Bible Commentaries

Exodus 7:8-10 — Rylaarsdam, for example, referred to the miracles in these chapters as "fantastic stories, piously-decorated accounts." Their value is "symbolical rather than historical."J. Coert Rylaarsdam, The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 1 (New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), p. 838, 839. Also, he and many others of the critical fraternity deny any Mosaic connection at all, postulating a ninth or tenth century date. All such denials, however, are futile. The Mosaic authorship of Exodus (and the whole Pentateuch) is established

Proverbs 3:1-10 — thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, And thy vats shall overflow with new wine." "My son, forget not my law" Harris wrote that, "These words are not to be pressed as a reference to Moses' law";Wycliffe Old Testament Commentary, p. 559. but we believe that the word [~torah] (the Hebrew word which is translated law) here could hardly refer to anything else. The same writer admitted that there is probably an allusion to Exodus 20:12 in the following verse; and Walls pointed out that,

Isaiah 9:1-7 — land of Zebulun and Naphtali where the gloom had first settled centuries earlier."Homer Hailey, p. 100. The present tense in this marvelous passage should not be confusing. "These tenses are factitive, or prophetic tenses,"T. K. Cheyne's Commentary, p. 58. or, as McGuiggan stated it, "The language is in the present or the past because of the certainty of the prophecy."Jim McGuiggan, p. 103. "As in the day of Midian" This brings up a question as to why that particular deliverance was the one selected

Numbers 26:1-65 — son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun." Here is a graphic summary of this census and that of the first chapter, showing the changes during the intervening 38 years. GRAPHIC SUMMARYFirstSecondNet%%TribeFamiliesCensusCensusChangeGainLossREUBEN446,50043,7302,2706%SIMEON559,30022,20037,10063%GAD745,65040,5005,15011%JUDAH574,60076,5001,9002 1/2%ISSACHAR454,40064,3009,90018%ZEBULUN357,40060,5003,1005 1/2%EPHRAIM440,50032,5008,00020%MANASSEH832,20052,70020,50063%BENJAMIN735,40045,60010,20029%DAN162,70064,4001,7002

Matthew 28:19-20 — were spoken by a mere man, they are nonsense; and therefore in this statement Christ lays claim to status as a member of the Godhead. Ten times in the Greek New Testament, Christ is actually called God (see John 1:1; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; Revelation 1:8; also Colossians 2:9 and John 14:9). This says nothing of the countless passages in which he laid claim to attributes of deity, as for example when he said, "Before

Deuteronomy 1:1 — would have relied upon a human book full of lies is itself a preposterous falsehood! No educated Christian can be unaware of the allegations of unbelieving enemies of the Bible to the effect that neither the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy, nor the 15th century date of its production can be allowed. The arrogant claim of such Biblical critics is that devout priests during the reign of Manasseh wrote Deuteronomy, hid it in the temple, and then had it "discovered" in the days of Josiah! That little

Deuteronomy 20:1-4 — them; for Jehovah your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you." "To the Israelites, horses and chariots were always objects of terror in war (Joshua 11:4; Joshua 17:16; Judges 1:19; Judges 4:3, and 1 Samuel 13:5)."W. L. Alexander, The Pulpit Commentary, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 230. Furthermore, all of the nations they would confront in Canaan were well supplied with that very type of military equipment. "And

Mark 16:6 — concurred in the conviction that our Lord did in fact rise from the dead. There could have been no Christianity if he did not. The great historical witnesses of: (1) the calendar, (2) the Lord's Day, (3) the Lord's Supper, (4) Christian baptism, and (5) the progression of Christianity throughout history are perpetual and undying monuments to the fact of Jesus' resurrection. Not one of them has any explanation at all apart from the truth that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Behold, the place where

Luke 16:1 — man … stands for God, as the vast majority of commentators agree; and despite the objection of Barclay that "The rich man himself was something of a rascal,"William Barclay, The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), p. 216. and Plummer's opinion that "The rich man has no special significance,"Quoted by Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 418. it is nevertheless

Luke 17:1-2 — unity between the various pronouncements and that (although Luke does not say so) they were uttered on one and the same occasion."Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 431. Hobbs thought the four sayings might be entitled "Four things of which the Christian should beware." These were enumerated by him as "the sin of tempting others (Luke 17:1-2), … the sin of an unforgiving spirit (Luke

