Considering buying a Commentary
I am a volunteer at church, and am privileged to be able to speak on occasion to our young adults and children. I purchased Logos 4 some years ago, and it still serves me well, about a 50/50 between desktop and mobile.
I don't do fancy research, and am not formally trained, but consider myself a firm believer and lifelong student of the Word. With that said, I'm becoming a bit frustrated by the commentaries available to me, either for being in 100-year-old vernacular, or too concise to present a 360-degree picture of a passage. I use Matt Henry, and a couple others included with my $250-at-the-time package.
After doing some research today on the best choices for a commentary, I happened upon the NICNT. I was able find some excerpts online, and was just stunned. It's exhaustive, objective, clear-to-read... everything I think should be looking for:
https://www.logos.com/product/23991/the-new-international-commentary-on-the-new-testament
But is well out of reach. I do see it for sale on kindle (a few of the volumes), but I do value having the content 'at hand' in Logos. I also see it's available in gospel/pauline subsets, as well as individually. I suppose I could piece it together over the years, but that's a grand plan for what could have a simpler solution.
What are my best choices in the <$200 range for a commentary, and are there periodic sales? I can be patient. I looked over some of the included commentaries in a logos 6 upgrade/sidegrade, but didn't really know what I was looking at, and saw no way to preview. Suggestions?
Comments
-
Considering your audience I would look at the following:
https://www.logos.com/product/5762/the-life-application-bible-commentary
https://www.logos.com/product/8587/the-bible-speaks-today-new-testament
All are relatively cheap and easy to read. They will also give you some good secondary places to dig.
0 -
If I had a choice of one commentary set in your price range I would choose the Tyndale Commentaries
0 -
I think EBC is the best commentary set for under $200.
https://www.logos.com/product/5457/the-expositors-bible-commentary It is currently showing $364.99 for me, but I didn't pay nearly that much for it. I believe I got it for $129 or something like that. I've seen it on sale many times, so if you can wait I believe you can definitely get it in the future on sale.
There is a revised edition ( https://www.logos.com/product/20185/expositors-bible-commentary-revised-edition ) which I believe is really just a new commentary set, not a revision of the previous edition. I haven't used it so I can't comment on how good it is.
0 -
It's $225, but I always recommend the Tyndale Commentaries as a first commentary set. It's an expositional commentary that covers the whole bible (OT and NT). It's not going to be as in depth as the NIC series, but it's good for its size. I find the format easier to use than the Expositor's Bible Commentary which is its closest competitor, plus it's much cheaper now since Zondervan raised the EBC price to $370.
There are other alternatives in the price range, but they are going to be more devotional or application-focused, which is good in it's own way, but since you were looking at the NICNT, I'd say go for Tyndale.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Whole Bible commentaries in that price range are rare (in Logos) Tyndale is an option if you can sell a few aluminum cans to come up with the difference. [:)]Noah Gray said:What are my best choices in the <$200 range for a commentary
https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=tyndale
Edit: Todd beat me to it while I was composing my response. ...Possibly the 2 recommendations will prompt you to take a look at it.
0 -
Kevin Maples said:
https://www.logos.com/product/5457/the-expositors-bible-commentary It is currently showing $364.99 for me, but I didn't pay nearly that much for it. I believe I got it for $129 or something like that. I've seen it on sale many times, so if you can wait I believe you can definitely get it in the future on sale.
Zondervan raised the original EBC price so it doesn't compete with the revised edition. I think it's unlikely we will ever find it for the cheap price it used to be.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
Noah Gray said:
I am a volunteer at church, and am privileged to be able to speak on occasion to our young adults and children. I purchased Logos 4 some years ago, and it still serves me well, about a 50/50 between desktop and mobile.
I don't do fancy research, and am not formally trained, but consider myself a firm believer and lifelong student of the Word. With that said, I'm becoming a bit frustrated by the commentaries available to me, either for being in 100-year-old vernacular, or too concise to present a 360-degree picture of a passage. I use Matt Henry, and a couple others included with my $250-at-the-time package.
After doing some research today on the best choices for a commentary, I happened upon the NICNT. I was able find some excerpts online, and was just stunned. It's exhaustive, objective, clear-to-read... everything I think should be looking for:
https://www.logos.com/product/23991/the-new-international-commentary-on-the-new-testament
But is well out of reach. I do see it for sale on kindle (a few of the volumes), but I do value having the content 'at hand' in Logos. I also see it's available in gospel/pauline subsets, as well as individually. I suppose I could piece it together over the years, but that's a grand plan for what could have a simpler solution.
What are my best choices in the <$200 range for a commentary, and are there periodic sales? I can be patient. I looked over some of the included commentaries in a logos 6 upgrade/sidegrade, but didn't really know what I was looking at, and saw no way to preview. Suggestions?
It's slightly over budget, but if you're in a tradition that uses the RCL lectionary, I very much recommend Feasting On The Word, just because it gives a very well rounded selection of different types of commentary eg. Theological, Pastoral, Exegetical and Homiletical in one place... It's listed at $247, which is very good for 12 or so volumes. Because its based on the Lectionary, you need to look up the year we're in, rather than run according to each book of the bible. He's an example of today's text:
"Mark 1:1–8
Theological Perspective
Imagine you live in Galilee around 70 CE. There’s a war on. Some radical Jews have revolted against Rome, and Jerusalem is under siege. Reports are that conditions in the city are bad. People are divided. Some see God raising up leaders to push the infidels from the Holy Land. Others urge submission to Rome as the path to peace and security. Everyone is anxious, caught between resentment of heavy-handed soldiers and fear of extremist guerrillas. Furthermore, Emperor Nero died last year, and there is unrest in Rome. Four men have been acclaimed emperor, only to be assassinated. Now Vespasian, the very general besieging Jerusalem, has been crowned. What does this mean for the war? Things are uncertain. The price of oil is skyrocketing—olive oil, that is. The world is in turmoil. Where do you look for the future?
Your village population is mixed, Jews and Gentiles, and tensions are high. Neighbors fear one another. Families fracture along ethnic lines. One small sect refuses to fight on either side, followers of a Galilean rabbi named Jesus, who was crucified for insurrection about forty years ago. Roman loyalists suspect them of continuing the alleged insurrection of their founder. The rabbis call them heretics, and the Zealot rebels dismiss their founder as ineffective against Roman oppression. But you are intrigued by their claim that Jesus’ crucifixion is a symbol of God’s “good news” for Israel and Rome. You ask, if this Jesus really was God’s prophet, how is his execution good news for us? Someone hands you a scroll with a title scribbled on it, “The Beginning of the Good News about Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God.”
The title is provocative. The “good news” is foremost a story about Jesus. The word “messiah” reflects Jewish apocalyptic traditions about the eschatological inbreaking of God, who shakes the world, turning it right side up to restore the proper order under God’s reign. The designation “Son of God” challenges the claim of divi filius found on many Roman coins next to portraits of emperors. So we might expect this story to challenge the established political order and side with Israel against pagan oppressors. But the story opens with John the Baptist preaching repentance. How does this make sense of the present political turmoil?
To help his readers understand their troubled situation, Mark proclaims Jesus. But to understand Jesus, he looks back to the Scriptures of Israel. Indeed, we cannot understand Christian faith adequately without understanding the Jewish roots of that faith. Whatever we think God is doing in our world today, and whatever we think God did in Jesus Christ, should be consistent with what God was doing all along in Israel.
Mark says the beginning of the gospel is “just as” Isaiah said. It is not that Isaiah was predicting John the Baptist, but Mark sees an analogy between Isaiah 40:3 and the preaching of John “in the wilderness” (v. 4). Isaiah provides a frame of reference for understanding the Baptist. In its own context, Isaiah 40:3 looks for God’s intervention to restore Israel from Babylonian exile. For Mark, John is like the voice that announces “comfort” (Isaiah 40:1) to the exiles in Babylon. Although first-century Jews were not in exile, they were under foreign occupation. It was as if the Babylonian exile had followed them home, and Isaiah 40 offered a fitting analogy for those who looked for restoration.
But lest his readers get the wrong idea of a triumphalist stance toward Rome, Mark prefaces his quotation of Isaiah 40:3 with one from Malachi 3:1. That oracle also looks forward to God’s intervention, but not for restoration. In Malachi 3–4, God’s messenger clears the way (3:2) by calling God’s people to repentance. Mark sees an analogy between “Elijah” (Mal. 4:5) and John (Mark 1:6, cf. 2 Kgs. 1:8). Just as Malachi warned of God’s judgment against the sins of Israel, so John preached repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). Mark’s juxtaposition with Malachi 3:1 causes us to notice that there is also a reprimand in the comforting oracle of Isaiah (40:27). We who look to God to deliver us from our enemies must first examine ourselves to see whether we are fit to stand before a righteous God.
