Many new commentaries purport to be something different. You begin reading and they may be good or bad but they are not different. And then I started reading this one. At first, I was reading the Introduction and thinking there was a problem. I was asking myself what is guiding this author in what he is choosing to put in this Introduction. Finally, I realized that this commentary really is different. That is its intention and it is pulling it off. Reception history really is different than the usual commentary fare.

Still, as I said, I don’t know how he chose what went in his Introduction. But what goes in an Introduction on reception history? For all the commentaries I’ve reviewed, I don’t have a clue. I guess when you’re forging a new trail you get to make your own path. In any event, it was interesting. The usual subject of structure was well handled. He cast a suspicious eye toward the Documentary Hypothesis, which is always appreciated, though he could have been more lethal. His dating of Genesis fell flat for me, but that’s not really influential to this type of commentary. There was, though, all these zesty tidbits along the way that I appreciated. Finally, the Introduction digressed into texts of Genesis. It took me a minute to realize that was laying a foundation for this reception history.

In the commentary proper what was so helpful was that if you laid this commentary by the others you have, there would be no duplication. It was all interesting too. I would never choose this commentary as my main source for exegesis, but if I were doing a deep study, this could add so much.

This commentator would fall on the conservative side of the fence—I mean he’s written for the Pillar New Testament commentary series—but I was amazed at the plethora of more critical scholars that he always cites. Possibly, that was because they sometimes offer some of that really high-flying theology. And though I know there is not a consistent number of New Testament references to every passage in Genesis, I did sometimes feel that he just wrote about whatever he wanted to write about. My expectations meant nothing either. I just guessed that John chapter one would have been extensively discussed during the commentary of Genesis chapters one and two, but that was not the case. Still, I must rate the work a smashing success because whatever he chose to say was highly captivating.

This book does not garner a high rating because of its consistency, but rather because it was so lively compared to several other commentaries. Let’s mark this down as one that I really enjoyed despite itself. 

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

Here’s the inaugural volume in the Pillar Old Testament Commentary series. You just know this series is going to be good. The Pillar NT that has been around for some time is unusually consistent for a series. It’s probably the editor you have to thank for that. So it was with high expectations that I picked up this volume and opened it. It delivered!

I’ve read Duane Garrett quite a few years and found him pretty solid. I must say, though, this is the best I’ve ever seen from him. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s the best by a wide margin. His reasoning was so mature and well thought out. I don’t want to be trite in a review, but it really was impressive.

My only complaint is that I wish these commentaries could be released complete rather than have years between them. It’s common these days, but it’s disappointing if you really like a volume. Maybe it’s the constraints facing all publishers (Eerdmans is one of the best), so we’d better be understanding I guess.

This commentary is such a compliment to many other commentaries that I have on the psalms. I’m a bit of a sucker for discussions about structure. It’s not that I think these structures unlock the secret meaning of a book, but that they just kind of reinforce it and show a divine hand at work. Still, Garrett argued so persuasively that we can get a bit out of hand. In fact, in so many cases, he was reeling people like me back in. I’m sure we needed it. At least we needed the balance. In many cases, he would explain all that we really know for sure. And it could be at times less than we would like to think we know. I could see myself picking up this volume and reading it right after I read, say, James Hamilton. Both have so much to give, but reading them both could keep you in the right lane I’m sure.

Other features I loved included reminding us that there is a personal and devotional function to the psalms. He is correct that we can get carried away thinking it’s always for formal temple worship. He was calm and sensible in his discussions of superscripts too. One of the best sections in the introduction is on recurrent theological motifs in the Psalter. That section is nothing short of fascinating and so insightful in studying this portion of scripture. The short section on patterns of repetition were also eye-opening for me.

The commentary proper was outstanding. I read over several of the psalms and thought he provided distinct help for us.

This is a grand commentary, and I can’t wait until the other volume is released and finishes his work on the psalms. 

