Here’s an interesting new resource to really dig out Old Testament quotations and allusions in the New Testament. This kind of information is found in commentaries, but this is the simplest way I know to have the information quickly at hand. There’s a color code system that makes it so easy and visually appealing.
Scholars G. K. Beale and Benjamin Gladd’s involvement guarantee the quality of work here. The Introduction they gave made clear how these allusions and quotations are categorized. The notes throughout the text are superb and always on topic. This is as much a fine reference volume as it is a copy of the New Testament to read.
The greatest trait of the volume is how at once succinct and full it is. My copy came in an attractive brown binding. This is an asset worth having!
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 will make a lot of people happy. People who love Tim Keller are going to see this summary of his salient teachings as an addendum to his biography, especially if they read those copious endnotes, and be happy. Those looking for some rich devotional writing with the best theological precision will be happy. You’re probably catching on, but this book makes me happy.
I admire Keller, but for some weird reason I’ve listened to many of his sermons online while not getting around to reading his works. After reading this book, that process was certainly a mistake. What was I thinking? This work convinced me that I will read him going forward. Each chapter, as best as I can tell, synthesizes his most beloved books. These chapters leave you clamoring for more. I guess this book makes the publishers of Keller’s books happy too.
This book is well written. It doesn’t only propel you to Keller’s books, but says much itself. These chapters stirred me. I prayed some prayers of repentance for the challenge and conviction I encountered (sans the guilt that you know this moralism-hater was incapable of throwing) after several chapters.
I can’t tell you which chapters were the weakest as I found none I didn’t love. I can’t tell you which chapter I love most as I loved so many of them immensely. I can tell, though, that most of them found this reviewer wanting. If I were forced to list its worst feature I guess I’d say endnotes are annoying to keep flipping to when they are so many and too delicious to miss.
Rarely does a book so gallantly reach its aims, but here’s one that did.
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 best solo volume on Zephaniah that I’ve encountered and that’s coming from one who has always enjoyed Zephaniah. It’s a small book that packs a punch. The author did the spadework and gave us a gift here.
The style of the this series is a great match for Zephaniah. The Discourse Analysis that is this series’ niche was well done. In fact, as much as I love and have expectations for discussion on structure, this may be the rare volume that had too much. I’ll say this for sure, you won’t need a second book covering the structure of Zephaniah because this book thoroughly weighs all the scholarly perspectives on it. I can’t even say that I agreed with every conclusion on structure, but the options are so thoroughly laid out that the work is done and all you need to do is pick among the options. Kudos to a commentary that pulls that off.
Don’t think that other important topics, however, are overlooked. The introduction discusses authorship, date and occasion, genre, literary features, and audience all before structure is addressed. After structure, there’s some excellent discussion of theology. I thought the highlight was how the author explains Zephaniah anticipating Jesus and his mission. That is taking theology down the correct avenue for sure.
The commentary was strikingly full. Unlike some prolix works, this work does not run off on weird scholarly tangents. There’s much excellent exegesis, linguistics, and thorough discussion of structure, even in every individual passage. I don’t see how preachers or scholars could go wrong with this volume. For preachers, I don’t think the scholarship is so dry that you’ll be turned off at all. Every section ends with more helpful theology, and for all the trees, the forest is never lost sight of. For Zephaniah, this is the way to go.
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 “We Believe” takes shape as a dandy series that taken together will finally make a major systematic theology contribution. Several of these type series are reformed in nature, as is this one, and we certainly aren’t lacking works from that perspective, but this is one to consider to cover that viewpoint. While I might disagree on points, I’ve found real help in each volume of this series.
That being said, this title is a bit more militantly reformed than others in the series. The doctrine of the Church is one that kind of forces you into a distinct lane, but did this scholarly work really need to quote a denominational source of the Presbyterian Church multiple times? Even if the author thought those sources were exquisitely worded, does it really encourage a broad readership? Perhaps, though, if you are a Presbyterian, you’ll want this title even more in the crowded field.
All of that being said, I’m not denigrating the work. Waters is a good writer who presents with clarity. You won’t misunderstood what he’s saying even if you disagree with it. I imagine him to be a good teacher. So many paragraphs are him discussing by listing items one, two, three, etc.
This systematic theology theme is run through the rubric of biblical theology here. It’s also moored to Covenant Theology. Not surprisingly then, he begins in Creation. I see the Church coming along later than that, but there are still connections worth pursuing even if I might not see them as strongly as him. I have the same reservations and enjoyments in his chapters on Abraham, Moses and the Prophets.
The work grew much more captivating in chapter 6 where we meet Jesus, the Eschatological Reconstitution of the Church. The next chapter on the Apostles returns to more expected fields for a work of this type. Part II encompassing chapters 8-13 is more traditional in its contents. Still, the parts touching on local churches especially holds to the Presbyterian mindset.
