New Testament

Darrell L. Bock and Timothy D. Sprankle, Matthew (Kerux)

Bock, Darrell L. and Timothy D. Sprankle. Matthew. A Commentary for Biblical Preaching and Teaching. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2025. 799 pp. Hb. $43.99   Link to Kregel Ministry  

Kregel’s Kerux commentary series combines exegesis from a leading scholar with a preaching pastor. This is a unique blend of academic rigor and pastoral heart, which is rare in a commentary series. In this new commentary on Matthew, the exegetical sections are written by a top New Testament scholar, Darrell Bock. He previously published several excellent commentaries (Luke, 2 vols. and Acts in the BENTC; Mark in the NCBC) and monographs on Jesus and the Gospels, such as A Theology of Luke and Acts (Zondervan, 2012) and edited volumes such as Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (with James Charlesworth; T&T Clark 2014); Who is This Son of Man? (with Larry Hurtado; LNTS 390, T&T Clark, 2011), and Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus (WUNT 247, Mohr Siebeck 2009). He serves as Executive Director of Cultural Engagement and Senior Research Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Timothy D. Sprankle is the senior pastor at Leesburg Grace Brethren Church in Northern Indiana. He contributed the preaching sections to the Philippians Kerux volume.

Kerux Matthew

There are many strategies for outlining the book of Matthew. Often these focus on the five teaching units in the book, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7). Bock and Sprankle divide the Gospel of Matthew into four major sections and fifty-one preaching units. Matthew 1:1-4:11 in an introduction to Jesus and John the Baptist (five units); in Matthew 4:12-12:50, Messiah confronts Israel in Galilee and meets rejection (fifteen units); Matthew 13:1-20:28, Jesus presents Kingdom, Provision, Acceptance-Call, and the Rejection by Israel (sixteen units); in Matthew 20:29-28:20, the Rejection and Vindication of the Messiah-Son in Jerusalem (fifteen units). Fifty-one preaching units make it unlikely any pastor will preach through Matthew in a single series (as one might for Philippians). Any one of the major sections would do for a shorter series. Sometimes Jesus’s long sermons make a good series. In this commentary, the Sermon on the Mount is subdivided into seven preaching sections, all part of the Messiah’s confrontation of Israel in Galilee.

The commentary begins with a brief introduction to the Gospel of Matthew. Beginning with Papias, Bock defends the traditional view that the Apostle Matthew Levi, the tax collector, was the author of the book. He is less confident about the place or writing, although Antioch in Syria has the most evidence. For Bock, “Matthew wrote his gospel for churches near the Judean homeland” (67). This means that Mathew was in touch with the earliest disputes between the emerging church and its Jewish neighbors. “Mathew is claiming to be a legitimate extension of Jewish hope in line with the promises God made long ago” (67).  The original readers of the gospel were both Jews and Gentiles. Since the gospel and the church are rooted in the promises of Israel, separation from the synagogue is not the fault of Christians; the Jews have forced them out.  With respect to date, Bock is confident that Matthew has made use of the gospel of Mark, which he dates to the late 50s or early 60s. He favors a mid to late 60s for Mathew. Because this is late in Nero’s reign, he briefly reviews Nero’s reign because Nero “generated problems in Judea” (69). This means the Olivet Discourse anticipates the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

The purpose of Matthew’s gospel is apologetic, both as legitimation and proclamation. “Jesus is the promised one of God according to the scripture and prophetic claims” (70). Mathew defends Jesus’s support of the law, but opposition to Jesus arose because of his actions and self-claims, specifically, how he handled the Sabbath and purity, among other issues. Objections to Jesus missed the point of the signs of his ministry, and this opposition is what led to his crucifixion. The Jewish focus of Matthew’s gospel suggests primary readers were Jewish Christians who interacted with the Jews (70). Matthew wants to equip Jewish Christians to tell the story of Jesus and how to interact with Jewish neighbors. They should deal with hostility by demonstrating Jesus’s connection to the messianic hope of Jewish Christians (70).

