Bible Commentaries

Genesis 15:1 — N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1964), p. 115. There were two elements in the divine promise to Abram: (1)    the creation of the first Israel, including the promise of settling them in Canaan and making of them a mighty nation, and (2)    the bringing in, through them, of the Messiah, by means of whom redemption and salvation would be made available to all who live on earth. These are not the results of "two traditions," handed down through several sources, as

Genesis 3:1 — temptation. There is simply no way to know what the serpent was like before the curse. Of course, the whole person of the serpent that appears in this tragic scene also includes a certain identity with Satan himself, as indicated by Paul's reference in 2 Corinthians 11:3, the indication there being that the same serpent who seduced Eve is, in this dispensation, engaged in seducing the Church of Jesus Christ. Also, Satan is called, "The great Dragon, the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan,

Isaiah 63:1-6 — Edomites represent the world-power; and the `day of vengeance' may be one still future."Pulpit Commentary, Vol. II, p. 441. Cheyne represented the "victorious warrior" here as "Jehovah";T. K. Cheyne's Commentary, Vol. II, p. 100. and, of course, Isaiah 63:2 of the text shuts us up to just two options. The "mighty one," traveling in the greatness of his strength, must positively be one or the other, either Jehovah himself, or the blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Only one of these could have declared, "I that

Lamentations 4:1-10 — of all this. "The stones of the sanctuary" "This refers to the precious gems which decorated the breastplate of the High Priest."C. F. Keil, Keil-Delitzsch's Old Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), Vol. 8, p. 432. Their mention here is metaphorical, and they are parallel with the fine gold. "The jackals… give suck to their young ones" The wild animals could nurse their young, but Jerusalem's starving women could not. Nothing, in all the horrors of warfare,

Ezekiel 38 overview — is difficult to us because we know not the king nor people intended by it: but I am satisfied they were well known in the times when the prophet wrote."Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. 5, p. 527. Our embarrassment comes from the certainty we feel with regard to their identification; but we claim no originality whatever in the knowledge. The Lord has told us exactly who Gog and Magog actually are. After the thousand years reign of Christ has

Ezekiel 9:8-11 — things as Israel's worshipping other gods, or their defiling the temple, or of their neglect of sacrifices, despite the fact of such sins being the source of all their wickedness. The wickedness mentioned here was, (1) the land was filled with blood; (2) the city is full of injustice, and (3) they do not believe in an omniscient, personal God to whom every man must give an account. "These terrible conditions were the end result of the peoples' false religion."John T. Bunn in the Broadman Bible Commentary

Daniel 1:17-21 — that it is utterly impossible to suppose that this book was written to encourage the Jews and to provide examples of how Jews should act in the days of their dealings with the vicious beast of a ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes.E. H. Thomson, op. cit., p. 26 Also, "The mention of visions and dreams is an accurate reflection of the Babylonian background of the Book of Daniel."Edward J. Young, The New Bible Commentary, Revised, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 690 "The

Micah 3:12 — already ascribed the whole prophecy to the Spirit of Jehovah, and to God's message, which "he saw." Furthermore, a century after Micah, and at a time yet significantly prior to the fulfillment of it, Jeremiah proclaimed the very words of this Micah 3:12 as the word of God. "Thus saith Jehovah" (Jeremiah 26:18). Thus, what the prophet said, all of it, whether he so designated a certain line of it or not, was from Jehovah, God's Word, a "thus saith Jehovah," not the simple word of Micah. (2)    Others

Zechariah 12:11-14 — their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites, and their wives apart. All the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart." The effect of this passage is best seen by keeping all of it in mind. Note the triple "mourning" (Zechariah 12:11-12), and especially the recurrence of the word "apart," eleven times in three verses! This emphasis upon the word "apart" makes it impossible to see this passage as depicting any kind of a great national celebration of mourning in which everybody

Zechariah 6:11 — the speculations of critics who boldly claim that, "Zerubbabel and not Joshua, must be the subject of the address in Zechariah 6:11; for it is he who was building the Temple."J. E. McFadyen, Abingdon Bible Commentary (New York City: Abingdon Press, 1929), p. 823. It is hard to imagine a more erroneous perversion of the sacred text. First of all, such a notion is founded upon a total misunderstanding of what temple Messiah would build. Indeed Zerubbabel was building a second temple; but the temple

