14. Against Removing Boundary Stones<\/p>\n
In the Sg. address, but as in Deu 19:4<\/em><\/span> f., 11<\/span> and Deu 15:2<\/span>, q.v.<\/em>, with neighbour<\/em> instead of brother<\/em>, usual in Sg. passages; and followed by a deuteronomic formula. It is significant that the formula is not only separable from the law proper (as in the previous law) but contradicts it. For while the law betrays its date as subsequent to Israel’s settlement in the land and with this agree the facts that there is no parallel in the earlier codes and that protests against removing boundary-stones appear in the prophets and later books (Isa 5:8<\/span>, Hos 5:10<\/span>, Pro 22:28<\/span>; Pro 23:10<\/span>, Job 24:2<\/span>) the closing formula adopts the standpoint of Moses, the land which the Lord is to give thee<\/em>. Clearly, therefore, the law has been adopted from some other source into D’s Code cp. the Decalogue but there is nothing to show whether this incorporation was due to the authors of the Code or to editors.<\/p>\n It is difficult to explain the position of the law just here. Steuern. and Berth, attribute this to its use of the term g<\/em> e<\/em> bul, boundary<\/em>, used also in the previous law ( Deu 19:3<\/em><\/span> a<\/em>, yet with a different meaning from here); the former thinking that in its original form the law was entered on the margin and thence taken into the text by the compiler of the Code, the latter that it may have formed part of the original Code. Notice rather that both laws besides being in the Sg. address use the term neighbour<\/em>, and were therefore probably from the same source. Dillm. points out that in this ch. murder, theft and false-witness appear in the same order as in the Decalogue, and Dri. compares Deu 27:17<\/span> ff.<\/p>\n Other nations expressed the same reverence for the sacredness of boundaries, in similar laws, or protests, against their removal. For the Greeks see Plato, Legg<\/em>. viii. 842 e, for the Romans Dion. Hal. ii. 74, Plutarch, Numa<\/em> 16. For the settled Semites cp. the border-stones of fields which are among the oldest Babyl. monuments; bearing dedications to the gods ‘they were regarded as sacred and great importance was attached to their preservation. The Kings taxed their powers of cursing [cp. Deu 27:17<\/span> ] in order to terrify men from removing their neighbours’ landmarks’ (Johns, Babyl. and Assyr. Laws<\/em>, etc., 191 f.). For other Semites cp. Clay Trumbull, Threshold Covenant<\/em> 166, Musil, Ethn. Ber.<\/em> 87, Doughty i. 163. No such Israelite stones have been found, but M. Clermont-Ganneau discovered the boundary inscriptions of the town of Gezer (‘at or near the 1st Cent. b.c.’) bearing the term t<\/em> e<\/em> um<\/em>, the later Heb. for g<\/em> e<\/em> bul<\/em> ( Arch. Res.<\/em> ii. 26 ff., 270 ff.). For modern Palestine see Baldensperger, PEFQ<\/em> 1906, 194.<\/p>\n 14<\/strong>. remove<\/em> ] Lit. so: re-move, move back<\/em>, so as to make one’s own field larger.<\/p>\n landmark<\/em> ] Heb. g<\/em> e<\/em> bul<\/em>, applied both to the border-line whether of private fields (here, and in E, Jos 24:30<\/span>, cp. texts cited above) or of urban (Isa 54:12<\/span>) or tribal (Deu 2:18<\/span>, Deu 3:16<\/span>) territories: as well as to the area enclosed by the border ( Deu 19:3<\/em><\/span> ; Deu 19:8<\/em><\/span><\/em>, Deu 2:4<\/span>, Deu 28:40<\/span>).<\/p>\n they of old time<\/em> ] Heb. rshnm, the former<\/em> generations, the forefathers<\/em>: LXX B etc., ; A etc., .<\/p>\n in thine inheritance which thou<\/em> inheritest<\/strong> ] Part of the law proper: the portion of ground (LXX ) that passes from one generation of a family to another.<\/p>\n in the land which the Lord thy God<\/em> is to give<\/strong> thee<\/em>, etc.] the frequent deuteronomic formula, Deu 4:40<\/span>, Deu 5:31<\/span>, Deu 12:1<\/span>, Deu 17:14<\/span>, Deu 21:1<\/span>, Deu 25:19<\/span>; and in shorter form, Deu 15:7<\/span>, Deu 18:9<\/span>, Deu 25:15<\/span>, Deu 27:2<\/span>, Deu 28:8<\/span>.<\/p>\n As a mans life is to be held sacred, so are his means of livelihood; and in this connection a prohibition is inserted against removing a neighbors landmark: compare the marginal references.<\/P><\/p>\n Deu 19:14<\/span><\/p>\n Thou shalt not remove thy neighbours landmark.