Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary
Matthew Henry · 1714
Matthew Henry 사후(1714) 공개 도메인. 디지털판 CC0-1.0.
- 翻譯進度
- 4,537 / 4,537
- 原文語言
- en
目前註釋書
全部註釋書
23 本註釋書
全部項目
307,288
翻譯 81,431 筆
授權
依來源顯示
依來源區分顯示註釋書原文、作者、翻譯進度、授權資訊。scripture.how 的中文翻譯·編輯物會與原文資料分開管理。
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)
Jesus and his disciples go through the cornfields on the Sabbath, and the latter pluck and eat some of the ears, at which the Pharisees take offense, Matthew 12:1, Matthew 12:2. Our Lord vindicates them, Matthew 12:3-8. The man with the withered hand cured, Matthew 12:9-13. The Pharisees seek his destruction, Matthew 12:14. He heals the multitudes, and fulfils certain prophecies, Matthew 12:15-21. Heals the blind and dumb demoniac, Matthew 12:22, Matthew 12:23. The malice of the Pharisees reproved by our Lord, Matthew 12:24-30. The sin against the Holy Ghost, Matthew 12:31, Matthew 12:32. Good and bad trees known by their fruits-evil and good men by their conduct, Matthew 12:33-37. Jonah, a sign of Christ's death and resurrection, Matthew 12:38-40. The men of Nineveh and the queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment against the Jews, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42. Of the unclean spirit, Matthew 12:43-45. Christ's mother and brethren seek him, Matthew 12:46-50.
CHAPTER 12.
CONFLICTS WITH THE PHARISEES.
This chapter delineates the growing alienation between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes. The note of time (ἐν ἐκείνῷ τῷ καιρῷ, Matthew 12:1) points back to the situation in which the prayer Matthew 11:25-30 was uttered (vide Matthew 12:25, where the same expression is used). All the incidents recorded reveal the captious mood of Israel’s “saints and sages”. They have now formed a thoroughly bad opinion of Jesus and His company. They regard Him as immoral in life (Matthew 11:19); irreligious, capable even of blasphemy (assuming the divine prerogative of forgiving sin, Matthew 9:3); an ally of Satan even in His beneficence (Matthew 12:24). He can do nothing right. The smallest, most innocent action is an offence.
CHAPTER 12
Matthew 12:3. ἐπείνασε] Elz. and Fritzsche insert αὐτός, against decisive testimony. From Mark 2:25; Luke 6:3.
Matthew 12:4. ἔφαγεν] Tisch. 8 : ἔφαγον, only according to B א. Altered to suit what follows.
οὕς] Lach. Tisch.: ὅ, after B D 13, 124, Cant. 12 :Harl.* Correctly; the Received text is a correction in accordance with Mark and Luke.
Matthew 12:6.
μείζων] B D E G K M S U V Γ Π, Curss. and Fathers: μεῖζον. So Fritzsche, Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Authority and exegesis favour the neuter, by way of explaining which the masculine would readily suggest itself.
Matthew 12:8. Before τοῦ σαββάτου Elz. inserts καί, which has been deleted in accordance with decisive testimony. From Mark and Luke.
Matthew 12:10. ἦν τήν] is certainly wanting in B C א, while Vulg. and Codd. of the It. Copt. leave it doubtful whether they did not read simple ἦν. Ἦν τήν is deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly. The brevity of Matthew’s statement was supplemented from Mark 3:1, and hence ἐκεῖ came to be inserted between ἦν and τήν (by others at a different place).
Matthew 12:11. Lachm., following inadequate testimony, reads ἐγείρει instead of ἐγερεῖ. An error on the part of the transcriber.
Matthew 12:14. The following arrangement, ἐξελθόντες δὲ οἱ Φαρ. συμβ. ἔλ. κατ. αὐτοῦ (B C D A א, Curss. Syr. Copt. It. Vulg. Eus. Chrys. Fritzsche, Gersd. Lachm. Tisch.), is to be preferred to that of the Received text (οἱ δ. Φ. ς. ἔλ. κ. ἀ. ἐξ.), as being simpler and more in keeping with Matthew’s style.
Matthew 12:15. ὄχλοι] omitted in B א, Vulg. It. Eus., deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Homoeoteleuton.
Matthew 12:17. With Lachm. and Tisch. we ought to adopt ἵνα instead of ὅπως, in accordance with B C D א, 1, 33, Or. Eus.; ὅπως was introduced for sake of variety.
Matthew 12:18. εἰς ὅν] Lachm. and Tisch. 8 (see note of the latter): ὅν, after B א* and several Curss. On inadequate testimony, for εἰς would be readily dropped out, from a mechanical effort to conform the construction to ὃν ᾑρέτισα; ἐν ᾧ in D is a gloss.
