Let's discuss Bible commentaries

Theology
1

Bible commentaries play a crucial role in how Scripture is read, taught, and debated, yet they are often either overtrusted as authorities or dismissed as unnecessary filters, so it may be useful for us to discuss how we actually use them, which kinds we find most helpful, and where we think their limits lie.

At their best, commentaries act as disciplined conversation partners that help readers move beyond surface readings by engaging the original languages, historical setting, and theological trajectory of a passage, while still remaining subordinate to the biblical text itself and especially to the gospel center revealed in the cross and the resurrection.

For example, an exegetical commentary on John 19:30[1] will often focus on the Greek term tetelestai, explaining its completed-action force and covenantal implications, which helps frame the crucifixion not as tragic failure but as the decisive completion of Christ’s atoning work, a meaning that then must be read forward into the resurrection rather than left at the tomb.

By contrast, a historical commentary on the same verse may emphasize Roman crucifixion practices and Jewish expectations of Messiah, highlighting how scandalous and incomprehensible a dying Savior would have appeared to first-century observers, thereby intensifying the theological weight of the resurrection as God’s public vindication of Jesus.

Theological commentaries tend to zoom out further, reading passages within the full sweep of Scripture, so that texts like Romans 4:25[2] are treated not merely as isolated doctrinal statements but as summaries of the entire redemptive pattern, where the cross addresses sin and the resurrection secures justification, meaning, and hope.

Pastoral or devotional commentaries, while sometimes lighter on technical detail, often excel at showing how these truths shape Christian life, worship, and endurance, especially when they keep the cross and resurrection at the center rather than drifting into moralism or vague encouragement.

At the same time, commentaries are never neutral, since every commentator brings theological commitments, methodological assumptions, and sometimes denominational agendas to the text, which means they must be read critically rather than reverently, weighed against Scripture, and compared with other voices across time and tradition.

With that in mind, I would be interested to hear from others here: which commentaries have most shaped your understanding of Scripture, and why; whether you tend to prefer exegetical, historical, or theological approaches; and how you decide when a commentary is illuminating the text versus imposing a framework onto it.

If possible, feel free to share a specific passage and explain how a particular commentary helped or hindered your interpretation, especially in relation to how it handled the cross and the resurrection, since those themes ultimately test whether an interpretation coheres with the heart of the biblical message.

Curious to see how others navigate this, because commentaries can either sharpen our reading of Scripture or quietly replace it, and the difference usually shows up in the details.

Please let’s keep this civil, friendly, as I stick my neck out here.

God bless brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus!

Johann.

  1. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. - KJV ↩︎

  2. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. - KJV ↩︎

2

Please note, in relation to this collection, the words of Spurgeon:

‘It is to be specially noted, that in no case do we endorse all that any author has written in his commentary. We could not read the works through, it would have needed a Methuselah to do that; nor have we thought it needful to omit a book because it contains a measure of error, provided it is useful in its own way; for this catalog is for thoughtful, discerning men, and not for children.

We have not, however, knowingly mentioned works whose main drift is skeptical, or Socinian, except with a purpose; and where we have admitted comments by writers of doubtful doctrine, because of their superior scholarship and the correctness of their criticisms we have given hints which will be enough for the wise. It is sometimes very useful to know what our opponents have to say.’

Also note, while liberal theology is in serious, fundamental, unbelieving error, some of the better, more conservative liberal works (usually noted as such) from the mid-late 1800’s and early 1900’s have been included on these pages as they often contain a wealth of information that can be found nowhere else (which is particularly valuable for the advanced student if one is looking for exhaustive information on a particular text). These works are usually in the advanced sections of the webpages (as liberals rarely wrote anything that fed anyone’s soul). Barber often relates why the particular work is useful. Needless to say: Beware of their presuppositions, eat the meat, spit out the bones, and feed upon the vast majority of the commentaries that hold forth God’s Truth in shining fullness.

Many of the works on these pages can be bought on Amazon and BookFinder. A book in hand is worth two on the computer.

Please enjoy thoroughly to the glory of God, and tell your friends.

.

“O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.”

“I rejoice at thy word, as one that finds great spoil!”

Ps. 119:97, 162

O how I love Thy torah! It is my meditation kol hayom.
Psa 119:98 Thou through Thy mitzvot hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
Psa 119:99 I have more understanding than every melamed of mine: for Thy edot are my meditation.
Psa 119:100 I understand more than the zekenim, for I keep Thy pikkudim.
Psa 119:101 I have refrained my feet from every orakh rah, in order that I might be shomer over Thy Devar.
Psa 119:102 I have not departed from Thy mishpatim: for Thou hast taught me.
Psa 119:103 How sweet are Thy words unto my palate! Sweeter than devash to my mouth!
Psa 119:104 Through Thy pikkudim I get understanding: therefore I hate every orakh sheker.
Psa 119:105
OJB.

