What commentary

What commentary or commentaries on Logos 4 will give me several views of a subject? And also what is the definition of Lemma that I am seeing on Logos. I have looked the Web over and for the sake of me cannot find a definition that I thank fits Lemma.

Thanks for the help

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

Hi Sam,

It depends on what book of the Bible you're studying. There are sometimes special resources that offer different views on a particular book, for example Revelation: Four Views. Most multi-volume commentaries (one volume per book) will have the space to discuss different views on specific points, but they all have their own interpretive lens and intended audience. Some are more evangelical/conservative, others are more liberal/mainline. Some are more geared towards exegetical/homiletic use. Some are more geared towards application. And some are more scholarly.

Are you looking for recommendations of commentaries that you might already have in your Logos library? If so, which base package do you own. Or are you looking for recommendations of a commentary set to buy?

Check out http://bestcommentaries.com/ for reviews.

Lemma means the dictionary form of a word, without all the conjugations, declensions, endings, etc.

Sam West

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136666#Comment_136666

Thanks for the quick reply Rosie. I use the Bible Knowledge commentary mostly. if you would comment on this commentary.

You can tell I am new to all this and I still cant get it through my thick head just what Lemma means and it bugs me to death. Is it the definition of the original "root word" without any modifications?

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136677#Comment_136677

You can tell I am new to all this and I still cant get it through my thick head just what Lemma means and it bugs me to death. Is it the definition of the original "root word" without any modifications?

It depends on how you use the word root. If you think of the dictionary form of a word as its root then Yes.

However, if you mean root to be the stem of a word then no.

The lemma is primarily used to take you to a lexicon to procure a definition. The lemma is the 3rd person Masculine Singular form of a Noun etc. or the 1 Person Singular of a Qal/Present Active Indicative Verb

David Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136680#Comment_136680

The Bible Knowledge Commentary is fine - as far as it goes. It is written from a strictly dispensational point of view, so many of its comments are slanted in that direction. If, like me, you don't espouse a dispensational theology, you will need to use it with some discrimination. The New Bible Commentary (IVP) is probably a good alternative starting-point. Then, depending on which book of the Bible you are studying, you can look for individual, more detailed commentaries that spell out the various viewpoints on a particular topic.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136677#Comment_136677

Thanks for the quick reply Rosie. I use the Bible Knowledge commentary mostly. if you would comment on this commentary.

You can tell I am new to all this and I still cant get it through my thick head just what Lemma means and it bugs me to death. Is it the definition of the original "root word" without any modifications?

The Bible Knowledge Commentary is a basic one-volume commentary, so it's not going to have the space to discuss differing viewpoints on various passages. It is edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy F. Zuck. It is based on the NIV translation and includes exposition and commentary from members of the Dallas Theological Seminary faculty. The perspective is theologically conservative, evangelical, non-technical. (Source: christianity.about.com)

Yes, you can kind of think of the lemma as the "root" of a word. But it's not a basic root (stem), as in the bare bones simplest unit from which all other variants of that word spring. It's more like the "dictionary form" of a word -- what we'd look up if we were looking up a word in the dictionary. For example, if you wanted to know what walking means, you'd look up walk. It so happens that walk- is also the basic root (stem) of the word walking. But take another example, consecrated. The dictionary form (or lemma) is consecrate. However the root of this word is sacr- or sacro- (from Latin, meaning sacred or holy) and it is also the root of many other English words, such as desecrate, sacerdotal, sacrament, sacred, sacrifice, etc.

Here's an example in Greek: In John 1:3, "All things were made through him..." the Greek verb translated "were made" is ἐγένετο. (egeneto). Its lemma is γίνομαι (ginomai). As you can see, it is not really the "root" of the word in the Biblical text, but it is the dictionary form of the word you'd need to know to look it up in a lexicon. For verbs, this dictionary form is known as the infinitive. In English, the infinitive form of this verb means "to make." I don't know much about Greek etymology, but I imagine the root of the word is something like γέν (gen) or γίν (gin). This is not the lemma.

In Logos, if you want to know what the Greek or Hebrew lemma of a word you encounter in the Bible is, just right click on that word and a menu will pop up showing you the lemma form. This only works in Bibles that have interlinear capability (ESV, KJV, NLT, NASB, are some of the ones that do).

You don't need to know Greek and Hebrew to be able to make use of lemmas, because Logos will help you look them up in a lexicon. Just select "Look up" in the left hand side of the menu after making sure that the Lemma tab is selected on the right.

Hope that helps.

