The pace of NICOT volume releases has happily quickened. Here the work of Leslie Allen is replaced on Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah. Allen also wrote on Micah, but that omission will be remedied by a separate volume on Micah to be released next year. Personally, I like this new release better than the older Allen work, but both were quite scholarly proficient. Nogalski already has an impressive collection of writings, particularly on the Prophets. He is a clear writer, but his tone is scholarly. That’s a plus or minus, of course, depending on you.

In my view, his best work in the volume is on Joel, followed by Obadiah, and then his Jonah clearly brought up the rear. To be fair, I’m a very conservative reader/believer so I’m often disappointed with commentaries on Jonah. Making something allegorical only on the basis that it seems miraculously is quite the slippery slope, distinctly in the Bible.

So my caveat on a good review of this volume is in that way of viewing Jonah’s historicity (sorry it can’t be fixed for me by simply changing the genre label) and his overuse of “there’s scholarly consensus on this”. How is that verified? And even if it’s true, what does that prove? I digress.

Other than that, this volume has all the characteristics of a NICOT volume firmly in its grasp. Over the last few years the series has replaced its entire Minor Prophets offerings and this volume continues that successful run.

The worlds of Joel and Obadiah are well illustrated. I disagreed on I few points in Obadiah, but I’m picking now. The exegesis is top-notch. That’s where most want their help anyway. Overall, I will use this book in the future and I recommend it.

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’m so glad that Kenneth Mathews’ work in the NAC series has been imported and updated here in the Christian Standard Commentary (CSC) series. I just happened to be doing some work in these early chapters of Genesis and found this volume a godsend. It gave me such tangible help, even providing that help at every point I needed without exception.

Just like the Isaiah entry in this series, we will have to wait on volume two. Don’t wait, though, to get volume 1. It’s that good. Genesis is so foundational to the entire Bible that we simply must get our bearings straight. That’s what this volume will do for you. Genesis 1-11 is a natural unit anyway.

To my point, this volume gives great help on structure. I would argue that structure is exceptionally vital here. Both in the Introduction and then throughout the text that aid is rendered. For what it’s worth I’d say the structure points are right on in this volume.

The Introduction is a success. For sure it addresses what I like to see rather than the speculative stuff that’s of no substantial value. The place of Genesis in the Pentateuch is thoroughly developed with even more structural insight. Finally, the theology section does what it’s supposed to and somehow summarizes everything else the Introduction suggested.

The commentary proper was outstanding, consistent, and never lost sight of the big picture. Again, it helped me on several tricky passages.

This one is a must-have!

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 can’t think of another witty statement for the speed at which Goldingay turns out commentaries since, apparently, I ran out of wit before he ran out of full-length major commentaries from his pen; but in any event, his latest here is on Joshua. Strangely enough, he admits in his preface that Joshua was not the book of the Bible that he wanted to write on next. As he tells it, he had a different book in mind, and the editors convinced him he needed to do Joshua. Kudos for transparency! He did, though, explain that he came around to enjoying the process of studying Joshua.

As I have so often said in other reviews, Goldingay is a living contradiction as a writer. He will make you angry in one paragraph and then grab your attention beautifully in the next. His consistency is amazing on that score. As usual, I so like his flashes of brilliance that I will put up with the other. It’s here again…in spades. Since he is so prolific as a commentary writer, I am sure you already have your opinion of him. So the first thing I can communicate to you in this review is that it will be exactly what you are accustomed to. And as usual, I must force myself to say I’m glad to have this volume.

The part I didn’t like came early in the introduction. though I overall like the lively way he approaches an introduction to one of his commentaries. He appeared in this one to too quickly fall into a defensive stance. In acknowledging critics, he came close to becoming one. As you probably know, scholars are engrossed with discussing the violence in Joshua. It wasn’t long before he was drowning with them. The problem with that whole discussion is that it presupposes that there is some higher morality or ethic than God Himself. That strikes me as quite disingenuous for a Christian commentary writer!

By page 22 perhaps he began anticipating what people like me would be thinking as he said, “In the context of modernity we assume that we can formulate views about the propriety of God’s action, and not just the other way around”. It was also grating in how he tied what might be wrong with Joshua with the failings of Western culture, and even American culture in particular. That struck me as an overexposed portrayal of Joshua thrown off by modern political pontifications of those he lives around. Or maybe the tunnel vision of the scholarly world he works in.

