The Gospel of John

Carson wrote that Michaels “may have provided us with the best one-volume commentary on John.” Michaels’s writing style is superb, and insights abound on nearly every page. He is committed to unpacking the text as we have it, Carson notes, “and as a result, he avoids addressing many important historical issues.” [Full Review]

Ramsey Michaels was an insightful scholar and a good writer. Here he set out to read and understand what John is saying. He is aware of all the scholarly work, but his book is about John’s gospel, not about what scholars have said about it in the past. The one downside is the size of the book. (Eerdmans would have served the author better by making it two volumes.) If you have the time to interact with it you will find this a valuable guide.

an essential resource for students of the book by someone whose decades-long appreciation of and engagement with the Fourth Gospel have led to fresh interaction with its literary-theological character.

Here’s what I will say: this Commentary will become standard; it is both conservative and original — it is exegetical, readable, and massively learned. What I like most is that Ramsey’s Commentary is really his own reading of the text and neither a summation or critical interaction with what others have said. It is more fulsome than those of late — Beasley-Murray, Carson, Koestenberger — and yet the G John deserves fulsomeness, and only Craig Keener (a student of Ramsey’s) has a commentary that rivals completeness. Not only is this Gospel 21 chps long, it is loaded with terms and themes that cry out for fuller explanation. Brief commentaries don’t do the job. I predict it will be the go-to Commentary for expository preachers for at least a decade, perhaps more. I know this: it will my first, and I just bumped it ahead of R.E. Brown’s work on my shelf. [Full Review]

After having posted the following link and giving this text a high mark: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38891147/michaels2 I have had a flick through this 'monster' commentary. I have to say that I am gravely disappointed thus far. Most of the information is simple stuff you already know. He does not go deep enough into thelogical debates and the linguistic difficulties for my liking. It is just 'prima facie' info. I had a look at the section on Lazarus' rising from the dead and I could not find anything on why this event is mentioned in John's gospel only. I find this to be sloppy. I purchase commentaries for insightful information that stretch me. Thus far nothing has come off the pages. It almost puts me to sleep. I also find that those who value the grammtico-historical hermeneutic tend to miss out so much of the Jewishness in Scripture. Michaels too easily dismisses the midrash/gammatria in the wedding in Cana account. There are plenty of great commentaries on John out there like Morris and Kostenberger that value this method. I just have found so far that this is a pointless addition to the NICNT series. I feel ripped off. [Full Review]