Dr. Chris Miller and I have crossed paths through the years, but it’s been quite a while since we’ve had a real conversation. It was great to talk with him about his recent commentary on Matthew. You can join our conversation here. We’re also glad to take note of the commentary here on the site.
For this post, It’s appropriate that I disclose my background with regular baptist churches and schools. Dr. Miller and I first met “way back in the day” as post-graduate students at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake IN. I received a free copy of this book from the publisher. None of this will keep me from freely speaking my mind about this book.
• • • • • • •
Matthew and Luke are the two Gospels that tell the story of Christ’s birth and early years. During this Advent season, I hope you will look over our previous Christmas-related posts.
• • • • • • •
Regular Baptist New Testament Exposition Commentary
MIller’s Matthew commentary is the first published volume of The RBNTE commentary series from Regular Baptist Books, an arm of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Historically, English baptists took the name “regular” to distinguish their Calvinistic or particular baptist churches from Arminian or general baptist churches (now sometimes called “freewill” churches). Although less overtly Calvinistic than its predecessors, the GARBC’s statement of faith (1932) can be traced all the way back to the two London Confessions (1642&1689), via the Philadelphia Confession (1742) and the New Hampshire Confession (1833, 1853). We should note that the 1932 GARBC statement changed the New Hampshire’s brief, generic statement on eschatology into a detailed traditional dispensational approach. Read Robert G. Delnay’s discussion of this matter here. As we will see below, dispensationalism looms large when it comes to commenting on the Gospel According to Matthew.
Dr. Miller and Dr. Daniel Davey, the editors of the series, want each volume to represent four fundamental values:
- Orientation to the church. The series aims to edify the church with accurate teaching on each NT book.
- Conservative exegetical method. The series approaches the NT with a historical grammatical hermeneutical method
- Affordable pricing. The aim is to price each hardbound volume in the $40 range.
- Concise presentation. The goal is to keep each volume around 300 pages, although Miller’s Matthew volume stretches that a bit.
All of the RBNTE commentary volumes will present three perspectives on each passage:
- Overview. A concise overview that summarizes each passage in light of what precedes and what follows.
- Exposition. A careful explanation of the details of the passage, verse-by-verse.
- Reflection. Thoughts on the application of the passage to today’s readers.
The editors’ preface to each volume evokes John Calvin’s 1539 dedication of his Romans commentary to Simon Grynaeus, where Calvin speaks of a commentator’s task as writing with lucid brevity (perspicua brevitas) for the good of the church. Those of us who have labored through long, complicated commentaries and gained little of value for ministry will appreciate this approach!
Now let’s look specifically at Miller’s Matthew commentary.
Dr. Chris Miller’s Matthew Commentary
The commentary consistently exemplifies the four fundamental values mentioned above, and it’s true to the projected format. Miller writes clearly and concisely after digesting the work of other writers. Brief endnotes for each section provide additional information without getting in the way of the exposition of Matthew’s text. You will not find long discussions of Matthew’s relation to Mark and Luke, or competing views on exegetical issues, or color maps and visuals, or comparisons of Matthew to Josephus, Philo, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. You’ll get Miller’s moderately Calvinistic, baptistic, conservative evangelical exegesis and reflection. Remember lucid brevity? Miller gets right to the point, competently expounding Matthew for those who do not want the distractions typically found in what my friend Gary Meadors calls “data-dump commentaries.” Mission accomplished!
Back to dispensationalism, an important topic for GARBC pastors and many other conservative evangelicals. Matthew’s emphasis on the fulfillment of Old Testament pattern and prophecy attracted dispensational authors from the early days of the movement. Unfortunately, some of them broke Matthew off from the church because they viewed it as an apologetic to Jews who did not believe in Jesus. Others went into unfortunate bifurcations of law and grace (Matthew was mostly the former). Others erred by viewing the kingdom as exclusively future and drew speculative eschatological roadmaps purportedly based on the Olivet Discourse, Matthew 24-25. I’ve discusses such approaches here. How does Miller stack up in comparison to previous dispensational commentaries on Matthew?
