November 21st, 2007
| 
Facebook
In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your studied, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scriptures without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition! If you are of that opinion, you may as well remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion. And (like the small contingency who think like you), you would resent the attempt as an insult to your “infallibility.” Although… I must say… it seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others! So, when I speak of the blessing of commentaries, my message is not for those hypocrites who think themselves “above” using the gifts that Christ Himself gave His church… but for you who are content to learn from holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures.
I realize it has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. And if there were any fear that the expositions of men like Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted to the level of being equal to Scripture, we would join the chorus of objectors. But the existence of, or approach toward such a danger we do not suspect. No, the temptations of our times lie rather in people wandering off course by following their own vain ideas and their own subjective interpretations, rather than a “too slavish” following of accepted guides. (A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences!). But, unfortunately, it’s more common to find that those who despise the prudent use of commentaries are men who have no sort of true acquaintance wit them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is a lack of familiarity that has caused their hatred of commentaries!”
- Charles Spurgeon, “Lectures to My Students,” Vol. 4.
 |
  |
Related ArticlesHumbly Reading Your BibleI believe in election. Why should I preach the gospel? Prayer Causes Things The Bible Alone The Word of God |
i bought a great commentary today actually
its a John MacArthur one…
they are really helpful.
Was it the John MacArthur Study Bible? I have that, it’s great!
I’m so glad I have the university library! It has lots of commentaries, they’re great
.
yeah Ben thats the one!
its really good.
“In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your studied, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit.”
Interesting the bible doesn’t seem to mention anything about needing to be familiar with commentaries to read and understand it. What profit is there if a particular commentary is wrong and leads people astray?
“Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scriptures without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition! If you are of that opinion, you may as well remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion.”
One does wonder, how they ever wrote their commentaries… (Chicken and the egg), but besides that I thought Christians were beyond such popery. The Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). All scripture is inspired and leaves one thoroughly furnished – not all commentaries of men.
“And (like the small contingency who think like you), you would resent the attempt as an insult to your “infallibility.” Although… I must say… it seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others! So, when I speak of the blessing of commentaries, my message is not for those hypocrites who think themselves “above” using the gifts that Christ Himself gave His church… but for you who are content to learn from holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures.”
What he falsely implies is that those who don’t believe commentaries are essential claim some self-infallibility. Commentaries may be useful at times, but certainly not essential.
No person is infallible.
Romans 3:23
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
1John 1:5
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Any true Christian would not think of themselves as infallible as we can see in 1John. Secondly again there is no mention in the scriptures about the use of commentaries however possible useful tool with the right one/s and the correct use. It is quite difficult for one person to get the whole bible correct in understanding.
Is the reason you are using commentaries because you’re impatient to understand scripture?
2Peter 1:5-6
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
Romans 5:1-5
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3 And not only, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
As God is patient with you to understand him should you not be patient to be shown meaning. Before the important 2 Timothy 3:16-17 passage declaring the Bible as infallible and fully adequate, is verse 15, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
“I realize it has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. And if there were any fear that the expositions of men like Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted to the level of being equal to Scripture, we would join the chorus of objectors.”
I fear that though people don’t have this level of exaltation by statement, many do so in their very practice. It also seems inconsistent for him to say, “you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scriptures without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition” – and then say that he is not exalting it to the level of scripture. Because ONLY the scripture is inspired, and sufficient to make a man of God fully adequate (of course we are discussing texts and not the Holy Spirit here), so to imply in such a way that further assistance is necessary would by definition be one form of exaltation.
“But the existence of, or approach toward such a danger we do not suspect. No, the temptations of our times lie rather in people wandering off course by following their own vain ideas and their own subjective interpretations, rather than a “too slavish” following of accepted guides. (A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences!).”
Romans 1:21-24
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
I suppose that while yes it could be helpful to keep people from having an idea grow, the reverse is also true if the commentary is incorrect on some issue and it is taken on boar – that stumbling block could cause damage.
“But, unfortunately, it’s more common to find that those who despise the prudent use of commentaries are men who have no sort of true acquaintance wit them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt. It is a lack of familiarity that has caused their hatred of commentaries!” – Charles Spurgeon, “Lectures to My Students,” Vol. 4.”
To deny that commentaries are necessary is not to automatically “despise the prudent use of commentaries”, it concerns me how this has been confused with such extremes. The real problem of commentaries is that people take their interpretations as fact whether this is deliberate or not. Just because a commentary interprets a passage a particular way does not mean it is correct. This is epically a problem when using just one commentary and not reading the Bible for itself or comparing what is said in the commentary to other commentaries.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
13 For such false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Matthew 7:15-22
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Hebrews 5:13-14
13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Can’t something like a commentary appear good yet be in fact evil? The above verses though not particularly referring to commentaries still appear to be saying yes to the question.
