NIC sale

Is the volume on 2 Samuel higher than $19.99?

It appears so, Ted. I'm seeing 29.99 here: https://www.logos.com/product/176183/the-second-book-of-samuel

Yes, I've been watching this one too.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086930#Comment_1086930

Is the volume on 2 Samuel higher than $19.99?

It appears so, Ted. I'm seeing 29.99 here: https://www.logos.com/product/176183/the-second-book-of-samuel

Yes, I've been watching this one too.

It released less than 3 months ago, that’s why is not going for $19.99

Michael

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086936#Comment_1086936

I'm interested in the following volumes. Some of them are revised/new editions. Which of the following would you deem essential to pick up during this sale if you could only picket 2 or 3?

Book of Judges
Book of Psalms
Books of Haggai and Malachi
Book of Zechariah
1 Corinthians Revised
Galatians
Colossians
Philemon

Tom Reynolds

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086936#Comment_1086936

Is the volume on 2 Samuel higher than $19.99?

It appears so, Ted. I'm seeing 29.99 here: https://www.logos.com/product/176183/the-second-book-of-samuel

Yes, I've been watching this one too.

It released less than 3 months ago, that’s why is not going for $19.99

They need to change their advertising banner to say "from $19.99" as it currently has no restrictions.

ElephantMan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086954#Comment_1086954

I'm interested in the following volumes. Some of them are revised/new editions. Which of the following would you deem essential to pick up during this sale if you could only picket 2 or 3?

Book of Judges

Book of Psalms

Books of Haggai and Malachi

Book of Zechariah

1 Corinthians Revised

Galatians

Colossians

Philemon

Recommend that you buy deSilva's Galatians commentary at a minimum - I can't believe how good it is.

But don't take my word for it. There are great reviews on bestcommentaries.com (all 5/5), and it's a "top priority" on the Denver Seminary list.

Fee's 1 Corinthians (2nd Ed) has a similar reputation, but I can't vouch for it personally.

Judges/Psalms both have very mixed reviews.

Philemon is only 13% off. Wait a few months and get a better deal.

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087069#Comment_1087069

Has anyone heard how long the sale is on for?

Joe McCune (Faithlife)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087073#Comment_1087073

Has anyone heard how long the sale is on for?

This sale is on for the month of February.

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087097#Comment_1087097

Has anyone heard how long the sale is on for?

This sale is on for the month of February.

Thanks Joe. It would be lovely if end dates were included on limited time sales. Forgive me if I overlooked a date if shown.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087101#Comment_1087101

do any of the syntopic commentaries in NIC defend the Trinity? I have in mind the baptism where heaven opens, the Father speaks and poors the spirit over Jesus. It doesn't have to be that but It might be overlooked.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087116#Comment_1087116

do any of the syntopic commentaries in NIC defend the Trinity? I have in mind the baptism

R.T. France in NICNT Matthew

"16 The significance of the baptism hinted at in vv. 14–15 is distinguished from the revelatory event which follows it, which takes place after Jesus has come out of the river. Three elements are combined in vv. 16b-17, the opening of heaven, the descent of the Spirit, and the divine proclamation. The opening of heaven is familiar elsewhere in the NT as an expression for a visionary experience (John 1:51; Acts 7:56; 10:11; Rev 4:1; 19:11). There is a significant OT parallel in Ezek 1:1 where Ezekiel, standing beside a river, also sees heaven opened and receives a theophanic vision and hears God’s voice commissioning him for his prophetic role and giving him the Spirit (Ezek 2:2). Isa 63:19 (EVV 64:1) asks God to tear (LXX anoigō, as here) the heavens and come down to redeem his people. The opening of heaven is the prelude to the divine communication which follows and especially to the visible descent of the Spirit.

