{"id":4037,"date":"2023-02-22T11:15:23","date_gmt":"2023-02-22T11:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/?p=4037"},"modified":"2023-03-20T20:56:49","modified_gmt":"2023-03-20T20:56:49","slug":"book-review-john-zecnt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thomascreedy.co.uk\/book-review-john-zecnt\/","title":{"rendered":"Book Review: John (ZECNT)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reviewing commentaries is a tricky business \u2013 particularly for me as a generalist, and an in-publisher editor of commentaries! I tend to offer my review based on the format and content of the volume, and it\u2019s utility or otherwise to preachers and pastors. Occasionally I\u2019ll digress into particularly theological or stylistic quirks. Under the review proper I\u2019ve got some remarks comparing it to other John commentaries \u2013 I\u2019ve read a few and own several.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"John<\/p>\n

The Gospel of John is probably the Gospel – probably, after Galatians, the New Testament Book – I have spent the most time thinking about. Whether it was half an A-level back in 2008, sitting under a sermon series and in a CU study series in 2009-10, or undergraduate and postgraduate work between then and now, John is the Gospel I\u2019ve spent the most time with. Since 2007\/8, I\u2019ve had a copy of Carson\u2019s (PNTC) commentary close at hand whenever I\u2019ve done things with John – and it continues to be a helpful reference. Recently I worked on an NSBT on a theme within John and John\u2019s Letters<\/a> – and Carson\u2019s PNTC remained useful. So it is with some trepidation that I write, in black and white, that Klink\u2019s ZECNT is possibly<\/i> now the commentary I\u2019d recommend to most people<\/i> for most purposes<\/i>. I\u2019ll spend the rest of this review explaining why.<\/p>\n

This review also reflects my own idiosyncrasies and experience – I don\u2019t preach regularly (though when i do, I like to preach expositorily!), and I work in the world of theological publishing, which includes looking after commentary series. So that means I\u2019m an unusual reader – who hopefully can engage with a book on its own terms, rather than as a pure tool. The Zondervan Exegetical Series is one that\u2019s come on to my radar and in my view is a really helpful one for pastors and preachers, and that mythical \u2018educated lay\u2019 reader. It\u2019s not trying to be a full scale critical commentary (like an ICC, ECC, NIGTC or Hermeneia, for example), but it also assumes some knowledge of Greek, and theological education. It’s probably about the same level as a Pillar, an older NICNT, or some of the newer longer Tyndale volumes (like Schnabel on Matthew or Perrin on Luke). The key, though, and the thing that animated the eyes of one enthusiast, is the format for the ZECNT which\u00a0is<\/em> very nice – large, square hardbacks with clear print and a consistent layout.<\/p>\n

But commentaries aren’t just all about the format – and in Klink’s case this is perhaps most especially clear. As he says at the outset, and I agree,\u00a0\u201cThe paradox of scripture is most suitably handled by the confessional approach<\/em>\u201d (p. 24), and that\u00a0<\/span>\u201cFor the purpose of a commentary, an exegete is not to speak but to listen so that the only word heard and understood is the Word of God<\/em>\u201d (p. 33). This is a commentary that begins from a position theologically similar to my own – one of humility regarding the text, or, as Klink puts it,\u00a0<\/span>\u201cThe most competent reader of Scripture will be the one who stands under (not over) it<\/em>\u201d p. 41). I’m sure some will disagree, but this stance made reading this commentary a pleasure for me. This theological posture is\u00a0not<\/strong> divorced from critical awareness or concerns for critical and contextual issues, however. I appreciated his perspective on 7:53-8:11, noted in many modern translations as possibly not original, as ‘a text on probation’ (p. 390). Similarly, commenting on the opening of the Gospel, he writes o<\/span>n 1:1 that \u201cthe context in which the Fourth Gospel begins is not Palestinian but primordial<\/em>\u201d. (p. 87). This is surely true!<\/span><\/p>\n

Klink’s calm, careful commentary follows the narrative shape of the Gospel in a way that opens it up, even opening it up afresh for those of us who think we know the story.\u00a0\u201cAfter the prologue, the Fourth Gospel introduced the arrival of the Word, Jesus Christ, into the historical context of the first century<\/em>\u201d (p. 137). Klink’s reading of John is not one with historical detachment, but rather the fervour of a true disciple:<\/span><\/p>\n