Nike Sweater Schwarz M

Marsoni

M251S

$36.90

Get it in 3 business days with 1 day shipping. Friday, May 29

Nike Sweater Schwarz MSchwarzer Sweater der Marke Nike.

Easy Shipping

Quick Dispatch:

Your Nike Sweater Schwarz M orders ship within 1-2 business days.

Delivery Options:

Standard: 3-7 business days
Fast: 2-3 business days
Express: 1-2 business days

Order Tracking:

You'll receive a tracking link by email once your Nike Sweater Schwarz M ships.

Need Help?
Questions about Nike Sweater Schwarz M, sizing, or delivery? We're just an email away.

Live Shipping Estimates:
Enter your location at checkout to see available shipping methods and costs for Nike Sweater Schwarz M in your area.

Get Shipping Estimates

Country Zip/Postal Code

Exchange/Return Notes

We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy

I won't write an exhaustive review, but I can easily commend this commentary to any seminary student by saying this: it goes into my pile of reference books for nearly every paper I write, on any subject. It's always relevant. If I'm dealing with any New Testament text, it's worth looking up in this commentary to see if it has an OT basis, if it's an allusion, a quote, or something similar. This adds dimensionality and thoroughness to my treatment of the NT, putting it in perspective. There is a similar volume, which I use just as often, called 'Commentary on the Old Testament Use of the Old Testament.' For OT studies, I use it along with 'The Context of Scripture' (which is basically ANET with cross-indexed biblical passages and ancient texts). There have been a few times when I've followed the chain all the way from NT text -> NT use of OT -> OT text -> OT use of OT -> Context of Scripture. If you're a Bible nerd, you can imagine this is basically cause to run around the neighborhood six times shouting 'Hallelujah' while the neighbors scratch their heads or close their blinds. I use this book as much as NICNT for NT studies, which is to say, any time I study the NT. This commentary is amazing, it earns its footprint on my booksehelf. Absolutely recommend it.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on January 1, 2026

Verified Purchase

Brian

Cuba, US

★★★★★ 5

A much needed resource!

Format: Hardcover

A phenomenal and much needed resources for the church today! I am delighted that it is now part of my theological library.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on March 2, 2026

Verified Purchase

InHisHand

Whiting, US

★★★★★ 5

Pastoral Use of Beale's and Carson's Commentary

Format: Hardcover

This book was properly NOT entitled "Commentary on the New Testament Exegesis of the Old Testament." It is a well studied and scholarly look at how the New Testament writers made USE of the Old Testament Scriptures. And they did make use of those Scriptures is varied and instructive ways. Beale and Carson have compiled and edited articles from numerous trustworthy believing scholars which explain where, how, and why specific passages of Old Testament texts were employed by NT authors. These articles are careful to cite OT and NT contexts, predominant Middle Eastern scholastic thought prior to the 1st Century, and provide an analysis of what style was likely being used by the NT author (for example: typology, compare / contrast, poetic / emotive, prophetic fulfillment, simile, and at times even exegetical / interpretive). Such varied approaches by the NT authors to acquiring and working with OT passages begs the question of whether we ought to handle the OT in the same manner as did they. This commentary fairly well states that the answer is, "Yes...but." Yes, if we were to be as careful as they in understanding that we are not always merely quoting and interpreting the OT nor making absurd allegories of the OT texts but using them as instructive examples, poetic bursts of emotion, and historical typographic illustrations then we should indeed use the OT in the same way. Often the articles and entries in the commentary are long. This is not a dictionary and does not lend itself to quick reference lookups. Such attention to detail and depth enhances the experience of using this volume as it unearths elements and aspects of the Old Testament references that we rarely attempt to see from a 1st Century perspective today. Its overall format is rather straightforward. Identify a NT passage and look it up in the commentary in the passage's traditional Protestant biblical order. Generally only OT passages that are directly quoted, paraphrased, alluded to, or cited by the NT are expanded upon in the commentary. If an OT passage is merely somewhat similar to or has only surface resemblances with an OT passage (giving one the feeling that it is being brought to mind for evocative or emotive reasons alone) then the commentary may not touch on it. In general this is a very useful collection of articles. Its heart is not on being a commentary on the entire New Testament but is focused most narrowly on how the New Testament writers put the Old Testament to work to illustrate Jesus as the Christ, the evils of rebellion and sin, and the complex intricacies of God's epic sweeping salvific plan for humanity.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on September 28, 2012

Verified Purchase

Shane

Carnegie, US

★★★★★ 4

Good, But Realize Its Limits

Format: Hardcover

I agree with the other reviewers who spoke highly of this resource. It is a fine resource for NT studies. However, realize that it isn't really a commentary like most of us are used to (in my opinion, the title is a little misleading). Rather, it is only a commentary on the NT texts that clearly quote OT texts. The book does not comment on entire NT books, but only some select verses. For example, I used this book studying Mark and it only discussed around 30 phrases from the Gospel of Mark - those verses in Mark that are clear OT citations. I wasn't able to use it in Mark studies as much as I had hoped. I realize this is what the book is supposed to do, and it does it very well. Just remember it won't be useful for NT texts that aren't OT quotes. This isn't a critique, just an observation for those interested. You won't be able to use this resource all the time, but it's helpful for those NT texts where an OT citation is found. FYI, I gave it 4 stars instead of 5 because the citations in the articles are not footnotes, but contained in the articles themselves [It looks like this: (eg. R.P. Martin 1974: 97; O'Brien 1982: 151; Hubner 1997a: 91; Gnilka 1980: 168; Barth and Blanke 1994:357, etc.)]. Some citations are very lengthy, which makes it quite cumbersome to read at times. Also, this is subjective I suppose, but I didn't like the font at all (it seemed too tight). All in all, this is a good book for what it does - just realize what it does before you buy it and you won't be disappointed.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on May 22, 2013

Verified Purchase

Eric Stampher

Phoenix, US

★★★★★ 5

Can't ask for more, but I want more.

Format: Hardcover

Really, this is just a start. Any commentary is. But this is one of the best because it proceeds from a radical premise: the whole Bible is from God, giving His point of view and superceding that of the human author. Not that this is promoted self-consciously or consistently from each contributor. But the structure of the enterprise is such that they are sucked back into presenting how it is that the old testament is so thoroughly imbued in NT writings, including in ways which both OT and NT writers could not have intended. Treading down this path forces us to question all those teachings we've had where we were told: "Matthew (or Paul or John ...) here had in mind xyz." When Matthew wrote his gospel, we might now surmise that we can't be sure what he himself had in mind, because what we wrote was superintended to the degree that Matthew's sinful thoughts were NOT what ended up on parchment. God's thoughts are there, pure and untainted by Matthew's natural limitations and sin. Attempts to work from Matthew's sinful thoughts and culture to God's meaning miss the point that whatever Matthew was in his head was NOT the end product that flowed out his quill. Remember when Caiaphas spoke what he thought naturally about how it is better for one man to die rather than the whole nation take a hit? He meant it for evil, but God superintended it to be ultimate truth, regardless of that speaker's intent. Same with all holy writings. Yes, holy men of old spake as they were moved, but their holiness does not naturally come out in uncontaminated speech -- that takes a special work of God. This commentary allows for that premise. There's something way more than human going on that ties this whole Bible together in one theme from one Writer. Don't get me wrong, not all these contributors seem to subscribe to my radical conclusions above, although I think the editors do. And their prescribed structure for this commentary nudge the contributors into a path that I think leads to a more theocentric authorship. So this is a good start, but nothing beats trying to read the Bible itself from God's point of view, rather than the hallowed and misguided grammatial-historical human focused approach.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on April 6, 2008