19<\/strong>. The prophet no more expected harm from his kindred than does the pet lamb from the family with which it lives (cp. 2Sa 12:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n gentle<\/em> ] A.V. “an ox” represents the Hebrew word identical in form indeed with one so rendered in Psa 144:14<\/span> (where, however, the sense is dubious), but here the meaning is familiar<\/em>, domesticated (cp. the rendering “companion” in Psa 55:13<\/span>). It is rendered “friends” in Jer 13:21<\/span>.<\/p>\n fruit<\/em> ] mg. Heb. bread<\/em>. So the LXX read, but it is tempting to omit (with Hitzig, and Dr.) one Hebrew consonant, and so obtain the much needed improvement “sap.” Thus we shall get the meaning to be, not the words which came from Jeremiah, as fruit from a tree, but his vigorous youth.<\/p>\n Like a lamb or an ox – <\/B>Rather, like a tame lamb. Jeremiah had lived at Anathoth as one of the family, never suspecting that, like a tame lamb, the time would come for him to be killed.<\/P> The tree with the fruit thereof – <\/B>The words are those of a proverb or dark saying. All the Churches agree in understanding that under the person of Jeremiah these things are said by Christ.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 19<\/span>. I<\/B><\/I> was <\/B>like a lamb<\/B><\/I> or <\/B>an ox<\/B><\/I>] Dahler<\/I> translates, “I was like a fattened lamb that is led to the slaughter.” Blayney<\/I>, “I was like a tame lamb that is led to slaughter.” The word alluph<\/I>, which we translate ox<\/I>, is taken by both as an adjective<\/I>, qualifying the noun kebes, a lamb<\/I>. It may probably signify a lamb brought up in the house-fed at home, ( alluph<\/I>,) instructed or nourished at home; perfectly innocent and unsuspecting, while leading to the slaughter. This meaning the word will bear in Arabic<\/I>, for [Arabic] alaf<\/I> signifies accustomed,<\/I> familiar<\/I>, (to or with any person or thing;) a companion<\/I>, a comrade<\/I>, an intimate friend<\/I>. I therefore think that kechebes alluph<\/I> signifies, like the familiar lamb<\/I> – the lamb bred<\/I> up in the house<\/I>, in a state of friendship<\/I> with the family. The people of Anathoth were Jeremiah’s townsmen<\/I>; he was born<\/I> and bred<\/I> among them; they were his familiar friends<\/I>; and now they lay wait for his life! All the Versions<\/I> understood alluph<\/I> as an epithet of kebes<\/I>, a chosen, simple, innocent<\/I> lamb.<\/P> <\/P> Let us destroy the tree with the fruit<\/B><\/I>] Let us slay the prophet, and his prophecies will come to an end. The Targum<\/I> has, Let us put<\/I> mortal poison in his food<\/I>; and all the Versions understand it something in the same way.<\/P> <\/p>\n We have no other mention of this conspiracy in holy writ, but it is plain, both from this verse and what followeth to the end of this chapter, that the men of Anathoth (which was Jeremiahs own town) were offended at his prophesying so sharp things against the land of Judah, and had threatened to kill him if he would not leave off that style, and had conspired to that purpose, some think to mix poison with his meat, others by starving of him, others think by beating of him, into which variety of sense they interpret that phrase in this verse, <\/P> Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof; but the sense is plain, Let us not only put an end to his prophesying, but to his being also; <\/P> let us cut him off some way or other, <\/P> that his name may no more be remembered. Of this the prophet saith he was as ignorant as an ox or a lamb that is brought to the slaughter-house, that knoweth nothing what design is against its life. <\/P> <\/p>\n 19. lamb<\/B>literally, a “petlamb,” such as the Jews often had in their houses, for theirchildren to play with; and the Arabs still have (2Sa12:3<\/span>). His own familiar<\/I> friends had plotted against theprophet. The language is exactly the same as that applied to Messiah(Isa 53:7<\/span>). Each prophet andpatriarch exemplified in his own person some one feature or more inthe manifold attributes and sufferings of the Messiah to come; justas the saints have done since His coming (Gal 2:20<\/span>;Phi 3:10<\/span>; Col 1:24<\/span>).This adapted both the more experimentally to testify of Christ. <\/P> devices<\/B> (Jer18:18<\/span>). <\/P> tree with . . .fruit<\/B>literally, “in its fruit” or “food,”that is, when it is in fruit. Proverbial, to express the destructionof cause and effect together. The man is the tree; his teaching, thefruit. Let us destroy the prophet and his prophecies; namely, thosethreatening destruction to the nation, which offended them. CompareMt 7:17<\/span>, which also refers toprophets<\/I> and their doctrines.