The bigger problem with it is that Jesus recounts in detail the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and places the rich man, conscious, in Gehenna, speaking with Abraham, who is also conscious, with Lazarus present, on opposite sides of a black chasm.
This is a parable, yes, but a parable that teaches the continuance of the spirit after death, and consciousness, and a certain judgment already in place, now, before the end of the world - and it fits hand in glove with Jesus' references to Gehenna and Paradise afterwards.
Truth is, the ancient Hebrews had not yet had life after death revealed to them. That good news is not clearly revealed until Jesus. In the Maccabees there is clearly the belief in the resurrection already, a belief that is not clearly spelled out in the older Scriptures. But the ancient Jews of Hebrew Old Testament times did not know what went on in Sheol. It was never revealed to them and thus is not contained in the Bible.
The Sadduccees were the priestly class - they knew their Scriptures as well as anybody in Judaism, and they didn't believe in the resurrection at all. So it is fair to say that the big reveal of life after death is not discernibly conveyed in the Old Testament. That IS the Good News that Jesus brings: that the end is not the end at all.
If one takes the views written in Kings, and then puts them alongside of what Jesus said in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, and in the other things that Jesus said, and what John saw in the Revelation, one realizes that the author of Kings simply had not been revealed the details of life after death. OR one faces a direct and irreconcilable conflict within Scripture, and one simply chooses whether to believe the Old Testament or the New.
The conflict exists. The question is what to do about it. Me? I go with what Jesus said, because he was God, and the author of Kings was not.
