I am interested in an application commentary.... I have found this series, but would like some feedback on it's usefulness.Do you have any other recommendations?
This is an interesting series and it does serve its purpose well. However, some of its better titles are best represented in other commentary series. For instance, Darrell Bock's "Luke" is good, but his Baker Exegetical commentary on Luke is better. The same goes for Moo's "Romans" - it is great (I read the whole book cover-to-cover), but he does a better job in his NICNT commentary.
Reformed Expository Commentary (17 vols.) is better than NIVAC, I'm recommending it to an SDA friend (as only set) and my mother who are more conservative than me. You can read reviews on Amazon.
Myself, I'm preferring Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK), but the fact that many of the volumes are older and that the authors were a bit more liberal, might not appeal to You.
Some Interpretation volumes are also great. I have:
These were the most neutral ones I can think of. EDIT: Out of these ones, Interpretation is the least conservative.EDIT, see a post I wrote now about this, linking back here: I was discussing application...
Here is a sample of the format and content (from Luke 5:1-32):
I'll differ with some others here and endorse it for what it is: an application commentary. It's not an expository commentary. It's not a homiletical commentary. It's an application commentary.
What it does is analyze a text and look for bridges to our time both in understanding what's happening in the text and how we might apply what the text is telling us to our time. Like any series, it's uneven. However, having recently preached through Esther, the NIVAC on Esther was better than anything else I have in my library. Really. It was that good.
But it's not great everywhere. I wouldn't make it my only commentary set by a long shot. But I'm glad I have it and consult it often.
Excuse me? Hendriksen and Kistemaker might be many things, but neither of them have a liberal bone in their bodies.
I think I would classify NIVAC as more conservative. Have You compared these two sets? My source: Quick q: how conservative is the NIVAC NT?
Please give me examples of what is conservative in Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK)!:
I use it a fair bit for leading small, non-academic groups, members of which often only have English as a second language. My wife enjoys reading them from cover to cover. But for anything more serious I turn to the Expositor's Bible Commentary.
I love this series because they use solid Bible scholars, who usually write more academic commentaries. They then break down each pericope into the three sections as shown above. This gives the reader a chance to get the academic/scholarly information (of course it is not as in depth as a standard academic commentary) in the first and partially in the second section, and then application in the third. I like to see how people who I usually look to for detailed exegesis handle application.
I think I would classify NIVAC as more conservative.… Please give me examples of what is conservative in Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK)!
It's not a competition to see which can be the most conservative. I made no comment about NIVAC (which is fairly conservative). But you said that Baker NTC was liberal, which is nonsense. Carson says, "Hendriksen is self-consciously orthodox and Reformed". Read his opinion of Harnack and Liberalism. And what about this:
"Christ’s lordship and his bodily resurrection… deals the deathblow to all liberalism, showing that liberalism and Christianity cannot live together harmoniously under the same roof." (source)
Mark, it would be very interesting if You knew things like how does Kistemaker view justification in Ro?And how Hendriksen views authorship and original language of Mt and whether he views Eph as a composite letter or not and whether he is a bit sure about the authorship of it (thinking that it's Paul through a scribe)?To what decade does Hendriksen date Mk and Jn? Does he discuss the shortest ending of Mk?Does Hendriksen mention that a certain manuscript that includes Hebrews ends at 9:14?Does he mention that a certain passage in 1 Cor says "stake" in Gk, not "cross"?
A lot of questions, I'll try to find time to look up two of them: that about the Mk ending and Hebrews, but I have tests every week here at college for which I have to prepare.
Mark, it would be very interesting if You knew things like how does Kistemaker view justification in Ro?And how Hendriksen views authorship and original language of Mt and whether he views Eph as a composite letter or not and whether he is a bit sure about the authorship of it (thinking that it's Paul through a scribe)?To what decade does Hendriksen date Mk and Jn? Does he discuss the shortest ending of Mk?Does Hendriksen mention that a certain manuscript that includes Hebrews ends at 9:14?Does he mention that a certain passage in 1 Cor says "stake" in Gk, not "cross"? A lot of questions, I'll try to find time to look up two of them: that about the Mk ending and Hebrews, but I have tests every week here at college for which I have to prepare.
Brothers, I thank you for your input. I did not wish to start a debate. It's Monday I hope you have a restful day.....
This is helpful Josh, Thanks!
how does Kistemaker view justification in Ro?
He takes the traditional Reformed view.
authorship and original language of Mt
He says that the author was Matthew, one of the twelve.
whether he views Eph as a composite letter or not and whether he is a bit sure about the authorship of it (thinking that it's Paul through a scribe)?
