New Testament

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.

Kenneth Berding, Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh: New Clues for an Old Problem

Berding, Kenneth. Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh: New Clues for an Old Problem. Lexham Academic, 2023. xxi+278 pp. Pb. $26.99   Link to Lexham Academic  

Kenneth Berding serves as professor of New Testament at Talbot School of Theology. He has previously published Walking in the Spirit (Crossway, 2011), Bible Revival: Recommitting Ourselves to One Book (Lexham, 2013), and The Apostolic Fathers: A Narrative Introduction (Wipf & Stock, 2017), as well as many academic articles. He maintains a blog, Kindle Afresh (an excerpt from this book can be found here). This monograph is narrowly focused on Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” in 2 Corinthians 12:7. In his introduction, he suggests twenty criteria that any theory must explain. For example, an explanation of Paul’s thorn in the flesh must understand the thorn as black magic, the thorn impacted Paul’s flesh (face, ears, eyes), it is comparable to a sharp pointed object causing excruciating pain, his ailment was long term but intermittent, and in some ways parallels the Jesus’s suffering.

Paul's Thorn in the flesh

As Berding observes in his first chapter, there is scholarly apathy for specific suggestions to explain what Paul meant by a thorn in the flesh. He cites a series of commentators who say things like “diagnosis is impossible” (Dodd), the “diagnosis is irrelevant to the context” (Bultmann), or “we have no way of knowing what the infirmity was” (Fee). Although I used apathy in the previous sentence, Berding uses words like bias and prejudice. This prejudice, Berding suggests, is built on a foundation of anti-supernatural assumptions (although some of the scholars he cites would not share some of those assumptions). Move scholars simply opt for physical suffering without being very specific or offering any arguments for that view. For example, Berding summarizes the approach of most modern scholars as “If forced to choose I, would choose X position” (p. 33). In his second chapter, he reviews the history of interpretation (thirteen possible and eighteen “less likely” proposals, all well documented in the footnotes).

For Berding, the “thorn in the flesh” is a real physical ailment caused by “an angel of Satan.” First-century readers would have understood this as black magic (akin to voodoo dolls, p. 206; see page 45 for a photograph of an ancient voodoo doll or follow this link. Berding acknowledges using this term is an anachronism, p. 39 note 1). He suggests the original hearers of the phrase would have considered Paul under some sort of demonic attack. He arrives at this conclusion by “following the clues,” which is the substance of chapters 3-11.

He begins with the historical context, chapter three is a survey of ancient magic, piercing texts, and the use of thorns in first-century magic. For a member of the Corinthian congregation, Paul’s physical ailment implied that a magician launched an attack on Paul’s physical body. Because Paul was suffering, it showed that he was not spiritually strong enough to withstand an attack. Paul mentions the thorn in 1 Corinthians 12:7 because he believes God has allowed him to suffer in this way so that he would learn “my grace is sufficient” (2 Cor 12:8).

If it is the case that God allowed Paul to suffer physically, then Berding argues that Job is the obvious literary (intertextual) connection (chapter 4). He argues that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” has significant literary and conceptual parallels with Job’s experience. For example, both suffered an attack from Satan on their physical flesh, experienced excruciating pain, and were viewed as weak by observers.

The bulk of this book examines the evidence in the New Testament which sheds like on what Paul meant by “thorn in the flesh.” In chapters 5-7, Berding closely examines Paul’s literary context. He discusses at length the context of 2 Corinthians 12 (Paul’s vision and heavenly ascent) and Paul’s frequent references to his bodily weakness. In chapter 8, he draws parallels between Paul’s and Jesus’s suffering. For example, Jesus was also pierced (with nails and a spear) and suffered humiliation and shame. Chapter 10 examines data from Galatians, drawing out several similarities between Paul’s physical ailment in Galatians 4:15 and 2 Corinthians 12:7. Chapter 11 surveys some less likely biblical connections in the interest of comprehensiveness.

Chapter 9 traces clues from Irenaeus and Tertullian. Berding suggests these are more valuable than modern interpretations since these writers lived in nearly the same world as Paul.  Written about 180 A.D., Irenaeus’s Against Heresies is the earliest comment on Paul’s thorn in the flesh. He thought that the thorn refers to a bodily infirmity. Tertullian also considered the thorn a physical ailment involving excruciating pain in Paul’s face, perhaps his ears. Tertullian also compares Paul’s thorn with what Satan did to Job’s body.

