John Gill as Bible Commentator

Status
Not open for further replies.

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
I'm seriously thinking of buying Gill's commentary on the Bible (the whole set). I figure I can use him to (possibly) counterbalance Matthew Henry.

Is it good? Good points; bad points? Worth the money?
 
I really like John Gill, though I haven't read him as much as Spurgeon I'm sure. :) His comments are very reliable and he brings in the element of historical rabbinic lore. I hope to purchase his whole set someday as well. Spurgeons comments below on Gill in his commenting on commentaries:

A very distinguished place is due to DR. GILL.[8] Beyond all controversy, Gill was one of the most able Hebraists of his day, and in other matters no mean proficient. When an opponent in controversy had ventured to call him "a botcher in divinity", the good doctor, being compelled to become a fool in glorying, gave such a list of his attainments as must have covered his accuser with confusion. His great work on the Holy Scriptures is greatly prized at the present day by the best authorities, which is conclusive evidence of its value, since the set of the current of theological thought is quite contrary to that of Dr. Gill. No one in these days is likely to be censured for his Arminianism, but most modern divines affect to sneer at anything a little too highly Calvinistic: however, amid the decadence of his own rigid system, and the disrepute of even more moderate Calvinism, Gill's laurels as an expositor are still green. His ultraism is discarded, but his learning is respected: the world and the church take leave to question his dogmatism, but they both bow before his erudition. Probably no man since Gill's days has at all equalled him in the matter of Rabbinical learning. Say what you will about that lore, it has its value: of course, a man has to rake among perfect dunghills and dust heaps, but there are a few jewels which the world could not afford to miss. Gill was a master cinder sifter among the Targums, the Talmuds, the Mishna, and the Gemara. Richly did he deserve the degree of which he said, "I never bought it, nor thought it, nor sought it."
He was always at work; it is difficult to say when he slept, for he wrote 10,000 folio pages of theology. The portrait of him which belongs to this church, and hangs in my private vestry, and from which all the published portraits have been engraved, represents him after an interview with an Arminian gentleman, turning up his nose in a most expressive manner, as if he could not endure even the smell of freewill. In some such a vein he wrote his commentary. He hunts Arminianism throughout the whole of it. He is far from being so interesting and readable as Matthew Henry. He delivered his comments to his people from Sabbath to Sabbath, hence their peculiar mannerism. His frequent method of animad-version is, "This text does not mean this", nobody ever thought it did; "It does not mean that", only two or three heretics ever imagined it did; and again it does not mean a third thing, or a fourth, or a fifth, or a sixth absurdity; but at last he thinks it does mean so-and-so, and tells you so in a methodical, sermon like manner. This is an easy method, gentlemen, of filling up the time, if you are ever short of heads for a sermon. Show your people firstly, secondly, and thirdly, what the text does not mean, and then afterwards you can go back and show them what it does mean. It may be thought, however, that one such a teacher is enough, and that what was tolerated from a learned doctor would be scouted in a student fresh from college. For good, sound, massive, sober sense in commenting, who can excel Gill? Very seldom does he allow himself to be run away with by imagination, except now and then when he tries to open up a parable, and finds a meaning in every circumstance and minute detail; or when he falls upon a text which is not congenial with his creed, and hacks and hews terribly to bring the word of God into a more systematic shape. Gill is the Coryphaeus of hyper-Calvinism, but if his followers never went beyond their master, they would not go very far astray.
 
I love his understanding of history and references to other works as he comments. He was definitely a scholar in my estimation.

I just gave my set away for book space and use the esword version. I can copy and paste it. lol
 
+1 for Andres recommendation straight off the internet, thumbs up for the way they organized it.

A few times my internet filter has prevented me from getting to the pages.

Actually, there is often trouble for commentaries on the major prophets.
 
I do not own this set yet, but I have it in my sights, and will purchase it eventually. I just can't bear to read commentaries on a computer screen. I have to have my pencil usable! Gill is worth it, although I'm glad someone posted all of Spurgeon's opinion, which is one I always listen to on commentaries.
 
Though I'm no theologian, I love John Gill and use the online version of his commentaries a lot when I'm studying.
 
Agree with above - the best for connecting with rabbinical literature. Generally doesn't draw back from 'hard' verses etc.
 
I'm going to be something of a 'wet-blanket' here, and say that I've not found Gill that helpful. In fairness, I also haven't found M.Henry that helpful either, but I've definitely gotten more from Henry. And, despite their non-utility, I almost invariably look at both commentators because they are on my computer, which is incredibly convenient when I'm in the middle of working.

