Which NIC commentary if you can only grab one?

I've grabbed samuel 1/2, RT France's commentary on Matthew, and the 2nd edition Moo one on Romans (but feel free to name one of those as the "top" commentary. I'm wondering what people think if they could only buy / read one commentary from NIC, which would it be? I might grab one more before the end of feb tho I'm clueless as to what. both OT and NT are including in my question.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jack Caviness

You already have my top pick Moo on Romans

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087713#Comment_1087713

I would repeat Chrisser's question. I have every NICNT commentary up to 2010. So the ones I'm missing are:

https://www.logos.com/product/47553/the-first-epistle-to-the-corinthians-revised-edition

https://www.logos.com/product/157090/the-letter-to-the-galatians

https://www.logos.com/product/150087/the-letter-to-the-colossians

https://www.logos.com/product/37592/the-epistle-to-the-hebrews

https://www.logos.com/product/37589/the-letter-of-james

My library includes multiple quality commentaries - including Fee's first edition of the 1 Corinthians commentary. Does anyone consider any of the above must buys - superior to similar level commentaries?

Dan Francis

The Book of Psalms (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament | NICOT)

Is beyond doubt my absolute favourite volume out of a long list of very good volumes in this fine series.

-dan

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087719#Comment_1087719

The Book of Psalms (The New International Commentary on the Old Testament | NICOT)

Is beyond doubt my absolute favourite volume out of a long list of very good volumes in this fine series.

-dan

Hi. I hope youre well. What do you like about it?

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087723#Comment_1087723

Well I really like the approach to it you have not only good technical information but each psalm ends with a more reflective section.

Here is a sample of one of the most beloved psalm.

Psalm 23: You Are with Me

Has any psalm occasioned the spilling of more ink than Psalm 23? The psalm may be the most-beloved, most-sung, most-prayed, and most-studied poem in the Psalter. A review of the secondary literature for this psalm alone could fill an entire volume.1 Miller observes that “the very familiarity of the psalm presents a challenge to bring it alive so that even, if not especially, those who know it well may not pass it by too quickly.”2 The majority of scholars have approached the poem as a psalm of trust, as Gerstenberger summarily states: “Every reader of Psalm 23 will agree that the motif of trust is predominant in the psalm.”3 Beyond applying that broad label, however, little further consensus exists about the psalm’s form and setting. Gerstenberger, for example, argues that “the extremely personal tone of the Psalm 23 excludes its royal and national use (against Eaton; Merrill).… we may think of a worship service for an individual person held within the small circle of family or clan.”4 Tanner disagrees, arguing that the psalm is “indeed royal” since “every image can be understood under the rubric of Yahweh as king” and therefore that “the images evoked provide a picture of Yahweh as the great Shepherd-King and the psalmist as a vassal to that king.”5
Given that a definitive, original social or liturgical life setting is unrecoverable, we should instead think of the theological setting of the psalm. The best clue for imaging its theological setting comes from the witness the psalm offers to dual, dueling presences: the Lord and the valley of deep darkness. As with many psalms of trust, a striking feature is the psalm’s tacit acknowledgment of the presence of danger. In Psalm 27, the threat of enemies is named. In Psalm 46, the threats of raging chaos and roaring nations are named. Here, the threatening presence of the darkest valley is named. But the fear-evoking danger of that presence is more than balanced by the courage-providing, fear-removing presence of the Lord. This is the true setting of the psalm: the existential space of being in the presence of something that is terrifying, a space in which every reflective human being finds himself or herself at some point, and a space in which, according to the witness of the poem, the Lord can also be found.
There are two structural developments in the psalm. Most commentators focus on the change in metaphor from the Lord as shepherd (vv. 1–4) to that of the Lord as banquet host (vv. 5–6). This provides an understanding of the structure that looks like this:

St. 1 The Lord as Shepherd (vv. 1–4)
St. 2 The Lord as Host (vv. 5–6)

But an equally important development takes places in v. 4c, where the poem changes from speaking about the Lord in the third person to speaking to the Lord in prayer. This change is important because of the rhetorical location where it happens (in the darkest valley) and also because of what is said: you are with me. As Limburg has noted, these words are “the center of this psalm.”6 This provides an understanding of the structure:

Speech about the Lord (vv. 1–4b)
Speech to the Lord (vv. 4c–5)
Speech about the Lord (v. 6)

These two views of the poem’s structure are not mutually exclusive, but complement each other and illustrate two different movements at work within the poem.

A Davidic psalm.

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I do not lack;
2 he provides rest for me in green pastures.
He leads me to peaceful waters.
3 He restores my life.
He leads me along the paths of righteousness,
for the sake of his name.
4 Even if I walk through the darkest valley,7
I fear no evil.
For you are with me;
your rod and your staff—
they give me courage.

5 You set a table for me,
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil,
my cup8 is abundant.
6 Indeed, goodness and hesed9
pursue me all the days of my life.
And I will return10 to the house of the LORD,
for the length of my days.

