If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father<\/strong>,…. Our Lord illustrates and confirms what he had said before by an instance common among men: the relation between a father and a son is natural, and it is very near; and it is usual for a son, when hungry, and at the proper times of meals, to ask bread of his father: and when he does,<\/p>\n will he give him a stone<\/strong>? should he do so, he would show that his heart was as hard, or harder than the stone he gives:<\/p>\n or if he ask a fish, will he, for a fish, give him a serpent<\/strong>? And endeavour to deceive him by the likeness of the one to the other, especially some sort of fish, which would poison or sting him, but not refresh and nourish him: such inhuman brutish parents are not surely to be found;<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 7:9]<\/span>,<\/p>\n [See comments on Mt 7:10]<\/span>.<\/p>\n Of which of you that is a father <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). There is a decided anacoluthon here. The MSS. differ a great deal. The text of Westcott and Hort makes <\/SPAN><\/span> (the father) in apposition with <\/SPAN><\/span> (of whom) and in the accusative the object of <\/SPAN><\/span> (shall ask) which has also another accusative (both person and thing) “a loaf.” So far so good. But the rest of the sentence is,<\/P> will ye give him a stone? <\/B> ( ;<\/SPAN><\/span>). <\/SPAN><\/span> shows that the answer No is expected, but the trouble is that the interrogative <\/SPAN><\/span> in the first clause is in the accusative the object of <\/SPAN><\/span> while here the same man (he) is the subject of <\/SPAN><\/span>. It is a very awkward piece of Greek and yet it is intelligible. Some of the old MSS. do not have the part about “loaf” and “stone,” but only the two remaining parts about “fish” and “serpent,” “egg” and “scorpion.” The same difficult construction is carried over into these questions also. <\/P> <\/p>\n Of any of you [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The A. V. renders as though the pronoun were indefinite; but it is interrogative and commences the sentence. Rev., therefore, rightly, of which of you that is a father, etc.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n THE FATHERHOOD PARABLE V. 11-13<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,” <\/strong>(tina de eks humon ton patera aitesei ho huios ichthun) “Then if a son will ask bread of any of you who is a father,” though a son, more than a friend, still he must ask of the Father things most needed or he will receive them not, Jas 4:2-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Will he give him a stone?” <\/strong>(me lithon epidosei auto) “He will not give you a stone, will he?”<\/p>\n 3) “Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?” <\/strong>(me anti ichthuos ophin auto epidosei) “He will not hand him a serpent instead of a fish will he?” A serpent that resembles some fish, as the fish-eel?<\/p>\n Though a stone is similar to bread, a fish to a serpent, an egg to a scorpion, no ordinary father with human feelings would mock his son, day or night, by giving him some useless or hurtful thing in place of food, would he? Neither will the Lord, is our Lord’s lesson in this story, Rom 8:26-27<\/span>.<\/p>\n “And of which of you who is a father will his son ask a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion?”<\/p>\n And the certainty that we will receive lies in the nature of fatherhood. When a son asks for a fish will his father give him a serpent, if he asks for an egg will he give him a scorpion? Both are inconceivable. The idea is of a mythical son (who does not exist) who thinks that he is receiving an edible eel from his father, and discovers it is a snake. He accepts what seems to be an egg, but it unwinds itself as a scorpion. He has been utterly deceived, and as a result subjected to great harm. Does anyone know of a father who would do such a thing to his son? Of course not!<\/p>\n Here then we have the certainty that they will receive the good things they ask for. They will receive a fish or an egg (the daily food they have asked for, and common foods in Palestine), which in Luk 11:13<\/span> turns out to be the Holy Spirit. What they will not be given is spirits of evil, for both serpent and scorpion represent the power of the Enemy (Luk 10:19<\/span>), and the Father will protect them from that (Luk 11:14-26<\/span>). So those who can call God Father, because He has been made known to them by the Son (Luk 10:22<\/span>), can seek His Holy Spirit with the absolute guarantee of success. And they can go on receiving more and more of Him.<\/p>\n The continual cross references in this whole section are interesting and significant, as with the serpent and scorpion here as compared with Luk 10:19<\/span>. The section has very much to be seen as a whole, interconnecting and arrayed around the Lord’s Prayer.<\/p>\n A further admonition:<\/p>\n v. 11<\/strong>. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him. a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?<\/strong><\/p>\n v. 12<\/strong>. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?<\/strong><\/p>\n v. 13<\/strong>. If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good, gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him!