Commentaries?

[JonC]

I believe that we should consider the Holy Spirit inspired text, 2 Tim. 3:16, specifically of Eph. 4:11ff and not discount the men of God whom He has placed in the body to teach.

Some have a penchant to malign these men, and then in turn call those who enjoy them as not getting their teachings from Scripture but only from men, a system, accusations that go to seed and ad nauseum. James 4:11 should be considered when one speaks derogatorily toward men who deserve double honor, 1 Timothy 5:17, and of those who employ them, note James 3:9.

Those who belittle such men of the past, and toward those who employ them I have little to no room for. The behavior is arrogant and unbiblical. In the multitude of counselors is safety, Proverbs 24:6. To say that I am discounting the Holy Spirit here would be a misnomer, for it is He who has placed such men in the church to teach. There is also His ministry to the individually, and personally, but Scriptures speak much more often of those men whom God has sent to others to teach them, and to whom others learn. It is all over Scripture and is safe.

An interesting aside, ever notice that those who do belittle these things rarely use Scriptures in their rebuttal, but employ much ideology and theory? Look around and see this is true brothers.

Exactly. Each generation of scholarship owes a debt to those who have gone before. While we insist that doctrine be built upon Scripture alone we also engage commentators and theologies to learn of their understandings and teachings as well as to test our interpretations and applications of God’s Word.

That is why through our interactions I have place so much emphasis on Scripture. We may turn to commentary, but we have to both start and end with the Word of God when it comes to our faith. But that is also why I’ve quoted men like Calvin, Owen, and Gill all the way to more contemporary men like F.F. Bruce, Joel Beeke, and J.I. Packer. Theology is not done in a vacuum. We do not take commentary as authoritative, but we have much to learn from these men.

You do have good points. I was unaware that there were some who refused to use Scripture while also denying the value of these scholars (I'm not accusing you of a "straw man argument" here, brother, but I have not seen this happen on this forum). Most people seem to have both Scripture and a few extra-biblical supports on their side.

 

[JonC]

Would you please divulge the best commentaries you know of? How do you know they are sound?

I have an ESV Study bible, which is decent and a good start. I also use the Matthew Henry commentary online. However, I really want to start studying each book of the bible and buy a commentary on it as I study... or maybe more depending.

I would also suggest a book on how to study your Bible. It sounds a bit odd as some may expect just to open the book up and start reading, or others that the Holy Spirit will take care of everything and study beyond mere reading the test is not biblical. But just as those in the Bible sought out teachers and explanations, so are we to do the same. Biblical study is not an easy task, and it shouldn't be.

But we can't find a more worthy object of study than God's Word, and it is worth the effort. What is different is the gulf of both time and culture that separates us from the first century. Here are a few resources along that line that may be of interest to you:

http://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Gods-Word-Hands--Interpreting/dp/0310492572/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454417985&sr=8-1&keywords=grasping+God's+word

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310517826/?tag=baptis04-20

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hermeneutical-Spiral-Comprehensive-Interpretation/dp/0830828265/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&dpID=51AECT9+rcL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107,160_&refRID=0HYBDNC1BJ7XDXV8TGNX

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0664223168/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[BrotherJoseph]

*** Edited: Noting my brothers who disagree (Brother Joe and Internet Theologian), I challenge you, friends, to prove me wrong.

1) Show me one instance where John Gill included in his commentary reference to the Qumran scrolls in regards to the first century Jewish view.


Obviously you cannot because while these are important theological issues and discoveries they are also beyond the scope of these commentators. As we continue I urge you to disagree and discuss the points others bring up instead of merely rating a "disagreement" without substance. My point stands - commentaries - both old and contemporary - are valuable tools in Christian study.

I only offered one point where you could disagree, and that is that it is an error to ignore modern scholarship as they benefit from contemporary discoveries, thought, and theological development. Are you really suggesting that we ignore men like Joel Beeke, F.F. Bruce, R.C. Sproul, John Piper, J.I. Packer as having nothing to contribute? Is this the substance of your disagreement?

