17<\/strong>. Now<\/em> ] i.e. in this state of the case<\/strong>.<\/p>\n it is no more I<\/em> ] The Gr. is lit. but now no longer I do it<\/strong>, &c. The “ no longer<\/em> ” is noteworthy, as implying (in the natural and common meaning of the words) a different previous<\/em> state. It is possible indeed for the Gr. phrase to mean “no longer” with a logical<\/em> reference only: q. d., “you can no longer maintain, after this statement<\/em>, that I, &c.” But the large majority of New Testament parallels are for the time<\/em> -reference: q. d., “it was once my true self, it is now no longer my true self, which works the will of sin.” Divine grace has now so altered the inner balance that the conscious will<\/em> hates sin as sin and loves holiness as holiness. See meanwhile note on Rom 7:9<\/span>; where it is pointed out that even before grace self<\/em> and sin<\/em> are not, in strictness, to be identified. But the present verse goes further; indicating a real antagonism now between sin and the (regenerated) self.<\/p>\n It is no more I that do it – <\/B>This is evidently figurative language, for it is really the man that sins when evil is committed. But the apostle makes a distinction between sin and what he intends by the pronoun I. By the former he evidently means his corrupt nature. By the latter he refers to his renewed nature, his Christian principles. He means to say that he does not approve or love it in his present state, but that it is the result of his native propensities and passions. In his heart, and conscience, and habitual feeling, he did not choose to commit sin, but abhorred it. Thus, every Christian can say that he does not choose to do evil, but would wish to be perfect; that he hates sin, and yet that his corrupt passions lead him astray.<\/P> But sin – <\/B>My corrupt passions and native propensities.<\/P> That dwelleth in me – <\/B>Dwelling in me as its home. This is a strong expression, denoting that sin had taken up its habitation in the mind, and abode there. It had not been yet wholly dislodged. This expression stands in contrast with another that occurs, where it is said that the Spirit of God dwells in the Christian, Rom 8:9<\/span>; 1Co 3:16<\/span>. The sense is, that he is strongly influenced by sin on the one hand, and by the Spirit on the other. From this expression has arisen the phrase so common among Christians, in-dwelling sin.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 17. Now then it is no more I<\/B><\/I>] It is not that I<\/I> which constitutes reason<\/I> and conscience, but sin<\/I>-corrupt and sensual inclinations, that dwelleth in me<\/I>-that has the entire domination over my reason, darkening my understanding, and perverting my judgment; for which there is condemnation<\/I> in the law, but no cure<\/I>. So we find here that there is a principle in the unregenerate man stronger than reason<\/I> itself; a principle which is, properly speaking, not of the essence of the soul<\/I>, but acts in<\/I> it, as its lord<\/I>, or as a tyrant<\/I>. This is inbred<\/I> and indwelling sin<\/I>-the seed of the serpent<\/I>; by which the whole soul is darkened, confused, perverted, and excited to rebellion against God.<\/P> <\/p>\n It is no more I that do it; <\/B>i.e. it is not I as spiritual or renewed, it is not my whole self, but<\/B> it is sin that dwelleth in me, <\/B>that inhabits in me as a troublesome inmate, that I cannot get rid of, that will not out so long as the house stands; as the fretting leprosy in the walls of a house would not out till the house itself were demolished. It is such an inhabitant as is never from home; it is not in us as a stranger for a season, but it makes its constant abode with us. <\/P> <\/p>\n 17. Now then it is no more I<\/B>myrenewed self.<\/I> <\/P> that do it<\/B>“thatwork it.” <\/P> but sin which dwelleth inme<\/B>that principle of sin that still has its abode in me. Toexplain this and the following statements, as many do (even BENGELand THOLUCK), of the sinsof unrenewed men against their better convictions, is to do painfulviolence to the apostle’s language, and to affirm of the unregeneratewhat is untrue. That coexistence and mutual hostility of “flesh”and “spirit” in the same renewed man, which is so clearlytaught in Ro 8:4<\/span>, c., and in Ga5:16<\/span>, &c., is the true and only key to the language of thisand the following verses. (It is hardly necessary to say that theapostle means not to disown the blame of yielding to his corruptions,by saying, “it is not he that does it, but sin that dwelleth inhim.” Early heretics thus abused his language but the wholestrain of the passage shows that his sole object in thus expressinghimself was to bring more vividly before his readers the conflict oftwo opposite principles, and how entirely, as a new manhonoringfrom his inmost soul the law of Godhe condemned and renounced hiscorrupt nature, with its affections and lusts, its stirrings and itsoutgoings, root and branch).