18<\/strong>. Why callest thou me good?<\/em> ] The emphasis is on the “why.” “Dost thou know what thou meanest, when thou givest Me this appellation?” If we combine the question and rejoinder as given by St Matthew and St Luke it would seem to have run, Why askest thou Me about the good? and why callest thou Me good? None is good save One, God<\/em>. Our Lord does not decline the appellation “good.” He repels it only in the superficial sense of the questioner, who regarded Him merely as a “good Rabbi.”<\/p>\n That is, originally good, and supremely good, or perfectly good. Herein our Saviour doth not deny himself to be God, but checked him who did not believe him such, yet called him God. <\/P> <\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him<\/strong>,…. The same as in Mt. 19:17,<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 19:17]<\/span>.<\/p>\n Why callest thou me good<\/strong>? This is said, not as denying that he was good, or as being angry with him for calling him so, but in order to lead this young man to a true knowledge of him, and his goodness, and even of his proper deity:<\/p>\n there is none good, but one, [that is], God<\/strong>; some render it, “but one God”, as the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions; and so the words are a proof of the unity of the divine being, and agree with De 6:4<\/span>, but are not to be understood to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit, who, with the Father, are the one God: nor do these words at all militate against the deity of Christ, or prove that he is not God, as the Jew objects a; seeing this is not to be understood of the person of the Father, in opposition to the Son and Spirit, who are equally good: nor does Christ, in these words, deny himself to be God, but rather tacitly suggests it; since he is good in the same sense in which God is good: in Matthew it is added, “but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments”, Mt 19:17<\/span>: this Christ said not as his sense, that the way to eternal life lies in keeping the commandments of the law; but he speaks in the language of the Pharisees, and of this man; and his view is, to bring him to a sense of the impossibility of obtaining eternal life by these things, as the sequel shows: wherefore the above Jew b has no reason to confront the followers of Jesus with this passage, as if it was a concession of his, that it is impossible any should be saved without keeping the commands of the law of Moses.<\/p>\n a R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 19. p. 408. b Ib.<\/p>\n Why callest thou me good? <\/B> ( ;<\/SPAN><\/span>). So Lu 18:19<\/span>. Mt 19:17<\/span> has it: “Why asketh thou concerning that which is good? “The young ruler was probably sincere and not using mere fulsome compliment, but Jesus challenges him to define his attitude towards him as was proper. Did he mean “good” (<\/SPAN><\/span>) in the absolute sense as applied to God? The language is not a disclaiming of deity on the part of Jesus.<\/P> That I may inherit <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Mt 19:16<\/span> has (<\/SPAN><\/span>), that I may “get.” <\/P> <\/p>\n Why callest thou, etc. Compare Mt 19:17<\/span>. The renderings of the A. V. and Rev. here are correct. There is no change of reading as in Matthew, where the text was altered to conform it to Mark and Luke.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And Jesus<\/strong> said unto Him,” <\/strong>(hode lesouseipen auto) “Then Jesus replied to him,” responded to his earnest, mistaken notion about how a sinner might receive eternal life.<\/p>\n 2) ”Why callest thou me good?” <\/strong>(ti me legeis agathon) “Just why do you call me good?” To clear up the mistaken concept, that all men are good by nature, was the first priority of need in this rich young sinner’s life, 1Ki 8:46<\/span>; Ecc 7:20<\/span>; Rom 3:19<\/span>; Rom 3:23<\/span>; Rom 6:23<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “There is none good but one,”<\/strong> (oudeis agathos ei me eis) “There exists not one good at all, except one;” For “there is no man that sinneth not,” 1Ki 8:46<\/span>; Rom 3:10-19<\/span>; Psa 14:1<\/span>; Psa 14:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “That is, God.”<\/strong> (ho theos) “That one is God,” the self-existing one, in whose character, holiness is His nature, Psa 86:5<\/span>; Psa 86:15<\/span>; Psa 119:68<\/span>; Heb 12:10<\/span>; Heb 12:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n (18) Why callest thou me good<\/strong>?Our Lords question is, in St. Marks report, in harmony with that of the seeker after life eternal. Its obvious drift was to force him back upon the conditions of absolute goodness, to make him ask himself how far, and under what conditions, that word might be used relatively of any child of man.