• This is the first commentary of this series that I read. I came to it with no particular expectative and it was a wonderful surprise. I went though Habakkuk reading this one together with the NICOT and they complement each other very well. The distribution of this one is uneven, being surprisingly deep in the foundation of chapter 1 and giving great insight that complements the other commentary very well. The final chapter is not so deeply developed as the author admits that space is not enough, but this gets complemented by the final section of biblical theology. I found it really good dealing with prayer, suffering and the process of maturity. The essays are short, but are excellent material to reflect upon the brokenness of the world and our blessed hope of a better world free of sin. I hope the rest of the series keeps the level of this one.
    1. I would normally not comment in one of the top of the list of Bestcommentaries. There are better opinions than mine available but having gone until Hos 9:9 with it I think it is important some notes for somebody that wants to take a deep devotional reading. And its in doubt how to expend scarce resources: The Commentary is excellent, it gives rich connection with Leviticus and Deuteronomy, taking the point of view of Covenant keeping/violation. There are some connexions with Isaiah, but its strength is in the law. If you intent to cover the 12 as a unit there are very few and wide spaced links to the rest, it basically is not suitable for this. There are red flags in theology, for this use extreme caution when relying in interpretation. I do not write this lightly. 2 examples so far: Commentary on Hos 8:1-14 “What in fact has Israel done? Five sorts of sins are specifically cited: (1) the refusal to acknowledge Yahweh’s right of divine ordination of the king (v 4); (2) idolatry (vv 4b–6); (3) dependence on international allies rather than on Yahweh (vv 9–10); (4) a corrupt cult (vv 5, 6, 11, 13); and (5) arrogant disregard for the law of their God (vv 1, 2–3a, 5b, 12, 14). Because both sovereign and vassal were bound to the terms of the covenant, Yahweh must punish Israel for their manifold disobedience.” (p. 138). I do not have problems with an argument for justice, but the suggestion that YHWH MUST do something under compulsion of the creature should not be taken. Having read the rest of the commentary that’s the meaning, all the time the discussion is of the obligations of both parties under the covenant, its not that Justice or Truthfulness of God is discussed and under this understanding the unfortunate phrase takes place. Commentary on Hos 9:1-9. “It should not be surprising that Hosea’s message fell mostly upon deaf ears. Such a response is predictable when hard words from God are proclaimed where they have not been invited. For the Christian, to whom Christ promises special help in the face of hostility, the preaching of the divine message may result in far worse distress than being mocked (cf. Luke 21:12–17). Few Israelites stood with Hosea against the prevailing injustices and degradations. He at least stood firm even when his very sanity was questioned. Only by likewise standing firm with Christ may Christians expect to be delivered by God from the punishments prescribed by the new covenant’s curses (Luke 21:18–19).” (p. 148). With this second one I definitively have Issues. Is this a suggestion that the salvation can be lost if you don’t endure tribulation? I hope the verse is an unfortunate selection by the author, but still is a bad link, if you were to say Luke 6:46–49 or 1 Corinthians 10:5-14 would be an issue of disbelief or apostasy, no problem with this, but as it stands its really bad theology the implication. So my recommendation, read it by all means, but NOT ALONE and DON’T TAKE anything that is labelled “covenant” form it. My suggestion? Pick alongside https://www.logos.com/product/3393/grace-abounding-a-commentary-on-the-book-of-hosea and read it ahead section by section. Solid theology, exalted view of God along the lines of Jer 9:24. A sample of what to expect from this: You become what you love, or what you worship, says the prophet. You are a reflection of your “sacred.” That to which you give priority and which you make your absolute, that which establishes your norms and values, that which tells you what is good and true and beautiful is what determines your identity and tells you who you are. But what if the thing you worship is a “nothing,” a creation of your own imagination or lusts, like the Baals for instance? […] As usual the punishment is made to fit the crime—and more. Ephraim (or “Ephraim’s glory”) is likened to a flock of birds which flies away. The “glory” is obviously in contrast with the “shame” in 9:10. I prefer therefore to take “glory” as indicating Yahweh himself. Yahweh leaves, and what is the result? Granted the current beliefs about the power of the Baals, the one area Ephraim would expect not to be affected was that of birth, pregnancy, and conception. These were the Baals’ responsibility, not Yahweh’s, so his absence surely would make no difference to them. The reality is the reverse. Fertility is Yahweh’s domain (like everything else); when Yahweh leaves, fertility ceases. This is the unwelcome, totally unexpected harvest of punishment. […] With God’s departure would come the end of their history, the end of fertility, and the end of life itself because he is the living God, the giver of life. (pp. 121–122).
