Matthew

John M. Soden and Randal Emery Pelton, Genesis (Kerux)

Soden, John M. and Randal Emery Pelton. Genesis. A Commentary for Biblical Preaching and Teaching. Kerux Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Ministry, 2025. 752 pp. Hb. $54.99   Link to Kregel Ministry  

Kregel’s Kerux commentary series combines a rich exegetical commentary with timely preaching in order to help pastors and teachers prepare sermons and lessons for the church. In this new commentary on Genesis, exegete John M. Soden (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) combines pastoral experience and academic credentials. Soden previously published In the Beginning… We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context (with Johnny V. Miller, Kregel, 2012). The preaching sections are written by Randal Emery Pelton (PhD, Capital Seminary & Graduate School; DMin, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary). Pelton serves as senior pastor at Calvary Bible Church in Mount Joy, Pennsylvania (since 2003), and adjunct faculty at Lancaster Bible College, Capital Bible Seminary, and Gordon-Conwell. He previously published Preaching with Accuracy (Kregel Ministry, 2015, reviewed here). His website, Pelton on Preaching, aims to help pastors preach with precision and passion.

Kerux Genesis

Soden and Pelton divide Genesis into four major sections and forty-five preaching units.

  • Genesis 1:1-11:9—The Primeval Narratives
  • Genesis 11:10-25:11—The Abraham Narratives
  • Genesis 25:19-37:1—The Jacob Narratives
  • Genesis 37:2-50:26—The Fourth Generation Narratives

Notice that the genealogy in Genesis 25:12-18 is missing. They call this “Family History of Ismael.” They provide three paragraphs of explanation, but do not consider the genealogy a preaching unit. Each major section is introduced with several pages on its literary structure, theological themes, and preaching suggestions. This will be helpful, since most pastors and teachers will not teach the entire book of Genesis in a single long series. Pastors should select one of these four units as a sermon series (your congregation will appreciate this). Weird observation: these sections are a single column, while most of the rest of the commentary is two-column.

A “preaching unit” is a section that can reasonably be covered in a single sermon or teaching session. The authors provide a one-sentence exegetical idea, a theological focus, and a preaching idea for each unit. These should look familiar to those who have read Haddon Robinson on preaching. These are one-sentence summaries of what the sermon should look like. Following this are two paragraphs of “preaching pointers.” This material is gathered on pages 13-48 and repeated at the beginning of each preaching unit.

The twenty-page introduction seems brief, considering seven pages discuss structure and outline (contrasting the Tolodoth structure with Gary Rendsburg’s work on Genesis). This is the nature of the Kerux series; the commentary is much more interested in the text of Genesis than in typical introductory issues. If the book is taken at face value, Moses is the author. But this does not imply that Moses wrote every word in the book (although this introduction does not discuss source criticism, traditional history, etc.) A decision on authorship will affect the date and place of writing. Even if the traditional authorship is accepted, the date of the Exodus is an open question. Nevertheless, they conclude that the occasion and the original recipients were Israel after coming out of Egypt, likely during the wilderness period.

As with other volumes in the Kerux series, there are numerous sidebars discussing cultural and historical issues. In this, there are interesting sidebars on cosmic conflict, surrogate wives, dreams, Levirate marriage, covenant meals, the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh, the identity of Jacob’s assailant, household gods, and marriage contracts (and many, many more). In addition to these, there are extensive “translation analysis boxes. In these sections, Sodon discusses Hebrew lexical and syntactical issues by comparing popular English translations. This is helpful, especially for pastors, who must deal with a variety of translations in their congregation. Sodon explains the reasons why some translations choose a particular English word based on the Hebrew text.

The exegetical section proceeds through the text by paragraphs. Even in a commentary of this length, it is impossible to deal with every word and phrase in the book of Genesis. Soden comments on the Hebrew text, which often appears without a transliteration. Secondary sources are cited with in-text citations rather than footnotes. Each exegetical unit concludes with a comment on the text’s theological focus.

Pelton’s Preaching and Teaching Strategies begins with an exegetical and theological synthesis. These short reflections on the main point of the passage are followed by a repetition of the preaching idea. He then provides a series of comments on contemporary connections, the sorts of things an interpreter needs to consider before they preach or teach the passage. Sometimes these are canonical connections, others are warnings or advice to preachers as they prepare. The final section is “Creativity in Presentation.” These sections offer suggestions for drawing the congregation into the text (illustrations, for example). These seem shorter to me than other Kerux volumes, but also less gimmicky. The “Creativity” sections often include contemporary movies (The Lord of the Rings) or famous Christian writers (C. S. Lewis, and a host of ancient church writers). Pelton does some of that, but these sections are more concerned with how the narrative works within the larger story of Genesis and the Bible.  Each preaching unit concludes with discussion questions that guide the sermon’s application.

Conclusion. Soden and Pelton’s commentary on Genesis will be a valuable resource for pastors and teachers presenting the first book of the Bible in the local church. They do not get bogged down in the fine details, which distract many (especially in the first eleven chapters). By focusing on the text’s meaning and narrative flow, Soden and Pelton provide a solid foundation for reading Genesis with clarity.

Other volumes reviewed in this series:

 

 

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.

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.

