Bible Commentators

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Commentaries can be good for finding out about cultural and historical aspects of bible passages,one must eat the meat and spit out the bones.

Same for listening to preachers.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Yes I agree with you Reformed Dave.Check everything out with the word.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Commentaries can be good for finding out about cultural and historical aspects of bible passages,one must eat the meat and spit out the bones.

Right there on the couch!?!

[TRFrance]

I don't mind seeing what a commentary says on a particular passage in terms of historical context, background,etc surrounding a particular verse or passage of scripture... but as far as doctrinal interpretation of a verse, I don't pay any attention to what commentaries have to say.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Rico

That's one of the main reasons why I avoid using or relying on commentaries.

You don't have to be a syncophant to "use" a commentary. You can use one as a sort of "foil" as well- especially since there are several available for free.

Use it to bounce an idea around about a particular passage that seems obscure to you. It could be that by expressing the exact opposite of your opinion, the commentator will open up new avenues of study for those times you're suffering from "brain lock."

The idea behind a commentary isn't to have someone force feed a bunch of stuff that you regurgitate later. You're supposed to have a dialogue with the commentary. Interact with the writer as though he's in the room with you. Argue, agree and disagree.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I don't mind seeing what a commentary says on a particular passage in terms of historical context, background,etc surrounding a particular verse or passage of scripture... but as far as doctrinal interpretation of a verse, I don't pay any attention to what commentaries have to say.

Did you receive all truth through a divine revelation?

The reason I'm asking is, essentially, most of the sermons you've heard preached were "commentaries." The things you picked up from Bible teachers and Sunday School were all "commentaries." If you don't pay attention to "commentaries," how did you ever discover the Bible to begin with?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Did you receive all truth through a divine revelation?

The reason I'm asking is, essentially, most of the sermons you've heard preached were "commentaries." The things you picked up from Bible teachers and Sunday School were all "commentaries." If you don't pay attention to "commentaries," how did you ever discove the Bible to begin with?

That's true. Commentaries are useful to help us with doctrine, not that we have to take the doctrinal conclusions of the commentaries but they give useful information we can use to come to a doctrinal conclusion.

Even the UPC when it comes to standards went to "commentaries" to decide that when the bible says "not with braided hair or gold...." it does not mean to braid your hair was a sin. History shows us the context was the Roman women were very prideful of their elaborate braids and they often wove gold and other things into their hair.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Did you receive all truth through a divine revelation?

The reason I'm asking is, essentially, most of the sermons you've heard preached were "commentaries." The things you picked up from Bible teachers and Sunday School were all "commentaries." If you don't pay attention to "commentaries," how did you ever discover the Bible to begin with?

My point is that I am careful about reading any type of doctrinal commentary from non-Apostolics. Most of the writers of these commentaries have a view of salvation, the Godhead, etc that don't line up with scripture. So if they've "missed it" on such basic essentials of the faith, I sure don't need to spend a lot of time depending on the commentaries of these men when it comes to doctrine in general.

If they're speaking on biblical history, cultural/geographical context, archeology, or other things not directly doctrinal in nature, that's fine. But I don't use their theological commentary to form, or help form, my own theological positions on what I'm reading in scripture.

Other saints may take a different approach to this issue, but this has always been my approach to it. It has served me well so far, and its certainly not going to change.

[Rico]

So.............it seems like most of you are saying you use commentaries more to get an idea of customs, the historical context, and general help in understanding where society was at the time rather than letting the commentary tell you what God is trying to say. I suppose I can accept that.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Rico

So.............it seems like most of you are saying you use commentaries more to get an idea of customs, the historical context, and general help in understanding where society was at the time rather than letting the commentary tell you what God is trying to say. I suppose I can accept that.

Exactly.
I remember for example, reading the commentary in a Scofield bible (an older edition. It seems they've changed it since)... in which, for his commentary on Matt 28:19, Cyrus Scofield stated that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the final name of the one true God".

(http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/srn.cgi?book=mt&chapter=028)

This is utter hogwash, of course, so I just shook my head and ignored it. But who knows, because Scofield was so respected, I'm sure there were many people that took this seriously, and felt like the man was dropping some serious truth on them.