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)
Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The parable of the marriage of a king's son, Matthew 22:1-14. The Pharisees and Herodians question him concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar, Matthew 22:15-22. The Sadducees question him concerning the resurrection, Matthew 22:23-33. A lawyer questions him concerning the greatest commandment in the law, Matthew 22:34-40. He asks them their opinion of the Christ, and confounds them, Matthew 22:41-46.
CHAPTER 22.
PARABLE OF THE WEDDING FEAST AND ENCOUNTERS WITH OPPONENTS.
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
CHAPTER 22
Matthew 22:4. ἡτοίμασα] Following B C* D L א, 1, 22, 23, we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἡτοίμακα because of the preponderance of manuscript authority.
Matthew 22:5. ὁ μὲν … ὁ δέ] B L, min. Or.: ὃς μὲν … ὃς δέ. So Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. To be preferred on the strength of this external authority, particularly as C* א, which have ὁ μὲν … ὃς δέ, cannot be regarded as counter-evidence.
For εἰς τήν, Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. read ἐπὶ τήν, following B C D א, min. Or. Correctly; εἰς is a mechanical repetition of the one preceding.
Matthew 22:7. The Received text has ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ βας. Of the numerous readings, the simple ὁ δὲ βασιλεὑς is the one favoured by B L א, min. Copt. Sahid., while most of the other witnesses have καὶ ἀκ. ὁ βας. (so Fritzsche, Scholz, Tisch. 7). Lachm. reads ὁ δὲ βας. ἀκούσας, but only following min. It. Vulg. Arm. Ir. Chrys. Eus. In presence of such a multiplicity of readings, we ought to regard the simple ὁ δὲ βας. as the original one (so also Tisch. 8), to which, in conformity with Matthew’s style (comp. on the reading of the Received text, especially Matthew 2:3), ἀκούσας was added, being inserted sometimes in one place and sometimes in another. Many important witnesses insert ἐκεῖνος after βασιλ. (D and codd. of It. Lucif. place it before), a reading which is also adopted by Scholz and Tisch. 7 (therefore: κ. ἀκούσας ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐκεῖνος). It is not found in B L א, min. Copt. Sahid. codd. of It. Vulg. Ir. It, too, has been inserted mechanically as being in accordance with Matthew’s usual manner; it would scarcely have been omitted as being somewhat in the way because of the ἐκεῖνος which follows.
Matthew 22:10 ὁ γάμος] Tisch. 8 : ὁ νυμφών, following B* L א. A mistaken gloss, for νυμφών means the bride-chamber.
Matthew 22:13. ἄρατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκβάλετε] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἐκβάλετε αὐτόν, following B L א, min. vss. and Fathers. The word ἄρατε, not being needed to complete the picture, was struck out. The reading of the Received text ought to be maintained. The genuineness of the ἄρατε is likewise confirmed by the gloss ἄρατε αὐτὸν ποδῶν κ. κειρῶν, which came to be substituted for δήσαντες αὐτοῦ πόδ. κ. χεῖρας (so D, Cant. Verc. 22 :Colb. Corb. 2, Clar. Ir. Lucif.).
Matthew 22:16. λέγοντες] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 : λέγοντας, following B L א, 27, vss. (?). An improper emendation.
Matthew 22:23. οἱ λέγοντες] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have deleted the article, following B D M S Z א, min. Or., no doubt; but incorrectly, for it is indispensable, and would be readily enough overlooked in consequence of the OI which immediately precedes it.
Matthew 22:25. For γαμήσας, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B L א, min. Or. read γήμας, a form which the copyists would be very apt to exchange for one of more frequent occurrence in the New Testament.
For καὶ ἡ γυνή, Matthew 22:27, read, with Tisch. 8, simply ἡ γυνή, in accordance with the preponderance of evidence.
Matthew 22:28. Instead of ἐν τῇ οὖν ἀναστ., we should, with Lachm. and Tisch., read ἐν τ. ἀναοτ. οὖν, following B D L א, min. The reading of the Received text was intended to be an emendation as regards the position of the οὖν.
