12<\/strong>. Corruptio optimi fit pessima; Christ, trust in Christ, the life of Christ, were<\/em> supreme during the former marriage; into the loneliness of widowhood, not safeguarded by age, the flesh and the devil have penetrated, and have dethroned Christ: a rebel’s name only can be hers. Cf. 1Ti 5:15<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n having damnation<\/em> ] Rather, condemnation<\/strong>; a present ‘judgment,’ of being self-condemned as rebels, deserters: because they have rejected their first faith<\/strong>: ‘faith’ being most naturally used here as above, 1Ti 5:8<\/em><\/span>, the phrase ‘their first faith’ may thus best refer to their early Christian life, just as in the Epistle to Ephesus (the same Church to which this letter goes) the condemnation is that they ‘have left their first love,’ and the exhortation is to ‘do the first works.’ The word ‘reject’ is the same as in Jude 1Ti 5:8<\/em><\/span>, ‘these defile the flesh and set at nought<\/em> dominion,’ where the thought and subject are very much the same, ‘turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.’ To make the reference to the breaking of a vow or pledge of widowhood seems both inadequate and misleading.<\/p>\n Having damnation – <\/B>Or, rather, having condemnation; or incurring guilt. This does not mean of necessity that they would lose their souls; see the phrase explained in the notes on 1Co 11:29<\/span>. The meaning is, that they would contract guilt, if they had been admitted among this class of persons, and then married again. The apostle does not say that that would be wrong in itself (compare notes on 1Ti 5:14<\/span>), or that they would be absolutely prohibited from it, but that injury would be done if they were admitted among those who were widows indeed – who were supported by the church, and who were entrusted with a certain degree of care over the more youthful females – and then should leave that situation. It might give occasion for scandal it might break in upon the arrangements; it would show that there was a relaxing of the faith, and of the deadness to the world, which they were supposed to have; and it was better that they should be married 1Ti 5:14<\/span>, without having been thus admitted.<\/P> Because they have cast off their first faith – <\/B>This does not mean that they would lose all their religion, or wholly fall away, but that this would show that they had not the strong faith, the deadness to the world, the simple dependence on God 1Ti 5:5<\/span>, and the desire which they had to be weaned from worldly cares and influences, which they once had. When they became widows, all their earthly hopes seemed to be blasted. They were then dead to the world, and felt their sole dependence on God. But if, under the influence of these strong emotions, they were admitted to the class of widows in the church, there was no certainty that they would continue in this state of mind. Time would do much to modify their grief. There would be a reviving love of the world, and under the influence of this they would be disposed to enter again into the marriage relation, and thus show that they had not the strong and simple faith which they had when the blow which made them widows fell heavily upon then.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 12. Having damnation<\/B><\/I>] In the sense in which we use this word I am satisfied the apostle never intended it. It is likely that he refers here to some promise or engagement which they made when taken on the list already mentioned, and now they have the guilt<\/I> of having violated that promise; this is the , or condemnation, of which the apostle speaks.<\/P> <\/P> They have cast off their first faith.<\/B><\/I>] By pledging their fidelity<\/I> to a husband they have cast off their fidelity<\/I> to Christ, as a married life and their previous engagement are incompatible. Dr. Macknight<\/I> translates these two verses thus: But the younger widows reject<\/I>, for when they cannot endure<\/I> Christ’s rein<\/I>, they will marry; incurring condemnation<\/I>, because they have put away<\/I> their first fidelity<\/I>.<\/P><\/p>\n This sentence is not without its difficulties: here are two questions: <\/P> 1. What is meant by <\/span>, which we both here and elsewhere translate damnation.<\/B> <\/P> 2. How they cast off their first faith.<\/B> <\/P> Many think the Greek word by us translated damnation, <\/I>ought to have had a softer sense, it being certainly capable of it. Some think it signifies here no more than guilt, or a blot; others, a public infamy; others, the judgment of good men against them. But it may be we cannot so well determine this without understanding what is meant by <\/P> their first faith, <\/B>which they are here said to have cast off:<\/I> by which some understand their profession of Christianity; others, their promise or engagement to the church, not to marry. The latter sense supposeth that all those widows that were taken into the ministry of the church before mentioned, promised that they would keep themselves unmarried, which is a most groundless supposition. I do rather think that by their first faith, <\/I>he means their first or former profession of Christianity; which was a crime that did expose them not only to the judgment and censure of sober Christians, but to eternal damnation. I shall offer my own sense of this text thus: it is certain these Christians were lilies among thorns, a small handful amongst a far greater number of pagans; and it is not improbable, that some younger widows, out of a desire to marry, might marry to pagans, and be by them tempted to apostacy from the Christian profession; upon which the apostle orders, that none under sixty years of age should be henceforth taken into the ministry of the church, lest doing such a thing when they were under that character, it should be a greater scandal. This seems the more probable from 1Ti 5:15<\/span>, where the apostle adds, for some are already turned aside after Satan.