What do you think?
Rate this book
Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible
Esther & Daniel
The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible advances the assumption that the Nicene creedal tradition, in all its diversity, provides the proper basis for the interpretation of the Bible as Christian scripture. The series volumes, written by leading theologians, encourage Christians to extend the vital roots of the ancient Christian tradition to our day. In this addition to the acclaimed series, two respected scholars offer a theological exegesis of Esther and Daniel. As with other volumes in the series, this book is ideal for those called to ministry, serving as a rich resource for preachers, teachers, students, and study groups.
- GenresReference
272 pages, Hardcover
First published July 1, 2013
7 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
About the author
Samuel Wells
137 books47 followersSamuel Wells (PhD, University of Durham) is vicar of St. Martin-in-the-Fields Anglican Church at Trafalgar Square in London. He previously served as dean of the chapel and research professor of Christian ethics at Duke University. Wells is the author of several books, including Be Not Afraid, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics, and Transforming Fate into Destiny: The Theological Ethics of Stanley Hauerwas. He also coedited, with Stanley Hauerwas, The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
August 26, 2013
A volume in the Brazos Theological Commentary series placing two books that feature Jews adjusting to the situation of exile: Esther and Daniel.
The Brazos Theological Commentary series is a welcome concept: a commentary series focused less on the questions which scholarship generally finds most pressing (who wrote what, when, where, why) and more on making sense of the role of the texts in theology with a view to the history of interpretation of the text, especially within the Christian tradition.
The quality of this particular volume in the commentary was a bit uneven between the two authors, especially as to how they approached the endeavor. Part of the challenge involves the distinctiveness of the two books: sure, they are both set in the exile, but otherwise have very little else in common.
Esther: the author of the Esther commentary is in conversation with a lot of recent studies in Esther and uses them in many ways that can help understand the text.. The author sees the main story of Esther mostly in contrast with much of the rest of the presentation of God and Israel in its history: using realpolitik to eke out existence, deftly manipulating situations, confident in God's providence but not in direct acts as before, and sees the whole story as a grotesque exaggeration of exilic challenges and realities. Many of the thoughts are suggestive and prompt thinking but do not necessarily show a way forward of seeing how the book of Esther fits within the canon and the greater Judeo-Christian tradition and understanding.
Daniel: the author of the Daniel commentary does extremely well at setting aside all of the questions about authorship and setting and does a great job of understanding Daniel in its supposed context, as used in Judaism and early Christianity, and the history of interpretation, mostly Christian but Jewish as well, of the text and its applications. The author considers Daniel 7 as the means by which to understand the rest of the work and does well at expressing the power of God over and despite the nations and their activities. One idiosyncrasy of the work is the author's continual attempt at associating Daniel and its themes with missiology and a missiological focus, which no doubt can be found at some level but leaves one wondering whether it is the best lens through which to read Daniel.
Nevertheless, a fruitful resource through which to become more aware of the interpretations of Esther and Daniel and means by which to understand these texts in our own day.
**--book received as part of early review program, and galley reading was especially hindered by the absence of "ff," "th," and other letter clusters.
The Brazos Theological Commentary series is a welcome concept: a commentary series focused less on the questions which scholarship generally finds most pressing (who wrote what, when, where, why) and more on making sense of the role of the texts in theology with a view to the history of interpretation of the text, especially within the Christian tradition.
The quality of this particular volume in the commentary was a bit uneven between the two authors, especially as to how they approached the endeavor. Part of the challenge involves the distinctiveness of the two books: sure, they are both set in the exile, but otherwise have very little else in common.
Esther: the author of the Esther commentary is in conversation with a lot of recent studies in Esther and uses them in many ways that can help understand the text.. The author sees the main story of Esther mostly in contrast with much of the rest of the presentation of God and Israel in its history: using realpolitik to eke out existence, deftly manipulating situations, confident in God's providence but not in direct acts as before, and sees the whole story as a grotesque exaggeration of exilic challenges and realities. Many of the thoughts are suggestive and prompt thinking but do not necessarily show a way forward of seeing how the book of Esther fits within the canon and the greater Judeo-Christian tradition and understanding.