<\/I><\/P><\/p>\n But I was like a lamb, or an ox<\/strong>,…. The word “alluph”, rendered an ox, is by many considered as an adjective to the word lamb n; since the disjunctive particle or is not in the next; and is differently translated; by the Vulgate Latin version, “as a meek or tame lamb”; by the Septuagint and Arabic versions, “as an harmless lamb”: and by the Syriac version, “as a pure” or “clean lamb”; and by the Targum,<\/p>\n “as a choice lamb;”<\/p>\n and so R. Menachem in Jarchi, a large or principal one; but the words respect not the excellency, the meekness, patience, innocence, and harmlessness of the prophet; but his security and insensibility of danger, like one or both of these creatures:<\/p>\n that is brought to the slaughter<\/strong>; to be sacrificed by the priest, or killed by the butcher; not knowing but it is going to the pasture to feed in, or to the fold or stall to lie down in; so ignorant was the prophet of the designs of his townsmen against him, and not at all jealous that they wished him ill; since he meant none to them, but sought their good:<\/p>\n and I knew not that they had devised devices against me<\/strong>; that they had met and consulted together, and devised mischief against him:<\/p>\n saying, let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof<\/strong>; meaning either the prophet and his family, root and branch; or him and his prophecies; for taking away his life would put an end to his prophesying. Some think this respects the manner in which they proposed to take away his life, as by poison; so the Targum,<\/p>\n “let us cast (put) poison (or the savour of death) into his food;”<\/p>\n for the word rendered fruit signifies bread; and so the Septuagint, Arabic, and Vulgate Latin versions render it, “let us cast, or put wood into his bread” o; either some poisonous plant or tree, or rotten wood; or give him wood instead of bread, and so starve him. De Dieu observes, that , translated “fruit”, signifies, both in the Hebrew and Arabic languages, “flesh”; and renders it, “let us break wood upon his flesh”, p or body; that is, beat him with staves till they are broken upon him, and so kill him. The ancient fathers understand this of Christ, who is the bread of life, and of his crucifixion upon the wood of the cross. Jerom says it is the consent of all the churches that these things are said of Christ in the person of Jeremiah, even in this and the preceding verse, and the following one:<\/p>\n let us cut him off from the land of the living<\/strong>. The Targum explains it of the land of Israel; but it designs the world in general, and the taking away of his life out of it, and from among men:<\/p>\n that his name may be remembered no more<\/strong>; that he and his prophecies may be buried in everlasting oblivion; he no more spoken of, and his predictions no more regarded: but, as they failed in the former in taking away his life, he outliving many of them, so in the latter; for as what he foretold exactly came to pass, his name and his prophesying are in remembrance to this day; and, as the wise man says, “the memory of the just is blessed”, Pr 10:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n n “quasi agnus mansuetus”, V. L. “agnus assuefactus”; so some in De Dieu; “tanquam agnus amicabilis”, De Dieu; “un agneau aimable”, Gallic version. o “mittamus lignum in panem ejus”, V. L. “corrumpamus veneno cibum”, Pagninus; “corrumpamus lignum in pane ejus”, Montanus, Vatablus, Calvin. p “Rumpamus lignum in earnem ejus”, De Dieu.<\/p>\n The Prophet adds here, as I think, that he did not retaliate private wrongs: for the Jews might, under this pretext, have rejected his doctrine, and have said, that he was moved by anger to treat them sharply and severely. And doubtless, whosoever allows his own reelings to prevail in the least degree, cannot teach in sincerity; for he who prepares himself for the prophetic office, ought to put off all the affections of the flesh, and to manifest a pure, and, so to speak, a limpid zeal, and also a calm mind, so that he may seek nothing, and have no object but the glory of God and the salvation of those to whom he is sent a teacher. Whosoever then is under the influence of private feelings cannot act otherwise than violently, so that he cannot either faithfully or profitably discharge the office of a prophet or a teacher. <\/p>\n Hence the Prophet now adds, in the second place, that he did not plead his own cause, nor had respect, as they say, to his own person; for he knew not what the Jews had devised against him. They who join the two verses think that they have some reason for doing so, as they suppose that the Prophet now expresses more fully what he had before briefly touched upon: but if any maturely considers the whole passage, he will easily see that Jeremiah had another object in view, and that was, to secure authority to his doctrine. The Jews probably employed two ways to discredit the holy Prophet: “O, thou divinest! — the same thing, as we have said, is done now by many.” He therefore summons the Jews here before God’s tribunal, and shews that it was nothing strange, that he brought to light what they thought to be hidden, because it had been revealed to him by the Spirit of