After two chapters summarizing the data (chs. 12-13), Berding makes several suggestions for a modern medical explanation for Paul’s thorn (ch. 14).  “Students of 2 Corinthians 12:7 need to understand that the face pain connected with the trigeminal nerve fits well with descriptions of thorn in the flesh and being punched in the face and in first- century Greco Rome an angel of Satan” (225).

I have two comments regarding his conclusion on a modern medical explanation of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. First, when I first read Berding’s first two chapters, I was comfortable with the scholarly consensus that Paul suffered a physical ailment. Still, the exact diagnosis (in a modern, clinical sense) does not really matter. I did not see this as bias, prejudice, or even apathy. It is more likely the result of not having the time to write a 278-page monograph focused solely on the issue of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.” After reading the book, I am happy to define the thorn as a “satanically inspired physical ailment affecting his face.” If it is satanic in nature, do modern medical details really matter?

Second, Berding’s chapter on magic and curses in the ancient world is excellent and is the highlight of the book. He is correct that whatever ailment afflicted Paul would be seen by people in first-century Corinth as the result of a magical curse. This would be true for Gentile members of Paul’s congregation. However, a Jewish opponent might interpret physical suffering as punishment from God and further proof that Paul’s opponents considered Paul and his ministry as inferior. Berding’s purpose in this book is to define “thorn in the flesh,” not using that definition to answer larger questions about the purpose of 2 Corinthians.

Conclusion: Berding’s Thorn in the Flesh is certainly the most comprehensive study of 2 Corinthians 12:7 available. His research is exhaustive, considering all the data imaginable, both biblical and secondary (commentaries and academic articles). Any commentary on 2 Corinthians written in the future will need to incorporate Berding’s work.

 

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

Walter T. Wilson, Matthew Volume 1 & 2 (Eerdmans Critical Commentary)

Wilson, Walter T. Matthew Volume 1: Matthew 1-13. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023. xxi+632 pp. Hb; $45.00.  Link to Eerdmans

Wilson, Walter T. Matthew Volume 2: Matthew 14-28. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023. xxi+610 pp. Hb; $45.00.  Link to Eerdmans

Walter Wilson serves as Charles Howard Candler Professor of New Testament at Emory. He previously published a monograph, Healing in the Gospel of Matthew: Reflections on Method and Ministry (Fortress, 2014), and numerous academic articles on the first gospel. He recently published Ancient Wisdom: An Introduction to Sayings Collections (Eerdmans 2022, reviewed here) and, in 2023, a commentary on the Wisdom of Sirach in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary. This new Matthew commentary is the first in the ECC series since 2012.

Wilson, Matthew Commentary

In the twenty-page introduction, Wilson suggests the author of the first Gospel was a Jewish Christian, reliant on the Gospel of Mark, writing between 75 and 95 CE, likely from Syrian Antioch. The author retained the plot from Mark and rarely omitted an episode. But he tended to abbreviate Mark, and he expanded Mark’s outline with material from a sayings source. Wilson suggests this is a different version of the sayings source than Luke’s. The use of Q (sayings source) and M (unique material) is the clearest in the five speeches. Matthew also adds a frame to Mark’s plot, the birth narrative, and the return to Galilee (Matt 28:16-20). “Evidence for Matthew’s editing within individual passages is pervasive,” even if the mode of editing is variable (6). Wilson frequently observes Matthew’s handling of sources in the commentary. For example, commenting on Matthew 8:1-9:38, he suggests, “for the substance of these chapters, Matthew draws on various stories adapted from Mark and Q, altering both their content often through abbreviation and order” (262). The rest of the paragraph offers detailed evidence supporting this thesis.

Concerning genre and orientation, Wilson suggests that the “messianic movement is a continuation and culmination of the foundation story of Israel imparted by the Old Testament” (7). Matthew imitates scripture and invites readers to read scripture in a new light. Matthew recasts salvation history in an eschatological mode. “The life of Jesus is properly understood as one continued realization of biblical (especially prophetic) predictions” (7). Like the disciples, Matthew’s readers are expected to understand Jesus’s teachings (13:51-52) and teach them to others (28:19-20). However, they will struggle to put Jesus’s teaching into practice. There is a discrepancy between the ideal disciple who follows Jesus’s teachings and the disciples’ failure. Readers should identify with the disciples since they struggle, face opposition, and often fail.

