This past Sunday I was again privileged to fill in for our pastor by delivering the Sunday morning message. My theme this time was baptism, and I took as part of my title, the question that Ananias asked the future Apostle Paul before his baptism in Acts 22:16. He asked “why do you wait?” I enjoyed tracing the pattern of baptism as seen in the book of Acts and spent time talking about what baptism symbolizes and what it does (and doesn’t) do. I also looked at when it is appropriate to wait.
I trust this message will be a blessing to my readers. If you don’t have time to listen to the entire sermon (42 minutes), please do look over my notes.
Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.
In analyzing the Gospels, scholars have often claimed that John’s Gospel was written by someone who had no clear knowledge of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The theology in John is more advanced, and must come from a later date in the “evolution” of Christian doctrine. From this scholarly debate has come a fresh look at the literary evidence in the Gospels themselves, and the results have been startling (or encouraging, depending on your perspective). NT scholarship is starting to change its tune on this point, in fact. Even for those of us who aren’t scholars (I include myself here for sure), there are meaty takeaways that can improve our grasp of the interplay between the Gospels – and heighten our appreciation of the revelation of Jesus we find there.
In this post, I want to highlight that the author of the Gospel of John (who I hold is John the Apostle), is not only familiar with the Gospel of Mark, but that he also assumes that many of his readers have read Mark. He even structures His Gospel (John) so that it fills out and explains much that Mark does not include in his Gospel. In short, there are echoes of Mark in John’s Gospel, and John intends His Gospel to differ from Mark’s. As Richard Bauckham puts it, “John is explicitly incomplete in aspects which… the Synoptic Gospels supply.”[1]
Puzzling Statements (John 3:24; 11:2)
What follows here is drawn from a chapter titled “John for Readers of Mark” by Richard Bauckham[2]. In reading Jonathan Pennington’s book Reading the Gospels Wisely, I came across a summary of Bauckham’s thoughts on this, and I have dug up more on the topic from simply following the helpful footnotes for more info.[3]
Two small and seemingly insignificant verses reveal John’s knowledge of Mark. And following their lead, a few other verses throw open the door to how John and Mark dovetail together.
John 3:24 “(For John had not yet been put in prison).”
John 3:24 is an aside, a parenthetical expression that is quite odd. Bauckham himself explains this quite clearly:
To understand the reason for the explanation, we are obliged to postulate implied readers/hearers who know more than the Gospel itself has told them. They seem to be expected already to know that John’s ministry came to an end when he was imprisoned, but even this knowledge is not sufficient to account for the explanation. Whether or not readers/hearers already know that John was imprisoned, they do not need to be told the obvious: that he was not yet imprisoned when he was still baptizing.[4]
Of the few references to John the Baptist’s imprisonment in the Synoptics, the one most likely referred to here is Mark 1:14. The comment in John 3:24 is there to let the reader know that this portion of Jesus’ ministry is taking place in between Mark 1:9-13 (which details Jesus’ baptism and subsequent temptation in the wilderness) and Mark 1:14 (which has Jesus going to Galilee to start his ministry there — right after John is imprisoned). This section in John’s Gospel, begins right after Jesus’ baptism (as hinted at in John 1:30) and continues through John 4:43 (where Jesus goes into Galilee for formal ministry — his time at Cana in John 2 was before his public ministry). So John wants his readers to know that John 1:19-4:43 fits between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.
John 11:2 “It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill.”
This statement in John 11:2 is similarly puzzling. Why name Mary of Bethany as the one who anointed Jesus one chapter before the story of Jesus’ anointing (by Mary) is told in John (chapter 12)? Readers of Mark (and the other Synoptics) would have known of a woman who anointed Jesus in Bethany. John connects their knowledge of that story with his account by naming the woman here. (She is not named in Mark 14:3-9.) John will go on in chapter 12 to use a different chronology than Mark, putting the anointing before the triumphal entry, rather than after it.
Filling Out, Re-Ordering, and Summarizing Mark
From these two examples, you can almost imagine John as he is writing his account of Jesus’ ministry. He feels the need to re-order a story here or there from Mark, and add a name or highlight a detail. He moves the clearing of the Temple (Mark 11:11-25) to the beginning of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 2:13-22), and gives a new account of Jesus’ trial before Annas (John 18:13-23) not mentioned in Mark, just prior to the trial before Caiaphas (John 18:24). John’s briefer mention of Caiaphas’ trial is due to it already being discussed in detail by Mark (Mark 14:53-65).
