What do you think?
Rate this book
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Galatians: (A Paragraph-by-Paragraph Exegetical Evangelical Bible Commentary - BECNT)
In this addition to the award-winning BECNT series, highly regarded New Testament scholar Douglas Moo offers a substantive yet accessible commentary on Galatians. With extensive research and thoughtful chapter-by-chapter exegesis, Moo leads readers through all aspects of the book of Galatians--sociological, historical, and theological--to help them better understand its meaning and relevance.
As with all BECNT volumes, this commentary features the author's detailed interaction with the Greek text and an acclaimed, user-friendly design. It admirably achieves the dual aims of the series--academic sophistication with pastoral sensitivity and accessibility--making it a useful tool for pastors, church leaders, students, and teachers.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2013
39 people are currently reading
127 people want to read
About the author
Douglas J. Moo
100 books86 followersDouglas J. Moo (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is Kenneth T. Wessner Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois. He is the author of commentaries on Romans, James, 2 Peter and Jude, and Colossians and Philemon and coauthor of An Introduction to the New Testament. He also headed the committee on Bible translation for the NIV revision.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 19, 2015
A must-read commentary for studying Galatians. Douglas Moo has done a great service to the Church with this outstanding resource. Moo fairly and thoroughly presents and critiques competing views and helps you understand the variously held positions, as well as why he holds his positions over against others. The best part of the book is his fair handling and dispatching of the New Perspective on Paul. He ably and decisively exposes the New Perspective view on Galatians, defending the traditional Reformed perspective, and anyone who is in doubt about the matter should carefully consider his arguments, which I believe put an end to the controversy.
My only real complaint with his commentary is his interpretation of Galatians 5:13ff, in which Moo takes the traditional road and argues that "flesh" in v. 13ff means "sinful nature"--something altogether different than what Paul means by "flesh" previously in Galatians! Moo seemed to get everything else right up to that point, and should have seen how the previous parts of Galatians was pointing elsewhere. This is an issue in Galatians scholarship that sorely needs to be re-examined and corrected. The traditional "sinful nature" view practically nullifies and undercuts the power of the message of Galatians.
There is no doubt that Moo painstakingly came to the views that he holds, and his work should be seriously engaged with. Overall, highly recommended. A job well done!
My only real complaint with his commentary is his interpretation of Galatians 5:13ff, in which Moo takes the traditional road and argues that "flesh" in v. 13ff means "sinful nature"--something altogether different than what Paul means by "flesh" previously in Galatians! Moo seemed to get everything else right up to that point, and should have seen how the previous parts of Galatians was pointing elsewhere. This is an issue in Galatians scholarship that sorely needs to be re-examined and corrected. The traditional "sinful nature" view practically nullifies and undercuts the power of the message of Galatians.
There is no doubt that Moo painstakingly came to the views that he holds, and his work should be seriously engaged with. Overall, highly recommended. A job well done!
February 26, 2020
Classic and necessary reading for any and all who value exegesis over eisegesis. Moo fairly and as objectively presents the possible interpretations and offers his recommendation.
August 5, 2022
Having read this book from cover to cover, I would say that this commentary is at an intermediate technical level. While it is not necessary to know Greek to understand the main argumentation and conclusion that Moo presents which is indeed a plus point, I still think those who do not have a familiarity with Greek might perhaps have a better reading experience with ZECNT Galatians commentary written by Thomas Schreiner instead.
Strengths
1. Excellent in the grammatical-historical exegetical method. Moo understands the nuances of the grammar very well and I am impressed with him in his attempts to reconstruct the history of the Galatians that he deduced logically using the “mirror” reading method.
2. Familiar with 2nd temple Judaism and extra-biblical sources.
3. Moo let the grammar determines the meaning of the text without letting his NCT theology presupposition affect the way how he analyses the grammar.
Weaknesses (just some minor gripes)
1. Sometimes I don’t feel like Moo fully answered the question. He has this tendency to answer what the text grammatically says, but sometimes he doesn’t take a step further to explain what it means theologically.
