Featured Commentaries?

I do not own an entire commentary set (I prefer to choose by individual commentary....but my method does not make for pretty book shelves). Each time I start to buy a set I hesitate because there will always be several that are not perhaps the best authors for a certain book. That said, I like the NAC, BECNT and the NIC (and they are pretty on a shelf, so I may have to order complete sets at some time in the future).

Probably the most important thing is to choose a commentary that reflects modern scholarship. I would stay away from the Gills, Calvins, and Wesleys, simply because they are out dated (not only do they do by nature fail to engage contemporary theological issues, but those authors were not privy to more recent discoveries, debates, and scholarship). While I read Calvin and Gill to Irenaeus and Martyr, I would shy away from using their works in studying the Bible itself (for example, some of their understandings of first century Judaism do not reflect what has been learned of that people). These simply are not up to the standard of modern commentaries (not that they expressed poor scholarship by any means , but that they did not have the resources that are now at hand).

 

Exposition of truth is typically never dated (although sometimes the questions asked are, but even they come around again....hence the value of historical theology). The insights that these theologians had are valuable, and they are true insofar as they reflect what is universally true in Scripture. No arguments here.

It would be interesting to compare what John Gill views of first century Judaism in light of the Qumran scrolls as this is both a debated and relevant topic (and several commentaries I have on Romans do engage this information). Oh wait... he had no idea they existed. It would be interesting to see what John Calvin had to say regarding the scope of the Atonement....(most of my commentaries consider various views on the scope of the Atonement).....oh wait...that was not a topic of his day. My comment that it is better to look for modern commentaries is not because dated commentaries present error, but that they have not adequately engaged information that have become available through modern history. John Gill offers nothing in terms of modern textual criticism, of the Jewish worldview in light of documentation discovered in the mid 20th century, of theological developments that are contemporary to the modern reader. Most commentaries, all good ones, will also take into account dated commentary as well - you do not have to toss Gill or Calvin to history in order to have more relevant information as they are often restated in modern commentary.

There is a reason that theology students are typically required to use as commentary sources only references within a decade or so from the research being performed (alongside original sources). To stick to antiquated commentary alone is a foolish mistake, not because of what the older commentators address but because of what they do not. And I do consider older commentary as well, but what I have found is that their views are typically represented in modern commentary. So like you, I appreciate John Gill and often turn to his commentary. But I also think that it would be a grave error to ignore modern scholarship.

*** 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.

2)Where did Gill engage literary discoveries of the 20th century in his commentary?

3) Where does John Calvin expound on Limited Atonement in contrast to Arminianism?

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?

 

I need to add this - it also depends on what type of commentary you are looking for. I was thinking more academic (the commentator exploring a comprehensive examination of various interpretations) rather than pastoral or denomination specific (the commentator giving and defending his position).


Sent from my TARDIS

 

No rebuttal, brother, but a clarification. From your reply I take it you have misunderstood my post. Please accept my apologies for my lack of clarity and allow me to explain. I should have said "critical" instead of "academic" and would have avoided the confusion.

No offense taken friend. The Pharisees were learned in their own traditions (and the traditions that they built upon tradition). I am not sure of your implication, unless you are questioning the appropriateness of commentaries like those of John Gill. I think that you have misunderstood my use of “academic” here, brother. I should have used "critical." But I mean "academic" as an adjective, not a noun. What I mean is that commentaries are distinguished between pastoral, popular, and critical. Critical commentaries are more "academic" in that they include various theories and interpretations for consideration and explanation.

Which would be more like a Pharisee, the commentators who tell you what a passage means or the commentaries that provide an explanation of how a passage has been interpreted? If you look at it that way, brother, then the pastoral commentators are more like a Pharisee than the critical. But my answer is neither. Both are valuable. I appreciate John Gill, John Calvin, and John MacArthur for their interpretations and explanations. But I also appreciate Darrell Bock, Andreas Kostenberger, David Allen, and Gordon Fee when it comes to study. When I am writing a sermon I tend to lean towards F.F. Bruce. Which you use at any given time depends on if want someone to explain the interpretive issues or just give you an interpretation. Both have a place.

My comments have nothing to do with seminary, but if you would like to start a thread on that topic many may participate. I do believe that churches are tasked at educating the congregation to include providing higher education when adequate. Is education a substitute for the Holy Spirit? No, of course not. But neither is ignorance His companion. We are commanded to study and towards edification (both personal and corporate). It'd be a good thread.

I will offer this in advance:

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)" as well as in Joshua 1:8; Psalm 119:11; Acts 17:11; Ephesians 6:11-17; 2 Timothy 2:15; Proverbs 2:1-2 and of course Deuteronomy 11:18-23).