Great Pre Pubs

I just wanted to remind people of some cool prepubs most of the ones i have listed are to the almost there.... The New Interpreter's Bible is still pretty far behind though, but a publication of that high a quality is bound to make it eventually. Get your pre-orders in. if these wonderful resources interest you.

http://www.logos.com/product/8801/new-interpreters-dictionary-of-the-bible-5-vols

New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible in five volumes provides the best quality in contemporary biblical scholarship on a comprehensive range of topics,

http://www.logos.com/product/8803/new-interpreters-bible

New Interpreter’s Bible presents leading biblical scholarship through an in-depth commentary on the complete Bible, including the Apocrypha.

http://www.logos.com/product/6752/the-new-daily-study-bible-new-testament

Daily Study Bible commentaries have been the ideal help for both devotional and serious Bible study.

http://www.logos.com/product/6751/interpretation-a-bible-commentary-for-teaching-and-preaching

Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching offers a full interpretation of the biblical text, combining historical scholarship and theological purpose.

http://www.logos.com/product/4292/augsburg-commentary-on-the-new-testament

Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament brings the best of biblical scholarship to bear on the most pressing exegetical and interpretive issues in the New Testament.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

tom

They are already on my prepub list.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/216966#Comment_216966

They are already on my prepub list.

All any of us can do.....

-Dan

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/216966#Comment_216966

Ditto. I'm now in the habit of checking the new prepubs list almost every day. I don't jump on everything new I see there, but anything that is not completely uninteresting to me I do. I'm glad to see these have come along so far already.

Tim Hogan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217020#Comment_217020

ok, how is the new daily bible study (commentary) different from what i have in the daily bible study series (revised), they have the same number of pages even. Just wondering what I'm missing, aka, revelation (2 vol.) in both.

Thanks

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217025#Comment_217025

ok, how is the new daily bible study (commentary) different from what i have in the daily bible study series (revised), they have the same number of pages even. Just wondering what I'm missing, aka, revelation (2 vol.) in both.

Thanks

The copyright dates seem a little older (like Rev is 2000, in the prepub ad it's 2004), but they sure look very similar - must be some minor editing or revisions? Layout of the books is identical. I am interested too. Rev 1 has 183 pages v s. 201 advertised, Rev 2 is 232 vs. 262 advertised, etc.

The ad says this - "so significantly revised, updated, and edited that it is widely considered a distinct work from the original Barclay Study Bible"

Tim Hogan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217036#Comment_217036

Ok, I just looked at the same page count in romans, but I'll just have to leave it alone, because if you don't have it then this would be worth getting; but if you do...

Peace

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217036#Comment_217036

ok, how is the new daily bible study (commentary) different from what i have in the daily bible study series (revised), they have the same number of pages even. Just wondering what I'm missing, aka, revelation (2 vol.) in both.

Thanks

The copyright dates seem a little older (like Rev is 2000, in the prepub ad it's 2004), but they sure look very similar - must be some minor editing or revisions? Layout of the books is identical. I am interested too. Rev 1 has 183 pages v s. 201 advertised, Rev 2 is 232 vs. 262 advertised, etc.

The ad says this - "so significantly revised, updated, and edited that it is widely considered a distinct work from the original Barclay Study Bible"

It has been gender inclusivized, and the numerous unattributed quotes have been researched to add the sources. If you are an owner of the original set like I am it may not be considered a must but I want to use it on my iphone and unless logos ever allows us to install from our computers it isn;t going to happen.

-Dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217102#Comment_217102

Thanks to anyone who ordered the NIB last night it went from a red bar to being listed as almost there... Hopefully it won't be too long before it's "under contract."

-Dan

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217025#Comment_217025

ok, how is the new daily bible study (commentary) different from what i have in the daily bible study series (revised),

In another thread, someone mentioned that some of the original comments on 1 Corinthians 6 had been removed in the new edition. I am not interested in the new edition as I purchased the original just before Logos lost the right to publish.

Eric Weiss

I just wanted to remind people of some cool prepubs most of the ones i have listed are to the almost there.... The New Interpreter's Bible is still pretty far behind though, but a publication of that high a quality is bound to make it eventually. Get your pre-orders in. if these wonderful resources interest you.

http://www.logos.com/product/8801/new-interpreters-dictionary-of-the-bible-5-vols

New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible in five volumes provides the best quality in contemporary biblical scholarship on a comprehensive range of topics,

How does the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible compare to the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary that's $130 cheaper ($269.95 vs. $400)? http://www.logos.com/product/1660/anchor-yale-bible-dictionary

Eric Weiss

I just wanted to remind people of some cool prepubs most of the ones i have listed are to the almost there.... The New Interpreter's Bible is still pretty far behind though, but a publication of that high a quality is bound to make it eventually. Get your pre-orders in. if these wonderful resources interest you.

http://www.logos.com/product/8803/new-interpreters-bible

New Interpreter’s Bible presents leading biblical scholarship through an in-depth commentary on the complete Bible, including the Apocrypha.

I know it's a several-years-long project, but the Logos Evangelical Commentary series is $100 less (pre-pub price) than this $800 Interpreter's Bible that would not, IMO, be able to encapsulate as much information as a full commentary can. Why is this set worth $800?

I did find this interesting review comment online about the New Interpreter's Bible:

"...One thing I found very disappointing with previous Bible commentaries
and study bibles is the authors were very unwilling to actually question
the Bible and what occurs in it. "It is right, because it is God's
infallible word, and because it is God's infallible word, everything in
it is right" is basically the sort of philosophy I came across in
Evangelical and other commentaries which seem to dominate the stores
here.* But does this philosophy make sense when so many religions have
their own book(s) and claim them to be the infallible word of the Deity
or Deities that dictate them? What about the complex historical and
literary questions surrounding the four canonical gospels, and the
nature of the historical Jesus? What about the terrible violence and
rapine we see in so much of the Old Testament, much of it seemingly
ordained by God? What about the extra-canonical books from which the
composers of the Bible drew inspiration (especially the New Testament and the emphasis on a coming apocalypse, or Jude's quoting by
Enoch)? On what authority do we judge the Bible to be authoritative?

