Bible Commentaries

Exodus 20:15 — jeopardy. Frequently, the human family have attempted to get rid of private property and to inaugurate some form of communal living, but thousands of years of experience have demonstrated invariably the futility and failure of all such systems. Jamestown Colony (1603), William Lane in South America (1883), Robert Owen on the banks of the Wabash, Indiana (1825), the Brook Farm Transcendentalists (1830), and, of course, the Russian fiasco (1917), are but a few of the historical failures. During the middle years

Nehemiah 8:1-8 — intended."C. F. Keil, Keil and Delitzsch's Old Testament Commentaries, Vol. 3c, p. 227. Short also agreed that the events of this chapter, "Came only a few days after the completion of the wall, which occurred on the 25th day of the month Elul (Nehemiah 6:15), the sixth month."The New Layman's Bible Commentary, p. 540. Throughout this whole century, from the times of James Moffatt until the present day, critical scholars have been advocating all kinds of rearrangements of the sacred text, some of them

Ecclesiastes 3:16-22 — what he later said. We seriously doubt it. (2)    Who are these men whom Solomon said were "but as beasts"? Did he say this of all mankind, or merely of those wicked men who were perverting justice in the courts (Ecclesiastes 3:16). We think the words here should be restricted in their application to wicked men, which would be fully in harmony with what the rest of the Bible flatly declares, namely, that an evil man, "Is like the beasts that perish" (Psalms 49:20). The words

Isaiah 42:1-4 — the assignment here; all others fall short.Homer Hailey, p. 351. The Messiah-Servant is presented here as the tender Prophet; and clearly the Servant is here presented as an individual, not as the nation of Israel.Wycliffe Old Testament Commentary, p. 638. This speaks of Christ the antitype of Israel, and also the antitype of Cyrus.Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary, p. 476. Christ, the Servant, here is closely related to Israel. The mention of God's Spirit given to Christ upon the occasion

Isaiah 62:1-2 — a time when the Gentiles have been accepted into the family of God, and when kings have become aware of God's salvation, and (3) there is a repetition here of the fact that God Himself will give the name. These statements, added to those in Isaiah 56:5, make seven earmarks by which that New Name may be positively and unerringly identified. We shall discuss them in order, beginning with the five from Isaiah 56:5. THE NEW NAME IS THE NAME "CHRISTIAN" 1.    It was given by God Himself.

Jeremiah 3:14-18 — throughout both Isaiah and Jeremiah. "Out of God's purifying judgment upon his apostate people shall come a few refined souls. They will be gathered and shall constitute the New Israel, blessed of God (Romans 11:5).Wycliffe Old Testament Commentary, p. 662. "They shall say no more, The ark of the covenant" "This shows that the old economy was to be dissolved. The old covenant, of which the ark was a central feature, was to give way to another - a preview of 31:31-35."Charles Lee Feinberg in Ezekiel

Lamentations 2:1-10 — like a flaming fire" The conception that God's anger is like a terrible fire is not merely an Old Testament metaphor. "To the wicked God, at any time, may become a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29; Deuteronomy 4:24)."Wycliffe Old Testament Commentary, p. 698. "God, in these verses, is represented as a furious warrior, who with irresistible power destroyed everything that Judah had trusted in. They had stopped trusting in God, and instead were relying on might (Lamentations 2:2), palaces (Lamentations

Ezekiel 36:8-15 — elimination of scarcity; (4) freedom from reproach; and (5) the security and prosperity of the nation in a degree even surpassing their former estate' and the time of their `beginnings.'"Anton T. Pearson in Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 753. We agree with Cook that these great promises of material blessings in their ultimate meaning were typical of the spiritual blessings in the times of Messiah; "But we may not doubt that the prophecy had as its first objective the return of

Daniel 4:8-18 — with the fact that, "Great men and princes are often represented in the language of the prophets under the similitude of trees."Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. IV, Daniel (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), p. 582. Ezekiel 17:5-6; Ezekiel 31:3; Jeremiah 22:15; Psalms 1:3; and Psalms 37:35 are examples of this. "Let seven times pass over him" (Daniel 4:16). The personal pronoun "him" indicates that the words passed over the vehicle (the tree) and focused upon the meaning of the

