20<\/strong>. For when<\/em>, &c.] This verse enforces the exhortation just given, by reminding the Christian that once he was emphatically not<\/em> the “bond-servant of righteousness.”<\/p>\n free from righteousness<\/em> ] Lit. free unto righteousness<\/strong>; i.e. with respect to it, both as to its mercy and as to its consequent claim. There is here a deep and solemn irony, (if we may venture the word), which has some parallel in 1Pe 4:3<\/span>; q. d., “You had nothing to do with the righteousness of God; you were not justified before Him: therefore His righteousness had, as it were, nothing to do with you; it laid no bond<\/em> of grateful love upon you.”<\/p>\n Ye were free from righteousness – <\/B>That is, in your former state, you were not at all under the influence of righteousness. You were entirely devoted to sin; a strong expression of total depravity. It settles the question; and proves that they had no native goodness. The argument which is implied here rather than expressed is, that now they ought to be equally free from sin, since they had become released from their former bondage, and had become the servants of another master.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 20<\/span>. Ye were free from righteousness.<\/B><\/I>] These two servitudes are incompatible; if we cannot serve God<\/I> and Mammon<\/I>, surely we cannot serve Christ<\/I> and Satan<\/I>. We must be either sinners<\/I> or saints<\/I>; God’s servants<\/I> or the devil’s slaves<\/I>. It cannot be as a good mistaken man has endeavoured<\/I> to sing<\/I>: – <\/P> “To good and evil equal bent,<\/P> I’m both a devil and a saint.”<\/P> I know not whether it be possible to paint the utter prevalence of sin in stronger colours than the apostle does here, by saying they were<\/I> FREE from righteousness<\/I>. It seems tantamount to that expression in Genesis, Ge 6:5<\/span>, where, speaking of the total degeneracy of the human race, the writer says, Every imagination<\/I> of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually<\/I>. They were all corrupt; they were altogether abominable: there was none that did good; no, not one.<\/P> <\/p>\n q.d. When you served sin, you knew that God and righteousness had no whit of your service; why then should sin have any of your service now, when ye have delivered up yourselves to righteousness, or godliness, to be the observant followers thereof? Why should not ye now abstain as strictly from all sin, as then ye did from all good? <\/P> <\/p>\n 20. For when ye were theservants<\/B>“were servants” <\/P> of Sin, ye were freefrom<\/B>rather, “in respect of” <\/P> Righteousness<\/B>Difficultieshave been made about this clause where none exist. The import of itseems clearly to be this:”Since no servant can serve twomasters, much less where their interests come into deadly collision,and each demands the whole man, so, while ye were in the service ofSin ye were in no proper sense the servants of Righteousness, andnever did it one act of real service: whatever might be yourconviction of the claims of Righteousness, your real services wereall and always given to Sin: Thus had ye full proof of the nature andadvantages of Sin’s service.” The searching question with whichthis is followed up, shows that this is the meaning.<\/P><\/p>\n For when ye were the servants of sin<\/strong>,…. This is an argument used, or a reason given, why regenerate persons should be diligent in the service of righteousness; because when they were employed in the drudgery of sin, they<\/p>\n were free from righteousness<\/strong>; they had no righteousness, nor were they desirous of any; yea, averse to it, threw off the yoke of the law of righteousness, and lived in a very unrighteous manner: hence may be observed what is the free will of man in an unregenerate state; not free to, but “from” righteousness; free enough to evil, but from all that is good; and also what obligation lies upon believers, who are delivered from the bondage of corruption, and the servitude of sin, to a life and service of righteousness; inasmuch as they were before free from it, and unconcerned about it, but are now made by the grace of God free to it, they ought therefore cheerfully to pursue it, and neglect no opportunity of performing it.<\/p>\n Free in regard of righteousness <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Ye wore no collar of righteousness, but freely did as ye pleased. They were “free.” Note dative case, personal relation, of <\/SPAN><\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n Free from righteousness [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. An ambiguous translation. Better, Rev., free in regard of righteousness. Disengaged (Morison), practically independent of its demands, having offered their service to the opposing power. They could not serve two masters.