"This commentary has answered all of my questions to my great relief
and satisfaction, without destroying my faith. The great thing about
this commentary is it tackles these problems head on without sticking
their heads in the intellectual sand and resorting to empty sophistry to
defend the authority and canonicity of the Bible. The writers of the
commentary are also not averse to critical historical scholarship, which
instead of destroying the Bible's integrity and beauty, actually
reinforces it and sheds much greater light on issues that seem strange...."

I personally hope the forthcoming Logos Commentary series doesn't skirt or disregard problematic issues by resorting to shibboleths of "inerrancy" and "infallibility." A truly scholarly commentary shouldn't IMO let one's faith commitment override dealing with the text as it is, problems and all.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217236#Comment_217236

Why is this set worth $800?

Eric,

I have placed this on my prepub list simply because of what you said in your post. This commentary has good scholarship, and it is not a critical commentary series like Word and Hermeneia (I have both, but I do not need another critical commentary series).

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217258#Comment_217258

So for those who have pre-ordered the New Interpreter's Dictionary and/or Bible, what are the expected pre-pub dates? I don't see it on the product pages, and didn't know if it only shows up when it's in your Account Order history page.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217258#Comment_217258

Why is this set worth $800?

Eric,

I have placed this on my prepub list simply because of what you said in your post. This commentary has good scholarship, and it is not a critical commentary series like Word and Hermeneia (I have both, but I do not need another critical commentary series).

It is a critical commentary, but it also has reflections on all passages. The original Interpreter's Bible had two distinct sections title exposition and exegesis and really were two very different commentaries put together (since each section was by a separate author) but this lead to some overlapping of what was covered in each. The NIB has a very broad range of contributors from evangelicals to liberals to catholic. These authors generally use an irenic approach with other views on controversial issues. The works like all series can be a bit uneven, but generally I would say the quality is probably as high as most peoples estimates of Word biblical. The commentary is less technical than Word or Hermeneia.

I am randomly choosing a Bible passage to show here (random in that it is from the Daily lectionary). Galatians 4:1–11 there are two tables there that don;t show up too well but i hope this gives you a taste of the series, Galatians in my opinion isn't one of the stronger books in the NIB, but I still find it good.

GALATIANS 4:1-11, THE FULLNESS OF TIME HAS COME
OVERVIEW
As we have seen, Paul opened his counterarguments in 3:1-5 with a direct appeal to the Galatians' own experience of receiving the Spirit in response to his proclamation of the gospel. He then turned to an argument from Scripture in 3:6-29, demonstrating that by virtue of their participation in Christ the Galatians are already "Abraham's seed" and, therefore, legitimate heirs of God's promise (which is also identified with the Spirit in 3:14, the only reference to the Spirit in that section of the letter). Now in 4:1-7 he refers again to their experience of the Spirit as proof that they are children, not just of Abraham, but of God. The Spirit is the sign that they have been adopted into God's family. Paul contrasts this experience of familial relation to God to the Galatians' former state as slaves of cosmic powers and makes the astonishing assertion that, should they place themselves under the Jewish Law, they would be returning to the same state of slavery they had previously known as pagans (4:8-11).
Galatians 4:1-7, We Are Heirs and Children of God
COMMENTARY
Using the image of the Galatians as "heirs" in 3:29 as a point of departure, Paul picks up this imagery again and develops it with specific application to the present situation of the Galatians-and all believers, Jewish and Gentile alike-now that Christ has come. In some ways, 4:1-7 can be read as a recapitulation of 3:23-29, as Dunn demonstrates:185

<Page 280 Ends><Page 281 Begins>

Figure 4: Parallels Between Gal 3:23-29 and 4:1-7*
3:23-29     4:1-7
(23) Before the coming of faith we were held in custody under the Law confined until the coming faith should be revealed    (1) As long as the heir is a child...
(2) he is under guardians and stewards until the time set by the father.
(24) The Law was our custodian until Christ came...   (3) As children we were enslaved under the elemental forces
(25) But now that faith has come   (4) But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son...
we are no longer under a custodian.   (5) in order to redeem those under the Law.
(26) For all of you are sons of God...   in order that we might receive adoption.
(27) You all were baptized into Christ...   (6) God sent the Spirit of his Son...
(29) So then you are Abraham's seed, heirs in accordance with promise.   (7) So that you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Paul is not merely repeating himself. He introduces several new elements that apply the inheritance analogy directly to the situation the Galatians now face, and he more explicitly describes the sending of God's Son as a cosmic rescue operation.
4:1-2. Paul continues to set forth a picture based on the metaphor of inheritance. In these verses he describes the situation of a minor (male) heir whose father's will has made provision for his estate to be managed by "guardians and trustees" during the period of the heir's minority. In vv. 3-5, Paul will explain how this picture applies to the situation of the Galatians. The term "heir" (klhrono;mov kleronomos) in v. 1 is singular, as in the NIV; the NRSV has made it plural in the interest of inclusive language. These comments will follow the NIV's usage, in order to stay closer to the imagery Paul actually employs.186
When Paul says that the minor heir is "no different from a slave," he is employing rhetorical exaggeration, with a view to the application he will develop in vv. 3-5. The heir is, of course, in a very different position from a slave because he is the rightful owner of the property, and he will eventually take charge of it. During the period of his minority, however, he does not have authority over the management of the property, which is in the hands of "guardians and trustees." There has been much scholarly discussion of the precise legal background for Paul's terminology.187 The former term refers to a legally appointed guardian or tutor, whereas the latter is a general term for "steward" or "administrator." This word, which appears, for example, in a number of Jesus' parables (e.g., Luke 16:1-9), regularly designates a slave charged with oversight and management of a household's affairs. Paul applies the same word metaphorically to himself, as a steward charged by God with responsibility for the church, in 1 Cor 4:1-2. Paul is speaking in general terms here for the purpose of illustration, and there is no point in seeking to pin down precise legal details presupposed by the analogy, which works only loosely in any case. The salient point is that the young heir is "under" (uJpo; hypo) the authority of these guardians; this is the same preposition used in 3:22-25 and in 4:3-5 to refer to being under Sin, under the Law, under the(paidagogos), and under the "elements of the world" (see the Commentary on 4:3, 9).
In Paul's illustration, as in these other cases, the heir's subjection is only temporary. He is subject to the guardians and trustees only "until the time set by the father." The "time set" is a fixed day on which the heir's minority ends and he receives control of the estate. In Roman law, this date was not determined at the discretion of the individual testator. It was fixed by law; the minor was under a tutor until the age of fourteen and then under a "curator" until age twenty-five. Again, however, whether this detail corresponds precisely to the provisions of inheritance law in Paul's culture is beside the point; he is already looking ahead to his application in v. 4, thinking of the fact that it is God who appoints the time for the state of subjection to come to an end. The crucial word here is the preposition "until," which