At other points John quickly passes over long sections already mentioned by Mark, and fills out what Mark only hints at. John skips the sending of the 12 (which Mark includes), but gives a fuller account of the feeding of the 5,000 – explaining why Jesus and the disciples have to leave in such a hurry (Mark 6:45 compared to John 6:14-16). John also includes the longer discourse about the Bread of Life (John 6:22-71) which follows the miracle. And this is the closest John gets to mentioning the Lord’s Supper (this omission may serve to interpret/stress the significance of the Lord’s Supper).
Next, the second half of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (Mark 6:54-9:50) “is summarized by John in a single sentence” (in John 7:1a)[5]. Mark 10:1 mentions a ministry in Judah followed by time beyond the Jordan (where Mark 10:1-31 takes place). John follows along by giving us a long description of Jesus’ Judean ministry (John 7:10-10:39) understood as occurring in the gap implied in Mark 10:1, and then devotes just a few verses (John 10:40-42) to describe the beyond-Jordan ministry that Mark already described more fully (Mark 10:1-31).
One more puzzling reference in John may allude to Mark. John 14:31, ends with the curious words “Rise, let us go from here.” But John 15 continues the conversation from John 14. The words “rise, let us go” or literally “get up, let us be going”, are also found in Mark 14:42, “Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” Bauckham interprets this echo from Mark as a way John emphasizes that Jesus is voluntarily facing his death (mentioned in the verses just prior to 14:31)[6]. John uses these familiar words (to readers of Mark) as a way to call to mind Jesus’ decision to embrace his suffering.
For a fuller look at the arrangement of John in relation to Mark, the following two articles take Bauckham’s argument, expand on it, and provide tables comparing the two accounts side by side:
There may even be evidence from Church history that supports the treatment above. We have the following testimony of Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, of what Papias wrote (in the early second century) concerning Mark’s Gospel.
Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
“This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.[7]
Concerning this passage (and the brief quote evidently from Papias on Matthew), Richard Bauckham draws this conclusion:
The only reason Papias could have had for thinking that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark both lacked the kind of order to be expected in a work deriving from an eyewitness is that he knew another Gospel, also of eyewitness origin, whose chronological sequence differed significantly from Mark’s and Matthew’s and whose ‘order’ Papias preferred.[8]
The presbyter (or elder) John, that Papias mentions, is sometimes understood as John the Apostle and author of John. In any case, a good argument can be made that Papias prefers the chronological order of John’s Gospel to that of Mark. Bauckham points out how the Muratorian Canon (late second century list of New Testament books with brief commentary) betrays influence by Papias, and so it’s statement that John wrote his Gospel “in order” suggests that Papias indeed did prefer John’s order to the lack of order in Mark and Matthew.[9] Here is the quote from the Muratorian Canon:
For so [John] confesses (himself) not merely an eye and ear witness, but also a writer of all the marvels of the Lord in order.[10]
Even More (Interlocking/Transposing Mark’s Theology)
Beyond the literary dovetailing described above and the historical pointers that John intended to re-order the Gospel accounts of Mark and Matthew, other testimony to Mark’s presence can be found through observing John’s own theology and points of emphasis. Pennington pointed out what he calls “the interlocking relationship of John and the Synoptics.”[11] This is a broader look at the question, and examines how in John’s theology and inclusion of material he is aware of Mark (and the Synoptics). Pennington draws from D.A. Carson on this point. Carson points out that in “many places… John and the Synoptics represent an interlocking tradition… they mutually reinforce or explain each other, without betraying overt literary dependence…”[12] Carson goes on to list many ways where the Synoptics and John overlap and interlock when it comes to theology and message. Andreas Köstenberger goes further and calls John’s approach a “theological transposition” of the Synoptics. For further study on this, see the resources listed in this note.[13]
Conclusion
I have rambled on and on, but I hope you can now appreciate even more how closely intertwined the Gospels are with one another. A lot of literary crafting is going on here! Readers of John who are unaware of Mark, can still find a coherent account of Jesus’ life and ministry in John. But the pointers are included for those aware of Mark to see how and where John is adding to Mark’s account and providing a fuller picture of the life of Jesus Christ.
