Errors in Popular Commentaries
December 12, 2024
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org
We use commentaries on a daily basis, have done so for a half century, and have benefited greatly from this practice. At the same time, we understand there are problems with most popular commentaries.
Following are some of these:
There is the problem of the allegorical interpretation of prophecy.
Most of the most widely-used commentaries are written from an amillennial perspective. As a result, they interpret prophecy allegorically and therefore falsely. This is true of Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, John Wesley, John Calvin, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Matthew Poole, and a great many others. Consider some examples of the allegorical interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10:
“A prophecy of the binding of Satan for a certain term of time, in which he should have much less power and the church much more peace than before. The power of Satan was broken in part by the setting up of the gospel kingdom in the world; it was further reduced by the empire's becoming Christian...” (Matthew Henry).
“Thousand symbolizes that the world is perfectly leavened and pervaded by the divine; since thousand is ten, the number of the world, raised to the third power, three being the number of God” (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown).
“The millennium-vision is, like so many of the apostolic visions, an ideal picture; it exhibits a state of things which is possible to mankind at any time. The vision has its approximate fulfillment, as the Church, in the faith of the reality of her Lord’s victory, carries on her warfare against the prince of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places. That this approximate fulfillment is not unreal may be seen in the fact that Christendom has replaced heathendom; Christ has taken the throne of the world; the prince of this world has been judged; the ascendency of Christian thought and Christian principles has marvellously humanised and purified the world. ... Here, therefore, as in Rev 7:4, "one thousand" signifies "completeness." Satan is bound "for a thousand years;" that is, Satan is completely bound. ... this sentence assures Christians that, for them, Satan has been completely bound, and they need not despair nor fear his might(cf. ‘loosed,’ infra). The chapter thus describes, not a millennium of the saints, but the overthrow of Satan” (Preacher’s Homiletical Commentary).
“[I]t is not likely that the number, a thousand years, is to be taken literally here. ... there is no doubt that the earth is in a state of progressive moral improvement; and that the light of true religion is shining more copiously everywhere, and will shine more and more to the perfect day. But when the religion of Christ will be at its meridian of light and heat, we know not” (Adam Clarke).
“Whether these thousand years signify that certain space of time, or a long time, I cannot say; only it is probable, that if it signifies an uncertain, indefinite time” (Matthew Poole).
“[W]hat is meant by ‘for a thousand years’? The best interpretation seems to be that this phrase expresses a quality, and does not express a period of time” (Pulpit Commentary).
“In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one. Perhaps Peter has given us the only solution open to us in 2 Peter 3:8 when he argues that ‘one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day’” (A.T. Robertson).
There is the problem of Protestant theology.
Most of the commentaries are written from a Protestant rather than a Baptist perspective and therefore err on the doctrines of the church, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, among others.
The Methodist Adam Clarke inserts infant baptism into his commentary on Matthew 28:19, even though there is no mention of such a thing in the Scripture: “But, certainly, no argument can be drawn from this concession against the baptism of children. When the Gentiles and Jews had received the faith and blessings of the gospel, it is natural enough to suppose they should wish to get their children incorporated with the visible Church of Christ; especially if, as many pious and learned men have believed, baptism succeeded to circumcision, which I think has never yet been disproved” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible).
Matthew Henry, a Presbyterian, also inserted infant baptism into his commentary. “This law will be further useful to us, (1.) To illustrate the right God has to the children of believing parents, as such, and the place they have in his church. They are by baptism enrolled among his servants, because they are born in his house, for they are therefore born unto him, Eze. 16:20” (commentary on Exodus 21:2-6). Henry also promoted sprinkling -- “either dipping them in the water, or pouring or sprinkling water upon them, which seems the more proper” (commentary on Mt. 28:19).
The Bible Knowledge Commentary, on 1 Timothy 3:15, says, “Paul was simply affirming the crucial role of the universal church as the support and bulwark--not the source--of God’s truth.” This is clearly false. Regardless of what position one takes on a “universal church,” it is obvious from the context of 1 Timothy 3:15 that Paul is not referring to any such thing. The context is the church that has pastors and deacons, which can be nothing other than the “local” assembly. A “universal church” has no way of being the pillar and ground of the truth. What would it mean? How would it work? Even if the universal church is defined as all born again Christians, how do all born again Christians act as the pillar and ground of the truth, when they are scattered among many kinds of churches and hold to many different doctrines and have no practical association together? If the universal church is defined as all Christians and all denominations, as it frequently is, that makes it even more impossible that such a “church” could be the pillar and ground of the truth. The authors of the Bible Knowledge Commentary are obviously reading their erroneous theology into Scripture.
There is the problem of modern textual criticism.
Most commentaries err on the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture and accept the heresy of modern textual criticism and follow the critical Greek text. And in many cases, they don’t even acknowledge that there is a textual issue.
