A Common Sense Use of Bible Commentaries

[Ronald Nolette]

There has been no new revelation from the Holy Spirit, that is to be added to the Canon of Scripture held from earliest times. The Bible has been the same for many centuries. In eschatology, you can find the 3 approaches of Premillennial, Postmillennial and Amillennial down through these centuries. The nonsense that biblical prophecy is clear, is like reading the daily newspaper ahead of the time of fulfillment, is ridiculous.

Jesus gave to his saints, his people, "teachers" as in:

"He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) He himself granted that some are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ." Eph 4:10-13 NRSVue

Did God the Holy Spirit give modern men illumination of the words, grammar and context that is different than that found down through the centuries. Have there been any changes in the 1611 KJV that has called for a reinterpretation of the words that did not exist until the last 150 years or so?

"Thus says the LORD: Stand at the crossroads and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'” Jer 6:16 NRSVue

"Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God. I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." 1Co 4:5-6 RSVA

Did the seven churches of Asia that the book of Revelation was sent to, really not understand it? I suppose what those seven churches needed was what we have today in the Dispensationalist distortion of the scriptures found in modern 'study bibles'.

Well Elizabethan English has needed a modern dusting off due to words in English changing meaning through trhe centuries or words simply becoming extinct.

Prophecy is clear! We may not know all the facts but it is clear. It is us that have made the waters of prophecy so muddy.

 

[Arthur81]

Well Elizabethan English has needed a modern dusting off due to words in English changing meaning through trhe centuries or words simply becoming extinct.

Prophecy is clear! We may not know all the facts but it is clear. It is us that have made the waters of prophecy so muddy.

Ronald, the old English in the KJV I address by using the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary easily available online or in Bible software.

On the matter of prophecy being clear, wouldn't you agree that there are some things in prophecy that are just not explicit and when you need to go figurative or symbolic, you get into uncertain ground. Matthew Poole is maybe one of England's most brilliant Bible scholars, but I've noticed at times he admits he is not certain what a prophetic passage means; but gives his best guess. I appreciate his humility in this. One other thing I like about his commentary on the Bible is, he often gives the multiple views of a verse, and then gives the reasons for his choice as the best. While I believe in particular redemption and God's sovereignty in salvation, I still read the commentaries of the Methodists Adam Clarke and Joseph Benson. I even at times check the RCC study Bible to get that position. I believe the arguments made in the past still hold true today. An interesting read is Matthew Poole's commentary on 2 Thess. 2:3. A short piece out of the long exposition he makes on the verse is -

"And as no expositor takes the whore to be meant of a single woman, and the true apostolic church is represented by a woman in travail, Rev_12:1,2, why then should we take the man of sin to be a single man, as the papists do? viz. a Jew of the tribe of Dan, that shall erect his kingdom and temple in Jerusalem, seduce the Jews, continue three years and a half, make great havoc of the church, to be opposed by Enoch and Elias, and is to come a little before the end of the world. Ridiculous!"

Though I value Matthew Poole highly, I do not follow his approach to Revelation; since I am a partial preterist and take Rev. 1:1-3 literally, as I do Rev. 22:6, 10. Yet, when I was a teenager in the 1950s, I remember a couple of our visiting evangelists saying the man of sin was to come out of the tribe of Dan, a Jew. So, I was surprised to read this was a RCC believe, and Matthew Poole referred to it in the 17th century. Yet, I am a partial preterist, postmillennialist but not dogmatic about it. I just do not think any of the 3 historic views of the church can claim itself as the one and only true view.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Ronald, the old English in the KJV I address by using the 1828 Webster's English Dictionary easily available online or in Bible software.

On the matter of prophecy being clear, wouldn't you agree that there are some things in prophecy that are just not explicit and when you need to go figurative or symbolic, you get into uncertain ground. Matthew Poole is maybe one of England's most brilliant Bible scholars, but I've noticed at times he admits he is not certain what a prophetic passage means; but gives his best guess.

After nearly 4 decades of teaching Eschatology, I have learned to leave my best guesses to myself. guessing just muddies waters. I look at fellow dispensationalists like Hal Lindsay, David Wilkerson, even the renowned JD Pentecost and LS Chafer and bemoan so much guesswork. We may not know all the what's and when's and where's for all future prophecy, but it only gets muddy when we allegorize or guess.

 

[Jay Ross]

And as you demonstrate, the Prophecies re still sealed up so that we have no understanding of them.

 

[Arthur81]

After nearly 4 decades of teaching Eschatology, I have learned to leave my best guesses to myself. guessing just muddies waters. I look at fellow dispensationalists like Hal Lindsay, David Wilkerson, even the renowned JD Pentecost and LS Chafer and bemoan so much guesswork. We may not know all the what's and when's and where's for all future prophecy, but it only gets muddy when we allegorize or guess.

To give clarification of my referring to Matthew Poole's guesses, I should have written "educated and scholarly guesses". Poole never left you hanging with only his best guess, he usually gave the main views held in the church, and his biblical and reasonable choice for the view he supported. I have encountered many times that the smart-alec skeptics of today when pointing to so-called biblical discrepancies, Poole in centuries past had clearly explained the comparison or contrast.