Chapter 14 felt like Bavinck to me as it addressed things like church and state as well as religious liberty. The Conclusion succeeds as a clear summary as 7 statement are winsomely made to reiterate the work.
I’ve explained a few things in this review to show that you might love this book more if you’re a Presbyterian than if you’re not. Still, it’s a book much worth having.
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 a nice TNTC volume gets an update that will extend its usefulness for a long time to come. When I think of Wayne Grudem, I think Systematic Theology since that volume is perhaps as influential as any in print today. What he proves here is that he can run too in the commentary-writing world. He may have written a couple paragraphs in a systematic theology style in this book, but this a truly helpful commentary.
The 50-page Introduction is pretty full as this series goes. He is consistently conservative in his conclusions and I found myself agreeing with him at many points. More important to you, he explains how he arrives at those conclusions quite lucidly. For those who care, he interacts with scholarship well without letting that dominate. He also is not afraid to go against the grain where scholarship has gone amok. For example, he dispenses with the idea that 1 Peter is meant to be read as a baptismal sermon. As he effectively shows, baptism is hardly mentioned in Peter and then mostly in cursory way. How do scholars fall in these ditches?
Half way through the Introduction he transitions to theology and major themes. Don’t miss this section as that can be a great aid to understanding Peter. He works through twelve themes found in 1 Peter and you’d be hard pressed to disagree with his twelve.
If you are familiar with this series, you’ll find this a good representative of it. There are constraints on length, so it’s the type of work where every sentence counts. And here they did. Background, exegetical understanding, and a bit of theology pervade the writing on every passage. This is a fine commentary. 
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 a fascinating resource. Its varied uses cover more territory than you’d ever imagine. It is so profusely illustrated that I’d love to take it on a trip to the sites of Paul. I can imagine reading it every evening as a precursor to the next day’s adventures. As nice as that is, it’s not a travel guide though, but a Bible study guide. Written in the order of Paul’s ministry, this book would be phenomenal to have at your side as you work through Paul’s itinerary.
It addresses what archaeology tells us about these sites, but that’s not the lead. Foremost it’s the biblical background that makes the book what it is. David deSilva is a scholar rather than an archaeologist. He’s quite an accomplished one at that. Most books of this type totally get immersed into archaeology at a level that is beyond what Bible students are looking for. Here the balance is perfect.
My only criticism is that he is a bit more critical in his scholarship in a few places than I’d prefer. You might add that a few maps would have helped. Its gorgeous content probably would have been appropriate for a hardback as well, but maybe the publishers anticipated that many might carry the book to these Bible sites. The pictures more than make up for any deficiencies and the text reads well too. I’d call this one a winner right out of the gate.
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 one of my favorite Ryle works of the many reprinted by Banner of Truth. It’s the most sermonic of any Ryle title, but the sermons are so incredibly penetrating.
Several of the sermons are old-fashioned gospel sermons. You know the kind—no fluff but so aimed directly at the heart. When you read them, you want to go preach one right away. One theme I always find in Ryle is his penchant to define true salvation. He’s apparently alarmed by false professions. The beauty of his preaching is that he doesn’t sink to legalism or even rank condemnation. The loving offer of salvation remains. In a few of these he even reminded me a bit of Spurgeon. There are sermons aimed more at Christians as well, but the Gospel is front and center still.
I thought perhaps I should mention my favorite of the volume. That became surprisingly difficult to produce, but there were two sermons on John 10:27, 28 that I finally chose. As a good sermon will do, those two sermons made me mesmerized by the text!
The book is, as expected, in that beautiful, quality hardback for which Banner is so well known. It’s a grand thing to see Ryle get revived so thoroughly for our day and this work is a perfect example of why.
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 perfect book on Acts for Bible students. Whether you are doing personal study, preparing a Sunday School lesson, or are a busy pastor preparing a sermon, this book can be a help to you. It’s the perfect length to really give help while not being so massive as many modern commentaries are. Mr. Shade has academic credentials, but did not parade his learning. His years as a missionary add another dimension that is especially dynamic for a commentary on Acts.
His Introduction is not of extreme length but touches on many issues usually found in such a chapter. I found it easy to agree with him on many points. He is well read, but gets quickly to the heart of the matter. One feature of the work is that it comes from a dispensational perspective. That’s not going to dominate the commentary but in a few spots it will provide insights many modern works won’t give you.
The commentary proper is helpful. There are even a few pictures and maps to help illustrate the work. I warmly recommend 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.
Here’s an interesting book on the themes found in the beloved book of John. The themes covered are widely agreed upon among scholars, but they’re gathered here and presented in a well-written form.
The first chapter is an introduction such as might be found in a commentary. The next chapter starts turning more toward those themes as the theology of John is covered. The author believes that though Jesus is the central character, the center of John is God. I’ll at least say that Jesus speaks often of and to His Father in John. The spirituality of John is also highlighted and the famed “I AM” statements are discussed.
