What do you think?
Rate this book
552 pages, Hardcover
Published January 20, 2026
2 people are currently reading
8 people want to read
About the author
T. Desmond Alexander
46 books65 followersT. Desmond Alexander (PhD, The Queen’s University, Belfast) is senior lecturer in biblical studies and director of postgraduate studies at Union Theological College in Belfast, Ireland. He is the coeditor of the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 23, 2026
TD Alexander really helped me see the Christological themes of the OT in his book The Servant King. I had been Dispensational growing up but this book helped me understand the whole Bible more clearly. For that I will always be grateful. I have come to realize over the years that Alexander’s hermeneutic is actually a bit bland, especially compared to other biblical theologians that far surpass him. Additionally, Alexander is an academic with academic sympathies. I would categorize this commentary as both bland and bothersome for the following reasons:
Alexander laments a low view of Scripture by liberals but proceeds to deny sole Mosaic authorship because the idea is too grandiose. He shows no concern for literal six day creation. Somehow, he makes no mention of Jn 1:1 at all despite the supposed biblical-theological focus of this commentary. He denies the existence of an Adamic Covenant. Despite living in a day and age where nuclear families are crumbling and millions of babies have been murdered in the womb, he affirms an egalitarian and feminist sympathizing view of gender roles at creation while still managing to blame Adam for not stopping Eve from eating the fruit. Which is it? Does he have the authority to be responsible or is it the egalitarianism he spoke of? This point would have been clarified and corrected had Alexander actually spoken of the quote of Gen 2 in Eph 5, but that would have required him acknowledging egalitarianism is erroneous. Alexander has major liberal sympathies and offers little fresh insights to Genesis given his milquetoast hermeneutics. I give two stars because there are a few helpful points. I would recommend holding out for Dempster’s forthcoming commentary on Genesis if you’d like a new one.
Alexander laments a low view of Scripture by liberals but proceeds to deny sole Mosaic authorship because the idea is too grandiose. He shows no concern for literal six day creation. Somehow, he makes no mention of Jn 1:1 at all despite the supposed biblical-theological focus of this commentary. He denies the existence of an Adamic Covenant. Despite living in a day and age where nuclear families are crumbling and millions of babies have been murdered in the womb, he affirms an egalitarian and feminist sympathizing view of gender roles at creation while still managing to blame Adam for not stopping Eve from eating the fruit. Which is it? Does he have the authority to be responsible or is it the egalitarianism he spoke of? This point would have been clarified and corrected had Alexander actually spoken of the quote of Gen 2 in Eph 5, but that would have required him acknowledging egalitarianism is erroneous. Alexander has major liberal sympathies and offers little fresh insights to Genesis given his milquetoast hermeneutics. I give two stars because there are a few helpful points. I would recommend holding out for Dempster’s forthcoming commentary on Genesis if you’d like a new one.
Displaying 1 of 1 review