1–4 The poem begins with an almost creedal statement: The Lord is my shepherd. As many commentators have noted, within Israel and throughout the ancient Near East, the shepherd was a royal metaphor.11 Kings were portrayed as shepherds (cf. 1 Kgs. 22:17; Jer. 23:1–4; Ezek. 34:1–10), and to portray God as shepherd is to portray God as a royal figure (cf. Ezek. 34:10–16). Tanner goes so far as to assert that shepherd is “a title that is synonomous with ‘king.’ ”12 In the psalms (as well as throughout the Old Testament) the metaphor is normally communal, describing God’s relationship with the entire people: “O Shepherd of Israel, hear us!” (Ps. 80:1); “we are his people and the sheep of his pasture” (100:3). In this case, the normally communal image is rendered intensely personal: The Lord is my shepherd. This transposition is one of the reasons for the power and popularity of Psalm 23—and indeed, for the power and popularity of the Psalter. Here we see the personal dimension of Israel’s faith and the individual application of Israel’s creeds. The God who created heavens and earth, sea and dry land, who shepherded Israel out of bondage in Egypt—this grand, cosmic Lord also cares for and shepherds the individual. As Miller aptly summarizes, Psalm 23 “is the song of trust of someone who knows in the midst of the vicissitudes of her or his personal life and over the course of years that he or she has been carried in the bosom of God, sheltered from harm, and given rest.”13
The rest of stanza 1 can be interpreted as poetic commentary on the opening, creedlike statement, The Lord is my shepherd. After the initial statement, a series of terse phrases unpack the shepherd metaphor by charting the protecting, providing, pathfinding presence of the Lord. The unqualified statement, I do not lack (lōʾ ʿeḥsār), with no direct object, is a remarkable assertion of trust. Given the sheep-shepherd metaphor, the term may imply something such as “I do not lack any necessity,” as the parallel in 34:10 suggests: “Young lions can go without and be hungry, but those who seek the LORD lack (lōʾ yaḥserû) for nothing good.” The verb yarbîṣēnî (translated here as he provides rest for me) is difficult to render smoothly into English. Many translations try to capture the causative nature of the hiphil with something such as “he makes me lie down” (NRSV). Such a translation is too wooden and depicts God’s power in a highly reductive fashion as one who forces something upon the psalmist. The term rather denotes the active agency of the shepherd in seeking out an environment in which the sheep may thrive (the green pastures), as the NIV’s translation of the hiphil occurrence of rbṣ in Ezek. 34:15 indicates: “I will have them lie down.…” The image of the green pasture as the ideal environment is stock language from the ancient Near East, as Hammurabi’s boast in the epilogue of his law code indicates: “I have sought for them peaceful places.… I made the people of all settlements lie in safe pastures.”14 Tanner also points out that the image of the shepherd providing peaceful waters for the flock is stock language with royal overtones, as the description of Marduk as the one “who provides grazing and drinking places” demonstrates.15
The word translated peaceful (menuḥôṯ) is related to the important theological concept of rest, which most English language readers may not fully appreciate. Rest means more than mere bodily repose. Rest connotes protection from enemies, the environment in which life might thrive, and indeed, the lifting of any threat of divine punishment (see Genesis 6–9 and the story of Noah, whose name derives from the word nûaḥ, or “rest,” as well as the book of Judges, in which God grants “rest” during the reigns of faithful judges). The confession he restores (šûḇ) my life sums up the restorative power of life-giving water, but also hints at a double meaning: šûḇ carries the overtones of repentance as well as the simple meaning to restore. The sense of returning to God in repentance for the purpose of being restored is hinted at here (cf. Jer. 50:6, 19).
The image of the shepherd leading the sheep implies not only that a desirable destination is reached, but also that the journey itself is safe. The psalmist’s trust in protection and guidance while the journey is underway is expressed in the phrase he leads me along the paths of righteousness. The metaphor of God’s leading is prominent in Scripture, reaching its most poetically powerful expression in Psalm 121 (cf. also 40:11). The image of the paths of righteousness (maʿgelê ṣedeq) is a double entendre. The phrase occurs only here, although “paths of uprightness” (Prov. 4:11; cf. Isa. 26:7) and “good path” (Prov. 2:9) fall within the same semantic range. The basic sense of the phrase is “safe pathways”; perhaps even “easy roadways” would fit. But the phrase includes ethical and theological overtones, implying that the pathways in which the Lord leads have to do with obedience to the will and law of God: “Keep straight the path of your feet.… Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil” (Prov. 4:26–27). The warning against turning neither “to the right or to the left” is especially reminiscent of the formulaic Deuteronomistic warning regarding obeying God’s law (cf. Deut. 5:32; 17:11, 20; 28:14)—a formula applied most notably to King Josiah, the model of Deuteronomistic obedience (2 Kgs. 22:2).16 Thus, the reader should understand the character of the Lord’s leading here primarily as a leading that is mediating via the instructing guidance of Scripture (cf. “All the paths of the LORD are hesed and truth,” Ps. 25:10).
The interpretation of the final clause—for the sake of his name—is difficult. Does the phrase describe God’s motive for leading? If so, what role does God’s name play in this motivation? Does it describe the follower’s motivation for following God’s paths? The parallel request in 31:3, “for your name’s sake, lead me and guide me,” suggests that the phrase here describes God’s motivation. As Goldingay states, “Yhwh is a God characterized by faithfulness.… In a sense, that is the meaning of the name ‘Yhwh.’ So acting in faithfulness demonstrates that the name is a true reflection of the character.”17 This interpretation is borne out by the hymnic interpretation of the Lord’s name given in Exod. 34:6: “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love.” The name often functions as a virtual double for the Lord’s presence, as in Ps. 20:1: “The name of the God of Jacob protect you.” Thus, to reduce the meaning of for the sake of his name merely to God’s motivation is inadequate. This is about far more than mere motivation; it is about God’s character. God’s very nature is to be faithful. God has promised—through the sheer act of giving God’s name to Israel—to guide and protect those who bear God’s name. Thus, for the sake of his name is a claim on God’s promise and on God’s character. It is a statement expressing the psalmist’s trust that God is completely committed to maintaining the relationship that God has established.
