My Choice of Commentaries
The Bible is one hard book to understand in some areas. While some things are said pretty clearly - others don't use literal transliteration. It's like saying that Ahaziah was 42 years old in 2 Chronicles while saying he was 22 in 2 Kings - one talks about the amount of time from the House of Ahab to his while the other talks about his actual age. So, I decided to get some commentaries and started off with the famous commentary of Matthew Henry which is available in concise and complete. The others would include John Gill's commentary and exposition of the Bible and the "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible" by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Faussett, and David Brown. Charles H. Spurgeon heartily commended Matthew Henry's commentary and Jonathan Edwards read it on his knees.
However, I always have a problem with commentators who use the purely historicist text for this reason - prophecy should always tackle what was fulfilled in the past, the present, and what's about to happen in the future. I find the idea of the Antichrist as a dynasty rather than one person boggling. I do agree with the commentators that the Pope is indeed an antichrist but the dynasty can't be Antichrist. I find it to be a faulty understanding of 1 John 2:18. If you've tried Calvin's Geneva Study Bible - he would always use the historicist context. I wouldn't agree that the Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera was the inventor of futurism or it was some sort of smokescreen. Far from it - Ribera's own view was even not accepted by the Roman Catholic institution. I read some Catholic pages and they think that the Rapture was even an invention by the Protestants! It does get confusing if you ask me but I stick with the mix of futurism and historicism for this reason - prophecy will always involve what has happened, what's currently happening, and what will happen.
The commentaries that I usually like using would be that of the late J. Vernon McGee, the late Robert C. Sproul Sr., and that of John F. MacArthur of the "MacArthur Study Bible". McGee may have had a mistaken understanding of lordship salvation but he didn't go by easy believism either. Far from it as McGee himself boldly declared that an unchanged life is an evidence of fake conversion. Sadly, the double-minded heretic David J. Stewart (whose site I used to read from 2007 - early 2011) doesn't have a clear stand on that! MacArthur does clarify that lordship salvation means - a term he didn't like as mentioned in his book "The Gospel According to Jesus" (p. 44). J. Vernon McGee receives heavy commendation by "Grace To You Ministries" as one of the best Bible teachers ever. McGee has made heavy mention of the commentators Matthew Henry and Charles H. Spurgeon throughout his commentary while disagreeing with the historicist or what I'd dub as the hyper-historicist theology.
I have different reactions to different commentaries. I wonder why do some commentators ignore the possibility of dinosaurs in Job? Why do some still insist that the Antichrist is a dynasty than a single entity that will unite the world against God at the end of the world? I find much useful information such as to admire God's wisdom and scientific approach towards the Law. I always thought that not wearing mixed fibers and not eating unclean meats was because of the climate of Israel - though climate change hasn't impacted the Middle East as much as it has today. Different commentaries dwell deep into context - helping one understand why the Bible was written in such a way to the readers.
The Bible is an ancient book of timeless wisdom. Trying to understand why it was written as such helps the reader understand. I just can't understand the Bible by plainly just reading at it without understanding it. The Bible requires diligent study. I would use several sources to help me understand it even more.