6<\/strong>. children of Israel<\/em> ] Non-deuteronomic; see on Deu 4:44<\/span>.<\/p>\n Beeroth Bene-jaakan] Wells<\/em> of the tribe so-called; in P, Num 33:31<\/span>, the place name is simply that of the tribe, without wells<\/em>. ‘Aan, Gen 36:27<\/span> = Ya‘ a an, 1Ch 1:42<\/span>, was a orite tribe. The place would probably be in the ‘Arabah.<\/p>\n Moserah<\/em> ] Num 33:31<\/span>, Moserth<\/em>; the place is unknown.<\/p>\n there Aaron died, and there he was buried<\/em> ] This happened at Mt Hor acc. to P, Num 20:28<\/span>; Num 33:38<\/span>.<\/p>\n and Eleazar his son<\/em>, etc.] P, Num 20:25-28<\/span>; Num 32:2<\/span>; Num 32:28<\/span>; but see above, general note.<\/p>\n 6, 7<\/strong>. Interruption of the address by a piece of narrative, recording certain stations of Israel with Aaron’s death and Eleazar’s succession, in which Israel are spoken of in the 3rd pers., and the phraseology is not deuteronomic. Obviously the fragment of an old itinerary. Although the names it contains are also found in an itinerary given by P, Numbers 33<\/span>, they occur here in a different order; another name is given to the death-place of Aaron than P gives, nor do we find P’s usual formula for Israel on the march they journeyed from and pitched at<\/em>. The fragment is therefore from another source than P. That this was E (D’s main source) is almost certain. The fragment uses E’s formula, they journeyed from thence to<\/em> , and may originally have formed part of the same itinerary of E, from which there are fragments in Numbers 21<\/span>; E, too, assumes the succession of Eleazar to Aaron, Jos 24:33<\/span>, and therefore probably had already mentioned this. (So already Vatke, Einl. i. d. A. T.<\/em> 377 f., 383; but more fully Bacon, Triple Tradition of Exodus<\/em>, 207 f., 257 f., 343 f. So, too, Driver, Steuern., Bertholet, and Marti on this passage, and Cornill, Einleitung<\/em>). Why the fragment should be inserted here is not clear, unless the historical retrospect originally concluded with Deu 10:5<\/span>. It seems more in place after Deu 10:11<\/em><\/span>, but may owe its position here to the design of some editor to ascribe the consecration of the tribe of Levi to a later date than oreb, in the attempt to harmonise the conflicting data of D and P concerning the tribe of Levi and the priesthood. For other explanations see Driver’s Deut.<\/em> 120.<\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. And the children of Israel took their journey, &c.<\/B><\/I>] On this and the three following verses see Kennicott’s<\/I> remarks at the end of this chapter. See Clarke on <\/span>De 10:22<\/span><\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n This following history comes in manifestly by way of parenthesis, as may appear from Deu 10:10<\/span>, where he returns to his former discourse; and it seems to be here inserted, either, <\/P> 1. Because the priests and Levites here mentioned were the guardians and keepers of the ark and tables here mentioned. Or rather, <\/P> 2. As an evidence of Gods gracious answer to Mosess prayers, and of his reconciliation to the people, notwithstanding their late and great provocation. For, saith he, after this they proceeded by Gods guidance in their journeys, some eminent stages whereof he names for all; and though Aaron died in one of them, yet God made up that breach, and Eleazar came in his place, and ministered as priest, one branch of which office was to intercede for the people. Then, saith he, God brought them from the barren parts of the wilderness to <\/P> a land of rivers of waters,<\/B> Deu 10:7<\/span>, a pleasant and fruitful soil. Then he adds, God separated the Levites, &c., Deu 10:8<\/span>. <\/P> Mosera.<\/B> <\/P> Object.<\/B> This place seems directly contrary to that, Num 33:31<\/span>, where their journey is quite contrary to this, even <\/P> from Moseroth to Bene-jaakan.<\/B> This indeed is a great difficulty, and profane wits take occasion to cavil. And if a satisfactory answer be not yet given to it by interpreters, it ought not therefore to be concluded unanswerable, because many things formerly thought unanswerable have been since fully cleared, and therefore the like may be presumed concerning other doubts yet remaining. And it were much more reasonable to acknowledge here a transposition of the words through the scribes mistake, than upon such a pretence to reject the Divine authority of those sacred books, which hath been confirmed by such irresistible arguments. But there is no need of these general pleas, seeing particular answers are and may be given to this difficulty sufficient to satisfy modest and impartial inquirers. <\/P> Answ.