The descent of the Spirit of God recalls well-known messianic prophecies in Isaiah which say that God will place his Spirit upon his chosen servant (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1).20 This is not to say that Jesus has hitherto been without the Spirit, since Matthew has attributed his birth to the Spirit (1:18, 20). But now as the Spirit “comes upon him” Jesus is visibly equipped and commissioned to undertake his messianic mission.21 The one who is to “baptize in the Holy Spirit” (v. 11) must first himself be endowed with the Spirit. If the coming of the Spirit is to be visible, however, some visual form is needed.
When the Spirit comes upon people in Acts the evidence is in their subsequent behavior, speaking in tongues and preaching boldly (Acts 2:4; 4:31; 10:44–46; 19:6) rather than in any visible “descent,” but in Acts 2:2–3 we read of both audible and visible phenomena, wind and fire. This is the only occasion when we hear of the Spirit appearing in visual form “like a dove.”22 Interpreters have scoured the OT and other literature (Jewish23 and pagan) for references to doves which might explain the symbolism, but without finding any consensus (Davies & Allison, 1.331–334, list 16 options). The most promising suggestion is perhaps that which draws on Noah’s dove flying above the waters of chaos (Gen 8:8–12)24 in combination with the metaphorical language of Gen 1:2 which speaks of the Spirit of God “hovering” or “brooding” (meraḥepet) over the face of the waters at creation; in the latter case no specific bird is mentioned, but the metaphor apparently depicts a bird-like motion (the only other use of the verb, in Deut 32:11, is of an eagle over its chicks).25 Such an allusion would suggest a “new creation” typology underlying the baptism narrative. But there is no reason to assume that the species of bird here is significant, any more than it was in the imagery of Gen 1:2; the dove is simply a familiar bird, whose swooping flight formed an appropriate way of visualizing the descent of the Spirit (and so has been given an honoured place in Christian art ever since, especially in attempts to present the Trinity in a visual form).

17 The “voice from heaven”26 in this verse, together with its repetition in 17:5, offers to Matthew’s readers (and, to judge by the third person form in which Matthew alone records it, also to the bystanders at the Jordan) the most unmediated access to God’s own view of Jesus. Following Jesus’ acceptance of John’s baptism as the will of God for him, it declares both God’s pleasure in that obedience and also, more fundamentally, his own unique relationship with God.
The words of the declaration are usually understood to be derived from one or more of Isa 42:1; Ps 2:7 and Gen 22:2.27 Isa 42:1 introduces a new figure in the prophecy with the words “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one, in whom my soul takes pleasure,” and goes on to say that God has put his Spirit upon him, which links closely with what we have seen in v. 16. The wording of v. 17 does not echo the LXX version of Isa 42:1, but when Matthew later gives a full quotation of that passage (12:18) he will use a Greek version which is closer to this verse;28 the final clause “with whom I am delighted” closely reflects the Hebrew rāṣtâ napšî of Isa 42:1. But Isa 42:1 does not provide the key term “son.”29 This is usually explained as an echo of Ps. 2:7 in which God addresses his anointed king, “You are my son; today I have begotten you,” but while the second person version in Mark and Luke readily suggests such an echo, in Matthew’s version it is only the words “my son” which are in common.30 In Gen 22:2, however, we have “your son, your only son, whom you love,” and the LXX version uses agapētos for the “only” son, thus offering a suggestive source for the wording of most of the divine declaration here. A combined allusion to Isa 42:1 and Gen 22:2 might thus account quite adequately for the OT background to the wording in its Matthean form.
But these words of God are not presented as an OT quotation, and it is questionable how far we are justified in seeking specific textual sources for every word. The link with the descent of the Spirit certainly makes an echo of Isa 42:1 strongly plausible, so that Matthew’s readers would learn to see Jesus in the role of the “servant of Yahweh” who would die for the sins of the people (see above on v. 15). Matthew will return to Isa 42:1–4 when he quotes it in full in 12:17–21 to show how Jesus puts into practice the non-violent style of the servant’s work. It is also possible, though less likely, that some readers who knew the Genesis story well might have noticed the echo of the phrase “beloved son, whom you love” and reflected that God was now going to give up his own son to death just as he had once asked Abraham to do.31 But neither of those allusions is the main point of v. 17. God is not quoting the OT, nor setting a puzzle for scripturally erudite hearers to unravel. He is declaring in richly allusive words that this man who has just been baptized by John is his own Son in whom he delights. From this point on Matthew’s readers have no excuse for failing to understand the significance of Jesus’ ministry, however long it may take the actors in the story to reach the same christological conclusion (14:33; 16:16; 26:63–64). It will be this crucial revelation of who Jesus is which will immediately form the basis of the initial testing which Jesus is called to undergo in 4:1–11: “If you are the Son of God …” (4:3, 6). And there, as in the account of the baptism, Jesus’ sonship will be revealed in his obedience to his Father’s will."

