Best Single Volume Commentary on the Old Testament?

Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament is a remarkably helpful book. In fact, I venture to say that it is the best single volume (but originally 2 volumes) commentary on the Old Testament ever written. It has choice insights into the language, culture, archaeology, cross references, context, outlines, and exegetically significant details of any given passage. When I assign this book for students in my Old Testament classes I consistently get comments on how excellent this book is. NOTE: This is not Unger's Bible Handbook. It is far different: much more detailed. His treatment of Messianic passages in the Old Testament is alone worth the price of the book. Originally published by Moody, this is now carried by AMG. Highly recommended. I really wish that Logos would consider adding this magisterial work to their library and make it available to a wider audience.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Josh

It looks alright. I'm trying to think of what type of OT class would use this as its primary text. A 100/200 level OT survey course perhaps? Have you heard of The Promise and the Blessings: A Historical Survey of the Old and New Testament? Or how about Encountering the Old Testament? If I was a student in a survey class, I'd probably find these texts more helpful.

DMB

Well, since you have a question mark on your subject heading, my favorite it the IVP Background Commentary (1 each for OT and NT). They also have a series, but I'm talking about the 1-volume one. Cuts to the chase. Pretty even (not biased). Also available on many platforms.

Peter Wise

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531056#Comment_531056

Compare the IVP OT Backgrounds with this excerpt from Unger's Commentary on the OT:

Unger:

(1) Job declared that he knew he had a Redeemer, a goel.

This goel was the next of kin, whose dutiy it was to redeem, ransom, or avenge the one who had fallen into debt or bondage, or who had been slain in a family vendetta (Lev. 25:48; Deut. 19:6-12).…Job was convinced that God in the varied conditional functions of the Goel, would take it upon Himself to avenge his quarrel, be surety for him, act as an umpire, and vindicate him—in short, do what his professed friends would not do, even if they could.

(2) Job declared that he knew that his Goel-Redeemer was alive, presently as a reality, existing at that time, and not someone to come into existence later, though His manifestation in humanflesh was to be an event in the future.

(3) Job declared that at the last his Redeemer would take His stand on the earth…particulary in a juridicial sense as a Witness in a trial (cf. 16:8; 31:14; Deut. 19:16) to vindicate Job in the sense of a Goel… “God himself will avenge Job’s blood, i.e. against his accusers, who say that it si the blood of one guilty” (Delitzsch, Job, 1:354). This of course, could only be accomplished ultimately through the incarnation of Christ, as the New Testament shows.

(4) Job definitely referred to life beyond death in a resurrection body.

A great change will occur at death involving compensation for the inequalities of life.…[And after my skin has been…destroyed, then from my flesh I shall see God]…Here latent in the Old Testament is the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (cf. Gen. 22:5; Psalms 16:10; 49:15; Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2; Hos. 13:14).…My eyes shall behold intimate the use of a body after death!

(5) Job’s faith struck the joyful note of hope that the truth of the resurrection of the body always inspires (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13; 1 John 3:2-3).…His heart (“reins, kidneys,” considered the seat of the emotions) was consumed within him as he waited in hope. (1:705-6)

Here is another excerpt from Unger's comments on Isaiah 53:4

Converted Israel will confess that the Messiah vicariously bore their griefs and sorrows.

The quotation and meaning of 53:4a in Matthew 8:16-17 show that this verse was fulfilled not on the cross but before the cross, although inseparably connected with the cross. Verse 4 and its fulfillment in Matthew 8:16-17 show that physical healing is not in the atonement, but rather that spiritual healing guarantees a future glorified body. Physical healing is a sovereign act of God, flowing from the cross of Christ, but it is not an integral part of the atonement. Christ died for our sins, not for our diseases, for physical disease in itself is not sin; it is merely one of the results of sin.

4b. Israel will confess that the Messiah bore shame and misrepresentation. The latter half of this verse dramatically describes Israel's self-accusing confession at the second advent concerning the true cause of the Messiah's sufferings: "We thought they were His own sins He was punished for. But, alas, they were ours!"

In the Talmud, Jesus of Nazareth is relegated to hell alongside Titus and Balaam, undergoing the severest and most degrading punishment. What a wail of repentance will arise at Christ's revelation when Israel realizes her terrible mistake and sin in maligning and crucifying her Deliverer!

