Review of Commentaries

Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007).

• This is an excellent technical commentary on the book of Acts. It seems that Bock leaves no questions unanswered, and he offers encyclopedic information about the historical background of Acts. This is a must-read commentary for the serious student of the book of Acts. Very well done!

Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

• This is not a commentary on Acts. Rather, it is the best historical defense of the Book of Acts in print. Sadly, Hemer died in 1987 before he could finish the final three chapters of his book. We only wonder what Hemer would’ve done for NT scholarship if he had lived longer.

Ajith Fernando, Acts: NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998).

• Fernando is not only a scholar but also a practitioner. These rare qualities shine through his commentary. His sections entitled “Bridging Context” were deeply insightful, and worth the price of the commentary. This is by far the best pastoral commentary on Acts.

F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988).

• Bruce was a classicist who turned his considerable talents toward NT scholarship. Even though this commentary is getting old, it is still filled with sound scholarship on Acts. At the same time, we find Bruce’s historical scholarship to be far better than his theological commentary.

John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992).

• Polhill offers enough details and historical background to make it a good commentary without getting too bogged down in the details. We also appreciated his interpretive insights. Overall, this was a quite good commentary.

Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: John and Acts, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

• We read the older (1981) version of Longenecker’s commentary. It was quite good, but we would suggest reading the updated version (2005) which is updated with more modern research. The new version is found in the Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary.

I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 5, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).

• In his earlier book Luke: Historian and Theologian (1970), Marshall was one of the better scholars to defend the historicity of Acts against the works of Dibelius, Conzelmann, and Haenchen. In this commentary, Marshall regularly interacts with critical scholarship, defending the historicity of Acts. Marshall’s commentary is short and to the point. However, he lacks both insightful pastoral insight and technical rigor. If you are looking for a pastoral commentary, read Fernando. And if you are looking for a technical commentary, read Bock or Bruce.