<\/B> <\/P> 1. The places here mentioned are differing from those, Num 33<\/span>, it being very frequent in Scripture for diverse persons and places to be called by the same names, and yet the names are not wholly the same; for there it is <\/P> Bene-jaakan, <\/B>and here Beeroth bene-jaakan<\/I>, or <\/P> Beeroth of the children of Jaakan; <\/B>there Moseroth<\/I>, here Mosera<\/I>; there Horhagidgad<\/I>, here Gudgodah<\/I>; there Jotbathah<\/I>, here Jotbath<\/I>. If the places were the same, it may justly seem strange why Moses should so industriously make a change in every one of the names. And therefore these may be other stations, which being omitted in Num 33<\/span>, are supplied here, it being usual in sacred Scripture to supply the defects of one place out of another. <\/P> Answ.<\/B> 2. Admitting these two places to be the same with those Num 33:31<\/span>, yet the journeys are diverse. They went from <\/P> Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera, <\/B>which is omitted in Numbers, and therefore here supplied; and then back again from Mosera<\/I> or Moseroth<\/I> to Bene-jaakan<\/I>, as is there said; for which return there might then be some sufficient reason, though now unknown to us, as the reasons of many such like things are: or God might order it so for his own pleasure, and it is not impossible he might do it for this reason, that by this seeming contradiction, as well as some others, he might in just judgment do what he threatened to the Jews, Jer 6:21<\/span>, even lay stumbling-blocks<\/I> before profane and proud wits, and give them that occasion of deceiving and ruining themselves, which they so greedily seek and gladly embrace; which is the reason given by some of the ancients why God hath left so many difficulties in Scripture. <\/P> Answ.<\/B> 3. The words may be otherwise rendered, <\/P> from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan, <\/B>and from Mosera<\/I>; where the order of the places is not observed, as was noted before of the order of time, Deu 10:1<\/span>, because it was nothing to the purpose here, and because that might be easily fetched from Num 33<\/span>, where those journeys are more particularly and exactly described. For the conjunction and<\/I>, that may be here wanting, and to be supplied, as it is Exo 6:23<\/span>; 1Sa 4:7<\/span>; Psa 133:3<\/span>; Isa 63:11<\/span>; Hab 3:11<\/span>. And the preposition from<\/I> is easily supplied from the foregoing words, as is most usual. Nor seems there to be any more reason to render it to Mosera<\/I>, than from Mosera<\/I>, seeing the Hebrew letter he<\/I> in the end is made a part of the proper name, and therefore is not local. There Aaron died<\/I>. Quest<\/I>. How is this true? when Aaron died not in Mosera, but in Mount Hor, Num 33:38<\/span>. <\/P> Answ.<\/B> 1. Mosera may be a different place from Moseroth, and that may be the name of a town or region in which Mount Hor was, or to which it belonged. Or, the same mountain, in respect of diverse parts and opposite sides of it, might be called by diverse names, here Mosera, and there Hor. And it is possible they might go several journeys, and pass to divers stations, and by fetching a compass (which they oft did in their wilderness travels) come to the other side of the same mountain. <\/P> Answ.<\/B> 2. The Hebrew particle scham<\/I> may here note the time, and not the place of Aarons death, and may be rendered then, as it is taken, Gen 49:24<\/span>; Psa 14:5<\/span>; Ecc 3:17<\/span>; Zep 1:14<\/span>. And then is not to be taken precisely, but with some latitude, as it is oft used in Scripture; that is, about that time, after a few removes more; as the words, at that time<\/I>, Deu 10:8<\/span>, must necessarily be understood. <\/P><\/p>\n 6-9. the children of Israel tooktheir journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to Mosera<\/B>Sosudden a change from a spoken discourse to a historical narrative hasgreatly puzzled the most eminent biblical scholars, some of whomreject the parenthesis as a manifest interpolation. But it is foundin the most ancient Hebrew manuscripts, and, believing that allcontained in this book was given by inspiration and is entitled toprofound respect, we must receive it as it stands, althoughacknowledging our inability to explain the insertion of theseencampment details in this place. There is another difficulty in thenarrative itself. The stations which the Israelites are