2. His NCT theological on the understanding of the Law seems to be overly simplistic which may be noticed by people who hold onto Covenant Theology, Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, or Progressive Covenantalism.
3. It seems like he did not fully answer the question of what is the basis that warrants Paul to use Habakkuk 2:4 and what is the connection to Galatians when the original context in Habakkuk seems to be very different. Another similar issue is that he is unclear on what warrants Paul to use the allegorical interpretative method in using Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21-31).
4. Like most exegetical theologians, they tend to be weaker on systematics. While Moo does not fall under the “hermeneutical-linear” camp and he does use “hermeneutical-spiral” methodology, one can’t help but notice that he is stronger in engaging certain doctrinal topics such as justification by faith and feeding them into his exegesis, but he is weaker when comes to doctrinal topics such as union with Christ by the Spirit, sanctification and glorification. Instead of relating “good works and obedience” to sanctification, he uses the term “final justification” and “final salvation” by works which can be very confusing.
In addition, seems like he does not appear to know the differences between “historia salutis” (history of salvation) and the application of “ordo salutis” (order of salvation) to those whom God applied the benefits of salvation to those whom He redeemed. For instance, he said "Those who are "in Christ" enjoy the "blessing of Abraham," in the context of justification (3:14); and "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (5:24). Thus both justification and sanctification are given believers via their union with Christ - the "double gift" that Calvin especially concerned to emphasized.... But the Spirit, Paul insists, marks not only the entrance into the life of Christ; the Spirit must also become the means by which believers continue and complete their Christian experience." Galatians commentary pg 33-34.
So Moo said justification and sanctification are given through union with Christ and the Spirit marks the entrance into the life of Christ. But this is inconsistent with his NCT theology because according to this camp, OT believers don’t need the union with Christ through the Spirit to be justified by faith. Such understanding is inconsistent with the doctrine of the fallen human condition, and the doctrine of salvation which seems to suggest that the fallen human condition of Old Testament believers is different and that they are saved differently from the New Testament believers. Although Galatians isn’t related to the doctrine of predestination very much, the theological understanding of the Holy Spirit from this commentary is not very consistent with TULIP. How can the OT believers who shared in the exact total depravity sinful condition like NT believers become regenerated to have faith and are justified in Christ and persevered to the end without the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit in them if we want to go with Moo’s understanding?
That being said, these are just my minor gripes with this commentary. No commentaries are perfect and we need to evaluate them through our understanding of Biblical and Systematic Theology to chew the meat and spit out the bones. And I would still recommend this commentary to anyone who is keen to learn more about Galatians. Finally, despite having some disagreements, I still like to thank Prof. Douglas Moo for teaching me and correcting the wrong understandings which I previously held until I read this commentary of his.
Strengths
1. Excellent in the grammatical-historical exegetical method. Moo understands the nuances of the grammar very well and I am impressed with him in his attempts to reconstruct the history of the Galatians that he deduced logically using the “mirror” reading method.
2. Familiar with 2nd temple Judaism and extra-biblical sources.
3. Moo let the grammar determines the meaning of the text without letting his NCT theology presupposition affect the way how he analyses the grammar.
Weaknesses (just some minor gripes)
1. Sometimes I don’t feel like Moo fully answered the question. He has this tendency to answer what the text grammatically says, but sometimes he doesn’t take a step further to explain what it means theologically.
2. His NCT theological on the understanding of the Law seems to be overly simplistic which may be noticed by people who hold onto Covenant Theology, Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, or Progressive Covenantalism.
3. It seems like he did not fully answer the question of what is the basis that warrants Paul to use Habakkuk 2:4 and what is the connection to Galatians when the original context in Habakkuk seems to be very different. Another similar issue is that he is unclear on what warrants Paul to use the allegorical interpretative method in using Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:21-31).
