5<\/strong>. Joab came into the house to the king<\/em> ] The crisis illustrates the good as well as the bad features of Joab’s character his loyalty to David, and his practical sagacity, as well as his hard unsympathetic nature. Exaggerated and unfeeling as his speech was, it roused David from the extravagance of his grief to a sense of his duty, and saved him from flinging away the fruits of the victory.<\/p>\n Thou hast shamed<\/em>, &c.] Disappointed their hopes of rejoicing for the victory: treated them like offenders instead of benefactors.<\/p>\n have saved thy life<\/em>, &c.] For had Absalom been victorious, he would doubtless have put to death all rival claimants to the throne, and possibly other members of the king’s household. Cp. Jdg 9:5<\/span>; 1Ki 15:29<\/span>; 1Ki 16:11 ; 2Ki 10:6<\/span>; 2Ki 11:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n Had Absalom gained the victory, it is likely that, according to the manner of Oriental despots, he would have sought to secure his throne by killing all possible competitors Jdg 9:5<\/span>; 1Ki 15:29<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 5<\/span>. Thou hast shamed this day<\/B><\/I>] Joab’s speech to David on his immoderate grief for the death of his rebellious son is not only remarkable for the insolence of office<\/I>, but also for good sense and firmness. Every man who candidly considers the state of the case, must allow that David acted imprudently at least; and that Joab’s firm reproof was necessary to arouse him to a sense of his duty to his people. But still, in his manner<\/I>, Joab had far exceeded the bonds of that reverence which a servant owes to his master, or a subject to his prince. Joab was a good soldier, but in every respect a bad man, and a dangerous subject.<\/P> <\/p>\n Joab came into the house; <\/B>either the gate-house, or his now dwelling-house in the city, to which he was retired, that he might more freely indulge himself in the expressions of his grief. <\/P> Thou hast shamed the faces of all thy servants, <\/B>by disappointing their just hopes of praises and rewards, and by requiting them with contempt and tacit rebukes. <\/P> Thy life, and the lives of thy sons, and of thy daughters, and of thy wives, and of thy concubines; <\/B>all which Absalom struck at, and had sooner or later actually taken away, if he had not been cut off in such a manner, without expecting thy knowledge or consent; and therefore thy carriage towards them that have saved the lives of thee and thine, with the utmost hazard of their own, is highly unjust and ungrateful. <\/P> <\/p>\n 5. Thou hast shamed . . . the facesof all thy servants<\/B>by withdrawing thyself to indulge in grief,as if their services were disagreeable and their devotion irksome tothee. Instead of hailing their return with joy and gratitude, thouhast refused them the small gratification of seeing thee. Joab’sremonstrance was right and necessary, but it was made with harshness.He was one of those persons who spoil their important services by theinsolence of their manners, and who always awaken a feeling ofobligation in those to whom they render any services. He spoke toDavid in a tone of hauteur that ill became a subject to show towardshis king.<\/P><\/p>\n And Joab came into the house to the king<\/strong>,…. For by this time he was removed from the chamber over the gate to his own dwelling house or palace, where he continued the same doleful ditty as at first:<\/p>\n and said, thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants<\/strong>; they cannot lift up their heads, and look any in the face, nor one another; but behave as if they had committed some very great fault, in fighting with the rebels, and beating them:<\/p>\n which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons, and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines<\/strong>; which in all probability would have been taken away if the victory had been on the side of Absalom.<\/p>\n XIX.<\/strong><\/p>\n (5) And Joab came.<\/strong>This is a continuation of 2Sa. 19:1<\/span>, the intervening verses being parenthetical. Joabs whole character appears strikingly in his conduct on this occasion. With his hand red with the blood of the beloved son, he goes, in the hardest and most unfeeling terms, to reproach the father for giving way to his grief; he treats the king with thorough insolence, and with the air of a superior; yet withal he counsels David for his own welfare and for that of the kingdom as a wise and loyal statesman. It may be doubted whether David yet knew of Joabs part in the death of Absalom.<\/p>\n The lives of thy sons.<\/strong>Had Absalom succeeded he would no doubt not only have slain his father, but also, after the Oriental custom, have put out of the way all who might possibly have become rival claimants of the throne. (Comp. Jdg. 9:5<\/span>; 1Ki. 15:29<\/span>; 1Ki. 16:11<\/span>; 2Ki. 10:6-7<\/span>; 2Ki. 11:1<\/span>.)