saidsuccessively to have occupied are enumerated here in a differentorder from Nu 33:31<\/span>. That thenames of the stations in both passages are the same there can be nodoubt; but, in Numbers, they are probably mentioned in reference tothe first<\/I> visit of the Hebrews during the long wanderingsouthwards, before their return to Kadesh the second time; while herethey have a reference to the second<\/I> passage of the Israelites,when they again marched south, in order to compass the land of Edom.It is easy to conceive that Mosera (Hor) and the wells of Jaakanmight lie in such a direction that a nomadic horde might, indifferent years, at one time take the former first<\/I> in theirway, and at another time the latter [ROBINSON].<\/P><\/p>\n And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan<\/strong>,…. Not when or soon after they removed from Sinai; for if this place is the same with Benejaakan, as is generally supposed, they had a great many journeys, mansions, and stations before they came to it; see Nu 33:31<\/span> and besides, since Aaron, according to this account, died at their next station from hence, that was thirty eight years after their departure from Mount Sinai; and it is hard to say what should be the reason of making mention of these two or three journeys here; and whereas they are here said to journey front the place here mentioned<\/p>\n to Mosera<\/strong>; on the contrary in Nu 33:31<\/span> they are said to depart from Mosera, and pitch in Benejaakan; which is accounted for by their going backwards and forwards, and so both may be true. Aben Ezra is of opinion, that Beeroth Benejaakan, or the wells of the children of Jaakan, is not the same with Bene Jaakan, nor Mosera the same with Moseroth; but Beeroth is Kadesh, and Mosera is the name of the desert of Mount Hor; and it is certain that Moseroth was the twenty seventh station, and Mosera, or the desert of Mount Hor, where Aaron died, was the thirty fourth, and therefore must be distant; see Nu 33:30<\/span>, which seems to agree with what follows:<\/p>\n there Aaron died, and there he was buried<\/strong>; it is certain that Aaron died on Mount Hor, Nu 20:23<\/span>, or there died and was buried when in the desert of Mosera:<\/p>\n and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest’s office in his stead<\/strong>; so that though the high priest died, the office continued, and the law of it remained in force, and the tribe of Levi was separated for the service of the sanctuary, as afterwards expressed.<\/p>\n And the Israelites owed to the grace of their God, which was turned towards them once more, through the intercession of Moses, not only the restoration of the tables of the covenant as a pledge that the covenant itself was restored, but also the institution and maintenance of the high-priesthood and priesthood generally for the purpose of mediation between them and the Lord.<\/p>\n (Note: Even Clericus<\/em> pointed out this connection, and paraphrased Deu 10:6<\/span> and Deu 10:7<\/span> as follows: “But when, as I have said, God forgave the Hebrew people, He pardoned my brother Aaron also, who did not die till the fortieth year after we had come out of Egypt, and when we were coming round the borders of the Edomites to come hither. God also showed that He was reconciled towards him by conferring the priesthood upon him, which is now borne by his son Eleazar according to the will of God.” Clericus<\/em> has also correctly brought out the fact that Moses referred to what he had stated in Deu 9:20<\/span> as to the wrath of God against Aaron and his intercession on his behalf, or rather that he mentioned his intercession on behalf of Aaron in that passage, because he intended to call more particular attention to the successful result of it in this. Hengstenberg ( Dissertations<\/em>, vol. ii. pp. 351-2) has since pointed out briefly, but very conclusively, the connection of thought between Deu 10:6<\/span>, Deu 10:7<\/span>, and what goes before and follows. “Moses,” he says, “points out to the people how the Lord had continued unchangeable in His mercy notwithstanding all their sins. Although they had rendered themselves unworthy of such goodness by their worship of the calf, He gave them the ark of the covenant with the new tables of the law in it (Deu 10:1-5<\/span>). He followed up this gift of His grace by instituting the high-priesthood, and when Aaron died He caused it to be transferred to his son Eleazar (Deu 10:6<\/span>, Deu 10:7<\/span>). He set apart the tribe of Levi to serve Him and bless the people in