      1. Disclaimer: The following review arises out of a “Devotional”-ish reading of the book I read the book as a sort of introduction ahead of staring the twelve. The reading is motivated out of Blenkinsopp’s comments in Opening the Sealed Book: Interpretations of the Book of Isaiah in Late Antiquity, where the issue of intertextuality and reading Isaiah under the guidance of Daniel to crack the seal that hides the meaning of the text is raised. This book about the twelve really helps in that regard, illuminating enigmatic statements sealed in Daniel [Dan 12:9-10 for example] and also helping with some of Isaiah (although not directly, only if you have been reading Isaiah recently and you remember parts while you read) . With this in mind, the book is excellent, it will give you a very good perspective of prophecy as a whole and tools to examine the text closely as well as broadly within the twelve context. This I can state with confidence, since I am in Hosea following the Berit Olam comment on the twelve and while faced with questions raised by the punishment of the house of Jehu that was commissioned by Elijah/Elisha I can clearly see the questions of Habakkuk 1:12-17 claiming to be raised and answer [intertextual relation not mentioned by Berit Olam]. Without this reading such a clarity would not be possible. So, If you are interested in seeing Gods glory in salvation though judgement this is your book to start, and if you pretend to read any of the twelve I strongly recommend that you consider going though this book first. Your high criticism reading will be ruined, but the literary and canonical one will be greatly enhanced in exchange.
        1. As a non-academic reader, this book is really interesting in the invitation it makes: “Think the bible narratively and discover in the history the will of God”. Developing the example of how Paul, for example, invited its church to see themselves in the example of their “fathers in the desert” (1 Cor 10) to solve problems, or how “the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets” (Ro 3:21) as the proper hermeneutic to understand the scriptures the author lays down a good case for going for a biblical theology that connects and brings to life scripture. The book ends with a fitting invitation that expresses well the content: “In Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure the self-righteous villain Angelo pronounces a death sentence on Claudio, who is guilty of committing fornication. Claudio’s sister Isabella comes to Angelo to plead for the life of her brother, but Angelo, who is trying to manipulate Isabella into bed with him, spurns her suit, saying, Your brother is a forfeit of the law, And you but waste your words. Isabella’s reply alludes to the great theme of Romans and calls upon the hypocritical judge Angelo to see his life anew in light of God’s judgment and grace: Why, all the souls that were were forfeit once; And He that might the vantage best have took Found out the remedy. How would you be If He, which is the top of judgment, should But judge you as you are? O, think on that; And mercy then will breathe within your lips, Like man new made. Isabella resists the oppressor by applying a hermeneutic of suspicion to his pose of righteousness and by appealing to a hermeneutic of trust in the biblical story of God’s mercy. Isabella is a profound interpreter of Scripture. We should follow her example.”
          1. This is a thought provoking book that has open for me a new way to understand Holiness away form the Faith Vs Works debate. As a non-scholarly reader my take is this: If you want to see how the holiness of the old testament (covenant keeping holiness) finds an Christological expression in Paul this book is helpful, but only is a door to a larger reading with several authors of the new perspective on Paul to cover.
            1. This second volume is even better that what I expected when I began to read. It goes from assuming you already have “Heiser’s Unseen Realm” acknowledged and builds on the relationship of Israel with the Elohim and its implication in covenant, kingdom and some indwelling (in the Temple) implications. In doing so we enter a hard part of the book that the Autor terms “the Nightmare” (consequences of unfaithfulness) and start a long treatment of deportation, not leaving outside a good vision of Jeremiah, lamentations, Kohelet and Job. Although going to the material is emotionally challenging (at least for me in the current context of harsh lockdown) it is totally worth it. It really gives perspective and shadow to the cross (I mean Isa 53:3-10a with that comment). Then it builds up in Hope of the restauration (still with the same books mentioned) and treats not only the people on exile but restoration of the land and nature itself (very Pauline). At the time of writing I still am in chapter 7, so I will not reveal the end of the book. I think is better doing so and conform to the “It has not yet being revealed what we shall be”. Hope somebody find the review informative if deciding whether take the 800+ pages challenge.
              1. This book has been a wonderful read. It invites the reader to see the scripture seriously in the way it is written, sometimes giving little snippets of inside that invites us to challenge our assumptions; For example, relating to Acts 10 the author remembers that “Peter seems to take the vision parabolically rather than literally” but goes on to state that the literal that Peter refuses to acknowledge becomes common understanding in the church. In the same way, the Old testament is taken seriously thought the book, challenging the reader to do so and leaving rabbit-holes to the reader’s “fasting and prayer”as relates to that kind ;-)
                1. This was a hard book to read for me. I am from a dispensationalist background and to endure the constant treatment of it as a sect composed of the unthoughtful masses is hard. But overcoming this obstacle I appreciate the author’s overcoming of his. I specially appreciate statements such as “Rather, the ethical demand of Christian life is embraced by two acts of God, that is, by both his past act in Jesus Christ and his future act when the final theophany will usher in the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment.” (p. 87). And “The natural sciences have promulgated a widespread notion that has become axiomatic for our dominant culture: that the question of the end of the world by divine intervention is naive and obsolete, or at best a primitive myth of some moral value. Plato’s conviction about an enduring world that has a beginning but no end or that of Aristotle that posits neither a beginning nor an end for the world has, as it were, become normative for modern theological interpretations of New Testament apocalyptic.” (pp. 99–100). These, among others have widened my view and helped me to reflect on my heritage and where I stand now.
                  1. Reading this book has been very edifying. It is a short read but definitively gives practical, down to earth teaching very useful against pharisaic (a.k.a. legalistic) and liberal theologies. It follows the middle cross, where Jesus is, and avoids any of the thieves. Perhaps a very concise way to put the central idea is: “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17-18 NASB).