R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publication Co., 2007), 121–124.

William Lane NICNT Mark

"10–11 Many had come to the Jordan to be baptized by John, but only in the instance of Jesus, in whom true submission to God was perfectly embodied, was the “coming up” from the water answered by a “coming down” from above.55 The cosmic significance of this event is indicated by the vision of the rending of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit and the testimony of the voice from heaven. Mark’s distinctive language echoes Isa. 64:1, where the prophet prays, “Oh that thou wouldst rend the heavens, that thou wouldst come down, that the mountains might quake at thy presence …”56 The pattern had been established already in the first exodus that God could not come down until the people had been consecrated (Ex. 19:10 f.). For this reason Jesus expressed a vicarious confession of sin on behalf of the many. He walked into the waters of baptism in obedience to the Father’s will. He had consecrated himself in faith, even as every other man must do. But in this instance God came down, and there was striking attestation that sonship has been re-established through the one true Israelite whose repentance was perfect.

The divine response to Jesus’ acknowledgment of the judgment of God was the descent of the Spirit as a dove and the voice from heaven. Both of these elements are to be associated with the new exodus in the wilderness prophesied by Isaiah (Chs. 32:15; 44:3; 63:10–14).57 This prophecy is fulfilled in proleptic fashion in the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus. It was in the wilderness that Israel was first designated as son by God, and particularly the prophet Hosea pointed forward to a time when God would renew Israel’s sonship in the wilderness.58 In Jesus this ancient promise finds fulfilment precisely because his pilgrimage into the wilderness was the only true exodus. Many went out to John but only Jesus understood that a return to the wilderness involved the determination to live under the judgment of God.
The analogy between the Holy Spirit and a dove must be understood within a frame of reference provided by the OT or post-biblical Judaism.59 Two interpretations commend themselves more than others. (1) The reference contains a veiled allusion to Gen. 1:2, where the brooding of the Spirit over the waters at creation suggested to Ben Zoma (ca. A.D. 90) the action of a dove. The descent of the Spirit signifies new creation, corresponding to the cosmic overtones in the rending of the heavens. A later tradition identified the Spirit in Gen. 1:2 as the Spirit of the Messiah, which would be withheld from Israel until the nation was prepared through repentance.60 Only rarely, however, did the rabbis identify the dove as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. (2) More frequently the rabbis refer to the dove as a symbol of the community of Israel,61 and this association may have been in Mark’s mind. At the moment of his baptism Jesus is the one true Israelite, in whom the election of God is concentrated. The descent of the Spirit “as a dove” indicates that he is the unique representative of the new Israel created through the Spirit.
In the voice from heaven62 God addresses Jesus as his unique Son, the object of his elective love. In this expression of unqualified divine approval there is recognition of Jesus’ competence to fulfill the messianic task for which he has been set apart. It is common to find in the pronouncement a reflection of Ps. 2:7 and Isa. 42:1, but it is not a quotation and it is legitimate to hear within it other echoes.63
The declaration provides a unique appraisal of Jesus. The designation “Son” is enriched by the concept of the Servant of the Lord of Isa. 42:1, but the primary emphasis is upon sonship. In this context “Son” is not a messianic title, but is to be understood in the highest sense, transcending messiahship. It signifies the unique relationship which Jesus sustains to the Father, which exists apart from any thought of official function in history:64 Jesus is God’s unique65 Son. The first clause of the declaration (with the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood) expresses an eternal and essential relationship. The second clause (the verb is in the aorist indicative) implies a past choice for the performance of a particular function in history. The thought may be expressed in the formulation, Because you are my unique Son, I have chosen you for the task upon which you are about to enter.66 The relationship between the two clauses is exactly paralleled in the declaration of Ch. 9:7, where the pronouncement of the first clause, “This is my beloved Son,” furnishes the ground for the second, “listen to him.” Jesus did not become the Son of God, at baptism or at the transfiguration; he is the Son of God, the one qualified to bestow the Holy Spirit. The rending of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit and the declaration of God do not alter Jesus’ essential status, but serve to indicate the cosmic significance of Jesus’ submission to the Servant-vocation and affirm God’s good pleasure in his Son. As such, the passage marks the high point of revelation in the prologue to Mark’s Gospel and provides the indispensable background for all that follows.
Jesus’ baptism must be seen from the aspect of his self-concealment. He was baptized as any other person who came to John. There is no indication in Mark that anyone other than Jesus understood the significance of that event. Only from the perspective of the resurrection, and the revelation that event made possible, is the reader of the Gospel able to enter into its meaning. A. Schlatter well expresses its theological significance: “He associates himself with sinners and ranges himself in the ranks of the guilty, not to find salvation for himself, not on account of his own guilt in his flight from the approaching wrath, but because he is at one with the Church and the bearer of divine mercy.”67"

