Andrew T. LePeau,
MARK THROUGH OLD TESTAMENT EYES, Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2017
There have been a
number of books on the background on both the Old and New Testament in the last few
years. However, they are more academic and much wider background range. This is
the beginning of a commentary set on Old Testament background. However, it is a
more consist and limited background centering on the Old Testament. The first
sentence of the preface reminds us that “the New Testament writers were Old
Testament people.” Almost everything in the New Testament is related to the Old
Testament backdrop.
The book confronts
each section of mark by four qualities:
- Running Commentary.
- Through Old Testament eyes.
- What the Structure Means
- Going Deeper in which centers on practical implications of the text.
The book is a find
balance between the meaning of the text, Old Testament background, and
application. All this is done in a concise (at times to concise), reader
friendly, and understandable way. One will not have to go through academic of
technical detail in this work. Although I suggest that a technical commentary
should be use with this commentary. He also has a number of helpful charts
thought-out this work.
His main contention
is that Mark relies on the Exodus. Both Mark and Exodus have strong content. He
freely confesses that he sees three major section to Mark that parallel Exodus
– Liberator, Journey, and Conquest. He explores link to the Exodus.
Unless one gets the wrong idea, he also refers to other links in the Old
Testament (e.g. Mark 1:10 with Isaiah; Psalm 23 and Mark 6). He does not center
in exegesis, rather deals with parallels from the Old Testament. For the Pastor
it there are good homiletic helps throughout the book. However, it should be
used with another commentary that is more exegesis centered.
I found the
commentary most helpful in its emphasis on the Old Testament found in Mark; the
structure of Mark, and the comments in going deeper.
With that said there
are some think is weakness:
(1) Brief
introductions to both the Gospel and the author.
(2) Since some
discussion among students of Mark on the historically accuracy of the events is
common to the Gospel, He is silent on this.
(3) A third is
personal, I do not like end-notes. It is a hassle to continual have to
interrupt the flow of study by having to stop and look up reference that are
located at the end of the book. I may be just an old-fashioned guy that wants
that footnote at the bottom of the page for easy access to the source or
comment.
(4) My main problem
with it is ending the commentary at Mark 16:8 (the shorter ending of Mark).
While the opinion of many scholar’s side with doing so, I think it is a wrong
move by the author. Not all agree with the shorter ending. He does well to the
reasons for the shorter text, however he gives no reasons for the longer text
to be included. His arguments are one sided. Most Bibles still include it (KJV,
NKJV, NASB, NIV) although most footnote that is may be an addition. It should
be noted that the overwhelming of Greek manuscripts also includes the longer
ending. Although he admits that “it is impossible to come to a firm conclusion
either way.” It seems to me he has come to a firm conclusion by not adding it
to the commentary. Yet the evidence on this text is still divided. I think he
should have erred in the side of caution and should have added it. To me it
takes away from his find work to this point.
This is the first of
a new series of commentaries. Based upon this one, it will be helpful, in spite
of the problems. I will say the series has potential. There is a need for such
a set.
[Thanks
to Kregel Academic of Grand Rapids for supplying this copy for the purpose of
my honest review.]
