Bible Commentaries

Genesis 11:9 — episode. We shall notice, in passing, some of the insinuations against this account, not because of any value in them, but as a notation that evil men are STILL opposed to the will of God. Skinner called this account "a myth,"John Skinner, op. cit., p. 223. and Neil spoke of it as "a parable,"William Neff, op. cit., p. 39. but, to us, this is just about the most historic episode that history has ever been handed down to us. The proof of it is right here in the narrative. Take the word Babylon. Here is

Genesis 31:36-42 — shepherd who presented the remnants (of a sheep torn by a wild beast) as evidence, was not liable for the losses that Jacob described."Meredith G. Kline, op. cit., p. 104. The prophet Amos made mention of shepherds retrieving just such evidence in Genesis 3:12, indicating that it was a well-established custom that in such cases, the owner of the flock, not the shepherd, made good the loss. Laban had thus exceeded his lawful rights in requiring of Jacob that he bear the loss of all animals lost in such

Genesis 48:12-14 — example in the Bible of the laying on of hands in the act of blessing or the conveyance of a gift.Ibid. Afterward, it was extensively employed: (1) in the dedication of priests (Deuteronomy 29:9); (2) in the ordination of Christian servants (Acts 6:6); (3) by the Saviour and his apostles in the performance of miracles (Matthew 19:13); (4) in the giving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 17 and Acts 18), etc. REGARDING THE BLESSING Willis gives the following characteristics of the type of blessing Jacob was here

Exodus 12:43-51 — Christ was in Jerusalem four days before the crucifixion. The lamb was a male in the prime of life without spot or blemish, in short, perfect. So exactly was Jesus Christ. Both the lamb and the Lord Jesus Christ suffered death "between the two evens," (3:00 p.m.). Both suffered death on the 14th of Abib (Nisan). The great ordinances commemorating the two deliverances, namely, the Lord's Supper, and the Jewish Passover, were both instituted and set up before the great events they were designed to commemorate. There

Exodus 16:1-3 — of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh-pots, when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger." "The congregation of Israel (Exodus 16:1)… this whole assembly (Exodus 16:3)" The use of two different words here for the entire body of Israel is by no stretch of imagination a sign of different sources, as some critics claim, for example, this: "The use of the word `congregation' reflects basic terminology of the later Israelite

Exodus 27:20-21 — gently pressing the olives in a mortar.Robert P. Gordon, The New Layman's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), p. 200. The ordering of the light "from evening to morning" was thought by Keil to, "consist, according to Exodus 30:7-8 and Leviticus 24:3-4, in placing the lamps upon the candlestick in the evening and lighting them, that they might give light through the night, and then cleaning them in the morning and filling them with fresh oil."C. F. Keil, op. cit., p. 192.

Exodus 8:2-7 — the older commentators discerned, "How easy is it, both to the justice and mercy of God, to destroy or to save by the most despicable and insignificant of instruments."Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1 (London: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), p. 325. God did not call forth lions, tigers, deadly serpents, or any of the creatures that men fear. He did not even need a quaternion of soldiers! He did it with frogs, common, harmless, despicable frogs! Furthermore, the frog was the symbol of

Leviticus 14:33-42 — plaster the house." The legislation here is prospective, looking forward to the time when the children of Israel would dwell in Canaan. Note the mention of "without the city" in Leviticus 14:41-42, as contrasted with "without the camp" (Leviticus 14:3). It is fanciful and imaginative to take this prospective legislation as indicating a later date for this part of the law. Any supposition that God would not have given Israel special instructions relative to their eventual entry to Canaan, prior to

Leviticus 20:1-5 — defiled my sanctuary in the same day, and have profaned my sabbaths. For when they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it; and, lo, thus have they done in the midst of my house" (Ezekiel 23:37-39). Thus, Ezekiel makes it clear what is meant above in Leviticus 20:3. Yes, it is true that Ezekiel was written long after the books of Moses, but there is no reason to believe that Ezekiel's description is any different from the practice as it

Leviticus 23:15-21 — generations." "A new meal-offering" This was to be new in several ways: (1)    It would be from a new crop. (2)    It would be of a new kind of grain (wheat), barley being used for the first-fruits (Leviticus 23:13). "The Talmudic tradition is that this offering was wheat, whereas the first-fruits was of barley."Robert P. Gordon, New Layman's Bible Commentary, Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), p. 232. (3)    The