For example, The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary has the following comment on 1 Timothy 1:1 -- “Our translation changes both the order and the language of the Greek text, presumably to be consistent with common usage. The title ‘Lord’ is not in the original, and the order that Paul used both times in verse 1 Timothy 1:1 was Christ Jesus.” This is not true. The KJV follows the Greek Received Text which reads exactly as the KJV reads. It is the critical Greek text that removes “Lord” and changes the order of Jesus Christ.
B.H. Carroll is typical in rejecting the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7. “Now, as to the integrity of this book, there is one exception. In the King James Version, 1 Joh 5:7-8 reads: ‘For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.’ Now look at verse 8, two words of the second line, ‘in earth’ — ‘there are three that bear witness in earth.’ Let us take out of the King James Version all verse 7 and the words, ‘in earth,’ of verse 8. They are unquestionably an interpolation.” Carroll was wrong on this. We will definitely not take out those words from the King James Bible and for very good reasons. (See “A Defense of 1 John 5:7” at www.wayoflife.org.)
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, gives credence to the heresy that Mark’s Gospel ends at verse 8. It leans on the arguments and reasoning of heretics such as Bruce Metzger, Robert Bratcher, and Eugene Nida. It concludes, “External and especially internal evidence make it difficult to escape the conclusion that vv. 9-20 were originally not a part of the Gospel of Mark. ... Thus the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmission of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking” (Expositor’s). This is a blatant denial of the divine preservation of Scripture. In contrast, Arno Gaebelein, Frank’s father and an earlier fundamentalist leader, was wiser in his note on Mark 16 in The Annotated Bible of 1913: “Higher criticism declares that the proper ending of the Gospel of Mark is verse 8. They disputed the genuineness of verses 9-20. Another hand, they claim, added later these verses. That spurious translation, which goes under the name of ‘The Twentieth Century New Testament’ (wholly unsatisfactory) also gives this portion as ‘a late appendix.’ It is not. Mark wrote it and some of the best scholars have declared that it is genuine. How foolish to assume that the blessed document, which begins with the sublime statement ‘The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ could end with ‘they were afraid!’ The trouble with these critics is that they approach the Word of God with doubt and reject its inspiration” (The Annotated Bible). Here, Arno Gaebelein identifies the chief problem with modern textual criticism, which is that it does not approach the biblical text on the basis of faith, but rather employs the tools of natural textual criticism for a supernatural book. Arno’s son, Frank, was corrupted by his wrong associations, which included an extended liberal arts education that included a stint at Harvard, a bastion of skepticism. See 1 Corinthians 15:33.
In Colossians 2:2, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown comments, “The oldest manuscripts omit ‘and of the Father, and of’; then translate, ‘Of God (namely), Christ.’” The “oldest manuscripts” refer to two of the most corrupt manuscripts extant, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, which show clear signs of heretical tampering, as proven by the textual authority John William Burgon. (See Burgon’s masterly The Revision Revised.)
Consider “keepers at home” in Titus 2:5, KJV. The modern versions and lexicons and commentaries that follow the critical Greek text have “working at home” (ASV, ESV, Vine, Wuest). The critical text has the Greek oikourgos (oikos - home and ergon - work). The KJV follows the Received Greek text which has oikouros (oikos - home and ouros - a keeper). oikourgos is a much weaker concept than oikouros. The mother is not merely a worker at home; she is the guardian of the home under the husband’s authority and supervision!
In order to properly weigh such things, the Bible student must be grounded in his understanding of the issue of Bible texts and versions. We recommend Why We Hold to the King James Bible, available from Way of Life Literature, www.wayoflife.org. We also recommend Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation by David Sorenson (davidsorenson625@gmail.com).
There is the problem of sovereign election.
For example, John Gill held to sovereign election and sovereign reprobation. Consider his attempt to explain away the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:4-6: “... wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures ... hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved ... rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1Ti 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners ... the meaning [of ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’] is, either that he gave himself ransom for many ... or rather it intends that Christ gave himself a ransom for all sorts of men...” And consider Gill’s comment on John 3:16, “... not every man in the world is here meant, or all the individuals of human nature; for all are not the objects of God's special love, which is here designed, as appears from the instance and evidence of it, the gift of his Son: nor is Christ God's gift to every one ... yet rather the Gentiles particularly, and God’s elect among them, are meant...” This is ridiculous. “The world” never refers to “the elect.”
