What’s white, rectangular, and the bane of every pastors existence?

The dreaded blank page.

Yep, I’ve been there: Sunday is approaching and you just gotta get that sermon together. Some have the luxury of having teaching as their primary duty. For most pastors, however, after many other priorities and responsibilities, there’s a small satchel of time left over to research, prepare, and write that sermon to help give shape to their congregation’s walk with God.

That’s why I love Zondervan’s newer commentary series, The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. It was a series crafted in response to their inquiries of pastors and teachers regarding what they need and desire in a commentary. And in response they have incorporated seven key sections in each pericope explanation: the literary context; main idea; a very helpful, unique translation scheme that’s graphically displayed; a description of the passage structure; an exegetical outline; and the all important explanation of the text. This commentary scheme nicely solves our “blank page” conundrum by helping pastors create exegetically informed sermons, while doing so quickly.

While we in the west are blessed with an over abundance of commentary resources, I’m thankful for this newly launched series designed with the pastor and church teacher in mind. And while the ZECNT might not stand in the stead of more robust academic treatments, like Eerdman’s NICNT or NIGTC, Word Biblical Commentary series, or Anchor Bible Commentary series, it’s a decent offering along side these pillars of the commentary community. This is my first introduction to the ZECNT, and I’m glad I could review David Garland’s Luke for Zondervan as my first entree into it, as I already have the more academic oriented offerings from Marshall and Green. (BTW, I received this commentary from someone I know from Zondervan, the employer of my wife.)

So what say I of this Luke commentary and how does it match up with, say, my existing commentaries?

This commentary begins with a helpful, though rather short, introduction. By comparison, Green’s is 10 pages longer. Likewise, this commentary has a paltry 6 page bibliography, compared with Green’s whooping 67 pages! What little introduction is present, though, does include a nice outline of authorship; sources, including a discussion on women eyewitnesses; an in-depth discussion on genre; and the usual date, audience, and purpose. Absent is any discussion on major theological themes, though, which I found a curiosity. The introduction does, however, contain a nice-size structural outline of Luke’s gospel that out-sized other commentaries I’ve seen. This will be of great benefit to pastors seeking a good outline of the book for sermon calendar preparation.

Now to the meat of the commentary itself. As I do with all commentary reviews, I’ve chosen a pericope to illustrate how this particular commentary handles scripture. We’re going to go with Lk 9:37-50. The explanation section is only less than 3 pages and provides a birds-eye interpretive view, without dealing with ancillary issues.

As I mentioned above, each pericope begins with the literary context, main idea, and exegetical outline. These were very helpful in getting the main gist of the pericope and providing a solid starting foundation for not only understanding the passage, but filling up that blank page in order to preach the passage. I also found very helpful a detailed outline of the translation, which brought me back to my Greek exegetical days a few years ago with Gary Meadors who created such translation outlines and expected us to do so, as well. Additionally, each passage helpfully includes the original Greek at each section in the “Explanation of the Text” part. I believe this may be a unique feature to commentaries; I’ve not seen this before.

In this section, we have the following outline: 1) Jesus’ exorcism of a demon; 2) The disciples’ dispute over who is the greatest; and 3) The exorcist stranger. Garland doesn’t provide a remarkable interpretation or exegesis of the passage, but there are a few highlights to note: in v40-41 he notes that “the only erosion of the disciples’ power over demons is that it is somehow connected to their failure to understand Jesus’ prediction of his coming passion.” And according to Garland, this prediction, rather than the crowds amazement and Jesus’ power, is the climax: “The crowd’s amazement would seem to be the climax to this exorcism, but it connected to Jesus’ restatement of his passion as a genitive absolute.” He then helpfully quotes the Greek and continues saying, “The climax surprisingly becomes Jesus’ restatement of his coming betrayal into the hands of men.” While he notes that it may seem odd for Luke to omit some of Mark’s context where Jesus leaves and travels with his disciples, Garland says, “it serves Luke’s theological purpose. Divine majesty will not meet with constant applause from humans but will encounter rejection. Many will fail to see that God works an even mightier deed on the cross with Jesus’ death and resurrection.” That’s a solid, helpful explanation. (403-404)

