Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 4,537 / 4,537
- Quellsprache
- en
Studien-Ressourcen
Bibelkommentare
Durchsuche mehrere gemeinfreie Kommentare und koreanische scripture.how-Übersetzungen nach Buch und Kapitel. Wechsle zwischen Kommentar-Quellen, lies nur die Übersetzung oder vergleiche sie Seite an Seite mit dem Originaltext.
Aktiver Kommentar
Alle Kommentare
23 Quellen
Einträge gesamt
307,288
81,431 übersetzt
Lizenz
Pro Quelle angezeigt
Quellen und Lizenzen
Jede Kommentar-Quelle behält ihr Originalwerk, den Autor, den Übersetzungsfortschritt und die Lizenzinformationen getrennt. Koreanische Übersetzungen und redaktionelle Arbeit von scripture.how werden getrennt vom Quelltext verwaltet.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown · 1871
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871). CCEL expanded electronic edition states it is in the public domain.
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 19,831 / 19,831
- Quellsprache
- en
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Albert Barnes · 1834
Albert Barnes' Notes on Revelation Of St. John The Divine (New Testament, English original, public domain). Sourced from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes.
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 22,781 / 22,781
- Quellsprache
- en
Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Adam Clarke · 1831
Public domain English commentary by Adam Clarke, normalized from Wikisource book pages for scripture.how. Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke.
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 21,603 / 22,101
- Quellsprache
- en
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John Gill · 1763
John Gill(1697-1771), Exposition of the Old and New Testament(1746-1763). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/gill.
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 12,528 / 30,759
- Quellsprache
- en
Calvin's Commentaries
John Calvin · 1850
종교개혁 신학 원천 (영역본 PD, 대부분 — 전권 아님)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 144 / 7,385
- Quellsprache
- en
Matthew Poole's Annotations upon the Holy Bible
Matthew Poole · 1685
간결 절별 전권 개혁주의 주석
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 31,092
- Quellsprache
- en
The Pulpit Commentary
ed. H.D.M. Spence & Joseph S. Exell · 1890
전권 강해·설교·예화 풍부 (항목 대량)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 25,592
- Quellsprache
- en
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Carl F. Keil, Franz Delitzsch · 1866
구약 학술 표준 — 히브리어·문헌비평·고대근동 배경
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 2,044
- Quellsprache
- en
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
ed. Charles J. Ellicott · 1878
학술+가독 균형 전권 주석
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 23,497
- Quellsprache
- en
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Cambridge (다저자) · 1900
준전권 준학술 (권별 저자·연도 확인)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 27,176
- Quellsprache
- en
Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament
Marvin R. Vincent · 1887
신약 헬라어 단어 연구
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 5,763
- Quellsprache
- en
Word Pictures in the New Testament
A.T. Robertson · 1933
헬라어 시제·문법 해설 결정판 (KR PD / US 1931+ 권별)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 6,935
- Quellsprache
- en
The Expositor's Greek Testament
ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (다저자) · 1910
헬라어 신약 학술 (권별 저자 PD 확인 필요)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 7,010
- Quellsprache
- en
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Heinrich A.W. Meyer · 1880
신약 학술 정밀주해 (독일 — K&D 대응)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 5,340
- Quellsprache
- en
Wesley's Explanatory Notes
John Wesley · 1755
간결 실용 전권(NT 1755 / OT 1765) 웨슬리안
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 5,643
- Quellsprache
- en
Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments
Joseph Benson · 1815
웨슬리안 전권 주석
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 14,675
- Quellsprache
- en
The Treasury of David
Charles H. Spurgeon · 1885
시편 주석 고전 (설교 자료 풍부)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 2,290
- Quellsprache
- en
MacLaren's Expositions of Holy Scripture
Alexander Maclaren · 1910
설교형 강해 명저 (전권, 절별 가공 필요)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 1,144
- Quellsprache
- en
The People's New Testament
B.W. Johnson · 1891
평이 절별 신약 해설 (일반신자·모바일)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 7 / 3,477
- Quellsprache
- en
Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Thomas Coke · 1803
감리교 전권 주석
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 10,808
- Quellsprache
- en
Trapp's Complete Commentary
John Trapp · 1660
청교도 전권 주석 — Henry/Gill 보완
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 26,397
- Quellsprache
- en
Hodge's Commentary on the New Testament
Charles Hodge · 1860
프린스턴 조직신학 관점 신약 정밀 주석 (롬·고전후·엡)
- Übersetzungs-Fortschritt
- 0 / 1,011
- Quellsprache
- en
All the chief priests
We should expect only one chief priest to be mentioned; but the office had become a lucrative one, and frequently changed hands. A rabbi is quoted as saying that the first temple, which stood about four hundred and ten years, had only eighteen high-priests from first to last; while the second temple, which stood four hundred and twenty years, had more than three hundred high-priests. The reference here is not to a meeting of the Sanhedrin, since the elders, who are not mentioned, belonged to this; but to an extraordinary convocation of all the high-priests and learned men. Besides the high-priest in actual office, there might be others who had been his predecessors, and who continued to bear the name, and in part the dignity. It may possibly have included the heads of the twenty-four courses of priests.
