15. Belial<\/em> ] This word, derived from two Hebrew ones signifying ‘of no profit,’ was used in the O.T. (e.g. Deu 13:13<\/span>; 1Sa 2:12<\/span>) in the phrase ‘child,’ ‘son’ or ‘daughter of Belial,’ to signify a worthless person, and generally (as in Deu 15:9<\/span>, in the Hebrew) as a substantive signifying worthlessness. It seems to have been personified among the later Jews (some such personification seems clearly indicated by the language of the Apostle), and to have become a synonym for Satan. Similarly we find the idea of Belial presented in Jdg 19:22<\/span> personified by Milton in Paradise Lost<\/em>, Book I. 490. But we must guard against importing the imaginations of the poet into the interpretation of the Scriptures.<\/p>\n And what concord – <\/B>(<\/SPAN><\/span> sumphonesis). Sympathy, unison. This word refers properly to the unison or harmony produced by musical instruments, where there is a chord. What accordance, what unison is there; what strings are there which being struck will produce a chord or harmony? The idea is, then, there is as much that is discordant between Christ and Belial as there is between instruments of music that produce only discordant and jarring sounds.<\/P> Hath Christ – <\/B>What is there in common between Christ and Belial, implying that Christians are governed by the principles, and that they follow the example of Christ.<\/P> Belial – <\/B><\/SPAN><\/span> Belial or <\/SPAN><\/span> Beliar, as as it is found in some of the late editions. The form Beliar is Syriac. The Hebrew word <\/span> be<\/SUP>liyaal means literally without profit; worthlessness; wickedness. It is here evidently applied to Satan. The Syriac translates it Satan. The idea is, that the persons to whom Paul referred, the pagan, wicked, unbelieving world, were governed by the principles of Satan, and were taken captive by him at his will (2Ti 2:26<\/span> compare Joh 8:44<\/span>), and that Christians should be separate from the wicked world, as Christ was separate from all the feelings, purposes, and plans of Satan. He had no participation in them; he formed no union with them; and so it should be with the followers of the one in relation to the followers of the other.<\/P> Or what part – <\/B>(<\/SPAN><\/span> meris). Portion, share, participation, fellowship. This word refers usually to a division of an estate; Luk 10:42<\/span>; Act 8:21<\/span> note; Col 1:12<\/span> note. There is no participation; nothing in common.<\/P> He that believeth – <\/B>A Christian; a man the characteristic of whom it is that he believes on the Lord Jesus.<\/P> With an infidel – <\/B>A man who does not believe – whether a pagan idolater, a profane man, a scoffer, a philosopher, a man of science, a moral man, or a son or daughter of gaiety. The idea is, that on the subject of religion there is no union; nothing in common; no participation. They are governed by different principles; have different feelings; are looking to different rewards; and are tending to a different destiny. The believer, therefore, should not select his partner in life and his chosen companions and friends from this class, but from those with whom he has sympathy, and with whom he has common feelings and hopes.<\/P> <\/p>\n And what concord hath Christ with Belial?<\/B> By Belial, <\/I>in this text, very good interpreters understand the devil; judging that the apostle here opposeth Christ, who is the Head of Believers and of the church, to him who is the head of all unbelievers, and the god of the world. The term is used only in this place in the New Testament, but very often in the Old Testament, to express men notoriously wicked and scandalous, Deu 13:13<\/span>; Jdg 19:22<\/span>; 1Sa 1:16<\/span>; 2:12<\/span>; 25:17<\/span>; 2Sa 16:7<\/span>; 2Ch 13:7<\/span>. The Hebrews themselves are not agreed in the etymology of it; Psa 101:3<\/span>, a wicked thing<\/I> is called a thing of Belial<\/I> (as may be seen in the margin of our bibles); so as the argument is drawn from our duty of conformity to our Head; Christ hath no fellowship with the devil, therefore we ought to have no unnecessary communion with such who manifest themselves to be of their father the devil, by their doing his works; nor hath Christ any communion with the sons of Belial. <\/P> Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?