<\/p>\n ‘And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? None is good except one, even God.” ’<\/p>\n Jesus gently asks him why he calls Him uniquely good. He was not by this denying His own goodness. That was not really the question at issue. He was rather asking the young man to think through what he meant by ‘goodness’, and to recognise what quality was in his mind. For what he needed to realise was that as far as he was concerned that goodness that he was speaking about was unattainable, because it was a goodness that was only true of God. And the truth therefore was that no one could become good in that way, because only God is essentially good. In other words He was stressing that true goodness is something that is beyond men, because it is something innate, not earned, and He wanted the young man to recognise the fact. Thus for the young man to have suggested that even Jesus was good when he thought of Him as a mere prophet demonstrated the inadequacy of his thinking, for it revealed that he did not know what true goodness was. Indeed if he really did think that Jesus was truly good let him consider what the consequences of that thought would be. It would be to put Jesus on the divine side of reality. That this point is in Jesus’ mind in the background (at least as far as Mark is concerned) comes out in the parallel verses in the chiasmus. For there too there is the veiled recognition that He is to be seen as unique and on the divine side of reality, for He speaks there of men making sacrifices ‘for His sake’ and as a consequence receiving eternal life, not because they make the sacrifices, but because of their attitude of heart towards Him (Mar 10:29<\/span>). Because they recognise His essential goodness they respond to Him with all their hearts, without reservations. The corollary of the thought is that no merely ‘good’ Teacher could teach anyone how to be truly good, for such goodness had to be received from God.<\/p>\n There was unquestionably the implication here, to those who knew the truth, that in fact because He was Son of God He was<\/em> intrinsically good, and He would not have denied such a level of goodness. But it is not the prominent idea in mind. What He wanted recognised was that to find goodness men must find God and that such goodness was not something for another to achieve, or that was achievable by men on earth. They could only become absorbed into His goodness. What the young man was seeking was therefore impossible. But how was He to make him realise the fact?<\/p>\n 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is<\/em> none good but one, that is<\/em> , God. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 18. See Trapp on “<\/em> Mat 19:17 “<\/em> <\/p>\n Mar 10:18<\/span> . : on the import of this question vide<\/em> notes on Mt.<\/p>\n – Why callest, &c. Note the Figure of speech Anteisagoge, App-6. <\/p>\n none. The 1611 edition of the Authorized Version reads “no man”. Compound of App-105. <\/p>\n Mar 10:18. , He said) The Lord replies, I. To the remarkable title which the young man had addressed to Him: II. To the question which he proposed.- ; why callest thou Me good?) There were many things in Jesus, viewing Him merely externally, by reason of which the ignorant would not form the best opinion concerning Him: Joh 1:47; Mat 11:6; Mat 11:19; Isa 53:2, etc. Moreover also He did not rest on Himself, but ever referred Himself wholly to the Father. He acted the part of a traveller and a pilgrim in the world; and in that condition, in which the Psalms describe Him as wretched and needy, He was ever aiming towards the eternal good and the eternal joy, concerning which this youth was enquiring. Psa 16:2; Psa 16:5, etc.: My goodness [extendeth not to thee, Engl. V.] is not independent of thee. Comp. Joh 14:28; Joh 17:5; Heb 5:8-9; Heb 9:12. He did not know Himself according to the flesh; as Augustine preaches [distinctly states], l. i. de Doctr. Christ., c. 34. For good, , properly applies to one blessed.[12] The young man was seeking with [by application to] Jesus happiness, in a too pure [unalloyed] sense. Jesus informs Him that ne will not find this with Him: Comp. Luk 9:57, etc. Nevertheless He does not say, I am not good; but, Why dost thou call Me good? Just as in Mat 22:43, He does not deny, that He, the Son of David, is at one and the same time also the Lord of David. God is good: there is no goodness without Godhead. The young man perceived in Jesus the presence of goodness in some degree otherwise he would not have applied to Him: but he did not perceive it in its full extent; otherwise he would not have gone back from Him. Much less did he perceive [recognise] His Godhead. Wherefore Jesus does not accept from Him the title of goodness without the title of Godhead (Comp. the Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, Luk 6:46): and thereby vindicates the honour of the Father, with whom He is one. See Joh 5:19. At the same time [He darts causes to enter] a ray of His omniscience into the heart of this young man, and shows that the young man has not as yet the knowledge concerning Himself, Jesus Christ, worthy of so exalted a title, which otherwise is altogether appropriate to Him. Wherefore He does not say, There is none good save one, that is, My Father; but, There is none good save one, that is, God. Often our Lord proportioned [qualified] His words to the capacity of those who questioned Him, Joh 4:22. So a warlike commander, of noble birth, might answer to a person, who Knew not his noble birth, though knowing the fact of his a being commander, Why do you call me, a gracious lord? Jesus manifested His goodness to the disciples, Luk 10:23; Rom 14:16.<\/p>\n [12] Beatum, a term appropriate in the full sense only to God.-ED, and TRANSL.