The Believer’s Bible Commentary teaches sovereign election in Romans 9. “The potter, of course, is God. The clay is sinful, lost humanity. If the potter left it alone, it would all be sent to hell. He would be absolutely just and fair if He left it alone. But instead He sovereignly selects a handful of sinners, saves them by His grace, and conforms them to the image of His Son. Does He have the right to do that? Remember, He is not arbitrarily dooming others to hell. They are already doomed by their own willfulnezss and unbelief.” The problem with this comment is that it goes beyond the teaching of Scripture and contradicts Scripture. Romans 9:22-23 says that there are vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, but it doesn’t say that they are so by God’s sovereign design. Verse 22 says some are “fitted to destruction,” but it doesn’t say why they are so fitted. The Calvinist says they are fitted to be vessels of wrath because they are elected to that by God’s sovereign choice, but Paul doesn’t say that. A few verses previously, in Romans 8:29, Paul says God’s election is based His foreknowledge. What did He foreknow? In this same passage, we are plainly told that God offered salvation to all of Israel (Ro. 10:21). Jeremiah describes this most poignantly. Eleven times God says that He had risen up early and sent the prophets to beseech Israel to turn from her sin. “Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD” (Jer. 29:19; see also Jer. 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4; 26:5; 32:33; 35:14, 15; 44:4). God had done this from the time that Israel came out of Egypt (Jer. 7:25). Therefore, lost Israel was fitted to destruction because they did not respond to God’s compassionate, persistent call. Words could not plainer. The Romans 9-10 passage says, further, that God offers salvation today to “whosoever believeth” and “whosoever shall call” today (Ro. 10:11-13). Those who do not believe and do not call are fitted to destruction.
There is the problem of New Evangelicalism.
When we read today of “top evangelical scholars,” we must understand that this refers to New Evangelicalism. In the 1940s, evangelicalism renounced “separatism” and has since been corrupted to various degrees by unscriptural associations with error.
Many evangelical commentaries entertain liberal positions that can confuse and weaken the readers. For example, some evangelical commentaries and dictionaries give some credence to the view that there was a “natural” element in the destruction of Sodom, such as saying that the miracle pertained to the timing of a natural earthquake, or that the crossing of the Red Sea was through a lake or marsh, or that the backing up of the Jordan River when Israel crossed into the Promised Land was a natural event that has happened at other times, or that the judgments upon Egypt were party natural, or that Noah’s Flood was not global, or that Genesis 1 allows for evolutionary ages, or that the prophets were referring to pagan myths in passages such as Ezekiel 28:11-14. The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds of the Old Testament is packed with liberal influences. For example, there is frequent attempt to find parallels to Biblical events in pagan sources. Consider this unbelieving comment on the pillar of the cloud of Exodus 14:20: “Records of the military exploits of the Hittite king Murshili report a similar phenomenon. ... It was not uncommon in military reports to speak of advantageous circumstances in terms of divine intervention and aid. If one group found itself on the successful end of a skirmish, it credited its own god or gods and often spoke of the deity as if he had arranged all aspects of the natural order to ensure a triumphant outcome. To what degree, then, the reference to a cloud is to be taken literally is difficult to determine, since the biblical text may be implementing this kind of stylized description of events. That the text intends to affirm the active participation of Yahweh on behalf of the Israelites, though, is certain.” That is pure unbelieving liberalism under the guise of “evangelical scholarship.”
Evangelical commentaries follow “modern scholarship.” For example, the Believer’s Bible Commentary, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Moody Bible Commentary, and the Zondervan King James Version Commentary follow modern scholarship in 2 Kings 15:19 by identifying Pul as Tiglathpileser. For example, the Bible Knowledge Commentary says, “Pul has been identified from Assyrian inscriptions as Tiglath-Pileser III.” This creates a mistake in the Bible, which says, “And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away...” (1 Ch. 5:26). This error is based on a conjectural reading of a fragmentary tablet ascribed to Tiglathpileser III and a fragmentary text wrongly attributed to Tiglathpileser. It is on this flimsy basis that the New King James Bible changes 1 Ch. 5:26 from “Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria” (KJV) to “Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglathpileser king of Assyria.” Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones refutes the modern position in his masterly Chronology of the Old Testament (1993). Following is his summary of the issue: “[T]here is no compelling Assyrian data demanding the placing of the reigns of Menahem and Tiglath-pileser (III) as parallel. On the authority of the Hebrew Text, this author positively asserts that the second ‘slab’ inscription has been wrongly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III) whereas in truth it should be credited to an earlier Assyrian monarch whom the biblical text calls ‘Pul’ (Ashur-dan III). The testimony of the Hebrew Text unmistakably places Pul in the days of Menahem’s reign (772-761 BC) and states that he extracted tribute from that king of Israel (2 Kings 15:19-20). Hence the situation is that one Assyrian text has the name ‘Menahem’ placed in brackets by conjecture based solely upon another fragmented text which reliable external evidence shows to have been mistakenly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III). Yet it is this identification that has been used by the Assyrian Academy to overrule the Hebrew chronology, cause anachronisms, and in so doing violate and cast biblical passages aside as erroneous” (Jones, The Chronology of the Old Testament, “The Identity of Pul,” pp. 170-173).
