In this counterpart to a similarly spectacular volume on the Old Testament, we see the New Testament painted in rich hues. It’s again produced by RTS faculty, which of course tells you the systematic theological lane it drives in. I think its gift, though, is its biblical theology. In fact, that’s more the purpose of the volume itself.
The Gospels have some of the most fascinating biblical theology in the New Testament, and as we expect, those chapters are some of the richest here. Sometimes issues like, say, the so-called Synoptic Problem and its weird offspring like “Q” are discussed in a way that might not even be needed in a conservative volume like this one (remember scholars aren’t the intended audience here) even if they conclude correctly. Perhaps Mark and John got the best coverage while Luke was a bit weak on structure. Still, they were all wonderfully helpful.
Robert Cara, who did Luke, took the same approach in Acts. Again, it was helpful. Guy Prentiss Waters did the next four chapters covering Romans through Ephesians. That means, of course, he got the most overtly theological books of the New Testament. Such theological writing is what Mr. Waters is most noted for. He has a sharp mind, but he is often party-line on Presbyterian thinking. That’s not a problem because it only asks the reader to keep the author’s perspective in mind while reading.
I found the going helpful the rest of the way. Revelation is going to probably help you on structure and symbolism, but not some of the other controversial matters.
This is invaluable for an overview study of a New Testament book. There are not as many helpful volumes for that need as you might think. You could hardly do better than 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.
Here’s a massive two-volume commentary in a series in its infancy. Though I take exception to some of the thrusts of this commentary, I must give Mr. Carter his props on writing. He reads so easily. I do enjoy scholarly writing that flows.
In the Introduction he says that this commentary is built around seven propositions that he has on Matthew’s Gospel. I’ll be honest and admit those propositions don’t exactly jump off the page for me (though I love focus). These propositions are quite dependent on a later date for Mathew, which I don’t agree with and I wasn’t persuaded by the case he presented. The logic is too tenuous. Matthew, he says, had to come after Mark and he dates Mark just after the fall of Jerusalem (70 A.D.). If we believe that predictive prophecy is possible, then both could have been before that date. That’s like a house of cards that fell with the gentlest of breezes.
His discussion of genre is interesting, but I just don’t know. I find help in the general categories of genre, but scholars keep adding new ones regularly. I think I’ve seen 30 or so in recent years (I didn’t actually count). So they see this new genre in a biblical book, define it, and read its rules back to the text. Isn’t that a bit circular?
The section on “telling the story of Jesus” is where he discusses structure. I could get on with section relativity more. I was surprised, too, to find him a bit skeptical about the thread worn “Q” theory. For sure, he focuses on the “finished form” of Matthew. His discussion of who Matthew is or authorship is highjacked by “reader-response criticism”. How could that even be a thing?
The rest of his proposals center in the Roman Empire. His fixation on the Syrian Antioch depends completely on his dating discussed earlier. I already told you what I think of that. Additionally, isn’t the story of Jesus even more fascinating because of how He almost ignores Rome even though it dominated the world scene? Squeeze Matthew as hard as you like and I think you’ll be hard pressed yourself to see an organizing feature in the “socioeconomic realities of daily urban and rural life in the ancient Roman world of Syrian Antioch”.
I even have something to say on the bibliography. It stands out by what is not there. Notice how few conservative writers are mentioned. I’ve always felt that conservative writers read more liberal works while the favor is rarely returned. The danger of an echo chamber is real. Notice also the relative lack of commentaries in the bibliography. I will only say that that is surprising.
Though the theological approach is in a different lane than I travel, I liked the commentary proper much better. Not really for the big picture obviously, but for all the fascinating details. At 1800 pages between the two volumes there are plenty of them.
A conservative reader like me is going to like a volume like this for its nuggets not found in other works, its unique biblical theology, and its interesting connections to other texts. In that regard, it delivered.
