The EBTC series has picked up speed since Lexham took it over and this latest release by David Firth is another quality commentary. The historical books of the Old Testament are clearly the forte of Mr. Firth as he has already produced a major commentary on 1 & 2 Samuel, shorter commentaries on Joshua and Esther, and a volume in the NSBT on Ruth. All were successful. In this, his second stab at Joshua, he got the chance to take a deeper dive.

The first 30 pages have a somewhat traditional introduction that you might find in any major commentary. To be honest, this was not especially the strength of this work. Sometimes he only addressed a few viewpoints and even said there wasn’t space to address them further. Perhaps that had something to do with the constraints of the series, but I am not sure. As he had done in his earlier work, he argued that the violence in Joshua is not as extensive as most think. The rest of the introductory material was somewhat pedestrian.

It was in the next section where this commentary truly flourished. Here he addressed biblical and theological themes and showed his ability to write a commentary with a theological focus. He covered faithfulness and obedience, identity of the people of God, Joshua and Jesus, land as God’s gift, leadership, power and government, rest, and the promise of God. It was in this section that you had a real introduction to what Joshua is about. I can’t imagine a better overview for the theology you’re going to encounter for the whole book.

In the commentary proper, it only got better. His skills as an exegete joined with his newly discovered trait as a theologian made for some awesome commentary. What was impressive to me was the depth of observation. In each passage he had a section entitled “context”that truly set the stage for what you were reading before he broke out into his detailed exegesis. Next, in a section entitled “bridge”, he tied all the loose ends together and brought the theology out into the brightest day. Along the way, he succeeded in delivering the goods on the stated objective of this series.

There might be a few commentaries that outdo this one in some categories, but this is the work for theology in Joshua.

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.

As the NAC starts morphing into the CSC series, it appears there might be a trend of the editors coaxing the authors of the best volumes of the NAC series to revise their work for the first releases in the new series. Timothy George’s work on Galatians consistently ranked high and is worthy of making the jump to the CSC. By the way, I think that is a winning strategy as it extends the life of splendid works and it gets the new series off to a quality start.

I’m the past, I’ve used the first edition by George in specific passages to advantage, but hadn’t really surveyed the whole work. I had, however, noticed it said in multiple places that George was an exceptional church historian and that he gave something that no other work on Galatians could boast of. Now that I’ve taken the time to thoroughly check it out myself, I must concur.

His speciality, I’m told, is Reformation history and you will find it meaningfully interspersed throughout. Can you imagine how that might be useful in Galatians? In any event, his historical prowess isn’t limited to to the Reformation to be sure. For example, notice how thoroughly he traces the historical development of the scholarly viewpoints about who exactly Paul’s opponents were. Or notice his excursus on Luther and Calvin on Peter and Paul. He even mentions Spurgeon standing firm in the Downgrade Controversy of how standing for the gospel being a “lonely business”. I told you it was different. But good.

His Introduction was thorough and addressed all the right questions. He laid out the North and South Galatia viewpoints clearly. As you probably know, Galatians is even more debated at several points than most Pauline Epistles are. He laid out different viewpoints and gave judicious conclusions.

His commentary is fine as well. His excursuses were meaningful. I read a major reviewer say of the earlier edition that it didn’t interact enough with current scholarship. That is not really the case, but he addresses the most influential scholarship on the matter at hand no matter the time period. I prefer that. Fascination with the latest novelty has been the Achilles heel of scholarship and robbed it and us of all it could be.

You will want to have 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.

Having used the first edition extensively years ago, I’m glad the PNTC series gave Moo the opportunity to revise and update his commentary on James. Moo himself in the preface tells us that this a substantial revision that extends the volume by 30%. That additional material does not, however, mean that he has changed his conclusions overall, but just that he took a stab at strengthening them. There’s not much I can say about this author as he is well known to most Bible students and so most readers enter this volume with some idea of what to expect. What stands out the most, perhaps, is that the majority of his work has been in the Pauline epistles and he sneaks off here to James of all biblical writers!