J.

3

Johann, I appreciate both the spirit and the substance of your question. Commentaries can be tremendous servants of the text, but they make poor masters. Over the years I’ve found that the ones that have helped me most are those that begin with careful exegesis — wrestling honestly with the grammar, historical setting, and flow of thought — before ever moving into theology or application. When a commentator lets the text speak first, rather than rushing to fit it into a system, it tends to sharpen my understanding. When the framework comes first, the Scripture often gets quietly bent to support it.

Personally, I lean toward exegetical and historical approaches as the foundation. Understanding what the author actually said, to whom, and in what context guards against reading modern assumptions back into the text. Theological reflection is important, but only after the meaning has been drawn out rather than imposed. A good commentary will make you say, “I see that in the text now,” while a poor one leaves you thinking, “I never would’ve gotten that without their system.”

One passage that stands out for me is John 3:5 — “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Some commentaries I’ve read quickly spiritualize “water” into natural birth or symbolic cleansing because that fits their broader theology about salvation. But when I encountered commentaries that carefully traced the Old Testament background — especially Ezekiel 36 where God promises to sprinkle clean water and put His Spirit within His people — the passage came alive in a way that was grounded in Scripture itself. The cross and resurrection are woven into that promise of new covenant life, not detached from it. That kind of handling illuminated the text instead of flattening it.

On the other hand, I’ve seen commentaries on passages like Acts 2 or Romans 6 where the cross is emphasized rightly, but the resurrection life and transformative power of union with Christ are minimized because they don’t fit a strictly forensic view of salvation. The result is an interpretation that is technically clever but feels disconnected from the fullness of the gospel narrative.

For me, the test you mentioned is crucial: does the interpretation cohere with the cross and the resurrection together — not just forgiveness of sin, but new life in Christ? And just as important, does it arise naturally from the text itself? When a commentary constantly has to explain away plain language or redirect obvious connections, that’s usually a sign a framework is doing the driving.

In the end, I use commentaries as conversation partners, not final authorities. Scripture interprets Scripture, and the Holy Spirit remains the primary teacher. The best commentaries help us see what’s already there; the worst quietly replace careful reading with borrowed conclusions.

Thank you for opening this discussion in such a gracious way. It’s a needed reminder that while tools are valuable, nothing replaces wrestling with the Word itself in humility before God.

God bless you as well, brother.

4

Thank you for your contribution, brother; I appreciate the perspective you brought to the discussion, and I am genuinely interested in hearing more about the specific commentaries or secondary sources you are drawing from in your study.

For context, my own desk tends to look like a small academic crime scene, with a substantial Koine Greek New Testament within reach and comparative religious texts, including multiple Qurans, used primarily for reference and clarity during interfaith discussions rather than for polemics, alongside a steady habit of listening to formal debates and lectures across a wide theological spectrum.

Much of my exposure comes from engaging debates and discussions involving Jewish and Messianic scholars, Reformed theologians, Muslim apologists and imams, as well as voices from Arminian and Pentecostal traditions, which has reinforced for me how dramatically presuppositions shape interpretation long before a commentary is ever opened.

With that in mind, I am curious about your own approach to secondary literature: do you tend to rely more heavily on exegetical commentaries that focus on the original languages and textual detail, hermeneutical works that emphasize interpretive frameworks and canonical coherence, or devotional commentaries aimed primarily at application and spiritual reflection?

I am especially interested in how you decide which category carries the most weight when tensions arise between linguistic detail, theological system, and pastoral concern, since those moments often reveal what we implicitly treat as authoritative in the interpretive process.

J.

5

I think this is a good place to start.

You said.

One passage that stands out for me is John 3:5 — “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Some commentaries I’ve read quickly spiritualize “water” into natural birth or symbolic cleansing because that fits their broader theology about salvation. But when I encountered commentaries that carefully traced the Old Testament background — especially Ezekiel 36 where God promises to sprinkle clean water and put His Spirit within His people — the passage came alive in a way that was grounded in Scripture itself. The cross and resurrection are woven into that promise of new covenant life, not detached from it. That kind of handling illuminated the text instead of flattening it.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

How do you read this?

J.

6

Johann, that’s a good passage to bring into the discussion, and I think it actually reinforces the same Old Testament–rooted pattern.