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 release finishes Smith’s grand commentary on Isaiah. I always enjoyed his older commentary in the NAC and this revision is only better. It’s easily one of the best conservative commentaries we have on Isaiah. It’s in the company of Motyer and Oswalt where the rarified air leaves out much of the pollution found in modern Isaiah tomes.
Another Introduction for the second half of Isaiah? You bet! Over 70 pages? And not one is wasted. You can attribute two reasons for so many introductory issues in Isaiah. First, hardly does a second half of a book contrast to the level found in Isaiah. Second, hardly since at least the Pentateuch has a biblical book been subjected to the level of barrage by critical scholars found here. In this volume, you’ll find both interesting coverage of the issues and winning pushback against those scholars.
The Introduction is so well informed on structure. Smith is fantastic in summarizing key observations on these issues. He makes comparison so easy. The same could be said for compositional issues. You know how some scholars want to posit a Second Isaiah and some even a Third Isaiah (40-55 & 56-66). There’s no legitimate need to do that as Smith’s work will show. He is very thorough in this regard.
The commentary itself is exceptional. The help it provides is distinct. I feel the depth is ideal and the footnotes are rich if you want more.
Add the earlier volume and have great coverage on Isaiah. Try it and I think you will agree with me on its value.
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.
I’ve looked forward to this one for a while. Two presidential biographies ago for me was Smith on FDR. Smith was clearly enamored with FDR, so I wondered if he would be evenhanded to republican Eisenhower. I mean I read his work on George W. Bush several years ago and he proved there he was capable of letting his political bias bleed onto the pages. So I was pleasantly surprised to find him consistently fair to Eisenhower (Man, he didn’t like Nixon!) I believe he actually admired Eisenhower. And for sure he proved to be a master biographer.
As for me, I too admired Eisenhower. Upon reflection, that admiration flowed almost exclusively from WW2. Upon further reflection, I didn’t have a clue about his presidency. Now that Smith brought Eisenhower alive for me I still admire him even if that admiration is a bit nuanced. He certainly wasn’t a conservative like Reagan later on, but he was brilliant politically. He could read the room better than most any president I can think of and he had impressive instincts. In simple terms, he governed like a general with a mission to accomplish. At a minimum, he was a perfect president for his era.
The book made interesting what was a bit of a bland youth. His family connection was no where near Truman who preceded him. His life became much more interesting when he entered the army. In the earliest years of his military career he didn’t stand out as he was more interested in football and other such activities. He even got to do some coaching along the way while in the military and proved to be good at it.
When he married Mamie you got the feeling that it was at least a bit of marrying up. Hers was a wealthy family. She could be both a blessing and a thorn during his career.
Many have noticed that Eisenhower was often a recipient of the most fortuitous circumstances. He was always in the right place at the right time. Had even one of those circumstances been different I doubt we’d even know his name.
Until WW2 he often found himself in the shadow of the larger-than-life Douglas MacArthur. MacArthur helped him at times. Eisenhower served him well in the Philippines, but also saw his hubris up close. Maybe we’d call it a begrudging respect. Less known and more important to Eisenhower on multiple levels was General Fox Conner. Not only did he teach him military tactics, but would always pull strings to elevate Eisenhower any time his career stalled. That’s an advantage that most people would never have.
Eisenhower’s career steadily grew, but by the outbreak of WW2 he was only a colonel. Then those fortuitous circumstances ramped up even more. The most shocking thing for me about Eisenhower’s life was that by the time he led the European theater he had never had a battlefield command! That is mind blowing!
Still, it made sense. No one was his superior in equipping an army. He also was pretty solid in learning from his mistakes. I was amazed at how often his headquarters were far from battle (though that makes sense), even though he was incredibly busy. Through all that planning he lived like gentry. He was an extrovert and he played card games with friends regularly, a practice that followed him through life.