<Page 281 Ends><Page 282 Begins>
recalls 3:19, 23 and anticipates 4:4. Paul is highlighting the temporary character of the heir's subjection.
4:3. Now Paul applies his illustration. The little parable of the enslaved heir is a figurative depiction of the experience of Paul and his readers. Immediately, we face a crucial question: To whom do the first-person plural pronouns here and in v. 5 refer? Is Paul referring to "we Jews" (as in 2:15-16; 3:13a, and probably 3:23-25), or is he now speaking from a perspective that includes his Gentile converts (as in 3:14)? The parallel between v. 3 and vv. 8-9 requires the latter: All humanity was "enslaved" prior to the coming of the Son of God. Paul's inclusion of himself in the class of persons enslaved under the elements may in the first instance be understood as an example of his identification with his Gentile addressees, as in 1 Cor 9:21a; however, as we shall see in vv. 8-11, Paul has in mind a more radical analysis of the human plight. The Law itself is among the enslaving "elements"; thus he as Jew shared with the pagan Galatians a condition of slavery from which he needed to be liberated (see the Commentary on 4:8-11).
But this analysis leads to the second crucial problem in v. 3: the meaning of Paul's expression ta; stoicei'a tou' ko;smou (ta stoicheia tou kosmou). The NRSV's "the elemental spirits of the world" and the NIV's "the basic principles of the world" represent two different interpretations of this much-contested expression.188
The term stoicheia can mean "the basics" or "rudimentary principles" of any field of knowledge (see Heb 5:12). If Paul has this meaning in mind here, he is saying, "We were enslaved to basic principles of religion (whether pagan religion or Jewish Law) that we have now outgrown or transcended." On this reading, Paul is saying that the human problem is one of ignorance, and its solution would be a revelation that brings higher knowledge, enabling us to move to maturity. This interpretation, represented by the NIV, has received the support of several recent commentators.189 There are, however, two serious objections to this reading. First, none of the ancient parallels in which stoicheia has the meaning "basic principles" speak of "the basic principles of the world." Second, and most telling, Paul does not speak in Gal 4:1-7 of a gradual growth or progression beyond an elementary stage of religion to a more advanced one. He speaks, rather, of an invasion of the world by God's Son to rescue us from a state of slavery to the stoicheia.
By far the most common meaning of stoicheia in the first century was "the elemental substances from which everything in the natural world is composed"-that is, according to the traditional view, earth, air, fire, and water (e.g., 2 Pet 3:10, 12). Indeed, this is the only meaning attested outside the Pauline letters in this period for the expression ta stoicheia tou kosmou.190 It is not immediately evident how this meaning would be pertinent in Gal 4:3, 9 (but see Martyn's proposal, below).
Later texts, from the second century CE onward, begin to use the expression to refer to "elemental spirits" associated with these four elements. Developing out of this meaning was a tendency to associate these elemental spirits with the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars), whose movements were thought to exercise determinative-and sometimes hostile-control over human life. This is the interpretation represented by the NRSV and supported by some important commentaries.191 Thus, on this reading, the stoicheia can be closely linked with "the cosmic powers of this present darkness...the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Eph 6:4 NRSV). It is not hard to see how Paul could associate the worship of pagan deities, in the Galatians' former life, with slavery to such celestial powers. The difficulty for this reading, however, emerges in vv. 9-10, when Paul describes the Galatians' turning to observance of Jewish Law as a return to slavery under the stoicheia. How could Law-observant worship of the God of Israel possibly be categorized as slavery to the principalities and powers?
In the light of the evidence, Martyn has argued persuasively that the rival Missionaries in Galatia may have sought to convince the Galatians

<Page 282 Ends><Page 283 Begins>
that their worship of pagan divinities was an ill-informed worship of the natural elements (the second meaning of stoicheia) that ought to point them to a truer form of religion, exemplified by Abraham, who moved through the contemplation of the heavenly bodies to discern the God who made and ordered them. In support of this suggestion, Martyn cites several impressive parallels from Hellenistic Jewish texts.192 The point of the Missionaries' evangelistic strategy, then, would be to persuade the Galatians that the Law provided the true understanding of the natural world and the heavenly bodies and, therefore, regulated the calendar of human religious observance in a manner that enabled correct celebration of holy feasts at the proper times; hence, Paul's disparaging reference to observing "special days and months and seasons and years" (v. 10). This would explain why Paul could make the otherwise puzzling claim that coming under the Law would constitute a resubjection to the stoicheia (see the Commentary on 4:8-10).
In any case, Paul portrays all humanity as existing in a condition of slavery prior to God's dramatic intervention. That intervention is the theme of vv. 4-7.
4:4-5. The expression "when the fullness of time had come" indicates the apocalyptic frame of reference for Paul's thought. God is conceived as having a cosmic timetable and an appointed day (cf. v. 2) to break into humanity's history of misery to bring the promised redemption. (For other such apocalyptic conceptions of the appointed fulfillment of time, see Dan 8:19; 11:35; 1 QpHab 7:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 21:24; Acts 1:7; 3:21; Eph 1:10.) The decision to intervene is God's alone, and the timing is God's alone (cf. Mark 13:32, where it is only the Father who knows the time of appointed deliverance).
This passage shares with Rom 8:3-4 the motif of God's sending the Son to redeem humanity from a state of powerlessness; furthermore, both passages move to a climactic affirmation of the Spirit as a transforming power in the community of those whom the Son has redeemed (see also Rom 8:15-17). The similarity of these passages to John 3:16-17 and 1 John 4:9-10 has encouraged the hypothesis that in Gal 4:4-5 Paul is quoting a confessional "sending formula" that was current in early Christian communities.193 Several commentators have questioned whether this formula presupposes the heavenly pre-existence of the Son.194 It is true that the idea of "sending" by itself can be used with reference to God's commissioning of prophets or apostles (e.g., Jer 7:25; Acts 22:21) and need not imply pre-existence. Nonetheless, regardless of the hypothetical origins of the formula, in the light of Phil 2:5-11 (also much debated) and other Pauline expressions of exalted christology (e.g., 1 Cor 8:6), it seems likely that Paul did think of the Son as pre-existent, sent forth from heaven on a rescue mission.
At the same time, two participial phrases give expression to the full humanity of the Son, who is the protagonist in this narrative of redemption. He was "born of a woman, born under Law." The expression "born of a woman" indicates simply that he was human (cf. Job 14:1; Matt 11:11). There is no indication here, or anywhere else, that Paul knew the name of Jesus' mother or that he knew a tradition of Jesus' virgin birth. The fact that Jesus was "born under Law" means that he was a Jew. Further, it means that he found himself under the same confining custody of the Law that Paul has already described in 3:23-just as the heir in 4:2 was under guardians and trustees.
It is tempting to read Paul's narrative in counterpoint with the parable of the wicked tenants (Mark 12:1-12), in which the vineyard owner sends a beloved son to reclaim an inheritance that is being badly managed by abusive administrators, who say of the son, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him" (NRSV). Almost certainly Paul is not referring to this parable, but-if he is quoting a confessional tradition in vv. 4-5-the motif of God's sending the Son may have its roots in Jesus' parable, as remembered and interpreted by the community after his death and resurrection. Whatever one might make of these parallels, however, it is clear that Paul does not have a christological allegory in mind in vv. 1-2, as v. 3 makes clear; the heir in his analogy stands not for Christ (despite

