Bible Commentaries

2 Kings 2:23-25 — `small boys'; however, this is an erroneous rendition. To begin with, small boys do not roam the forest in gangs of forty or more. What we have here is the ancient equivalent of those terrible motorcycle gangs that terrorized the country during the 1960's. The New International Version renders the key words as "some youths," which is far better than the common versions. The gang that mocked Elisha might have been teenagers, a vicious group of the same character as those whose murderous and undisciplined

Leviticus 8:6-9 — his sacred office did not begin with robing him in his official robes, as mistakenly thought by Clements,Ronald E. Clements, Broadman Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, Leviticus (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), p. 24. who omitted the teaching of Leviticus 8:6 altogether. The first thing was the "washing" of Aaron (and all other priests of whatever grade). The significance of this initial "washing" is profound. Not even Jesus Christ was anointed as the Messiah by his reception of the Holy Spirit until he

Ecclesiastes 5:1-7 — curse of countless words regarding religion that are totally without any value. "Better is it that thou shouldest not vow… etc." Hannah, Jonah and Jephthah are among those whose `vows' are mentioned in the Word of God. See comments in Numbers 6:1-21; Jonah 2:9; 1 Samuel 1:19-28; and Judges 11:29-40. Jephthah is often cited as an example of one who made a rash vow; and Jonah's prayer indicates that he had made vows without paying them. Christians today are not sinless in this matter of keeping

Isaiah 2:5-11 — apostasy of the chosen people had, at this point in their history, reached a status of hardening. This judicial hardening of Israel introduced here by Isaiah was a subject to which he would return later in the prophecy. "A proud look," cited in Proverbs 6:17 as something that is hated by God Himself, is mentioned here in Isaiah 2:11, along with the haughtiness and arrogant looks of sinful men, such an attitude being common to sinful and rebellious men of all generations. Isaiah then referred to the fact

Isaiah 41:8-16 — Isaiah 41:8-9; (2) that they will receive strength from God, Isaiah 41:10, (3) that weakness will afflict their enemies, Isaiah 41:11-12; (4) that God will raise up aid for them, Isaiah 41:13-14; (5) that their enemies shall be scattered, Isaiah 41:15-16; (6) and that they shall receive spiritual refreshment during their worst experiences, Isaiah 41:17-19.Ibid, p. 97 (adapted from) As Kidner observed, "This long chain of promises (future verbs) is characteristically anchored in the facts (present and

Isaiah 50:1-3 — of Israel. We are glad indeed that Kelley discerned the truth on this passage. See footnote 3. "Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement…?" "This does not mean, however, that no divorce occurred. Israel was indeed sent away (Malachi 2:16)."Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1971), p 333. By the same token, the passage does not mean that Israel was not sold; what is meant by both of these metaphors is that "The bill of Israel's divorcement showed that Israel's shameful

Ezekiel 37:1-6 — stated that, "Even if the doctrine of a general resurrection had not been current in Ezekiel's times, this vision was enough to have called it into existence and to have lent strong probability to its truth."E. H. Plumptre in the Pulpit Commentary, p. 263. It has seemed very strange to us that several scholars have gone out of their way to affirm that Ezekiel had no knowledge or conviction with reference to life after death. Daniel believed in a general resurrection, and he was contemporary with Ezekiel

Joel 2:31 — evening. And the moon, being like blood, did not shine the whole night, and yet she happened to be in the full."Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 463. Similar words are likewise used to describe the final judgment day in Revelation 6:12-17; and therefore, the events connected with the Passion of Christ are most likely symbols of even more terrifying wonders that shall mark the arrival of the Final

Habakkuk 1:5-6 — situation in the church in his own day (Acts 13:41). God's work of calling the Gentiles into his church would be just as astonishing as his work of using the Babylonians to punish Judah.David W. Kerr, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 873. Paul quoted it at Pisidian Antioch in the Jewish synagogue, using their version of the Old Testament (LXX), which begins: "Behold ye despisers, and wonder, and perish." That rendition of the place, plus Paul's usage of it, proves that Habakkuk

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 — 1 (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), p. 773. The plausible nature of the deception practiced in this case was enhanced by the fact that dreams indeed were one of the manners in which God actually communicated to the prophets of old (Numbers 12:6). Also, "A false prophet's predictions are not always wrong. If they were, no one would believe him."Bruce Oberst, Deuteronomy (Joplin: College Press, 1968), p. 179. "God allows some of them their restricted sphere of power to test the loyalty of His

