupposes the postal laws of the American Government, than Solomon's temple presupposes the old tabernacle and the Levitical legislation. Without these it would be as complete an enigma as the great Sphinx, or the Labyrinth of ancient Egypt. It would be a monument to Solomon's folly and extravagance, instead of a token of divine love and favor to God's chosen people.  

3. The Exclusiveness of the Temple Service. We have said in a former section that during the reign of Solomon, after the erection of the temple, there is no trace of Jehovah worship at any other place. The "high places" are not once mentioned except in connection with the heathen altars erected by Solomon in his old age for his heathen wives (xi. 7). It can not, then, bo denied that during this period the restriction of worship to one sanctuary, which is emphasized in the Book of Deuteronomy, was practically in force, and that it met with undisputed acceptance by the people. This proves what all of our critics deny, that the Deuteronomic law was already known, and that its observance was practically universal. Proof of the same is found in the fact that as soon as Jeroboam was settled on the throne of the ten seceding tribes, he issued a decree forbidding his subjects to go to Jerusalem to worship. He recognized the unitizing effect of worshiping at a single sanctuary, and feared that a continuance of that powerful influence would lead to a reunion of Israel and his own dethronement and death. For this reason he established two sanctuaries in his own dominion, and made this worship distinct by the use of a golden calf as a symbol of Jehovah. He also, at the same time, and for the same purpose, appointed an annual festival in imitation of the feast of tabernacles, but to be celebrated one month later (xii. 26-29). If it had been thought at this time that worship at any high place which any man might select would be acceptable to Jehovah, the king could have had no reason for restricting the worship to these two sanctuaries. It was not until the minds of the people were further corrupted that they began to set up altars "on every high hill and under every green tree."  

Having established these two places for sacrifice, Jeroboam must needs have a priesthood to conduct the service at them, and it is said, to his further reproach, that "he made priests from among the people who were not of the sons of Levi" (xii. 51). This points out a second departure from the Levitical law, and shows that the priesthood hitherto recognized was the one authorized by that law. For the accommodation of these illegitimate priests he built houses at the two sanctuaries which are called "houses of the high places" (ib.).  

When Jeroboam was about to burn incense on his altar at Bethel, for the first time apparently, a man of God from Judah drew near and denounced the altar in words which still further demonstrate the previous existence of the Levitical law. He said: "A child shall be born in the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he sacrifice the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall they burn upon thee" (xii. 33; xiii. 2). How could it have been known at this time that burning men's bones on an altar would defile it, except by the provision of the Levitical law that touching a bone of a dead man was defiling? (Num. xix. 16).  

4. The Toleration of the High Places. The kings of Judah, from Jeroboam to Hezekiah, are censured by the author of the Book of Kings for not taking away the high places. How could this censure be justly administered if no law had yet been given restricting the sacrifice to a single altar, and that altar the one in Jerusalem? The answer of our critics is, that the author of Kings lived after the discovery of Deuteronomy, and that in his zeal for the enforcement of the Deuteronomic law he threw back his own sentiments into the preceding history. But if he did this, his censure was manifestly unjust, seeing that no man can be rightly censured for not obeying a law not yet in existence. It was not only unjust, but it was mendacious; for if the Book of Deuteronomy had the origin which critics ascribe to it, this author knew the fact, and he was making false pretenses when he assumed by these censures that it had existed earlier. Thus again and again the positions and arguments of these critics bring the authors of the Biblical books into the reproach of being guilty of fraud upon fraud. Not many men will or can believe this; and to avoid believing it they must cast aside the critical theories as both false and libelous.  

It should be observed here, as Stanley Leathes argues in Lex Mosaica (437), that the condemnation of high places in Kings was derived from their condemnation by name in Lev. xxvi. 30, and not from what is said in Deuteronomy, seeing that in the latter book they are not mentioned. But if the author had both of these books, he had two reasons for censuring the kings who tolerated them: first, that they were condemned by name in the former book, and condemned in the latter because they were places of worship apart from the central sanctuary. But if, as the critics affirm, the Book of Leviticus had not been written when the Book of Kings was, he could not have been influenced at all by the latter, and, as we have seen above, he could not, on the critical hypothesis, have been honestly influenced by Deuteronomy. But he must have been influenced by one or both of these books; and if either was of earlier date than the reigns of Judah's kings, both were, and both must have come, as they claim to have come, from Moses.  

5. Hazekiah's Attack on the High Places. Hezekiah was the first king of Judah, according to the Book of Kings, to make an earnest effort to break up the worship on high places. It is said of him: "He did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah, according to all that David his father had done. He removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the Asherah: and he brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan. He trusted in Jehovah, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among them that were before him. For he clave to Jehovah, he departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which Jehovah commanded Moses" (xviii. 3-6). Here, among the things which made Hezekiah the best of kings, it is said that he removed the high places. He did this, and all the other good acts of his reign, because he "trusted in Jehovah," and "kept his commandments which he commanded Moses." If this is true, there was some command of God by Moses which condemned the high places as well as the "pillars," the Asherah, and the burning of incense to the brazen serpent. But what commandment condemned the high places? As we have said above, there are only two: the one in Deuteronomy which restricted all sacrifice to the central sanctuary, and the one, a threat, rather than a commandment, in Leviticus, in which God, speaking of the punishment which he will bring upon Israel in case of apostasy, says: "I will destroy your high places, and cut down your sun-images" (xxvi. 30). As sure, then, as this statement of die author of Kings is true, one or both of these commands were already known to Israel and the critical theory of their late origin is falsified.  

