15<\/strong>. As for me<\/strong> Daniel<\/em>, my spirit<\/strong> was pained<\/strong> ] or distressed<\/strong>: in modern English we should not say ‘grieved’ in such a connexion.<\/p>\n in the midst of<\/em> the sheath<\/strong> ] or, with a change of punctuation, its sheath<\/strong>, fig. for the body, as the soul’s sheath<\/em>, or receptacle. The word is of Persian origin ( nidna<\/em>, ‘vessel,’ ‘receptacle’): it occurs once again in late Heb., 1Ch 21:27<\/span>, of the sheath of a sword; and (in the form lidneh<\/em> for nidneh<\/em>) several times in the Targums (e.g. Eze 21:8<\/span>) in the same sense. Levy quotes two passages from the later Jewish literature where it is used in the same application as here: Sanh<\/em>. 108 a ‘that their soul should not return to its sheath<\/em>,’ and B’rshith Rabb<\/em> 26 (p. 118 in Wnsche’s transl.) ‘in the hour (viz. of resurrection) when I bring back the spirit to its sheath, I do not bring back their spirits to their sheaths.’ The usage is nevertheless a singular one; and these two passages may be simply based upon this one of Daniel. The emendation on this account<\/em> ( for ) has been proposed (Weiss, Buhl, Marti); and LXX. ( ) may partly support it: it is, however, some objection to it that , though found in the Palest. Targums, does not otherwise occur in Biblical Aramaic [271] .<\/p>\n [271] Nestle would read simply ‘in my body’ ( , or ).<\/p>\n troubled<\/em> ] alarmed<\/strong> (Dan 4:5<\/span>). Visions of my head<\/em>, as Dan 7:1<\/em><\/span> and Dan 4:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 15 28<\/strong>. The explanation of the vision.<\/p>\n I Daniel was grieved in my spirit – <\/B>That is, I was troubled; or my heart was made heavy and sad. This was probably in part because he did not fully understand the meaning of the vision, and partly on account of the fearful and momentous nature of what was indicated by it. So the apostle John Rev 5:4<\/span> says, And I wept much because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book.<\/P> In the midst of my body – <\/B>Margin, as in the Chaldee, sheath. The body is undoubtedly referred to, and is so called as the envelope of the mind – or as that in which the soul is inserted, as the sword is in the sheath, and from which it is drawn out by death. The same metaphor is employed by Pliny: Donec cremato co inimici remeanti animae velut vaginam ademerint. So, too, a certain philosopher, who was slighted by Alexander the Great on account of his ugly face, is said to have replied, Corpus hominis nil est nisi vagina gladii in qua anima reconditur. – Gesenius. Compare Lengerke, in loc<\/I>. See also Job 27:8<\/span>, When God taketh away his soul; or rather draws out his soul, as a sword is drawn out of the sheath. Compare the note at that place. See also Buxtorfs Lexicon Tal. p. 1307. The meaning here is plain – that Daniel felt sad and troubled in mind, and that this produced a sensible effect on his body.<\/P> And the visions of my head troubled me – <\/B>The head is here regarded as the seat of the intellect, and he speaks of these visions as if they were seen by the head. That is, they seemed to pass before his eyes.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 15. I Daniel was grieved, &c.<\/B><\/I>] The words in the original are uncommonly emphatic. My spirit was grieved<\/I>, or sickened<\/I>, bego nidneh, within its sheath or scabbard<\/I>. Which I think proves,<\/P> 1. That the human spirit<\/I> is different from the body<\/I>.<\/P> 2. That it has a proper subsistence independently of the body, which is only its sheath<\/I> for a certain time.<\/P> 3. That the spirit may exist independently of its body, as the sword<\/I> does independently of its sheath<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n I was transported even to astonishment with the vision, it was so strange, surprising, and terrible to me. <\/P> <\/p>\n 15. body<\/B>literally, “sheath”:the body being the “sheath” of the soul.<\/P><\/p>\n I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body<\/strong>,…. Or “sheath” a; the soul being in the body as a sword in its scabbard; where it was “cut” b and pierced, as the word signifies; and was wounded, distressed, and grieved at the vision seen; not at the sight of the Son of man, and the glorious and everlasting kingdom given to him; but of the four beasts, and especially the last, and more particularly the little horn, and the look, and words, and actions of that, as well as the awful scene of judgment presented to his view:<\/p>\n and the visions of my head troubled me<\/strong>; the things he saw, which appeared to his fancy as real things, gave him a great deal of uneasiness, and chiefly because he did not understand the meaning of them; it was not so much the things themselves, as ignorance of them, that cut him to the heart, and grieved and troubled him; for what is more so to an inquisitive mind, that has got a hint of something great and useful to be known, but cannot as yet come to the knowledge of it?