Featured MacArthur Study Bible….Are study Bibles a good idea?

Thanks McCree79! I was unaware that the phrase "kingdom of God" appeared so few times in the writings of John. In Revelation he uses "heaven" extensively to refer to the abode of God.

 

Will you please stop your sulking.:sleep:

 

Many are saying the Queen James is a good version, do you agree??

 

bumpedy bump bump

 

Sorry i didn'tsee your request before. This is a very long note, and one which is not conducive to typing on a tablet. I'll post it later tonight

 

Here is the commentary on John 3:5

3:5 born of water (Gk. hudor) and the spirit (Gk. pneuma): Of water has been interpreted as: (1) water baptism. But the NT teaches that one is born again at the point of faith, not baptism (Acts 10:43-47); (2) a synonym for the Holy Spirit. The phrase could be translated "born of water, even the spirit"; (3) a symbol of the Word of God (Eph. 5:26; 1Pet. 1:23); (4) physical birth; (5) John's baptism; or (6) a symbol, along with wind, in OT imagery for the work of God from above. The first three views are questionable since they must rely on future teaching in the Scripture which would not have been accessible to Jesus' listeners. For interpretation 4, the idea is that Nicodemus brought up physical birth (3:4) and Jesus went on to say, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" (3:6). If one could enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, he would still be flesh. This position is not likely since Jesus' words would be trivial and do not advance the argument. Options 5 and 6 are the better choices for the meaning of the statement. Option 5 is a viable one since Nicodemus would probably be familiar with John's baptism. Jesus would be saying that one must identify with and accept John's message (baptism) and then one would receive Messiah's baptism in the Spirit as John promised (1:31-33). This view has both historical and theological support. Christ emphasizes by v. 6 that there are two realms, that of the flesh and that of the Spirit. Humans cannot save themselves but must rely on God's Spirit to regenerate them. Option 6 relies on the translation of pneuma, wind or spirit. Under this view the Greek term should be understood as wind rather than spirit and thus serve alongside of water as symbols for spiritual truths similar to how these terms are used in the OT (for example, Is. 44:3-5 and Ezek. 37:9, 10). Jesus, then, is contrasting the things from below (earthly womb) from the elements of water and wind from above (the divine work of the Spirit of God). A teacher of Israel should understand such OT imagery. Nicodemus may have been challenged by Christ, since he was a teacher of Israel, to understand the questions of Prov. 30:3-5: (1)Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? (2) Who has gathered the wind in his fist? (3) Who has bound the waters in a garment? (4) Who has established all the ends of the earth? (5) What is His name, snd what is His Son's name? "Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him" (compare John 3:15, 16)

----- Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary, pp.1318-1319



Note: this is from the full commentary, and may be longer than the notes in the Study Bible




.

 

I just about forgot about a couple of really awesome online commentaries. Here is Bob Utley's entry for John 3:5


3:5 "unless one is born of water and the Spirit" This is another third class conditional sentence. There may be a contrast (so typical of John's writings) between
1. the physical versus the spiritual (no article with "spirit")
2. the earthly versus the heavenly
This contrast is implied in John 3:6.
The theories for the meaning of "water" are
1. the rabbis use it of male semen
2. the water of child birth
3. John's baptism symbolizing repentance (cf. John 1:26; 3:23)
4. the OT background meaning ceremonial sprinkling by the Spirit (cf. Ezek. 36:25-27)
5. Christian baptism (although Nicodemus could not have understood it that way, first mentioned by Justin and Irenaeus)
In context theory #3—John's water baptism and John's statement about the Messiah's baptizing with the Holy Spirit-must be the most obvious meanings. Birth, in this context, is metaphorical and we must not let Nicodemus' misunderstanding of the terms dominate the interpretation. Therefore, theory #1 is inappropriate. Although Nicodemus would not have understood Jesus' words as referring to later Christian baptism, John the Apostle often interjects his theology into the historical words of Jesus (cf. John 3:14-21). Theory #2 would fit John's dualism of above and below, God's realm and the earthly realm. In defining these terms one must determine whether they are contrasting (#1 or #2) or complementary (#4).
D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, mentions another option: that both words refer to one birth, an eschatological birth following Ezek. 36:25-27, which describes the "new covenant" of Jer. 31:31-34 (p. 42).
F. F. Bruce, Answers to Questions, also sees Ezekiel as the OT allusion behind Jesus' words. It may even have been a reference to proselyte baptism, which Nicodemus, a noted rabbinical teacher, must also do! (p. 67).
▣ "the kingdom of God" One ancient Greek manuscript (i.e., MS א) and many church fathers, have the phrase "the kingdom of heaven," which is common in Matthew's Gospel. However, the phrase "the kingdom of God" occurs in John 3:3 (John 3:3 and 5 are the only places this phrase appears in John). John, writing to Gentiles (as do Mark and Luke), does not use the Jewish circumlocutions for God's name.


