JacobSoul

In preparing to teach through the history of Israel between the dividing of the kingdom and the exile, I have now finished reading the first 9 sections of Shepherd’s commentary on the book of the 12. I throught much of the commentary was very insightful, notably the author’s connections between the various minor prophets, or book of the twelve, in his presentation of the minor prophets as one work. I did not feel that all sections of this work were created equal; I felt that the Hosea, Joel, and Zephaniah portions were excellent while Amos and Micah were a little lacking. But overall this was a good work, although due to the fact that it covers the entirety of the minor prophets, it is not as in depth as other works, though that is not to say that it is not detailed. Make sure your Hebrew is up to snuff or you at least are familiar with similar works. I would say that if your goal is to preach or teach some of the minor prophets in depth, you may want to look elsewhere for a resource that will be more thorough on the prophet that you want to preach. I would recommend this commentary to one who wanted to preach a series on the minor prophets as a whole, with a single message on some of the smaller ones and perhaps multiple messages on others. This is a work on the minor prophets as a whole, and should be used as such. My review is only relevant for Hosea-Zephaniah. I did not read Haggai-Malachi simply because our study is not going that far.

I have enjoyed every volume of the Evangelical Exegetical Commentary series that I have read thus far, and this work by Abner Chou is no exception. His vivid dealing of the text really brought this book to life, and really brought me a deep appreciation for lamentations. Several times I was reduced to weeping alongside Jeremiah as he described the destruction. If you are teaching Jeremiah and are looking for a solid exegetical work, I highly recommend this commentary. 5 stars.

It’s got nothing on France’s excellent volume, but I personally found this volume to be much more valuable than Carson. Many wonderful insights given throughout. After reading a bit of Osborne’s Revelation commentary, and now this one, I really have an appreciation for his style. I find him to be very quotable, and the insights he had made me glad I read it.

I have now read both this volume and the same author’s volume on the gospel of Mark. Though that volume is rated as the best commentary on the gospel of Mark, I would consider this Matthew volume to be the better of the two. I am using this commentary to teach through the gospel of Matthew alongside Carson and Osborne, and I find this one to be the most valuable of the three by far. It really makes the other two unnecessary most of the time. If you are only getting one commentary on the gospel of Matthew, this should be your choice. 5 stars.

I have now read both this volume and the same author’s volume on the gospel of Mark. Though that volume is rated as the best commentary on the gospel of Mark, I would consider this Matthew volume to be the better of the two. I am using this commentary to teach through the gospel of Matthew alongside Carson and Osborne, and I find this one to be the most valuable of the three by far. It really makes the other two unnecessary most of the time. If you are only getting one commentary on the gospel of Matthew, this should be your choice. 5 stars.

This one seemed to be the best reviewed commentary on Matthew, and so I picked it up to prepare to teach through the book of Matthew, alongside France and Osborne. Of those three, I have found Carson to be the least helpful by far. To be sure, if you’re looking for information on all three of the synoptic gospels, this will definitely be helpful for you, as Carson will constantly compare the three. While this is helpful in some respects, it makes the Matthew section less of a commentary on Matthew itself, and more of a commentary on how the three relate. This causes a lot of information specific to a particular gospel, such as specific themes a particular author chooses to use, to be lost through the trees. In addition, Carson seems to spend a significant amount of print dealing with issues that are not very relevant to understanding the text (in my opinion) which is noteworthy for a commentary on Matthew that is around 600 pages (compared with France at over 1100!). I understand that France is the more technical of the two, but you wouldn’t always know it with all the side trails that Carson chooses to go off on. This was quite disappointing after reading Carson’s commentary on John, which I would call a masterpiece. Overall, I would only recommend this for someone doing a study of all three synoptic gospels concurrently. If you are specifically seeking to teach or understand Matthew, I would not use this commentary. My recommendation would be France.