Daniel: the author of the Daniel commentary does extremely well at setting aside all of the questions about authorship and setting and does a great job of understanding Daniel in its supposed context, as used in Judaism and early Christianity, and the history of interpretation, mostly Christian but Jewish as well, of the text and its applications. The author considers Daniel 7 as the means by which to understand the rest of the work and does well at expressing the power of God over and despite the nations and their activities. One idiosyncrasy of the work is the author's continual attempt at associating Daniel and its themes with missiology and a missiological focus, which no doubt can be found at some level but leaves one wondering whether it is the best lens through which to read Daniel.
Nevertheless, a fruitful resource through which to become more aware of the interpretations of Esther and Daniel and means by which to understand these texts in our own day.
**--book received as part of early review program, and galley reading was especially hindered by the absence of "ff," "th," and other letter clusters.
October 20, 2019
I completely disagreed with the approach this commentary took.
The authors teach the book of Esther as an allegorical novella where King Ahasurus is a parody of God showing that his ways "seem arbitrary, God’s faithfulness seems unreliable, and God’s judgment seems fragile" (Kindle loc. 1432). The feast of Purim is a parody of the Passover which is a "a celebration of luck, and chance, and coincidence, and of human endeavor, humor, irony, and wit" (loc. 1432). They also see the story as a parody of the fall of Adam (loc. 1405). Since they don't take the book as literal history, they make claims like: "When it turns out in Esth. 9 that 75,000 fell in a single day, the enormous number sits more easily alongside the other overblown dimensions of this fairy-tale story" (loc. 1852).
What I found most troubling was the low view of God. In addition to the quote above they also say, "Ahasuerus himself is learning from the example of the Jews. Perhaps God may too" (loc. 2159). Claiming that God can learn anything takes stabs at many of God's attributes. His sovereignty is also called into question: "The key moment—the date of the Jews’ destruction—is decided not by providential intervention, not by hostile action, but by lot—the epitome of chance, even fate. Once again this seems a bitter demonstration of what it means to be a Jew in Diaspora Persia. One’s destiny is a matter of chance and whim" (loc. 1189).
Going in, I didn't expect it to be great coming from Brazos, but it was an assigned text for my OT & Theology class at Moody Bible Institute. There were some helpful thoughts but the overall approach wasn't great. There's many better commentaries out there.
The authors teach the book of Esther as an allegorical novella where King Ahasurus is a parody of God showing that his ways "seem arbitrary, God’s faithfulness seems unreliable, and God’s judgment seems fragile" (Kindle loc. 1432). The feast of Purim is a parody of the Passover which is a "a celebration of luck, and chance, and coincidence, and of human endeavor, humor, irony, and wit" (loc. 1432). They also see the story as a parody of the fall of Adam (loc. 1405). Since they don't take the book as literal history, they make claims like: "When it turns out in Esth. 9 that 75,000 fell in a single day, the enormous number sits more easily alongside the other overblown dimensions of this fairy-tale story" (loc. 1852).
What I found most troubling was the low view of God. In addition to the quote above they also say, "Ahasuerus himself is learning from the example of the Jews. Perhaps God may too" (loc. 2159). Claiming that God can learn anything takes stabs at many of God's attributes. His sovereignty is also called into question: "The key moment—the date of the Jews’ destruction—is decided not by providential intervention, not by hostile action, but by lot—the epitome of chance, even fate. Once again this seems a bitter demonstration of what it means to be a Jew in Diaspora Persia. One’s destiny is a matter of chance and whim" (loc. 1189).
Going in, I didn't expect it to be great coming from Brazos, but it was an assigned text for my OT & Theology class at Moody Bible Institute. There were some helpful thoughts but the overall approach wasn't great. There's many better commentaries out there.
October 4, 2021
I appreciated the Daniel side of this commentary, and my rating only reflects that. I have not engaged in the Esther side at all, so my review should not be taken as an endorsement of that side of the commentary.
I appreciated the canonical approach of the Daniel commentary. It’s refreshing to work on the text as we have received it. The commentary is a theological one, so I think reviewers have been overly harsh on the missiological approach of the author. He makes his case well, and provides valuable understanding of the text of Daniel.
