I’ll be honest. When I first thumbed through this book, I wasn’t impressed at all. It looked too brief for an exegetical commentary. Then I started digging into it and I became more and more impressed. First, we need not forget that some commentaries are written for pastors or serious Bible students rather than scholars. That is the case here. Come to think of it, there isn’t exactly a shortage of those voluminous exegetical works on Romans! Second, there’s much to be said for writing succinctly with clarity. That is clearly present in this work. At times he says as many meaningful things in a paragraph that some of those larger commentaries would need 10 pages to say.

The Introduction was actually enjoyable to read. He made historical background actually interesting to read. When he delved into deeper, more scholarly issues, he gave a number of particularly helpful charts to synthesize his presentation. I give him kudos for all of them.

The commentary was a solid work. There were a few instances where Romans has become controversial that he did not say as much as many other writers. He usually outlined the various viewpoints, but didn’t seem to want to bog down in making that what his work was known for. He never lost his focus on pastors and Bible students. In some ways, the commentary reminded me of one of the better NAC volumes. In any event, this is a commentary 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 latest volume of the Reformation Commentary on Scripture equals its predecessors in laying bear the contributions of the Reformation Era to the respective area of scripture. Somehow, at least in my opinion, this volume was a little more fun. Perhaps it is because the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth are at once unique and even controversial. What you will soon see is that passages that invite all sorts of wrestling among students had the same grappling with a text in the days of the Reformation. Particularly, some of those wild stories in the latter part of the Book of Judges prove for interpreters to run circles in trying to form an interpretation. From what I can see, we have not improved upon their commentating despite our decades of exegetical work.

Mr. Amos did a good job in the Introduction in describing his research. You will likely find answers to questions you will later have, like say, why are there fewer Anabaptist citations in this work compared to other RCS volumes. It’s simple if Mr. Amos is accurate. Very few Anabaptist authors tackled these books of the Bible. He lays out clearly what the Reformation had to offer in these three books from each strand of Reformation thinking.

The layout of this volume is identical to the others and Mr. Amos seems right at home in that setup. There are always many decisions to be made in what to put in and what to leave out, but I found many interesting contributions in what we find here. I enjoyed how he pointed out that whatever comments different Reformation personalities had about who wrote each of these books, that they had an overwhelming sense that the Holy Spirit was the ultimate author. I’m glad he didn’t scold these giants of biblical interpretation with modern gibberish.

This is a fine series that makes a distinct contribution and I find this one of the best books it has given us so far.

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 will serve as a handy help to pastors and Bible students. Since there is only a little over 500 pages of actual commentary covering all 12 of the Minor Prophets, it is obvious that Mr. Shepherd has not attempted to produce the typical prolix commentary of our day. What he has provided, however, is direct help on grasping both the meaning and overarching theme of these prophets. His stated niche,that to my mind he has accomplished, is presenting these 12 prophets as a unified composition. In other words, instead of 12 random prophecies that so lacked cohesiveness that they were not even fully integrated within themselves, he paints a portrait of the Lord designing them as so unified that they should never be completely thought of by themselves. You can’t deny that that is a refreshing approach after years of commentators trying to decide if each passage within each of these prophecies is even legitimate!

It will be extra important to read the introduction to this work as he makes his case for the cohesiveness and unity of these prophecies. I personally thought this introduction read well and made a lot of sense.

The commentary proper lacks the thoroughness of some other works, but what he shares is good all around. Perhaps it shows the forest better than the trees, but that is no problem. There are plenty of other commentaries to analyze those trees!

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 release of the ZECNT Is a fine exegetical commentary on the highly-debatable Book of Revelation. Personally, I always give commentators a little slack because this book manages to trip them coming out of the gate in almost every instance. In other words, the reader is going to approach both the book and the commentary with his or her own theological system. For that reason, no matter what the perspective of the commentator happens to be, he or she is going to start out with a much higher group of detractors than if, say, they had written on the Gospels or one of the Epistles. Fanning has done the best that could be done. He has tried to write a commentary that would be helpful to the widest number of readers without rigidly lobbing off whole swaths of them. He does, however, lean toward positions that would be labeled futurist as opposed to historist. Still, he is fair to all. More importantly, the exegesis and examination of structure are both rock solid. No, I don’t agree with every interpretive point he makes, but what commentator on Revelation could hope for that from any of us? The point that must not be lost is that this commentary can help you as you wrestle with this challenging book of the Bible.

I thought the introduction was exceptional. Throughout, he both lays out varying opinions and respectfully submits his own. He begins by talking about authorship and really does not land on one outlook himself in this case since he doesn’t find it critical to the overall interpretation of the book. He discusses date and setting, genre with an emphasis on prophecy, imagery and symbols, all before he addresses the thorny subject of hermeneutical approaches. He explains both the importance and the specifics of the use of the Old Testament in this book and how to view prophecy and typology. I thought his discussion of topology was particularly apropos. He discusses text, language and style, before he dives into structure and outline which is an emphasis of this series. He gives a lot of outstanding insights before he provides his own outline. There is a select bibliography given as well.

The commentary proper follows the typical style of this series and is quite helpful. There were just a few places I wish he had said a little more. Still, when you talk about what you really need to learn in an exegetical commentary you will find it all here in spades. The end of the book gives a nice summary of the theology of Revelation too.

He probably does for a futurist position what Beale does for the modern fad of an eclectic position. You’ll need both. Therefore, you should probably put this in the must-get category.

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 have really enjoyed these early volumes in the ZECOT series and this new title is no exception. Joel Barker provides another competent exegetical commentary with an emphasis on discourse analysis this time on the Book of Joel. Unlike other mostly unprofitable types of criticism, discourse analysis renders real insights into the text. If you are looking for a standalone commentary on the Book of Joel, this volume will definitely meet your needs.

After he offers his own translation of Joel he jumps into an effective introduction to the Book of Joel. By the first few paragraphs, you can tell that the author enjoys Joel. To be sure, that always makes a commentary better. He offers six theories for the historical context of Joel. He lays them out clearly and makes it easy for one to evaluate. I might not agree with his final conclusion, but I appreciate his defining the issues. He makes a wonderful case for the literary integrity of Joel. I tend to find that with every book of the Bible, but I appreciate his compelling case that should answer any critic. He looks at Joel’s place among the Minor Prophets as well as describing Joel from the perspective of rhetorical discourse. He proves here that he is up to speed on those issues as you would expect for this series. I really appreciated his thoughts about the structure of Joel as well.

The commentary proper follows the usual ZECOT pattern. He does an outstanding job here. My only caveat to that statement is his discussion of 2:28-32. I know we have to first place these scriptures in the context of the prophet’s time, but I just felt he was a little brief on the importance of this passage in the New Testament. Still, this is first-rate commentary on a book of the Bible where you’re likely to need it. I’d rank this commentary a winner!

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.