<\/strong><\/p>\n Jesus draws a final lesson from the love which parents bear to their children. Whom of you, being a father, shall his son ask for bread, surely he will not give him a stone! Or also a fish, surely he will not give him, instead of the fish, a serpent! Or also an egg, surely he will not give a scorpion (the latter being a lobster like animal lurking in stone walls). A parent that would act as Jesus describes would be inhuman. No normal, sane father would be capable of such cruelty. And now Jesus makes the conclusion from the smaller to the greater. If human parents, whose disposition of heart is by nature evil, will show so much affection toward their children, surely the Father from heaven, in His merciful goodness and grace, will give the Holy Ghost, the highest and most wonderful gift from above, the gift which includes all other spiritual gifts, to them that ask Him! God wants the Christians to pray, and He intends to give them the spiritual gifts which they have need of without condition. But He insists upon being asked, lest the gifts lose their value in the eyes of men, and lest the Christians become careless about working out their own salvation with fear and trembling. He does not force His gifts upon unwilling and indifferent hearts.<\/p>\n Luk 11:11-13<\/span> . Comp. on Mat 7:9-11<\/span> . Still on the hearing of prayer, but now in respect of the object<\/em> petitioned for, which is introduced by the particle expressing transition from one subject to another.<\/p>\n The construction<\/em> here also is an instance of anacoluthon (comp. on Luk 11:5<\/span> ), so that the sentence is continued by . . ., as if instead of the question a conditional<\/em> protasis (as at Luk 11:12<\/span> ) had preceded.<\/p>\n ] Whom of you will his son ask as his father<\/em> for a loaf?<\/p>\n ] Attraction, instead of . See on Luk 9:61<\/span> , and Buttmann, Neut. Gr<\/em> . p. 323 [E. T. 377].<\/p>\n ] this highest and best gift; a more definite, but a later form of the tradition than that which is found in Matthew. Comp. the critical remarks on Luk 11:2<\/span> .<\/p>\n 11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask<\/em> a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 11. For every one, &c.<\/strong> ] Sozomen saith of Apollonius, that he never asked anything of God that he obtained not. Hic homo potuit apud Deum quod voluit, <\/em> said one concerning Luther; he could have what he would of God. <\/p>\n 11 13.<\/strong> ] Our Lord sets forth the certainty of our obtaining the Holy Spirit, (the unspeakable gift<\/em> , in which all other are included,) from our Father, by another ‘ fortiori’ argument, drawn from the love of earthly parents, so far less careful and tenderly wise than He is over His children.<\/p>\n The construction, as before ( Luk 11:5 ), is a mixed one: half interrogative, half hypothetical. For the rest, see notes on Mat 7:7<\/span> ff. The egg<\/em> and scorpion<\/em> are added here. The serpent<\/em> and scorpion<\/em> are the positively mischievous:<\/em> the samples, ch. Luk 10:19<\/span> , of the : the stone<\/em> , that which is simply unfit for food<\/em> . So that God’s answers to our prayers consist of neither useless nor mischievous things, but of His best gift His Holy Spirit in all the various and fitting manifestations of His guidance and consolation and teaching in our lives. This is (because this takes of and imparts to us by leading us continually to Him who is) the of the parable; the ‘paterfamilias’ is our Father in Heaven, with whom however the night is as the day, who never slumbers nor sleeps. It has been noticed how by the hungry traveller coming to the man, may be imported, in the depth of the parable, the awakening in a man’s own soul (which is so precious to him) of that hunger which he has nothing to satisfy, and which none but God can satisfy. The student may, as in the foregoing parable, follow out this clue for himself (provided it be done soberly) with much interest and profit.<\/p>\n Notice that when we address God<\/em> ( Mat 6:9 ), He is <\/strong> .<\/strong> . when He answers us<\/em> , He is <\/strong> . In the former case we go up into Him and His abode; in the latter He comes down to us. The construction is not (Meyer) . : but the one so common in good Greek, , denoting the quarter whence the influence implied in the substantive<\/em> comes, which here is the result of that relation implied in .<\/p>\n Luk 11:11<\/span> . : introduces a new parabolic saying: which of you, as a father, shall his son ask? etc. In the T.R. Lk. gives three<\/em> examples of possible requests Mt.’s two: a loaf, and a fish, and a third, an egg. Cod. B omits the first (W.H [103] put it on the margin). , : in the two first instances there is resemblance between the thing asked and supposed to be given: loaf and stone, fish and serpent; in Lk.’s third instance also, the being a little round lobster-like animal, lurking in stone walls, with a sting in its tail. The gift of things similar but so different would be cruel mockery of which almost no father would be capable. Hens were not known in ancient Israel. Probably the Jews brought them from Babylon, after which eggs would form part of ordinary food (Benziger, Heb. Arch.<\/em> , p. 94).<\/p>\n [103] Westcott and Hort.