The first volume of Steve Walton’s much anticipated WBC commentary on Acts 1–9:42 has now been released, with two more forthcoming. Walton serves as the senior research fellow in New Testament at Trinity College Bristol.

The WBC series, founded in 1977, represents a broadly evangelical series that offers a rich diversity of denominational allegiances and is meant to represent the best in biblical scholarship. WBC has several distinctive features, including: an extensive bibliography at the beginning of each section; the author’s own translation with notes; an introductory section covering redaction, genre, sources, and tradition; and finally, the most common aspect of a commentary, verse-by-verse interpretation.

Walton acknowledges his indebtedness to other scholars and their work on Acts yet seeks to be intentionally textually focused. He says the picture he has in mind for this commentary is of himself and various other scholars engaging with the Greek texts of Acts, which sits in the middle of the table (p. 86). Walton affirms that his approach to Acts is the belief that the book is fundamentally about God, “for its author presents the key moments in the story first and foremost as God’s actions” (p. 79). To understand God (or theology), however, he must engage in textual, syntactical, historical, literary, and social-scientific approaches. Unique to his approach is that he waits to discuss authorship, date, theology, and other items until the end of the third volume since he thinks it is best to discuss such things after reading through the book rather than in advance (p. 88).

Unlike Walton, I venture to give my general conclusion about his work at the beginning. I find Walton’s commentary one of the best in the space, a commentary that contains detailed exegetical, syntactical, and historical analysis. The first volume exhibits numerous strengths that will serve pastors and scholars for years to come.

First, Walton offers nuanced and erudite explanations of the Greek text. While Keener might do more with background work in his four volumes, I think this will become the “go-to” commentary for detailed exegetical analysis. One endorsement noted that Walton is a “master of exegetical conversation,” and many readers will likely agree. For example, on the Ethiopian eunuch he discusses why he takes a καί as continuative, a verb as passive rather than middle, a γάρ as coordinate rather than explanatory, and why he takes a genitive with ablative force. These comments are all found in the introductory notes, as he saves his main text for more general comments, but his general comments are still filled with meticulous analysis.

Second, Walton does not merely deal with grammar and syntax but integrates these realities into a larger knowledge of the book of Acts. For example, more recently there has been discussion of what ἤρξατο means when Luke says his first volume covered what Jesus “began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). Walton notes it could be a Semitic redundancy, denote the beginning of Jesus’s ministry, or imply that Luke’s second volume contains what Jesus continues to do. Walton concludes that because Jesus continues to act within the ongoing story of Acts, it likely implies that Acts is about the continued work of Jesus both in person and through his agents (pp. 108–9). Walton therefore does not merely base his comments on the nuances of grammar but a larger reading and knowledge of Acts.

Third, though the commentary is detail-oriented, Walton still integrates theological and structural comments that contribute to his reading. Though some might critique the work for focusing too much on the minutiae, Walton allows the minutiae to lead to larger conclusions about the text. He works from the conviction that one can only understand the big picture if one first patiently works through the details. Too often we begin with the big picture and neglect the hard work of detailed linguistic and historical analysis. Walton’s commentary is a welcome exegetical treasure trove.

Though Walton’s commentary will likely become a favorite for those who study Acts, I will note a few limitations. Some of these pertain to the WBC series, while others relate to Walton’s own work. First, though Walton promises to do theology and certainly theologizes more than many might expect for a commentary of this stripe, it still lacks the robust theological reflection that I believe commentaries deserve. To simply state that God is the main subject and not engage with systematic loci at key points seems to overpromise but underdeliver. For example, there is little discussion of what it means for Jesus to say that the Father has set the time of Israel’s restoration by his own authority in 1:7 (p. 124). What are the implications for Jesus’s authority in this statement? Is the will of the Father different than Jesus’s? Does Jesus know the hour of restoration? There are significant theological issues raised by this statement that are bypassed without comment.

Second, though each pericope ends with an “explanation” that concentrates on the big picture of each section, the detailed nature of this commentary left something to be desired in fronting the major points and literary flow of each section. This could have been because the “explanation” came at the end rather than the beginning of the section and thus did not allow readers to ascertain principles that would guide them through the details. Some might be frustrated with the attention to details and get lost in the weeds before they see the big picture.

Third, some pastors and scholars will find aspects of this commentary unnecessary. This speaks more to the nature of a commentary series developed in 1977 and the changing tides of scholarship than to Walton’s ability. For example, though Walton is brief and judicious with his comments on “sources” behind texts, the reality is that scholars have slowly lost confidence that we can accurately identify the sources behind a text and have become less convinced that the quest for sources should play a key role in interpretation. Additionally, the “delimitation of the pericope” or the “structure” can be at times helpful, but other times it was somewhat obvious. My deduction is that many will skip certain sections of this commentary and benefit from others. In short, the WBC has a structure, elements, and even an aesthetic that unfortunately dates it.

Overall, Walton’s first volume has met the high expectations. Though some will want to turn to shorter and more narratival/theological commentaries to supplement Walton, if they get stuck on a thorny exegetical issue Walton will be one of the first commentaries to turn to. In fact, in a time where people are looking for big picture comments, Walton reminds us to first look closely at the details before we build a framework that might distort the text rather than illumine it.