I have to agree with First Last on this; I'm scratching my head wondering how this commentary garnered such great reviews. I usually find NAC to be worthwhile to turn to, but referencing it was fruitless, disappointing, and time wasted. Provan is still my go to, and despite its brevity contains far more depth than House's.

Edit Review

First Last

September 18, 2014

I absolutely love the NAC series, but House's commentary on First and Second Kings was poor. He failed to deliver and did not fail to disappoint. I am stunned by how high this commentary is rated and by how many people recommend it. Every time I turned to it, I felt I had wasted my time.

Edit Review

Tim Challies

July 8, 2013

House’s commentary is widely praised and finds its way onto almost every one of the experts’ lists. Keith Mathison says, “This is the commentary to which pastors should turn if they are seeking more exegetical detail than is found in the works of Davis mentioned above. House explores historical, literary, canonical, theological, and applicational concerns thoroughly and competently. Highly recommended.” [Full Review]

Edit Review

John Glynn

September 20, 2008

Edit Review

Jim Rosscup

September 20, 2008

Edit Review

Ligonier Ministries (Keith A. Mathison)

August 15, 2008

One of the best intermediate level commentaries on the books of 1 & 2 Kings is the commentary by Paul R. House in the NAC series. This is the commentary to which pastors should turn if they are seeking more exegetical detail than is found in the works of Davis mentioned above. House explores historical, literary, canonical, theological, and applicational concerns thoroughly and competently. Highly recommended. [Full Review]

Edit Review

Brian LeStourgeon

July 29, 2008

House is good, but not outstanding. A safe starting point for the evangelical pastor. More useful and a bit more conservative than Provan (NIBCOT, 1995).

Edit Review

Denver Seminary Journal