<\/p>\n a “in medio vaginae”, Montanus; “intra vaginam”, Munster, Vatablus. b “transfixus est”, Junius Tremellius, Polanus “succisus, [vel] excisus est”, Munster.<\/p>\n The interpretation of the vision<\/em>. – Dan 7:14<\/span> concludes the account of the contents of the vision, but not the vision itself. That continues to the end of the chapter. Dan 7:15<\/span>. The things which Daniel saw made a deep impression on his mind. His spirit was troubled within him; the sight filled him with terror. It was not the mystery of the images, nor the fact that all was not clear before his sight, that troubled and disquieted him; for Dan 7:28<\/span> shows that the disquietude did not subside when an angel explained the images he had seen. It was the things themselves as they passed in vision before him – the momentous events, the calamities which the people of God would have to endure till the time of the completion of the everlasting kingdom of God – which filled him with anxiety and terror. stands for the Hebr. , and is in apposition to the suffix in , for the suffix is repeated with emphasis by the pronoun, Dan 8:1<\/span>, Dan 8:15<\/span>; Ezr 7:21<\/span>, and more frequently also in the Hebr.; cf. Winer, Chald. Gram<\/em>. 40, 4; Ges. Hebr. Gram<\/em>. 121, 3. The emphatic bringing forward of the person of the prophet corresponds to the significance of the vision, which made so deep an impression on him; cf. also Dan 10:1<\/span>, Dan 10:7<\/span>; Dan 12:1-13<\/span>:15. In this there is no trace of anxiety on the part of the speaker to make known that he is Daniel, as Hitzig supposes. The figure here used, “ in the sheath<\/em> ” (E. V. “in the midst of my body”), by which the body is likened to a sheath for the soul, which as a sword in its sheath is concealed by it, is found also in Job 27:8<\/span>, and in the writings of the rabbis (cf. Buxt. Lex. talm. s.v.<\/em>). It is used also by Pliny, vii. 52. On “ visions of my head<\/em>,” cf. Dan 7:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dan 7:16<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Daniel turned himself towards an angel who stood by, with a request for an explanation of these things. One of them that stood by<\/em> refers to those mentioned in Dan 7:10<\/span>, who stood around the throne of God; whence it is obvious that the vision is still continued. is not the preterite, I asked him<\/em>, but the subjunctive, that<\/em> ( ) I might ask<\/em>. So also is to be taken with the going before: he spake to me, that he informed me<\/em>, namely by his speaking.<\/p>\n Dan 7:17-19<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In Dan 7:17-27<\/span> the angel gives the wished-for explanation. In Dan 7:17<\/span> and Dan 7:18<\/span> he gives first a general interpretation of the vision. The words, these great beasts<\/em>, of which there were four, form an absolute nominal clause: “as for the beasts;” as concerning their meaning, it is this: “they represent four kings.” The kings are named as founders and representatives of world-kingdoms. Four kingdoms are meant, as Dan 7:23<\/span> shows, where the fourth beast is explained as , “dominion,” “kingdom.” Compare also Dan 8:20<\/span> and Dan 8:21<\/span>, where in like manner kings are named and kingdoms are meant. From the future ( shall arise<\/em>) Hitzig concludes that the first kingdom was yet future, and therefore, that since Daniel had the vision under Belshazzar, the first king could only be Belshazzar, but could not represent the Chaldean monarchy. But if from the words shall arise<\/em> it follows that the vision is only of kings who arise in the future, then, since Daniel saw the vision in the first year of Belshazzar, it cannot of course be Belshazzar who is represented by the first beast; and if Belshazzar was, as Hitzig thinks, the last king of Chaldea, than the entire Chaldean monarchy is excluded from the number of the four great beasts. Kranichfeld therefore understands this word as modal, and interprets it should arise<\/em>. This was the divine decree by which also the duration of their kingdoms was determined (Dan 7:12<\/span>, Dan 