Bible Commentaries

Exodus 6:2 — beyond what seems to be said is intended. First, let it be understood that the patriarchs DID know God by the name Jehovah. When Abraham offered Isaac and God provided a ram as the sacrifice, Abraham called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh (Genesis 22:14). Moses' own mother was named Jochebed (Exodus 6:20), which means "Jehovah is glory!"International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1688. Abraham knew Jehovah in the land of Ur, for God told him, "I am Jehovah that brought thee out of Ur" (Genesis

Ecclesiastes 3:1-15 — (1 Timothy 6:8). Regarding these fourteen opposites, Scott quoted an ancient saying that, "The works of the Most High… are in pairs, one the opposite of the other."The Anchor Bible Commentary (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1972), Vol. 18, p. 221. "These verses indicate that today's positive act will eventually be balanced by tomorrow's negative. As surely as we are born, we must one day die, etc."James Waddey, p. 22. What actually determines the issues of human life? A countless

Ecclesiastes 3:16-22 — than an animal, that no one knows whether the soul of man goes up to God when he dies, or if the soul of the beast goes downward. "This is a favorite proof-text for those who deny that man has an immortal spirit that survives physical death."Ibid., 25. This writer is no apologist for Solomon. Throughout the historical books, we stressed the consummate wickedness of this evil man; but there are some things about the general interpretation of this paragraph that do not fit. Solomon believed in God;

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

Amos 9:8 — Every sinful kingdom, especially the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom of Israel. The ultimate application of this to the whole world of wicked and unbelieving humanity is dramatically detailed in the prophecy of Revelation (Revelation 19:11-21). In the case of the kingdoms of the Jews, the very initiation of their kingdom under Saul was a rejection of God (1 Samuel 8:7); reciprocally, this was also their rejection of their own status as "God's chosen people," a term that henceforth would

Jonah 1:17 — ready at the instant God needed it, just as the tree had been growing by the bitter waters of Marah for a long time prior to the moment when Moses was commanded to cast it into the waters for the purpose of making the bitter waters sweet (Exodus 15:23 f). The miraculous nature of the event narrated here is seen in the timing of the fish's appearance and swallowing Jonah and in the fact of the experience not being fatal to Jonah. "Three days and three nights" Most commentators move quickly to protect

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.,

Micah 5:2 — In 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

Zechariah 11:13 — potter, in the house of Jehovah." Here again the prevalent misunderstanding of the critics finds a stumbling block in the fact that here Jehovah cast the money unto the potter, whereas, in the New Testament it was Judas who did it. See under Zechariah 11:12, above. It was indeed God who cast that money to the potter; and the same thing is true of a number of other actions accredited in the New Testament to many of the persons engaged in the dark drama of Calvary. It was God who spoke a prophecy through

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 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

Luke 18:11-14 — self-righteousness. All people are sinners. Although it is true that some like the Pharisee are not sinners of grosser type, yet their respectability only emphasizes the sins they do have. None are righteous (Romans 3:10); all have sinned (Romans 3:23); and all human righteousnesses are "as filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). I.    These teach some vital facts about prayer. A short prayer is better than a long one (Matthew 6:7-8; Matthew 23:14). Also, prayers should be directed,

John 1:18 — one who, as both God and man, is in a position truly to reveal him. This verse declares that Christ has indeed provided for man such a faithful revelation of the Father. No man hath seen God at any time … This is not a contradiction of Exodus 24:10, where it is recorded that a whole company of Israelites "saw the God of Israel"; nor is this a contradiction of Job 42:5, where Job said of God, "Now mine eye seeth thee." Of course the TERMINOLOGY of these passages is contradictory:

John 10:34-36 — passage to which Jesus referred: God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, And respect the persons of the wicked? … I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High (Psalms 82:1-2; Psalms 82:6). The unjust judges of Israel were the subject of these verses, God calling them "gods" in order to stimulate and encourage them to render just judgments. Of course, those men were "sons of the Most High" in the

Romans 16:1-2 — could have understood this problem any better than Paul; for there was a time when he himself came down to Jerusalem and "assayed to join himself to the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26). Paul's purpose of "joining" the Jerusalem congregation was realized through the intervention of Barnabas, thus setting the great example which would require every child of God to make it his first order of business, upon a change of residence,

Romans 3:21 — would do it by preaching that gospel. Apart from the law … Whiteside and others are quick to point out that Paul here used a term which includes more than the law of Moses, R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 75. but, as pointed out under Romans 3:20, the impossibility of procuring justification under God's divine law automatically argues the impossibility of such a thing's being possible under any other similar kind of law; and, therefore, the translators have wisely left it to read "the

Joshua 17:7-13 — not utterly drive them out." "From Asher to Michmethath" Philbeck tells us that these cities marked "the northern and southern extremities of Manasseh's territory,"Ben F. Philbeck, The Teachers' Bible Commentary, Joshua (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), p. 146. but the trouble with that is that, "This place has not been identified. All that we know is that it is opposite Shechem!"Alfred Plummer, The Pulpit Commentary, Joshua (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 260. Due to

Hebrews 2:14 — and blood, but they have been made partakers of flesh and blood; thereby making a distinction between what constitutes the essential and eternal part of man's nature, and what is merely accidental, and in which we now live, as in a clay tabernacle (2 Corinthians 5:1). R. Milligan, New Testament Commentary (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1962), p. 98. Here is the explanation of the mingled love and pity that humankind have for animals, flesh and blood being the common bond between them, and