<\/p>\n Why callest <\/p>\n Par., Believing Me to be but a human teacher, why callest thou Me “good,” etc. <\/p>\n Why: Mat 19:17, Luk 18:19, Joh 5:41-44, Rom 3:12 <\/p>\n that is: 1Sa 2:2, Psa 36:7, Psa 36:8, Psa 86:5, Psa 119:68, Jam 1:17, 1Jo 4:8, 1Jo 4:16 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Luk 18:20 – knowest Rom 3:10 – none<\/p>\n 8<\/p>\n None good but one is explained at Mat 19:17.<\/p>\n The Apologists Bible Commentary <\/p>\n Mark 10<\/p>\n 18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.<\/p>\n CommentaryWhile some have suggested that Christ’s question contradicts the orthodox view that He was God incarnate, the opposite it actually the case (see Other Views Considered, below). Jesus is forcing the young ruler to face the implications of calling Jesus “good,” not only with regard to Jesus’ goodness, but also with regard to his own. The young ruler shows himself to be “good” by every human test – he is devoted to keeping the Law. His fellow Jews considered his wealth to be another measure of his goodness. However, Jesus’ pointed question here and His command that the young ruler renounce his wealth and follow Him (10:21) reveal that human standards of goodness are not God’s. The first commandment of the Law is to place God first in one’s life and to love Him completely. The young ruler “went away sad” (10:22) because he realized that though he had devoted himself to keeping the other commandments, he had failed to keep the first. His riches meant more to him than God did, and thus he was not “good” in the eyes of God. It is important to note that Jesus’ pointed remarks were motivated by love, a correction of the sole “lack” in the young man’s devotion. Thus, Jesus’ fundamental lesson is that “goodness” flows not from men’s deeds, or even their sincere attempt to keep the Law, but rather must have another source – God Himself. In this context, Jesus’ request to “follow Me” is the equivalent of doing good by God’s standard. Jesus encourages the young ruler to give up his wealth and put God first by following God’s Son. When we consider that Jesus is drawing a distinction between human standards of “good” and God’s standard, it becomes clear that following Jesus is good according to God’s standard. And, even if Scripture did not elsewhere abundantly declare Jesus’ goodness and righteousness (see, for example, John 10:11, 14; Romans 3:25; Heb 4:15; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19, etc.), the command to follow Him would proclaim it. Thus, by the very standard Jesus is exhorting the young ruler to measure himself by – God’s standard – Jesus is good. And, if Jesus is good by this standard, Jesus is implicitly declaring His Deity. Jesus’ subsequent remark, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” (10:23) unveils the true deceitfulness of riches. It is not that riches may further corrupt the wicked. The real danger is that riches may corrupt the good man! The real danger is that a good person may come to so depend on the good he can do with his wealth that he or she will fail to depend utterly on the Lord. The real danger is that the good person may fail to realize he is a sinner, and be blind to the flaw in his personal relationship with God. (Victor )<\/p>\n Grammatical Analysis`o de IhsouV eipen autw, Ti me legeiV agaqon; oudeiV agaqoV ei mh`eiV`o qeoV hO DE ISOUS EIPEN AUT, TI ME LEGEIS AGATHON; OUDEIS AGATHOS EI ME hEIS hO THEOS But Jesus said to him, “Why call me good; not one is good save one, God. Why callest thou me good? (Ti me legeis agathon). So Luke 18:19. Matthew 19:17 has it: “Why asketh thou concerning that which is good? “The young ruler was probably sincere and not using mere fulsome compliment, but Jesus challenges him to define his attitude towards him as was proper. Did he mean “good” (agathos) in the absolute sense as applied to God? The language is not a disclaiming of deity on the part of Jesus (RWP ). <\/p>\n Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses The Watchtower and its defenders have offered several arguments suggesting that Jesus is not here making an implicit statement of His Deity, but is instead distinguishing Himself from the only One who is good. objection: Jesus Christ, though he had this quality of moral excellence, would not accept “Good” as a title (Aid , p. 676). Response: Nowhere in the context of this verse does Jesus explicitly refuse to accept the title “Good.” He questions the young ruler’s use of the term, but this does not mean that Jesus refuses the title. It is possible, if one considers this verse in isolation, to understand Jesus as implicitly refusing to accept the title (“Why are you calling me good?”). But it is equally possible that Jesus accepts the title, but questions the young ruler’s motives or assumptions regarding the term (“Why are you calling me good?”). If we consider the immediate context and other verses that speak to the issue of Christ’s goodness, the correct interpretation of this verse becomes clear. The immediate context, as demonstrated in the commentary (above), argues that Jesus is not refusing to accept the term. Further, Jesus elsewhere uses “Good” to refer to Himself: “I am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11). Some may object that this is not a fair comparison because “Good” modifies “Shepherd,” and is not