Larry Heflin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136685#Comment_136685

Good grief! Just noticing the times on the posts in this thread. Do you folks ever sleep?

Okay, nevermind. Just saw my post time and it's off by two hours. But get some sleep anyway

Paul Golder

What commentary or commentaries on Logos 4 will give me several views of a subject?

Your best bet is going to be a collection of commentaries. After that, your choices are greatly varied, depending on technical level, Point of view (eg. Reformed, Wesleyan/Holiness, etc...), as well as length, and intended purpose (eg. devotional, scholarly, expositional, etc...)

A good place to start is http://www.bestcommentaries.com/

Also, the book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth gives an excellent primer on choosing commentaries.

Edit: I forgot to mention the Logos article on commentaries: Comments on Commentaries

Mike Childs

I commend you for wanting several views of a subject. Too many folks just want a view that agrees with their view.

It is important to understand the theological perspective of each commentary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary is a good basic commentary, but it is important to realize it is written from a dispensational point of view. That is not a criticism - just something to keep in mind.

I would recommend the Tyndale commentaries. They are not too expensive, but the quality is great. They are far more comprehensive than a one or two volume commentary, such as the Bible Knowledge. They are recognized as some of the best evangelical commentaries available. They would be an excellent balance for the Bible Knowledge Commentary. I think the two would complement each other well.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136711#Comment_136711

There's also the Product Guide to Multi-Volume Commentaries.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136711#Comment_136711

Your best bet is going to be a collection of commentaries. After that, your choices are greatly varied, depending on technical level, Point of view (eg. Reformed, Wesleyan/Holiness, etc...), as well as length, and intended purpose (eg. devotional, scholarly, expositional, etc...)

I would agree with this. In L4 you can easily create a collection that would have one commentary from each of the view points you want represented. then you can set up a guide that would have these commentaries. For instance, your collection can contain your favorite Calvinistic commentary on Romans, an Armenian, and then one that represents the true meaning :-). Anytime you do a passage guide on Romans this section of the guide would have a section that presents to you these three views.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136766#Comment_136766

I would agree with this. In L4 you can easily create a collection that would have one commentary from each of the view points you want represented. then you can set up a guide that would have these commentaries. For instance, your collection can contain your favorite Calvinistic commentary on Romans, an Armenian.... Anytime you do a passage guide on Romans this section of the guide would have a section that presents to you these three views.

[Y]

one that represents the true meaning :-)

[:P][:)]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136828#Comment_136828

one that represents the true meaning :-)

Oh, you mean the one that you wrote yourself in PBB format after carefully weighing all the evidence from all the commentaries? [;)]

Edwin Bowden

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136766#Comment_136766

Your best bet is going to be a collection of commentaries. After that, your choices are greatly varied, depending on technical level, Point of view (eg. Reformed, Wesleyan/Holiness, etc...), as well as length, and intended purpose (eg. devotional, scholarly, expositional, etc...)

I would agree with this. In L4 you can easily create a collection that would have one commentary from each of the view points you want represented. then you can set up a guide that would have these commentaries. For instance, your collection can contain your favorite Calvinistic commentary on Romans, an Armenian, and then one that represents the true meaning :-). Anytime you do a passage guide on Romans this section of the guide would have a section that presents to you these three views.

Armenian is from the country of Armenia

Arminian is a theological view.

A common mistake

Alex Scott

If you have any size of a library, you might find the Exegetical Summary series helpful. http://www.logos.com/products/details/4293 Unfortunately it's not cheap, but I think it may be included in some of the upgrade collections - I''m not sure of that though.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136927#Comment_136927

I think it may be included in some of the upgrade collections - I''m not sure of that though.

For Further information -- This series is not available in the Platinum Scholars.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136937#Comment_136937

I think it may be included in some of the upgrade collections - I''m not sure of that though.

For Further information -- This series is not available in the Platinum Scholars.

It's not available in any of the base packages. You can check that sort of info here: http://www.logos.com/comparison

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136843#Comment_136843

Armenian is from the country of Armenia

Arminian is a theological view.

A common mistake

And here I thought I finally had a convert who understood the importance of the Armenian Church in church history.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136722#Comment_136722

... it is written from a dispensational point of view ...

Help!

Please someone, what does that mean?

I tried to find out from what I've got, but not even sure what it means, so can't tell if something is even addressing the answer.

I am not looking to take sides, or start a war here, but it must be important somehow or there would be no need to "keep in mind".

