Is the revised version better than the older version? I see the newer one on sell. I don't have either but ive heard it's a solid overall commentary series. Thoughts?
I have both but really don't feel qualified to truly answer your question. From what I've used, it seems like the older version deals with larger "chunks" of the text and the newer version breaks it down. Some commentary is longer in the older version and vice versa. Finally, A lot of it is identical.
If it were me and the prices were about the same or I had the budget, I would go with the new. But, if the budget is truly a matter and the older version was noticeably cheaper, I don't think you would go wrong with the older version.
I'm including a copy/paste of both versions for Romans 15:14-16 as a sample. If you'd like to see more, just let me know what scripture you would like to compare.
OLD VERSION:
VIII. Conclusion (15:14–16:27)
A. Paul’s Past Labors, Present Program, and Future Plans (15:14–33)
The remainder of this chapter can be regarded as complementary to the introduction of the letter, since there is a similar prominence of personal matters Paul feels will be of interest to the believers at Rome. In both portions, however, his own affairs are invariably regarded as important only as they relate to the gospel of Christ of which he is such a committed minister.
14–16 Paul now reflects on the character of his readers and what he can expect his letter to accomplish for them. If his assessment of them seems unexpectedly favorable after his admonition in the last chapter and a half, we need not conclude that he was beginning to chide himself for being too hard on the brethren. Study of his Epistles reveals that he had a sense of fairness that led him to strike a just balance between pointing out deficiencies and finding things he could honestly commend. Concerning the church at Rome, since he has acknowledged their strong faith (1:8), it is now in order to add some other things he has picked up from various sources of information, including people mentioned in the closing chapter. In reference to v. 14, George Edmundson writes, “Such a declaration implies a conviction based upon trustworthy evidence, otherwise his readers would be the first to perceive that here was only high-flown language covering an empty compliment” (The Church in Rome in the First Century [London: Longman, Green and Co., 1913], p. 15).The first item is goodness. Having just written of the Holy Spirit, Paul undoubtedly has in mind the goodness that is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). So it is not a native disposition but the moral excellence wrought into the texture of life by the Spirit’s indwelling. He may give it prominence as the quality needed to carry out the recommendations directed to both groups in the previous discussion. Desire to do the right thing by another is essential, but it must be coupled with knowledge of what is rightly expected of the believer. Paul goes so far as to call his readers “complete” in this area and therefore “competent to instruct one another” (v. 14). Such language shows his confidence that the Roman church, which had been in existence for at least a decade, had been well taught (cf. 6:17). At the same time this relative maturity did not make his contribution superfluous, because it served to confirm what they knew, underscoring it with apostolic authority, making them the more capable of instructing each other. This word “instruct” (noutheteō) reflects more than the imparting of information. “Inculcate” comes close to expressing its force (cf. Col 3:16, “counsel,” and 1 Thess 5:14, “warn”). In the absence of resident pastors, brethren were the more under obligation to exercise such a ministry among themselves. Paul’s use of the term at this point reflects the admonition in the preceding chapter.Though he was not the founder of the Roman church, Paul has been outspoken, and he proceeds to explain this lest he be thought immodest or tyrannical or simply tedious in going over things he now admits they were already aware of. He is simply doing his duty, fulfilling the commission God in his grace has granted him as a minister of Christ (vv. 15, 16). Furthermore, his boldness has been in evidence “on some points” (v. 15) but has not pervaded the letter as a whole. Since in this connection he emphasizes his call to go to the Gentiles, one may assume that most of his readers were Gentiles (cf. 1:13) and would be especially interested in this allusion. Redeemed Gentiles are his special offering, a sacrifice acceptable to God (cf. Isa 66:18–20). His own function as a priest pertains directly to the proclamation of the gospel and the winning of Gentiles to Christ.It remains for them to make their own personal commitment to God (12:1). He is not claiming, of course, that he has won his readers to Christ, but is speaking generally. Directly, he will refer to his labors in the East that have involved precisely this sort of ministry. Before doing this, he pauses to note that the acceptability of Gentiles to God comes not only from their reception of the gospel of Christ but also from the ministry of the Holy Spirit that sets them apart to God as the people of his possession (cf. 1 Cor 6:11). This initial sanctification makes possible the progressive spiritual development that spans the two great foci of justification and final redemption (1 Cor 1:30). This setting apart by the Spirit is a natural consequence of the new birth by the Spirit and is closely connected with it.
Harrison, E. F. (1976). Romans. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians (Vol. 10, pp. 154–156). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
NEW VERSION:
COMMENTARY
14–16 Paul now reflects on the character of his readers and what he can expect his letter to accomplish for them. If his assessment of them seems unexpectedly favorable after his admonition in the last chapter and a half, we need not conclude that he was beginning to chide himself for being too hard on the Roman Christians. Study of his epistles reveals that he had a sense of fairness that led him to strike a just balance between pointing out deficiencies and finding things he could honestly commend. Concerning the church at Rome, since he has already acknowledged their strong faith (1:8), it is now in order to acknowledge some other items he has apparently picked up from various sources of information, including people mentioned in the closing chapter.14 First he mentions the “goodness” (agathōsynē, GK 20) of the Roman Christians. Having just written of the Holy Spirit, Paul undoubtedly has in mind the goodness that is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). So it is not a native disposition but the moral excellence wrought into the texture of life by the Spirit’s indwelling. Paul may give it prominence as the preeminent quality needed to carry out the recommendations directed to both groups in the previous discussion.Desire to do right and personal goodness are essential, but “knowledge” is also essential. Paul speaks of his readers as being “complete in knowledge” (peplērōmenoi pasēs [tēs] gnōseōs; lit., “filled with all knowledge”). Paul regards them as “competent to instruct one another.” Such language shows his confidence that the Roman church, which had been in existence for at least a decade, had been well taught (cf. 6:17). At the same time, this relative maturity did not make his contribution superfluous, because Paul confirmed what they knew, underscored it with apostolic authority, and made them the more capable of instructing each other. Noutheteō (GK 3805) reflects more than the imparting of information; it connotes the giving of counsel, reproof, or warning (cf. NASB, “admonish”; cf. Col 3:16; 1 Th 5:14). The members of the Roman house churches were under mutual obligation (“one another”) to exercise such a ministry among themselves. Paul’s use of the term at this point reflects the admonition he had provided in the preceding chapter.15–16 Though he was not the founder of the Roman church, Paul has been outspoken, and he proceeds to explain this, lest he be thought of as immodest or overbearing or simply tedious in going p 219 over things he now admits they already knew (“as if to remind you”). His boldness, however, has been in evidence “on some points” but has not pervaded the letter as a whole. He has simply been fulfilling the commission that God in his “grace” has granted him as “a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles” (v. 16). Since in this connection he emphasizes his call to go to the Gentiles, one may assume that most of his readers were Gentiles (cf. 1:13) and would be especially interested in this allusion.It is particularly interesting that in v. 16 Paul uses the language of the temple ritual and sacrifices and spiritualizes it so as to apply it to his own ministry. Paul seems to imply that what he is called to do is the fulfilling counterpart of the work of the priests in the temple. Thus the word underlying “minister” is leitourgos (GK 3313), which is the special word used for sacred or cultic service. “With the priestly duty” translates the participle hierourgounta (GK 2646), another special word reserved for the performing of the holy service or sacrifice done by a priest (the word for “temple” is hieron). Then Paul proceeds to describe the redeemed Gentiles as his special “offering” (prosphora, GK 4714), a sacrifice “acceptable” (euprosdektos, GK 2347; again the language of the temple sacrifices) to God (cf. the imagery of Isa 66:18–20 in reference to the offering of “all the nations”). One last word in this verse associated with the temple is “sanctified” (hagiazō, GK 39), where it is used in reference to “consecrating” or “making holy” the sacrifice that is offered. It was especially important that the Gentiles, otherwise by nature ritually defiled, be cleansed and made holy by the Spirit (cf. Ac 15:8–9). Paul thus sees his own function in terms of being a priest, and his missionary work among the Gentiles is described as a temple offering. The proclamation of the gospel and the winning of Gentiles to Christ is a holy work that Paul prays will be acceptable to God.Paul used the same type of language in 12:1 in urging the personal commitment of the Romans to God, namely, as “living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God.” Directly, he will refer to his labors in the East that have also involved a priestly ministry in behalf of the Gentiles. It was important for Paul to note that the acceptability of Gentiles to God comes not only from their reception of the gospel of Christ but also from the ministry of the Holy Spirit that sets them apart to God as the people of his possession (cf. 1 Co 6:11). The Gentiles are fully a part of the people of God. This initial sanctification makes possible the progressive spiritual development that spans the two great foci of justification and final redemption—all through the agency of the Spirit (cf. 5:5; 8:11).