Evangelical commentaries also tend to quote heretics with no warning. For example, they frequently quote Augustine and C.S. Lewis. The Bible Knowledge Commentary even quotes C.H. Dodd. The BKC cites Dodd, for example, in claiming that the Greek present active tense in 1 John 3:4, 6, 8, 9 does not have the idea of habituality. But Dodd was a terrible heretic who should never be quoted favorably by a Bible believer. In his book The Authority of the Bible, Dodd claimed that God is not the author of the Bible, that it was written in “imperfect human words,” that it errs in “matters of science and history,” that Moses “left us no writings, and we know little of him with certainty,” that Moses was “a magician, a medicine man, whose magic wand wrought wonders of deliverance,” that Ezekiel was “a psychic medium’ with “symptoms of abnormality,” that Jehovah “is cruel, capricious, irritable, unjust, and untruthful,” that those who believe in the infallible inspiration of Scripture are “blinded by superstitious bibliolatry” (p. 127), “the prophets were sometimes mistaken” (p. 128), “there are sayings of Jesus ... which either simply are not true, in their plain meaning, or are unacceptable to the conscience or reason of Christian people” (p. 233), “Jesus was a man of his time” (p. 237), and “the idea of vicarious expiation [Christ’s substitutionary atonement] is not wholly rational” (p. 215). In the book The Bible Today, Dodd called creation, the fall of man, the Deluge, the building of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jonah’s whale “myths” and “legends” (pp. 17, 112, 150), and said “the disciples’ post-resurrection meetings with our Lord may have been visionary” (p. 102).
The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary in 2 Timothy 2:3 favorably cites M. Scott Peck’s book The Road Less Traveled. Peck is an exceedingly dangerous New Age universalist who believes in the divinity of man, and he should never be quoted favorably to God’s people. For example, Peck writes, “God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward God. God is the ultimate goal of evolution” (The Road Less Traveled, 1978, p. 270).
The Believer’s Bible Commentary often quotes J.B. Philips and his unsound Bible version. For example, commenting on “from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” in Eph. 3:15, the Believer’s Bible Commentary says, “All fatherhood in the universe derives its name from Him. The Fatherhood of God is the original and the ideal; it is the prototype of every other paternal relationship. Phillips translates the verse, ‘from whom all fatherhood, earthly or heavenly, derives its name.’” This is not a translation; it is a presumption. It is probably true that all fatherhood ultimately derives its name from God the Father, but that is not what Ephesians 3:15 says. There is no excuse to quote from a heretic like J.B. Phillips. He was a theological modernist who taught a form of universalism and the fatherhood of God, denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture, denied hell fire and the existence of Satan and demons, claimed that Jesus conformed His teaching to the ignorance of His day, was a skeptic in regard to supernatural miracles, and believed that Christ’s ascension was a parable. (We have documented this in the free ebook The Modern Version Hall of Shame, www.wayoflife.org.)
Many evangelical commentaries also promote the unscriptural ecumenical movement. For example, The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary has this heretical note on Luke 6:38: “At the beginning of the ecumenical movement between Catholics and Protestants, I led a conference for a group of Catholic nuns. We had a marvelous week together, but at the final communion I was told that the priests had ruled I could not partake of the Eucharist because I was a Protestant. The nuns were incensed and delivered an ultimatum. ‘If our brother Bruce can't come to our Lord's table, we will not come.’ The priests were in a tizzy, but they reconsidered the matter and decided to break the rules for that one occasion. That was a long time ago, and it is unlikely such a situation would arise today. But it pointed out to me that God’s law of love goes far beyond ‘keeping the rules.’” This commentator is grossly ignorant of Rome’s sacramental gospel and the heretical nature of the Catholic “eucharist” (mass).
For more about what has happened to evangelical scholarship since the 1940s, see New Evangelicalism: Its History, Character, and Fruit, available at www.wayoflife.org.
Following are some of these:
There is the problem of the allegorical interpretation of prophecy.
Most of the most widely-used commentaries are written from an amillennial perspective. As a result, they interpret prophecy allegorically and therefore falsely. This is true of Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, John Wesley, John Calvin, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Matthew Poole, and a great many others. Consider some examples of the allegorical interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10:
“A prophecy of the binding of Satan for a certain term of time, in which he should have much less power and the church much more peace than before. The power of Satan was broken in part by the setting up of the gospel kingdom in the world; it was further reduced by the empire's becoming Christian...” (Matthew Henry).
“Thousand symbolizes that the world is perfectly leavened and pervaded by the divine; since thousand is ten, the number of the world, raised to the third power, three being the number of God” (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown).