God. Even Christ said the same, <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n The Spirit, when he comes, shall judge the world.” (Joh 16:8<\/span>) <\/p>\n The Spirit did not appear except in the doctrine of the Apostles; but he exercised by the Apostles his own functions. The Apostle also seems to have this in view in Heb 4:12<\/span>, when he says, that the word of God is like a two — edged sword, which penetrates into the inmost thoughts and hidden feelings, even to the marrow and bones, so as to distinguish between thoughts and feelings. <\/p>\n Then the Prophet, in the first place, shews that it was nothing strange that he ascended above all human judgments, for he was endued with the authority of the Holy Spirit. And he adds, in the second place, that he was not influenced by carnal feelings, but by a pure zeal for God, for he knew not their wicked designs; and he says that he was like a lamb and an ox, or a calf. There is here no conjunction, and hence some join the two words, “And I am like a lamb a year old:” for the Hebrews, they say, call a lamb a year old כבש, cabesh, and then a ram; but this is, in my view, a forced meaning, and a copulative or a disjunctive may be supposed to be understood. I am then as a lamb or as a calf, which is led to the slaughter (to be sacrificed or kined) Here the Prophet intimates that he was not violent, as angry men are wont to be, who are excited either by indignation or great grief. He then testifies that he was moved by no such feeling, for he differed nothing from a lamb or a calf that is led to the slaughter. (49) <\/p>\n For the sake of amplifying, he adds, I knew not that they devised devices against me, that is, this did not come to my mind. The Prophet, indeed, might have suspected or even have known this; but as he disregarded himself, and even his own life, he testifies here that he had acted with so much simplicity as not to regard what they planned and contrived. <\/p>\n He then adds, Let us spoil wood in his bread They think rightly, according to my judgment, who consider that there is here a change of case; for it ought rather to be, “Let us spoil with wood his bread:” for that exposition is too unmeaning, “Let us spoil or destroy wood,” as though they spoke of a thing of no value: for what has this to do with the subject? On the contrary, if we retain, as they say, the letter, the Prophet might think that wood would be spoiled in bread, as it would become rotten: but wood in bread, except by becoming rotten, would do no harm. But doubtless the Prophet speaks here metaphorically, as David does in Psa 69:22<\/span>, when he says, <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n They have put gall in my bread, and vinegar in my drink.” <\/p>\n Jeremiah also, in Lam 3:15<\/span>, complains that his food was mingled with poison. Similitudes of this kind often occur; for when the very food of man is corrupted, there is no more any support for life. The meaning then is, that his enemies had acted cruelly towards the Prophet, as they sought in every way to destroy him, even by poison. <\/p>\n Some take wood for poison, but I know not whether that can be done. They indeed imagine that a poisonous wood is what is here meant; but this is too refined. I take the meaning to be simply this, as though they had said, “Let us spoil with wood his food,” that is, “Let us give him wood instead of bread; and this, by its hardness, will hurt his teeth, ulcerate his throat, and cannot be digested so as to become nourishment.” To spoil this bread with wood is to cause the wood to spoil the food either by its hardness or by its putridity. In this sense there is nothing ambiguous. <\/p>\n The ancients perverted this passage in the most childish manner when they applied it to the body of Christ. The Papists too, at this day, boast wonderfully of this allegory, though they make the most absurd use of it; for they seek to prove by it that bread is converted, or, as they say, transubstantiated into the body of Christ; and they quote Origen and Irenaeus, and others like them: “Behold, explained is that passage of Jeremiah, let us send wood for his bread, (such is the meaning of the Vulgate) for the body of Christ has been crucified;” and then they add, “For he said, ‘Take and eat, this is my body.’”We see how extremely absurd this is; and it must appear ridiculous even to children. But so great is the dishonesty and wantonness of the Papists, that they cast off all shame, and only boastfully pretend the authority of the ancients; and whatever Origen may have foolishly and falsely said, they will have it to be regarded as something oracular, provided their errors are thereby confirmed. But if we grant that the Prophet was a type of Christ, what has this to do with the similitude of his body, since he speaks here only of food? It is as though he had said, that his aliment was corrupted, as it were, with poison, and that he was so cruelly treated by his enemies, that they sought