<\/p>\n (5) And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; (6) In that thou lovest thine enemies, and hatest thy friends. For thou hast declared this day, that thou regardest neither princes nor servants: for this day I perceive, that if Absalom had lived, and all we had died this day, then it had pleased thee well. (7) Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Those ministers in divine things, are ever to be valued, which deal faithfully. What a beautiful lesson, may all such learn here, in the conduct of Joab. Surely David needed to be roused, and Joab took a method to do it effectually. When sinners grow cold, and unconcerned, the word of GOD must be delivered in its naked force, that, like the sword of the SPIRIT, it may wound the conscience, and its edge be felt.<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:5 And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines;<\/p>\n Ver. 5. And Joab came into the house to the king.<\/strong> ] For by this time, it seemeth, he had got home to his house or quarters, having first vented his passion in the chamber over the gate, but not wholly eased himself of it. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Thou hast shamed this day, &c.<\/strong> ] A rough and rude reproof, such as David could never digest, a<\/em> though for the present he prudently gave place to it, and said little: At manet alta mente repostum.<\/em> Josephus addeth, that he asked him if he were not ashamed to be thus affected with sorrow for a son that had been of so hostile a mind against him; and bade him come forth and speak friendly to the people, and give them thanks, threatening that if he did not, he would give the army and kingdom to another. The truth is, Joab had some reason to speak, and much of that he speaketh stands with good reason; but byssina verba,<\/em> better language to his sovereign, had better becomed him. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Mountfort, Earl of Leicester, gave our Henry III the lie. – Dan. Hist., <\/em> 172.<\/p>\n life . . . lives = soul. . . souls. Hebrew. nephesh. App-13and note the Figure of speech Polysyndeton. App-6. <\/p>\n Thou hast: Every one must admit that David’s immoderate grief for his rebellious son was imprudent, and that Joab’s firm and sensible reproof was necessary to arouse him to a sense of his duty to his people: but, in his manner, Joab far exceeded the bounds of that reverence which a servant owes to his master, or a subject to his prince. <\/p>\n saved: Neh 9:27, Psa 3:8, Psa 18:47, Psa 18:48 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Jdg 19:1 – a concubine 2Sa 3:24 – What hast 2Sa 19:13 – room of Joab 1Ki 2:5 – Joab Psa 34:5 – their<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:5-6. Joab said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants By disappointing their just hopes of praises and rewards, and requiting them with contempt and tacit rebukes; and thus making them hang down their heads, as if they had committed such a crime, that they were ashamed to look men in the face. Which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons, &c. Who, in all probability, would all have been slain, if Absalom had gained the victory. In that thou lovest thine enemies Thy rebellious son, and those associated with him, to effect thy destruction. And hatest thy friends Who have risked their lives in thy defence, but in whose preservation thou seemest to take no pleasure, only grieving for the death of a rebel. If Absalom had lived, and we had all died, then it would have pleased thee well Joab seems to speak this in reference to the exclamation of the king, Would God I had died for thee, O Absalom! for had this been the case, as the king wished, Joab and the rest of Davids faithful commanders would in course have perished through the power of Absalom, who would then have had none to oppose him. Joabs words, however, are not to be understood as exactly true, but as spoken hyperbolically: but Davids carriage gave too much colour to such a suggestion; and such sharpness of speech was in a manner necessary to awaken the king out of his lethargy, and to preserve him from the impendent mischiefs.<\/p>\n 19:5 And Joab came into the {b} house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines;<\/p>\n (b) At Mahanaim.<\/p>\n CHAPTER XXV.<\/p>\n THE RESTORATION.<\/p>\n 2Sa 19:5-30.