<\/B> What part or portion, that is, what society or communion, hath a believer with one that beheveth not? What hath he to do with him? It was a usual phrase amongst the Jews, Jos 22:25<\/span>,27<\/span>. Some by this part<\/I> understand, what portion in the life to come? In which sense it teacheth us, that we should maintain intimate and elective communion in this life only with such as we would gladly have our portion with in another life. But the most judicious interpreters think this is not intended in this place. <\/P> <\/p>\n 15. Belial<\/B>Hebrew,<\/I>“worthlessness, unprofitableness, wickedness.” As Satan isopposed to God, and Antichrist to Christ; Belial being here opposedto Christ, must denounce all manner of Antichristian uncleanness[BENGEL]. <\/P> he that believeth with aninfidel<\/B>Translate, “a believer with an unbeliever.”<\/P><\/p>\n And what concord hath Christ with Belial<\/strong>?…. The word “Belial” is an Hebrew word, and is only used in this place in the New Testament, but often in the Old; this word is differently read and pronounced, some copies read it “Beliar”, and accordingly in the Ethiopic version it is “Belhor”, and by Jerom read i Belvir”; but he observes, that it is more rightly called Belial”: in some copies it is “Belias”, and so Tertullian k read it; and Jerom l says, that most corruptly read it “Belias”, for “Belial”: some derive it from , “Beli”, and , “Alah”, and signifies “without ascent”; one in a very low condition, of low life, that never rises up, and comes to any thing; to which Kimchi’s etymology of the word seems to agree, who says m, that Belial is a wicked man, , “who does not succeed, and does not prosper”: others say it signifies n one that is<\/p>\n , “Beli Ol, without a yoke”, without the yoke of the law; so Jarchi explains children of Belial, in De 13:13<\/span> without yoke, who break off the yoke of God; and so say o the Talmudists,<\/p>\n “children of Belial, are children that break off , “the yoke of heaven” (i.e. the law) from their necks;”<\/p>\n lawless persons, who are under no subjection to God or man: others p derive it from , “Jaal”, and , “Beli”, and so it signifies one that is unprofitable, does no good, and is good for nothing; and it is applied in Scripture to any wicked person, or thing; it is commonly rendered by the Chaldee paraphrast, a “wicked man”; and by Aquila and Suidas it is interpreted, “an apostate”, and so it is rendered here in the Arabic version; sometimes the corruption of nature is called “Belial” by the Jews q, than which nothing can be more contrary to Christ; it is also a name of the devil; by Hesychius, “Beliar” is interpreted “a dragon”, by which name the devil is sometimes called; and here the Syriac version is, “what concord hath Christ with Satan?” most interpreters by Belial understand the devil, who has cast off the yoke of obedience to God, and is unprofitable, yea, noxious and hurtful to men; between whom and Christ there is no concord, but a perpetual enmity; and as there is no concord between Christ personal, and Belial the devil, so what can there be between Christ mystical the church, which goes by the name of Christ, 1Co 12:12<\/span> and wicked men, the sons of Belial; who have cast away the law of the Lord, are not subject to the law of God, nor can they be, and are become unprofitable to themselves, and others?<\/p>\n or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel<\/strong>? such have no part, and shall have no part or portion in one and the same thing; the believer’s part and portion are God, Christ, and an eternal inheritance; the unbeliever’s part and portion will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; and therefore what part, society, or communion, can they have with one another?<\/p>\n i De Nominibus Hebraicis, fol. 106. K. k De Corona, c. 10. l Comment. in Ephes. iv. 27. m Sepher Shorashim, rad. . n Hieronym Quaestasive Trad. Heb. in Lib. Reg. fol. 74. I. Tom. 3. & in Ephes. iv. 27. R. Abraham Seba in Tzeror Hammor, fol. 141. 4. & 142. 2. o T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 111. 2. p Philip Aquinas, Schindler, Cocceius, &c. q Tzeror Hammor, fol. 148. 3. & 149. 2.<\/p>\n Concord <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Symphony. Late word from <\/SPAN><\/span>, only here and ecclesiastical writers, though <\/SPAN><\/span> in the papyri.<\/P> Belial <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Transliteration of Hebrew word for worthlessness and applied to Satan (Book of Jubilees<\/I> 1.20) as here. Paul graphically sums up the contrast between Christ and Belial (Satan), the heads of the contending forces of good and evil.