Bible Commentaries

Mark 13:20 — death of Nero plunged Rome into civil war as Otho and Vitellius each sought to be emperor; (3) Vespasian was declared emperor by his soldiers, their verdict being final, due to the might of the military; (4) Vespasian returned to Rome as emperor, and (5) his son Titus concluded the siege.

Mark 15:16 — Jesus, there being in fact no less than six, as pointed out by Major: The Evangelists record six mockings of Jesus by: (1) the High Priest's servants; (2) Herod Antipas and his soldiers; (3) the soldiers of the Roman garrison; (4) the general public; (5) priests and scribes; and (6) the two crucified brigands.H. D. A. Major, The Gospel according to St. Mark (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1939), p. 189. The Praetorium … was the name of the area where soldiers were quartered at Caesar's

Mark 3:31 — evidence that Jesus' mother opposed his mission … That Mary was among the "friends" of Mark 3:21 is an unlikely and unnecessary conclusion.Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), Vol. 8, p. 295. It is true that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him, even as late as October prior to the Passion in April of the following year (John 7:5), but there is no evidence that the mother and brethren said, "He is crazy" and tried to get him

Mark 6:8-9 — And he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse; but to go shod with sandals: and, said he, put not on two coats. The parallel accounts (Matthew 10:5-15; Luke 10:4-11) provide another pseudocon, inasmuch as Matthew said, "Get you no staff," whereas Mark's account plainly allowed one to be carried, with Luke agreeing with Matthew, "no staff." McMillan called this a "discrepancy."Earle

Luke 18:1 — Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 763. And he spake a parable … is literally, "And he spake also a parable …"Charles L. Childers, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 576. This indicates that this is actually a part of the preceding discourse. Ought always to pray … This has no reference to a ceaseless bending of the knee, or a continuation without intermission in the utterance of petitions to the Almighty,

Luke 6:41-42 — were themselves also guilty of taking illegal contributions; but this did not prevent their going after the mote in the President's eye. True morality demands that such conduct wear the label which Jesus branded it, "hypocrisy"! (Matthew 7:5). Note also that "a mote" may be a very detrimental thing, despite the small size of it; therefore, there is nothing in Jesus' comparison to minimize any moral fault, however insignificant on the surface. A mote in the eye may be a disaster.

John 11:57 — public execution. In the latter two decisions they were providentially overruled. The most remarkable progression is evidenced throughout this Gospel. The event of the resurrection of Lazarus was conceived as early as the events in chapter five (John 5:20), with the subsequent steps leading logically and irrevocably to the climax of Jesus' sign here, the raising of Lazarus being the event, more than any other, that hardened the purpose of the Sanhedrin. Their pronouncement of a death sentence against

John 5:18 — claimed to be God. Even his enemies knew full well the implication of his words. Also, it was exactly upon this claim, which they construed as blasphemy, that they based their demands of Pilate that he be crucified (John 19:7). These two verses (John 5:17-18) are among the most important in Scripture, especially as they relate to the heresy of Arius (died 336 A.D.) and Sabellius (circa 230 A.D.), the former teaching that Christ was a created being, and the latter affirming that God, the Holy Spirit,

Acts 14:3 — "signs and wonders" God performed there by the hands of the apostles, thus "confirming the word" as had been promised (Mark 16:20). In situations more completely Jewish, such "signs of an apostle" (2 Corinthians 12:12; Romans 15:18) were not necessary. The Jews already professed to receive the Scriptures as the word of God; but the Gentiles knew nothing of the Scriptures, or at least but little; hence the appearance of signs. The opposition mentioned above in Acts 14:2 was

Romans 1:2 — gospel Paul preached was the very same system proclaimed and partially unfolded in the Old Testament. The identity and character of the Messiah, the nature of his kingdom, and the ultimate replacement of the old covenant with a new (Jeremiah 31:31-35) — all of these things, and many others, are contained in the Old Testament. By so bold a claim, Paul at once established the principle that any believer of the Old Testament should likewise be a believer of the New Testament; for they surely