I appreciated the canonical approach of the Daniel commentary. It’s refreshing to work on the text as we have received it. The commentary is a theological one, so I think reviewers have been overly harsh on the missiological approach of the author. He makes his case well, and provides valuable understanding of the text of Daniel.
January 11, 2018
Very interesting reading especially about Daniel... A commentary that is not only "technical" but manage to put the scripture into a Christological framework. I re-discovered the importance et the powerful strength of Daniel in a Christian perspective.
March 4, 2024
[Esther only]
Irreverent, yet still insightful.
Irreverent, yet still insightful.
March 18, 2014
This volume is a welcome addition to the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible series. This series lies somewhere between exegesis and exposition. As the title suggests the theological issues are to the fore and this provides a fresh approach.
Samuel Wells, rector of St Martins-in-the-Field, London, takes a narrative view of Esther. Some commentaries concentrate on the leaves of a tree, Wells focuses on the forest. This is no atomistic approach. In his opening chapter he uses the terms farce, burlesques-style, a study in improvisation to describe it. This is no dry and dusty tome. He brilliantly opens up Esther and shows the book to be both far fetched and existentially urgent.
Wells is author of Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics and he also sees elements of improvisation within Esther. Intriguingly, he sees the key question of Esther as "How to navigate the dangerous waters of exile, between the two extremes of spineless assimilation and fruitless resistance?"
George Sumner is professor of World Mission at Wycliffe College, Toronto, and so inevitably and intriguingly the missional elements of Daniel are highlighted. As he writes in the introduction: "There is no missiology without Christology (and vice versa), even as there is no Christology without staurology." He, as does Wells, provides a Christological perspective on the text. He sees Daniel as a single coherent work - despite its redactional history. He takes a "circulatory system" approach, where a major artery runs directly from Daniel to Revelation and he rightly interprets the two books in relation.
Sumner does not suffer from chronological snobbery and he freely uses Calvin, Jerome, Melanchthon and others to help make sense of the text.
There is a subject index and a useful scripture index.
Of the making of commentaries there seems so end. So what fresh insights does this volume offer? The strength is that Wells provides a drama-tic setting to Esther and Sumner brings missional insights to the understanding of dabble. Both authors take seriously the Christological and canonical settings of the books. The weakness is that there is no common format. But then, perhaps that is a strength - each author is free to do what they would like and thus play to their strengths.
Samuel Wells, rector of St Martins-in-the-Field, London, takes a narrative view of Esther. Some commentaries concentrate on the leaves of a tree, Wells focuses on the forest. This is no atomistic approach. In his opening chapter he uses the terms farce, burlesques-style, a study in improvisation to describe it. This is no dry and dusty tome. He brilliantly opens up Esther and shows the book to be both far fetched and existentially urgent.
Wells is author of Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics and he also sees elements of improvisation within Esther. Intriguingly, he sees the key question of Esther as "How to navigate the dangerous waters of exile, between the two extremes of spineless assimilation and fruitless resistance?"
George Sumner is professor of World Mission at Wycliffe College, Toronto, and so inevitably and intriguingly the missional elements of Daniel are highlighted. As he writes in the introduction: "There is no missiology without Christology (and vice versa), even as there is no Christology without staurology." He, as does Wells, provides a Christological perspective on the text. He sees Daniel as a single coherent work - despite its redactional history. He takes a "circulatory system" approach, where a major artery runs directly from Daniel to Revelation and he rightly interprets the two books in relation.
Sumner does not suffer from chronological snobbery and he freely uses Calvin, Jerome, Melanchthon and others to help make sense of the text.
There is a subject index and a useful scripture index.
Of the making of commentaries there seems so end. So what fresh insights does this volume offer? The strength is that Wells provides a drama-tic setting to Esther and Sumner brings missional insights to the understanding of dabble. Both authors take seriously the Christological and canonical settings of the books. The weakness is that there is no common format. But then, perhaps that is a strength - each author is free to do what they would like and thus play to their strengths.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews