I am looking to purchase a bible commantary, i am sure somebody has had some experience with a good one in the past. which one should i get?? which one is more accurate?? I have seen the Matthew Henry one and John Wycliffe and a few others. I just dont know enough about them. if anybody can help that would be great. thanks and Keep going after Jesus.NICK
In general, commentaries covering a single book or pair of books are better than a Bible commentary itself.If you would like to save money, just get a computer Bible suite (Online Bible, which is free, for example) that includes (usually older) commentaries. Personally, I can't stand Matthew Henry's commentary. John Gill's isn't bad, but one has to overlook his hyper-Calvinism.The best full-Bible commentary is probably the Anchor Bible commentary, but it's fairly pricy. It has some definite weak spots, but it's good in general. I'm sure some others have thoughts as well.
Jason, what exactly would you describe as hyper-calvinism....? thanks scott
Gill, for one thing, denied that preachers had any right to offer Christ to unregenerate sinners.This is in accord with "hyper-Calvinism," which essentially holds that God is responsible for the salvation of the elect, so it is worthless to really try to do anything -- our efforts will invariably fail and he'll save who he wants to save regardless.Here's a link with some information on hyper-Calvinism (and its effects on missions):http://library.sebts.edu/sprescott/Spring%202003%20HIS%20302/4.03.01%20-%20The%20Birth%20of%20Modern%20Missions.htm
Hi JasonSounds as if you had some bad experiences with Matthew Henry! Charles Spurgeon used to advise his students thus:"Get a copy of Matthew Henry. If you can't afford it, sell your coat and preach in your shirtsleeves!"Like lots of older commentaries and books it is slow going but there is gold in Matthew Henry! How about this bit? from his comments on the creation of the woman..That the woman was madeof a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him,nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to beequal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to bebeloved.
Hi NickIn the UK the IVP used to publish a single volume commentary "The New Bible Commentary". I would recommend a second hand copy at least 30 years old. Modern evangelical scholarship in the UK has become more and more liberal.What kind of commentary are you looking for?Devotional: Matthew HenryAcademic: New Bible CommentaryCampbell Morgan preached through most of the New Testament and he is my favourite bible expositor. From time to time his works are reissued.
I agree that there are some good things in Henry's commentary. My problem with him is several-fold, however. First of all, he misses a lot of obvious comment-worthy material. Secondly, he was a cessationist, which means that he had a weak foundation for a solid overall theology. This is reflected often in his commentary. Thirdly, as you said he's "slow going" ... I don't mind volume (Gill's commentary is one of the longest), but I do mind worthless chatter. Every time I use his commentary, I end up saying something to the effect of: "For goodness' sake Mr. Henry, say something worthwhile and do it economically!"(I have been corrected; Henry was not a dispensationalist as I put earlier. Sorry for the mistake.)
Henry was not a dispensationalist, and, btw, he had a solid overall theology....from whence cometh your animus ?
I have no particular animus for Henry; I just think his commentary is poor.
I'll shoot straight with you, Jason. I think the Lord may be leading you into some subjects and you may be kicking against the goads a bit. ;)God bless,Karsten
I doubt that is the case with Mr. Henry's commentary (it really isn't good enough to have goads), but if that is the case elsewhere, we will certainly find out.I should also add that another issue that I have with Henry is the same thing that Wilkerson has said about Spurgeon (who was good in his own right):"I think Spurgeon's candy cotton. I can't get anything out of him."I feel this way about a majority of Henry's commentary; most of it is fairly obvious material. At least with Gill or a better commentary one gets some historical benefits and backgrounds to the passages and (generally) decent linguistic analysis of the passage.
Might you consider Adam Clark, if you can find an unabridged milti-volumn set. Also e-sword.net has most of the for mentioned sets, and it is a free download.In His service,GWB
Sounds as if you had some bad experiences with Matthew Henry! Charles Spurgeon used to advise his students thus:"Get a copy of Matthew Henry. If you can't afford it, sell your coat and preach in your shirtsleeves!"Like lots of older commentaries and books it is slow going but there is gold in Matthew Henry! How about this bit? Or how about this one: George Whitfield told some of his disciples or people he was teaching once to read matthew henry's commentary on there knees at least once straight through.I just think his commentary is poorWell Jason, I have to disagree comparing what is out there I think in some ways he ranks among the best. But I do agree with you on the point that he was a 'cessationist' which would weaken and diminish some of his comments on scripture. I throughly enjoy his comments on the gospels, especially matthew 25! (the 3 end time parables)."I think Spurgeon's candy cotton. I can't get anything out of him."Not to be cutting at all, but possibly Spurgeon was over wilkerson's head at the time.I remember hearing a sermon story (possibly the same sermon you got the above quote from) told by wilkerson: that he recieved a copy of William Gurnall's Christian in Complete Armor from Leonard Ravenhill and after 15 pages being read he cried and wailed realizing that this man Gurnall had a far better knowledge and depth of relationship with Christ then He did. So he determined to go to the prayer closet to seek God Himself.Might you consider Adam ClarkHe was a methodist and was around John Wesley. any thoughts on this volume brethren?
Wilkerson's comment was made a long time after the event with Gurnall's writings.He went on to say that he preferred the "deeper English teachers" like Sparks. I have similar feeling.
He went on to say that he preferred the "deeper English teachers" like Sparks. I have similar feeling.Howdy Jason,Wilkerson does like John Owen, (and if anybody ever tried to read John Owen)...The Death of Death in the Death of Christ :-) God bless, brotherKarsten
I have probably gotten more out of my Jamison, Faucet, and Brown commentary than any others I have used. www.searchgodsword.com has many good ones for free.Spurgeon said something like "if you studied it carefully you would never have need of another commentary." But that might not impress everyone here. ;-)
Here's a Spurgeon quotation that will get approval from all parties."read the bible' he told his students 'it throws great light on the commentaries"
Perhaps this is a clue to our different perceptions. There are different kinds of commentaries, some are devotional, to apologetic, some dogmatic, some academic. In the right setting each has its own place and contribution to make.We should also distinguish between teaching and preaching. If you like AWTozer's preaching try his 'Knowledge of the Holy'. His preaching will rouse you to action and decision, his writing will bring you to worship.
"read the bible' he told his students 'it throws great light on the commentaries"Here's another quoted by one of our pastor's this past Sunday (and possibly not original with him)"Let us keep in mind that we all misinterpret scripture differently" Bryce Jessup
This discussion is locked.