Leviticus 24:17-21 — that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death." The principles enunciated here were basic to Biblical and Near Eastern Law throughout history. This doctrine is given three times in the O.T. - here, Exodus 21:23-25, and in Deuteronomy 19:21. Inherent in this are some factors that appear to be forgotten in a large degree today. (1)    Violence against people deserves punishment. (2)    The punishment should be proportional

Leviticus 27:1-8 — shekels. But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to the ability of him that vowed shall the priest value him." "And Jehovah spake unto Moses" This, along with Leviticus 27:34, has the effect of tying all of those instructions to the regulations of God already given, making all of them an integral part of the law of Moses, binding terms of the sacred covenant. Once a vow was made, the discharge of it was required. In practical

Numbers 14:39-45 — Israelites. Another source of unbelieving criticism derives from the fact that here the ark remained "in the camp." Gray, and others, "locate it outside the camp."George Buchanan Gray, op. cit., p. 166. And how do they get that "contradiction"? By taking Exodus 33:7, where it is revealed that, for awhile, during the rebellion in the matter of the golden calf, Moses did indeed put the temporary tabernacle outside the camp, to show that God was no longer in the midst of his wicked children, but that was the only

Numbers 21:1-3 — name of the place was called Hormah." "The king of Arad" "The name of this place still survives in the old ruins lying some 16 miles south of Hebron, known as Tell Arad."J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 112. The "king of Arad" therefore is not a personal name, but the name of his capitol. "By way of Atharim" The name Atharim could be translated as "the spies," in the KJV, meaning "the way of the spies"; if it is a place-name, "the location is

Numbers 23:1-7 — all of this is unusual in a most extraordinary sense is obvious, but it was the will of God thus to communicate with Balak, and through him, with all the pagan rulers of that day." "I will go… peradventure God will come to meet me" (Numbers 23:3). Balaam's procedure here was that of following the usual customs of paganism. "Balaam here was going out to look for a manifestation of Jehovah in the significant phenomena of nature."C. F. Keil, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids:

Numbers 32:33-42 — monarchy and established themselves under Jeroboam I as "The Israel." The leaders of that coup were Ephraimites, and they gave their own name also to the northern kingdom. One may see the same attitude here in the Manassehites. The statement in Numbers 32:29 regarding Israel's giving other names to the cities "they builded" should be understood as their changing the names of the cities which they rebuilt. This reference obviously was associated with this chapter at a time subsequent to the death of

Numbers 8:1-4 — of the sacred narrative is that of returning over and over again to the same subject, with additional details or instructions added in each reference. The same sacred pattern is here: The details of the lampstand are given elsewhere: (1) in Exodus 25:31-40, where it is planned; (2) in Exodus 37:17-29, where it is made; (3) in Exodus 40:24-25, where it is actually set up; (4) in Leviticus 24:2, where details for the sacred oil is given; and (5) here we find the actual lighting of it in a particular

Deuteronomy 3:1-4 — victories, as witnessed by the hymnology of the nation: I know that Jehovah is great,And that our Lord is above all gods.... Who smote many nations,And slew mighty kings,Sihon king of the Amorites,And Og king of Bashan,And all the kingdoms of Canaan.(Psalms 135:5; Psalms 135:10-11). (Also see a similar passage in Psalms 136:17-21.) Blair gives the following neat summary of how the extensive territories of Sihon and Og were distributed: "The conquered territories were assigned to the tribes of Reuben and Gad

Acts 27 overview — as Dummelow said, "The most detailed account of an ancient voyage which we possess, and is our principal source of knowledge of the ancient art of navigation." J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 851. Even scholars inclined to be critical here confess that "Luke's whole account may be assumed to be accurate and entirely trustworthy." G. H. C. MacGreggor, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), Vol. IX, p. 331. The

Revelation 2 overview — evangelization movement Laodicea —- The final period before the Second Advent G. Campbell Morgan made the above applications. G. Campbell Morgan, An Exposition of the Whole Bible (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1959), pp. 533, 534. A deep respect is felt for the sincere students of the Holy Scriptures who accept this and similar views of these seven churches; but there are a number of considerations which forbid our agreement with them: (1)    The applications