<\/I> <\/P> <\/p>\n 12. Having<\/B>Bringing onthemselves, and so having<\/I> to bear as a burden (Ga5:10<\/span>) judgment<\/I> from God (compare 1Ti3:6<\/span>), weighing like a load on them. <\/P> cast off their firstfaith<\/B>namely, pledged to Christ and the service of the Church.There could be no hardship at the age of sixty or upwards in notmarrying again (end of 1Ti 5:9<\/span>),for the sake of serving better the cause of Christ as presbyteresses;though, to ordinary widows, no barrier existed against remarriage(1Co 7:39<\/span>). This is altogetherdistinct from Rome’s unnatural vows of celibacy in the case of youngmarriageable women. The widow-presbyteresses, moreover, engaged toremain single, not as though single life were holier than marriedlife (according to Rome’s teaching), but because the interests ofChrist’s cause made it desirable (see on 1Ti3:2<\/span>). They had pledged “their first faith” to Christ aspresbyteress widows; they now wish to transfer their faith to ahusband (compare 1Co 7:32<\/span>;1Co 7:34<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Ver. 12 Having damnation, c.<\/strong>] Not for their second marriage, but for their wantonness against Christ, or their sinful and luxurious way of living, contrary to the Gospel of Christ: and this is to be understood not of eternal damnation, which cannot, with propriety, be said to be had now but either of the reproach and scandal cast upon them, and religion, for their wantonness; or the judgment and censure of the church for the same; or having sin, and the guilt of sin upon them, in which sense the word is used, Ro 5:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n Because they have cast off their first faith<\/strong>; or that faith which they first professed, even the doctrine of faith; which they may be said to cast off, because they walked not according to it, their conversation was not becoming their profession of it; and though they continued to profess the same faith they did in words, yet in works they denied it, or cast it off; for which reason they fell under the notice, judgment, and condemnation of the church, as well as exposed themselves to the reproach of men.<\/p>\n Condemnation <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). See 3:6<\/span>.<\/P> They have rejected <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist passive of <\/SPAN><\/span>, late verb (first in LXX and Polybius), to reject, set aside (from <\/SPAN><\/span>). See 1Thess 4:8<\/span>; Gal 2:21<\/span>.<\/P> Their first faith <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). “Their first pledge” (promise, contract) to Christ. It is like breaking the marriage contract. Evidently one of the pledges on joining the order of widows was not to marry. Parry suggests a kind of ordination as with deacons and bishops (technical use of <\/SPAN><\/span> and <\/SPAN><\/span>). <\/P> <\/p>\n Having damnation [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The phrase only here. See on 1Ti 3:6<\/span>. Damnation is an unfortunate rendering in the light of the present common understanding of the word, as it is also in 1Co 11:29<\/span>. Better, judgment or condemnation, as Rom 3:8<\/span>; Rom 13:2<\/span>. The meaning is that they carry about with them in their new, married life a condemnation, a continuous reproach. Comp. ch. 1ti 4:2<\/span>; Gal 5:10<\/span>. It should be said for the translators of 1611 that they used damnation in this sense of, judgment or condemnation, as is shown by the present participle having. In its earlier usage the word implied no allusion to a future punishment. Thus Chaucer <\/P> “For wel thou woost (knowest) thyselven verraily That thou and I be dampned to prisoun.” Knight’s T. 1175. <\/P> Wielif : “Nethir thou dredist God, that thou art in the same dampnacioun?” Luk 23:40<\/span>. Laud. : “Pope Alexander 3 condemned Peter Lombard of heresy, and he lay under that damnation for thirty and six years.” ” A legacy by damnation ” was one in which the testator imposed on his heir an obligation to give the legatee the thing bequeatheds and which afforded the legatee a personal claim against the heir. <\/P> They have cast off their first faith [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Aqetein is to set aside, do away with, reject or slight. See Mr 6:26<\/span>; Luk 10:16<\/span>; Heb 10:28<\/span>. Often in LXX Pistin is pledge : so frequently in Class. with give and receive. See, for instance, Plato, Phaedr. 256 D. In LXX, 3 Macc. 3 10. The phrase pistin ajqetein N. T. o. o LXX There are, however, a number of expressions closely akin to it, as Gal. iii. 15, diaqhkhn ajqetein to render a covenant void. In LXX with oath, 9 2Ch 36:13<\/span>. Psa 14:4<\/span> : He that sweareth to his neighbor kai oujk ajqetwn. Psa 88:34<\/span>; Psa 131:11<\/span>; 1<\/span> Macc. 6 62. The meaning here is, having broken their first pledge; and this may refer to a pledge to devote themselves, after they became widows, to the service of Christ and the church. The whole matter is obscure.