7:25<\/span>). But the modal interpretation does not agree with Dan 7:16<\/span>, according to which the angel wishes to make known the meaning of the matter to Daniel, not to show what was determined in the divine counsel, but what God had revealed to him by the beasts rising up out of the sea. The future, shall arise<\/em>, is rather (Ros., v. Leng., Maur., Klief., etc.) for the purpose of declaring that the vision represents the development of the world-power as a whole, as it would unfold itself in four successive phases; whereupon the angel so summarily interprets the vision to the prophet, that, dating from the time of their origin, he points out the first world-kingdom as arising along with the rest, notwithstanding that it had already come into existence, and only its last stages were then future. The thought of this summary interpretation is manifestly nothing else than this: “Four kingdoms shall arise on the earth, and shall again disappear; but the saints of God shall receive the kingdom which shall have an everlasting duration.” , receive<\/em>; not found and establish by their own might, but receive through the Son of man, to whom God (Dan 7:14<\/span>) has given it. (cf. Dan 7:22<\/span>, Dan 7:25<\/span>, Dan 7:27<\/span>) is the name of God, the Most High<\/em>, analogous to the plur. forms , . “The saints of the Most High,” or briefly “the saints” (Dan 7:21<\/span>, Dan 7:22<\/span>), are neither the Jews, who are accustomed to call themselves “saints,” in contrast with the heathen (v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig, etc.), nor the converted Israel of the millennium (Hofmann and other chiliasts), but, as we argue from Exo 19:6<\/span>; Deu 7:6<\/span>, the true members of the covenant nation, the New Testament Israel of God, i.e., the congregation of the New Covenant, consisting of Israel and the faithful of all nations; for the kingdom which God gives to the Son of man will, according to Dan 7:14<\/span>, comprehend those that are redeemed from among all the nations of the earth. The idea of the everlasting duration of their kingdom is, by the words ( for ever and ever<\/em>), raised to the superlative degree.<\/p>\n The angel does not here give further explanations regarding the first three kingdoms. Since the second chapter treats of them, and the eighth also gives further description of the second and third, it is enough here to state that the first three beasts represent those kingdoms that are mentioned in Daniel 2. The form of the fourth beast, however, comprehends much more regarding the fourth world-kingdom that the dream-image of Nebuchadnezzar did. Therefore Daniel asks the angel further for certain information (certainty) regarding the dreadful form of this beast, and consequently the principal outlines of the representation before given of it are repeated by him in Dan 7:19-21<\/span>, and are completed by certain circumstances there omitted. Thus Dan 7:19<\/span> presents the addition, that the beast had, along with iron teeth, also claws of brass, with which it stamped to pieces what it could not devour; and Dan 7:20<\/span>, that the little horn became greater than its fellows, made war against the people of God and overcame them, till the judgment brought its dominion to an end. , I wished or sure knowledge<\/em>, i.e., to experience certainty regarding it.<\/p>\n Dan 7:20<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In Dan 7:20<\/span>, from ( fell down<\/em>) the relative connection of the passage is broken, and the direct description is continued. ( and that horn<\/em>) is an absolute idea, which is then explained by the Vav<\/em> epexegetic. , the appearance which is presented, i.e., its aspect<\/em>. ( above his fellows<\/em>), for ( above the aspect of his fellows<\/em>), see under Dan 1:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dan 7:21<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> (without the article), although used in a definite sense of the saints already mentioned, appertains to the elevated solemn style of speech, in which also in the Hebr. The article is frequently wanting in definite names; cf. Ewald’s Lehrb<\/em>. 277.