“The millennium-vision is, like so many of the apostolic visions, an ideal picture; it exhibits a state of things which is possible to mankind at any time. The vision has its approximate fulfillment, as the Church, in the faith of the reality of her Lord’s victory, carries on her warfare against the prince of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places. That this approximate fulfillment is not unreal may be seen in the fact that Christendom has replaced heathendom; Christ has taken the throne of the world; the prince of this world has been judged; the ascendency of Christian thought and Christian principles has marvellously humanised and purified the world. ... Here, therefore, as in Rev 7:4, "one thousand" signifies "completeness." Satan is bound "for a thousand years;" that is, Satan is completely bound. ... this sentence assures Christians that, for them, Satan has been completely bound, and they need not despair nor fear his might(cf. ‘loosed,’ infra). The chapter thus describes, not a millennium of the saints, but the overthrow of Satan” (Preacher’s Homiletical Commentary).
“[I]t is not likely that the number, a thousand years, is to be taken literally here. ... there is no doubt that the earth is in a state of progressive moral improvement; and that the light of true religion is shining more copiously everywhere, and will shine more and more to the perfect day. But when the religion of Christ will be at its meridian of light and heat, we know not” (Adam Clarke).
“Whether these thousand years signify that certain space of time, or a long time, I cannot say; only it is probable, that if it signifies an uncertain, indefinite time” (Matthew Poole).
“[W]hat is meant by ‘for a thousand years’? The best interpretation seems to be that this phrase expresses a quality, and does not express a period of time” (Pulpit Commentary).
“In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one. Perhaps Peter has given us the only solution open to us in 2 Peter 3:8 when he argues that ‘one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day’” (A.T. Robertson).
There is the problem of Protestant theology.
Most of the commentaries are written from a Protestant rather than a Baptist perspective and therefore err on the doctrines of the church, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, among others.
The Methodist Adam Clarke inserts infant baptism into his commentary on Matthew 28:19, even though there is no mention of such a thing in the Scripture: “But, certainly, no argument can be drawn from this concession against the baptism of children. When the Gentiles and Jews had received the faith and blessings of the gospel, it is natural enough to suppose they should wish to get their children incorporated with the visible Church of Christ; especially if, as many pious and learned men have believed, baptism succeeded to circumcision, which I think has never yet been disproved” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible).
Matthew Henry, a Presbyterian, also inserted infant baptism into his commentary. “This law will be further useful to us, (1.) To illustrate the right God has to the children of believing parents, as such, and the place they have in his church. They are by baptism enrolled among his servants, because they are born in his house, for they are therefore born unto him, Eze. 16:20” (commentary on Exodus 21:2-6). Henry also promoted sprinkling -- “either dipping them in the water, or pouring or sprinkling water upon them, which seems the more proper” (commentary on Mt. 28:19).
The Bible Knowledge Commentary, on 1 Timothy 3:15, says, “Paul was simply affirming the crucial role of the universal church as the support and bulwark--not the source--of God’s truth.” This is clearly false. Regardless of what position one takes on a “universal church,” it is obvious from the context of 1 Timothy 3:15 that Paul is not referring to any such thing. The context is the church that has pastors and deacons, which can be nothing other than the “local” assembly. A “universal church” has no way of being the pillar and ground of the truth. What would it mean? How would it work? Even if the universal church is defined as all born again Christians, how do all born again Christians act as the pillar and ground of the truth, when they are scattered among many kinds of churches and hold to many different doctrines and have no practical association together? If the universal church is defined as all Christians and all denominations, as it frequently is, that makes it even more impossible that such a “church” could be the pillar and ground of the truth. The authors of the Bible Knowledge Commentary are obviously reading their erroneous theology into Scripture.
There is the problem of modern textual criticism.
Most commentaries err on the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture and accept the heresy of modern textual criticism and follow the critical Greek text. And in many cases, they don’t even acknowledge that there is a textual issue.
For example, The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary has the following comment on 1 Timothy 1:1 -- “Our translation changes both the order and the language of the Greek text, presumably to be consistent with common usage. The title ‘Lord’ is not in the original, and the order that Paul used both times in verse 1 Timothy 1:1 was Christ Jesus.” This is not true. The KJV follows the Greek Received Text which reads exactly as the KJV reads. It is the critical Greek text that removes “Lord” and changes the order of Jesus Christ.
B.H. Carroll is typical in rejecting the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7. “Now, as to the integrity of this book, there is one exception. In the King James Version, 1 Joh 5:7-8 reads: ‘For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.’ Now look at verse 8, two words of the second line, ‘in earth’ — ‘there are three that bear witness in earth.’ Let us take out of the King James Version all verse 7 and the words, ‘in earth,’ of verse 8. They are unquestionably an interpolation.” Carroll was wrong on this. We will definitely not take out those words from the King James Bible and for very good reasons. (See “A Defense of 1 John 5:7” at www.wayoflife.org.)