I want to pose this question; do you really know the fruits of the person who has written the commentary? (Fellowship removes this problem not only to help each other by being with them you should be able to see there fruits.)
Speculation: “and in thy name done many wonderful” could be that some might have even wrote a bible commentary and as they are not saved they did not have the Holy Spirit.
And even if they have good fruits, the objective divine truth does not depend on such pragmatic methodology.
Can you really discern to the small details of the commentary? I’d recommend asking someone who is doctrinally correct that has been a Christian for some time if they have any opinions on a Commentary/Study Bible. It can usually take only one word to begin introducing error.
Importance of the Holy Spirit
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Romans 8:9-17
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ in you, the body dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with, that we may be also glorified together.
We see above that without the Holy Spirit we are not saved.
I’d say that being very cautious by not using them is a good thing; we are warned over and over again about people who come to lead us astray.
He argues of the dangers of not using commentaries and makes no note of the equal dangers of using a commentary. What’s more we cannot forget that he said we are not adequate without their use (perhaps he just chose really poor wording?). None the less that is what is written. I would not recommend to despise the prudent use of commentaries at all, but highly criticize the comment that we are not adequate without them, and provide much needed caution for balance about the potential dangers of error a ‘commentary minded’ person may also be led towards.
Do you know what I like about this article Stephen? I like how it calls the reader to think about what their relationship with God is all about?
He is the Head Master and Teacher?
Praise God and God bless…
Lina.
Stephanos, I appreciate your comment, and I don’t mean to sound rude or disrespectful in any way, but you did tell me, and only a few hours ago, that there are certain books in the New Testament you have not yet read. So, to make such bold presumptuous claims that the Bible doesn’t say this or that… Well, it can be rather dangerous. Just make sure you know what it does say before you tell people what it doesn’t say. That is, unless you heard it from someone more learned in the Scriptures? But then that would be rather hypocritical, wouldn’t it?
I wonder though, Stephanos, if the wisdom of Godly men is something not to be desired, and, if there is little profit in hearing what they have to say, why is it you go to church, or even Bible study for that matter? Is it to demonstrate the knowledge and understanding you’ve attained through the Scriptures? I can’t think of any other reason why you would go. I mean, if not to gain a better knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures, from those more learned in them than yourself. I have been to many Bible studies with you that have been more in the style of a commentary than an open discussion. By the same standards, wouldn’t you oppose those too?
But more importantly, I want to point out the gifts Christ gave to us when he ascended into Heaven (mentioned in Ephesians 4:11). The gifts were the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. And for what purpose? To equip the saints for the work of ministry and for building up the body of Christ. This until we all attain to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Paul even goes on to say that they keep us from being infants, tossed about by the waves and carried about by the wind of doctrine, human cunning, and craftiness in deceitful schemes. You see, Stephanos, these men are a gift from God for the benefit of the body. They are those who labour in the word and doctrine and are worthy of double honour (1 Tim. 5:17). But that said, you are right that Satan has perverted a good thing. The Bible warns about false apostles, and false prophets, etc. But remember that Satan’s desire is not only to stumble the ignorant, but also to cause those who are aware of these dangers to reject good things along with the bad…
I don’t go to church to “demonstrate the knowledge and understanding I have attained through the scriptures” I go because God commands for us to not forsake the fellowshipping together.
“let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds,
not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near” Hebrews 10:24-15
And I am just convinced we can do what is written above, stimulating one another and building each other up in Christ, at our gatherings.
Of course, I can not speak for everybody, but I did want to defend those who don’t go for the reason that you mentioned. I count myself as unwise and without knowledge in comparison to the expanse of God’s knowledge and wisdom.
You said you didn’t see what other reason there could be… I am here to show you that perhaps people would go because they need to be refreshed in Christ, they want to be in “good company” with those who love the Lord, gather for the gathering of knowledge and also for prayer and supplication together.
May God have mercy on us, his saved sinners.
Amen.
And why is it we spend the majority of our time at church listening to a man preach, if it is not to grow in our understanding, and wisdom, and faith, etc.?
God instigated it this way, that there should be a shepherd watching over his flock. one would think that it creates order, it was that way in the synagogues also. To have one authoritative figure at the front, speaking to the congregation.
I believe the answer is because God instigated it this way. Jesus showed how it should be by the way he spoke and things were constructed in the synagogues.
Ask for your question i feel it fair to answer even though I think it is trailing a bit.