Harrison, E. F., & Hagner, D. A. (2008). Romans. In T. Longman III &. Garland, David E. (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans–Galatians (Revised Edition) (Vol. 11, pp. 218–219). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Sweet! Thanks for the example! Do you find the essays and topics covered in the older version in volume 1 helpful?
I really haven't used them but they seem to be very well written and in depth. There are a lot of them too!
Here is a very small sampling from "The Language of the New Testament". There is much more to this article but I don't want to jam too much in here.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
J. Harold Greenlee
A.B., Asbury College; B.D., Asbury Theological Seminary, M.A., University of Kentucky Ph.D., Harvard University; Senior Fulbright Fellow, Oxford University.
Missionary of OMS International and International Translation Consultant for Wycliffe Bible Translators
I. Periods of Greek Language Development
The Greek language has the longest and most fully recorded history of all European languages. It has been spoken for nearly 3,500 years and has a continuous written history since the Homeric literature of the seventh century B.C.
A. Ancient Dialects
The Greek language did not break up into distinct languages as did Latin, and ancient Greek is not a “foreign language” to a modern citizen of Greece as Anglo-Saxon is to a speaker of English. There has, of course, been constant development and modification of the language through the course of the centuries, with a general trend toward simplification of forms and with expansion, contraction, and change of areas of meaning of words. Five periods of language may be identified, though the following dates must be regarded as only approximations: (1) Prehistoric—prior to the eighth century B.C.; (2) Classical—to 300 B.C.; (3) Hellenistic—to A.D. 500; (4) Byzantine—to A.D. 1450; and (5) Modern.During the early centuries of written Greek, the language had developed into several dialects of varying degrees of mutual intelligibility. At the same time, it became customary for educated writers to use different dialects for different types of literature. Homer, for example, wrote in the Epic dialect, which survived as the vehicle for epic poetry down to the Byzantine period. Lyric poetry was written in a modified Doric, while the poet Sappho wrote in Aeolic. Attic was the dialect of drama and rhetoric, and prose literature was written in Ionic, with some in Doric. With the rise of the Athenian Empire under Pericles in the fifth century B.C., however, the Attic dialect began to spread its influence; and by the fourth century, beginning with Plato, most writers were using Attic, though the local dialects continued in use as well for everyday language.
B. Rise of the Koine
About the middle of the fourth century B.C., Philip II of Macedon adopted the Attic dialect for his kingdom in place of the local Macedonian. When Philip’s son, Alexander the Great, spread his empire around the Mediterranean world and as far as the borders of India to the east, his armies carried the Greek language with them and planted it in the conquered lands. The Greek they spread, however, was no longer pure Attic. Alexander’s soldiers came from all parts of Greece and spoke various dialects. This, plus the factors of travel and commerce, helped produce a Greek that was Attic at its base but was modified by other dialects, especially Ionic. By the first Christian century, this Hellenistic—that is, “Greek-istic” rather than local—dialect had become the common language of international discourse throughout the Roman Empire; hence its designation koine (“common”). It was both widespread and the language of the common people.Paul speaks of the time for Christ’s advent having “fully come” (Gal 4:4). In the first Christian century the Roman Empire had united vast areas and many peoples under her control and had established political tranquillity, the “Pax Romana.” Thus, travel throughout the empire was relatively easy and safe when Christian missionaries set out to fulfill the Great Commission. Yet another factor of the greatest significance in the “fullness of time” was the common knowledge of Greek throughout these vast regions, making it possible to proclaim the Christian message without learning a new language at each frontier.
Greenlee, J. H. (1979). The Language of the New Testament. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Introductory Articles (Vol. 1, pp. 407–410). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Also, note that I edited my original post for a little more detail on the choices that I would make. Thanks.
Rick, thank you for your help! I appreciate it!
Hi Keith Pang
I have the HARDBACK COPIES of the Revised Edition. I have only read the Commentary on REVELATION by Alan F. Johnson; which to me is mostly just a bunch of utter nonsense and foolishness.
I do know that 1 & 2 Thessalonians is by Robert L. Thomas, so I know that will be good.
I have the older version and would definitely say that it is a solid overall commentary. The structure/outline of the texts I find to be very useful.
I own the older version and have seen many samples of the new edition and I must say the older version is organized better and has one volume dedicated to introductory matters. A little older, but better than the new one IMO.
DAL
Hi Keith Pang I have the HARDBACK COPIES of the Revised Edition. I have only read the Commentary on REVELATION by Alan F. Johnson; which to me is mostly just a bunch of utter nonsense and foolishness. I do know that 1 & 2 Thessalonians is by Robert L. Thomas, so I know that will be good.
Kenute, thanks for your input. Really wrestling if I should jump on this sale.
Thanks Everett, trying to decide if the sale is worth it. A lot of people have the older one from what I've seen and heard.
I own the older version and have seen many samples of the new edition and I must say the older version is organized better and has one volume dedicated to introductory matters. A little older, but better than the new one IMO. DAL
Thanks DAL, appreciate your input. As it stands right now the older one is more expensive because of the current sale.