Exegetical portions of the books are based on the group text, although Bock does not often use Greek in the commentary itself. There is less focus on Greek grammar and syntax compared to other volumes in this series. There are no Translation Analysis sidebars (frequent in other Kerux volumes). One unusual aspect of this commentary is the use of sidebars. The majority are used for Old Testament verses to which Matthew may allude, or comparable literature from the Second Temple period (Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic literature). For example, in the commentary on Matthew 19:18-19, Bock provides several uses of Leviticus 19:18 in Judaism, including texts from Sirach, Jubilees, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, demonstrating how the “golden rule” was used in Jewish literature written before the time of Jesus. Commenting on oaths in Matthew 23:16-19, Bock offers three lengthy examples from the Mishnah, another page of references on tithes for Matthew 23:23-24, and uncleanliness for Matthew 23:27-28. In all these cases, the text is conveniently printed in the sidebar rather than a list of references. These will be valuable illustrations of Jewish thought at the time of Jesus for those teaching and preaching the text who do not have easy access to this Jewish literature.

Since Bock is a premillennialist (often associated with progressive dispensationalism), some readers may be interested to learn how he treats the Olivet Discourse. In the introduction to Matthew 24, Bock briefly defines three possible approaches: preterist (Jesus refers only to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70), futurist (Jesus refers to his future second coming), or typological (both timings are present since one event provides the pattern for the other). Bock suggests that typological is the best approach. Jesus does predict the fall of Jerusalem, but Matthew 24:6-13, 12-22, and 27-31 “discuss events of the end and look beyond A.D. 70” and Matthew 24:14-22 “may well point to both times at once” (658).

Bock suggests “great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be” can refer to the short-term events of the fall of Jerusalem, “yet reserve full fulfillment for the end with Jesus’s return. This is actually how typological-prophetic fulfillment works” (665). Bock does not think there is a hint of the Rapture in 24:38-41, (rightly) disconnecting the judgment of Matthew 24 from Paul’s revelation of a mystery in 1 Thess 4:13-18 (677).

Matthew 25 is unique to the first gospel: Matthew “was going out of his way to reassure his readers that God had a program in the midst of seemingly emerging chaos and rejection of much of Israel” (658). Bock’s comments on the Olivet Discourse are richly illustrated with Second Temple texts, showing that Jesus’s teaching stands within Jewish eschatological teaching from the first century.

Bock interacts with secondary literature with in-text citations. The commentary concludes with selected references with key commentaries marked with an asterisk. He most frequently refers to Davies and Allison (ICC), but he interacts with a range of academic commentaries.

Each preaching unit is outlined on one page (exegetical idea, theological focus, preaching idea, and preaching pointers) at the beginning of the commentary (pages 14-52). This material is repeated at the beginning of each unit in the body of the commentary. The Kerux series uses Haddon Robinson’s “big idea” method for sermon preparation (hence the exegetical, theological, and preaching ideas). Sprankle’s preaching notes are excellent. For example, his “contemporary connections” for Matthew 19:1-12 (on divorce), he illustrates first-century Jewish views on divorce with a short script for role-playing of Hillel and Shammai and a chart contrasting what he calls “maximalists and minimalists views of marriage (and other aspects of life). He also includes a sidebar suggesting several books as additional resources. On Matthew 5:21-48 (which he calls Jesus’s Six Elaborations), Sprankle offers case studies for each to help a pastor illustrate Jesus’s main point. Throughout the commentary, Sprankle points to various media that pastors can adapt and use in their presentations.

Conclusion. Bock’s commentary is excellent, and Sprankle’s preaching guides will be valuable for any preacher or teacher presenting the first Gospel to their congregations.

 

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Michael F. Bird, Romans: Lexham Interpreter’s Translation

Bird, Michael F. Romans. Lexham Interpreter’s Translation. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2024. xvi+161 pp.; Pb.; $15.99. Link to Lexham Press

The Lexham Interpreter’s Translation is a new series that Michael Bird describes as an “exegetical first responder.” This inaugural volume in the series is Romans. Bird completed the Story of God commentary on Romans in 2016. He is well-known for his work in Pauline Theology, the Gospels, and his Evangelical Theology (now in a second edition).