Charles L. Quarles, Matthew (EBTC)

Quarles, Charles L. Matthew. Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022. xxiii+828 pp.; Hb.; $59.99. Link to Lexham Press

Charles Quarles is a research professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has previously contributed several books and articles on Matthew, including Sermon On The Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church (B&H, 2011), A Theology of Matthew: Jesus Revealed as Deliverer, King, and Incarnate Creator (‎P&R, 2013, and Matthew (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (B&H, 2017, reviewed here).  He recently co-authored 40 Questions about the Text and Canon of the New Testament (with Scott Kellum, Kregel 2023; reviewed here).

Quarles Matthew

In his 104-page introduction, Quarles begins his discussion of the authorship of the first gospel by observing the author was certainly a Jewish Christian, probably from Galilee. The author seems favorable toward Galilee and negative towards Jerusalemites. “Due to early and unanimous testimony supporting Matthean authorship and the lack of internal evidence contrary to this testimony,” he accepts Matthew as the author. He does not argue this from apologetic or theological concerns, but after a “thorough survey of the evidence,” Matthew is simply the best conclusion (12).

Similarly, cumulative evidence favoring a pre-70 date raises concerns for confident claims Matthew wrote after A. D. 70. For him, the key evidence is the Gospel of Matthew and the so-called “parting of the ways.” For many, phrases like “your synagogues” or “your scribes” (4:23, 7:29) suggest Matthew had already separated from the synagogue when the gospel was written. Traditionally, the parting of the ways is dated at least to A. D. 85, after the so-called council of Jamnia. However, this date for the parting (and the whole idea of a council of Jamnia) as a watershed moment has been scrutinized and often abandoned. Quarles takes the Book of Acts seriously. Separation from synagogues is commonplace in the Pauline mission (for example, Corinth, Acts 18). What about the implied destruction of the temple? He takes the evidence as a foreshadowing of the temple’s destruction rather than an implication that the temple is no longer active. Many distinctive features of Matthew make the most sense if the original assemblies addressed were still participating in Temple worship.

He is much less certain about the provenance and destination of the gospel. There is not enough evidence to conclude where the gospel originated, although it is clearly addressing Jewish Christians. Likewise, it is not clear what the original language of the gospel was. As early as Papias, some early church writers assumed Matthew wrote first in Aramaic, which was later translated into Greek. However, Matthew used Mark and Mark is clearly written in Greek. It is impossible for someone to have translated Mark into Aramaic for Matthew to use and then translate Aramaic Matthew back into Greek. The parallels between Greek Matthew and Greek Mark are too exact to have passed through multiple translations. However, Quarles thinks some portions of Matthew were originally written in a Semitic language (31). However, evidence is lacking to reach a confident conclusion. What sections does he have in mind? One example: in Matthew’s genealogy, three sets of fourteen generations seem to be influenced by gematria based on David’s name, totaling fourteen in Hebrew or Aramaic. This does not work if one uses the Greek spelling of David.

Quarles follows the almost universal agreement that the gospels are ancient biographies. For him, this has important implications for how to read Matthew. Since the subject is Jesus, Matthew is a Christological document (34) and historically reliable. Quarles structures the gospel following Mark’s chronological and geographical pattern. This raises an issue that’s missing in this commentary. He assumes Markan priority (Matthew used Mark’s gospel). He does not argue this point in the introduction, nor does he raise the issue in the body of the commentary. Using the print library feature of Logos Bible Software, I searched for references to Q (or “sayings source”) in the commentary. Q only appears twice (once in a quotation of Davies and Allison in a footnote and another in the bibliography). Occasionally, footnotes discuss a difference between Mark and Matthew, but Quarles is only Matthew’s text. There is nothing on the synoptic problem, nor does he engage in source criticism or redactional analysis. I find this refreshing since he spends the entirety of his effort in the commentary itself on the text of Matthew, and other commentaries focus on redactional issues. I would, however, like to have a paragraph in the introduction stating his assumptions.

The bulk of the introduction (pages 45-104) covers fourteen theological themes in the Gospel of Matthew. Since he argues that Matthew’s gospel is a Christological document, all fourteen of these themes relate to Matthew’s presentation of Jesus. These themes are then woven into the commentary in the exegesis and his concluding theological reflections entitled “Bridge.”

The commentary moves through his outline of the book pericope-by-pericope, treating major paragraphs in a few pages. The commentary is based on the CSB translation provided at the beginning of each unit. Following the text, Quarles sets the context before moving to the exegesis. His exegesis is based on the English text (Greek words rarely appear). He does not deal with textual criticism and only rarely makes grammatical or syntactical comments. This is true even when there are bracketed verses in the text of Matthew (such as in 18:11). He makes connections with rabbinic sources when they shed light on the text (Matthew 22:23-33, for example).

Although the commentary is nearly 600 pages, Quarles is a master of the art of brevity. His explanations are very clear and readable. The focus is on explaining the meaning of the gospel. Although he interacts with secondary literature in the footnotes, this is not a commentary on what other commentaries have said.

The final section of each unit is entitled “Bridge.” These are canonical connections, often referring to the Old Testament but also to other New Testament passages and (occasionally) church history reception. Although these sometimes have contemporary applications, this is not the purpose of the section. He is bridging canonical connections, not bridging the ancient gospel with a modern context.

Conclusion. Quarles’s commentary is an exemplary contribution to the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary series. Pastors and teachers will find this commentary to be valuable as they present the first Gospel.

 

Reviews of other Commentaries in this Series:

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