He inquired of them where the Christ should be born (επυνθανετο παρ' αυτων που ο Χριστος γεννατα). The prophetic present (γεννατα) is given, the very words of Herod retained by Matthew's report. The imperfect tense (epunthaneto) suggests that Herod inquired repeatedly, probably of one and another of the leaders gathered together, both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes). McNeile doubts, like Holtzmann, if Herod actually called together all the Sanhedrin and probably "he could easily ask the question of a single scribe," because he had begun his reign with a massacre of the Sanhedrin (Josephus, Ant. XIV. ix. 4). But that was thirty years ago and Herod was desperately in earnest to learn what the Jews really expected about the coming of "the Messiah." Still Herod probably got together not the Sanhedrin since "elders" are not mentioned, but leaders among the chief priests and scribes, not a formal meeting but a free assembly for conference. He had evidently heard of this expected king and he would swallow plenty of pride to be able to compass the defeat of these hopes.
return to '
Matthew 2:4. Herod’s measures.—καὶ συναγαγὼν … τοῦ λαοῦ. Was this a meeting of the Sanhedrim? Not likely, as the elders are not mentioned, who are elsewhere named as the representatives of the people, vide Matthew 26:3, “the chief priests, scribes and elders of the people”. Here we read only of the chief priests and scribes of the people. The article is not repeated before γραμματεῖς, the two classes being joined together as the theological experts of the people. Herod called together the leading men among the priests and scribes to consult them as to the birth-place of Messiah. Holtzmann (H. C.), assuring that a meeting of the Sanhedrim is meant, uses the fact as an argument against the historicity of the narrative. The Herod of history slew the Sanhedrists wholesale, and did his best to lull to sleep Messianic hopes. It is only the Herod of Christian legend that convenes the Sanhedrim, and makes anxious inquiries about Messiah’s birth-place. But the past policy of the king and his present action, as reported by the evangelist, hang together. He discouraged Messianic hopes, and, now that they have revived in spite of him, he must deal with them, and his first step is to consult the experts in as quiet a way as possible, to ascertain the whereabouts of the new-born child—ἐπυνθάνετο, etc.: it is not a historical question he submits to the experts as to where the Christ has been born, or shall be, but a theological one: where, according to the accepted tradition, is His birth-place? Hence γεννᾶται, present tense.
Matthew 2:4. Πάντας … λαοῦ] is regarded, after Grotius, by Fritzsche, Arnoldi, Lange, not as an assembly of the Sanhedrin (so commonly), but an extraordinary convocation of all the high priests and learned men. This explanation, in which, moreover, πάντας is not to be taken literally, is the correct one. Indeed, οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς, even without adding the third element of the Sanhedrin, the πρεσβύτεροι, may denote the Sanhedrin (Matthew 20:18, Matthew 21:15; while, on the other hand, elsewhere, as in Matthew 26:47, Matthew 27:1, the γραμματεῖς are not mentioned along with them). But here πάντας is decisive, which would designedly draw attention to a full sitting of the high council, and therefore would have made it necessary not to omit an entire class of the members, but to mention in full all the three classes, as in Matthew 16:21, Matthew 27:41; τοῦ λαοῦ also stands opposed to the common interpretation, as the latter, in designating the Sanhedrin in Matthew, serves only to denote the πρεσβύτεροι more precisely (Matthew 21:23, Matthew 26:3; Matthew 26:47, Matthew 27:1). Herod summoned together all the theologians of the nation, because he wanted a theological answer; τοῦ λαοῦ belongs to both words; observe the non-repetition of the article after καί.
