THE UTILITY OF COMMENTARIES
By William H. Littlejohn
IN THE STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES. BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN. No book has ever been published concerning which so much has been written and said as has been done with reference to the Holy Scriptures. Were we to employ the exaggerated language of the East, as did the “beloved disciple” on one occasion, we might well say that should all these productions be in existence at any one time, the world would not contain them. Concerning the value and character of these writings there is a wide difference of opinion. While some regard them as altogether indispensable, others look upon them not only as useless, but actually pernicious. The one class would, perhaps, be in danger of exalting them even above the Bible itself; while the other would not only treat their authority with contempt, but also inculcate the idea that the use of them on any occasion would be culpable. Between these two extremes of opinion, it seems to me, the golden mean of truth will be found. He who would accept the opinion of any given commentator as authoritative in settling questions of Scripture teachings, forgets that the individual whose authority he thus receives so implicitly is, like himself, a mere man, writing without the aid of Divine Inspiration, and, consequently, liable to come to wrong conclusions and inculcate unsound views of that which he is seeking to elucidate. If, therefore, he would be freed from the illusion which has taken possession of his mind, he will find the remedy in a larger acquaintance with the works of learned men upon these subjects; for he will thereby ascertain that they differ very widely in their opinions of any given passage; consequently that they cannot all be right. He will readily discover, furthermore, that it is no easy task to determine who are right and who are wrong. On the other hand, if those who have entertained a superstitious fear of consulting the writings of others upon such subjects would take pains to become more familiar with those writings, they would discover that when properly used they can be made of great service to one who labors to avail himself of all the information they can impart. While it is not to be admitted that commentators have in any sense been inspired, it is nevertheless true that, generally speaking, they have been good men. It will be perceived that this could hardly be otherwise, when it is recollected that they have voluntarily given their lives to the study of a book which could have no charms for them sufficient to stimulate such labors unless they had accepted its teachings as the embodiment of the will of God. Not only is it true that they have been men of good intentions, but it is also manifest that they have been men of great learning. Combining, therefore, as they have, both knowledge and piety, it is difficult to conceive why it is not as probable that they should be led by the Holy Spirit to a right understanding of the word, as it is that one possessing no more devotion than they, and wholly wanting in their literary and scientific attainments, should reach a more correct understanding of the Scriptures. In fine, it has seemed to me at times that the difference between those who reject all exegetical writings as of no value whatever, and those who exalt them above the word of God, is simply the difference between those who worship themselves and those who worship others. Turning, therefore, from both these classes as unworthy of either admiration or imitation, let us consider a few reasons which favor a just appreciation and proper use of those helps in the study of the word of God which may be found in the best commentaries of our time. To begin with, there is no one man who can be supposed, no matter how learned he may be, to possess all the resources for Bible study which are available. Those resources are continually enlarging, and the lifetime of one man would be hardly sufficient, even were they all within his reach, to enable him to acquaint himself with them. Those who suppose that the King James’ or any other translation of the Scriptures has within itself a key to all the mysteries it contains, but displays his own ignorance of the subject. Saying nothing about errors in translation, there are in our version forms of expression which have become obsolete in some cases, and in others diametrically opposed in the present signification to that which they formerly bore. The words prevent and let, for example, now mean respectively to thwart and allow. Formerly the first almost always signified to anticipate, and the latter to hinder. If the reader would discover the effect which the ignorance of these facts would produce in the mind of the student, let him turn to 2 Thess. 2:7, and there he will find Paul declaring, respecting the rise of the Papacy, that “he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” Accepting the modern signification of the term, the uninformed would suppose that Paul meant to teach the very opposite of that which he really does; i. e., as it now stands he speaks of the power as allowing, whereas in the original he declared that it should hinder, which is the very opposite of the former; the reason of the discrepancy being found in the fact that in this, as in many other cases, the meaning of the English is the very reverse of what it was when our translation was made. Again, a sample of forms of expression now nearly obsolete will be found in Judg. 5:17, in these words: “Asher abode in his breaches.” Ex. 34:21: “In earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.” In the first case the average reader, without the aid of explanation, would hardly comprehend the fact that breaches was there used to indicate havens; in the latter instance he could hardly be supposed to understand that in the old English the phrase “earing time” was synonymous with plowing time. But these illustrations must suffice in the line of obsolete terms, though many others might be adduced. So far also as translations which would be very likely to lead astray in some cases are concerned, it will be sufficient to say that scholars are generally agreed that such inaccurate renderings do exist. In fact, it is well known that one of the objects of the New Version is the correction of the more palpable of these errors. It is probable also that the studious reader of commentaries has already been made acquainted with nearly every one of the corrections which will thus be made, and therefore is free from the danger which would result from a lack of knowledge on this subject. But, finally, one not only needs assistance in the matter of verbal interpretation, but he also requires aid in the work of deducing from given passages the exact meaning they were designed to convey. It not infrequently occurs that the English reader loses nearly the entire force of a passage from the want of acquaintance with some Jewish custom or ancient maxim upon which it was based, and a knowledge of which is necessary to its understanding. With most of these customs and maxims, learned expositors have acquainted themselves by years of hard labor, and the fruits of their toil are offered to us as they are set forth most clearly in their written productions. Again, in the settlement of doctrinal points, the common mind is liable to fasten upon one or two texts and make them the ground of faith, instead of taking in the whole scope of the subject by comparing all texts which may be found in the different portions of the Scriptures bearing upon the question. In the conflicts of past years, however, this tendency has been counteracted by discussion, until all the features of the various subjects, one way or another, have been quite fully brought out. If, consequently, we would enjoy the benefit of the experience of the past, and be saved from the danger of falling into the errors which have been heretofore exploded, we must do so by appropriating to ourselves the results of the labors of others. But this cannot be done without consulting such books as those the value of which we are insisting upon in this article. While it cannot be expected that laymen should be able to read in course a very large percentage of the numerous works on Bible criticism, still they can possess themselves of one or more of these productions, which can be read in order, so as to obtain a general knowledge of the Scriptures from beginning to end. We know a family in which it is the unvarying practice to read a portion of the Scriptures and the comments thereupon at family prayers. Owning, as they do, Clarke’s Commentary, they make it a point to read two pages of the commentary each day at their morning and evening devotion. By this means they accomplish four ends: 1. They read the Scriptures themselves; 2. they obtain many side lights therefrom; 3. the practical lessons found in the observations of the commentator serve to impress the Scripture lesson, and to lend an interest to family prayers which otherwise they would not possess; 4. They thus secure system in their reading, and each day advances them toward the completion of a work which at the outset seemed so vast as to be almost unattainable. As for the ministers, it is unnecessary to say that they, being public teachers, should be much better informed in regard to Bible literature than are those who are to be instructed by them. It is not enough that they have read the Scriptures through once or even twice. It were better they should be reading them by course continually. It is our fortune to be acquainted with one who has read the Bible through as many as forty times. People not aware of this fact are astonished at his familiarity with the book of God. But he, like every other thinking man, is aware that the mere reading of the Bible texts over and over again—while beneficial in itself in a certain degree—is not to be compared in its results with the reading of it a much less number of times in connection with those Bible helps which should be found in the library of every minister; hence he has not failed to consult such helps very largely in connection with his daily reading. Even though a preacher should be able to read the sacred Book correctly in the original tongues, he could not afford to allow himself to remain unacquainted with the opinions which learned men have given of these writings. Should he attempt to preach without this acquaintance, we venture to say he would find himself balked at every turn by questions from old and young, of which, perhaps, he had never dreamed, and to which he would be incapable of giving an intelligent answer. Take, for example, the genealogy of Christ as a single specimen. The light now shining upon that subject is ample; but that light is the result of the labor of many minds. Perhaps there is not a man living at the present time who would be able to elucidate that question satisfactorily from the Bible merely, without appealing to Jewish customs and usages which have been made known to us through the patient study of men of letters. From these considerations we think it is clear; first, that every minister should read and reread habitually our English version of the word of God; secondly, that when it is possible he should acquire a knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages; thirdly, that whether he have this knowledge or not, he should read the Bible in connection with the best commentaries which are accessible to him; fourthly, that from the beginning to the end of his ministry he should draw to himself, from every direction, all information which could be of service to him in expounding the book of God.