Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- 번역 진행
- 4,537 / 4,537
- 원문 언어
- en
학습 자료
여러 공개 도메인 주석서와 성서하우 한글 번역을 책과 장별로 탐색합니다. 주석서를 전환하며 번역만 읽거나 원문과 번역을 나란히 볼 수 있습니다.
현재 주석서
전체 주석서
23개 주석서
전체 항목
307,288
번역 81,431건
라이선스
출처별 표시
주석서 원문, 저자, 번역 진행률, 라이선스 정보를 출처별로 구분해 표시합니다. 성서하우의 한글 번역·편집물은 원문 자료와 별도로 관리됩니다.
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)
Then said the high priest,.... The Ethiopic version adds, "to him"; that is, to Stephen; for to him he addressed himself: or he "asked him", as the Syriac version renders it; he put the following question to him:
are these things so? is it true what they say, that thou hast spoken blasphemous words against the temple, and the law, and hast said that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the one, and change the other? what hast thou to say for thyself, and in thine own defence? this high priest was either Annas, or rather Caiaphas; See Gill on Acts 4:6.
Acts 7:1-8 Stephen, called upon to answer the charge against him,
relateth how God called Abraham, and gave him and his
seed the land of Canaan by promise,
Acts 7:9-16 how Joseph was sold by his brethren, and Jacob with
his family went down into Egypt,
Acts 7:17-36 how, when they were oppressed by the Egyptians, Moses
was born, and sent to deliver Israel out of Egypt,
Acts 7:37-43 that this same Moses witnessed of Christ, received the
law, and experienced the disobedience and idolatry of
their forefathers,
Acts 7:44-50 who had the tabernacle of witness, till Solomon built
the temple,
Acts 7:51-53 He reproacheth his hearers with imitating their
fathers’ rebellion against God, and persecution of his
prophets, by having themselves murdered Christ, and
transgressed the law they had received,
Acts 7:54-60 Stung with reproach, they stone him, looking up with
faith unto God, and calling upon Jesus to receive his
soul, and forgive his persecutors,
Then said the high priest; who was resolved to condemn any, right or wrong, that should profess Christ, as appears John 9:22.
Are these things so? That he might seem just, he gives him a kind of liberty to answer for himself; not to defend his doctrine, but; to know out of his own mouth whether he preached it, or not.
Verse 1. - And the high priest said for then said the high priest, A.V. The high priest spoke as president of the Sanhedrim (see Acts 9:1 and Matthew 26:62). Theophilus the son of Annas or his brother Jonathan is probably meant.
VII.
(1) Then said the high priest, Are these things so?—The question was analogous to that put to our Lord. The accused was called on to plead guilty or not guilty, and had then an opportunity for his defence. On that defence we now enter.
Then said the high-priest
"The glorified countenance of Stephen has caused a pause of surprise and admiration, which the high-priest interrupts by calling upon the accused for his defence" (Gloag).
Are these things so? (ε ταυτα ουτως εχε). On this use of ε in a direct question see on Acts 1:6. Literally "Do these things hold thus?" A formal question by the high priest like our "Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?" (Furneaux). The abrupt question of the high priest would serve to break the evident spell of the angelic look on Stephen's face. Two charges had been made against Stephen (1) speaking against the holy temple, (2) changing the customs which Moses had delivered. Stephen could not give a yes or no answer to these two charges. There was an element of truth in each of them and a large amount of error all mixed together. So he undertakes to explain his real position by the historical method, that is to say, by a rapid survey of God's dealing with the people of Israel and the Gentiles. It is the same method adopted by Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16) after he had become the successor of Stephen in his interpretation of the universal mission of Christianity. If one is disposed to say that Luke made up this speech to suit Stephen's predicament, he has to explain how the style is less Lukan than the narrative portions of Acts with knowledge of Jewish traditions that a Greek would not be likely to know. Precisely how Luke obtained the data for the speech we do not know, but Saul heard it and Philip, one of the seven, almost certainly. Both could have given Luke help about it. It is even possible that some one took notes of this important address. We are to remember also that the speech was interrupted at the end and may not include all that Stephen meant to say. But enough is given to give us a good idea of how Stephen met the first charge "by showing that the worship of God is not confined to Jerusalem or the Jewish temple" (Page). Then he answers the second charge by proving that God had many dealings with their fathers before Moses came and that Moses foretold the coming of the Messiah who is now known to be Jesus. It is at this point (verse Acts 7:51) that Stephen becomes passionate and so powerful that the wolves in the Sanhedrin lose all self-control. It is a great and masterful exposition of the worldwide mission of the gospel of Christ in full harmony with the Great Commission of Christ. The apostles had been so busy answering the Sadducees concerning the Resurrection of Christ and maintaining their freedom to teach and preach that they had not pushed the world-wide propaganda of the gospel as Jesus had commanded after they had received the Promise of the Father. But Stephen had proclaimed the same message of Christ and was now facing the same fate. Peter's mind had been enlightened by the Holy Spirit so that he could rightly interpret Joel and David in the light of Pentecost. "So Stephen read the history of the Old Testament with new eyes in the light of the life and death of Jesus" (Furneaux).
return to '
이것이 사실이냐 - 네가 성전의 파괴를 예언했느냐? 나사렛 예수가 우리의 관습을 바꾸고, 우리의 종교 의식과 성전 봉사를 폐하리라고 말했느냐? 네가 모세와 하나님을 거슬러 이런 신성모독적인 말을 했느냐? 여기에는 어느 정도 공의의 모양이 있었다. 스데반이 자신을 변호할 허락을 받았기 때문이다. 그는 이를 위하여 그들의 민족이 시작된 때부터 그들의 역사를 자세히 말하는 것이 가장 좋다고 생각했다. 그렇게 함으로써 하나님께서 그들을 얼마나 인자하게 대하셨고, 그들과 그들의 조상들이 하나님께 얼마나 은혜 없이 보답했는지를 보이려 한 것이다. 그리고 이 모든 것은 자연스럽게 다음 결론으로 이어졌다. 곧 죄악의 잔이 오래전부터 넘쳐흐른 백성을 하나님께서 더 이상 참으실 수 없으며, 따라서 그들은 긍휼이 섞이지 않은 진노를 만날 것을 예상해야 한다는 것이다.
그러나 누가는 어떻게 이 모든 상세한 이야기를 얻을 수 있었는가? 그가 그 자리에 있어 전부 들었을 수도 있다. 그러나 더 그럴듯하게는, 그의 동료였던 바울에게서 이 이야기를 얻었을 것이다. 바울은 스데반이 재판받고 돌에 맞을 때 분명히 그 자리에 있었다. 그는 그의 죽임 당함을 마땅히 여기고, 그를 돌로 치는 사람들의 옷을 맡았기 때문이다. 사도행전 7:58, 8:1, 22:20을 보라.