Pam Larson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137070#Comment_137070

"Dispensationalism A system of biblical interpretation and of theology that divides God’s working into different periods that he administers on different bases. It involves a literal interpretation of Scripture, a distinction between Israel and the church, and a premillennial, pretribulational eschatology."

Erickson, M. J. (2001). The concise dictionary of Christian theology (Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed.). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137072#Comment_137072

Thanks Pam,

I don't have that title, but now I know what kinds of things to seek out in what I do have.

More stuff to learn about ...

- Jim T

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137072#Comment_137072

"Dispensationalism A system of biblical interpretation and of theology that divides God’s working into different periods that he administers on different bases. It involves a literal interpretation of Scripture, a distinction between Israel and the church, and a premillennial, pretribulational eschatology."

Erickson, M. J. (2001). The concise dictionary of Christian theology (Rev. ed., 1st Crossway ed.). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.

That's a good concise definition, but one part of it is a bit too concise and could be misunderstood. The "distinction between Israel and the church" is referring to New Testament mentions of Israel, not OT. Covenant theology (the other end of this particular theological spectrum, which rejects most dispensationalist claims) would also agree that there's a distinction between Old Testament Israel and the church. But unlike dispensationalism, it interprets some key New Testament references to Israel as speaking metaphorically about the church.

Dispensationalism is the viewpoint of a large number of non-denominational churches, many Baptists, probably most Pentecostals, the Left Behind series, Dallas Theological Seminary (and others, but it's been a leading influence), most prophecy minstries, Christian Zionists, anyone who grew up with charts in Sunday School mapping out the End Times, the Rapture, etc. Names like John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Hal Lindsey, John Nelson Darby, C.I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, John MacArthur, Norman Geisler, turn up among famous Dispensationalists. It isn't all one camp, though. There are Classic Dispensationalists, Modified Dispensationalists, Progressive Dispensationalists, and (at the other extreme) Hyper- or Ultradispensationalists. Here's a good web page that describes Dispensationalism's key components and variations: http://www.theologicalstudies.org/dispen.html, by someone from within the fold.

Covenant theology is the viewpoint of most Presbyterians, Reformed, and other mainline denominations, and its heritage comes from the Puritans, Calvinists, etc. O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants is the best explanation of it that I've ever read. It basically views all the different covenants throughout Scripture as continuous and expanding visions of the same unchanging plan of God. There is a fundamental change with the coming of Christ, whereupon the promises to Israel are reinterpreted as promises to the Church. The coming kingdom of God is "already but not yet" and there is little or no emphasis on the timing of it, the specifics of end times prophecy, the modern State of Israel, or a territorial view of the millennial reign of Christ. Seminaries associated with this viewpoint would include Westminster, Covenant, and Reformed. Places like Fuller, Princeton, Regent College, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School would be warmer to this view than to dispensationalism. This view doesn't have as many big-name theologians or pastors championing it, but some names associated with it are R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Meredith Kline, J.I. Packer, Douglas Wilson. The older Princeton theologians (Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos) would probably be in this camp if they were still alive today. Here's a covenant-friendly web page explaining Covenant Theology.

There are also various points on the spectrum between these two main positions. And there are those (such as Mennonites, perhaps Catholics and Orthodox?) who sort of ignore the whole controversy and go their own separate way. And some theologians like John Piper who agree with some points from both sides but refuse to be boxed in.

Logos carries a wealth resources from both of these perspectives. But you probably need to do some Googling to find out which authors come from which perspectives. And people (Bruce Waltke, for example) have been known to change their minds over time. So it's a very fluid spectrum, and I think (I hope) we're all growing to respect each other's viewpoints more even if we don't agree with them. Much can be gained by understanding the other.

Jonathan Burke

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/136927#Comment_136927

If you have any size of a library, you might find the Exegetical Summary series helpful. http://www.logos.com/products/details/4293 Unfortunately it's not cheap, but I think it may be included in some of the upgrade collections - I''m not sure of that though.

This is an excellent series, one of my prioritized resources. I use it all the time. It's a shame it doesn't cover all the books of the Bible. It is certainly the most readable and accessible work for anyone wanting to find out what a range of commentaries say on a particular passage. It also contains definitions of key words from standard lexicons.

David Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137070#Comment_137070

Many Christians - especially new ones - tend to think that 'we believe the Bible' and that's it. But it isn't. Over 20 centuries of Christianity believers have developed a variety of ways of interpreting the message of the Bible and thus the nature and future of Christianity and the purpose of God. Dispensationalism is simply one of these - a fairly recent one, in fact, dating from the mid-19th century. Other views have a much longer pedigree.

