Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- Avanzamento della traduzione
- 4,537 / 4,537
- Lingua di fonte
- en
Risorse di studio
Sfoglia più commentari di pubblico dominio e le traduzioni coreane di scripture.how per libro e capitolo. Passa tra fonti di commentario, leggi solo la traduzione o confrontala affiancata al testo originale.
Commentario attivo
Tutti i commentari
23 fonti
Voci totali
307,288
81,431 tradotte
Licenza
Mostrata per fonte
Ciascuna fonte di commentario mantiene separati opera originale, autore, avanzamento della traduzione e informazioni di licenza. Le traduzioni coreane e il lavoro editoriale di scripture.how sono gestiti a parte rispetto al testo di fonte.
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
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.
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.
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.
John Gill · 1763
John Gill(1697-1771), Exposition of the Old and New Testament(1746-1763). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/gill.
John Calvin · 1850
종교개혁 신학 원천 (영역본 PD, 대부분 — 전권 아님)
Matthew Poole · 1685
간결 절별 전권 개혁주의 주석
ed. H.D.M. Spence & Joseph S. Exell · 1890
전권 강해·설교·예화 풍부 (항목 대량)
Carl F. Keil, Franz Delitzsch · 1866
구약 학술 표준 — 히브리어·문헌비평·고대근동 배경
ed. Charles J. Ellicott · 1878
학술+가독 균형 전권 주석
Cambridge (다저자) · 1900
준전권 준학술 (권별 저자·연도 확인)
Marvin R. Vincent · 1887
신약 헬라어 단어 연구
A.T. Robertson · 1933
헬라어 시제·문법 해설 결정판 (KR PD / US 1931+ 권별)
ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (다저자) · 1910
헬라어 신약 학술 (권별 저자 PD 확인 필요)
Heinrich A.W. Meyer · 1880
신약 학술 정밀주해 (독일 — K&D 대응)
John Wesley · 1755
간결 실용 전권(NT 1755 / OT 1765) 웨슬리안
Joseph Benson · 1815
웨슬리안 전권 주석
Charles H. Spurgeon · 1885
시편 주석 고전 (설교 자료 풍부)
Alexander Maclaren · 1910
설교형 강해 명저 (전권, 절별 가공 필요)
B.W. Johnson · 1891
평이 절별 신약 해설 (일반신자·모바일)
Thomas Coke · 1803
감리교 전권 주석
John Trapp · 1660
청교도 전권 주석 — Henry/Gill 보완
Charles Hodge · 1860
프린스턴 조직신학 관점 신약 정밀 주석 (롬·고전후·엡)
At Jericho the Lord had made known to the Canaanites His great and holy name; but before Ai the Israelites were to learn that He would also sanctify Himself on them if they transgressed His covenant, and that the congregation of the Lord could only conquer the power of the world so long as it was faithful to His covenant. But notwithstanding the command which Joshua had enforced upon the people (Joshua 6:18), Achan, a member of the tribe of Judah, laid hands upon the property in Jericho which had been banned, and thus brought the ban upon the children of Israel, the whole nation. His breach of trust is described as unfaithfulness (a trespass) on the part of the children of Israel in the ban, in consequence of which the anger of the Lord was kindled against the whole nation. מעל מעל , to commit a breach of trust (see at Leviticus 5:15), generally against Jehovah, by purloining or withholding what was sanctified to Him, here in the matter of the ban, by appropriating what had been banned to the Lord. This crime was imputed to the whole people, not as imputatio moralis , i.e., as though the whole nation had shared in Achan's disposition, and cherished in their hearts the same sinful desire which Achan had carried out in action in the theft he had committed; but as imputatio civilis , according to which Achan, a member of the nation, had robbed the whole nation of the purity and holiness which it ought to possess before God, through the sin that he had committed, just as the whole body is affected by the sin of a single member.
(Note: In support of this I cannot do better than quote the most important of the remarks which I made in my former commentary ( Keil on Joshua, pp. 177-8, Eng. trans.): “However truly the whole Scriptures speak of each man as individually an object of divine mercy and justice, they teach just as truly that a nation is one organic whole, in which the individuals are merely members of the same body, and are not atoms isolated from one another and the whole, since the state as a divine institution is founded upon family relationship, and intended to promote the love of all to one another and to the invisible Head of all. As all then are combined in a fellowship established by God, the good or evil deeds of an individual affect injuriously or beneficially the welfare of the whole society. And, therefore, when we regard the state as a divine organization and not merely as a civil institution, a compact into which men have entered by treaty, we fail to discover caprice and injustice in consequences which necessarily follow from the moral unity of the whole state; namely, that the good or evil deeds of one member are laid to the charge of the entire body. Caprice and injustice we shall always find if we leave out of sight this fundamental unity, and merely look at the fact that the many share the consequences of the sin of one.”)