Perhaps the most basic of theological promises is the assurance “I am with you.” This is the promise God offered Jacob (Gen. 28:15). It is the word of assurance God proclaimed to the young Jeremiah (Jer. 1:8, 19), which he in turn passed on to the people of Judah (15:20; 30:11; 42:11; 46:28). It is the promise that the Lord spoke to the exiles through the anonymous prophet known as Second Isaiah (Isa. 41:10; 43:5). It is the heart of the message that Haggai announced to those who had returned from exile (Hag. 1:13; 2:4). And it was the promise that fueled the early church for perseverance and mission (Matt. 28:20; Col. 2:5; Acts 18:10). According to some scholars, this promise formed the basis of the so-called oracle of salvation, in which a priest spoke a word of assurance to a supplicant in distress.18 To be sure, as the above litany of texts bears witness, the promise plays a central role in the rhetoric of many prophets. But as the presence of the formula outside of prophetic texts also bears witness, this is because of the raw power of the promise of God’s presence and because of the ubiquitous human experience of crisis (that is, of the darkest valley). In Psalm 23, the familiar phrase of assurance is transformed into a word of trusting prayer, spoken to God: you are with me. It is noteworthy that it is precisely in the middle of the crisis (the darkest valley) that the psalm shifts from creedal affirmations about God to trusting prayer to God. It is in moments of crisis that the Lord moves from an abstract concept (a he about whom one has memorized doctrinal statements) to a living God with whom one has a relationship (a you in whom one trusts, to whom one speaks, on whom one can rely).
The Lord’s presence in moments of crisis is both a profound assurance and also a profound warning for how we theologically construct God’s presence. As a promise, it is the good news that there is no place in which the Lord’s presence cannot manifest itself to dispel fear (I fear no evil) and to deliver those who suffer (cf. Psalm 139; Rom. 8:31ff.) As a warning about theological constructions of God’s presence, it is an element that critiques and subverts the dominant cultural theology of glory, which can only understand God’s presence in the good moments. The psalm asserts that, yes, the Lord is present in the green pastures, peaceful waters, and along the paths of righteousness. But the Lord is also present “under the sign of the opposite”—in the darkest valley. The metaphor of the rod and staff is an image of the shepherd’s effective power to save the sheep from threat. The verb translated here as give me courage (nḥm) is normally translated as “comfort.” But comfort is not a strong enough word. It does not convey the power of the emotion that the psalmist is able to feel because of God’s presence. The concept of courage gives a better sense of the emotion.
5–6 In the second half of the poem, the basic metaphor changes to that of banquet host. The basic interpretive challenge is to discern what type of banquet table the poem imagines. Is this simply a metaphor for provision, such as that alluded to in Ps. 78:19, where the grumbling people question whether God can spread a table in the wilderness? Is this a table of hospitality, such as the one that the unaware Abraham spread while entertaining angels (Gen. 18:1–8)? Is this a feast of thanksgiving, such as one might celebrate after a harvest or some other experience of God’s blessing (Deut. 12:17–19; 14:22–29)? Is the meal a ritual meal in response to the “oracle of salvation” that the psalmist has heard from a priest? Should we think of a royal context, such as that mentioned in 2 Sam. 9:7–13 and alluded to in Prov. 25:6–7, in which rival courtiers are the “enemies” who seek to disgrace the psalmist? Or should we imagine an eschatological feast in which God’s provision for the poor and needy is manifest (cf. Isaiah 55)? The many possibilities prevent isolating any singular setting in life for the metaphor. What is undeniable is that the Lord is a hospitable host, who provides plenteous nourishment (my cup is abundant) and honor (you anoint my head with oil) for the psalmist in the face of hostile foes.
The necessity of understanding this theological setting is emphasized by the anthropomorphic description of the Lord’s goodness and hesed, which pursue the psalmist with relentless grace. Traditional translations render the Hebrew rāḏap̱ with “follow,” but this domesticated language fails to communicate the tenacity of God’s purpose that the term denotes. Normally in the psalms, it is the enemies who pursue the psalmist in order to inflict bodily harm (cf. 7:5; 31:15; 35:3; 71:11; 109:16, etc.). Here, the divine attributes of goodness (ṭôḇ) and hesed are pictured as incarnate forces, which will not rest until they have tracked down and provided a safe harbor for the endangered psalmist.
The final couplet of the psalm is debated. As noted in the translation, a basic issue is whether to understand the first verb as related to Hebrew šûḇ (return) or yāšaḇ (dwell). But as noted above, and as Goldingay rightly sees, “it finally makes little difference which we follow”19 because either way one ends up at the house of the LORD. To return does not necessarily imply a pilgrimage, not does “to dwell” there imply anything like a priestly vocation or seeking after asylum. The point of the metaphor is that the destination that one reaches after being led along the paths of righteousness, the destination one reaches at the end of the days of my life, the destination toward which one is shepherded and indeed toward which one is harried by God’s pursuing goodness and hesed is none other than God’s very self. God is the psalmist’s destination.

