Colossians

Garrett, Duane A.. Psalms 1-72. POTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2026. xxxiv+686 pp. Hb; $61.99.  Link to Eerdmans

Duane Garrett is John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation and professor of biblical theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Garrett has published commentaries on Exodus (KEL, reviewed here), Job (EEC, reviewed here), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Lamentations (WBC, with Paul House; NAC), Jeremiah and Lamentations (Kerux, reviewed here), Hosea and Joel (NAC), and Amos (Handbook on the Hebrew Text), and numerous other shorter commentaries and monographs.

This new commentary on Psalm 1-72 is the first volume of the new Pillar Old Testament Commentary. D. A. Carson remains as the editor for the New Testament. The Old Testament commentaries are edited by Eric J. Tully (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School). Tully is known for his work on Hosea and the recent Reading the Prophets as Christian Scripture (‎Baker Academic, 2022). Beginning with this commentary, Eerdmans has created a new imprint: Pillar Books. This will include all the Pillar commentaries and select monographs. Pillar commentaries now have a new logo on the spine. John Currid’s Joshua commentary will be the next volume published (due October 2026, reviewed here), with Gary V. Smith on 1 Chronicles in Spring 2027.

Garrett begins his sixty-four-page introduction by observing that “the Psalter gives us the vocabulary for prayer, confession, and praise” (1). The book is not really an overarching history of Israel, nor should it be read as a collection of messianic prophecies. This sets the tone for the commentary: Garrett will not engage in the increasingly popular typology found among many conservative commentators on the Psalms (see, for example, James Hamilton’s Reading Psalms as Scripture or his EBTC commentary on the Psalms).

Regarding the authorship and date of the Psalms, Garrett argues for a more personal and devotional function, even if they later found use in the Temple worship. The idea that the Psalter functioned as a handbook in the Second Temple period overlooks the oral nature of ancient music. People sang these songs everywhere. Psalms were often occasional and spontaneous (for example, the songs of Deborah, Hannah, Jonah, and Mary). None of those songs were composed for liturgical use, even if they later became part of temple liturgy. This is not to say that some psalms were composed as temple worship (the psalms of Korah, for example), but that cannot be the rule.

Are the superscriptions reliable for reconstructing historical context? Garrett answers common objections and concludes that the Hebrew superscriptions were added early, unlike the Septuagint, which contains obvious historical inaccuracies (for example, Psalm 137 could not have come from David). Many terms in the superscriptions were obscure when the Septuagint was translated, pointing to their antiquity. For example, the header for Psalm 5, “for the choir director,” is translated in the Septuagint as “for the end” (Εἰς τὸ τέλος).

Because many superscriptions identify David as an author, Garrett discusses the possibility that David authorship is reliable. In Samuel 16, David is described as a musician (cf. 2 Chron 29:30; David and Asaph are listed among Israel’s psalmists). It is therefore not implausible that David wrote some of the psalms. However, Garrett points out that some songs seem to be incompatible with David as the author. Psalm 5 refers to Zion and the temple, which post-date David.

He therefore suggests discussing authorship in the context of how ancient songs were composed and transmitted. For example, he cites Psalm 60:5-12 and Psalm 108:6-13, which are nearly identical. When David first sang Psalm 60, he would not have written it down with fixed, unalterable lyrics. As the song is sung repeatedly, transformations occur, in this case, with words used in different contexts. Garrett does not make this point, but this is what a modern ethnomusicologist would call “the folk process.” Singers adapted songs and tunes for many years, but only with the modern music publishing industry and the invention of recordings in the twentieth century did words and tunes become fixed. Artists as diverse as Bob Dylan and Led Zeppelin adapted old folk and blues songs, resulting in quite different songs. David was not a Tin Pan Alley songwriter!

In the second section of his introduction, Garrett discusses the audience and occasion of the psalms. Biblical psalms mirror their cultural context as ancient Near Eastern prayers and hymns. He recommends Othmar Keel’s work, which traced similar motives and metaphors in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient world. However, Garrett warns his readers not to let parallel material govern their interpretation of the psalms. The original Sitz im Leben (“situation in life”) is impossible to know, and any given Psalm could have been composed for a generic situation or transformed to be less specific. Does the Psalmist actually need to be sick to write a song asking God for healing?

Garrett also discusses the Psalter’s structure and rhetoric. The Psalms are well known to have five subsections, but do they have a macrostructure? Is the Psalter a mini-canon that has a discernible narrative? He surveys several suggestions, such as a history of Israel, a history of the Davidic Dynasty, or a messianic or Christological reading in every psalm. Garrett concludes that most suggested macrostructures do not account for all the evidence. Some psalms simply do not fit the pattern. Most schemes rely on a reading of Psalm 2, 72, or 89 as “seams” hinting at a final editing of the whole Psalter, but even this can be challenged. Garrett does not deny that the Psalter has subsections, such as Psalms 42-83 as an “Elohistic Psalter” or the songs of Korah, Asaph, or the Songs of Ascent.  But he is less inclined toward complex theories of a final addition to the Psalter with an overarching plotline.