<\/P> Portion <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). The fourth of the words. Here by “unbeliever” (<\/SPAN><\/span>) Paul means “disbeliever,” not just an unconverted man who yet approves Christ. <\/P> <\/p>\n Concord [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Only here in the New Testament. From sun together, fwnh voice. Primarily of the concord of sounds. So the kindred sufwnia, A. V., music, see on Luk 14:25<\/span>. Compare sumfwnov with consent, 1Co 7:5<\/span>; and sumfwnew to agree, Mt 18:19<\/span>; Luk 5:36<\/span>, etc. <\/P> Belial [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Beliar. Belial is a transcript of the Hebrew, meaning worthlessness or wickedness. The Septuagint renders it variously by transgressor, impious, foolish, pest. It does not occur in the Septuagint as a proper name. The form Beliar, which is preferred by critics, is mostly ascribed to the Syriac pronunciation of Belial, the change of l into r being quite common. Others, however, derive from Belyar, Lord of the forest. Here a synonym for Satan. Stanley remarks that our associations with the word are colored by the attributes ascribed to Belial by Milton (” Paradise Lost, ” B. 2.), who uses the word for sensual profligacy.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And what concord “<\/strong> (tis de sumphonesis) “and what symphony, harmony, or agreement;” The answer is “none”, 1Sa 5:2-4<\/span>. There is no concord between the two.<\/p>\n 2) “Hath Christ with Belial?”<\/strong> (Christou pros Beliar) “Does Christ hold with Belial?” Belial means “good for nothing,” or “without usefulness;” Such is sin and Satan, as they relate to God and righteousness, 1Co 10:21<\/span>; The cup of the Lord and the devil no more orchestrate than oil and water.<\/p>\n 3) “Or what part,”<\/strong> (e tis meris) “or what part (fragment) of agreement or harmony,” Deu 32:30<\/span>; Deuteronomy 31; Act 16:1-5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Hath he that believeth with an infidel?”<\/strong> (pisto meta apistou) “has or holds a believer with an unbeliever?” or an infidel? none can serve or have cordial fellowship with two masters. Such as try are chameleons, turncoats, hypocrites, Mar 7:6-13<\/span>; Matthew 6-24; Luk 16:13<\/span>.<\/p>\n 15. What concord has Christ with Belial? As to the etymology of the word Belial, even the Hebrews themselves are not agreed (612) The meaning, however, is not doubtful. (613) For Moses takes a word or thought of Belial (614) to mean a wicked and base thought, (615) and in various instances (616) those who are wicked and abandoned to iniquity, are called men, or sons of Belial. (Deu 13:13<\/span>; Jud 19:22<\/span>; 1Sa 2:12<\/span>.) Hence it is, that Paul has employed the word here to mean the devil, the head of all wicked persons. For from what holds good as to the two heads, he comes down without delay to the members: “As there is an irreconcilable variance between Christ and Satan, so we also must keep aloof from partnership with the wicked.” When, however, Paul says that a Christian has no participation with an unbeliever, he does not mean as to food, clothing, estates, the sun, the air, as I have mentioned above, but as to those things that are peculiar to unbelievers, from which the Lord has separated us. <\/p>\n (612) Beza, when mentioning the different views which have been taken of the etymology of the term Belial, remarks, that some derive it from בלי יעל beli jahal, ( not profitable,) or from בלי מועיל beli mohil, ( worthless,) and that the term, viewed as having this derivation, is peculiarly appropriate to Satan, as being diametrically opposed to Christ, the Greatest and Best; while Jerome derives it from בלי beli, ( not) and עיל hol, ( a yoke,) as though you should say — without a yoke, not subject to the yoke. Beza gives the preference to the former etymology, while he observes that the latter is also most appropriate to Satan as an apostate spirit. — The original term Belial is rendered in various instances in the Septuagint παράνομος, lawless. — There is here a slight variation in reading. The Edit. Princ. and the Textus Receptus have Βελίαλ. The Erasmian, Stephanic, and other early editions have Βελίαρ, which has been restored by Bengelius, Matthias, Griesbach, and Tittmann; and justly, for both external and internal evidence are in its favor; it being found in the majority of the MSS., in many early ecclesiastical writers, and Greek Fathers.” — Bloomfield. — Ed <\/p>\n (613) “ Et assez notoire;” — “And is sufficiently well known.” <\/p>\n (614) Thus in Deu 15:9<\/span>, “Beware that there be not a thouqht in thy wicked heart.” The expression made use of is פך-יחיה דבר עם-לבבך בליעל “Lest there be in thine heart a thing of Belial. ” The same expression occurs in Psa 41:9<\/span>, where David’s enemies represent him as suffering the punishment of detestable wickedness, דבר בליעל a thing of Belial. ” — See Calvin on the Psalms, vol. 2, p. 120. — Ed. <\/p>\n (615) “ Vne meschante et abominable parolle ou pensee;” — “A wicked and abominable word or thought.” <\/p>\n (616) “ Souvent en l’Escriture;” — “Frequently in Scripture.” <\/p>\n (15) What concord hath Christ with Belial?