<\/p>\n If, &c. = Shall a son ask, &c. <\/p>\n any = which. <\/p>\n if, &c. App-118. <\/p>\n a fish = a fish also <\/p>\n for = instead. Greek. anti. App-104. <\/p>\n 11-13.] Our Lord sets forth the certainty of our obtaining the Holy Spirit, (the unspeakable gift, in which all other are included,) from our Father, by another fortiori argument, drawn from the love of earthly parents, so far less careful and tenderly wise than He is over His children.<\/p>\n The construction, as before (Luk 11:5), is a mixed one: half interrogative, half hypothetical. For the rest, see notes on Mat 7:7 ff. The egg and scorpion are added here. The serpent and scorpion are the positively mischievous: the samples, ch. Luk 10:19, of the :-the stone, that which is simply unfit for food. So that Gods answers to our prayers consist of neither useless nor mischievous things, but of His best gift-His Holy Spirit-in all the various and fitting manifestations of His guidance and consolation and teaching in our lives. This is (because this takes of and imparts to us by leading us continually to Him who is) the of the parable;-the paterfamilias is our Father in Heaven, with whom however the night is as the day, who never slumbers nor sleeps. It has been noticed how by the hungry traveller coming to the man, may be imported, in the depth of the parable, the awakening in a mans own soul (which is so precious to him) of that hunger which he has nothing to satisfy, and which none but God can satisfy. The student may, as in the foregoing parable, follow out this clue for himself (provided it be done soberly) with much interest and profit.<\/p>\n Notice that when we address God (Mat 6:9), He is . .-when He answers us, He is . In the former case we go up into Him and His abode; in the latter He comes down to us. The construction is not (Meyer) . : but the one so common in good Greek, , denoting the quarter whence the influence implied in the substantive comes, which here is the result of that relation implied in .<\/p>\n Luk 11:11. – ) The article has in this passage a force less definite: there is an Apposition [Of what man who is a father will his son ask bread, etc.].-, but) There is a gradation (ascending climax) from a friend to a parent: and yet in this case also there is added the How much more, in Luk 11:13.-, a fish) viz. , shall ask.- , for a fish) The child might take (mistake) a serpent or snake for a fish.[106]<\/p>\n [106] So spiritually also, in estimating things.-ED. and TRANSL.<\/p>\n a son: Isa 49:15, Mat 7:9 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 25:6 – gifts Deu 28:54 – his children Psa 103:13 – Like Lam 3:16 – gravel Mat 6:32 – for your Mat 7:11 – how 1Ti 5:8 – and specially Jam 5:16 – The effectual<\/p>\n Luk 11:11-13. See on Mat 7:9-11. The construction is simpler here, and Luk 11:12 is peculiar to Luke, but a repetition of the previous thought<\/p>\n Scorpion. Another hurtful gift.<\/p>\n Your heavenly Father (Luk 11:13), lit, Father from heaven, implying His coming down to us with His blessings. Opposed to the useless and hurtful things which earthly parents will not give to their children asking for food, is the Holy Spirit. From the conduct of these parents our Lord deduces the certainty that our Heavenly Father will bestow this highest, best gift upon His asking children.As this is equivalent to good things (Mat 7:11), we may infer that all that is good for us is in a certain sense included in this one gift; for whatever we receive is only blessed as it is sanctified by the Holy Spirits influence in us.. This is better than to find here the lesson, that we may expect unconditional answers to prayers for spiritual gifts, only conditional answers to other petitions. It is difficult to discriminate in this way between what is spiritual and what is not; and petitions for the former might also be prompted by selfishness. In all cases we must submit to our Fathers wisdom the question of what is good. Else we may totally misunderstand His best gifts, deeming the loaf He gives a stone, the fish a serpent, and the egg a scorpion. Misused as well as misunderstood, His gifts may become what we have deemed them.<\/p>\n The second parable which our Saviour makes use of, is that of a father to his children; Christ represents the care and kindness of God towards us by the affections which earthly parents bear to their natural children, who though they be many times evil themselves, yet are not wont to deny their children necessary good things, when they dutifully and decently beg them at their hands: If ye being evil – how much more shall your heavenly Father give his Holy Spirit; that is, the continual presence and influence of his Holy Spirit to all the purposes of guidance and direction, of grace and assistance, of comfort and support, in our Christian course. <\/p>\n Learn hence, that the presence and assistance of God’s Holy Spirit, to enable us to do what God requires, shall never be wanting to those that desire it, and endeavor after it. But we must always remember that the assistance of God’s Holy Spirit, though it be offered and tendered to us, yet it is not forced upon us; for if we beg the Holy Spirit and his assistance, but refuse to make use of it; or if we cry to him for his help to mortify our lusts, but do not put forth our own endeavors; we forfeit the divine assistance, and God will certainly withdraw his Holy Spirit from us.