ἀρχιερεῖς] certainly comprises partly the actual ruling high priest (ὁ ἀρχιερεύς, כֹּהֵן הַנָּרוֹל, Leviticus 15:10), partly those who had formerly held this high official post, which very often changed hands under the Herods. See Schürer, Stud. u. Krit. 1872, p. 593 ff. That the presidents of the twenty-four classes of priests are also to be understood (Bleek, Ewald), is nowhere certainly attested, and has against it the designation of the office itself, ἀρχιερεῖς. Both reasons, moreover, are in opposition to our including, with Wieseler, the priestly nobles, or, with Schürer, the members of the at that time privileged high-priestly families (Joseph. Bell. iv. 3. 6), which is not justified by Acts 4:6, and cannot be proved by a few individual names mentioned in Josephus, whose relation to the high-priesthood is otherwise unknown (Schürer, p. 638 f.). The last high priests who ruled before the death of Herod were Matthias (5 B.C.), and Jozarus, who soon after followed him (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 4. 2, xvii. 6. 4).
γραμματεῖς] corresponds to the Hebr. מוֹפְרִים—that is, first, writers, then learned men (Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:11; Nehemiah 8:1; Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 966). This was the name specially of the expositors of the divine law, who, as Jewish canonists and learned councillors, belonged chiefly to the sect of the Pharisees, and in part to the Sanhedrin, and were held in great respect. See Lightfoot on the passage, and on Matthew 23:13; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XIII. p. 731 ff.
γεννᾶται] not in the sense of the future, but purely present: where is the Messiah born? The theologians were to tell what they knew concerning the birthplace of the Messiah. By this question Herod leaves it quite undetermined whether the birth had already taken place, or was still to come.
Noch keine Übersetzung.
Matthew 2:4. And when he had gathered all the chief priests — This expression must be intended to comprehend not only the high priest for the time being, and his deputy, with those who had formerly borne that office, but also the heads of the twenty-four courses, as well as any other persons of peculiar eminence in the priesthood, in which sense Josephus uses the word, Antiq. lib. 20. cap. 8. (al. 6,) § 8, p. 973. The scribes of the people — It would seem, from Ezra 7:11-12; 1 Chronicles 24:6; 2 Chronicles 34:13, that they were of the tribe of Levi only, and so were either priests or Levites. As their office was to transcribe and prepare fair copies of the law of Moses, and other parts of the Old Testament, (a very necessary work before printing was invented,) they became, of course, well acquainted with the Scriptures, and were ordinarily employed in explaining them to the people: whence the chief of them were called doctors of the law. They, or at least some of them, together with the chief priests and elders, constituted the sanhedrim, or great council of the nation. But in this place, when no public business was to be done, but only the predictions of the ancient prophets were to be searched into by those who were thought to excel others in the knowledge of them, it does not appear that any fixed and legal council was summoned; but only that an extraordinary meeting of learned men was called by the king, that they might judge of the question of the wise men. He demanded of them where Christ, i.e, the promised Messiah, was to be born. The wise men had said nothing about Christ, or the Messiah, but only about a king, or, the king of the Jews. But Herod presently conceived that this king of the Jews that was born must be the Messiah promised Psalms 2.; Daniel 9.; and therefore desired to know of them the place of his birth, according to their received traditions, and sense of the prophecies of Scripture. But it is to be well observed, that we must understand Herod as inquiring, not concerning an event considered by him as already come to pass, but concerning a matter yet future and uncertain. For although he understood from the wise men that the birth of the Messiah had even now taken place, yet he concealed his knowledge of this, and his whole design, from the Jews. It is easy to observe how strongly all this story implies that a general expectation of the Messiah now prevailed: and it is plain Herod, in a sense, both believed the Jewish Scriptures, and that the birth of the Messiah was foretold in them. And yet, which discovered the height of madness, as well as of impiety and cruelty, he was contriving to destroy him! to destroy him whose birth, and reign, and glory, God in his word, he believed, had infallibly foretold!
Noch keine Übersetzung.
The chief priests were those who had served the office of high priest, and also the heads of the courses into which the priests were divided. Scribes were those who transcribed or copied the law and who expounded it. They are called lawyers in St Luke’s gospel.
where Christ should be born] Lit. where the Christ or Messiah is born. Where do your sacred writings represent him to be born? For a similar use of the indicative cp. John 7:52.