4. Like most exegetical theologians, they tend to be weaker on systematics. While Moo does not fall under the “hermeneutical-linear” camp and he does use “hermeneutical-spiral” methodology, one can’t help but notice that he is stronger in engaging certain doctrinal topics such as justification by faith and feeding them into his exegesis, but he is weaker when comes to doctrinal topics such as union with Christ by the Spirit, sanctification and glorification. Instead of relating “good works and obedience” to sanctification, he uses the term “final justification” and “final salvation” by works which can be very confusing.
In addition, seems like he does not appear to know the differences between “historia salutis” (history of salvation) and the application of “ordo salutis” (order of salvation) to those whom God applied the benefits of salvation to those whom He redeemed. For instance, he said "Those who are "in Christ" enjoy the "blessing of Abraham," in the context of justification (3:14); and "those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires" (5:24). Thus both justification and sanctification are given believers via their union with Christ - the "double gift" that Calvin especially concerned to emphasized.... But the Spirit, Paul insists, marks not only the entrance into the life of Christ; the Spirit must also become the means by which believers continue and complete their Christian experience." Galatians commentary pg 33-34.
So Moo said justification and sanctification are given through union with Christ and the Spirit marks the entrance into the life of Christ. But this is inconsistent with his NCT theology because according to this camp, OT believers don’t need the union with Christ through the Spirit to be justified by faith. Such understanding is inconsistent with the doctrine of the fallen human condition, and the doctrine of salvation which seems to suggest that the fallen human condition of Old Testament believers is different and that they are saved differently from the New Testament believers. Although Galatians isn’t related to the doctrine of predestination very much, the theological understanding of the Holy Spirit from this commentary is not very consistent with TULIP. How can the OT believers who shared in the exact total depravity sinful condition like NT believers become regenerated to have faith and are justified in Christ and persevered to the end without the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit in them if we want to go with Moo’s understanding?
That being said, these are just my minor gripes with this commentary. No commentaries are perfect and we need to evaluate them through our understanding of Biblical and Systematic Theology to chew the meat and spit out the bones. And I would still recommend this commentary to anyone who is keen to learn more about Galatians. Finally, despite having some disagreements, I still like to thank Prof. Douglas Moo for teaching me and correcting the wrong understandings which I previously held until I read this commentary of his.
December 17, 2017
Probably read 85% of this excellent commentary. Moo is a theologically informed exegete, with Lutheran-Reformed leanings. While he is sympathetic to the New Perspective on Paul, he is not uncritical, and thus defends a nuanced Lutheran reading of the letter. I found this commentary quite helpful this fall, as I preached through Galatians. I recommend it highly.
November 16, 2019
Solid commentary on Galatians, which was my primary modern source preaching through the book. I didn’t follow Moo in every detail, but I think his broad interpretive grid - appreciative of some New Perspective exegetical points, but largely emphasizing with the Reformed theological points - was spot on.
March 29, 2024
Un peu déçu par Moo ici. J'ai retrouvé les mêmes caractéristiques que dans son commentaire sur Romains:
- Très fort quand il s'agit d'exploser les différents points de vue théologique et de proposer sa conclusion
- Brouillon sur les explications de grammaire.
Hors si ça ne m'avait pas spécialement dérangé pour Romains ici j'ai un peu l'impression d'un acte manqué. Pour différentes raisons :
- j'ai surtout eu l'impression de lire une théologie de Galates plutôt qu'un vrai commentaire du texte. Il y a une utilité pour ce genre d'ouvrage et j'apprécie quand un commentateur ose donner ses conclusions sur le sens et les implications d'un texte... mais pas au détriment du commentaire
- l'introduction. Elle donne le ton au reste du livre. Un peu plus de soixante pages, principalement sur... les débats théologique. Encore une fois Moo résume et vulgarise très bien. Le problème c'est qu'il profite de cette section pour mettre le reste du livre sur des rails. "Voilà comment je définis tel terme, tel notion “.
