Tools for the Preacher
As tools adorn the walls of a carpenter's workshop, so commentaries adorn the shelves of a preacher's study. Which is why preachers are as reluctant to lend out their precious commentaries as carpenters are loath to lend out their chisels.
A commentary itself is the summary of perhaps a dozen other commentaries, and so, as the preacher sits with say 6 commentaries on his desk, he sits in the presence of 72 teachers. What a privilege!
Good Commentaries and Bad
I have bought and read one too many poor commentaries in my lifetime, but good has come of bad for I am more discerning today as to which commentaries I buy and what expectations I place on each. Here is a general summary of commentary types, and the most significant fact to start with is Who Wrote It? As the author, so the commentary, hence the categories below:
Liberal commentators. These chaps and chapesses don't take Scripture seriously and filter Holy Writ through tiny human eyes judging and casting out what they either do not understand or do not like. Although these come-and-go commentaries are dated before the ink is dry, and though they are generally untrustworthy, they alert the preacher to possible issues that an unbeliever may stumble over, and hence may be worth answering from an evangelistic and apologetic point of view in the sermon. Sometimes there is a nugget of gold, but it's often well hidden under dunes of dusty scholastic sand and it may not be worth walking across the desert to find said lode.
I have made it a general rule to have one liberal commentator to hand, so that I may better understand and relate to the unbelievers in the congregation, and to lighten up my study times with a little mirth: when demythologising the Gospels the liberals come up with truly laughable explanations, see below.
Evangelical commentators, type a - scholars. Infinitely better are the evangelical scholars. They can see, a considerable advantage over the liberal types. They take Scripture seriously and many good technical facts can be gleaned from them. But they are limited because their daily environment is the academy, not the church. Often they are writing to combat some new silly idea coming forth from their liberal colleagues and when they do, their own writing turns as dry as dust. For that reason, these commentaries are time bound. There is a nigh-infinite difference between writing in and for the academy and writing for the Church of Jesus Christ, not least in terms of application, so when I take up one these commentaries my expectations are quote low. And therefore rarely am I disappointed.
Evangelical commentaries, type b - not scholar and not preacher. There is a second type of evangelical commentary which is written by someone who is located somewhere in the Church but is not in an academic institution nor are they recognised pastors or teachers in a local church. They may well be parachurch folks who also turn their hand to writing commentaries. Once you know that the author is not a church pastor or church teacher, again, you don't raise your expectations too high.
Evangelical commentaries, type c - preachers. The very best commentaries are written by preachers, who not only understand the text, but just as importantly, understand the flock for whom the Holy Spirit wrote the text. I trust the writings of a brain surgeon who actually does operations infinitely more than Dr Professor brain surgeon, who dwells in some ivory palace.
We should say that not all preaching commentaries are equal. Some are just the sermon notes of the preacher. Some run off into flights of fancy whose airport must have been, you assume, some event in the life of the preacher's church at the time he put pen to paper.
But others contain much pure gold.
To be sure if all a preacher consults are the scholars it's likely his preaching will be as dry, formal and cerebral. If he consults the preachers his own heart will be warmed and then he will be able to warm the hearts of his hearers.
John's Gospel
So, I have been preaching on the Seven I ams of Jesus and the Seven Miraculous Signs, two series, back to back. (I do not bow at the altar of expositional preaching - there is no hint in Scripture that preaching through a book cover to cover has any more merit than series of topical sermons, such as the above).
I did not use a liberal commentary in these two series, because I would have wasted so much energy disagreeing with the invention of more fanciful miracles to explain away the real ones.
(Know this one? Apparently Jesus did not turn five loaves and five fish into food for thousands. Instead a little boy's generosity sparked crowd-wide generosity?! Can you image how long it would take for the lad to make his way to every one of those 5000 family groups to explain what he had done? All in one afternoon. All assuming that everyone was inspired by his story rather than despising him, as was the want of too many men in those days. Let's say he spoke to each family unit for one minute that is over 80 hours to get around them all. [Perhaps the lad flew around? Perhaps he used Twitter?] This liberal tale is far more difficult to believe than the 'simpler' miracle of the mighty Son of God who created the stars making bread multiply).
Here are the commentaries I did use, starting with the least useful and progressing to the most useful:
The Gospel According to John - Don Carson (scholar)
Many years ago when I was seeking advice about my future, I wrote to Don Carson and he wrote back a long understanding letter to me, a complete stranger, so I honour this man greatly. The problem with this commentary is that it so often tackles contemporary problems which the liberals raise that the wood is lost among the trees. Many insights but too cerebral. But what else can you expect from a scholar? Think about it. I doubt it will be known in 50 years.
The Gospel According to John - Leon Morris (scholar)
Another scholar, lots of insights, but limited usefulness for pastors and preachers.
New Testament Commentary John - William Hendricksen (scholar)
Same as above, Hendricksen is always filled with technical details, but he tends to be more practical than Morris or Carson.
The Gospel of John - AW Pink (Pastor-Preacher)
Now we're getting somewhere. With daily real-life experience of God's people, Pink is able to apply the Scriptures to hearts and lives. Sometimes he goes off on flights of fancy, but mostly he's a steady, if a little lengthy, guide.
The Bible Expoisiton Commentary (Warren Wiersbe) Matthew - Galatians
I love the work of this preacher. The only problem comes when the commentary reads like a sermon whose headings and arrangement have shaped the material's order a little too much.
Expository thoughts on John - J C Ryle
At the very top of my list is the 150 years old Expository Thoughts on John by Pastor JC Ryle (I know some people call him a bishop, but that title is unknown in Scripture, which calls him a pastor). What's especially useful about his two volumes on John is that Ryle relegates the detailed analysis of the text to small type footnotes in a sections on their own, and concentrates on real food in the ordinary font size main text.
Ryle understands and applies the relevance of every verse and story to the souls, struggles and joys of the people he ministered to.
He's not writing for the academy, he's writing for the church of ordinary people like you and I. And like the work of Pastor Matthew Henry, Pastor Ryle's work has been reprinted many times.
If you can only afford one commentary, always go for a preacher as author, and if it's John's gospel go for Ryle.
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash
No comments:
Post a Comment