The the one is better in a few respects Mark Luke and John are greatly expanded. Indeed John is completely new.... although I still like the original John.
Here is the new John:
COMMENTARY 16 The heart of the gospel is not a philosophical observation about the character of God as love but a declaration of that redemptive love in action. “For God so loved … that he gave.” The Greek verb is agapaō (GK 26). It is common to discuss three Greek words for love: eros, philia (GK 5802), and agapē (GK 27). The first is used of passionate desire (not found in the NT) and the second of a fondness expressed in close relationships. The third word (agapē) was rather weak and colorless in secular Greek, but in the NT it is infused with fresh significance and becomes the one term able to denote the highest form of love. Bible scholar A. M. Hunter highlights the significance of agapē by noting that while eros is all take and philia is give-and-take, agapē is all give. Love must of necessity give. It has no choice if it is to remain true to its essential character. A love that centers on self is not love at all but a fraudulent caricature of real love. It is instructive to note that only here in the fourth gospel is a result clause placed in the indicative rather than the subjunctive. Brown, 134, notes that this construction stresses the reality of the result: “that he actually gave the only Son.” The Greek monogenēs (GK 3666) means “of sole descent,” i.e., without brothers or sisters; hence the KJV’s “only-begotten” (from the Latin unigenitus). It is also used in the more general sense of “unique,” “the only one of its kind.” Jesus is the sole Son of God the Father. John refers to believers as “children of God” (tekna, GK 5451; 1:12; 11:52), but Jesus is the only Son (huios, GK 5626). The object of God’s love is “the world” (kosmos, GK 3180). The giving of his Son was for the salvation of the entire human race. H. Sasse concludes that the cosmos epitomizes unredeemed creation, the universe of which Jesus is the light (Jn 8:12) and to which he comes (cf. TDNT 3:893–94). Any attempt to restrict the word kosmos (GK 3180) to the elect ignores the clear use of the term throughout the NT. God gave his Son for the deliverance of all humanity (cf. 2Co 5:19). This giving extends beyond the incarnation. God gave his Son in the sense of giving unto death as an offering for sin. The universal scope of God’s love would have appeared novel and quite unlikely to the Jewish reader of the first century. After all, was not Israel the recipient of God’s special favor (cf. Ro 3:1–2; 9:3–5)? True; but in Christ all boundaries had been broken down (Eph 2:11–22). God’s love extends to every member of the human race. He died for all (cf. Ro 5:8; 1Jn 2:2). God’s role in redemption was the giving of his Son; the role of human beings is to believe. To believe in Christ is to accept and love him (Jn 1:12; 8:42). The Greek expression pisteuō eis (“to believe into”) carries the sense of placing one’s trust into or completely on someone. Paul’s teaching of believers as being “in Christ” is a theological reflection on the same expression. Those who believe in Christ escape destruction and are given “eternal life.” Barrett, 216, writes that “destruction is the inevitable fate of all things and persons separated from God and concentrated upon themselves.” The love of God has made it possible for people to turn from their self-destructive paths and receive from God the gift of everlasting life. This gospel comes as “good news” to all who, recognizing their plight, receive the priceless gift of God, even Jesus Christ, his Son. 17 God’s purpose in sending his Son into the world was to “save the world,” not to “condemn” it. Jesus came “as a light, so that no one who believes in [him] should stay in darkness” (12:46). While the purpose of light is not to cast shadows, nevertheless wherever light encounters a solid object a shadow is unavoidable. Jesus did not come to “condemn” (taking krinō, “to judge” [GK 3212], in the sense of unfavorable judgment), but the very nature of his redemptive mission mandated a negative result for those who refused his offer. Those who do not believe bring judgment on themselves. Barrett, 217, writes that “the process of judgment is an inseparable concomitant of salvation.” Some have noted an apparent contradiction between Jesus’ statement here and his later remark in 9:39, “For judgment I have come into this world.” Context demonstrates, however, that this latter statement points to the result rather than the purpose of his coming (note the construction with eis krima rather than hina krinē; cf. 12:47). 18 John now draws a clear distinction between the fate of those who believe and those who do not believe: “Whoever believes [the present participle suggests a continuing relationship of trust] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” Morris, 232 n. 84, notes that the use of the perfect tense here and in the following clause (kekritai, “has been judged” [GK 3212], and [mē] pepisteuken, “has [not] believed” [GK 4409]) indicates that the unbeliever “has passed into a continuing state of condemnation because he refused to enter a continuing state of belief.” There will be a final judgment (5:28–29), but it will merely ratify the judgment that the nonbeliever has already brought on himself. The reason the non-believer “has already received his sentence” (Williams) is that he has steadfastly refused (note the perfect tense) to place his trust in the “name” of God’s one and only Son. To trust the name of someone is to place one’s complete reliance on everything that name stands for. The name “Jesus” in Greek transliterates the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which means “Yahweh is salvation.” Joseph is told to name Mary’s newborn son Jesus “because he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). To believe in the name of Jesus is to trust him fully for the forgiveness of sins. 19 Verses 19–21 develop the concept of judgment in terms of the contrast between light and darkness. Krisis (GK 3213) denotes the process rather than the sentence of judgment. The NIV’s “verdict” would have been more likely if the noun had been krima (“decision, condemnation,” GK 3210), since nouns ending in -ma tend to denote content while those ending in -sis reflect action. “Light” came into the world with Jesus (1:5, 9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46), but people “loved darkness instead of light.” Natural men do not rejoice at the entrance of light, “because their deeds [are] evil.” Elsewhere Jesus says that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Mt 15:19). 20 Those whose deeds are evil hate the light and will not come to it, lest the depraved nature of their lifestyle be exposed. Evil thrives in a world of moral darkness. Like the fish in underground caverns whose eyes have gradually disappeared, leaving only sockets, so those who live in moral darkness have lost their ability to perceive the difference between good and evil. 21 By contrast, those who live “by the truth” gladly come to the light so that it may be seen that their deeds have been done “through [i.e., in fellowship with] God.” Paul writes that “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2Co 4:4). That blindness is removed only by a willingness to accept and live by the truth. Jesus did not come to judge, but judgment is the inevitable result of his coming. Light illuminates, but wherever it is opposed it casts shadows. NOTES 16 While most translations understand the adverb οὕτως (houtōs, “so”) as referring to the degree of God’s love, it is more likely that it refers to the manner in which God loved the world. Thus the NET has, “For this is the way God loved the world,” with the following clause explaining that it was by giving his one and only Son (cf. CSB: “For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son …”). Robert H. Mounce, “John,” in Luke–Acts, vol. 10 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition. ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 400-402. accord://read/EBC-R#128600
Here is the original:
b. The author’s comment (3:16-21) 16 Commentators are divided as to whether vv.16-21 are a direct continuation of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus or whether they represent only the author’s comment on Jesus’ words. In either case, they express the most important message of the Gospel (emphasized elsewhere in many ways)-that salvation is a gift received only by believing God for it. The nature of belief is implied in the illustration of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness (v.14). Belief consists of accepting something, not doing something. The result of belief is that one receives eternal life. He is freed from condemnation and lives in a relation of total honesty with God, for he does not fear having his real self exposed. “Eternal,” the new life God gives, refers not solely to the duration of existence but also to the quality of life as contrasted with futility. It is a deepening and growing experience. It can never be exhausted in any measurable span of time, but it introduces a totally new quality of life. The believer becomes imperishable; he is free from all condemnation, he is approved by God. The verb “perish” depicts the opposite of salvation. It is used of death as opposed to life (Mark 3:6, transitive), “destroy” as opposed to preserve (1Cor 1:19), “loss” as opposed to win or gain (2John 8). It may be used of sheep that have gone astray (Matt 10:6) or a son who has wandered from his father’s house (Luke 15:24). Its use here clearly implies that those without God are hopelessly confused in purpose, alienated from him in their affections, and futile in their efforts. Positive belief in Christ is necessary; all that one has to do to perish is nothing. To perish is to fail completely of fulfilling God’s purpose and consequently to be excluded forever from his fellowship. The presentation of the good news of God’s love offers only two options: to believe or to perish. Eternal life, which is accepted by believing, is a gift of God and brings with it the fullest blessings God can bestow. To perish does not mean to cease to exist; it means to experience utter failure, futility, and loss of all that makes existence worthwhile. Its use with reference to Judas in John 17:12 is a vivid illustration. 17-18 Notwithstanding this gloomy picture of “lost” or “perish,” God’s purpose toward man is positive. God’s attitude is not that of suspicion or hatred but of love. He is not seeking an excuse to condemn men but is rather endeavoring to save them. His purpose in sending Jesus into the world was to show his love and to draw men to himself. If they are lost, it is because they have not committed themselves to God, the only source of life. Beginning at this point, the contrast between belief and unbelief is increasingly exemplified. John has here defined the crux of belief and unbelief and has indicated the effects of each. The progress of both in the characters of those associated with Jesus becomes increasingly evident as the drama of this Gospel unfolds. 19-21 The difference between the believer and the unbeliever does not lie in the guilt or innocence of either, it lies in the different attitudes they take toward the “light.” The unbeliever shrinks from the light because it exposes his sin; the believer willingly comes to the light so that his real motives may be revealed. This verse is paralleled by 1John 1:8-9: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” In John 1:5 we’re told of the natural antipathy that exists between light and darkness. Verses 19-21 of ch. 3 lid this battle from the realm of the abstract to the concrete by showing that it is the love of evil deeds that keep men from responding to the light. There’s no missing the fact that men are held accountable for their actions, and the choice is theirs: evil deeds or truth. Merrill C. Tenney, John, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 9 of Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), paragraph 50049. accord://read/EBC#50049
John 3:16 Morris says: “In the first century there were no devices such as inverted commas to show the precise limits of quoted speech.... Perhaps the dividing point comes at the end of v.15.... But in v.16 the death on the cross appears to be spoken of as past, and there are stylistic indications that John is speaking for himself” (NIC, p. 228).
EBC Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), paragraph 8636. accord://read/EBC_Notes#8636
-Dan
A lot of people have the older one from what I've seen and heard.
That's because we all bought it for around $130 a few years ago
The the one is better in a few respects Mark Luke and John are greatly expanded. Indeed John is completely new.... although I still like the original John. Here is the new John: COMMENTARY 16 The heart of the gospel is not a philosophical observation about the character of God as love but a declaration of that redemptive love in action. “For God so loved … that he gave.” The Greek verb is agapaō (GK 26). It is common to discuss three Greek words for love: eros, philia (GK 5802), and agapē (GK 27). The first is used of passionate desire (not found in the NT) and the second of a fondness expressed in close relationships. The third word (agapē) was rather weak and colorless in secular Greek, but in the NT it is infused with fresh significance and becomes the one term able to denote the highest form of love. Bible scholar A. M. Hunter highlights the significance of agapē by noting that while eros is all take and philia is give-and-take, agapē is all give. Love must of necessity give. It has no choice if it is to remain true to its essential character. A love that centers on self is not love at all but a fraudulent caricature of real love. It is instructive to note that only here in the fourth gospel is a result clause placed in the indicative rather than the subjunctive. Brown, 134, notes that this construction stresses the reality of the result: “that he actually gave the only Son.” The Greek monogenēs (GK 3666) means “of sole descent,” i.e., without brothers or sisters; hence the KJV’s “only-begotten” (from the Latin unigenitus). It is also used in the more general sense of “unique,” “the only one of its kind.” Jesus is the sole Son of God the Father. John refers to believers as “children of God” (tekna, GK 5451; 1:12; 11:52), but Jesus is the only Son (huios, GK 5626). The object of God’s love is “the world” (kosmos, GK 3180). The giving of his Son was for the salvation of the entire human race. H. Sasse concludes that the cosmos epitomizes unredeemed creation, the universe of which Jesus is the light (Jn 8:12) and to which he comes (cf. TDNT 3:893–94). Any attempt to restrict the word kosmos (GK 3180) to the elect ignores the clear use of the term throughout the NT. God gave his Son for the deliverance of all humanity (cf. 2Co 5:19). This giving extends beyond the incarnation. God gave his Son in the sense of giving unto death as an offering for sin. The universal scope of God’s love would have appeared novel and quite unlikely to the Jewish reader of the first century. After all, was not Israel the recipient of God’s special favor (cf. Ro 3:1–2; 9:3–5)? True; but in Christ all boundaries had been broken down (Eph 2:11–22). God’s love extends to every member of the human race. He died for all (cf. Ro 5:8; 1Jn 2:2). God’s role in redemption was the giving of his Son; the role of human beings is to believe. To believe in Christ is to accept and love him (Jn 1:12; 8:42). The Greek expression pisteuō eis (“to believe into”) carries the sense of placing one’s trust into or completely on someone. Paul’s teaching of believers as being “in Christ” is a theological reflection on the same expression. Those who believe in Christ escape destruction and are given “eternal life.” Barrett, 216, writes that “destruction is the inevitable fate of all things and persons separated from God and concentrated upon themselves.” The love of God has made it possible for people to turn from their self-destructive paths and receive from God the gift of everlasting life. This gospel comes as “good news” to all who, recognizing their plight, receive the priceless gift of God, even Jesus Christ, his Son. 17 God’s purpose in sending his Son into the world was to “save the world,” not to “condemn” it. Jesus came “as a light, so that no one who believes in [him] should stay in darkness” (12:46). While the purpose of light is not to cast shadows, nevertheless wherever light encounters a solid object a shadow is unavoidable. Jesus did not come to “condemn” (taking krinō, “to judge” [GK 3212], in the sense of unfavorable judgment), but the very nature of his redemptive mission mandated a negative result for those who refused his offer. Those who do not believe bring judgment on themselves. Barrett, 217, writes that “the process of judgment is an inseparable concomitant of salvation.” Some have noted an apparent contradiction between Jesus’ statement here and his later remark in 9:39, “For judgment I have come into this world.” Context demonstrates, however, that this latter statement points to the result rather than the purpose of his coming (note the construction with eis krima rather than hina krinē; cf. 12:47). 