Bird wants to tease out the historical and cultural “otherness” of the ancient text through a literal (interlinear) translation, as well as to paraphrase the text with gloss and “creative catchphrase,” resulting in a contemporary reading of an ancient document. Bird acknowledges there is no need for another English translation or paraphrase, and this resource is not an attempt at creating competition for the NIV or ESV Bibles.

Lexham Interpreter's Translation

As he explains in his introduction to the series, he has three goals. First, Bird provides a preliminary interpretation of the text. Second, Bird sees this book as a “paratextual reading aid.” This does not replace one’s regular Bible. He expects people to use this resource alongside a “real Bible.” Third, he wants to present a tradition of interpretation known as “gloss and paraphrase.”

Even-numbered pages print lines from the SBL Greek text with Bird’s literal translation paired with the Greek. His literal translation is occasionally “weirdly literal.” For example, for justification in Romans 5:12, Bird literally translates dikaiosynē as “we have been righteoused by faith” in order to avoid the old (erroneous) definition of justification as “just as if I never sinned.” Proper names are transliterated, so Jesus is Iēsous in his literal translation.

The facing odd-numbered pages are Bird’s “gloss and paraphrase” of the unit in paragraph form. His goal is to be creative and use contemporary catchphrases to make the ancient, distant text come alive. In Romans 5:12, “we have been righteoused by faith” becomes “we are declared righteous” (the proper definition of justification). In Romans 1:1, Paul is a “slave of Jesus Messiah.”  He translates nomos, “law,” as Torah to ensure the reader knows Paul refers to the Mosaic Law. In the greetings sections (Romans 16), he paraphrases each greeting as “Say hi to….” In 16:17, “avoid them” becomes “avoid them like the plague.” Bird calls Andronicus and Junia “special envoys” rather than apostles. In a footnote, he explains that he doubts they are “big-A Apostles” but rather “little-A apostles” sent as delegates from some church (155).

Included on each page are a series of notes. These are not really footnotes since there is no indication in the text, but rather Bird’s exegetical insights and comments on the text. The fall into six categories:

  • GK discusses Greek vocabulary and grammar. All Greek appears transliterated, and non-Greek readers will have no trouble following these notes.
  • INT covers matters of interpretation, including key interpretive issues anyone reading Romans will need to wrestle with. For example, in Romans 3:22, Bird (briefly) discusses the nettlesome pistis Christou debate (the faith of Jesus, or faith in Jesus?) ;
  • BKG often are mini-word studies. For example, in Romans 3:20, he mentions the meaning of erga nomou (what are the “works of the Law).
  • OT identifies Old Testament quotations and possible allusions.
  • NT identifies themes common in the New Testament. For example, in the rare mention of the Kingdom of God in Romans 15:17, Bird gathers other references to the Kingdom of God in Paul’s writings.
  • TXT comments briefly on textual critical issues in the verse. There is little detail given for these notes. In Romans 11:33-36, he merely observes that the place of the doxology appears in different places in different manuscripts.

In addition to Bird’s own caveats, let me add two observations about what this book is not. At first glance, one might think this is a translation guide like B&H’s Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (see a review here), the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament, or Kregel Academic’s Big Idea Greek Series (see a review here). Although he occasionally comments on Greek syntactical or lexical issues, this book will not help students translate the Greek text of Romans. Second, it is not really an interlinear, either. Although the literal Greek translation is printed directly under the SBL Greek text, there is no attempt to line up the translation with the corresponding Greek word. For example, in Romans 5:14, the word Adam is repeated twice in English, and the Greek Ἀδάμ appears only once and then in the next line.

Conclusion. Bord’s “gloss and paraphrase” style is fun to read. This book does indeed function as an “exegetical first responder” that will aid any Bible reader as they work their way through Romans. I look forward to more volumes in this interesting series.

 

NB: I appreciate Lexham Press’s generous offer of a review copy of this book, but this did not influence my thoughts about the work.

Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon (Second Edition; PNTC)

Moo, Douglas J. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. PNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2024. xlix+478 pp.; Hb.; $53.99. Link to Eerdmans.