Reflections

1. The Lord Is My Shepherd

Theologically, it is important to note that the use of the shepherd metaphor contains within it a powerfully subversive element—subversive of both human kings and of misguided human appropriations of the divine sovereignty. In terms of subverting human royalty, the metaphor is a powerful polemic arguing that the vocation of the king is to protect, guide, care for, and even give one’s life for the people who have been entrusted to the king. Thus, prophets such as Jeremiah (ch. 23) and Ezekiel (ch. 34) employed the metaphor so powerfully in criticizing the wayward, curved-in-on-themselves kings of Judah. Precisely because it was the human kings of Israel and Judah inevitably bent to the temptation to use their royal office to serve their own needs, the metaphor of a vocation that exists to protect and serve another was the perfect foil within which the prophets could couch their criticisms of the royalty—“you shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?” (Ezek. 34:2). Thus, even though the psalm contains much royal imagery, as Tanner argues so strongly, the imagery contains within it a built-in critique of all human privilege and power. Similarly, when applied to God talk, the metaphor is a potent corrective to naïve and unnuanced notions of God’s sovereignty. The task of the shepherd is to be faithful in protecting the sheep. The task of God is to be faithful in tending God’s flock. God’s power does not render God immune to criticism or deaf to lament. Rather, God’s sovereignty is a servant type of sovereignty that the world cannot understand. Some theological expressions of God’s sovereignty are too quick to assert God’s right to punish, because God is God (and, of course, the person who has asserted this divine right almost always has perfect knowledge of whom God is punishing and for what reason). The shepherd metaphor is a helpful corrective against these types of arguments. It is a helpful corrective against views that see law as unchallengeable simply because it is God’s law, or the types of argument that would assert that “acts of God” are just simply because they are ascribed to God. Thus, when the New Testament names the one who lays down his life for the sheep (rather than taking up sword to defend himself) as the Good Shepherd (see John 10), the New Testament is faithfully confessing the incarnation in Jesus of the same divine shepherd whom the ancient psalmist trusted.

2. You Are with Me

At the heart of Psalm 23 is an elegant and enduring statement of faith: “You are with me.” This simple word of trust is the faithful response to God’s most basic promise: “I am with you.” It is between those two dynamics—the divine promise, “I am with you,” and the response of faith, “You are with me”—that the currents of the life of faith ebb and flow. The first pastor I served with lost his oldest daughter to a sudden death when she was thirty-four. He told me, “You never get over it. And you don’t want to. And through it all, one promise was most important: God is with us.” The pastor’s words speak to the experience of millions of faithful throughout the millennia who have been comforted by the promise of God’s presence in the darkest moments of life. Psalm 23 gives us the words to speak that faith out loud. Even if I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil. For you are with me.

ROLF A. JACOBSON

Rolf A. Jacobson and Beth Tanner, “Book One of the Psalter: Psalms 1–41,” in The Book of Psalms, ed. E. J. Young, R. K. Harrison, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 238–246.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087728#Comment_1087728

Thanks for such a detailed response!! [:)]

I need some time to read it. I've got to go to some things and I'll read it thoroughy as soon as possible.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087729#Comment_1087729

https://www.logos.com/product/37578/the-gospel-of-john

what do you guys think of this one?

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087935#Comment_1087935

https://www.logos.com/product/37578/the-gospel-of-john

what do you guys think of this one?

If you can wait for a sale wait for Carson’s PNTC on John. IMHO is better. Buy responsibly 👍😁👌

DAL

mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087944#Comment_1087944

Is Moo's 2nd edition on Romans a worthy upgrade? Has someone used it extensively? (1st vs 2nd?)

Michael

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087955#Comment_1087955

I’d like to get only one commentary, too, but I can’t decide. Moo’s Romans (2nd edition) or Bruce’s Acts commentary? Isn’t the Acts commentary a bit outdated? Which one do you prefer?

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087955#Comment_1087955

Is Moo's 2nd edition on Romans a worthy upgrade? Has someone used it extensively? (1st vs 2nd?)

I have both volumes but have not used them extensively but perhaps these two reviews might be of some help.

