What's Your Favorite Bible Commentary?

[Katie Rose Müller]

Matthew Henry has some content that is helpful, but seems more devotional, sermonette, simplistic or redundant for my liking. For example:

1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

Matthew Henry writes: 6:1-10

Quote

The temple is called the house of the Lord, because it was directed and modelled by him, and was to be employed in his service. This gave it the beauty of holiness, that it was the house of the Lord, which was far beyond all other beauties. It was to be the temple of the God of peace, therefore no iron tool must be heard; quietness and silence suit and help religious exercises. God's work should be done with much care and little noise. Clamour and violence often hinder, but never further the work of God. Thus the kingdom of God in the heart of man grows up in silence, Mr 5:27.

Pulpit Commentary Writes
 

Quote

[This date has been the subject of much controversy, which cannot even now be considered (pace Keil: "The correctness of the number 480 is now pretty generally admitted") as closed. Grave doubts are entertained as to its genuineness. Lord A. Hervey (Dict. Bib. vol. 2. p. 22) says it is "manifestly erroneous." Rawlinson considers it to be "an interpolation into the sacred text" (p. 515). And it is to he observed,

1. that the LXX. reads 440 instead of 480 years - a discrepancy which is suspicious, and argues some amount of incertitude.

2. Origen quotes this verse without these words (Comm. in S. Johann 2:20).

3. They would seem to have been unknown to Josephus, Clem. Alex., and others.

4. It is not the manner of Old Testament writers thus to date events from an era, an idea which appears to have first occurred to the Greeks temp. Thucydides (Rawlinson). It is admitted that we have no other instance in the Old Testament where this is done.

5. It is difficult to reconcile this statement with other chronological notices both of the Old and New Testaments. For taking the numbers which we find in the Hebrew text of the books which refer to this period, they sum up to considerably more than 480 years. The time of the Judges alone comprises 410 years at the least. It should be stated, however, with regard to the chronology of the period last mentioned

etc.

I'm researching and proving the date of the Exodus and I find these types of commentaries more useful when weighing evidence for the Israelite Exodus from Egypt compared to Matthew Henry.

By comparing commentary, I get different view points; different understandings I may never have considered by just reading the word by myself. I feel I can cover more ground by listening to commentary, because even if the commenters are wrong, I can still view their angle and disprove it.


 

[AdHoc]

1 hour ago, Katie Rose Müller said:

Matthew Henry has some content that is helpful, but seems more devotional, sermonette, simplistic or redundant for my liking. For example:

1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

Matthew Henry writes: 6:1-10

Pulpit Commentary Writes
 

I'm researching and proving the date of the Exodus and I find these types of commentaries more useful when weighing evidence for the Israelite Exodus from Egypt compared to Matthew Henry.

By comparing commentary, I get different view points; different understandings I may never have considered by just reading the word by myself. I feel I can cover more ground by listening to commentary, because even if the commenters are wrong, I can still view their angle and disprove it.


 

Yes, many commentators avoid the difficulties and many twist them to fit. The reason that the 480 years is doubted is that if you take Paul's discourse in Acts 13 in Antioch, Pisidea, and do the maths, you come out to 573 years for the same period. There is a missing 93 years in 1st Kings 6. How shall we solve this seeming mistake? Well, the best is to search scripture and find out if there is a 93 years somewhere because 2nd Peter 1:20 forbids private interpretation.

And truly, we do not search for long to find out that if you take the time under the Judges that Israel was chastised by foreign rule, and you count the years under two foreign kings concurrently, you get 93 years. So we know where the 93 years are but why did God reckon like this? This is also not difficult. In prophecy, when Israel is being chastised, God leaves out what pertains to Israel. Joel's prophecy, for instance go from Pentecost to Armageddon in one sentence.

This is a great help for in Daniel 9 the "sevens" are counted to 483, and then there is a gap until the daily oblation is allowed again. This gap has puzzled expositors and given rise to schools of thought - most of which try to twist the simple grammar of Daniel. But what it does is take care of the time that there is no Temple because the daily oblation needs the temple. So, the student of prophecy can take God's tendency to leave the years of chastisement of Israel out and confirm Hosea 6:2 - that Israel's time of chastisement is 2 days of 1,000 year each - or, the time from Christ declaring "your house is left to you desolate".

