Value of Gundry's NT Commentary

What is the value of Gundry's one-volume NT commentary over the different multi-volume commentaries? I like his judgments and interpretations in his other books, but I do not know about his commentary. His translations are well defined and clear while being concise. His emphasis on looking at the biblical and textual evidence, not traditions, is compelling as well. I prefer the Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary and the IVP Bible Backgrounds Commentary over any one-volume commentary, so I may be biased. What does everyone think? https://www.logos.com/product/43168/commentary-on-the-new-testament-verse-by-verse-explanations-with-a-literal-translation

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Kenneth Neighoff

I believe the one volume commentary is a compilation of the individual commentaries of each book. So no difference just a convenient format.

David Thomas

What is the value of

Are you familiar with Bestcommentaries.com ? As a Liberty student, I think you will find the theological perspective of BestCommentaries to be compatible with your professors.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184599#Comment_1184599

Yes I use it regularly but was looking for something that would give me a better contextual and theological perspective and I was not familiar with Gundry's NT Commentary.

WR82

Does anyone have an excerpt to share, say of John 1:9-14?

I‘d enjoy reading how he explains this passage.

WR82

David P. Moore

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184673#Comment_1184673

Does anyone have an excerpt to share, say of John 1:9-14?

Here you go (sorry, can't get all the paragraphs to take):

There are several possible translations of 1:9:

• He [the light who is the life who in turn is the Word] was the true light that enlightens every human being who comes into the world.
• He was the true light that by coming into the world enlightens every human being.
• The true light that enlightens every human being was coming into the world.

The main meaning is pretty clear, though. First, the description of the light as “true” not only keeps us from mistaking the Baptist for the light. It also associates the light with truth, which will become a major theme in this Gospel, as in 14:6, “I am … the truth,” and 18:38, where the Roman governor Pontius Pilate asks, “What is truth?” when the truth is standing right in front of him. Second, although the people who make up the darkness don’t come to the light because their deeds are evil (3:19–20), the light enlightens all human beings in the sense that he shines on all of them. Astronomically speaking, the sun is the light of the world; and it shines on the righteous and unrighteous alike (Matthew 5:45). So also this divine light is the light of the world in that he exposes human evil but brings the light of life to all who believe. Third, since elsewhere in John’s Gospel coming into the world refers to the incarnation of the Word, here in 1:9 “coming into the world” probably relates not to “every human being” but to “the true light” and explains how that light shines. He shines by coming into the world. As the Word the light was with God in the beginning. But the Word became the light for human beings not till he left God and came into the world.

And what is this “world” he entered? 1:10: He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him. So far, all we have to think of is the planet Earth. But the verse finishes with this statement: and the world didn’t know him. So the world isn’t planet Earth, or at least not exclusively or primarily this planet. It’s the world of human beings who live here—in particular, unbelievers who make up the darkness that opposes the light and didn’t recognize the Word for what he was: the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). “World” translates the Greek word cosmos, which contrasts with chaos and therefore means in John the society of human beings organized around their unbelief, around their failure to recognize the true light.

