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 chief priests and scribes plot our Lord's destruction, Luke 22:1, Luke 22:2. Judas, at the instigation of the devil, betrays him, Luke 22:3-6. He eats his last supper with his disciples, Luke 22:7-18. Institutes the eucharist, Luke 22:19, Luke 22:20. Announces one of his disciples as the traitor, Luke 22:21-23 : The contention which should be greatest, Luke 22:24-30. Warns Peter against Satan's devices, Luke 22:31, Luke 22:32. Peter's resolution, Luke 22:33. His denial foretold, Luke 22:34. Tells his disciples to make prudent provision for their own support, Luke 22:35-37. The two swords, Luke 22:38. He goes to the Mount of Olives, and has his agony in the garden, Luke 22:39-46. Judas comes with a mob, Luke 22:47, Luke 22:48. Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant, which Christ heals by a touch, Luke 22:49-51. He addresses the chief priests and captains of the temple, Luke 22:52, Luke 22:53. They lead him to the high priest's house, and Peter follows and denies his Master, Luke 22:54-60. Christ looks upon him, he is stung with remorse, and weeps bitterly, Luke 22:61, Luke 22:62. Jesus is mocked, and variously insulted, Luke 22:63-65. The next morning he is questioned before the council, Luke 22:66, Luke 22:67. He acknowledges himself to be the Son of God, Luke 22:68-70. They condemn him, Luke 22:71.
Luke 22:1-2. Approach of the Passover. The Purpose of the Priests.
In this narrative of the Last Supper, Passion, Trial, and Crucifixion the chief points peculiar to St Luke are in Luke 22:8; Luke 22:15; Luke 22:24; Luke 22:28-30; Luke 22:43-44; Luke 22:61, Luke 23:2; Luke 23:5-16; Luke 23:27-31; Luke 23:34; Luke 23:39-43; Luke 23:46; Luke 23:51
CHAPTER 22.
THE PASSION HISTORY.
The Passion history, as told by Lk., varies considerably from the narratives of Mt. and Mk. by omissions, additions, etc. J. Weiss (Meyer), following Feine, thinks that Lk. used as his main source for this part of his Gospel not Mk. but the precanonical Lk., whose existence Feine has endeavoured to prove. Lk.’s narrative at some points resembles that of the Fourth Gospel.
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
CHAPTER 22
Luke 22:5. ἀργύριον] A C K U X, min. Syr. Slav. Eus. Theophyl. have ἀργύρια. See on Mark 14:11.
Luke 22:6. καὶ ἐξωμόλ.] is wanting in Lachm., in opposition to decisive evidence. The omission occurred the more readily that ΚΑΙ ΕΣ follows, and Matthew and Mark have nothing similar.
Luke 22:10. οὗ] A K M P R, min. have οὗ ἐάν. B C L א, Vulg. It. have εἰς ἥν. So Lachm. and Tisch. As the Recepta, according to this, has preponderating evidence against it, while οὗ ἐάν is grammatically erroneous (ἐάν is from Mark 14:14), we must read εἰς ἥν, instead of which was placed, in inexact recollection of Mark 14:14, οὗ (Luke 157: ὅπου).
Luke 22:12. ἀνάγαιον (Elz.: ἀνώγεον) is decisively attested. Comp. on Mark 14:15.
Luke 22:14. δώδεκα] is wanting in B D א, 157, vss., and is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was written in the margin in agreement with the parallels, and came into the text in some authorities alongside of ἀπόστ., in others instead of it (L X). Comp. also on Luke 9:1.
Luke 22:16. οὐκέτι] is wanting in A B C*? H L א, min. Copt. Sahid. Verc. Epiph. Marcion. Rejected by Schulz, bracketed by Lachm. But how easily, being in itself superfluous, it came to be overlooked between ὅτι and οὐ! If it had crept in from Mark 14:25, it would rather have found its place at Luke 22:18.