There is further evidence that Hezekiah was moved by the law of Deuteronomy in suppressing the high places, found in the argument of Rabshakeh when urging the surrender of Jerusalem to Sennacherib: "If ye say to me, We trust in Jehovah our God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?" (xviii. 22). He knew that Hezekiah had taken away the high places and altars, for the purpose of limiting the worship to Jerusalem, and, supposing from his heathen education that this would displease Jehovah, he argued the folly of trusting to him for deliverance. That Kabshakeh was well informed as to the facts in the case there can be no doubt; for the invading army had then been in the land long enough to have taken all the cities of Judah except Jerusalem, and he had conversed with Jewish captives in abundance concerning the affairs of Judah. His only mistako was in supposing that the altars destroyed were legitimate places of worship, and that Jehovah must therefore be displeased with their destruction. The effort made by the destructive critics to evade the force of this evidence is vigorously set forth by Mr. Baxter in the following lines:  

In this case, Wellhausen invents a forger in the time of the exile, and then lays on his innocent shoulders all the statements in the Books of Kings that threaten his discovery with death. He calmly assures us that it is only "the Exilian redaction of the Books of Kings, which reckons the cultus outside Jerusalem as heretical" (p. 15). Who this infamous redactor was, what may have been his name or his residence or his surroundings or his experiences, must remain utterly unknown: Wellhausen simply and absolutely summons that unblushing man up from the vasty deep of his own imagination, and then makes him the Instrument of foisting a twenty-fold He Into the records of Scripture. . . . Has he a copy in Germany of the Books of Kings as they existed before the "Exilian redactor" operated on them? If so, he should publish it (Sane, and Sac, 153 f.).  

Driver ignores Wellhausen's redactor, and ascribes to the compiler of the Books of Kings that which Wellhausen ascribes to the redactor. He says:

Deuteronomy is the standard by which the compiler judges both men and actions; and the history, from the beginning of Solomon's reign, is presented not in purely objective form (as, e. g., in II. Sam. ix. 20), but from the point of view of the Deuteronomic code. . . . Obedience to the Deuteronomic law is the qualification for an approving verdict; deviation from it is the source of ill success and the sure prelude to condemnation (Int., 199).  

Doubtless this last sentence is true; and it is true that Deuteronomy is the standard by which men and actions are judged; and why should it not be if it was written by Moses? But if it was not written by Moses, why should the compiler of Kings have made it his standard? He could have done so only in the way which Driver describes, by presenting the history "not in a purely objective form;" that is, not as actually history, but as history distorted to suit "the point of view of the Deuteronomic code." In this lies the fraudulent purpose with which this historian, in common with the others, is directly or indirectly charged. Once more historical criticism denies history in order to make room for a theory.  

6. The Testimony Given to Joash. When Jehoiada the priest, who had saved the life of the infant Joash from Athaliah, brought him forth in the temple to make him king, we are told that "he put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony" (II. Kings xi. 12). The article here called "the testimony" can be no other than "the law of the kingdom," of which it is said in Deuteronomy: "It shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them'' (xvii. 18, 19). As this law was to be copied "out of that which was before the priests," it did not, of course, contain all that was in that book; and as it was to govern the king rather than the priests or the people, it included only such portions as related to the king's personal and official duties. It was not, therefore, a very long document. As Joash was too young, as yet, to order the making of this copy, or even to know that it had to be made, Jehoiada had prepared it in advance, and gave it to him when the crown was placed on his head. In the margin of R. V. the clause is rendered, "put upon him the crown and the testimony;" and some critic has argued that as Joash was a child only six years old, a manuscript of the whole Pentateuch was too heavy a load for him to carry. No serious man, of course, could present this as a serious argument, seeing that the law to be given to the king was one copied out from the whole law, and it may have been a small manuscript roll. It was certainly not too large for a seven-year-old boy to hold in his hand or on his arm. It was doubtless the same in content with the book written by Samuel when he anointed Saul: "Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before Jehovah" (I. Sam. x. 25). Here is proof, in the two instances combined, that this law of the kingdom, as it is now styled, which the critics say was composed in the reign of Manasseh and was suggested by the reign of Solomon, was actually complied with at the coronation of Joash more than two hundred years earlier, and that it was observed in the case of King Saul eighty years before the reign of Solomon. .7. Sparing the Children of Murderers. The reign of Joash was ended by his assassination at the hands of two of his officers (II. Kings xii. 20, 21). As soon as his son Amaziah was established on the throne, we are told that "he slew his servants who had slain the king his father: but the children of the murderers be put not to death: according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as Jehovah commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sins" (xiv. 5, 6). Now, this law is found only in Deuteronomy (Deut. iv. 16) ; but this compliance with it occurred two centuries before the hypothetical date of this book. Moreover, the author of Kings, and, if he tells the truth, King Amaziah himself, recognized Deuteronomy as "the book of the law of Moses."  

Here we close our presentation of the evidence found in the Book of Kings for the early, and consequently the Mosaic, authorship of Deuteronomy; for we have reached the period in which it is affirmed by the most radical critics that the book was in the hands of King Josiah. We have not aimed to exhaust the evidence; for much of the same character can be produced, and has been, from other passages; but we have presented that on which the controversy depends, and it seems abundantly sufficient to show that the principal actors in the historical scenes which are portrayed in these books were distinctly cognizant of the existence of the law of Moses, both the Levitical and Deuteronomic law, and that it was without question ascribed by them to Moses.