Bible Commentaries

Genesis 27:1-4 — heading we have given this paragraph. It contrasts vividly with that found in many commentaries. Peake entitled it, "Jacob Cheats Esau of His Father's Blessing";Arthur S. Peake, Peake's Commentary on the Bible (London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, Ltd., 1924), p. 157. and Robinson entitled it, "Jacob Steals Esau's Blessing!"Theodore H. Robinson, Abingdon Bible Commentary (New York: Abingdon Press, 1929), p. 236. Such views cannot be correct. What is in view here is a plot — initiated by Esau, concurred

Genesis 8:20-22 — duplicated. The language refers solely to the Deluge, and promises not that God may not sometimes visit particular localities with a flood, but that another such world-wide catastrophe should never overtake the human race."Thomas Whitelaw, op. cit., p. 132. "As I have done" This clause is a qualifier of the whole passage. The simple meaning of it is that the Great Deluge will never be duplicated in the subsequent history of the world. The beneficent curse upon the ground for the sake of man will not be

Exodus 18:11-12 — imperfectly) on earth during that long and rapid descent of the post-diluvian world into the debaucheries of paganism. Certainly Noah knew the one true and Almighty God, for the N.T. is witness that Jesus Christ was the Spirit that preached in Noah (1 Peter 3:20). Melchizedek (Genesis 14) was also a true priest of "the Most High God" and recognized in the N.T. as a vivid type of Christ, which no idolatrous priest could have been. Jethro appears to be just such another monotheist as were Noah and Melchizedek.

Psalms 47:5-9 — Abraham; For the shields of the earth belong unto God: He is greatly exalted." "God is gone up with a shout" This positively does not mean that, "An earthly king `goes up' to the high place where his palace is located."The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. IV, p. 246. This is merely a deduction based upon the nonsense of a `cultic' interpretation. What earthly king was ever entitled to be called, "God?" Then, there is the view that God had, in a sense, "come down" to rescue his people; and after he had done so,

Leviticus 16:6-10 — grammar that it must refer to a person, but as Meyrick pointed out, theirs "is a grammatical error." "When a noun expresses an office or a function, it does NOT require a definite article in Hebrew any more than it does in French."F. Meyrick, op. cit., p. 239. Meyrick cited half a dozen Biblical references confirming this. (2)    The second argument is somewhat more convincing, but still wrong. "There is, of course, a great likelihood that when two phrases, `for the Lord' and `for something

Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 — remembrance of the latter generations that are to come, among those that shall come after." "Words of the Preacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem" These words identify Solomon as the author of Ecclesiastes. This verse is supplemented by Ecclesiastes 1:12 in the words, "over Israel," a word which includes all of the Chosen People; and this limits the identification to Solomon, because he is the only "son of David" that ever ruled over the entire Israel in Jerusalem. If anything else had been intended

Ezekiel 3:10-15 — apostle Paul obeyed God in that he declared "the whole counsel of God" to mankind, Ezekiel was commissioned of God to do exactly the same thing. "The prophet was not to pick and choose out of the message, but was to deliver `all the counsel of God' (Acts 22:27)."E. H. Plumptre in the Pulpit Commentary, p. 47. "Go, get thee to them of the captivity" In Ezekiel 3:4, we noted that Ezekiel's commission was to "the house of Israel"; but here he was commanded to go to the captives. This was in no sense whatever

Daniel 4:19-26 — 'all peoples' and one designed to honor the God of the Hebrews, Nebuchadnezzar would naturally have used the Hebrew name (derived from [~'El], God), the name by which the prophet was best known among his own countrymen."Robert Jamieson, op. cit., p. 628. Of special interest is the evidence of mutual love and respect between Daniel and the king in Daniel 4:19. This attitude of the principal characters here is proof that no writer in the days of Antiochus had anything to do with the composition of the

Amos 3:3-6 — God's way means that they are no longer "agreed" with God. "Can they continue together? The law of cause and effect operates to separate them."J. A. Motyer, The New Bible Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), p. 732. As Butler noted, "This verse is often quoted in treatises on `Unity,' but Amos 3:3 has nothing to do with the subject of `Unity.'"Paul T. Butler, The Minor Prophets (Joplin: College Press, 1968), p. 301. There is a sin and consequence relationship