Gill explains the text, phrase by phrase, which is not the case with Henry. They are stylistically quite different. Frankly, however, I find Gill's constant reference to the rabbinic literature, Talmud and Targums, tedious. I don't think that Judaism, especially 2nd Temple and Medieval, sheds great light on the Scriptures. I do not think Phariseeism preserved very much relevant cultural heritage for the benefit of us "Greeks" who now come to the Scriptures Old and New for instruction, far removed from their original setting. Perhaps for a few things, but every single verse? And he simply doesn't refer to any other body of literature! Jewish texts form almost the entirety of his literary dependency. Quite striking, actually.
 
I'm going to be something of a 'wet-blanket' here

Mr. Wet Blanket! I actually like the historical understanding and how it might be important. And what would you expect from someone who was a Jewish and Hebrew Scholar. If that is all you know that is what you are going to spout off.

I wouldn't buy the set. I would just get a Bible program that has it already and download it. Save your money. It is free. Gill has been very beneficial to me when it comes to hard passages.
 
I've found Gill hit-or-miss. On many passages it seems like a significant portion of what he does is simply to play variations on the theme of the ordo salutis. I do enjoy the compendium of Rabbinical remarks, and occasionally (as on Hebrews 6) I have found something very helpful; it's also a bonus that he is usually quite easy to read, certainly compared to some other commentators. But I sometimes forget to consult him, which in itself says something.
 
I have no inclination to buy Gill on paper, but I love having him free on e-sword. I find his knowledge of rabbinic writings and jewish tradition to be superb. I also agree with him the that Sabbath was not a 'creation ordinance' . But I disagree with some of his very high calvinism (especially his interpretation of Isa 55.1-3). I refer to him more than Henry. On e-sword I tend to read commentaries in the order: Poole-Gill-Henry-others
 
I have no inclination to buy Gill on paper, but I love having him free on e-sword. I find his knowledge of rabbinic writings and jewish tradition to be superb. I also agree with him the that Sabbath was not a 'creation ordinance' . But I disagree with some of his very high calvinism (especially his interpretation of Isa 55.1-3). I refer to him more than Henry. On e-sword I tend to read commentaries in the order: Poole-Gill-Henry-others

Jonathan: Not to highjack my own thread here, but why does Gill believe that the Sabbath was not a creation ordinance? In 5,000 words or less, please. Heh.
 
I have no inclination to buy Gill on paper, but I love having him free on e-sword. I find his knowledge of rabbinic writings and jewish tradition to be superb. I also agree with him the that Sabbath was not a 'creation ordinance' . But I disagree with some of his very high calvinism (especially his interpretation of Isa 55.1-3). I refer to him more than Henry. On e-sword I tend to read commentaries in the order: Poole-Gill-Henry-others

Jonathan: Not to highjack my own thread here, but why does Gill believe that the Sabbath was not a creation ordinance? In 5,000 words or less, please. Heh.

I'm so, so sorry, but that is off topic! For the record in case of doubt, both Gill and I hold to the biblical doctrine of the Lord's Day. You will find his remarks in the commentary on Exodus, upon the announcement of the Sabbath at the time of manna and quails. I know this is a touchy subject for many and I venture not to take it further lest the wrath of the board falleth heavy upon me.
 
I'm so, so sorry, but that is off topic! For the record in case of doubt, both Gill and I hold to the biblical doctrine of the Lord's Day. You will find his remarks in the commentary on Exodus, upon the announcement of the Sabbath at the time of manna and quails. I know this is a touchy subject for many and I venture not to take it further lest the wrath of the board falleth heavy upon me.

The wrath of the board is already sore and bitter against you for preferring Gill to Henry.
 
I'm so, so sorry, but that is off topic! For the record in case of doubt, both Gill and I hold to the biblical doctrine of the Lord's Day. You will find his remarks in the commentary on Exodus, upon the announcement of the Sabbath at the time of manna and quails. I know this is a touchy subject for many and I venture not to take it further lest the wrath of the board falleth heavy upon me.

The wrath of the board is already sore and bitter against you for preferring Gill to Henry.

Woe is me
 
I absolutely love Gill's works and have read most of his works online and even borrowed his Compete Body of Divinity and read through that. Now, his commentary set is rather large and I lack shelf space, others have pointed out that it is free for download. I would recommend saving shelf space for modern works that are not free.

jm
 
Henry was very helpful during a year off with an illness. He made the time go by less miserably.

But I don't have the time any more to do a careful read of what he has to say (all of it) on a given chapter.

Hearing a few critiques from WHI helped me get over the guilt of those new feelings after getting back to the ratrace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top