You're criticism about not connecting the NT/OT is a valid one, and perhaps they should have had an appendix about this

The text is crisp and clear to read, and I appreciate that. The "gray boxes" provide extra insights into the subject at hand. All in all, it's an interesting Bible HANDBOOK, though I'm afraid "commentary" is stretching it. Most commentaries also include the biblical text, and because of size restrictions, this volume does not. One must have his or her Bible handy as one reads the paragraphed commentaries.

Now to my chief objection: This text refuses to connect the Old Testament with the New Testament. Therefore, statements made in the New Testament about Old Testament passages are omitted (but should have been seen as the best commentary of all). New Testament insights ito Old Testament matters are omitted in an effort to view Old Testament sections the way the early Hebrews would have viewed them. But if this is a Christian commentary, should New Testament (inspired) insights be omitted?

A chief example did not take long to surface for me. The Genesis 22.1-19 section provides not commentary but unfounded speculation to the extreme. Why did Abraham agree to offer Isaac? is the question at hand. Various speculative reasons are given, even including that Abraham may just not have loved Isaac enough to keep him alive, hoping that Ishmael would inherit! Oh, my!

Of course, the New Testament gives a clear, concise answer to the question, but the commentary makes NOT ONE mention of the passage. Hebrews 11.17-19 clearly states that Abraham had so much faith in God that he knew God would raise Isaac from the dead. That's a reason that Abraham is in the "roll call" of faith in Hebrews. But our "extra knowledge" provided by the Holy Spirit within the New Testament is made void in the commentary in its study of the Hebrew scriptures.

Such an example demonstrates that one should understand the approach of these authors before purchasing the volume.

Thank You ACU!

Thanks again.

As a very recent graduate of ACU and the Graduate School of Theology I just have to speak up here. Now, it’s not like these books are solely focused on these issues. They are brought up in talking about certain texts where there are real issues. What were the authors supposed to do? Not mention the issues? Lie about them?

It's my view that in a non-scholarly work — like a one-volume commentary — you write for the intended audience, which is not scholars. It's just not. Scholars use sources that cover such issues in depth.

I own many commentaries. Most discuss issues of authorship and such. They take traditional and very non-traditional views — and I have no complaint because they are thorough and appropriate for the audience.

I also own commentaries that are written at a popular level — some by great scholars, such as N. T. Wright. And they don't get into the questions of authorship even though the authors are experts on the subject. And I think this is appropriate, too.

It used to be that when I started a lesson on, say, Romans, I'd spend some time in the first class discussing the evidence for the Pauline authorship. But I quickly found that the class found such lessons pointless — not because of the class's stupidity, naivete, or ignorance, but because they came to class to learn to be better Christians and better people, and such lessons were of no value to them. Sometimes I learn more from my students than they learn from me.

Why can’t the people in the pew who want to know the word more in depth (and let’s face it, those are the people who are going to be reading this book, people who are a little more serious about study) be aware of the issues?

It's quite alright for anyone to study such material. For example, years ago, I was our church's librarian, and I bought a number of commentary sets that address such issues in detail. I have no interest is hiding these matters from the church. However, I do insist that the materials thoroughly address the questions they raise.

I don’t know that the authors necessarily take much of a position but they bring to light the issues, which is what you do all the time on this blog, Jay.

Actually, I try to be pretty thorough in covering the issues. If anything, I tend to say more than many consider necessary because I think it's so important to be comprehensive in my scripture studies — and the more controversial the issue, the more thorough I try to be. Hence, I post series on issues like MDR and the role of women that go on for months and months.

If I've not been comprehensive on something, let me know and I'll remedy the defect.

How much of what you discuss here is necessary for one’s salvation?

Not that much, but that's not the argument I made. I asked about how these materials help us attain unity, evangelize, grow the church, and help us relieve the suffering of the poor. I do try to talk about these things quite a lot. These are, of course, merely exemplars of what the church is called to do. I do try to stick to these sorts of things. Even when I write about hermeneutics, I do so with the intent of helping us interpret the scriptures to find grace and unity — and stop our needless fighting.

I read the Chronicle’s reviews of this book and thought they were ok but spent too much time talking about the fact that these issues were raised. It’s not like this is all that this book focuses on.

I'm sure that's true, but the controversy was the entirely predictable consequence of putting such materials in a popular-level commentary.

Now , knowing many of the authors personally I know them all to “be on fire” for the gospel and to love God.

I don't think I know the authors, but I know many ACU Bible professors, and I'm sure you're right. But I think they've committed a lapse in judgment. As McKnight mentions in his article quoted in my next post, there have been major controversies in many denominations over inerrancy. So far, we've largely been spared this. It's the wrong fight at the wrong time. We have much more important things to be talking about.

And ACU, contrary to popular opinion, and to some of the above comments is not teaching us to be professional scholars. Certainly there are some who are meant for this work but most of what is done, specifically in the GST is preparing men and women for a life of ministry and doing so in a responsible way.

I think you're right. I do think our universities in general have a lack of focus that is hurting us — as evidenced, for example, by how expensive it's become to be trained for the ministry. Nonetheless, ACU is generally doing very commendable work and I'm generally a big fan.

I also take offense at the suggestion that ACU Press is under the grip of Satan and his work, as was suggested above.

Uh, no, that wasn't suggested. What Alan said is, "I don’t think ACU Press is Satan. But I do think in this case they’ve allowed themselves to be taken in by him." That's hardly the same as "in grip of" Satan. But I agree that raising inerrancy in this way at this time has the potential to be a major distraction from God's work — which would surely serve Satan's agenda.

ACU Press is helping put out many books that are of a major help for churches across the country on a variety of important subjects, God’s Holy Fire included.

I own a very large number of books that have come from ACU Press. On the whole, ACU Press has been of great service to the Churches of Christ — and to me. I've said complimentary things about them elsewhere and was quite sincere. But even the best of us sometime mess up.

Here's the bottom line. If I'm going to teach a popular level class on a controversial topic — such as instrumental music — I'm going to be sure of at least two things. First, I'm not taking on the topic unless I have the time to do it right. Second, I'm not taking on the topic at all unless it's beneficial to the church at that place at that time. Not all true things are edifying things. And even edifying things don't edify unless they are well covered.

I have said enough, probably more than I should have.

Not at all. The whole point of a blog is to discuss differing opinions. That's why I don't moderate comments. I think it's critical that we honestly express our views and I appreciate your comments very much. They gave me the chance to clarify my own thinking and hopefully to correct some misconceptions.

Jay, thanks for the thoughts – I enjoy your blogs.