Bible Commentaries

Romans 12:17 — is given the power of the sword to avenge the evil-doer (Romans 13:4). If he avenges wrongdoing he inflicts the evil of penalty. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), Vol. II, p. 137. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men … is a restriction of Christian conduct to exclude anything held to be disreputable, dishonorable, reprehensible, or detestable by human opinion in society as a whole, or as officially

1 Corinthians 1:12 — effect that the Christ party was a self-righteous little group insisting that they alone had the truth are as ridiculous as they are unsupported by any solid evidence whatever. Paul himself declared that he was "of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:7); and, indeed, the evidence is strong enough that he made such a declaration in this verse, the final "AND I OF CHRIST" being the words not of a faction at Corinth but of the blessed apostle himself. Guthrie admitted that "I belong to

1 Corinthians 5:1 — truthfulness and kindness were among the features of the new ethic which came to mankind through Jesus Christ, that ethic being the only "new morality" ever heard of on earth. "Paul was also relevant in his preaching!" Ibid., p. 347. He pointed the finger of divine condemnation squarely at the offender, also making the whole congregation to blame for the complacency with which they had looked upon so brazen a resurgence of the old morality. Fornication … is here used as

1 Corinthians 7:36-37 — virgin daughter in this place the girlfriend of another man to whom the virgin was betrothed, advising him to be free in his behavior." Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions (Fort Worth, Texas: The Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1973), p. 433. Wallace caught the spirit of the RSV exactly in his words: "The passage is perverted to allow sexual satisfaction `if his passions are strong,' and `to do what he will,' and `he does not sin' in such pre-marital relations." Ibid. Dummelow

1 Corinthians 7:39-40 — it must be, Paul laid down here; it must be a marriage in the Lord … Long, long ago, Plutarch, the wise old Greek, laid it down that "marriage cannot be happy unless husband and wife are of the same religion. William Barclay, op. cit., p. 79. I think that I have the Spirit of God … This is not the expression of any uncertainty but the polite insistence of Paul that his words in this chapter and throughout his writings were inspired by God's Spirit. The judgment of the church through

1 Corinthians 9:27 — Foy E. Wallace, Jr., said: "The translators (in this place) were evidently attempting to circumvent the possibility of apostasy." Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions (Fort Worth, Texas: The Foy E. Wallace Jr., Publications, 1973), p. 435. There is no excuse for rendering the word here [@adokimos] as either "rejected" (English Revised Version (1885)) or "disqualified" (RSV). It means "reprobate" and is so translated elsewhere in the New Testament

2 Corinthians 13:12 — called it the "kiss of love"; but it is called the "holy kiss" elsewhere. This form of brotherly greeting, however, existed long before Christianity. Jesus rebuked the Pharisee for withholding the customary kiss of greeting (Luke 7:45), and Judas used it treacherously in the betrayal (Mark 14:44 f). Carver said the practice came from "the Jewish synagogues, where the sexes were segregated in worship." Frank G. Carver, op. cit., p 644. It is plain that Paul was not here

2 Corinthians 3:1 — ourselves? or need we as some, epistles of commendation to you or from you? As Lipscomb said, "Against the usage of such letters in general, Paul here says nothing." David Lipscomb, Second Corinthians (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1937), p. 47. Rather, Paul is either replying to some allegation of the false teacher who might have inferred that nobody recommended Paul, or he is consciously hedging against a similar charge that he anticipated. "It is not necessary to deduce from

2 Corinthians 6:17-18 — men. This was very suitable at Corinth, where above all other places in the world, women were lured to their ruin by organized immoralities under the cloak of religion. David Lipscomb, Second Corinthians (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company), p. 97. Regarding the application of this paragraph, which is actually concluded in 2 Corinthians 7:1, it must be said that the same principles are binding today. It is true that paganism has lost its old forms; but no person in his right mind can be unaware

Galatians 2:1 — "Once one has rid himself of the idea that Paul wants to give a summary here of all his trips to Jerusalem," H. N. Ridderbos, The Epistles of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), p. 78. it is easy to see that the meeting described in these verses is the so-called Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1 ff), and that there is no need to identify it as the famine visit of Acts 11:30. McGarvey was in perfect agreement with this view; J. W. McGarvey,