to destroy him by the means of his food. (50) <\/p>\n It then follows, Let us cut him off from the land of the living This kind of speaking often occurs: the land or region of the living means the state of the present life. He at last adds, That his name may not be in remembrance any more In short, the Prophet meant in these words to set forth the extreme savageness with which his enemies were inflamed; for they were not content with intrigues or with open violence, but wished to destroy him by poison, and wholly to obliterate his name. it follows — <\/p>\n (49) All the early versions, and the Targum render אלוף as a participle or an adjective, — “ ἄκακον, innocent,” by the Septuagint; “ mansuetus, meek,” by the Vulgate; simple, by the Syriac; and choice or chosen by the Targum. The word used as a verb means to teach, to train, to guide; and it seems here to be a passive participle, taught, trained, and may be rendered here docile, meek or innocent, — <\/p>\n But I — as a meek lamb led to be killed was I And I knew not, that against me they had devised devices. <\/p>\n The Septuagint render the last words “they have thought an evil thought,” and, “I knew not,” is connected with the former line thus, — <\/p>\n But I, as an innocent lamb led to be slain, I knew not: Against me have they thought an evil thought. <\/p>\n But the construction in the other versions, and in the Targum, is according to the former rendering. — Ed. <\/p>\n (50) But the best meaning is that given by the Syriac, and has been adopted in our version, and by Gataker, Venema, Henry, Horsley, Scott, and Adam Clarke, — “Let us destroy the tree with its fruit;” that is, the Prophet and his prophecy. “In this case,” says Horsley, “the man is the tree; his doctrine the fruit.” But there seems to be an allusion in the words to “the olive” mentioned in Jer 11:16<\/span>, which was threatened with destruction: and Jeremiah’s enemies, adopting his simile, by way of irony apply it to himself: “Well, thou comparest us to an olive devoted to ruin; we shall now deal with thee accordingly: thou art a tree, and we shall cut thee down and destroy thee and all the fruit thou bearest.” <\/p>\n The whole verse I would render as follows, — <\/p>\n 19. And I — as a meek lamb led to be killed was I And I knew not that against me they had devised these devices: — “Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, Yea, let us cut him down from the land of the living; And his name, let it be remembered no more.” <\/p>\n —<\/p>\n Ed. <\/p>\n (19) <\/em>Like a lamb or an ox.<\/strong>Better, as a tame lamb, i.e., <\/em>one, like the ewe-lamb of Nathans parable (2Sa. 12:3<\/span>), brought up in the home of its master. There is no or in the Hebrew, and the translators seem to have mistaken the adjective (tame) for a noun. The LXX., Vulg., and Luther agree in the rendering now given. Assuming the earlier date of Isa. 53:7<\/span>, the words would seem to have been an allusive reference to the sufferer there described.<\/p>\n The tree with the fruit thereof.<\/strong>Literally, the tree with its bread, <\/em>here taken for its fruit. Some scholars, however, render the word sap, or adopt a <\/strong>reading which gives that meaning. The phrase would seem to be proverbial for total destruction, not of the man only, but of his work. While the prophets life had been innocent and unsuspecting, his own townsmen were conspiring to crush him, and bury his name and work in oblivion. The sufferings of the prophet present, in this matter, a parallel to those of the Christ (Luk. 4:29<\/span>).<\/p>\n 19<\/strong>. <\/strong> Like a lamb or an ox <\/strong> Rather, as a tame lamb<\/em>. Such as is frequently found in Arab tents. The comparison is most felicitous, as suggesting innocence and harmlessness. <\/p>\n Tree with the fruit <\/strong> Literally, tree in its bread.<\/p>\n Jer 11:19 But I [was] like a lamb [or] an ox [that] is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.<\/p>\n Ver. 19. But I was like a lamb or an ox.<\/strong> ] Harmless and blameless, busied in my function, and not in the least suspecting any such evil design against me. “I send you forth as lambs among wolves,” saith Christ, Mat 10:16 who, himself being the Lamb of God, was slain from the beginning of the world; his servants also are slain all the day long, and counted as sheep to the slaughter. Rom 8:36 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof.<\/strong> ] Let us poison his food, so the Chaldee senseth it, Ponamus tignum taxi in sorbitiunculam.<\/em> Others, Let us destroy the prophet and his prophecies together: others, Let us make an end of him either by sword or by famine, as the punishment threatened Jer 11:22 pointeth us to. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n That his name may be no more remembered.<\/strong> ] Sic veritas odium peperit.