<\/P><\/p>\n Now then, it is no more I that do it<\/strong>,…. This is another inference, deduced from what is before said, that since he did not approve, but hated what he did, and willed the contrary, it was not he as spiritual, as born again, as a new man, a new creature, that did it; see 1Jo 3:9<\/span>. He says,<\/p>\n But sin that dwelleth in me<\/strong>; the old man, the carnal I, the evil present with him, the law in his members; which not only existed in him, and wrought in him, and that at times very strongly, but dwelt in him, had its abode in him, as it has in all regenerate persons, and will have, as long as they are in the body.<\/p>\n So now <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). A logical contrast, “as the case really stands.”<\/P> But sin that dwelleth in me <\/B> (‘ <\/SPAN><\/span>). “But the dwelling in me sin.” Not my true self, my higher personality, but my lower self due to my slavery to indwelling sin. Paul does not mean to say that his whole self has no moral responsibility by using this paradox. “To be saved from sin, a man must at the same time own it and disown it” (Denney). <\/P> <\/p>\n Now – no more [ – ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Not temporal, pointing back to a time when it was otherwise, but logical, pointing to an inference. After this statement you can no more maintain that, etc. <\/P> I [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. My personality proper; my moral self – consciousness which has approved the law (ver. 16) and has developed vague desires for something better. 40<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Now then it is no more I that do it,”<\/strong> (nuni de ouketi ego katergazomai auto) “But now (and hereafter) it is not any more I that do it;” Sin that in me overmasters me and my better self at times and will always be trying to do so, this is why I the new creature must always be alert to recognize and resist compulsions and lusts still existing in me; Jas 4:5<\/span>; Jas 4:7-8<\/span>; 1Pe 5:7-10<\/span>; Rom 12:1-2<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “But sin that dwelleth in me,”<\/strong> (alla he enoikousa en emoi hamartia) “But the sin (which) indwells me,” Sin is an indwelling state, into which one is conceived and born, and a state or condition from which he is never completely liberated until death, Psa 51:5<\/span>; Eph 2:2<\/span>; Jas 1:15<\/span>; 1Co 15:55-57<\/span>; 1Jn 1:8-9<\/span>. Whatever weakness Paul had, whatever sins of the flesh he was heir to, to desire repeatedly to do, to covet after, he did not blame such on the law or on God as being unholy or unjust; he did not justify or defend sin in his own life. He admitted it, leaving us an example of humility and confession and need of dependence upon God for daily spiritual strength, to war against the world, the flesh, and the Devil, Eph 6:11-18<\/span>; 1Jn 2:15-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 17. Now it is no more I who do it, etc. This is not the pleading of one excusing himself, as though he was blameless, as the case is with many triflers who think that they have a sufficient defense to cover all their wickedness, when they cast the blame on the flesh; but it is a declaration, by which he shows how very far he dissented from his own flesh in his spiritual feeling; for the faithful are carried along in their obedience to God with such fervour of spirit that they deny the flesh. <\/p>\n This passage also clearly shows, that Paul speaks here of none but of the godly, who have been already born again; for as long as man remains like himself, whatsoever he may be, he is justly deemed corrupt; but Paul here denies that he is wholly possessed by sin; nay, he declares himself to be exempt from its bondage, as though he had said, that sin only dwelt in some part of his soul, while with an earnest feeling of heart he strove for and aspired after the righteousness of God, and clearly proved that he had the law of God engraven within him. (225) <\/p>\n (225) The last clause of this verse is worthy of notice, as the expression “indwelling sin” seems to have arisen from the words ἡ οἰκουσα ἐν ἐμοὶ — “which dwells in me.” Sin was in him as in a house or dwelling; it was an in-habiting sin, or that which is in-abiding or resident. — Ed. <\/p>\n (17) This, then, appears to be the true explanation of the difficulty. There is really a dualism in the soul. I am not to be identified with that lower self which is enthralled by sin.<\/p>\n 17<\/strong>. <\/strong> No more I<\/strong> So completely nullified and robbed of my moral personality am I that the carnal, self, indwelling <\/em> sin is the real agent, absorbing for the time being the whole man.<\/p>\n ‘So now it is no more I who do it, but sin which dwells in me.’