This second edition of the Pillar New Testament Commentary on Colossians and Philemon replaces Moo’s 2008 volume. In his brief preface to the second edition, Moo indicates that this new edition updates the commentary with secondary literature written over the last fifteen years. The original commentary had a select bibliography (twenty-one pages), while the second edition has a full bibliography (thirty-six pages). In the introduction to Colossians, the first edition had 87 footnotes; the second edition had 107. Many older notes have been updated with newer literature.

Colossians Philemon

In his introduction to Colossians (pages 3-54), Moo begins where most commentaries on Colossians must begin, by discussing the authorship of the letter. Did Paul write Colossians, or is it pseudepigraphic? Colossians appears quite different from Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, and Galatians in style and theology. Moo interacts with Luke Timothy Johnson’s suggestion that Paul authored the letter but did not write it. He “supervised” the production of the letter. Similarly, James Dunn suggested Timothy wrote the letter with loose supervision by Paul. Although these are possible ways to avoid Colossians as a late pseudepigrapha, Moo rejects both. “Paul must be seen as the real author” (20). Concerning provenance, Moo recognizes that the letter may be written from a hypothetical Ephesian imprisonment, but he slightly prefers Rome as the place of writing (26). This introductory material remains more or less the same as the first edition of the commentary.

Commentaries on Colossians also need to deal with the nature of the false teaching Paul responds to in the letter. As Moo observes, there are a bewildering number of scholarly reconstructions of the so-called Colossian Heresy (27). He rejects the view of older commentators that Colossians is walking about Gnostics. If Paul wrote the book, then Gnostics as we know them do not exist yet. Nor does he think calling the opponents proto-Gnostics is helpful. Any Gnostic or Stoic elements in Colossians are simply part of the general first-century intellectual environment. Moo suggests the best solution is to admit there are two or more perspectives behind the false teachers. He summarizes what Colossians 2:8-23 implies about the false teachers in eleven points, none of which are controversial. Following this list, he makes three more controversial points. First, the false teachers use the language of “fullness.” But this is not drawn from Gnostic or Stoic thinking. Second, the false teachers advocate circumcision, implying Jewish influence. Third, the false teachers denigrate Christ or at least question the sufficiency of Christ.

Based on this evidence, Moo surveys several possible solutions for the identity of the false teachers. First, the Colossian Heresy was some form of Jewish mysticism. This was most recently Scot McKnight’s solution in his NICNT commentary. Second, James Dunn suggested that false teaching is nothing more than Judaism. Third, Clint Arnold thought the opponents represented a syncretic mix of local Phrygian folk belief, Judaism, and Christianity. Moo is convinced by Arnold (especially since it also includes the first two elements). This conclusion remains unchanged from the first edition.

In his introduction to Philemon (pages 351-370), Moo observes that Pauline authorship is rarely doubted for this short letter. The introduction to commentaries on Philemon uses mirror reading to construct a plausible story explaining why Paul is sending a letter about a slave named Onesimus to Philemon. Moo lists out several points that seem clear from the letter and then summarizes several suggested scenarios. Two merit discussion. First, Onesimus was an escaped slave who arrived where Paul was in prison (whether Ephesus or Rome) and somehow encountered Paul. Paul led him to Christ and now sends him to his master to ask forgiveness. The letter is a “letter of recommendation” for Onesimus, in which Paul advocates clemency. A second solution is to argue Onesimus is not an escaped slave. He was wronged in some way by his master and knew Philemon was a Christian under Paul’s influence. Onesimus purposefully traveled to visit Paul and enlist his help as an advocate. Like the first edition, Moo finds deciding between these two likely scenarios challenging.

The problem for modern readers of Philemon is that Paul did not ask Philemon to set his slave Onesimus free. Why did Paul not tell Philemon to free his slave now that he was a brother in Christ? To answer this question, Moo discusses slavery in the Roman world and early Christian attitudes toward slavery. Even though it appears that there is no explicit command to free Onesimus, Moo wonders if a master/slave relationship is appropriate now that he is a “dear brother.” Moo observes that slavery is “not what Philemon is ultimately about.” Following N. T. Wright, he concludes that the book is about fellowship in Christ. “In Christ, we belong to one another; we enjoy each other’s company and support; and we are obliged to support, to point to the point of sacrificing our own time, interests, and money, [on behalf of] our brothers and sisters” (370).