Ephesians 6:11 — is sufficient to the warfare involved. The wiles of the devil … One may experience only irritation and disgust at a remark like this: "Neither of these nouns is used by Paul; each occurs twice in this epistle (Ephesians 4:14; Ephesians 4:27). In place of `the devil' Paul always used the personal name `Satan'." Francis W. Beare, op. cit., p. 737. The incredible thesis that lies behind a comment like that is that Paul could not have written Ephesians, because there are two nouns in

Philippians 2:11 — However, there are overtones of eternity in the passage, and with reference to the ultimate future, all people, high and low, good or bad, saved or unsaved "shall" surely confess Christ to the glory of God the Father. See Revelation 6:15-17. Here is the great truth that comforted and sustained the weary prisoner chained to a Roman guard; this was the reason why martyrs died with the blessed name of Jesus on their lips; and here is the basic conviction of the redeemed of all ages, namely,

Titus 3:12-13 — baptism of John. Priscilla and Aquila taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly (Acts 18:26). He powerfully confuted the Jews (Acts 18:28), made many disciples who were required by Paul to be re-baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:1-7); and in 1 Corinthians 1:12 to 1 Corinthians 4:6 Paul referred to Apollos again and again, ranking him with himself and the apostle Peter. Due to his great ability as a scholar and his marvelous gift of eloquence, he might have rivaled even the apostle

Hebrews 1:4 — the hail, the thunder and the lightning. There were angels who were wardens of hell and torturers of the damned. There were destroying angels and angels of punishment. Robert L. Cargill, Understanding the Book of Hebrews (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1967), p. 10. In spite of the fact that an angel appeared to Cornelius and that an angel released Peter from prison, the visible ministry of angels was a strangely diminishing phenomenon in the early church, the emphasis going more and more to Christ and

Hebrews 3:6 — been revealed, men are no longer under a servant, even so true and faithful a servant as Moses (Romans 2:28; Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 6:15; John 8:39). Think of the house of God. He laid the foundations of it, even before the world was (1 Corinthians 2:7), provided the blue prints of it in the dispensation of Moses, and extended it upward and outward to include all the families of man in the church of Christ; and, finally, he shall present all to himself in that glorious fulfillment of the everlasting

Hebrews 7:18 — in heart. All efforts, then, to restrict the weakness and unprofitableness, here mentioned, to the ceremonial structure of the Mosaic system must be rejected as foreign to the teachings of the scriptures. In this connection, please see under Hebrews 7:11, and also Matthew 5 where the triumph of the Lord over the Pharisees in the Decalogue is dramatically documented.

James 2:18 — acts, it is not genuine. This is probably not James' point. J. W. Roberts, op. cit., p. 89. The notion that "real faith must act" cannot be true, as proved by statements in John 12:42. See full comments in my Commentary on John, pp. 305-307. Our Lord spoke of justification (Luke 18:14), and of being justified by words (Matthew 12:37), and of faith saving (Luke 7:50). T. Carson, op. cit., p. 576. Despite the truth of the above, no one ever accused Jesus of teaching that salvation is by

1 John 3:12 — by God. In the ensuing hatred of Abel, Cain killed his brother. It is an important point to remember why God rejected Cain's offering. Stott has a remarkably clear word on this: If Cain had done well, his offering would have been accepted (Genesis 4:7). According to Hebrews 11:4, it was by "faith" that Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain … we may assume that God had revealed his will to the two brothers … By faith Abel obeyed … Cain was willfully disobedient.John

1 John 4:1 — 4:1) Believe not every spirit … "The literal meaning of this is stop believing; evidently some of John's readers were being carried away by Gnostic teaching."Charles C. Ryrie, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 1022. Every spirit … means every false prophet, or every false teacher pretending, or seeming, to be inspired. It is a gross misinterpretation of this passage to understand John here as "speaking not of men, but of spirits."Amos

Jude 1:9 — Commentary on the Bible, Vol. VI (London: Carlton and Porter, 1829), p. 952. Other glimpses we have of Michael in the Bible always show him as the head singular of the holy angels, as in Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21, and Daniel 12:1, and also in Revelation 12:7. Jude's usage of the term "archangel" is fully in keeping with this view, being certainly opposed to the apocryphal notions of a whole order of archangels. All of the diligence of scholars to find the source of Jude's letter in the shameful