He continues with an explanation of the disciples’ argument over who is the greatest, where Jesus places a child in their midst to make a corrective, opposing point. Of this maneuver Garland says, “As an object lesson, Jesus sets a child in their midst. Jesus had no romanticized notions about the qualities of children and was not setting up the child as a model for them to imitate. Children had no power, no status, and no rights, and they were regarded as insignificant and disposable, as witnessed by the exposure of children in the Greco-Roman world.” He goes on to say, “a child is the perfect illustration of those who are the most responsive of God’s grace. Those who swagger in their vainglory and wish to be crowned the greatest resist grace. Moessner captures Jesus’ meaning well, ‘There is no point at being at Jesus’ side unless one is humble enough to be at a child’s side.’” Now that preaches! (404)

This pericope ends with an interesting event where the disciples happen upon someone outside their little club perform an exorcism in Jesus’ name, apparently successfully doing what Jesus himself did and what the disciples failed to do. And they tell him to stop! In treating this passage, Garland helpfully recalls an incident between Joshua and Moses: “John’s boast is reminiscent of Joshua’s plea to Moses when unauthorized prophets arose, ‘Moses, my lord, stop them!’ (Num 11:28) Moses responded, ‘Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!’ (11:29)” This is a helpful parallel that I think illumines the passage in ways I had not seen before. Unfortunately, Garland doesn’t do much with the phrase “in your name” as I have seen elsewhere. Others have noted that this phrase relates to the connection between what Jesus was doing and what this seeming outsider was doing, actually making the unknown exorcist more of an insider than the disciples realize (and perhaps more than they themselves in light of their own inability and faith). Instead, Garland speaks of the disciples need for “all of the friends that they can get” for their mission down the road, which I found to be an odd, hasty interpretation. (405)

One of the best additions to each pericope section is a “Theology in Application” section at the end of the explanation of the text. This is indeed a unique feature of exegetical commentaries, as it provides a helpful reflection on the theological contribution the passage makes along side the passage’s description itself. A nice example is his application of the final part of the pericope, the exorcist stranger. He helpfully writes:

The danger is that Christians may want to define others who are not part of their particular group as ‘the Others.’ The criterion of accepting their work is that they are doing good in Jesus’ name. It does not mean that those who simply are indifferent to Christians and do not openly oppose them are to be counted as belonging to Christ. Jesus refers to those who belong to him but do not necessarily belong to a disciple’s particular tribe. As Christianity continues to spread across cultures around the world, Christians are learning to be tolerant of different ways of thinking and doing things. There is to be no rivalry or envy in God’s work since all labor for the same King, sharing in his power to accomplish his will. (406)

These are good, helpful words that help apply the passage theologically, not to mention will help pastors illumine it homiletically for their congregations

In the end, while I think this is a nice commentary, it’s just OK, for my needs anyway. I do think it will be helpful for pastors as it offers a “just give it to me straight” approach while leaving out innovative readings and spectacular explanations. While I’m not necessarily into innovation or spectacular readings of the Text, I am interested in more robust, in-depth treatments with cutting-edge flavor, which is why this won’t be the first commentary I turn to. Garland’s treatment just didn’t seem to have the level of cutting-edge scholarship I’ve come to expect from commentaries, especially new ones, which shows up in the skimpy bibliography.

Now that’s not to say this won’t be a valuable resource for pastors and even students of the text. What it does, it does well, mainly a moderate, give-it-to-me-straight interpretation and reading of the text, helpful tools—like extensive translation and exegetical outlines, main idea, and context—to aid the interpreter, and the very helpful, unique theological application feature. I think this commentary, and I’m presuming others from the series, will help countless pastors “fill the page” as they march toward Sunday morning sermon time, which is why I would give this a 4 out of 5—the commentary fulfills its purpose and provides nice features, even though it’s not spectacular or overly cutting-edge.