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/174382.aspx

https://readingacts.com/2019/03/06/book-review-douglas-j-moo-romans-second-edition-nicnt/

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087987#Comment_1087987

Is Moo's 2nd edition on Romans a worthy upgrade? Has someone used it extensively? (1st vs 2nd?)

I have both volumes but have not used them extensively but perhaps these two reviews might be of some help.

https://community.logos.com/forums/t/174382.aspx

https://readingacts.com/2019/03/06/book-review-douglas-j-moo-romans-second-edition-nicnt/

Bruce. Great reminders that a number of us previously felt $65 was too much for a revised edition if we already owned the previous edition, but that we were looking forward to a decent sale at some point in the future. The review certainly highlights it's definitely worth $20 to get the updated version. It may be sometime before I get to use it, but I bought the Romans volume within minutes of the sale going live. It really is a no-brainer if you can afford $20.

Has anyone seen evidence that the Fee 1 Corinthians volume is worth updating? From what I've read online the revision seems to center a lot around using the updated NIV text, an extended bibliography and an extended/reworked argument for certain verses in chapter 14 not being original. Those matters alone don't seem to warrant $20.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087994#Comment_1087994

There is this review that mentions a few extra excurses! https://readingacts.com/2019/03/06/book-review-douglas-j-moo-romans-second-edition-nicnt/

If you need the latest/greatest or want to reduce future package prices then I'd say yes but not necessary unless you are doing a paper I'd think.

---

Book Review: Douglas J. Moo, Romans. Second Edition (NICNT)

Moo, Douglas J. Romans. Second Edition. NICNT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2018. clvi+1027 pp.; Hb.; $80.00. Link to Eerdmans

Douglas Moo’s 1996 commentary on Romans quickly became a standard reference on Paul’s longest and most important letter. Pauline studies have blossomed in the last twenty years since the first edition was published. Many important monographs and commentaries on Romans have appeared as well as several important Pauline theologies. Many important responses to the New Perspective on Paul were published, such as the two volume Justification and Variegated Nomism (Baker, 2004). Some of these nuanced and expanded Sanders others sought a return to the traditional view of Paul and Judaism. N. T. Wright’s Justification generated various responses, culminating in Wrights massive Paul and the Faithfulness of God (Fortress, 2013) and a collection of essays in response to Wright, God and the Faithfulness of Paul (Fortress, 2017). Since these developments in Pauline Theology often center on key texts in the book of Romans, an update to Moo’s NICNT commentary is welcome.

The introduction to the letter in this second edition is more or less the same, several paragraphs from the first edition have been omitted or re-worked and there are a few references to recent work on audience and purpose. For example, Moo has added a reference to Michael Gorman and Richard Longenecker as he describes the participationist view of Romans 5-8 (22). He adds a line at the end of his discussion of salvation history as the theme of Romans making it clear that although it is an important conceptual scheme for Romans, “it cannot be called the theme of the letter,” citing Douglas Campbell 2005 work on Paul’s Gospel (25).

In the body of the commentary, Moo begins each section with a translation of the text with footnotes indicating textual issues. In the first edition the footnotes had their own numbering for each pericope, in the second edition the numbers continue the footnotes for a major section. For example, there are now 1291 footnotes for the section Romans 5:1-8:39.

After a brief introduction to the pericope, he proceeds verse-by-verse commenting on key features of the text. Since this is not a Greek text commentary, all Greek appears in transliteration in the body of the text, more nuanced details are covered in the footnotes. His comments on the text not simply exegetical since the book of Romans demands some theological reflection. For example, after dealing with the difficult phrase “faithfulness of Christ” in Romans 3:21, Moo deals with two potential objections his understanding of the phrase as an objective genitive, both from a theological perspective, specifically that his view may violate sola fide and solus Christus. This attention to both exegetical detail and theological importance is well balanced in the commentary.

Moo has updated the footnotes in the second edition to include works written in the last twenty years. A comparison of the Index of Authors quickly shows the inclusion of major commentaries by Jewett, Longenecker, Schreiner, Wright and others. These are not simply appended to existing footnotes; often Moo interacts with these recent works in the body of the commentary.

In addition, footnotes are streamlined by only including a shortened citation. Occasionally only a commentator’s name is used without page number. Readers should refer to the greatly expanded bibliography in the new edition for details. The bibliography for the first edition of the commentary was twenty-five pages, the second has expanded to 156 pages of abbreviations and bibliography.

Some excurses have been expanded, others are added. For example, in the first edition after Romans 6:1-14 there was an excursus entitled “Paul’s ‘With Christ’ Conception.” In the second edition the title is “’With Christ’ and ‘In Christ’” and more than two pages have been added commenting on the 131 occurrences of “in Christ” in the Pauline letters, with references to recent literature. The excursus following Romans 1:16-17 on the righteousness of God has been re-worked and expanded; it now includes a section on righteousness language and Isaiah 40-66 and the section on the phrase “righteousness of God” now includes much more detail from Isaiah. Moo has also updated the essay with references to recent works on the righteousness of God by Mark Seifrid, N. T. Wright, and others.

