Commentaries on Acts

On Sunday mornings I am preaching through the early chapters of the Book Of Acts. As I have done with the book of Daniel, I thought it might be interesting to give an overview of the commentaries that I am using. In no particular order, they are:

1. Gordon J. Keddie: You are my Witnesses (Evangelical Press). This is one of the Welwyn series of expository commentaries. It is a useful, work for the preacher, setting out the material in a good, helpful manner.

2. Darrell Bock: Acts (Baker Academic). This volume in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series is a huge doorstop of a book. It is however also extremely useful and decidedly evangelical. Bock has also written against the claims presented in the Da Vinci Code. He is a good example of a man who combines deep scholarship with a warm Evangelicalism. This book not only presents technical information, but also matter for preaching. If you have the money for it, it is a single commentary on Acts that counts as at least two or three smaller ones. The size is not a sign that too much irrelevant matierial has been included in this case.

3. I. Howard Marshall: Acts (IVP). This is a small commentary in the Tyndale New Testament Commentary series. It is also extremely helpful for the preacher, containing many helpful hints.

4. J.A. Alexander: The Acts of the Apostles (Banner of Truth). This is an older exegetical commentary by a powerful preacher from the old Princeton tradition. It is decidedly Calvinistic, and warmly evangelical.

5. Alexander Maclaren: The Acts (Hodder and Stoughton). This is a volume in Dr. Maclaren's Bible Class Expositions series. Dr. Maclaren of Manchester was one of the great preachers of the late 19th century. His expositions contain much helpful matter for the modern preacher.

6. Joseph Parker: Acts (Hodder and Stoughton). Two volumes in the People's Bible series. This is not strictly speaking a commentary, but a sermon series, and does not cover every part of every chapter. However, the Acts volumes are particularly full and helpful.

7. John Calvin: Acts (Eerdmans/Paternoster). Two volumes in the Calvin's New Testament Commentaries series. Calvin is the prince of expositors, and if the preacher can only have one commentary, Calvin must top the list.

8. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: Authentic Christianity (Banner of Truth). This series runs to six volumes. It is a series of sermons rather than a commentary, and as with Dr Lloyd-Jones' Romans series, the divisions are perhaps too small for most modern congregations. Nevertheless, there is a wealth of precious thought in these volumes, which can be judiciously used by the preacher to help think through the Acts.

In addition to which there are the whole Bible commentaries of Matthew Henry, John Gill, Adam Clarke and Matthew Poole. David Brown's contribution to the Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible commentary is also well worth consulting. I have not yet had the opportunity to consult Calvin's Sermons on Acts (Banner of Truth), but they must be worth consulting, as all Calvin's sermons are.

The Dangers of Seeing What is Not There

A while ago I referred to Principal Rainy's words on the dangers of critics seeing what is not there in the Bible. I have now got my copy of the relevant book back, and give the quotation:

"But, then, on the other hand, it is to be remembered that there is an eagerness in the critic's nature; he would always be seeing something, especially something that common people cannot see, or at any rate have not seen. Therefore, unless he is exceptionally self-restraining, he may persuade himself that he is seeing something remarkable, when all the time he is deluding himself with mere arbitrary combinations, And this too can be illustrated. You have sat before a fire, and seen a face in the glowing embers. Now that face, though it might be worth looking at for its lifelike suggestiveness, was nothing real; not a face objectively and actually presented to you. Move your head a little way, and the likeness vanishes. It was all in your point of view, aided by your fancy. In itself it was a meaningless, fortuitous collocation of pieces of glowing cinders, which at a certain angle yielded a deceptive perspective to your eye. So it is sometimes with the critics. I should think this befalls them all, even the best of them...

"Therefore the critic must make good to the public, I mean the public which studies such things, the method of his researches; he must make them see it, and establish it by evidence."

Robert Rainy: The Bible and Criticism (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1878), Pp. 103-4

This applies to Gail Riplinger's seeing the New Age movement in modern Bible versions. I assert that as regards the NASB, the NKJV, the ESV and the NIV, this is merely a "a meaningless, fortuitous collocation of pieces of glowing cinders", nothing more. Just as the Higher Critics have seen in the "glowing cinders" of the five Books of Moses the phantom persons of JEDP, four writers who never existed, so by the same subjective method, certain modern fundamentalists have seen all sorts of evil in words that are not at all evil in themselves, good words like 'the Christ', and such like.

Oh, and I extend the "meaningless, fortuitous collocation of pieces of glowing cinders" to the supposed numerical codes proposed by some.

And I thought of the passage before I read this. Which all goes to show you can't caricature some of these people. If you go to the blog linked to from Dr. White's, you'll see the whole 'English Preservationist' thing referred to in the comments. I am beginning to think this is a straw man set up by the King James Only crowd to say "well, we don't hold this." No, you don't, whoever said that you did?

Picture from James White, of course. I really had no intention of linking to it, but the Rainy quote is just so apposite!

The Gospel in a Nutshell

Last Saturday I gave some little assistance to an open air outreach by Stoke Young Life. Asked what I'm doing in Stoke (good question), I replied that I was here to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. "What is the Gospel you preach?" I was asked. "Can you define it in 20 seconds?"

"Jesus Christ crucified for sinners!" I replied in under five seconds.

It contains a lot, but in my opinion we all need to be able to define the Gospel briefly.


[N.B. I'm very busy this week, and so I prepared these posts last week]

Systematic Theology for preparation

On Wednesday I am going through a popular-level systematic theology Bible study. In order to get off my obsessive-compulsive NABV series (which I need to do), I thought I would share some of the books I have found helpful in preparation.

1. John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (Eerdmans). Of course. This is the great classic of all time in the field. Calvin is warm and cautious, and just has to be in the library.

2. Louis Berkhof: Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth). Another classic. You can either stuff your library with odd books, or go with the classics. Or do both, which is why I have an awful lot of books. Berkhof is one of the greats of the 20th century.

3. John Macpherson: Christian Dogmatics (T. & T. Clark). From 1898, Macpherson is one of the better late 19th century works. It contains a lot of material that is not dealt with in the same way elsewhere, including a discussion of Law and Gospel that would not be out of place in a Lutheran dogmatics.

4. Shedd: Dogmatic Theology (Presbyterian and Reformed). This is a splendid 19th century American production, now in a more user-friendly edition.

5. Robert Culver: Systematic Theology (Mentor). A modern work. I'm not a huge fan, but it can be useful.

6. Charles Hodge: Systematic Theology (Thomas Nelson). Mine is a 19th century edition, and has an index I photocopied from the one in the library when I was at seminary. Hodge is another old standby.

7. Donald Macleod: A Faith to Live By (Mentor). A concise discussion by a noted modern theologian that can be quite useful.

In addition to this, I have volumes on individual doctrines that I consult as and when. Chief among these are the early volumes from the 'Cunningham Lectures' series. Produced by some of the greatest theologians of late 19th century Scotland, these include Buchanan's classic work on Justification, Rainy's Delivery and Development of Christian Doctrine, Smeaton's The Holy Spirit, and Laidlaw's Bible Doctrine of Man.

Commentaries on Daniel

At present I am preaching through the book of Daniel on Sunday evenings. In preparing these sermons, I have consulted a number of commentaries. Commentaries, of course, can be divided into the technical and the expository. There is a certain amount of overlap, of course. The commentaries are, in the order they came off the shelf:

1. Stuart Olyott: Dare to Stand Alone (Evangelical Press). Subtitled Daniel Simply Explained, this is a plain exposition by an excellent Reformed preacher. It is one of the books that a preacher ought to consult on Daniel.

2. Sinclair B. Ferguson: Daniel (Thomas Nelson). This is a volume in The Preacher's Commentary, recommended to me by Pastor Richard Wigham of Tabor Baptist Church, Llantrisant. He also said that in his opinion this is probably the only volume in the series worth reading. Not having read any other volumes in the series, I can't comment. This is a very good volume, though. Like Olyott, this is an expository commentary.

3. Iain M. Duguid: Daniel (Presbyterian and Reformed). This is a volume in the Reformed Expository Commentary. This is a much better series. Like the two previous volumes, this is an expository commentary. One useful thing about consulting several such commentaries is that they show how three excellent preachers have treated the book, all differing slightly in what they say.

4. Joyce G. Baldwin: Daniel (IVP). From the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary series. I'll be honest, I got this for a pound in a secondhand bookshop. It is a more technical commentary, but small and useful in its way.

5. Edward J. Young: Daniel (Banner of Truth). An excellent commentary from the old Princeton tradition, first published in 1949. This is another technical commentary. It deals with the objections of the liberals in a masterful way.

6. Allan M. Harman: Daniel (Evangelical Press). A volume in the EP Study Commentary series. This is a mid-level commentary in a series that is intended for those who want to go into the text more deeply. I gave it a very good review for Peace and Truth magazine, though to be honest it can be given a miss if you possess all the rest of the commentaries I have referred to.

7. Ernest C. Lucas: Daniel (IVP/Apollos). In the Apollos Old Testament Commentary series. This is a very useful modern technical commentary. It contains much useful material.

8. Matthew Henry: Commentary (various editions). This is one of the classics of all time. Henry's ability is well known.

9. John Gill: Commentary (various editions). More technical than Henry, Gill combines deep learning with a thoroughly orthodox understanding.

10. Albert Barnes: Notes on Daniel (Blackie). To be honest, I find Barnes rather too in-depth for sermon preparation, where the aim is to get an overview of the whole passage, not to examine all the little details. But Barnes is very good.

11. Adam Clarke: Commentary (Tegg). Clarke is the great Wesleyan expositor, the Arminian version of Dr. Gill. There is a great deal of learning in Clarke, though he has some funny ideas in places. He usually has something to say worth reading, though.

12. Joseph Parker: The People's Bible (Hazell, Watson and Viney). The People's Bible is actaully a series of sermons through the Bible. The date in my copy is 1892. Parker does not cover every part of every chapter, and sometimes his sermons miss the main point of the text, but at least as often he gets the point. Parker was known as "the immortal Thor of pulpitdom", and consulting the treatment given a text by such a noted preacher is usually useful. I actually got this 25-volume set (Old and New Testament) for free at my seminary.

I have an unusually large number of modern commentaries on the book of Daniel. The proportions concerning a book like John's Gospel is a little more representative, being two modern commentaries to three old ones specifically on that book as well as the old standards listed above. Plus Calvin.

[Illustration: A bookkcase full of commentaries. From top left: Matthew Henry, The Expositor's Greek Testament, E.J. Young's Introduction to the New Testament, The People's Bible, Matthew Poole, etc., etc.]

Sermon Prep.

Seeing as many have taken it in hand to write about how they prepare sermons, some in a very poor way, I thought it might help people to say a few words about how I prepare a sermon/message/talk.

1. Prayer. The best way to understand any writing is to ask the author, and in prayer we communicate with God and ask Him to help.

2. Reading the Bible. I prefer to preach an expository series through a Biblical book. This is because such a series helps to ensure that it is the Word of God that speaks, not my ideas. If I am preaching the passage in the context of the book in which it appears, that severely limits my ability to force God's word to say what I want it to. I usually preach from the New King James Version, or the Authorised Version (usually in the Oxford edition, though the difference between the two is the letter 's' on the end of the word 'sin' somewhere in Ezekiel or Jeremiah). In my present situation the Church has agreed to use the NKJV, so I do as well. I occasionally refer to other English translations, principally the ESV and the NASB. I also consult the Greek and the Hebrew.

3. Make an outline of the passage. Before referring to any commentary, I make a preaching outline of the passage, usually with three headings. This outline must be derived from the passage, in the light of the whole Bible. Three things must be taken into account in making the outline:
i). The whole Bible as Christian Scripture. We cannot treat the Old Testament as if the New does not exist.
ii). Law and Gospel. This is often seen as a Lutheran approach, but in fact it is found in many Reformed writers, including John Bunyan. The first question in a law-Gospel analysis is "is this passage law or Gospel, or both?" If the passage is Law, how does it point to the Gospel? If it is Gospel, how does it answer the problem of the broken law?
iii). The place of the book in the history of salvation. Is it Old Testament or New? What is its date?

4. The commentaries. One great function of this is to make sure that I have properly understood the text. Usually, if you come up with an interpretation of the text that no commentator has ever thought of, you're wrong. Commentaries are meant to help, but you cannot plagirise them. Nor should quotes from the commentaries make up more than 10% of the sermon. The goal is rather to, as it were, 'discuss' the passage with the commentators. In doing this I have a number of rules:
i). The commentator may be wrong. Thus there is safety in numbers. You must also watch for the bias of the commentator. The Arminian will usually introduce some long philosophical discussion about Free Will when the word 'will', or 'choose' is used.
ii). Different types of commentary. There are two main types, the technical commentaries and the expository commentaries. Both kinds are useful in their own ways.
iii). Old and new commentaries. If we only refer to commentaries written in modern times we miss a great deal of treasure, and if we only read the older writers, we can conversely miss many fine modern commentaries. I will confess to a bias to the older commentaries myself. Some commentaries are vital, including Calvin, Matthew Henry and John Gill. I know of no modern whole Bible commentary that is as useful as these three.

5. The manuscript. In order to work out my thoughts, I write out a full manuscript. This will not read like the sermon as it will be delivered, it is a way to organise everything I have been thinking about.

6. The notes. These are written in outline form, fuller than the original outline, on one and a half sides of a quarter of a sheet of A4 paper. These fit inside my small red Bible, and go into the pulpit. Most illustrations and anecdotes are extemporaneous, so the notes contain an outline of the argument of the sermon, which is in five parts, a brief introduction, the three points, and a short conclusion.

Finally, if you're a preacher, don't suppose that this method is mandatory, or will work for you.

Apostolic Preaching

Preaching on Acts 3.12-26 more than a century ago, Joseph Parker noted

“When did the Apostles speak with bated breath and whispering humbleness? When did they try to make the best of the case by appeasing the spirit of the people, and by an endeavour to placate sensibilities which had been strongly excited? They never lowered the tone of their impeachment. Christ’s death was never less than a murder, and the men who had taken part in the crucifixion were never treated as other than murderers. There is no euphemism here; there is no attempt here at the smoothing down of very harsh asperities, on the contrary, we have here the bitter, stern, tragical, truth, and that truth has to be repeated day by day and age by age until every man feels that he himself has been the murderer of Christ.”

-Joseph Parker: The People’s Bible (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1901) Vol. 22, Pp.93-4

I venture to say that it is the loss of this note which is to blame for much of the lack of power in the pulpit today.