<Page 283 Ends><Page 284 Begins>
3:16) but for humanity enslaved under the stoicheia.
The fact that God's Son was born under subjection to the Law is crucial to his mission, which was to "redeem [ejxagora;sh/ exagorase] those under Law." The verb refers to emancipation from slavery, with overtones of paying the price to purchase the slave's freedom (cf. 1 Cor 6:19b-20). This is the same verb that Paul used in 3:13, the only other place in his letters that the word occurs. The link makes it clear that the Son achieved his rescue mission by taking the Law's curse on himself in his death on the cross; in order for him to do that, it was necessary that he be born as one of the people of Israel, under the Law. Although the cross is not explicitly mentioned in v. 5, it would be misleading to suppose that Paul here thinks of a redemption achieved solely through the incarnation of the Son as opposed to through his death.195 Paul did not compartmentalize confessional statements in that fashion. Galatians 3:13 and 4:4-5 are two summarizations of the same story, and the action of "redemption" alluded to in 4:5 has already been more fully narrated in the earlier passage.
If v. 5a refers to Christ's redemption of Israel from the Law's curse, then the second clause of the verse refers to the rectification of Gentiles, made possible by Christ's redemptive death.196 They are now adopted into God's family. (This is the simple meaning of the noun uiJoqesi;a [huiothesia], rightly translated as "adoption" by the NRSV but given a needlessly complicated paraphrase in the NIV; for other uses of the term, see Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4; Eph 1:5.) This clause is closely parallel to 3:14a, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles." The fact that Paul now speaks of "adoption" shows that he has moved beyond the framework of his analogy in vv. 1-2, where he spoke of one who stands to receive an inheritance by birth. The Gentiles, by contrast, are embraced within God's grace as adopted children. The idea is similar to the point Paul makes in Rom 11:17-24, using the metaphor of the Gentiles as wild olive branches grafted onto a cultivated olive tree. God's mercy has called a people "not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles" (Rom 9:24 NRSV). The vision of the Gentiles as adopted into God's family through the death of Christ is elegantly articulated in a passage in Ephesians that can be read as a commentary on Gal 4:5b:
So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"-a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands-remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ....So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God. (Eph 2:11-13, 19 NRSV)
At the same time, Paul's adoption metaphor may have another nuance as well. In contrast to God's own Son, all other human beings, including Jewish believers, enter God's family only by adoption. Augustine saw this point clearly in commenting on this passage: "He says adoption so that we may clearly understand that the Son of God is unique. For we are sons of God through his generosity and the condescension of his mercy, whereas he is Son by nature, sharing the same divinity with the Father."197 Thus, even if the adoption metaphor initially envisions God's acceptance of Gentiles, it must be expanded to include God's adoption of Jewish believers as well, as suggested by the parallel with 3:26: "in Christ Jesus, you are all children of God through faith," i.e., not through the Law.
Thus by the end of v. 5 Paul has completed the first phase of his explanation of the inheritance analogy: God has liberated us from slavery to the stoicheia by sending the Son to invade our prison and set us free, thus bringing Jews and Gentiles alike into God's family.
4:6. But Paul is not quite finished developing his theme. He points again to the Galatians' experience of receiving the Spirit, just as he had done at the beginning of his counterargument in 3:1-5. This time, however, he does not just point

