3<\/strong>. neither as being lords over God’s heritage<\/em> ] Better, not lording it over the heritages<\/strong>. There is no word in the Greek answering to “God’s,” and it is not wanted to complete the sense. The word for “lording” implies an authority exercised both wrongfully and oppressively. Ambition, the love of power for the sake of power, is, from the Apostle’s standpoint, as great a hindrance to true pastoral work as avarice. The whole history of the Church, in particular the history of the papacy, as e.g. in the history of Gregory VII., shews how fatally it has worked on souls that had conquered, or had never known, the baser temptation. Warnings against such ambition we find again and again in our Lord’s teaching (Mat 20:25-28<\/span>; Luk 22:24-26<\/span>; Mar 9:34-35<\/span>). A memorable picture of the working of such a temper in St Paul’s rivals at Corinth meets us in 2Co 12:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n The word for “heritages” (the Greek noun ( ) is in the plural) means primarily a “lot;” then, as in Deu 10:9<\/span>; Deu 12:12<\/span>, the “portion assigned by lot.” So Jehovah is said to be the “portion” or “heritage” of the Levites (Deu 10:9<\/span>). Here the idea would seem to be that each separate Ecclesia<\/em> was thought of as the “portion” of the presbyter who watched over it. The later history of the word presents a curious series of transitions. (1) From the congregations it was transferred to the presbyters, as being, it was supposed, in a special sense, the “portion” or “heritage” of God. They accordingly were described as the clerus<\/em>, the clerici<\/em>, of the Church, and hence we get the common words, “clergy,” and “clerical.” (2) From the educational superiority of the clerical order in the Middle Ages, the word came to be applied to any person of a higher than average culture. So Chaucer speaks of Homer as a “great clerke,” and the legal phrase “benefit of clergy” retains a trace of the same meaning. (3) From this elevation it has come to be applied, as by a facilis descensus<\/em>, to the lower forms of culture, and the “parish clerk” and the copying “clerk” at his desk, present the fallen greatness of the word that was once so noble.<\/p>\n but being ensamples to the flock<\/em> ] Comp. the word and the thought in 2Th 3:9<\/span> and Php 3:17<\/span>. It is obvious that the teaching of the verse does not condemn the exercise of all spiritual authority as such, but only its excesses and abuses; but in doing this, it points out also that the influence of example is more powerful than any authority, and to seek after that influence is the best safeguard against the abuse of power.<\/p>\n Neither as being lords – <\/B>Margin, overruling. The word here used (<\/SPAN><\/span> katakurieuo) is rendered exercise dominion over, in Mat 20:25<\/span>; exercise lordship over, in Mar 10:42<\/span>; and overcame, in Act 19:16<\/span>. It does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It refers properly to that kind of jurisdiction which civil rulers or magistrates exercise. This is an exercise of authority, as contradistinguished from the influence of reason, persuasion, and example. The latter pertains to the ministers of religion; the former is forbidden to them. Their dominion is not to be that of temporal lordship; it is to be that of love and truth. This command would prohibit all assumption of temporal power by the ministers of religion, and all conferring of titles of nobility on those who are preachers of the gospel. It needs scarcely to be said that it has been very little regarded in the church.<\/P> Over Gods heritage – <\/B> <\/SPAN><\/span> ton kleron. Vulgate: in cleris – over the clergy. The Greek word here (<\/SPAN><\/span> kleros) is that from which the word clergy has been derived; and some have interpreted it here as referring to the clergy, that is, to priests and deacons who are under the authority of a bishop. Such an interpretation, I however, would hardly be adopted now. The word means properly:<\/P> (a)A lot, die, anything used in determining chances;<\/P> (b)A part or portion, such as is assigned by lot; hence,<\/P> (c)An office to which one is designated or appointed, by lot or otherwise; and,<\/P> (d)In general any possession or heritage, Act 26:18<\/span>; Col 1:12<\/span>.<\/P> The meaning here is, not lording it over the possessions or the heritage of God. The reference is, undoubtedly, to the church, as that which is especially his property; his own in the world. Whitby and others suppose that it refers to the possessions or property of the church; Doddridge explains it – not assuming dominion over those who fall to your lot, supposing it to mean that they were not to domineer over the particular congregations committed by Providence to their care. But the other interpretation is most in accordance with the usual meaning of the word.