Though I had read the introduction of the earlier work in the past, I carefully read the introduction of this revised work. It’s exactly what I love in an introduction. The word that comes to mind is masterful. Far more important than reaching the same conclusion that I favor is the author’s ability to lay out all the major viewpoints, respectfully dive in and explain pros and cons, and then present his or her own conclusion. Again, I need an author to teach me things I don’t know and I’ll then make my on conclusions. The commentary that provides that succeeds. This one does.

As a case in point, after being thoroughly impressed with Moo’s presentation of what has been the major viewpoints of the overall theme of James, I couldn’t fully agree with his ultimate view of James and how he meshes with Paul. Still, in a masterful way he laid it out where I had the tools to make a conclusion myself. I always rate highly a commentary that does that for me. Additionally, he did it in less pages than many writers can accomplish. There’s something to be said for clarity.

Everything else is here too: bibliographic information, theology, exegesis and all from a guy who knows how to do it. In you don’t agree with his conclusions in the introduction, then his coverage of James 2 might raise an eyebrow at times. But isn’t that true of every commentary on James good or bad?

The Pillar commentary series has earned its lofty praise. Someone needs to light a fire under the authors of the remaining volumes needed to finish coverage of the New Testament, but every theological library simply must have the ones in print. Moo has only made this contribution on James better and so it will have decades of positive influence remaining.

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 latest in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT) series covers three exceptionally interesting Minor Prophets. The term “under appreciated” comes to mind. Apparently, Thomas Renz appreciates them because he delivers here what must be one of the most thorough exegetical commentaries available on them. He almost doubles the page count of the O. Palmer Robertson volume he replaces. It’s not a matter of verbosity either as masses of content abound.

He gives both an Introduction to the three collectively and to each alone. He doesn’t see the unity of the Twelve Minor Prophets as scholars like Paul House do. That doesn’t materially affect the commentary, but in a similar vein, structure is by far the weakest attribute of this volume. It wasn’t a matter of laziness, but a genuine belief on his part that these big-picture structures are overdeveloped by many. I don’t agree with him, but with his belief what other choice did he have?

His conclusions otherwise are good and generally conservative. He tips his hat to form critics but gently admits that their contributions are unverifiable. To my mind, form critics are like the man who escaped an asylum, stole a nice suit, and entered the boardroom and sat down among the executives and miraculously convinced them he was part of the team. It worked so well that you could say the asylum merely changed addresses and expanded. In any event, you have to appreciate the masterful diplomacy that Renz displays as he deals with them as if they, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, really belonged.

The weaknesses on structure and occasional scholarly capitulation notwithstanding, this book is an exceptional scholarly exegetical commentary. That is clearly the trend of the series from its earlier expositional days, and Renz can hold his head high among his fellow contributors. In fact, it matches the quality of several recent titles covering various Minor Prophets that have appeared in this series.

The work on grammar and words as well as history is all you could want. That means the commentary provides solid value. At first, you might ask, where is the theology? You will find it immediately after commentary in each passage in a section called “Reflections”. When you look there you will find that theology is a strength of this book as well. I was impressed.

Maybe we will see this series completed eventually, but for now this is a winning contribution.

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 original edition of this book was already one of my favorites in the NIVAC series, but this revision distinctly raises its value. It doesn’t appear that many conclusions were changed, but those conclusions were bolstered. The writing was elevated. Just because this is a work with an academic bent don’t dare undervalue better writing or care with the big picture . It makes a difference. Some commentary writers think there’s a binding mandate to use five words when one will do and feel a call to plant more trees so the forest is more obscured for the common people . Apparently, such writers think that will impress other people though for the life of me I have no idea who those people are.

Want to know where the clear writing and big picture prowess are most on display? In the Introduction on structure and theology. You abuse yourself if you skip reading it. “Profound” is an overused word in reviews, but you can safely throw it out here. Some say this volume is more scholarly than others in the series, but I don’t personally think readability was sacrificed. Still, only a disingenuous scholar would rank it low.
Everything I mentioned positively in the review of the original edition remains, but there’s more. I surprised myself in how many lines I underlined. I’ll return to this book I assure you. Even those who feel this series isn’t their cup of tea better boil some water and grab a tea cup. Can you tell I like this book?

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.