Scripture proclaims hope for troubled souls and judgment for the self-assured. Against our human tendency to read the Bible in self-justifying ways, confirming our prejudices and excusing our resentments, we must learn to read self-critically, allowing Scripture to correct us. As the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth says, “only when the Bible grasps at us,” does it become for us the word of God.
Mark teaches us to see God by looking to Jesus. But to understand Jesus correctly, Mark looks way back to the prophets of Israel. He sees them looking forward in anticipation of God’s intervention. When he stands with them and looks as they look, he sees John the Baptist in line with them and looking in the same direction. As Mark looks at John looking at Jesus, he sees himself in perspective (vv. 7–8). And so, with eyes trained by the prophets to look repentantly and trustingly for God, Mark too looks to Jesus. Mark’s story invites his readers to see Israel, Rome, and themselves in a different light.
We are like the crowds listening to the prophet John, seeking direction for our future. We look for God’s definitive intervention to set things right. John points us to Jesus, who came so long ago and who for us is yet coming. As in the past, Jesus may shock us when he comes and shows us who we really are before God. Our only hope is to join with John in confessing our sins and looking to the coming of the Mightier One. Come, Lord Jesus.CHRISTOPHER R. HUTSON
Pastoral Perspective
Most of us want to get the credit. We want to be known as the one who got the job done.
Business leaders do not make it onto the front page of the newspaper for saying, “Well, it wasn’t all about me. You see, there was a messenger who came before me, and in fact prepared the way.” No, that would never fly.
No politician would ever stop to thank the person she replaced from her rival party. Newly elected senators and representatives seldom acknowledge the work that happened before they arrived on Capitol Hill. Rather, they behave as though their appearance on the scene marks the beginning of time itself.
Our culture loves everything new and easily forgets our debt to history. So our leaders portray themselves as masters of the turnaround. To hear today’s stories of leadership, you would think nothing good happened until they got there to turn around the general incompetence of the organization. Often such leaders are called “saviors.”
So it is interesting that when it comes to Jesus, the real savior, modesty makes an appearance. The Bible makes it clear that before he arrived on the scene, even Jesus had some help with the prep work.
The Gospel of Mark starts the Jesus story by looking back to Isaiah, who said, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’ ” Even the Lord needs people to prepare the way.
But ironically, in congregations, the pastors may be the least likely to admit that others prepared the way for their ministry. Churches, wrapped up in the culture of the turnaround savior, can lead the pastor to believe that nothing happened until she got there. But pastors should know better.
The second Sunday of Advent is a time for all of us, clergy and laity, to remember the humility that comes with honoring our antecedents. If Jesus can admit it, so can we. We all have ancestors in our callings, people who prepared the way.
After Isaiah’s prophecy, John the Baptist, locust stuffed and honey dripping, makes a big entrance. Now John could have decided that he was the end of the story, the alpha and the omega himself. There were probably people around him, captivated, who told him he was exactly that. But instead he looked out to the future with a humble heart and imagined the one who would really get the job done.
Imagine the reaction among his followers when John said, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.” People who are willing to follow someone at least want the reassurance that they are following the right person, and not wasting their time. Who wants to follow the one who is preparing the way for someone else? From a management perspective, John probably should have kept his thoughts about better and future saviors to himself, at least until they had all agreed on a smooth transition plan.
But John is not operating from a management perspective; he is a servant of God. Therefore, as a servant, he has no leadership technique—just the call to tell the truth. That is a messy truth that God has stuck to his heart like the wild honey he eats. He cannot fling it aside; he wears it like a freak who does not fit in with the powers around him.
Thank God for freaks like that. Thank God for freaks who refuse to buy the publicity the world throws their way and trust instead in God’s proclamation. Had John not prepared the way, and then admitted it, Advent would be a season not of waiting but of mistakenly believing it has all been accomplished by the latest guru. And that would have been a short season, I suspect, not one we would remember two thousand years later. For charismatic godly figures come and go, from Isaiah to John. In fact, preparers of the way are still around. We may be preparers ourselves.
But there is only one savior of the world. And in Advent, we are still waiting.
Waiting for the savior is humbling. It forces us to admit that the world does not operate on our schedule. And by waiting for the savior, we have to admit the obvious: that he is not here yet. If he is not here yet, that pretty much rules out the possibility that the savior is one of us. It guarantees that it is not me.
“I have baptized you with water,” John says, “but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Thank God, is our Advent prayer. Thank God we get to prepare, but Christ gets to do the rest. Thank God we can wait, and trust that he will get here in the end.
On television, the latest contestants line up to compete in the national singing talent show. They get voted off one by one, by a fickle audience. The winner, the last performer left standing, seldom admits, and perhaps does not realize, that she is not the last at all.
At the moment when she triumphantly sings the winner’s song, which is often about reaching the high point of one’s life, she is actually already slipping down from the mountaintop. The last contestant standing is a temporary place holder, merely preparing the way for the next season’s winner. Her moment of being the idol will pass very quickly. That is why she is only an idol. No one gets the last word but the living God. And so we wait.LILLIAN DANIEL
Exegetical Perspective
Prophetic Beginnings. The good news of Mark’s Gospel begins not with a birth story of Jesus (as in Matthew), not with the birth story of John the Baptist (as in Luke), and not with the beginning of time (as in John). Rather, the good news of the Gospel of Mark begins with a hearkening back to the words of the prophets. The Gospel reading for today is the opening of the prologue of Mark’s Gospel and, although it is argued whether the prologue ends at verse 8, 11, 13, or 15, Mark 1:1–8 comprises a discrete section about John the Baptist that parallels the section on Jesus in Mark 1:9–15. Dense with references to the Old Testament, this section of Mark’s Gospel proclaims the coming of Jesus the Christ. The passage is easily divided into three sections: verses 1–3, verses 4–6, and verses 7–8.
Hearkening Back (1:1–3). What the audience is about to hear/read is good news! It is the good news of God through Jesus, Jesus who is God’s anointed, the Christ. One must be careful not to underestimate the impact of the opening phrase; one must not confuse the brevity of verse 1 with simplicity. This first-century audience of Jesus followers could use good news as they struggled to survive in the years during or just after the Jewish War with Rome (ca. 66–70 CE). Thought by some to be the title for the book itself and by others to be the title for the story of today’s lesson, verse 1 reflects the historical setting of the Gospel, as it cries of “joyful tidings,” good news (the same term used in the inscription from 9 BCE announcing the birth of the emperor Augustus), as well as the theological setting of the Gospel in its proclamation of Jesus as “Christ, Son of God.”
With echoes of language and imagery from the Jewish Scriptures, verses 2 and 3 hearken back to the prophets. Although many manuscripts read “in the prophet Isaiah,” other manuscripts read “in the prophets,” recognizing that what the author of Mark has done is to blend the prophecies of Isaiah (40:3) and Malachi (3:1) with a reference to Exodus (23:20) in order to set the stage for the first character, John.Presenting John the Baptizer (1:4–6). The author moves from prophecy to fulfillment in the presentation of John the Baptizer as the one crying in the wilderness. In this section John is described as a preacher and baptizer, calling those who listen to confess their sins and be baptized. Some scholars argue that, because baptism is not a fixed initiation rite at this time, this baptism may be original to John. It does not appear to be the same as that of proselytism, nor what is known of the Qumran baptism rites. Whatever the origin, John’s preaching and baptism for repentance of sins is successful. His success as a preacher is validated in the proclamation that “people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem” came out. The endorsement is followed by a description of John’s clothing and eating habits, and the image of Elijah (2 Kgs. 1:8) comes quickly to the minds of readers/hearers, then and now. The portrayal of John as an Elijah presence heightens awareness of the apocalyptic overtones of the presentation, recalling not only the saving activity of God in the past, but also the understanding that with Elijah all prophecy ceased—until the coming of the Messiah.
Looking to the Future (1:7–8). In verses 7 and 8 the focus shifts to the future as John calls attention not to himself, but to the one who is coming after him. While the preaching of John the Baptist is present in all three Synoptic Gospels, it is important to recognize that in Mark the preaching of John includes no threats. Unlike the polemical role of John in Matthew (see Matt. 3:7–10) and Luke (see Luke 3:7–9), the major role of John in Mark’s Gospel is as herald of Jesus. Verse 8 serves as a transition statement between the section on John (1:2–8) and the section on Jesus (1:9–15), as the author presents some of the strongest parallels between Jesus and John. John diverts attention from himself and casts it onto Jesus. Jesus is the stronger one; John is the servant character. John fades into the background quickly in this Gospel and does not appear again in Mark (after 1:10) except in 1:14; 9:13; 11:30; and 6:14–29.
