The Commentary says that no offerings or sacrifices was held because there was no alter. If that was so, then why do the scripture say so and the people were given a loaf of bread, meat and wine after the sacrifice?
It is likely that Matthew Henry, of the 18th Century, was vaguely referring to a much later time well after the event at the beginning of chapter 16, which was held in a tent in Jerusalem, also called the City of David. A bit after that event, another shrine/altar (spelt with two A) was constructed in Gibeon (see verse 39). Usually, Reverend Henry gave very good good commentaries, but like most commentators they aren't also the rare few talented writers who understand the effect of words on the audience. Henry confused the readers. Anyway, it's good that you read the commentary before asking your question because correct answers are sometimes in such
It is likely that Matthew Henry, of the 18th Century, was vaguely referring to a much later time well after the event at the beginning of chapter 16, which was held in a tent in Jerusalem, also called the City of David. A bit after that event, another shrine/altar (spelt with two A) was constructed in Gibeon (see verse 39). Usually, Reverend Henry gave very good good commentaries, but like most commentators they aren't also the rare few talented writers who understand the effect of words on the audience. Henry confused the readers. Anyway, it's good that you read the commentary before asking your question because correct answers are sometimes in such
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?