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
Chú giải Kinh Thánh
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
Nguồn và giấy phép
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.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 19,831 / 19,831
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
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.
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 22,781 / 22,781
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Adam Clarke's Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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.
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 21,603 / 22,101
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
John Gill's Exposition of the Bible
John Gill · 1763
John Gill(1697-1771), Exposition of the Old and New Testament(1746-1763). Public domain. Retrieval mirror: biblehub.com/commentaries/gill.
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 12,528 / 30,759
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Calvin's Commentaries
John Calvin · 1850
종교개혁 신학 원천 (영역본 PD, 대부분 — 전권 아님)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 144 / 7,385
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Matthew Poole's Annotations upon the Holy Bible
Matthew Poole · 1685
간결 절별 전권 개혁주의 주석
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 31,092
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
The Pulpit Commentary
ed. H.D.M. Spence & Joseph S. Exell · 1890
전권 강해·설교·예화 풍부 (항목 대량)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 25,592
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Carl F. Keil, Franz Delitzsch · 1866
구약 학술 표준 — 히브리어·문헌비평·고대근동 배경
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 2,044
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
ed. Charles J. Ellicott · 1878
학술+가독 균형 전권 주석
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 23,497
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Cambridge (다저자) · 1900
준전권 준학술 (권별 저자·연도 확인)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 27,176
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament
Marvin R. Vincent · 1887
신약 헬라어 단어 연구
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 5,763
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Word Pictures in the New Testament
A.T. Robertson · 1933
헬라어 시제·문법 해설 결정판 (KR PD / US 1931+ 권별)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 6,935
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
The Expositor's Greek Testament
ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (다저자) · 1910
헬라어 신약 학술 (권별 저자 PD 확인 필요)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 7,010
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Heinrich A.W. Meyer · 1880
신약 학술 정밀주해 (독일 — K&D 대응)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 5,340
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Wesley's Explanatory Notes
John Wesley · 1755
간결 실용 전권(NT 1755 / OT 1765) 웨슬리안
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 5,643
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments
Joseph Benson · 1815
웨슬리안 전권 주석
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 14,675
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
The Treasury of David
Charles H. Spurgeon · 1885
시편 주석 고전 (설교 자료 풍부)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 2,290
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
MacLaren's Expositions of Holy Scripture
Alexander Maclaren · 1910
설교형 강해 명저 (전권, 절별 가공 필요)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 1,144
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
The People's New Testament
B.W. Johnson · 1891
평이 절별 신약 해설 (일반신자·모바일)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 7 / 3,477
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible
Thomas Coke · 1803
감리교 전권 주석
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 10,808
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Trapp's Complete Commentary
John Trapp · 1660
청교도 전권 주석 — Henry/Gill 보완
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 26,397
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Hodge's Commentary on the New Testament
Charles Hodge · 1860
프린스턴 조직신학 관점 신약 정밀 주석 (롬·고전후·엡)
- Tiến độ dịch thuật
- 0 / 1,011
- Ngôn ngữ nguồn
- en
Matthew 17:27. But in order that we may not scandalize them (the collectors), that we may not give them occasion to misjudge us, as though we despised the temple. Bengel: “illos, qui non noverant jus Jesu.” Jesus thus includes others along with Himself, not because He regarded Peter as strictly entitled to claim exemption, nor because He was anticipating the time when His followers generally would cease to have such obligations in regard to the temple (Dorner, Jesu sündlose Volk. p. 37), but because Peter, who, in like manner, had his residence in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14), had not paid, as yet, any more than Himself.
πορευθείς] belongs to εἰς τὴν θάλασς. (to the sea), which latter Fritzsche connects with βάλε, which, however, would have the effect of rendering it unduly emphatic.
ἄγκιστρον] It is a fish-hook (Hom. Od. iv. 369; Herod, ii. 70, al.), and not a net, which Jesus asks him to throw in, because in this instance it was a question of one particular fish. Consequently this is the only occasion in the Gospels in which mention is made of a fishing with a hook.
τὸν ἀναβάντα] out of the depths.
πρῶτον] the adjective: the first fish that has come up.
ἆρον] lift it with the hook out on the land. Jesus is therefore aware that this one will be the first to snap at the hook.
εὑρήσεις στατῆρα] that is, in the mouth of the fish. The stater was a coin equivalent to four drachmae, for which reason it is likewise called a τετράδραχμος, and must not be confounded with the gold stater (20 drachmae).
ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ κ. σοῦ] not an incorrect expression for καὶ ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ (Fritzsche), but ἀντί is used with reference to the original enactment, Exodus 30:12 ff., where the half-shekel is represented as a ransom for the soul. Comp. Matthew 20:28. With condescending accommodation, Jesus includes Himself in this view.
REMARK.
The naturalistic interpretation of this incident, so far as its miraculous features are concerned,—which, in a teleological respect, and on account of the magical character of the occurrence, Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 228, also regarded with suspicion,—has, in conformity with earlier attempts of the kind, been advocated above all by Paulus and Ammon, and consists substantially in supposing that εὑρήσεις στατ. was accomplished by the selling of the fish. But whether ἀνοίξας τὸ στόμα αὐτοῡ͂ be referred to the act of taking the fish from the hook (Paulus, Komment.), or even to Peter as offering it for sale, in which case αὐτοῦ is said to signify on the spot, we always have, as the result, an incongruous representation and unwarrantable perversion of what, for the narrative of a miracle, is extremely simple and appropriate, to say nothing of so enormous a price for a single fish, and that especially in Capernaum, though Paulus, in spite of the πρῶτον, understands the ἰχθύν in a collective sense. The mythical mode of explaining away this incident (Strauss, II. p. 184, according to whom it is “a legendary offshoot of tales of the sea”)—the occasion of which is to be found partly in a take of fish by Peter, partly in the[462] the stories current about jewels (for example, the ring of Polycrates, Herod, iii. 42) having been found in the inside of fish—breaks down in consequence of its own arbitrariness, and the absence of any thought or Old Testament event in which the myth might be supposed to originate. Again, it would be to make it simply a curiosity (in answer to Strauss in Hilgenfeld'sZeilschr. 18G3, p. 293 ff.) to treat it as an invention for the purpose of exhibiting the superiority of Jesus over the circumstances to which He was accommodating Himself. But Hase's hypothesis, that what was a figurative way of expressing the blessing that attended the labor by means of which the little sum was handily raised, has been transformed, in the popular legend, into an apocryphal miracle, is inconsistent with the fact that the actual miraculous capture of the fish is not once mentioned, an omission which is scarcely in keeping with the usual character of apocryphal narratives. Lastly, the view is no less unfounded which derives the narrative from a parable, in which our Lord is supposed to be representing the contrast between the righteousness of faith that distinguishes the children of God, and the legal righteousness of those who are only slaves (Weisse,Evangelienfr. p. 263 ff.).
[462] Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, Volume 1, ed. Frederick Crombie, trans. Peter Christie, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1880), 449-50.
Besides, this would be to import into the passage the Pauline contrast of a similar kind. In short, the incident must continue to be regarded as in every way as historical as the evangelist meant it to be. As for the difficulties involved in so doing, such as that of the fish snatching the hook with the stater in its mouth (not in the stomach), or that implied in the circumstance that, of all places, Capernaum was tho one where Jesus had no need whatever to have recourse to miraculous means for raising the little sum required, they must likewise continue unsolved, belonging as they do to those mysteries that are connected with miracles generally ; and while not justifying us in discarding the narrative without other reasons for so doing, they will at least warrant us in letting it stand as it is (de Wette), no matter whether the miraculous character of the affair, so fur as Jesus is concerned, is supposed to lie in what He there and then performed ("piscis eo ipso momento staterem ex fundo maris afferre jussus est," "tho fish was ordered to bring a stater at that very moment from the bottom of the sea," Bengel), or in what he knew, which latter is all that the terms of tho passage permit us to suppose (Grotius). Finally, the fact that the execution of the order given by Jesus, Matthew 17:27, is nol expressly recorded, is no reason why the reality of the thing itself should be questioned ; for, considering the character of tho Gospel, as well as the attraction which the thing must have had for Peter, the execution in question is to be assumed as a matter of course. But even apart from this, the result promised by Jesus would he sure to follow in the event of His order being complied with. For this reason Ewald's view also is unsatisfactory, which is to the effect that Jesus merely wanted to indicate with what readiness the money for the tax could be procured, the phraseology which He employed being supposed to proceed upon well-known, although extremely rare, instances of such things being found in fish.