<\/p>\n But why, says Paul, do I sometimes behave like this? What explanation can there be? His reply is that it is because what he does is not done by his true self, his inward man, his regenerate nature. It is rather done by ‘sin which dwells in him’ (this in contrast with the indwelling of the Spirit – Rom 8:9<\/span>). It is done as a result of a carnal disposition which is the home of sin, which is a part of his old self. Here then we have the first indication that Rom 7:15-16<\/span> are not to be seen as the whole of his experience. They are rather his experience when the fleshly side of him takes over. It is not he who is doing it but the sin which dwells in him. Thus he is leaving room for a part of his life when it is he who is in control, and not the flesh. At those times he ‘fulfils the Law’ (Rom 8:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n Indeed he sees this as so serious a situation that he repeats it again in Rom 7:20<\/span>. But he is not hereby denying responsibility for the sin. He is simply saying that it is not done by his ‘new man’ (the man that in intention he is now) but by the ‘old man’ (the man whom he once was, who still lingers on, even though crucified with Christ).<\/p>\n Here we see the importance of God’s method of making us right with Himself. Had we not been able to recognise that this sinful part of us has in fact been put to death on the cross so that it has already been punished, we would be in total despair. We would see our situation as hopeless. But as it is we can hate the things that we do while still retaining our confidence that God sees us as acceptable in Christ, because He knows that we only do them through weakness.<\/p>\n On the other hand, in the case of the unbeliever, much of what he does he revels in. He can even boast about his sins. But for the Christian his sins are a pain and a heartache. He hates them even while he does them. This is one evidence that demonstrates that he really is a Christian, even though ‘weak’.<\/p>\n Rom 7:17<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Sin that dwelleth in me<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> That is, reigneth in me. <\/em>So God is said to dwell<\/em> among the Israelites, as their king and governor; Exo 25:8<\/span>; Exo 29:45<\/span>. <\/span>Num 35:34<\/span>. Dwell, <\/em>here and Rom 7:20<\/span> has the same sense in the language of the Jew, as reign<\/em> or have dominion over, <\/em>in the language of the Gentile; chap. Rom 6:12-14<\/span>. <\/p>\n Rom 7:17<\/span> . ] does not introduce a minor proposition<\/em> attaching itself with a “ but now<\/em> ” (Reithmayr and Hofmann) a view which is unsuitable to the antithetical form of the expression; nor is to be taken, with Augustine, as “nunc in statu gratiae;<\/em> ” but it is the quite common and, in Paul’s writings especially, very frequent as it is, however<\/em> (see on Rom 3:21<\/span> ), that is, in this actual state of the case, however;<\/em> namely, since my , notwithstanding my conduct, is not opposed to the law, but on the contrary confirms it. In connection with this view also is not, possibly, temporal<\/em> , “pointing back to a time in which it was otherwise with the speaker” (Hofmann), namely, to what is related in Rom 7:7-11<\/span> , but logical<\/em> , as in Rom 7:20<\/span> ; Rom 11:6<\/span> ; Gal 3:18<\/span> . What is indicated by stands to . in an excluding<\/em> relation, so that after the former there can be no mention of the latter. It is the dialectic non jam, non item<\/em> (Bornemann ad Xen. Cyr<\/em> . i. 6. 27; Winer, p. 547 f. [E. T. 772]; comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph<\/em> . II. p. 432).<\/p>\n ] with emphasis: my personality proper, my self-consciousness, which is my real, morally wishing Ego. It is not this “ I<\/em> ” that performs the evil ( , i.e.<\/em> , Rom 7:16<\/span> ), but the principle of sin, which has its dwelling-place in me (the phenomenal man), enslaving my better but against its power too weak will, and not allowing it to attain accomplishment. That is not, like , to be taken of the moral self-conscious “I,” is affirmed by Paul himself in Rom 7:18<\/span> . But it is erroneous to infer, from what he here says of the , the necessity of the explanation in the sense of the regenerate person (see especially Calvin and Philippi); for if the power practising the evil be not the “I,” but the potentiality of sin, this accords perfectly with the state of the , (1Co 2:14<\/span> ), (Rom 7:14<\/span> ), consequently of the unregenerate, in whom sin rules, and not the grace and power of the Holy Spirit leading the moral Ego to victory. In the regenerate man dwells the Spirit<\/em> (Rom 8:8<\/span> ; Gal 5:16<\/span> f.; 1Co 3:16<\/span> ), who aids the “I” in conquering the sin-power of the flesh (Rom 8:13<\/span> ff.; Gal 5:24<\/span> ).<\/p>\n 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 17. It is no more I<\/strong> ] Mr Bradford, martyr, in a certain letter thus comforteth his friend: At this present, my dear heart in the Lord, you are in a blessed estate, although it seem otherwise to you, or rather to your old Adam; the which I dare now be bold to discern from you, because you would have it not only discerned, but also utterly destroyed. God (saith another reverend man) puts a difference between us and sin in us, as between poison and the box that holds it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Sin that dwelleth in me<\/strong> ] An ill inmate that will not leave, till the house falleth on tho head of it; as the fretting leprosy in the walls of a house would not leave till the house itself were demolished. Sin, as Hagar, will dwell with grace, as Sarah, till death beat it out of doors. <\/p>\n 17.