The body of the commentary follows the pattern of other Pillar commentaries. Moo proceeds through the text verse-by-verse, commenting on the English text. Although the commentary is based on the NIV, he does refer to the Greek text with all Greek words transliterated, so readers without Greek training will have no trouble with the commentary. Interaction with secondary sources appears in footnotes. The notes are often updated with additional secondary sources published since the first edition. Like the introduction, there are slightly more footnotes in the section edition. For example, the first edition covers Colossians 2:6-4:6 in 156 pages (175-331), and has 522 footnotes. The second edition covers the same section in 163 pages (162-325), with 565 footnotes. The first edition reset note numbering for each section; the second edition has continuous numbers throughout the 163-page section. I also noticed one other helpful cosmetic change. Passages in Colossians are now given as chapter and verse (3:12-17) rather than vv. 12-17.

Conclusion. Twelve years ago, when I wrote a post on the top five Colossians commentaries, I included Moo’s first edition in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series. After reviewing what I said, I still think this commentary is excellent. Along with Scot McKnight’s NICNT volumes on Colossians and Philemon, this is one of the first commentaries I pull off the shelf when I study Colossians. It will serve academics, pastors, and Bible teachers as they prepare to present this essential but often overlooked Pauline letter.

If you already own the first edition, do you need the second edition? Maybe. The updated bibliography makes this new edition essential to scholars working on Colossians. However, the content of the exegesis has not changed much, so pastors and teachers may not need to upgrade to the second edition.

 

NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

Kenton C. Anderson and Gregory J. Henson, Theological Education: Principles and Practices of a Competency-Based Approach

Anderson, Kenton C., and Gregory J. Henson. Theological Education: Principles and Practices of a Competency-Based Approach. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2024. Pb. 144 pp. $21.99.   Link to Kregel

Competency-based theological education (CBTE) for ministry preparation is a hot topic for Christian colleges, universities, and seminaries as they try to find a way to continue their mission in a rapidly changing educational environment. What’s the problem? Education is very expensive, and the ministry does not pay very well. This means fewer people are interested in traditional theological education. Seminaries are competing for fewer students. Traditional models of theological education require people to attend two or three years of graduate work on a physical campus. Many people who want to enter ministry today are “second career” rather than young and fresh out of an undergrad program. They do not want to uproot families to move to study at a seminary. Unfortunately, many churches have lowered their standards for theological education. Gone are the days when an M.Div. was required for ordination. Many churches seek ways to train laypeople to serve in the church rather than sending them off to a traditional seminary. Why go into debt for a theological degree when you can watch seminary-level videos and learn the same material?

Competency-based theological education (CBTE)

Competency-based theological education offers a possible solution to these problems. Anderson and Hanson describe this as reverse engineering traditional education. In the past, students sat in classrooms, accumulated credit hours, and eventually entered a ministry context. In CBTE, students remain in their ministry context, utilizing computers and online resources and only occasionally entering a classroom (likely online). One of the first institutions I heard of using CBTE was Grace College and Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. They call their program Deploy. It uses subscription-based billing, so graduates finish the degree nearly debt-free. Both authors are leaders at Christian Universities. Anderson is President of Providence University College and Theological Seminary (formerly Winnipeg Bible College), and Henson is President of Kairos University. Both institutions offer programs using innovative billing methods and CBTE.

Anderson and Hanson outline six principles for CBTE (ch. 2) and six organizational practices (ch. 3.) CBTE assumes partnerships with local churches to train leaders for local churches. This is a collaborative mission since the seminary and the church have the same goals. Educators are reluctant to put theological education into the hands of the church, and churches are reluctant to put theological education into the hands of the ivory tower. CBTE tries to bridge this gap (or address the suspicions) by allowing learners to do some or all their education in the context of a local church. If the missions and the outcomes are the same, what is the problem? CBTE creates a team that includes denominations, seminaries, and churches. Since CBTE is highly customizable, students can learn the things they need to do in their local context to do ministry in that local context.