Paying close attention to how each Gospel develops vertically (through its own account of Christ’s ministry) and horizontally (through its parallel passages and interlocking/dovetailing with the other Gospel accounts) is important for fully understanding each author’s intent. I also trust that you are better equipped for responding to criticisms directed at the discrepancies between the Gospels. Most of all I hope you can see how the life of Christ and the significance and message of the Gospel transcends any single telling. None of the Gospels alone can contain or explain it, and all four together only scratch the surface, as John himself says:
John 21:25 “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”
Footnotes
[1] Richard Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus,” online essay, p. 3 (This essay matches the name of a chapter from Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology [Baker Academic, 2015]).
[4] Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark”, 153. This quote is taken from Amazon’s “look inside” preview of the book. I had not yet purchased the book at the time this post was first published.
[5] Ibid, 156.
[6] Bauckham, “The Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus”, p. 8.
[9] Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 425, ff. Note also that Bauckham holds that “presbyter John” is a disciple who was an eyewitness follower of Christ and the author of the Gospel of John, but he does not believe he is the Apostle John (son of Zebedee).
Spring is in the air. The days are getting longer. Green grass and the hint of leaves on the trees — and is that a flower blooming already?
With the season comes one special holiday: Easter. This is the time that Western culture dedicates to the special remembrance of bunnies and Easter eggs, candies and chocolates — oh, and jelly beans. But once upon a time, we used to remember the real meaning of Easter.
Jesus Christ, his betrayal and mournful death on Good Friday, followed by the brightness of Resurrection Sunday. “He is risen! He is risen indeed!” once sounded on many lips. Sadly the only time we have for Christ now is a documentary or two rehashing old denials of the empty tomb. A religious expert and scholar spins a witty yarn about how gullible people were back in the dark ages. We enlightened people don’t need a Risen savior now. The empty tomb was a mistake, and Jesus’ corpse must have lain somewhere else – forsaken and neglected until years later, imaginations ran wild…
It is to this sad modern state of affairs, that Christians in the West are called to minister. We are to upend the malaise and awaken the sleepy populace with the wonder of the Risen Son of God.
A new book from New Reformation Publications, and the 1517 Legacy Project, aims to help us in this daunting task. In The Resurrection Fact: Responding to Modern Critics, John J. Bombaro and Adam S. Francisco bring together an intriguing mix of Lutheran churchmen, theologians, and experts in philosophy and legal practice to tackle modern criticism of the resurrection head on.
The centrality of the resurrection for Christian faith and practice is underscored, even as attempts to downplay the importance of the bodily resurrection are countered. Specific arguments by Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Michael Martin, Robert Price, Dale Allison, Gerd Lüdemann and others are addressed and several lists of additional resources are shared with the reader. The result is an accessible introduction to the debate surrounding the resurrection.
At times the book is a bit repetitive: several of the contributors treat us to the same explanation of David Hume’s influence behind the bias toward antisupernaturalism so prevalent today. Occasionally, there seemed to be an over-dependence on secondary sources and a tendency to summarize rather than quote the arguments of the critic being addressed. There was even a wholesale borrowing of significant parts of N.T. Wright’s research on the resurrection, particularly evident in the chapter by Jonathan Mumme in his critique of Dale Allison. Wright’s work (specifically his book The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3, Fortress Press, 2003) is credited and pertinent to the discussion for sure, but perhaps overly relied on in the space of one chapter. Wright is second only to C.S. Lewis in the number of references found in the book’s index.
Quibbles aside, this is a sound book with a wealth of information and excellent references for further research. Many readers may encounter this book without much exposure to the arguments being raised against the historicity of Christ’s bodily resurrection. This book will educate and equip the reader to stand firm in an age of unbelief. Another helpful theme throughout the book is the idea of myth not being simplistically dismissed as the opposite of rational fact. To the contrary, Christianity is both myth and fact. This idea expounded by C.S. Lewis, Tolkien and Chesterton, can be helpful in responding to attempts to classify Christianity as just a myth, no different from other ancient belief systems.
