A question about bible commentaries

[Nathaniel]

I was reading in Romans and read Ro 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Then as I was thinking reading that verse it struck me, does this mean I should avoid Bible commentaries? As many of them have doctrine contrary to what I have learned such as infant baptism or in the case of the Matthew Henry Commentary as it was one of my favorites teaches salvation by baptism on 1Pe 3:21. Even if some of the information was useful, am I right in my train of thought that Galatians 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.? (not that that is a little leaven to me it is a lot). If i think no; I can glean through and pick the good would that not be against 1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.? As you can probably tell for hours I have been searching scripture trying to make quench the thought with scripture but, it just added conviction. I know just because it common doesn't mean its right but; I was wondering if I was missing some scripture that would approve of the use of commentaries. As I know of many a people who use commentaries. Hopefully you all can give me some insight on this, thanks.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Nathaniel

[John81]

Commentaries can be very dangerous. It's all too often forgotten these are written by men and therefore not perfect. This leads many who read something in a commentary to automatically conclude what is written there is all true.

For the most part, I think commentaries should receive limited use, and in many cases folks would be better to avoid them.

If there is any doubt about the use of a particular commentary, or commentaries in general, then a person should not use them. Scripture says if we have doubt about something, which means we can't be going forward in faith, then we should not do it for it would be sin.

[trc123]

Stick to the Bible and avoid commentaries. Even the commentaries posted on web sites!

[John81]

Stick to the Bible and avoid commentaries. Even the commentaries posted on web sites!

That's the best!

[Bro Jim]

Th Bible (KJB) is the final standard in all things when it comes to faith and practice! "Comment"aries are just that, comments on what an individual believes the Bible is saying. Is not the preacher commenting on what he believes the Holy Spirit is saying to him through the Word of God when he preaches a message. The Sunday school teacher and what material they use, being published or write by them or the pastor. There are those that say we should not even use a Bible with center references. Does that mean we should not send our young people to Bible collages, for are they not teaching what they believe the Bible is saying. Do we read books written by man to study Baptist doctrine. Was it wrong to read Bro. Rick's book on the Revelation? It all boils down to what the Bible (KJB) says and the Holy Spirit guides us to understand.

When we decide that we must take what a man says over what God says then we are in trouble.

It must always boil down to "Thus saith the Lord."

[Guest]

Matthew Henry Commentary on 1 Peter 3
1Pe 3:21-22
"II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Acts 2:38; 22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.—Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized.—Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom. 2:29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ."

I would agree the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible. I have trouble with three parts above...
First: "1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation." and
Second: "Baptism now saveth us." (paraphrase of James?)
Third: He uses the comparison of the Jewish infant's circumcision. (I think this may be a picture of something else which I have not studied but will when I run across it next time.)

I appreciate you finding this point and sharing it! :thumb:

[Brother Rick]

Good thoughts everyone. I agree that the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself.

At the same time, the use of preachers and teachers is a biblical idea that has been with us as long as the New Testament has been around. The only difference between a Bible commentary and a Sunday school lesson is that one is in print and the other is vocal. If your pastor or Sunday school teacher said something that you disagreed with, would you throw out everything good he ever said and quit the church? You might, but I wouldn't.

I see the same thing with Bible commentaries. If I can agree with 90% of the book I'll recommend it. If I can agree with 70% of it, I might read it. I might even read it if I can't agree with any of it, just to get a better idea of where the other side is coming from.

The idea of not letting a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump has to do with what you believe and apply on an individual level, first and foremost. Jesus even told the people to listen to the Pharisees where they were right:

Matthew 23:1-3, "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2) Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

Jesus basically told them, "Take the meat and throw out the bones." If something is doubtful for you, and you can't read it to understand the other side without the fear of the false doctrine shaking you up then don't read it. If you're not grounded enough in the truth to read a differing opinion, then don't.

If you look at the churches in the New Testament, they all had major problems: immorality, man-following, false doctrine, cold-heartedness, gross spiritual immaturity, you name it. Everything we struggle with today, and yet I see no where that church members were told to leave or split their churches. I'm not saying there isn't a time to leave a church; I'm just saying that no church is perfect. No church is perfect, no pastor or teacher is perfect, and no book - other than the King James Bible - is perfect. In spite of all that, God still commands up to be part of an imperfect local church, to be under the authority of an imperfect pastor, and to listen to imperfect teaching and preaching. Why is it any different when it comes to Bible commentaries?

To reiterate, the "little leaven" idea isn't there for us to find a perfect church and pastor and perfect commentaries - because none exist.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Rick Schworer

[no name joe]

If the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself, then is not the best preaching merely reading the Word of God? Why do we have sermons (oral commentaries on the Bible)? Why not just read passages of Scripture and leave it at that?

Scriputure should take a prominent place in a church service and in our study, and shold be the the first source we go to in our study.

However, commentarries are very useful to getting other points of view and learning things about the historical context of the writing that may not be readily apparent from the Bible. Why are commentaries important? Well, if I read the Bible and have a thought and believe that is what it means, and then I go to many commentarries and find that I am the only one in the hisotry of Christendom to have come up with that interpretation, then perhaps I am wrong. Commentaries are a great tool to help give us other perspectives. We need not always agree with them, but should read them critically. However, they can give much insight nto a particular passage.

