Could someone help Rank the follow Commentaries

Lee

Hello

I wanted to organize my commentaries better. Can you help with which you think are the best sets and why.

Also I need help with which type of commentary some of them are.

And which are the better Commentaries, i got most of these in the packages when i upgraded.

1. Pulpit Commentary 78 vols type:exegetical

2. Boice’s Expositional Commentary 27 vols type:expositional

3. "Word Biblical Commentary 59 vols I don't have this I'm thinking about it"

4. Lange’s Commentary 61 vols type:exegetical

5. Calvin Commentaries 46 vols type:exegetical

6. The New American Commentary Series (NAC) 40 vols type:exegetical

7. Opening Up Commentary Collection 30 vols type:exegetical

8. Black’s New Testament Commentary (BNTC) 13 vols type:exegetical

9. Exegetical Summaries Series 24 vols type:exegetical

10. The United Bible Societies NT & OT 49 vols type:exegetical

11. Wesleyan Bible Study Commentary Series 18 vols type:exegetical

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JohnB

You might find this useful for types of commentary ...

http://www.logosbiblesoftwaretraining.com/documents/suggested-commentary-tags/

The rest of the site is excellent as well!

Dan Francis

3. "Word Biblical Commentary 59 vols I don't have this I'm thinking about it"

I have not used every series you listed. But that said WBC is the best of the commentaries of those you listed that I have used. It has quality critical commentary from a moderate evangelical point of view and helpful explanations. The gospel according to John is not the most in depth volume in WBC but very good. I will post the treatment of John 7:53-8:10

3. A Woman Caught in Adultery (7:53–8:11)

Introduction

It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form. The evidence may be summarized as follows. (i) It is omitted from our earliest copies of the Greek NT. (ii) In the East it is not found in the oldest form of the Syriac version, the Sahidic and sub-Achmimic, the oldest Bohairic MSS, some Armenian MSS, and the older Georgian version. In the West it is not in some Old Latin MSS and not in the Gothic version. (iii) No Greek commentator on the Gospel before Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) discusses the passage, and Euthymius stated that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it. (iv) No Eastern Fathers cite the passage prior to the tenth century. The earliest Western Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, also make no reference to it. (v) The passage is found in the MS D, and in the mass of later Koine MSS, in some old Latin MSS, the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic version and a few MSS of other versions, the writings of Ambrose and Augustine; Jerome said that it was in many Greek and Latin codices. (vi) Many of the MSS which have the passage have asterisks or obeli, showing that the scribes knew the uncertainty of its status. (vii) There is an extraordinary number of variant readings in the passage. (viii) While most of the Greek MSS that include it set it in its present position, in the Ferrar group of cursives it follows Luke 21:38, in 225 it comes after John 7:36, in the Sinai Georgian MS 16 it follows 7:44, and a number of MSS, including the Armenian, set it after 21:25. (ix) The style and language are more akin to the synoptic Gospels than to the Fourth Gospel.
There are some uncertainties in the evidence. Eusebius states that Papias, writing in the mid-second century, “told another story about a woman who was accused of many sins in the presence of the Lord, a story which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (HE 3.39.17); this could relate to the same episode as that in John 7:53–8:11, but of that we cannot be sure (see Vielhauer in Hennecke’s New Testament Apocrypha 1 [Tr. R. McL. Wilson. London: Lutterworth, 1963] 121–22). More important is the reference in the Syriac Didascalia vii, of the early third century: bishops dealing with repentant sinners are admonished to do “as he also did with her who had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed.” We cannot know where the author found the story, whether in a canonical or uncanonical gospel or in some other kind of writing.
It is clear that the story was not penned by the Fourth Evangelist (or any of the other three Gospel writers), yet there is no reason to doubt its substantial truth. The saying that it preserves is completely in character with what we know of our Lord, and quite out of character with the stern discipline that came to be established in the developing Church. (Augustine tells of the fear of some believers that the story would give their wives encouragement to sin with impunity! This led him to believe that this was the reason for its removal from the Gospel, de coniug. adult. 2.6.) We may regard the story as one of those incidents in the life of our Lord that circulated in the primitive Church and did not come to the notice of our Evangelists (unless the fear that Augustine mentions led them to keep it out of their Gospels!—an unlikely eventuality); it was saved from oblivion by some unknown Christian, who wrote it down. If we ask why it was set in its present place, the answer must be a genuine sense of fitness of context. The theme of judgment is strong in chaps. 7–8; the story could well be regarded as illustrative of 7:24 and 8:15–16; and we note the opposition of the Pharisees to Jesus in 7:46–52 and 8:13.

Bibliography

Becker, U. Jesus und die Ehebrecherin. BZNW 28. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1963. Blinzler, J. “Die Strafe für Ehebruch in Bibel und Halacha. Zur Auslegung von Joh viii 5.” NTS 4 (1957–58) 32–47. Campenhausen, H. von. “Zur Perikope von der Ehebrecherin (Joh 7:53–8:11).” ZNW 68 (1977) 164–75. Coleman, B. W. “The Woman Taken in Adultery, Studies in Texts: Jn 7:53–8:11.” Theol 73 (1970) 409–10. Derrett, J. D. M. “Law in the New Testament: The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery.” NTS 10 (1963–64) 1–26. Jeremias, J. “Zur Geschichtlichkeit des Verhors Jesu vor dem hohen Rat.” ZNW 43 (1950–51) 148–50. Manson, T. W. “The Pericope de Adultera (Joh 7,53–8,11).” ZNW 44 (1952–53) 255–56. Osborne, R. E. “Pericope Adulterae.” CJT 12 (1966) 281–83. Riesenfeld, H. “Die Perikope von der Ehebrecherin in der frühkirchlichen Tradition.” SEÅ; 17 (1952) 106–11. Schilling, F. A. “The Story of Jesus and the Adulteress.” ATR 37 (1955) 91–106. Stauffer, E. Jesus war ganz anders. Hamburg: Wittig, 1967. 123–42. Trites, A. A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery.” BS 131 (1974) 137–46.

Translation

7:53And they went, each to his own home, 8:1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At daybreak he appeared again in the temple, and all the people were coming to him, and he sat down and began teaching them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery, and after setting her in the midst 4they say to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery; 5in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; now what do you yourself say?” 6They said this as a test, so as to frame a charge against him. But Jesus bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. 7As they persisted in questioning him he sat upright and said to them, “Let the man among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8And again he bent down and continued writing on the ground. 9But on hearing that, they went out one by one, beginning with the oldest,d and he was left alone, while the woman was still standing in the midst. 10He sat up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did nobody condemn you?” 11She answered, “Nobody, sir.” And Jesus said, “Nor do I condemn you; go, and from this time on don’t sin any more.”

Notes

a. Instead of μοιχείᾳ D reads ἁμαρτία, “an act of sin.” This has encouraged the belief that the story about the woman accused of “many sins” before the Lord, ascribed by Eusebius to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, was this narrative.

b. Some MSS add after the end of v 8, ἑνὸς ἑκαστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, “the sins of each one of them.”

c. Many MSS add ὑπὸ τῆς συνειδἠσεως ἐλεγχόμενοι, “being convicted by their conscience.”

d. After πρεσΒυτέρων some MSS add ἔως τῶν ἐσχάτῶν ἐσχάτων, “to the youngest,” others πάντες ἀνεχώρησαν, “so that all went out.”

Form/Structure/Setting

The setting has been discussed in the Introduction to the section. Since the narrative takes place during a period when Jesus was staying in Jerusalem, and on an occasion when he was teaching in the temple, it is natural to link it with the controversy stories of Mark 11:27–12:37; accordingly it is frequently classed as a controversy dialogue (so, e.g., Lindars, 308; Gnilka, 64). Since however the weight of the story falls on the saying of Jesus in v 7, it may be better to view it as a (biographical) apothegm (a saying set in a brief context), written down for the instruction of the Church in its treatment of offenders (so Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 63; Schnackenburg, 2:169; Becker, 281).

Comment

7:53–8:3 The opening sentences are uncommonly reminiscent of Luke 21:37–38; they are similarly akin to the situation described in Luke 19:47–48, which finds instant illustration in Luke 20:1–2. This has confirmed many in their belief that the incident concerning the adulterous woman took place about the same time in the ministry of Jesus. Curiously v 3 is the only mention of the scribes in the present text of the Gospel, which is a reminder that for reasons of his own the Evangelist left them out of his account of the story of Jesus.
The woman was caught in the act of adultery. Was she married, or single? Billerbeck, followed by Jeremias, maintained the latter, on the ground that the Mishnah prescribes the more lenient form of execution by strangling for intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband, whereas the more serious punishment of stoning was meted out to a couple, one of whom was a betrothed woman (the evidence in Str-B 2:519–20). This has the startling effect of making the “woman” a girl, not less than twelve years of age but not more than twelve years and six months old (one less than twelve years old would go unpunished as a minor, one more than twelve-and-a-half would be strangled). Jeremias was prepared to maintain this, and it adds an almost unbearable pathos to the story and a shocking reflection on the Pharisees (Parables of Jesus, 1st Eng. ed, 158 n. 96). In his revised edition of the Parables, however, he withdrew that idea, presumably in the light of the information given by Blinzler, who discussed in detail the evidence for the various modes of punishment for immorality among Jews in the time of Jesus. The chief points made by Blinzler related to the term μοιχεύειν and its derivatives, which in the LXX and related Greek writings were used exclusively of adulterous actions of married persons, and the evident fact that the prescriptions in the Mishnah for the punishment of immoral sexual acts did not apply to the time of our Lord; the woman brought to Jesus for his judgment was married (see “Die Strafe für Ehebruch,” 34–47).
4–6 The Pharisees used this occasion of proved adultery to “test” Jesus and to have ground for a “charge” against him. If the time was near the end of Jesus’ ministry they would have known of his proclamation of the kingdom of God to the poor and the sinners, his compassion on the disreputable of society, and even his eating with them, thereby showing complete indifference to the ritual laws as currently understood. Well, here was a real sinner, and the Law demands that she should die for her wickedness. What does he think about it? There is no question of their seeking his advice; they simply wish to discredit him publicly. If he upholds the Law, he contradicts his way of life and his preaching; if he maintains his outlook and preaching regarding sinners and denies Moses, he shows himself a lawless person and perverter of the people who must be brought to justice.
Jesus declines to give an immediate answer. Instead he bent down (presumably still seated in his teaching position) and drew on the dusty ground with his finger. Thereby he set an unanswerable conundrum for exegetes of all time. What did he write? We cannot tell, but that does not prevent the exegetes from guessing! A number have thought that Jesus was simply doodling, whether to calm his anger at the action of the Pharisees or simply for time to think (Brown reports examples from Arabic literature of the Semitic custom of doodling when distraught, 334). T. W. Manson, with others, cited the custom of Roman judges writing out their decision on a case before announcing it (“The Pericope de Adultera,” 255–56), but that may be less relevant in a Palestinian context. Derrett offered an ingenious suggestion, based on the conviction that an adultery that was witnessed by two men looking on was likely to be a framed affair, probably through the connivance of the husband. As Jesus was seated, he could write only a limited number of letters in a row without moving, sixteen Hebrews characters in fact. The first sentence that Jesus wrote, and that suits that length, could have been Exod 23:1b: “You shall not support a wicked man (as a malicious witness)”: the second, Exod 23:7, “From a false matter keep far,” a text quoted in the comparable story of Susanna (“The Story of the Woman …”18–20). The suggestion is entirely possible, though as little provable as others. From ancient times the pertinence of Jer 17:13 to this incident has been noted: “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” It is suggested that this writing in the dust by Jesus was an example of his parabolic actions, reminding the woman’s accusers of this scripture, as though to say “You are those of whom the scripture speaks,” and a silent call to repentance (so Jeremias, Parables, 228). On this understanding the writing need not have been of actual words; the gesture would have been sufficient.
7–9 If to us the symbolic action of Jesus is ambiguous, his spoken word was devastatingly clear. Its immediate application will have been to the witnesses, since in a death by stoning, they had to throw the first stones. On Derrett’s view they had been party to a disgusting conspiracy, but in any case had apparently made no attempt to prevent the adulterous act. Speculation apart, the word of Jesus challenged their behavior, their motives, and their life in the sight of God, and they failed the test. But they were not the only sinners present, as everyone involved in the case was quick to realize. They all left, convicted by their consciences, as some early scribes recognized (see Notes on v 9). And the readers of the narrative know themselves to be included; the saying of Jesus, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matt 7:1), reminds us of our own sinfulness in the sight of God that could rightly be visited upon us.
10–11 Not till the accusers had departed did Jesus address the woman, and that presumably was to put her at ease and encourage her to speak to him (he knew that they had all gone!). What she said was little, but it led Jesus to utter a word of liberation: “Neither do I condemn you.” Coming from the man whom people called the prophet (6:14; 7:40), and some the Messiah, but who in reality was the Redeemer-Revealer with authority bestowed by God, it was an assurance of the mercy of God upon her. But that was not all; he added another statement: “From this time on, do not continue in sin”—neither that for which she had been brought to judgment, nor any other deed of defiance against God. Mercy from God calls for life unto God.