For more information on this helpful book, check out a podcast interview with one of the editors, John Bombaro, or check out other reviews of this new book.
Commentaries come in all types and sizes. Some are daunting: a thousand pages long, detailed Greek and Hebrew in the body of the text, voluminous footnotes and interaction with a variety of ancient literature beyond the Biblical text itself. Others are a glorified sermonettes with a few points of application.
In the latest volume for the “Evangelical Press Study Commentary” series, Guy Prentiss Waters provides an accessible volume designed for the typical pastor or lay teacher today. He covers the book of Acts and his writing style is warm and inviting. The book is more of a survey of the interpretive landscape with a focus on what matters for pastors teaching through the text. There is not much discussion of Greek, and the footnotes routinely direct the reader to other resources for more detailed discussions of various questions.
This summary nature of the book may make it less useful to more versed scholars, but for the average pastor it clears the plate to focus on the good stuff. Additionally, Waters has combed through a variety of works and saved us the time by quoting the best portions of these commentaries and highlighting which discussions are worth interacting with in those other works. The book is long (614 pages), but the font is large with extra generous spacing, and even the footnotes are easily readable.
Waters approaches the text as a Reformed author, so he does not promote a charismatic reading of the text. He highlights the covenantal nature of the gospel emphasizing the household conversions that feature so prominently in Reformed defenses of paedobaptism. Another key feature of the commentary are the frequent application sections throughout the book.
This book will be useful in study, and prove to be a help for many. You don’t have to just take my word for it, let me also share a few blurbs from prominent Evangelical leaders recommending this work.
Blurbs:
“Guy Waters’s Study Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles is exegetically and theologically sound, cogently reasoned and clearly written. I highly recommend this commentary to pastors and teachers preparing to preach and teach Acts, and to anyone interested in a readable exposition of Luke’s unique account of the risen Lord Jesus’ words and deeds through his chosen witnesses.”
—Dennis E. Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology, Westminster Seminary California
“In an age of multiplying commentaries, some of them very technical and some exceedingly popular, Guy Waters has contributed a mid- level work that is robustly theological, written in straightforward English, and designed to be edifying. This is a commentary that will make many friends among serious Bible readers.”
—D. A. Carson, Research professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and co-founder of The Gospel Coalition
“Dr. Waters is the ideal commentator on Acts. Scholarly, pastoral, theological — all these and more combine in making this my first resource for Luke’s second volume. An outstanding contribution to the series and deserving of the appellation, “Essential”!”
—Derek W. H. Thomas, The Robert Strong Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Theology, RTS Atlanta; Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church, Columbia, SC
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Evangelical Press via CrossFocusedReviews.com. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.
About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.
Book Details:
• Author: Duane A. Garrett
• Publisher: Kregel Academic (2014)
• Format: hardback
• Page Count: 816
• ISBN#: 9780825425516
• List Price: $39.99
• Rating: Highly Recommended
Publisher’s Description: A thorough exegetical and homiletical analysis of each passage of Exodus.
The true fountainhead of Old Testament theology, Exodus illuminates the significance of the name Yahweh and introduces the title I AM. It tells of Israel’s formative historical event, the exodus, as well as the making of the covenant at Sinai. It includes the first code of the Law in the Decalogue and Book of the Covenant. It details Israel’s besetting sin in the idolatry of the golden calf episode, but it also describes Moses’s intercession and the great revelation of God’s mercy. In its display of the Tent of Meeting, it presents the theology of the priesthood, the sacrifices, and the central sanctuary. A Commentary on Exodus explores all of these events with a view toward their significance both for the meaning of the Old Testament and for the message of the Christian church. Exegetically deep enough to satisfy the scholar and logically organized to meet the needs of the pastor, Garrett’s commentary promises to become standard reference material in Exodus studies.
– Every verse is given a fresh translation with copious explanatory notes, and particular attention is given to the poetry of Exodus, which the author demonstrates to be more abundant than previously believed.
– The commentary also helps to dispel much confusion about Exodus by introducing the reader to Egyptian history and by carefully analyzing questions about the date of the exodus and the location of Mount Sinai.
Commentary Type:
This is a technical commentary that provides both a detailed exegetical analysis of the Hebrew text and theological take-home points for applying the message of the text for today’s hearers.