A Word for Today. This Gospel lesson works well with the other lectionary passages for today. Isaiah 40:1–11 contains the portion of Isaiah from which the Gospel writer framed the opening verses, declaring “prepare the way of the Lord.” Just as Isaiah declared God’s coming in deliverance, comforting those who sought salvation, so too Mark speaks to those in the first century who are concerned about the delay. The reading from 2 Peter (3:8–15a) also speaks to the concern about the delay of the coming of the Lord. As the lectionary passages are read, so too must we bring a word of good news to the hearers in the twenty-first century. It is a good time to seek prophetic voices of our day. As Mark ties the words of Isaiah to his own setting, so too God’s word speaks today. Mark’s John is intent on heralding the coming of Jesus. Who are the heralds of today?
Clearly, this is not the birth story of Matthew or Luke. No manger scenes derive from this Gospel. Yet, here in the opening lines of Mark we have a “birth story” of sorts. On this second Sunday in Advent, it is good to tell of new beginnings, to tell about a God who breaks into our time with good news. In this Advent season he comes. Perhaps not as might be expected; perhaps not in the time frame desired—but he comes.JUDY YATES SIKER
Homiletical Perspective
Mark begins his Gospel like a breathless messenger who is eager to make an unexpected announcement. Mark does not begin his story by letting us linger with the baby Jesus for a time, as Matthew and Luke do in their nativity narratives; and Mark does not begin at rarified heights, as John does in the prologue to his Gospel. Instead, Mark begins with a brief fanfare: “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1) and then launches into his story about another messenger, John the baptizer, who also bursts on the scene with good news to tell.
The preacher will need to consider, what is “the beginning of the good news” to which Mark refers? Where does this story begin? In a sense, of course, the beginning is the story of Israel, and particularly Israel’s prophets. Mark situates his narrative in the sweep of salvation history by quoting Isaiah and by making sure that we see the ways in which John is identified with Elijah, the one who would prepare the way for the Messiah. In another sense, the beginning is with John himself, this larger-than-life character who, at every turn, wants his listeners to understand that he is only a transitional figure. So, if we listen to John, “the beginning” is not with him, or with the prophets before him, but with Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This prologue to Mark’s Gospel, then, offers a proclamation that is similar to the one with which the prologue to John’s Gospel begins: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1a).
The narrative style of this text suggests that a preacher should seek ways to offer a proclamation in the manner of both Mark and John the baptizer, with a sense of joyous urgency. A way to test that sense of urgency would be to ask, “Can I imagine gathering a group of people together for the sole purpose of hearing this word?” A sermon that does not meet that test is not in keeping with the mood of this passage.
The text is replete with the Advent themes of anticipation and preparation. In this passage, John draws people from the countryside and from the city, and from whatever occupies them, to consider for a time what it might mean to prepare for the one who is to come. In essence, this is the preacher’s task as well. In the sermon the preacher can draw aside listeners for a time and invite them to consider what it might mean to prepare for the coming of the promised one.
John the baptizer proclaimed that preparation involved repentance and confession. The preacher will want to be frank that this does not at first sound like the promised “good news.” Repentance and confession entail facing the truth about ourselves and changing the direction of our lives. And who wants to do either of those things? So the good news can often sound like bad news, at least at first. Repentance and confession both require a searching and honest look back. There are no shortcuts. It is worth noting that John, the one who insists on keeping the focus on the future and the one who is to come, also hearkens back to the past in his call for repentance. He represents a visual reminder of the past in his manner of dress. John’s camel’s hair outfit was several centuries out of fashion, just the kind of clothing worn by the prophet Elijah. The retro clothing and the prophet it recalls are themselves reminder that any movement forward first will require a retrospective look back, both to our own personal histories and to the salvation history of God’s people. This bracing look back that John insists upon is so very different from the kind of nostalgia that always threatens to take center stage during the Advent season in the culture—and sometimes in our churches as well.
The preacher may want to spend some time naming, and perhaps describing at some length, our reluctance to embrace John’s call to repentance and confession. A sermon that does not take seriously such reluctance will not win the same hearing for the good news that follows.
John’s words seem to pour hot into the ears of his listeners. Nevertheless, they also meet us in a familiar place, because they are traced with an unmistakable longing for what is just out of sight. That must have been a large part of why people traveled a considerable distance to hear John, and people will still travel to hear a preacher who is able to articulate the largely indefinable and yet inescapable yearning for God that resides in the human heart, leaning toward fulfillment. Beginning the liturgical year on the first Sunday in Advent is a way of saying that the Christian story begins with longing.
This passage helps us lean forward into the future in two other ways that are particular to Mark’s Gospel. First, by starting with an adult John awaiting an adult Jesus, Mark reminds us that Jesus grew up. It is an important reminder for such a time, when it is a temptation to linger too long at the manger. A baby can be demanding, but in the case of this baby, the adult he will become is infinitely more so. Second, the final words of this passage point even beyond Jesus, to the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a gift to anticipate even at the beginning of the liturgical year, because it is the culmination of the whole story. In his own life and ministry, Jesus also pointed beyond himself to one who is to come—in this instance, to the Spirit who will follow and be a continuing presence in the world and among the people of God. So this passage, which begins by gathering up ancient echoes of Israel’s history, concludes by reaching into the present moment.MARTIN B. COPENHAVER
Siker, J. Y. (2008). Exegetical Perspective on Mark 1:1–8. In D. L. Bartlett & B. B. Taylor (Eds.), Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary: Year B (Vol. 1, pp. 44–49). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press."0 -
WOW! What great and timely responses. I thank you all for your reasoned suggestions, and I surely appreciate you offering your experiences, which was exactly what I was looking for.
I see Baker's is moderately priced, and Google (FWIW) turns up some good regards on it. Any experiences?:
https://www.logos.com/product/4233/bakers-new-testament-commentary
0 -
Noah Gray said:
I see Baker's is moderately priced, and Google (FWIW) turns up some good regards on it. Any experiences?:
I like it but the BNTC is a two-author commentary and is written from a clearly Reformed point of view. William Hendriicksen started it, and Simon Kistemaker completed it after his death. It does discuss the translation issues, but it's not the first set I turn to anymore since I have newer commentaries. It was however one of the first sets I did buy. I still find it useful theologically and expositionally (since I am Reformed) especially since it discusses theological topics other commentaries may ignore.
MacBook Pro (2019), ThinkPad E540
0 -
I would suggest
New Interpreter’s Bible (12 vols.)
Here is a sample from it for Mark 1:1-8:
Mark 1:1, Introduction
COMMENTARY
The first sentence appears to serve as a title for the whole work as well as the introduction to the first episode. However, scholars disagree over whether such a sentence could stand by itself as the title of a book.55 Some interpreters prefer to treat this sentence as an introduction to the citation of Scripture that follows in vv. 2–3. Elsewhere Mark uses the word for “as” (καθώς kathōs) to attach a phrase to what comes before (4:33; 9:13; 11:6; 14:16, 21; 15:8). However, the citation does not clarify verse 1 but refers to John the Baptist. The opening word, “beginning” (Ἀρχή Archē), may refer either to a temporal beginning or to the opening of the narrative. Those who treat the term as a temporal marker assume that the opening sentence refers to the introductory episode. The term gospel (εὐαγγέλιον euangelion) reappears in Mark 1:14–15. There, Jesus initiates his own preaching of the gospel message.56 Its claim to refer to the whole narrative that follows lies in the connection between the titles used for Jesus and what follows. Peter’s recognition that Jesus is “the Christ” constitutes the turning point in Mark (8:27–30).
The expression “Son of God,” which follows “Jesus Christ” in some manuscripts, is textually insecure.57 However, it represents the pivotal confession about Jesus in the Gospel (1:11; 9:7; 15:39). It may have been dropped in some manuscripts because it concludes a long line of abbreviations beginning with “gospel.” By the time Mark was written, “Christ” was so commonly used as a designation for Jesus that without further specification the word did not imply a particular dignity. Therefore, a title that expresses Jesus’ unique dignity would be necessary to highlight the significance of the narrative to come. Thus the combination of “messiah” and “Son of God” (i.e., “Son of the Blessed One”) appears in the high priest’s question at Jesus’ trial (14:61).