Brother Jon,

Hello. No I never said I didn't believe "anyone in the last couple hundred years has contributed to teaching scripture" as you said in your private message to me, nor do I believe such. You bought up the fact that seminary students don't employ old commentaries as a basis of your argument that older commentaries written by men such as John Gill should not be utilized as much and implied are in some way less helpful than the newer commentaries, thus you suggested the brother looking for a commentary not use such older commentaries such as the one by Gill I suggested, therefore I sought to rebuttal your point you made on the basis of seminaries. I actually agree that newer writings can also contribute to our understanding of scripture. For example, recently a brother from my church gave me a book called "Manners and Customs of Bible Lands" written by Fred H. Wight in 1953. I understand there have been historical and archaeological discoveries of the various people from the times of the Bible that can be beneficial to our understanding of scripture.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

In regards to the Holy Spirit, it is important to understand that the Holy Spirit does not by special revelation implant knowledge into men. The Holy Spirit unveils truth, but never to the unfaithful who refuse to study (which is a disobedience in itself). The Spirit does not make valid interpretation automatic. Having the Holy Spirit does not mean that the Spirit is all we need. God expects us to use our minds, valid interpretive methods, and good study tools that He has made available to us through these scholars. The Spirit does not create new meanings or provide new information – the Spirit unveils. The cry "why seminary when we have the Holy Spirit?" is easily answered by "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17)" .

Hi brother,

I agree with you that the Holy Spirit does not implant special revelation to believers like he did in the apostolic age. I never argued that He does. He unveils His truth as we read the word of God. As far as the scripture you gave to support seminaries, "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.", if one is a "man of God" (by that meaning he has the Holy Spirit) and the scripture through the Spirit indeed makes such a man "thoroughly furnished", than I do not see how seminary can add to the "man of God" as one can not go beyond being "thoroughly furnished".

 

[JonC]

Brother Jon,

Hello.
No I never said I didn't believe "anyone in the last couple hundred years has contributed to teaching scripture" as you said in your private message to me, nor do I believe such. You bought up the fact that seminary students don't employ old commentaries as a basis of your argument that older commentaries written by men such as John Gill should not be utilized as much and implied are in some way less helpful than the newer commentaries, thus you suggested the brother looking for a commentary not use such older commentaries such as the one by Gill I suggested, therefore I sought to rebuttal your point you made on the basis of seminaries. I actually agree that newer writings can also contribute to our understanding of scripture. For example, recently a brother from my church gave me a book called "Manners and Customs of Bible Lands" written by Fred H. Wight in 1953. I understand there have been historical and archaeological discoveries of the various people from the times of the Bible that can be beneficial to our understanding of scripture.

Hey brother,

I think that our conversation (our PM) explained both of our views well. The reason I suggested modern commentaries (and will always suggest modern commentaries as a start) is that they address contemporary issues and interpretations while defending orthodox doctrine from modern errors and false teachings. I believe that we are responsible for guarding our doctrine against such things as Open Theism, emerging church doctrine, prosperity gospels, etc. Too often these things creep into otherwise orthodox doctrines. So my preference (and this is what we are talking about here) is to first make sure that we are guarding against what is creeping into our churches. Then we also look for commentaries to expound on doctrine (grow our faith). These would include both popular and critical commentaries.

My reasoning was not based on seminaries - that is where you misunderstood my point. That was my example. My reasoning is that the purpose of that restriction in graduate biblical study and research is to address these issues that are contemporary problems.

As I've stated, and you've no doubt noted, I have no problem at all incorporating these old and treasured commentaries (I've used Calvin, Gill, and Owen), nor do I have a problem incorporating contemporary scholarship (I've used Beeke, Piper, and Packer). I've also used both popular commentaries (MacArthur) and critical commentaries (Bock, Allen). And I've always held that we start and end with Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Hi brother,

I agree with you that the Holy Spirit does not implant special revelation to believers like he did in the apostolic age. I never argued that He does. He unveils His truth as we read the word of God. As far as the scripture you gave to support seminaries, "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.", if one is a "man of God" (by that meaning he has the Holy Spirit) and the scripture through the Spirit indeed makes such a man "thoroughly furnished", than I do not see how seminary can add to the "man of God" as one can not go beyond being "thoroughly furnished".