Structure and Features:
Duane Garrett’s Commentary on Exodus is organized in consistent manner which makes it easy to peruse and use as a reference. After the lengthy introduction (145 pages), each section of the text is treated individually, grouped into 7 parts. Garrett’s own translation of the Hebrew, separated with one line per Hebrew clause begins each section. Included are a host of pertinent linguistic and translational footnotes that often included detailed discussions of difficult terms. For sections of poetry, he provides the Hebrew underneath the English and includes a treatment of how and why that section should be understood to be poetic. The the commentary proper follows and is further divided from the text. Following the commentary section, is a section labeled: “Theological Summary of Key Points.” This is the take-home part of the commentary where Garrett draws out the points that a preacher will be able to hone in on, in a message on this text. The commentary doesn’t address homiletical strategies, but the big picture that can be drawn from the text at hand. Occasionally an excursus follows this section, and allows for an extended discussion of a particularly thorny aspect of the text, such as how Moses’ birth story compares with that of Sargon’s, or how Paul’s discussion of Moses’ veil in 2 Cor. 3 fits in with a proper understanding of Exodus. Throughout the commentary one will find footnotes and tables, but no maps or diagrams or drawings are to be found.
Excerpt:
This excerpt is taken almost at random, it highlights the theological take-home punch that Garrett distills from the text. The section concerns Exodus 26:1-27:21.
4. Whatever the external two tent layers looked like, entering the Tent of Meeting itself would have been visually stunning. The priest, going into the holy place, would enter a chamber illuminated by the soft light of the seven lamps of the menorah. As his eyes adjusted, the fine linen inner tent with its colorful tapestry of cherubim would have suggested entry into heaven, where the angels in splendor were in attendance upon God. The tent frames of gold, reflecting the lamps, would have seemed to twinkle like stars and would have suggested a glorious hallway towards God’s throne room. The screen before the holy of holies, with its cherubim, would have suggested an angelic honor guard standing between the priest and YHWH. The priest thus would have a sense of being in the earthly representation of the outer chamber of God’s heavenly abode.
5. There was probably a cosmic dimension to this. That is, the outer chamber represented the lower heavens (what we would call the physical heavens) and the inner chamber, the holy of holies, would represent the upper heaven, God’s abode. The Tent of Meeting was a microcosm of the created universe and of the heavenly throne room that was above the created universe. That is, God’s glory fills all of creation, but there is yet a heavenly throne room that is above and beyond the physical universe. The Tent of Meeting is a smaller version of this cosmic reality. it is also the place where God who dwells in the highest heavens can be present or immanent in the world.
The overall message of this aspect of the tent complex is that God is holy. The barriers between the people and the interior of the tent, as well as the altar of burnt offering, all indicate that because of sin, people are kept apart from God. For the Christian, the barriers that separated the Israelites from the holy of holies remind us that in Christ the barrier is removed and that we have access to God (Matt. 27:51). Even so, we should not fail to take away an important message in the tent structure: that God is holy, that we should fear God, and that in worship, we should approach in reverent respect and also with constant brokenness of heart and repentance, knowing that we have no right of ourselves to approach God. (pg. 579-580)
Evaluation:
I absolutely loved this commentary. The introduction should be required reading at any conservative evangelical study as it responds masterfully to the increasingly common tendency to treat the Exodus as pure myth. He also deals with the JEDP documentary hypothesis and lasting versions of that. This also covers many other questions and betrays a wealth of Egyptian background knowledge which adds color to any study of this important book. He gives detailed pros and cons for 4 major Biblical chronologies. While he may lean toward the late Exodus date, ultimately he concludes that there are supporting texts and archaeological evidence for each major chronology view, and there are also archaeological problems as well. He cautions against getting too hung up on defending any one chronological scheme since the text doesn’t refer to specific Pharaoh’s by name. “The minister or Bible teacher, therefore, should refrain from specifying that this or that exodus event took place in the reign of this or that pharaoh” (p. 101-102). In short, we haven’t been given enough information to make a definitive conclusion. But we do have confidence that there is ample evidence to bolster the belief that the Exodus story is historically factual.
