1–2 Kings

Gina Hens-Piazza’s 1–2 Kings is lively, accessible, and often salutary in insisting that readers face the book’s violence, royal self-interest, gendered blame, and the suffering of ordinary people; her attention to Naboth’s judicial murder, the possible gendered handling of Jezebel, and the terror of Jehu’s revolution is genuinely valuable. Yet the commentary too often turns ethical alarm into exegetical conclusion. It draws an unhelpfully sharp contrast between theological story and serious history, although Kings’ selection and shaping of events are characteristic of ancient historiography, not proof of indifference to real people or events. Repeatedly, conjecture hardens into certainty: Solomon’s unexecuted sword test becomes literal child-endangering “blackmail”; the deceived man of God in 1 Kings 13 is treated as merely “unwitting,” obscuring that he set aside a direct command in response to a false later claim; a specific oracle against Ben-hadad becomes a general theology of annihilation; and Elisha is psychologised as immature or “overexuberant” without textual evidence. Most seriously, the unnamed “great wrath” after Mesha’s sacrifice in 2 Kings 3 is treated as proof that YHWH accepted or was moved by child sacrifice, though the text never identifies the source of the wrath or says that the sacrifice pleased God. Her treatment of Jezebel rightly warns against scapegoating, but risks minimising her active orchestration of false witness and murder, alongside Ahab’s own culpable complicity. Likewise, Jehu’s coup is indeed cruel, manipulative, and morally compromised, but Kings itself limits rather than simply applauds him: he exceeds his commission, preserves Jeroboam’s cult, receives only a temporary dynasty, and remains subject to judgment. Most troubling are claims that portray God as desperate, compassion-depleted, or unlike the God believers should worship; these are theological verdicts that the book’s repeated warnings, delayed judgments, response to repentance, and enduring covenant mercy do not sustain. Stimulating as an ethical counter-reading, the volume is less dependable as careful exposition because it repeatedly substitutes suspicion and modern analogy for patient textual and canonical argument.

Nashville: Abingdon, 2006. Pp. xx + 407. Paper. $36.00. ISBN 0687490219. Randall L. McKinion Shepherds Theological Seminary Cary, North Carolina Having read and interacted with the recent contribution of Peter J. Leithart on 1 and 2 Kings, I was eager to read and compare the work at hand. Leithart’s commentary was clearly set within the grid of understanding the theological contribution of Kings to the church. The work in the Abingdon Old Testament Commentary series on 1–2 Kings, by Gina Hens-Piazza, takes a somewhat different look at these books, in that she applies a literary approach to the text. At the same time, she attempts to derive from Kings her own theological and ethical contribution. The structure of this well-written commentary is simple. After a brief introduction that is interesting but not very comprehensive, Hens-Piazza carefully walks chapter by chapter throughout this large tome. Each chapter begins with a short introductory paragraph before commenting on the passage in three sections: literary analysis, exegetical analysis, and theological and ethical analysis. The literary analysis of each is chapter is well-done. It frames the text, gives the big picture, and delineates the narrative units. For the most part, the exegetical analyses will leave the Hebrew student and/or scholar a little disappointed, for these sections are less exegetically rigorous and more literarily focused. This does not mean that the comments are not useful, only that they make the commentary more appropriate for those students reading the English Bible. [Full Review]

Nashville: Abingdon, 2006. Pp. xx + 407. Paper. $36.00. ISBN 0687490219. Ralph W. Klein Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago Chicago, Ilinois In a very brief introduction, the author identifies historical and literary “considerations” in the books of Kings and discusses these books as a theological work. She mentions the alternate positions of Noth and Cross on the Deuteronomistic History, without choosing between them, and the commentary itself does not really address this issue. She traces back the conditional and unconditional promises contained in the Deuteronomistic History to Moses and David, respectively. The commentary is nontechnical—no new translation, textual criticism, use of Hebrew, or footnotes—and each section (usually a chapter) is divided into “Literary Analysis,” “Exegetical Analysis,” and “Theological and Ethical Analysis.” In the segment called “Literary Analysis,” the author summarizes the section under consideration and identifies its component parts. One might have expected more detailed use of the tools of narrative criticism here. The exegetical sections will prove useful to lay readers but will provide few new insights to scholars or even seminary students (the book jacket claims the series is aimed at theological students, pastors, and upper-level college or university students). [Full Review]