used in an absolute sense. However, we would note that the young ruler’s question was addressed to Jesus as “Good Teacher.” “Good” modifies “Teacher” in Mark 10:17, just as it modifies “Shepherd” in John 10:11. It does not seem reasonable that Jesus would object to the title “Good” when applied to Teacher, but use it of Himself when applied to Shepherd, particularly given that the latter title is one used of Jehovah in the Old Testament (cf., Psalms 23). The easiest way to harmonize Mark 10:17-18 and John10:11 is to understand that Jesus is not refusing to accept the title “Good,” but rather is questioning the young ruler’s motives (“Why are you calling me good?”). And if He is accepting the title “Good” as applicable to Himself – and indeed, elsewhere specifically applies it to Himself – and God alone is “good” in these terms, Jesus is implicitly declaring His own Deity. objection: Jesus further showed that he was a separate being from God by saying: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” (Mark 10:18, JB) So Jesus was saying that no one is as good as God is, not even Jesus himself. God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus (SYBT , p. 18). Response: The Watchtower’s interpretation seeks to underline what it sees as the distinction between Jesus and God (“if God alone is good, Jesus cannot be God”), yet by using the phrase “as good as God,” allow for Jesus (and others) to be considered “good” in a lesser or derived sense. It must be emphasized that nowhere in the context of this verse does the phrase “as good as” appear, nor is there any sense of comparative goodness implied. The young ruler calls Jesus “Good Teacher.” Jesus takes this limited application of “good” (to Teacher) and teaches a universal lesson about what is truly “good” (God alone). If Jesus is teaching that “God is good in a way that separates him from Jesus,” Jesus is not really addressing the young ruler’s use of the term. We can imagine the young ruler answering Jesus, “But Teacher, I know you’re not as good as God – who is? I just called you Good Teacher.” Assuming that Jesus is speaking of a special kind of goodness applicable only to God is simply reading into the text a meaning that is not there. Jesus’ lesson is that there really is no good apart from God. The Apostle Paul, quoting the Psalmist, puts it this way: “There is none righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:10). The force of Jesus’ message is blunted by the Watchtower’s interpretation, for it leaves open (as it must) a “good” that is less than the good of God, but still good. By so arguing, the Watchtower can preserve its belief in a “good” Jesus (who is, nevertheless, not as good as God), but it also preserves a way for the young ruler to continue to consider himself good. “Of course I’m not as good as God, Teacher,” we can hear the young ruler say, “Still, I am good compared to other men, for I keep the Law.” But Jesus’ blunt words deny the young ruler this back door. Jesus says that only God is good, and the young ruler’s sincere efforts to keep the Law are not sufficient to be good in God’s sight – he, like all of us, must follow a sinless Savior whose righteousness can be imparted to him, rather than seeking to earn righteousness by his own good works. We may also ask those who follow Watchtower teaching to consider the NWT translation of Colossians 2:9: “Because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily.” Any definition of “divine quality” must include one of God’s primary attributes – His absolute goodness. If Jesus has the full measure of the divine quality dwelling in Him, in what sense can we say that Jesus lacks any goodness? Jesus is neither denying that He is good nor that He is God. He is questioning the young ruler’s standard of righteousness. Jesus’ exacting words leave no room for other measures of good. God alone is good. He alone is righteous. The Watchtower, then, like the young ruler, must decide how someone may be considered good in God’s sight. Since the Bible teaches that none are good, our only hope is in One who is good in God’s sight. It is Christ’s goodness – His righteousness – imparted to us which allows us to be declared righteous (“justified”). Jesus must, therefore, be good in God’s sight. And if He is good, according to the rigorous logic of this verse, He must be God. objection: Jesus was so protective of his Father’s sovereignty and uniqueness that when he was addressed as “good teacher” by a truly humble man, he replied: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God” (Mr 10:17 sic). Jesus did not present himself as a threat to God’s uniqueness, nor did his early followers portray him as such (Stafford , pp. 126-127). Response: Mr. Stafford presents this argument in the context of a larger discussion that seeks to demonstrate that Jesus is a separate being than God Himself. My purpose here will be to examine whether Mark 10:18 supports Mr. Stafford’s argument or not. I will first direct the reader to the Watchtower statements, above, and my responses to them. The Watchtower’s interpretation of this verse underlies Mr. Stafford’s argument. Like the Watchtower, Mr. Stafford clearly sees this verse as dealing with an absolute “good” that applies to God alone, while leaving open the possibility that Jesus can be “good” in a