The Concordia Commentary series as a whole is quite solid, but this volume falls far short because the author violated one of the principles upon which the series was started. In the Editor's Preface, it speaks of the presuppositions and characteristics of this commentary, one of which was, "A third, relating conviction is that the Scriptures are God's vehicle for communicating the Gospel. The editors and authors accept without reservation that the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are, in their entirety, the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God." Voelz, in his own words, believes, "16:9-20 should not be adopted as the genuine ending of the Gospel according to Mark and its exclusion from the Second Gospel should occasion no difficulties for Lutherans who have committed themselves to the confessional documents of the Book of Concord." (page 1237) While the exegesis is excellent, it was a disappointing volume because he does not accept Mark in its entirety in fact he denies it. He should not have done the commentary, nor should he have been approached to do it, for he is of a different spirit.