In Ephesians 5:26 Paul is clearly drawing on covenant-cleansing imagery again — language that comes straight out of passages like Ezekiel 36 and Isaiah 52, where God promises to wash His people and make them holy so they can belong to Him fully. The phrase “washing of water by the word” is not describing two unrelated things (literal water over here and a metaphorical word over there), but a unified act of God’s cleansing work accomplished through His spoken promise in Christ.

In the Greek, loutrō tō hydatos en rhēmati carries the idea of a bath or washing that is brought about in connection with God’s proclaimed word — His covenant declaration. In other words, it’s not merely information being preached; it’s the effective word of God that accomplishes what it declares, just as in creation (“Let there be light”) or in the prophetic promises of renewal.

This fits perfectly with the Ezekiel 36 backdrop:
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean… A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you…”

There, the “water” and the “Spirit” are not competing, but part of one divine act of renewal. God cleanses, then indwells, making His people holy and fit for His presence. Paul is applying that same promise to the Church, showing that Christ is the one who fulfills it through His saving work — grounded in the cross and made effective in resurrection life.

So when I read Ephesians 5:26 alongside John 3:5, I don’t see Paul redefining water as merely “the word” in a symbolic sense that removes its covenantal cleansing imagery. Rather, I see him emphasizing that this cleansing promised in the prophets is now accomplished through Christ’s redemptive work and proclaimed through the gospel. The “word” is the means by which God applies what Christ has achieved — just as the prophets spoke God’s promises that would one day be fulfilled.

In short, Ephesians 5 doesn’t flatten John 3 into a purely metaphorical reading. It deepens it by showing that the washing God promised long ago is now realized in Christ, forming a holy people for Himself.

And again, this is where careful attention to biblical theology and Old Testament background helps rather than hinders. Both passages are pointing to the same new covenant reality: cleansing, renewal, and life by the Spirit, flowing from God’s saving action and word in Christ.

Appreciate you bringing that text into the conversation — it’s a great example of Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Grace to you, brother.

7

Then you should agree with this?

sanctify. Greek. hagiazo. See 1Co_1:2.

and cleanse = having cleansed. Greek. katharizo.

with the washing = by (no preposition: dative case) the laver. Greek. loutron; only here and Tit_3:5 which says Figure of speech Anthropopatheia , the laver being put for Christ’s death and its results. Compare Numbers 19, especially Num_19:9 and Num_19:17 .

Has nothing to do with baptism.

the word. Greek. rhema. First occurance: Mat_4:4. See Mar_9:32.

And here…

with the washing. or, by the laver. Gr. loutron, *S# G3067, only here and Tit_3:5 g. FS22M. The laver is put for Christ’s death and its results. Compare Num_19:9; Num_19:17, Has nothing to do with baptism (CB).

Washing of water is a picture, illustration, of the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit, and has nothing to do with ceremonial water baptism.

The washing is real, transformational, and life-giving; this is water of eternal life (Compare Jhn_4:10; Jhn_7:38-39) [LNT, fn z]. =Exo_29:4; =Exo_30:18, Lev_8:6, **Num_19:9; **Num_19:17, 2Ki_5:13-14 note. +*Psa_51:7, Ezk_16:9; *Ezk_36:25, Zec_13:1, *Jhn_3:5; Jhn_13:5; Jhn_13:8; Jhn_13:10, +*Act_22:16, +*1Co_6:11, *Tit_3:5-7, +*Heb_10:22, *1Pe_3:21, *1Jn_5:6, Rev_7:14.
of water. Num_31:23, Deu_23:11, Jhn_19:34, 1Pe_3:20.
by the word. Gr. rhēma (S# G4487), Mrk_9:32 note. With a rhema or spoken word, is distinct from the written word. Rhema, the spoken word, is a reference to God’s intention, purpose, or promise (compare Jol_2:28; Ezk_36:26-27). The Holy Spirit makes the believer holy as in wholly (1Th_5:23-24), or completely, and enables us to live accordingly (LNT, fn a). Eph_6:17, **Psa_119:9, *+Jhn_15:3; Jhn_17:17, +Rom_10:8; +Rom_10:9, Heb_6:5; **Heb_11:3 note. *Jas_1:18, *1Pe_1:22; *1Pe_1:23.

Logging off, it’s really late.

Remember the topic brother.

J.

8

Johann, I do agree with much of what you’ve laid out there — especially where it emphasizes that Paul is drawing on cleansing imagery rooted in the Old Testament and fulfilled in Christ, rather than reducing the passage to a mere ritual act. The verbs hagiazo (to set apart as holy) and katharizo (to cleanse) absolutely point to a real, accomplished work of God, not just an outward ceremony. And loutron as a “laver” or washing place naturally echoes temple and purification language, particularly Numbers 19 and the broader priestly washings, which themselves were always pointing beyond the shadow to a deeper reality.