Luke 2:4 — called Bethlehem, because he was of the house of David. Luke's design in this chapter was to show how it came about that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, despite the fact of Joseph and Mary's residence in Nazareth, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Micah 5:2. The only reason cited by Luke for this journey to Bethlehem was the decree of Caesar and the necessity for Joseph's obedience to it. However, it does not appear to be certain that Mary was required to make this journey. Clarke stated that "It

Luke 21:5-6 — statement of Jesus, as this must have been viewed by the apostles. Mark identified the ones speaking here as Peter, James, John, and Andrew. To every Jew, the temple was the most sacred and beautiful thing ever seen on earth. Josephus (Book V, Chapter 5) described the snow-white stones of such great size, some of which were overlaid with pure gold, and the magnificence of this structure which required the labor of thousands of men from 20-19 B.C. to 64 A.D. to build. Although not completed until long

John 19:32 — to see corruption (Psalms 16:10). John attached the greatest importance to this phenomenon, and also wrote, "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood" (1 John 5:6). The Ante-Nicene writers elaborated all kinds of fanciful teachings based on this occurrence, most of them finding a suggestion of the two baptisms (as they viewed it) of blood for the martyrs and water for all Christians. The most reasonable interpretations,

John 4:24 — that the worship of God involved the doing of certain things: (1) meditating upon God's word in sermon or Scripture reading, (2) singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, (3) praying to God through Christ, (4) observance of the Lord's supper, and (5) the giving of money, goods, and services for the propagation of the faith and the relief of human needs. Very well, then, does the person who DOES these things worship God? Not necessarily, because an apostle spoke of certain persons who ate the Lord's

Romans 1:29-32 — unmerciful: who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them. There are several such lists of sins in Paul's writings, 2 Timothy 3:1-8 and Galatians 5:19-21 being two others. In one of these, Paul attributes such conduct to the "corrupted in mind," and in the other to those practicing the "works of the flesh"; therefore, the same type of sinner is in view in all these. The lists

Ephesians 2:2-3 — Christian Scriptures on this subject has already run its course; and, as Wedel said, "Sober theologians are again wrestling openly with the problem of the `demonic'." Theodore E. Wedel, The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), Vol. X, p. 640. Such things as psychology, social pressures, poverty, etc., are simply not an adequate explanation of evil; and the more thoughtful and perceptive scholars are already aware of this; but the great rank and file of mankind have never

Joshua 10:1-5 — "righteousness." Adonizedek has the meaning of "lord of righteousness, nearly synonymous with Melchizedek, which means `king of righteousness.'"Robert Jamieson, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary, Joshua (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House), p. 150. There cannot be any doubt that Melchizedek was a "Priest of God Most High," as emphatically declared in Genesis 14:18, making it absolutely certain that Melchizedek was a monotheist and a worshipper of the One True and Almighty God. Otherwise, Abraham's

Hebrews 11:31 — immortals of faith may be viewed as an earnest of God's loving concern for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews, and of his ultimate purpose of redeeming all human beings. Bruce said: There can be little doubt that she is the Rahab who appears in Matthew 1:5, as the wife of Salmon, prince of Judah, the mother of Boaz, the ancestress of King David, and therefore also of our Lord … Clement of Rome recounts the story of Rahab to illustrate the virtues of faith and hospitality, and makes her a prophetess

Hebrews 11:4 — the divine goodness and of his own sinfulness. Whereas, Cain, having no sense of sin, thought himself obliged to offer nothing but a meat offering, and made it perhaps not of the firstfruits, or of the best of the fruits. James Macknight, op. cit., p. 560. Through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous raises the question of how such witness was communicated, which could have been in the manner of God's accepting the sacrifice (as by fire, perhaps); or it could have been in the scriptural

2 Samuel 7:12-17 — reprobate Solomon with his seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines! The inspired author of Hebrews makes that fact absolutely indisputable. "To what angel did God ever say, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son."? (Hebrews 1:5-7). Psalms 2:7; Psalms 89:26-27; Acts 13:33 and other passages in the Bible make it clear that only of Jesus Christ was it ever said that God was his father and that He was God's son. Any notion that this refers to Solomon is ridiculous. "There is neither