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “For when ye were the servants of sin,”<\/strong> (hote gar douloi ete tes hamartias) “For when you all were slaves of sin,” doing what came naturally, each what seemed right in his own covetous eyes, Jdg 21:25<\/span>; When they were in bondage to sin and the devil, Joh 8:44<\/span>; Eph 2:1-3<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “Ye were free from righteousness;”<\/strong> (eleutheroi ete te dikaiosune) “You all were (or existed) as free, severed from, unattached to righteousness; “Righteousness held no moral or ethical obligation over them then. They had no righteous nature, ‘could not produce righteous fruit, Mat 7:18<\/span>. One becomes under an obligation of gratitude to do righteousness, and his faith or belief is imputed to him for the Righteousness of God, Rom 4:5-8<\/span>; Gal 3:6<\/span>; 2Co 5:21<\/span>; Tit 2:11-13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 20. For when ye were, etc. He still repeats the difference, which he had before mentioned, between the yoke of righteousness and that of sin; for these two things, sin and righteousness, are so contrary, that he who devotes himself to the one, necessarily departs from the other. And he thus represents both, that by viewing them apart we may see more clearly what is to be expected from each; for to set things thus apart enables us to understand better their distinctive character. He then sets sin on one side, and righteousness on the other; and having stated this distinction, he afterwards shows what results from each of them. <\/p>\n Let us then remember that the Apostle still reasons on the principle of contraries, and in this manner, “While ye were the servants of sin, ye were freed from righteousness; but now a change having taken place, it behoves you to serve righteousness; for you have been liberated from the yoke of sin. He calls those free from righteousness who are held by no bridle to obey righteousness. This is the liberty of the flesh, which so frees us from obedience to God, that it makes us slaves to the devil. Wretched then and accursed is this liberty, which with unbridled or rather mad frenzy, leads us exultingly to our destruction. <\/p>\n 20<\/strong>. <\/strong> Free from righteousness<\/strong> They felt themselves released from the divine requirements, being under the opposite master, Sin.<\/p>\n ‘For when you were servants of sin, you were free in regard of righteousness. What fruit had you then at that time in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death.’<\/p>\n They had once been servants of sin. And in those days they had had little regard to the claims of righteousness. True righteousness had not been their concern. But what fruit had they had then in the way that they had behaved, doing and partaking in things of which they were now ashamed? The answer expected is ‘none’. And what was more they were things that resulted in death.<\/p>\n Rom 6:20-22<\/span> . With Paul does not introduce an illustration to Rom 6:19<\/span> (Fritzsche), but rather seeing that Rom 6:20<\/span> through in Rom 6:21<\/span> , as well as through the correlative antithesis in Rom 6:22<\/span> , must necessarily form a connected whole in thought with what follows till the end of Rom 6:22<\/span> the motive<\/em> for complying with what is enjoined in Rom 6:19<\/span> ; and that in such a way, that he first of all prepares the way<\/em> for it by Rom 6:20<\/span> , and then in Rom 6:21<\/span> f., leading on by , actually expresses<\/em> it, equally impressively and touchingly, as respects its deterrent (Rom 6:21<\/span> ) and inviting (Rom 6:22<\/span> ) aspects. The fact that he first sets down Rom 6:20<\/span> for itself<\/em> , makes the recollection which he thus calls up more forcible, more tragic<\/em> . Observe also the emphasis and the symmetrical separation of the several words in Rom 6:20<\/span> .<\/p>\n . .] Ye were free in relation to righteousness<\/em> , in point of fact independent of its demands, since ye were serving the opposite ruler (the ). , , Chrysostom. A sad truth based on experience! not a flight of irony (Koppe, Reiche, Philippi, and others), but full of deep moral pain.<\/p>\n Rom 6:21<\/span> . ] in consequence of this freedom.