# Commentaries



## ReformedWretch (Jan 19, 2005)

While cleaning off my book shelves yet again I have come to the realization that I desperately need good commentaries. I have many online versions but I would like 1 or 2 books.

I desire the most *complete* commentaries available. Who would you recomend? I have Matthew Henrey's, and sorry to say, it leaves alot to be desired as many verses are skipped or lumped in too large of a group.

Thanks!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 19, 2005)

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8406

Calvin's would probably be the natural first one to get.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 19, 2005)

Thanks for the link Chris.

Calvin didn't comment on all books and passages in the books he does comment on did he?


----------



## Charismatic Calvinist (Jan 19, 2005)

I recently linked up with a site with Calvin's commentary online (thanks for the suggestion Paul Manta!). I love it! I would really like to get some books as well.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 19, 2005)

John MacArthur's commentary is wonderful, but his eschatology is so bad that I seldom use that bible.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 19, 2005)

Adam,
Henry's work is excellent. You went to the Christian bookstore and bought the _concise_ version didn't you?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 19, 2005)

Apparently I did! Should have figured that since it was like 15 bucks.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> John MacArthur's commentary is wonderful, but his eschatology is so bad that I seldom use that bible.



Yeah, plus on all the other parts of theology that Dispensationalism touches besides eschatology.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2005)

Although the full-version isn't perfect, it is a classic. Concise? Really? Anyway...I like J M Boice's pastoral commentaries, especially on Romans. The New American Commentary series is ok---->good, depending on who you get. Word Commentary suggests a knowledge of the Greek/Hebrew (and the more you know, the better), but it will give you a lot.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



Exactly, and it's more than one might imagine.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 19, 2005)

Adn given Genesis 3:15 seeing the whole Bible as eschatological, there is bound to be disagreement.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Jan 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Apparently I did! Should have figured that since it was like 15 bucks.



Yes..I made that mistake once...but never again (those were in the days that I thought I could get good, unabridged books in Family Christian Stores). I also have some of Macarthur's commentaries...I think He is good...but I will not use Him in some areas of scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 19, 2005)

This is going to sound like the other thread a little...

When you say "complete", what will satisfy? I can't think of _any_ one-man work that covers the whole Bible, Gen-Rev, in true commentary fashion. Maybe John Gill? There are consice, multi-volume works by multiple authors (and therefore bound to be somewhat uneven, both in style and in doctrinal commitment), and available in loss-cost paperback editions--such as the Tyndale set. 

So, you are left with more-or-less old standbys, executed in days gone by when there were some men of truly prodigious learning and capacity for work. Praise God so much is Reformed in theological orientation.

Matthew Henry's full commentary (18th century) is basic--the full text can be gotten in 6 volumes; mine is from Hendrickson Pubs, and is probably available at a fairly good discount from CBD (I'm guessing here). Is also available in a one-volume (hefty) full-text version, minus the biblical text, and in very small print. Although Henry lived only to complete through the gospels, the balance (though lacking) nicely rounds out the set.

Matthew Poole's 3 volume commentary (17th century; modern pub. Banner of Truth) is more concise, but still very rich, and more "commentary-like" than Henry, in that, Henry rigorously teaches his way through the text, over against Poole's "basic-thrust" approach. Poole also did not live to complete his work, but his like-minded fellows did.

Jamieson-Faucett-Brown commentary (19th century; # of vols may vary, 3-6, or so I think) is generally reliable.


Others, but I wouldn't rush out and get them:
John Gill's (18th cent; probably a prrrrricey set; _at least_ 5 rather large volumes with tiny print). Spurgeon's predecesor.

"Lange's" (19th cent) is complete, but is generally too massive for a basic library, in addition to being price-prohibitive--but if you found it in a bargain basement... It also (unfortunantly) shows effects of German criticism, especially in the later contributions. Lange (German) was basically conservative, and P. Schaff the American editor showed his awareness of American theology's more conservative bent by his choices of American translators/appenders of notes, who were non-radical.


Further thoughts:
Wm Hendriksen/S Kistemaker (sp?) on the New Testament. 20th Cent. Reformed stuff. Might have a hard time getting all these at one time. They are propably still under copyright, and in print, therefore pri$$$$ey, even in a used market.

My thoughts on the value of Keil and Delitzsch for OT--I have elsewhere on the PB *commended* them for the serious student. You might need to "read around" some of the more technical stuff and the insertion of some Hebrew or Greek fonts if you are not (yet!) a reader, but it really is a benchmark in OT studies. My modern set is from Hendrickson. It is valuable for its updated typeface and better layout than the old. But there is a reason why these "hardbacks" (and the others like them) are so cheap these days--because these are not heirloom books, these glorified paperbacks. Nevertheless, we praise their contents (and their readability) rather than the packaging...

Some thoughts on Calvin:
Calvin's commentaries *do not* skip anything within books. He died in the middle of Ezekiel (I believe), and he did not complete either the OT or NT. His NT lacks 2 & 3 John and Revelation; the OT has more gaps, particularly in the histories (post Pentateuch) and wisdom other than Psalms. I think T.H.L. Parker errs suggesting that Calvin was suspicious of Revelation (and the other two John letters), given the paucity of extant reference he made to it. I am of the view that Calvin planned (d.v. he should live) to complete the NT with a final commentary (of however many volumes) dealing with Revelation, with the letters thrown in. I think he recognized the utter _mastery_ of the OT necessary to complete the work, given the _stupendous_ amount of allusion to the OT--in particular the Prophets--found in Revelation.

Having Calvin, in part or in whole, seems to me ought to be the avowed intent of every Puritanhead


----------



## Irishcat922 (Jan 19, 2005)

If you win the Lottery get the NICOT and the NICNT. I think I saw the whole set on CBD for like $850.00 it is technical but very thorough. Hendriksen is an excellent set on the New Testament. You can ussually find it fairly cheap. I personally like Matthew Henry, like Scott said go get the unabridged version, youcan get it used for around $30.00 at half-price bookstores. It ussually can be found in six volumes. Calvin is a must have for any reformed Library. The Geneva series by BOT is excellent as well.


----------



## strangerpilgrim (Mar 31, 2005)

Some other suggestions (from one agreeing that there isn't one all encompassing). JC Ryle has a good three volume commentary on John, especially good since in his notes he gives information from his extensive studies of every available commentary on John (at his time). He references the Fathers, the RC's, the Reformers, Puritans and anything else he could get his hands on. If there is a contested meaning or understanding he usually faithfully gives all the available opinions (even if there is only one commentator who holds it) and then at the ends gives his own.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2005)

What would you say about Donald Barnhouse? Particularly his commentary on Romans? I know he was Calvinist but also premillennial. HOw does that affect his look on Romans?


----------