This can, however, complicate matters a bit. The time from Adam to Christ is around 4,002 years - or 4 1,000 year-days. But is this with, or without prophetic missing years. It doesn't seem like a problem until you want to define the "Rests" of Hebrews Chapter 3 and 4. You need the Millennial "day" to be a thousand years, and you need the first "Rest" to encompass the life of Adam

[farouk]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:48 PM, Katie Rose Müller said:

Matthew Henry has some content that is helpful, but seems more devotional, sermonette, simplistic or redundant for my liking. For example:

1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.

Matthew Henry writes: 6:1-10

Pulpit Commentary Writes
 

I'm researching and proving the date of the Exodus and I find these types of commentaries more useful when weighing evidence for the Israelite Exodus from Egypt compared to Matthew Henry.

By comparing commentary, I get different view points; different understandings I may never have considered by just reading the word by myself. I feel I can cover more ground by listening to commentary, because even if the commenters are wrong, I can still view their angle and disprove it.


 

Hi @Katie Rose Müller Do you yourself have a favorite Bible commentary?

[Katie Rose Müller]

@farouk I think Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges is probably my favorite, but Pulpit is really good too.

[Neighbor]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:48 PM, Katie Rose Müller said:

By comparing commentary, I get different view points; different understandings I may never have considered by just reading the word by myself. I feel I can cover more ground by listening to commentary, because even if the commenters are wrong, I can still view their angle and disprove it.

Do you also find https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ useful?

[Katie Rose Müller]

@Neighbor I do. That's where I compare commentaries. Since I can read them online, I'm able to decide which ones I think are best for my best collection before spending money on some that I'd otherwise be disappointed in. Matthew Henry was the first one I bought just because I heard of how popular he was, but upon further reading I wasn't actually impressed and sort of regret the purchase. 1/2 regret, I know it's still useful, but wish I had at least gotten it cheaper than I did. Lol.

[Neighbor]

Hi again, I tend to use online Bible Gateway for versions of the word in English and then use Biblehub for commentaries. It has been expanding it's format so I need to work on using it more effectively including for comparing Bible versions.

BUT being a geezer I still like the feel of a hardcopy print on paper book format best of all.

Lately I have been exploring more deeply a timeline Bible "The Life And Times Historical Reference Bible" published by Thomas Nelson Publishers. I am finding it quite helpful and enlightening. Hadn't really delved into it much until more recent times of my own timeline; LOL. Used to find it hurt my brain seeing events in tandem and also in sequence. Now it  provides me some "Ahha!" moments.

I guess as I think about it my "go to" is The Spurgeon Archives and his four point talks giving the word verse by verse and exposition with practical application of the word.

[In the Clouds]

Commentaries can be interesting.  My preference for study is methodology of translating scripture to the Hebrew and Greek.  Have you ever done that?  You can get a multilevel understanding of the Bible.

[farouk]

6 hours ago, Katie Rose Müller said:

@Neighbor I do. That's where I compare commentaries. Since I can read them online, I'm able to decide which ones I think are best for my best collection before spending money on some that I'd otherwise be disappointed in. Matthew Henry was the first one I bought just because I heard of how popular he was, but upon further reading I wasn't actually impressed and sort of regret the purchase. 1/2 regret, I know it's still useful, but wish I had at least gotten it cheaper than I did. Lol.

@Katie Rose Müller There is indeed a lot of commentary material on the Web now.

Matthew Henry is heart-warming; and has been found to be for generations.

Spurgeon is quite similar to Matthew Henry, although his writings are more sermons than comprehensive commentary.

[farouk]

4 hours ago, In the Clouds said:

Commentaries can be interesting.  My preference for study is methodology of translating scripture to the Hebrew and Greek.  Have you ever done that?  You can get a multilevel understanding of the Bible.

It's true that one can lose a significant amount in translation if the method used is dynamic/paraphrastic - and varying permutations of these tendencies.