1, 2 Kings

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 1997 by Vannoy, J Robert

1, 2 Kings. By Paul R. House. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995, 432 pp., $27.99.

The New American Commentary series focuses on "the theological structure and content of each biblical book" to enable pastors, teachers and students "to read the Bible with clarity and proclaim it with power." The commentaries are expected to "evidence a commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture and a faithfulness to the classic Christian tradition." They are designed to concentrate "on theological exegesis while providing practical, applicable exposition" (editor's preface). Paul R. House's commentary on 1, 2 Kings is notably successful in fulfilling these worthy goals.

In his introductory material (pp. 27-84), House concentrates on historical issues, literary issues, canonical issues, theological issues and applicational issues. Included in his discussion of historical issues are surveys of authorship and date, chronology, the political situation, the text and miracles. In discussing the authorship and date of 1, 2 Kings, House is inevitably drawn into a discussion of Martin Noth's theory on the composition of the Deuteronomistic History as a whole (Joshua-2 Kings). It was Noth's view that a single anonymous author ("the Deuteronomistic Historian") was responsible for the great history work that spans Joshua-Kings. House accepts Noth's basic thesis and concludes that this anonymous author completed his work at about 550 BC. In drawing this conclusion House appeals to R. K. Harrison (Introduction to the Old Testament, 1969) as an example of an evangelical's perspective on Noth's work. House comments: "While agreeing that one person heavily influenced by covenant thinking and the Book of Deuteronomy wrote Johsua-Kings, Harrison correctly noted that this conclusion need not be based on an acceptance of source-critical theories of the Pentateuch" (p. 35). House here is mistaken, however, because R. K. Harrison did not accept a single "Deuteronomistic" author for the material from Joshua-Kings. Harrison dates Joshua at about 1045 BC at the beginning of the monarchy and within the lifetime of Samuel (IOT, p. 673). He dates Judges early in the monarchical period (lOT, p. 690), and 1, 2 Samuel at about 920-900 BC (IOT, p. 709). Harrison does agree with Noth that a single author was responsible for the material of 1, 2 Kings, but he takes sharp issue with Noth's general theory of the "Deuteronomistic Historian" (lOT, p. 732). While House's position on this issue has little or no influence on the material content of the commentary, his appeal to R. K. Harrison in support of his conclusion on authorship is unfortunate.

In his discussion of literary issues (pp. 54-68) House addresses "five essential elements of narrative literature: genre, structure, plot, characterization, point of view" (p. 54). This material draws from recent literary studies of the narrative material of the OT and is extremely helpful in illuminating both the content of 1, 2 Kings as well as the author's design for the book.

The section on canonical issues includes discussion of the canonical placement and function of 1, 2 Kings, and the usage of 1, 2 Kings in the rest of Scripture. The section on theological issues covers monotheism versus idolatry, central worship versus the high places, covenant loyalty versus spiritual rebellion, true prophecy versus "lying spirits," God's covenant with David versus dynastic disintegration, God's sovereignty versus human pride. Under applicational issues House suggests five steps to be followed in the attempt to help pastors and teachers bridge the gap between the ancient story and the modern audience. These introductory sections are well researched and written, and they provide a good orientation to the study of 1, 2 Kings.

In the commentary proper House presents a clear and responsible exposition of 1, 2 Kings in a section-by-section treatment. At the beginning of the nine major sections into which he divides the book, House provides a "survey of historical details" pertaining to that major section. At the end of each major section, House discusses the "canonical and theological implications" as well as the "applicational implications" of that block of material. These discussions are a unique feature of House's commentary. Here one will find comments on things that most commentaries avoid but for which most readers are looking. It is here that those who desire to preach or teach from 1, 2 Kings will find helpful suggestions on how to bridge the gap between the OT period and today, and how to find the continuing significance of these narratives for contemporary living. This commentary is a worthy contribution to the study of 1, 2 Kings as well as to the New American Commentary series. It may well be the best general- use commentary currently available on 1, 2 Kings.

J. Robert Vannoy

Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, PA