This commentary is a trip. I’m not sure where we went, but it was quite a ride. Mr. Cook took a few curves too fast, but occasionally the scenery was spectacular. I know I saw the blue lights behind us on several occasions, but he would just smile and press the gas pedal a little harder. I’m sure he didn’t fully know where he was going either, but his outward confidence never wavered. I know it’s easy to be trite and say a commentary is different, but this one IS different. In fact, this is the very commentary that makes many others seem exactly alike.

Perhaps the aspect that makes this commentary unique is his views of how to process apocalyptic literature. Be sure to read his Preface as he lays it out. He also attacks approaches that moralize the stories of Daniel. Many do that and say to keep the Gospel primary, but that’s not exactly his angle. He has a very precise view of Wisdom. To my mind, his definition is not as different as the traditional one as he thinks. I liked how his views made him dig a bit deeper in places even if I couldn’t especially agree with him. His historical conclusions didn’t hold up for me either.

He is for sure an interesting writer. He quotes from so many unusual sources. I mean when was the last time Alice from her Wonderland was quoted in a commentary you were reading. Crazy? Yes. Interesting? Yes.

He also draws from unexpected disciplines. I saw philosophy and psychology often and several others. I kept expecting physics at any point.

Even if he travels in his own lanes, his work is well researched. There are footnotes galore throughout. I would not make this commentary my first choice on Daniel, but it is one that I will likely check going forward. If you are looking for a work that is captivating in new ways, I suspect this is the one for 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.

Now that this volume completes the set on Genesis, we can evaluate where this volume stands. Its old iteration in the NAC was already a top pick, but this revision only raises its value. The other two that rivaled it most were always thought to be Wenham (WBC) and Hamilton (NICOT), but it appears they will not be revised by the original authors. Wenham no doubt was theologically brilliant, but his capitulation to some critical theories was maddening. Hamilton laid out all kinds of amazing details, but perhaps the larger picture was not always in view. In contrast, Mathews has no deficiencies. The theology is good and the exegetical work outstanding, all while adding conservative outlooks and fantastic scriptural connections. I guess what I’m trying to say is that Mathews is now all alone at the top.

Since the arrival of Abraham is such a shift in Genesis, he has an Introduction for this volume as well. He discusses the setting for the Patriarchs and does a fine job in covering theology, themes, and motifs. This Introduction runs 66 pages. The coverage of the motif on Sibling Rivalry and the one on Deception were the most captivating. If that weren’t good enough, notice at the end of the book that there is one fantastic excursus after another. Perhaps Jacob was the star of that section, but all were theological astute.

Strangely, I had a similar experience to that which I had a few years back when the earlier volume came out. I was wanting to study some Genesis passages, particularly some on Joseph, and I found the commentary so well done. Again, the parallels to other parts of Genesis in the Bible at large were fascinating. There were so many things that came up that I simply hadn’t thought of before.

This is a great commentary that I highly recommend. Perhaps the best recommendation I can give it is that I cannot imagine ever doing any major Genesis study I the future without consulting this grand volume.

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.

In this new round of Interpretation Bible Commentary volumes, Mark Allan Powell tackles the Gospel of Matthew. Let me say up front that this is a more critical series where more conservative readers like me will find many points of disagreement. In a series like this one I’m especially looking for creative theology that might push my thinking to new, interesting places even though I might bail out in a few paragraphs along the way. Now that you know what I’m looking for, let me say that this volume delivered the goods. Since it is well written, more critically oriented readers will likely especially love it.

The Introduction was stand out because of its unique approach. Rather than tackling traditional introductory items, which I likely would have found little sympathy with anyway, he developed a whole new approach. The bulk of the Introduction covers 16 themes in Matthew. It’s amazing the mass of helpful material you get here. The thing that makes it so great is that after describing the thematic item, he lists everywhere Matthew demonstrates it. I could see myself using this section as much as the commentary proper.

The commentary proper provided the theology and creativity I hoped for in a writing style that really holds your attention. Though I strongly couldn’t agree with many conclusions from that perspective, I did find exactly what I’d hoped 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.

Here’s a good one. Its niche is clearly stated as being an exegetical and theological commentary. It actually delivers that very thing, amazingly, in less than 400 pages. I’ve seen TNTC volumes of that length. Don’t let that throw you off though. Don’t you want sometimes a very mature commentary that can come through both succinct and thorough? You might have guessed that Thomas Schreiner would be the guy who pull it off. He did.

His Introduction of 13 pages answered all burning questions. When you expertly dismantle influential, ludicrous scholarly conclusions apparently that’s all the space you need. At least it was all he needed. The thing that stands out to me throughout the Introduction was how easily I found myself following him to agreement.

I just happened to be in need of studying the early part of Ephesians 2 when it came time for me to review this book. It was so distinctly helpful to me. I really loved it. He is a master exegete.

When I got to the household code in chapter 5, he still kept convincing me in both the larger picture and many small details. (I didn’t perfectly keep count, but it appeared that he agreed with Thielman the most). I can think of a whole bunch of scholars who would be up the creek trying to argue against the wisdom of what he shared there.

This is a great commentary. It delivers the goods in less pages than many other volumes and sometimes that can be a really great plus. I recommend this one all the way down the line. 

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.

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.