Matthew 12:21. τῷ ὀνόματι] Elz. Fritzsche: ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ., against decisive testimony. ἐν is an interpolation, as is also ἐπί in Eus. and several Curss.
Matthew 12:22. τὸν τυφλὸν καὶ κωφόν] Lachm. and Tisch. have merely τὸν κωφόν (B D א, Copt. Syrcur Cant. Corb. 1, Germ. 1). But λαλεῖν coming first in what follows gave rise partly to the omission of τυφλόν, partly to the inverted arrangement: κωφὸν καὶ τυφλόν (L X Δ, Curss. Syr. Arm.).
Matthew 12:28. The order ἐν πνεύμ. θεοῦ ἐγώ, as against that of the Received text, ἐγὼ ἐν πνεύμ., is supported by decisive testimony (less adequately the arrangement of Lachm. and Tisch.: κριταὶ ἔσονται ὑμῶν, in Matthew 12:27).
Matthew 12:29. In accordance with B C* X, Curss., Lachm. and Tisch. have ἁρπάσαι instead of διαρπάσει. The reading of the Received text is adopted from Mark. In what follows Lachm. has ἁρπάσει instead of διαρπάσει; so also Tisch. 7; but according to testimony that is far too inadequate. Tisch. 8, following D G K Π א, Curss., reads διαρπάσῃ. But still the evidence in favour of διαρπάσει remains so strong, that there is but the more reason to look upon διαρπάσῃ as a supposed grammatical correction.
Matthew 12:31. Tisch. 8, following Lachm., has indeed also deleted the second τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (after B א, Curss. Verss. and a few Fathers); it is, however, to be preserved as a solemn yet superfluous repetition.
Matthew 12:35. Elz., against decisive testimony, inserts τῆς καρδίας after the first θησαυροῦ. A gloss. But with Tisch. 8, and on the strength of sufficient testimony, τά before ἀγαθά is to be maintained, in opposition to Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 7. The article came to be omitted from a desire to conform to the second clause.
Matthew 12:36. The reading λαλήσουσιν, adopted by Tisch. (B C א), is to be traced to the futures which follow.
Matthew 12:38. With Lachm. and Tisch. αὐτῷ should be inserted after ἀπεκρίθ., in accordance with B C D L M א, Curss. and most Verss. and Chrys. Perhaps it was omitted from being considered unnecessary.
καὶ Φαρις.] is deleted by Lachm. on too inadequate testimony.
Matthew 12:44. The arrangement: εἰς τ. οἶκ. μ. ἐπιστρ. (Lachm. Tisch.), as opposed to that of the Received text (ἐπιστρ. ἐ. τ. ὀ. μ.), finds testimony sufficiently strong in B D Z א. Comp. Luke.
ἐλθόν] D F G X Γ, Curss.: ἐλθών. So Fritzsche and Tisch. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is here and in Luke 11:25 a grammatical correction.
Matthew 12:46. δέ] omitted in B א, Curss. Vulg. It. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily may it have been omitted at the beginning of the new section (one reading even begins with αὐτοῦ)!
Matthew 12:48. εἰπόντι] Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch.: λέγοντι, after B D Z Π א, Curss. Correctly. The former has crept in mechanically, in conformity with Matthew 12:47.
Mt 12:1-8.
安息日 掐 麥穗。 ( =
Mr 2:23-28; Lu 6:1-5).
這事發生在一年中的哪個季節,可由事件本身確定。熟了的麥穗只在收割之前不久才可在田間見到。這裡所指的,似乎明顯是大麥收割,在我們的三月末、四月初。它與逾越節季相合,正如小麥收割與五旬節相合一樣。但在路加福音
(Lu 6:1)
我們有一個更確定的時間標記,只要我們能確定他所用以表達的那特殊詞的意義。"在安息日,就是首第二的日子(他說),發生了一件事",因為那是該詞的正確譯法,而不是我們譯本中的"第二個安息日之首"。在關於此詞可能意義的各種猜測中,SCALIGER 的最為人所贊成,在我們看來也最少難處,即:逾越節第二日之後的頭一個安息日;也就是從逾越節第二日(其本身是安息日)開始要算的七個安息日中的頭一個,直到下一個節期,即五旬節
(Le 23:15, 16; De 16:9, 10)。
在這種情形下,福音書作者所指的日子,便是逾越節與五旬節之間那七個安息日的頭一個。我們若對地把
Joh 5:1
所提的"節期"視為逾越節,因而成為我主公開事工中的第二次(見
Joh 5:1),
那麼這掐麥穗的事必緊接在
Joh 5:19-47
所記的場景與講論之後發生,那場景與講論無疑會促使我主趕緊北上,以避免他在耶路撒冷所惹動的法利賽人的忿怒。所以在這裡我們看見他在田間——大概正在往加利利去的路上。
1. 那時,耶穌在安息日,從麥地經過——"麥地"
(Mr 2:23; Lu 6:1)。
他的門徒餓了——不是像人在正餐之前那樣餓;而是明顯因為糧食短缺:因為耶穌是基於必要來為他們掐麥穗吃的事辯護。
就掐起麥穗來吃——"用手搓着"
(Lu 6:1)。
Matthew 12:1-8。這幾節所載的事也記在Mark 2:23-28和Luke 6:1-5。
