Question about old Bible commentaries and footnotes etc.

[Slimsumo]

I have a Bible with some titles and headlines in it, and for Isaiah 62 it says "The glory of the new covenant Church"

Yet I start reading it and its talking about Jerusalem. This is just ONE example of many.

You look at many Bible commentators like Matthew Henry and all these guys, they somehow make it about the Church, even when the word isnt mentioned AT ALL in the verses they are talking about.

Can someone explain to me, WHY do these men do it? Surely there must be atleast some biblical precedent for this? What gives? I made this topic as I dont want to call these people nuts before I find out their reasoning and I thought maybe some of you could help, if you share a similar outlook on interpreting the Bible.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I have a Bible with some titles and headlines in it, and for Isaiah 62 it says "The glory of the new covenant Church"

Yet I start reading it and its talking about Jerusalem. This is just ONE example of many.

You look at many Bible commentators like Matthew Henry and all these guys, they somehow make it about the Church, even when the word isnt mentioned AT ALL in the verses they are talking about.

Can someone explain to me, WHY do these men do it? Surely there must be atleast some biblical precedent for this? What gives? I made this topic as I dont want to call these people nuts before I find out their reasoning and I thought maybe some of you could help, if you share a similar outlook on interpreting the Bible.

What Bible is it? All the ones I looked at say Zion's Coming Salvation, Assurance of Zion's Salvation, or some such thing. Is it a Catholic Bible? It sounds like it was influenced by replacement theology.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

I have a Bible with some titles and headlines in it, and for Isaiah 62 it says "The glory of the new covenant Church"

Yet I start reading it and its talking about Jerusalem. This is just ONE example of many.

You look at many Bible commentators like Matthew Henry and all these guys, they somehow make it about the Church, even when the word isnt mentioned AT ALL in the verses they are talking about.

Can someone explain to me, WHY do these men do it? Surely there must be atleast some biblical precedent for this? What gives? I made this topic as I dont want to call these people nuts before I find out their reasoning and I thought maybe some of you could help, if you share a similar outlook on interpreting the Bible.

"Covenant Theology denies the distinction between the nation of Israel and the church."



There is your answer as to "why" they do this.








[to be clear, I personally do not hold to "Covenant Theology"]

 

[Slimsumo]

"Covenant Theology denies the distinction between the nation of Israel and the church."



There is your answer as to "why" they do this.








[to be clear, I personally do not hold to "Covenant Theology"]

Okay, I get it. But do you know WHY they just seem to change the whole reading of the passage? WHY do it?

 

[DRobinson]

Commentaries are just opinions and most are wrong.
I avoid them when I want to know the truth.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Can someone explain to me, WHY do these men do it? Surely there must be atleast some biblical precedent for this? What gives?

There is no biblical precedent for replacing Israel with the Church. But what happened long ago is that Augustine and others decided to make Israel irrelevant and replace it with the Church.

The Catholic Church adopted this false idea, and when the Reformers came out of that church, they failed to reject it and interpret Scripture properly. These commentators all adopted the same idea because they were following the Reformers. They also went along with Calvinistic teaching.

So you will simply have to ignore this, and take the Bible for what it says. Those OT prophecies are about a future redeemed and restored Israel and Jerusalem.

 

[tourist]

Commentaries are just opinions and most are wrong.
I avoid them when I want to know the truth.

Me too.