I know this is a highly regarded work. What I’d like to know is if I would be more satisfied with a good multi-volume commentary or this which includes a unique translation. Is the commentary mainly on the translation? What I would like is a good commentary but Barnes and Noble has a great price on this which would be an economical solution and I have gift certificates for them. (My relatives don’t know how to buy one from Amazon but I’m thankful to have these.)

I found a page on F.F. Bruce:
Frederick Fyvie Bruce

This includes a lot of PDF files. Especially interesting to me right now is the wisdom literature since we’re studying Ecclesiastes in our small group. Be sure to notice there are other pages for later sections of his life.

I’m considering these:

• The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament) by F.F. Bruce
• The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary) by David G. Peterson
• Acts (The NIV Application Commentary) by Ajith Fernando

F.F. Bruce is tried and true. The Peterson is new and I’m having a hard time getting a feel for it from the reviews. I like the series having commentaries on John, Ephesians, James and the epistles of John. I have one NIVAC that I don’t really like but the one on Revelation by Keener is fantastic. The one on Acts is actually longer than the one by F.F. Bruce which is a good thing. The commentary by Fernando might give more of a non-Western perspective too. I can only afford one.

Any comments?

I like this succinct explanation of fearing God in Eaton’s commentary on Ecclesiastes:

The way of safety is to fear God. In the wisdom tradition the ‘fear’ of God is the awe and holy caution that arises from realization of the greatness of God: ‘Splendour… terrible… majesty… power… justice… righteousness… Therefore fear him.’ (Job 37:22-24)

–Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes pp. 122-123

Ecclesiastes 8:12-13
But even though a person sins a hundred times and still lives a long time, I know that those who fear God will be better off. 13 The wicked will not prosper, for they do not fear God. Their days will never grow long like the evening shadows.

and earlier he says:

…in the Lord’s Prayer … the twin truths that God is ‘Father’ but ‘in heaven’ guard against craven fear on the one hand and flippancy on the other.

pg.99

Ecclesiastes 5:7
Talk is cheap, like daydreams and other useless activities. Fear God instead.

If you like commentaries as I do, and you could only get a commentary on one Old Testament book other than Genesis or the wisdom literature, which one would it be and why if you care to take the time to tell.

I’m thinking Isaiah or Jeremiah and I’m leaning toward Jeremiah because there are many questions I have about it.

Also, if you would insist on recommending Psalms or Proverbs, please let me know what one(s) you like.

I have Genesis and Ecclesiastes covered and I know I want commentaries on Psalms and Proverbs. With a low budget I’m trying to decide what other one I’d eventually like to get. I think the Treasury of David is very good for the Psalms and it’s free.

There is a real sense in which the book of Ecclesiastes, then and now, is pre-evangelism. It disrupts the comfortable existence of people who are thinking that they are moving toward a meaningful and satisfying existence outside of Christ. The writer says, “I have been there; I have done that. I did it better and to a higher degree. I rose higher, I massed more, I built more than you will ever dream of doing, and I found it to be nothing more than a chasing after wind. It is all ultimately meaningless; trust me.” He says the meaning is in God, but he does not know how to explain that further. We do, because Christ has become man. Christ has become flesh, and we can turn people away from the vain pursuits that will lead them ultimately to depression and despair and say, “There is real meaning, but it is not going to be down that pathway.”

–Dr. V. Philips Long, Psalms & Wisdom Literature, Covenant Theological Seminary

Although God commanding war isn’t something I really struggle with to the point of shaking my faith, even though it seems extremely unfair to us and the thought of violent loss of life is extremely bothersome, I found this article very helpful.
How Could God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?

Edited: 9/26/09 for clarity

Matthew 4:19 NIV
“Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”

Matthew 4:19 France
He said to them, “Come and follow me, and I will send you out to fish for people.”

This famous verse is one of the most difficult in the NT to translate satisfactorily in a way which reflects modern sensitivity to the ‘exclusive’ effect of a generic masculine. Not only has the traditional masculine phrase ‘fishers of men’ become firmly entrenched in Christian usage, but any nonmasculine rendering also loses the echo (in English, not in Greek) of the preceding clause, ‘for they were fishermen.’ Nevertheless, the attempt must be made if we are to avoid the sort of misunderstanding which reputedly caused Fishing for Men (a paperback on evangelism) to be listed among recent publications in the Angling Times, while a young woman of my acquaintance was disappointed to discover that the same paperback was not a guide to dating. Simply to add ‘and women’ invites the response, ‘What about children?’ I adopt the TNIV rendering as the least unsatisfactory.

–R.T. France, Matthew, footnote on pg 144

Matthew 5:22-24 TNIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca, ‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you,
24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to that person; then come and offer your gift.

The ‘brother or sister’ (adelphos) of vv. 22-24 is probably to be understood as a fellow disciple rather than a literal family member, a similar concern with good relationships among fellow disciples will be the theme of the fourth discource in ch. 18, where the term adelphos will recur in Matthew 18:15, 21, 35; cf. Matthew 12:46-50 for the concept of Jesus’ ‘family’ of disciples. It would, however, be pedantic to suggest that Jesus’ ruling applies only to relations with fellow disciples and not to people in general; Matthew 5:44-47 suggest otherwise.

–R.T. France, Matthew, pg 200

When I read commentaries I often wonder if the commentator sometimes goes too far in analyzing what the Biblical author was saying and the form and structure they were supposedly using to say it.

I always keep in mind the idea below. It was nice to see it articulated in this way as I read it a few days ago. I like the part at the end about amazing its author.

There is a sense that any analysis of any book of the Bible is an imposition. The biblical writers did not use headings and sub-headings, let alone chapters and verses. They present their material with no modern aids. Presumably, however, they knew what they wanted to say, and, evidently, did not write in a totally random manner. By all means let us seek to illumine the main shape of their argument. but let us constantly beware of the danger of imposing on any book a rigid pattern that would amaze its author.

–Michael A. Eaton, Ecclesiastes

I’ve been having a difficult time the last few days and especially today. I like this post that I put on another blog and thought I’d post it here.

I sense that people often feel a need to be right and one way to exercise this is to give advice to those who are suffering so that they can fix them. Then if they get better they can feel good about how they were right. Two problems with this is that it makes the sufferer feel like they are seen as not as smart as those who don’t suffer as much because much of the “advice” is already known by the sufferer and in fact the sufferer usually knows much more about the subject than the person giving the advice! People don’t always suffer because of lack of knowledge.  It also shows that we can forget that although we can help each other, God is ultimately the who heals, who decides a person’s fate and who is always right.

From Still Higher For His Highest by Oswald Chambers
January 20

Temperamental-the way a man looks at life. My temperament is an inner disposition which influences my thoughts and actions to a certain extent, i.e., I am either pessimistic or optimistic according to the way my blood circulates. It is an insult to take the temperamental line in dealing with human beings-”Cheer up, look on the bright side”; there are some types of suffering before which the only thing you can do is to keep your mouth shut. There are times when a man needs to be handled by God, not by his fellow men, and part of the gift of a man’s wisdom is to know how to be reverent with what he does not understand.

Job 2:13
Then they sat on the ground with him for seven days and seven nights. No one said a word to him, because they saw how great his suffering was.

I think Oswald Chambers had a good knowledge of what I call “real psychology” as opposed to our typical psycho-babble. (That’s not the main topic of his devotionals though.) D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones is another one who was ahead of his time in this regard.

Revelation 3:15-17 NIV
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16 So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

I was always slightly puzzled by what these verses mean but never really looked into it until I read about it in Craig Keener’s commentary on Revelation.

Regarding verse 15, although it may be well known to most of my readers, who are generally more well educated in things Bible than I, Jesus is referring to the water temperature and quality or lack thereof in Laodicea, the church He is addressing here.

Keener writes:

Laodicea lacked its own water supply, having no direct access to the cold water of the mountains or the hot water of the nearby springs in Hierapolis to the north. In contrast to its claims to self-sufficiency (Rev. 3:17), it had to pipe in its water; though much of the aqueduct from the south was underground, nearer the city it came through stone barrel pipes, thus remaining vulnerable to any intended besiegers who wished to cut off the city’s water supply. More important, this water had grown lukewarm by the time of its arrival.

Other sources speak more about how displeasing this water was.

NLT Study Bible:

neither hot nor cold: The hot springs in Hierapolis were famous for their healing qualities. Colosse was equally famous for its cold, refreshing springs. In contrast, the water available in Laodicea was smelly and lukewarm. Such water is distasteful; Jesus was saying that the church’s indecisive commitment to him was revolting.

ESV Study Bible:

The waters of the nearby Lycus River were muddy and undrinkable, and the waters flowing by aqueduct from hot springs 5 miles (8 km) away were lukewarm when they reached Laodicea. Likewise, Jesus found his church’s tepid indifference repugnant. Cold and hot water represent something positive, for cold water refreshes in the heat, and hot water is a tonic when one is chilly.

So in mentioning the hot and cold water Jesus wasn’t speaking to their spiritual zeal or lack. And it doesn’t make sense that Jesus would rather they be spiritually cold than lukewarm. He’s not saying, “Pick a side, any side, as long as you commit to something.” Or that He would rather we be willfully cold towards Him as a way of showing some sort of truthful integrity if we aren’t very thrilled about how we feel about God at the moment.

What Jesus is saying is much more shocking. As Keener puts it,

In today’s English, he is telling the self-satisfied church in Laodicea: ‘I want water that will refresh me, but you remind me instead of the water you always complain about. You make me want to puke.’

The Laodiceans, who prided themselves on their wealth and self-sufficiency (Rev. 3:17) didn’t even have water that tasted good and Jesus used this to illustrate their spiritual self sufficiency and pride, and how He felt about it.

I was wondering if puke was a little overboard.

Thayer: to vomit, vomit forth, throw up, i. e. to reject with extreme disgust,

Louw-Nida: Since a term meaning ‘to vomit’ often carries somewhat vulgar connotations, ἐμέω in Re 3.16 has frequently been translated as ‘to spit out of my mouth.’ It is also possible to interpret ‘to vomit out of the mouth’ as an idiom meaning ‘to reject.’

It seems to me that a disservice is done when translations water this down (no pun intended). Most popular translations use spit. Among those that I looked at, the HCSB, LITV, Mounce Sr. (Interlinear), NET, NKJV, The Message and WEB use vomit. The Geneva Bible and King James use spewe and spue. (I think they were ahead of their time.)

Further reading:
The Letter to the Church in Laodicea at Ligonier Ministries

The late Alan Cole, in the introduction to his commentary on Mark has a section about women. I’d like to outline what he says and start off with a quote he writes at the end of the section, which is just as true today as when he wrote it.

[W]omen take their natural place as followers of Jesus alongside men, with no special comment, in this the first story of Jesus* and his earliest disciples. Mark is sometimes described as a ‘primitive’ gospel, but this attitude shows true Christian maturity and naturalness of approach, to which it is hard to feel that we have attained today, in spite of all our artificial striving for it. Perhaps the simplicity of the Spirit brings more balance than all the complicated theological argument on either side, with their ’special pleading’, that we so often hear today.

* meaning “the earliest Christian gospel”

• Jesus had a close group of women followers, several of whom are named in Mark — Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James and Joses, and Salome, for instance (Mark 15:40; 15:47; 16:1).
• A young girl, daughter of Jairus, raised from the dead, is the first recorded miracle that Jesus performed (Mark 5:23). She was addressed as ‘talitha’, ‘child’ (Mark 5:41). The girl’s mother was called in to witness her resurrection along with her father which shows a “thoughtfulness and consideration for women rarely seen in the ancient world.”
• On the way to the house of Jairus Jesus healed a woman of a long-standing hemorrhage. She was addressed as ‘daughter’ (Mark 5:34); also signifying she was saved and forgiven her sins. Her faith is singled out for praise by Jesus (Mark 5:34). Mark records these as matter of fact without comment.
• Jesus was identified as ‘Mary’s son’.
• Jesus saw women and men equally as God’s creation (Mark 10:6) and demanded that women, as much as men, should be protected in marriage, disagreeing with the Pharisees interpretation of the law of Moses regarding divorce (Mark 10:11).
• Jesus rebuked the disciples when they tried to deny mothers from bringing their children to Him for a blessing.
• Jesus saw the giving up of sisters, mother or wife as great a sacrifice for the kingdom as giving up brothers or father (Mark 10:29).
• Jesus seemed to have special concern for mothers with young children who would be living during the trials of the end times (Mark 13:17).
• A woman anointed Jesus’ head with costly perfume at a meal that took place at Simon the leper’s house (Mark 14:3). “Wherever the Good News is preached throughout the world, this woman’s deed will be remembered and discussed.” (Mark 14:9)
• The women disciples stayed and watched Jesus while He was on the cross (and some say women are emotionally weaker?).
• Women disciples were witnesses to both his death and resurrection even though Jewish law wouldn’t accept the testimony of women as evidence.

Addendum: Coincidentally, there have been quite a few posts on women’s issues lately. I just want to be clear in that this post isn’t in response to any of them. I just happened to have this in the hopper for a while. I will say though that in his actions and words, Jesus was a feminist as far as advocating equality for women without needing to explicitly say so, as Mark demonstrates. It should be obvious.

Photo © Jeff at Scripture Zealot

I noticed a few interesting points in this portion of the Gospel of Mark. There are ironically more details in Mark’s usually concise account of events.

Mark 11:11 HCSB
And He went into Jerusalem and into the temple complex. After looking around at everything, since it was already late, He went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

If he was angry at this point, Jesus held it until the next day. He didn’t just burst on the scene and start driving people out in a sudden fit of rage.

Mark 11:15-17 HCSB
They came to Jerusalem, and He went into the temple complex and began to throw out those buying and selling in the temple. He overturned the money changers’ tables and the chairs of those selling doves, 16 and would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple complex. 17 Then He began to teach them: “Is it not written, My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations? But you have made it a den of thieves!”

This wasn’t a political or revolutionary act but it was a demonstration of Jesus’ wrath (Rev. 6:16)–his anger at using His house for pilfering and even using it as a shortcut for those who lived nearby (“would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts”)! As always, He is perfectly sane even though “He is not a tame lion” as C.S. Lewis said of Aslan and which our culture often betrays.

It’s also interesting that he used this as an opportunity to teach (v. 17). He didn’t just ransack the place and then storm out of there.

R. Alan Cole in his commentary on Mark states:

The Greek verb edidasken, taught (i.e. ‘continued teaching’), implies a deliberate teaching programme adopted by Jesus rather than a casual pronouncement, uttered in the heat of anger, amid the justification for his action, as any rabbi would. The Scripture quoted by him is Isaiah 56:7, telling how foreign proselytes will one day be welcomed to the temple. It is noteworthy that Jesus here quotes only the clause in Isaiah about prayer, and omits that about offering sacrifice, for he himself was soon to be the sacrifice that would unite Jew and non-Jew in one (John 11:51-52).

Since I’m a fan of commentaries and they are a staple in my book collection I was glad to read this:

When the wonder of the gospel breaks into your life, you feel as though you are the first person to discover its power and glory. Where has Christ been hidden all these years? He seems so fresh,
so new, so full of grace. Then comes a second discovery—it is you who have been blind, but now you have experienced exactly the same as countless others before you. You compare notes. Sure enough, you are not the first! Thankfully you will not be the last.

Discovering a Key

If my own experience is anything by which to judge, discovering Romans can be a similar experience.

I still remember, as a Christian teenager, the slow dawning of this thought in my mind: all Scripture is God-breathed and useful to me, but it also seems to have a shape and structure, a center and circumference. If that is so, then some biblical books may be foundational; these should be mastered first.

Then came the realization that (alongside systematic theologies) biblical commentaries must be the foundation of my book collection.

–In Christ Alone, by Sinclair B. Ferguson

The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation by Craig Keener

I liked this commentary so much I thought I’d write a mini-review with some information about Craig Keener and type out some of the quotes I liked.

Craig Keener is someone who has an extraordinary passion for the Bible and a very high view of Scripture and God’s sovereignty. He’s an excellent exegete influenced by Gordon Fee and nearly as objective in his interpretation.

He’s also lived in dangerous urban environments where his life has been threatened and he knows what it is to be persecuted, as much as can be in the U.S. and he writes briefly about some of these experiences as they relate to the book of Revelation.

If you’d like to learn more about him you can read Fridays with Craig Keener at Word and Spirit, a series of eight interviews (in reverse order here).

Here is a brief video where Craig S. Keener tells the story behind the NIVAC Revelation commentary. He writes about this in the preface of the commentary.

My exposure to Revelation has been reading through it a few times, participating in a group Bible study on it which I have almost no recollection of and reading about bits of it here and there in various books. I wanted a commentary that was substantial, but not a large technical tome such as Aune or Beale. The only other NIVAC commentary I have is the one on Luke and I was a little disappointed in it as a commentary. It’s a great book on the life and teachings of Jesus, but many questions weren’t addressed. So I was reluctant to try another one but this didn’t disappoint at all. It seemed to be tailor made for someone like me.

In the commentary portion Keener addresses nearly all of the text of Revelation succinctly but fully. I never felt that there was a portion that was glossed over without addressing it.

In the Bridging Contexts sections he often writes about common gross misinterpretations, interpretations throughout history and how the passage relates to other parts of Scripture among other things which is extremely helpful.

Some may think it difficult to write about how the whole book of Revelation is relevant to us today but Keener does this with ease in the Contemporary Significance sections.

Here are some of my favorite quotes.

The necessity of remaining faithful until the end (Revelation 2:26) fits historic Calvinist and Arminian belief: The former argue that those who fall away were never converted, whereas the latter argue that they have lost their salvation–but both concur that they will not be saved. Verses such and this one and countless others, however, may prove uncomfortable to those who think that merely praying a prayer without truly persevering in Christian faith is adequate for salvation.

One [also] wonders how Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or others would feel about some who in their name privilege theological traditions above firsthand study of Scripture itself.

…not a single text supports addressing the devil as if he were omnipresent, during prayer. [On spiritual warfare, rebuking the devil etc. Revelation 12:7-9]

More quotes to come in future posts.

Buy it from:

• Amazon.com

This is news to me:
High-quality, FREE commentaries at Word and Spirit

They’re basic, but might serve as a good resource when another commentary needs to be consulted.

God So Loved the World, Part 1

 at:

Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or you will become as foolish as they are.
5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools,
or they will become wise in their own estimation.

Do these contradict each other?

Here is an entry from Adam Clarke’s commentary:

On this and the following verse Bishop Warburton, who has written well on many things, and very indifferently on the doctrine of grace, has written with force and perspicuity: “Had this advice been given simply, and without circumstance, to answer the fool, and not to answer him, one who had reverence for the text would satisfy himself in supposing that the different directions referred to the doing a thing in and out of season;

1. The reasons given why a fool should not be answered according to his folly, is, “lest he (the answerer) should be like unto him.”
2. The reason given why the fool should be answered according to his folly, is, “lest he (the fool) should be wise in his own conceit.”

1. “The cause assigned for forbidding to answer, therefore, plainly insinuates that the defender of religion should not imitate the insulter of it in his modes of disputation, which may be comprised in sophistry, buffoonery, and scurrility.
2. “The cause assigned for directing to answer, as plainly intimates that the sage should address himself to confute the fool upon his own false principles, by showing that they lead to conclusions very wide from, very opposite to, those impieties he would deduce from them. If any thing can allay the fool’s vanity, and prevent his being wise in his own conceit, it must be the dishonor of having his own principles turned against himself, and shown to be destructive of his own conclusions.” – Treatise on Grace. Preface.

Gary Zimmerli wrote about why he won’t be changing to the NLT.

I would like to write a little bit of an extended comment as a post of my own here. I agree with Gary and am just going to add some quotes from a commentary.

Please read his post but if you’re pressed for time I’d like to reproduce part of it here:
——
Well, I guess I like the NLT well enough. It’s certainly easy to read. But I want to let you all know that there’s one thing about it that gives me pause. Take a look at Romans 6:1-4 in the NLT:

1 Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? 2 Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3 Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death? 4 For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives. (emphasis mine)

Notice those bolded words. They may not bother a Baptist or Church of Christ member, but they bother me as a Methodist, and they should bother us all who are interested that the Bible be translated accurately. And I think this is one place where the NLT translators missed the mark.

Let’s take a look at the same passage in a more literal translation. I’m using the NASB for comparison, but this is true of all the more literal translations including the TNIV:

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (emphasis mine)

Do you see the difference? The point of this passage isn’t water baptism at all.
——
At first I didn’t see the problem because I just assumed that the NLT translators were using different wording to say the same thing.

When I looked at the note in the NLT Study Bible note I saw that I was wrong:

Baptism is the rite of initiation into the Christian faith (see “Baptism” at Acts 2:38, 41). It sometimes symbolizes the entire conversion experience, so Paul refers to baptism as the means through which believers are joined to Christ in his death and resurrection (see also 6:4). However, baptism has no value apart from faith.

The link to “Baptism” goes to a page talking about the ritual of baptism.

In his post on The NLT and the Language of Atonement, Rick Mansfield mentions that the translators of Romans for the NLT are Gerald Borchert, Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner.

I have a commentary on Romans by Thomas Schreiner. I think part of the reason I assumed the NLT’s rendering of baptism couldn’t be water baptism is because I read the whole commentary less than two years ago and must have had it in the back of my mind that he believes this isn’t referring to sacramental baptism but baptism at conversion. (I realize that some believe they are one in the same.)

In looking up his commentary on this, he even quotes Douglas Moo, his fellow translator.

The reference to baptism has been understood sacramentally, meaning that baptism itself communicates the power to overcome sin. Verse 3 links dying with Christ and baptism, while burial with Christ is said to occur ‘through baptism’ in verse 4. A sacramental understanding is flawed because it emphasizes baptism rather than the historic and definitive death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Moo 1991: 380-81). Paul’s main concern in this text is not baptism; it is never mentioned again after verse 4. What animates the discussion is the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection for believers. But does not Paul say that Christ’s death becomes effective for believers διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος? The issue here is how strictly one should interpret the prepositional phrase. I would suggest that later theological formulations have led many to read the phrase in a sacramental fashion. Paul’s intention in introducing baptism is not to emphasize ‘how we were buried with Christ, but to demonstrate that we were buried with Christ’ (Moo 1991: 381).

I don’t want to go on too long.

So according to Schreiner we may be putting too much emphasis on baptism, but it still begs the question as to why the NLT is worded in that way including what the study note says unless I’m understanding this all wrong.

That’s about all I have to contribute. Discuss amongst yourselves if you’d like.

I’d love to hear what Rick Mansfield’s take on this is and even more, the NLT people but I don’t want to impose on them. It may shed some light on understanding how various people understand this passage.

Here is what a couple of dead people have to say.

John Calvin:

That the mode of baptism,immersion, is intimated by ‘buried,’ has been thought by most, by [Chrysostom], [Augustine], [Hammond], [Pareus], [Mede], [Grotius], [Doddridge], [Chalmers], and others; while some, such as [Scott], [Stuart], and [Hodge], do not consider this as necessarily intended, the word ‘buried’ having been adopted to express more fully what is meant by being ‘dead,’ and there being another word, ‘planted,’ used to convey the same idea, which cannot be applied to the rite of baptism.
‘Buried with him,’ means buried like him, or in like manner; and so ‘crucified with him,’ in Rom 6:6, is the same: συν prefixed to verbs, has clearly this meaning. See Rom 8:17; Col 3:1; 2 Tim 2:11. ‘Into death’ is not to be connected with ‘planted,’ but with ‘baptism,’ it was ‘a baptism into death,’ that is, which represented death, even death unto sin.

Adam Clarke:

I say it is probable that the apostle alludes to this mode of immersion; but it is not absolutely certain that he does so, as some do imagine; for, in the next verse, our being incorporated into Christ by baptism is also denoted by our being planted, or rather, grafted together in the likeness of his death; and Noah’s ark floating upon the water, and sprinkled by the rain from heaven, is a figure corresponding to baptism, 1 Peter 3:20, 1 Peter 3:21; but neither of these gives us the same idea of the outward form as burying. We must be careful, therefore, not to lay too much stress on such circumstances.

Hopefully I can finally put together a post of some substance even if I’m relying on commentaries and not writing a whole lot of anything original.

1 Corinthians 10:27-30 ESV
If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience– 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

Verse 27 is pretty clear. We know that all the earth is the Lord’s as the previous verse says (1 Corinthians 10:26), along with Psalm 24:1, and that this person is not participating in a pagan ritual as Paul prohibits in 1 Corinthians 8:10-13 (so as not to cause others to stumble) and 1 Corinthians 10:20-22. Romans 14:20-21 would be another related passage.

Verses 28 and 29 can be difficult. First of all, for some reason I always assumed that “But if anyone says to you,” is the person who is hosting the dinner. But this isn’t necessarily the case. It could be anyone attending or watching, whether a believer or not.

The ESV Study Bible notes give three possible scenarios:

1 Cor. 10:28 someone says. This person may be: (1) an unbeliever who erroneously thinks that Christians must abstain from such food and is confronting a believer with a test of faith; (2) an unbeliever who thinks Christians abstain from such food and, in good faith, wants the Christian to know where it came from; or (3) a “weak” believer whose conscience erroneously dictates that Christians should avoid such food (1 Corinthians 8:10; see also Romans 14:14, Romans 14:20–21). Since the person’s conscience motivated the comment, and the weak believer’s conscience was an important concern in 1 Cor. 8:7–13, this last option is most likely.

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, David Garland writes,

The case is hypothetical, and there is no need to identify or to untangle the motives of the informer. Most likely the host proclaims his intentions about the food, but it could be ‘anyone’ who makes such an announcement. The declaration makes clear that the meal’s atmosphere is distinguished by an act of idolatrous piety.

The NLT translation alone puts an interesting spin on this by its use of parenthesis:

27If someone who isn’t a believer asks you home for dinner, accept the invitation if you want to. Eat whatever is offered to you without raising questions of conscience. 28(But suppose someone tells you, “This meat was offered to an idol.” Don’t eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you. 29It might not be a matter of conscience for you, but it is for the other person.) For why should my freedom be limited by what someone else thinks? 30If I can thank God for the food and enjoy it, why should I be condemned for eating it?

The NLT Study Bible mentions a parallel verse of Luke 10:8 “If you enter a town and it welcomes you, eat whatever is set before you.”

The NLTSB offers a comment on the use of parenthesis:

1 Corinthians 10:29-30
These two questions are difficult to understand in light of 10:28-29a. By placing 10:28-29a in parentheses, the NLT has interpreted these questions as expressing Paul’s own convictions, following on from 10:27.

Garland notes that 10:28-29a is a parenthetic interruption and cites Craig 1953: 120; Bruce 1971: 100-101; Blomberg 1994: 203; Hays 1997: 177-178; and Newton 1998: 377. So this seems to have some good support among scholars.

The notes offer a simpler perspective than the ESVSB:

1 Corinthians 10:27-29
When Christians are invited for a meal with an unbeliever, the Christians are free to eat what is set before them unless warned that the meat has been offered to an idol. In that case, the Christian should refrain from eating it out of consideration for the conscience of the other person, who might misinterpret it or be hurt by believing that such eating honors the god to whom the meat has been sacrificed (see 1 Corinthians 8:7, 1 Corinthians 9-10; cp. Romans 14:13-15, Romans 14:20-23).

Garland sums up the idea well with which I believe we can draw contemporary application.

Christians may assume that all is well and need not become sleuths trying to detect if the food has idolatrous connections. Instead, they may depend on the pagan’s own pronouncement, ‘This is sacred food.’ When Christians find themselves in this situation, they must abstain from eating that food lest they be drawn into idolatry.

Regarding verse 30 Garland sums it up by saying,

Why should anyone denounce such behavior by a Christian who genuinely give thanks for his food and has no intentional connection with idolatry?

And David Prior in his commentary on 1 Corinthians writes,

In other words the apostle says, ‘I do not make up my mind on things on the basis of what others think; but I am prepared to do what others believe to be right if that will ensure that their edification is not impeded.’

As always, comments welcome.