Commentaries | Knowable Word

The Benefits of Waiting to Use Commentaries

April 1, 2026 By Peter Krol

Colleen Searcy believes it’s in your best interest not to reach for commentaries too quickly in your Bible study. Ryan and I tend to agree with her. As do Stephen Kneale and John Piper, among others.

Searcy compares commentaries to Google Maps, highlighting how much more knowledgable we become of an area from a paper map vs. a GPS app. And in the process, she keenly identifies three major benefits of not using commentaries too quickly.

Holding off on commentaries encourages engagement with God and with others.
Doing the work helps you remember.
You learn to recognize landmarks and patterns that are woven throughout the Scriptures.

There is much here worthy of your consideration.

Check it out!

5 False Authorities in Small Group Bible Study

February 23, 2026 By Ryan Higginbottom

Who’s in charge here? In government, family, and church, this question has sparked controversy aplenty throughout history.

In small group Bible studies, we have a similar question before us every time we gather. What’s our authority? What quotes do we share? To whom do we appeal? How do we handle disagreements?

For both leaders and small group members, our answers reveal our allegiances. And misplaced allegiances may short-circuit our learning or stunt our growth as Christians.

False Authorities

When small group members differ on a matter of interpretation, how is the question settled? To what authority do you and your friends appeal?

Our conviction here at Knowable Word is that God is the absolute and perfect authority, and he has revealed himself and declared his will through the Bible. The Bible speaks as an authority, and all humanity is called to submit their thoughts, plans, and interpretations of reality to God’s Word.

Despite the absolute authority of God’s word, we often rely on other helpful people and resources more than the Bible. Let’s examine five false authorities that emerge in small group studies.

A Respected Preacher or Pastor

There may be an author or preacher who has well-known thoughts on the topic your group is discussing. (This may be your own pastor!) A member of your small group may invoke this leader’s opinion on the matter when making their appeal.

Like much in life, quotations vary in their helpfulness. As a small group leader, I may share a quote when I find someone has a more powerful or elegant way of making my point. But if a quotation is not rooted in the biblical text, the appeal may be to eloquence or reputation instead of to the Bible.

The Small Group Leader

In an ideal small group Bible study, the leader does not function as an authority or expert. Rather, the small group leader guides the group in understanding and applying the Bible.

Attempting to answer every question is a dangerous approach to small group leadership. Small groups thrive when each member is grappling with the text, sharing observations, discussing interpretations, and praying together about applications.

Church Tradition

The historical tradition of a church or denomination can help us interpret Scripture. But tradition should never replace studying the Bible itself. The best sort of church tradition leads us back to the text, not away from it.

Group Consensus

Healthy small groups leave room for questions, further explanations, and repetition. No one should feel bad for having difficulty understanding the Bible, and no one should feel small for asking questions.

Many of the best discussions in my small groups have occurred when most of the group seemed ready to move on. But one person had a question they couldn’t shake. This forced us to examine a standard or easy interpretation of a passage.

Good leaders welcome questions that point back to the text, no matter when they arise.

Commentaries and Study Bibles

It’s happened more times than I can count. In response to a question in Sunday school or small group, someone notices an entry in their study Bible that addresses the issue head-on.

They read the entry and the discussion is over. After all, who would question a study Bible? Some people feel as though they’re questioning the Bible itself!

Small group leaders can make the same error when appealing to a commentary. It’s a discussion killer, and it often leads to no further insight or skill for those involved.

Again, I’m not against quoting other sources. But quotations which help with interpretations should make their arguments from the text of the Bible.

(As an aside, if you have a problem with study-Bible-answers in your small group, you might consider using ESV Scripture Journals for your next study and banning all other Bibles. Seriously.)

True Authority

God has given us other Christians—past and present—as a gift. As we learn about God from these other saints, we receive God’s gift with thanksgiving.

But we honor God most when we view these gifts in their proper place. Our leaders, resources, and traditions should all be used in service of the authority of God in his word. The more we demonstrate that the Bible has the answers we need, the more we remind each other that God’s word is knowable.

This was originally posted in 2019.

3 Mistakes with Commentaries

April 30, 2025 By Peter Krol

Stephen Kneale warns of three mistakes we could make with commentaries.

Opening commentaries too early
Opening commentaries too late
Not opening commentaries at all

There is some good advice here, along the lines of our continued counsel to avoid becoming a commentary junkie. I’ve given my own set of mistakes with commentaries. And just as you can disagree with someone’s advice about commentaries, so also you ought to be free to disagree with the commentaries themselves.