Explanation

The story is a superb illustration of the dictum of 3:17, of which (with the continuing vv 18–21) the whole account of Jesus at Tabernacles in chaps. 7–8 may be viewed as exposition. It serves both as a model for the Church’s attitude to prodigal sons and daughters and as an illustration of the gospel. As Schnackenburg saw, “The point is not the condemnation of sin but the calling of sinners: not a doctrine but an event. Jesus accepts sinners in God’s name; his will is not to judge but to save” (2:168). From this point of view it has often been subject for comment that no record is given of the woman’s acknowledging of her sin or repentance for it. Yet the Lord’s, “Neither do I condemn you,” must be taken as a declaration of forgiveness in the name of God. He saw her need and addressed himself to it. Whoever first recounted the story intended us to understand the word of forgiveness as a means of release for new life. Grace, by definition, is always undeserved. Here we see it in its starkest application (the same principle is embodied in the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2:1–12, and will have been the reason for its inclusion in the Gospel). If this is kerygma in its essentials, it is not left without didache (teaching). Release from life contrary to the will of God is always with a view to life according to the will of God. That is the fundamental principle of Christian ethics, as is set forth with plainest clarity in Rom 12:1–2; coming after the sustained doctrinal exposition in chaps. 1–11, the latter summarizes the content and motive of Christian living and is expounded in the chapters that follow. Here the notion is expressed in a sentence. In the nature of the case the power of the command is unexpressed, but the Gospel in which the incident has been set makes it clear that the grace of forgiveness is accompanied by the grace of new life by the Spirit. The Lord lifted up to heaven for the sin of the world sent the promised Spirit to enable the righteousness of God to be lived in the world. Life in the Kingdom of God is for kingdom of God living. To that the woman was sent into the world, as is every justified sinner.

George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 143–147.

-Dan

Ken McGuire

Word Biblical Commentary is one of the better technical sets out there. It is certainly the best of those listed, in my opinion.

A bit less technical, but still solid is Black's (/Harper) New Testament Commentary. I do not have them in Logos, but have many volumes in print and they are generally a decent combination of readable, up to date, and fair in how they treat others. You may not agree with the conclusions, but you will understand the views of others better.

I have not used the Exegetical summaries but from the extracts I have seen, they summarize others conclusions fairly well, but do not try to evaluate this.

The NAC would probably be similar to Black's from a more SBC perspective...

Calvin, of course, is a classic of theological exegesis, but it of course is not informed by anything since then. Lange and Pulpit are maybe more technical than Calvin and less dated, but also show their age quite a bit.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623863#Comment_623863

I have NAC, Black and Calvin if excerpts from those would be helpful in your decision of which to purchase.

David Ames

10. The United Bible Societies NT & OT 49 vols type:exegetical

The idea behind this set is instructions on how to translate the Bible into yet another language. One of the first sets that I added to my Logos library.

Dave Moser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623850#Comment_623850

This is a really difficult question because the answer depends on how you're using them. For example:

But that said WBC is the best of the commentaries of those you listed that I have used.

This is true if you're doing academic work (and Exegetical Summaries is helpful for that too) but I find my WBC set relatively less helpful for sermon prep. For sermon prep I'd highly recommend Calvin, NAC (followed by Boice and Pulpit).

Mark Barnes

I'm not sure how helpful it will be to discuss which commentaries are best. Best for what? Here's how I'd describe them:

Pulpit Commentary — a mix of exegetical, verse-by-verse notes, with ideas for putting into sermons. Rather dated now.
Boice's Expositional — each chapter is a short sermon. Good for devotional reading, and for giving ideas about application and sermon structure. In this regard, bettered only by the Preaching the Word series IMO.
Word Biblical Commentary — fairly technical, written by authors from quite a broad spectrum, centering somewhere to the left of conservative evangelical. The format can be frustrating, sometimes. Some excellent volumes, but not in the same league as Pillar, NIGTC and NICOT/NICNT.
Lange's Commentary — a little like the Pulpit Commentary (though better quality), with a mix of exegetical/critical, doctrinal/ethical and homiletical/practical comments. Still dated though.
Calvin's Commentary — from the master pastor-theologian. Obviously dated, though strangely less so than many 18th and 19th century works. Nearly always worth reading.
NAC — Good intermediate yet detailed commentary. Conservative, sometimes to the point of being predictable, but possibly the most useful of all those you have mentioned.
Opening Up — Simple and brief. It won't answer any of your questions, but it may model helpful ways of preaching a passage.
Black's — I have a soft spot for this series. It comes from the more critical end of the theological spectrum, but not militantly so. It's at intermediate level, but written by top scholars, and is often fairly engaging. It's my go-to non-evangelical NT series.
Exegetical Summaries — I like this series. It gives you very brief summaries of all the main viewpoints, on a verse-by-verse basis, by asking questions, and asking the right question is often a big help is solving the puzzle. I wish the tagging was better, but it gives you something you don't get elsewhere.
UBS Handbooks — aimed primarily at translators, this gives you linguistic insight, and even the slightly specialised discussion about the difficulty of translating certain words into certain contexts often gives you a helpfully different perspective. Nowhere near enough theology to make it you primary source, but useful to consult.
Wesleyan — a fairly light basic/intermediate commentary. I often don't get much from it as I find it more descriptive than analytical (though I'm not a Wesleyan).

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623878#Comment_623878

Thanks Mark i should have said best for my use in Seminary study, and Sermon Prep.

1. Pulpit Commentary 78 vols type:exegetical, part of Gold Upgrade.

2. The New American Commentary Series (NAC) 40 vols type:exegetical, part of Gold upgrade.

3. Black’s New Testament Commentary (BNTC) 13 vols type:exegetical, part of Gold upgrade.

4. Exegetical Summaries Series 24 vols type:exegetical, part of Gold upgrade.

5. The United Bible Societies NT & OT 49 vols type:exegetical, part of Gold upgrade.

6. Wesleyan Bible Study Commentary Series 18 vols type:exegetical, came with Gold upgrade.

7. Boice’s Expositional Commentary 27 vols type:expositional, I just added this in July.

8. Lange’s Commentary 61 vols type:exegetical, part of Bronze upgrade.

9. Calvin Commentaries 46 vols type:exegetical, part of Bronze upgrade.

10. Opening Up Commentary Collection 30 vols type:exegetical, part of Bronze upgrade.

11. "Word Biblical Commentary 59 vols I don't have this I'm thinking about getting it sometime."

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623899#Comment_623899

This is a really difficult question because the answer depends on how you're using them. For example:

But that said WBC is the best of the commentaries of those you listed that I have used.

This is true if you're doing academic work (and Exegetical Summaries is helpful for that too) but I find my WBC set relatively less helpful for sermon prep. For sermon prep I'd highly recommend Calvin, NAC (followed by Boice and Pulpit).

That could well be, I am a layman who has rarely wrote sermons. But I find WBC useful in my devotional studies. A lot of these things are a matter of personal choice. When I use the NAC I have found little use but that could well be due to the fact that I have already read a few commentaries before getting to it.

-Dan

Sacrifice

Some of these are considered to be top comm "by some", others are not. Of course, a lot depends on one's theo perspective ...

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/top-commentaries-on-every-book-of-the-bible/

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623910#Comment_623910

Dan

Thanks for posting the section from WBC it is a helpful look.

Also thanks to the others for your information, and review.

Erik

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623921#Comment_623921

As others have pointed out, determine your specific use and create separate collections for that. For seminary work I'd probably order it this way (but that is just my preference):

1. WBC

2. NAC

3. BNTC

4. Exegetical Summaries

5. UBS NT & OT

6. Calvin

7. Lange

8. Wesleyan Commentary

9. Boice

10. Pulpit Commentary

11. Opening Up

Paul C

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623925#Comment_623925

I largely agree with Erik's list. I might move UBS up a notch, and Calvin down a couple. (Simply because I have major issues with " Calvinism.") [:)] Such allergies are why you are left to customize your own list... In light of, Or in spite of all this great advice. [:)]

Doc B

And which are the better Commentaries, i got most of these in the packages when i upgraded.

Simply ranking commentaries as a whole is a bit like resisting the Borg.

Asking the Logos Forums community to rank commentaries for you can end up more like kicking a hornet's nest.

Here's why-

You should first separate your commentaries by type, then do the ranking. Academic users will usually rank technical commentaries higher than expository commentaries. But the average Sunday School teacher will find little use for most technical commentaries, and will rank the expository (and even the devotional) commentaries higher.

Once you have them separated, this community will be more helpful, but in the past, it has been the norm for a dispute to start between those who hold to a more conservative stance on the various commentaries and those who don't. You'll get some help, but your thread will likely get hijacked in the process.

I've used, or tried to use, quite a number of commentary ranking websites over the past few years. What I've found is, there's no substitute for actually reading them for yourself and deciding which are more helpful. Unfortunately, this can get expensive if you don't have a local theological library. The next best thing is find someone online who has a similar view of scripture to you, holds to a similar theological point of view, etc., and look up his or her recommendations. Some will argue that you need to read the 'other side' to get the best grasp of the subject, but if you are using good commentaries with which you agree, they'll engage the other points of view well and you won't have to spend your money on commentaries you really don't like.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623973#Comment_623973

Last time I asked for a commentary suggestion I mentioned denomination affiliation and relative conservatism. It helped guide the discussion. But it helps that I don't mind reading people I disagree with. Sometimes they ask questions I wouldn't have. I may not like their conclusions but its still a healthy exercise.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/623988#Comment_623988

I always have to visit the dentist when George recommends Westermann for Genesis. Grrrrrrr. I suppose I could read Westermann, but the dentist is easier.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624002#Comment_624002

I am a missionary serving overseas, and every week i prepare my Sunday sermon.

