Andy Naselli on his new concise commentary on 1 Corinthians

I really like Naselli and have benefited a lot from his writings. That being said, this seems like a strange sentence from the bibliography:

“Hays, a longtime professor at Duke Divinity School, writes as a theologically conservative Methodist who does not share evangelical views on inerrancy (which is evident in his excursus on 14:34–35).”

Maybe he meant to say “otherwise conservative” but I’m not sure if someone who does not hold to evangelical views of inerrancy could be classified as conservative.

I have increasingly soured on commentaries. Not that I don’t use them; it’s just that they so often focus on meaningless things. It didn’t used to bother me, but now it does. A lot.

I recently preached Phil 4:10-23. I skimmed untold pages by Silva and Hawthorne that had nothing relevant to say. Was the passage an original part of the letter? Is Paul mad about the money? Does Paul not care about the money? Please, just stop it. Their comments might be interesting for the academy. They’re meaningless for a congregation. Silva completely missed the practical thrust of 4:11-13, a seeming aside that’s actually the pedagogical heart of 4:10-23. He spent his time doing word studies. What a waste. The congregation doesn’t care about αὐτάρκης. It doesn’t mean it’s unimportant. It just means that, if that’s all you talk about, you’re missing Paul’s point! Yet, that’s what Silva did. It’s what a lot of guys do.

I understand the difference between exegetical and more practical commentaries. There are no doubt some people reading this who sneer at devotional commentaries. Some people really like languages, and enjoy reading the exegetical discussions. Michael Bird recently caught a lot of flak for criticizing Matthew Henry. I mean A LOT of flak. His academic pals piled on, agreeing that Henry sucks.

Well, let me say this. 100 years from now, these modern commentaries will be in landfills and Matthew Henry will still be in print. So will Albert Barnes. Why? Because they’re pastors who know how to bring the text to life for ordinary people. They both knew the languages, and used them, and it informed their commentaries. But, they remained grounded to “normal life.”

So, I read Naselli’s comments about how he prepared this short commentary. And I get the impression this is more about the academy than helping a pastor and a congregation bring the text to life. Untold numbers of journal articles. I think Naselli mentions he had 2000 references! Is that really necessary to understand what Paul means?

I’m not saying I’m anti-intellectual. Please hear that. I’m just suggesting some commentaries today are pretty much useless. I think they forget that, after you set aside all the language and engagement with the 500 other authors who’ve published on the same book, you’re just trying to explain the text to help Christians better understand their bibles.

My family just started studying Romans together. We study the Bible slowly together on Sunday evening that started with COVID. We may only do half a chapter each Sunday. We finished Acts after all this time and we moved onto Romans. Now, I know Romans pretty well, having preached on the first couple of chapters last year when I had the opportunity. So, after reading the first 5 verses, which are one sustained sentence, teaching the kiddos and fielding questions, I thought I’d look at the several Romans commentaries I have. Other than MacArthur, most went on and on about ridiculous possible translations (like the “spirit of holiness” not being the Holy Spirit but Jesus’s Spirit raising Himself from the dead. Several claimed boldly that no other Scripture mentions the Holy Spirit has a role in resurrection so we should not infer that here…). Not one of these commentaries mentioned this as a trinitarian passage.

I understand critical commentaries, but as Tyler said, the entire point of the passage is not even mentioned. Not one commentary alluded to Hebrews 1, which I always think of when I read Romans 1:1-5.

[TylerR]

I think Naselli mentions he had 2000 references! Is that really necessary to understand what Paul means?

Tyler, this is for one reason, so the commentary doesn’t get pulled for plagiarism. Unfortunately, Christians have fallen into the academy view of the world. If you write a paper in physics and say an electron has a negative charge, you have to cite a 120-year-old experiment to show it… else “you plagiarized.” Come on people…

Mark, if you compare what O’Brien wrote to the book he plagiarized, it’s quite clear that he was quoting almost directly. The defense is that he was copying a note he had previously written and failed to cite. It’s not even questionable that he was copying. There are several lengthy passages.

[josh p]

Mark, if you compare what O’Brien wrote to the book he plagiarized, it’s quite clear that he was quoting almost directly. The defense is that he was copying a note he had previously written and failed to cite. It’s not even questionable that he was copying. There are several lengthy passages.

Oh boy… I don’t want to get dragged down in the O’Brien “debate”. Let me delete that part of the comment. If you think all that makes his great commentaries unusable, so be it.

THE POINT IS (right Tyler) that the main idea of a book gets lost in 2000 citations to “prevent plagiarism.”

we have all kinds of arm chair “plagiarism hunters” who scan everything they can find to make sure someone didn’t copy!

[Mark_Smith]

josh p wrote:

Mark, if you compare what O’Brien wrote to the book he plagiarized, it’s quite clear that he was quoting almost directly. The defense is that he was copying a note he had previously written and failed to cite. It’s not even questionable that he was copying. There are several lengthy passages.

Oh boy… I don’t want to get dragged down in the O’Brien “debate”. Let me delete that part of the comment. If you think all that makes his great commentaries unusable, so be it.

THE POINT IS (right Tyler) that the main idea of a book gets lost in 2000 citations to “prevent plagiarism.”

