Esther gets its own volume now as the NAC morphs into the CSC. The old volume was combined with Ezra-Nehemiah, and though serviceable, this one improves the commentary on Esther. Andrew Steinmann has produced quite a body of work by this point and is getting a good reputation. He is pleasantly reliable in his approach to the text.

Esther is a challenge for some scholars and the result is that plenty of commentaries have been written on this lovely book that have the equivalent value of a mechanical pencil without lead. Here the pencil is stocked and writes again.

Steinmann marshals fine material and helpfully presents it even in areas that are often dull. In my estimation, he is better presenting the trees than the forest. To be sure, he beautifully presents the trees, picks the right trees to present, and leads us to being proficient spiritual arborists. I’m not saying he never presents the big picture, it just doesn’t seem he carries it over with the right oomph. In fairness, he discusses things like reversals and things that God is doing and so he doesn’t miss it. Fortunately, he gives you every thing you need so that if you are paying attention at all, you will arrive at the big picture on your own.

In the introduction, he covers everything well except structure. An outline is all he offers on that score.

The commentary is sufficiently detailed and is exactly what most people will need. If you need a massive exegetical commentary, check out the superb EEC volume on Esther. If you just need something for teaching and preaching or personal study, you will likely highly value this work. It would in my opinion substantially outrank the similarly styled TOTC volume on Esther.

I feel this commentary might be exactly what many are looking for.

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 the kind of commentary that demands a second edition. Had the editors replaced it as is often the case in these major ongoing series they would have had a lot of explaining to do. This commentary went straight to the upper echelon sixteen years ago when it came out and Mr. Moo is still in his prime in commentary writing. Cliché yes, but nonetheless accurate, it was a “no-brainer” that this new edition arrived. It will not lose its lease in that upper echelon for at least a couple decades from now for sure either.

It’s specifically a blessing as well that he writes on Colossians. Many scholars today like to mug Paul and take Colossians away from him. In this work they were caught in the act and hauled to jail. Since Moo handles those critics with gentleness perhaps its surprising I’d use such a violent analogy; but then again his respectful tone does not make him any less lethal, so maybe it’s not surprising after all. Read the Introduction and you will see. When he ends the authorship section with “But Paul must be seen as the real author”, he’s in no way being condescending. His masterful analysis leaves him with nothing else possible to say.

Describing the false teaching addressed in Colossians is equally adept. His eleven points are balanced, biblical, and fog clearing. Scholars must have something against Colossians because they went quite rogue in this area as well. His theological overview was just right too. Perhaps only structure comes up short (as is usual with him) as it gets not one sentence beyond the outline.

Philemon is probably less a battleground than Colossians and ironically Moo is less certain about the big picture of the letter, though he slightly favors the traditional viewpoint. Still, he writes skillfully and mixes all the ingredients perfectly so you can make your own cake. To me, his work on Philemon is of immense value as well.

Moo needs no recommendation from me as an exegete. He has already attained something of legendary status. I can say, though, that that reputation is fully on display in this commentary. If you are studying Colossians and Philemon, avoid this commentary at your own peril.

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.

Well, we have waited for this one a long time. I think I first heard it was coming 15 years ago. Perhaps I noticed because it was anticipated to be an excellent commentary on Acts. I heard that the exegesis that Walton would likely produce were why the expectations were so high. Though it has grown into a three-volume set, and though this is only the first volume, I can see what all the hullabaloo was about.

There is an anomaly—the Introduction for Acts as a whole is not in this first volume. There is a bit about textual issues, but the rest of those things normally addressed in an Introduction will come in the third volume. At first I thought maybe he just wanted more time to write it, but he states that at the end is where those issues should be handled. He is in the minority there and I cannot concur. That also makes the staggered release of the volumes a bit unfortunate. I’m not complaining as most all major publishers of Christian academic works do the same thing. I suspect budgetary concerns are in play. It’s not that serious a problem in any event and the three volumes are going to be fantastic when they are all here.

But volume 1 is here now and the prognosticators were correct: the exegesis is expert level. The Introduction of sorts is worth reading as it explains his approach. In short, he wants a commentary on the text rather than on previous commentaries. I’m glad someone figured that out.

We are all used to the WBC format by now even if it would never occurred to us to design a commentary in such a fashion. He advises that in each periscope that we read the “Explanation” section first, which ironically is the last one in each periscope. The WBC format can’t keep a good man down, or a good commentator I suppose.

The scholarship is mature and thorough. There’s some Greek but English is always at its side. He is considered conservative, but some critical, and a bit wrong-headed orientation, is to be found occasionally. This big volume on only the first nine chapters of Acts proves that this will be detailed enough for the most demanding student imaginable.

He writes well too. It’s hard to really hold attention when we have this kind of depth, but he pulls it off. There are some good one-volume commentaries on Acts that are indispensable, but I’d think we’d have to rank this as the best major, heavy-exegesis volume on Acts we 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.