Then there was Kay Summersby. Smith was fascinated with her story and referred to her in every place possible. It’s the only place he really went after Eisenhower. He admitted that it was never proven that adultery happened, but he came across as convinced it did. Because he believed it, Eisenhower moving on from her apparently perturbed Smith. I’m not sure how far it went, but clearly it was inappropriate.
Without doubt, Eisenhower is critically important and is deserving the accolades he received. He was never the great battlefield general, like say Patton, but a war the scope of WW2 needed a guy like Eisenhower to be successful.
Smith went more topical than chronological in describing Eisenhower’s presidency. Some are critical of that approach, and though not ideal, it did the book no real harm. Eisenhower was pragmatic, but there was clear thinking behind it. You might not agree with all his decisions, but he kept us on a straight course. Having been a general, he helped us steer clear of war at all costs. He even clearly foresaw what the military-industrial complex would grow to in our country. I judge him a success.
Smith painted Eisenhower as not particularly religious. He only became a member of a church when his handlers thought it a liability not to in his presidential campaign. I suspect Smith painted him correctly. What he failed to record, however, is that Billy Graham led him to Christ in his later years.
Here is a great book on a great, consequential President (even if his military career is what elevated him).
This replacement volume in the beloved TOTC series is, in my view, an upgrade over its predecessor. Mr. Williamson is more known to me in the biblical theology realm, but here he gives commentary writing a try.
My least favorite part of this work is the Introduction. It was competent on many levels, but was a bit too agreeable to some dubious scholarly concerns. He seemed to beat around the bush about Mosaic authorship and sources before, I think, concluding conservatively. He couldn’t bring himself to pick a date or a route for the exodus. I much prefer reading that champions a view. His couple of pages on structure, though, were perfectly succinct. Even if this Introduction is not exactly to my taste, I think few readers of this series are coming for that reason.
Not more important for this audience is the commentary proper. It is well done here and strikes the right balance in length for the series. Are you preparing a lesson or sermon? I think you would enjoy this one. His penchant for biblical theology enriches many a passage. You likely know what to expect in the TOTC series and you will get it here.
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 my first encounter with Mr. Starling. He is in Australia and I hadn’t even heard of him, but I must admit that he struck me as a seasoned commentator. 1 Corinthians has several passages that invite debate, but I felt he was at his best guiding us through such passages. I loved his conservative, clear-headed explanations.
He also excels at a biblical theology level. Corinthians isn’t taking some big picture view as some places in Scripture, but it’s a helpful overview for what we face. Mr. Starling helps us here. I’d describe his view as this book guides us through facing and withstanding cultural pressure. I love it. It makes perfect sense. That viewpoint informs the commentary throughout.
He has a solid chapter in the Introduction as well on themes of biblical theology. They are pretty broad themes, but are well done. His explaining the background of Corinth, a major section in every commentary on Corinthians, was on target if not as lengthy as some. Other introductory issues were at least surveyed. His stab at structure is merely an outline.
This series has carved out its own lane and this is a good representative of it. I recommend it.
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.
Mr. Millar began his Introduction by admitting he seldom read the Introduction to commentaries. Strangely enough, it was his Introduction that made me like his commentary. Perhaps irony is a synonym for peculiar.
It was his approach that won the day for me. The slick way he dispensed with the whole Hittite vassal treaties by page 4 showed me I was going to like this one. Making Deuteronomy “essentially Mosaic” equally showed a man who felt no need to drown in watery nonsense along with so many other scholars. His outline was suggestive even if his minimalist approach might not have satisfied Goldilocks.
His greatest contribution is his overall approach to Deuteronomy. Rather than our normal foreboding views of Law, he saw “the connotation of living richly within the right boundaries that God has laid down”. He at once impressed and convinced me on that point. I ended up with being even more appreciative of Deuteronomy.
That guiding principle infuses the rest of the commentary with pleasing usefulness.
The theology that this series purports to give rings true as well. I’ve seen much longer commentaries, but this can be the favorite of many of you.