Miller does not represent your grandfather’s dispensationalism. We can catch the eschatological flavor of this commentary by looking at some crucial kingdom-related texts:
- The Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12). MIller speaks of the Sermon on the Mount as the constitution for God’s already present, yet to be consummated kingdom. As citizens of the kingdom, believers already strive to manifest the character traits that will one day be normative on earth.
- The Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13). When believers pray for God’s kingdom to come, they long for present transformation of this sinful world that foreshadow the ultimate future coming of heaven’s values to the earth.
- The Unpardonable sin (Matt 12:22-32). Miller views the miracles of Jesus as evidence that the presence of the kingdom is near. We would differ with him at this point. Matthew 3:1 and 4:17 use language of nearness, but Matthew 12:28 uses language of presence. It’s not just that Jesus’ miracles hinted at a future kingdom. Rather, these miracles unmistakably demonstrated the present kingdom power of Jesus. That’s why attributing the miracles to Satan rather than to the Holy Spirit was unforgivable.
- The parables of the kingdom (Matthew 13). Miller recognizes that the parables speak about the present reception of the message of God’s kingdom, as well as about the future consummation of the kingdom.
- The Renewal of All Things (Matthew 19:28-30). MiIler takes Jesus’ teaching literally—the Twelve will rule over believing Jews in the world to come. This interpretation anticipates the parable of the tenants.
- The Parable of the Tenants (Matt 21:33-46). Matthew 21:42 is not about the church supplanting Israel as the people of God (supersessionism). Rather Jesus teaches that his disciples—not the Pharisees and Sadducees—will lead God’s people in the days ahead.
- The Olivet Discourse (Matt 24-25). Miller understands Matt 24:4-14 as a description of the church’s present history before the arrival of the end-times tribulation in 24:15-29.
- The Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20). In explaining the church’s impetus for mission, “all authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (28:18), Miller alludes to the fulfillment of Daniel 7:9-14 at Christ’s resurrection, not as a yet-future event.
There is no doubt that Miller presents a dispensational understanding of Matthew, one that affirms the fulfillment of God’s promises to his historic people Israel, not some sort of spiritual fulfillment in the church as the replacement of Israel. Yet this is not the Scofield Bible’s dispensationalism, or even Charles Ryrie’s dispensationalism. MIller wisely does not enter into old dispensational shibboleths, such as whether Matthew 24:36-41 is about the pretribulational rapture or about whether Matthew 25:31-46 happens before the millennium. You can decide for yourself how to categorize the commentary—Miller is happily not concerned with getting down in the theological weeds to re-litigate the old taxonomies.
“Writing books is endless, and much study wears you out”
Benjamin Chapman wrote somewhat cynically of commentaries in his New Testament Greek Notebook, first published way back in 1978. He spoke of commentators as “common taters,” who tell you things you already know and things you don’t need to know. He referred to some commentators as “happy fools who spin devotional drivel.” His point was that pastors must be diligent in their own study and reflection on the Bible, and not depend solely on commentaries to bail them out. Well said, amen!
Yet there are times when every diligent student of Holy Scripture comes to the point The Teacher makes in Ecclesiastes 12:12 (NLT above). We can wear ourselves out poring over biblical details, and have little energy left for living wisely in the fear of the Lord and teaching others to do likewise.
If that’s where you find yourself, Dr. Chris Miller’s exposition of Matthew is for you. You’ll find the exegesis to be enlightening without being mind-numbing, and the reflection to be realistic, not fluffy. I recommend it highly.
Join my conversation with Dr. Miller here if you’d like to learn more about him, his process in writing this commentary, and his hopes for how it can strengthen the church.
I can’t end without just a tad of shameless self-promotion. (Actually, I could, but I won’t) If Miller’s fine commentary whets your appetite for a more detailed study of Matthew, please consider my Matthew Commentary in the Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament.
• • • • • • •
Leave a Reply