En soit il est normal qu'il commente selon ce qu'il comprend. Et il y a une honnêteté dans le fait de donner sa compréhension dès le début et très franchement. Le problème c'est que ça semble être plus des conclusions théologiques que vraiment exégétiques par rapport au texte de Galates. Ce qui m'amène au point suivant,
- les présuppositions. Moo commente et veut que son lecteur comprenne Galates en fonction des présuppositions qu'il a défini dans l'introduction. Encore une fois ça se comprend. Mais elle ne sont jamais défendues. C'est comme ça et puis c'est tout. Ce qui rend la lecture plutôt frustrante. ( Sans compter la mise en page en mode gros blocs de texte sans aérations, pire que les WBC à mon goût).
- Beaucoup de non réponse. Paradoxalement beaucoup de textes restent sans réponses. On discute, on commente les commentaires mais à la fin on n'a pas vraiment de conclusions. On sait beaucoup de choses sur ce que l'on dit du texte mais pas sur ce que dit le texte....
Bref une déception pour ma part. Dans le même courant théologique j'ai largement préféré Schreiner ( qui est bien aidé par l'excellent travail d'édition de Zondervan) plus concis, plus près du texte, bien plus capable de position ferme tout en sachant mieux tenir compte des remarques et contradictions qui peuvent lui être adressé.
- Très fort quand il s'agit d'exploser les différents points de vue théologique et de proposer sa conclusion
- Brouillon sur les explications de grammaire.
Hors si ça ne m'avait pas spécialement dérangé pour Romains ici j'ai un peu l'impression d'un acte manqué. Pour différentes raisons :
- j'ai surtout eu l'impression de lire une théologie de Galates plutôt qu'un vrai commentaire du texte. Il y a une utilité pour ce genre d'ouvrage et j'apprécie quand un commentateur ose donner ses conclusions sur le sens et les implications d'un texte... mais pas au détriment du commentaire
- l'introduction. Elle donne le ton au reste du livre. Un peu plus de soixante pages, principalement sur... les débats théologique. Encore une fois Moo résume et vulgarise très bien. Le problème c'est qu'il profite de cette section pour mettre le reste du livre sur des rails. "Voilà comment je définis tel terme, tel notion “.
En soit il est normal qu'il commente selon ce qu'il comprend. Et il y a une honnêteté dans le fait de donner sa compréhension dès le début et très franchement. Le problème c'est que ça semble être plus des conclusions théologiques que vraiment exégétiques par rapport au texte de Galates. Ce qui m'amène au point suivant,
- les présuppositions. Moo commente et veut que son lecteur comprenne Galates en fonction des présuppositions qu'il a défini dans l'introduction. Encore une fois ça se comprend. Mais elle ne sont jamais défendues. C'est comme ça et puis c'est tout. Ce qui rend la lecture plutôt frustrante. ( Sans compter la mise en page en mode gros blocs de texte sans aérations, pire que les WBC à mon goût).
- Beaucoup de non réponse. Paradoxalement beaucoup de textes restent sans réponses. On discute, on commente les commentaires mais à la fin on n'a pas vraiment de conclusions. On sait beaucoup de choses sur ce que l'on dit du texte mais pas sur ce que dit le texte....
Bref une déception pour ma part. Dans le même courant théologique j'ai largement préféré Schreiner ( qui est bien aidé par l'excellent travail d'édition de Zondervan) plus concis, plus près du texte, bien plus capable de position ferme tout en sachant mieux tenir compte des remarques et contradictions qui peuvent lui être adressé.
July 18, 2017
Here is a very solid commentary on Galatians. My four-star rating is not meant to be a knock on Moo's work. I read the book cover-to-cover as I preached through Galatians. I didn't find it mind-blowing or especially insightful, and that's why I don't give it five stars. In addition to providing solid commentary on the book, Moo addresses the issue of where this church is located (going with the south Galatia, early date view) as well as the New Perspective on Paul theologians (Moo presents a "traditional" Reformed view of Paul's doctrine of justification).
This commentary is very useful. However, if I were to read only one, I would probably read Schreiner's commentary for Zondervan. I read parts of that along the way and I find that in addition to covering the major exegetical and theological issues, he also provides some application. That is useful for preachers and Bible teachers.
(Finished reading December 29, 2015.)