18 John now draws a clear distinction between the fate of those who believe and those who do not believe: “Whoever believes [the present participle suggests a continuing relationship of trust] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already.” Morris, 232 n. 84, notes that the use of the perfect tense here and in the following clause (kekritai, “has been judged” [GK 3212], and [mē] pepisteuken, “has [not] believed” [GK 4409]) indicates that the unbeliever “has passed into a continuing state of condemnation because he refused to enter a continuing state of belief.” There will be a final judgment (5:28–29), but it will merely ratify the judgment that the nonbeliever has already brought on himself. The reason the non-believer “has already received his sentence” (Williams) is that he has steadfastly refused (note the perfect tense) to place his trust in the “name” of God’s one and only Son. To trust the name of someone is to place one’s complete reliance on everything that name stands for. The name “Jesus” in Greek transliterates the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which means “Yahweh is salvation.” Joseph is told to name Mary’s newborn son Jesus “because he will save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21). To believe in the name of Jesus is to trust him fully for the forgiveness of sins. 19 Verses 19–21 develop the concept of judgment in terms of the contrast between light and darkness. Krisis (GK 3213) denotes the process rather than the sentence of judgment. The NIV’s “verdict” would have been more likely if the noun had been krima (“decision, condemnation,” GK 3210), since nouns ending in -ma tend to denote content while those ending in -sis reflect action. “Light” came into the world with Jesus (1:5, 9; 8:12; 9:5; 12:46), but people “loved darkness instead of light.” Natural men do not rejoice at the entrance of light, “because their deeds [are] evil.” Elsewhere Jesus says that “out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Mt 15:19). 20 Those whose deeds are evil hate the light and will not come to it, lest the depraved nature of their lifestyle be exposed. Evil thrives in a world of moral darkness. Like the fish in underground caverns whose eyes have gradually disappeared, leaving only sockets, so those who live in moral darkness have lost their ability to perceive the difference between good and evil. 21 By contrast, those who live “by the truth” gladly come to the light so that it may be seen that their deeds have been done “through [i.e., in fellowship with] God.” Paul writes that “the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2Co 4:4). That blindness is removed only by a willingness to accept and live by the truth. Jesus did not come to judge, but judgment is the inevitable result of his coming. Light illuminates, but wherever it is opposed it casts shadows. NOTES 16 While most translations understand the adverb οὕτως (houtōs, “so”) as referring to the degree of God’s love, it is more likely that it refers to the manner in which God loved the world. Thus the NET has, “For this is the way God loved the world,” with the following clause explaining that it was by giving his one and only Son (cf. CSB: “For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son …”). Robert H. Mounce, “John,” in Luke–Acts, vol. 10 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition. ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 400-402. accord://read/EBC-R#128600 Here is the original: b. The author’s comment (3:16-21) 16 Commentators are divided as to whether vv.16-21 are a direct continuation of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus or whether they represent only the author’s comment on Jesus’ words. In either case, they express the most important message of the Gospel (emphasized elsewhere in many ways)-that salvation is a gift received only by believing God for it. The nature of belief is implied in the illustration of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness (v.14). Belief consists of accepting something, not doing something. The result of belief is that one receives eternal life. He is freed from condemnation and lives in a relation of total honesty with God, for he does not fear having his real self exposed. “Eternal,” the new life God gives, refers not solely to the duration of existence but also to the quality of life as contrasted with futility. It is a deepening and growing experience. It can never be exhausted in any measurable span of time, but it introduces a totally new quality of life. The believer becomes imperishable; he is free from all condemnation, he is approved by God. The verb “perish” depicts the opposite of salvation. It is used of death as opposed to life (Mark 3:6, transitive), “destroy” as opposed to preserve (1Cor 1:19), “loss” as opposed to win or gain (2John 8). It may be used of sheep that have gone astray (Matt 10:6) or a son who has wandered from his father’s house (Luke 15:24). Its use here clearly implies that those without God are hopelessly confused in purpose, alienated from him in their affections, and futile in their efforts. Positive belief in Christ is necessary; all that one has to do to perish is nothing. To perish is to fail completely of fulfilling God’s purpose and consequently to be excluded forever from his fellowship. The presentation of the good news of God’s love offers only two options: to believe or to perish. Eternal life, which is accepted by believing, is a gift of God and brings with it the fullest blessings God can bestow. To perish does not mean to cease to exist; it means to experience utter failure, futility, and loss of all that makes existence worthwhile. Its use with reference to Judas in John 17:12 is a vivid illustration. 17-18 Notwithstanding this gloomy picture of “lost” or “perish,” God’s purpose toward man is positive. God’s attitude is not that of suspicion or hatred but of love. He is not seeking an excuse to condemn men but is rather endeavoring to save them. His purpose in sending Jesus into the world was to show his love and to draw men to himself. If they are lost, it is because they have not committed themselves to God, the only source of life. Beginning at this point, the contrast between belief and unbelief is increasingly exemplified. John has here defined the crux of belief and unbelief and has indicated the effects of each. The progress of both in the characters of those associated with Jesus becomes increasingly evident as the drama of this Gospel unfolds. 19-21 The difference between the believer and the unbeliever does not lie in the guilt or innocence of either, it lies in the different attitudes they take toward the “light.” The unbeliever shrinks from the light because it exposes his sin; the believer willingly comes to the light so that his real motives may be revealed. This verse is paralleled by 1John 1:8-9: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” In John 1:5 we’re told of the natural antipathy that exists between light and darkness. Verses 19-21 of ch. 3 lid this battle from the realm of the abstract to the concrete by showing that it is the love of evil deeds that keep men from responding to the light. There’s no missing the fact that men are held accountable for their actions, and the choice is theirs: evil deeds or truth. Merrill C. Tenney, John, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 9 of Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), paragraph 50049. accord://read/EBC#50049 John 3:16 Morris says: “In the first century there were no devices such as inverted commas to show the precise limits of quoted speech.... Perhaps the dividing point comes at the end of v.15.... But in v.16 the death on the cross appears to be spoken of as past, and there are stylistic indications that John is speaking for himself” (NIC, p. 228). EBC Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), paragraph 8636. accord://read/EBC_Notes#8636 -Dan
Thanks Dan, which one do you prefer? The first line in your reply seems to have a typo.
Oh, that makes sense. I was not part of the Logos community at that time, lol and not even a Christian.
Keith,
Get the revised while it is on sale, and then find a used copy of the volume of various essays.