Numbers 33:50-56 — Israel refused to do it, and in that alone lay their own total failure at last. Why did they not do it? (1)    The custom of the times allowed captured peoples to be used as slaves. It is not hard to see how Israel reacted to that. (2)    The lust of Israel was aroused and captured by the allurement of vast numbers of women, many of whom no doubt were persons of great physical beauty and attractiveness. (3)    There were still remnants of the

Jonah 3:5 — scripture: "This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah. For even as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of Man be to this generation" (Luke 11:29-30). "Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites" This is the only proof needed that the Ninevites were fully aware of the supernatural wonder involved in Jonah's deliverance. Here again, we have that great New Testament word used also in John 2:11, etc.,

Mark 13:2 — city, he gave a specific commandment to his entire army forbidding its demolition, intending to preserve it as a "monument to the empire."James Macknight, A Harmony of the Four Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 412. Therefore, Christ was here stating the purpose and intention of Almighty God. Since the destruction of the temple must then be viewed as contrary to the will of both the Jews and the Romans, being accomplished by providential circumstances utterly

Mark 15:42 — Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath. THE BURIAL OF JESUS The day before the sabbath … This is generally understood to mean that it was Friday, but the scriptures do not teach any such thing. See in my Commentary on Luke under Luke 22:7. WHAT DAY WAS JESUS CRUCIFIED? This question, admittedly difficult, actually relates to the promise Jesus made in Matthew 12:40 that he would be "in the heart of the earth three days and three nights"; and the importance of it is such that

Mark 6:17 — Galilee and Perea with the title of tetrarch, but he was popularly called "king." He reigned from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D. He founded Tiberias on the western shore of Galilee. This is the ruler that Jesus referred to as "that fox" (Luke 13:32); and it was to him that Pilate sent Jesus during the trials prior to the crucifixion. His first marriage was to a daughter of Aretas, the Arabian king; but on a visit to Rome he met Herodias his brother's wife (Philip, not the tetrarch), whom he seduced

Romans 9:10-13 — preference to Esau. And the Lord said unto her (Rebekah), Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger (Genesis 25:23). There is no problem whatever regarding what God did. The problem lies in the reasons people suppose God had for doing it. God's sovereign act of choice between Rebekah's twins took place before their birth; but God's decision was absolutely not

1 Corinthians 11:34 — world. Christ died for our sins; and it is that historical event which anchors and perpetuates the Lord's Supper; and thus the historicity of Christ's death and resurrection is demonstrated and proved throughout all times and places by this sacred rite. 2.    Prospective. The ancient pagan god of war was the two-faced Janus (from whence the name of the month January), facing in both directions, forward and backward. In a far more wonderful manner, the Lord's Supper faces toward Calvary

Joshua 24:19-28 — the Lord Jesus Christ. This passage categorically denies that there was to be any forgiveness of sins under the Mosaic Law. As a matter of fact, Jeremiah made forgiveness of sins to be the unique element of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Joshua 24:20 is a reference to the curses and blessings that characterized the ancient suzerainty-covenant treaties. Thus, we continue to find in almost every verse evidence that this renewal ceremony strictly followed the ancient pattern. "He (God) will turn

Judges 18:27-31 — others who might have been able to help them in such a disaster. "There was no deliverer." "It was in the valley… by Beth-rehob" This place was the northern limit of the penetration of Canaan by the twelve spies sent out by Moses (Numbers 13:21). "And they called the name of the city Dan" They built their city on the ruins of the destroyed Laish. Note that Dan is referred to here as "their father," meaning their "ancestor." The proverbial expression, "From Dan to Beersheba," carried the meaning

Revelation 6:7-8 — "We may be pardoned for asking whether the Lamb who lets such horrors loose on the world is really the same person as the Jesus of the gospel story." G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 82. A comment like that is grounded in blindness to the great mercy of God evident even in these four judgments; and also, there is a blindness to the truth that it was not the Lamb who let loose the horrors — that epic mistake belongs to Adam and

1 Samuel 12:6-15 — king and while living under the guidance of their true heavenly king (God), all of the great victories of God's people had been achieved. He called attention to the quadruple pattern so characteristic of the Book of Judges: (1) the apostasy of Israel; (2) their consequent oppression; (3) their crying to God for deliverance; and (4) God's sending a deliverer in the person of various judges. Samuel followed no chronological sequence in the things mentioned, but he did conclude the citations by a reference