Matthew

Surely there will be someone else writing about this book, so I'm going try to help you in another way. When you start reading biblical commentaries you will need to be aware that the thoughts expressed by the author deal with facts and speculations that should of happened. You can NEVER rely on only one commentary to affirm something about the Bible. You need at least three good commentaries. Try to read biblical commentaries from different confessions of faith (e.g., Calvinism vs. Arminianism; Pentecostal vs. non-Pentecostal; Catholic vs. Protestant; Egalitarian vs. Complementarian; Amillennialism vs. Premillennialism vs. Postmillennialism; etc). Look for their arguments: What do they agree or disagree on? Which of them is closest to the biblical text? It's not a sin to read commentaries written from other points of view. You will notice that what is fact or solid argument will be seen over and over on different commentaries, so you will start learning what is speculation and what is not. As Haddon W. Robinson said in his book, Biblical Preaching, (second edition, page 22), "In approaching a passage, we must be willing to reexamine our doctrinal convictions and to reject the judgments of our most respected teachers." Remember, a commentary is not the biblical text. Do not replace the authority of the Bible with a commentary. The same apply for Study Bibles. The study notes there are not written by "apostles and prophets," so never confuse the "gospel" with the teacher or preacher. Learn to separate it. Commentaries are important because nobody can get a poem from one language and translate it with the same structure to another language. This simply does not exist. Words, phrases, and sentences are rooted in a specific time, culture and custom. About Bibles, the best way is to check different translations, but be cautious about a very loose translation. For you to appreciate any biblical commentary you need to know what level of reading you are. I'm going call them beginner, intermediate and advanced. I recommend the following biblical commentaries that you can start from. All of them have both Old Testament and New Testament. (If you're thinking of buying the whole set, look for the CD edition; it's cheaper and you can take it with you where you go.) Beginner - NIV Application Commentary (NIVAC) by Zondervan. (or) The Bible Speaks Today Series (BST) by IVP (This is a growing series and not yet complete.) Intermediate - New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) and New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT) by Eerdmans Advanced - Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) by Thomas Nelson These are basic commentaries on their own level, but there are a lot of commentaries today, so don't forget to look for more information. Maybe you can get information from one of these: (1) Commentary and Reference Survey: A Comprehensive Guide to Biblical and Theological Resources by John Glynn, (2) New Tes

David Turner's commentary on Matthew is a gem. Although as of the writing of this review, I have not read the entire work, I have gone through enough of it already to see that it is a very fine work on Matthew's gospel. This commentary is semi-technical in that the technical aspects that are in it are enough for the more technically inclined interpreters, while still the commentary is well within the reach of the informed layperson, or even just someone willing to put in some effort. Turner's commentary is a well balanced work in so many respects: not too lengthy, not too short, not too technical, not to simplistic. His commentary does a good job of aiming to expound Matthew's gospel from the relevant milieu of its time. (as best as can be known anyhow) Turner also does touch on later issues raised by the text as well in places. As Turner used much of not only the Hebrew scriptures, but also 2 nd temple Judaism in order to shed light on many aspects of Matthew's gospel in part and as a whole. Turner also does a good job of explaining the smaller details, while never loosing the forest for the trees. One will find commentary on smaller units, such as at the sentence (verse) level, as well as at the larger level of paragraph/unit/pericope level. Turner keeps the whole in mind as he delves into the parts. A fine blending of exegetical, theological and applicatory explication of what Jesus meant in and by Matthew's gospel account. At just under 700 pages of commentary in actually decent sized print, (thanks Baker books!), Turner is conservative and well informed. Just a fine fine job of grammatical historical exegesis/exposition, with some good redemptive historical/biblical theological notes sounded as well. For serious and well informed studies on Matthews gospel, I do believe this to be a keeper.

The size (692 pages; the bibliography and the indexes are not included) tells us about the terseness of the commentary but not the lack of clarity. Every paragraph is straight to the point without diffusion. Every discussion has significance, not only serving the purpose of delivering information. I enjoyed much of reading this form of presentation: terse yet unambiguous. This is also not a commentary of commentaries, hence the brevity. However, he does well in quoting others, such that the commentary is neither mostly a pile of arguments about others' opinion nor only a gathering of others' view. The way he summarizes other's argument is well balanced. He is really writing a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. This work is brief yet comprehensive. The other concern in writing a commentary of the Gospels is that we have to treat each Gospel in its own right, which means that we are not supposed to do a synoptic comparison in order to gain the whole picture. I believe that the author has done it well. But sometimes such comparison is justified, because the differences will show us the uniqueness of each Gospel. In this point, I found out that the author tends to do only the first part, but offers no explanation of the differences so as to highlight its distinctiveness. (see, for instance, p. 108 about the difference of Matthew 3:3, compared with the other Gospels, in quoting the OT; others like pp.124, 129 etc.) When commenting on a verb, the author emphasizes the implication of the Greek tense, which makes me a little uneasy about it. (Surprisingly, this is rarely found at the second half or even the last two third of the commentary) For instance, in commenting on 3:5-6 (p. 109) he writes, "The imperfect verbs exeporeueto (were going out) and ebaptizonto (were being baptized) indicate that this response was widespread and regular." (I omit the Greek words) I am wondering, does "imperfect" indicate the widespread and regularity of the verbs or is it the context that requires so? In another sense, I will agree with some of the conclusions, but not the reason. I may have such an understanding due to the fact that I am more influenced by the Aspect Theory rather than traditional grammatical analysis. But for sure, the latter approach is still a common practice. This, however, won't affect me in appreciating this commentary due to many other strengths.