Instead of Achan (the reading here and in Joshua 22:20) we find Achar in 1 Chronicles 2:7, the liquids n and r being interchanged to allow of a play upon the verb עכר in Joshua 7:25. Hence in Josephus the name is spelt Acharos, and in the Cod. Vat. of the lxx Achar, whereas the Cod. Al. has Achan. Instead of Zabdi, we find Zimri in 1 Chronicles 2:6, evidently a copyist's error. Zerah was the twin-brother of Pharez (Genesis 38:29-30). Matteh , from נטה , to spread out, is used to denote the tribe according to its genealogical ramifications; whilst shebet (from an Arabic root signifying “uniform, not curled, but drawn out straight and long with any curvature at all”) was applied to the sceptre or straight staff of a magistrate or ruler (never to the stick upon which a person rested), and different from matteh not only in its primary and literal meaning, but also in the derivative meaning tribe, in which it was used to designate the division of the nation referred to, not according to its genealogical ramifications and development, but as a corporate body possessing authority and power. This difference in the ideas expressed by the two words will explain the variations in their use: for example, matteh is used here (in Joshua 7:1 and Joshua 7:18), and in Joshua 22:1-14, and in fact is the term usually employed in the geographical sections; whereas shebet is used in Joshua 7:14, Joshua 7:16, in Joshua 3:12; Joshua 4:2, and on many other occasions, in those portions of the historical narratives in which the tribes of Israel are introduced as military powers.
return to '
VII.
(1) Achan . . . of the tribe of Judah.—The tribe of Judah is distinguished in sacred history both for great crimes and great achievements. (See Names on the Gates of Pearl.—Judah.)
Ch. Joshua 7:1-5. The Sin of Achan, and Assault on Ai
for Achan] Or, Achar, as he is called in 1 Chronicles 2:7.
the son of Zabdi] Or, Zimri, as his name is given in 1 Chronicles 2:6.
took of the accursed thing] What he took is more fully described in Joshua 7:21. His sin was rendered more heinous by the fact that he knew full well the ban which had been pronounced upon the doomed city, a ban extending to all time, and including even the whole family of any who should dare to restore the fortifications of Jericho. Cæsar in his account of the devotion of conquered towns to the gods amongst the Gauls, alluded to above, Joshua 6:17, goes on to say, “Multis in civitatibus harum rerum exstructos tumulos locis consecratis conspicari licet: neque sæpe accidit, ut neglecta quispiam religione, aut capta apud se occultare, aut posita tollere auderet; gravissimumque ei rei supplicium cum cruciatu constitutum est” (Bell. Gall. Joshua 6:17).
Joshua 7:1. But the children of Israel — That is, one of them. It is a usual form of speech in the Holy Scriptures, to ascribe that to many indefinitely, which properly belonged only to one or two of the same body or society. Thus (Matthew 26:8) we find that to be ascribed to all the disciples which was done by Judas alone: see John 12:4. Committed a trespass in the accursed thing — Offended God by taking some of the spoils which were devoted to destruction, or appropriated to God’s treasury, with a curse upon him who took them. Achan, the son of Carmi — He is called Achar, (1 Chronicles 2:7,) a word that signifies, He troubled. It is probable that as he had troubled Israel, (Joshua 7:25,) they changed his name thus in after-times. Zabdi — Called also Zimri, 1 Chronicles 2:6. Zerah — Or Zarah, who was Judah’s immediate son, (Genesis 38:30,) who went with his father into Egypt when he was very young. And thus, for making up the two hundred and fifty-six years that are supposed to come between that and this time, we must allow Achan to be now an old man, and his three ancestors to have begotten each his son at about sixty years of age; which at that time was not incredible nor unusual. Against the children of Israel — Why did God punish the whole society for this one man’s sin? All of them were punished for their own sins, whereof each had a sufficient proportion; but God took this occasion to inflict the punishment upon the society. 1st, Because divers of them might be guilty of this sin, either by coveting to do what he actually did, or by concealing his fault, which, it is probable, could not be unknown to others, or by not sorrowing for it, and endeavouring to purge themselves from it: 2d, To make sin the more hateful, as being the cause of such dreadful judgments: and, 3d, To oblige all the members of every society to be more circumspect in ordering their own actions, and more diligent to prevent the miscarriage of their brethren.
Ver. 1. But the children of Israel— Though there was but one guilty, the historian attributes to the whole society, whereof Achan was a member, the criminal action which he had committed. This is the style of Scripture, and it is the language of reason. See Calmet. A people, properly speaking, is only one moral person. The common interest, which connects all the members of it together, warrants the imputing to the whole nation what is done by the individuals who compose it, unless it be expressly disavowed.
Committed a trespass in the accused thing— They committed a trespass, by keeping back somewhat desecrated; or, as the LXX has it, by setting apart something of the curse; of the booty which was made in the sacking of Jericho; though this was forbidden under pain of incurring the most rigorous effects of the divine malediction.