<\/P> But being ensamples to the flock – <\/B>Examples. See the notes at 1Ti 4:12<\/span>. Peter has drawn here with great beauty, the appropriate character of the ministers of the gospel, and described the spirit with which they should be actuated in the discharge of the duties of their office. But how different it is from the character of many who have claimed to be ministers of religion; and especially how different from that corrupt communion which professes in a special manner to recognize Peter as the head, and the vicegerent of Christ. It is well remarked by Benson on this passage, that the church of Rome could not well have acted more directly contrary to this injunction of Peters if she had studied to disobey it, and to form herself upon a rule that should be the reverse of this.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 3<\/span>. Neither as being lords over<\/B><\/I> God’s <\/B>heritage<\/B><\/I>] This is the voice of St. Peter in his catholic<\/I> epistle to the catholic<\/I> Church<\/I>! According to him there are to be no lords over God’s heritage, the bishops and presbyters who are appointed by the head of the Church are to feed the flock<\/I>, to guide<\/I> and to defend<\/I> it, not to fleece<\/I> and waste<\/I> it; and they are to look for their reward in another world, and in the approbation of God in their consciences. And in humility, self-abasement, self-renunciation, and heavenly-mindedness, they are to be ensamples<\/I>, , types<\/I>, to the flock, moulds<\/I> of a heavenly form, into which the spirits and lives of the flock may be cast<\/I>, that they may come out after a perfect pattern. We need not ask, Does the Church that arrogates to itself the exclusive title of Catholic<\/I>, and do its supreme<\/I> pastors<\/I>, who affect to be the successors of Peter and the vicars of Jesus Christ, act in this way? They are in every sense the reverse of this. But we may ask, Do the other Churches, which profess to be reformed<\/I> from the abominations of the above, keep the advice of the apostle in their eye? Have they pastors<\/I> according to God’s own heart, who feed them with knowledge and<\/I> understanding<\/I>? Jer 3:15<\/span>. Do they feed themselves<\/I>, and not the flock<\/I>? Are they lords over<\/I> the heritage of Christ<\/I>, ruling with a high eeclesiastico-secular hand, disputing with their flocks about penny-farthing tithes<\/I> and stipends<\/I>, rather than contending for the faith once delivered to the saints? Are they<\/I> heavenly moulds<\/I>, into which the spirits and conduct of their flocks may be cast? I leave those who are concerned to answer these questions; but I put them, in the name of God, to all the preachers in the land. How many among them properly care for the flock? Even among those reputed evangelical<\/I> teachers, are there not some who, on their first coming to a parish or a congregation, make it their first<\/I> business to raise<\/I> the tithes<\/I> and the stipends<\/I>, where, in all good conscience, there was before enough, and more than enough, to provide them and their families with not only the necessaries<\/I>, but all the conveniences<\/I> and comforts<\/I> of life? conveniences and comforts which neither Jesus Christ nor his servant Peter ever enjoyed. And is not the great concern among ministers to seek for those places, parishes<\/I>, and congregations<\/I>, where the provision is the most ample, and the work the smallest? Preacher or minister, whosoever thou art, who readest this, apply not the word to thy neighbour<\/I>, whether he be state-appointed, congregation-appointed, or self-appointed; take all to thyself; mutato nomine de<\/I> TE fabula narratur<\/I>. See that thy own<\/I> heart, views, and conduct be right with God; and then proceed to the next verse.