If we throw out commentaries, then we should throw out sermons too and merely read Scripture for the sermon.

[Brother Rick]

Good point, Blue. In every example of someone preaching in the New Testament, they didn't just stand there and read Scripture alone without making comments on it. There's several examples of this in Acts and the Gospels. Other than Christ, none of them that what they saying at the time would one day be Scripture, they just read the Scripture that they had then and made comments on it - just like preachers, teachers, and commentaries do today.

[John81]

Good point, Blue. In every example of someone preaching in the New Testament, they didn't just stand there and read Scripture alone without making comments on it. There's several examples of this in Acts and the Gospels. Other than Christ, none of them that what they saying at the time would one day be Scripture, they just read the Scripture that they had then and made comments on it - just like preachers, teachers, and commentaries do today.

Commentaries and preaching are two separate things. Scripture commands preaching, and preaching is to be done under the power of the Holy Ghost, not by the power, wisdom, good intentions or other things of the one preaching.

Commentaries can have a place in Bible study, but at the same time they can be very dangerous. Likely as not, 5 of us here couldn't sit down, read through a dozen different commentaries, or even two dozen, and all agree that any one of them was 100% accurate, or even 95% or 90%. Even if 5 of us could agree on a particular commentary being 85% right, it's probable we would disagree as to exactly which 15% is incorrect.

This is why we so often see conservative Baptists leaning towards a few certain commentaries, those from Assemblies of God leaning towards some others, and various other groups leaning towards yet others. Commentators tend to have a bias in one or more areas and this is reflected in how they explain the certain passages (Calvinism, infant baptism, security of believers, speaking in tongues, women pastors, tithe, creation, separation, universal church, eschatology, etc.).

The biggest danger is that far too many people cling to what is written in certain commentaries as if it's as inspired as the Word of God. I've encountered people who will cling to whatever they read in their favorite commentery no matter what. I've known of some who pay more heed to a commentary than the actual Bible. This is also the reason some folks like "bibles" such as The Message. In paraphrasing the Bible the one doing the paraphrasing is commenting at the same time as he puts his slant on various verses.

What we need far more than commentaries, is discipleship. New and yet immature Believers need to be discipled. It doesn't stop there, as iron sharpenth iron, so the Scripture says, we need to be discipling one another so long as we are here.

I've been in Bible studies where those with commentary Bibles spend their time telling us what the commentary in their Bible says. They don't learn to seek the guidance of the Spirit because they rely upon the commentary. If their Bible has no commentary for a verse or passage, they have nothing to say.

So, "if" we are able to use a commentary and allow the Holy Ghost to help us take in the meat and pick out the bones, fine. For those who can't, or won't, they would be better off without a commentary. Also, for those who are unsure about such matters, best to leave the commentaries alone unless at some future time the Holy Ghost gives you a peace about looking at one.

[trc123]

Would you mind sharing with me (anyone reading this) precisely how you tell the difference between "preaching in the power of the Holy Spirit" and "preaching in wisdom?" How does the preacher know he is? How does the listener know he is? How does God insure he is?

[Brother Rick]

Commentaries and preaching are two separate things. Scripture commands preaching, and preaching is to be done under the power of the Holy Ghost, not by the power, wisdom, good intentions or other things of the one preaching.

True, but commentaries and teaching are much of the time the same thing. If all a pastor ever does is preach, he's not doing his job. The Bible says a pastor is supposed to be "apt to teach."

[Crushmaster]

Commentaries can be a very good resource. They can help explain supposed contradictions, and things such as that. Last night, in fact, an issue regarding a certain text was explained to me. Some manuscripts say, in Mark 1:2, "That which was written in Isaiah the prophet..." Then, it quotes from Malachi, as well as Isaiah. I learned that, apparently, in Jewish culture, it was permissible to quote the "minor" prophet first, and attribute everything to the "major" prophet. Something like that. Very interesting.

If something seems "iffy" (and you will definitely encounter some - or many), compare what they say with Scripture, or even look at other men's thoughts.

Just a Southern boy's thoughts.
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.

[John81]

Would you mind sharing with me (anyone reading this) precisely how you tell the difference between "preaching in the power of the Holy Spirit" and "preaching in wisdom?" How does the preacher know he is? How does the listener know he is? How does God insure he is?

A godly pastor should be able to answer this question.

Our associate pastor has spoken of the process he goes through when preparing a sermon, I won't go into all the details, but at some point as he is searching the Word and seeking the Lord in prayer, it seems the Spirit turns on a light and suddenly he "sees".

Our pastor has spoken of how sometimes after careful preparation of a sermon, he will find himself in the midst of the sermon and suddenly the Spirit will lead him in a somewhat different direction; maybe only a little different or very different). Typically, after each time such has occured, someone who heard the sermon will say something to him which lets him know at least partly why the sudden change.

The more one abides in the Lord, the easier it is to discern between our own wisdom and the Holy Ghost. This applies to both the preacher and the hearer.

All those who are called of God to preach, the Lord equips.

[Guest]

I use JFB, Barnes, and the ISBE most of the time for comparison of thought...I don't always agree and ask my pastor if I'm not satisfied.

I think prayer and the Holy Spirit need to have the preeminence in deep study of the Bible.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.