The second major section of the introduction concerns the rhetorical context of the psalms. Garrett begins with an overview and critique of form criticism, beginning with Hermann Gunkel. For Garrett, the formal elements of Psalm types offer little help, and a given psalm can rarely be classified as a single type. The search for an original Sitz im Leben is “dangerous and futile,” and Psalm headers are obscure and often unhelpful (21). Form criticism, therefore, adds little value and “seriously constrains interpretation” (22). He turns to the cultic interpretation popularized by Mowinckel. Some psalms may have arisen in the context of individual worship, but very few psalms explicitly reference a cultic context. Garrett examines the narrative, or salvation history view originally suggested by Gerald Wilson. The Psalms are messianic and can be read intertextually in the Psalter’s final editing. Garrett disagrees, because he thinks very few psalms have a coherent narrative (25) and any “grand narrative” imposes itself on the Psalter. Most suggestions for a “grand narrative” are “intricate but dubious patterns” (27). “A more promising approach” focuses on patterns of repetition in the Salter. There are duplicates, psalms, formulas, catchwords, and recurring motifs. He lists eighteen recurring themes, giving a deeper appreciation of the Psalmist’s poetry. For example, Garrett mentions enemies, mockers, false friends, complaints to God, and moral and spiritual instruction.

The most valuable part of his introduction is a long section on the nature of Hebrew poetry (40-57). This section could be read as a basic primer on Hebrew poetry. He begins by discussing meter, Masoretic cantillation, and parallelism. Parallelism is usually described as the most important feature of Hebrew poetry, although some scholars are moving away from, or past, parallelism as a formal category. Garrett provides a catalog of poetic and musical terms often used in the psalm superscriptions. Except for selah, these are brief introductions because the vocabulary is quite obscure.

Regarding the theology of the Psalter, Garrett begins by noting that the Psalter is so varied that it is difficult to make a general statement about the “theology of the psalms” (59). He offers several themes that appear often in the psalms, such as the importance of maintaining a holy life, enemies, and why the evil prosper. Since he has already rejected the idea of a grand narrative for the entire Psalter, he argues that the claim that the psalms are inherently messianic or Christocentric “cannot be substantiated” (59). Nevertheless, he discusses messianic prophecy at length and warns readers to discuss messianic prophecy in the psalms carefully. It is often too forced, or the result of “special pleading.” Any righteous character in the psalms reflects the character of Christ. Some messianic texts are considered fulfilled in the New Testament, but what that means is sometimes unclear. His example is in Acts 1:15-16, where Peter cites Psalms 69:25 and 109:8 as fulfilled. But was that prophecy? Or was Judas just the ultimate wicked man described in the Psalm?

But Garrett concedes that David’s experience in the songs often uncannily mirrors Jesus and can be described as “literally fulfilled.” Psalm 22 is his example. Some psalms referred to David kings in such exalted terms that they go beyond David’s actual descendants. This could be hyperbole (or propaganda?), or it could be considered messianic prophecy. Garrett considers Psalm 2 and Psalm 45 examples of oracular psalms, prophecies about David and his kingdom that are clearly eschatological. “Although some psalms are distinctly messianic, it is not correct to speak of psalms as messianic narrative” (62). Garrett cites with approval Ben Witherington’s observation that Isaiah was the “go-to source” for messianic texts, not the Psalms.

Garrett’s commentary on each psalm begins with a brief overview and introduction to the song, along with a fresh translation of the Hebrew text. He transliterates all Hebrew and uses footnotes for textual, lexical, and syntactical details. Readers without specialized Hebrew training should have no trouble following the commentary. He breaks the Psalm into major sections and summarizes his outline in the headings. He then provides a verse-by-verse commentary, making comments on keywords and grammar to illuminate the poetry. These are not too detailed. He provides 577 pages of commentary for 72 psalms, so on average only about eight pages per Psalm. After the commentary, Garrett adds about a page on the psalm’s theology. This might be considered “application” for sermons, but it is not a homiletical guide. Because he rejects a grand narrative for the entire Psalter, he rarely makes inner-Psalter connections, though he does relate the Psalm to the larger narrative of the Bible and Christian theology.

Conclusion. Pillar Commentaries are advertised as “careful, clear and conservative.” Garrett’s commentary on Psalms 1-72 is certainly that. But “conservative” needs careful and clear definition. This commentary is not conservative in the sense that it rejects the academic study of the text, nor does it refuse to interact with voices outside of the conservative bubble. The Pillar series as a whole is conservative because the authors believe the whole Bible is God’s word. Garrett therefore interprets the Psalms in a way that illuminates their complex poetry while also speaking to Christian theology and spirituality. As he says in his preface, Garrett’s goal is to help readers “see how every psalm has a profound meaning for the church” (xv). This commentary will serve pastors and teachers well as they present Israel’s poetry to a modern audience.

Other Pillar Commentaries reviewed:

• James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke
• Colin Kruse, The Letter to the Romans
• Mark A. Seifrid, The Second Letter to the Corinthians
• Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians
• Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus
• Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (No longer available from the publisher)
• Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (PNTC; 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.

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.

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.