Another discussion in the introduction centered on the route the Israelites took as they left Egypt and crossed the Yam Suph (traditionally translated “the Red Sea”). This also brings up the question of where on a map we can place the Biblical Mount Sinai. As one who has read several popular accounts which provide compelling reasons for disagreeing with the standard Exodus route that one finds in most study Bibles, I was delighted to find a detailed study into the Bible’s record and the archaeological testimony to this route. Garrett finds it probable that Sinai was located in Northwest Arabia, across the Gulf of Aqaba, but the exact location of the crossing is likely lost forever. His detailed study is careful to avoid sensationalism, but doesn’t discount the insights of other scholars who may not hail from the scholarly guild of biblical studies. He largely agrees with the conclusions of Colin Humphreys (a physicist) with some reservations.
The translation and discussion of Hebrew terms is second to none. Garrett has a mastery of the language and the relevant literature and his translation deserves to be consulted. He also provides a helpful correction to the translation of 2 Cor. 3, a text that bears on the understanding of Exodus. His excursus on that topic is important and helpful.
Garrett finds several Hebrew poems placed strategically throughout Exodus, and in some cases this sheds new light on a passage. His treatment of Exodus 6:2-8 is an example. Rather than the text stating that previous generations did not know the name Yahweh, the text is a poetic affirmation to Moses that God will be with him. Garrett’s discussion of the Hebrew terms used in this passage are extremely helpful and here as in a few other places, my understanding of the meaning of the text has been adjusted for the better.
Almost all the puzzling questions that Exodus raises are covered. Garrett addresses the problem of Hebrew numbers briefly, and he grapples with the genealogy of Moses. He illuminates obscure customs (such as Zipporah’s circumcision of her son), and explains some of the ancient techniques referenced in the Tabernacle instructions.
Garrett is thoroughly evangelical in his treatment of Exodus, but he doesn’t shy away from following clues in the text where warranted. His explanation of the plagues allows for several of them to have natural causes (such as algae causing the Nile to look “red”), but guided in a supernatural way. Whereas I would have thought such an approach to belie a lack of faith, Garrett shows from the text and archaeological history why this may very well be so. But he still holds to the miraculous character of the Exodus as a whole.
He covers many textual problems and doesn’t hesitate to show a Christian application or Christological takeaway from the text. As noted in his treatment of 2 Cor. 3 above, Garrett has a mind for how the later Scriptural authors interact with Exodus. This concern benefits pastors and teachers who necessarily approach the text from a canonical and wholistic framework. At times, however, I wish he would say more, or deal with additional questions, such as the NT book of Hebrews placing the incense altar in the holy of holies, or Acts mentioning Moses’ eloquence in seeming contrast to the Exodus account. But all in all, this text provides a thorough and up to date, treatment of the book of Exodus that is worthy of close study.
The book does suffer from a lack of charts, maps and diagrams, however. I guess a commentary cannot be expected to furnish these. But when studying Exodus, in particular, such amenities would prove useful. Still his discussion of the route of the Exodus and the design of the Tabernacle is able to be followed without the help of diagrams.
I highly recommend this commentary for pastors and teachers everywhere. It will prove to be a reliable guide and a catalyst for theologically rich, exegetically informed appreciation of the Biblical text.
About the Author: Duane A. Garrett (PhD, Baylor University) is the John R. Sampey Professor of Old Testament Interpretation and Professor of Biblical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and has served as a pastor and missionary. He coauthored A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew and coedited the NIV Archaeological Study Bible, as well as having written numerous Old Testament commentaries.
This past Sunday I was again privileged to fill in for our pastor by delivering the Sunday morning message. My theme this time was baptism, and I took as part of my title, the question that Ananias asked the future Apostle Paul before his baptism in Acts 22:16. He asked “why do you wait?” I enjoyed tracing the pattern of baptism as seen in the book of Acts and spent time talking about what baptism symbolizes and what it does (and doesn’t) do. I also looked at when it is appropriate to wait.
Many people have wondered why the New Testament includes four different Gospels. The differences can be confusing, and critics argue that they betray a difference of opinion among early Christians about Jesus and His message. Evangelical Christians respond by stressing that each of the Gospels is a separate, unique witness to the authenticity of the account of Jesus Christ’s life and ministry. The very fact that they are written from different perspectives and have different points of emphasis, strengthens their ability to independently testify to the truth of the Christian message.