<Page 284 Ends><Page 285 Begins>
to the experience; he gives it a fuller theological interpretation within the story of God's mission of rescue and adoption. The adoption was in one sense "legally" accomplished in Jesus' death and resurrection, but that is not the end of the story. God has provided experiential confirmation of our adoption by pouring out the Spirit (see the Commentary on 3:14). God not only sent the Son into the world, but also "because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts." This is the sign and pledge of our new status as God's children. (The NRSV, by opting for the inclusive-language translation "children" in v. 6a, loses the connection in the Greek text between "sons" and "Spirit of his Son"; the sense of the sentence is better conveyed in the NIV, so long as we understand, in the light of 3:28, that "sons" is a metaphor that includes both men and women in God's family.) The shift from second to first person ("you are sons...into our hearts") in this verse is awkward, and it has predictably created problems in the manuscript tradition (see the NRSV footnote). Williams is probably right that by shifting momentarily into the second person Paul "pointedly singles out the recipients of the letter, the Gentiles of Galatia,"198 since it is their status as "sons" that is under dispute.
Christian interpreters have long struggled over the narrative sequence implied in this verse, which seems to make the sending of the Spirit a second action subsequent to adoption as children. It is important to realize that Paul is not describing here the life history of the individual believer; instead, he is narrating God's redemptive invasion of an enslaved world. Within the narrative, the sending of the Son must come first; once he has completed his mission through his death on the cross, then the Spirit can be sent to those who are adopted by virtue of this liberating death that demolished the prison walls. In terms, however, of the experience of individual believers, the sending of the Spirit into our hearts is a fundamental aspect of conversion/initiation, as the parallel to 3:26-29 shows (see Fig. 4, 281). In other words, Paul is in no way describing a "second blessing" experience for those who earlier had experienced justification. The sending of the Spirit is God's action that both effects and confirms our entrance into God's family.
The motif of God's sending forth the Spirit is reminiscent of some Jewish traditions about the sending of divine wisdom from the throne of God. For instance, in Wis 9:17, Solomon inquires of God, "Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high?" (NRSV; see also Wis 9:10). In this verse, however, Paul is speaking of the Spirit not as a source for understanding God's will and wisdom but as an intensely experienced confimation of God's gracious embrace. When the Spirit is sent into our hearts, Paul says, it cries out, "Abba, Father." We should not understand this as a reference to recitation of the Lord's prayer; rather, this is the language of ecstasy, as we can see from Paul's use of the vivid participle "crying out" (kra'zon krazon). It is sometimes suggested that the Aramaic word "Abba" was uttered by "baptizands as they rise from the water,"199 as a grateful acknowledgment of their new status as God's children. On the other hand, it is also suggested that the use of "Abba" in spirit-inspired prayer was conscisly modeled after the prayer language of Jesus, "an echo of Jesus' own prayer style" (cf. Mark 14:36).200 Either way, Paul's point is that the Spirit is a powerful presence in the hearts of the Galatians, enabling or impelling them to cry out to the Father of Jesus Christ as their own Father.

<Page 285 Ends><Page 286 Begins>

Figure 5: Parallels Between Gal 4:4-6 and 3:13-14*
Gal 4:3-6   Gal 3:13-14
(4) God sent forth his Son,
     born of a woman,
     born under Law,
(5) in order that he might redeem
     those under Law,   (13) Christ redeemed
us from the curse of the Law
by becoming a curse for us...
     in order that we might receive adoption.   (14) in order that the blessing of
Abraham might come to the
Gentiles through Christ Jesus,
(6) God sent forth the Spirit of his Son
     into our hearts....     in order that we might receive
the promise
of the Spirit through the faith.

4:7. Paul draws this narrative of inheritance to a climactic and triumphant conclusion, assuring the Galatians of their new status in Christ. By sending the Son into the world, God has liberated them and transformed them from slaves into sons. Since they are now sons of God (cf. 3:26), they are surely now heirs (cf. 3:29). Of this truth, the presence of the Spirit in their midst is the decisive confirmation. The expression "an heir, through God" (NRSV, translating literally) is odd, because God is elsewhere described as the source, not the medium, of the inheritance (the NIV again tries to avoid the awkwardness by paraphrasing). Some copyists, feeling the difficulty here, produced various theological corrections, including the reading "an heir of God through Christ" (NRSV note).
The sequence of thought in vv. 6-7 is exactly paralleled by Rom 8:15-17: Starting from slavery (and fear), we have received the Spirit that enables us to cry, "Abba, Father!" This Spirit bears witness of our new status as children of God and heirs. The fact that Paul repeats this argument in Romans shows that it is not merely a contingent response to the situation in Galatia-or, more precisely, that if it was a contingent response to that situation, he retained it as a central element in his account of the gospel. (See Reflections at 4:8-11.)
Galatians 4:8-11, No Turning Back

<Page 286 Ends><Page 287 Begins>
COMMENTARY
4:8. After the jubilant rhetorical climax of v. 7, Paul adopts a more sober tone again as he broods over the present peril of the Galatians. During their years of living as pagans, they "did not know God"-a typical Jewish judgment of Gentiles (see Ps 79:6). Paul repeats the reminder that during this period of ignorance they were enslaved to "beings that by nature are not gods" (cf. v. 3). This expression shows that Paul does not think of the stoicei'a (stoicheia) merely as rudimentary religious principles that have now been superseded. Instead, they are personified forces that once exercised hostile dominion over the lives of his readers. Paul elsewhere acknowledges the reality and presence of spiritual powers in the world, called by various names, such as "gods," "lords," "demons," and "rulers of this age" (1 Cor 2:8; 8:5-6; 10:20-21). Such powers are no threat to the sovereignty of the one God; indeed, through Christ, God will ultimately destroy or subdue them (1 Cor 15:23-28; Phil 2:10-11; cf. Col 1:15-20; 2:15). But, because we live in the time between the times, when all things are not yet made subject to God, these not-gods continue to exercise power and to oppress and enslave those who will serve them. Gentiles who worship idols, therefore, are under the domain of these enslaving powers.
4:9. Consequently, Paul poses an incredulous question designed to expose the absurdity of the Galatians' present infatuation with the Law, by linking the Law-observant life to their former state of slavery. The artful wording of v. 9a illuminates the deep theological syntax of Paul's gospel: "Now, however, that you have come to know God-or rather to be known by God...." The self-correction is an artful way of calling attention to the theological "ungrammaticality" of any claim that we as finite creatures can save ourselves by attaining a higher knowledge of God. (Perhaps the Missionaries were offering the Galatians a non-gospel along these lines; cf. 1:6-7.) The Galatians have entered a new world not because of some epistemological advance of their own, but because God, in elective love, has now "known" them (see the close parallel in 1 Cor 8:2-3; cf. 1 Cor 13:12). For the OT background of God's "knowing" of Israel, see, e.g., Amos 3:2: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth."
Having been known by God, Paul asks them, "How can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly stoicheia?" Their turning to observe the Law would be a conversion, to be sure, but a wrongheaded one. The verb "turn" (ejpistre;fw epistrepho) is the same word characteristically used to describe a repentant person turning back to God or the conversion of Gentiles to serve the one true God of Israel. Paul uses this verb, for instance, of the pagan Thessalonians' response to his preaching of the gospel: "You turned [ejpestre;yate epestrepsate] to God from idols to serve a living and true God" (1 Thess 1:9). Thus the action that the Galatians are contemplating would be a conversion in reverse-a reversion to their former state of slavery.
This is perhaps the most stunning sentence in this entire confrontational letter. Paul is suggesting that Judaism's holy observances are, in effect, no different from paganism's worship of earthly elements. He could hardly have said anything more calculated to arouse the outrage of the Missionaries, but the rhetorical shock value of his question is surely calculated. He is trying to jolt the Galatians out of the hypnotic spell of the Law-gospel.
Paul refers to the stoicheia as "weak and beggarly." This is a paradox, for he also attributes to them the power to enslave their adherents. Why, then, does he also call them weak? It is a stock theme of Jewish polemic against idolatry that idols are lifeless and impotent (e.g., Isa 46:3-5). Martyn cites the satirical depiction of the idolator in Wis 13:18-19:201
For health he appeals to a thing that is weak;
for life he prays to a thing that is dead;
.      .      .      .      .      .
he asks strength of a thing whose
hands have no strength. (NRSV)
This passage may be particularly significant if, indeed, Wis 13:1-5 supplies the link in Paul's mind between pagan worship and "the elements." This may be part of the explanation for Paul's