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Having damnation”<\/strong> (echousai krima) “Having or holding judgment or condemnation;” general disapproval from the world, because of hastily putting aside fidelity and respect for a former husband.<\/p>\n 2) “Because they have cast off their first faith.”<\/strong> (hoti ten proten pistin ethetesan) “Because their first (in order) faith (fidelity) they set aside:” 1) to Christ, their proper Bridegroom, and 2) to their first husband so hastily, Rom 2:14-15<\/span>; 1Co 5:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n 12 Having condemnation, because they have renounced their first faith. “ To have condemnation,” is interpreted by some as signifying “to deserve reproof.” But I take it to be a statement of greater severity, that Paul terrifies them by the damnation of eternal death; as if he reproved them by saying that that excellent order, which ought rather to have united them to Christ, was the very ground of their condemnation. And the reason is added, that they entirely “revolt from the faith” of baptism and from Christianity. I am aware that there are some who interpret it differently; that is, that they break the pledge which they gave to the Church by marrying, having formerly promised that they would live unmarried till death. This is exceedingly absurd. Besides, why should he call it their first faith? <\/p>\n Accordingly, Paul rises to greater vehemence against them, and magnifies the enormity of the offense, by saying that not only would they bring disgrace on Christ and his Church by departing from the condition to which they had agreed, but they likewise broke their “first faith” by wicked revolt. Thus it usually happens, that he who has once transgressed the bounds of modesty gives himself up to all impudence. It grieved him that the levity of those women was a reproach to the godly, and that their lustfulness was reproved, or, at least, was liable to reproof. This led them to proceed to greater and greater degrees of licentiousness, till they renounced Christianity. That amplification is exceedingly appropriate; for is there anything more absurd than that they should, through a wish to promote the advantage of persons, open the door to the denial of Christ? <\/p>\n The attempt of the Papists to support, by means of this passage, a vow of perpetual celibacy, is absurd. Granting that it was customary to exact from the widows an engagement in express terms, still they would gain nothing by this admission. First, we must consider the end. The reason why widows formerly promised to remain unmarried, was not that they might lead a holier life than in a state of marriage, but because they could not, at the same time, be devoted to husbands and to the Church; but in Popery, they make a vow of continence, as if it were a virtue acceptable to God on its own account. Secondly, in that age they renounced the liberty of marrying at the time when they ceased to be marriageable; for they must have been, at least, sixty years old, and, by being satisfied with being once married, must have already given a proof of their chastity. But now, vows are made among the Papists to renounce marriage, either before the time, or in the midst of time ardor of youthful years. <\/p>\n Now we disapprove of the tyrannical law about celibacy, chiefly for two reasons. First, they pretend that it is meritorious worship before God; and secondly, by rashness in vowing, they plunge souls into destruction. Neither of these was to be found in the ancient institution. They did not make a direct vow of continence, as if the married life were less acceptable to God, but only, so far as it was rendered necessary by the office to which they were elected, they promised to keep from the tie of marriage for their whole life; nor did they deprive themselves of the liberty of marrying, till the time when, though they had been ever so free, it was foolish and unreasonable for them to marry. In short, those widows differed as much from the nuns, as Anna the prophetess from Claude the Vestal. (93) <\/p>\n (93) “ A Rome on appeloit Vestales les vierges consacrees a une deesse nommee Vesta (comme qui diroit aujourd’huy les nonnains de saincte Claire) et ceste Claude en estoit une qui a este fort renomnmee.” — “At Rome they gave the name of Vestals to virgins consecrated to a goddess called Vesta, (as if we should say, at the present day, the nuns of St. Claire) and that Clauda was one of them that was highly celebrated.” <\/p>\n (12) Having damnation.<\/strong>Judgment, <\/em>not necessarily damnation. The Greek word krima<\/em> is often thus unhappily translated. The context of the passage must in all cases decide the nature of the judgment, whether favourable or the contrary. Here it signifies that those who in after days give up a work which for their Masters sake they had undertaken, expose themselves to a searching judgment, which will thoroughly sift the reasons that induced them to forsake the begun toil, and that, if the reasons be not satisfactory, will be unfavourable, and will surely involve condemnation.<\/p>\n Because they have cast off their first faith.<\/strong>Though, probably, no vows respecting marriage were required from those widows who devoted themselves to the Lords service, yet virtually such a solemn enrolment partook of the nature of a life-long engagementan engagement which, if they married again, must necessarily be given up.