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255

This commentary is quite in-depth and clearly must be rated a substantial commentary. It’s in the critical lane as you would expect from this series, yet not as critical as some that preceded it. The earlier volume on Chronicles in this series had quite a following in some circles, and Jonker seems to respect and revere it. In fact, one of the strengths of this book for scholars is how well it synthesizes scholarly work that went before it. If that’s what you’re after, you are going to love this volume.

For me, the commentary far exceeded the Introduction. The author seemed to miss the most pressing items. There was more needed on the history of the times (distinguish that from the supposed history of its writing). Structure could have been more imaginatively presented, though it was quite well reviewed in the smaller chunks as it was encountered in the commentary. The section on theology was fairly good, but could’ve been longer. To be fair, my more conservative stance might naturally make me not like some of the material in the introduction.

In the commentary itself, I must give a much higher recommendation. Clearly, its greatest strength was exegesis. It really dug in and offered help on many points. The author notices lots of details in the text that could easily be overlooked. You will find an excursus or two along the way, and even a chart, but the exegesis is where the gold resides. I’m sorry to put all the eggs of this volume in one basket, but that’s just how I see it. Since that, however, is what most readers are looking for, we will still have to say this is a great volume.

Every section in the commentary has a translation, some technical notes, a section on form and structure, one on sources, and finally the commentary itself. All of those sections were pretty good except the section on sources didn’t move the needle much for me.

 To my mind, this volume is easily in the top 10% of those we get in this series. The critical stance may not be to your liking, but there is lots of good to find besides those thrusts. I’m pretty impressed with this one. 

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255

Goldingay is perhaps the most prolific OT commentator of our day. I’ve seen writers take a decade to produce a work like he has given us here in Ezekiel and he has another volume in the series on Leviticus coming out soon! To be fair, all of his commentaries are pretty full and don’t show major evidence of haste. Perhaps you might wonder how he chose what went in and what didn’t get into the introduction, but you will love what he did cover. He doesn’t waste words in the commentary proper, but he is never superficial and gives real help throughout.

This volume is now my favorite commentary of his commentaries. To be frank, some were a bit too critical for my taste, especially from someone who is supposed to be in the conservative camp. I thought him conservative as well on his work on Jeremiah, but not nearly as much on Daniel. Unless I am just affected by varying moods when I read, these differences seem real to me. But in this case, here on Ezekiel, there’s not a whole lot that’s going to bother a conservative reader. Maybe too many of us have found him overly critical in some cases, because he himself places this commentary on the “conservative end of the spectrum of Ezekiel scholarship” (page 14).

I always find his work captivating and exquisitely written. That is the case again. I found myself sitting on the porch on a beautiful spring afternoon enjoying reading the introduction to this work. He always gets me thinking and he definitely has not lost his touch in this volume. His scholarly skill was on display too when he talked about, say, the difference between the poetry and prose of Ezekiel. Near the end, he gave something of a dispassionate overview of how Ezekiel has been seen over the years. He even ended the section describing what is to me some of the lunacy of our present time, but he did not seem taken in by it.

The commentary proper was again excellent. Whether he steps back to see the forest or steps closer to see the trees, he gives you things that are truly helpful. I’m a fan of this series, and I mark this one another winner. 

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255

This commentary represents some serious work. Its theological orientation runs contrary to my own; but if you discount its critical thrust, you will find much learning to process. Yes, critical studies often indiscriminately lunge at the Bible, but here the blade is not as sharp as most. It has its moments (Micah as a killjoy! ), but I at least felt that Ms. Sharp liked Micah. She could be winsome toward this book at times. I often like one critical commentary to understand how a biblical book is thought about and this one stands ready to be that volume for me on Micah.

Four sections make up the introduction in this commentary. By far sections two and four are the most helpful. I really can’t get on much with section 3 at all. I tried, but I just couldn’t do it. Section 2 on literary dimensions (structure) was quite helpful and interesting. Section 4, which is called an overview of the history of consequences, is really a good overview of how Micah has been interpreted. This section of 60 pages goes really deep and offers help at the level of some much larger series. Both Jewish and Christian traditions are surveyed appropriately. As you might expect, the bibliography leans left, but is fairly full.

