![5-Pack] RAZ LTX Disposable Bundle ⋆ Vape Society Supply](https://vapesocietysupplies.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/5-RAZ-DC25k-Disposable.webp)
★★★★★ 5
Can't ask for more, but I want more.
Format: Hardcover
Really, this is just a start. Any commentary is. But this is one of the best because it proceeds from a radical premise: the whole Bible is from God, giving His point of view and superceding that of the human author.
Not that this is promoted self-consciously or consistently from each contributor. But the structure of the enterprise is such that they are sucked back into presenting how it is that the old testament is so thoroughly imbued in NT writings, including in ways which both OT and NT writers could not have intended.
Treading down this path forces us to question all those teachings we've had where we were told: "Matthew (or Paul or John ...) here had in mind xyz." When Matthew wrote his gospel, we might now surmise that we can't be sure what he himself had in mind, because what we wrote was superintended to the degree that Matthew's sinful thoughts were NOT what ended up on parchment. God's thoughts are there, pure and untainted by Matthew's natural limitations and sin.
Attempts to work from Matthew's sinful thoughts and culture to God's meaning miss the point that whatever Matthew was in his head was NOT the end product that flowed out his quill. Remember when Caiaphas spoke what he thought naturally about how it is better for one man to die rather than the whole nation take a hit? He meant it for evil, but God superintended it to be ultimate truth, regardless of that speaker's intent. Same with all holy writings.
Yes, holy men of old spake as they were moved, but their holiness does not naturally come out in uncontaminated speech -- that takes a special work of God. This commentary allows for that premise. There's something way more than human going on that ties this whole Bible together in one theme from one Writer.
Don't get me wrong, not all these contributors seem to subscribe to my radical conclusions above, although I think the editors do. And their prescribed structure for this commentary nudge the contributors into a path that I think leads to a more theocentric authorship. So this is a good start, but nothing beats trying to read the Bible itself from God's point of view, rather than the hallowed and misguided grammatial-historical human focused approach.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 6, 2008