After the commentary on Romans 9-11, Moo has added about five pages on “Recent Assessments of Paul and Judaism.” This short essay deals with the so-called Radical New Perspective or “Paul within Judaism,” Messianic Judaism, and bi-covenantalism. In every case, these approaches to Paul try to take seriously Romans 9-11 and to avoid supersecessionism. Also new is an excursus on Paul’s reading of the Hebrew text of Genesis 15:16 following the commentary on Romans 4.

Conclusion. Moo’s commentary joins an already crowded field of recent major Romans commentaries, including Richard N. Longenecker’s recent New International Greek Text Commentary (Eerdmans 2016) and Thomas R. Schreiner’s second edition in the Baker Exegetical New Testament Commentary (Baker, 2018). I consider Moo’s 1996 commentary the “first of the shelf” (see my Top Five Romans Commentaries). This second edition is an upgrade to an already excellent commentary, one that should be on the shelf for anyone seriously studying the book of Romans.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088040#Comment_1088040

Opinions on the James commentary?

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088141#Comment_1088141

Opinions on the James commentary?

It is a good commentary. Buy responsibly 👍😁👌

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088202#Comment_1088202

What does it say about the divinity of Christ in McKnight's commentary?

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088209#Comment_1088209

What does it say about the divinity of Christ in McKnight's commentary?

Chrisser. I don't have that specific volume but the author believes in the divinity of Christ as would all the authors of the NICNT series.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088209#Comment_1088209

Here are a couple of screenshots from McKnight's commentary. I have used the search word "christology":

Hope this helps!

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088234#Comment_1088234

It does help thanks.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Col 1:15–16.

Would someone mind commenting on what McKnight says about that passage along with stoichea?

Matt Hamrick

I grabbed second Samual which is the only one I needed.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088209#Comment_1088209

What does it say about the divinity of Christ in McKnight's commentary?

He says Jesus is God/Divine:

GOD173

James’ theology appears to be ordinary, Jewish, and Christian. Thus, the quintessential Jewish belief is found in this letter: there is one God (2:19) and that God is the Lawgiver (4:11). Also typically Jewish is that James is a servant of God (1:1) and prays to God (1:5) and that this God is incapable of evil and tempting (1:13). This God gives commands, and the observant who conform to the commands are righteous (1:20, 27) and friends of God (2:23; 4:4). This God elects (2:5) and creates humans as his eikons, or those who are created in God’s image (homoiōsis, 3:9), and this same God also judges (4:6) and summons his people to do what is right through James’s words (4:7–8). The God of James is the Lawgiver (4:11; 5:4) who judges on the basis of that Law, but this God is also merciful, gracious, and forgiving (2:13; 4:6, 7–11).174 The God of James is single and simple; this God is therefore trustworthy and unchanging (1:5, 17). This God is the Father (1:17, 27; 3:9), an early Christian and Jewish framing of deity in terms of creation, redemption, and provision to all.175
All this is typically Jewish or Christian, but James does something that ought to startle any who have concluded that James is early: there is confusion in this letter at times whether he is speaking of the Father or Jesus when he uses the word “Lord.”176 Some texts are quite clear. James already calls God “Father” (1:17, 27; 3:9) and sometimes he refers to the Father when he uses the word “Lord” (1:17; 3:9; 4:10, 15; 5:4). But other times he uses “Lord” for Jesus Christ (2:1). Most noteworthy are ambiguous uses of this term (5:7–8, 10–11, 14, 15). One can make a case for these either way, but that is not the point. Rather, we need to observe that use of “Lord” is no longer a single, traditional referent to YHWH. James’s christology is not what it will be with Paul, Hebrews, John, or Peter, but it is in the chrysalis awaiting re-formation.177 As Bill Baker has outlined, James’s christology involves Jesus as teacher (see the comments below at 2:8), but more significantly there is a broaching of the deity of Christ in this use of “Lord” for Jesus and in the use of “the name” (2:7; 5:10), and perhaps also in Jesus as lawgiver and judge (cf. 4:11–12).178 James sees himself as a “servant” of both God and the Lord Jesus Christ; this connection has drawn the interest of those scouting for early christology.179 This heightened christology is reshaping early Christian theology and makes a cameo appearance when James refers to Jesus Messiah as “the Glorious One” in 2:1.180

McKnight, S. (2011). The Letter of James (pp. 42–43). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088262#Comment_1088262

What does it say about the divinity of Christ in McKnight's commentary?