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 book is right up my alley. There are a lot of Old Testament introductions on the market, but this volume is far better than a typical introduction. It almost has an intuitive sense of what is important and successfully pushes other things to the side. To be a work by so many writers, it’s hard to believe it could be as consistently good as it is.
They developed this biblical-theological idea and executed it beautifully. They had a goal of minimizing interactions with higher critical models, and they mostly were able to stick to it. Clearly, with a variety of authors, there will be places where one cannot agree. I’m probably in the minority, but I couldn’t follow them on the interpretation of Solomon’s Song. Still, though, the authors were united and holding to Christ being the glue that holds the Old Testament together. That fact alone makes this volume worth much more than so many others.
There is a nice introduction to this work that helps us see Christ as the center of the Old Testament with the thematic framework being the kingdom of God. This introduction can really help you see what you’re going to be getting throughout the work.
The rest of the book is individual chapters for each book of the Old Testament. I found so much wonderful help and very little throwaway material. Several chapters were fascinating. There were even a few helpful charts along the way. In one way or the other, every chapter is going to look at some key background issues, structure, and theology. It always ends with some connection to the New Testament. There’s even a nice bibliography for those who want to study further.
To my mind, this work is ideal. I can envision pulling it before every study of an Old Testament book. I can think of at least two books that tried an approach like this one, but this volume is more valuable by far. Make this one the one you grab first.
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.
Man, this series just keeps hitting home runs! The series as a whole is indispensable. As is often the case, here an important idea (this time its glory) has its vitalness unearthed. We know “glory” is important, but here we find out why. As is also consistent, we get it traced from Genesis to Revelation, from Creation to New Creation.
To be honest, though I probably use the word glory often, its meaning is a bit nebulous to me. I have an idea of what it means, but probably sound silly describing it. It’s much clearer to me now that Donnie Berry has produced this work.
I was helped in the Introduction as he biblically defined glory. The idea of “weightiness” resonated for me. In chapter one he clearly states the significance of glory in Creation. God gave us royal status and crowned us with glory. Page 23 is the first of a visual that he keeps tweaking to make his case. (I liked the triquetra). It’s a beautiful picture he draws.
As is always true in these biblical theology books, the profound impact of the Fall is brought to the fore. Glory did receive a blow there. He presents the Garden as a place to access God’s glory. Our choice now is if we express the authority given toward God’s glory or against it.
Leaving the Fall, the question becomes “can glory be restored?” Through Christ we come to Revelation seeing it absolutely can! That takes several chapters to work out in this book, but it is an enjoyable journey.
You can’t go wrong here!
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 latest in the NICOT series is massive, especially to get through only chapter 6. I can sum this one up quickly. If you are coming to this commentary for academic concerns, you will feel like you’ve received candy from your stocking on Christmas morning. If you are more into sermon prep or regular Bible study, not so much. To be fair, this work approaches commentary writing in the pattern that has developed over the last couple decades in this series, though maybe even a bit more detail.
There are good things to share here, but let me share my concerns. First, more weight was laid upon genre than it could bear. The genre “court tales” is simply overused to explain Daniel at large here. Assumptions are made and then those conventions are too often made the central argument to what’s going on. Second, the history of composition and the corresponding historical background of those times also carries too much. I love a big commentary, but I’m not sure we need 30 pages there. Finally, the structure and theology sections were weak. For these reasons, the long Introduction was not too helpful to me.
Again, with an eye to fairness, more scholars would think I’m off base than the authors here, but I think, for example, pastors would agree with me.
On the plus side, the scholarly work here will be graded exceptional in those circles. When something is addressed, no one can deny the sweat evident in the work. Additionally, the commentary hits a higher gear in the commentary proper. Check out the background on young men like Daniel being taken into the service of Babylon. That’s what I call thoroughness!
I’m a fan of this series, and I’ll want the follow up volume to have the full coverage of the commentary proper, but let’s rate it 5 stars for scholars and 4 stars for the rest of us.
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.
The Reagan Review 