And just like that he gets a little deeper in the Introduction and starts pouring out that good stuff that he is equally known for. The section on theology particularly stands out.

The commentary proper continues the dichotomy pretty much along the same lines. If you are of his mind, I doubt you could find a better commentary. For those of us to his right, and who are discerning readers, the nuggets outweigh the mud enough to land a solid 4-star rating.

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.

There are two elements to consider in evaluating this commentary. First, there is the novel, almost experimental approach of using as his Hebrew source text the old Greek text of Jeremiah! Yes, I said Greek. Second, there is the commentary skill exhibited as he works through the text. To my mind, he scores far better on the second one than the first.

For the life of me, I can’t see why that Greek text as his basis was a good idea. Yes, I read his reasoning, but I’m still unconvinced. Perhaps the scholarly world will eventually canonize him as a bold pioneer, but I don’t think still I’d be convinced. Perhaps, too, since he mentioned the plethora of commentaries on Jeremiah today, he felt he needed an angle to join the fray. I would have thought, but what do I know, that delivering a commentary in a major commentary series on one of the largest books in the Bible would have been enough. If I’m studying anything based on the Masoretic text, as most would be doing, won’t this commentary leave me high and dry where they differ? Will this be along the lines of Coca-Cola bringing out New Coke, which of course if you’re younger than me you probably never heard of?

If I’ve been sounding super-critical, let me balance it. Mr. Shepherd is a quality scholar. His writing is fine, his research thorough, his conclusions clear headed and the help he gives quantifiable. His earlier commentary on the Minor Prophets in this same series was top notch. It would not be fair to write him or this commentary off for one questionable idea even if it unfortunately pervades the whole work. To be even more fair, what he did is not one iota as bad as those who take the Masoretic text and chop it to pieces, as if you couldn’t believe a word of it. Finally, perhaps anticipating the criticism, he mentions what the MT says often throughout the commentary.

Every commentary has its strength and this one is the exegesis despite the incessant discussion of the Greek text. The exegesis is better than, say, the theology, but it’s not barren of theology and often makes good Scriptural connections.

I’ll give this 4 stars, but you can add one more if you happened to be looking for a commentary on the Greek text of Jeremiah. If that were the case for you , I doubt this one could be beat.

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.

When I first beheld this book, the first surprise was how slender it was. I mean Ephesians is one of the most prominent NT letters of all. Perhaps the quick turnaround from when Pillar’s previous Ephesians volume was retired contributed to it. Still, I knew Constantine Campbell’s expertise on union with Christ and union’s prominence in Ephesians suggested the volume would have to possess distinct advantages. The size turned out to be not a factor really and the expected proficiency was present as well.

The Introduction was sufficient, thoughtful, and well reasoned even if it too was shorter than some similar volumes. Authorship, background, and date lined up with conservative conclusions. Themes, beginning with, you guessed it, union with Christ, was the best section of the Introduction. Structure was given something of a short shrift, but overall the Introduction satisfied.

The commentary impressed me. I found the flow of logic that he laid out for arriving at his conclusions was truly enlightening. All the main passages including the thorny Household Code were well handled. I felt I was getting real help in every case.

I know it’s a bit overused in commentary reviews these days, but the word for this one is judicious.

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 enjoyed Bruner on Matthew and John, I was excited to see his work here on Romans. Strangely enough, before I tell you how much I enjoyed this book, let me you what’s wrong with it.

It’s much shorter than his other commentaries, hence the “a Short Commentary”. He quotes other authors more extensively, yes on every page. Sometimes he only skims what has been deeply debated arguments. No Introduction is given. There’s no way this volume could serve as your main commentary on Romans. Maybe that sounds like a lot.

Still, I loved it. Read the preface for the beautiful outlook he has for Romans following his deeper work on Matthew and John. He quotes a lot but they are good ones. He drops theological nuggets all around. Once Spurgeon recommended a title as a spice to add at the end of meal preparation. That’s what you have here. This is some paprika to dash on after you’ve studied the major tomes. Your dish will taste better for sure.

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.