Customer Reviews

1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Several years ago (before Garland's book came out) I did a fairly detailed study over about 6 months on the book of 1 Corinthians. I relied fairly heavily on the commentaries by Thiselton and also by Fee. In the subsequent years, I frequently re-read sections of both commentaries. Recently I wanted to get a more clear understanding of the controversial passages about headcovering and women's silence (in chapters 11 and 14, respectively) so I re-read the relevant portions of both commentaries again. I was pretty unsatisfied with both so I went to the library to see if I could find anything else more insightful. Happily, I encountered Garland's book.

Garland's book was much more helpful than either Thiselton or Fee. It was more lucid, kept the same high level of scholarship, and even touched on application! I continued reading the book and have come to the conclusion that it is the best commentary on 1 Corinthians available, for several reasons:

- It interacts with all the major views of a given position without becoming too bogged down (something that I think happens often with Thiselton). It is still a long book, but substantially shorter than Thiselton's.

- Instead of being merely a commentary on commentaries, Garland tries to persuade the reader of the legimitacy of what the author feels is the correct view. In contrast, you can read many 1 Corinthian commentaries and not even know what the author finally thinks!

- It has excellent scholarship with a good degree of balance. Fee, in contrast, holds to extreme views on the controversial women passages (such as arguing that 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 wasn't even written by Paul!).

- Garland lightly touches on application. While the majority of the book is on exegesis, Garland helpfully states the relevance of his conclusions to church life today. Thiselton does not really do this, which is unfortunate.

- His prose is lucid and sharp.

In summary, I believe that Garland's volume is now the best commentary on 1 Corinthians available. Bravo to Baker for this volume. Hopefully other books in the series will have the same standard of quality.

I'm a pastor who preaches through books of the bible. I am just finishing my current series on 1 Corinthians. I've found this commentary to be one that I would not want to work without. It's really one of the best ones I own. I've found David Garland's commentary to be consistently even handed, careful to evaluate the text honestly, and helpful in almost every situation I've used this commentary for. In particular I found this commentary more helpful on his treatment of 1 Corinthians 11, 13 & 15 than most of my other tools on 1 Corinthians. I've been using about 15 different commentaries on 1 Corinthians, including Worthington, Fee, Keener, Thiselton's NIGTC & Thiselton's Short Pastoral Commentary on 1 Corinthians, as well as a bunch of other commentaries like Prior (Bible Speaks Today Series) & Life Application Commentary. All of them have individual strengths, but this commentary, Garland's, has a lot more material than most of the other commentaries (except for NICNT & NIGTC) I own. Not only does it have more material, but most of the material is helpful.

This series of commentaries does one thing that I don't appreciate. The editors have decided to put summaries at the beginning of each segment of the commentary in a medium gray shaded box. This does set apart the text that is a summary of what follows, but it does not copy well on a copier. So if you like a summary and want to use that in a small group discussion you have to lug the entire book in with you. It is also difficult on the eyes to read a few pages of that black print on medium gray background. I just don't like it.

Garland sometimes doesn't summarize his material as well as I would like to see. For example, the section on 1 Corinthians 13 where he introduces his exegetical comments on love has some statements that are meant to summarize what follows, but almost contradict the most important point that follows. They sounded good, but as I thought about them, I became worried that he was going to add to the published material that wrongly defines agape as 'unconditional love'. Sometimes he also spends a lot of time on things that most pastors (at least myself) don't really care about. For example in his discussion on love he gives 23 pages of material. The first 4 pages are his summary, but he never accurately defines love in his summary. He does later on in his detailed exegesis, but in his summary he says things like "Love is concern for their community" and "love is the new aeon already present". He says that love is the marrow of the Christian existence. In the 4 pages of summary material he gives two pages to the discussion of the raging and worthless debate on what kind of literary passage does 1 Corinthians 13 represent. If scholars ever figure that out, will it help us? I think that kind of stuff is pretty much a waste of ink and paper, but that's just my opinion. He obviously thought it was worth half of his summarization of 1 Corinthians 13! But he never got to the point that some have written about...and EVERY scholar publishing articles on agape needs to have the courage to write about the fact that the word agape does not mean unconditional love just because it is the word agape. He didn't say that...although he in essence comes to that conclusion without talking about the unconditional love definition pop myth.