<\/p>\n O rouse one’s self from the prostration of grief, and grapple anew with the cares of life, is hard indeed. Among the poorer classes of society, it is hardly possible to let grief have its swing; amid suppressed and struggling emotions the poor man must return to his daily toil. The warrior, too, in the heat of conflict has hardly time to drop a tear over the tomb of his comrade or his brother. But where leisure is possible, the bereaved heart does crave a time of silence and solitude; and it seems reasonable, in order that its fever may subside a little, before the burden of daily work is resumed. It was somewhat hard upon David, then, that his grief could not get a single evening to flow undisturbed. A rough voice called him to rouse himself, and speak comfortably to his people, otherwise they would disband before morning, and all that he had gained would be lost to him again. In the main, Joab was no doubt right; but in his manner there was a sad lack of consideration for the feelings of the king. He might have remembered that, though he had gained a battle David had lost a son, and that, too, under circumstances peculiarly heart-breaking. Faithful in the main and shrewd as Joab was, he was no doubt a useful officer; but his harshness and want of feeling went far to neutralize the benefit of his services. It ought surely to be one of the benefits of civilization and culture that, where painful duties have to be done, they should be done with much consideration and tenderness. For the real business of life is not so much to get right things done in any way, as to diffuse a right spirit among men, and get them to do things well. Men of enlightened goodness will always aim at purifying the springs of conduct, at increasing virtue, and deepening faith and holiness. The call to the royal bridegroom in the forty-fifth Psalm is to “gird his sword on his thigh, and ride forth prosperously, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness.” To increase these three things is to increase the true wealth of nations and advance the true prosperity of kingdoms. In his eagerness to get a certain thing done, Joab showed little or no regard for those higher interests to which outward acts should ever be subordinate. <\/p>\n But David felt the call of duty – “He arose and sat in the gate. And they told unto all the people saying, Behold, the king doth sit in the gate. And all the people came before the king: for Israel had fled every man to his tent.” And very touching it must have been to look on the sad, pale, wasted face of the king, and mark his humble, chastened bearing, and yet to receive from him words of winning kindness that showed him still caring for them and loving them, as a shepherd among his sheep; in no wise exasperated by the insurrection, not breathing forth threatenings and slaughter on those who had taken part against him; but concerned as ever for the welfare of the whole kingdom, and praying for Jerusalem, for his brethren and companions’ sakes, “Peace be within thee.” <\/p>\n It was now open to him to follow either of two courses: either to march to Jerusalem at the head of his victorious army, take military possession of the capital, and deal with the remains of the insurrection in the stern fashion common among kings; or to wait till he should be invited back to the throne from which he had been driven, and then magnanimously proclaim an amnesty to all the rebels. We are not surprised that he preferred the latter alternative. It is more agreeable to any man to be offered what is justly due to him by those who have deprived him of it than to have to claim it as his right. It was far more like him to return in peace than in that vengeful spirit that must have hecatombs of rebels slain to satisfy it. The people knew that David was in no bloodthirsty mood. And it was natural for him to expect that an advance would be made to him, after the frightful wrong which he had suffered from the people. He was therefore in no haste to leave his quarters at Mahanaim. <\/p>\n The movement that he looked for did take place, but it did not originate with those who might have been expected to take the lead. It was among the ten tribes of Israel that the proposal to bring him back was first discussed, and his own tribe, the tribe of Judah, held back after the rest were astir. He was much chagrined at this backwardness on the part of Judah. It was hard that his own tribe should be the last to stir, that those who might have been expected to head the movement should lag behind. But in this David was only experiencing the same thing as the Son of David a thousand years after, when the people of Nazareth, His own city, not only refused to listen to Him, but were about to hurl Him over the edge of a precipice. So important, however, did he see it to be for the general welfare that Judah should share the movement, that he sent Zadok and Abiathar the priests to stir them up to their duty. He would not have taken this step but for his jealousy for the honour of Judah; it was the fact that the movement was now going on in some places and not in all that induced him to interfere. He dreaded disunion in any case, especially a disunion between Judah and Israel. For the jealousy between these two sections of the people that afterwards broke the kingdom into two under Jeroboam was now beginning to show itself, and, indeed, led soon after to the revolt of Sheba. Another step was taken by David, of very doubtful expediency, in order to secure the more cordial support of the rebels. He superseded Joab, and gave the command of his army to Amasa, who had been general of the rebels. In more ways than one this was a strong measure. To supersede Joab was to make