<\/p>\n . is with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Bengel, and others, including Winer, Reiche (but see below), Fritzsche, Jatho, and Hofmann (but see below) in harmony with the punctuation of the text. rec<\/em> [1488] to be regarded as one connected question, so that the reason to be given for replying in the negative sense to this question is then contained in ; namely, thus: what fruit, now, had ye then<\/em> (when ye were still in the service of sin, etc., Rom 6:20<\/span> ) of things, on account of which ye are now ashamed? i.e.<\/em> ye had then no<\/em> fruit, no<\/em> moral gain, etc., and the proof thereof is: for the final result of them<\/em> (those things) is death<\/em> . What leads at last to death, could bring you no moral gain. For the grammatical explanation is to be supplied before (which in fact is perfectly regular, Winer, p. 149 [E. T. 203]), and to this the in the probative clause refers. Regarding . , to be ashamed over anything<\/em> (not merely of the being put to shame by the fact<\/em> of something not proving to be what<\/em> we thought it, as Th. Schott weakens the sense) comp Xen. Hell.<\/em> v. 4, 33: , Plat. Rep.<\/em> p. 396 C: , LXX., Isa 20:5<\/span> , Rom 1:29<\/span> ; 1Ma 4:31 ; also Dem. 426, 10. Reiche makes the double mistake of very arbitrarily referring to , which is to be taken collectively; and of explaining as meaning to bring forth fruit<\/em> (which would be . , ), so that the sense would be: “what deeds, on account of which ye are now ashamed, proceeded from your service of sin?” Hofmann, resolving the expression into , wishes to take in the well-known sense of addition to<\/em> , so that Paul asks: “what fruit had ye then over and above<\/em> those things of which ye are now ashamed?” those things being the former disgraceful enjoyments<\/em> , with which they now desired to have nothing further to do. But how could the reader think of such enjoyments<\/em> without any hint being given by the text? And how arbitrary in this particular place is that interpretation of , especially when the verb itself is compounded with , and that in the sense: to be ashamed thereupon<\/em> , and accordingly indicates how is to be resolved and properly understood! See generally on with the dative, as specifying the ground with verbs of emotion, Khner, II. 1, p. 436, and with . II. 2, p. 381, rem. 6. Many others (Syriac, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melancthon, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, Carpzov, Koppe, Tholuck undecidedly, Rckert, Kllner, de Wette, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Philippi, Reithmayr, Ewald, van Hengel, and Th. Schott) end the question with , so that . becomes the answer, of which again . . is the proof: “ what sort of fruit had ye then? Things<\/em> (ye had as fruit) of which ye are now ashamed; for the end of them is death<\/em> .” is likewise regarded as a figurative description either of gain<\/em> or reward<\/em> (“ignoble and pernicious joys and pleasures,” Ewald), or of actions<\/em> , which are the penal consequence of reprobate sentiments. But fatal to all this explanation, which breaks up the passage, is the antithesis in Rom 6:22<\/span> , where the having of fruit<\/em> , not its quality<\/em> , is opposed to the preceding; if Paul had inquired in Rom 6:21<\/span> regarding the quality<\/em> of the fruit, he must have used in Rom 6:22<\/span> some such expression as . . Besides, we cannot well see why he should not have written either or and ; he would by annexing the plurals<\/em> , though these were in themselves admissible on account of the collective nature of , have only expressed himself in a fashion obscure and misleading. Finally, it is to be observed that he never attributes or to immorality; he attributes to it (Gal 5:19<\/span> ), but uses only of the good; he speaks of the , Gal 5:22<\/span> ; of the , Eph 5:9<\/span> ; of the , Phi 1:11<\/span> ; of the . , Phi 1:22<\/span> ; comp Rom 1:13<\/span> ; in fact he negatives<\/em> the idea of in reference to evil, when he describes the as , Eph 5:11<\/span> ; comp Tit 3:14<\/span> . With this type of conception our interpretation alone accords, by which in the question . . (comp 1Co 9:18<\/span> ) there is contained the negation<\/em> of in the service of sin, the . The most plausible objection to our explanation is this, that in accordance with it . becomes merely an incidental observation. But an incidental observation may be of great weight in its bearing on the matter in hand. It is so here, where it contains a trenchant argumentative point in favour of replying in a negative sense to the question. Calvin aptly says: “non poterat gravius exprimere quod volebat, quam appellando eorum conscientiam et quasi in eorum persona pudorem confitendo.” Compare also Chrysostom.