Although modern readers associate the word gospel (NRSV “good news”) with written accounts of the life of Jesus, Mark probably uses the word in the sense of the Pauline epistles. There gospel refers to the oral preaching that Jesus is the source of salvation (cf. Rom 1:1, 9, 16; 2:16). Later, we learn that followers of Jesus must be ready to suffer for the sake of the gospel (Mark 8:35; 10:29; 13:10). This usage shows that the genitive “of Jesus Christ” indicates the one about whom the gospel speaks, not a record of Jesus’ preaching. Romans 1:1 describes the apostle as set apart for the “gospel of God,” and an elaborate creedal formula refers to the risen Lord as “Son of God” (Rom 1:3–4). The associations between the beginning of Mark and the Pauline use of “gospel” for the preached message about Jesus Christ captures the significance of oral testimony as the root of Christian faith.
Paul’s letters show that the designation “Christ” (a Greek rendering of the Aramaic for “anointed”) was commonly used with “Jesus” as a proper name (e.g., Rom 1:1). Thus many readers may not have recognized “Christ” as a title, implying that Jesus had a special dignity as God’s anointed agent. The Gospel will use “Christ” as a messianic title. It forms the content of Peter’s confession (8:29), where it represents an insight that distinguishes Jesus’ disciples from the popular opinions about Jesus.
“Son of God” occupies a special place in Mark’s presentation of Jesus. During the ministry of Jesus, God refers to Jesus as “beloved Son” (1:11; 9:7). Demons also acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God (3:11; 5:7), whose appearance marks the end of their hold on human beings. During the passion, Jesus accepts the title (14:62) and is acknowledged Son of God by the centurion who witnesses his death (15:39). Yet to an audience in that time, the expression “Son of God” would not suggest the incarnate divinity, which Christians came to associate with its use for Jesus. In Ps 2:7 (also 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:27) the expression belongs to royal terminology. The newly anointed king is declared God’s adopted son. Early Christians frequently used this psalm text as evidence for the exalted status of the risen Lord (cf. Heb 1:5; 5:5).
Although Mark does not quote Ps 2:7 directly, many exegetes think that he presumed his readers would fill out the expression “Son of God” with the allusions to this psalm. The descent of the Spirit and divine voice at Jesus’ baptism suggest anointing and divine adoption. However, other royal imagery in which Jesus is described as son of David or king of Israel surfaces only in the context of Jesus’ passion. Therefore, Mark does not assume that human beings confessed that Jesus was “Son of God” prior to the crucifixion. There it reflects a truth that is properly understood only when it is used of the crucified. Upon entering Jerusalem, Jesus heals a blind man who hails him as “Son of David” (10:47, 51). Jesus is executed on the false charge of claiming to be “king of Israel”—i.e., leader of an insurrectionist movement (15:6–32). The soldiers and crowds mock the lowly, crucified “king,” who cannot save himself. Exegetes are divided over whether Mark intends the reader to attach a new meaning to such royal terminology or to reject it as inadequate to understanding Jesus. The Markan apocalypse warns readers against following false “christs” who will arise during a time of turmoil and war and claim to lead the people in Jesus’ name (13:5, 21–22).58 Mark’s reluctance to use royal imagery for Jesus apart from the passion itself undercuts the plausibility of persons who might allege that they embody the messianic, royal authority of Jesus.
The use of the expression “Son of God” by demons suggests another context for understanding the expression. Greek-speaking readers unfamiliar with the Jewish context of “Son of God” might understand the expression in a more general sense to refer to an individual who possesses some form of divine power. Mythology contains stories of demigods and heroes, and popular tales of miracle workers and other extraordinary individuals assumed that such unusual traits bespeak a special relationship to the gods. No fixed set of traits is associated with such figures in antiquity. Mark may have known a tradition of exorcism stories in which Jesus was addressed as “Son of God.” In that context, the expression merely indicates that Jesus possesses power superior to that of any of the demons. The fact that Mark composed the summary statement in 3:11 indicates that he was not uncomfortable with the inference that Jesus’ miracles are a function of his status as Son of God. However, that understanding does not form the basis of the believer’s confession that Jesus is Son of God. For the Gospel of Mark as a whole, emphasis on the miraculous power of Jesus is subordinated to the presentation of Jesus as the beloved Son of God who accomplishes God’s will on the cross.59
REFLECTIONSModern Christians find three surprises in the beginning of Mark’s Gospel: its abruptness, the meaning of a gospel as proclamation, and the importance of the titles “messiah” and “Son of God.” Our experience with the other Gospels, as well as the annual celebration of Christmas, leads us to expect either a birth story, as in Matthew and Luke, or a poetic meditation on Jesus’ pre-existence with God, as in John. The danger of the infancy narratives lies in speculations about the childhood of Jesus and his family, which may take over from the real story of salvation. In early Christianity, a number of writings provided readers with that emphasis, and even in modern times writers claiming special psychic wisdom have produced works that claim to fill in details of the hidden life of Jesus. The abrupt beginning of Mark provides an opportunity to highlight a different feature of our Christmas celebration: the fulfillment of God’s promises of salvation. Information about Jesus’ childhood, or even speculation that he spent time with the Essenes or in some other part of the world, that one finds in these pseudo-gospels has no bearing on the plan of salvation. The public ministry, death on the cross, and resurrection of Jesus are the events in which God’s love comes to humanity.
We can demonstrate the importance of the message about salvation by reminding people that the word gospel originally meant “proclamation” or “good news.” Christianity did not begin with a new book. Its Scripture was that of the Jewish people. Christianity began with a “new message” about what the God known through that Scripture had done in Jesus Christ. The sayings of Jesus and stories about him had circulated by word of mouth for years before Mark was written. Unlike a technical manual, these stories do not depend on writing to be remembered. Compared to the difficulties of Sanskrit religious writings from India, for instance, the story about Jesus is amazingly simple. If one expects long ascetic training, complex rituals, and obscure writings for a religion to be profound, then the gospel form comes as a surprise. The good news itself is a simple message of salvation in Jesus, which people can take anywhere in the world.
The titles for Jesus are so familiar that it is difficult to hear “Christ” or even “Son of God” as though for the first time. How can modern men and women recapture the eager expectation that God will redeem humanity from the cosmic and human powers of suffering, evil, and injustice? All too often the modern versions of those false prophets who appropriate Christ’s name and the human longings for an end time have led their followers to a sectarian isolation from the larger community. Christians should not be taken in by such latter-day prophets. Yet we have been warned that the title “God’s anointed” belongs to Jesus alone. Others hear “Son of God” and immediately isolate Jesus from the real world of human experience. Mark’s Jesus is not so isolated; he exhibits a range of human emotions. Although he possesses divine power, Jesus cannot overcome the hostility of his enemies or the fearful misunderstanding of his own disciples. We must learn to hear in “Son of God” praise for the faithful human suffering that Jesus exhibits.
Mark 1:2–8, John the Baptizer AppearsCOMMENTARY
Mark immediately connects the good news with the Old Testament prophecies of salvation. The position of the quotations suggests that they belong to the gospel concerning Jesus Christ. However, the one who will prepare the way in the wilderness is John the Baptist. The other Gospels do not refer to Isa 40:3 until after John has been introduced (Matt 3:1–3; Luke 3:2–4; John 1:19–23).
The citation attributed to Isaiah in vv. 2–3 combines the reference to a messenger who will prepare God’s way from Mal 3:1 with Isaiah’s description of the way in the wilderness (Isa 40:3); these two passages are linked by the phrase “prepare the way.” The messenger figure combines Mal 3:1 with the angel who guarded Israel in the wilderness (Exod 23:20). That prophecy appears in a different context in Q (Matt 10:11; Luke 7:27).60 Including the angel of Exodus in the prophecy reminds readers of the importance of the wilderness in salvation history. Salvation traditionally comes from the wilderness. Moses, Elijah, and David all had to flee to the wilderness (Exod 2:15; 1 Sam 23:14; 1 Kgs 19:3–4). Likewise, Jesus will emerge from the wilderness to begin preaching the good news and will return there several times (Mark 1:35, 45; 6:31–32, 35; 8:4).61
The voice crying in the wilderness uses the words of the prophet to sound the beginning of the good news. The prophetic texts suggest that the one for whom the messenger prepares the way is God, whose royal power will liberate a captive people (cf. Isa 40:9–10). Both John (v. 4) the baptizer and Jesus (vv. 12–13, 35, 45) emerge from the wilderness to preach to the people. The Community Rule found at Qumran indicates the importance of this Isaiah tradition. Members of that Jewish sect looked upon their wilderness community as the place in which the righteous prepared the way of the Lord.62 However, unlike the Essenes, Jesus is not merely founding a community whose faithful obedience to the Law would anticipate God’s final coming in judgment, such as we find at Qumran. Instead, Jesus is the Lord.