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, gives credence to the heresy that Mark’s Gospel ends at verse 8. It leans on the arguments and reasoning of heretics such as Bruce Metzger, Robert Bratcher, and Eugene Nida. It concludes, “External and especially internal evidence make it difficult to escape the conclusion that vv. 9-20 were originally not a part of the Gospel of Mark. ... Thus the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmission of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking” (Expositor’s). This is a blatant denial of the divine preservation of Scripture. In contrast, Arno Gaebelein, Frank’s father and an earlier fundamentalist leader, was wiser in his note on Mark 16 in The Annotated Bible of 1913: “Higher criticism declares that the proper ending of the Gospel of Mark is verse 8. They disputed the genuineness of verses 9-20. Another hand, they claim, added later these verses. That spurious translation, which goes under the name of ‘The Twentieth Century New Testament’ (wholly unsatisfactory) also gives this portion as ‘a late appendix.’ It is not. Mark wrote it and some of the best scholars have declared that it is genuine. How foolish to assume that the blessed document, which begins with the sublime statement ‘The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ could end with ‘they were afraid!’ The trouble with these critics is that they approach the Word of God with doubt and reject its inspiration” (The Annotated Bible). Here, Arno Gaebelein identifies the chief problem with modern textual criticism, which is that it does not approach the biblical text on the basis of faith, but rather employs the tools of natural textual criticism for a supernatural book. Arno’s son, Frank, was corrupted by his wrong associations, which included an extended liberal arts education that included a stint at Harvard, a bastion of skepticism. See 1 Corinthians 15:33.
In Colossians 2:2, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown comments, “The oldest manuscripts omit ‘and of the Father, and of’; then translate, ‘Of God (namely), Christ.’” The “oldest manuscripts” refer to two of the most corrupt manuscripts extant, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, which show clear signs of heretical tampering, as proven by the textual authority John William Burgon. (See Burgon’s masterly The Revision Revised.)
Consider “keepers at home” in Titus 2:5, KJV. The modern versions and lexicons and commentaries that follow the critical Greek text have “working at home” (ASV, ESV, Vine, Wuest). The critical text has the Greek oikourgos (oikos - home and ergon - work). The KJV follows the Received Greek text which has oikouros (oikos - home and ouros - a keeper). oikourgos is a much weaker concept than oikouros. The mother is not merely a worker at home; she is the guardian of the home under the husband’s authority and supervision!
In order to properly weigh such things, the Bible student must be grounded in his understanding of the issue of Bible texts and versions. We recommend Why We Hold to the King James Bible, available from Way of Life Literature, www.wayoflife.org. We also recommend Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation by David Sorenson (davidsorenson625@gmail.com).
There is the problem of sovereign election.
For example, John Gill held to sovereign election and sovereign reprobation. Consider his attempt to explain away the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:4-6: “... wherefore the will of God, that all men should be saved, is not a conditional will, or what depends on the will of man, or on anything to be performed by him, for then none might be saved; and if any should, it would be of him that willeth, contrary to the express words of Scripture; but it is an absolute and unconditional will respecting their salvation, and which infallibly secures ... hence by all men, whom God would have saved, cannot be meant every individual of mankind, since it is not his will that all men, in this large sense, should be saved ... rather therefore all sorts of men, agreeably to the use of the phrase in 1Ti 2:1 are here intended, kings and peasants, rich and poor, bond and free, male and female, young and old, greater and lesser sinners ... the meaning [of ‘who gave himself a ransom for all’] is, either that he gave himself ransom for many ... or rather it intends that Christ gave himself a ransom for all sorts of men...” And consider Gill’s comment on John 3:16, “... not every man in the world is here meant, or all the individuals of human nature; for all are not the objects of God's special love, which is here designed, as appears from the instance and evidence of it, the gift of his Son: nor is Christ God's gift to every one ... yet rather the Gentiles particularly, and God’s elect among them, are meant...” This is ridiculous. “The world” never refers to “the elect.”