His name, and thus to be the mediators of His mercy (Deu 10:8<\/span>, Deu 10:9<\/span>). In short, He omitted nothing that was requisite to place Israel in full possession of the dignity of a people of God.” There is no ground for regarding Deu 10:6<\/span>, Deu 10:7<\/span>, as a gloss, as Capellus, Dathe,<\/em> and Rosenmller<\/em> do, or Deu 10:6-9<\/span> as “an interpolation of a historical statement concerning the bearers of the ark of the covenant and the holy persons generally, which has no connection with Moses’ address,” as Knobel<\/em> maintains. The want of any formal connection is quite in keeping with the spirit of simplicity which characterizes the early Hebrew diction and historical writings. “The style of the Hebrews is not to be tried by the rules of rhetoricians” ( Clericus<\/em>).)<\/p>\n Moses reminds the people of this gracious gift on the part of their God, by recalling to their memory the time when Aaron died and his son Eleazar was invested with the high-priesthood in his stead. That he may transport his hearers the more distinctly to the period in question, he lets the history itself speak, and quotes from the account of their journeys the passage which supplied the practical proof of what he desires to say. Instead of saying: And the high-priesthood also, with which Aaron was invested by the grace of God notwithstanding his sin at Sinai, the Lord has still preserved to you; for when Aaron died, He invested his son with the same honour, <\/p>\n (Note: “In the death of Aaron they might discern the punishment of their rebellion. But the fact that Eleazar was appointed in his place, was a sign of the paternal grace of God, who did not suffer them to be forsaken on that account” ( Calvin<\/em>).)<\/p>\n and also directed you to continue your journey-he proceeds in the following historical style: “ And the children of Israel took their journey from the wells of the sons of Jaakan to Mosera: there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son became priest in his stead. And from thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Jotbath, a land of water-brooks<\/em>.” The allusion to these marches, together with the events which had taken place at Mosera, taught in very few words “ not only that Aaron was forgiven at the intercession of Moses, and even honoured with the high-priesthood, the medium of grace and blessing to the people of God (e.g., at the wells of Bene-jaakan) until the time of his death; but also that through this same intercession the high-priesthood was maintained in perpetuity, so that when Aaron had to die in the wilderness in consequence of a fresh sin ( Num 20:12<\/span>), it continued notwithstanding, and by no means diminished in strength, as might have been feared, since it led the way from the wells to water-brooks, helped on the journey to Canaan, which was now the object of their immediate aim, and still sustained their courage and their faith” ( Schultz<\/em>). The earlier commentators observed the inward connection between the continuation of the high-priesthood and the water-brooks. J. Gerhard<\/em>, for example, observes: “ God generally associates material blessings with spiritual; as long as the ministry of the word and the observance of divine worship flourish among us, God will also provide for our temporal necessities.”_<\/p>\n Verses 6, 7:<\/strong><\/p>\n Beeroth <\/strong>of the children of Jaakan, or the “Wells of the sons of Jakan,” the same as Bene-jakan, Num 33:31<\/span>. These were likely the Horite tribe “Akan,” Gen 36:27<\/span>.<\/p>\n Mosera, <\/strong>plural Moseroth, Num 33:30<\/span>. This was the place where Aaron died, thus it was in the vicinity of Mount Hor, Num 20:22-29<\/span>.<\/p>\n Gudgodah, <\/strong>the same as Haor-hagidgad, Num 33:32<\/span>, the “Cave of Gidgad,” an area in which were many caves.<\/p>\n Jotbath, <\/strong>or Jotbathah, Num 33:33<\/span>, a region of many streams.<\/p>\n Nothing further is known of any of these places today, but they were landmarks of Israel’s wilderness journey.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 6. And the children of Israel. Since it is not the design of Moses to specify the stations here, as he does in Num 33:0<\/span>, but only to mark the place in which Aaron died, I have therefore thought fit to connect what we read here with the preceding narrative. In the death of Aaron, they might recognize the punishment of their own rebellion. But that Eleazar should be substituted in his place, was a sign of the paternal grace of God, who did not suffer them to be deprived of this blessing. This succession, too, was to be a perpetual rule for the future, so that the sacerdotal dignity, according to God’s prescription, should remain in that family. <\/p>\n He here specifies the names of certain places, which he omits in the passage above cited; for he there states that the Israelites went straight from Kadesh-barnea to Mount Hor; and then makes them pass on to Zalmonah and Punon, perhaps because the places had different names, or because they did not pitch their camp in Gudgodah, or Jotbath; although the advantages of the spot might have invited them to stop in a well-watered valley, for it is called “the land of torrents,” through which an abundance of water flowed. <\/p>\n I do not advert to what every reader will readily observe for himself, that in the discourse of Moses the order of the history is inverted; for he says that the Levites were separated from the rest of the people, after the death of Aaron. <\/p>\n (6, 7) On these verses, which are among the most difficult in Deuteronomy, see a separate Excursus. The difficulty is two-fold. First, the account of Israels marches about the time of Aarons death is given in a different form here to that which we have in Numbers 20, 21<\/span>, 33. Secondly, there is the further question why Aarons death should be recorded here. It appears to have taken place before Moses began the delivery of the discourses in Deuteronomy. It is separated by thirty-nine years from the incidents which Moses is recapitulating in this passage. The Jewish commentator Rashi gives a very curious tale to account for the allusion to Aarons death in this place. But though his theory is mythical, he seems to hit the main point, which is that Israel re-visited <\/em>in their journey round the land of Edom four places where they had previously encamped, and among them Mosera, or Moseroth, the district in which Mount Hor, where Aaron died, was situated. There is no impossibility in this; in fact, it is highly probable, and would partly account for the statement in Num. 21:4<\/span>, <\/em>that the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. It was just about this time that the fiery serpents came.<\/p>\n If the connection of these verses with the train of thought in Moses mind is spiritual, <\/em>the difficulty may be solved. The death of the priest of Israel, <\/em>whose first representative Aaron was, is spiritually identical with the destruction of the first pair of tables, the death of the first Adam and of all mankind in the person of our representative, the Lord Jesus Christ. After that death He ariseth as another priest, made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. Thus the incident is connected with what goes before. The separation of the tribe of Levi <\/em>to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, i.e., <\/em>to bear the burden of the Law, is the same thing in another form. It deprives them of an earthly inheritance, just as He whose representatives they were gave Himself an offering and sacrifice to God; and His life is taken from the earth.<\/p>\n Further, the names of the places themselves have in this aspect a spiritual significance. From certain wells of waterthe wells of the children of Jaakan (crookedness)the people of God take their journey to the scene of the high priests death. From thence to Hor-hagidgad, or Gudgodah, the mount of the troop, or band (Sinai is the mount of the congregation in the Old Testament, Zion in the New), and thence to a land <\/em>of rivers of water. <\/em>It is only another way of relating how from the wells of the Law we pass to the rivers of living water opened by the Gospel. But we must pass by way of the cross of Christ.<\/em><\/p>\n EXCURSUS ON NOTES TO DEUTERONOMY.<\/strong><\/p>\n EXCURSUS ON Deu. 10:6-7<\/span>.<\/p>\n THESE verses have always seemed to me to present the greatest difficulty in the whole of Deuteronomy. If it were not for their beautiful spiritual connection with the context, I should not know how to account for their presence in this place at all. And even so, the difference <\/em>between this allusion to Aarons death and the account given in Numbers, and the superficial resemblance <\/em>between the four stages of the journey of Israel here mentioned, and four stages which belong to a different period (in Num. 33:31-34<\/span>)together create a somewhat formidable perplexity. The Samaritan Pentateuch increases the confusion by introducing here the stages mentioned in Num. 33:34-37<\/span>an obvious attempt to harmonise the accounts of two distinct things. The LXX. version of Deu. 10:6-7<\/span> supports the Hebrew text. The fact that the burial <\/em>of Aaron is alluded to in this place only, <\/em>shows that the verses in Deuteronomy cannot have been taken from those in Numbers. The following comparison will show the difference.<\/p>\n In THE FOURTH PERIOD OF THE EXODUS.<\/p>\n IN THE FIFTH PERIOD OF THE EXODUS.<\/p>\n (Num. 33:30-33<\/span>.)<\/p>\n (Deu. 10:6-7<\/span>.)<\/p>\n The children of Israel journeyed from Hash-monah <\/em>to Moseroth; <\/em>from Moseroth <\/em>to Bene-jaakan; <\/em>from Bene-jaakan <\/em>to Hor-hagidgad; <\/em>from Hor-hagidgad <\/em>to Jotbathah.<\/em><\/p>\n Three other encampmentsat Ebronah,Ezion-gaber, and Kadeshintervened before their arrival at Mount Hor, where Aaron died, in the fifth period of the Exodus, on the first day of the month. The fifth period begins with the death of Miriam at Kadesh in the first month of the fortieth year. Num. 20:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n The children of Israel journeyed from Beeroth-bene-jaakan <\/em>to Mosera, <\/em>(where Aaron died and was buried), from Mosera <\/em>to Gudgodah; <\/em>from Gud-godah <\/em>to Jotbath, <\/em>a land of rivers of waters.<\/p>\n Mosera is singular, Moseroth <\/em>plural in form. Bene-jaakan means the children of JaakanBeeroth-bene-jaakan the wells <\/em>of the children of Jaakan. Hor-hagidgad means the mount of Gid-gad, which differs from Gudgod only in the vowel pointing. Gudgodah may mean the neighbourhood of Gudgod or Gidgad, and Jotbathah may mean simply to <\/em>Jotbath.<\/p>\n Gadgad <\/em>and Etebatha <\/em>are found both in Numbers and Deuteronomy in the LXX. The other names are given with some variation.<\/p>\n The places are not mentioned in the same order in the two passages, and the difference in the form of the words shows that neither passage is copied from the other. All four sites are at present unknown. The additional particulars given in Deuteronomy suggest a reason why Israel should re-visit two of the four places; namely, because of the water <\/em>which was to be had from the wells <\/em>of the children of Jaakan and in Jotbath, the land of rivers of waters.<\/em><\/p>\n The return of Israel in the last period of the Exodus to four places previously visited is in no way remarkable. We are told that they were compelled, about the time of Aarons death, to journey from Mount Hor to compass <\/em>the land of Edom, which the Edomites would not permit them to cross (Num. 21:4<\/span>; Num. 20:21<\/span>). The return to these former encampments may have enhanced the weariness and annoyance of the people, so that their soul was much discouraged because of the way, and if they were travelling in a different direction, they may well have revisited these four places in a different order. They need not have encamped <\/em>at all of them the second time. The narrative in Deuteronomy merely says they journeyed from, <\/em>not they encamped in. <\/em>There is no reason why the district of Mount Hor may not have been called Mosera <\/em>or Moseroth. <\/em>And the name chastisement may have been given to it by Moses, like many other significant names in the Exodus (Meribah, Kibroth-hattaavah &c), in consequence of what took place there.<\/p>\n Further there is some reason to believe that the number of the goings out of Israel in the Exodus, given in Numbers 33<\/span> is made to be 42 for a special reason, like the forty-two generations of Matthew 1<\/span>, in which there are at least three evidently intentional omissions. And therefore we need not be surprised at the insertion of places elsewhere, which are not included in that list. No place is mentioned twice <\/em>in Numbers 33<\/span>. Yet the children of Israel were certainly twice at Kadesh (for Num. 13:26<\/span>; Num. 20:1<\/span>, cannot <\/em>refer to the same time<\/em>), <\/em>and probably twice at many other places.<\/p>\n The real difficulty is not in the facts <\/em>related in Deu. 10:6-7<\/span>, but in the question why they should be narrated there. <\/em>Further, they are narrated in the third person, the children of Israel journeyed, <\/em>but all the other portions of their journey are narrated in the first person (Deu. 1:19<\/span>, we <\/em>went; and so Deu. 2:1<\/span>; Deu. 2:8<\/span>; Deu. 2:13<\/span>; Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/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: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
N.B.-The fourth period of the Exodus has no dates <\/em>mentioned.<\/p>\n