<\/p>\n Luk 11:11-12. If a son shall ask bread of any of you Further to assist your faith on these occasions, reflect upon the workings of your own hearts toward your offspring. Let any of you, that is a father, and knows the heart of a father, a fathers affection to, and care for, a child, say, if his son ask bread to satisfy his hunger, will he give him a stone In the shape of a loaf? or, If he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent Which has some resemblance of a fish; or if he ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion Which, instead of nourishing him, might sting him to death?<\/p>\n Naturalists tell us, that the body of a scorpion is very like an egg, especially if the scorpion be of the white kind, which is the first species mentioned by lian, Avicenna, and others. Bochart has produced testimonies to prove that the scorpions in Judea were about the bigness of an egg; and therefore there, a white scorpion being very like an egg, might to children, who were not capable of distinguishing the one from the other, be offered in place thereof, if the person so doing meant that it should sting and destroy them. These different instances are mentioned by Jesus, in order that the doctrine which he is here inculcating might make the stronger impression upon his hearers. See on Mat 7:9-11.<\/p>\n Vers. 11-13. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? 12. Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13. If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him! Undoubtedly it sometimes happens in human relations, that the maxim of Luk 11:10 does not hold good. But in a paternal and filial relationship, such as that which was set before us by the model given at the beginning, success is certain. It is a Father to whom the believer prays; and when praying to Him in conformity with the model prescribed, he is sure to ask nothing except those things which such a Father cannot refuse to His child, and instead of which that Father would not give him other things, either hurtful or even less precious. The end of the piece thus brings us back to the starting-point: the title Father given to God, and the filial character of him who prays the Lord’s Prayer. , then, relates to the a fortiori, in the certainty which we have just expressed. The reading of some Alex., … or , What son shall ask of his father, would appeal to the feeling of sonship among the hearers; the reading …is clearly to be preferred to it, What father of whom his son shall ask, by which Jesus appeals to the heart of fathers in the assembly.<\/p>\n The three articles of food enumerated by Jesus appear at first sight to be chosen at random. But, as M. Bovet remarks, loaves, hard eggs, and fried fishes, are precisely the ordinary elements of a traveller’s fare in the East. Matthew omits the third; Luke has certainly not added it at his own hand. The correspondence between bread and stone, fish and serpent, egg and scorpion, appears at a glance. In the teaching of Jesus all is picturesque, full of appropriateness, exquisite even to the minutest details., to transfer from hand to hand. This word, which is not repeated in Luk 11:13, includes this thought: What father will have the courage to put into the hand…? <\/p>\n The conclusion, Luk 11:13, is drawn by a new argument a fortiori; and the reasoning is still further strengthened by the words, ye being evil. The reading , finding yourselves evil, seems more in harmony with the context than , being (which is taken from Matthew, where the readings do not vary). denotes the actual state as the starting-point for the supposed activity.<\/p>\n Bengel justly observes: Illustre testimonium de peccato originali.<\/p>\n The reading of the Alex., which omits before , would admit of the translation, will give from heaven. But there is no reason in the context which could have led Luke to put this construction so prominently. From heaven thus depends on the word Father, and the untranslateable Greek form can only be explained by introducing the verbal notion of giving between the substantive and its government: The Father who giveth from heaven.<\/p>\n Instead of the Holy Spirit, Matthew says, good things; and De Wette accuses Luke of having corrected him in a spiritualizing sense. He would thus have done here exactly the opposite of that which has been imputed to him in respect to Luk 6:20! Have we not then a complete proof that Luke took this whole piece from a source peculiar to himself? As to the intrinsic value of the two expressions, that of Matthew is simple and less didactic; that of Luke harmonizes better perhaps with the elevated sphere of the Lord’s Prayer, which is the starting-point of the piece. The use of the simple (instead of , Luk 11:12) arises from the fact that the idea does not recur of giving from hand to hand. <\/p>\n We regard this piece as one of those in which the originality and excellence of Luke’s sources appear in their full light, although we consider the comparison of Matthew indispensable to restore the words of our Lord in their entirety. <\/p>\n YOUR FATHER WHO IS FROM HEAVEN<\/p>\n Luk 11:11-13. But which father of you, shall his son ask bread, whether will he give him