<Page 287 Ends><Page 288 Begins>
disparaging reference to the weakness of the stoicheia. Insofar as they have any power at all, it is the power of illusion. They have already been defeated by the Son of God's victorious incursion. But Paul may also be thinking of the Law in particular as "weak." He has already noted that the Law does not have the power to give life (3:21). This is a consistent motif in Paul's critique of the Law. Particularly pertinent is Rom 8:3, in which he describes the Law as powerless because "it was weak through the flesh," and then goes on to say that God, by sending the Son, has solved the problem that the weak Law failed to solve. The connection of ideas here is very close to Gal 4:4-9.
4:10. Paul goes on with a descriptive statement about practices that the Galatians have adopted in his absence; this description provides the key to understanding the apparently outrageous implications of Paul's equating of Law with the stoicheia. The Galatians show themselves to be coming back under the sway of the stoicheia by adopting a pattern of life governed by fixed calendrical observances. The observances of the Jewish liturgical calendar were calibrated to the motions of the sun and moon (sabbath, new-moon festivals, the Day of Atonement, Passover, and other festivals). Jewish sources from the Second Temple period show that there was heated controversy between advocates of lunar and solar calendrical systems over the proper way of keeping times and seasons. For example, Jubilees, a text championing the solar calendar, insists that "the Lord set the sun as a great sign upon the earth for days, sabbaths, months, feast (days), years, sabbaths of years, jubilees, and for all the (appointed) times of the years" (Jub. 2:9). Equally interesting as background to this verse is a passage from 1 Enoch:
True is the matter of the exact computation of that which has been recorded...concerning the luminaries, the months, the festivals, the years and the days....He has the power in the heaven both day and night so that he may cause the light to shine over the people-sun, moon, and stars, and all the principalities of heaven which revolve in their (respective) circuits. These are the orders of the stars which set in their (respective) places seasons, festivals and months. (1 Enoch 82:7-9)202
Thus it is quite likely that the Missionaries would have impressed on the Galatians the importance not only of being circumcised but also of keeping the sabbaths and feasts at the proper astronomically determined times. If so, it would make sense for Paul to assert that the Galatians' newfound interest in observing Jewish festivals was leading them back into bondage under the power of the astral elements.
If that is the case, why does Paul not refer explicitly to "festivals, new moons, or sabbaths" as in Col 2:16? Why, instead of these specific references to Jewish observances, does he use the generic description, "days and months and seasons and years"? He may be alluding to the biblical creation story, which says that the lights were placed in the dome of the sky on the fourth day of creation "for signs and for seasons and for days and years" (Gen 1:14 NRSV). If this text no longer provides a warrant, as it did in Judaism, for observing special times and seasons, it can only be for the same reason that there is no longer "male and female" in Christ: The new creation has broken in. By using these generic terms, however, rather than the specific terminology of the Jewish liturgical calendar, Paul facilitates his provocative linking of the Law with the stoicheia. When one strips away the specific terminology of the Jewish festivals, Paul suggests, one sees that they are in essence just another kind of nature religion! He is saying, in effect, "You used to be in slavery to the cosmic elements; if you come under the Law, you will be back under the control of these same cosmic forces." Here again we see Paul using skillful, explosive, high-risk rhetoric.
4:11. Finally, after expressing his puzzlement that the Galatians could want to return to enslavement, Paul throws up his hands in anxious exasperation. He is afraid that all his work of preaching and teaching in their midst will, in fact, be subverted and come to nothing. A literal translation of his words here reads, "I am afraid for you, lest somehow I have labored in vain for you." The verb "labored" (kopia;w kopiao) is a term that Paul often uses to describe his work in spreading the gospel (1 Cor 4:12; 15:10; Col 1:29; cf. 1 Tim 4:10). For an especially close parallel, see Phil 2:16: "It is by your holding fast to the word of life that I can boast on the day of Christ that I did not run in vain or labor in vain" (NRSV). The