<\/strong> ] Now however<\/strong> (‘quod autem quum ita sit,’ not<\/em> of time, as Grot., ‘nunc post legem datam,’ or Koppe, ‘ex quo Christianus factus sum’) it is no longer<\/strong> (not a chronological, but a logical sequence, ‘ it can no more be said, that<\/em> ;’see reff.) I that perform it<\/strong> ( . as recalling Rom 7:8-15 ), but sin that dwelleth in me<\/strong> . Here the is not the complex responsible self<\/em> , by which the evil deed is wrought, and which incurs the guilt of working it: but the self of the<\/em> WILL in its higher sense<\/em> , the of Rom 7:22<\/span> . The not bearing this in mind has led to error in interpretation and doctrine: e.g. when it is supposed that the Christian is not responsible for his sins committed against his spiritual will and higher judgment; whereas we are all responsible for the of the sin that dwelleth in us, and it is in this very subjection to and involution with the law of sin in our members, that the misery consists, which leads to the cry in Rom 7:24<\/span> .<\/p>\n Rom 7:17<\/span> . . is the true I, and emphatic. As things are, in view of the facts just explained, it is not the true self which is responsible for this line of conduct, but the sin which has its abode in the man: contrast Rom 8:11<\/span> . “Paul said, ‘It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me,’ and ‘I live, yet not I; but Christ that liveth in me’; and both these sayings of his touch on the unsayable” (Dr. John Duncan). To be saved from sin, a man must at the same time own it and disown it; it is this practical paradox which is reflected in this verse. It is safe for a Christian like Paul it is not safe for everybody to explain his failings by the watchword, Not I, but indwelling sin. That might be antinomian, or manichean, as well as evangelical. A true saint may say it in a moment of passion, but a sinner had better not make it a principle.<\/p>\n Now then = But now. <\/p>\n no more = no longer. Greek. ouketi. <\/p>\n sin . . . me = the indwelling sin (App-128.) <\/p>\n dwelleth. Greek. oikeo. Here, verses: Rom 18:20; Rom 8:9, Rom 8:11 -. 1Co 3:16; 1Co 7:12, 1Co 7:13; 1Ti 6:16. <\/p>\n 17.] Now however (quod autem quum ita sit, not of time, as Grot., nunc post legem datam,-or Koppe, ex quo Christianus factus sum) it is no longer (not a chronological, but a logical sequence, it can no more be said, that;see reff.) I that perform it (. as recalling Rom 7:8-15), but sin that dwelleth in me. Here the is not the complex responsible self, by which the evil deed is wrought, and which incurs the guilt of working it: but the self of the WILL in its higher sense, the of Rom 7:22. The not bearing this in mind has led to error in interpretation and doctrine: e.g. when it is supposed that the Christian is not responsible for his sins committed against his spiritual will and higher judgment; whereas we are all responsible for the of the sin that dwelleth in us, and it is in this very subjection to and involution with the law of sin in our members, that the misery consists, which leads to the cry in Rom 7:24.<\/p>\n Rom 7:17. , no longer) These words are repeated, Rom 7:20.-, dwelling) Rom 7:18; Rom 7:20. This word is afterwards used concerning the Spirit, ch. Rom 8:9.<\/p>\n Rom 7:17<\/p>\n Rom 7:17<\/p>\n So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.-So it was not his inner self that did the evil, but sin that dwelt in his members. And unless he was delivered from the sin that controlled him, it would defile his spirit and drag him down to ruin.<\/p>\n sin <\/p>\n Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 5:21”). <\/p>\n it is no more: Rom 7:20, Rom 4:7, Rom 4:8, 2Co 8:12, Phi 3:8, Phi 3:9 <\/p>\n sin: Rom 7:18, Rom 7:20, Rom 7:23, Jam 4:5, Jam 4:6 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Rom 7:8 – sin Rom 8:1 – no<\/p>\n Rom 7:17. How then, or, but now, as the case stands.<\/p>\n It is no longer I that perform it, i.e., what I wish not. I am a slave under sin, what I perform, I know not (Rom 7:16). Both now and no longer are logical, not temporal; they point to an inference, not necessarily to a transition from a former condition into a state of grace. I refers to the moral self-consciousness, but there is as yet no indication that this state of things of itself does or can lead to anything better. The desire is powerless; the I is enslaved.