Find it at
http://www.freebiblecommentary.org




.

 

Here is Thomas Constable's entry for John 3:5

Again Jesus prefaced a further affirmation with the statement that guaranteed its certainty. "Entering the kingdom" and "seeing the kingdom" (v. 3) seem to be synonymous terms, though the former may be a bit clearer. There are several views of the meaning of being "born of water and the Spirit." The verse and its context contribute much to our understanding of this difficult phrase.
Whatever its meaning, "born of water and the Spirit" must be synonymous to being born "again" or "from above" (v. 3), since Jesus used this phrase to clarify the process of the "new birth" for Nicodemus. Second, the definite article translated "the" before "Spirit" is absent in the Greek text. The English translators have inserted it to clarify their interpretation of "spirit" (Gr. pneuma) as the Holy Spirit. A more literal translation would be simply "born of water and spirit." Third, the construction of the phrase in the Greek text indicates that the preposition "of" governs both "water" and "Spirit." This means that Jesus was clarifying regeneration by using two terms that both describe the new birth. He was not saying that two separate things have to be present for regeneration to happen. It has but one Source. Fourth, Jesus' criticism of Nicodemus for not understanding these things (v. 10) indicates that what He taught about the Source of regeneration was clear in the Old Testament.
The only view that seems to be consistent with all four of these criteria is as follows. The Old Testament often used water—metaphorically—to symbolize spiritual cleansing and renewal (Num. 19:17-19; Isa. 55:1-3; cf. Ps. 51:10; Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Zech. 14:8). God's spirit (or Spirit) in the Old Testament represents God's life (Gen. 1:2; 2:7; 6:3; Job 34:14). God promised that He would pour out His spirit on people as water (Isa. 32:15-16; Joel 2:28-29). The result of that outpouring would be a new heart for those on whom the Spirit came (Jer. 31:31-34). Thus the revelation that God would bring cleansing and renewal as water, by (means of or effected by) His Spirit, was clear in the Old Testament. Jesus evidently meant that unless a person has experienced spiritual cleansing and renewal (empowerment) from God's spirit (or Spirit), he or she cannot enter the kingdom. This is what He meant by being "born from above" or "again" (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11).201
Another view proposed by many scholars is that "water" is an allusion to the amniotic fluid in which a fetus develops in its mother's womb. Other scholars see it as a euphemistic reference to the semen, without which natural birth is impossible. In either case, "water" refers to physical or natural birth, while "spirit" refers to spiritual or supernatural birth.202 These proponents claim that Jesus was saying that natural birth is not enough—that one must also experience supernatural birth to enter the kingdom. However, this use of "water" is unique in Scripture. This view also assumes that two births are in view, whereas the construction of the Greek phrase favors one birth rather than two. If two were in view, there would normally be a repetition of the preposition before the second noun.
Another popular view is that "water" refers to the written Word of God, and "spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit. This figurative use of "water" does exist in the New Testament (cf. Eph. 5:26), but it is uncommon in the Old Testament. It is unlikely that Nicodemus would have associated water with the Word of God, and it would have been unfair for Jesus to rebuke him for not having done so. This view, as the former one, also specifies two separate entities, but again, the Greek text implies only one as the source of regeneration.
Some commentators take the "water" as an allusion to water baptism, and the "spirit" as referring to the Holy Spirit.203 According to this view, spiritual birth happens only when a person undergoes water baptism, and as a result experiences regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Some advocates of this view see support for it in the previous reference to water baptism (1:26 and 33). However, Scripture is very clear that water baptism is a testimony to salvation, not a prerequisite for it (cf. 3:16, 36; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5). In addition, this meaning would have had no significance for Nicodemus. He knew nothing of Christian baptism. Furthermore Jesus never mentioned water baptism again in clarifying the new birth to Nicodemus.
Others have suggested that the "water" could be a reference to the repentance present in those who underwent John's water baptism, and the "spirit" is an allusion to the Holy Spirit.204 In this case, repentance as a change of mind is necessary as a prerequisite for salvation. According to advocates of this view, Jesus was urging Nicodemus to submit to John's baptism as a sign of his repentance, or at least to repent. The weakness of this view is that the connection between water and repentance is distant enough to cause misunderstanding. Nicodemus' response (v. 9) expressed lack of understanding. If the connection between water and John's baptism were that clear, he would not have responded this way. It would have been simpler for Jesus just to say "repentance" if that is what He meant. Repentance, however, in the sense of the fruit of a mental change, is not necessary as a conditional prerequisite for salvation, since by that definition repentance is a meritorious work.
Some scholars believe that "water" refers to the ritual washings of Judaism, and "spirit" to the Holy Spirit. They think Jesus was saying that Spirit birth, rather than just water purification, is necessary for regeneration. However, Jesus was not contrasting water and spirit but linking them.
Finally, at least one writer understood that when Jesus said "spirit" He meant it in the sense of wind (Gr. pneuma), and used it as a symbol of God's life-giving work.205 This view holds that the "wind" is parallel to the "water," which also symbolizes God's supernatural work of regeneration. However, this is an unusual, though legitimate, meaning of pneuma. In the immediate context (v. 6), pneuma seems to mean "spirit" rather than "wind." This fact has led almost all translators to render pneuma as "spirit" rather than as "wind" in verse 5, even though it means "wind" in verse 8.