<Page 288 Ends><Page 289 Begins>
word "in vain" (eijkh'/ eike) also reminds us of Gal 3:4. Paul contemplates the distressing prospect that the churches he founded in Galatia might abandon the gospel and that his work will be wasted. The reference to his work among the Galatians provides a transition to the next section (4:12-20), in which he recalls his earlier time with them and appeals to them to remember their special relationship with him.
REFLECTIONS
1. Enslavement as the fundamental human condition: Is it true? Paul characterizes life outside the sphere of Christ's power as a condition of bondage to powers that hold us captive. For many readers of Galatians, the description will seem apt: Those who suffer from addiction to drugs, alcohol, or compulsive behaviors often confess that they are in the clutches of a destructive force that overpowers them. Those who live in poverty or under political oppression know all too well that they are pawns of a system that is too powerful to fight. For all who live in such circumstances, Paul's proclamation comes as joyous good news: God has sent Jesus to share our plight and to loose our chains. Likewise, many who have lived under the grip of empty secular philosophies have found in the gospel a release from the enslaving power of materialism and hedonism-the usual forms that paganism takes in our time. For those who have experienced a transformation from darkness into light, Paul's metaphor of being redeemed from slavery will seem apt, indeed.
But what of those who live ordinary, respectable lives in conditions of prosperity in a free democratic political order? They have never knowingly worshiped false gods, nor have they known overt oppression. Will they find Paul's talk of enslavement to be either exaggerated or irrelevant? Like Jesus' interlocutors in the Fourth Gospel, they may say, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone" (John 8:33 NRSV). How does Paul's message speak to such hearers? The interpreter of this text may find an important clue in Paul's identification with the previously pagan Galatians. He insists that he-along with his Jewish compatriots-was enslaved under the stoicei'a (stoicheia) just as they were. All humanity, apart from Christ, is bound together in a solidarity of servitude. Even the most religiously devout-indeed, perhaps especially they-are entangled in subtle forms of bondage. One sees this only in retrospect, only in the light of the cross. This is a sweeping proclamation that levels all the distinctions we love to make between ourselves and others.
Thus the single message that we were all slaves and that all are now equally redeemed through Christ's death will come to different hearers with quite different impacts. For those who know their need, it is a word of hope and comfort; for those who fancy themselves free and autonomous, it is an offense and a challenge to reevaluate their true condition. Just as the Missionaries were no doubt riled by Paul's words, so also the contemporary religious reader may find a stumbling block in Paul's apocalyptic picture of redemption.
2. An apocalyptic picture it is, for according to this passage-which aptly summarizes the overall message of the letter-we are rescued from bondage by a divine act of intervention. In the fullness of time, God sent the Son into the world to redeem us. Everything, therefore, depends on God's timing, God's initiative, and God's powerful act of deliverance. The Son did not come to give us better information about God and thereby to lead us progressively to a knowledge of the truth; rather, the Son came to die for us and set us free (cf. 3:13-14). Consequently, any preaching that trumpets "humanity come of age" or implies an evolutionary view of Christianity as a more advanced form of religion has totally misconstrued Paul's message. The misunderstanding is perhaps encouraged by Paul's figurative illustration about a minor heir who eventually receives an inheritance. As we have seen, however, the illustration

<Page 289 Ends><Page 290 Begins>
is being used to make two points: The Galatians used to be in slavery, and that slavery was only a temporary state, abolished by God's act of deliverance at a time appointed by God. There is actually some tension between the figurative story and Paul's application of it; therefore, the emphasis in preaching on the text should be on Paul's application (4:3-7) rather than on the illustration (4:1-2). Anyone who starts with 4:1-2 and interprets the passage to speak of a human development toward higher knowledge or faith has twisted the text.
3. The rhetorical climax of the passage comes in 4:6-7, as Paul describes the experience of the Spirit in the hearts of the Galatians. The Spirit-inspired utterance acclaiming God as "Abba" is the sign confirming that they now enjoy an intimacy with God that comes only through being part of God's family. They have been adopted by God and, therefore, enjoy all that rightfully belongs to God's children.
Once again, as in 3:1-5, we see that Paul does not try to convince the Galatians that they possess the Spirit; rather, the Spirit is the datum from which Paul argues. The Spirit is palpably, audibly present in their midst, and it serves as proof of their identity as "sons of God." Since this designation was reserved in the Old Testament for Israel (see the Commentary on 3:26), Paul is affirming that the Gentile Galatians have now entered covenant relation with God as members of God's family. (Here as throughout 3:1-5:1 he is arguing that they need not undergo circumcision to secure this status.) At the same time, in view of Paul's radical analysis of universal human bondage, it should be clearly understood that 4:6-7 does not suggest any privileged status for Jewish believers. They, like the Gentile Galatians, are adopted children. Augustine perceptively suggests that it is precisely for this reason that Paul has reported the spirit-inspired cry "Abba, Father" in both Aramaic and Greek: "Now we see that he has elegantly, and not without reason, put together words from two languages signifying the same thing because of the whole people, which has been called from Jews and Gentiles into the unity of faith."203 If we are right in seeing this cry to God the Father as a baptismal experience, then it is the common ground for all believers; their identity as God's children and their unity in Christ are both confirmed by the Spirit in their hearts.
4. In our time, it is necessary to reflect carefully on the image of God as "Father" in this passage,204 for some theologians have argued that this image reinforces oppressive patriarchal social structures. Furthermore, it is sometimes suggested that Paul's "Father" language excludes or alienates those whose own human fathers have been cruel or absent. In response to these concerns, three points should be kept clearly in mind by the interpreter of Gal 4:6.
First, the Jewish and Christian theological traditions, interpreted rightly, have not understood God as gendered: God, who dwells in unapproachable light, transcends such anthropomorphic categories. One consequence of Israel's prohibition of making idols and artistic depictions of God is that God cannot be crudely rendered as male or female. The New Testament's "Father" imagery must be interpreted with deference to this fundamental rule of theological grammar. God-contrary to the theories of Freud and Feuerbach-is not merely a projection of our human fathers, real or fantasized. Instead, human fatherhood is a distant and broken approximation of the true fatherhood that we learn about in Scripture's story of God's creative and loving care for us. Thus the image of God as Father provides the norm by which all human conceptions of fatherhood may be judged and healed.
Second, the consistent function of Paul's use of the image of God as Father is to emphasize that God is the giver of a promised inheritance. Thus the "Father" language highlights God's generous and loving provision for a beloved people. As Marianne Meye Thompson writes,