Some exegetes treat 1:1–3 as the introduction to the whole Gospel. The command “prepare the way of the Lord” contains a double reference. On the one hand, it refers to the preparation that John the Baptist’s preaching will make for the coming of Jesus. On the other, it reminds Christian readers to prepare for the return of the Lord in judgment. Thus when John the baptizer appears, his summons to a baptism of repentance is described as a preparation for the Lord. National repentance was commonly depicted as the prelude to the “day of the Lord”—that is, the day when God will judge the nation for its sins (cf. Joel 2:12–17). Historically, John the Baptist exemplifies a form of prophetic leadership among the people that galvanizes popular hopes for renewal and liberation. His execution by Herod Antipas indicates that such figures may be a serious threat to the established order.
Josephus has explained John’s preaching in philosophical categories that were more comprehensible to a Hellenized audience. He exhorted the people to an inner moral reform that was symbolized in the external ritual of baptism.63 From Josephus’s perspective, only the inner moral reform constitutes forgiveness. The soul cannot be cleansed by a washing of the body. Mark’s report that John’s baptism was a vehicle for forgiveness (v. 4) is probably closer to the view held by the common people. Several Jewish texts of the period associate washing in the flowing (i.e., living) waters of a river as part of the appeal to God for forgiveness.64 The desire for repentance, forgiveness, and purification was motivated by John the Baptist’s warning that the day of the Lord—the day of judgment—was drawing near.65
From the Christian perspective, John the Baptist did not awaken a repentance that heralded God’s judgment. Rather, the repentance and anticipation evoked by John’s preaching provided a receptive audience for Jesus’ ministry. This evaluation of the Baptist contains a historical core. The eschatological context of John’s preaching implies that baptism is not merely a purification ritual that can be repeated whenever individuals are defiled by sin or ritual impurity. Rather, the crowds who come to be “gathered together by baptism”66 are the remnant, the redeemed who will experience God’s coming as a day of salvation. Since Jesus announced that God’s reign was at hand, some of those who had responded to the Baptist’s call were certainly among Jesus’ earliest followers (as the Fourth Gospel suggests, John 1:35–38).
John’s imprisonment will mark the beginning of Jesus’ mission in Galilee (Mark 1:14). John’s execution by Herod Antipas (Mark 6:14–29) anticipates Jesus’ own death. Since the Baptist’s disciples retrieved his body for burial (6:29), Mark acknowledges that followers of the Baptist continued to exist as a recognizable group after Jesus began his ministry. Mark 11:27–33 returns to the link between the preaching of the Baptist and that of Jesus. Jesus demands that the religious leaders tell him the source of John’s authority before he will defend his own activities. Trapped by their unwillingness to acknowledge John and their fear of the crowd’s reaction if they deny that the Baptist was from God, the authorities cannot answer Jesus. Such fears reflect plausible political concerns in the first century. Josephus alleges that Herod executed John because Herod feared the popularity the baptizer enjoyed with the people. Such persuasive speech may lead to rebellion, so Herod Antipas decided to rid himself of the problem before any rebellion could occur.67
Neither Josephus nor the Fourth Gospel makes any comment about John’s dress or diet. However, both are important elements in the wilderness symbolism that Mark introduces with the prophetic citation.68 John’s clothing recalls the prophet Elijah in 2 Kgs 1:8: “A hairy man, with a leather belt around his waist” (NRSV). Just as Mal 3:1 depicts Elijah as the forerunner of the Lord, so also Mark 9:13 makes explicit the identification of John with the prophet Elijah. John’s diet of locusts and wild honey, as abstention from meat and wine, also marked him as a prophet (cf. Dan 1:8).
Although Mark and Josephus agree on the general outlines of the Baptist’s ministry and his popularity with the people, Mark sees the Baptist as the forerunner of Jesus. Consequently, John’s baptism cannot be an end in itself. The crowds who flock to John from Judea and Jerusalem were not necessarily expecting another to come after the Baptist. The double saying (vv. 7–8) points away from the theme of repentance to the coming of a “greater one” and a further cleansing. The concept of a cleansing by the Holy Spirit appears in the Qumran rule.69 The Testament of Levi 18:6–8 associates the coming of the Spirit with the revelation of a true high priest in the line of Levi. Consequently, the claim to have received the Spirit may mark members of the elect prior to the messianic age as in the Qumran rule. Or the Spirit may be linked to the appearance of the final age of salvation, as in The Testament of Levi. Therefore, some interpreters have suggested that the saying about the stronger one may have referred either to God or to an indeterminate messianic figure before it was applied to Jesus. In the double-membered form of the saying, the superiority of the coming one is demonstrated both by the Baptist’s unworthiness to undo his sandals and by the fact that he brings the Spirit. An anthropomorphic use of the shoe as a sign of divine wrath appears in the psalms (Pss 60:8; 108:9). However, the saying more naturally suggests a human agent.70 Both Q and Mark suggest that the Baptist announced the coming of God’s judgment. On the level of human affairs, he may well have expected the coming of a human agent whose activity would inaugurate the end time.71
John’s baptism was not a purification rite to be repeated. Nor did it establish a righteousness that could never be lost. Those who repented and received baptism from John would be the elect, who are prepared to receive the one to come. Since the comparison between John and the coming one presumes a qualitative difference between the two, “baptism with the Holy Spirit” suggests a permanent change in an individual’s relationship with God that will come about only at the eschaton. Repentance and water baptism, as practiced by John the Baptist or in the purification rituals that marked persons who joined the Essene sect, may only designate a reorientation of a person’s life. The Essenes entered a community that had already tested their determination to reform and walk obediently according to the Law. Members of the sect received the “Spirit of the true counsel of God.”72 John had not gathered the elect into a separate community but asked the nation as a whole to repent. Some interpreters conclude that forgiveness of sin is to be associated with baptism in the Spirit.73 However, the prophetic promises of cleansing and receiving the Spirit at the end time are less concerned with past sin than with future holiness (cf. Ezek 36:25–27). The elect will never turn away from the Lord.
The description of John the Baptist in Q includes examples of oracles that warn of impending judgment (Matt 3:7–12; Luke 3:7–18). If Mark was familiar with that tradition about the Baptist’s preaching, he refocused it. The Baptist’s role is to introduce Jesus as the coming one, not to warn that divine judgment is near. Mark’s version of the saying about baptism with the Spirit lacks the second term attached to the Q version, “with fire” (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:16). Fire is a common symbol of judgment in the Old Testament (Amos 7:4; Isa 31:9; Mal 3:2). The Qumran Rule of the Community describes an eschatological cleansing of the elect by fire and the Spirit in which all traces of evil are removed from the righteous. The Spirit is compared to purifying water.74 For the elect, fire has a purifying function rather than a judgmental one. Some exegetes think that Q originally referred only to “baptism with fire” and that the version “with the Spirit and fire” represents a conflation of Mark and Q. However, both “Spirit” and “fire” designate the coming end time; “Spirit” points toward the salvation experienced by the elect, “fire” to divine judgment. Since John’s baptism prepared the elect for the end time, reference to salvation would have been been appropriate to an early variant of the saying.75
Mark focuses attention on the prophetic saying with which the Gospel begins. John the Baptist appeared to prepare the way in the wilderness for Jesus. By highlighting the difference in dignity between Jesus and the Baptist, Mark points to Jesus’ uniqueness. One who is unworthy to untie the sandals of another establishes a social distance greater than that between a master and a slave. Such an exaggerated claim of unworthiness played an important function in honor/shame cultures in indicating that the speaker will not threaten the honor of the superior party.76 With the aid of the OT references to God’s triumphant march through the wilderness to Zion, as well as the titles used for Jesus in v. 1, Mark’s readers should identify Jesus’ appearance with the approach of God.
REFLECTIONS1. Since preparing the way of the Lord forms the central focus of the Advent readings, this account of John the Baptist is often used on the Sunday before Christmas, because it asks us to consider what it means to prepare for the Lord’s coming. The Isaiah passages, which feature prominently in the Advent season, bring words of hope to those discouraged by years of exile and the bleakness of the Jerusalem to which they returned. The ancient mythological imagery of God as the triumphant divine warrior bringing the exiles home through the wilderness served Isaiah as a word of hope.77 The good news in Mark is that those hopes have finally been fulfilled.