So anyhow, much to my delight when I arrived at his detailed exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 Garland (to use a baseball metaphor) hits a grand slam home run. He goes to the fine work of Spicq (French scholar and quotes his 3 volume set's article on agape-which has the best definition on agape in print). Theological Lexicon of the New Testament 3 Volume Set (By the way, he doesn't cite Spicq's exhaustive work on Agape. But he is the published authority on detailed study of this term historically and is the most helpful scholar in print on agape. Agape in the New Testament, 3 Volumes

It made me so happy to see Garland pull through and define agape as "demonstration of love" that I wanted to shout 'yes'! He defines agape in this section as something that is not an inner feeling alone, but that it must put itself on display...quoting Spicq verbatim. So he ends up contradicting the summary section of his commentary. Agape is not 'concern for the community'. It is a demonstration of love. I especially love his links to the unmentioned backdrop of the 1 Corinthians passage (Paul doesn't say it in chapter 13), but the clear demonstration of God's love for us all in the offering of his Son on the cross. Bravo!! Pastors-these things preach well! Don't overlook this material. If we goof up the definition of love, we seriously miss what the accurate meaning is of many biblical passages. For 'agape' is a primary theme in the New Testament, if not THE primary theme.

He also handles the 'perfect' term correctly, does not even bother to mention the old view that some amazingly are still teaching to this day...that the perfect refers to the completion of the canon: see the ESV Study Bible notes on 1 Corinthians as an example.The ESV Study Bible

His material should be read before one uses 1 Corinthians 13 in a wedding because it will help a good Pastor preach in a more practical way for a couple.

I say all of this, because sometimes if you are short of time you will be tempted to read just his summaries of a section. I recommend you try to slot enough time to read his exegetical comments in full because of what I have just chronicled on 1 Cor 13.

I wish he had a sub section for each part that gave pertinent links to ancient Jewish and Greek literature with focus on the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Apostolic Fathers, and 1 Century Jewish authors writing in Greek (like Josephus). I think it would be helpful to have more cross links to these categories. He does bring them into play, but it seems to be more judicious that I would prefer. It would also be interesting to see some material tying into the Hebrew Old Testament terms for love and how this ties in to 1 Corinthians as well as more LXX ties.

I found his treatment of 1 Corinthians 11 to be convincing, noting the difficulty of treating the 'head covering' issue, he lays out a full case for how to interpret that passage, including a simple, yet confirming chiastic outline to support his point. I think I agree with him on that as well. His handling of 1 Corinthians 15 helped me preach on the resurrection and is a worthy aid to any pastor who has to prepare a message for a funeral.

Because some of these passages are usually used in Weddings and Funerals, and I have used them over and over in Weddings and Funerals, I found it interesting to see how Garland contextualizes these passages. I think his links to Paul's purpose in writing remain consistent throughout the book. So you will regularly be reminded of why Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. On 1 Corinthians 13 Garland's comments are superior to Fee's because he correctly defines agape. Fee doesn't cite either of the massive works by Spicq (how can they be ignored?)...but does quote Shakespeare?! This is why it's good to have both commentaries if you can afford it.

One reviewer wrote that this commentary is superior to Fee's The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) because of his treatment of 1 Corinthians 14:34. I don't know if I agree with that. I believe it's a worthy addition to ones library and that one should read Fee as well as Garland. I don't think I know enough to say which one is superior. I love both of these commentaries. I will say that I also prefer Thistleton's Shorter Commentary First Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentaryover his NIGTC The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, and I prefer Keener's short Socio commentary 1-2 Corinthians (New Cambridge Bible Commentary) over Witherington Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians because he consistently gets to the relevant issue at hand.

If you have $100 budgeted for 1 Corinthians, I recommend Fee & Garland. Then Thiselton's shorter commentary and Keener's shorter commentary. Of all of these I love Garland the best. But they are all excellent. When I am done reading a section by Garland on 1 Corinthians, I usually have the sense that I've just had an objective and helpful look at what scholars say, and what the text actually means, as well as some links for further study on key issues. I think that's likely how you will feel too if you purchase and use this book in your sermon prep time.

I have preached through First Corinthians for several months now. This commentary has been my primary resource. It is the most thorough, well-researched, and sound commentary I have ever read. Garland confronts the "common" interpretations with historical and biblical insights which make his conclusions virtually argument proof. If you really want to know what Paul was doing in First Corinthians, this commentary is a must read.

Garland's commentary is well-written and not difficult to read or understand. Scholarly enough, but very readable. Overall, it is well worth having. I would not, however, recommend its use alone. One should probably have both Fee and Garland, as they complement each other. In some areas, Fee is better; in other areas, Garland is better. My only disappointment was that in some sections, Garland cites a bunch of commentators and scholars but doesn't make his own view sufficiently clear. But on the whole, it is one of the two or three commentaries on 1 Corinthians pastors and Bible students should own.