for himself a very powerful enemy, to rouse a man whose passions, when thoroughly excited, were capable of any crime. But on the other hand, David could not but be highly offended with Joab for his conduct to Absalom, and he must have looked on him as a very unsuitable coadjutor to himself in that policy of clemency that he had determined to pursue. This was significantly brought out by the appointment of Amasa in room of Joab. Both were David’s nephews, and both were of the tribe of Judah; but Amasa had been at the head of the insurgents, and therefore in close alliance with the insurgents of Judah. Most probably the reason why the men of Judah hung back was that they were afraid lest, if David were restored to Jerusalem, he would make an example of them; for it was at Hebron, in the tribe of Judah, that Absalom had been first proclaimed, and the people of Jerusalem who had favoured him were mostly of that tribe But when it became known that the leader of the rebel forces was not only not to be punished, but actually promoted to the highest office in the king’s service, all fears of that sort were completely scattered. It was an act of wonderful clemency. It was such a contrast to the usual treatment of rebels! But this king was not like other kings; he gave gifts even to the rebellious. There was no limit to his generosity. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Accordingly a new sense of the goodness and generosity of their ill-treated but noble king took possession of the people. “He bowed the heart of the men of Judah, even as the heart of one man, so that they sent this word unto the king. Return thou, and all thy servants.” From the extreme of backwardness they started to the extreme of forwardness; the last to speak for David, they were the first to act for him; and such was their vehemence in his cause that the evil of national disunion which David dreaded from their indifference actually sprang from their over-impetuous zeal. <\/p>\n Thus at length David bade farewell to Mahanaim, and began his journey to Jerusalem. His route in returning was the reverse of that followed in his flight. First he descends the eastern bank of the Jordan as far as opposite Gilgal; then he strikes up through the wilderness the steep ascent to Jerusalem. At Gilgal several events of interest took place. <\/p>\n The first of these was the meeting with the representatives of Judah, who came to conduct the king over Jordan, and to offer him their congratulations and loyal assurances. This step was taken by the men of Judah alone, and without consultation or co-operation with the other tribes. A ferry-boat to convey the household over the river, and whatever else might be required to make the passage comfortable, these men of Judah provided. Some have blamed the king for accepting these attentions from Judah, instead of inviting the attendance of all the tribes. But surely, as the king had to pass the Jordan, and found the means of transit provided for him, he was right to accept what was offered. Nevertheless, this act of Judah and its acceptance by David gave serious offence, as we shall presently see, to the other tribes. <\/p>\n Neither Judah nor Israel comes out well in this little incident. We get an instructive glimpse of the hotheadedness of the tribes, and the childishness of their quarrels. It is members of the same nation a thousand years afterwards that on the very eve of the Crucifixion we see disputing among themselves which of them should be the greatest. Men never appear in a dignified attitude when they are contending that on some occasion or other they have been treated with too little consideration. And yet how many of the quarrels of the world, both public and private, have arisen from this, that someone did not receive the attention which he deserved! Pride lies at the bottom of it all. And quarrels of this kind will sometimes, nay often, be found even among men calling themselves the followers of Christ. If the blessed Lord Himself had acted on this principle, what a different life He would have led! If He had taken offence at every want of etiquette, at every want of the honour due to the Son of God, when would our redemption ever have been accomplished? Was His mother treated with due consideration when forced into the stable, because there was no room for her in the inn? Was Jesus Himself treated with due houour when the people of Nazareth took Him to the brow of the hill, or when the foxes had holes, and the birds of the air had nests, but the Son of Man had not where to lay His head? What if He had resented the denial of Peter, the treachery of Judas, and the forsaking of Him by all the apostles? How admirable was the humility that made Himself of no reputation, so that when He was reviled He reviled not again, when He suffered He threatened not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously! Yet how utterly opposite is the bearing of many, who are ever ready to take offence if anything is omitted to which they have