For Achan, the son of Carmi, &c.— He is called Achar, 1 Chronicles 2:7. This latter name, which signifies trouble, was evidently given him in allusion to the reproof that Joshua gave him previous to his being stoned, of having troubled Israel, ver. 25. Zabdi is the same who, in 1Ch 2:6 is called Zimri. Zerah, the son of Judah, came into Egypt with his father very young. It is not said that he had any children there; and we cannot suppose him to be less than seventy years old when he became father of Zabdi. If, as Bonfrere thinks, Zabdi was as old when Carmi was born, and Carmi as old when he begat Achan, the latter must have been above fifty at the taking of Jericho; an age at which many men begin to be over-attached to the things of the world, and set too high a value upon them.
And the anger of the Lord was kindled, &c.— The crime of one member of this body drew down marks of the divine indignation on all the Israelites, (who in other respects, doubtless, deserved it,) in order to stir them up to search out the guilty, and inflict upon him the just punishment of the danger to which he had exposed them. We may further observe, 1. That there were, perhaps, many Israelites guilty, in their desires, of the crime of Achan, and who would actually have committed it, had they dared; and others who knew it, but had given themselves no concern on that account, and had not even deigned to inform Joshua of it. 2. That by chastising the whole body for the faults of one, or of several individuals, God proposed to render all the Israelites more circumspect, more attentive to each other's conduct, and more careful to remove from sinners every occasion of doing evil. 3. That by this severity he designed to render sin more odious to the whole nation.
return to '
But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.
But the children of Israel committed. — All were involved, because of the same body politic: and every man is bound to be his brother’s keeper, to see that the law be not only observed but preserved: since one sinner may destroy much good. Ecclesiastes 9:18 Propter contagionem peccati. Propter arctam coniuactionem.
For Achan, the son of Carmi, … — He was well descended, but became a stain to his ancestors by his covetousness, which was the worse in him, because he had, of his own, oxen, asses, sheep, … Joshua 6:24 Proverbs 6:30 The devil knew his temper, felt which way his pulse beat, and accordingly fitted him with an object, set a prize before him: hence he is called "the tempter" Matthew 4:3
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against the children of Israel. — Who all smarted for this one man’s sin: as the neck is seared and rowled oft for the rheum that runneth down into the eyes: and as a vein is opened in the arm to turn the course of the blood, or to ease the pain of the head.
return to '
Verse 1. - Committed a trespass in the accursed thing. The word מָעַל, here used, signifies originally to cover, whence מְעִיל a garment. Hence it comes to mean to act deceitfully, or perhaps to steal (cf. the LXX. ἐνοσφίσαντο, a translation rendered remarkable by the fact that it is the very word used by St. Luke in regard to the transgression of Ananias and Sapphira. But the LXX. is here rather a paraphrase than a translation). It is clearly used here of some secret act. But in Leviticus 5:15 it is used of an unwitting trespass, committed בִּשְׁגָגָה, in error of fact, but not of intention. Achan. Called Achar in 1 Chronicles 2:7, no doubt from a reference to the results of his conduct. He had "troubled Israel" (עָכַר), ver. 25, and the valley which witnessed his punishment obtained the name of Achor. The copies of the LXX. vary between the two forms, the Vatican Codex having Achar; the Alexandrian, Achan. Zabdi. Zimri in 1 Chronicles 2:6. Such variations of reading are extremely common, and are increased in our version by the varieties of English spelling adopted among our translators (see Shemuel for Samuel in 1 Chronicles 6:33). The LXX. has Zambri here. Took of the accursed thing. Commentators have largely discussed the question how the sin of Achan could be held to extend to the whole people. But it seems sufficient to reply by pointing out the organic unity of the Israelitish nation. They were then, as Christians are now, the Church of the living God. And if one single member of the community violated the laws which God imposed on them, the whole body was liable for his sin, until it had purged itself by a public act of restitution (see Deuteronomy 21:1-8). So St. Paul regards the Corinthian Church as polluted by the presence of one single offender, until he was publicly expelled from its communion (see 1 Corinthians 5:2, 6, 7). The very words "body politic" applied to a state imply the same idea - that of a connection so intimate between the members of a community that the act of one affects the whole. And if this be admitted to be the case in ordinary societies, how much more so in the people of God, who were under His special protection, and had been specially set apart to His service? In the history of Achan, moreover, we read the history of secret sin, which, though unseen by any earthly eye, does nevertheless pollute the offender, and through him the Church of God, by lowering his general standard of thought and action, enfeebling his moral sense, checking the growth of his inner and devotional life, until, by a resolute act of repentance and restitution towards God, the sin is finally acknowledged and put away. "A lewd man is a pernicious creature. That he damnes his own soule is the least part of his misehiefe; he commonly drawes vengeance upon a thousand, either by the desert of his sinne, or by the infection" (Bp. Hall).