<\/p>\n ] neuter<\/em> : those things, on account of which ye are now ashamed, the pre-Christian sins and vices<\/em> . Bengel well remarks: “remote spectat praeterita.”<\/p>\n ] death<\/em> , i.e. the eternal<\/em> death, whose antithesis is the , Rom 6:23<\/span> ; not the physical<\/em> (Fritzsche), comp on Rom 6:16<\/span> .<\/p>\n The before (see the crit. remarks) does not correspond to the following ; on the contrary, we must translate: for the end indeed<\/em> (which however excludes every fruit) is death. See Hartung, Partikell<\/em> . II. p. 414, Winer, p. 534 f. [E T. 719 f.].<\/p>\n Rom 6:22<\/span> . . . [1494] ] But now<\/em> (ye are no longer without fruit, as formerly; no, now) ye possess your fruit unto holiness<\/em> , so that its possession has as its consequence holiness for you ( consecutive). The <\/em><\/strong> is consequently not the fruit<\/em> (the moral gain) itself<\/em> , which they already have<\/em> (that would also be at variance with . in Rom 6:19<\/span> ), but the state, which the<\/em> of their fruit shall in future bring about<\/em> . The fruit itself<\/em> and is to be taken, quite as in Rom 6:21<\/span> , as ethical product is consequently the new, Christian morality<\/em> (comp the <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> in Rom 6:4<\/span> ), the Christian virtuous nature which belongs to them ( <\/em><\/strong> ), and the possession of which leads by the way of progressive development to holiness<\/em> .<\/p>\n .] as the final result however<\/em> (of this your fruit) eternal life<\/em> in the kingdom of Messiah. This<\/em> possession is now as yet an ideal one (Rom 8:24<\/span> ). Hofmann erroneously takes adverbially<\/em> (1Pe 3:8<\/span> ; comp on 1Co 15:24<\/span> ), which is impossible after Rom 6:21<\/span> , in accordance with which the word must here also be the emphatic substantive<\/em> , the finale<\/em> of the ; hence also <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> is dependent not on <\/em><\/strong> (Hofmann), but on <\/em><\/strong> .<\/p>\n The circumstance, moreover, that Paul in Rom 6:22<\/span> says <\/em><\/strong> . <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , while in Rom 6:18<\/span> he has said <\/em><\/strong> . <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , is rightly illustrated by Grotius: “qui bonitati rebusque honestis servit, et Deo servit, quia Deus hoc semper amavit et in evangelio apertissime praecepit.” Comp Rom 12:2<\/span> . And precisely therein lies the true freedom, 1Pe 2:16<\/span> ; Joh 8:36<\/span> .<\/p>\n [1488] ec.<\/em> Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).<\/p>\n [1494] . . . .<\/p>\n 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 20. Free from righteousness<\/strong> ] That is, utterly void of grace, and did therefore sin lustily and horribly, earnestly opposing with crest and breast whatsoever stood in the way of their sins and lusts. <\/p>\n 20 23<\/strong> .] As a further urging of the above exhortations<\/em> , the Apostle contrasts<\/em> the end<\/em> of their former life<\/em> with that of their present<\/em> .<\/p>\n 20.<\/strong> ] <\/strong> introduces a motive<\/em> for the foregoing: but the verse [properly] belongs to the following<\/em> : for Rom 6:22 is the contrast to it. Meyer and Fritz. think it to be an explanation of Rom 6:19<\/span> , but are certainly mistaken. For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in relation to<\/strong> (dat. of regard or reference, Winer, edn. 6, 31.1) righteousness<\/strong> .<\/p>\n There is doubtless a latent irony in the use of here; but it must not be brought out too strongly: it does not appear, till the end<\/em> of that freedom is declared.<\/p>\n Rom 6:20<\/span> . In every state in which man lives, there is a bondage and a liberty. In the old state, it was bondage to sin, and liberty in relation to righteousness. For see Winer, 263.<\/p>\n NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Rom 6:20-23<\/p>\n 20For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.<\/p>\n Rom 6:20-21 This is simply stating the opposite of Rom 6:18-19. Believers can only serve one master (cf. Luk 16:13).