Constable's commentary on John is slmost 400 pages


Find it at
http://soniclight.org

Then click "study notes"




.

 

Thanks JamesL! While the point or points addressed in the first part of T. Constables commentary were mentioned in others, he put it in a coherent argument (or it took me reading it several times).

I find it compelling:

And I like it that Nelson's commentary/study note also endorsed the same option.

 

You're welcome, Van.

It's always nice to find some agreement with our views. One thing I like about all three of those commentaries is that they try to go to great lengths to present multiple views as objectively as they can

 

Would say that there is a real danger in one using any study notes of a study bible, or any commentary for that matter, as being the primary and firest source of what the bible states, as we need to do diligent stidies ourselves first, and THEN use study notes and commentaries!

And Scofield/Ryrie/MacArthur et all are all good authors, but NONE of them are "thus sayith the lord"

 

For some, study Bibles are a good initial tool in getting God's Word into our hearts and minds. I used a study Bible in the beginning of my taking the Bible and my faith seriously (some 25 years ago) though I have been a Christian for over 45 years. It got me to dig further than superficial reading of the Bible and further than just reading the study footnotes, and further than just reading through commentaries.

I read / study several translations now, but generally used my KJV that my beloved wife bought for me about 30 years ago (which has many old notes scribbled into it by me from a time even before my serious study and the use of other study Bibles). I am not KJVO. But it is the most familiar translation and the errors / difficulties in the translation as all translations do (the Word of God itself being infallible, of course) are all known from 400 years of circulation and scrutiny. It also gets me to dig into the text meaning when I come across phrases or words I am uncertain of (King James English and all). Keeps me from getting lazy.

But the ultimate starting point and I would say even better than the things we tend to equip ourselves with in our novice times... is:

2 Peter 1:20–21 (AV)
20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.



All scripture came in this manner (2 Timothy 3:16a). And just as a hologram is activated into 3D images that jump off the film when illuminated with the same laser light it was created, so the Word of God is illuminated by the same Holy Spirit who Authored the Bible through the writing prophets.


No study Bible or commentary could even come close to this. Would that we all started at 2 Peter 1:20-21.

 

Like any other tool, study bibles have a purpose. Use the tool correctly and the job gets done right and with a minimum of fuss. Use the tool incorrectly and the job may not get done at all. So it is with study bibles.

IMHO study bibles are kind of like sticking your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. It gives you a flavor for the passage. Nothing more. Study bibles should never replace sound study, but sadly, that is not always the case.

I use study bibles for apologetic purposes. It is always interesting to see what Ryrie and Scofield have to say, since they are my theological opposites.

 

An excellent response, Bro. JohnnyDBaptiste!

I've used various so-called "Study Bibles" (SB from now on in this post).

Some were good in some areas, but lousy in others.

Schofield is good in some areas, but incredibly off the deep end in others. And so are all the others, even MacArthur. It's always good to know from whence a SB's writer(s) comes.

If he's more of a Calvinist than you prefer to be, you probably won't agree with some of his interpretations. If he's "pre-mil," and you're, say, "a-mil," his notes on prophetic passages might not be all that you wanted them to be. And on it goes.

Imagine what a RCC SB would probably say about the Lord's Supper in I Corinthians? Or a person who's not an immersionist would tell you when it comes to a passage dealing with the mode of baptism!

So, yes, use a SB if you want to, but always remember its notes/comments aren't inspired or infallible. Only the text on which on which they're supposedly commenting is.

 

Buy thee CrossWay ESV SB. The notes in it are more in depth, and often other views are presented, especially when it comes to eschatology. But even the CAL vs. Armin debate gets equal presentation in many of the notes.

 

Buying a computer soon?

 

Many of their notes though would benefit you, and how about t eh notes form a "leaky Dispy" such as Dr Macarthur then?

 

The notes in the Niv Study Bible do a nice job in showing various ways to view certain verses, but still would say that both Ryrie and macarthur also have good notes...

they should be used with caution and discernemt, as none of them are inspired, much as some of us seem to have thought they were!