Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 4,537 / 4,537
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Tài nguyên học tập
Duyệt qua nhiều chú giải trong phạm vi công cộng và scripture.how bản dịch tiếng Hàn theo sách và chương. Chuyển đổi giữa các nguồn chú giải, đọc bản dịch một mình hoặc so sánh nó với văn bản gốc.
Chú giải tích cực
Tất cả các chú giải
23 nguồn
Tổng số mục
307,288
81,431 đã dịch
Giấy phép
Hiển thị theo nguồn
Mỗi nguồn chú giải giữ riêng biệt tác phẩm gốc, tác giả, tiến trình dịch và thông tin giấy phép. Bản dịch tiếng Hàn và công việc biên tập của scripture.how được quản lý ngoài văn bản nguồn.
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)
The question concerning the authority of Christ, and the baptism of John, Luke 20:1-8. The parable of the vine-yard let out to wicked husbandmen, Luke 20:9-18. The chief priests and scribes are offended, and lay snares for him, Luke 20:19, Luke 20:20. The question about tribute, Luke 20:21-26. The question about the resurrection of the dead, and our Lord's answer, Luke 20:27-40. How Christ is the son of David, Luke 20:41-44. He warns his disciples against the hypocrisy of the scribes, whose condemnation he points out, Luke 20:45-47.
CHAPTER 20.
IN THE TEMPLE. PREACHING, CONFLICTS, AND PARABLE OF THE VINEDRESSERS.
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
CHAPTER 20
Luke 20:1. ἐκείνων] is wanting in the authorities of greatest importance. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition for greater precision.
ἀρχιερεῖς] A E G H K U V Γ Δ Λ, min. Goth. Slav. Theophyl. have ἱερεῖς. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Matth. and Tisch. The Recepta is from the parallels.
Luke 20:3. ἕνα] is wanting in B L R א, min. Syr. Copt. Colb. For. Tol. It stands after λόγ. in A K M U* min. Condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It is from the parallels, from which also οὖν is introduced after διά τι, Luke 20:5.
Luke 20:10. δῶσιν] δώσουσιν is so strongly attested by A B L M Q א, min., that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch., and δῶσιν to be regarded as a grammatical emendation.
Luke 20:13. ἰδόντες] is wanting in B C D L Q א, min. vss. Ambr., and is condemned by Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. The superfluous word was omitted on account of the parallels; there was no reason for its addition.
Luke 20:14. ἐαυτούς] Tisch. has ἀλλήλους, following B D L E א, min. vss. The Recepta is from Luke 20:5 and Mark 12:7; comp. Matthew 21:38. From the parallels also comes δεῦτε, which, in accordance with very important evidence, is deleted by Rinck, Lachm. and Tisch. Luke nowhere has the word.
Luke 20:19. With Lachm. and Tisch., on preponderant evidence, read: οἱ γραμμ. καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερ.
Luke 20:20. εἰς τό] B C D L א have ὥστε, which, with Bornemann, Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted; the εἰς τό, foreign to Luke, is an interpretation.
Luke 20:23. τί με πειράζετε] condemned by Griesb. and Rinck, deleted by Tisch., following B L א, min. Copt. Arm. Rightly; it is from Matthew 22:18, whence also in C ὑποκριταί, too, is interpolated.
Luke 20:24. Instead of δείξατε Elz. has ἐπιδείξατε, in opposition to decisive evidence; it is from Matth.
After δηνάριον Lachm. has in brackets οἱ δὲ ἔδειξαν, καὶ εἶπεν. Not strongly enough attested by B L א, min. vss. to appear otherwise than a gloss in accordance with the parallels.
Luke 20:27. ἀντιλέγοντες] B C D L א, min. vss. have λέγοντες. Approved by Schulz and Fritzsche, ad Marc. XII. 8. An emendation, according to the parallels.
Luke 20:28. Instead of the second ἀποθάνῃ, B L P א** min. vss. (including Vulg. It.) Lachm. [Tisch. 8] have merely ᾖ. An attempt at improvement suggested by ignorance,
Luke 20:30-31. Much confusion among the authorities. Lachm. has retained the Recepta, nevertheless he places before ὡσαύτως another ὡσαύτως in brackets, and throws out the καί which Elz. has after ἑπτά, with Griesb. and Scholz. I agree with Tisch. in regarding as original the text of B D L א, 157: καὶ ὁ δεύτερο καὶ ὁ τρίτος ἔλαβεν αὐτήν· ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ οὐ κατὲλ. τέκνα κ. ἀπέθ. Comp. Bornem. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 136; also Rinck, Lucubr. p. 333. To this text the gloss ἔλαβεν αὐτήν was added to ὁ δεύτ.; this occasioned the dropping out of these words in their true place, and there appeared: καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν κ. ὁ τρίτος κ.τ.λ. Thus still Copt. The deleting of ἔλαβεν αὐτήν in this spurious place, without restoring them again to the genuine one, occasioned the text of D: καὶ ὁ δεύτερος κ. ὁ τρίτος (without ἔλ. αὐτ.). The Recepta has grown up out of circumstantial glosses. Even the double ὡσαύτως (A E H V Γ Λ, min. Goth. Syr., taken by Matth. into the text) is a gloss; it was thought to be necessary to complete the simple ἔλαβεν αὐτήν. The καί, which Elz. has after ἑπτά, is indeed defended by Rinck, but decisively condemned by the authorities. A connective addition made from misunderstanding.
Luke 20:32 is, as by Tisch., to be read: ὕστερον καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἀπέθανεν (Lachm.: ὕστ. ἀπέθ. κ. ἡ γ.). The Recepta is from Matth.
Luke 20:33. The order of the words: ἡ γυνὴ οὖν ἐν τῇ ἀναστ. (B L), is, with Tisch., to be preferred; it was altered in accordance with the parallels.
Luke 20:34. ἐκγαμίσκονται] objectionable, since A K M P U Γ Δ, min. have ἐκγαμίζονται, while B L א, min. Or. Epiph. Nyss. have γαμίσκονται. Read the latter, with Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta and ἐκγαμίζονται are glosses to give greater precision. Equally, however, at Luke 20:35 also is not to be read γαμίζονται, with Matth. Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with D L Q R Δ א, but γαμίσκονται, in accordance with B.
Luke 20:40. δέ] B L א, min. Copt. Tisch. have γάρ. Rightly; γάρ was not understood.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Lu 20:1-19.
THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED, AND HIS REPLY--PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.
(See on
Mt 21:23.)
See this passage explained in the notes at Matthew 21:23-27.
One of those days - Supposed to have been one of the four last days of his life, mentioned Luke 19:47, probably Tuesday before the passover.
In this chapter we have, I. Christ's answer to the chief priests' question concerning his authority, Lu 20:1-8. II. The parable of the vineyard let out to the unjust and rebellious husbandmen, Lu 20:9-19. III. Christ's answer to the question proposed to him concerning the lawfulness of paying tribute to Cæsar, Lu 20:20-26. IV. His vindication of that great fundamental doctrine of the Jewish and Christian institutes—the resurrection of the dead and the future state, from the foolish cavils of the Sadducees, Lu 20:27-38. V. His puzzling the scribes with a question concerning the Messiah's being the Son of David, Lu 20:39-44. VI. The caution he gave his disciples to take heed of the scribes, Lu 20:45-47. All which passages we had before in Matthew and Mark, and therefore need not enlarge upon them here, unless on those particulars which we had not there.