Comments for Verse by Verse Bible Commentary

Comment on Ecclesiastes 1: 2 by CT Mabry

CT Mabry — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:41:03 +0000

Adult teacher commentary assembley of God 2007_208

Comment on Luke 10: 29 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:18:55 +0000

Do not our modern lawyers also seeking to justify themselves in their wickedness ask, “But isn’t salvation by faith?” as if they can exclude altogether obedience by so saying. Yet Paul plainly says in Ephesians 5:1-7 “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; {2} And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. {3} But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; {4} Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. {5} For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. {6} Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. {7} Be not ye therefore partakers with them.” — But our modern lawyers willing to justify themselves say “Once saved always saved.” They will cry out this slogan in hell also.

Comment on Luke 10: 16 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:15:23 +0000

Many people claim to beleive in Jesus, but they despise the apostles and the Scriptures written by them. Jesus tells us plainly that such men as this are not Christians, because in despising the apostles (that is, what the apostles teach) they despise (that is, hate) Jesus Himself.

Comment on 1 Peter 1: 12 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:12:30 +0000

The prophets did not fully understand what they prophesied, these things being prophesied “not unto themselves, but unto us.” To go into the Old Testament (as many say we ought to do today) and interpret prophecies on the basis of an assumption of what we think Jeremiah might have thought his prophecy meant is just plain ridiculous, and also heretical. Many modern “scholars” (falsely so called) would say that “a Jew of such and such time period simply could not have understood these words to mean xyz.” This sort of assumption is ridiculous. Firstly, it is based on the assumption that previous generations were not as smart as us today. Secondly, it is based on racism. Could Isaiah have understood Isaiah 7:14 to mean that the Messiah would be born of a virgin? Modern “scholars” would insinuate it as impossible since he lived in ancient times and was a Jew, which to them means he had to be an idiot. But to those who are truly Christians, such a question doesn’t matter anyway. Did Isaiah understand all his prophecies? Peter says that God did not reveal the meaning of all their prophecies to the prophets, because “Unto [them] it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things.” That is, Isaiah didn’t write for Isaiah–Isaiah wrote for us. And Peter goes on to say “which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven” meaning that although God did not necessarily reveal the meaning of all Isaiah’s prophecies to Isaiah, he has revealed them to the apostles via the Holy Ghost, and they have been delivered to us by them. For a Christian, therefore, to interpret Old Testament prophecy at variance withe how those prophecies are interpreted in the New Testament, is to deny the faith altogether. If a Christian denies tha Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a virgin birth, he is no Christian at all. If a Christian denies that a passage is Messianic which the apostles apply as Messianic, that man can no longer claim to be a Christian, because he shows himself contrary to Christ and that he does not beleive the apostles. But Jesus Himself said to the apostles in Luke 10:16 “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

Comment on Romans 2: 9 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:01:42 +0000

To the Jew first because he “hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law” (Rom 2:20) and to the Gentile secondly because he knows from the light of nature (Rom 1:20).

Comment on Romans 2: 8 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:59:49 +0000

“But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth” includes those who believe it, but refuse to obey it, on whom will be “indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;”

Comment on Romans 2: 7 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:58:27 +0000

Note that he does NOT say “To them that hold the attitude that ‘I am saved by faith only and I am once saved always saved, so I go can rape, kill, steal, cheat, lie, etc. and God can’t touch me.’” Many hold such an attitude and think they will go to heaven, but they will not. The next two verses are for them, “But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;”

Comment on John 3: 36 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:50:28 +0000

Note that the second clause says “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” It does NOT say “he that beleiveth not [IN] the Son….” but “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” That is, you have to not only beleive IN Jesus or ON Jesus to have life, but you must also beleive Jesus, that is, beleive what he says, beleive his teaching. Whoever supposedly believes on him, yet doesn’t believe him, will not be saved. You will note that some other translations translate this second clause “he who does not obey the Son shall not see life” which is in fact the logical conclusion from “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” What does it mean to beleive in him and yet not beleive him? It means that you beleive he exists, and you believe he died for the sins of mankind, even for your sins, but you don’t beleive him when he says (for example) “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” and you try and undo what he said with your “oh, you don’t need to be baptize” or again, you don’t beleive him when he says “whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man,” and “every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man,” because you having read that turn right around and say “nay, Lord Jesus, but he that shirks your teachings is wise, for he is saved by faith only, but he that doeth your teachings is a fool for he trusts in works.” By such like doctrines men show that although they beleive in him, they do not beleive him. They beleive in him as a child believes in the Easter bunny. They beleive he exists and they hold some set notions about him, but they do not hold him to be a credible teacher and they refuse to beleive and practice what he teaches–these men shall not see life. See then that you not only beleive in him, but also beleive him.

Comment on Hebrews 5: 9 by jk

jk — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:28 +0000

No easy-believism in this verse. Jesus became the author of eternal salvation to those that obey him, not those who claim to beleive in him but who hate his teachings and attempt to discredit them or make loop holes in them every chance they get.

Comment on Genesis 1: 3 by Charles Fiott

Charles Fiott — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:36:06 +0000

Stupidest thing I’ve ever seen. So this “temporary sourceless light” behaved exactly like the sun - it shut itself off during the night and was even called “day” by God - and yet it was not the sun? If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck …

If you are so literate you should have picked up that the Bible writers created the sun twice by mistake. There is no other logical explanation. The Bible doe not say the light was temporary or that it was sourceless. This is all a baseless and irresponsible fabrication.

Again I understand why you’re having such a hard time trying to explain the Bible. It’s way too flawed.