Hodder Commentary on Acts: Generally good but not handling the difficult questions

 From my Goodreads review: Salter provides a fairly comprehensive commentary on the Book of Acts, utilizing scholarship and historical accounts. It would be helpful for many to have a basic understanding of the earliest decades of The Way (the new Christian “church”). It’s easy to read and understand and answers many of the most common questions about this part of Christian scriptures.

Like many commentaries, but unlike the best ones, Salter does not present many contrary viewpoints or deal with the really difficult questions. For example, I found his view of Paul/Saul to be one of extreme reverence, almost making Paul infallible and equal to Christ. Such as Paul’s return to Jerusalem, recounted in Acts 20-21, he avoids how to interpret 20:22-23 with 21:4. In the earlier verses, Paul says he’s compelled by the Spirit (capitalized in most translations to show the deity). Or is he compelled in his own spirit? Because Paul admits that he’s been warned by the Holy Spirit—note the distinction—of the imprisonment and afflictions if he goes there. And then on his journey, Paul is greeted by church members in Tyre who proclaim that the Spirit (again, often capitalized) is indicating that Paul should not go to Jerusalem. Salter does not answer whether it’s the Holy Spirit in all three messages, or just the one so designated. The alternative is that Paul’s own spirit says, “Go” while the church leaders’ vibe (lower case spirit) is that Paul should not go. And the only divine message is one predicting his fate. Salter does not acknowledge that perhaps Paul’s hubris as the Great Evangelist compels him towards the Jewish capital. Salter only exalts Paul’s determination to suffer, if he must, for the cause. But what cause? Jerusalem already had plenty of apostles, evangelists, teachers. If death occurs in Jerusalem, as might be expected, it does not further any potential mission to Rome. 

In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and in the Gospels, we’re given portraits of many flawed people of faith who stumbled, imperfectly trying to live up to God’s expectations. I didn’t find anything like that in this commentary. Even Peter, who needs to be told three times in a vision to eat “unclean” (non-kosher) food (Acts 10), is viewed favorably in this commentary. Peter’s obtuseness or cultural reluctance or stubbornness is not mentioned (as is often found in commentaries)…or was he already open to new relationships, staying with a tanner (an awful, odorous job) because he had already communed with a tax collector and Zealot and a half-Jewish/half-Greek as fellow disciples?. Peter had already learned from the Christ how to relate to non-Jews: his spiritual brothers and sisters in the inner circle, throughout Samaria, the Decapolis, Tyre/Sidon, etc.. So what really is the lesson of Peter’s vision? Salter in some ways just gives us the Sunday School answer here. 

If you need a basic single volume commentary on the book of Acts, you can’t go wrong. But you might do better as well with a bit more thought.

I appreciate getting an advanced copy from the publisher.