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ancient landmarks removed<\/strong><\/p>\n Stones indicating boundaries might easily be removed. Ditches could be secretly levelled. This would materially affect property, and be a great evil in land where territory was distributed by lot. Removal would be–<\/p>\n .<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Verse 14<\/span>. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark<\/B><\/I>] Before the extensive use of fences, landed property was marked out by stones<\/I> or posts<\/I>, set up so as to ascertain the divisions of family estates. It was easy to remove one of these landmarks, and set it in a different place; and thus the dishonest man enlarged his own estate by contracting that of his neighbour. The termini<\/I> or landmarks among the Romans were held very sacred, and were at last deified.<\/P> <\/P> To these termini<\/I> Numa Pompillus commanded offerings of broth, cakes, and firstfruits, to be made. And Ovid informs us that it was customary to sacrifice a lamb<\/I> to them, and sprinkle them with its blood: – <\/P> Spargitur et caeso communis terminus agno<\/I>.<\/P> FAST. lib. ii., ver. 655. <\/P> And from Tibullus it appears that they sometimes adorned them with flowers and garlands: – <\/P> Nam<\/I> veneror, seu stipes habet desertus inagris<\/I>,<\/P> Seu<\/I> vetus in trivio<\/I> florida serta lapis.<\/P> ELEG. lib. i., E. i., ver. 11.<\/P> <\/P> “Revere each antique stone bedeck’d with flowers<\/I>,<\/P> That bounds the field<\/I>, or points the doubtful way.”<\/P> GRAINGER. <\/P> It appears from Juvenal that annual oblations were made to them: – <\/P> ————-Convallem ruris aviti<\/I><\/P> Improbus, aut campum mihi si vicinus ademit<\/I>,<\/P> Aut<\/I> sacrum effodit medio de limite saxum,<\/P> Quod mea cum<\/I> vetulo colult puls<\/I> annua libo<\/I>.<\/P> SAT. xvi., ver. 36.<\/P> <\/P> “If any rogue vexatious suits advance<\/P> Against me for my known inheritance<\/I>,<\/P> Enter by violence my fruitful grounds,<\/P> Or take the sacred landmark<\/I> from my bounds<\/I>,<\/P> Those bounds<\/I> which, with procession and with prayer<\/P> And offer’d cakes<\/I>, have been my annual care<\/I>.”<\/P> DRYDEN. <\/P> In the digests there is a vague law, de termino moto<\/I>, Digestor. lib. xlvii., Tit. 21, on which Calmet remarks that though the Romans had no determined punishment for those who removed the ancient landmarks; yet if slaves were found to have done it with an evil design, they were put to death; that persons of quality were sometimes exiled when found guilty; and that others were sentenced to pecuniary fines, or corporal punishment.<\/P> <\/p>\n Thy neighbours land-mark; <\/B>by which the several portions of land distributed to several families were distinguished one from another. See Job 24:2<\/span>; Pro 22:28<\/span>; Hos 5:10<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 14. Thou shalt not remove thyneighbour’s landmark, which they of old have set in thineinheritance<\/B>The state of Palestine in regard to enclosures isvery much the same now as it has always been. Though gardens andvineyards are surrounded by dry-stone walls or hedges of pricklypear, the boundaries of arable fields are marked by nothing but by alittle trench, a small cairn, or a single erect stone, placed atcertain intervals. It is manifest that a dishonest person couldeasily fill the gutter with earth, or remove these stones a few feetwithout much risk of detection and so enlarge his own field by astealthy encroachment on his neighbor’s. This law, then, was made toprevent such trespasses. <\/P> De19:15<\/span>. TWO WITNESSESREQUIRED.<\/P><\/p>\n Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark<\/strong>,…. By which one man’s land is distinguished from another; for so to do is to injure a man’s property, and alienate his lands to the use of another, which must be a very great evil, and render those that do it obnoxious to a curse, De 27:17<\/span><\/p>\n which they of old have set in thine inheritance, which thou shall inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it<\/strong>; the land of Canaan: this is thought to refer to the bounds and limits set in the land by Eleazar and Joshua, and those concerned with them at the division of it; when not only the tribes were bounded; and distinguished by certain marks, but every man’s estate, and the possession of every family in every tribe which though not as yet done when this law was made, yet, as it respects future times, might be said to be done of old, whenever there was any transgression of it, which it cannot be supposed would be very quickly done; and it is a law not only binding on the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, but all others, it being agreeably to the light and law of nature, and which was regarded among the Heathens, Pr 22:28<\/span>.