The goal is always to allow the biblical text to speak the loudest for itself. Commentaries make great conversation partners but lousy agenda setters.

Check it out!

Piper’s Advice on Commentaries

January 29, 2025 By Peter Krol

We don’t want you to become commentary junkies. And neither does John Piper. While there are certainly people out there in danger of arrogant isolation, refusing to consider the opinions of others recorded in Bible commentaries, Piper’s world is a bit different:

Now, in the world I live in — where I function at Bethlehem College and Seminary and Bethlehem Baptist Church and Desiring God — and the circles I go in, there aren’t many people who are falling off the horse on the first side, who say, “I never read commentaries. I never read books about the Bible. I just read my Bible, I pray, and that’s all I need.” I don’t know anybody like that in my sphere. That’s not the world I live in. I’m sure they exist; I just don’t have anything to do with them.

In my sphere, the error is almost always on the other side, the other direction. And therefore, I have devoted most of my life to encouraging people not to be dependent on commentaries and books about the Bible but to give assiduous attention to the biblical text directly — for themselves. When it comes to church leadership, I see more danger in becoming an inauthentic second-hander than in spending too much time assiduously thinking for yourself about what the Bible text is teaching.

My experience within my own circles has been similar to Piper’s. Which is why we want to help you learn how to study the Bible for yourself. By all means, don’t avoid commentaries altogether. The question is not whether but when.

And Piper can help you think that through further.

Check it out!

Credit Where Credit is Due

July 1, 2022 By Peter Krol

My tenth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall give credit to commentators where appropriate and not try to appear smarter than you are.

I suspect this may be easiest-to-swallow, least controversial of my ten commandments for commentary usage. Plagiarism is widely condemned in print, and it’s becoming increasingly unacceptable in spoken communication, such as preaching or small group leading, as well.

My greatest challenge is that, the longer I teach, the more difficult it is to remember where I got various ideas from. Especially when I read commentaries in order to dig back into the text—I chew on the best ideas of the commentators and reflect on them in light of the Scripture text itself, to the point where it becomes difficult to nail down exactly which idea came from the commentator, and which was a product of my own reflection.

So I’ve begun keeping better notes to track the sources of the most helpful ideas I come across.

But the point is simple: As long as you are not quoting a commentator as the final word, shutting down conversation (see commandment 9), make sure to give credit where credit is due. “I read this really helpful point in John Stott’s commentary, where he said… What do you all think about that? Does it fit with your observation of the text?”

Your Test: Can You Do What the Commentator Did?

June 24, 2022 By Peter Krol

My ninth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall not quote a commentator as the final word on an interpretive matter, but must demonstrate your conclusions from the scriptural text itself.

Perhaps you’ve seen it happen. Perhaps you’ve even done it yourself. I know I have. The discussion gets going, and people are bouncing ideas off one another. But suddenly the record scratches and the room goes silent, because someone dropped a name or invoked an expert. All rise! The final and authoritative word has been spoken from heights to which mere mortals could never attain.

What I’m Not Saying

Before I get any further into the meaning or intention of this commandment, let me clarify what I am not saying.

First, I am not saying that you should never quote a commentator. By all means, please make use of the commentaries and resources available to you. And by all means, give credit where credit is due!

Second, I am not saying that you should never quote a commentator in a discussion or Bible study group. I am saying only that you ought not to do so on interpretive matters. And what I mean by “interpretive matters” is conclusions about the meaning or main point of the text. In this sense, commentaries are one of the 5 false authorities to watch out for in a small group discussion.

This commandment follows the previous one on purpose. If you heed that commandment, you will have taken care to draw a distinction between factual information in the commentary (cultural or historical background, direct observation of the text, etc.) and reasoned interpretations in the commentary (arguments made, with premises and conclusions, to draw principles or instructions from the text). That distinction can now serve you well. If your study group is in need of some factual information that might otherwise be inaccessible, go ahead and quote the commentator!

For example, in a Bible study discussing Genesis 21: “The commentary at the bottom of my study Bible says that the name ‘Isaac’ and the term ‘laughing’ are repetitions of the same Hebrew word. Could that repetition signal some sort of wordplay we ought to be aware of?”

Third, I am also not saying that we must never quote commentaries on interpretive matters. I am saying only that we must not do so as the final word on the matter. I would have no concern whatsoever with someone saying, “I read such and such in a commentary, but what do the rest of you think? Is such a conclusion supported by the text?”