<\/P><\/p>\n Neither as being lords; <\/B>not exercising any such lordship or dominion over the people, as temporal lords and magistrates exercise over their subjects, Mat 20:25<\/span>,26<\/span>, &c.; Luk 22:25<\/span>; compare 2Co 1:24<\/span>. <\/P> Over Gods heritage; <\/B>the Lords clergy, the same as flock<\/I> before; the Greek word is plural, and so it signifies the several churches or flocks which were under the charge of the several elders or pastors. The church of Israel is often called Gods inheritance, which as it were fell to him by lot, (as the Greek word signifies), and which was as dear to him as mens inheritances are to them: see Deu 4:20<\/span>; 9:29<\/span>; 32:9<\/span>; Psa 33:12<\/span>; 74:2<\/span>; 78:71<\/span>. Accordingly now the Christian church, succeeding it, is called Gods inheritance, and the word clerus<\/I> is no where in the New Testament peculiarly ascribed to ministers of the gospel. This title given here to the Lords people, implies a reason why the elders should not lord it over them, viz. because they are still the Lords inheritance, and not their own; God having not given them a kingdom but a care, and still retaining his right to his people. <\/P> But being ensamples to the flock; <\/B>in holiness of life, practising before their eyes what you preach to their ears, Phi 3:17<\/span>; 2Th 3:9<\/span>; Tit 2:7<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 3. being lords<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“lording it”: implying pride and oppression. “Not thatwe have dominion over your faith.” <\/P> God’s<\/B><\/I>heritage<\/B>Greek,<\/I> “the inheritances,” that is,the portions<\/I> of the Church committed severally to yourpastoral charge [BENGEL].It is explained by “the flock” in the next clause. However,in 1Pe 5:2<\/span>, “flock ofGod<\/I> which is among you,” answering to “(God’s)heritages” (plural to express the sheep<\/I> who are God’sportion and inheritance, De 32:9<\/span>)committed to you, favors English Version.<\/I> The flock, as onewhole,<\/I> is God’s heritage, or flock<\/I> in the singular.Regarded in relation to its component sheep,<\/I> divided amongseveral pastors, it is in the plural “heritages.” CompareAct 1:17<\/span>; Act 1:25<\/span>,”part” (the same Greek<\/I>). BERNARDOF CLAIRVAUX, wroteto Pope Eugene, “Peter could not give thee what he had not: whathe had he gave: the care<\/I> over the Church, not dominion.<\/I>“<\/P> being<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“becoming.” <\/P> ensamples<\/B>the mosteffective recommendation of precept (1Ti4:12<\/span>). Tit 2:7<\/span>, “patterns.”So Jesus. “A monstrosity it is to see the highest rank joinedwith the meanest mind, the first seat with the lowest life, agrandiloquent tongue with a lazy life, much talking with no fruit”[BERNARD].<\/P><\/p>\n Neither as being lords over God’s heritage<\/strong>,…. Or “clergy”; meaning not ecclesiastical persons, as presbyters, and deacons, who are supposed to be under the government of bishops, though not to be governed with tyranny, and in a haughty, imperious, and arrogant manner; to which sense the Arabic version inclines, rendering the words thus; “not as those who domineer over such that are appointed in the dignities of the priesthood”; but such cannot be designed, because they are presbyters, or elders, which are here exhorted not to use such tyrannical power and authority; wherefore the flock, or church of God, the people of Christ, and members of churches, in common, are here intended: the Ethiopic version renders it, “his own people”; who are the lot, portion, and inheritance of God, and Christ; and moreover, the several churches are the parts, portions, and heritages, for the word is in the plural number, which are assigned to the care of their respective pastors, and elders, in allusion to the land of Canaan, which was distributed by lot: the word “clergy” is common to all the saints, and not to be appropriated to a particular order of men, or to officers of churches; and these are not to be lorded over by their elders, in a domineering and arbitrary way; for though they are set over them in the Lord, and have the rule over them, and should be submitted to, and obeyed in their right and lawful ministrations of the word and ordinances, and are worthy of double honour when they rule well; yet they are not to take upon them an absolute authority over the consciences of men; they are not to teach for doctrines the commandments of men; nor to have the dominion over the faith of men, but to be helpers of their joy; and are not to coin new articles of faith, or enact new laws, and impose them on the churches; but are to teach the doctrines of Christ, and rule according to the laws he has given:<\/p>\n but being ensamples to the flock<\/strong>. The Ethiopic version reads, “to his own flock”; that is, the flock of God; and the Vulgate Latin version adds, “heartily”; the meaning is, that they should go before the flock, and set an example to believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity; and be patterns of good works to them, and recommend the doctrines they preach, and the duties they urge, by their own lives and conversations; and particularly should be ensamples to the saints, in liberality and beneficence, in lenity and gentleness, in meekness and humility, in opposition to the vices before warned against.