Johanna Van Wijk-Bos enjoyed a long career as a faculty member at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, beginning in 1977 and ending in 2017. Over those decades, she published extensively on issues of power, gender, sexuality, and the interpretation of the historical books. Consequently, this work constitutes a fitting capstone to a successful career. Moreover, it marks the final volume of a three-part series entitled A People and A Land (The End of the Beginning: Joshua and Judges [Eerdmans, 2019]; The Road to Kingship: 1–2 Samuel [Eerdmans, 2020]). If this work is indicative of the previous two publications, this series exists as a valuable contribution to the study of early Israelite history and the historical books.The Land and Its Kings covers 1 and 2 Kings and is an extremely accessible commentary on the corpus. Van Wijk-Bos’s concise writing and literary sensitivity, as well as the book’s organization, testifies to her masterful grasp on the content of Kings. Moreover, her effective dialogue with the larger scholarly community testifies to an awareness of the breadth of scholarship covering the books. Yet this work is not a detailed or critical commentary. Indeed, Van Wijk-Bos emphasizes her synchronic posture and “close reading” of the text (p. ix). Yet one wonders if the book’s quick pace prevents her from dwelling on certain passages long enough to reap the full rewards of her close reading.For example, her close reading and a sensitivity to issues of power and power structures ostensibly bodes well for insightful discussions about the complicated heroes and characterizations of 1 and 2 Kings. In fact, this is something that she champions. “Once we consent to embrace biblical heroes in all their humanity, the story becomes more interesting” (p. 5). However, while her conversation of 2:1–9 rightly recognizes the complexity of David’s final words, she does not effectively consider how these words are projected beyond David, even beyond Solomon, across the landscape of Kings. In short, the stark contrast within David’s final words to Solomon anticipates not only Solomonic policy but also the royal modus operandi across the landscape of the history. What will define policy—a fierce allegiance to תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה, or obligations defined by larger cultural and social realities?Van Wijk-Bos organizes her presentation by six cycles, a divisional structure that is “loosely based on the outline of Jaap van Dorp” (p. 11 n. 14). These cycles appear to be thematic, and they are certainly reasonable. If anything, it again testifies to her awareness of the larger scholarly landscape. However, it is worth asking whether these divisions squash important historiographical nuances. Consider the fact that the “turning of the kingdom” is mentioned twice in the first 12 chapters of Kings (2:15 [סבב]; 12:15 [סִבָּה]) as well as the close connection between ch. 12 and its immediate context (chs. 11–14) via a diverse set of recurrences and literary chiasms (Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, Berit Olam [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996], 151; 202). Together, chs. 1–14 constitute a tightly organized whole, and to sever them at ch. 12 undermines other structural possibilities (cf. Nathan Lovell, The Books of Kings and Exilic Identity: 1 and 2 Kings as a Work of Political Historiography [New York: T&T Clark, 2021]; David B. Schreiner, “‘Now Rehoboam, Son of Solomon, Reigned in Judah’: Considering the Structural Divisions of Kings and the Significance of 1 Kgs 14:21,” AJIBS 7.1 [2020]: 7–33). But to be clear, this is more of a suggestion about the possibilities if one reads a little more closely.A similar statement can be said about cycle 6 (pp. 263–301). According to Van Wijk-Bos, this cycle begins with the account of Jerusalem’s siege in 701 BC, which effectively projects its literary significance forward, to the end of the narrative. By seeing the siege of 701 in terms of the end of Judah’s existence in the land, it is divorced from an association with 2 Kgs 17, breaking the contrast that can be observed between the destruction of Samaria and the salvation of Jerusalem. Both capitals squared off against the same imperialistic foe, but only Jerusalem stood at the end of their respective sieges. Again, are some important historiographic points missed?However, there are many places where Van Wijk-Bos’s reading does justice to the complexities of the historical account. For example, when discussing Ahab’s wars with the Arameans, she rightly comments on the complex characterization of Ahab. Indeed, he is largely presented with overwhelming negativity, particularly early in the tradition. However, at certain points Ahab is “canny in his bargaining, takes the leaders of the land into his counsel, and in his recounting of Ben-hadad’s outrageous demands, he mentions his wives and children before the property” (p. 142). Moreover, Wijk-Bos rightly connects Ahab’s denouncement at the end of 1 Kgs 20 with Saul, even Rahab, through the invocation of חרם (pp. 144-45). Nevertheless, she misses an opportunity to comment on the dynastic criticism that reaches a high point in the final verses of 1 Kgs 20 as the חרם is invoked.I enjoyed reading this volume. It flowed nicely, and it was engaging. Sure, there was plenty of room for dialogue, debate, and disagreement. But what good volume lacks such opportunities? Consequently, this work would be a worthy text for a graduate seminar on 1 and 2 Kings or the historical books, particularly as example of a synchronic interpretation that is sensitive to ideologies of power and gender. Moreover, I suspect that with the other two volumes in the A People and a Land series, van Wijk-Bos has positioned herself as an important voice in discussing the overall coherence of early Israelite historiographic literature.