Right now i use the commentaries in this order: Pulpit, Boice, EBC, Lange's, Calvin, BKC, TBC this sermon prep. I just upgraded to Gold so that is why I'm looking at maybe changing the order some.

I have made collections for my commentaries, but my collections could be better. I may not have set them up perfectly. [;)]

At this time I do not have WBC but i started looking at it because of another post.

I am also working on my Seminary courses via an internet program for my Bachelors, and Masters.[^o)]

Hope this helps you to understand me better.

RyanB

I wanted to organize my commentaries better. Can you help with which you think are the best sets and why.

Hi Lee, It might be helpful to have a look at this website: http://bestcommentaries.com/topseries/.

Also I need help with which type of commentary some of them are.

If you scroll down to your commentary series in question you can get a good description of them here: http://bestcommentaries.com/series/

For example, the entry for the UBS Handbook Series is:

The UBS Handbooks are detailed commentaries providing exegetical, historical, cultural, and linguistic information for translators, as well as suggestions for arriving at a clear equivalent rendering. The Handbooks are also extremely useful to pastors, Bible students, Sunday School teachers and others interested in knowing more about the Bible. The material is practical and yet scholarly.

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624013#Comment_624013

Are there any dynamic collections out there where people have already done this that can be posted to faithlife?

Edit: This question probably is better suited to its own thread.

GregW

Hello

I wanted to organize my commentaries better. Can you help with which you think are the best sets and why.

I think others might have made the point, but in any commentary series, some are not as good as others. You might find it useful to use the www.bestcommentaries.com website, which ranks the best commentaries for each book of the Bible. I tend to agree with their rankings in general. It also tells you what type of commentary each one is (and whether it's available in Logos and the "other" product.

What I have done is to tag any commentary in my library that is in the top five of the Bestcommentaries list for each book as I study it, and then created a collection of Bestcommentaries commentaries. I have a section in my Passage Guide that uses this collection so that I don't have to go through the entire commentary part of my library, prioritised or not. The only drawback here is that some series (EBC, for example) have one volume for multiple books, so with these I prioritise them but limit prioritisation to the relevant Bible book(s).

If it's for seminary purposes you'll probably need to look at academic commentaries for Exegesis classes and expository commentaries as well as academic ones for homiletics-type classes. I've also tagged my commentaries by types that I can filter for academic or expository commentaries depending on what I'm working on (although I do always use academic/technical commentaries for sermon prep).

David A Egolf

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624327#Comment_624327

Since your use case is seminary study, I certainly would agree that WBC should be at the top of the list.

However, my use case is slightly different. I expect a commentary to point out things in the text which I am likely to overlook. We all tend to have a particular mindset when we read scripture and many points just go unnoticed. In order to prioritize my commentaries I test them.

My last test came from reading 1 Samuel. When I came to 1 Sam 19:13 the thought occurred to me that it was odd that David should have graven images in his house. This would seem to be proscribed by the Law! Since the presence of the image hidden in the bed by Michal was not central to the story it would be easy to overlook. I took the opportunity to see which of my commentaries would have brought this to my attention had I not noticed it myself.

I performed a passage search including all of my commentaries and study notes; e.g., Faithlife Study Bible. I found that the commentaries fell into 3 groups. Most did not even mention the image. The second set had some comments explaining that "images" were household gods, but without noting the oddity of their presence. The third set, which was quite small, took exception to David owning these images. I found that the commentary in my library which labored most over the issue was Lange. This was the first time I had even read an article from Lange, but based on this result I included it in my prioritization.

Mike Childs

Obviously, you are getting lots of help, and best commentaries is a very personal thing with opinions varying.

Since your list leans somewhat evangelical, I am surprised that you do not include the New International Commentaries OT / NT, which would be the trippy top of my list for sure, or the excellent Pillar New Testament Commentaries, or Tyndale Commentaries - but that is just me.

Of the ones you list, I would rank them in this order:

1. Word Biblical Commentary - Very good

2. New American Commentary - quite good

3. Boice Expositional Commentaries - I think the best of the Expositional commentaries

4 The United Bible Societies NT and OT

5. Wesleyan Bible Study Commentary

6. Blacks New Testament Commentary

7. Calvin's Commentaries - still good, and I am a Wesleyan, but can filter out what I disagree with.

8. Langes

9. Exegetical Summaries

10. Opening up Commentary

11 Pulpit Commentary - (far too dated and not that good to begin with - just my opinion. I have a set of those in paper I would make a good deal on)

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624475#Comment_624475

Hello Michael

The list of commentaries are from my library at this time, except the WBC which I saw on a different post and was thinking may be nice to add to my library.

I don't have NICOT/NT the cost is high for me now. If I had it yes I would have included it.

The main thing was to talk about the current commentaries that I have now and which was better, maybe I was not that clear.

One question many people are saying that Pulpit is dated, but aren't Calvin and Lange's commentaries also for that matter?

But they are still of use right?

Pulpit is part of the Gold upgrade is it just filler for the upgrade and not that useful?

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624286#Comment_624286

Here is an excerpt from Jn 7 from the pulpit commentary.

Ver. 53.—They went every man to his own house. This clause belongs to the pericope of the woman taken in adultery, and is encumbered with the textual and other difficulties involved in that paragraph. The words apply most imperfectly to the preceding narrative, which terminates with a private conversation between Nicodemus and other members of the Sanhedrin, and, at the same time, rather suggest the scattering of the crowd or the return of the pilgrims to Galilee, both of which form a very improbable consequence of ver. 52.