2. However, the Lord does not come to a people who are unprepared. What is required of them? Repentance, forgiveness of sin, and baptism—themes that we associate with the liturgical season of Lent. In the ancient church, catechumens prepared for baptism and penitents for reconciliation with the community in the Lenten season. These traditions emphasize conversion and reform. Sometimes the call to reform our lives suggests that humans build the “way of the Lord” by their obedience to the ethical vision of Christianity. That perspective endangers the element of divine grace, which belongs to the gospel message. In the exodus, God, through an angel, led the people. In Isaiah, God is responsible for the return of the exiles through a wilderness that has been turned into a paradise. These images of hope, promise, and renewal remind us that human obedience, walking in the way of the Law, is a proper response to God’s grace. We do not build the highway and then wait for God to come. God has already drawn near to us before we repent
Pheme Perkins, “The Gospel of Mark,” in New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck, vol. 8 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994–2004), 527–533.0 -
You have received some good advice here and I would only add that you may want to look at some of the one-volume commentaries. You can use the filters on the left side of the catalog to pare down the list.
0 -
I will throw in a couple of other suggestions into the ring.
The Jon Courson Essential Bible Study Library by Jon Courson
This is a surprisingly good resource as it contains a three volume commentary;
Courson's Application Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume 1 (Genesis to Job)
Courson's Application Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume 2 (Psalms to Malachi)
Courson's Application Commentary on the New Testament.
If you are speaking to young adults and children this is highly useful. When I first entered full time ministry and (had yet to complete any studies) this was one of my go to books (I had a dead tree version, which I quickly replaced with a logos copy).
At 34.95 it is a bargain and you will get a lot of use out of it.
The New American Commentary is also robust, (it’s $509.95) however if you upgrade to the Silver Base Package (or Baptist Silver) you may find that it comes in at your $200 budget since you already have a base package.
Boice’s Expositional Commentaries (27 vols.) by James Montgomery Boice $399.95
This is a brilliant Expositional Commentary and is double your budgeted price. However this comes on sale occasionally, I purchased it on July 7 2012 for $99.95
The two suggestions below that others have made, I cannot fault, however I have found I have used the resources above consistently more often and found them to be more useful in sermon preparation.
The Bible Speaks Today: New Testament (22 vols.) $99.95
Tyndale Commentaries (49 vols.) $224.95
Other single volume resources that are worthwhile and will be well under your budget are (in order of preference);
The New Bible Commentary $39.95
Believer's Bible Commentary $35.95
The Bible Knowledge Commentary $49.95
Harper’s Bible Commentary $20.95
These two commentaries below are also worth considering with what your role is in your church.
The New Daily Study Bible: New Testament (DSB) (17 vols.) by William Barclay $199.95
The Life Application Bible Commentary (17 vols.) $199.95
Hopefully I haven’t introduced too many more options to the mix, these are the resources I use regularly and get a lot of use out of. Surprisingly I own some of the $500+ Commentaries and use the sub $200 sets just as much as the much more expensive and detailed sets.
0 -
Tyndale Commentaries: https://www.logos.com/product/8593/tyndale-commentaries
0 -
Any set will have stronger volumes than others. Overall, for a layperson, my first recommendation is that of some others here, Tyndale. A solid set.
The New American Commentary comes with some Logos base collections. If you don't have it I'd recommend it highly for your needs.
Another recommendation is the NIV Application Commentary. It is especially good on the OT. It does cost considerably more than Tyndale. The NT volumes are not as strong as the OT ones, so you might consider just the OT volumes (which Logos offers in 2 parts, it seems).
Pastor, North Park Baptist Church
Bridgeport, CT USA
0 -
Steve said:
You have received some good advice here and I would only add that you may want to look at some of the one-volume commentaries. You can use the filters on the left side of the catalog to pare down the list.
In the one volumes the best one out there in my minds eye at the moment is
Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible
There are cheaper but i thought i would bring it up as another option for you.
I place the sample of Harper’s Bible Commentary after so you can compare.
-Dan
The Beginning of the “Good News” (1:1–15)The introduction of Mark’s Gospel consists of an incipit, or title (1:1), the citation of OT Scripture (vv. 2–3), a description of the person, preaching, and ministry of John the Baptizer (vv. 4–8), an account of Jesus’ baptism, and the declaration of the heavenly voice (vv. 9–11), followed by the time of testing in the wilderness (vv. 12–13), and finally a summary of the substance of Jesus’ kingdom proclamation (vv. 14–15). As such this introduction anchors the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus to the OT and to the ministry of the popular John the Baptizer, widely regarded as a prophet and martyr. John promises the coming of a “stronger one”; the sudden appearance of Jesus fulfills this promise.
Prologue (1:1–8)Mark’s opening words, “the beginning (archē) of the good news (euangelion) of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (huiostheou),” serve more or less as the title of the work as a whole. The entire story of Jesus’ ministry, including his death by crucifixion, is “good news” for the world. As the quotation of Isaiah 40 in v. 3 shows, the good news of Jesus is clarified by the Jewish scriptures. But the language of these opening words also recalls the language of the Roman imperial cult, rooted especially in the much revered Caesar Augustus (30 BC–AD 14). The oft-cited Priene inscription (9 BC) is in this instance very significant: “Providence … has given us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humanity, sending him as a savior (sōtēr), both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and put all things in order.… Caesar, by his appearance (epiphanein), excelled our expectations and surpassed all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done … the birthday of the god (theos) Augustus was the beginning (archesthai) for the world of the good news (euangelia) that came by reason of him.” Anyone acquainted with NT Christology will immediately recognize several important parallels, for the NT writers speak of the epiphany of Jesus (2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13), the Savior of the world (Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Acts 5:31; 13:23; Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 2 Tim 1:10; Titus 1:4; 2:13; 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 4:14).
Mark’s language (esp. the words “beginning,” “good news,” and “Son of God”) deliberately echoes the Roman doctrine of the divine emperor. (On its OT antecedents, see the commentary on 1:14–15 below.) In effect, the evangelist is saying to the Roman world: Caesar is neither the beginning of the good news for the world, nor is God’s Son; Messiah Jesus is. As such, Mark’s opening words directly challenge the Roman emperor cult (see the comments on Mark 15:39 below).
“Just as it is written in Isaiah the prophet” introduces Isa 40:3, but prefaced with Mal 3:1 (and/or Exod 23:20). Isaiah’s reference to the “voice of one crying in the wilderness” provides the rationale for John’s presence and preaching in the wilderness. The Baptizer’s association with the Jordan River, his call for repentance, his promise of the coming of a mightier one, and the appeal to Isa 40:3 place John in the context of the various renewal movements active in the first century. The verse plays an important part in Qumran’s Community Rule (1QS 8:12–14; 9:19–20), a work which anticipates Israel’s renewal and restoration (see Marcus 1992: 12–47). One is also reminded of Theudas who during the administration of Fadus (AD 44–46) persuaded many to take up their possessions and follow him to the Jordan River. He claimed to be a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted, providing easy passage (Josephus Ant. 20.5.1 §§97–98). Evidently Theudas saw himself as a Joshua figure, probably as the promised prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–19). Crossing the Jordan River was but a prelude to a new conquest of the promised land and a restoration of a theocracy based on the laws of Moses. John’s presence at this river appeals to Isa 40:3 (linked to Mal 3:1), and the promise of the coming of a mighty one seems related to the hopes expressed by Qumran, Theudas, and others. The mighty one of John’s expectations will baptize people “with the Holy Spirit.”
Craig A. Evans, “Mark,” in Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 1066.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1:1-13 Prologue: The Beginning of the Good News
The prologue sets the stage for the public ministry of Jesus and introduces major themes of the Gospel. The superscription (1:1) announces “the beginning of the gospel” (cf. Gen. 1:1; Hos. 1:2 in LXX). “Beginning” implies not simply the start of the narrative, but that its total message is the “foundation” of that gospel that continues to be proclaimed in Mark’s own time (13:10; 14:9). Mark 1:2-3, attributed to Isaiah but actually a conflation of Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1; and Isa. 40:3, establishes the continuity of saving history; the Gospel fulfills God’s promises.
