My seventh commandment for commentary usage is:
You shall not hold all commentaries equal, but shall give greatest weight to those that stimulate greatest interest in the biblical text and its argument.
It comes with a corollary:
You shall resist speculations made by commentators and shall demand the same text-driven arguments from them that you would demand of your friends or that they would demand of you.
The purpose of these commandments is to highlight the discipline required to make wise use of commentaries for Bible study. Let me explain the primary commandment itself, and then I will explain why it leads to the corollary commandment.
Clarifying the Uses of Commentaries
By definition of the word “average,” approximately half of all published commentaries will be below average for a given purpose. And the same commentary may provide above-average help for one purpose and below-average help for another. So in order to make wise use of commentaries, we must first be clear on what we want the commentaries to do. Then we can judge how competently the commentary does that job.
Some commentaries are written primarily for academics, with the main goals being to address the many historic disputes surrounding a book of the Bible. These commentaries may observe and interpret the text insofar as it enables them to evaluate the many options given over the course of history in response to particular questions. Some commentaries do this well, without losing sight of the forest. But sometimes the end product is more about the debates and options than it is about the argument of the text.
Other commentaries are written primarily for ordinary churchgoers, with a heavy focus on practical application. Such “devotional” commentaries will vary in quality: Some may lead the reader to interpret the text as though it were written directly to him or her, while others do a better job interpreting the text through the eyes of the original audience first.
Regardless of whether you benefit more from a technical or devotional commentary, the question I ask of any commentary is: Does it help me to understand the biblical author’s overall argument? If I can work through 10, 20, or 50 pages of comments without getting a clear grasp on where we’ve come from and where we’re going, I have found myself a commentary I am unlikely to finish.
So remember the third commandment, which is about your responsibility to study the Scripture and not merely adopt whatever interpretations you happen to read in a commentary. So if you read a commentary for the purpose of helping you to study the Bible, success ought to be measured by how well that commentary stimulates you to look back at the text and not necessarily by how clear or cogent its conclusions are. Are these things really so (Acts 17:11)?
Speculating on the Role of Speculation
Now we come to the corollary commandment quoted above. Commentators sometimes wander into the realm of speculation, since that’s why publishers pay them the big bucks. People buy a commentary because they want answers, so commentators may face pressure to provide answers even when the text on which they comment does not. Who wrote the book of Kings? Who was the audience of Mark? Who, precisely, were the spirits in prison to whom Jesus preached in 1 Peter 3:19? What is the identity of “the restrainer” holding back the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2:6-7)? Why does Death ride a pale (or green) horse (Rev 6:8)? What was Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7)?
I am not saying that such questions have no answers. And I am not saying that commentators ought not to seek to answer such questions. But sometimes such questions, and many more, can take up so much time and space that we utterly fail to follow the text’s argument. For example, go ahead and try to identify the man of lawlessness or the thing restraining him, if you can do so from the text. But by all means, do not allow this inquiry to distract you from the text’s chief argument that you ought not to be alarmed by such things.
If your close friend claimed to know the identity of the restrainer on purely imaginative and speculative grounds, you would likely not buy it. Why would such imagination or speculation be any more persuasive simply because the one hawking it has a PhD or teaches at a seminary? Be a demanding consumer of commentaries. Demand text-driven arguments rooted in careful observation and interpretation. If you don’t get them, it may be time to take your business elsewhere. And if you would like some recommendations, I maintain a list of commentaries that model OIA Bible study here.
Leave a Reply