Concerning organizational principles, CBTE creates affordable programs using new tuition models (often subscription-based). Students pay a flat monthly fee and take as many classes as they want. To make this work, unified systems must remove old departmental lines, leading to cross-disciplinary integration. This also creates the opportunity for collaborative governance. Partner organizations are part of the conversation on what education looks like. This is important since people doing the ministry should know what is required for those preparing for ministry.

CBTE requires flexible technology, with an emphasis on mobile technology. Anderson and Hanson warn against the old LMS, which is very expensive, usually comes with a long-term contract, and is difficult to customize. They prefer stackable solutions (a range of mobile apps to meet specific needs). They recommend several software packages that can help students learn within the context of CBTE. Since the program is extremely flexible, it allows for continuous improvement. Traditional programs also assess and continuously improve, but the authors claim that CBTE is data-driven and allows for micro improvements.

Anderson and Hanson’s proposal in this book is not an online seminary but a partnership with local churches to train people for ministry collaboratively. I will confess that, as someone who has worked in higher education for more than 25 years, I get defensive when I hear administrators talking about CBTE. I enjoy teaching in a classroom and interacting with students. I do not look forward to a time when I sit in my office grading reflection papers, only interacting with mentors and local churches who are actually doing the education. To their credit, Anderson and Hanson never complain that traditional theological education is wrong. The main problem with traditional theological education is that it does not address the cultural and technological context of the modern world.

Some types of theological education are difficult to do outside of a classroom. Sometimes, it is necessary for a student to sit down in a classroom and learn the content of the Bible and theology, not to mention the biblical languages. However, that classroom does not need to look like a seminary in 1950. Some classes, such as preaching or counseling, cannot effectively be taught online. “People skill” classes need interaction between people. That can happen in a local church through CBTE.

Conclusion. Anderson and Hanson provide a basic overview of the principles behind Competency-based theological education. Although they offer some advice on what CBTE looks like in real life, this is a brief introduction and not a fully developed methodology. Since CBTE is highly customizable, no two CBTE programs will look identical.  This book should be required reading for people teaching in traditional institutions looking for ways to adapt their educational mission for the real world of the twenty-first century. The next step is to attend a CBTE conference.

 

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.

David B. Capes, Matthew through Old Testament Eyes

Capes, David B. Matthew through Old Testament Eyes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2024. Pb. 389 pp. $30.99.   Link to Kregel

David B. Capes is the executive director of the Lanier Theological Library. With Rodney Reeves, E. Randolph Richards, Capes contributed to Rediscovering Jesus (IVP Academic, 2015, reviewed here) and Rediscovering Paul (IVP Academic, 2017). His The Divine Christ: Paul, the Lord Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel was published in the Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology series (Baker Academic, 2018).

Capes, Matthew

This is the fourth volume of the Through Old Testament Eyes series, the first since Seth Ehorn joined Andrew Le Peau as co-editor. In the series introduction, Le Peau observes that the New Testament writers were Old Testament people. Although this seems obvious, the symbols and literary patterns of the Old Testament are often overlooked in popular preaching and teaching on New Testament books. The TOTE series attempts to bridge the gap by setting the documents of the New Testament in the context of the Old Testament. This commentary is not a detailed intertextual study nor a commentary on how the New Testament uses the Old. The commentary aims to shed light on the Gospel of Matthew by observing various Old Testament texts to provide context. The Old Testament text may or may not be directly quoted or alluded to in Matthew. It is often the overall biblical theology of the Old Testament that is used to illuminate the New Testament.

In his ten-page introduction, Capes explains that Matthew was the favorite gospel of the early church. After surveying the evidence for this status, he suggests that one of the reasons Matthew achieved is that Matthew “creatively and consistently engages with the text of the Old Testament” (16). Matthew is structured around five sermons, and a key literary feature of the Gospel is the fulfillment of Scripture. Matthew often uses a fulfillment formula (Matt 2:13-15, for example). Many events in the gospel are grounded in the Old Testament. For example, unlike Luke, the virgin birth is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Jesus is “God with us” who continues to be with us even until the end of the age (Matt 28:19-20).