Wilson sees Jesus and the Pharisees in a mutually antagonistic relationship (15:13-20, a text not in Mark or Luke). The Pharisees are blind guides (23:16) who will be uprooted (13:37-43). Wilson suggests this estrangement mirrors Matthew’s community. They may be sectarian, factional, or a beleaguered dissident minority (11). They are becoming increasingly different from formative Judaism and open to including non-Jews (28:18-20). Matthew’s gospel “helps justify the mission to the Gentiles.”

If the Gospel of Matthew has a thesis, Wilson suggests it is Immanuel (1:23; 18:20; 28:20). Jesus reveals and enacts God’s will” (14). Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah, and the son of David. He has a royal association indicating Jesus is the agent of God’s Kingdom. There is a conflict between Israel’s Messiah and Israel’s leaders. Citing Matthew 4:1-11, this conflict is “set against the backdrop of a cosmic conflict between divine and satanic agents (15). Matthew reconfigures God’s people around Jesus. The site of redemptions revelation shifts from Mount Zion to a mount in Galilee, the sermon on the mount, the mountain in the final Commission, for example. Attachment to one’s family and land is replaced with attachment to Jesus.

The major aim of Jesus’s proclamation is to explain the demands of God’s reign. The basis of discipleship is bearing fruit in keeping with repentance (3:8; 7:16-20; 12:33; 13:23; 21:19, 43). “The ethos of the new age finds its standard, especially in obedience to the law” (19). But this obedience is the more radical standard of righteousness of the heart. All the requirements of scripture hang on the command to love and expressions of mercy. Good works manifest God to others (5:13-16).

Wilson divides the twenty-eight chapters of Matthew into eleven sections covering a chapter or two each. These sections are further divided into several (untitled) units. Sections begin with a short introduction describing themes and addressing synoptic parallels. Each unit also has a short introduction tying it to the overall context of Matthew’s gospel. Wilson provides his own translation, followed by a commentary on the Greek text (with no transliteration). There are occasional comments on textual issues since this is not the commentary’s focus.

Wilson comments on lexical and syntactical issues (with details in the footnotes). The commentary has copious footnotes to secondary literature, so the body of the commentary is uncluttered and easy to read. Wilson includes excellent notes on Old Testament parallels and background throughout the commentary. This includes occasional references to Second Temple literature. For example, he suggests the ten miracles in Matthew 8:1-9:48 are “meant to recall the ten wonders performed by Moses in Exod 7-12” (263). In Matthew 19:28, he observes parallels between this text, Daniel 7, and 1 Enoch 108 (155). Commenting on Matthew 24:29-31, Wilson draws attention to several prophetic passages describing the collapse of the order of creation and the Testament of Moses and other Second Temple texts. He draws attention to parallels between 1 Enoch 62 and the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46. Although many of these comments often appear in a Matthew commentary, Wilson seems to have a knack for tracing these allusions.

The commentary does not spend much time on geographical or historical issues. For example, commentaries often offer details on Pilate when he is introduced in Matthew 27:1. Wilson comments briefly on his title “governor” and points to relevant literature in a footnote. Likewise, there is no interest in locating places like the Mount of Transfiguration or the Upper Room.  Wilson’s focus is on the textual and literary features of Matthew.

In the conclusion to each unit, Wilson summarizes and occasionally comments on theological issues raised in the unit.  He occasionally points out a theological nuance that comes forward because of Matthew’s redaction of his sources. These conclusions cannot be described as “theological interpretation” nor “application,” although he often draws out implications from the text for church life.

Each volume includes a bibliography (vol. 1, 79 pages, vol. 2, 80 pages) and indices (vol. 1, 65 pages, vol. 2, 95 pages).

Conclusion. Wilson’s two-volume Matthew commentary is an excellent addition to the Eerdmans Critical Commentary series. Wilson’s exegesis is clear, and his interest in Matthew’s use of the Old Testament (and parallels to Second Temple literature) is stimulating. Although some readers may not care for his approach to Matthew’s redaction of his sources, Wilson has produced a Matthew commentary which is a please to read. This solid academic Matthew commentary will serve scholars and students of the First Gospel for many years.

 

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