<\/p>\n Lording it over <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Present active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, late compound (, <\/SPAN><\/span>) as in Mt 20:25<\/span>.<\/P> The charge allotted to you <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). “The charges,” “the lots” or “the allotments.” See it in Acts 1:17<\/span>; Acts 1:25<\/span> in this sense. The old word meant a die (Mt 27:25<\/span>), a portion (Col 1:12<\/span>; 1Pet 1:4<\/span>), here the charges assigned (cf. Ac 17:4<\/span>). From the adjective <\/SPAN><\/span> come our cleric, clerical, clerk. Wycliff translated it here “neither as having lordship in the clergie.”<\/P> Making yourselves ensamples <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span> and predicate nominative <\/SPAN><\/span> (types, models) for which phrase see 1Th 1:7<\/span>. Continually becoming. See 2:21<\/span> for <\/SPAN><\/span> (writing-copy).<\/P> To the flock <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Objective genitive. <\/P> <\/p>\n As lording it [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. See Matthew 20<\/span>; 25<\/span>; Act 19:16<\/span>. Other words are used for the exercise of legitimate authority in the church; proistamai, to be over (1Th 5:12<\/span>; 1Ti 5:17<\/span>); poimainw, as ver. 2, tend. But this carries the idea of high – handed rule. Heritage [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Plural. Klhrov means a lot. See on inheritance, ch. 1 4. From the kindred adjective klhrikov comes the English cleric, contracted into clerk, which in ecclesiastical writings originally signified a minister; either as being chosen by lot like Matthias, or as being the lot or inheritance of God. Hence Wycliffe translates the passage, “neither as having lordship in the clergie.” As in the Middle Ages the clergy were almost the only persons who could write, the word clerk came to have one of its common modern meanings. The word here, though its interpretation is somewhat disputed, seems to refer to the several congregations – the lots or charges assigned to the elders. Compare proseklhrwqhsan, were added as disciples; A. V., consorted with (Act 17:4<\/span>). Rev. renders charge. <\/P> Why not charges? <\/P> Examples [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Peter uses three different terms for a pattern or model : uJpogrammov, a writing – copy (ch. 2 21); uJpodeigma, for which classical writers prefer paradeigma, an architect’s plan or a sculptor’s or painter’s model (2Pe 2:6<\/span>); tupov (see on ch. 1Pe 3:21<\/span>), of which our word type is nearly a transcript. The word primarily means the impression left by a stroke (tuptw, to strike). Thus Joh 20:25<\/span>, “the print of the nails.” Used of the stamp on coin; the impression of any engraving or hewn work of art; a monument or statue; the figures of the tabernacle of Moloch and of the star Remphan (Act 7:43<\/span>). Generally, an image or form, always with a statement of the object; and hence the kindred meaning of a pattern or model. See Act 23:25<\/span>; Rom 5:14<\/span>; Phi 3:17<\/span>; Heb 8:5<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1 ) “Neither as being Iords.<\/strong> (G reek katakurieuontes) “exercising lordship over.” Elders who tend God’s flock are to do so without resort to intimidating and recriminating dictatorial threats.<\/p>\n 2) “Over God’s heritage”<\/strong> (Greek ton kleron) “of the heritage” the church, those the elders are to tend in Spiritual needs.<\/p>\n 3) “But being ensamples to the flock.”<\/strong> But (Greek tupoi) “types” (Greek ginomenoi) becoming, or examples becoming of the flock. The elders, deacons, pastor and ordained ministers in each church who are not pastors should be examples to them, 1Co 11:1<\/span>; 1Ti 4:12<\/span>; Php_3:17.