The actions and description of John (Mark 1:4-6) draw on contemporary Jewish eschatological expectations, i.e., beliefs about the “last days.” John is dressed like Elijah (v. 6; see 2 Kings 1:8), who will return to prepare for the day of the Lord (Mal. 3:1; 4:5). Mark depicts John not simply as the fiery reformer preparing for the advent of this day, but as forerunner of the Messiah (Mark 9:11-13; cf. 6:15; 8:28). After a quick summary of the preaching of John (cf. Matt. 3:7-10; Luke 3:7-9) and his baptism of repentance (also practiced “in the wilderness” by the Qumran community, 1QS 3.4-5), John’s ministry culminates (Mark 1:7-8) in proclaiming the advent of “the stronger one” who will baptize in the Holy Spirit. Though Jesus does not baptize in the Gospels, an outpouring of the “spirit of holiness” was to characterize the eschatological age (Isa. 32:15-20; 1QS 4:18-21). The words and deeds of Jesus constitute a “baptism in the spirit” (→ Baptism; John the Baptist).
The second part of the prologue (Mark 1:9-13) begins with solemn biblical language, “in those days,” to herald the messianic preparation of Jesus. The baptism of Jesus by John (Mark 1:9-11; Matt. 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22; cf. John 1:29-34) conveys both the solidarity of Jesus with others so baptized (Mark 1:9), and his unique status (vv. 10-11). The opening of the heavens (cf. Isa. 64:1) and the descent of the Spirit evoke the return of the longed for prophetic spirit and the advent of the messianic age. The descent “like a dove” may reflect the Jewish comparison of the hovering spirit of Gen. 1:2 to a dove.
The high point of the baptism is the proclamation by the “voice” (a personification of God), “you are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11), which echoes the adoption formula of Ps. 2:7 and the choice of the servant in Isa. 42:1; 44:1. The baptism is both Jesus’ messianic adoption and his commissioning as servant. The subsequent narrative will unfold how he is the “beloved son,” and how his followers are to confess him as such. Both the superscription (“Son of God”) and the baptism point to the Son of God on the cross (Mark 10:38-39; 15:39).
With the “testing” (more accurate than “temptation”) in the wilderness (1:12-13) the messianic preparation of Jesus is complete. Like the righteous Job, Jesus is tested by Satan (Job 2:1-8). Though he will warn of Satan’s power in the Gospel (Mark 4:15; 8:33), Jesus will emerge stronger than Satan (3:22-27). The “wilderness” has a double nuance as the place of the covenant betrothal between God and the chosen people (Hos. 2:14-15) and where the fidelity of the people was “tested” and found failing (Pss. 78:17-18; 106:13-33). From the wilderness also salvation will dawn for the people (Isa. 40:3; 1QS 8:12-16). Jesus as “God’s son” (representing the people; see Exod. 4:22, “Israel is [God’s] first-born son”; cf. Hos. 11:1) relives the testing of Israel in the wilderness but remains faithful when tested.
James Luther Mays, ed., Harper’s Bible Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 986.0 -
Noah,
Here is a great commentary set I use quite often and it is close to your price range ($249)
https://www.logos.com/product/41482/david-guziks-commentaries-on-the-bible
I guess I might add this as well, Commentaries to me are for great insight of the scriptures in the way my faith approaches them.
Do I approach it from the Creedal, or Impersonal , or Experiential, or Oneness, or Cessationist, or Pentecostal, or Trinitarian approach.
For example, I don't use the works from many commentaries because I am Pentecostal married with the Trinitarian approach and much of the commentaries lean in a different direction. I have read many of them, but from my point of theology much of it is in error. Now someone one the other side of the argument could say the same thing about me. A commentary set needs to fit you and your churches beliefs and what your pastor will allow you to teach them, he is the shepherd of the flock.
I guess the big question remains, what approach do you or I chose to look at the scriptures. That will greatly determine what commentary to buy. and It is hard to recommend one without knowing. but there are many great suggestions here in this thread.
Good Luck [:D]
Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it's been found difficult and not tried.
0 -
If budget is an issue, then I'll second what others have suggested; mainly, Tyndale and the Bible Speaks Today. Talk to a sales rep and you can have both sets within the $200 range and it'll be great for class or sermon prep. If that's all you need; but you can also find out how much it would cost you to get a Silver upgrade and you will get the NAC along with other resources that will definitely equip you for what you do.
Please, stay clear from Jon Courson's "application" commentaries (Good commentaries are not cheap and cheap commentaries are not good). You will get nothing out of them as the so called "applications" seem forced at times and wayyyy too elementary (of course, my own opinion - I owned them and returned them within a week of having purchased them). One of the stupid applications I read was a comment on Genesis 1:5, "Notice the phraseology: 'The evening and the morning was the first day.' That's still the way the Jewish people reckon their days. They begin in the evening and end in the morning. They go from darkness to light. I like that!" That's an example among many of forced and irresponsible "applications" Jon Courson offers. Just because Jews reckon their days different than we do doesn't mean their going from darkness to light! So what is he saying? Are we going from light to darkness since we reckon our days the other way around? LOL Seriously, stay clear from those.
Finally, if you can afford it get NIB set or sacrifice a little and jump on NICOT/NT on a nice payment plan. That's would help a lot not having to pay for it all at once.
My goal is to one day get NICOT/NT, buy WBC and (hopefully) soon, get the NIB again, since I had to return it to make other important purchases that were first on my priority list.
Other than Courson, the other suggestions seem more appropriate for what you're doing.
Blessings!
DAL
Ps. Stay away from Courson! LOL [6]
0 -
DAL, I don't use Courson as my go to commentary, (its prioritized at the 40th commentary series/standalone in my prioritization. Where it comes to the fore is when you are scratching your head and at a roadblock on applying the passage to the life of your congregation.
Sometimes reading what Courson has to say is enough to stimulate the grey matter and see some relevant connections to the life of God's people you are entrusted with shepherding and feeding.
Take for example (this is where it opened to);
Exodus 20:4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:To understand what God must look like, man has looked to nature for clues…
• Looking to the sky, the Native American saw the eagle soaring majestically overhead and decided God must be an eagle.
• Looking at the grassy plain, the Indian saw the powerful yet peaceful cow and decided God must be a cow.
• Looking down to the sea, the Pacific Islander saw the massive sea turtle with its impenetrable shell and decided God must be a sea turtle.Although we know better than this, we as believers can fall prey to the same tendency. You see, there are those who say, “When I get to heaven, I’m going to sit on God’s lap and feel His embrace.” While I understand their sentiment, their image is faulty, for in the Book of Revelation, God is not described as having a long white beard, flowing hair, bulging biceps, and muscular calves, reaching out His finger to touch man as, Michelangelo portrayed Him in the Sistine Chapel. He’s described primarily by color—the flame of His eyes; the red of His garment (Revelation 19). Jesus simply said, “God is Spirit” (John 4:24). Therefore, I don’t believe we’re going to see the Father as having arms, hands, and legs.
“But doesn’t Scripture say He spans the universe with His hand?” you ask.
Yes, but it also says He covers us with His wings. Therefore, I believe it is as much a mistake to think that God the Father has two eyes, a nose, and ears as it is to think He has wings or feathers.
God cannot be contained by a body no matter how great. He’s Spirit. He’s everywhere. When we get to heaven, with our new bodies, we’ll be able to bask in His glory—just as the high priest did in the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. But I don’t believe we will “sit on His lap,” as we would with our earthly fathers. God is everywhere—all around us. The Holy Spirit dwells within us. Jesus relates to us.God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:1–3
Christianity is not about making an image of God, no matter how noble or grand. It’s about looking at Jesus, and allowing Him to conform us to His image.
Jon Courson, Jon Courson’s Application Commentary: Volume One: Genesis–Job (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 294.At the price it is listed as it is a steal, and along with a more traditional commentary Courson has the potential to be a useful tool.
0 -
here is the Tyndale notes on the same passage
4. Graven image (NEB carved image): the Hebrew means something hacked or chiselled into some ‘likeness’. These are primitive days; such idols are normally of wood (though the word could cover stone carving as well), usually with some precious metal covering. The ‘cast metal’ image is also implicitly forbidden (Exod. 34:17), but it is not mentioned here because it belongs on the whole to a later age (yet cf. the golden calf, Exod. 32:4).
A question arises as to the original form of the commandments, in view of the repeated explanatory clauses in this verse, and the motivation in verse 5. To judge from the minor differences in explanatory matter to be found in Deuteronomy 4 and the present passage, the original form of these negative ‘apodeictic commands’ was simply the short, sharp ‘you must not’. Therefore the original or essential form of this commandment was probably only the first four Hebrew words, translated by the English ‘you must not make for yourself an idol’. Similarly in the next verse, the core of the command would seem to have been ‘you must not bow down to them’. That would mean that the commandments were brief, pungent sentences, easily written on small stone tablets, fitting within the palm of a hand.