William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 55–58.

Joel Green NICNT Luke

"3.2.1. The Anointing of Jesus (3:21–22)

21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, 22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the beloved;3 with you I am well pleased.”

Luke is less interested in Jesus’ baptism as such, and more concerned with his endowment with the Spirit and God’s affirmation of his sonship. Thus, this complex sentence centers on three infinitive clauses set in parallel: “the heaven was opened,” “the Holy Spirit descended,” and “a voice came.”4 In fact, these actions are reported to have occurred not during Jesus’ baptism, but afterward, while he was praying. The initial dependent clauses lead into the focal point of this pericope by stressing Jesus’ solidarity with those who had responded positively to John’s message; by participating in the ritual act of baptism, we may recall, they (he) communicated their (his) fundamental orientation around God’s purpose.
This scene is set in the world of apocalyptic, with its emphasis on the unveiling of divine mystery. The opening of heaven is familiar from apocalyptic literature, as is the heavenly voice.5 Of particular interest is Ezekiel 2, where the divine voice is accompanied by an empowering spirit, and the message is one of prophetic commissioning. While the topos of prayer is not particularly apocalyptic, in Luke-Acts prayer is often mentioned in the context of revelation and commission or empowerment (1:19–20; 2:37–38; Acts 4:23–31; 9:10–19; 10; 13:1–3; 22:7–21).6
These apocalyptic elements direct our attention to one of the two central foci of this scene—namely, the divine pronouncement of Jesus’ status. Of course, we (Luke’s audience) are already aware of Jesus’ son- and messiahship (1:32–35, 41; 2:11). Now, however, Jesus’ identity in relation to God and God’s redemptive project is proclaimed by God himself. Heaven itself has opened, providing us with direct insight into God’s own view of things. That the voice of God agrees with those earlier voices (i.e., of Gabriel, Elizabeth, and the angelic host) accents their credibility. It also underscores the bi-polarity of possible responses to Jesus. One can join Elizabeth, the angels, the narrator, and others who affirm Jesus’ exalted status and/or identity as God’s Son, or one can reject this evaluation and so pit oneself over against God.
Significantly, God’s words in 3:22 echo the OT, and this confirms their capacity to speak on his behalf too. One hears first Ps 2:7. The verbal resemblance is minor,7 but God’s voice resonates with the earlier words of God’s personal servant Gabriel in 1:32–35, where the connection was made between “Son of God” and the Davidic throne. What is more, for Luke the occasion of Jesus’ baptism is manifestly his anointing for divine service. This is the interpretation given by Jesus in 4:18–19 and repeated by Peter in Acts 10:37–38. This confluence teases out from Psalm 2 another key description of the Davidic king: the Lord’s anointed one. As a result, the heavenly voice draws on the psalm, with its important picture of the anointed, Davidic monarch who is God’s earthly representative, employing those associations along with the hope it spawned, to aid the signifying process at work in the Lukan scene. Equally consequential are the ways in which that psalmic message is transformed in its Lukan application, where “Son of God” can no longer be understood in an adoptionistic sense and where anointing with oil has been superseded by endowment with the Spirit.8
Thus, Jesus’ baptism as traditionally understood has been cast by the narrator as Jesus’ anointing by the Spirit. This is a pivotal experience for Jesus that (1) sets in motion the sequence of events to follow and, by implication, sets the course of his entire mission (cf. 4:1, 14, 18–19); (2) is expounded as the event that determines his understanding of his divine mission and empowers him to perform accordingly (4:18–19; Acts 10:37–38); and (3) anticipates the analogous empowering of Jesus’ followers in Acts (e.g., Acts 1:8; 2). No symbolic equation of Spirit and dove has been found in literature earlier than or contemporaneous with the Gospels,9 and it may be that this simile is intended to evoke the symbolism of the dove as a herald or bearer of good tidings; this would advance the portrait of Jesus’ empowerment to proclaim good news.10 Luke’s “in bodily form” emphasizes the materiality of this apocalyptic scene in a characteristic way (cf. 22:43–44; 23:44–45; 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11; 2:1–4).
The second text foregrounded by the heavenly voice in 3:22 is Isa 42:1,11 a passage that also intimately links the object of divine pleasure with the anointing of the Spirit for divine mission. Our hearing an echo of Isa 42:1 also picks up on earlier intertextual connections with the Isaianic Servant in the Gospel—for example, Isa 42:6; 49:6 in 2:32.12 Finally, we may hear echoes of Gen 22:2, not only because of linguistic parallels, but also because of the importance of the story of Abraham for Luke thus far.13 This would help to link further the realization of the divine promise to Abraham with the commission of Jesus.
The purpose of the divine voice in 3:22 is above all that of providing an unimpeachable sanction of Jesus with regard to his identity and mission. Working in concert with the endowment of the Holy Spirit, this divine affirmation presents in its most acute form Jesus’ role as God’s agent of redemption. This accentuates Jesus’ role as God’s representative, the one through whom God’s aim will be further presented and worked out in the story, but it also demonstrates at least in a provisional way the nature of Jesus’ mission by calling attention to the boundaries of his exercise of power.14 His mission and status are spelled out in relation to God and with reference to his purpose as expressed in the Scriptures, as God’s Servant and Son who fulfills his mission of redemption and establishes peace with justice in ways that flow out of his uncompromising obedience to God. It is this notion of the boundaries determined by obedience to God’s purpose that the devil will test in 4:1–13."

Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 185–187.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087129#Comment_1087129

I took 4 commentaries. The criteria was, in addition to my interests and recommendations:

1. Significant discount

2. Exegetical Summary utilizes it (thus, not necessarily the newest edition)

The Gospel of John (Michaels, 2010)

The Gospel of Matthew (France 2007)

The Gospel of Mark (Lane 1974)

The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Fee 1987)

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087129#Comment_1087129

David I've read through most of it and while I believe I understand it, it's very ambiguous with no statement which I can quote. Something like "Here the three Persons of the Godhead are present" or a the exegete saying this to be a Trinitarian formula.

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087135#Comment_1087135

David I've read through most of it and while I believe I understand it, it's very ambiguous with no statement which I can quote. Something like "Here the three Persons of the Godhead are present" or a the exegete saying this to be a Trinitarian formula.

I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'd say all the writers in the NIC series are Trinitarian, but if you are looking for a defence for the Trinitarian position a book on the Trinity may be a better option.

Daniel Bender

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086959#Comment_1086959

They need to change their advertising banner to say "from $19.99" as it currently has no restrictions

Agreed; the only commentary in the NIC series that I do not own is the volume on 2nd Samuel; very disappointing that it is the only one higher than $19.99.

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087230#Comment_1087230

David I've read through most of it and while I believe I understand it, it's very ambiguous with no statement which I can quote. Something like "Here the three Persons of the Godhead are present" or a the exegete saying this to be a Trinitarian formula.

I'm not sure what you're looking for. I'd say all the writers in the NIC series are Trinitarian, but if you are looking for a defence for the Trinitarian position a book on the Trinity may be a better option.

Or—you could just save yourself some time & click on the link in my signature line below🤪🕺🏼.

Chillax—justtttt kiddin’ (kinda’😳).