NOTE BY AMERICAN EDITOR
The distinction which Dr. Meyer draws between tho objective reality of the Transfiguration of Jesus and the purely visionary manifestation of Moses and Elias is hardly sustained by the text. For as to the words ucjQijaav avroic, the same form is used by Paul in speaking of the appearances of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:5-7), after His resurrection, which were certainly as objectively real as tho Transfiguration itself. Nor is the possibility of any bodily manifestation of Moses an insuperable difficulty. Olshausen solves this by assuming the bodily glorification of Moses as well as Elias. "In support of this idea," he writes, "Scripture itself gives sufficient intimations (Dent, 34:6 compared with Judges 1:9 ; 2 Kings 2:11 compared with Sirach xlviii. 9, 13), which men have accustomed themselves to set down as biblical mythology ; but whatright they had to do so is another question."1 Lange makes the better point, that "spirits of the blessed are not necessarily destitute of all corporeity."
Dr. Meyer disposes of the very serious objection to the assumed visionary character of the appearance of Moses and Elias—to wit, "that three persons must be supposed to have witnessed the same phenomena, and to have heard the same voice"—by saying that this is deprived of its force if " it is conceded that a supernatural agency was here at work with a view to enable the three leading disciples to have a glimpse beforehand of the glory" of their Master. But if a supernatural agency is here found, may we not suppose that it was equal to the task of bringing Moses and Elias before the eyes of the disciples in visible form? Where is the occasion for departing from the obvious meaning of the text, if the supernatural is fully admitted? In disposing of the natural and mythical interpretations of this event, however, Dr. Meyer is exceedingly clear.
For a full exposition of the history of the Transfiguration, from the supernatural point of view, the reader is referred to Trench, " Studies in the Gospels," pp. 184-214.
Chưa có bản dịch nào.
Chưa có bản dịch nào.
Matthew 17:27. ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλ., that we may not create misunderstanding as to our attitude by asking exemption or refusing to pay. Nösgen, with a singular lack of exegetical insight, thinks the scandal dreaded is an appearance of disagreement between Master and disciple! It is rather creating the impression that Jesus and His followers despise the temple, and disallow its claims. And the aim of Jesus was to fix Peter’s attention on the fact that He was anxious to avoid giving offence thereby, and in that view abstained from insisting on personal claims. Over against the spirit of ambition, which has begun to show itself among His disciples, He sets His own spirit of self-effacement and desire as far as possible to live peaceably with all men, even with those with whom He has no religious affinity.—πορευθεὶς ε. θ. Generally the instruction given is: go and fish for the money needful to pay the tax.—ἄγκιστρον, a hook, not a net, because very little would suffice; one or two fish at most.—πρῶτον ἰχθὺν: the very first fish that comes up will be enough, for a reason given in the following clause.—ἀνοίξας … στατῆρα: the words point to something marvellous, a fish with a stater, the sum wanted, in its mouth. Paulus sought to eliminate the marvellous by rendering εὑρήσεις not “find” but “obtain,” i.e., by sale. Beyschlag (Das Leben Jesu, p. 304) suggests that the use of an ambiguous word created the impression that Jesus directed Peter to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth. Ewald (Geschichte Christus, p. 467) thinks Jesus spoke very much as reported, but from the fact that it is not stated that a fish with a coin in its mouth was actually found, he infers that the words were not meant seriously as a practical direction, but were a spirited proverbial utterance, based on rare examples of money found in fishes. Weiss is of opinion that a simple direction to go and fish for the means of payment was in the course of oral tradition changed into a form of language implying a miraculous element. This view assumes that the report in Mt. was derived from oral tradition (vide Weiss, Das Leben Jesu, ii. 47, and my Miraculous Element in the Gospels, pp. 231–5). In any case the miracle, not being reported as having happened, cannot have been the important point for the evangelist. What he is chiefly concerned about is to report the behaviour of Jesus on the occasion, and the words He spoke revealing its motive.—ἀντὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ: various questions occur to one here. Did the collectors expect Jesus only to pay (for Himself and His whole company), or did their question mean, does He also, even He, pay? And why pay only for Peter along with Himself? Were all the disciples not liable: Andrew, James and John there, in Capernaum, not less than Peter? Was the tax strictly collected, or for lack of power to enforce it had it become practically a voluntary contribution, paid by many, neglected by not a few? In that case it would be a surprise to many that Jesus, while so uncompromising on other matters, was so accommodating in regard to money questions. He would not conform to custom in fasting, Sabbath keeping, washing, etc., but He would pay the temple tax, though refusal would have had no more serious result than slightly to increase already existing ill-will. This view sets the generosity and nobility of Christ’s spirit in a clearer light.