HOMILETICS

Ver. 1.—Our Lord’s stay in Galilee. Notwithstanding the discouragements of the last few days, he continued to reside in Galilee. “And after these things Jesus continued to abide in Galilee: for he would not abide in Judæa, because the Jews sought to kill him.”
I. HE TOOK NEEDFUL PRECAUTION TO SAVE HIS LIFE. 1. He could have put forth miraculous power for its preservation, but he practised that economy of miracle which is so manifest throughout his whole ministry. 2. He refused to expose himself to premature risk at the hands of his Judæan enemies. They “sought to kill him.” He acted upon the counsel he gave to his disciples, that when persecuted in one city they should flee to another. He would not decline risk when his hour was come, but meanwhile he used all prudence to avert danger.
II. HIS CONTINUED MINISTRY IN GALILEE. 1. Though discouraged by the defection of so many disciples, he continues to minister in Galilee. 2. His life was secure among the Galilæans. The difference between the Galilæans and the Jews was that, while the Jews were actively hostile, the Galilæans were merely indifferent.
Vers. 2–10.—The appeal to Jesus on the part of his unbelieving brothers.
I. THE OCCASION OF THIS APPEAL. “But the Jews’ Feast of Tabernacles was at hand.” 1. It was the last and greatest of the three yearly feasts, and occurred in our month of October. 2. It was intended at once to commemorate the forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, and also to celebrate the ingathering of the yearly harvest. 3. The pilgrims, as well as the inhabitants of Jerusalem, left their houses for seven days to dwell in tents made of boughs. The feast was at once a solemn and a happy time.
II. THE APPEAL OF THE BROTHERS. “Depart hence, and go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.” 1. Who were these brothers? They are not disciples, for they expressly exclude themselves from this class by their own words (ver. 3). The evangelist says expressly (ver. 5) they were not believers, and Jesus implies by his answer that they are not, for the hatred of the world could not touch them (ver. 7). The head of the brethren was James, afterwards chief pastor at Jerusalem. 2. It is this unbelieving attitude that explains their appeal. “For neither did his brethren believe in him.” (1) They are, no doubt, afterwards found identified with the cause of Christ (Acts 1:14), probably drawn to him by our Lord’s appearance after his resurrection to James (1 Cor. 15:7). (2) The appeal of the brethren was not dictated either (a) by the unnatural desire to see him sacrificed to the fury of his enemies, (b) nor by an eagerness to precipitate events in his own honour, (c) but rather by their anxiety to put an end to the equivocal position in which he stood in their eyes. (α) They had known him so familiarly from childhood that his claims were hard to understand. (β) They thought that he ought to submit his claims to Messiahship to those most competent to judge of their value. “For no man doeth anything in secret”—Galilee was an obscure corner of the land, far from the centre of ecclesiastical interest—“himself seeking to be famous.” If thou doest these things, show thyself to the world.” (γ) The capital was the appropriate place for the recognition of his mission, and the approaching feast presented a favourable opportunity for making it known to Jews from all parts of the world.
III. OUR LORD’S ANSWER TO THE APPEAL. 1. His time was not yet come. “My time is not yet come.” (1) This refers to the period of his final manifestation, only to end in his death. If he were to comply with the request of his brothers, he would only anticipate that period; but his time for leaving the world was not yet come. (2) Our Lord regards the events of life as divinely ordered in point of time. “Our times are in thy hand.” (3) He marks the necessary contrast between his own position and that of his brothers. “But your time is always ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that its works are evil.” (a) There was nothing discordant between the views of the brethren and the views of the world. There was a moral sympathy between them that made it impossible his brothers should risk anything by going to the feast. (b) The world’s hatred to Christ had its origin in his faithful testimony against its evil. He had roused its antagonism by his rebukes of Pharisaic hypocrisy and wickedness. “This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world; and men have loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.” The works were evil, (α) because they were done, not according to Divine command, but according to the tradition of the elders; (β) because they were done from a wrong principle, not from faith and love; (γ) because they were done with a wrong motive, not the glory of God, but “to be seen of men.” 2. He commands his brothers to go up to the feast. “Go ye up unto this feast: for me, I go not up to this feast, because my time is not yet fully come.” (1) He urges his brethren to go up, as it was a matter of necessary Jewish observance. (2) He signifies certainly that he will not accompany them, like one going to the feast. And he does not go up with his brethren. (3) His going up will be as a “prophet” (ver. 14) appearing suddenly in the temple. (4) The emphasis that he lays on “this feast” implies that he is not going up in the sense which the proposal of his brethren might suggest—as if his Messianic entry into Jerusalem were to occur at the Feast of Tabernacles, and not at the Feast of the Passover. It was true, in any case, that his “time was not yet fully come,” not in allusion to the two or three days’ interval between their going and his coming. but to the time of his death. 3. Our Lord’s secret departure for Jerusalem. “When he had said these words unto them, he abode in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up to the feast, then went he also up.” The passage does not say that he went up to the feast at all. Contrast the privacy of this journey with the publicity of his solemn final entry into Jerusalem (ch. 12:12).
Vers. 11–13.—Inquiries and speculations concerning Christ. His entry was so private as to be almost unnoticed.
I. THE ANXIETY OF THE HOSTILE JEWS TO DISCOVER HIM. “Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?” 1. The question may have been asked partly through curiosity and partly from hostility, for it implies that a plot already existed for his destruction. 2. Mark the contemptuous form of the question. “Where is he?” His name is not mentioned, as if to say, “Where is this fellow?” But the very form of the question implies that he was widely known, and present to all minds at Jerusalem.
II. THE DIVERGENCE OF OPINION CONCERNING HIM AMONG THE WORSHIPPERS AT THE FEAST. “And there was much murmuring among the multitudes concerning him.” As if men were afraid to speak out their inward thoughts. Mark the contrast here as elsewhere between those who are drawn to him and those who are repelled from him. 1. Mark the form of the favourable judgment upon him. “Some said, He is a good Man.” They tested his principles by his deeds. As one who “went about every day doing good,” he appeared as the Author of deeds that spoke of goodness and kindness and love. 2. Mark the form of the unfavourable judgment upon him. “Others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people.” He rejected Moses’ Law, despised the sabbath, made himself equal with God. This judgment sets at nought the argument from Christ’s personal life. It is a judgment against the facts. 3. Mark the pressure of official opinion upon the whole people. “How beit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.” (1) Authority had not yet formally determined the question of Christ’s claims. (2) The fear of man, “that bringeth a snare,” has a strong hold upon people with undecided convictions.
Vers. 14–18.—Justification of his doctrine. Jesus appeared suddenly in the temple, and began at once to instruct the people.
I. ASTONISHMENT OF THE JEWS AT HIS TEACHING. “And the Jews were astonished, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” 1. They were astonished at the manner of his teaching. “He spake as never man spake;” he “spake as One having authority, and not as the scribes;” thus “the common people heard him gladly.” These passages give an idea of the manner and effect of his teaching. 2. They were astonished at the matter of his teaching. He had not, they thought, been trained in any rabbinic school, yet he seemed to understand the literature of his countrymen—which was essentially theological—quite as well as their approved religious guides.
II. OUR LORD’S EXPLANATION OF HIS TEACHING. “My teaching is not mine, but his that sent me.” 1. His doctrine was not self-originated, though he had studied in no school of the rabbis. 2. It was not human; for it was from the Source of all truth, God himself. 3. He claims to be merely the Messenger of his Father. He is the Word of God, who reveals the Father’s mind to men.
III. THE METHOD OF VERIFYING THE DOCTRINE. “If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” There is a twofold method of verification—one internal, the other external. 1. The internal verification. (1) It springs from the disposition or desire to do the will of God. (a) The will of God represents all that is included in doctrine and duty, but it specifically regards man’s salvation. “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3). (b) It is not deed, but will, that holds the primary place in Christian life. The will represents the motive power; the deed is but the outcome of the will. Yet they are inseparably linked in the designs of grace as well as in the experience of the saints—“for it is God that worketh in you, to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (2) The will to do the Divine will is the only condition of Christian insight. We cannot understand a sensation or a feeling in another man unless we have the radical element of that feeling or sensation in ourselves. Even the heathen Aristotle says,“The mind’s eye is not capable of rightly judging without moral virtue.” It follows from this fact that (a) unbelief is more the fault of the heart than of the intellect. Therefore Scripture speaks expressively “of the evil heart of unbelief” (Heb. 3:12). (b) Religion is essentially a matter of life as well as of thought. Therefore the Jews could not understand the will of God concerning the Messiah, for they were altogether out of sympathy with it. (c) Faith is, therefore, not the result of a logical operation. It is “the gift of God;” it is “given to us to believe.” (3) The man who is in sympathy with God’s will is, therefore, in a position to determine experimentally whether the doctrine of Christ is of God, or whether he is an impostor uttering merely human teaching. 2. The external verification. “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and there is no unrighteousness in him.” This points to the character of him who delivers the doctrine. (1) The false teacher seeks the praise of men for his own exaltation. The scribes and the Pharisees exulted in their traditions and their glosses and their interpretations of the Bible. (2) The true teacher seeks the glory of God, which is the one object of the Bible from beginning to end. This supreme aim attests at once (a) the truth of the teacher in the sphere of thought, and (b) his righteousness in the sphere of action. Thus Jesus can be “no deceiver of the people.” Therefore his doctrine is to be received.
Vers. 19–24.—Justification of his conduct. The allusion to unrighteousness is the point of transition from Christ’s teaching to his conduct.
I. HE IS CHARGED BY THE JEWS WITH BREAKING THE SABBATH LAW. 1. He had healed the impotent man at a former visit to Jerusalem on the sabbath day. “I have done one work, and ye all marvel.” 2. The Jews would have stoned him as a transgressor for the act. “Why do ye seek to kill me?” He knows the designs of the rulers, though the multitude may not have suspected them, and therefore say, “Thou hast a devil: who seeketh to kill thee?” But Jesus meekly passes over the reproach without a reply.
II. HE RETORTS UPON THE JEWS EXACTLY THE SAME CHARGE. “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?” He refers to the sabbath law, and shows that it allowed circumcision to be performed on the sabbath. “For this cause hath Moses given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers); and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man.” 1. They ought not, therefore, to condemn in Jesus what they approved in Moses; for the healing of the impotent man was as necessary as the circumcision of a child on the sabbath. 2. The principle he lays down derives its force from the fact that “the sabbath was made for man.” Man is more than the sabbath. 3. The fairness of Christ’s argument. “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” The argumentum ad hominem is (1) effective as closing the mouth of an objector, (2) and ought to prepare the way for an impartial judgment on the merits.
Vers. 25–29.—The true origin of our Lord. The opportunity again arises of asserting his Divine origin.
I. THE PERPLEXITY OF THE JERUSALEM JEWS RESPECTING THE POLICY AND VIEWS OF THEIR RULERS. “Then said some of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Is not this he whom they seek to kill? And, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing to him.” 1. The question is put, not by the Jews from foreign lands, who were attending the feast, but by Jews of the city, who understood the various phases of change in the temper and attitude of the rulers toward Christ. 2. They were aware of the plot formed at the Passover before the last to kill him. 3. They were puzzled to account for the passiveness of the religious guides of the nation, in presence of provocations so stinging as these supplied by our Lord’s rebukes. They are almost disposed to believe that the rulers recognize Jesus as the Messiah. “Do the rulers indeed perceive that he is the Christ?” 4. Their own obstinate resistance to such a view. “Howbeit, we know this man whence he is: but the Christ, when he comes, no one will know whence he is.” They professed to know the parentage and family of Jesus, identifying them with Galilee; but they held that the origin of the Messiah would be utterly unknown. He would appear suddenly as an adult, like another Melchizedek, “without father, without mother.” The Scriptures plainly pointed out the tribe, the family, the lineage, the place of the Messiah’s birth. Yet they said, “When Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.” The nature of their ignorance is soon made manifest.
II. OUR LORD’S EXPLANATION OF THE JEWS’ PERPLEXITY. “Ye both know me, and know whence I am.” 1. He asserts that they knew him as a man. 2. But asserts at once that they did not recognize his Divine nature. (1) They did not acknowledge his essential Sonship. “But I know him: for I am from him”—implying that his knowledge of his Father arose from his community of nature with him. (2) They did not acknowledge his Divine mission. “He hath sent me.” (3) They were not only ignorant of the Son, but also of the Father. “He that sent me is true, whom ye know not.” (a) It was a severe thing to charge the Jews with ignorance of that God whose worship was their boast. (b) The truth of the Father was staked upon the Messianic mission of the Son. Therefore, to deny Christ was to exclude the Father from the range of their knowledge.
Vers. 30–36.—The effect of our Lord’s teaching on the rulers and on the multitude. His claim to be sent from God roused the anger of the rulers.
I. THE ACTION OF THE RULERS. “Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands upon him, because his hour was not yet come.” 1. Their efforts are for the present limited to plots against his life. The faithful witness to the truth is always exposed to the risk of persecution by a world with no love for the truth. 2. Their efforts are restrained by a Divine hand which can “restrain the wrath of men.” “His time was not yet come.” (1) There is an allotted time for each individual life. God has appointed the days of man, and fixed the bounds that he cannot pass. The time of Christ’s death was not only foreseen but foreordained. (2) The second causes through which the Lord baffled for the time the plots of the rulers were, probably, the divisions of opinion in the multitude, the growing popularity of Jesus, and, just as probably, the majesty of his presence and his speech.
II. THE RESPONSE OF THE MULTITUDE TO OUR LORD’S TEACHING. “And many of the multitude believed on him, and said, When the Christ cometh, will be do more miracles than these which this Man did?” 1. The Jews here referred to were those from abroad, as distinguished from the Jews of the city, who were intensely opposed to Christ. 2. They showed a progressive faith. Lately they conceded that he was “a good Man” (ver. 12). Now they admit his Messiahship. 3. Their faith, genuine as it is, has been largely due to his miraculous power. The tradition was that the Messiah would possess such a power, and these Jews believe that Christ had exhibited it on a scale commensurate with the Messianic expectations of the nation.
III. SUDDEN EFFECT OF THIS CHANGE OF OPINION UPON THE POLICY OF THE AUTHORITIES. “The Pharisees heard the multitude murmuring these things concerning him; and the Pharisees and chief priests sent officers to take him.” 1. They resolved to strike a blow at once, so as to save their religious hold upon the people. They had no scruple about destroying Christ, for they believed him guilty of blasphemy. 2. The divisions of religious life among the Jews themselves were in abeyance under the influence of the common danger. The Pharisees acted in harmony with the chief priests, who were Sadducees.
IV. THEIR ACTION SUGGESTS TO OUR LORD THE IDEA OF HIS COMING DEATH. “Jesus therefore said unto them, Yet a little while I am with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.” 1. He invites the Jews to profit by the time, now narrowed to six months, that he would be with them. 2. The fatal effect of disregarding his timely warning. (1) He would soon be beyond the reach of their malice, for he would “go to him that sent him.” Jesus still emphasizes his death as a return to heaven and to his former glory with the Father. (2) They would hereafter seek him in their impotent distress, but they would not find him. Their future history was to be marked by a constant series of disappointed expectations. 3. Their strange misapprehension of his words. (1) They see no trace of a reference to his death or to his return to heaven. (2) They see merely an allusion to some transference of his activities beyond the bounds of Palestine to the Jews of the Dispersion, and through them ultimately to the Gentiles. “Will he go unto the dispersed among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?” (a) This was an involuntary prophecy like that of Caiaphas. (b) The Jews of the Dispersion, scattered in Babylonia, Egypt, and Syria, were the most interesting section of the Jews, the links to connect the old with the new revelation, and in their synagogues the apostles were privileged to make Jesus known as the Messiah. (c) It is a significant fact that this unconscious prophecy should be recorded in the Greek language by a native of Palestine, dwelling at the time in a Gentile city.
Vers. 37–39.—The address of Jesus. He makes no reply to Jewish objection.
I. OCCASION OF THIS ADDRESS “The last and great day of the feast.” 1. It was the eighth day, and was kept as a sabbath. 2. It was designed to commemorate the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan. 3. It was usual on this day for the people to go, under the guidance of the priest, to the fountain of Siloam, where a pitcher was filled with water, and brought back with joy to the temple. This usage probably suggested the figure used by our Lord in his address.
II. CHRIST OFFERS THE ONLY SATISFACTION THAT CAN MEET THE SPIRITUAL WANTS OF MAN. “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” 1. The language implies the sense of spiritual need. (1) There is in man a thirst for righteousness. (2) There is a thirst for peace. (3) There is a thirst for the reconciliation of difficulties. 2. The language implies that Christ is himself the Rock in the wilderness, out of which the waters of salvation flow. (1 Cor. 10:4.) (1) This water was emblematic of future blessing in the ancient prophets (Ezek. 47:1, 12). He is the Fountain of gardens, the Well of living waters, “as rivers of water in a dry place” to thirsty souls. There is fulness of grace in Christ; it flows incessantly into the hearts of his people; they can drink of it till their souls are as a watered garden. (2) Mark how the Lord transfers to himself figure after figure of Old Testament times—the rock, the manna, the brazen serpent, the fiery pillar. 3. It implies that the thirst can only be relieved by the actual drinking of the living water. Our Lord refers directly to faith.
III. THE BELIEVER HIMSELF IS TRANSFORMED INTO A ROCK. “He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” 1. We have here the refreshing vigour of faith. 2. The reception of blessing from Christ leads to its fuller distribution of believers to all within their influence. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
IV. THE EXPLANATION OF THE NEW VIGOUR AND INFLUENCE OF THE BELIEVER. “But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” The reference is to the approaching, Pentecost. 1. The language does not imply that the Spirit had not yet existed in beleivers, for Old Testament saints were saved in the same manner as New Testament saints. It is the Spirit’s office in all dispensations alike to apply the redemption of Christ to believers. 2. It implies that the Spirit was to come, not for mere sanctifying work, but as the fountain of gifts to the Church. This was the peculiarity of the Pentecostal gifts. This was the origin of the “unction” of believers (1 John 2:20). 3. The gift of the Spirit was essentially connected with the glorification of Christ. “Because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” Jesus must first die, rise again, and ascend to heaven before the Holy Ghost would descend upon the Church. This is the first allusion to Christ’s glorification.
Vers. 40–44.—Effect of this address upon the multitude. It made a great impression.
I. IT DEVELOPED DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. “Many then of the multitude, who had heard this discourse, said, Truly this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ.” 1. A section of the multitude was favourable to Christ’s Messianic claims—(1) one part holding that he was the prophet (Deut. 18:18), and therefore, practically, the Messiah, or either Elijah or Jeremiah, who was to be a precursor of the Messiah; (2) another part holding that he was really the Messiah. 2. A section—perhaps the larger part—held that he could not be the Messiah, because he was born in Galilee. “Doth the Christ, then, come out of Galilee?” (1) They were ignorant of the true place of his birth; (2) yet they were acquainted with the Scripture that spoke of Bethlehem as the scene of the Messiah’s birth. “Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” The whole incident shows (a) that they did not take pains to inquire concerning the real birthplace of Jesus; (b) that divisions of opinion concerning Christ began at a very early period, and still continue. “What think ye of Christ?” is still the question which tests the Christian attitude of men and Churches.
II. THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION PREVENTED THE IMMEDIATE ARREST OF JESUS. “And some of them desired to take him; but no man laid hands on him.” 1. The unbelieving Jews would have gladly arrested Jesus, and brought him before the Sanhedrin on a charge of blasphemy. 2. Their hands were restrained by Divine Providence, mainly through the risks of a collision with those Jews who were inclined to favour Christ’s claims.
Vers. 45–52.—The meeting of the Sanhedrin. The position of the official guides of the people was becoming every hour more gravely compromised by the movement in favour of Jesus.
I. THE EXTRAORDINARY REPORT OF THE OFFICERS TO THE SANHEDRIN. “Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this Man.” 1. This report was delivered on the holy sabbath. The exigency of the moment may have seemed to justify the Sanhedrin in sitting on that day. 2. The leaders’ indignant question marks their disappointment that Jesus is not a prisoner in their hands. 3. The officers’ answer is singularly frank and decisive. (1) They use no evasions to excuse themselves, such as that they could not find Jesus, or that they feared the multitude. (2) They proclaim without fear or misgiving the profound impression made upon themselves by our Lord’s address. “Never man spake like this Man”—(a) with such authority; (b) with such a grasp of Divine truth; (c) with such practical force and persuasiveness; (d) with such a disregard for the traditional ideas of the Jewish teachers.
II. THE CONTEMPTUOUS REJOINDER OF THE PHARISEES. “Are you also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this multitude that knoweth not the Law is cursed.” 1. The evil was growing fast when their very officers, despatched to execute the law, returned with such a tribute to the power of Jesus. 2. The Pharisees see in the words of their officers the evidences of nothing but deception. “Are ye also deceived?” They had already stigmatized Jesus as one who “deceiveth the people.” They were all the while ignorant of the deception which shut their own eyes to the truth. (1) They “trusted in themselves that they were righteous.” (2) They thought they were something when they were nothing. (3) They followed the traditions and commandments of men, which could only lead them into deeper deception. They were deceived, yet they knew it not. 3. They contrast their own hardy unbelief with the too-ready faith of the multitude. (1) The Pharisees had not believed in him, except Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathæa, and a few female disciples; but the discipleship in these cases was rather secret. (2) The multitude seemed ready to accept Jesus. (a) The Pharisees regard them as “ignorant of the Law.” Whose fault was that? Was it not the fault of the rulers themselves? (b) They regard them as “cursed.” The multitude was never so near to blessing. III. THE EFFORT MADE ON CHRIST’S BEHALF BY ONE OF HIS SECRET DISCIPLES. “Nicodemus saith unto them, Doth our Law then judge a man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” 1. Nicodemus appears first in history as a secret inquirer. “He that came to him by night, being one of them.” 2. It is a sign of progress that he makes an effort, however indirect, to turn aside the blow aimed at Jesus. (1) He might have taken a bolder course and professed his faith openly. (2) Yet his cautious strategy was effective. (3) It does not at the same time exempt him from suspicion of secret sympathy with Galilæan views. “Art thou, then, also of Galilee?” 3. The delusion of the Sanhedrin respecting the real origin of Jesus. “Search, and look: for no prophet has arisen from Galilee.” (1) Jesus was a Prophet of Judæa, not of Galilee. (2) Mark the contempt expressed for Galilee. It was in their eyes “the refuse of the theocracy.” Were they right in saying that no prophets had risen in Galilee? Elijah was of Gilead; Nahum, of Elkosh, a place unknown; and Hosea, of Samaria; and if Jonah is an exception, their passion might have led them to disregard the circumstance in the thought that Judæa was essentially the home of the prophets. 4. The danger to Jesus was averted. “And every man went to his own house.” The Sanhedrin broke up without making any fresh effort to check the progress of Jesus.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS

Ver. 5.—Brethren, but not believers. In recording this fact the evangelist shows his usual candour. The fact that some of those who were nearest akin to Jesus withheld from him their faith is at first sight surprising. It must have been very distressing to the human heart of our Lord to meet with such unbelief; and it must have been painful, and to some extent discouraging, to his avowed and ardent disciples. Yet the fact is so suggestive and instructive that, upon reflection, we cannot wonder that it was thus put upon record.
I. IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE FAMILIAR WITH CHRIST, HIS DOCTRINE, AND GOSPEL, AND YET NOT TO BELIEVE ON HIM. In reading the gospel narrative, we meet with instances of unbelief which do not surprise us, which seem easily accounted for. There were many who did not really know Christ, who simply took other people’s judgment concerning him, or acted upon the prejudices natural to ignorance. We scarcely wonder that the selfish, unscrupulous, unspiritual rulers and scribes at Jerusalem rejected Christ’s claims, and acted towards him with hostility; or that the Roman procurator Pilate misunderstood him, and finally abandoned him to his foes. But we are shocked when we learn that the very brethren of Jesus wanted faith—at all events, thorough faith—in Jesus. They were his kin; they had known him for many years; they must have enjoyed many opportunities of studying his character and verifying his claims. Yet they withheld their faith, at least for a time. This fact is not unparalleled. In condemning the brethren of Jesus, the hearer of the gospel may possibly be condemning himself. In our own day, in the very heart of Christian society, there may be found many who are very familiar with the gospel, who are frequent readers and hearers of the Word, who have seen in their nearest friends very favourable representatives of the Christian character, who yet have little interest, and no faith, in Christ himself.
II. EXPLANATIONS OF THIS REJECTION OF CHRIST, CONSISTENT WITH FAMILIARITY WITH HIM, MAY BE DISCOVERED IN HUMAN NATURE AND EXPERIENCE. 1. There are cases in which familiarity itself seems adverse to faith. A striking illustration of the action of this principle is recorded by St. Luke. The Nazarenes knew Jesus well; he had been brought up among them, had dwelt in their town; everything they had known of him must have been favourable. “Familiarity,” says the proverb, “breeds contempt;” and in vulgar natures this is true. Accordingly, the people of Nazareth, when the Divine Prophet visited them, were not only incredulous, they were hostile. In his own city he had no honour. It seems to have been the same with our Lord’s kindred; it was hard for them to believe that one brought up among them, and in circumstances resembling their own, could be so far above them, in true rank and in spiritual authority, as Jesus claimed to be. To how many has the name of Jesus been familiar from childhood, without awakening sentiments of reverence and faith! When some such persons have the dignity and the power and preciousness of Jesus brought in some way with unusual vividness before their minds, it may be noticed that resentment is aroused rather than faith. Christ has occupied a familiar place in their stock of knowledge; but perhaps on that very account they are indisposed to see in him what they have never seen before. 2. There are cases in which worldliness and sluggishness of spirit are a barrier to faith in Christ. Such persons may be, through birth and association, almost as brethren to the Lord; yet their habits of mind prevent them from rousing themselves even to consider his claims. They live at a low level, and they hate everything that would raise them to a higher. They resist any demand upon admiration or faith. They may be indisposed to believe in anyone or in anything; how much more in a Being so glorious, in doctrines so inspiring, as Christianity presents! 3. There are cases in which example explains indifference to the Saviour. No doubt our Lord’s kinsmen ought to have been influenced by the better example of the mother and the disciples of Jesus. But they appear to have been more affected by the negligence and unbelief of others. It is observable that they came to believe at a later period—perhaps under the influence of the growing numbers of the Lord’s adherents. Certain it is, that many of the hearers of the gospel have no better reason to give for their incredulity than the faithlessness of others, especially of those with whom they most associate, and from whom they unconsciously take their moral tone. A “reason” this is not, but it is a sufficient explanation to those acquainted with human nature.
III. VALUABLE PRACTICAL LESSONS MAY BE LEARNED FROM THE UNBELIEF OF CHRIST’S BRETHREN. Those especially who have long enjoyed many religious advantages may gain profit from this record, which contains suggestions of very serious admonition. 1. It is foolish and wrong to rest in outward privileges; for these of themselves, if not used aright, are of no avail. If it served no valuable end for these relatives of Jesus to be so near him in blood, we shall act foolishly if we rest in our association with Christ’s Church. 2. It is important to penetrate through superficial acquaintance with Christ to real spiritual knowledge of him. It is well to have an acquaintance with the facts and doctrines of Christianity. But these are merely means to a higher end, to faith and fellowship, assimilation and devotion. 3. Not to believe in Christ is to reject him in all his glorious offices. He came to earth to be a Prophet, a Priest, and a King. To refuse our faith to him in these several offices, is to forfeit the spiritual, the priceless blessings which it is his heart’s desire to confer upon the children of men.—T.
Ver. 7.—Christ’s witness against sin. The “world,” which is here affirmed by Jesus to have hated him, is not to be distinguished from the “Church,” if that expression may be applied to those who professed to receive the revelation and to do the will of God. For amongst our Lord’s enemies, the foremost were certainly the men who were at the head of the theocracy, and whose sins Jesus most severely censured. From this significant fact, people professedly religious, and even people who sincerely believe themselves to be religious, may take warning, and may learn not to trust in their outward religiousness, as if that in itself sufficed to secure them against identification with the sinful world.
I. THE WAYS IN WHICH THE LORD JESUS WITNESSED AGAINST THE WORLD’S EVIL. 1. By his language. Meek and gracious as he was towards such sinners as were penitent, Jesus was unsparing in his denunciations of hardened and hypocritical offenders against the Law of God. Against falsehood, covetousness, cruelty, and licentiousness, the Son of man raised his voice in indignant protest and censure. And against such sins, when cloaked by a religious profession, he was severe with a severity unexampled even in Scripture. 2. By his conduct. In many cases there is no protest against evil so effective as an upright and holy life. This protest was ever offered by our Lord; it was natural and habitual to him. The calm dignity with which our Lord lived amidst formalists and dissemblers could not be unnoticed either by friends or foes, and by his foes it was felt as a rebuke and a condemnation.
II. THE HATRED WHICH OUR LORD’S WITNESS AGAINST THE WORLD’S EVIL AROUSED AGAINST HIM. 1. This hatred evinced a moral warfare within human nature. On the one hand, the conscience of sinners concurred in the rebukes uttered by the holy Saviour; on the other hand, their selfishness and pride would not submit to these rebukes. Thus there arose, as in such circumstances there ever arises, an inner conflict. And in order to repress the voice of conscience, sinners often hardened themselves against its expostulations by giving themselves more resolutely over into the power of evil. 2. This hatred led to calumny and slander against the holy Christ. Only thus can we account for the absurd and wicked and scandalous language used concerning Jesus. His enemies called him a sinner, a deceiver, and declared that he was possessed by a demon, by Beelzebub. If he had left their sins unrebuked, and had humoured their prejudices, he might have secured the adherence and support of the Jewish leaders; but the upright course he took in dealing with them brought down upon him their malice and their hatred. 3. This hatred was the motive of the plot which issued in the apprehension and death of Jesus. It appears that the hostility of the priests and rulers against Jesus of Nazareth was excited by his pure and spiritual teaching, which was felt to be a rebuke to their formality and hypocrisy, and by his denunciations of their ambition and covetousness. His enemies felt that there was a likelihood of his undermining their influence over the common people. This led to the resolution to compass his death by means however foul.
III. THE WORLD’S HATRED BECAME THUS THE OCCASION OF THE EVENT WHICH WROUGHT THE WORLD’S DELIVERANCE FROM ITS SIN. The wisdom of God is often manifested in the bringing of good out of evil. The most stupendous and glorious instance of this wisdom was afforded in the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. He testified against the world’s evil; the hatred of the world was thus inflamed against him; this hatred led to the apprehension, the condemnation, and the death of the Holy One and Just; and his death was God’s method of vanquishing the world’s sin, and of saving mankind from spiritual destruction and ruin.—T.
Ver. 17.—A good will the condition of spiritual discernment. Intellectual men are apt to set too high a value upon the exercise of the intellect. And in this error they are often confirmed by the notions of the ignorant and uninstructed, who look up with wonder to the learned and the mentally acute, and are willing to think such prodigies of knowledge must be assured possessors of all good things. But the fact is, that the highest of all possessions is to be attained, not by the scholarship or the ability which men often over-estimate, but by the trusting heart and the obedient and submissive will. Nowhere is this great spiritual lesson more plainly and effectively inculcated than in this passage.
I. THE SOURCE OF CHRIST’S DOCTRINE. This was a mystery to many of the Jews, who knew that Jesus was born in a lowly station, and that he had not been trained in the schools of rabbinical learning, and who could not understand how he could teach with such justice, profundity, and beauty. With this difficulty Jesus here deals. 1. The doctrine of Jesus is asserted by himself to be derived. He repudiated the notion that he spake from himself, i.e. from the experience or originality of a merely human mind. 2. The doctrine of Jesus is asserted by himself to be Divine. It was neither his own, nor that of a school of learning, nor was it a mere amplification of the sayings of the ancient legislator and the ancient prophets. Jesus ever claimed to have come from God, and to have acted and spoken with the authority of God. This, however, was his assertion; how were his hearers to verify it?
II. THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST’S DOCTRINE. There were many who listened to the discourses and conversations of the great Teacher, who were familiar with his language, but who were unacquainted with, and indifferent to, the spiritual meaning and power of which that language was, to sympathetic souls, the vehicle. How can this meaning and power be known? 1. There must be a will in harmony with God’s will. Man is not merely an intellectual being; he is emotional and practical. And the will is the man. It is the habitual purposes which determine the man’s character. Many persons have insight into truth, and even admiration of truth, whose moral life is nevertheless evil, because they abandon themselves to be the sport of every fleeting passion. The habitual indulgence of passion, pride, and worldliness blinds the spiritual vision, so that the highest good becomes indiscernible. And thus those who are not without natural gifts of intelligence become incapable of judging the highest type of character or of doctrine. On the other hand, the cultivation of a will in harmony with the Divine will is the means of purifying the spiritual vision. When the good is habitually chosen, the true comes to be habitually sought and prized. 2. The will thus in harmony with God’s will recognizes the Divine origin of Christ’s teaching. Both by reason of his acquaintance with the mind of God, and by his sympathy with the Law and the truth of God, the devout and obedient man is fitted to pronounce upon the origin of the Lord’s teaching. “He that is spiritual judgeth all things;” he has “the mind of Christ.” Thus it is, as our Lord acknowledged with gratitude, that things hidden from the wise and prudent are often revealed unto babes. His own apostles were a living illustration of this law. And every age furnishes examples of clever men, and even learned men, who have misunderstood and misrepresented Christ’s teaching, because they have not been in sympathy with the righteous and holy will of the Eternal; whilst every age furnishes also examples of simple and unlettered men who, because lovers of goodness, have displayed a special discernment of mind in apprehending, and even in teaching, Christian doctrine. In this, as in other respects, it is the childlike nature that enters the kingdom of heaven.—T.
Ver. 37.—The thirsting invited to the Fountain of living waters. It was our Lord’s wont to make use of the most familiar objects, the most ordinary events, the most customary practices, in order to illustrate and to enforce spiritual truth. To set forth man’s need of teaching, of heavenly grace, of salvation, Christ spoke of hunger and of thirst, of bread and of water. On the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, there was performed a ceremony which may have immediately suggested the language of the text. This was the drawing of water from the Pool of Siloam, which was borne in procession to the temple, and poured out as a sacred libation before the Lord. It was probably upon the suggestion of this ceremony that our Lord uttered the memorable and encouraging words of the text.
I. THE THIRST OF THE HUMAN SOUL. This thirst is deep-seated in the nature of man. It manifests itself in the many forms of restless activity by which men seek to satisfy their aspirations. The powerlessness of the world to quench this thirst is an indication of the Divine origin of the soul. He who drinks at a cistern will find that the cistern will run dry. He who quaffs the water of a pool may find the water foul and turbid. He who tries to quench his thirst by draughts from the sea will learn that, so far from assuaging, these salt waters only increase the thirst.