Where I’d gently nuance things is not in denying the spiritual depth of the washing — I fully agree it is transformational, life-giving, and accomplished through Christ’s redemptive work and the Spirit’s application — but in being careful about pressing the phrase “has nothing to do with baptism” in an absolute sense. In the New Testament, baptism consistently functions as the outward expression and covenantal sign of that inward cleansing and union with Christ (Romans 6:3–4, Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21 — which you even referenced). Those passages themselves hold together the spiritual reality and the embodied response without confusing the two.

In other words, I don’t read Paul as saying the washing is merely symbolic, nor as saying it is merely ceremonial. I read him as drawing from the whole biblical storyline where God cleanses His people, gives them a new heart, and places His Spirit within them — Ezekiel 36 again being central — and showing that this is now realized in Christ and proclaimed through the rhema, the effective word of God.

The “washing of water by the word” fits beautifully with that prophetic promise: God speaks, and what He speaks He accomplishes. The cleansing is God’s act; the Word is the means; the Spirit is the agent of transformation. That’s the heart of the new covenant.

So yes — I fully agree that Ephesians 5 is not about empty ritual and not about mere external washing. It is about the deep, covenantal cleansing accomplished by Christ’s death and resurrection and applied by the Spirit. And I agree that the Old Testament purification imagery is essential for understanding it rightly.

Where I’d hold the tension (rather than resolve it in one direction) is that the New Testament often allows the spiritual reality and its visible expression to stand together without collapsing one into the other or excluding either. The danger on one side is reducing everything to ceremony; the danger on the other is severing the biblical signs from the realities they proclaim.

And absolutely — the topic you raised at the start still stands strong here: this is a perfect example of how some commentaries illuminate the text by tracing its biblical roots, while others flatten it by forcing it into a pre-decided theological box.

Rest well, brother — appreciate the thoughtful engagement.

9

CaCalvin Commentaroes, John Gill, MacArthur commenatries

10

My general approach to commentaries is to try and expose myself to many. Even when and where I disagree, there can sometimes be interesting insights I hadn’t thought of before.

I don’t own any Bible commentaries myself, I tend to rely on online commentary sources. Though that does require this caveat: Any book about the Bible, about biblical themes, or about theology will inevitably be a commentary of some kind–so I do own plenty of those, but nothing that markets itself as a commentary.

While I do stick to Lutheran confessional views for obvious reasons, I wasn’t always a Lutheran, and my pre-Lutheran influences and post-Lutheran influences (which still include a lot of non-Lutheran sources) still play a significant role.

As such Patristic, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and other still are important to me.

At the end of the day, my goal isn’t to follow a specific theological tradition or scholar; but to faithfully understand Scripture. And I am willing to disagree with my denomination on certain matters–though on major dogmatic issues, if there were major disagreement, it would be in bad faith to remain; so I am speaking as it pertains to less critical issues.

That’s why on matters of Justification, the Gospel, the Law, on the Sacraments, on the nature of the Church, I’m uncompromisingly Lutheran–not because that’s my “team” and I have to bat for them, but because these are the issues which drove me to becoming Lutheran in the first place, because I was convinced by Scripture and the broader witness of the Christian Church that the Lutheran tradition gets these major issues right. Otherwise I wouldn’t be Lutheran.

But I have no problem disagreeing with my synod on certain things, and I’ve been part of many inter-Lutheran debates. I’ve even switched synods over the years because of concerns and reasons. When I first became Lutheran I joined the ELCA, and I was very happy there, especially as my congregation was deeply biblical and deeply faithful. However over time I grew increasingly uncomfortable with some elements of the ELCA–mostly in what the ELCA would sometimes tolerate. It wasn’t political views, but theological views; and while I couldn’t see myself becoming LCMS or WELS, I did find myself in TAALC. A tiny Lutheran synod that has altar and pulpit fellowship with the LCMS. Do I agree with every jot and tittle of TAALC? No, but I believed that being part of a more theologically rigorous and confessional synod that I had nitpicks with on some things was better than a synod that, while I found deeply faithful and confessional congregations, at the upper levels was unwilling to draw a firm line in the sand in important ways. I believe in a Church that has open arms, and welcomes anyone to come and hear the Gospel–but it has to be the Gospel, and preaching of the Law still matters (because we are sinners, and we need to hear the truth of what we are without Christ so that we truly behold the greatness of grace we have in Christ)–and we can’t compromise on that.

This went on a wild tangent. I apologize for that.

1 Like
11

No need to aplogize brother @TheologyNerd as I really appreciate your thoughts on this.

J.