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.

This commentary is a model representation of modern scholarship on Ecclesiastes on most points. I’m not going to review this commentary on those terms because I do not agree with the direction scholarship has gone on this book. In fact, I cannot agree with it at all. The older idea of Solomon being the realistic author is one that still makes perfect sense to me based on the book we have. The problem you have is that once you rule out Solomon, what you are left with is Hocus Pocus and building castles in the sky as to what the true theological importance of the book would be. Now that I have that off my chest, I will attempt to review the book from the lane that drives in – modern scholarship. In that vein, I would have to judge it of mixed success.

All the technical work is fine. Exegesis is competent. His work on discourse analysis is a scholar’s dream whether you’d follow him or not. As he shows, his is the third to dig deep on that subject and he mines the differences of the three to great depths. Perhaps it’s too deep for me as I just couldn’t decide what’s best there.

The weakest point of the book is in how he frames it as a whole. At one point, he even saw a stand-up comic in the author of Ecclesiastes. That approach seems excessively fanciful to me. Since modern scholarship has abandoned Solomon, I fully expect some imaginative speculation; but surely this is a bit much.

This series is fantastic overall, and for that reason alone I would want to have this commentary. Still, I would not rate it as one of the best volumes. In fairness, though, some obviously will like it more than I will.

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.