a stone? Or indeed a fish, whether, instead of a fish, will he give him a serpent? Or if he may ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion? You see from the plain teaching of our Savior that God never gives anything useless nor injurious; e. g., a stone, an utterly worthless thing, as the hungry boy can not eat it; nor a serpent, nor a scorpion, which might bite him and kill him. The reason why so much prayer is not answered directly is because it would be detrimental to the recipient. Many good people pray for riches, which God sees would make them proud, worldly, and oblivious of Him; giving Satan the down-hill pull on them, to drag them, not only out of the kingdom, but down to perdition. Millions of people are now happy in heaven who would be in hell if their prayers for riches had been answered. Myriads will praise God through all eternity for His signal mercy in keeping them poor enough to escape the awful temptations of riches, and be humble enough to get to heaven. We should be like God, and never grant the petitions of our children for anything useless or injurious, as Satans temptations come thick and fast along those lines. If you permit your children to attend Satans fandangos, with their concomitant follies and vices, you simply, with your money, purchase for them a ticket over the Black Valley Railroad down to hell.<\/p>\n Therefore, if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father, who is from heaven, give His Holy Spirit to them that ask Him! The Holy Spirit is not only the Omnipotent God, but He is the Executive of the Trinity. Consequently the Holy Spirit is but another name for All Good Things. When you have Him, you are a king and a priest in Zion, enjoying heaven in your heart. The contrast here between earthly parents, inheriting evil natures, and our blessed Heavenly Father is very forcible, giving us one of those a fortiori arguments so common in our Saviors illustrative expositions of the unutterable love and unfathomable wisdom of our Heavenly Father. What is an a fortiori argument? It is, from a human standpoint, an argument in the superlative degree; e. g., if a bushel of apples is worth one dollar, how much more would a thousand bushels of apples compensate for the dollar! The E. V., in this wonderful passage, Our Heavenly Father, signally fails to bring out the full force of our Lords affirmation. So do not forget the translation of this passage which I literally give you, How much more will your Father who is from heaven give His Holy Spirit to them that ask Him? Now, see the beautiful and significant concatenation of our Saviors argument confirmatory of real efficiency in prayer. That shameless prayer, the sine qua non of every victory at a throne of grace, actually brings your Heavenly Father down to you, so that He is convenient and ready to give you His Holy Spirit, victory over the devil, and a heavenly sunburst. The simplicity of Jesus is actually inimitable. Here, describing this efficient prayer, illustrative of the very form he has given us, He assures us of victory invariably attending that shameless prayer, and culminating in the gift of the Holy Ghost, by our Father who is from heaven, having come down in answer to that shameless prayer. Hence, you see the Divine presence is indispensable in all acceptable worship, and absolutely necessary to the blessings of salvation and sanctification and victory over the enemy. We must have the real, personal presence of God. There is but one way to succeed, and that is to pray Him down from heaven. Now do not forget that this shameless prayer is the only one that will bring Him down, making His presence our paradise, giving to all the Holy Ghost to impenitent infidels and demon-filled sinners in the capacity of a Convictor; to all brokenhearted penitents, a Regenerator; to weak believers, an Illuminator; to consecrated, believing Christians, a Sanctifier; and to all the sanctified, a Glorious Edifier.<\/p>\n An argument from logic 11:11-13<\/span><\/p>\n These two examples further enforce the point that God will respond to our prayers, and they stress that He will do so kindly (cf. Mat 7:9-10). Since God is our heavenly Father, He will do no less than a normal earthly father would do. Even a good earthly father would not give his son who asked for a fish or an egg a snake or a scorpion. A snake can look like a fish, and scorpions sometimes bred in eggs. [Note: Edersheim, 2:242.] <\/span> Such a response would be cruel rather than loving since the substitution would involve no real giving but deception and even danger.<\/p>\n If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father,…. Our Lord illustrates and confirms what … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 11:11”<\/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-25398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25398","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=25398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}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: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/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: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/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: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"