I understand. I think that you overstate (or understate?) the purpose of seminary as seminary does not go beyond being "thoroughly furnished." I understand why you would rightly be "on guard" against intellectualism and against people claiming to be superior over another based on a seminary education. Please also understand the flip side. Some are on guard against those who maintain a superficial apprehensive of God's Word and reject actually studying in depth and detail Scripture. Sometimes people have their tradition challenged and struggle to accept that Scripture itself is a complex topic that is more than enough to fill a lifetime of study. I am not saying that you belong to either camp, but neither do I. But insofar as seminary is concerned, it is an opportunity to equip men of God for purposes of God. It is not beyond biblical equipping, but is squarely within its contents. This is a continual process and seminary, while not an ultimate thing, is also not a negative thing. It is a time when students concentrate on the Word of God and explore their own theologies along side others. Granted, some may tend towards indoctrination (and that is perhaps dangerous) but there are also some very good seminaries out there. Unfortunately to an extent and with the professionalization of the ministry I think that sometimes churches are dropping the ball on biblical education and leaving it up to the seminaries.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Hey brother,

I think that our conversation (our PM) explained both of our views well. The reason I suggested modern commentaries (and will always suggest modern commentaries as a start) is that they address contemporary issues and interpretations while defending orthodox doctrine from modern errors and false teachings. I believe that we are responsible for guarding our doctrine against such things as Open Theism, emerging church doctrine, prosperity gospels, etc. Too often these things creep into otherwise orthodox doctrines. So my preference (and this is what we are talking about here) is to first make sure that we are guarding against what is creeping into our churches. Then we also look for commentaries to expound on doctrine (grow our faith). These would include both popular and critical commentaries.

My reasoning was not based on seminaries - that is where you misunderstood my point. That was my example. My reasoning is that the purpose of that restriction in graduate biblical study and research is to address these issues that are contemporary problems.

As I've stated, and you've no doubt noted, I have no problem at all incorporating these old and treasured commentaries (I've used Calvin, Gill, and Owen), nor do I have a problem incorporating contemporary scholarship (I've used Beeke, Piper, and Packer). I've also used both popular commentaries (MacArthur) and critical commentaries (Bock, Allen). And I've always held that we start and end with Scripture.

Hi again Brother Jon,

I too use both modern and older commentaries. I think is important to recognize outside of the writers of Holy Scripture, no man's writings are infallible (please understand I am in no way not implying that is what you were contending), that is one of the reasons I think it best to focus mainly on scripture alone. I find things I agree and disagree with in all commentaries, some more than others, just like for example in my posts here on the Baptistboard there are posts I have written from years ago that I wish I could now go back and delete LOL!

 

[kyredneck]

Pink is good but tends to spiritualize.

Can't have that, now can we? We need MORE of the letter that kills and less of the spirit that gives life, right?

 

[gemurdock]

I believe that we are responsible for guarding our doctrine against such things as Open Theism, emerging church doctrine, prosperity gospels, etc. Too often these things creep into otherwise orthodox doctrines.

Speaking of, my friend suggested Charles Finney to me the other week. As far as I can tell he seems like a very good, smart, and well meaning heretic.

 

[JonC]

Speaking of, my friend suggested Charles Finney to me the other week. As far as I can tell he seems like a very good, smart, and well meaning heretic.

Most of them seem to be that way.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[Greektim]

Has anyone mentioned or checked out http://bestcommentaries.com/ ???

I have spent some time in specific books of the Bible, so I can only do similar as the website and recommend certain commentaries from various authors and different series rather than just 1 author or 1 series.

 

[JonC]

Has anyone mentioned or checked out http://bestcommentaries.com/ ???

I have spent some time in specific books of the Bible, so I can only do similar as the website and recommend certain commentaries from various authors and different series rather than just 1 author or 1 series.

Thanks for the site. This is also how I choose commentaries. Each time I consider purchasing a complete series I reconsider as there are typically only a few individual commentaries that I really want of that series. I organize based on the books of the Bible each expounds upon, so individual books of a series will not typically be together.

Sometimes I am thankful for not having OCD traits as that would drive me crazy .....on second thought, I have spent a significant amount of time removing labels and their sticky residue from books (I can't stand labels on books) and I almost replaced a F.F. Bruce commentary because I somehow lost the dust jacket Frown.

 

[preachinjesus]

Has anyone mentioned or checked out http://bestcommentaries.com/ ???

I have spent some time in specific books of the Bible, so I can only do similar as the website and recommend certain commentaries from various authors and different series rather than just 1 author or 1 series.

I mentioned it in post #22, but it got wrapped around the fold so it probably is missed.