I have probably received more positive feedback from students on this OT book than from any other resource. Years ago when I taught Isaiah I had a number of students who loved the excerpts that I had typed up (and made study questions from). The students really wanted to buy the book but it was out of print and hard to come by.

Peter Wise

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531055#Comment_531055

I used Unger's Commentary on the OT for one of the required texts for an Isaiah class and the other was for a OT survey class where students had to examine and interact with specific texts from each book of the Old Testament. The level of detail in this book (dealing with observations/insights on verses) is more than a normal OT survey book is able to deal with. It was great to have students quickly survey the richness of great Messianic texts.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531062#Comment_531062

Thanks for the quote. I like one volume commentaries because they are forced to be concise. This makes it easy to digest the information they provide. I noticed that CBD had a preview of this commentary. I was able to read the opening to Genesis. I didn't know Unger was a gap-theorist? I've heard good things about the man, but I cringe when Genesis commentaries open with this theory.

Peter Wise

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531067#Comment_531067

That's something I address with students at the outset. There are others who were great teachers who held to the gap theory: Spurgeon, Pink, and Boice were among them. The rich insights throughout the rest of the huge volume outweighs its deficits in Gen. 1:1.

George Somsel

One of the best of one volume commentaries is Peake's Commentary on the Bible. It covers both OT and NT with commentary by some first-rate scholars.

http://www.amazon.com/Peakes-Commentary-Bible-S-Peake/dp/0177110015/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380607787&sr=1-1

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531075#Comment_531075

One of the best of one volume commentaries is Peake's Commentary on the Bible. It covers both OT and NT with commentary by some first-rate scholars.

One of the reviewers stated that this commentary is very liberal. I mean dating the book of Genesis after the Babylonian exile? Come on! And here I thought Unger's acceptance of the gap theory was cringe worthy!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531355#Comment_531355

I mean dating the book of Genesis after the Babylonian exile?

Just the facts, sir.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531357#Comment_531357

Just the facts, sir.

I shouldn't be old enough to actually get that - but yet I did. [:|]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531358#Comment_531358

Just the facts, sir.

I shouldn't be old enough to actually get that - but yet I did.

http://www.hulu.com/dragnet

Nick Steffen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531358#Comment_531358

Just the facts, sir.

I shouldn't be old enough to actually get that - but yet I did.

Even if it is a bit mythical. http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/dragnet.asp

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531362#Comment_531362

Just the facts, sir.

I shouldn't be old enough to actually get that - but yet I did.

Even if it is a bit mythical. http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/dragnet.asp

From someone who's "been there, done that", it wasn't always (or even primarily) Joe Friday who said "Just the facts, ma'am." It was his sidekick.

wisefamily

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/531355#Comment_531355

Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament is staunchly conservative in every respect. Everyone I know who owns it has high praise for it.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/551981#Comment_551981

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The book is staunchly conservative in every respect. Where did you get the idea that Unger had a late dating of the book?

I rarely trust a commentary that is "staunchly conservative in every respect" since generally all they are doing is toeing the party line. If you want to hear what you have always believed, why bother?

wisefamily

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/551983#Comment_551983

Then you would have to say the same thing about Jesus and the Apostles!

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/551984#Comment_551984

Then you would have to say the same thing about Jesus and the Apostles!

What do you mean by that? I don't think Jesus told them whatever they wanted to hear.

wisefamily

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/551994#Comment_551994

I mean that Jesus and the Apostles had fundamental assumptions regarding the authority and inviolability of Scripture and Unger does as well. Being conservative has nothing at all to do with following a party line. Conservative commentators have sometimes taken opinions that have gone against the stream. Being conservative doesn't mean that you have no fresh insights or are simply restating what is commonly known. There are plenty of liberals who strictly follow party lines in their own academic or social circles.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/551996#Comment_551996

I mean that Jesus and the Apostles had fundamental assumptions regarding the authority and inviolability of Scripture and Unger does as well. Being conservative has nothing at all to do with following a party line. Conservative commentators have sometimes taken opinions that have gone against the stream. Being conservative doesn't mean that you have no fresh insights or are simply restating what is commonly known. There are plenty of liberals who strictly follow party lines in their own academic or social circles.

I also hold to the authority of scripture though I'm not sure what you mean by "inviolability" of scripture. Nevertheless, I would be willing to wager at least 10¢ that you wouldn't agree with my view.