1:11–13: He came into his own things and his own ones didn’t accept him. “His own things” are the “all things” which came into existence through him and therefore belong to him as his proper home (1:3 [compare 16:32; 19:27]). That is, he entered his creation. “His own ones” are the Jews, who figure prominently later in John (compare 1:31; but avoid any anti-Semitic inference, for Jesus himself says in 4:22, “Salvation is from the Jews”). Not even they accepted him. And they didn’t accept him because by and large they didn’t recognize him. Happily, there were exceptions: 12 But as many as did accept him—to them, the ones believing in his name, he gave authority to become God’s children.… To accept the light means to believe in his name. To believe in his name means to entrust our fate to him because of who his name indicates he is. But what name is in view? Not “Jesus” or “Christ” or “Lord” or “Son of God” or “Son of Man,” because those names haven’t yet appeared in John’s text. The name could be “Word” except for the fact that later we’ll read that the name belongs also to God the Father (17:11–12), yet John never calls the Father “Word.” John has already mentioned a shared name, though. It’s “God”: “the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). To believe in the light’s name, then, is to entrust our fate to him because of his being the Word who is God in communication with us human beings to give us the eternal life of God himself, a communication of light, the light of divine truth—a word of communication that stands in stark contrast with “Silence,” which was a divine name in the Greco-Roman religions of John’s era.
Since the light that is the Word shines on all human beings and since most of “his own ones” didn’t accept him, those who did accept him became “God’s children” as distinct from the children of Israel. But why does John say that the light gave them “authority” to become God’s children instead of saying simply that as many as accepted him “became” God’s children? Why does the word “authority” slip in? Probably because biological ancestry, even Israelite ancestry, gives nobody a claim on God. So John continues: 13 who were born not out of bloods [the bloodlines of biological parents] nor out of the will of flesh [sexual attraction of male and female] nor out of the will of a husband [who wants an heir to carry on his family line], but out of God. That is to say, God himself is the source of this birth that carries the authority, the right, to become his children. Because it originates from God the birth will later be designated a birth “from above” (3:3, 7). It doesn’t have its source in the flesh, but to make it possible the Word became flesh. 1:14: And the Word became flesh and tented among us. “Flesh”—not an apparition, but honest-to-goodness flesh, incarnation as a means toward communication. In the Word incarnate, God speaks the language of humanity, which we as human beings can understand. The Word’s tenting “among us” indicates a communication at close range—open, immediate, and accessible. “Tented” indicates a temporary such communication, for tents don’t have the permanence of buildings. We’ve already seen that the light shone for only a little while (see the comments on 1:4). But “tented” also alludes to the tent, traditionally called “the tabernacle,” in which God dwelled for a while among his people Israel and where they met him (see Exodus 25 and following chapters). So believers met God when the incarnate Word, who was God, tented among them. John aims his statement, “And the Word became flesh,” against certain heretics (called Gnostics) who out of a belief that everything physical is inherently evil denied the incarnation. According to them, the Word only seemed to be fleshly (hence “docetism,” after a Greek verb that means “seem” [see further the introduction to 1 John]). And we saw his glory, glory as of a one-and-only from the Father, [glory] full of grace and truth. The traditional translation “only begotten” is misleading, because 1:13 has told us that believers were born—that is, begotten—from God, so that the Word can’t be God’s only begotten one. Furthermore, the Word’s existing already in the beginning rules out being begotten then. Nor is there textual warrant for an eternally timeless begetting. And because the Fourth Gospel contains no account of a virginal conception and birth, that kind of begetting, though unique, is hardly in view. So “one-and-only” highlights the uniqueness of the incarnate Word as him who came from the Father bearing his own divine glory because he along with the Father was God. The term “Father” implies the Word is God’s Son. This relationship doesn’t imply that the Word had a beginning at a birth, though. It means only that the Word relates to God as a son relates to his father. The relationship is one of subordination by way of obedience alongside equally shared deity, as will come out explicitly and repeatedly later in John. Similarly, in human relationships a son is no less human than his father even though he obeys his father. And John’s choice of “the Father” rather than “God” suggests that “a one-and-only” also implies God’s fatherly love for the Word, for a one-and-only son naturally becomes the special object of his father’s love (so also in the Old Testament, and see John 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 15:9–10; 17:23–24, 26 for God the Father’s loving Jesus his Son).

“The glory” isn’t that of a cloud and pillar of fire such as hovered over the Old Testament tabernacle. It’s a glory of “grace and truth” (compare Exodus 33:18–19; 34:5–7). Grace has an aesthetic dimension. It connotes beauty and attractiveness, but above all it means favor—here divine favor to an ill-deserving world of moral darklings. Truth is what is trustworthy as opposed to falsehood, but also what is real and genuine as opposed to imitation and superficiality. The Word’s glory is full of such grace and truth. There’s no lack. The supply is sufficient for all.

Who are the “we” who saw this glory? John seems to be referring to himself and his fellow disciples who with him saw in person the glory of the incarnate Word (compare 19:35; 21:24). And before those original disciples was John the Baptist.

Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 349–350.

WR82

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184703#Comment_1184703

wow thank you. Very rich.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184703#Comment_1184703

Here you go (sorry, can't get all the paragraphs to take):

Your excerpt just convinced me to buy Gundry's commentary on sale... [:^)] [:)] Pretty powerful stuff, and dense!

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1184778#Comment_1184778

I will be adding this work to my collection before the end of the month. Thanks for the passage.