<\/p>\n But sin dwelling in me; the master to whom I am enslaved. In me is supposed by many to differ from I, since Rom 7:18 explains the former as in my flesh. The two phrases are a verbal reproduction of the apparent duality in the person who is passing through such a moral conflict. There is no sign of release, no assertion of power to do good of which the I approves. Whether the experience be that of a regenerate or unregenerate man, the moral responsibility rests on him in whom sin dwells; the description is intended to prove the powerlessness of man under the law, not to define his responsibility.<\/p>\n So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. [From what I have said it is apparent that it is not my spiritual or better self, uninfluenced by the flesh, which does the evil; but it is sin which dwells in my flesh that does it. If I were left to my spiritual self, uninfluenced by the flesh, I would do as the law requires; but sin excites and moves my fleshly nature, and thus prompts me to break the law. The apostle is not arguing for the purpose of showing that he is not responsible for his own conduct; the establishment of such a fact would have no bearing whatever on the question in hand. He is arguing that the law is good, and he seeks to prove this by showing that his better, regenerated, spiritual nature loves it, and strives to fulfill it, and never in any way rebels against it; and that any seeming rebellion found in him is due to his fleshly, sinful nature–that part of himself which he himself repudiates as vile and unworthy, and which he would fain disown.] <\/p>\n 17. It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Enoikousa is from en, in, and oikos, a house. Hence it means the housed-up sin, i. e., the old sin born in him, and still to his sorrow living in him, though under his bitter protest. Hence you see the source of all the trouble. Despite his will and intelligence to the contrary, this old enemy still occupies the citadel in the deep interior of his heart, never having been dislodged in his miraculous conversion, though so stunned and paralyzed that Paul thought he was gone, and went to preaching heroically in Damascus. Soon the enemy stirs so discernibly that recognition is inevitable. Paul is too intense and thorough-going to wink at the Stygian monster and enter into a compromise. He calls to witness heaven, earth and hell, that this vexatious problem must reach a final solution. He quits the ministry and goes away to the Arabian desert to settle the matter with God. He is determined to strike bottom rock before he leaves the lonely wilderness. Hence he keeps company with the wild beasts three years, but he settles the matter for time and eternity, coming back to Damascus a cyclone of fire. So he moved a flaming tornado through Asia and Europe till he laid down his head on Neros block. Instead of being identified with the sin, he meets the charge with a flat denial: It is not at all I that do it, but him that dwelleth in me. Light had shone in, revealing to him that indwelling enemy. He enters the conflict like a hero, and is determined to have it out with him. So he wages a three years war with Adam the First, and achieves a complete victory, which lasts him to the end of his life.<\/p>\n 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but {z} sin that dwelleth in me.<\/p>\n (z) That natural corruption, which adheres strongly even to those that are regenerated, and is not completely gone.<\/p>\n Rather his problem was traceable to the sin that dwelt within him, namely, his sinful nature. Paul was not trying to escape responsibility but was identifying the source of his sin, his sinful nature. "I" describes the new man Paul had become at his conversion (Gal 2:20). Viewed as a whole person he was dead to sin. Nevertheless the source of sin within him was specifically his sinful human nature that was still very much alive.<\/p>\n It comes as a terrible discovery for a new believer, or an untaught believer, to realize that our problem with sin is complex. We are sinners not only because we commit acts of sin (ch. 3) and because, as descendants of Adam, we sin because he sinned (ch. 5). We are also sinners because we possess a nature that is thoroughly sinful (ch. 7). Jesus Christ paid the penalty for acts of sin, He removed the punishment of original sin, and He enables us to overcome the power of innate sin.<\/p>\n Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 17. Now ] i.e. in this state of the case. it is no more I ] The Gr. is lit. but now no longer I do it, &c. The “ no longer ” is noteworthy, as implying (in the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 7:17”<\/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-28064","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28064","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=28064"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28064\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: 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: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/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: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/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: 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":"