What I’m After

The intention behind this commandment is found in the final clause, that we must be able to demonstrate our interpretive conclusions from the scriptural text itself. It might be helpful to quote a commentary to show that you’re not the only one in history who has identified a particular conclusion from a particular passage. As long as you can still articulate that conclusion from the passage itself.

If you read something in a commentary and trust the author’s conclusions despite what the text says, you have most likely violated commandment number 5. And if you submissively believe the commentator’s conclusions and simply can’t speak to the matter from the text, you have likely violated commandments 2 and 3. And if you proclaim a commentator’s conclusions as definitive truth on an interpretive matter, you probably have violated commandments 6 and 7.

The best use of a commentary is to help you understand the text. If, however, you come away understanding the commentary but not the text, the mission got off course somewhere.

In the first century, the Jewish scribes loved to hold debates, pitting one ancient commentator against another. At times, they even sought to rope Jesus into taking one side or the other (Mark 10:2). He wouldn’t play those games, and, as a result, the populace observed in him an authority they couldn’t find among their typical teachers (Matt 7:28-29). Of course, there was something unique about Jesus’ authority as the Son of God proclaiming the word of God.

However, Jesus delights to share his authority with his disciples (Luke 9:1-2). The authority of God’s word is present whenever God’s people seek the Lord in those very words (Acts 17:11) and proclaim them with intelligible simplicity (Acts 17:2-3). Can you do this from the Scriptures? Or do you tend to get stuck in merely explaining the various interpretive schools and camps you have read about?

Because I once read a commentary that suggested it might be a bad idea to do that.

Wise Commentary Use With Leah’s Weak Eyes

June 22, 2022 By Peter Krol

My pal Mark Ward has a wonderful piece at the Logos Word by Word blog, where he models exceptionally wise usage of commentaries to help him answer a specific question: What does it mean that Leah’s eyes were weak (Gen 29:16-17)? Ward is not so arrogant as to ignore the commentaries altogether, and he is not so slavish as to read only one commentary and accept the conclusions without inspection. He examines many commentaries, explores the nature of a variety of conclusions, and he takes the debate with him right back into the text to make up his own mind.

With something as simple as Leah’s doe-eyes, here’s what I would do: I’d land. I’d land without telling everybody where I’d flown. I’d stick with the intuitive—to me—opposition the text sets up, in which “weak eyes” are contrasted with Rachel’s beauty. And I’d appeal back to my gut feeling as someone who loves and knows language; I’d explain the text as an idiom communicating, in a delicate way, that Leah wasn’t quite the looker Rachel was.

His conclusion is rather straightforward, but the road he traveled to get there is deeply instructive. I commend it to you as a path you ought to follow him on when you have similar questions. For further reflection on this sort of methodology when using commentaries, see my ten commandments for commentary usage and the explanatory posts that have followed.

Check it out!

Facts vs. Implications in Commentaries

June 17, 2022 By Peter Krol

My eighth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall distinguish, in the commentaries, between evidence-based observations of the text (such as Hebrew or Greek syntax or wordplay, historical context, or comparative ancient near eastern literature) and reasoned interpretations of the text. You shall remain aware that the first category is more likely to contain factual data that must be accounted for, and the second category is more likely to contain opinions to be weighed and considered alongside alternatives.

My purpose here is simply to discern between differing types of information, which ought to provoke different responses as we make use of commentaries. Thereby, a commentary is something like a pie a la mode, where the pie and the ice cream dwell in symbiotic union to make a dessert worthy of one’s salivary attention. A single act of consumption yields a combination of treasures and delights.

The Objectivity of Observation

When a commentary observes the text, the author is stating things that are objectively verifiable. Observation could perhaps be considered the science of Bible study.

For example:

The tenses of verbs.
Repetitions and word play.
Comparisons and contrasts.
Grammar and syntax.
Pronouns and antecedents.
The historical setting and background of the author and audience (when knowable).
Cultural context of the characters or events described in the text.

Such things are nearly always binary: True or false, correct or incorrect. If a verb occurs in the past tense (or “aorist,” if the commentator references the Greek New Testament), it is not a present or future tense. Whether a word is repeated ought not be up for debate but can be objectively perceived and verified. And commentaries can be especially helpful for pointing out such things as tenses, repetitions, and syntax that are less clear in English translation.

Commentaries are also especially helpful for pointing out historical and cultural artifacts that most people today might not be aware of when they read a text. Why are the Pharisees so bothered by Jesus healing people on the sabbath (and what is a “sabbath,” anyway?)? Why does Jesus climb onto a boat to preach? What is a mina? Why is it that, whenever people head south to Jerusalem, the text says they are going up to the city?