Romans 13:12 — places, in Rome itself! The old sins and debaucheries of the pagan darkness must be cast off. The armor of light was available for all who would receive and wear it. That such was actually Paul's meaning here is evident from a comparison with Ephesians 5:14, quoted under Romans 13:11, above, where "Christ will shine upon you," does not mean at the judgment, but right now! Thus, "day" in this passage, having reference to the same time, means "at the present time, in the gospel

Romans 14:14 — I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. See under Romans 14:2 and Romans 14:5, regarding clean meats and the power of conscience to make even an innocent action wrong. Paul did not here place himself upon either side of such a question and refrained utterly from making it a matter of faith. It was all a question of knowledge,

Romans 5:9 — only begotten Son, and in such a manner providing a way of escape from the judgment of wrath against sin. Thus Paul was still pursuing his master theme of God's righteous character. Griffith Thomas observed that: It is very striking that after Romans 5:1, all mention of faith is suddenly dropped until Romans 9:30 (Romans 6:8 does not really apply). This omission is all the more remarkable because of the prominence of faith up to this time, the verb having appeared at least five times and the substantive

1 Corinthians 4:1 — Let a man so account of us, as of ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. This refers to both Paul and Apollos, and the word "minister" here is not the same as in 1 Corinthians 3:5. "It is [@huperetes], and originally meant an under-rower in a trireme." Paul W. Marsh, A New Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969), p. 382. This is very similar to a word Luke used of ministers. "The word Luke used

2 Corinthians 5:14 — genitive, `Christ's love to men,' or as an objective genitive, `our love to Christ'; the two suppose and interfuse each other." F. W. Farrar, op. cit., p. 121. One died for all … Here is the same "all" encountered in 2 Corinthians 5:10, and it includes all who ever lived. "He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2). The atonement established in Christ's death was no piecemeal affair, but was big enough to cover

Galatians 2:14 — said unto Cephas … before them all … This bold rebuke administered by Paul to Peter may not be taken as a relaxation of Jesus' rule that the brother having sinned should first be approached privately (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 5:24). The situation was not one which pertains to any persons today, for both Paul and Peter were inspired apostles of the highest rank; and the near-unique situation demanded exactly what Paul did here. We therefore disagree with Hendriksen that here

Ephesians 5:22-23 — they owe to the Lord. F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 114. As Christ is the head of the church … Marriage from the very beginning was prophetic of the spiritual relationship between Christ and his church (the great "mystery" of Ephesians 5:32). Paul begins here to build that analogy. The saviour of the body … Here, "The implication seems to be that the husband is the protector and defender of his wife." Ibid.

Philippians 1:16-17 — which drops out of sight altogether the stern and determined purpose of the word "set," making it read, "I am put here! Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions (Fort Worth, Texas: Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Publications, 1973), p. 445. Lightfoot identified the factious preachers of this passage as belonging to the Judaizing party, giving reasons for the difference in Paul's rejoicing in their preaching (as stated in the next verse) and his scathing denunciation of the Judaizers in

Hebrews 4:13 — taken out, and their backbone was cleft. This is the import of the original word. Then they were divided into quarters; so that outwardly and inwardly they were fully exposed to the eye of the priest, in order to a thorough examination (Leviticus 1:5-6); and, being found without blemish, they were laid in their natural order upon the altar and burnt. A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh, Scotland, 1882), p. 96. Here then is the explanation of the image in the author's mind that

James 4:2 — because ye ask not. James' reference, "ye kill," is not to be taken as an indictment of the Christian communities addressed by him as murderers. "The word kill is to be taken in the sense of hatred proceeding from envy, as in 1 John 3:15: whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.'" John William Russell, Compact Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1964), p. 575. Of course, all of the New Testament writers were aware of the Master's teaching