1 & 2 KINGS
Apollos Old Testament commentary
By Lissa M. Wray Beal
IVP. 615 pages. £32.99
ISBN 978 1 783 590 315
This volume is a recent addition to the Apollos Old Testament Commentary series. Dr Wray Beal has given us a clear and – given the complexities 1 & 2 Kings present – a relatively uncluttered treatment of these books. She provides us with about 40 pages of lucidly written introductory matter as a preface to the bulk of the work.
The commentary proper deals with a chunk of text (perhaps a chapter or two) in line with the format of the series: (1) the author’s translation of the text; (2) notes on text-critical matters (the Hebrew is transliterated); (3) discussion of the form and structure of the passage; (4) comment on the text in paragraph-by-paragraph style; and (5) a section called ‘explanation’, in which Dr Wray Beal traces a biblical-theological theme rooted in the passage.
With the angels
In critical matters Wray Beal usually comes down with the angels. Without blinking she takes ‘Josiah’ in 1 Kings 13:2 as authentic. She seems impatient with critical guesswork and attempts at reconstructing the text (cf. pp.34-36, p.240 [on 1 Kings 18], p.407 [on 2 Kings 13]), insisting that we have to deal with the text as we have it. This is refreshing and saves us from reading through the boring guesswork of the dead and the still living. Occasionally one wonders what she means by ‘prophetic legend traditions’ (p.231) or ‘using the technique of legend’ (p.296).
Disappointments
Not much in this commentary with which to violently disagree, but a few disappointments. There is what I would call the typical ‘anti-Solomon’ attitude in 1 Kings 4 (see pp. 100-101); even though the text is overwhelmingly positive, this dominant picture is shadowed over by dragging in Solomon’s failure. Who can believe that Israel was really happy during his reign? And in my view her treatment of Elijah at Horeb (1 Kings 19) follows an all-too-conventional track and fails to pick up on vital clues in the text itself – but then most commentaries disappoint on that text.
I was not particularly ‘taken’ by the ‘explanation’ segment, where usually a biblicaltheological theme from the passage was traced or developed. Dr Wray Beal did a commendable job with these and sometimes tellingly so (note, e.g., her discussion of the non-pragmatic obedience of Josiah, pp. 510-11). But I often thought that so much more could have been done with the theological testimony of the passage itself rather than taking a theme from the text and running with it. For example, on 1 Kings 17 the ‘explanation’ section dealt with the theme of ‘life.’ No problem with that really. But there was little or no mining of the suddenness of Elijah’s appearance, the meaning of his ‘disappearance’, the strange ways of Yahweh’s provision, or the mystery of Yahweh’s severe way with the widow. One can fly with a theme and fail to milk the text.
I found some time ago that a sure way to ‘kill’ a good commentary was to read it straight through. They aren’t meant to be used that way – though that almost has to be the way a reviewer does it. In spite of this, Wray Beal on 1 and 2 Kings comes out well. Anyone who can deal with the complexities of 1 & 2 Kings and do it with clarity deserves our thanks. Her commentary evidences an immense amount of work and thought. However, my hunch is that a number of EN readers would find Wray Beal more than they want on 1 & 2 Kings right now and may find something like Iain Provan’s work (1995, Paternoster) a more manageable guide.