In addition, commentaries may draw attention to quotations or allusions to prior texts (such as New Testament texts referring to Old Testament texts, though it also happens within the Old Testament itself as well) that are easy to miss without being steeped in the breadth of Scripture yourself. So when a commentator is observing something, rejoice and be glad for the assistance provided to your visual impairment.

The Debatability of Interpretation

By contrasting observation’s “objectivity” with interpretation’s “debatability,” I am not suggesting that interpretation is merely subjective or relative. No, I’m only distinguishing between the truth of facts and the truth of facts’ implications. For example, you cannot credibly dispute the claim that my name is Peter. But you can credibly dispute whether I am a trustworthy person. The first thing is akin to Bible observation; the second is akin to Bible interpretation.

When commentaries move beyond what the text says and enter the realm of what the text means, they are moving from the facts to the facts’ implications. We ought to recognize the difference, because facts that are truly facts ought to be received as facts. And interpretations ought not to be received as facts. Interpretations could be wrong. Or they could be improved. Or they might be slightly off-center and require adjustment.

And remember that my fourth commandment was to never read only one commentary. By reading two or more, you will glimpse the manifold interpretive debates among scholars regarding the best way to interpret a text. Let each commentator make their best argument, and let those debates drive you back into the text to make up your own mind.

Conclusion

At this blog we want to help you learn to study the Bible. That means learning how to observe, interpret, and apply. As you learn this method, you will also learn to discern how others, such as commentators, use the method. This enables you to distinguish between the commentators’ observations, which—when accurate—ought to be received as facts, and the commentators’ interpretations, which are better when weighed and considered alongside alternatives.

In short, reading commentaries is another way to learn how to think. How to improve your own observation, interpretation, and application. Don’t miss out on that benefit by reading commentaries uncritically. It would be like skipping dessert when the pie is offered a la mode.

Not All Commentaries are Created Equal

May 27, 2022 By Peter Krol

My seventh commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall not hold all commentaries equal, but shall give greatest weight to those that stimulate greatest interest in the biblical text and its argument.

It comes with a corollary:

You shall resist speculations made by commentators and shall demand the same text-driven arguments from them that you would demand of your friends or that they would demand of you.

The purpose of these commandments is to highlight the discipline required to make wise use of commentaries for Bible study. Let me explain the primary commandment itself, and then I will explain why it leads to the corollary commandment.

Clarifying the Uses of Commentaries

By definition of the word “average,” approximately half of all published commentaries will be below average for a given purpose. And the same commentary may provide above-average help for one purpose and below-average help for another. So in order to make wise use of commentaries, we must first be clear on what we want the commentaries to do. Then we can judge how competently the commentary does that job.

Some commentaries are written primarily for academics, with the main goals being to address the many historic disputes surrounding a book of the Bible. These commentaries may observe and interpret the text insofar as it enables them to evaluate the many options given over the course of history in response to particular questions. Some commentaries do this well, without losing sight of the forest. But sometimes the end product is more about the debates and options than it is about the argument of the text.

Other commentaries are written primarily for ordinary churchgoers, with a heavy focus on practical application. Such “devotional” commentaries will vary in quality: Some may lead the reader to interpret the text as though it were written directly to him or her, while others do a better job interpreting the text through the eyes of the original audience first.

Regardless of whether you benefit more from a technical or devotional commentary, the question I ask of any commentary is: Does it help me to understand the biblical author’s overall argument? If I can work through 10, 20, or 50 pages of comments without getting a clear grasp on where we’ve come from and where we’re going, I have found myself a commentary I am unlikely to finish.

So remember the third commandment, which is about your responsibility to study the Scripture and not merely adopt whatever interpretations you happen to read in a commentary. So if you read a commentary for the purpose of helping you to study the Bible, success ought to be measured by how well that commentary stimulates you to look back at the text and not necessarily by how clear or cogent its conclusions are. Are these things really so (Acts 17:11)?

Speculating on the Role of Speculation

Now we come to the corollary commandment quoted above. Commentators sometimes wander into the realm of speculation, since that’s why publishers pay them the big bucks. People buy a commentary because they want answers, so commentators may face pressure to provide answers even when the text on which they comment does not. Who wrote the book of Kings? Who was the audience of Mark? Who, precisely, were the spirits in prison to whom Jesus preached in 1 Peter 3:19? What is the identity of “the restrainer” holding back the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2:6-7)? Why does Death ride a pale (or green) horse (Rev 6:8)? What was Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” (2 Cor 12:7)?