This condemnation of images clearly includes images of the true god, for images may well have been in use among Israel’s ancestors (even orthodox Jewish tradition allows that Terah, Abraham’s father, was an idol-maker). Laban’s ‘household gods’ may, it is true, have had legal rather than religious significance (Gen. 31:30) but what Jacob is reputed as burying in the sanctuary at Shechem were certainly religious objects (Gen. 35:2). This was before the law-giving: even after that date, images were known in Israel (see Judg. 8:27, Gideon; Judg. 17:4, Micah; 1 Sam. 19:13, David). But the existence of images later in Israel does not prove that there was no law against their use.
Archaeology shows clearly that the horde who destroyed most of Canaanite culture in the thirteenth century BC were basically ‘aniconic’, using no images in worship. It is often argued that the cherubim above the ark were such images: but they were not objects of worship so much as symbols of the angelic beings serving God, rather like the temple guardians at the gate of an Assyrian temple. They were the throne for the invisible presence of God above. However, if the making of cherubim was permitted, then the prohibition of the ‘image’ will refer only to the making of direct objects of worship, not to the representation of any living object, as sometimes understood later. Stricter Judaism or Islam therefore confined itself to abstract designs and patterns in all forms of art. Also by Hebrew ‘paratax’ (the placing of two ideas side by side, rather than the introduction of a formal logical link between the two, as in syntax), this command must be very closely associated with the one immediately before it, so that the true translation of the sense would be ‘You must not have any other god in my presence: you must not make any such image’ (i.e. of such a god). As well as the cherubim, the law enjoins the embroidery of lilies, pomegranates and other natural objects on the curtains of the meeting-tent, so that there cannot have been a complete ban upon the representation of natural objects in early days.
This raises the question as to why such image-representation of the true God (even by human form) was forbidden. Perhaps the reason is that no likeness could possibly be adequate, and that each type of image would imprint its own misunderstandings. For instance, the young bull was a symbol of strength, but also of virility and sexual powers: such an association would be blasphemous to the Hebrew. The nations who pictured their gods in human forms imputed all too readily their own human weaknesses to the divine prototypes. To the Hebrew, man had been created in God’s image, after God’s likeness (Gen. 1:26): but that emphatically did not mean that God was like man (Isa. 55:9). The localization and materialization of God was another danger inherent in idolatry. Even Israel in later days tended to believe that God’s presence was localized and contained in ark or temple; how much more so, if there had been an image? Finally, there would have been the danger of quasi-magical attempts to placate or control God through possession of some such localization of his presence, such as we can see in connection with the ark in 1 Samuel 4:3.
In Deuteronomy 4:12ff., the reason is given as the fact that, at Sinai, Israel saw no shape or form: she only heard the voice of God. This corresponds to the dominant position, right through Israel’s faith, of the ‘word of YHWH’, spoken or written.
R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), 162–164.0 -
Here is what the Tyndale Commentary says on the same passage
4. Graven image (NEB carved image): the Hebrew means something hacked or chiselled into some ‘likeness’. These are primitive days; such idols are normally of wood (though the word could cover stone carving as well), usually with some precious metal covering. The ‘cast metal’ image is also implicitly forbidden (Exod. 34:17), but it is not mentioned here because it belongs on the whole to a later age (yet cf. the golden calf, Exod. 32:4).
A question arises as to the original form of the commandments, in view of the repeated explanatory clauses in this verse, and the motivation in verse 5. To judge from the minor differences in explanatory matter to be found in Deuteronomy 4 and the present passage, the original form of these negative ‘apodeictic commands’ was simply the short, sharp ‘you must not’. Therefore the original or essential form of this commandment was probably only the first four Hebrew words, translated by the English ‘you must not make for yourself an idol’. Similarly in the next verse, the core of the command would seem to have been ‘you must not bow down to them’. That would mean that the commandments were brief, pungent sentences, easily written on small stone tablets, fitting within the palm of a hand.
This condemnation of images clearly includes images of the true god, for images may well have been in use among Israel’s ancestors (even orthodox Jewish tradition allows that Terah, Abraham’s father, was an idol-maker). Laban’s ‘household gods’ may, it is true, have had legal rather than religious significance (Gen. 31:30) but what Jacob is reputed as burying in the sanctuary at Shechem were certainly religious objects (Gen. 35:2). This was before the law-giving: even after that date, images were known in Israel (see Judg. 8:27, Gideon; Judg. 17:4, Micah; 1 Sam. 19:13, David). But the existence of images later in Israel does not prove that there was no law against their use.
Archaeology shows clearly that the horde who destroyed most of Canaanite culture in the thirteenth century BC were basically ‘aniconic’, using no images in worship. It is often argued that the cherubim above the ark were such images: but they were not objects of worship so much as symbols of the angelic beings serving God, rather like the temple guardians at the gate of an Assyrian temple. They were the throne for the invisible presence of God above. However, if the making of cherubim was permitted, then the prohibition of the ‘image’ will refer only to the making of direct objects of worship, not to the representation of any living object, as sometimes understood later. Stricter Judaism or Islam therefore confined itself to abstract designs and patterns in all forms of art. Also by Hebrew ‘paratax’ (the placing of two ideas side by side, rather than the introduction of a formal logical link between the two, as in syntax), this command must be very closely associated with the one immediately before it, so that the true translation of the sense would be ‘You must not have any other god in my presence: you must not make any such image’ (i.e. of such a god). As well as the cherubim, the law enjoins the embroidery of lilies, pomegranates and other natural objects on the curtains of the meeting-tent, so that there cannot have been a complete ban upon the representation of natural objects in early days.
This raises the question as to why such image-representation of the true God (even by human form) was forbidden. Perhaps the reason is that no likeness could possibly be adequate, and that each type of image would imprint its own misunderstandings. For instance, the young bull was a symbol of strength, but also of virility and sexual powers: such an association would be blasphemous to the Hebrew. The nations who pictured their gods in human forms imputed all too readily their own human weaknesses to the divine prototypes. To the Hebrew, man had been created in God’s image, after God’s likeness (Gen. 1:26): but that emphatically did not mean that God was like man (Isa. 55:9). The localization and materialization of God was another danger inherent in idolatry. Even Israel in later days tended to believe that God’s presence was localized and contained in ark or temple; how much more so, if there had been an image? Finally, there would have been the danger of quasi-magical attempts to placate or control God through possession of some such localization of his presence, such as we can see in connection with the ark in 1 Samuel 4:3.
In Deuteronomy 4:12ff., the reason is given as the fact that, at Sinai, Israel saw no shape or form: she only heard the voice of God. This corresponds to the dominant position, right through Israel’s faith, of the ‘word of YHWH’, spoken or written.
R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 2, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Nottingham, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), 162–164.0 -
I have some homework:
I'll send out a quick not to a few pastors for feedback on the topic. We're an unaffiliated evangelical church, so no quick and easy belief binning available. No slight intended there.
ill do some more research into the supplied resources, and see what scratches the itch in terms of Greek expository, exegesis, and contrasts of conclusions.
I may may buy a few single volumes of shared text to get a better unerstaning of what to expect. Not sure whether to hope for a one-and-done commentary, or a plan to buy multiple.
lastly I'll reach out to Logos and see if an upgrade/sidegrade in conjunction with a commentary is advantageous. The Silver/NAC combo is aa intriguing as it is expensive.
0 -
Kevin Maples said:
I think EBC is the best commentary set for under $200.
https://www.logos.com/product/5457/the-expositors-bible-commentary It is currently showing $364.99 for me, but I didn't pay nearly that much for it. I believe I got it for $129 or something like that. I've seen it on sale many times, so if you can wait I believe you can definitely get it in the future on sale.
There is a revised edition ( https://www.logos.com/product/20185/expositors-bible-commentary-revised-edition ) which I believe is really just a new commentary set, not a revision of the previous edition. I haven't used it so I can't comment on how good it is.
I too would recommend the EBC I have used the original version since it first appeared (but the print version) - I now have it in Logos. Best starting place for this price range of commentaries in my view.
the REBC is "new on the block" and I haven't use it much but I have the NT volumes and have started to use them - yes they are "new" but aim to "hit the same" target and are much updated in terms of the scholarship they draw on. I don't tend to see the same deals on this set though - being new.
Personally I would still recommend the original - ideally when on sale.
Shalom
0
