Skip to main content

Galatians - Coming Soon!

By this upcoming weekend I hope to have my first post up on Galatians. This will be a lengthy series that I hope you enjoy and profit from. We will probably go paragraph by paragraph dealing with whatever issues the text brings up. Each section will probably get multiple posts at differing levels dealing with different aspects of the text and our analysis. Some posts may be a little technical. Hopefully many will be deeply theological and practical. At any rate, here's an open invitation to you all to wrestle through this key Pauline epistle with me.

Comments

  1. I'll be interested to see what commentaries you like/use for Galatians. There are a few good ones, but nothing that stands out to me as excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can tell you now what I'm using and the rationale (One or two of these may drop out part way through if I feel using one of them becomes unnecessary):

    To get a variety of current perspectives:
    Longenecker
    Martyn
    Dunn

    Hays - because I love him

    McKnight - for a commentary that has application

    The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series and Luther's to get older viewpoints to hopefully safeguard a little bit from odd views.

    I'll probably consult other literature a little bit too (e.g., significant books on Paul and the Law) when appropriate.

    I'd like to include Bruce, Betz, and Stott but one has to draw the line somewhere.

    I agree there's no standout, but I think that there are good merits to each of those. I'm excited about DeSilva's and Moo's forthcoming Galatians commentaries. Hopefully we'll see them soon.

    This series will take a while so it'll be a while to my formal reviews come out, but I'm sure that I'll comment on various views held by each as the series develops so that you can get a feeling for what I think. Up front I expect to like Hays, Longenecker, and McKnight the most (in no particular order, just based off of the little bit I've read of each).

    What are your thoughts on what's out thus far? Do you have a favorite or are you lukewarm on the whole crop?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lukewarm is a good way to describe it. I suppose I'd say Longenecker is the best, but that's more by default. I own Bruce, but don't love it. It's worth consulting. I also have Witherington, which is good not great. Yeah, that's basically how I feel about all Galatians commentaries.

    I'd like to get my hands on Fee's new Galatians commentary. DeSilva's "Interpreting Galatians" is good, too; you should check that out. Dunn and Martyn are interesting, but Martyn is really idiosyncratic.

    I should admit that I took a class on Galatians a few years back, but I hardly remember much of what I learned. That's mainly because it was my first semester commuting from Boston and taking on a bigger ministry role, so I hadn't really learned how to balance all of that. It's too bad, my prof (Roy Ciampa) did his dissertation in Galatians. Oh, he also really loved Chrysostom's old commentary on Galatians. Okay, I'm done taking up your comment space.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Out of all of them, I've spent the most time in Martyn's. He is idiosyncratic, but very interesting. He may be way out there on some issues and he definitely pushes his mirror reading way too far, but his way of looking at the text is so different that sometimes I think he picks up on things others miss (I think Jewett's Romans commentary is similar in this regard).

    I'm looking forward to the ACCS commentary because it picks out the best bits from Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, and others. It's the first time I've extensively used a commentary that's older than mid 70s so it'll be interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…