He says Jesus is God/Divine:

GOD173

James’ theology appears to be ordinary, Jewish, and Christian. Thus, the quintessential Jewish belief is found in this letter: there is one God (2:19) and that God is the Lawgiver (4:11). Also typically Jewish is that James is a servant of God (1:1) and prays to God (1:5) and that this God is incapable of evil and tempting (1:13). This God gives commands, and the observant who conform to the commands are righteous (1:20, 27) and friends of God (2:23; 4:4). This God elects (2:5) and creates humans as his eikons, or those who are created in God’s image (homoiōsis, 3:9), and this same God also judges (4:6) and summons his people to do what is right through James’s words (4:7–8). The God of James is the Lawgiver (4:11; 5:4) who judges on the basis of that Law, but this God is also merciful, gracious, and forgiving (2:13; 4:6, 7–11).174 The God of James is single and simple; this God is therefore trustworthy and unchanging (1:5, 17). This God is the Father (1:17, 27; 3:9), an early Christian and Jewish framing of deity in terms of creation, redemption, and provision to all.175
All this is typically Jewish or Christian, but James does something that ought to startle any who have concluded that James is early: there is confusion in this letter at times whether he is speaking of the Father or Jesus when he uses the word “Lord.”176 Some texts are quite clear. James already calls God “Father” (1:17, 27; 3:9) and sometimes he refers to the Father when he uses the word “Lord” (1:17; 3:9; 4:10, 15; 5:4). But other times he uses “Lord” for Jesus Christ (2:1). Most noteworthy are ambiguous uses of this term (5:7–8, 10–11, 14, 15). One can make a case for these either way, but that is not the point. Rather, we need to observe that use of “Lord” is no longer a single, traditional referent to YHWH. James’s christology is not what it will be with Paul, Hebrews, John, or Peter, but it is in the chrysalis awaiting re-formation.177 As Bill Baker has outlined, James’s christology involves Jesus as teacher (see the comments below at 2:8), but more significantly there is a broaching of the deity of Christ in this use of “Lord” for Jesus and in the use of “the name” (2:7; 5:10), and perhaps also in Jesus as lawgiver and judge (cf. 4:11–12).178 James sees himself as a “servant” of both God and the Lord Jesus Christ; this connection has drawn the interest of those scouting for early christology.179 This heightened christology is reshaping early Christian theology and makes a cameo appearance when James refers to Jesus Messiah as “the Glorious One” in 2:1.180

McKnight, S. (2011). The Letter of James (pp. 42–43). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Why is McKnight being so ambiguous about it? It seems clear Jesus is divine in James by referring to him as the Honorable Name and calling him Lord. "Chrysalis awaiting re-formation"? James, whether it was Jesus' brother, Zebedee, or another James, obviously knew Jesus and witnessed His resurrection.

What does McKnight have to say in his Colossians commentary about Paul's demonology? Paul seems to specifically use the language of political office and power. I suspect I know why but I'm interested in what McKnight has to say about it. He's much more qualified than me!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088270#Comment_1088270

. . . I assume the answer is scholarly caution. But I find ambiguous mincing of words like that to be frustrating. I suppose the malfeasant behavior of "scholars" like Ehrman who openly declare the NT is all forged nonsense based on absurd logic and fabricated evidence. As a result, I find myself quite jaded at times, and on this topic more than almost any other.

. . .

From another thread:

PSA: This thread was reported for violating forum guidelines for "theological dispute." I disagree; let me explain why.

This is not a theological dispute, because it's not debating the merits of one theological system over another. Rather, this is a discussion of an author-- in particular, attempting to clarify the doctrinal stance of the author. As long as the discussion sticks to factual statements about the author, this is fair game.

I fail to see how the defamation of Ehrman falls within Adam's explanation. Just because Ehrman starts with a different set of assumptions than you is no reason to insult him; rather it is reason to identify those assumptions and understand why they necessarily lead to different conclusions.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088284#Comment_1088284

I removed complaints and banter directed toward MJ Smith in this post.
I'd like to ask if anyone would comment on 'why do scholars often use seemingly amiguous language' in regard to Christology / Divinity? Is it to keep with an objective tone?

More importantly, McKnight's Collossians commentary, what does he have to say about Paul's demonology in his commentary? Specifically the use of political office / institutions as a stand in for evil spirits?

Are there other commentaries which discuss demonology in the NT within the current sale?

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088285#Comment_1088285

Alright you win. I plead guilty. I'm not being sarcastic. By the time i thought to remove that part, you had already commented.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088292#Comment_1088292

I removed my second comment

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088294#Comment_1088294

Well thanks I appreciate that.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088285#Comment_1088285

I'd like to ask if anyone would comment on 'why do scholars often use seemingly ambiguous language' in regard to Christology / Divinity? Is it to keep with an objective tone?

More importantly, McKnight's Colossians commentary, what does he have to say about Paul's demonology in his commentary? Specifically the use of political office / institutions as a stand in for evil spirits?

Are there other commentaries which discuss demonology in the NT within the current sale?

Here's a word of advice: If you want to study the subject of "Christology/Divinity" or "Demonology" it's best to buy a monograph/book on that specific topic. Commentaries is not really the way to go, as they will only give you a brief mention of a few views without getting into much detail.

Also, you cannot decide whether you're going to buy a commentary or not based on what the author says or if you agree or disagree with what the author says. If that was the case, my library would have fewer than 1,000 books. I come from what some call "Restoration Movement" background and most of the commentaries I own and read don't necessarily agree with what I believe, but that doesn't mean I won't read them or purchase them because they don't say what I believe.

Either way, when it comes to commentaries, everybody wants to have them all, but we have to learn to buy responsibly and be good stewards of our finances. From what I remember in recent posts by you, you're kind of tight with your budget. Logos can be addictive, so you might want to be careful. It's just an advice. At the end of the day you decide how you spend your money.

