Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

This commentary is not intended to be biased toward any particular denomination. It is hoped that Christians of all denominations will be able to use it. Where true Christians have differing opinions on certain subjects, these are presented side by side in the commentary without partiality. This is done throughout the commentary, but especially in the General Articles.

In writing this commentary, great help has been obtained from four main sources: 1) The New International Commentary of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 17 Volumes; 2) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [New Testament], Zondervan, 5 Volumes; 3) New Bible Commentary: Revised, Eerdmans; 4) Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Abridged, Zondervan. In addition to these four main sources, the writings of Martyn Lloyd Jones, Andrew Murray, John Stott, and others have been most helpful. The work of selecting and writing the material in this commentary has been done by Thomas Hale, M.D., F.A.C.S.

All but the last four General Articles have been contributed by Stephen Thorson, M.D., F.A.A.P. M.A. (Theological Studies). The General Article entitled “Summary of the Old Testament” has been contributed by Rebecca Thorson. The General Articles are based on material taken from many sources, including the following major creeds and confessions of the Christian church: the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Augsburg Confession, the Formula of Concord (Lutheran), the Westminster Confession (Calvinist Reformed), and the Thirty-nine Articles (Anglican-Episcopalian). The works of Martin Luther (Lutheran), John Calvin (Reformed), Jacob Arminius (Arminian), John Wesley (Methodist), and several Anabaptist and Baptist writers have also been used, as well as many other sources.

All Bible quotations are taken from the New International Version and are printed in bold type. This commentary accepts the decisions of the NIV translators without debate. Occasionally, alternative translations ofdisputed passages are mentioned in a footnote.

In the commentary, an effort has been made to minimize the inclusive use of the masculine words “man” and “men”, but it has been impossible to eliminate such usage completely. This commentary has followed the NIV in this regard, since it is based on the NIV text. In each case the inclusive meaning is evident from the context. Such usage is employed in the interest of clarity and of compatibility with the NIV text. The patience and understanding of the reader are requested.