<Page 290 Ends><Page 291 Begins>
"Father will become a dysfunctional metaphor if we insist on the form of the term without lodging it in the biblical narrative of God's faithfulness, care and provision and if we abstract it from the particular promises made to and through Jesus, the Son, in whom and through whom the faithful have their inheritance."205
Third, because the promised inheritance provided by God the Father has now been graciously extended to Gentiles in Christ, the "fatherhood" of God serves as a basis for Paul to assert our common belonging to God's family. Jews and Gentiles alike have been "adopted" by God's elective grace and, therefore, can now address the one God as Father. In Gal 4:6, the cry, "Abba, Father," serves to confirm our status as God's children and thereby to bring reassurance of the freedom and blessings that we enjoy. Thus there is no distinction within God's adoptive family, and we should receive one another as brothers and sisters.
These are the central themes that should be developed in any homiletical reflection on the Father image in this passage. Paul is not reinforcing some authoritarian claim about God or about church hierarchy. Rather, he is assuring the Galatians that they can resist the authoritarian claims of the Missionaries precisely because their status as God's children is already confirmed by the Spirit.
All of this suggests that interpretation of the passage should celebrate a joyous confidence in our relation with God and with one another. This is not a relation grounded merely in our common humanity; it is a relationship created by the Spirit of Christ (4:6) in the community of baptized believers who have now been "known by God" (4:9). Within that community, to address God as "Father" is not to claim sentimental intimacy, but rather to acknowledge God as the giver of blessings and the ground of our unity.
5. The trouble is that even those who have received the Spirit can-perplexingly-fall back into slavery. We can make choices that turn us away from the grace of God to embrace once again our former state of bondage. We may forget that we are living in the fullness of time and relapse into living as though God had not sent the Son to set us free. Therefore, Paul ends this section of the letter with a rebuke (4:8-11). Interpreters who seek to hear the text's message will not fail to hear a word of warning for the church in our time also.
The full force of Paul's message comes through when we realize that the Galatians were not relapsing into paganism as such. They were considering a step that was presented to them as a higher and more spiritual form of the gospel that they had already accepted through Paul's preaching. They were not rejecting the gospel but seeking to improve upon it. But Paul diagnoses the circumcision gospel as a step back into human religiosity. There is no way, he insists, to add more deluxe or advanced features to the gospel of the cross. In 4:10, therefore, he links Judaism to pagan religion by positing a phenomenological parallelism between Judaism's observance of a calendar of holy feasts and the pagan veneration of the natural and celestial worlds. (This is Paul in his most "radical Protestant" mode. Elsewhere he is less unremitting on the question of feasts; see Rom 14:5-6 and the reference to Pentecost in 1 Cor 16:8.)
In our time, few Christians will be inclined to regard Christian faith as a preliminary step toward the keeping of Jewish Law and festivals, but there are many other forms of "spirituality" being marketed as more refined understandings of religion that somehow go beyond the primitive particularity of Paul's gospel. Some of these spiritualities claim to be Christian, and others do not. Many books on "New Age" religion now flooding popular bookstores exemplify this tendency. From the prophetic Pauline point of view, these "New Age" approaches to spirituality are "weak and beggarly" attempts to manipulate God or to find God within oneself; therefore, all of them would simply lead back into slavery to the elements of the natural world. That world is God's good creation, but when human beings worship the creation-including the human self-rather than the Creator, they fall into blindness (Rom 1:18-25) and slavery.

<Page 291 Ends><Page 292 Begins>
Most of all, such false worship leads into pathetic fixation on our own spirituality rather than on what God has done once and for all through Jesus Christ.
Paul looks at the Galatians with incredulity. They have been rescued from slavery to the elements of nature by Jesus Christ, and now they are "turning back" to slavery again (4:9). It is as though he is watching a bizarre and tragic film in which an abused adolescent, having been rescued from the clutches of the villain, spurns the rescuer and falls into another abusive relationship. Paul implores the Galatians to recognize what time it is: The fullness of time for redemption has come. Therefore, they must not run the film backward, not retrogress to an earlier sequence; instead, they should accept the freedom God has given them.
The task of the preacher working with this text is to reflect deeply on the ways in which our congregations today unaccountably reject God's gift of adoption and liberation, choosing instead familiar destructive patterns of life and religiosity. Then, after identifying such analogies and patterns, our next task is to reproclaim the good news of 4:3-7: God has sent the Son to set us free and has given us the Spirit as a sign that we are children and heirs of God.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217234#Comment_217234

I just wanted to remind people of some cool prepubs most of the ones i have listed are to the almost there.... The New Interpreter's Bible is still pretty far behind though, but a publication of that high a quality is bound to make it eventually. Get your pre-orders in. if these wonderful resources interest you.

http://www.logos.com/product/8801/new-interpreters-dictionary-of-the-bible-5-vols

New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible in five volumes provides the best quality in contemporary biblical scholarship on a comprehensive range of topics,

How does the New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible compare to the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary that's $130 cheaper ($269.95 vs. $400)? http://www.logos.com/product/1660/anchor-yale-bible-dictionary

It covers Biblical items like yale but also has articles on theological topics as well. If you are interested to see a comparison of two articles from the two you or anyone can email me just use the word comparison in the subject line and I will copy both or just the NIDB, if you already have access to the Yale. Personally I do think the yale is probably a bit better but i like the theological articles too (ie. feminist interpretation is one that pops out of my mind at the moment).This is not to say it is in anyway it is an exhaustive theological dictionary but what it does cover is nice information on a topic.

DWFrancis at AOL dot COM

-Dan

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217270#Comment_217270

So for those who have pre-ordered the New Interpreter's Dictionary and/or Bible, what are the expected pre-pub dates? I don't see it on the product pages, and didn't know if it only shows up when it's in your Account Order history page.

Pre-pubs don't get an expected ship date until they are close enough to shipping to be able to adequately predict the date. They defintely don't get anticipated ship dates before they've reached 100% subscription because Logos won't begin the work to produce them until they are assured that enough people will buy them to cover the cost of production, and there's no way to anticipate how long it will take to get to 100%. Some pre-pubs get an expected ship date fairly soon after going into production; others wait until ship date is only a month or two off. There's a fine line between pleasing customers by giving them a date to look forward to and disappointing them when you're wrong about a guesstimated date, so Logos tends to be on the conservative side in waiting to put predictions out there.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217285#Comment_217285

It is a critical commentary

Yes it is, but I do not consider it to be the same as the ICC, Word, Herm., Anchor, ...

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217310#Comment_217310

It is a critical commentary

Yes it is, but I do not consider it to be the same as the ICC, Word, Herm., Anchor, ...

Yes it is far less technical. But as an owner of word hem anchor and New Interp. personally if I was only able to keep one I wouldn't think twice about NIB being the set I would keep. Of various multi-volume commentaries I have owned in print the only one I have kept is NIB. I have in general found it to be my most used commentary. Everyone is quite different, but for my use and many pastor friends usage the NIB is almost always the first stop in study of a passage. And even though I have purchased it in hard back and Software format, I won't hesitate the purchase in Logos because I do consider it my main resource and the chance to have it on my iPhone is not something I would pass up.

-dan

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/217345#Comment_217345

Some people must have canceled their orders for the NIDB I see it has slipped back from almost there to gathering interest. Of all the sets listed here the NIB is my most coveted to have in logos format. In the end if people don't want them the won't get done..

-Dan