<\/p>\n 3 Neither as being lords, or, as exercising dominion. The preposition κατὰ in Greek is taken, for the most part, in a bad sense: then Peter here condemns unreasonable exercise of power, as the case is with those who consider not themselves to be the ministers of Christ and his Church, but seek something higher. And he calls particular churches “lots,” ( cleros \ud83d\ude09 for as the whole body of the Church is the Lord’s heritage, so the churches, scattered through towns and villages, were as so many farms, the culture of which he assigns to each presbyter. Some very ignorantly think that those called clergy are meant here. It was, indeed, an ancient way of speaking, to call the whole order of ministers, clergy; but I wish that it had never occurred to the Fathers to speak thus; for what Scripture ascribes in common to the whole Church, it was by no means right to confine to a few men. And this way of speaking was spurious, at least it was a departure from apostolic usage. <\/p>\n Peter, indeed, expressly gives the churches this title, in order that we may know that whatever men ascribe to themselves is taken away from the Lord, as in many places he calls the Church his peculiar treasure, and the rod of his heritage, when he intends to claim his entire dominion over it; for he never delivers to pastors the government, but only the care, so that his own right remains still complete. <\/p>\n (3) Neither as being lords.<\/strong>Rather, nor yet as lording it.<\/em> The English version is somewhat too strict for the Greek and for the sense. There is a sense in which the heads of the Church are, and ought to be, lords and princes over the rest; but this is very different from lording it, acting tyrannically, forgetting the constitutional rights of their subjects.<\/p>\n Over Gods heritage.<\/strong>Quite literally, Over the lots.<\/em> The word first of all means (as in Mat. 27:35<\/span> or Act. 1:26<\/span>) the actual scrap of paper or wood that was tossed. Then it comes to mean (like the word lot in the language of auctions) the piece of property that falls by lot to any ones share. Then all notion of chance<\/em> disappears, and it comes to mean the portion assigned to any one. So St. Peter says that Simon Magus has no share nor lot in this thing (Act. 8:21<\/span>). In Act. 26:18<\/span>, Col. 1:12<\/span>, the same word is rendered inheritance. In Act. 17:4<\/span>, our version endeavours, not very successfully, through the Latin word consorted, to keep up the underlying notion of the Greek, which literally is were allotted<\/em> to Paul and Silas. Here, therefore, we must understand the lots, over which the clergy are not to lord it, to be the different congregations, districts, parishes, dioceses, which had been allotted to them. At the same time it does not at all imply that any process like drawing of lots had been resorted to in their appointment, as is seen from Act. 17:4<\/span>, just cited. It will be seen that our version is misleading in substituting singular for plural, and in inserting the word Gods. The whole flock is Gods (1Pe. 5:2<\/span>), purchased with His own blood; but the allotments are the portions assigned by Him to the different clergy. It is some consolation to see, when we groan under the lives and characters of some church officers now, that even in the Apostles days cowardice, greed, and self-assertion were not unknown.<\/p>\n Ensamples to the flock.<\/strong>The best way of becoming a real prince and lord over men is to show them by example what they ought to do, like Chaucers Parson, who<\/p>\n Cristes lore and hys Apostlis twelve Leighton well quotes from Nazianzen: Either teach not, or teach by living.<\/p>\n 3<\/strong>. <\/strong> As (3) to manner. <\/p>\n Neither lords over<\/strong> Not as lording it. <\/em> History furnishes a sad commentary on this injunction in the pretended successors of St. Peter in the papal chair claiming to be apostolic lords, vicegerents of Christ, with supreme authority over all kings, kingdoms, and people, and addressed as Most Holy Lord, and, Our Lord God the Pope. <\/p>\n Heritage<\/strong> The word means a portion assigned by lot; and thence an assignment by any means. It here is the portions <\/em> of the Church committed to the charge of the elders severally. <\/p>\n But ensamples<\/strong> Patterns of holy living instead of lordly tyrants.<\/p>\n 1Pe 5:3<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Over God’s heritage,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> There is nothing for God’s <\/em>in the original; the word , seems here to denote those distinct congregations <\/em>of Christians, which fell to the lot, <\/em>as it were, of different pastors; alluding to the division of Canaan by lots. Comp. Deu 4:20<\/span>; Deu 9:29<\/span>. They are called in the next sentence, the flock. <\/em>Dr. Heylin renders it, Lords over them who are allotted to you: <\/em>for all Christians are the Lord’s portion, <\/em>and the lot of his inheritance. It has been well observed, that the church of Rome could not well have acted more directly contrary to the injunction of St. Peter, if she had studied to disobey it, and to form herself upon a rule that should be the reverse of this. For, what can be called, Lording it over God’s heritage, <\/em>if the requiring a blind and implicit faith from all her members be not so? Or, the commanding men to lay aside their reason and understanding, in order to become good Christians? This is to lord it over <\/em>the disciples of Christ in a most tyrannical manner; and most daringly to disobey the command of him, whom they style, “Prince of the apostles, and Head of their Church.” Erasmus has observed, “That by the , clergy, <\/em>here, we are not to understand the priests <\/em>and deacons, <\/em>but the flock;<\/em>the Christians over whom the bishop was set; and this precept of the apostle (says he,) ought to be written up in the halls of bishops, even in gold letters, Feed the flock of God. <\/em>Do not oppress it; do not fleece it; and feed it, not by constraint, <\/em>or as bound to it by virtue of your office; but out of sincere affection, like the fathers of the church: not for filthy lucre’s sake;as if St. Peter had foreseen the plagues which would arise to the church from hence: lastly, not aslording <\/em>it, but feed it by your good example; conquer it by your good actions. Go before the people in all the virtues of the Christian life; and even in suffering persecution for the sake of your religion. Kings <\/em>may rule over the unwilling, <\/em>but Christian bishops <\/em>over none but the willing; and nothing can recommend their instructions more than a good example.” <\/p>\n 1Pe 5:3<\/span> . ] i.e.<\/em> “not as those, who,” etc. With . cf. for meaning and exprestion Mat 20:25-28 ; 2Co 1:24<\/span> ; it is not equal to (Steiger), but the prefixed intensifies the idea of : “to exercise a sway, by which violence is offered to those who are under it.” [269]<\/p>\n , properly speaking, the lot, then that which is apportioned by lot, then generally, that which is allotted or assigned to any one, whether it be an office, a possession, or anything else. Here it is the congregation ( ) that is to be understood; not as though in itself meant the congregation, but the churches are thus designated, because they are assigned to the elders as a possession, in which to exercise their official duties. The plural is put, because different elders filled offices in different congregations (Calov, Steiger, de Wette, Wiesinger, Schott, etc.). Compare the passage in Act 17:4<\/span> , where it is said of those converted by Paul and Silas: . It is incorrect to supply , as is done by Beza, etc., and to derive the expression from the O. T., where the congregation of Israel is termed the ( ) of God, Deu 9:29<\/span> , LXX. But it is equally incorrect when Hofmann applies , not to the , but to others, and, taking as instituting a comparison, understands to signify “the estates belonging to some one himself,” translating accordingly: “not as those who exercise rule over estates belonging to themselves.” The apostle’s idea thus would be: “the elders are not to treat the church as an object over which they exercise right of possession, and do with as they please.”<\/p>\n How should the apostle have thought of bringing forward a comparison so far-fetched? and how arbitrary it appears to interpret differently in this passage from in chap. 1Pe 1:14 , 1Pe 2:2<\/span> ; 1Pe 2:5 ; 1Pe 2:11-13<\/span> , etc.; to allow the article to take the place of the possessive pronoun, and to attribute a meaning to which it often has in profane Greek, but never either in the O. or in the N. T.! [270]<\/p>\n ] The antithesis here is a different one from that in the passage quoted from Matt. The elders, as the leaders of the church, necessarily possess a kind of over it; but they are not to exercise this in a manner opposed to the character of Christian life in the church (which would be a ), but by being examples to the congregations, shining before them in every Christian virtue (1Ti 4:12<\/span> ; Tit 2:7<\/span> ); cf. 2Th 3:9<\/span> ; Phi 3:17<\/span> .<\/p>\n [269] Thus Hofmann interprets, correctly. He is mistaken, however, in maintaining that here does not imply an hostile antithesis, since a violent rule is one by which he who is ruled over is injured in his rights.<\/p>\n [270] The opinion of Oecumenius: , ( i.e.<\/em> the priesthood), which many Catholic commentators have followed, requires no refutation; and as little does that of Dodwell, who understands to mean church property.<\/p>\nFuente: 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
He taught, but fyrst hee practysd it himselve.<\/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