The Believer’s Bible Commentary teaches sovereign election in Romans 9. “The potter, of course, is God. The clay is sinful, lost humanity. If the potter left it alone, it would all be sent to hell. He would be absolutely just and fair if He left it alone. But instead He sovereignly selects a handful of sinners, saves them by His grace, and conforms them to the image of His Son. Does He have the right to do that? Remember, He is not arbitrarily dooming others to hell. They are already doomed by their own willfulnezss and unbelief.” The problem with this comment is that it goes beyond the teaching of Scripture and contradicts Scripture. Romans 9:22-23 says that there are vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, but it doesn’t say that they are so by God’s sovereign design. Verse 22 says some are “fitted to destruction,” but it doesn’t say why they are so fitted. The Calvinist says they are fitted to be vessels of wrath because they are elected to that by God’s sovereign choice, but Paul doesn’t say that. A few verses previously, in Romans 8:29, Paul says God’s election is based His foreknowledge. What did He foreknow? In this same passage, we are plainly told that God offered salvation to all of Israel (Ro. 10:21). Jeremiah describes this most poignantly. Eleven times God says that He had risen up early and sent the prophets to beseech Israel to turn from her sin. “Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD” (Jer. 29:19; see also Jer. 7:13, 25; 11:7; 25:3, 4; 26:5; 32:33; 35:14, 15; 44:4). God had done this from the time that Israel came out of Egypt (Jer. 7:25). Therefore, lost Israel was fitted to destruction because they did not respond to God’s compassionate, persistent call. Words could not plainer. The Romans 9-10 passage says, further, that God offers salvation today to “whosoever believeth” and “whosoever shall call” today (Ro. 10:11-13). Those who do not believe and do not call are fitted to destruction.
There is the problem of New Evangelicalism.
When we read today of “top evangelical scholars,” we must understand that this refers to New Evangelicalism. In the 1940s, evangelicalism renounced “separatism” and has since been corrupted to various degrees by unscriptural associations with error.
Many evangelical commentaries entertain liberal positions that can confuse and weaken the readers. For example, some evangelical commentaries and dictionaries give some credence to the view that there was a “natural” element in the destruction of Sodom, such as saying that the miracle pertained to the timing of a natural earthquake, or that the crossing of the Red Sea was through a lake or marsh, or that the backing up of the Jordan River when Israel crossed into the Promised Land was a natural event that has happened at other times, or that the judgments upon Egypt were party natural, or that Noah’s Flood was not global, or that Genesis 1 allows for evolutionary ages, or that the prophets were referring to pagan myths in passages such as Ezekiel 28:11-14. The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds of the Old Testament is packed with liberal influences. For example, there is frequent attempt to find parallels to Biblical events in pagan sources. Consider this unbelieving comment on the pillar of the cloud of Exodus 14:20: “Records of the military exploits of the Hittite king Murshili report a similar phenomenon. ... It was not uncommon in military reports to speak of advantageous circumstances in terms of divine intervention and aid. If one group found itself on the successful end of a skirmish, it credited its own god or gods and often spoke of the deity as if he had arranged all aspects of the natural order to ensure a triumphant outcome. To what degree, then, the reference to a cloud is to be taken literally is difficult to determine, since the biblical text may be implementing this kind of stylized description of events. That the text intends to affirm the active participation of Yahweh on behalf of the Israelites, though, is certain.” That is pure unbelieving liberalism under the guise of “evangelical scholarship.”
Evangelical commentaries follow “modern scholarship.” For example, the Believer’s Bible Commentary, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Moody Bible Commentary, and the Zondervan King James Version Commentary follow modern scholarship in 2 Kings 15:19 by identifying Pul as Tiglathpileser. For example, the Bible Knowledge Commentary says, “Pul has been identified from Assyrian inscriptions as Tiglath-Pileser III.” This creates a mistake in the Bible, which says, “And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away...” (1 Ch. 5:26). This error is based on a conjectural reading of a fragmentary tablet ascribed to Tiglathpileser III and a fragmentary text wrongly attributed to Tiglathpileser. It is on this flimsy basis that the New King James Bible changes 1 Ch. 5:26 from “Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria” (KJV) to “Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglathpileser king of Assyria.” Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones refutes the modern position in his masterly Chronology of the Old Testament (1993). Following is his summary of the issue: “[T]here is no compelling Assyrian data demanding the placing of the reigns of Menahem and Tiglath-pileser (III) as parallel. On the authority of the Hebrew Text, this author positively asserts that the second ‘slab’ inscription has been wrongly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III) whereas in truth it should be credited to an earlier Assyrian monarch whom the biblical text calls ‘Pul’ (Ashur-dan III). The testimony of the Hebrew Text unmistakably places Pul in the days of Menahem’s reign (772-761 BC) and states that he extracted tribute from that king of Israel (2 Kings 15:19-20). Hence the situation is that one Assyrian text has the name ‘Menahem’ placed in brackets by conjecture based solely upon another fragmented text which reliable external evidence shows to have been mistakenly assigned to Tiglath-pileser (III). Yet it is this identification that has been used by the Assyrian Academy to overrule the Hebrew chronology, cause anachronisms, and in so doing violate and cast biblical passages aside as erroneous” (Jones, The Chronology of the Old Testament, “The Identity of Pul,” pp. 170-173).
Evangelical commentaries also tend to quote heretics with no warning. For example, they frequently quote Augustine and C.S. Lewis. The Bible Knowledge Commentary even quotes C.H. Dodd. The BKC cites Dodd, for example, in claiming that the Greek present active tense in 1 John 3:4, 6, 8, 9 does not have the idea of habituality. But Dodd was a terrible heretic who should never be quoted favorably by a Bible believer. In his book The Authority of the Bible, Dodd claimed that God is not the author of the Bible, that it was written in “imperfect human words,” that it errs in “matters of science and history,” that Moses “left us no writings, and we know little of him with certainty,” that Moses was “a magician, a medicine man, whose magic wand wrought wonders of deliverance,” that Ezekiel was “a psychic medium’ with “symptoms of abnormality,” that Jehovah “is cruel, capricious, irritable, unjust, and untruthful,” that those who believe in the infallible inspiration of Scripture are “blinded by superstitious bibliolatry” (p. 127), “the prophets were sometimes mistaken” (p. 128), “there are sayings of Jesus ... which either simply are not true, in their plain meaning, or are unacceptable to the conscience or reason of Christian people” (p. 233), “Jesus was a man of his time” (p. 237), and “the idea of vicarious expiation [Christ’s substitutionary atonement] is not wholly rational” (p. 215). In the book The Bible Today, Dodd called creation, the fall of man, the Deluge, the building of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jonah’s whale “myths” and “legends” (pp. 17, 112, 150), and said “the disciples’ post-resurrection meetings with our Lord may have been visionary” (p. 102).
The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary in 2 Timothy 2:3 favorably cites M. Scott Peck’s book The Road Less Traveled. Peck is an exceedingly dangerous New Age universalist who believes in the divinity of man, and he should never be quoted favorably to God’s people. For example, Peck writes, “God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward God. God is the ultimate goal of evolution” (The Road Less Traveled, 1978, p. 270).
The Believer’s Bible Commentary often quotes J.B. Philips and his unsound Bible version. For example, commenting on “from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named” in Eph. 3:15, the Believer’s Bible Commentary says, “All fatherhood in the universe derives its name from Him. The Fatherhood of God is the original and the ideal; it is the prototype of every other paternal relationship. Phillips translates the verse, ‘from whom all fatherhood, earthly or heavenly, derives its name.’” This is not a translation; it is a presumption. It is probably true that all fatherhood ultimately derives its name from God the Father, but that is not what Ephesians 3:15 says. There is no excuse to quote from a heretic like J.B. Phillips. He was a theological modernist who taught a form of universalism and the fatherhood of God, denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture, denied hell fire and the existence of Satan and demons, claimed that Jesus conformed His teaching to the ignorance of His day, was a skeptic in regard to supernatural miracles, and believed that Christ’s ascension was a parable. (We have documented this in the free ebook The Modern Version Hall of Shame, www.wayoflife.org.)
Many evangelical commentaries also promote the unscriptural ecumenical movement. For example, The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary has this heretical note on Luke 6:38: “At the beginning of the ecumenical movement between Catholics and Protestants, I led a conference for a group of Catholic nuns. We had a marvelous week together, but at the final communion I was told that the priests had ruled I could not partake of the Eucharist because I was a Protestant. The nuns were incensed and delivered an ultimatum. ‘If our brother Bruce can't come to our Lord's table, we will not come.’ The priests were in a tizzy, but they reconsidered the matter and decided to break the rules for that one occasion. That was a long time ago, and it is unlikely such a situation would arise today. But it pointed out to me that God’s law of love goes far beyond ‘keeping the rules.’” This commentator is grossly ignorant of Rome’s sacramental gospel and the heretical nature of the Catholic “eucharist” (mass).
For more about what has happened to evangelical scholarship since the 1940s, see New Evangelicalism: Its History, Character, and Fruit, available at www.wayoflife.org.
- Receive these reports by email
- www.wayoflife.org
______________________
Sharing Policy: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our expensive literature and foreign church planting ministries. Way of Life's content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, O Timothy magazine, FBIS articles, and the free eVideos and free eBooks. You are welcome to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You may also post parts of reports and/or entire reports to websites, blogs, etc as long as you give proper credit (citation). A link to the original report is very much appreciated as the reports are frequently updated and/or expanded. Things we do not want copied and distributed are "Store" items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print editions of our books, electronic editions of the books that we sell, the videos that we sell, etc. The items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we use the income from sales to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy. "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18). Questions? support@wayoflife.org
Goal:Distributed by Way of Life Literature Inc., the Fundamental Baptist Information Service is an e-mail posting for Bible-believing Christians. Established in 1974, Way of Life Literature is a fundamental Baptist preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. Brother Cloud lives in South Asia where he has been a church planting missionary since 1979. Our primary goal with the FBIS is to provide material to assist preachers in the edification and protection of the churches.
Offering: Offerings are welcome if you care to make one. If you have been helped and/or blessed by our material offerings can be mailed or made online with with Visa, Mastercard, Discover, or Paypal. For information see: www.wayoflife.org/about/makeanoffering.html.
