T. Desmond Alexander’s commentary on Genesis has been on my radar for many years now, back when the Exegetical Biblical Theological Commentary was owned by B&H before it was sold to Lexham and now to Baker Academic. All in all, this book was definitely worth the wait. Alexander is a well-known reformed biblical scholar whose primary focus is in the Old Testament, specifically that of the Pentateuch. His commentary, therefore, is packed full of his expertise in the area specifically with regard to his understanding of Ancient Near East culture.
The commentary is very accessible, especially since it does not confine the discussion of Hebrew terms to the footnotes, but the discussions do not become overwhelming. It has the feel of the EP Press Study Commentaries on the Pentateuch that were written by John Currid, in that they were both pastoral but also contained a great amount of depth. While it should not be the only commentary you grab when you are preparing a sermon or a lesson on the book of Genesis, it is very helpful and insightful.
While this commentary is worthy of praise, several issues need to be addressed.
1. I used it to prepare several sermons on Genesis, and was able to glean a great deal from it; however, it was unbalanced. The commentary heavily focuses on the first 25 chapters of Genesis, comprising more than 300 pages, while the last 25 chapters are only covered in about half the page length. That is not to say that they are not helpful to the person, but it felt more like the book was under a page restriction, and it could have been split into two volumes so that the second half of Genesis could get the same treatment as the first.
2. It seems that there are fewer and fewer books on Genesis which hold to a literal six-day 24-hour view of creation (which I hold to), and this book is no exception. In his treatment of creation, Alexander proposes a common, and to his credit a very well-argued view of the Cosmic Temple Framework. In his view, Genesis 1 is a narrative about God organizing the cosmos into His earthly sanctuary rather than a scientific account of material origins. In this, Alexander focuses on God assigning roles to each element of creation, culminating in God’s “rest” in the inaugurated temple. This also shapes his view of the age of the earth (Old Earth versus young-earth creationism).
That being said, while his view diverges from a literal 24-hour view, by treating the days as literary devices, he still solidly holds to creation being ex nihilo, and steadfastly argues for God’s sovereignty in all things, and humanity as image bearers.
3. In a day in which the issues of the historical Adam are always questioned, it was very refreshing to see Alexander defend Adam and Eve as real individuals and not purely symbolic or mythic figures. He holds steadfastly to the Fall in Genesis 3 being a literal event of human rebellion, and in Genesis 3:15 of God’s promises of the messiah who is Christ, as the grand thread of redemption.
4. In regard to authorship, Alexander thankfully rejects the classical documentary hypothesis (JEDP), but he does not argue for Mosaic authorship either. He rejects that Moses was the sole dictator, but maintains that Moses is the foundational source, primary authority, and central figure behind the Pentateuch. Furthermore, while Alexander does not hold to sole Mosaic authorship, he does hold the foundational view that Genesis, as well as all of God’s Word, is inerrant and infallible.
Overall, this commentary was exceedingly helpful as an academic resource and a practical tool in sermon preparation. While there are a few negatives, as noted, the commentary is a great tool in preparation for sermons and lessons. I would suggest that if a person holds to a literal six-day view of creation, that they use another commentary when preparing lessons, but read this commentary alongside it so you can understand the arguments for other views.