Deuteronomy 16:9-12 — choose, to cause his name to dwell there. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt: and thou shalt observe and do these statutes." The exact time for beginning of the calculation of the seven weeks was already given in Leviticus 23:16, where the exact day of beginning was tied to the Passover celebration. There have been many disputes about the exact manner of calculating the Pentecost. (For those who would like to explore the matter thoroughly, reference is made to Vol. 5 in our

Deuteronomy 3:5-11 — to the name Mount Blanc."J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 124. "In Deuteronomy 4:48, Hermon is called Sion, which means the same thing."Ibid. "Senir (Deuteronomy 3:9) has the meaning of `coat of mail.'"Bruce Oberst, Deuteronomy (Joplin: College Press, 1968), p. 61. All of these names appear to be descriptive of the brilliant snow-capped mountain that shines perpetually in northern Palestine. "His bedstead was a bedstead of iron" (Deuteronomy 3:11), and the dimensions are also given. Taking a cubit as

John 1:14 — manhood, and yet one Person. Flesh … as used here simply means human nature in possession of a body but does not imply any taint of sin (Romans 8:3). This assumption of a human body by our Lord was of his own volition, as attested in Hebrews 2:16 and Philippians 2:7. "Flesh," as used by John in this verse, carries with it none of the implications of Paul's frequent usage of the term, a distinction that Paul himself carefully preserved. It means the genuine, perfect, holy, human nature

John 3:5 — superstition that a few drops of water sprinkled religiously upon a dead infant could save a soul; but those arguments by Calvin are not relevant arguments against Christ's promise that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). And that promise is as good a commentary on John 3:5 as any other (yes, better than any other) that might be brought forward to explain this disputed passage. The importance of the questions raised around the sacred words of Jesus in this place

Joshua 22:21-29 — altar. (4)    Incidentally, we learn here that it was a giant replica of the one actually in the tabernacle. (5)    Notice that even the accused tribes accepted fully the Word of God that there could be but one altar (one at a time, that is). (6)    Also, notice that the location of that sacred altar was given in Joshua 22:19. It was the one before the tabernacle! How does the Jerusalem temple stack up against that requirement? This is EXCEEDINGLY important. If post-exilic

Joshua 7:16-21 — that Achan's confession is of special interest, because, "Its wording is practically identical with that of the traditional form of confession which was used by those who brought sin and trespass-offerings, as enjoined in Leviticus 5:5, and in Num. 5:6.7."J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 146. Matthew Henry pointed out that "Sin often begins in the eye."Matthew Henry, op. cit., p. 41. Examples of this which he cited included those suggested by

2 Thessalonians 1:6-7 — the triumphs of the wicked in this life are a sure proof that there will be a future judgment in which the wicked shall be punished and the righteous rewarded Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. VI (London: Carlton and Porter, 1829), p. 562. At the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven … This identifies the time of receiving the rewards and punishments just mentioned. The revelation … The Scriptures do not always refer to the coming of Christ (Parousia) in the same terminology;

Judges 10:10-16 — Judges 10:13-14. "Did I not deliver you," Reference is here made to no less than seven nations from whose power the Lord had delivered Israel. These are: (1) The Egyptians; (2) the Amorites; (3) the Ammonites; (4) the Philistines; (5) the Sidonians; (6) the Amalekites; and (7) "The Maonites who are otherwise unknown to this period."Ibid. It is surprising that the Midianites were not included here, but it may be, as suggested by Dalglish, that, "`Maonites' is here a reference to the Midianites."Ibid.

Judges 17:4-6 — two hundred pieces were the wages of the founder and that the rest of the silver was made into the image. Lyra and others think the rest of the money was used for furnishing and adorning the shrine."International Critical Commentary, op. cit., p. 376. The simple truth of the matter seems to be that, "The woman through avarice broke her vow and gave to God only a small part of the consecrated treasure."Ibid. "An ephod" This was a part of the ceremonial dress of Israel's high priest, "A sacramental

1 Samuel 31:1-7 — correct, that the prophecy was a fraudulent imposition upon Saul by the witch, and that the `prophecy itself' was not fulfilled. H. P. Smith's claim that there are two contradictory Biblical accounts of Saul's death, the one here, and the one in 2 Samuel 1:6-10,International Critical Commentary, Samuel 251. is incorrect, being only an example of another radical scholar's willingness to believe an Amalekite rather than the inspired record. One must be naive indeed to accept the word of that self-seeking