ἐξ αὐτοῦ] αὐτό is read by Lachm. [and Tisch. 8], in accordance with [א] B C? L, min. Syr. Copt. Sahid. It. Vulg. Epiph. The Recepta is to be maintained. The accusative was introduced in accordance with Luke 22:15. Opposed to it, moreover, is the evidence of D, min. Cant., which have ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, wherein the preposition was altered in conformity with Luke 22:18.
Luke 22:17. A D K M U, min. Lachm. have τὸ ποτήρ. The article forced itself in here from the form used in the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:20).
Luke 22:20. ὡσαυτ. κ. τ. ποτήρ.] Tisch. has κ. τ. ποτήρ. ὡσαυτ., following B L א, Copt. Sahid.; the Recepta is from 1 Corinthians 11:25.
Luke 22:22. καί] Tisch. has ὅτι, following B D L א, 157, Copt. Sahid. Rightly; ὅτι dropped out before ΟΥΙ (see subsequently on μέν), as it is still wanting in Verc. Cant. Or.; and then καί was interpolated as a connecting particle.
μέν] is, with Tischendorf, to be placed after υἱός, following B L T א** (D has it before ὁ). The usual position before υἱός is from Matthew and Mark.
In what follows read, with Lachm. and Tisch., κατὰ τὸ ὡρισμένον πορ. The arrangement in the Recepta is in accordance with the parallels.
Luke 22:30. Elz. Scholz have καθίσησθε. But Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have, on preponderating evidence, καθίσεσθε [Tisch. 8 has καθήσεσθε]. This was changed, on account of the construction, into the subjunctive, as though dependent on ἵνα.
Luke 22:32. ἐκλείπῃ] Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have ἐκλίπῃ, in accordance with B D K L M U X א, min.; it is accordingly to be preferred. The present offered itself more readily to the transcribers. But στήρισον instead of στήριξον is decisively attested (Lachm. Tisch.).
Luke 22:34. πρὶν ἤ] B L T א, min.: ἕως. So Lachm. and Tisch. D has ἕως ὅτου; K M X, min. have ἕως οὗ. Moreover, vss. (Syr. Vulg. It. al.) have donec. πρίν (Q) and πρὶν ἤ (A E G H S U V Γ Δ Λ) were written in the margin from Matthew and Mark.
I regard ἕως ὅτου or ὥς οὗ as genuine. See on Luke 21:24.
ἀπαρν. μὴ εἰδέναι με] Lachm. Tisch. have με ἀπαρν. εἰδέναι, in accordance with B D L M Q T X א [Tisch. 8 has returned to ἀπαρν. μὴ εἰδέναι με]. The μή was omitted as superfluous, but μέ was pushed forwards in accordance with Mark 14:30 (see thereupon the critical remarks).
Luke 22:35. On decisive evidence βαλλαντίου is to be written, and in Luke 22:36 : βαλλάντιον.
Luke 22:37. ἔτι] is not found, indeed, in A B D H L Q X א, min. vss. (except Vulg.), but after ὅτι its omission occurred too easily to be rightly suspected, according to Griesbach; rejected, according to Schulz; deleted, according to Lachm. Tisch.
Luke 22:42. παρενεγκεῖν] Lachm. has παρένεγκε, in accordance with B D, min. Vulg. It. (not Vind. Cant.) Syr.p. Syr.cu. Or. Dam. Tert. Ambr.; Tisch. has παρενέγκαι, in accordance with K L M R Π א, min. Both readings were meant to help out the construction in accordance with Mark 14:36. Subsequently is to be written, with Rinck and Tisch., τοῦτο τὸ ποτήρ. The order in the Recepta, τὸ ποτ. τοῦτο, is from the parallels.