The balance of the book is six chapters on theological pairs. The first is “Word and Wisdom”. I must confess that I find that connection tenuous. It’s two great subjects, to be sure, but I’ve just never seen them interacting in John. Nevertheless, several scholars agree with Ms. Lee, so I might be missing something.
The next pair is life and light. Even in a casual reading of John these two jump off the page in John. She expertly guides us to see this line as working through the book. She makes some excellent points on blindness that I hadn’t thought of. After tracing through the Resurrection, she even uses the fire where Jesus was cooking for a troubled Peter.
I found the pair of Temple and glory keenly instructive. Over the last few years studying biblical theology I’ve noticed just how prevalent and encompassing the concept of Temple is. Next is witnessing and believing that is again apparent in John. Still, her discussion is not mundane and goes far beyond the obvious.
Birth/family and Law/Revelation round out the book. Again, I was sold on their significance in John.
This book gives you much to digest. Perhaps you’ll think a point occasionally stretched, but overall these are for the most part some of the great themes of John. It’s good enough that I’ll consult it going forward on any major studies of John.
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.
You know you’re a great presidential biographer if your work substantially moves the needle on how that president is viewed. That’s exactly what master biographer David McCullough did here. It amazes me how many people tell me they’ve read this book.
I even enjoyed the early section on his family background as it touched on several exciting events that happened around Missouri. His family history is colorful to say the least. Hard workers though they were, they could lose money with the best of them. Strangely enough, that’s exactly how it was for Truman himself. He failed in so many ways, lost so much money while having as strong a work ethic as any president I’ve read about, and got to middle age without ever hitting his stride. Had he not fallen in with the shady Pendergast machine he likely never would have. That association would always plague him, but he wouldn’t have a political career in the first place without it.
What is even more startling is how honest he was and how he managed to keep that reputation throughout his career. He is one of the rare politicians that earned that reputation. He had a very high ethical standard as well. He is the only Democratic president of the 20th century they can list avoiding a whole slew of sins that all the rest of them committed.
There was something real about him. He was who he was. He was incredibly practically minded. Perhaps you should say it was Providence itself that brought him into office at that moment in history. It could be said because that good practical nature came in handy. He was intelligent, but occasionally, I wondered if he could be a bit naïve. He had his limitations, but was one of those rare people who knew what they were. His lack of pride and hubris was perhaps his most compelling trait.
He clearly had much exposure to Christianity. He did profess to believe in it on many occasions. Perhaps the only thing that McCullough didn’t know how to uncover was whether or not it was a deeply personal faith or not. It was hard to tell whether or not he was more of a moralist than a Christian, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt by several statements that he made, and several actions he did like kissing the Bible at his swearing in.
Pretty much an afterthought on the presidential ticket of an ailing, dying FDR, no one even thought to bring him up to speed on the most pressing issues of the war. He was not prepared the day FDR died, and he openly admitted it, which was so refreshing, and yet acquitted himself quite well to see the war through to the end. He will always be the president who dropped the atomic bomb, but it clearly made sense to him from even a moral level. There weren’t many voices around him tell him not to do it either. Those voices didn’t arise till later on. He was sobered a bit more about it later as well.
His stratospheric poll numbers dropped quickly after his success with a war won quickly in his term. I personally appreciated the way he handled the Soviet Union. Just as he should have with a major WW2 ally, he gave them a chance. His domestic policies are not to my taste, but he was fairly successful in pushing them. In my view, he perfected the whole “we are for the people and Republicans are for Wall Street.” What stands out is how passionately he believed it. For many, that is just playing the game of politics, or strategy if you will; but in his simple way he was a true believer.
Perhaps his greatest political feat was pulling off his unexpected reelection in 1948. It’s almost as if he was the only person who thought he could win. He never wavered and shocked his opponents and friends.
That second term had several challenges, chiefly the Korean Conflict. I’m not a fan of the UN, but I agree with his stance overall. He set the ground rules for the Cold War and that made it possible for handling Communism without it becoming a hot war. His firing of the legendary MacArthur was a bold move too and I feel likely the correct one.
By the end of his term, Truman showed a few cracks in his amazing vitality. There were a few episodes of pettiness that were surprising, but no failings that would sully his overall reputation as a decent guy who wasn’t too big for his britches.
I wonder if McCullough exaggerated his conflict with Eisenhower. I sure hope so. It never struck me that McCullough liked Eisenhower as he described him as being unduly ugly to Truman. The two men had worked well together before.
His retirement years showed that Truman was perhaps the most “common man” modern president and tremendously likable. I don’t think he liked the work of any of his successors, but that may be only the cantankerousness of an old man. As much as I dislike his progressive domestic policies ( he was pretty good on foreign policy), I think he’d be one of the few presidents of the Twentieth Century I feel I could have related to enough to share, say, a meal or a long chat. I believe I like him personally more than professionally in some cases, or is that just attributed to master biographer McCullough swaying me? In any event, the book is majestic as presidential biographies go.
The Reagan Review 