<\/strong>The passage is remarkable as being the only occurrence of the name in the New Testament, all the more so because it does not appear in the Greek version of the Old. The Hebrew word signifies vileness, worthlessness; and the sons of Belial (as in Deu. 13:13<\/span>; 1Sa. 2:12<\/span>; 1Sa. 25:17<\/span>) were therefore the worthless and the vile. The English version, following the Vulgate, translates the phrase as though Belial were a proper name, and this has led to the current belief, as shown in Miltons poems, that it was the name of a demon or fallen angel, the representative of impurity<\/p>\n Belial came last, than whom a spirit more lewd, Belial, the dissolutest spirit that fell, St. Pauls use of the word would seem to imply that some such belief was floating among the Jews in his time. A strange legend, which possibly had a Jewish origin (it is referred to certain necromantici<\/em>),<\/em> is found in an obscure and forgotten book (Wierus: Pseudo-Monarchia Dmonum<\/em>),<\/em> to the effect that Solomon was led by a certain woman to bow before the image of Belial, who is represented as worshipped by the Babylonians. Of that worship there is no trace in history; and Milton seems to have recognised this<\/p>\n To him no temple stood But if the name had gathered these associations round it, we can understand St. Pauls using it as representing, or, as it were, personifying, the whole system of impure cultus<\/em> that prevailed in the worship of Aphrodite at Corinth.<\/p>\n With an infidel.<\/strong>So many later associations have gathered round the word, that it may be well to remind the reader that it does not mean, as commonly with us, one who has rejected the faith, but simply one who has not as yet received it.<\/p>\n 15<\/strong>. <\/strong> Christ with Belial<\/strong> The contrast presented in its living representatives, the heads of the kingdom of light and of darkness. <\/p>\n Belial<\/strong> Used in Jdg 19:22<\/span>; Jdg 20:13<\/span>; and 1Sa 25:25<\/span>, where see notes. It there signifies worthlessness; <\/em> but in later literature came to be an appellative for Satan. Bloomfield says: “Like the Hebrew , who will-do-no-one-any-good; <\/em> that is, who will do evil to any one, the author of all evil, the evil spirit, the devil.” <\/p>\n Believeth infidel<\/strong> From the head personages the contrast is now brought down to the human individuals. The great boundary line between the good and bad in the universe, between light and darkness, between Christ and Satan, cuts relentlessly between the Christian and the unchristian.<\/p>\n 2Co 6:15<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Hath he that believeth, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Or, hath a believer, <\/em>&c. <\/p>\n 2Co 6:15<\/span> . The five different shades given to the notion of fellowship<\/em> vouch for the command which the apostle had over the Greek language.<\/p>\n Regarding the use of before a new question with the same word of interrogation, see Hartung, Partikell.<\/em> I. p. 169.<\/p>\n ] Name of the devil<\/em> (the Peshito has Satan), properly (wickedness, as concrete equivalent to ); hence the reading (Elzevir, Lachmann) is most probably a correction. The form , which also occurs frequently in the Test. XII. Patr. (see Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. I. pp. 539, 587, 619, al.), in Ignatius as interpolated, in the Canon. Ap., and in the Fathers (see Wetstein, critical remarks), is to be explained from the not unfrequent interchange of and in the common speech of the Greek Jews. In the O. T. the word does not occur as a name. See, generally, Gesenius, Thesaurus, I. p. 210.<\/p>\n , harmony, accord, only here in the N T., not in the LXX. The Greeks say and (with , Polyb. vi. 36. 5; Plat. Lach. p. 188 D); the simple form in Pollux ii. 111.