You are on page 1of 1

Denver Journal - 2:0209 - A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew

Seite 1

Search

Home About Us
Contact Us

Academics

Admissions

Alumni & Friends

Giving

News & Events

Denver Journal
An Online Review of Current Biblical and Theological Studies.

Publications

Students

Volume 2 - 1999
Editor: Richard S. Hess

Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999. xxi + 1040 pp.
$60.00. ISBN 0-8028-3821-9.
Craig Keener is rapidly developing the reputation of being the one evangelical scholar of our generation who has truly
mastered the primary Jewish, Greek and Roman sources relevant to the historical background of the New Testament.
Professor of New Testament at Eastern Baptist Seminary, Keener has already written the IVP New Testament Commentary
on Matthew, which combines solid exposition with incisive contemporary application. Without abandoning any of those
strengths, Keener here adds over 10,000 references to primary sources and more than 2000 to secondary literature, in a
volume that comprises 720 pages of commentary, 150 of bibliography and almost 170 of indices! And in the midst of this, he
retains a very readable style of prose and user-friendly format with numerous bold face or italicized sentences per segment
of text that highlight the timeless principles or cross-cultural applications that can be gleaned from Matthews Gospel
In his introduction, Keener outlines the factors that lead him tentatively to favor Matthean authorship, after A.D. 70
(probably in the late 70s), to a mostly Jewish congregation in urban Syro-Palestine, still engaged in an intramural debate
with non-Christian Judaism concerning which group is the true heir of the promises to Israel. He surveys numerous issues
that bear on historicity, taking an approach in each instance favorable to a substantial level of historical trustworthiness for
this Gospel. His presentation of key theological themes is somewhat unusual, analyzing most every Christological title in
some detail but surveying only one other topic, namely, the kingdom of heaven. Numerous excursuses dot the commentary
proper, usually on topics related to historicity or to the historical background of a particular topic, such as the various
Jewish sects, wealth, prostitution, tax-collectors, execution on Passover, and so on.
Keener has no less than 74 references to my work, mostly to my Matthew commentary, in his author index, of which
72 actually exist in the text of his commentary. (I do not appear on pp. 672 or 675; perhaps Blomberg has been confused
with Blinzler, who does appear repeatedly on those pages.) I am greatly encouraged because in the vast majority of
cases, Keener agrees with my various exegetical positions, even after surveying much more historical data than I did. On
particularly controversial topics, he accepts almost exactly my limited allegorical approach to the parables, my
understanding of Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage (which he had independently articulated in his first published
scholarly book, . . . And Marries Another ), my approach to the historical background for interpreting the antitheses in the
Sermon on the Mount and my preterist-futurist approach to the eschatological discourse. He even seems to approve of my
somewhat novel combination of Bacon and Kingsbury to create my outline for Matthew, although Keener himself eschews
any subdivisions for the Gospel in the commentary itself beyond simple pericope headings.
A sampling of the handful of areas of substantive disagreement between Keener and me would include: (1) his notion
that Jesus as artisan and those fishermen who were disciples would have been among the 10% richest in Israel (a rare
example of an assertion for which he offers no primary data in support); (2) his rejection of the interpretation of Matt. 5:17-20
that allows Jesus fulfillment of the Law to set aside particular Old Testament Laws as no longer literally applicable in the
New Testament age; (3) his Sabbatarian interpretation of 12:1-14 (which reads almost exactly like what the first three
centuries of Church Fathers at times condemned as Judaizing!); and (4) his view that the excommunication prescribed in
Matt. 18:15-18 implies spiritual death. It also seems a little odd that he would suggest that Matt. 8:5-13 and John 4:46-54 are
separate events (a view that only a handful of very conservative harmonizers adopt) while not even countenancing the
possibility that Matt. 26:1-16 and Luke 7:36-50 narrate different historical events (a view that almost all conservatives and
not a few others have adopted). The same inconsistencies bedevil the harmonization of other apparently discrepant Gospel
parallels. For example, Keener is willing to suggest that Matt. 21:5 (and even Zech. 9:9) do indeed refer to two donkeys, but
does not even present the standard conservative harmonization of John vs. the Synoptics on the day of Christs crucifixion
(he does discuss and reject other harmonizations here).

Denver Journal Home


Copyright 1997-2006 Denver Seminary. 6399 South Santa Fe Drive, Littleton, CO, 80120. 303.761.2482 or 800.922.3040. info@denverseminary.edu

http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles1999/0200/0209

09.03.2007 17:18:53

You might also like