<\/p>\n Dan 7:22<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> As compared with Dan 7:13<\/span> and Dan 7:14<\/span>, this verse says nothing new regarding the judgment. For is not to be rendered, as Hengstenberg thinks ( Beitr<\/em>. i. p. 274), by a reference to 1Co 6:2<\/span>: “to the saints of the Most High the judgment is given,” i.e., the function of the judge. This interpretation is opposed to the context, according to which it is God Himself who executes judgment, and by that judgment justice is done to the people of God, i.e., they are delivered from the unrighteous oppression of the beast, and receive the kingdom. is justice<\/em> procured by the judgment, corresponding to the Hebrew word , Deu 10:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dan 7:23-24<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Daniel receives the following explanation regarding the fourth beast. It signifies a fourth kingdom, which would be different from all the preceding, and would eat up and destroy the whole earth. “The whole earth is the ,” the expression, without any hyperbole, for the “whole circle of the historical nations” (Kliefoth). The ten horns which the beast had signify ten kings who shall arise out of that kingdom. , from it, the kingdom<\/em>, i.e., from this very kingdom<\/em>. Since the ten horns all exist at the same time together on the head of the beast, the ten kings that arise out of the fourth kingdom are to be regarded as contemporary. In this manner the division or dismemberment of this kingdom into ten principalities or kingdoms is symbolized. For the ten contemporaneous kings imply the existence at the same time of ten kingdoms. Hitzig’s objections against this view are of no weight. That and are in this verse used as distinct from each other proves nothing, because in the whole vision king and kingdom are congruent ideas. But that the horn, Dan 7:8<\/span>, unmistakeably<\/em> denotes a person, is only so far right, as things are said of the horn which are in abstracto <\/em> not suitable to a kingdom, but they can only be applicable to the bearer of royal power. But Dan 8:20<\/span> and Dan 8:21<\/span>, to which Hitzig further refers, furnishes no foundation for his view, but on the contrary confutes it. For although in Dan 8:21<\/span> the great horn of the goat is interpreted as the first king of Javan, yet the four horns springing up immediately (Dan 8:22<\/span>) in the place of this one which was broken, are interpreted as four kingdoms (not kings), in distinct proof not only that in Daniel’s vision king and kingdom are not “separate from each other,” but also that the further assertion, that “horn” is less fitted than “head” to represent a kingdom, is untenable.<\/p>\n After those ten kingdoms another shall arise which shall be different from the previous ten, and shall overthrow three of them. , in contrast with (cf. Dan 2:21<\/span>), signifies to overthrow, to deprive of the sovereignty<\/em>. But the king coming after them can only overthrow three of the ten kingdoms when he himself has established and possesses a kingdom or empire of his own. According to this, the king arising after the ten is not an isolated ruler, but the monarch of a kingdom which has destroyed three of the kingdoms already in existence.<\/p>\n Dan 7:25<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Dan 7:25<\/span> refers to the same king, and says that he shall speak against the Most High. means, properly, against or at the side of<\/em>, and is more expressive than . It denotes that he would use language by which he would set God aside, regard and give himself out as God; cf. 2Th 2:4<\/span>. Making himself like God, he will destroy the saints of God. , Pa<\/em>., not “make unfortunate” (Hitzig), but consume, afflict, like the Hebr. , 1Ch 17:9<\/span>, and Targ. Jes. Dan 3:15<\/span>. These passages show that the assertion that , in the sense of to destroy, never takes after it the accusative of the person (Hitz.), is false. Finally, “he thinks to change times and laws.” “To change times” belongs to the all-perfect power of God (cf. Dan 2:21<\/span>), the creator and ordainer of times (Gen 1:14<\/span>). There is no ground for supposing that is to be specially understood of “festival or sacred times,” since the word, like the corresponding Hebr. , does not throughout signify merely “festival times;” cf. Gen 1:14<\/span>; Gen 17:21<\/span>; Gen 18:14<\/span>, etc. The annexed does not point to arrangements of divine worship, but denotes “law” or “ordinance” in general, human as well as divine law; cf. Dan 2:13<\/span>, Dan 2:15<\/span> with Dan 6:6<\/span>, Dan 6:9<\/span>. “Times and laws” are the foundations and main conditions, emanating from God, of the life and actions of men in the world. The sin of the king in placing himself with God, therefore, as Kliefoth rightly remarks, “consists in this, that in these ordinances he does not regard the fundamental conditions given by God, but so changes the laws of human life that he puts his own pleasure in the place of the divine arrangements.” Thus shall he do with the ordinances of life, not only of God’s people, but of all men. “But it is to be confessed that the people of God are most affected thereby, because they hold their ordinances of life most according to the divine plan; and therefore the otherwise general passage stands between two expressions affecting the conduct of the horn in its relation to the people of God.”