<\/p>\n Rom 6:22-23 These verses form a logical progression of the wages paid by whom one serves. Thank God this discussion of sin and the believer ends on a grace focus! First is the gift of salvation through our cooperation, and then the gift of the Christian life, also through our cooperation. Both are received gifts through faith and repentance.<\/p>\n Rom 6:22 “you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life” The term “benefit,” literally “fruit” is used in Rom 6:21 to speak of the consequences of sin, but in Rom 6:22 it speaks of the consequences of serving God. The immediate benefit is the believer’s Christlikeness. The ultimate benefit is being with Him and like Him eternally (cf. 1Jn 3:2). If there is no immediate result (changed life, cf. James 2) the ultimate result can be legitimately questioned (eternal life, cf. Matthew 7). “No fruit, no root!”<\/p>\n Rom 6:23 This is the summary of the entire chapter. Paul painted the choice in black and white. The choice is ourssin and death or free grace through Christ and eternal life. It is very similar to the “two ways” of OT wisdom literature (Deu 30:1; Deu 30:17; Psalms 1; Proverbs 4; Proverbs 10-19; Mat 7:13-14).<\/p>\n “the wages of sin” Sin is personified as (1) a slave owner, (2) a military general, or (3) a king who pays wages (cf. Rom 3:9; Rom 5:21; Rom 6:9; Rom 6:14; Rom 6:17).<\/p>\n “the free gift of God is eternal life” This word, translated “free gift” (charisma) was from the root for grace (charis, cf. Rom 3:24; Rom 5:15-17; Eph 2:8-9). See note at Rom 3:24.<\/p>\n from = with regard to. <\/p>\n 20-23.] As a further urging of the above exhortations, the Apostle contrasts the end of their former life with that of their present.<\/p>\n Rom 6:20. , of sin) This case contains the emphasis of the sentence; sin had taken possession of you.- , to [towards] righteousness) that is in respect of righteousness.<\/p>\n Rom 6:20<\/p>\n Rom 6:20<\/p>\n For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in regard of righteousness.-When they were unbelievers and serving sin, they felt no obligation to do righteousness. [To be free as to righteousness is to be free in the sense only in which a servant, while bound to one master, is free from another.]<\/p>\n the servants: Rom 6:16, Rom 6:17, Joh 8:34 <\/p>\n from: Gr. to <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Psa 107:10 – bound Rom 6:18 – servants Col 3:7 – General<\/p>\n SLAVES OF SIN<\/p>\n When ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.<\/p>\n Rom 6:20<\/p>\n St. Paul encourages the Christian to remember the bondage of sin, that he may appreciate the blessings of redemption. The assertion is made of the Roman Christians that such had been their condition. And it has been ours, for all have sinned.<\/p>\n I. What is the slavery of sin?<\/p>\n (a) It is the subjugation of the whole natureof the soul first, and then of the body, which is the instrument of the soul.<\/p>\n (b) It is subjection to the condemnation of the law. Sin is the transgression of the law.<\/p>\n (c) It is rebellion against the rightful Governor.<\/p>\n II. What are its results?<\/p>\n (a) It brings its own punishment in the habit and love of sinning.<\/p>\n (b) It incurs Gods displeasure.<\/p>\n (c) It involves condemnation.<\/p>\n Illustration<\/p>\n Slaves who came to the English settlement for shelter had had cruel task-masters; wounds caused by chains were on their wrists and ankles, bruises from heavy burdens on their shoulders. We have been tied and bound with the chain of our sins; we know the heavy weight of some sinful habit, that seemed pleasant enough at first, but grew into a chain that cuts and wounds us. But our Redeemer waits to set us free from the task-master, and shows the price of His most precious blood.<\/p>\n :20<\/p>\n Rom 6:20. This means that a man cannot be a servant of sin and still be a servant of righteousness; that would be like serving two masters. (See Mat 6:24.)<\/p>\n Rom 6:20. For. This verse restates the view given of their former condition in respect to sin and righteousness, in preparation for the final and most accurate statement of their present spiritual condition, Rom 6:22 (Webster and Wilkinson). Meyer here properly calls attention to the tragical force of emphatic order of words in the original.<\/p>\n When ye were servants of sin (comp. Rom 6:17), ye were free as regards righteousness. The only freedom they had was this sad freedom as respects the right service; the deepest slavery in fact, just as to be servants of righteousness is the truest freedom. It was not that they counted themselves free, or that righteousness had no claims upon them, but that, as a terrible fact, they were uninfluenced by its demands.