M. Daniel Carroll R.

M. Daniel Carroll R. dates Amos’ ministry in the latter years during the second quarter of the eighth century BC. The Biblical book that bears the prophet’s name was his message that heralded Yahweh’s sovereign judgment against the nations, and repudiated the distorted piety and societal injustice of Jeroboam II’s Israel. Carroll demonstrates particular sensitivity to the book’s literary design, thereby argues convincingly for the authenticity of the canonical text.

The commentary is preceded by 100-plus pages of introduction, itself an invaluable primer to understand the book and related latest research. Every verse of the text is given careful, even prodigious, exegetical and expository treatments. Different approaches and viewpoints are presented, and the preferred interpretations are judiciously elucidated. The theological imports of Amos’ message are reinforced throughout. Another helpful feature of this commentary is the copious bibliographic notes. There, Carroll scrupulously tabulates works of scholars, from the reformers to those of modern time, that represent different perspectives on almost every pericope. Consummate knowledge of available literature is apparent, a feat not unexpected from a scholar who has devoted close to 30 years to Amos research.

Carroll’s commentary on the book of Amos sits amongst the pinnacle of modern Biblical scholarship. What lies behind the exemplary erudition is a punctilious intellectual enterprise, one for which researchers, teachers, and students of generations to come should be grateful.… (altro)

If this is the best that Evangelical Christianity can do in urging Christians to abandon any thought of thinking there is something wrong with immigrants crossing into this country illegally, the argument will not be won biblically. This is a horribly one-sided approach, full of poor logic. From the opener where Carroll states that he doesn't want to use the phrase illegal alien because it is pejorative, but then turns around and calls groups he disagrees with "fringe" groups—as well as other pejorative titles—to the end where he basically shrugs off Romans 13 and says, "My argument up to this point makes that passage a moot point," the book is full of logical problems and sub-par exegesis. Granted it is for a lay audience, but I am unconvinced by his arguments.

That said, I am not unconvinced that Christians should be in the forefront of working on effective legislation in dealing with the immigrant issue in the U.S. Christians should be looking for ways to serve those around us, be hospitable, and share the gospel—something Carroll never seems to get around to. Instead he keeps talking about how many of these illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are Christians and how that should make a difference. Why?

I am hoping for a better argument out of the next book I read on this issue.… (altro)

If this is the best that Evangelical Christianity can do in urging Christians to abandon any thought of thinking there is something wrong with immigrants crossing into this country illegally, the argument will not be won biblically. This is a horribly one-sided approach, full of poor logic. From the opener where Carroll states that he doesn't want to use the phrase illegal alien because it is pejorative, but then turns around and calls groups he disagrees with "fringe" groups—as well as other pejorative titles—to the end where he basically shrugs off Romans 13 and says, "My argument up to this point makes that passage a moot point," the book is full of logical problems and sub-par exegesis. Granted it is for a lay audience, but I am unconvinced by his arguments.

That said, I am not unconvinced that Christians should be in the forefront of working on effective legislation in dealing with the immigrant issue in the U.S. Christians should be looking for ways to serve those around us, be hospitable, and share the gospel—something Carroll never seems to get around to. Instead he keeps talking about how many of these illegal immigrants (sorry, undocumented workers) are Christians and how that should make a difference. Why?

I am hoping for a better argument out of the next book I read on this issue.… (altro)