a claim – standing upon their rights, claiming precedence over this one and the other, maintaining that it would never do to allow themselves to be trampled on, thinking it spirited to contend for their honours! It is because this tendency is so deeply seated in human nature that you need to be so watchful against it. It breaks out at the most unseasonable times. Could any time have been more unsuitable for it on the part of the men of Israel and Judah than when the king was giving them such a memorable example of humility, pardoning every one, great and small, that had offended him, even though their offence was as deadly as could be conceived? Or could any time have been more unsuitable for it on the part of the disciples of our Lord than when He was about to surrender His very life, and submit to the most shameful form of death that could be devised? Why do men not see that the servant is not above his lord, nor the disciple above his master? “Is not the heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked”? Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. <\/p>\n The next incident at Gilgal was the cringing entreaty of Shimei, the Benjamite, to be pardoned the insult which he had offered the king when he left Jerusalem. The conduct of Shimei had been such an outrage on all decency that we wonder how he could have dared to present himself at all before David, even though, as a sort of screen, he was accompanied by a thousand Benjamites. His prostration of himself on the ground before David, his confession of his sin and abject deprecation of the king’s anger, are not fitted to raise him in our estimation; they were the fruits of a base nature that can insult the fallen, but lick the dust off the feet of men in power. It was not till David had made it known that his policy was to be one of clemency that Shimei took this course; and even then he must have a thousand Benjamites at his back before he could trust himself to his mercy. Abishai, Joab’s brother, would have had him slain; but his proposal was rejected by David with warmth and even indignation. He knew that his restoration was an accomplished fact, and he would not spoil a policy of forgiveness by shedding the blood of this wicked man. Not content with passing his word to Shimei, “he sware unto him.” But he afterwards found that he had carried clemency too far, and in his dying charge to Solomon he had to warn him against this dangerous enemy, and instruct him to bring down his hoar head with blood. But this needs not to make us undervalue the singular quality of heart which led David to show such forbearance to one utterly unworthy. It was a strange thing in the annals of Eastern kingdoms, where all rebellion was usually punished with the most fearful severity. It brings to mind the gentle clemency of the great Son of David in His dealings, a thousand years after, with another Benjamite as he was travelling, on that very route, on the way to Damascus; breathing out threatenings and slaughter against His disciples. Was there ever such clemency as that which met the persecutor with the words, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? Only in this case the clemency accomplished its object; in Shimei’s case it did not. In the one case the persecutor became the chief of Apostles; in the other he acted more like the evil spirit in the parable, whose last end was worse than the first. <\/p>\n The next incident in the king’s return was his meeting with Mephibosheth. He came down to meet the king, “and had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes from the day the king departed unto the day when he came again in peace.” Naturally, the king’s first question was an inquiry why he had not left Jerusalem with him. And Mephibosheth’s reply was simply, that he had wished to do so, but, owing to his lameness, had not been able. And, moreover, Ziba had slandered him to the king when he said that Mephibosheth hoped to receive back the kingdom of his grandfather. The words of this poor man had all the appearance of an honest narrative. The ass which he intended to saddle for his own use was probably one of those which Ziba took away to present to David, so that Mephibosheth was left helpless in Jerusalem. If the narrative commends itself by its transparent truthfulness, it shows also how utterly improbable was the story of Ziba, that he had expectations of being made king. For he seems to have been as feeble in mind as he was frail in body, and he undoubtedly carried his compliments to David to a ridiculous pitch when he said, “All my father’s house were but dead men before my lord the king.” Was that a fit way to speak of his father Jonathan? <\/p>\n We cannot greatly admire one who would depreciate his family to such a degree because he desired to obtain David’s favour. And for some reason David was somewhat sharp to him. No man is perfect, and we cannot but wonder that the king who was so gentle to Shimei should have been so sharp to Mephibosheth. “Why speakest thou any more of thy matters? I have said, Thou and Ziba divide the land.” David appears to have been irritated at discovering his mistake in believing Ziba, and hastily transferring Mephibosheth’s property to him. Nothing is more common than such irritation, when men discover that through false information they have made a blunder, and gone into some arrangement that must be undone. But why did not the king restore all his property to Mephibosheth? Why say that he and Ziba were to divide it? Some have supposed (as we remarked before) that this meant simply that the old arrangement was to be continued – Ziba to till the ground, and Mephibosheth to receive as his share half the produce. But in that case Mephibosheth would not have added, “Yea, let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come again in peace unto his own house.” Our verdict would have been the very opposite, – Let Mephibosheth take all. But David was in a difficulty. The temper of the Benjamites was very irritable; they had never been very cordial to David, and Ziba was an important man among them. There he was, with his fifteen sons and twenty servants, a man not to be hastily set aside. For once the king appeared to prefer the rule of expediency to that of justice. To make some amends for his wrong to Mephibosheth, and at the same time not to turn Ziba into a foe, he resorted to this rough-and-ready method of dividing the land between them. But surely it was an unworthy arrangement. Mephibosheth had been loyal, and should never have lost his land. He had been slandered by Ziba, and therefore deserved some solace for his wrong. David restores but half his land, and has no soothing word for the wrong he has done him. Strange that when so keenly sensible of the wrong done to himself when he lost his kingdom unrighteously, he should not have seen the wrong he had done to Mephibosheth. And strange that when his whole kingdom had been restored to himself, he should have given back but half to Jonathan’s son. <\/p>\n The incident connected with the meeting with Barzillai we reserve for separate consideration. <\/p>\n Amid the greatest possible diversity of circumstance, we are constantly finding parallels in the life of David to that of Him who was his Son according to the flesh. Our Lord can hardly be said to have ever been driven from His kingdom. The hosannahs of to-day were indeed very speedily exchanged into the ”Away with Him! away with Him! Crucify Him! crucify Him!” of to-morrow. But what we may remark of our Lord is rather that He has been kept out of His kingdom than driven from it. He who came to redeem the world, and of whom the Father said, “Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion,” has never been suffered to exercise His sovereignty, at least in a conspicuous manner and on a universal scale. Here is a truth that ought to be a constant source of humiliation and sorrow to every Christian. Are you to be content that the rightful Sovereign should be kept in the background, and the great ruling forces of the world should be selfishness, and mammon, and pleasure, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life? Why speak ye not of bringing the King back to His house? You say you can do so little. But every subject of King David might have said the same. The question is, not whether you are doing much or little, but whether you are doing what you can. Is the exaltation of Jesus Christ to the supreme rule of the world an object dear to you? Is it matter of humiliation and concern to you that He does not occupy that place? Do you humbly try to give it to Him in your own heart and life? Do you try to give it to Him in the Church, in the State, in the world? The supremacy of Jesus Christ must be the great rallying cry of the members of the Christian Church, whatever their denomination. It is a point on which surely all ought to be agreed, and agreement there might bring about agreement in other things. Let us give our minds and hearts to realize in our spheres that glorious plan of which we read in the first chapter of Ephesians: ”That, in the dispensation of the fullness of time, God might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in Him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of His own will, that we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ.” <\/p>\n And Joab came into the house to the king, and said, Thou hast shamed this day the faces of all thy servants, which this day have saved thy life, and the lives of thy sons and of thy daughters, and the lives of thy wives, and the lives of thy concubines; 5. Joab came into … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Samuel 19:5”<\/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-8528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8528","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=8528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8528"}],"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: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"