Pauline authorship: "There is no reason to depart from these traditional convictions."
To what decade does Hendriksen date Mk and Jn?
Mark to "sometime between AD 40 and 65". John "between 80 and 98" (or perhaps earlier). He accepts the shortest ending of Mark (almost all conservatives do, nowadays).
Mike,
As an application commentary, I think it is one of the best. Like every commentary set, some volumes are better than others. However, the NIV Application Commentary set is more consistently good than most. It is written by some of the best scholarship available.
If I only had one commentary, I would not make it an application commentary. I would want something more academic like the NICOT / NT or Word Biblical. But, for a second commentary, an application commentary is a very useful tool, and helps us keep our feet in the real world. And this is a good one.
Since this commentary is written by some of the same scholars who write the best academic commentaries (Douglas Moo, for example) you can have confidence that the application is based upon solid exegesis of the Scripture.
I have also found N. T. Wright's "For Everyone" commentaries to have some pretty good applications.
Mike, As an application commentary, I think it is one of the best. Like every commentary set, some volumes are better than others. However, the NIV Application Commentary set is more consistently good than most. It is written by some of the best scholarship available. If I only had one commentary, I would not make it an application commentary. I would want something more academic like the NICOT / NT or Word Biblical. But, for a second commentary, an application commentary is a very useful tool, and helps us keep our feet in the real world. And this is a good one. Since this commentary is written by some of the same scholars who write the best academic commentaries (Douglas Moo, for example) you can have confidence that the application is based upon solid exegesis of the Scripture. I have also found N. T. Wright's "For Everyone" commentaries to have some pretty good applications.
Thanks... I have many other good sets (WBC,NAC,Pillar, NIGNT) It's application I tend to think is my weakness...I am hoping to improve in this area. It sounds like the NIV application is the way to go...
Mike, check it out. Logos has a 30 day money-back guarantee, so you could have a good look at a few volumes and then make up your mind on whether to keep it.
I have it (both OT and NT) and it's one of my go-to sets.
Myself, I'm preferring Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK), but the fact that many of the volumes are older and that the authors were a bit more liberal, might not appeal to You. Excuse me? Hendriksen and Kistemaker might be many things, but neither of them have a liberal bone in their bodies.
LOL It's ok Mark, he's got tests every week, so much learning has made him mad [:P]
Plus, I bet he has experience "parablepsis" a phenomena that happens when you're reading several books or two side by side and the lines you're reading get crossed over. I'm sure the liberal parts he might have in mind are parts that got crossed over from other commentaries and he just thinks he read them in the Hendricksen & Kistemaker volumes...LOL
Now, let us please stick to the forum rules and let's end the debate. My view of Romans 8 may be the right one, but just because someone doesn't agree with it I may get labeled a "liberal." So I would say some things are subjective, then again let us keep Acts 17:11 in mind in order to avoid liberal thoughts to creep in.
Blessings to Unix and Mark!
DAL
Thanks, Mark!!
A sales rep,John Ramsey360-685-2309 Direct Line1-800-875-6467 Ext. 2309john DÓT ramsey AT logos DÓTcom
... recently offered me the entire NIVAC set a bit cheaper if I added the L5 Minimal Crossgrade to my base-packages. Might be worth asking if You desire Clause Search (if You don't have it already but I suppose You do have) or Bible Sense Lexicon (if You're currently on L5 Silver only).(Also if someone asks John for a base-package and mentions me I get $30 Store Credit which I'd be very grateful for towards an academic Paul collection and a Church History collection (the latter Oxford)):
Reformed Expository Commentary (17 vols.) is better than NIVAC, I'm recommending it to an SDA friend (as only set) and my mother who are more conservative than me. You can read reviews on Amazon. Myself, I'm preferring Baker's New Testament Commentary (HK), but the fact that many of the volumes are older and that the authors were a bit more liberal, might not appeal to You. Some Interpretation volumes are also great. I have: Ruth by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Editor of the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible), 1999 Job by J. Gerald Janzen, 1985 Hosea to Micah by James Limburg, 1988 First & Second Peter, James, and Jude by Pheme Perkins, 1995 These were the most neutral ones I can think of. EDIT: Out of these ones, Interpretation is the least conservative.EDIT, see a post I wrote now about this, linking back here: I was discussing application...
Here is a sample of the Life Application NT Commentary:
Obviously, being a one volume commentary it is very limited. I wasn't overly impressed with its "applications". For the most part it reads like most one volume commentaries.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