<\/p>\n That is, you were free de facto, not de jure; when you were sin’s servants, you were void of righteousness, that had no part of your service then; therefore sin should not have on joy of your service now; as righteousness had no part of your service in your carnal state, so there is no reason why sin should have any service from you in your gracious state. <\/p>\n Learn, That such sinners as are now become servants to God, ought to be as free from sin, as before they were free from righteousness: It will evidently appear so, if we consider the great and good Master which we serve, the nature of our present work, the certainty and transcendency of our future reward, the obligations we lie under as creatures, as new creatures, by the law of creation, by the favour of redemption, by the promise and hopes of glorification; all this should engage us to the love and practice of universal holiness.<\/p>\n Vv. 20, 21. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free in respect of righteousness. What fruit therefore had ye then? Things of which ye are now ashamed; for certainly their end is death.<\/p>\n We must seek the counterpart of Rom 6:20, not in Rom 6:18, which belongs to a passage now concluded, but in Rom 6:22. In Rom 6:20, indeed, there begins the description of the consequences of the two services. The for bears on the exhortation contained in Rom 6:19 b It would be impossible to depict the degrading character of the former dependence in which his readers had lived, more keenly than the apostle does in the words: free in respect of righteousness. The conviction of what is righteous did not for a moment hamper them in their course of life. This was an annoyance which they did not feel! To use the expression of Scripture, they drank iniquity as one drinketh up water. <\/p>\n For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in regard of righteousness. [Whole-hearted service to God is now no more than you, by your past conduct, recognized as reasonable. For when ye were servants of sin ye made no effort whatever to serve righteousness, or to have two masters. If ye rendered no double-minded, divided service to sin in the days of your unregeneracy, surely you ought now to render a whole-souled, single-minded service to righteousness in these your regenerate days.] <\/p>\n 20. For when you may be the slaves of sin, you may be free of righteousness. The sinner has no righteous character whatever. The sanctified have no sinful character. The one the slave of sin, and the other that of holiness, while the justified are somewhat intermediate, though no longer serving sin, but still having it on hand in a subjugated state and serving in the kingdom of God after the similitude of hirelings, liable to go out at any time.<\/p>\n 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were {t} free from righteousness.<\/p>\n (t) Righteousness had no rule over you.<\/p>\n As an added incentive, Paul reminded his readers that when they had chosen the slavery to sin option in the past they did not gain any (moral) righteousness. They did not become more righteous in their conduct. What Paul said applied equally to their pre-conversion and post-conversion experience.<\/p>\n For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 20. For when, &c.] This verse enforces the exhortation just given, by reminding the Christian that once he was emphatically not the “bond-servant of righteousness.” free from righteousness ] Lit. free unto righteousness; i.e. with respect to it, both as to its … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 6:20”<\/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-28044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28044","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=28044"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28044\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28044"}],"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
<\/P> 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: 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: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/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: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/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: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined 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: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/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":"