Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: Matthew by Stanley Hauerwas

I'm guessing Black Friday and Cyber Monday offers have diverted attention from this month's Free Book of the Month and +1 and +2.

I have the +2 already, which is well regarded. However, I can find very few reviews on the +1 (positive or negative). $4.99 seems a great deal, but it's easy to buy too many deal deals!

Can anyone who's used to book add any light on how useful the book is as a preaching resource?

https://www.logos.com/product/30833/brazos-theological-commentary-on-the-bible-matthew

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

Hauerwas is a known theologian, not just in Christian circles but in the academia and the society at large. He’s not so much an exegete as a theologian, an ethicist etc. He was named ”America’s Best Theologian” by Time Magazine in 2001.

John F. Evans’ Guide to Biblical Commentaries (10th edition) regards Hauerwas’ as a work espousing a critical theological position. It is rather an exposition, and according to Evans actually an insightful one. The quality of exegesis raises some hesitations. Evans gives a provocative quote, which reflects on Matthew chapter 4, The Temptation of Jesus: ”Give the devil his due. He understands, as is seldom acknowledged particularly in our day, that politics is about worship and sacrifice.”

I grabbed the offer, but haven’t had time to delve into Hauerwas’ work yet.

John Fidel

I grabbed the commentary for 4.99 and reviewed a few chapters.

It is organized by chapter rather than pericope. In providing his theological opinions, he does a poor job of actually engaging and referencing back to the text. I find it more of an authors opinion with some references to church fathers and Bonhoffer rather than a traditional commentary. His opinions are not very well supported or argued, so if they differ from the reader they are not persuasive. It reads as if the author doesn't really feel the need to support his opinions or offer differing views, so he comes across as an arrogant, academic theologian. I generally like commentaries that I don't always agree with, but they need to support their position, offer opposing views fairly and be persuasive. This one falls short on all fronts.

Edit: Reading this again, I think my comments were a bit strong. I appreciate NB Mick offering a differing and probably more balanced opinion.

NB.Mick

this month's Free Book of the Month and +1 and +2. I have the +2 already, which is well regarded. However, I can find very few reviews on the +1 (positive or negative). (...) Can anyone who's used to book add any light on how useful the book is as a preaching resource?

Sorry, no preacher here.

I'm quite the opposite. After finding out that FBOM only played another variant of unhelpful sales pages not being able to use the same code as normal pages in greying out owned resources (this time greying out the FBOMs as if I did already on them, and at first I believed this), I immediately went for the free book and the +1 while I thought the +2 was about such an obscure OT book that I rather keep my money - had to convince myself by reading reviews of it in another venue. But back to the +1:

I didn't exactly run around looking for yet another commentary on Matthew - can't read them all. But I know Hauerwas has a different voice, more coming from the ounter-cultural, radical-reformation, mennonite area of the field. I'm really looking forward to read his treatment of the Sermon on the Mount. I found his "resident alien" book very stimulating some time ago.

Moreover, the Brazos Theological Commentary seems to break out of the "verse-by-verse what does it say?" mold and get to a "what does it mean? how has this meaning shaped church history and been shaped by church history?" kind of thing. Not that I would use it as my first commentary when trying to understand a passage (or if I was ever asked to preach on one), but I would expect Hauerwas to think differently, perhaps ask questions that never occur to the NIC/NAC/Pillar crowd, and provide some relevant directions into which to think (if not real answers) for our time.

Hope this helps a bit

Bruce Dunning

I didn't exactly run around looking for yet another commentary on Matthew - can't read them all. But I know Hauerwas has a different voice, more coming from the ounter-cultural, radical-reformation, mennonite area of the field. I'm really looking forward to read his treatment of the Sermon on the Mount. I found his "resident alien" book very stimulating some time ago.

Thanks for those helpful thoughts. I too really didn't need another commentary on Matthew but I got this one because of Hauerwas' reputation. I've not read much by him but I've talked to other who speak highly. Reading his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount is a great place to start.

Paul Caneparo

Thanks for the various responses. I guess like others have said I don't need another commentary on Matthew, although I recognise it might offer a different perspective. The question I guess is how useful that perspective will be.

Barnabas

Hauerwas is a known theologian, not just in Christian circles but in the academia and the society at large. He’s not so much an exegete as a theologian, an ethicist etc. He was named ”America’s Best Theologian” by Time Magazine in 2001.

John F. Evans’ Guide to Biblical Commentaries (10th edition) regards Hauerwas’ as a work espousing a critical theological position. It is rather an exposition, and according to Evans actually an insightful one. The quality of exegesis raises some hesitations. Evans gives a provocative quote, which reflects on Matthew chapter 4, The Temptation of Jesus: ”Give the devil his due. He understands, as is seldom acknowledged particularly in our day, that politics is about worship and sacrifice.”

I grabbed the offer, but haven’t had time to delve into Hauerwas’ work yet.

What is meant bby the specitic devils due quote?

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

Hope the screenshot above helps! In my understanding he's talking about power politics and Dostoyevski's famous confrontation between the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor and Jesus during the Inquisition. Also churchly power politics, if I'm not mistaken?

Barnabas

Thanks I think I get it. Does anyone have any comments about Leihart's commentary on 1-2 Kings?