      “The frail vessel thou hast made,
           No hands but thine can fill;
      For the waters of this world have failed,
           And I am thirsty still.”

II. THE SATISFYING GIFTS OF GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT. That which the world cannot do, the Spirit of God can do; he can fill the created nature with peace, purity, truth, and power. The river of God’s love flows on for ever; it is inexhaustible. “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.” “Blessed are they that … thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.”
III. THE INVITATION AND PROMISE OF JESUS. 1. He claims himself to dispense the satisfying gifts of the Spirit. He is the Rock in the wilderness, from which flows the stream of living water. Thus he said, “Let him come unto me;” and at an earlier period of his ministry, “I would have given thee living water.” 2. The terms upon which this blessing is conferred are such as are most encouraging to the hearer of the gospel. Faith is required from the thirsting applicant. This is evidently intended by the use of the words “come” and “drink.” The blessing must be appropriated. And yet the satisfying provision is offered freely; it is not bought, but given. “Drink of the water of life freely.”—T.
Ver. 40.—The prophet. In the Jewish dispensation no unimportant place was filled by the order of men known as seers or prophets. From Samuel to Malachi, they were the spiritual teachers and guides of Israel. The Lord Christ gathered up in his own Person and ministry the significance and power of the prophetic office.
I. CHRIST’S PROPHETIC DESIGNATION. He was known as a Prophet by those who saw in him more than a rabbi, while yet they knew him not as the Messiah. It had been foretold by Moses in the Pentateuch, and by the last of the prophets who contributed to the Old Testament canon, that a great Prophet should in after-days be raised up by the Eternal. And this was fulfilled in the Prophet of Nazareth.
II. CHRIST’S PROPHETIC QUALIFICATIONS. His Divine nature, his intimacy with his Father, in whose bosom, i.e. in whose counsels and secrets, he was, constituted his supreme fitness for this office. And his humanity, his oneness with the race whose nature he assumed, enabled him to communicate prophetic messages with inimitable effectiveness. A prophet is one who speaks for God; this Jesus did, as none else could or can.
III. CHRIST’S PROPHETIC ACTS. His miracles were such, for they taught, with a power even words could not rival, great spiritual and eternal truths. His conduct in cleansing the temple with authority and holy indignation was an example of action becoming in a Prophet commissioned by God himself.
IV. CHRIST’S PROPHETIC WORDS. To enumerate these would be to repeat a large portion of the Gospel records. He explained the Law; he preached the gospel; he foretold things to come; he spake as One having authority; yet he spake as One having winning attractiveness in all his words.
V. CHRIST’S PROPHETIC PERPETUITY. His word was reiterated by the inspired apostles, to whose memory all his sayings were brought. It is continued in the New Testament, the Word of prophecy. As the Prophet of this spiritual dispensation, Jesus inspires his Church, convinces human minds, changes human hearts, hallows human society. As long as man needs teaching, Christ is, and will remain, the one great Divine and authoritative Prophet of humanity.—T.
Ver. 41.—The Christ. In order that the language recorded in this passage to have been used by the Jews may be properly understood, it must be borne in mind that “the Christ” was not a proper name, but an official designation. It is the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew “Messiah,” and signifies literally, “the Anointed One.” The Christ is, then, One divinely selected, consecrated, and authorized.
I. IT WAS KNOWN BY THE JEWS THAT THE COMING OF THE CHRIST WAS FORETOLD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. Although the name “Messiah” occurs once only, and that in the Book of Daniel, the observant reader of the Psalms and of the Prophets is well aware that the advent is foretold of a remarkable Being, who should in due time appear to fulfil the benevolent purposes of God towards men. Upon examination it is found that this person was predicted as Divine and yet human, as of royal lineage and authority, as the Bringer of blessings to Israel and to mankind, as a Sufferer and yet as a Conqueror, as One passing through death to victory and to dominion.
II. THE COMING OF THE CHRIST WAS EXPECTED BY THE JEWS AND BY THEIR NEIGHBOURS. 1. This appears from the insight which the Gospels give us into the minds of certain persons who lived at the time of our Lord’s ministry and advent. Thus, Simeon was led to expect that he should see the Lord’s Christ; men reasoned in their hearts concerning John, whether he were the Christ; the Samaritan woman remarked to Jesus himself, “We know that Messiah cometh.” 2. The same appears also from certain tests which the Jews proposed to apply to Jesus of Nazareth, in order to verify or discredit the claim to Messiahship advanced on his behalf. They looked that the Christ should be a descendant of David; that he should be born at Bethlehem; that he should be a Worker of miracles; that he should be the Restorer of the kingdom to Israel, over whom he should rule; that he should abide for ever. So far as there was correspondence between the facts of Jesus’ ministry and these circumstances, so far there was a disposition on the part of some to acknowledge his Messiahship.
III. THERE WERE OBVIOUS AND POWERFUL HINDRANCES TO THE SPREAD OF THE BELIEF THAT JESUS WAS THE CHRIST. 1. The life of the Prophet of Nazareth in some respects contradicted popular expectations. He was lowly in station; poor and unfriended by the great; he put forward no assumptions of worldly power; he went about doing good. All this was very different from what the Jews expected in the Messiah. 2. Jesus himself discouraged his disciples and friends from noising abroad the tidings of his Messiahship. 3. The authorities of the synagogue, towards the close of our Lord’s ministry, threatened with excommunication any who should confess him to be the Christ. This step could not but be adverse to a general recognition of his rightful claims.
IV. THAT JESUS WAS THE CHRIST WAS, HOWEVER, CORDIALLY BELIEVED BY HIS DISCIPLES. Collecting together the somewhat scattered evidence of this fact, the student of the Gospels cannot but be impressed by its abundance and conclusiveness. Andrew, in the very hour of his call to discipleship, acknowledged Jesus as Christ; Peter, at a later period, uttered a memorable confession to the same effect; the Samaritan woman and her neighbours came to the same conclusion; Martha of Bethany gave explicit testimony to her belief of this great fact; some of the Jews, as recorded in the text, did not hesitate to express their belief that Jesus was the Christ. It may be added that the very demons over whom he exercised authority are said to have known that he was the Divine Messiah.
V. JESUS’ CLAIM TO BE THE CHRIST WAS ONE CHIEF GROUND OF THE HOSTILITY OF THE JEWISH RULERS, AND WAS THE OCCASION OF HIS CONDEMNATION TO DEATH. At our Lord’s trial before the high priest, one of the charges against him was that he affirmed himself to be the Christ; and it was upon this, and upon the further charge that he claimed to be the Son of God, that he was deemed by his enemies worthy of death. A rabbi, a prophet, he might have professed himself to be without giving offence. But for a lowly peasant teacher to claim Messiahship was to seal his own doom!
VI. AS CHRIST, JESUS WAS RAISED FROM THE DEAD; AND AS CHRIST, HE WAS PREACHED TO THE WORLD. In the discourses which are recorded in the Book of the Acts, as having been delivered after the Ascension, Jesus is set forth as the Christ of God, evidently proved to be such by his resurrection. And the Gospels, as John expressly tells us, were written that their readers might know that Jesus is the Christ. Here, indeed, are the glad tidings to be proclaimed to all men; for it is because Jesus is the Christ of God that he is the Saviour of the world.—T.
Ver. 46.—The incomparable words. The testimony of these officers was at least impartial. If they were prejudiced, it was not in favour of Jesus, but against him. Persons in their position were likely to share the feelings of those by whom they were employed, and by whom they were sent on a message hostile to the Prophet of Nazareth. But the demeanour, and especially the language, of Jesus disarmed them. They came under the spell of his wisdom, his grace, his eloquence. And when they returned, without having executed their commission, they justified themselves by the exclamation, “Never man spake like this Man.”
I. CHRIST’S WORDS ARE INCOMPARABLE AS REVELATIONS OF TRUTH. He uttered the justest, the sublimest truths regarding the character and attributes of God; concerning the nature, the state, the sin, the peril of man; concerning religion, or the relation between man and God, especially concerning the Divine provision of salvation, and of spiritual and immortal life.
II. CHRIST’S WORDS ARE INCOMPARABLE AS ANNOUNCING LAWS OF HUMAN LIFE. Where else can we find perfect precepts to govern conduct, dictates of morality so spiritual, motives to obedience so mighty? Christ’s are the authoritative words of a Divine Lawgiver, who claims to rule the hearts, and, through the hearts, the actions and habits of mankind.
III. CHRIST’S WORDS ARE INCOMPARABLE IN THEIR STYLE AND THEIR ILLUSTRATIONS, ADAPTING THEM TO READERS OF EVERY CLASS. They are simple words, however profound may be the truth they embody; they are beautiful words, which charm a pure and lively imagination: they are earnest words, which rouse emotion and inspire a reverent attention. This is evident both from the place they have taken in literature, and from the fact that they are equally appreciated by the young and the old, by the cultured and the untaught.
IV. CHRIST’S WORDS ARE INCOMPARABLE IN EFFICIENCY. This is the true test, and this test brings out the unequalled power of the words, which are mighty because they are the expression of the Divine mind. Many of our Lord’s sayings might be quoted which have, as a matter of fact, revolutionized the thoughts and doctrines of millions of men. Some of the greatest reforms in human society may be traced up with certainty to words uttered by the Nazarene.
V. CHRIST’S WORDS ARE INCOMPARABLE FOR THEIR ENDURING, PERMANENT LIFE AND INFLUENCE. The words of many wise, thoughtful, and good men have perished. There are words which are full of meaning and preciousness for one generation, but which fail to affect the generations which follow. But Christ’s words are treasured with increasing reverence and attachment by succeeding generations. His own saying is verified by the lapse of time: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”—T.
Ver. 48.—Class prejudice and Christianity. The learned and the rich sometimes hate and despise a form of religion because it is favoured by the poor and the ignorant; and these in turn dislike and reject a different form of religion because it is adopted by their social superiors. Something similar to this antipathy seems to have been manifested among the Jews in the time of our Lord; only it was not a form of religion that was in question, it was religion itself, or rather that Being who is in his own person the sum and substance of true religion. There were undoubtedly serious reasons which led rulers and Pharisees to reject Jesus of Nazareth. That mentioned in this passage was not the most serious; but it was a real and influential reason. Jesus was reputed a Galilæan; he was heard gladly by the common people, who were ignorant of the Law. This was reason enough for his rejection by those who respected only the educated and ruling classes of society.
I. THE ASSERTION IMPLIED, viz. that Jesus was not received with faith by the rulers and the Pharisees. This was not universally true. The attitude of Nicodemus on this occasion shows that, even in the council of the nation, faith in Jesus as the Christ was not unknown. Joseph of Arimathæa also was a disciple of Jesus, though secretly. Yet, broadly speaking, it was undoubtedly the case that the upper classes of his countrymen rejected Jesus, and that the more influential among them hated and dreaded him. This may be accounted for, partly upon the general principle that the wealthy and educated tend to conservatism; but mainly by considering how the teaching of Jesus was undermining the authority of the Jewish leaders, and was even threatening to cut off some of the sources of their ill-gotten riches.
II. THE ARGUMENT SUGGESTED. The language suggested some such argument as this—What the learned and leading classes reject is likely to be incredible and unworthy of acceptance; now, these classes altogether repudiate Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, or even as a prophet; there is, therefore, no room for accepting or even considering his claims. The fact of the hostility of the rulers was by this time matter of notoriety, and this had, no doubt, influence with many who were accustomed to look to their social and ecclesiastical superiors for leading. The same principle which was so influential in our Lord’s day has in subsequent periods of human history induced many to reject the Saviour. Some have attached importance to the infidelity of princes, others to that of leaders in fashion, others to that of great philosophers; and have permitted their blind reverence for authority to turn their attention away from the weighty credentials of Christianity, and from the claims of Christ himself.
III. THE FALLACY LATENT. This is to be found in the assumption that learned and powerful men are likely to be right upon questions of religion. The events which followed in the history of the Son of man were enough to dispel this illusion. Not for the first or the last time, the judges in whom public confidence is chiefly placed were wrong, and the poor, illiterate, and despised were right. Against a fallacy which has led so many astray, it is well that those who desire above all things to attain the truth should be upon their guard. And the true protection is this: the habit, not of asking—What is the judgment of men? but of asking—What are the indications of the will of God? If the Lord Jesus Christ be in himself adapted to our needs as being the Prophet, the Priest, and the King of humanity, it is of little consequence, so far as practical guidance is concerned, to consider who rejects his claims. Let every one who is a seeker of truth turn his heart and mind to Christ. He is his own best witness, his own most convincing evidence.—T.