The commentary section can be interesting. For me as a conservative Bible student, it can at times be an out-of-the-box viewpoint that gets you really thinking. Of course, at other times, it would be out in left field, and I would just skim. Because of where I stand, I’m going to rate a critical commentary mostly on its ability to give me something to think about that I find compelling and that I otherwise would never have considered, not on its theological accuracy across the board. This commentary really delivers on that count.

I’m going to be really interested to see what this series delivers in future volumes, but for this one on Micah it delivers exactly what I was looking for. 

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

This is a tremendous asset to anyone preaching through the Minor Prophets. At least that’s how I think of it. I’m sure any Christian could enjoy just reading it through as these are real vibrant sermons, not merely scholarly essays. But for preachers, these are well crafted sermons. Of course no preacher worth his salt would ever just take the sermon of another, but these sermons could be especially suggestive as you prepare your own.

The sermons are in a fairly modern style. Some illustrations are good while others are only as good as your familiarity with popular culture. The key value, though, is the smoothness with which they bring life to the text. Whether it’s extensive background information or an awareness of exegetical options, the authors consistently provide real help without leaving the sermon to become a commentary writer. That’s a real skill.

I’ve often heard favorably of Paul House regarding Old Testament work, but Stephen Coleman is unknown to me. He appears to be a younger guy. Amazingly, I saw no difference in quality of work between these two authors.

The Minor Prophets well lend themselves to a work like this one. Mark this one down as a capital production.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255

Having done Philippians, Colossians and Philemon in the old NAC, Melick narrows his focus to Philippians here. Perhaps his older volume didn’t set the woods on fire, but I always felt it was a bit underrated. It understood its target audience and delivered satisfactorily. Perhaps also I allowed myself to be a bit too swayed by how some rated it because as I worked through it this time I kept thinking—this is good.

It again writes first to pastors and teachers and could hardly be better in that vein. Academic types are going to go for the big exegetical series anyway, so I am glad to see the emphasis of this volume.

I’m not saying he came up short on scholarship either. Though it was pleasantly accessible, he handled all introductory issues really well. He set up the background of Philippi, explained what was going on with Paul, and understood the theological viewpoint of the book. He as winsome in his conservative conclusions throughout. It read well too, which is especially important when we leave the domain of scholars being the primary audience.

There was a certain maturity that was palpable in the book. I suspect he has been through Philippians many times. Scholars might feel his footnotes lean toward not as recent sources, but if you only are after understanding Philippians what difference could that make?

I found the commentary proper both full and helpful. Preachers are going to appreciate it. The series most in competition with the CSC is, perhaps, the TNTC, and Melick here much exceeds the Philippians volume in that series. I’ll give this one a thumbs up.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.

This commentary in its first edition from 1998 was highly influential. I can venture a guess for why that is so (and it’s only a guess). Modern scholarship was taking a turn away from Solomon being the author of Ecclesiastes and Longman was perhaps the first major conservative scholars to go that route. If that is overstating it, could I at least say that he should be credited with popularizing it? He truly is considered one of the major writers in Old Testament studies, particularly in Wisdom literature. He is especially known for commentaries and for editing other major scholarly volumes. Plus, the NICOT is highly influential in its own right as well. How many major commentaries of even a conservative nature hold to Solomon after Longman? No, I don’t know any either.

The charge against that earlier edition has always been that it is a bit too pessimistic. I fully agree. Since you likely are familiar with that earlier edition because of its wide popularity, I should tell you upfront that he has not changed any major conclusions that he has on Ecclesiastes. So in other words, whatever you thought before, you are likely to think now. This new edition merely fine tunes the earlier arguments.

But I can still give it its props. If you like the more modern approach to Ecclesiastes, you will find him more articulate than some others I have read. He is a good writer, and he always handles the scholar’s task with ease. There are good reasons he has been asked to edit so many major scholarly works. For better or worse, no major theological library could be without this work.

I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.