The sad thing is that devotees of the different viewpoints often act in a less than Christian manner towards each other. A good basis for relating is first to accept a fellow-Christian on the basis of their claim to be a Christian, regardless of doctrinal differences between you. Once the relationship is established you have a bridge you can cross that enables you to meet and, hopefully in a charitable spirit, discuss your differences and why you hold them. Maybe even to change them...

Peace be with you!

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137082#Comment_137082

This view doesn't have as many big-name theologians or pastors championing it, but some names associated with it are R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Meredith Kline, J.I. Packer, Douglas Wilson.

Hi Rosie,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't D.A. Carson also of the Covenant Theology persuasion? Or am I completely wrong on that? I've done some (minimal) searching and have had a hard time figuring out where he "fits"...which I guess means he may be one of the ones that refuses to be boxed in as you said of Piper?

Thanks for any insight...and thanks for this excellent explanation of this particular spectrum of theology. [;)]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137234#Comment_137234

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't D.A. Carson also of the Covenant Theology persuasion? Or am I completely wrong on that? I've done some (minimal) searching and have had a hard time figuring out where he "fits"...which I guess means he may be one of the ones that refuses to be boxed in as you said of Piper?

Yeah, probably. Here's a good write-up on where he stands on stuff. I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive list. I actually find that knowing where someone can be "boxed in" isn't any longer an interest of mine in my reading. Yes, if someone is a strong proponent of only dispensationalism or only covenant theology it's sometimes helpful to know that. But people who don't get so caught up in defending one particular narrow position or another but write on more broad topics are generally more my style. Also people do change their views over their careers, so if you find some write-up puts them squarely in one particular camp, it might be outdated information. For example, Old Testament scholar Bruce Waltke is also not one who spends much time arguing for a particular position on the dispensational-covenant spectrum. But he did have a personal journey from being a dispensationalist when he was teaching at Dallas Seminary, coming to the point where he couldn't in good faith hold to their viewpoint on it anymore and left there to go teach at Westminster, and then later to Regent. He's one of the most gentle souls I know, deeply prayerful, humble, and desirous of obeying God and his Word and keeping to the truth. He's generous in his dialogue with others and when he writes about what they say, unless he feels they are propounding gross errors. He won't take on his former dispensationalist colleagues in dispute. He just feels differently about these issues now. And seeing a man like that come to a settled position in his own mind yet not feel the need to argue about it and persuade others is a great example to me.

Ron

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137320#Comment_137320

I wasn't trying to give an exhaustive list.

No problem, I just asked because you said there weren't as many big names on that side and I was surprised when I didn't see Carson in your short list since he is a pretty big name that I thought was largely in that camp. Anyway, thanks again for the info and links [:)]

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137082#Comment_137082

Dispensationalism is the viewpoint of a large number of non-denominational churches, many Baptists, probably most Pentecostals...

Wow Rosie. You did a great job in explaining all of that. Thank you.

Just one note: you would find whole spectrum among the modern Pentecostals, not just dispensational perspective. I know it, I am one of them [:)]

J.R. Miller

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137481#Comment_137481

Just one note: you would find whole spectrum among the modern Pentecostals, not just dispensational perspective. I know it, I am one of them

I mention it briefly in one of my books, but Dispensationalism was a key factor in the success of early Pentecostalism. It is in an interesting study and that is why I am hoping more Logos resources can get published... such as Charles Finney's works.

Blessings

Bohuslav Wojnar

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/137577#Comment_137577

Just one note: you would find whole spectrum among the modern Pentecostals, not just dispensational perspective. I know it, I am one of them
I mention it briefly in one of my books, but Dispensationalism was a key factor in the success of early Pentecostalism. It is in an interesting study and that is why I am hoping more Logos resources can get published... such as Charles Finney's works.
Blessings

Yes, Joe, that's interesting observation. You probably are right. I am speaking about the today's situation. But it is only my observation, not based on any statistical data. In my theological development I went in an interesting way. I am a third generation of Pentecostal. From quite strict dispensationalism I evolved to much more covenant orientation, however my understanding of the role of the modern Israel went the opposite way. I am much more today on the Christian Zionist side than on the typical covenant position, not even speaking about the replacement theology. I don't know how would you define that theological frame but I feel quite biblical [:)]

EDIT: Back to the subject: in the first 10 years of my preaching I had used Bible Knowledge Commentary very much. Now I do not open it almost at all. It is good single (2) volume commentary however.

Quick Links

Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered