Mark Through Old Testament Eyes
By Andrew T. Le Peau
The Series title is “A Background and
Application Commentary;” it is, of course, based on the fact that the New
Testament writers were immersed in the world of the Hebrew Bible (our Old
Testament). They did not come up with “Christianity” whole cloth. In fact, they
did not think what they were teaching was “a new religion.” They were Jews
practicing Judaism, and the term “Christianity” was years in the future. The
distinction between Judaism and Christianity as different religions would have
made no sense to the writers of the New Testament. How does this affect our
understanding of the Scriptures? For instance, Protestants (like Martin Luther)
have read the New Testament in light of Roman Catholicism, and come up with
theological positions that have no relationship to the first century. Luther
read Paul as if the latter had been trying to correct Roman Catholic doctrines;
his grace versus works theology opposed things like the sacraments and
indulgences, which were never in the mind of Paul; they simply had not been
invented yet. Paul wrote Romans to correct misunderstandings of the grace of
God through the Gospel and its relationship to the works of the Law of Moses.
Well, this
series seeks to correct some of those foundational interpretive
misunderstandings, and its first century focus is a welcome corrective to bad
hermeneutics. I think this volume succeeds to a great measure, and it will be
useful to pastors and preachers. For academic use, you may need something more
substantial, and based on the Greek text. And, of course, there should be no
endnotes, but rather, footnotes. We need that information at hand, not to
search for at the end of the book.
One of the
things I did not like was the fact the commentary ends at Mark 16:8, since many
scholars do not accept the long ending of Mark as authentic. The author gives a
summary of the arguments against the inclusion of the long ending; however, the
author himself says on page 301, “Ultimately it is impossible to come to a firm
conclusion either way. We must be at peace in our uncertainty.” Well, if it is
“impossible” to achieve certainty, shouldn’t a commentary on the book deal with
the text that “possibly” is a part of Mark’s Gospel? This seemed to me similar
to a construction crew saying, “It is impossible to know whether the building
is completely empty of people,” and then blowing it anyway. They should err on
the side of caution. IF the long ending is authentic, and you don’t comment on
it, then, you haven’t done your job appropriately, and in fact, you’ve been
irresponsible. These are eternal matters and we should err on the side of
caution, every time.
2/5 Stars
Disclaimer: The book was received for free from Kregel
Ministry books in exchange for an unbiased opinion.
