I’m so grateful this commentary finally made it to a physical copy. Though it’s been available digitally for a decade, there are those weirdos like me who must hold it in our hands. Perhaps there are several of us because this book does not hold the elevated place it should. It is a magnificent commentary. Cliche or not, it is a game changer.

What will startle you right off the bat is just how massive it is. Unlike some other large works, there is no filler material that I can see. It is all a treasure trove of learning to help you make sense of the books of Samuel.

Perhaps it invites comparison to the brand new sparkling commentary by Oswalt on the books of Kings released the same day. I would describe Oswalt’s work as a book that is fantastic with the forest view while there are a sufficient number of trees. I would call this work outstanding with all of its trees, but still with the sufficient forest view. I simply can’t remember a better single day of releases in the realm of commentaries ever.

The Introduction runs 120 pages but there’s a huge bibliography and detailed outline that make up the last third of it. Still, with 80 pages of text every typical introductory issue is addressed. Highlights include a well-done review of all the characters in the book. That will be a tremendous help to pastors and teachers. He’s a good writer too as I found no tedium in reading the Introduction and he is friendly to conservative views as he addresses every current in the river of scholarship on Samuel. Academic types will be impressed as well. Pastors can skip just a few sections and will still have everything they need.

The commentary proper is also excellent. It is very full. It is in this part that his other talent comes to light. Hoffner has such historical breadth and writes a commentary that probably not a lot of other people could.

I will say again that this is a huge commentary, but I will also say that it is worth the space it will take up on your shelf. I cannot think of another commentary on Samuel that compares to it. When Lexham took the necessary steps to bring this volume to us, they did us all a big favor. 

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 already reviewed the volume on 1 Kings and giving it the highest possible rating, I can say that I’m just as enamored with this continuation in 2 Kings. As you know, the Books of Kings were one work in the Hebrew Scriptures anyway, but the thrilling story of Elijah and Elisha is interrupted by the break in between 1& 2 Kings. So one of the two just won’t do. Still, if for some reason you need 2 Kings only the publisher has reprinted the magnificent Introduction here as well as all the excursuses from the other volume. I can’t remember seeing that done before, but it’s a great idea.

It’s the God’s-eye view that makes the Introduction so stellar. Additionally, the pivotal history of the period of the Kings has never been better described than here. It actually reaches the level of exciting.

Oswalt took his time with this work, so there’s no drop off before we reach the end of 2 Kings. That same masterful, conservative work permeates every page. The EEC now has several top level commentaries and this one is as good as any of them.

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 the Books of Kings have a great commentary. Never has Kings been served as well as most other OT books. Especially that is the case with good conservative commentaries. We’ve had the NAC volume and not much else. Now this volume goes straight from the printing press to pride of place with a bullet.

The Introduction is a masterpiece. I’ve reviewed several commentaries and I’d say it’s barely one out of thirty that so unravels the idea of the book as Oswalt did. The trees are fine here, but the forest is exquisite. There’s no section on structure per se, but the biblical theology is so apropos that you get the best that a discussion of structure could ever provide. I love it not because I agree with it, though I do, but because it’s so masterfully explained. You can feel the excitement and only love Kings better.

The commentary is obviously the work of a master. Can you believe all the time that’s passed since his beloved Isaiah came out? There’s no rust; just excellent exegesis. If you forced me to list a negative feature, maybe a few of the passages are a bit too brief, but it’s not enough to lower it’s high rating.

I love Kings. The Elijah/Elisha section is spectacular. Oswalt doesn’t miss that section’s prominence in the design of Kings either.

For me, this one is a treat. It’s no gamble to say you’ll think the same thing.

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 latest in the popular TOTC series. This 380-page commentary is quite hefty for this series. Joint authors are not as common either, but it did the volume no harm. The Preface tells which author wrote which part, but it was seamless enough to make you forget that there are two writers at work. Some concessions are made to higher critical theories, but no more than some earlier volumes in this series. The authors no matter your level of agreement were excellent writers and could hold your attention well.

The Introduction was thoroughly interesting even if I disagreed with whole paragraphs. The section on “from impurity to holiness” was easily the most captivating. It made more sense than some larger works on the subject. Some of the most far fetched ideas were its explanation of ritual practices as “embodied experiences” or those of the Offerings. Its discussions of the Christian application of the book were unique. I’m not saying they were off, only that they on their on track.