<\/p>\n Such a going back, such a giving up the higher and the more devoted lifethe life of self-sacrifice, of self-abnegationfor the ordinary joys and cares of domestic life, for the useful but still every-day pursuits of ordinary men and womensuch a going back, would be indeed a casting off their first faith, and such an example of backsliding could not fail to harm the cause of Christ.<\/p>\n 12<\/strong>. <\/strong> Having damnation<\/strong> Rather, the judgment of their own conscience <\/em> that (not because<\/strong>) they have<\/strong>, etc. Not because they marry, but because of the apostate state of mind and behaviour which resulted in the marriage, and of which the marriage was, perhaps, the best remedy. <\/p>\n First faith<\/strong> Like the first love <\/strong> of Ephesus. Rev 2:4<\/span>. The word faith <\/strong> here is taken by the great body of commentators to signify a vow <\/strong> taken by the widow on enrolment, or ordination as eldress or deaconess, including obligation of celibacy. But, 1. The word never signifies vow<\/strong>, so far as our investigation goes, in the New Testament. 2. If these were an order of eldresses or deaconesses the description of them should have taken place in the third chapter. 3. It seems a most reasonable conclusion that this widow list was simply a continuation, or rather recurrence, of the beneficiary widowhood of Act 6:1-6<\/span>, which existed before any official class existed except the apostles, and was, therefore, itself no official class.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Having damnation, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> Condemnation, <\/em>which, without repentance, must end in eternal damnation, because they violate, and thereby destroy that living faith, which always produces purity of heart. <\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12<\/span> . , ] Almost all expositors take as introducing the object, so that what follows describes the which the widows have to suffer. There is variance only in the more precise definition of , whether it is to be understood as the judgment of God (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee), or the judgment of men (Wegscheider: “they draw blame on themselves;” Plitt: “they meet with reproof”), or the judgment of their own conscience (so in this commentary; comp. 1Ti 4:2<\/span> : ). Hofmann takes as “because,” as there is no article with : “they are liable to condemnation;” but this makes the meaning of too vague. Since the use of the article in the N. T. is so wavering, it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion. Plitt’s explanation may be taken as the most natural.<\/p>\n ] in Polybius (who often uses by itself) is “fidem fallere, break a pledge.” This meaning has rightly been maintained here by most. So Chrysostom: ; Augustine on Ps. lxxv.: primam fidem irritam fecerunt; voverunt et non reddiderunt. We cannot infer from this expression that any formal oath not to marry again was demanded when they were received into the number of church-widows; but it certainly does follow that the reception pledged the widows to devote their lives only to the service of the Lord. To this pledge they were unfaithful so soon as they began the behaviour described in 1Ti 5:11<\/span> . It is out of place here to appeal to such passages in the Fathers as testify that in later times the deaconesses<\/em> had to vow that they would not marry. does not stand for , but is used by the apostle because the vow (tacit or expressed) to serve the Lord was taken at the beginning<\/em> of their new position in life. Calvin wrongly takes the as the fides in baptismo<\/em> data, referring the unfaithfulness to the desire to marry, which is defined more precisely by . .<\/p>\n 12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 12. Having damnation<\/strong> ] Or public reproach, as 1Ti 5:14<\/span> , for their desultory lightness and inconsiderate rashness.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Cast off their first faith<\/strong> ] Not that of their baptism (as various of the Indians do that have been baptized by the Spaniards), but their vidual a<\/em> promised chastity and service to the saints.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Of or belonging to, befitting, a widow or widowhood; widowed. D <\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12<\/span> . : deserving censure<\/em> . There is no special force in , as Ell. explains, “bearing about with them a judgment, viz.<\/em> , that they broke their first faith”. This seems forced and unnatural. is correlative to (Mar 12:40<\/span> ; Luk 20:47<\/span> ; Rom 13:2<\/span> ; Jas 3:1<\/span> ). They have condemnation because, etc., habentes damnationem quia<\/em> (Vulg. [281] ). of course by itself means, judgment<\/em> ; but where the context, as here, implies that the judgment is a sentence of guiltiness, it is reasonable so to translate it.<\/p>\n [281] Speculum<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n : This has been already explained. On the use of for see Blass, Gram<\/em> . p. 34.<\/p>\n : annulled, irritam fecerunt<\/em> (Vulg. [282] ).<\/p>\n [282] Speculum<\/p>\n damnation = judgment. App-177. <\/p>\n cast off. Greek. atheteo. See Joh 12:48. <\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12. , having) for certain, by this time.-) because.