<\/em> So the Papists have given order that wheresoever Calvin’s name is found, it shall be blotted out; and by a most malicious anagram they have turned Calvin into Lucian. One of them recently took a long journey to Rome only to have his name changed from Calvin to some other, and that out of devilish hatred of that most learned and holy man, <\/p>\n “ Ipsa a quo virtus virtutem discere posset.<\/em> ”<\/p>\n like a lamb. See App-85. <\/p>\n saying. Note the Figure of speech. Ellipsis (App-6), as frequently with this verb. See notes on Psa 109::5; Psa 109:6; Psa 144:12, &c.<\/p>\n the tree with the fruit thereof. Hebrew “the dish in his food”. Figure of speech Hypallage (App-6), for the food in his dish. <\/p>\n from the land of the living. Jeremiah a type of Christ. See Isa 53:8 and App-85. <\/p>\n I was: Pro 7:22, Isa 53:7 <\/p>\n and I: Jer 18:18, Jer 20:10, Psa 31:13, Psa 35:15, Psa 37:32, Psa 37:33, Isa 32:7, Mat 26:3, Mat 26:4 <\/p>\n destroy: “Let us kill the prophet, and burn his prophecies.” tree with the fruit. Heb. stalk with his bread. let us cut. Psa 83:4, Isa 53:8, Dan 9:26, Luk 20:10-15 <\/p>\n from: Job 28:13, Psa 27:13, Psa 52:5, Psa 116:9, Psa 142:5 <\/p>\n that his: Psa 109:13, Psa 112:6, Pro 10:7, Isa 38:11, Num 1:14 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Sa 23:9 – David 2Ch 24:21 – conspired Psa 21:11 – imagined Psa 35:20 – but Psa 64:2 – secret Pro 1:11 – let us lurk Pro 24:15 – Lay Jer 1:19 – And they Jer 9:6 – habitation Jer 11:18 – the Lord Jer 11:23 – no Jer 12:3 – the day Jer 12:6 – thy brethren Jer 18:11 – and devise Jer 26:8 – the priests Lam 3:59 – thou hast Lam 3:60 – General Eze 32:23 – the land Eze 33:30 – the children Hos 5:2 – profound Hos 6:8 – polluted with blood Zec 7:10 – imagine Mat 7:17 – every Luk 20:20 – they watched Act 8:32 – as a Act 23:12 – certain Rom 8:36 – as sheep 1Co 13:5 – thinketh<\/p>\n Jer 11:19. Jeremiah became the target for the shafts of persecution from the wicked people of the nation. By glancing ahead to verse 21 we can see that the foregoing statement is correct. This came immediately after the statement that God had revealed to him (Jeremiah) a knowledge of the wickedness of the people. That caused them to hale him and to persecute him almost to the extent of death. People have a dread of any man whom they know to have “inside information about their corrupt practices and they will conspire against him. But Jeremiah did not know this for a time, hence he went along from day to day not realizing the danger he was in. It is compared to the situation of an ox or a lamb that goes on toward the place of slaughter not realizing the danger ahead. The illustration of the olive tree is now transferred from the nation to the prophet, and the destruction which his enemies would bring on him was more complete than the Lord threatened to impose on the nation as an olive tree. He would break off the branches only while the prophets enemies would destroy both the tree and its fruit. Not only that, but they would wipe out all sign that such a tree had existed so that it would be forgotten.<\/p>\n 11:19 But I [was] like a lamb [or] an ox [that] is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised plots against me, [saying], Let us {o} destroy the tree with its fruit, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.<\/p>\n (o) Let us destroy the prophet and his doctrine. Some read “Let us corrupt his meat with wood”, meaning poison.<\/p>\n He had preached to the people without realizing that some of them were plotting his death. He was as unaware of their intention as a lamb going to its slaughter (cf. Isa 53:7; Act 8:32; 1Pe 2:21). They planned to get rid of him, the tree, as well as his messages, the fruit, so all memory of Jeremiah would end. [Note: Keil, 1:218, believed this was a proverbial or figurative saying.] <\/span> This would be a tragedy since the existence of descendants demonstrated God’s blessings on one’s life under the Old Covenant.<\/p>\n "It will be recalled that Anathoth was the home of the priestly house of Abiathar, a friend of David. The house was deposed by Solomon, who supplanted it with the house of Zadok. Anathothites resented Jeremiah’s favoring the deposition of the sanctuaries other than Jerusalem. This seemed to them like siding with Zadok against their own ancestor Abiathar. Furthermore, being priests, they doubtless hated his castigation of empty priestly ritual." [Note: Feinberg, p. 456.] <\/span><\/p>\n But I [was] like a lamb [or] an ox [that] is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 11:19”<\/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-19256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19256","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=19256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19256"}],"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: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/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: 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: Combined Bible Commentary<\/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":"