Also, don't buy a commentary just because in one small section it backs up what you believe, because 90% of the time, the rest of the material will be something you don't agree with.

Anyway, I hope you don't take my post the wrong way. Here's some of what McKnight says about stoicheia:

But Paul now pushes these traditions deeper when he announces that this philosophy depends as well on “the elemental spiritual forces of this world.”49 This rare expression is a source of much discussion, with the options seemingly revolving around three main ideas. Each is based on the term being adopted from the Greco-Roman world,50 and each view can bleed into the other interpretations:

1. doctrinal: it refers to elemental doctrines, teachings, beliefs, or convictions—like law and flesh or basic Torah teachings (e.g., Heb 5:12; Xenophon, Memorabilia 2.1.1);51
2. cosmic, spiritual, and personal: it refers to elemental spirits or gods, manifested in cosmic bodies and in pagan worship (e.g., Col 2:18, 20);52 or, in a slightly less personal-being sense:
3. cosmological: it refers to elements of the universe like earth, air, water, and fire (e.g., 2 Pet 3:10, 12; Wis 7:17; 4 Macc 12:13).

But this third view needs to be soaked in a first-century worldview: these elements can be understood as having a spiritual or cosmic-god dimension. Furthermore, some reduce this category to a more material “created things” at work in this world.53
Many today prefer the second option and see here elemental, fallen, demonic spirits at work in all creation, perhaps most notably in systemic injustices and rulers.54 A clear example, though from a period later than this letter, is found in the Testament of Solomon 8:1–3: “Again, I [Solomon] glorified God, who gave me this authority, and I commanded another demon to appear before me. There came seven spirits bound up together hand and foot, fair of form and graceful. When I, Solomon, saw them, I was amazed and asked them, ‘Who are you?’ They replied, ‘We are heavenly bodies [stoicheia], rulers of this world of darkness.’ The first said, ‘I am Deception.’ ” Dunn sums this view up in these words: “Human beings had to live their lives under the influence or sway of primal and cosmic forces.”55
To the degree 2:16–17 directly speaks to this expression, to the same degree the first option takes the lead, but I would urge us to move away from a theology-only framing to a more halakic or praxis framing of this “philosophy.” In attempting to discern what is at work here, I suggest we make some connections: “hollow deception” parallels “shadow” in 2:17, a term that suggestively ties us to the Letter to the Hebrews (8:5; 9:11; 10:1), where a Jewish polemic is at work. Because Paul uses the term stoicheia in 2:20, where it once again refers ostensibly to Jewish halakah (notice 2:20–23), I am inclined to see in the stoicheia a clever reference to diaspora-framed Jewish halakic practices understood now as having spiritual force contrary to the will of God (cf. Gal 3:19, 23–25; 4:1–3, 9–10). It is likely that Paul uses this rare term for the same referent in both Colossians and Galatians; in both, Torah and its interpretive tradition are at work.56
Indeed, the problem in the end is quite clear to Paul: all of this is not dependent “on Christ,” as he says at the end of v. 8. He operates here not with an anti-Semitic or even an anti-Judaistic theology but a Christocentric theology that reframes the entire story of Israel around and toward Jesus as its one true Lord and Messiah. For him, the halakic mystics were not Jewish enough. The problem with the Colossian Jewish opposition, to adapt the famous words of E. P. Sanders, was that it was not Christian and Christocentric.57

McKnight, S. (2018). The Letter to the Colossians. (N. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, G. D. Fee, & J. B. Green, Eds.) (pp. 226–228). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1087980#Comment_1087980

I’d like to get only one commentary, too, but I can’t decide. Moo’s Romans (2nd edition) or Bruce’s Acts commentary? Isn’t the Acts commentary a bit outdated? Which one do you prefer?

Bruce is dated. Get Bock or Peterson on Acts. They are more up-to-date than Bruce's commentary. Bock is number 1 in most reviews and in my book, Peterson is right behind him. Romans go for the 2nd edition by Moo. You'll get some treatment on the New Perspective on Paul, something you don't get in the 1st edition.

DAL

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088304#Comment_1088304

I would buy 1 Corinthians by Fee. The best treatment of this challenging epistle. You don’t need to agree with all his conclusions but you’ll understand why he chose as he did.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088307#Comment_1088307

I would buy 1 Corinthians by Fee. The best treatment of this challenging epistle. You don’t need to agree with all his conclusions but you’ll understand why he chose as he did.

Gordon Fee is a delight to read! You're reading, but it's like he was actually there talking to you. He's definitely got a unique talent for writing! (Even if I don't agree with everything he says) [Y]

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1088308#Comment_1088308

Advice appreciated DAL. I do purchase books I disagree with it's just I tend to prioritize when I'm on a budget. Thankfully financial situation is slowly stabilizing and I'm happy about that. I'm not sure what stoicheia refers to. Rulers I'm almost certain are demonic, but others like "thrones" and "dominions" might have more corrupt governments in mind. It doesn't necessarily exclude the demonic in those cases, but that might not be the primary intent.