6<\/strong>. Compare the laws, Exo 22:26<\/span>; Deu 24:10<\/span>. The “naked” are those poorly clad. See Job’s reply to this, ch. Job 31:19<\/span>.<\/p>\n For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought – <\/B>The only evidence which Eliphaz seems to have had of this was, that this was a heinous sin, and that as Job seemed to be severely punished, it was to be inferred that he must have committed some such sin as this. No way of treating an unfortunate and a suffering man could be more unkind. A pledge is that which is given by a debtor to a creditor, for security for the payment of a debt, and would be, of course, that which was regardcd as of value. Garments, which constituted a considerable part of the wealth of the Orientals, would usually be the pledge which would be given. With us, in such cases, watches, jewelry, notes, mortgages, are given as collateral security, or as pledges. The law of Moses required, that when a man took the garment of his neighbor for a pledge, it should be restored by the time the sun went down, Exo 22:26-27<\/span>. The crime here charged on Job was, that he had exacted a pledge from another where there was no just claim to it; that is, where no debt had been contracted, where a debt; had been paid, or where the security was far beyond the value of the debt. The injustice of such a course would be obvious. It would deprive the man of the use of the property which was pledged, and it gave him to whom it was pledged an opportunity of doing wrong, as he might retain it, or dispose of it, and the real owner see it no more.<\/P> And stripped the naked of their clothing – <\/B>Margin, clothes of the naked. That is, of those who were poorly clad, or who were nearly destitute of clothes. The word naked is often used in this sense in the Scriptures; see the notes at Joh 21:7<\/span>. The meaning here is, that Job had taken away by oppression even the garments of the poor in order to enrich himself.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. Thou hast taken a pledge<\/B><\/I>] Thou hast been vexatious in all thy doings, and hast exacted where nothing was due, so that through thee the poor have been unable to procure their necessary clothing.<\/P> <\/p>\n For thou hast taken, <\/B>or, surely thou hast taken<\/I>. He speaks thus by way of conjecture, or strong presumption. When I consider thy grievous and unusual calamities, I justly conclude thou art guilty of all or some of these following crimes; and do thou search thine own conscience, whether it be not so with thee. <\/P> From thy brother, <\/B>i.e. either of thy neighbour, or of thy kinsman; which are both called by the name of brother<\/I>. This is added to aggravate the offence. <\/P> For nought, <\/B>i.e. without sufficient and justifiable cause; which he might do many ways; either by taking what he ought not to take, Deu 24:6<\/span>; or from whom he ought not, to wit, the poor, to whom he should give Pro 3:27<\/span> or when and in such manner as he ought not, of which See Poole “Deu 24:10<\/span>“, See Poole “Deu 24:11<\/span>“; or by keeping it longer than he should, as when the poor mans necessity requires it, or when the debt is satisfied, Eze 18:16<\/span>. <\/P> Stripped the naked of their clothing; <\/B>either by taking their garment for a pledge, against the law, Exo 22:26<\/span>; or otherwise by robbing them of their rights, all other injuries being synecdochically comprehended under this. <\/P> Quest.<\/B> How could he strip the naked? <\/P> Answ. <\/B>He calls them naked<\/I>, either, <\/P> 1. Because they had but very few and mean clothes, such being oft called naked, as Deu 28:48<\/span>; 1Co 14:11<\/span>; Jam 2:15<\/span>. Or, <\/P> 2. From the effect, because though he did not find them naked, yet he made them so. The like phrases we have Isa 47:2<\/span>, grind meal<\/I>, i.e. by grinding corn make it meal; Amo 8:5<\/span>, falsifying the deceitful balances<\/I>, i.e. by falsifying making true balances deceitful. And so here, to strip the naked<\/I>, is by stripping them to make them naked. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6.<\/B> The crimes alleged, on aharsh inference, by Eliphaz against Job are such as he would thinklikely to be committed by a rich man. The Mosaic law (Exo 22:26<\/span>;Deu 24:10<\/span>) subsequently embodiedthe feeling that existed among the godly in Job’s time againstoppression of debtors as to their pledges. Here the case is not quitethe same; Job is charged with taking a pledge where he had no justclaim to it;<\/I> and in the second clause, that pledge (the outergarment which served the poor as a covering by day and a bed bynight) is represented as taken from one who had not “changes ofraiment” (a common constituent of wealth in the East), but waspoorly clad”naked” (Mat 25:36<\/span>;Jas 2:15<\/span>); a sin the more heinousin a rich man like Job.<\/P><\/p>\n For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought<\/strong>,…. It can hardly be thought that it was for nothing at all, on no consideration whatever, or that nothing was lent, for which the pledge was taken; but that it was a small trifling sum, and comparatively nothing, not to be spoken of; or it was borrowed for so short a time, that there needed not any pledge it; and it was unkind to take it, especially of a brother, whether in nature, or in religion, whether a near kinsman, or friend, or neighbour. Some render the words, “thou hast taken thy brother”, or “brothers, for a pledge” p; them themselves, their persons, as a security for what was lent, in order to sell them, and pay off the debt with the money, or detain them as bondmen till it was paid, 2Ki 4:1<\/span>. If Eliphaz said this, and what follows, only as conjectures, as some think, or upon supposition, concluding from his afflictions that those things, or something like them, had been done by him; it is contrary to that charity that thinks no ill, and hopes the best; and if they are positive assertions of matters of fact, as they rather seem to be, delivered upon hearsay, and slender proof, it shows a readiness to receive calumnies and false accusations against his friend, and can scarcely be excused from the charge of bearing false testimony against him, since Job does in the most solemn manner deny those things in Job 31:1<\/span>;<\/p>\n and stripped the naked of their clothing<\/strong>; not such as were stark naked, because they have no clothes to be stripped of; but such that were poorly clothed, scarce sufficient to cover their nakedness, and preserve them from the inclemencies of weather; these were stripped of their clothing, and being stripped, were quite naked and exposed, which to do was very cruel and hardhearted; perhaps it may respect the same persons from whom the pledge was taken, and that pledge was their clothing, which was no uncommon thing, see Ex 22:26<\/span>.<\/p>\n p , Sept. “capies in pignus fratres tuos”, Montanus.<\/p>\n 6 For thou distrainedst thy brother without cause,<\/p>\n And the clothes of the naked thou strippedst off.<\/p>\n 7 Thou gavest no water to the languishing,<\/p>\n And thou refusedst bread to the hungry.<\/p>\n 8 And the man of the arm-the land was his,<\/p>\n And the honourable man dwelt therein.<\/p>\n 9 Thou sentest widows away empty,<\/p>\n And the arms of the orphan are broken.<\/p>\n The reason of exceeding great suffering most be exceeding great sins. Job must have committed such sins as are here cited; therefore Eliphaz directly attributes guilt to him, since he thinks thus to tear down the disguise of the hypocrite. The strophe contains no reference to the Mosaic law: the compassionate Mosaic laws respecting duties towards widows and orphans, and the poor who pledge their few and indispensable goods, may have passed before the poet’s mind; but it is not safe to infer it from the expression. As specific Mohammedan commandments among the wandering tribes even in the present day have no sound, so the poet dare not assume, in connection with the characters of his drama, any knowledge, of the Sinaitic law; and of this he remains conscious throughout: their standpoint is and remains that of the Abrahamic faith, the primary commands (later called the ten commands of piety, el – felahh <\/em>) of which were amply sufficient for stigmatizing that to which this strophe gives prominence as sin. It is only the force of the connection of the matter here which gives the futt.<\/em> which follow a retrospective meaning. is connected either with the accusative of the thing for which the pledge is taken, as in the law, which meets a response in the heart, Exo 22:25<\/span>.; or with the accus. of the person who is seized, as here ; or, if this is really (as Br asserts) a mistake that has gained a footing, which has Codd. and old printed editions against it, rather . lxx, Targ., Syr., and Jer. read the word as plural. (from ), like , Jam 2:15<\/span>, nudi <\/em> (comp. Seneca, de beneficiis,<\/em> v. 13: si quis male vestitum et pannosum videt, nudum se vidisse dicit <\/em>), are, according to our mode of expression, the half-naked, only scantily (vid., Isa 20:2<\/span>) clothed.<\/p>\n Job 22:8<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The man of the arm, , is in Eliphaz’ mind Job himself. He has by degrees acquired the territory far and wide for himself, by having brought down the rightful possessors by open violence (Job 20:19<\/span>), or even by cunning and unfeeling practices, and is not deterred by any threat of a curse (Job 15:28<\/span>): , he looked upon it as his, and his it must become; and since with his possessions his authority increased, he planted himself firmly in it, filled it out alone, like a stout fellow who takes the room of all others away. Umbr., Hahn, and others think Job’s partiality for power and rank is described in Job 22:8<\/span>; but both assertions read straightforward, without any intimation of co-operation. The address is here only suspended, in order to describe the man as he was and is. The all-absorbing love of self regulated his dealings. In possession of the highest power and highest rank, he was not easy of access. Widows and orphans, that they might not perish, were obliged to turn suppliantly to him. But the widows he chased away with empty hands, and the arms of the orphans were crushed. From the address a turn is also here taken to an objective utterance turned from the person addressed, intended however for him; the construction is like , unleavened bread is eaten, Exo 13:7<\/span>, according to Ew. 295, b<\/em>. The arms are not conceived of as stretched out for help (which would rather be ), nor as demanding back their perverted right, but the crushing of the arms, as Psa 37:17<\/span>; Eze 30:22<\/span>, and frequently implies a total destruction of every power, support, and help, after the analogy of the Arabic phrase compared by Ges. in his Thes<\/em>. pp. 268 b<\/em>, 433 b<\/em>. The arm, (Arab. dira ,<\/em> oftener adud <\/em> or said <\/em>), signifies power, Job 40:9<\/span>, Psa 57:1-11<\/span>:16; force and violence, Job 22:8<\/span>, Job 35:9<\/span>; self-help, and help from without, Psa 83:9<\/span> (comp. Psa 44:4<\/span>). Whatever the orphans possessed of goods, honour, and help still available, is not merely broken, it is beaten into fragments.<\/p>\n 2. Specific sins charged against Job, and their consequences (Job. 22:6-11<\/span>)<\/p>\n TEXT 22:611<\/p>\n 6 For thou hast taken pledges of thy brother for nought,<\/strong><\/p>\n And stripped the naked of their clothing.<\/strong><\/p>\n 7 Thou hast not given water to the weary to drink,<\/strong><\/p>\n And thou hast withholden bread from the hungry.<\/strong><\/p>\n 8 But as for the mighty man, he had the earth;<\/strong><\/p>\n And the honorable man, he dwelt in it.<\/strong><\/p>\n 9 Thou hast sent widows away empty,<\/strong><\/p>\n And the arms of the fatherless have been broken.<\/strong><\/p>\n 10 Therefore snares are round about thee,<\/strong><\/p>\n And sudden fear troubleth thee,<\/strong><\/p>\n 11 Or darkness, so that thou canst not see,<\/strong><\/p>\n And abundance of waters cover thee.<\/strong><\/p>\n COMMENT 22:611<\/p>\n Job. 22:6<\/span><\/strong>Eliphaz begins analysis of specific sinsJob. 22:6-11<\/span>. Hebrew law required that if a poor man gave his undergarment in pledge for a given transaction, that the creditor must return it by sundown, so the debtor would have at least this covering to protect him against the chill of the nightExo. 22:26<\/span>; Deu. 24:10-13<\/span>; Amo. 2:8<\/span>; Eze. 18:12<\/span>. Here Eliphaz charges that Job in his greed has stripped the poor debtors and reduced them to nakedness (strongly denied in Job. 31:19-22<\/span>). Where is the evidence for this charge? Does he bring some mistreated poor to witness against JobGal. 6:1<\/span>?<\/p>\n Job. 22:7<\/span><\/strong>Eliphaz continues to confront Job with the violation of the standard list of social crimes which the wealthy and powerful could commit with impunity. The next accusation hurled against Job is that he has neglected basic hospitality to the poorIsa. 58:7<\/span>; Isa. 58:10<\/span>; Jobs response is Job. 31:16<\/span> ff. The charge is more serious than mere neglect; he is charged with calloused indifference to even the minimal needs of the poorMat. 25:35<\/span>; Mat. 25:42<\/span>. The adjective weary is used of the thirstyIsa. 29:8<\/span>; Jer. 31:25<\/span>; and Pro. 25:15<\/span>. Then, as now, piety demands social expression. There can be no private piety.<\/p>\n Job. 22:8<\/span><\/strong>Job is identified as a man of arm,[243] i.e., a person of wealth and rank. Here we read of an oblique reference to Job as a land-grabberIsa. 5:8<\/span>. He is also described as the favored man (lit. lifted of faceIsa. 3:3<\/span>), i.e., on the basis of his wealth.<\/p>\n [243] See M. Pope, JBL, 1966, p. 529, for analysis of R. Gordis claim that the verse is a quotation. See R. Gordis, The Book of God and Man, The Use of Quotations in Job, chapter 13, pp. 169189.<\/p>\n Job. 22:9<\/span><\/strong>Supposedly, Job has sent widows away empty handed. He also crushed the arms of orphans. To exploit defenseless orphans or widows was a most heinous crimeDeu. 27:19<\/span>; Jer. 7:6<\/span>; Jer. 22:3<\/span>. Job responds to these charges in Job. 29:12<\/span> ff and Job. 31:16<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n Job. 22:10<\/span><\/strong><\/strong>What Bildad (Job. 18:8-11<\/span>; Job. 19:6<\/span>) has earlier predicted of the ungodly in general, Eliphaz here specifically applies to Job. In retribution for his sinful acts, God spreads snares or traps all around Job. Terrified with sudden dread, Job falls into the traps with paralyzing fright. The snares are proof of Jobs evil deeds, according to Eliphaz.<\/p>\n Job. 22:11<\/span><\/strong>Job, do you not understand the true cause of your troubles?in contrast with Isa. 58:10-11<\/span>. The crushing misfortunes are metaphorically expressed by blinding darkness and destructive floods. The second line in this verse is verbatim found in Job. 38:34<\/span> b. Water and darkness are figures for the perils of death and SheolPsa. 69:2-3<\/span>; Job. 9:31<\/span> a.<\/p>\n (6) Thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother.<\/strong>These specific charges, false as they were, show the depth to which Eliphaz had sunk.<\/p>\n b. <\/strong> Since it must be that Job has committed sin, it naturally occurs to Eliphaz to charge upon him those sins which the best of the rich men of his day were guilty of committing. His own logical conclusions he coins into proofs positive of Job’s guilt<\/em>, Job 22:6-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> In his portraiture of the wicked, Zophar had insinuated (Job 20:19<\/span>) what Eliphaz, to our surprise, now boldly charges against Job. The sins he attributes to Job are those generally ascribed to wicked men of wealth hard-heartedness, covetousness, and extortion. Eliphaz infers from the punishment the character of crimes Job must have committed. Personal abuse, the last resort of a failing cause, is the first public sign the friends display of their approaching discomfiture. (See Job’s noble reply, Job 29:11-16<\/span>.) The mantle of charity that we may throw over Eliphaz is, that he had long brooded over his suspicions until they assumed shape and at last substance. <\/p>\n Pledge naught <\/strong> There was a twofold aggravation of his guilt; that he should require a pledge from a brother, and that without cause. <\/em> Job “is represented as extorting pledges without having lent.” Michaelis. <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n The naked of their clothing <\/strong> Literally, And strippedst off the clothes of the naked. <\/em> Seneca tells us that one poorly clad and in rags was said to be naked. <\/em> (Jas 2:15<\/span>.) Michaelis says, (“Laws of Moses,” 2:303,) “From the analogy of his (Moses’s) law of pledge, it is probable that the necessary pieces of clothing were not permitted to be seized and stripped from off the person of the debtor, as might be done by merciless creditors among the neighbouring nations, for he even commands the creditor (Exo 22:26-27<\/span>) who had taken in pledge his poor neighbour’s upper garment (which was a large square piece of cloth that was wrapped about the body by day, and served as a coverlet by night) to restore it again before sunset.” Origen remarks that he is a robber who does not clothe the naked. See Freeman’s “Hand-Book,” 261.<\/p>\n Job 22:6<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>For thou hast taken a pledge<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> See chap. Job 24:7<\/span>. Who that sees this ranked among the greatest enormities, says Bishop Warbuton, but will reflect that it must have been written by one studied in the law of Moses; which says, If thou at all take thy neighbour’s raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down, <\/em>&c. But was this practice of taking a pledge peculiar to the Israelites? or rather, was it not absolutely necessary in those early times, before they had the use of money, at least in any great plenty? See on chap. Job 42:11<\/span>. Now, when all commerce was in a manner transacted without money, and chiefly by an exchange of one commodity for another, the taking of a pledge must of necessity happen very frequently: a proper exchange not being to be had. This, therefore, would make the custom as common in Arabia as in Judea; and I conceive that any hard usage to the poor in this way was as much to be condemned in the one country as in the other. See Peters. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Job 22:6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n Ver. 6. For thou hast taken a pledge, &c.<\/strong> ] Bona verba, quaeso,<\/em> I seek good words, Eliphaz. How well might Job have cried out, as David afterwards did, Psa 35:11<\/span> , “False witnesses rose up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.” Here he stands accused, 1. Of inhumanity and cruelty; 2. Of irreligion and impiety. But he fully cleareth himself of both, Job 30:1-31<\/span> ; Job 31:1-40 Athanasius in like sort was falsely accused of adultery in the Council of Tyre, A. D. 343; Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, was injuriously deprived for the same cause, about the latter end of Constantine the Great; adultery, heresy, and treason were objected to Archbishop Cranmer; parricide to Mr Philpot; sedition to father Latimer; to which he answereth, As for sedition, for aught that I know, methinks I should not need Christ, if I might so say.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n For nought<\/strong> ] Or unconscionably, as one rendereth it; and herein lay the fault. See Deu 24:6<\/span> ; Deu 24:10<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And stripped the naked of their clothing<\/strong> ] If naked, how could he strip them, skin them, as the word signifieth? Chrysostom useth this proverb, Nudus nec a centum viris spoliatur,<\/em> He that is naked cannot be stripped by a hundred men. We also have a proverb, Where nothing can be had the king must lose his right. And again, <\/p>\n He is like to get little<\/p>\n Who robbeth a spital.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In the late German wars, the Crabats, at Altroff, a university, plundered the scholars, and put poor genus and species to their ransom (Life of the King of Sweden). Micah inveigheth against such cannibal princes, as plucked the skin from the flesh, and the flesh from the bones of the poor oppressed, Mic 3:2-3<\/span> . See Trapp on “<\/em> Mic 3:2 “<\/em> see Trapp on “<\/em> Mic 3:3 “<\/em> That which Eliphaz here chargeth Job with, but without truth, is, that he stripped off the clothing of the naked; that is, that, finding them poor enough, he left them yet poorer, hardly having a rag to hang on their backs, through his extortion.<\/p>\n stripped the naked. Figure of speech Oxymoron. App-6. <\/p>\n the naked = the poorly clad, or threadbare. <\/p>\n For thou: Job 24:3, Job 24:9, Exo 22:26, Deu 24:10-18, Eze 18:7, Eze 18:12, Eze 18:16, Amo 2:8 <\/p>\n stripped: etc. Heb. stripped the clothes of the naked, Job 24:10, Job 31:19, Job 31:20 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 1:17 – ye shall hear Deu 24:12 – General Job 13:4 – ye are forgers Job 20:19 – Because Job 24:7 – the naked Job 36:4 – my Eze 33:15 – restore Hab 2:6 – that increaseth Joh 21:7 – naked Rom 8:33 – Who 1Co 4:11 – and are naked Jam 2:13 – he<\/p>\n Job 22:6. For thou hast taken a pledge Or, surely thou hast taken. He speaks thus, by way of conjecture, or strong presumption: as if he had said, When I consider thy grievous and unusual calamities, I justly conclude thou art guilty of some, or all, of these following crimes; and do thou search thy own conscience whether it be not so with thee. From thy brother Of thy neighbour, or of thy kinsman; for naught Without a sufficient and justifiable cause. And stripped the naked of their clothing By taking their garments for a pledge, and thereby rendering them naked; or, by robbing them of their rights, all other injuries being comprehended under this.<\/p>\n 22:6 For thou hast taken a {c} pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.<\/p>\n (c) You have been cruel and without charity, and would do nothing for the poor, but for your own advantage.<\/p>\n Job’s social sins 22:6-11<\/span><\/p>\n Job 22:8 probably reflects what Eliphaz thought Job’s attitude was. Eliphaz implied that Job arrogantly believed the strong, respected man of the world, not the godly man, is the one who controls others and dominates those around him. [Note: Gordis, p. 180.] <\/span> Were Eliphaz’s accusations valid? Were these sins Job had really committed? Job denied them in Job 31:16-22.<\/p>\n For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for naught, and stripped the naked of their clothing. 6. Compare the laws, Exo 22:26; Deu 24:10. The “naked” are those poorly clad. See Job’s reply to this, ch. Job 31:19. Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges For thou hast taken a pledge from … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 22:6”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"