Luke 22:43-44 are bracketed by Lachm. They are wanting in A B R T, Sahid. and some cursives; are marked with asterisks in E S V Δ Π, min.; in others with obelisks; in the lectionaries adopted into the section Matthew 26:2 to Matthew 27:2; and as early as Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome their omission in MSS. is observed. But they are already acknowledged by Justin. Iren. Hippol. Epiphan., etc. See Tisch. The verses are genuine. Their omission is the work of the orthodox, to whom their contents appeared objectionable in respect of the divinity of Christ. See already Epiph. Ancor. 31. According to Ewald, Luke wrote Luke 22:44 from the “Book of the higher history” only in the margin, but Luke 22:43 was excluded by the comparison with Matthew and Mark.
Luke 22:47. δέ] has so important evidence against it (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.) that it seems to be a connective addition.
Instead of αὐτούς Elz. has αὐτῶν, in opposition to decisive evidence. A correction.
Luke 22:55. ἁψάντων] B L T א, Eus. Tisch. have περιαψάντων; the Recepta is a neglect of the compound verb, which is elsewhere foreign to the New Testament.
αὐτῶν after συγκαθ. is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted as a frequent addition.
ἐν μέσῳ] Tisch. has μέσος, following B L T, min. The former is an interpretation.
Luke 22:61. After φωνῆσαι Tisch. has σήμερον, following B K L M T X Π א, min. vss. The omission came from the parallels.
Luke 22:62. After ἔξω, ὁ Πέτρος is to be maintained, against Griesb. and Tisch., although it is wanting in important authorities. Being troublesome, and not occurring in the parallels, it was passed over.
Luke 22:63. Instead of αὐτόν, Elz. Matth. Scholz have τὸν Ἰησοῦν. The subject was written in the margin because another subject precedes.
Luke 22:64. ἔτυπτον αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον καί] is wanting in B K L M Π א, Copt. Vind. Corb. 22 :Colb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Rinck and Tisch. It is an expansion by way of a gloss, which in D, vss. is not the same, and which the omission of δέροντες, Luke 22:63, drew after it. The glossing process began with the writing on the margin at the first αὐτόν: αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον, as 1, 209, vss. still read instead of αὐτόν; then ἔτυπτον was added in some authorities before, in others after, because δέροντες was attracted to what preceded.
Luke 22:66. Elz. Lachm. have ἑαυτῶν; Matth. Scholz, Tisch.: αὐτῶν. The Recepta is to be retained in accordance with A Δ, min.: it was not understood.
Luke 22:68. Read, with Tisch., simply ἐὰν δὲ (even Lachm. has deleted καί) ἐρωτήσω, οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτε, in accordance with B L T א, min. vss. Cyr. The addition μοι ἢ ἀπολύσητε is an unsuitable expansion.
Luke 22:69. After νῦν is to be added, with Lachm. and Tisch., δέ, on decisive evidence.
Luke 22:71. The order of the words, τί ἔτι ἔχ. μαρτ. χρείαν, is to be preferred, with Tisch., following B L T. The order in the Textus receptus, τ. ἐ. χ. ἐ. μ., is from the parallels.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Lu 22:1-6.
CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--COMPACT WITH JUDAS.
1, 2. (See on
Mt 26:1-5.)
See the notes at Matthew 26:1-2.
All the evangelists, whatever they omit, give us a particular account of the death and resurrection of Christ, because he died for our sins and rose for our justification, this evangelist as fully as any, and with many circumstances and passages added which we had not before. In this chapter we have, I. The plot to take Jesus, and Judas's coming into it, Lu 22:1-6. II. Christ's eating the passover with his disciples, Lu 22:7-18. III. The instituting of the Lord's supper, Lu 22:19,20. IV. Christ's discourse with his disciples after supper, upon several heads, Lu 22:21-38. V. His agony in the garden, Lu 22:39-46. VI. The apprehending of him, by the assistance of Judas, Lu 22:47-53. VII. Peter's denying him, Lu 22:54-62. VIII. The indignities done to Christ by those that had him in custody, and his trial and condemnation in the ecclesiastical court, Lu 22:63-71.