Mark 11:11 — And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. Luke recorded that Jesus went "every night" to the mount of Olives (Luke 12:37), but, of course, Bethany was on the mount of Olives. All such variations are due to the independence of the narratives. THE WITHERING OF THE FIG TREE This is one of the most interesting of Jesus' great wonders, exceedingly rich with moral significance,

Mark 7:21-23 — Sanner pointed out that in the Received Greek text the first six of these terms are plural and the last six are singular. "The former possibly refers to evil acts, the latter to moral defects, or vices."A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 332. This list is somewhat like similar lists in the Pauline writings, but Cranfield was doubtless correct in his repudiation of the idea that they were derived from that source. He stated that there are "no adequate grounds for thinking that this

Luke 19:8 — here. As Bliss said, "(This view) has in its favor the present tense of the verbs — `I give, I restore.'"George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, n.d.), Vol. II, Luke, p. 278. Since the Lord Jesus himself made a momentous argument for the immortality of the soul to turn on the tense of a single verb (Matthew 22:32 f), they must be rash indeed who set aside the present tense in this passage in favor of future tense. Nevertheless,

Luke 21:24 — proper understanding of "the times of the Gentiles" must take into account the following: (1)    The fact that nineteen hundred years were clearly a part of the period indicated, that much time having already elapsed. (2)    The fact that these words "are to be understood as the antithesis of the season of Jerusalem" (Luke 19:44).George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 304. The Times of the Gentiles will be comparable to the times during which Jerusalem

Luke 9:51-56 — interpolation"Anthony Lee Ash, op. cit., II, p. 7. is emphatically rejected. It is also untrue that in these chapters, "Jesus is always on the way but is no closer to Jerusalem at the last than at the first."Ibid. Only three times (here, in Luke 13:22, and Luke 17:11) is our Lord's purpose of going to Jerusalem mentioned; and the commentators who call this section "Journeyings to Jerusalem"H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., 244. are by no means accurate. See under Luke 17:11 for further comment

Romans 11:1 — am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Did God cast off his people … This question regards the true Israel, not the nation, which certainly had been cast off, there being then "no distinction" (Romans 9:12) in the sight of God between either Jews or Gentiles. Paul guarded against confusing the people here mentioned with external Israel by saying immediately that it was "the people whom he foreknew" (Romans 11:2) who were not cast off. Many make

Ephesians 3:1 — tell us far more about critics than they do of the authorship of Ephesians, thus: (1) Such comment shows that the critics approve of such deceptions, enabling them to speak in glowing terms of the true fidelity and devotion of such alleged deceivers. (2) It shows that their conception of morality is compatible with such fraud. It could be done (indeed was done, they say) "legitimately"! (3) It raises the question of how much "legitimate fraud" the critics themselves have perpetrated

James 5:6 — Ye have condemned, ye have killed the righteous one; he doth not resist you. The righteous one … is an expression used of Christ in a number of New Testament references (Acts 3:14; Acts 7:52; Acts 22:14), and this is clearly the meaning of it here. That James did not specify Christ by name is no problem, because New Testament writers generally were most reluctant to mention by name their own family; and James adhered to this rule, making

Revelation 1:9 — so by circumstances, proclaimed himself the chief of sinners and the least of saints. Partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and patience … "These are a present experience and possession" G. R. Beasley-Murray, op. cit., p. 1282. of John and his readers. As Lenski put it: "We (Christians) are the kingdom, in it, partakers of it, lifted to royalty in it!" R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 55. All theories that deny the present existence of the kingdom of Christ are contrary

Revelation 12:5 — passage can mean nothing else except the birth of Christ; and the compression of Jesus' whole biography into such a short space is perfectly in harmony with what the author did by presenting the entire Old Testament history in a single verse (Revelation 12:4). To suppose that the birth is not included here would make the passage mean that the woman brought forth his death and resurrection; because the emphatic statements of her pregnancy and her being delivered clearly makes her the achiever of whatever