<\/p>\n On , share, comp. Act 8:21<\/span> . The two have no partnership with one another, possess nothing in common with one another. The believer has, in Christ, righteousness, peace, etc., all of which the unbeliever has not, and one day will have , Col 1:12<\/span> . In strict logic did not belong to this series of elements of proof, since it contains the proposition itself to be proved, but it has come in amidst the lively, sweeping flow of the discourse.<\/p>\n 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 15. What concord hath Christ<\/strong> ] Those moderators that plead for a correspondence with Popery, would make a pretty show if there were no Bible. But if these reconcilers (as Franciscus de Sancta Clara, and his adherents) were the wisest men under heaven, and should live to the world’s end, they would be brought to their wits’ end before they could accomplish this work’s end, to make a reconciliation between Christ and Antichrist, between Rome and us. What harmony or concord, saith our apostle, can be between such they can never fall in, or make music together in one choir. <\/p>\n 15.<\/strong> ] After a question beginning with , , and the like, a second question is regularly introduced by . Thus Hom. Od. . 225, , ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 169.<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] Heb. , ‘contemptibleness,’ ‘wickedness:’<\/em> found 1Sa 2:12 al., and variously translated by the LXX. Theod. has retained the original form in Jdg 19:22<\/span> . It appears to have been subsequently personified, and used, as here, for a name of the Evil One (see Stanley). The termination – is stated by Meyer to have arisen from the frequent permutation of and in the dialect of the Grecian Jews.<\/p>\n 2Co 6:15<\/span> . . . .: and what concord has Christ with Belial? or what portion has a believer, sc.<\/em> , a Christian (see Act 16:1<\/span> , Eph 1:1<\/span> , Col 1:2<\/span> , etc.), with an unbeliever, sc.<\/em> , a heathen (see on 2Co 4:4<\/span> above)? = worthlessness<\/em> is frequently rendered (Deu 13:13<\/span> , 1Ki 20:13<\/span> ) or (Psa 17:5<\/span> ) by the LXX; they never treat it as a proper name, although Theodotion does so at Jdg 19:22<\/span> , and it is so regarded in later literature ( e.g., Test. XII. Patriarch.<\/em> and Orac. Sibyll.<\/em> , iii., 63, 73). Here it is the personification of , just as Christ is the personification of ; the contrast is that between Christ and Satan ( cf.<\/em> 1Co 10:21<\/span> ). See Charles’ Ascension of Isaiah<\/em> , pp. lv. ff., for the identification of Beliar with Satan. The Hebrew form, Belial<\/em> , with a substitution of r<\/em> for l<\/em> , is written in the best Greek MSS. (see crit. note).<\/p>\n concord. Greek. sumphonesie. Compare the verb in Act 5:9 and the adjective in 1Co 7:5. <\/p>\n Christ. App-98. <\/p>\n Belial. Only here in N.T. A Hebr. word, meaning worthlessness, Occurs several times in O.T. <\/p>\n he that believeth = the believer. Greek. pistos. App-150. <\/p>\n with. Greek. meta. App-104. <\/p>\n infidel. Same as “unbelievers”, 2Co 6:14. <\/p>\n 15.] After a question beginning with , , and the like, a second question is regularly introduced by . Thus Hom. Od. . 225, , ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 169.<\/p>\n ] Heb. , contemptibleness, wickedness: found 1Sa 2:12 al., and variously translated by the LXX. Theod. has retained the original form in Jdg 19:22. It appears to have been subsequently personified, and used, as here, for a name of the Evil One (see Stanley). The termination – is stated by Meyer to have arisen from the frequent permutation of and in the dialect of the Grecian Jews.<\/p>\n 2Co 6:15. , Belial) The LXX. always express in Greek words the Hebrew, ; but here Paul uses the Hebrew word for the purpose of Euphemism [avoiding something unpleasant by the use of a term less strictly appropriate]. This word is an appellative, 1Sa 25:25, and occurs for the first time in Deu 13:14. Hiller, Onom. S. p. 764. Belijahal, without ascending; i.e., of the meanest condition, of a very low and obscure rank. Paul calls Satan Belial. Nevertheless Satan is usually put ir antithesis to God, Antichrist to Christ. Wherefore Belial as being opposed to Christ, seems here also to denote all manner of Antichristian uncleanness.<\/p>\n 2Co 6:15<\/p>\n 2Co 6:15 <\/p>\n And what concord hath Christ with Belial?-The believer in heart and life serves Christ. Belial means a worthless fellow; here it is evil personified and means Satan, the great antagonist of Christ, and between them there can be no concord whatever.