Cliff
FWIW, the older one is a classic. Any flaws or shortcomings aside, it's something worth having even in print. The EBC, new or old, makes a good set to build your commentary library upon.
Keith, Get the revised while it is on sale, and then find a used copy of the volume of various essays. Cliff
Cliff, I think that is what I am leaning towards.
Thank you for your input, I want to add this set to my library, because I know Zondervan sales are not too numerous. I have heard great things about the EBC, and seems to be a solid work. I guess I was trying to see what others have thought about the revised vs. the older version. Seems to be split.
Tempted by the sale, though if someone was selling the original version at around the $130 (mentioned above) that it used to be on sale for, I would jump on it.
Also, I'm only really interested in a couple of volumes, so if I knew it would eventually be broken up (as it has been by other Bible software companies) I would just wait.
Same here, I just wonder if it would go on sale again, especially since it is Zondervan we are talking about here.
The Volume 1 in the original set is full of great articles... the one way that the revised set is superior is it is greatly expanded in some spots like I mentioned above. I meant to imply that some perceived deficits like Tenney's John is in my mind still a commentary worth having. I own both and use the revised more than the original but am glad to have access to both.
The Volume 1 in the original set is full of great articles... the one way that the revised set is superior is it is greatly expanded in some spots like I mentioned above. I meant to imply that some perceived deficits like Tenney's John is in my mind still a commentary worth having. I own both and use the revised more than the original but am glad to have access to both. -Dan
Thank you Dan!
The Volume 1 in the original set is full of great articles...
I concur. I actually bought this as a used paper book - but still wish I could have it in Logos.
How do you like the revised edition?
Interestingly, the original set is part of the 87 volume bundle.
Sorry, don't have that, even the abridged version is still on my wishlist.
Oh I see, got it.
I was thinking it might be helpful to see all three mentioned products together.... I have chosen Luke 2:1-7 due to our proximity to Christmas and it is a good example of how the product has been expanded (other pieces have had just the most minor polishing).
3. The birth of Jesus (2:1-7)
In comparison with the complex narrative in chapter 1, the actual birth narrative of Jesus is brief. In it Luke stresses three things: (1) the political situation (to explain why Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem); (2) that Bethlehem was the town of David (to stress Jesus’ messianic claim); (3) the humble circumstances of Jesus’ birth. The mention of Caesar Augustus may not only be for historical background but also to contrast the human with the divine decrees. A mere Galilean peasant travels to Bethlehem ostensibly at the decree of the Roman emperor. Actually, it is in fulfillment of the divine King’s plan, which, as noted passim, is reflected in Luke’s frequent reference to what “must” (dei) be done. 1-3 Luke clearly intends to secure the historical and chronological moorings of Jesus’ birth. Ironically, it is precisely this that has led some to question Luke’s accuracy. The first census (i.e., enrollment prior to taxation) known to have occurred under the governorship of Quirinius took place later (i.e., A.D. 6) than usually reckoned as the time of Jesus’ birth. Reference to this census is found in both Acts 5:37 and Josephus (Antiq. XVIII, 26 [ii.1]). Many have supposed that Luke confused this census of A.D. 6 with one he thinks was taken earlier, but which lacks historical support. The most satisfactory solutions that have been proposed follow. 1. Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria at this time and conducted a census in his official capacity. Details of this census may have been common knowledge in Luke’s time but are now lost to us (cf. E.M. Blaiklock, “Quirinius,” ZPEB, 5:56). An incomplete MS describes the career of an officer whose name is not preserved but whose actions sound as if he might have been Quirinius. He became imperial “legate of Syria” for the “second time.” While this is ambiguous, it may be a clue that Quirinius served both at the time of Jesus’ birth and a few years later (cf. F.F. Bruce, “Quirinius,” NBD, p. 9). 2. The word prote can be construed to mean not “first,” as usually translated, but “former” or “prior.” The meaning of v.2 is then “This census was before that made when Quirinius was governor” (N. Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966], pp. 4; idem, Syntax, p. 32). It was customary to return to one’s original home for such a census. Also, powerful as he was, Herod was only a client king under Rome and, like others, was subject to orders for a census. Furthermore, it is scarcely conceivable that Luke, careful researcher that he was (1:14), would have stressed the census unless he had reasonable historical grounds for doing so. (See further F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 4], pp. 192-94; Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, pp. 98-104. 4-7 Luke does not say how long in advance of Jesus’ birth Joseph left for Bethlehem (v.4) nor why he took Mary with him. It is possible that he used the emperor’s order as a means of removing Mary from possible gossip and emotional stress in her own village. He had already accepted her as his wife (Matt 1:24), but apparently they continued in betrothal (v.5: “pledged to be married”) till after the birth. The text neither affirms nor denies the popular image of the couple arriving in Bethlehem just as the baby was about to be born. Luke simply states that the birth took place “while they were there” (v.6). Since she had stayed three months with Elizabeth, Mary was at least three months pregnant. It is possible that they went down during her last trimester of pregnancy, when the social relationships in Nazareth would have grown more difficult. They may have stayed in a crowded room in the home of some poor relative till the birth of the baby necessitated their vacating it for privacy and more space. Any such reconstruction is, however, merely speculative. The word katalyma, usually translated “inn” (v.7), may mean a room (e.g., the “guest room” used for the Last Supper [22:11], referred to as an “upper room” in 22:12), a billet for soldiers, or any place for lodging, which would include inns. It is not, however, the usual Greek word for an inn—pandocheion, to which the Good Samaritan took the robbery victim (10:34). As the etymology of the word—pan (“all”) and dechomai (“receive”) suggests, inns accepted all kinds of people, often the worst. Stories were told of discomfort and even of robberies at inns. Luke could have painted a sordid picture, had he so desired. Instead he uses the general word for a lodging place and states the simple fact that when Mary’s time came, the only available place for the little family was one usually occupied by animals. It may have been a cave, as tradition suggests, or some part of a house or inn. Even today in many places around the world farm animals and their fodder are often kept in the same building as the family quarters. The eating trough, or “manger,” was ideal for use as a crib. Luke does not seem to be portraying a dismal situation with an unfeeling innkeeper as villain. Rather, he is establishing a contrast between the proper rights of the Messiah in his own “town of David” and the very ordinary and humble circumstances of his birth. Whatever the reason, even in his birth Jesus was excluded from the normal shelter others enjoyed (cf. 9:58). This is consistent with Luke’s realistic presentation of Jesus’ humanity and servanthood. As to the “cloths,” see comment on v.12.
Walter L. Liefeld, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 8 of Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), paragraph 48726. accord://read/EBC#48726
Luke 2:1-3 For a negative judgment on the historicity of Luke’s account of the census, see HJP, 1:399–427.