- ) , as Raphelius shows from Polybius, is not to keep the faith; comp. 1Ti 5:8. It is called , their first faith, the faith of their early life, which they had before they were enrolled among the widows. Their second vows break this faith, and are opposed to it; comp. thy first love, Rev 2:4.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12<\/p>\n having condemnation,-They would fall under condemnation. [Those who give up the work which for their Masters sake they have undertaken, expose themselves to a searching judgment, which will thoroughly sift the reasons that induced them to forsake the begun toil, and that, if the reasons be not satisfactory, will be unfavorable, and will surely involve condemnation.]<\/p>\n because they have rejected their first pledge.-This seems to carry with it the idea that the coming into the number that are supported by the church take on themselves pledges of fidelity and self-consecration to God and his cause. Younger women in wantonness of the flesh give up their feeling of self-consecration and seek to gratify their feelings in marriage. They take a step away from Christ. A backward step from Christ is a fearful step. Christians ought to daily grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, and this will daily draw them nearer and nearer to God. The first step away from God is the fatal one.<\/p>\n damnation: 1Co 11:34, Jam 3:1, 1Pe 4:17,*Gr. <\/p>\n their: Gal 1:6, Rev 2:4, Rev 2:5 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Hos 8:3 – cast<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12. Having damnation denotes they are worthy of being condemned. Cast off their first faith means they have reversed their former claim of being alone, and ready to be devoted exclusively to the work of the Lord; they have gone contrary to the claim.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12. Having damnation. As in 1Co 11:29, in the general sense of the word, coming under condemnation. <\/p>\n Their first faith. We best understand these words by bearing in mind the teaching of 1Co 7:34. Marriage was in itself honour-able, but it was not compatible with self-consecration to a life of special labour, such as that of the registered widows. When a widow entered on that life, she practically betrothed herself to Christ. If she again fell back on merely human affections, she was abandoning her first faith, the love of her espousals. The words suggest the thought that the word widow might possibly be conventionally extended to include all women who undertook the duties of the order, whether actually such in the common sense of the word or not<\/p>\n Verse 12 <\/p>\n We are not sufficiently acquainted with the usage in the early church, to which the apostle refers in this passage, (1 Timothy 5:9-12,) to account for the apparent severity of this language. It seems to imply that being received into the number referred to above, (1 Timothy 5:9,) they came under some obligation to remain single, and in devote themselves for life to the service of the church. But what circumstances there were to render it necessary or desirable to impose such an obligation, does not appear.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.<\/p>\n The reading of these verses in the King James Version is very negative and degrading to the younger widow.<\/p>\n The NASB may help us to understand what Paul is saying. “But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.”1Ti 5:11-12<\/p>\n The thought seems to be that the younger widows of the day were in the habit of pledging to remain unmarried for the remainder of life, but that Paul knew that many wouldn’t keep that pledge and Paul would desire that they go ahead and remarry.<\/p>\n The condemnation would not be spiritual in any way unless they had made a vow to the Lord in the thought of the Old Testament, in which case there might be a loss of reward.<\/p>\n There is also the thought that she might receive condemnation from either the church people or the unsaved.<\/p>\n Burkitt feels this to be a matter of salvation: “waxing wanton against Christ, would marry; that is, growing weary of the church’s service, and despairing of marriage in the church, would revolt from the faith, and marry some infidel out of the church.<\/p>\n “Having damnation; that is, committing a sin worthy of damnation, and bringing themselves into a damnable condition. Because they renounced their first faith, which they made profession of when they were baptized, turning apostates to please their infidel husbands, which the apostle calls a turning after Satan, verse 15, to the great scandal of Christianity.”<\/p>\n I think this is a radical interpretation and not based on a good reading of the passage.<\/p>\n Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 12. Corruptio optimi fit pessima; Christ, trust in Christ, the life of Christ, were supreme during the former marriage; into the loneliness of widowhood, not safeguarded by age, the flesh and the devil have penetrated, and have dethroned Christ: a rebel’s name only can be … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Timothy 5:12”<\/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-29703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29703","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=29703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29703"}],"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 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: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: 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: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"