lesser sense. As we have seen, this view reads much more into the verse than is actually present. Mr. Stafford suggests that Jesus must be denying that He is good in the same way that God is good, for to do otherwise would impinge on God’s sovereignty and uniqueness. In other words, if Jesus claims to be equally as good as God, Jesus would be presenting Himself as a “threat to God’s uniqueness.” But why should this be the case? Only if God and Jesus are separate beings would Mr. Stafford’s logic hold true. We may put it this way: ?God is one Person. ?God alone is Good ?Therefore, Jesus is neither Good (in this sense) nor God. The logic becomes fallacious if we remove the first premise: ?God alone is Good ?Therefore, Jesus is neither Good (in this sense) nor God. ?This is an invalid conclusion: Since we have removed the first premise, logically, Jesus can be both Good and God. Mr. Stafford is using this verse (among others) to substantiate his argument that God is one person: “The idea that the one God of the Bible is multi-personal arose hundreds of years after the contents of the Bible were completed” (IBID , p. 129). Yet, as we have seen, an essential presupposition of Mr. Stafford’s argument is that God is uni-personal. Mr. Stafford, therefore, at least with regard to Mark 10:18, is assuming that which he seeks to prove. He is begging the question. His argument is logically invalid and must be rejected. Notes 1. Witnesses may rightfully point out that the word translated “good” in John 10:11ff is kalos, while the Greek behind “good” in Mark 10:18 is agathos. However, the supposed distinction between the two terms that is often drawn (that kalos emphasizes external appearance while agathos refers to an intrinsic goodness) cannot be sustained. BAGD defines kalos as “of quality, in accordance w[ith] the purpose of someth[ing] or someone: good, useful.” Kalos is simply a synonym for agathos. In Luke 8:15, we find the two words used interchangeably: “But the seed in the good (kalos) ground, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good (agathos) heart…” The good ground represents the good hearts of the hearers. Hort, in his note on 1 Peter 2:12, suggests a slight semantic distinction between the two synonyms, but not the one needed to sustain the Witness’s position. He points out that while agathos “denotes what is good in virtue of its results,” kalos “denotes that kind of goodness which is at once seen to be good.” Moulton & Milligan , though cautioning that such a distinction cannot always be made, find it generally reflected in the numerous Koine texts they cite. Even if kalos can, in some contexts, emphasize outward appearance (as Strong’s and Louw & Nida indicate), it is clear that in the context of John 10:11, Jesus does not intend to so limit His meaning. He is the “Good Shepherd” because He does the good (kalos) works of the Father, because He knows His sheep as the Father knows Him and He knows the Father, and because He lays down His life for the sheep. Such qualities of goodness can only be considered “outward appearance” in the sense of a goodness that is immediately recognizable. But such qualities also include Jesus’ inherent goodness as well. As Wescott says in his Commentary on this verse, “The ‘good’ is not only good inwardly (agathos), but good as perceived (kalos).” Thus, it will not do to argue that kalos means something less than agathos in this context. If anything, it is a superior attribution. <\/p>\n Mar 10:18. Why callest thou me good? Matthew (the correct reading): Why askest thou me of that which is good? In applying the term good to our Lord, the young ruler was honest, but mistaken. He used it without fully apprehending its meaning. On the connection of this answer with the one good thing, see Mat 19:17. Either there is none good, but God: Christ is good; therefore Christ is Godor, there is none good, but God: Christ is not God: therefore Christ is NOT GOOD (Stier). Since but one is good, God, then giving up all for Him is the last test, and following Christ (Mar 10:21) is doing that.<\/p>\n As if Christ had said, Why callest thou me good, when thou dost not believe or own me to be God? for there is none good, that is, essentially and originally good, absolutely and immutably good, but God only; nor any derivatively good but he that receiveth his goodness from God also: there is no mere man that is absolutely and perfectly good of himself, but by participation and derivation from God only. See the note on Mat 19:17. <\/p>\n The man had a superficial understanding of goodness. Jesus’ response confronted the man with the implications of trying to do some good work to earn eternal life and calling Jesus "good." Was he ready to respond to Jesus’ instructions as to God’s Word?<\/p>\n And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is,] God. 18. Why callest thou me good? ] The emphasis is on the “why.” “Dost thou know what thou meanest, when thou givest Me this appellation?” If we combine the question and rejoinder as given by St … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 10:18”<\/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-24593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24593","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=24593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"