This commentary is very useful. However, if I were to read only one, I would probably read Schreiner's commentary for Zondervan. I read parts of that along the way and I find that in addition to covering the major exegetical and theological issues, he also provides some application. That is useful for preachers and Bible teachers.
(Finished reading December 29, 2015.)
May 4, 2024
This is a great book for anyone who wants to take a deep dive into Galatians. The author is very good with ancient languages of Hebrews and Greek. My skill level in those languages is non-existent so I struggled with that part. I can understand Latin a little so that helped. I would highly recommend this for the advanced student. If you are looking for a simple exposition, you might find this difficult at times.
A great part of this book lies in the resources at the back: Works Cited, Index of Subjects, Index of Authors, Index of Greek words, Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings are extremely valuable!
A great part of this book lies in the resources at the back: Works Cited, Index of Subjects, Index of Authors, Index of Greek words, Index of Scripture and Other Ancient Writings are extremely valuable!
August 15, 2020
I cannot recommend this commentary highly enough. It is simply outstanding. I have really grown to appreciate Moo as a commentator. For the record, I think his commentary on Romans is worth 5x the cost—the best you can buy today.
Obviously, I'm not endorsing every sentence in this book. Men are men and should always be viewed as such. However, he leaves no stone unturned. And even when you disagree with him, you can at least see where he is coming from.
If you preach through Galatians, this book is a must-have.
Obviously, I'm not endorsing every sentence in this book. Men are men and should always be viewed as such. However, he leaves no stone unturned. And even when you disagree with him, you can at least see where he is coming from.
If you preach through Galatians, this book is a must-have.
May 18, 2018
Very good commentary on Galatians by one of the leading scholars on Paul's thought. You won't find all the answers to your questions but you will follow the logic Paul's argument in the progression of the letter. Nevertheless the main problems are dealt with. The introduction is good and very clarifying as some issues which can easily make you consued such as the clash between the two Galatia theories.
June 20, 2024
This commentary by Moo is top of its class. He gives a lot of great detail about the book of Galatians and within each passage. I really like how he goes into the original language but also presents a logical flow through the passage. The series is one of the best for exegesis. I highly recommend this commentary and series to you for deep study of Galatians and the rest of the New Testament books.
February 25, 2021
One of my friends while preaching through Galatians. Farewell, but not forever.
April 10, 2023
Moo expertly brings many voices to the table (Dunn, Martyn, et al) and very gently proposes his own.
August 20, 2024
Judicious, fair, and careful exegesis and theology.
If you’re about to preach through Galatians and can only get one commentary, get this!
If you’re about to preach through Galatians and can only get one commentary, get this!
February 18, 2022
Reference. Helpfully presents merits and demerits of various interpretations and offers a thoughtful perspective of his own throughout.
Moderately technical, but will often draw understandable conclusions from his linguistic and grammatical arguments.
Good commentary
Moderately technical, but will often draw understandable conclusions from his linguistic and grammatical arguments.
Good commentary
February 24, 2021
This is an excellent scholarly commentary on Galatians, in the Baker Exegetical Commentary: New Testament (BECNT) series. While Moo himself is a Calvinist, he doesn't push his own theological interpretations, but covers all the options.
While not absolutely required, readers will benefit from knowing some Greek. When the Greek text is first discussed, it is also transliterated, but later references are left untransliterated.
While not absolutely required, readers will benefit from knowing some Greek. When the Greek text is first discussed, it is also transliterated, but later references are left untransliterated.
Read
May 13, 2016Another phenomenal work by Moo that is easy to read, densely informative, and carefully balanced throughout each passage. Moo has a remarkable ability to hit all the relevant points, acknowledge and answer all different views, and solidly support his interpretation without overstating his case. This is a must-have for anyone working through Galatians on anything from academics to preaching.
July 12, 2016
Best commentary I have on Galatians. Well written, excellently argued and presented, detailed enough for academic research, yet helpful enough for pastoral study. I commend this over Longenecker, Bruce, or Schreiner's commentaries.
March 19, 2015
Wonderful resource, cover to cover.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews