Hello Brethren and Sisters,

This is my first new thread but this is something I've been curious about for some time. I know the firm stand this site takes on the authority and accuracy of the KJV and I also believe this. One thing that seems to be a topic of debate among folks that use commentaries is which one(s) to use. Now, if you would rather not read a commentary and prefer to simply read your bible and depend on the Holy Spirit for instruction, I support that view and see absolutely nothing wrong with it. However, this question I have is only directed to those who do use a commentary or commentaries.

I was in bible study last night and the teacher was using what is called the Believer's commentary. He also had the Wycliffe commentary. I have been looking at the full set of J. Vernon McGee commentary on the entire bible. I'm looking into this (mainly examining his doctrine) a little further before I make a decision to buy it.

Most of my bible study is done electronically. In other words, I use my computers; my laptop using E-Sword software with the Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, John Wesley notes, Jamieson Faucett and Brown, and Scofield notes. I also use a Palm handheld loaded with BibleThumper software and the same commentaries as my laptop with the exception of Jamieson Faucett and Brown.

I want to make clear that I depend on the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth. As the Sacred breath of God he will reveal the truth of the word to us. I examine all resources at my disposal with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The question is: What commentaries do you use and/or recommend?

This post was last modified: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:26 AM by bigjohnjeep.

Brother, I will consult a commentary from time to time. I usually use them to check to make certain I am on the right track in my thinking and understanding. Normally I just use the Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American Language and/or the Young's Analytical Concordance.

When I do use commentaries I have a couple that I trust and have found very little conflict with scripture in them. My first choice is Barnes Notes. I find Albert Barnes to be very conservative and not difficult to read. I sometimes consult John Gill's commentary although I have found a few places I disagree with him.

Recently I have come to discover the commentaries of Oliver B. Greene. I really enjoy Greene's other books. He is right on, very conservative and not too scholarly. His books are straight forward and rather easy to read. In fact I recently purchased a set of three, Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians on eBay for a total of $9.99 for all three books. I am enjoying them very much.

However as you stated the ultimate authority on the scriptures is the Bible itself and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Those can never deviate or be wrong.

In Christ,
George

By the way, both Barnes and Gill are available to download on e-Sword. I am not certain about Greene. I have not checked that yet.

In Christ,
George

Thank you, Brother George. I will look into that. Any others anyone?

Might mention Matthew Henry. I use Barnes a little bit. Clarke is not bad. And of course with any of them you have to be careful. I rightly don't care for Young's Analytical Concordance, I do use Strong's.

The Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary is great.

I use to us E-Sword, but I got the SwordSearcher 5, since getting it I hardly use the E-Sword anymore.

Many of the modern day writers I do not care the least bit for them, and if they don't use the KJ I don't want them.

I also have the Webster's 1828, both in book form and on both the software's I mentioned above. It is invaluable for understanding English definitions in relation to the King James bible. Being from 1828 you do not find all the butchering of the word meanings that exists today.

I used to look at Matthew Henry until I discovered he is of the group that believes Peter was the first "pope." Since then his books have been gathering dust on my book shelfs. One of these days I ought to just toss them.

The Webster's Dictionary is a wonderful tool. The standardization of the English language did not really start until 1765. Since the Webster's was printed first in 1828 it is as close as we can get to the true and original meanings of the words in our Bible. I have a two-volume set of Webster's dictionaries from 1936. They pretty much follow the same definitions as the 1828. At that point our language had not yet really begun to be eroded and changed. It is quite interesting to take a modern dictionary and compare the definitions with those in the older dictionaries. It is almost as if they were in a different language.

In Christ,
George

Yes, I understand that about Matthew Henry, that is why I stated this in my last post, "And of course with any of them you have to be careful." The only place one is assured they will have the whole truth is in our dear old KJ Bible.

That is very true my Brother. However if one is only using the Bible to understand the Bible it can leave questions unanswered. For example:

(Gen 30:14) And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son's mandrakes.

Now if one did not have access to other reference materials how would you find out what a mandrake is?

(Pro 30:26) The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks;

Once again without other reference materials how would one know what a conie is? (Perhaps the singular of the word is cony?)

These are but two examples of why I believe we need to consult other reference materials in order to help us fully understand what the Word of God is saying to us.

In Christ,
George

May I ask, What does that have to do with the thought that one has to be very careful with commentaries and what is not written in the Bible?

I appreciate that bit of information about Matthew Henry being of the belief in Peter being the "first Pope". I was not aware of his being part of that group. I will investigate him further. Thank you.

Actually Brother it was made in response to the following comment you made earlier:

My point is that if one relies strictly on the Bible one can find themselves not getting everything out of it that is possible. As I said, the two words I mentioned are but two of the archaic English words that are used in our beloved King James Bible. Other than ask someone else who has looked up the words the only way to determine them is to use other reference materials including commentaries.

In Christ,
George

Big John,

M. Henry is also a post-millenialist. Another good set of commentaries, in addition to Oliver B. Greene, is Harry Ironsides. Clarence Larkin's "Rightly Dividing the Word" is also a great tool for study.

My main point is that we have to watch all reference material, no matter who wrote it, for there is no reference material that can be guaranteed to be accurate as is the KJ Bible. I feel sure you agree with that, but some might think you do not.

I think we are on the same page.

Are you quite sure about that, Brother George? The reason why I ask is because I have a set of Matthew Henry's commentaries which I have found helpful, and I haven't found any place where he says that Peter was the first pope. From what I have seen, Matthew Henry actually wrote very strongly against the unscriptural falsehoods of Romanism. He was a vehement critic of Rome, and he even published a book against popery entitled "Popery, A Spiritual Tyranny".

Here is an excerpt from his exposition of Matthew 16:18, a verse often used by RCs to support the idea that Peter was the "rock" on which Christ built his Church:

And here's what he says about Peter in John 21:15-17, where Christ says to Peter, "Feed my sheep":

If you read on in his commentary, you find that Matthew Henry only regarded Peter as an apostle with a commission to preach the Gospel, and not as a pope or any other kind of earthly spiritual father.

Now, I have not read his commentaries from cover to cover, and they could contain errors that I am not aware of. But I am fairly sure that Matthew Henry did not believe that Peter was the first pope.