Here is your quote:
“I mean, if not to gain a better knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures, from those more learned in them than yourself..”
And all I was saying is that is not the only reason why I go, I am sorry if I didn’t make that clear. I do believe though, you called it hypocritical to go to “more learned persons than yourself” are you saying it is only ok under your way?
Look, I don’t think this is something that will go on, since I believe we are both mature christians. I just wanted to clarify that, i felt strongly that that shouldn’t be the only reason some one should go to church, to as you say, “why is it you go to church, or even Bible study for that matter? Is it to demonstrate the knowledge and understanding you’ve attained through the Scriptures?”
Thankyou
I didn’t say that. You will have to read my post again. I was making the point that the commenter began to tell me what the Bible does not say. This, not long after he told me he has not yet read the New Testament. And so, he cannot make that claim based on his knowledge of the New Testament alone, as that would only be his assumption. So he must have heard it from some place else, i.e. a man. The grounds of his argument then was based upon the very thing he was trying to arguing against: Bible commentators. That is what I said was hypocritical.
But do we need to know the whole of the New or Old covenants, to be able to look up in things such as concordances to see what the bible does say? Does the Lord not live in us, His spirit dwelling there? Could he not lead us? I mean, the commenter left us with lots of scripture and that is why I feel some, only some of your comments are not fair.
I mean, I feel that I can not deny what they say, can you?
Perhaps a man discussed scripture with him? Showed him verses? Are we not allowed to do that. I am not sure what the commenter agrees on with what i am about to say, but I feel that commentaries are ok, just not a necessary addition to your understanding of the Word of God. I have a problem when the only source of bread eating, comes from the regurgitated mouths of men. Surely you will agree with this?
Ben did I not write the following in my first reply (to this article)?
(1) “Commentaries may be useful at times”
(2)”however possible useful tool with the right one/s and the correct use”
(3)”yes it could be helpful to keep people from having an idea grow”
(4)” I would not recommend to despise the prudent use of commentaries at all”
In light of the above I simply don’t think you paid close enough attention to what I was saying and my intent , when you wrote. :
“That is, unless you heard it from someone more learned in the Scriptures? But then that would be rather hypocritical, wouldn’t it?”
No, not hypocritical at all since I wasn’t actually condemning the use of commentaries or other’s opinion, so there is no issue in the first place.
“if the wisdom of Godly men is something not to be desired, and, if there is little profit in hearing what they have to say, why is it you go to church, or even Bible study for that matter?”
This just wrongly assumes that’s my opinion. I didn’t actually say that the wisdom of Godly men is not to be desired, nor that there is little profit in hearing what they have to say. I did however twice say “useful” and once “helpful”
“I have been to many Bible studies with you that have been more in the style of a commentary than an open discussion. By the same standards, wouldn’t you oppose those too?”
As I don’t actually oppose the use commentaries or others opinion I would not oppose them. What I was actually saying I’ll clear up at the end here.
We are told to read the scriptures for ourselves. This enables us to check what we have been taught at Church or Bible study. Of course you should use discernment when attending these, also we can ask questions of these people of how they came to that understanding and where it is in the Bible. It is also a big problem that a lot of people attending unsound doctrine churches are not reading the word for themselves and taking in just what someone is saying in a church.
We should be discerning especially as the days draw near to the end of times. I’m certain you agree with all of this really. My reply was focused on Commentaries as a necessity, as that was possibly implied by the article itself and its opinions.
What was I simply saying? What I already said:
”Commentaries may be useful at times, but certainly not essential.”
and “I would not recommend to despise the prudent use of commentaries at all, but highly criticize the comment that we are not adequate without them, and provide much needed caution for balance about the potential dangers of error a ‘commentary minded’ person may also be led towards.”
No hard feelings of course, I hope this clarifies my stand on this without any confusion and I hope also that you would give more attention to what I said in my first reply, God Bless brother.
Hear are some quotes I like from the Bible I wanted to include.
Ecclesiastes 4:10
For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.
1 Timothy 4:16
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
Thanks Stephanos, yeah I think I understand what you are saying. You believe that teachers are useful and helpful, but not necessary. You said something about those who go to teachers for Biblical answers being impatient with God. As though it would be better for them to find answers by some other means. I think you may have even referred to the necessity of teachers as popery…
If teachers were not necessary, I don’t think Christ would have given them to the Church (Eph. 4:11). So, I think they certainly are essential members for the body. For the body does not consist of one member but many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose.
If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable… Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.” (1 Cor. 12:13-28)
We are all parts of the body, but who is the head?
We are all members, but what is our membership?