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)
바리새인들이 씻지 않은 손으로 먹는 제자들을 책망함(마가복음 7:1-5). 그리스도께서 그들의 외식을 드러내시고, 그들이 자기 전통으로 하나님의 말씀을 무효로 만들었음을 보이심(마가복음 7:6-13). 그는 무엇이 사람을 더럽게 하는지 보이시며(마가복음 7:14-16), 마음의 죄만이 악한 행실로 이어져 사람을 더럽게 한다는 것을 제자들에게 사적으로 가르치심(마가복음 7:17-23). 수로보니게 여인의 이야기(마가복음 7:24-30). 그가 말 못하고 말 더듬는 사람을 고치심(마가복음 7:31-37).
CHAPTER 7.
WASHING OF HANDS. SYROPHENICIAN WOMAN. A DEAF-MUTE HEALED.
CHAPTER 7
Mark 7:2. ἄρτους Lachm. and Tisch. read τούς ἄρτους, following B D L Δ, min. Rightly; the article was passed over, because it was regarded as superfluous. The reading ἄρτον (Fritzsche) has in its favour only א, min. and vss., and is from Matthew 15:2.
After ἄρτους Elz. and Fritzsche have ἐμέμψαντο, which, however, is absent from witnesses so important, that it must be regarded as an addition; instead of it D has κατέγνωσαν.
Mark 7:5. ἔπειτα] B D L א, min. Syr. Copt. Vulg. It. have καί (Δ has ἔπειτα καί). Recommended by Griesb., and adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; ἔπειτα was written on the margin on account of the construction, and then displaced the καί.
κοιναῖς] Elz. Scholz have ἀνίπτοις, in opposition to B D א, min. vss. An interpretation.
Mark 7:8. γάρ] is wanting in B D L Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. It. Goth. Lachm. Tisch. A connecting addition.
βαπτισμοὺς … ποιεῖτε is wanting in B L Δ א, min. Copt. Arm. There are many variations in detail. Bracketed by Lachm. ed. min., deleted by Fritzsche, and now also by Tisch. Rightly restored again by Lachm. ed. maj. For, if it were an interpolation from Mark 7:4; Mark 7:13, there would be inserted, as at Mark 7:4, ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν, and, as in Mark 7:13, not ἄλλα; moreover, an interpolator would certainly not have forgotten the washing of hands. The explanatory comment of Mark, Mark 7:3-4, tells precisely in favour of the genuineness, for the joint-mention of the ποτηρίων κ. ξεστῶν in that place has its reason in these words of Jesus, Mark 7:8. And why should there have been an interpolation, since the reproach of the Pharisees did not at all concern the pitchers and cups? This apparent inappropriateness of the words, however, as well as in general their descriptive character, strikingly contrasting with the conciseness of the context, might have occasioned their omission, which was furthered and rendered more widespread by the circumstance that a church-lesson concluded with ἀνθρώπων.
Mark 7:12. καί] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., following B D א, min. Copt. Cant. 7 :Verc. Corb. Vind. Colb. Omitted as confusing, because the apodosis was found here.
Mark 7:14. πάντα] B D L Δ א, Syr. p. (in the margin) Copt. Aeth. Sax. Vulg. It. have πάλιν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. Rightly; πάντα. was written in the margin on account of the following πάντες, and the more easily supplanted the πάλιν, because the latter finds no definite reference in what has preceded.
Instead of ἀκούετε and συνίετε, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἀκούσατε and σύνετε, following B D H L Δ, The Recepta is from Matthew 15:10.
Mark 7:15. The reading τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόσατε (Lachm. Tisch.) has in its favour B D L Δ א, 33, Copt. Goth. Aeth. Pers. p. Vulg. It. The Recepta τὰ ἐκπορ. ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ appears to have originated from the copyist, in the case of the above reading, passing over from the first ἐκ to the second (ἐκπορ). Thus came the reading τὰ ἐκπορευόμενα, which is still found in min. Then, after the analogy of the preceding εἰς αὐτόν, in some cases ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, in others ἐξ αὐτοῦ (min. Fritzsche) was supplied.
Mark 7:16 is wanting in B L א, min. Copt. Suspected by Mill and Fritzsche as an interpolation at the conclusion of the church-lesson; deleted by Tisch. But the witnesses on behalf of the omission, in the absence of internal reasons which might occasion an interpolation (in accordance with Mark 4:23; comp., on the other hand, Matthew 15:11), are too weak.
Mark 7:17. περὶ τῆς παραβ.] B D L Δ א, min. It. Vulg. have τὴν παραβολήν. Approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. The Recepta is a gloss.
Mark 7:19. καθαρίζον] A B E F G H L S X Δ א, min. Or. Chrys. have καθαρίζων (D: καταρίζει). So Lachm. and Tisch. Not a transcriber’s error, but correct (see the exegetical remarks), and needlessly emended by the neuter.
Mark 7:24. μεθόρια] Lachm. and Tisch. have ὅρια, following B D L Δ א, min. Or. But μεθόρια, does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., and was supplanted by the current ὅρια (comp. Matthew 15:22).
καὶ Σιδῶνος] is wanting in D L Δ 28, Cant. 7 :Verc. Corb. Vind. Or. Suspected by Griesb., deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch., comp. Ewald. Rightly; the familiarity of the collocation “Tyre and Sidon” and Matthew 15:21 have introduced the καὶ Σιδῶνος, which also came in at Mark 7:31, and there supplanted the original reading ἦλθε διὰ Σιδῶνος (approved by Griesb., adopted by Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in conformity with B D L Δ א, 33, Arr. Copt. Aeth. Syr. hier. Vulg. Sax. It.), and changed it into the Recepta καί Σιδῶνος ἦλθεν.
Mark 7:25. ἀκούσασα γὰρ γυνή] Tisch. has ἀλλʼ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνή, following B L Δ א, 33, vss. The witnesses are very much divided (D: γυνὴ δὲ εὐθέως ὡς ἀκούσασα); but the reading of Tisch. is, considering this division, sufficiently attested, and in keeping with the character of Mark; it is therefore to be preferred.
Mark 7:26. Instead of ἐκβάλῃ (Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch.) Elz. has ἐκβάλλῃ. The evidence for the aorist is not decisive, and the present is in keeping with Mark’s manner.
Mark 7:27. Instead of ὁ δὲ Ιησοῦς εἶπεν Lachm. and Tisch. have καὶ ἔλεγεν, following B L Δ א, 33, Copt. Cant. (D has καὶ λέγει; Vulg.: qui dixit). The Recepta is an alteration arising from comparison of Matthew 15:26.
Mark 7:28. ἐσθίει] Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐσθίουσιν, following B D L Δ א, min. The Recepta is from Matthew.
Mark 7:30. Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted the transposition: τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον (instead of τὴν θυγατ. βεβλημένην) following B D L Δ א, min. vss. (yet with variations in detail). The Recepta is to be retained; the above transposition is to be explained by the fact that the transcriber passed over from the καί after ἐξεληλυθός immediately to the καί in Mark 7:31. Thus καὶ τὴν θυγατ. down to κλίνης was omitted, and afterwards restored at the wrong, but apparently more suitable place. From the circumstance that θυγ … κλίνης, and not τὸ δαιμόν. ἐξεληλ., is the clause omitted and restored, may be explained the fact that all the variations in detail are found not in the latter, but in the former words.
Mark 7:31. See on Mark 7:24.
As in Mark 3:7, so also here, instead of πρός we must read, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm., following evidence of considerable weight, εἰς.
Mark 7:32. After κωφόν Lachm. and Tisch. have καί, following B D Δ א, vss. A connecting addition.
Mark 7:35. εὐθέως] is wanting in B D א, min. vss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the more frequent in Mark, and the more appropriate it is in this place, the more difficult it was of omission, and the easier of addition; here also in a different order.
Instead of διηνοίχθησαν Lachm. and Tisch. have ἠνοίγησαν, following B D Δ א, 1 (L has ἠνοίχθησαν). The Recepta arose from the previous διανοίχθητι.
Mark 7:36. αὐτός] is wanting in A B L X Δ א, min. Vulg. Lachm. Tisch.; but superfluous as it is in itself, how easily it was absorbed by the following αὐτοῖς!
Before μᾶλλον Lachm. and Tisch. have αὐτοί, following B D L Δ א, min. Copt. Goth. Syr. Arm. To be adopted; correlative to the αὐτός, but passed over, as not being recognised in this reference and so regarded as superfluous.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
막 7:1-23. 의식적 부정에 관한 담화(마 15:1-20과 병행). 마태복음 15:1-20 주석을 보라.
이 본문에 대한 설명은 마 15:1-20 주석을 보라.
막 7:1
예루살렘에서 옴 - 아마도 그의 행실을 살피고, 그를 고발할 소재를 찾기 위해서였을 것이다.
예루살렘에서 와서 — 아마 그리스도와 논쟁하려는 명백한 목적으로, 그의 말에서 올무를 잡으려 온 것일 것이다. 악의와 시기는 결코 한가하지 않다. 그것들은 먹잇감으로 삼으려는 사람을 끊임없이 사냥한다.
이 장에서 우리는 다음의 내용을 보게 된다. I. 씻지 않은 손으로 음식을 먹는 문제를 두고 그리스도께서 서기관들 및 바리새인들과 벌이신 논쟁(막 7:1-13), 그리고 그 일을 계기로 그분께서 무리에게 주신 꼭 필요한 가르침과 이를 제자들에게 더 자세히 풀어 설명하신 일(막 7:14-23). II. 귀신 들린 가나안 여인의 딸을 고치신 일(막 7:24-30). III. 귀가 먹고 말이 어눌하던 한 사람을 낫게 하신 일(막 7:31-37).