This book is an exceptional exegetical and expositional treatment of Paul's corrective letter to the church at Corinth.

Enough sprinkling of original language word studies without being too heavy, and just the right amount of practical application, this book is divided into well-organized sections.

It is, in my opinion, the best commentary available on this book - surpassing even Gordon Fee's excellent work.

This commentary by David Garland is, in my opinion, the best commentary on 1 Corinthians, even better than the ones by Fee and Thiselton. Specifically, unlike Thiselton, Garland does not get bogged down in extreme details and esoteric discussions. He always keeps his eye on the big picture: the general shape of the epistle, its overall meaning, its logical progression, how a particular part contributes to the epistle, and how a particular part is affected by the rest of the epistle. Although Garland interacts with a lot of scholarship on 1 Corinthians, his main goal is to communicate Paul's meaning, and he uses a variety of critical tools to determine Paul's meaning. More impressively, he uses those critical tools responsibly. Also, unlike Fee, Garland does not advocate interpretations that lack textual substantiation. No matter what his view, he always tries to anchor it firmly in the text and to make sure that it is consistent with the emphases of the epistle and Paul's theology in general.

The only aspect that could have been better was his translation. In that respect, Thiselton does a better job. Nevertheless, Garland's translation provides a useful starting point for discovering what he thinks about certain words, verses, or passages, and the organization of the commentary facilitates ease of reference and investigation. This commentary, I hope, will be the standard to which future commentaries on 1 Corinthians will be held.

'Those divine purposes are too profound for human ingenuity, no matter how clever, to discover or unravel on its own and can be imparted only by divine revelation.' p 83 Garland brings fresh clarity to the repercussions of incomprehension: 'Paul is fully aware that delivering the message of salvation does not automatically bring salvation to the messenger.' p 443

The prideful Corinthians showed great attachment to the Greek view that knowledge is virtuous, elevating wisdom to a religion, whereas the apostle Paul was willing to forego such gnosis and the privilege associated therewith. The revelation of Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God (1:24) stood in complete opposition to the wisdom of the Greek philosophical tradition. 'It is the folly of preferring our foolishness to His unerring and infinite wisdom.' Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry p 249

'The contrast between Paul and the 'knowledgeable' Corinthians is stark. Knowledge can be taught, but love needs to be shown.' pp. 400-401

Garland skilfully counterpoises Paul's appellative with the inconsistency in the character of a man who is called to proclaim God's Word, yet whose life may yield a different reality: 'But he also holds himself up as an example for the Corinthians to imitate (4:16). One may proclaim the truth and many may respond, but that same truth may not penetrate the heart and soul of the proclaimer. The warning that teachers need to conform their lives to their own teaching is captured...But Paul is not simply a herald who announces the events from a platform and never joins in the contest. He is also a competitor.' p 444 The self-abasing apostle still put to good use 'socio-rhetorical conventions' to best frame his own example as one worthy of imitation. David John Williams provides uncanny metaphorical insight: 'Paul may have had some such finale in mind in 1 Cor 4:8-9, when he declared that 'God had displayed the apostles last of all, like those who are doomed to die'. To the church in Corinth (or at least its leaders), Christianity was about privilege and pride and flaunting their gifts in public. Paul describes them ironically as 'kings'. But to himself and his colleagues, Christianity was about service, often rendered at great personal cost.' Paul's Metaphors: Their Context & Character p 260

Anthony Thiselton exerts considerable hermeneutical persuasion: 'The theme of covenant clearly provides the thematic link between 10:1-13 and 10:14-22.' The First Epistle to the Corinthians p 750 Paul, in illustrating the Israelite wilderness generation to the Corinthians in this difficult passage, literally called them 'cravers after evil' [Gk: epithumetes] (10:6). Garland's borrowed exegesis clinches the point: 'Paul's primary concern surfaces in the command forbidding the Corinthians to become idolaters (10:7). Calvin (The First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians p 208) asks why Paul mentions the feast and the games rather than the worship, and gives an answer that is on target: 'For it is not likely that they were in the habit of attending the gatherings of unbelievers in order to prostrate themselves before the idols, but they used to share in the feasts, which the unbelievers held in honor of the gods, and did not keep away from the debased rites which were marks of idolatry'.' p 461 Marking the course of a true herald, 'Paul sounds the alarm against pagan banquets that may seem to the Corinthians to be only innocuous conviviality combined with meaningless ritual.' pp. 466-467