Matthew 22:30. ἐκγαμίζονται] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : γαμίζονται, following B D L א, min. Clem. Or. (twice) Ath. Isid. The compound form, besides being obviously suggested by Luke, is intended to be more precise, so as to bring out the reference to women. Neither of the words belongs to the older Greek, hence the variations are not of a grammatical nature.
τοῦ θεοῦ] wanting in B D, 1, 209, vss. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Left out, in accordance with Mark 12:25.
Matthew 22:32. οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς θεός] The second θεός is deleted by Lachm., following B L Δ, min. Copt. Sahid. Or. (?). It is likewise wanting in D א, min. Eus. Chrys., which authorities drop the article before the first θεός. Tisch. 8 follows them, simply reading οὐκ ἔστιν θεός. The sufficiently attested reading of the Received text is to be adhered to; it was simplified in accordance with Mark and Luke.
Matthew 22:35. καὶ λέγων] not found in B L א, 33, vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. The omission, though opposed to Matthew’s usual style (Matthew 12:10, Matthew 17:10, Matthew 22:23; Matthew 22:41, Matthew 27:11), is in accordance with Mark 12:28.
Matthew 22:37. Ἰησοῦς] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B L א, 33, Copt. Sahid. Inserted from Mark 12:29.
ἔφη] having decisive evidence in its favour, is to be preferred to εἶπεν of the Received text.
Matthew 22:38. For πρώτη κ. μεγάλη, read, with Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: ἡ μεγάλη κ. πρώτη, following B D (which latter, however, omits ἡ) L (which, however, inserts the article also before πρώτη) Z א, min: vss; Hilar.; πρώτη would be placed first as being the chief predicate. Comp. δευτέρα below.
Matthew 22:40. καὶ οἱ προφῆται κρέμανται] B D L Z א, 33, Syr. Vulg. It. Tert. Hil.: κρέμαται καὶ οἱ προφ. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical correction.
Matthew 22:44. ὑποπόδιον] B D G L Z Γ Δ א, min. vss: Aug.: ὑποκάτω. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from the Sept. and Luke.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Mt 22:1-14.
PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON.
This is a different parable from that of the Great Supper, in
Lu 14:15,
&c., and is recorded by Matthew alone.
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again in parables - See the notes at Matthew 13:3. That is, he answered or made reply to the Pharisees, who had been enraged at him for what he had already spoken to them, Matthew 21:45-46. He made a still further statement, to show how the gospel would be received and treated by them. The real answer here, as is frequently the case in the New Testament, refers to what was passing in the mind, or to the conduct of those who were addressed, not to what they said.
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again,.... Not to the multitude only, but to the chief priests, elders, Scribes, and Pharisees: for though Mark seems to intimate, that upon the delivery of the last parable of the vineyard, they left him, and went their way; yet since he does not relate the following parable, they might not leave him until they had heard that, which is spoken with much the same design as the former, and might increase their resentment the more: or if the chief priests and elders did go away, the Pharisees remained behind, as is clear from Matthew 22:15 to whom he spake
by parables, similitudes, and comparisons, taken from earthly things, and against whom he directed the following one;
and said, as hereafter related.
This chapter is a continuation of Christ's discourses in the temple, two or three days before he died. His discourses then are largely recorded, as being of special weight and consequence. In this chapter, we have, I. Instruction given, by the parable of the marriage-supper, concerning the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles (Mt 22:1-10), and, by the doom of the guest that had not the wedding-garment, the danger of hypocrisy in the profession of Christianity, Mt 22:11-14. II. Disputes with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes, who opposed Christ, 1. Concerning paying tribute to Cæsar, Mt 22:15-22. 2. Concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the future state, Mt 22:23-33. 3. Concerning the great commandment of the law, Mt 22:34-40. 4. Concerning the relation of the Messiah to David, Mt 22:41-46.