Ver. 6.—Jesus in relation to time. Notice—
I. THE TIME OF JESUS. “My time is not yet come.” His time to go up to the feast, or his time to manifest himself. We have here: 1. Jesus as the Subject of time. During his earthly career he was the Subject of time, and dependent upon it. He who was before and really above time was now its Subject. As such: (1) He had regard to its events; what were taking place in the social and religious world around him, their bearings upon each other, and especially upon his movements and actions, and the bearings of his movements upon the events of the time. (2) He had regard to the character of his time; to the men who acted in it—men of religious and social authority and power—to their principles and attitude towards him and the great mission of his life. (3) He shaped his course accordingly. He had a certain amount of time to live and do his work. He could escape death if he wished; but could not have escaped death and perform the mission of his life. He might have shortened his days, and frustrated their end by indiscreetly rushing into the teeth of danger; but as a Subject of time he had due regard to current events and public feelings in relation to him, so that he acted with perfect wisdom and discretion. 2. Jesus as the Manager of time. (1) To him time was very precious. His time was very short, and he had an immense work to do. Never was so little time given for such a great work. Every moment was an age, and ages were compressed into a moment. He made the best of time. Every moment was infinitely precious. (2) He had a special time for every work. He never performed a single miracle nor preached a single discourse at random. There was perfect adaptation and correspondence between his actions and the time. They fitted in with the natural sequence of events, and with the state of thoughts and feelings. They could not be performed at any other time with the same results. They were like the growth of spring and the ripe fulness of harvest. (3) He had some special work for every portion of time, so that every hour was well occupied and every minute well spent. He had a season for everything, and everything was in its season. (4) The exact time for all his movements was well known to him. He knew when it had not and when it had come, so that he was never too soon nor too late. He could not be induced to move by the solicitations of friends before his time; neither could he be stopped, nor be driven from the scene of duty, when his time had arrived. Punctuality was one of his characteristics. He was at every station and every duty in due time, and not before. He was never waiting, and no one had to wait for him. He was bound to time, and time was bound to him. He was both its Subject and its King.
II. THE TIME OF HIS BRETHREN. Their time and his differed materially. 1. Their time was always ready. This was true with regard to going up to the feast, and also to the manifestation of Christ according to their ideas. They were ever ready and anxious for this. But Christ’s time was not yet come. Man’s time is often before that of God. His ideas are more limited. God’s thoughts and plans move in an infinite circle, and take a longer time to be accomplished. Man’s time is often after that of God. Now is God’s accepted time to repent and believe. It is at some more convenient season often with man. 2. Their time was by self; his by the general good. Their notions were carnal and selfish, and were inspired in all their movements by principles of self-interest; but Christ’s notions were spiritual and Divine, and he was ever inspired in all his movements by Divine and benevolent principles—the glory of God and the spiritual redemption of the human family. There is a vast difference between the time of selfishness and that of self-sacrificing love. 3. Their time was by the present; his was by the future as well. They were prompted by present advantage, by considerations which only embraced the limited period of their own life; but Jesus was prompted by future advantages, and by considerations which embraced endless futurity. Every step he gave was given with regard to all future ages. His time was regulated by eternity, and the eternity of myriads depended on his time. 4. Their time was by earth; his was by heaven. Theirs was by the material sun; his was by the eternal throne. Their principles were in perfect accord with those of the world, and their notions of the Messiah were those of the nation at large. So that they could move with perfect safety whenever they liked, they were in no danger. But the principles of Jesus were in perfect accord with those of God—they were holiness, spirituality, benevolence, self-sacrifice, and mercy, and thus in direct antagonism to the world; so that an unwise move might result in an untimely and fatal collision. 5. Their time was by unbelief; his was by faith. We are told that his brothers did not really believe on him. And unbelief is ever impatient, commanding, and always ready for some carnal demonstration and material sign. Faith is patient, submissive, and ever grateful for a vision when it comes; but if it comes not at the time and in the way expected it waits and trusts and obeys. Jesus was the Messiah and the Saviour of faith. He revealed himself to faith, and faith is the only power on earth which could see, comprehend, and appreciate his real character and his Divine mission; consequently all his movements, although not regardless of unbelief as precautionary, yet were directly made in the interest of faith. When faith is ready, he will be at the feast, and will manifest himself at any risk.
LESSONS. 1. We are in as much danger often from mistaken friends as from open foes. Jesus was so now from his brethren and the multitude; they wished to make him King. 2. A word or a deed in season is much more effective than otherwise. Christ’s words and deeds were ever seasonable. God has his set time for punishment and salvation. 3. In order that our time should correspond with that of Jesus, let us believe on him. If we wish to have his company to the feast, let us exercise implicit trust in him. 4. If we wish to make the most of time, let us follow Jesus in watching the best season for everything. Random shots seldom kill anything. We should not merely be diligent, but take aim.—B. T.
Ver. 11.—“Where is he?” This question may indicate different thoughts and sentiments with regard to Jesus as asked by different persons. It may be looked upon—
I. AS THE QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST. There is no doubt that Jesus was the most interesting person of that age. His mighty works and his wonderful teaching had excited the interest of the general public, and had stirred society to its utmost depth. How many persons there were concerning whom no question was asked! They might come and go almost unnoticed. But not so Jesus. The general question with regard to him was, “Where is he?” His movements were keenly watched, and his presence or absence was keenly noticed.
II. AS THE QUESTION OF WONDER. Although he was not at the last Passover, still he was in the habit of attending the national feasts at Jerusalem; and this being one of the chief, and probably rumours had reached the city of his intention to be present and being now late, wonder would naturally express itself by the question, “Where is he?”
III. AS THE QUESTION OF CURIOSITY. There was a large class to whom Jesus was only a curiosity. In them he excited no other sentiment. They stood in the rear, watching with avidity the actions of those in front. They had neither love nor hatred, but still were busy and interested in the strange phenomenon of his life, and perhaps no sentiment with regard to him would ask the question more often and flippantly, “Where is he?”
IV. AS THE QUESTION OF DOUBT. Doubt with regard to Jesus at this time was very prevalent. The multitude who represented the national idea of the Messiah were doubtful of him. Many of them had recently left him, and had apparently given up the hope of his consenting to be crowned the temporal King of the Jews. Still many of them even were doubtful as to this, and the disciples were not quite free from doubt on this matter. They still clung to the hope, but his absence from the feast, from such a public gathering and an advantageous occasion, would make the most sanguine doubtful, and they would impatiently ask, “Where is he?”
V. AS THE QUESTION OF HATRED. No feeling could be more present in the question than this, especially when we consider that it was asked by the Jews; for the dominant party were bitter, confirmed, and almost unanimous in their hatred to him and his ministry. And in the question as coming from them there was scarcely a spark of any other feeling but confirmed and seething hatred. They were in a region far below that of curiosity and doubt; they were in that of hatred and bloodshed.
VI. AS THE QUESTION OF SINCERE AFFECTION. Those who entertained this feeling were in a small minority, still it is not too much to think that in that vast and generally antagonistic crowd there was many a one who would re-echo the question even from the lips of malice and hatred, and send it forth filled with gratitude and love. “Where is he?”—he who healed my son or my daughter, he who is kind and so full of grace and truth? We know of one, at least, among the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin who would ask it as a question of love—Nicodemus. Genuine love and faith were not quite unrepresented in the inquiries concerning Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles.
CONCLUSIONS. 1. The wonderful power of language as the instrument of thought and sentiments. The same words may convey different feelings. Murder and love may travel in the same vehicle. “Where is he?” 2. People in all ages make inquiries concerning Jesus Christ from different motives and with different intentions. Their language may be almost the same—“Where is he?” but the motives and intentions are different and various. 3. It is of paramount importance with what motives and intentions we inquire for Christ. No motive nor intention is worthy of him but faith and the salvation of the soul. 4. Blessed are those who ask with living faith, “Where is he?” He will soon appear and satisfy all their wants.—B. T.
Vers. 40–44.—An important division. We have here: 1. A great feast. That of Tabernacles. 2. A great day. The last day of the feast. 3. A great preacher. The Christ, the Son of God. 4. A great sermon. “He cried;” and he had something worth crying—the living water for a thirsty world. 5. A great division. “And there was a division among the people,” etc. Notice—
I. SOME OF THE FEATURES OF THIS DIVISION. 1. Jesus was the Subject of this division. “Because of him.” The question was—Who was he? what was he? A good or a bad man, a true prophet or an impostor? 2. They were divided in their opinions. Some thought he was the Prophet; some thought he was the Christ; while others doubted, objected, and opposed. 3. They were divided while it was important that they should agree. If he was an impostor, it was important that they should agree to expose him and stem his influence; but if their Messiah, it was all-important that they should agree to accept and obey him. 4. They were divided while they ought to be unanimous. Jesus had told them who he was, and his person, character, ministry, and his mighty works, all were in perfect harmony with his claims. With perfect unity and Divine force they pointed to him as the Son of God. 5. In this division error dissents from truth. Some said, “He is the Christ.” Error doubted and objected. Truth is older and firmer than error, right than wrong. Error and wrong are negatives of truth and right. 6. Amidst this division Christ remained the same, and shone on. The different opinions of men make no change in Jesus himself. Christ changes men’s opinions, but their opinions produce no change in him.
II. THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF THIS DIVISION AND ITS CONSEQUENT VARIETY OF OPINIONS. 1. Some were prejudiced against him. (1) Prejudice is unreasonable (ver. 41). It makes more of a place often than a person. The highest claims of a person are ignored through unreasonable objections to the place whence he hails. (2) Prejudice makes what is really for the truth to appear against it. (Ver. 42.) Christ was of the lineage of David, and a native of Bethlehem. They manifest here a culpable ignorance or a wilful suppression of knowledge. Prejudice is capable of both. 2. Some were filled with hatred against him. (Ver. 44.) Through this passion even the Son of God appeared as an impostor and a demon. A Being of infinite love could not be accepted nor even recognized through hatred. 3. Some were well disposed to him. (Ver. 40.) A favourable disposition will generally find the truth or an approximation to it. “The Prophet;” “the Christ.” This was probably the verdict of the majority of that age. Their heads were right, their hearts were wrong. 4. All seemed sadly indifferent. The most earnest were his haters. Even those who rightly pronounced him to be the Christ seemed to lack earnestness of soul. The great “cry” of Jesus on the last day of the feast did not find an adequate response from the heart of the multitudes. There was a division, a stir, and that was apparently all.
CONCLUSIONS. 1. Christ has occasioned great divisions in the world. This was not the first nor the last. A variety of opinions, of sentiments and feelings, with regard to him. He is the occasion, not the cause. He is the Prince of peace and unity, and yet divisions with regard to him have stirred humanity into the highest pitch of passion, and have resulted in wars, persecutions, and martyrdoms. 2. The most important division of humanity is that on Christ. Nations divide on important questions, but upon none so important as this. Upon this hangs the eternal destiny of the world. 3. In this division

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., St. John, vol. 1, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 322–338.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624489#Comment_624489

I would agree with many others that WBC is the best value for studies. It is also the best value financially if you can get it on sale (frequently as low as 499 USD).

Depending on the seminary where you study, it may be more or less expected of you to interact with certain segments of scholarships. For instance, there are professors who are more intent on making sure you interact with significant scholarly voices and not just evangelical ones. If that is the case, commentaries like Hermeneuia, Continental and Anchor can be assets. For my part, I have found that buying individual volumes as needed from those sets was a better route than getting the whole since it is so expensive (Anchor) and unequal in quality (Hermeneuia). This is true also of specific outstanding volumes that can be found in other series yet (NIGTC, NICOT and some standalones).

The drawback with WBC is that often it often takes you round the block of views out there and leaves you without clear conclusions. You may learn a lot about highly speculative and disputed theories about links to Qumran or chiastic structures, but after reading pages on (it can be tedious), still have no answer to the more pressing questions you have concerning the text! I don't want to exaggerate this though: there is still a lot of useful material in there that is useful to enlighten the text even if you have to take it further afterward.

I would suggest: 1) get WBC 2) go to a library and consult several volumes of each of the top three sets you may hesitate about 3) put your favorite ones in your Logos wishlist and keep an eye out for sales 4) add standalone volumes that you find outstanding as you encounter them in your coursework.

Blessings to you as you study.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624534#Comment_624534

The drawback with WBC is that often it often takes you round the block of views out there and leaves you without clear conclusions.

I agree that this is certainly frustrating, but I am not sure it is a drawback. Back when I was in school I took a class on Luke where we had class discussions on a dozen texts. Before the discussions we were each assigned one of six commentaries to prepare for the discussion. I found that with both Noland (WBC) and especially Fitzmyer (Anchor) I left the library not at all knowing for sure what the text meant. But when I walked out of discussion I found that I had been PREPARED for it, since no matter what people brought up, I was aware of it and of some of what all that means. In short, they give you the tools you need to work it out yourself in an informed way.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624583#Comment_624583

The drawback with WBC is that often it often takes you round the block of views out there and leaves you without clear conclusions.

I agree that this is certainly frustrating, but I am not sure it is a drawback.

Most that teach Bible studies tell us to read the text in context first. Ponder it with only the Holy Sprint for help. Then and only then after we have had time to find our own meaning to the text should we refer to a commentary. If the commentaries have several 'views' are you willing to research all of them? [And maybe they are all wrong!] [Am going to have to start saving up - the more I hear about the WBC the better it sounds.]

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624480#Comment_624480

Hello Michael

The list of commentaries are from my library at this time, except the WBC which I saw on a different post and was thinking may be nice to add to my library.

I don't have NICOT/NT the cost is high for me now. If I had it yes I would have included it.

The main thing was to talk about the current commentaries that I have now and which was better, maybe I was not that clear.

One question many people are saying that Pulpit is dated, but aren't Calvin and Lange's commentaries also for that matter?

But they are still of use right?

Pulpit is part of the Gold upgrade is it just filler for the upgrade and not that useful?

Yes, indeed, those commentaries are of great use. And my comments were somewhat stupid. Just musing out loud, I guess.

I had Word Biblical years before I managed to get NICOT/NT. Word Biblical is really every bit as good - better in some books. And it is usually available at a bargain price. It would make great sense to go for that first.

I know God will bless you in your study.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624647#Comment_624647

Hi Michael

I am evangelical, reformed, and Baptist.

You and others have made good points, it is a good point to look for WBC & NICOT/NT on a good sale and maybe also try to put some money aside.

I don't think your comments were stupid, I look at everyone’s and try to take the good form them. I have learned many things about Logos by looking for people with experience.

Thank you for the help.

Scott Groethe

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/624894#Comment_624894

Having spent a lot of time at bestcommentaries.com it's true WBC and NICOT/NICNT are often at the top of the lists by book. But don't forget

TOTC/TNTC and NAC - many of those volumes rank high there as well, overall it seems NICOT/NICNT has more top rated volumes and WBC, NAC and TOTC/TNTC are about tied for second as far as I have seen.

Maybe there is this general idea out there than WBC is so much better than the rest. It is very good but uneven volume to volume (somewhat to be expected) and no one is giving NAC and TOTC/TNTC their due if you agree with bestcommentaries.com 's rankings.

I like WBC a lot but the format is hard to use, having to go from one section to another, say from translation to notes when doing syncronized scrolling. If Logos could unpack them into parts it might be more useful, the WBC translation would then be another translation to compare alongside the ESV, NLT and others.

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/636513#Comment_636513

I've found the input so far candid and sensible. Threads like this make this forum a great place to interact and learn.