Please point out where I said his commentaries are unusable. I have and use them. I even gave his defense.

For what it’s worth, if you’re doing a family devotional in Romans, you should not be reading from Cranfield, Kruse, Longenecker, Moo (NICNT), Morris, Mounce, or Schreiner. Rather, read from Stott, Osborne, or Moo (NIVAC).

That being said, the technical minutia is important for a variety of reasons. However, the average pastor will likely never wade into the technical issues discussed in the minutia. Certainly, most congregants won’t. Therefore, it’s best to be aware that these issues exist, but skim over the details to get to what is most needful to your exegesis of the passage.

What I find to be most unhelpful in exegetical commentaries is when the author spends most of his time regurgitating the thoughts and opinions of other commentary writers. Just state your position and defend it, and don’t use exegetical fallacies to support it!

RE: O’Brien… I have, value, and continue to use his commentaries for my preaching. However, I cannot use them for academic papers.

THoward wrote:

What I find to be most unhelpful in exegetical commentaries is when the author spends most of his time regurgitating the thoughts and opinions of other commentary writers. Just state your position and defend it,

I agree! I would appreciate some corrective, if it’s necessary. I’ve just become increasingly impatient with unnecessarily LONG books. The other pastor told me he recently purchased a 900 page book by Fee about spiritual gifts (I don’t know which one). He bought it because we’ll be having a theology class soon where we discuss sign gifts (see my front page article on the same from a weeks or so ago). He said he bought the book so he could get a good perspective on the issue. I replied, probably too flippantly, “If you need 900 pages to make a case on this issue, you either need an editor or you need to get a life, or both.”

I truly feel that way. Yet, I’m not anti-intellectual. Just get to the point! Schreiner’s recent little book on spiritual gifts is 120 pages. Excellent. Why can’t people be brief? Do you really need 900 pages to discuss this? Can you really not interact with opposing views with less than 900 pages? Or, are you spending most of your time interacting with all the secondary literature? How much PRIMARY literature is in your argument?

I’m not sure what’s happening to me. The other pastor also recently mentioned chiastic structure on an OT passage and I said (privately), “that’s stuff people geek out about in books, but no real person actually cares and it doesn’t help anyone get through the week on a Wednesday evening.” This was in the context of a Wed night sermon. He was a bit taken aback. I wonder if I’m becoming a curmudgeon. But, I just don’t get it.

I keep coming back to Calvin. And find him so useful I usually regret not starting with him, and saving the time.

I appreciate that sound scholars have taken the opportunity to live in a book for a couple of years and I can read the fruit of their labors, standing on their shoulders, so to speak. The commentary on Ephesians by Hoehner is a huge, academic commentary. After I read his portion on a text in Ephesians, I found it made reading other commentaries faster and easier. I find one such commentary, while preaching through a book of the Bible, necessary for me. I then supplement it with more devotional reading and a book of sermons on the Bible book (e.g. Boice, Ryken, Hughes, etc.).

However, if a pastor is preaching/teaching three times a week, the above might be too much, then, something like Stott on Romans, is a BIG help.

And, there will still be questions one has about a text that he will not find addressed in any commentary, and which can only be answered, if they can be answered, by meditation, conferring with other texts, a good systematic theology, etc.

I saw just now, on Twitter, Jonathan Leeman remark that Carson’s first edition of Matthew (EBC) is available digitally for quite cheap. Naselli dropped in and recommended the second edition in a winsome way, and remarked that he spent hundreds of hours updating the 2nd ed. with Carson. Yet, I find Naselli wrote an article stating the 2nd. ed. really says nothing different, but includes 50 more pages interacting with newer secondary literature.

I will not be updating! It’s why I’m also quite happy with my 1st ed of Fee’s 1 Corinthains (NICNT) and Romans (also NICNT). No need to update. NO NEED. I don’t own Schreiner’s Romans (BECNT), so when I preach that book I’ll grab his new ed. If there ever is a third, I likely won’t get it (unless Schreiner changes his mind again!!).

I’ve come to the realization I’m more of a systematic theology guy, because I was perfectly happy to grab Erickson’s 3rd of Christian Theology and buy all of Bloesch’s 7-vol set.

Logos free Book of the Month is the Matthew, Mark, Luke volume from the EBC commentary. That means, basically, Carson’s Matthew. Logos breathlessly says it’s a commentary that should be in every church library.

NO. NO. NO.

As I cast my mind over the people in the congregation where I serve, I would never give Carson to any of them. Way too technical. I’d give them Wiersbe.

Does anybody here really think a church member would be edified by Carson’s Matthew commentary? I can’t tell if Logos is trying to sell books, or if they really believe this.

I’m not the world’s biggest fan of commentaries, but it does strike me as I read Matthew Henry (and sometimes Calvin) that there always seems to be an angle in any given passage that is omitted by previous generations. So in that light, there seems to be a lot of room for new commantaries which explore these angles.

It’s no substitute for a good understanding of the basics of exegesis, hermeneutics, and the like, but it can be a nice gauge of whether the angle one is exploring is more or less orthodox, or whether it’s way out there.