<\/p>\n or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever?-The believer serves God, the unbeliever Satan; hence, with God directing the one and Satan the other, there can be no harmony or common feeling and interest between them. To the one Christ is the Son of God, the object of supreme reverence and love; to the other, he is a mere man. To the one, the great object is to promote the glory of God and to secure his favor; to the other, these are objects of indifference. <\/p>\n what concord: 1Sa 5:2-4, 1Ki 18:21, 1Co 10:20, 1Co 10:21 <\/p>\n or: Ezr 4:3, Mar 16:16, Act 8:20, 1Jo 5:11-13 <\/p>\n an: 1Ti 5:8 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 35:2 – strange Exo 23:32 – shalt make Deu 13:13 – the children Jdg 6:25 – even Jdg 19:22 – sons of Belial 1Sa 2:12 – sons of Belial 2Ki 3:13 – What Ecc 2:3 – and to lay Zec 2:10 – and I Mat 12:30 – that is Luk 22:55 – Peter Joh 18:18 – Peter<\/p>\n 2Co 6:15. There are several words that have similar meanings, but Paul uses the various ones for the sake of completeness in thought, and also for the sake of being more pleasant to the ear of the reader. Concord is virtually the same as “agreement,” which is used later in the chapter. Thayer says Belial is “a name of Satan,” and he is placed as opposed to Christ because there is no unity between them. Infidel is the same as believer in the Greek with a negative prefix.<\/p>\n 2Co 6:15. And what concord hath Christ with Belial? From the use of this proper name, and the antithesis with Christ, it evidently is meant (like Beelzebub in Mat 12:24) as a synonym for Satan (Stanley),<\/p>\n or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? It is not their having different speculative opinions about religion that makes intimate fellowship between them impracticable; it is that a believer is supposed to breathe a different atmosphere, to live for fundamentally different ends, and to have entirely different interests and tastes and modes of action, from an unbeliever. (See on chap. 2Co 5:16-17.)<\/p>\n Verse 15<\/strong> <\/strong> Those trying to force us into a mold of wickedness must be shunned. Belial means worthless fellow (Satan). Christians are buildings, or temples, consecrated to the service of God. In what appears to be a loose quotation from Eze 37:26-27 , Paul indicates God dwells in those who are true believers and controls their actions ( Joh 14:23 ). To allow the wicked to have an evil influence on the inward man thus housing God is unthinkable. In a quote from Isa 52:11 , the apostle demonstrates that God’s people must not allow wickedness to be within them. He then goes on to quote from Hos 1:10 and Isa 43:6 to show that those who do purify the inward man will be adopted as God’s children. God’s followers can allow the wicked to influence them to evil only if they spurn this loving promise of adoption into God’s great family ( 2Co 6:16-18 ). <\/p>\n And what concord hath Christ with Belial? [Literally, “worthlessness,” “depravity.” The term is here used as a synonym for Satan, Who is the impersonation of impurity] or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? <\/p>\n 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what {k} part hath he that believeth with an infidel?<\/p>\n (k) What can there be between them?<\/p>\n And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 15. Belial ] This word, derived from two Hebrew ones signifying ‘of no profit,’ was used in the O.T. (e.g. Deu 13:13; 1Sa 2:12) in the phrase ‘child,’ ‘son’ or ‘daughter of Belial,’ to signify a worthless person, … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 6:15”<\/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-28859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28859","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=28859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28859"}],"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: 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
Fell not from heaven, or more gross to love
Vice for itself.Paradise Lost,<\/em> i. 490.<\/p>\n
The sensualest, and, after Asmodai,
The fleshliest incubus.Paradise Regained,<\/em> ii. 204.<\/p>\n
Nor altar smoked.<\/p>\nFuente: 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 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: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/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: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"