Customer Reviews

Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 42, Ephesians

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

 

 

Lincoln's thought is clear, lucid and intelligible, which helps him explain what can be one of the more convoluted and enigmatic books in the NT. Now, clarity should not be confused with brevity. This is one of the longer commentaries in the Word series on one of the epistles. Lincoln's arguments are finely nuanced and require much of a reader. But in the end, it is worthwhile.

Lincoln rarely engages in sustained polemic against those who hold to positions with which he disagrees, but rather deals with them and offers whatever explanation he favors expeditiously. His knowledge of koine Greek and textual criticism are encyclopedic.

My disagreements with Lincoln are at the presuppositional level, namely that the letter must be deutero-Pauline because of certain linguistic and stylistic features. It seems at times that he wants to ascribe to "the writer" access to Paul's mind, almost as a doppelganger, but thoroughly and consistently rejects Pauline authorship. Lincoln would do well to consider more seriously the role of the amaneuensis in 1st century letter writing, as well as the amount of traditional material the writer employs before rejecting Pauline authorship.

Second, in his discussion of the passage on marriage (5:21-33) Lincoln falls into the hermeneutical sinkhole of postmodern relativism.

On the whole, though, Lincoln is a brilliant scholar whose work on Ephesians deserves every serious NT student's full attention.

The Word Biblical Commentaries have four sections, outside of the introduction, that carry one through the commentary. The first is the translation section. In this section the author give his own translation of the passage he is about to examine. The is followed by a notes section, which tells why the author chose to translate the way that he did. The next section is comments, which is handled in a verse by verse format. The final section is Explanation and in this section the author ties it all together.
I write as a Classical Pentecostal with a degree in theology. I thought that overall this was a very good commentary. I was not totally sold on the non-Pauline authorship, but I was impressed how the author was ever conscious that he had taken this stand and interpreted the book from the perspective of a generation after Paul. This really took the meaning away from the biographical section of the epistle, because the author has to try to account for and brace up his position throughout the explanation. If, however, Lincoln is correct about the authorship then it does bolster some Pentecostal positions, because such things as apostles and prophets would be shown to carry on after the first generation of apostles have passed on. As attractive as that is to a Pentecostal like myself I still was not sold on non-Pauline authorship. That aside this commentary is reliable and I recommend it especially for those who know Greek. If you do not know Greek then the benefit will not be as great, but there is enough in the comments and explanation section to benefit.

I have a BA in religion from a state school, and I'm a practicing Christian. I've always taken a very critical eye to the scriptures, and, while I've still got much to learn, Lincoln does an outstanding job of fleshing out a very complex epistle. Sadly, however, I bought it hoping for a more theological rather than exegetical tack. If you're on the hunt for a solid starting point for research, I think its great. But if you have more specific, pointed questions of a theological nature, you'll probably find yourself frustrated by this one. The commentary is much more a demo of the harmony of the author's words within a free-standing pseudopauline epistle than an investigation of how Ephesians fits into the entirety of the canon. The search continues for a critical yet faith-based theological commentary...

Dr. Lincoln's exegetical treatment is commendable, especially in light of his insistance that his is *not* a thorough treatment of this epistle's linguistic, historical, cognate-sensitive, or even rhetorical qualities. That said, he offers an unusually erudite mix of all these factors: as is the case of many such commentaries, knowledge of the original Greek, and respect for the train of variants among manuscripts is essential.

My problem with this commentary (and I have yet to meet anyone who shares my disappointment in this regard) is that I read this commentary not because I disagree with his thesis on authorship, but that his arguments for Duetero-Pauline authorship - arguments I had hoped to glean from and borrow from as ammo for other Brothers in Christ who disagree with me - were particularly flat and unconvincing. I personally maintain that not only is Ephesians *not* written by Paul (but rather a later writer assuming Paul's torch), but accepting this later authorship is essential to grasping and comprehending the underlying message of the letter: namely, Paul's torch lives on, and was an essential component for the Ephesian Church (and other churches) to comprehend, but was in no manner the final word. Moreover, Paul's "theology" required (and anticipated) refinement and tuning - in short, refinement in the hands of mature torchbearers.

For all of Dr. Lincoln's favorable and palatable insights, I don't believe myself to have been able to accept his model of Deutero-Pauline authorship based on the evidence (i.e., "data") in this commentary. Otherwise, a very worhwhile read.

I received the item as promised with good speedy service. Thank you. Will buy more from this seler