The Corinthian yardstick before the meltdown committed them was to be impressed by the flesh, to the degree that even in their own assembly many revelled in their former pagan associative practice of eating and drinking. Garland informs us that even if Paul was 'rigidly opposed to any encroachment by religious syncretism...his argument does not take the form of a raging renunciation.' p 378 In mentioning the 'same spiritual bread' and 'the same spiritual drink' (10:3-4) Paul may have been setting up for the Corinthians by way of analogy the fact that the wilderness generation had a Lord's Supper of their own. 'After their divine deliverance they received divine succor.' p 452 Still, Paul presaged them that if God had not spared the wilderness generation from judgment (who drank and ate spiritually), He would not overlook the Corinthians being led back into idolatry. Idolatry, in all its forms, is sinful and must be forsaken. Emerging in ch 10, what 'I [Paul] do not want you to be ignorant of' (10:1) is the covenant relationship the sacraments as signs point to. As a result of their ignorance of this, Garland adds, 'they have blithely ignored the warning siren from the biblical accounts of Israel's chronic idolatry and terrifying punishment. If the wilderness generation met such a horrifying end by spurning a concealed Christ who nurtured them throughout their journey, how much more the Corinthians will be condemned if they spurn the revealed Christ.' p 465 The seriousness of this breach Garland leaves in no doubt: 'If the Corinthians are not faithful in their covenant obligations, if they put Christ to the test (10:9), if they compromise their loyalty and are caught in idolatry, they can expect no divine aid, only destruction.' p 469

For the apostle it was not a case of quid pro quo, however, for he used the persevering imagery of spiritual parenthood to quell any fears of abandonment, in spite of the uneasy terms the relationship existed by. Refusing to relinquish his spiritual care of the Corinthians, he called himself the father of an entire Christian community, the Corinthians, whom he begot 'in Christ through the gospel' (4:15).

'He stands by the church with counsel and admonition, with instruction and warning.' Herman Ridderbos, Paul p 450

Was Paul expecting too much too soon of the worldly Corinthians? 'Were Paul's arguments in these chapters effective in persuading the Corinthians to abandon their participation in idolatrous associations? The painful visit, the letter of tears, and the continued exhortation in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 suggest not. Such complex issues that require such enormous self-sacrifice are not solved overnight.' p 503

Part of the commentary is good, although I have found a lot of speculation without proof. In I Cor. 11 there is an assumption that there was a common meal before the Lord's Supper. All in all, it is a pretty good commentary

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 Testament Commentary Survey by D. A. Carson, (3) Old Testament Commentary Survey by Tremper Longman.

There are good and expensive commentaries such as the Anchor Bible (AB); International Critical Commentary (ICC) or Hermeneia (HERM). [Do not forget of Calvin and Luther].

I don't know about catholic commentaries, but you can check reviews on "Sacra Pagina" and "Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture."

Other than those mentioned above (NIVAC; BST; NICNT; WBC; AB; ICC; HERM) you can also check: Expositor Bible Commentary (EBC); New American Commentary (NAC); Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC); New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC); Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT); and others.

Another thing, it can be a very good commentary, but it does not mean that you will agree with everything in it. Remember, "new" does not mean it's updated, and "updated" does not mean it's better.

Purpose - You can read a book to get information, even if you are not interested in a deep study of the biblical text. In this case it's better to start reading something from your own confession of faith and always on your level of reading. If after some time you become interested in more, go check other commentaries, but please, do not skip "How To Read A Book" by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren.

Responsibility - It is your responsibility study the biblical text before checking a commentary. Sometimes this is not an easy task so I'm giving you some other references that you can check at the end of this review. If I had read a review like this before, I would know how to prevent some mistakes.

Do not let you knowledge kill your faith! - "For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith." Hebrews 4:2 NIV - (Read also 1 Corinthians 1:21-24; 2:13-14; 3:18-23; Jude 1:3).

I can't leave without suggesting some other tools to help you: (1) How To Read A Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren; (2) Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation by Henry Virkler and Karelynne Ayayo; (3) New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Gordon Fee; and (4) Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors by Douglas Stuart. [Although book #3 and 4 deals with Biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew), you can learn a lot from them even if you do not know the languages]. (5) "Basics of Biblical Greek" Grammar by William D. Mounce [after you start reading it maybe you can add "Biblical Greek Survival Kit" and "Sing and Learn New Testament Greek" audio CD by Kenneth Berding]; (6) "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy (Third Edition with Cd-Rom). (7) Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged. - All of these will help you to understand HOW a good commentary must be written. Good Luck!