A question you have to discuss in every commentary on this book is how you take the numbers given. In other words, are they literal? Here the authors say no. They do not say they are in error, but only that they are hyperbolic.

The commentary is well done along the lines of this series. As usual, it’s mid-level in depth while providing an economical option that will be enough for most Bible students. For others with larger libraries it’s a fine secondary resource.

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.

Though I’m a conservative Bible student, I have long given a look at a more critical commentary to have a better overall view. The OTL and NLT are most likely the ones I choose (sometimes the Interpretation series). I know going in that I’m not going to agree on most background or historical issues and am prepared for it. Often there’s some theological thoughts worth feeding into a more orthodox view and I’m glad to have them. With my specific expectations made clear, I have often given a good rating to such works; that is, it provided what I was looking for in the volume. Let me stay upfront, I’m really struggling to give that good recommendation to this volume.

What’s the problem? It’s the entire premise of the commentary itself. The author takes favorite subjects of our day and squeezes them into the text and then passes them off as this is what we ought to think about in arriving at an interpretation. The problem is that in so doing the author has squeezed the very life itself out of the text. For example, she loves to talk about a postcolonial interpretation. That is such a loaded term whose meaning really comes from politics, not Christianity. (I would not want this in a commentary even it more closely resembled my own views). Had she only suggested that the wounds Jonah or Israel felt from Assyria impacted them in many ways, I could at least entertain it. In fact, I’m sure the geopolitics of that era had profound effects. But it seemed to me, that she meant it in a way that it retained all of its 2025 political implications. I’m sorry, but I don’t think 2025 defines the book of Jonah. Believe it or not, the postcolonial viewpoint was the least controversial one of those she chose to be the prism to view Jonah through.

From that muddied rubric, she weaved the overall theme that this is a trauma-informed book. I’m sure Jonah would have found many things that happened in this little book as very traumatic, but this book is not about rubbing his brow and helping him through his trauma. This book was about showing him where he was wrong, and from that vantage point working through the things that he was finding painful, even if he shouldn’t have found them so. Again, had the author only offered that as an application after arriving at an interpretation, I could’ve bought into it. Life brings trauma, and sometimes I bring trauma into my own life, but the Lord will help me work through it and it most likely will involve showing me where I am wrong.

In the introduction, when she really goes big picture, notice how she writes about the divine paradox. There is something of a paradox when we think about theodicy, but I wonder if the biggest paradox is the corner that she herself has backed this little book into through a novel approach that obscures far more than it brings to light. 

There’s even a problem on the scholarship side. Look at the bibliography. It is an echo chamber. She only brought those fringe works in which turned her writing into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If scholarship at large were consulted, I don’t think the top five or ten works that would be voted for even appeared.

The author can write from whichever perspective she chooses, but when it is this far out, it is quite over-the-top to tell the rest of us that that’s the way it should be viewed by everyone. That would be better offered in her memoirs than in a major, reputable series like the OTL. I think if we could bring Jonah back, he wouldn’t understand what this commentary is even talking about.

My bias is clear in this review, but I think as someone who has found value in other volumes in this series, it’s fair to say that there is something more going on here than simply being a more critical offering. 

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 series has found a niche—seeing the Old Testament’s influence upon the book being studied. That’s going to be, obviously, a bigger deal in some NT books than others, but it’s still a rich vein to mine. The main flow of the argument is always advanced in this series even if the OT is not as prevalent in the present passage. In that sense, it serves as a helpful commentary even if it has its unique vantage point.

In this volume on John, which has plenty of connections to the OT, we have another successful entry. Karen Jobes has major experience in both exegetical work and Johannine literature. She is well equipped to write this volume.

The Introduction is fairly brief, but is fully in line with all I’ve seen so far in the series. She showed scholarly awareness and was quite sympathetic to conservative conclusions. I thought her connection to the OT as John’s “verbal artistry” was interesting. That’s a good angle.

The commentary was well done, thorough for its commentary style, and insightful. I loved the blurbs on going deeper as well as those on structure. It’s a nice secondary help as you study John that will add tangibly to your understanding. Mark’s Gospel is my favorite in this series, but this is a good 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.