<\/p>\n This tyranny God’s people will suffer “till, i.e., during, a time, (two) times, and half a time.” By these specifications of time the duration of the last phase of the world-power is more definitely declared, as a period in its whole course measured by God; Dan 7:12<\/span> and Dan 7:22<\/span>. The plural word ( times<\/em>) standing between time and half a time can only designate the simple plural, i.e., two times<\/em> used in the dual sense, since in the Chaldee the plural is often used to denote a pair where the dual is used in Hebrew; cf. Winer, Chald. Gr<\/em>. 55, 3. Three and a half times are the half of seven times (Dan 4:13<\/span>). The greater number of the older as well as of the more recent interpreters take imte<\/em> ( ) as representing the space of a year, thus three and a half times as three and a half years; and they base this view partly on Dan 4:13<\/span>, where seven times must mean seven years, partly on Dan 12:7<\/span>, where the corresponding expression is found in Hebrew, partly on Rev 13:5<\/span> and Rev 11:2-3<\/span>, where forty-two months and 1260 days are used interchangeably. But none of these passages supplies a proof that will stand the test. The supposition that in Dan 4:13<\/span> the seven times represent seven years, neither is nor can be proved. As regards the time<\/em> and times<\/em> in Dan 12:7<\/span>, and the periods named in the passages of the Rev. referred to, it is very questionable whether the weeks and the days represent the ordinary weeks of the year and days of the week, and whether these periods of time are to be taken chronologically. Still less can any explanation as to this designation of time be derived from the 2300 days (evening-mornings) in Dan 8:14<\/span>, since the periods do not agree, nor do both passages treat of the same event. The choice of the chronologically indefinite expression , time<\/em>, shows that a chronological determination of the period is not in view, but that the designation of time is to be understood symbolically. We have thus to inquire after the symbolical meaning of the statement. This is not to be sought, with Hofmann ( Weiss<\/em>. i. 289), in the supposition that as three and a half years are the half of a Sabbath-period, it is thus announced that Israel would be oppressed during half a Sabbath-period by Antichrist. For, apart from the unwarrantable identification of time<\/em> with year<\/em>, one does not perceive what Sabbath-periods and the oppression of the people of God have in common. This much is beyond doubt, that three and a half times are the half of seven times. The meaning of this half, however, is not to be derived, with Kranichfeld, from Dan 4:13<\/span>, where “ seven times<\/em> ” is an expression used for a long continuance of divinely-ordained suffering. It is not hence to be supposed that the dividing of this period into two designates only a proportionally short time of severest oppression endured by the people of God at the hands of the heathen. For the humbling of the haughty ruler Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:13<\/span>) does not stand in any inner connection with the elevation of the world-power over the people of God, in such a way that we could explain the three and a half times of this passage after the seven times of Dan 4:13<\/span>. In general, the question may be asked, Whether the meaning of the three and a half times is to be derived merely from the symbolical signification of the number seven, or whether, with Lmmert, we must not much rather go back, in order to ascertain the import of this measure of time, to the divine judgments under Elias, when the heavens were shut for three years and six months; Luk 4:25<\/span> and Jam 5:17<\/span>. “As Ahab did more to provoke God to anger than all the kings who were before him, so this king, Dan 7:24<\/span>, in a way altogether different from those who went before him, spake words against the Most High and persecuted His saints, etc.” But should this reference also not be established, and the three and a half times be regarded as only the half of seven times, yet the seven does not here come into view as the time of God’s works, so that it could be said the oppression of the people of God by the little horn will last (Kliefoth) only half as long as a work of God; but according to the symbolical interpretation of the seven times, the three and a half, as the period of the duration of the circumstances into which the people of God are brought by the world-power through the divine permission, indicate “a testing period, a period of judgment which will (Mat 24:22<\/span>; Pro 10:27<\/span>), for the elect’s sake, be interrupted and shortened ( septenarius truncus <\/em>).” Leyrer in Herz.’s Real. Enc. xviii. 