Galatians (Concordia Commentary; A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture) by A. Andrew Das

Galatians (Concordia Commentary; A Theological Exposition of Sacred Scripture) Reviews

• 
  Daniel Kingsley

  It is a technical commentary. Spends much time analyzing textual criticism. At the same time still can be very applicational throughout. Solid resource for conservative pastors
• 
  Paulson Pulikottil

  "Here we have a commentary which trained academics will cherish and pastors and lay persons without much training will love to read."
  A more detailed review can be found at
  http://academia.co.in/reviews/archive...
  
• 
  Steve Bauer

  Galatians, by A. Andrew Das. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2014. 738 pages.
  
  A. Andrew Das is the Donald W. and Betty J. Buik Chair and Professor of Religious Studies at Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, Ill. He currently also serves on the Translation Oversight Committee for the Christian Standard Bible.
  
  Overview
  
  In the Galatians addition to the Concordia Commentary Series, Andrew has given us a worthy commentary to have on the shelves in our pastor’s study. And his commentary gives us much good food for thought to consider as we read through and study Paul’s letter to the Galatians. It takes less than 20 minutes to read Galatians. So one might ask the question why a commentary on Galatians needs to be over 700 pages. Even a cursory read through Das’ commentary reminds us that Galatians has been one of the most hotly contested books throughout church history. And it remains contested in our current times. Das brings us up to speed with some of the major controversies surrounding the book of Galatians—especially, as he calls it, the “not-so-new perspective of Paul.” (127, 248, 274-275, 289, 313-314, et al) This is valuable in that he brings us up to speed with the conversations about the content of Galatians in current scholarly circles. And even more value than that is his evaluation of these conversations and where appropriate, a sustained critique of them. But even if one wanted to skip all the commentary on the current controversies and just look at the exegesis and application sections, anyone could walk away with thorough theological meat to chew on.
  
  Evaluation
  
  Das’ work has many traits which make this a worthy book to have on your shelf. His exegetical notes provide useful syntactical helps. The text-critical notes walk you through the options for the variants along with suggestions as to why the variations may have occurred. The historical background in this commentary is strong. For example, he gives an interesting case for the ἀποκόψονται of Gal. 5:12 to be referring to both Jews and Greeks, since every year the devotees of Cybele would offer themselves to the goddess by mutilating their genitals. (489, 542) Another positive trait of his commentary is his reluctance to find the sacraments where they aren’t specifically spelled out for us. (208) Sadly, other commentators in this series don’t follow in Das’ path. Das does what we would expect a good commentator to do. He brings up the issues we need to know about as they come up in context. He then gives us options as to how to best understand the issues and wrestle with them. Finally, he gives his own suggestion for the best path to take.
  
  As one reads his commentary, there are, however, a few weaknesses to take note of. The first is minor. The second is worthy of more attention. First, on page 558, he lists Codex Vercelli (a) as a witness for the shorter reading, πνευματι. Instead, the book of Armagh (ar) is the latin manuscript that should have been cited. Second, in Excursus 12, Flesh verse Spirit: Sharpening the Contrast, Das writes, “Some translations and interpreters have mistakenly considered the Greek word for “flesh” (σαρξ) a reference to the “sinful (human) nature.” (594) He concludes that the flesh “is primarily an apocalyptic category for Paul.” However, there is no need to go out on a ledge, forging one’s own path in our understanding of σαρξ. For example, the Book of Concord cites Galatians 5:17 at least twice as a specific reference to the old sinful nature. (Kolb/Wengert, 560 ¶84 and 588 ¶7) And while we aren’t bound to a quia subscription to exegetical issues in the Book of Concord, nevertheless, Das hasn’t presented enough substantive evidence to warrant walking away from understanding σαρξ as the sinful nature in the context of Galatians 5.
  
  Conclusion
  
  Other than the caveats listed above (and they are noticeably few), Das’ work is a solid contribution to the Concordia Commentary Series.