Concerning authorship date and place of writing, he acknowledges that tMatthew is anonymous. However, there is a strong tradition that the apostle Matthew was the author (19). Citing Papias and other early traditions, Capes states that “we are on good grounds” that the author was an eyewitness, likely writing from Syrian Antioch. He is sure that Matthew used the gospel of Mark, but he is unsure whether the temple was still standing when Matthew wrote. The Olivet Discourse uses language like a prophetic Oracle, implying a date in the late 60s or early 70s. He concludes this brief section on introductory matters by observing that the date for Matthew’s gospel does not matter as much for reading Matthew in context.

In Matthew, Jesus is often seen in tension with Jewish groups, especially the Pharisees. Jesus describes them as hypocrites, even if they are faithful interpreters of the law. For Capes, these tensions are an intra-family issue (23). Not all Jews are responsible for Jesus’s death. This is an important observation since the commentary intentionally reads Matthew’s gospel through the lens of the Old Testament.

Like other volumes in the TOTE series, each chapter covers a chapter of Matthew. The commentary is on the English text (Although informed by the Greek text).  Sometimes, the notes are brief, treating phrases, and sometimes larger chunks of text. This is necessary due to the brevity of the commentary style. No secondary literature is cited in the body, but occasional endnotes point toward other academic literature.

In keeping with the goals of the commentary, he often draws attention to Old Testament passages that help explain the text in question. For example, commenting on the story of Jesus healing a paralyzed man by first forgiving his sin (Matthew 9:1-3), Capes draws attention to Solomon’s prayer of dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 7:13-14). The key phrase is “I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land.” “Forgiveness is not automatic,” Capes says, “it depends on God’s people humbling themselves, praying, and repenting of their sin. But notice: God is the one who forgives” (143). He then cites Micah 7: 18-19 and several other passages that describe God as the one who forgives sin. In the context of the miracle in Matthew 9, these Old Testament texts enhance our understanding of Jesus’s claim to be the one who forgives sin.

Occasionally, the commentary blends Old Testament texts with Second Temple Judaism. For example, commenting on the miracles in Matthew 11:4-6, he looks at miracles in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q521) and Isaiah. However, the commentary does not attempt to understand Jesus through the lens of the Judaism of his day but rather the Old Testament. This is not a “Through Mishnah Eyes” commentary!

In keeping with the series design, each chapter has three types of sidebars. First, “What Does the Structure Mean?” These sidebars comment on the outline of the gospel, such as a discussion of the apocalyptic discourse in Matthew 24-25 or the structure of a series of parables (Matthew 19:30, 20:16). Capes provides a comment on the three predictions of Jesus’ death (234-25). Although he indicated his belief that Matthew used the gospel of Mark, he rarely discusses any synoptic issues. Capes’ focus is entirely on the text of Matthew and how Matthew is better understood through the lens of the Old Testament.

Second, each chapter contains at least one “Through Old Testament Eyes” sidebar. These comments examine connections to the Old Testament. For example, Matthew 12:42 refers to the Queen of the South. This leads to a discussion of Solomon and the visit of the Queen of Sheba. When discussing the virgin birth, Capes examines the apparent connection to Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 12:5-21 is an opportunity to discuss the servant poem in Isaiah.

Third, each chapter contains at least one sidebar entitled “Going Deeper.” These sidebars tend toward biblical theology and other intra-canonical connections. For example, he deals with the connection between sin and sickness, demonstrated by the healing of the lame man in Matthew 9:2-8. He looks back at several Old Testament texts that connect sin and sickness, but then he’s quick to comment that not all disease and sickness are directly or indirectly related to sin (145).

 

Conclusion. This commentary on Matthew does not cover every detail in Matthew’s text, nor does it even attempt to. Nor is this an exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Matthew. Those are not the aims of the commentary series. Capes achieves his goal of reading the Gospel of Matthew “through Old Testament eyes” by providing a basic commentary on the English text and drawing attention to how the Old Testament sheds light on Matthew’s gospel. The commentary style will be valuable for laypeople as they work through the church’s favorite gospel.

 

Other volumes in the Through Old Testament Eyes series:

 

NB: Thanks to Kregel Academic for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.