Numbers 18:8-20 — `anointed,' but rather to the gifts which had been `consecrated' to them. Smick rendered this place, "I have given them for an anointed (or consecrated) portion."Elmer Smick, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Old Testament, Vol. 1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 136. Note that in Numbers 18:10, certain sacrifices were to be eaten by males only, while others in Numbers 18:11, were for the entire households of the priests. "The first-ripe fruits of all that is in their land" (Numbers 18:13). These words

Micah 5:2 — Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written through the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor Who shall be the shepherd of my people Israel" (Matthew 2:5-6). The entire religious hierarchy of ancient Israel understood perfectly the Messianic character of this prophecy and answered Herod accordingly, Testimony of such a nature is irrefutable as regards the true import of this verse. "Which art little to

Malachi 4:5 — Of course, this divine revelation was rejected out of hand by the Pharisees, because it contradicted their literal view that the Tishbite was meant. Nevertheless, as Keil said: "This address of the angel gives an authentic explanation of Malachi 4:5-6: the words, "and the heart' of the children to the fathers" being omitted, as implied in the turning of the heart of the fathers to the children, and the explanatory words, "and the unbelieving to the wisdom of the just," being introduced in their place."C.

Luke 15:22-24 — spare." The swine pen itself was no refuge from the memories of that lost relationship. Many a soul today hardly dares to think of those memories of the days of faith and worship which graced their youth. Hell itself is no refuge from memory (Luke 16:27-28). II.    What was the cause of this tragedy? The cause of every accident is investigated with a view to finding its cause and preventing a recurrence. A.    One root cause of this tragedy was the "give

Luke 19:12 — servants and the ten pounds entrusted to them) does, in fact, recall Matthew's parable; but the lessons and analogies in view are utterly different. As Summers said, "The parable contains much allegorical material."Ray Summers, op. cit., p. 226. We shall not be concerned with the radical criticism which tries to find here a clumsy melding of two different parables; because the analogies which shall be noted, and the perfect, interlocking unity of the whole parable are devastating to any such

Romans 8:16-17 — assurance of future glory, but we are not yet out of the life where there is suffering and fighting. Indeed, a definite suffering actually belongs to true discipleship. Whoever does not take up his cross and follow him, cannot be his disciple (Matthew 16:24 f). He who does not want to suffer with Christ cannot share in his glory either. The way of the Christian is not a path on the heights but down below. The way on the heights is in heaven, not on earth. Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 73. Notice the contrast

1 Timothy 1:1-2 — Jesus" three times in these three verses is not the Pauline proportion: it remains a mystery if it is assumed that Paul wrote these letters (the Pastorals). Fred D. Gealy, The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. VI (New York: Abingdon Press, 1955), p. 376. What has been attempted by such a criticism as this is to make Paul's preference for the expression "Christ Jesus" as exhibited in the Pastorals an excuse for denying that he wrote them at all, despite the fact that he used the same expression

Hebrews 2:5-7 — the grand achievement wrought by it leave the major thesis of Christ's superiority unimpaired. Throughout all his incarnation, other than that excepted, the angels served Christ, attended his every desire, and were upon call at his request (Matthew 26:53). Therefore, his being made "for a little while" lower than angels was only for this that he might die for man's sin. That death, so absolutely necessary for man's redemption, involved his actually being made sin on our behalf; that we

Revelation 13 overview — to suppose that Satan, in any sense, either created or produced these monsters, called by Moffatt, "polycephalous brutes." James Moffatt, Expositor's Greek New Testament, Vol. V (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 429. He simply encouraged and organized the emerging tendency of a human creation in rebellion against God. The beast out of the sea symbolically represents the great earthly governments which repeatedly in human history have exalted themselves

Revelation 21 overview — appears in the word of God. Such a background study is essential to a full appreciation of this and the final chapters. HEAVEN The keystone of the sacred arch of Christian theology is the doctrine of HEAVEN. In the English New Testament, the word occurs 261 times in some 20 New Testament books. Matthew quoted the word "heaven" 70 times from the words of Jesus, and the writings of the apostle John record it 83 times. The conception dominates the New Testament. Besides the 261 direct references

1 Samuel 28:8-14 — yearning of the disanointed king to exchange words with the friend and counselor of his youth, perhaps thinking that if he was destined to hear the words of his doom, he would prefer to hear them from no other except Samuel."Albert Barnes, Samuel, p. 66. "When the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice… Why have you deceived me?… You are Saul" Did the witch of Endor actually see Samuel? If she could see Samuel, why could not Saul also have seen him? Had she indeed failed to recognize