<\/p>\n The prohibition against Removing a Neighbour’s Landmark, which his ancestors had placed, is inserted here, not because landmarks were of special importance in relation to the free cities, and the removal of them might possibly be fatal to the unintentional manslayer (as Clericus<\/em> and Rosenmller<\/em> assume), for the general terms of the prohibition are at variance with this, viz., “thy neighbour’s landmark,” and “in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit in the land;” but on account of the close connection in which a man’s possession as the means of his support stood to the life of the man himself, “because property by which life is supported participates in the sacredness of life itself, just as in Deu 20:19-20<\/span>, sparing the fruit-trees is mentioned in connection with the men who were to be spared” ( Schultz<\/em>). A curse was to be pronounced upon the remover of landmarks, according to Deu 27:17<\/span>, just as upon one who cursed his father, who led a blind man astray, or perverted the rights of orphans and widows (cf. Hos 5:10<\/span>; Pro 22:28<\/span>; Pro 23:10<\/span>). Landmarks were regarded as sacred among other nations also; by the Romans, for example, they were held to be so sacred, that whoever removed them was to be put to death.<\/p>\n False Witnesses.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1451.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD<\/B> thy God giveth thee to possess it. 15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is<\/I> wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is,<\/I> shall stand before the LORD<\/B>, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if<\/I> the witness be<\/I> a false witness, and<\/I> hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but<\/I> life shall go<\/I> for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.<\/P> Here is a statute for the preventing of frauds and perjuries; for the divine law takes care of men’s rights and properties, and has made a hedge about them. Such a friend is it to human society and men’s civil interest.<\/P> I. A law against frauds, v.<\/I><\/span> 14<\/span>. 1. Here is an implicit direction given to the first planters of Canaan to fix land-marks, according to the distribution of the land to the several tribes and families by lot. Note, It is the will of God that every one should know his own, and that all good means should be used to prevent encroachments and the doing and suffering of wrong. When right is settled, care must be taken that it be not afterwards unsettled, and that, if possible, no occasion of dispute may arise. 2. An express law to posterity not to remove those land-marks which were thus fixed at first, by which a man secretly got that to himself which was his neighbour’s. This, without doubt, is a moral precept, and still binding, and to us it forbids, (1.) The invading of any man’s right, and taking to ourselves that which is not our own, by any fraudulent arts or practices, as by forging, concealing, destroying, or altering deeds and writings (which are our land-marks, to which appeals are made), or by shifting hedges, meer-stones, and boundaries. Though the land-marks were set by the hand of man, yet he was a thief and a robber by the law of God that removed them. Let every man be content with his own lot, and just to his neighbours, and then we shall have no land-marks removed. (2.) It forbids the sowing of discord among neighbours, and doing any thing to occasion strife and law-suits, which is done (and it is very ill done) by confounding those things which should determine disputes and decide controversies. And, (3.) It forbids breaking in upon the settled order and constitution of civil government, and the altering of ancient usages without just cause. This law supports the honour of prescriptions. Consuetudo facit jus–Custom is to be held as law.<\/I><\/P> II. A law against perjuries, which enacts two things:– 1. That a single witness should never be admitted to give evidence in a criminal cause, so as that sentence should be passed upon his testimony, v.