369. Besides, it is to be considered how this space of time is described, not as three and a half, but a time, two times, and half a time. Ebrard ( Offenb<\/em>. p. 49) well remarks regarding this, that “it appears as if his tyranny would extend itself always the longer and longer: first a time, then the doubled time, then the fourfold – this would be a seven times; but it does not go that length; suddenly it comes to an end in the midst of the seven times, so that instead of the fourfold time there is only half a time.” “The proper analysis of the three and a half times,” Kliefoth further remarks, “in that the periods first mount up by doubling them, and then suddenly decline, shows that the power of the horn and its oppression of the people of God would first quickly manifest itself, in order then to come to a sudden end by the interposition of the divine judgment (Dan 7:26<\/span>).” For, a thing which is not here to be overlooked, the three and a half times present not the whole duration of the existence of the little horn, but, as the half of a week, only the latter half of its time, in which dominion over the saints of God is given to it (Dan 7:21<\/span>), and at the expiry of which it falls before the judgment. See under Dan 12:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dan 7:26-27<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In Dan 7:26<\/span> and Dan 7:27<\/span> this judgment is described (cf. Dan 7:10<\/span>), but only as to its consequences for the world-power. The dominion of the horn in which the power of the fourth beast culminates is taken away and altogether annihilated. The destruction of the beast is here passed by, inasmuch as it is already mentioned in Dan 7:11<\/span>; while, on the other hand, that which is said (Dan 7:12<\/span>) about the taking away of its power and its dominion is strengthened by the inf<\/em>. ( to destroy<\/em>), ( and to consume<\/em>), being added to ( they shall take away<\/em>), to which ( his dominion<\/em>) is to be repeated as the object. , to the end<\/em>, i.e., not absolutely, but, as in Dan 6:27<\/span>, to the end of the days, i.e., for ever.<\/p>\n Dan 7:27<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> After the destruction of the beast, the kingdom and the dominion, which hitherto comprehended the kingdom under the whole heaven, are given to the people of God, i.e., under the reign of the Son of man, as is to be supplied from Dan 7:14<\/span>. As in Dan 7:26<\/span> nothing is further said of the fate of the horn, because all that was necessary regarding it had been already said (Dan 7:11<\/span>), so also all that was to be said of the Son of man was already mentioned in Dan 7:13<\/span> and Dan 7:14<\/span>; and according to the representation of the Scripture, the kingdom of the people of the saints without the Son of man as king is not a conceivable idea. ( of the kingdom<\/em>) is a subjective genitive, which is required by the idea of the intransitive ( the greatness<\/em>) preceding it. The meaning is thus not “power over all kingdoms,” but “the power which the kingdoms under the whole heaven had.” With regard to Dan 7:27<\/span>, cf. Dan 7:14<\/span> and Dan 7:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n Dan 7:28<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In Dan 7:28<\/span> the end of the vision is stated, and the impression which it left on Daniel. Hitherto<\/em>, to this point, was the end of the history; i.e., thus far the history, or, with this the matter is at an end. , the matter<\/em>, is not merely the interpretation of the angel, but the whole revelation, the vision together with its interpretation. Daniel was greatly moved by the event (cf. Dan 5:9<\/span>), and kept it in his heart.<\/p>\n The Vision of the Four Beasts.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN>Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
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