EBC Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), paragraph 8390. accord://read/EBC_Notes#8390
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
3. The birth of Jesus (2:1-7) In comparison with the complex narrative in chapter 1, the actual birth narrative of Jesus is brief. In it Luke stresses three things: (1) the political situation (to explain why Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem); (2) that Bethlehem was the town of David (to stress Jesus’ messianic claim); (3) the humble circumstances of Jesus’ birth. 1-3 Luke clearly intends to secure the historical and chronological moorings of Jesus’ birth (approximately 4 B.C.). Ironically, it is precisely this that has led some to question Luke’s accuracy. The mention of Caesar Augustus may not only be for historical background but also to contrast the human with the divine decrees. A mere Galilean peasant travels to Bethlehem ostensibly at the decree of the Roman emperor. Actually, it is in fulfillment of the divine King’s plan, which, as noted passim, is reflected in Luke’s frequent reference to what “must” be done. The first census (i.e., enrollment prior to taxation) known to have occurred under the governorship of Quirinius took place later (i.e., A.D. 6) than usually reckoned as the time of Jesus’ birth (cf. Ac 5:37). Many have supposed that Luke confused this census of A.D. 6 with one he thinks was taken earlier, but which lacks historical support. The most satisfactory solutions that have been proposed follow. 1. Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria about 4 B.C. and conducted a census in his official capacity. Details of this census may have been common knowledge in Luke’s time but are now lost to us (cf. “Quirinius,” ZPEB 5:5–6). 2. The word translated “first” can also mean “former” or “prior.” This makes the meaning of v. 2, “This census was beforethat made when Quirinius was governor.” It was customary to return to one’s original home for such a census. Herod’s name is not mentioned because, powerful as he was, he was only a client king under Rome and, like others, was subject to orders for a census. 4-7 Luke does not say how long in advance of Jesus’ birth Joseph left for Bethlehem nor why he took Mary with him. It is possible that he used the emperor’s order as a means of removing Mary from possible gossip and emotional stress in her own village. He had already accepted her as his wife (Mt 1:24), but apparently they continued in betrothal till after the birth. The text neither affirms nor denies the popular image of the couple arriving in Bethlehem just as the baby was about to be born. Luke simply states that the birth took place “while they were there” (v. 6). The word usually translated “inn” (GK G2906) may mean a room (e.g., the “guest room” used for the Last Supper as in 22:11), a billet for soldiers, or any place for lodging, which would include inns. It is not, however, the usual Greek word for an inn. Luke states the simple fact that when Mary’s time came, the only available place for the little family was one usually occupied by animals. It may have been a cave, as tradition suggests, or some part of a house or inn. Even today in many places around the world farm animals and their fodder are often kept in the same building as the family quarters. The eating trough, or “manger,” was ideal for use as a crib. Luke does not seem to be portraying a dismal situation with an unfeeling innkeeper as villain. Rather, he is establishing a contrast between the proper rights of the Messiah in his own “town of David” and the very ordinary and humble circumstances of his birth. For “cloths,” see comment on v. 12.
Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger, eds. Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), paragraph 25504. accord://read/NIV_Commentary#25504
AKA:Renamed EBC Abridged in 2004.
3. The Birth of Jesus (2:1–7)
OVERVIEW
In comparison with the complex narrative in ch. 1, the actual birth narrative of Jesus is brief. In it Luke stresses three things: (1) the political situation (to explain why Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem); (2) the fact that Bethlehem was the town of David (to stress Jesus’ messianic claim); and (3) the humble circumstances of Jesus’ birth.
The mention of Caesar Augustus may not only be for historical background but also to contrast the human with the divine decrees. A mere Galilean peasant travels to Bethlehem ostensibly at the decree of the Roman emperor. Actually, it is in fulfillment of the divine King’s plan, which is reflected in Luke’s frequent reference to what “must” (dei, GK 1256) be done.
Related to this is the understanding that all these events took place within the context of the imperial rule. This may serve as a contrast to Judas the Galilean and his movement that refused to operate within the prescribed power structure (Josephus, Ant. 18.4–5; cf. J. Massyngberde Ford, “Reconciliation and Forgiveness in Luke’s Gospel,” in Political Issues in Luke-Acts [ed. Cassidy and Scharper], 87). It may also be understood as an implicit challenge to the imperial power, as the imperial system is now being used to bring fulfillment to the OT promises that point to the birth of the Lord of all.
1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
1 Augustus became the leader of the Roman world in 27 BC. That Luke uses the emperor’s Latin title, Augustus, instead of the expected Greek Sebastos (GK 4935)—a title known to Luke (cf. Ac 25:21, 25)—demands an explanation. Moreover, the transliterated form of Augustus does not appear in Greek literature prior to Luke. According to Royce L. B. Morris (“Why ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΣ? A Note to Luke 2.1,” NTS 38 [1992]: 142–44), Luke uses Augustus to avoid the sacred connotations the term Sebastos may evoke in the minds of his Greek audience.
In the ancient world, a “census” was usually taken by the ruling power for two reasons: (1) to provide an accurate account of the size of its military strength and (2) to update the record for taxation purposes. The oppressive nature of the imperial rule is again evoked by this mention of the census.
2 Luke clearly intends to secure the historical and chronological moorings of Jesus’ birth. Ironically, it is precisely this that has led some to question Luke’s accuracy.
The first census (i.e., enrollment prior to taxation) known to have occurred under the governorship of Quirinius took place later (i.e., AD 6) than is usually reckoned as the time of Jesus’ birth. Reference to this census is found in both Acts 5:37 and Josephus (Ant. 18.26). Many have supposed that Luke confused this census of AD 6 with one he thinks was taken earlier but which lacks historical support. The most satisfactory solutions that have been proposed follow.
(1) Quirinius had a government assignment in Syria at this time and conducted a census in his official capacity. Details of this census may have been common knowledge in Luke’s time but are now lost to us (cf. E. M. Blaiklock, “Quirinius,” ZPEB 5:56). An incomplete manuscript describes the career of an officer whose name is not preserved but whose actions sound as though he might have been Quirinius. He became imperial “legate of Syria” for the “second time.” While this is ambiguous, it may be a clue that Quirinius served both at the time of Jesus’ birth and a few years later (cf. Mark Smith, “Of Jesus and Quirinius,” CBQ 62 [2000]: 278–93).
(2) The word prōtē can be construed to mean not “first,” as usually translated, but “former” or “prior.” The meaning of v. 2 is then, “This census was before that made when Quirinius was governor” (Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1965], 23–24; cf. Marshall, 104). As noted by Brook W. R. Pearson (“The Lukan Censuses, Revisited,” CBQ 61 [1999]: 282), since “each and every aspect of the census as it is described by Luke has close parallels in other parts of the Roman Empire, we would do better to take a plausible grammatical solution which accords with the evidence rather than to ignore the evidence on the basis of shaky grammar.”
(3) The existence of two “Quiriniuses” is also a possibility that must be noted. A recently discovered coin has the name “Quirinius” on it, and this coin places this Quirinius as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia during the time of Jesus’ birth. Other evidence points to the popularity of this name. Thus the existence of yet another Quirinius becomes a real possibility (cf. John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991], 154).