<\/I><\/span> 15<\/span>. This law we had before, Num. xxxv. 30<\/span>, and in this book, ch.<\/I><\/span> xvii. 6<\/span>. This was enacted in favour to the prisoner, whose life and honour should not lie at the mercy of a particular person that had a pique against him, and for caution to the accuser not to say that which he could not corroborate by the testimony of another. It is a just shame which this law puts upon mankind as false and not to be trusted; every man is by it suspected: and it is the honour of God’s grace that the record he has given concerning his Son is confirmed both in heaven and in earth by three witnesses,<\/I> 1 John v. 7<\/I><\/span>. Let God be true and every man a liar,<\/I> Rom. iii. 4<\/I><\/span>. 2. That a false witness should incur the same punishment which was to have been inflicted upon the person he accused. If two, or three,<\/I> or many witnesses, concurred in a false testimony, they were all liable to be prosecuted upon this law. (2.) The person wronged or brought into peril by the false testimony is supposed to be the appellant, v.<\/I><\/span> 17<\/span>. And yet if the person were put to death upon the evidence, and afterwards it appeared to be false, any other person, or the judges themselves, ex officio–by virtue of their office,<\/I> might call the false witness to account. (3.) Causes of this kind, having more than ordinary difficulty in them, were to be brought before the supreme court, The priests and judges,<\/I> who are said to be before the Lord,<\/I> because, as other judges sat in the gates of their cities, so these at the gate of the sanctuary, ch.<\/I><\/span> xvii. 12<\/span>. (4.) There must be great care in the trial, v.<\/I><\/span> 18<\/span>. A diligent inquisition must be made into the characters of the persons, and all the circumstances of the case, which must be compared, that the truth might be found out, which, where it is thus faithfully and impartially enquired into, Providence, it may be hoped, will particularly advance the discovery of. (5.) If it appeared that a man had knowingly and maliciously borne false witness against his neighbour, though the mischief he designed him thereby was not effected, he must undergo the same penalty which his evidence would have brought his neighbour under, v.<\/I><\/span> 19<\/span>. Nec lex est justior ulla–Nor could any law be more just.<\/I> If the crime he accused his neighbour of was to be punished with death, the false witness must be put to death; if with stripes, he must be beaten; if with a pecuniary mulct, he was to be fined the sum. And because to those who considered not the heinousness of the crime, and the necessity of making this provision against it, it might seem hard to punish a man so severely for a few words’ speaking, especially when no mischief did actually follow, it is added: Thy eye shall not pity,<\/I> v.<\/span> 21<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. No man needs to be more merciful than God. The benefit that will accrue to the public from this severity will abundantly recompense it: Those that remain shall hear and fear,<\/I> v.<\/span> 20<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Such exemplary punishments will be warnings to others not to attempt any such mischief, when they see how he that made the pit and digged it has fallen into the ditch which he made.<\/I><\/P><\/p>\n Verse 14:<\/strong><\/p>\n This text is the law which prohibits the removal or alteration of property boundaries.<\/p>\n “Landmark,” debul, “border,” some definitive mark or monument to denote property boundaries. These were held sacred, and Scripture sternly prohibits any alteration or tampering with them, see Deu 7:7<\/span>; Pro 22:28<\/span>; Pro 23:10<\/span>; Hos 5:10<\/span>.<\/p>\n Landmarks usually consisted of moveable objects, such as a stone, or a pillar. An unscrupulous neighbor could shift the location of the marker, and rob one of a part of his inheritance and means of livelihood. This was considered as theft, Job 24:2<\/span>, and as such was a violation of the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” Exo 20:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n A kind of theft is here condemned which is severely punished by the laws of Rome; (105) for that every one’s property may be secure, it is necessary that the land-marks set up for the division of fields should remain untouched, as if they were sacred. He who fraudulently removes a landmark is already convicted by this very act, because he disturbs the lawful owner in his quiet possession of the land; (106) whilst he who advances further the boundaries of his own land to his neighbor’s loss, doubles the crime by the deceptive concealment of his theft. Whence also we gather that not only are those thieves, who actually carry away their neighbor’s property, who take his money out of his chest, or who pillage his cellars and granaries, but also those who unjustly possess themselves of his land. <\/p>\n (105) “In the digests there is a vague law, de termino moto, Digestor. Lib. 47. tit. 21, on which Calmer remarks, that, though the Romans had no determined punishment for those who removed the ancient land-marks, yet, if slaves were found to have done it with an evil design, they were put to death; that persons of quality were sometimes exiled when found, guilty; and that others were sentenced to primary fines, or corporal punishment. — Adam Clarke, in loco. <\/p>\n (106) “Est desia assez convaincu par ce seul acte d’avoir voulu debouter le possesseur de son champ;” is already sufficiently convicted by this act alone of having wished to deprive the possessor of his land. — Fr. <\/p>\n (2) CONCERNING LANDMARKS (Deu. 19:14<\/span>)<\/p>\n 14 Thou shalt not remove thy neighbors landmark, which they of old time have set, in thine inheritance which thou shalt inherit, in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee to possess it.<\/p>\n THOUGHT QUESTIONS 19:14<\/p>\n 322.<\/p>\n Why would anyone want to move a landmark? There might be more than one reason. Consider.<\/p>\n 323.<\/p>\n Read Deu. 27:17<\/span>; Job. 24:2<\/span>; Pro. 22:28<\/span>; Pro. 23:10<\/span>. The right of private ownership was an important factor in the prosperity and security of Israel. Remember this is a divine principle.<\/p>\n 324.<\/p>\n Is the same analogous comparison for some of the ancient Biblical land marks and their removal?<\/p>\n AMPLIFIED TRANSLATION 19:14<\/p>\n 14 You shall not remove your neighbors landmark, in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess, which the men of old [the first dividers of the land] set.<\/p>\n COMMENT 19:14<\/p>\n As the proper inheritance of ones property was determined by the landmarks, they were not to be altered by another. The old, or original one was to remain. See Deu. 27:17<\/span>, Job. 24:2<\/span>, Pro. 22:28<\/span>; Pro. 23:10<\/span>. The story of Ahab and Jezebel seizing Naboths vineyard (1 Kings 21<\/span>) surely represents a flagrant disregard for this law.<\/p>\n (14) Thou shalt not remove thy neighbours landmark.<\/strong>Another law manifestly appropriate here, where it appears for the first time, like the field in the tenth commandment (Deu. 5:21<\/span>). But the immediate connection is not obvious. Perhaps the idea is to caution the people to avoid a most certain incentive to hatred and murder. Ancient landmarks are also important and almost sacred witnesses.<\/em><\/p>\n They of old time.<\/strong>The first dividers of the land. There is no idea of antiquity about the expression.<\/p>\n 14<\/strong>. <\/strong> Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark <\/strong> Among the Romans boundaries were placed under the protection of a special deity Terminus; and the severest penalty was visited upon the one who removed a landmark defining property. So among the Assyrians there were evidently the most stringent provisions for the security of landed rights. On a stone found on the western side of the Tigris, which George Smith thought was of the date 1340 B.C., is an inscription of a grant of land made by Merodach-Baladan to one of his officers. On the back of the stone is a rudely carved picture of the deities invoked to protect the property, and to punish any who should remove the boundary-stone. The inscription closes with curses upon any who should injure or remove the stone. See Records of the Past, <\/em> vol. ix, p. 29. Compare also Deu 27:17<\/span>, where among the curses to be pronounced on Mount Ebal is one against him who removeth his neighbour’s landmark. Comp. also Hos 5:10<\/span>; Job 24:2<\/span>; Pro 22:28<\/span>; Pro 23:10<\/span>. <\/p>\n They of old time <\/strong> This is not a suitable translation of the Hebrew word. The Vulgate has priores. <\/em> Schroeder renders it predecessors. <\/em> We prefer to consider it as explained by Jos 14:1<\/span>, where we learn that Eleazar the priest and Joshua and the heads of the tribes distributed the land on the west of Jordan. We understand the term rendered they of old time <\/strong> in our version to mean the heads of the tribes, who, after the general division of the land to the tribes, subdivided each tribal division to the several families. The expression, then, by no means implies that the land had been long occupied by the Israelites.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/strong> Precepts Regarding Witnesses<\/p>\n v. 14. Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark,<\/strong> the fence or the posts which indicated the boundary of his property, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt in her it in the land that the Lord, thy God, giveth thee to possess it. <\/strong> Whatever the heads or chiefs, the first possessors, the fathers, Joshua and the renowned elders, determined, should be observed down to the most distant future. It is clear that this direction was given while the people were riot yet in possession of Canaan. <\/p>\n v. 15. One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity,<\/strong> guilt, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth,<\/strong> for a single witness is no witness; at the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses,<\/strong> according to the testimony of two or three persons, shall the matter be established. <\/strong> This rule was to hold not only in case of one on trial for his life, Deu 17:6<\/span>, but was to find general application, Num 35:30<\/span>; Mat 18:16<\/span>; 2Co 13:1<\/span>; 1Ti 5:19<\/span>. <\/p>\n v. 16. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong,<\/strong> as might happen where only a single witness is available and the charge is a very grave one, literally, one of falling away from the Law of God, especially in a deliberate transgression, a crime, <\/p>\n v. 17. then both the men between whom the controversy is,<\/strong> the accuser and the accused, 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: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>To disregard ancient custom. They of old have set, with care and justice. Custom is held as law. Fixed law and fixed boundaries should he respected. But many scorn ancient landmarks as relics of bygone days. Impatient of restraint, they seek wider range of thought and action, indulge in novelties, and cry, Down with temples, and away with creeds and the Bible!<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>To violate the law of God. Heathen nations held every landmark as sacred. God, as the proprietor of all the earth, set bounds for Israel, allotted their lands which they held in trust, and bound them in terms imposed by His will (Deu 27:17<\/span>). Hence removal of landmarks is violation of His command, and direct insult to His authority.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>To defraud our neighbour. Landmarks were witnesses of the rights of each man. Removal was selfish and unjust invasion of property. To enlarge your own estate at the expense of your neighbours is theft. Each one should know his own, and not defraud another by concealment, forgery, or robbery. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him (Lev 19:13<\/span>; Mar 10:19<\/span>; 1Th 4:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n
IV. <\/strong>To expose to a dreadful curse. The execration of men is something, but who can bear the curse of God? The field of the fatherless is under Almighty protection. The poor may seem helpless, but special warning is given against their oppression. Remove not the old landmark, and enter not into the fields of the fatherless (by acts of violence or removal of boundaries), for their Redeemer is mighty to vindicate outraged innocence (Pro 23:10-11<\/span>). This in after times was the great affront of national provocation (Hos 5:10<\/span>). (J. Wolfendale.<\/em>)<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\nFuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/P>
<\/P>
<\/P>
<\/P>
<\/P> 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: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/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