I am not saying that such questions have no answers. And I am not saying that commentators ought not to seek to answer such questions. But sometimes such questions, and many more, can take up so much time and space that we utterly fail to follow the text’s argument. For example, go ahead and try to identify the man of lawlessness or the thing restraining him, if you can do so from the text. But by all means, do not allow this inquiry to distract you from the text’s chief argument that you ought not to be alarmed by such things.

If your close friend claimed to know the identity of the restrainer on purely imaginative and speculative grounds, you would likely not buy it. Why would such imagination or speculation be any more persuasive simply because the one hawking it has a PhD or teaches at a seminary? Be a demanding consumer of commentaries. Demand text-driven arguments rooted in careful observation and interpretation. If you don’t get them, it may be time to take your business elsewhere. And if you would like some recommendations, I maintain a list of commentaries that model OIA Bible study here.

Do What You Wish Your Theological Opponents Would Do

May 20, 2022 By Peter Krol

My sixth commandment for commentary usage is:

You shall hold your conclusions (and your theological tradition) loosely enough to allow commentaries to compel you back into the text to discover the biblical author’s intentions for his original audience.

Please understand that I am not opposed to theological traditions. I do not believe it is possible to escape all tradition and construct a perfectly objective theology from scratch. Nor do I think it would be desirable to do so if we could. Theological tradition holds great value as a safeguard and alignment across localities and generations, in defiance of the shifting winds of the world. Theological tradition rooted in faithful handling of the scripture is to be celebrated and encouraged.

As long as we are careful not to replace the scripture in the tug of war with those traditions.

The Problem

The problem is that almost nobody believes they are doing this. Most people with a dearly-held set of theological convictions believe they have derived those convictions from the scripture. Consequently, they believe their theological opponents are the ones who have replaced the scripture with their traditions. And I am not pointing my finger at you, dear reader, but at myself, as I am just as guilty of such presumption toward my detractors as anybody.

I’m sure there are some people in the world who do this—replace the scripture with their tradition—intentionally. It is not to them that I write, for they are outside the pale of biblical Christianity. Anyone who claims to follow the Jesus of the Bible must love and revere the Bible the way he did and not willingly set it aside in favor of manmade religion, however enlightened or modernized that religion may claim to be.

But the chief problem I address is with those inside the pale of biblical Christianity. Those who want to follow Jesus and not their own hearts. Those who honor the Bible as containing the very words of God, to be believed and put into practice. Because too often, in the name of Jesus and the Bible, they willingly impair their vision of Jesus and the Bible with the sunglasses of their theological tradition. And so the tradition becomes primary, and the scripture itself becomes secondary.

An Example

To give only one example, consider the following scriptures:

John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
1 Tim 2:3-4: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

We can tie ourselves in knots trying to reconcile these two verses. But when doing so, many first presume that one of the verses is a universal truth about the character of God, and the other is a particularized truth for a given context. But which one is universal and which one is particular depends on your tradition. Is he an irresistable-drawing God with particular salvation-desires, or is he a salvation-desiring God with particular-drawing behaviors?

But what if we could rest ourselves content in uncovering, in all its fullness, what Paul meant by the second statement in its context, and what Jesus (or more precisely, John recording Jesus) meant by the first statement in its context? Would you be willing to stand on both truths, unfiltered by tradition and unadjusted by preconception? And if your tradition didn’t have a clear place for both truths to coexist, such that one had to be given primacy over the other, would you be willing to allow the scripture to replace that tradition in this matter? Can you hold your tradition loosely enough to allow each text to speak for itself, such that the meaning it would have had for the original audience drives the meaning you assign to it today?

Application to Commentary Usage

I imagine you wish your theological opponents would hold their tradition more loosely, so they could truly observe and receive what the scripture teaches. And I am sure they wish the same for you. This is where commentaries can be a great benefit to us.

Commentaries give you an opportunity to poke and prod your tradition with the insights and observations of others who are not as beholden to that tradition. Insofar as a commentator’s commitment is to proclaim a particular tradition, the value of his commentary may be reduced for those outside his tradition. But insofar as a commentator’s commitment is to proclaim and parade the text in all its glory, the value of his commentary is increased for those of any theological tradition.

Find those commentaries, and let them inflame your delight in the word of God. Then you can set the commentaries back down and gaze anew on the living and abiding word of God with sharper sight.