Furthermore, it is scarcely conceivable that Luke, careful researcher that he was (1:1–4), would have stressed the census—a piece of information relatively easy to verify—unless he had reasonable historical grounds for doing so. (See further F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 192–94; Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian, 98–104.)
3 It was customary to return to one’s original home for such a census. The census as described in the British Museum papyrus 904, dated to AD 104, explicitly notes such a requirement. This decree allowed Mary and Joseph to return to Bethlehem, the city of David.
The phrase “everyone went to his own town” may recall a similar phrase that appears in the discussion of the Year of Jubilee in Leviticus: “each one of you is to return to his family property” (25:10). In the light of Luke’s interest in the Year of Jubilee (cf. Lk 4:19), this phrase may contribute to the theme of fulfillment in Luke’s eschatology (cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, “Luke 2:4–5 and Leviticus 25:10,” ZNW 80 [1989]: 264–65).
4–5 Luke does not say how long in advance of Jesus’ birth Joseph left for Bethlehem or why he took Mary with him. It is possible that he used the emperor’s order as a means of removing Mary from possible gossip and emotional stress in her own village. He had already accepted her as his wife (Mt 1:24), but apparently they continued in betrothal (v. 5, “pledged to be married”) till after the birth. The text neither affirms nor denies the popular image of the couple’s arriving in Bethlehem just as the baby was about to be born. Luke simply states that the birth took place “while they were there” (v. 6). Since she had stayed three months with Elizabeth, Mary was at least three months pregnant. It is possible that they went down during her last trimester of pregnancy, when the social relationships in Nazareth would have grown more difficult. They may have stayed in a crowded room in the home of some poor relative till the birth of the baby necessitated their vacating it for privacy and more space. Any such reconstruction is, however, merely speculative.
The emphasis on the Davidic line (v. 4) recalls the promises of the throne of David in 1:32, 35, and the focus on the house of David in 1:69 (cf. 1:27). Moreover, the allusion to Micah 5:2 in reference to the expected exalted role of Bethlehem can also be heard. Green, 127, further notes the prophetic element in these verses as the “provisional nature” of Roman rule is revealed.
7 The word katalyma (GK 2906), usually translated “inn,” may mean a room (e.g., the “guest room” used for the Last Supper [22:11], referred to as an “upper room” in 22:12), a billet for soldiers, or any place for lodging, which would include inns (cf. L. Paul Trudinger, “ ‘No Room in the Inn’: A Note on Luke 2:7,” ExpTim 102 [1991]: 172–73). It is not, however, the usual Greek word for an inn—pandocheion (GK 4106), to which the Good Samaritan took the robbery victim (10:34). As the etymology of the word—pan (“all,” GK 4246) and dechomai (“receive,” GK 1312)—suggests, inns accepted all kinds of people, often the worst. Stories were told of discomfort and even of robberies at inns.
Luke could have painted a sordid picture, had he so desired. Instead he uses the general word for a lodging place and states the simple fact that when Mary’s time came, the only available place for the little family was one usually occupied by animals. It may have been a cave, as tradition suggests, or some part of a house or inn. Even today in many places around the world farm animals and their fodder are often kept in the same building as the family quarters. The eating trough, or “manger,” was ideal for use as a crib. Luke does not seem to be portraying a dismal situation with an unfeeling innkeeper as villain. Rather, he is establishing a contrast between the proper rights of the Messiah in his own “town of David” (v. 4) and the very ordinary and humble circumstances of his birth. Whatever the reason, even in his birth Jesus was excluded from the normal shelter others enjoyed (cf. 9:58). This is consistent with Luke’s realistic presentation of Jesus’ humanity and servanthood.
NOTES
1–3 For a negative judgment on the historicity of Luke’s account of the census, see R. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, 547–55. A call to take Luke’s historical record seriously can be found in J. Lawrence, “Publius Sulpicius Quirinius and the Syrian Census,” ResQ 34 (1992): 193–205.
7 The significance of Isaiah 66 in early Christian writings has long been recognized. This chapter is also important for Luke. In Luke 2:34, one finds a parallel to Isaiah 66:19. Jesus’ response to the council in Luke 22:68 also alludes to Isaiah 66:4. Building on these parallels, J. D. M. Derrett (“Luke 2.7 Again,” NTS 45 [1999]: 263) further suggests that Luke 2:7 alludes to Isaiah 66:1, where the reference to the place where the Lord can rest is found. This would mean that Jesus cannot be contained by that which human hands can build, and he alone is the proper object of worship. The existence of this allusion is questionable, however.
Walter L. Liefeld and David W. Pao, “Luke,” in Luke–Acts, vol. 10 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition. ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 74-77. accord://read/EBC-R#125186
too expensive for me.
It's ~ $ 22.00 cheaper than it's pre-pub prices. It's a good deal !
It's also the 2nd-cheapest, whole-Bible, modern commentary series in Logos. The cheapest is Tyndale at $224, but this sale puts EBC in the same ballpark. Tyndale is a good first purchase, but for those who want an alternative with whole Bible coverage, this sale is good.
Thank you guys for the information! This does seem like a great deal. I think I will take advantage of it, who knows when Zondervan will put it on sale again.
It goes on sale on a competitor website for about $229 on a reasonably regular basis, at least 4 times per year. Considering it is only $70 extra and the tagging in the Logos edition is far superior I'd say take advantage of this while it is available. I have not seen EBC go on sale in the last 2 years on Logos, but I may be mistaken.
Thanks James, I went and took advantage of the sale! We all know how limited Zondervan sales can be.
Hi Dan,
It's Steve ... I'm reading your comments and posts on the subject commentary as well as the NIB in the past. There seems to be a lot of good content in both.
I'm coming to the end of my academic discount (end of next year) and want to make the most of purchase discounts.
I know you can't make a definitive recommendation in my personal situation but I would appreciate any insight between the two.
Blessings,
Steve
Hi Dan, It's Steve ... I'm reading your comments and posts on the subject commentary as well as the NIB in the past. There seems to be a lot of good content in both. I'm coming to the end of my academic discount (end of next year) and want to make the most of purchase discounts. I know you can't make a definitive recommendation in my personal situation but I would appreciate any insight between the two. Blessings, Steve
Dan got me into the NIB and I must say it's a great set! Not to mention it contains NT Wright magnus opus on Romans! (I hope I got my Latin right hehe).
The two sets the NIB and EBC are in many ways complimentary. The NIB comes at the text from a moderate critical viewpoint. Where as EBCR comes at the text from an Evangelical viewpoint both taking into concern the latest in Biblical studies. While the NIB is more directed toward preaching and applications, the EBCR focus' a lot on the text and drawing as much as possible from the greek and hebrew. Theses insights may be touched upon in the comments of the NIB but you have more constant depth of this type in the EBCR. That is not to say applications are not to be found in the EBCR but there is much more basic facts and less theological reflection than you would find in the NIB.