那時——路加在Luk 6:1把時間說得更確切。他說那是「首安息日後的第二個安息日」。要明白這一點,應當先說明:「逾越節」是在「亞筆」月,即尼散月守的,相當於三月下旬與四月初。這節期自該月十四日起守七日,Exodus 12:1-28;Exodus 23:15。在逾越節週的「第二」日,律法規定要獻上「大麥」一捆,作為收割的初熟之物,Leviticus 23:10-11。從這日起算七個星期,直到「五旬節」,Leviticus 23:15-16;這節又稱為七七節,Deuteronomy 16:10,又稱為收割節,Exodus 23:16。因此,逾越節(即除酵節)的這第二日,乃是他們向五旬節起算的起點。隨後一週的安息日,按這計法便是頭一個之後的「第二個安息日」;基督經過田間,所述及的時候無疑正是此時。還應當提及,在猶太,大麥收割約於五月初開始,大麥與小麥的收割到二十日左右都已完成。大麥在四月初已充分抽穗。因此,這記載就一年節令而論並無不合理之處。這節期總是在耶路撒冷守。
從麥地經過——即經過「大麥」地或「小麥」地。我們聖經譯本中所用的「corn」一詞,並不像今天我們用這詞時那樣指「玉蜀黍」(maize)或「印第安玉米」(Indian corn)。印第安玉米直到美洲被發現才為人所知,譯者們大概對它一無所知。「corn」一詞當時所指,正如今日英國仍舊的用法,是小麥、黑麥、燕麥和大麥。這也解釋了他們為何「用手搓」麥穗,Luke 6:1,好使子粒與糠秕分開。
At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn - "The time is determined by Luke in these words, εν σαββατω δευτεροπρωτω, that is, on the Sabbath from the second-first.
"Provision was made by the Divine law that the sheaf of first-fruits should be offered on the second day of the pass-over week, Leviticus 23:10, Leviticus 23:11. On the morrow after the Sabbath, the priest shall shake (or wave) it. Not on the morrow after the ordinary Sabbath of the week, but the morrow after the first of the pass-over week, which was a Sabbatic day, Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7. Hence the seventy, επαυριον της πρωτης, the morrow of the first day; the Chaldee, the morrow after the holy day. The rabbins, Solomon and Menachen, have it, On the morrow after the first day of the pass-over feast; of which mention had been made in the verses foregoing.
"But now, from the second day of the pass-over solemnity, wherein the sheaf was offered, were numbered seven weeks to pentecost: for the day of the sheaf, and the day of pentecost did mutually respect each other; for on this second day of the pass-over, the offering of the sheaf was supplicatory, and by way of prayer, beseeching a blessing upon the new corn, and leave to eat it, and to pot in the sickle into the standing corn. Now, the offering of the first-fruit loaves on the day of pentecost, (Leviticus 23:15-17), did respect the giving of thanks for the finishing and housing of the barley-harvest. Therefore, in regard of this relation, these two solemnities were linked together, that both might respect the harvest; that, the harvest beginning; this, the harvest ended: this depended on that, and was numbered seven weeks after it. Therefore, the computation of the time coming between could not but carry with it the memory of that second day of the pass-over week; and hence pentecost is called the feast of weeks, Deuteronomy 16:10. The true calculation of the time between could not otherwise be retained, as to Sabbaths, but by numbering thus: this is σαββατον δευτεροπρωτον, the first Sabbath after the second day of the pass-over. This is δευτεροδευρερον, the second Sabbath after that second day. And so of the rest. In the Jerusalem Talmud, the word שבת פרוטוגמייא shebeth protogamiya, the Sabbath, πρωτογαμιας, of the first marriage, is a composition not very unlike." Lightfoot.
His disciples were an hungered - Were hungry. The former is a mode of expression totally obsolete. How near does the translation of this verse come to our ancient mother-tongue, the Anglo-Saxon! - The Healer went on rest-day over acres: truly his learning knights hungred, and they began to pluck the ear and eaten - We may well wonder at the extreme poverty of Christ and his disciples. He was himself present with them, and yet permitted them to lack bread! A man, therefore, is not forsaken of God because he is in want. It is more honorable to suffer the want of all temporal things in fellowship with Christ and his followers, than to have all things in abundance in connection with the world.
在本章我們看到:一、基督澄清了第四誡關乎安息日的律法,為它辯護,使它免受猶太教師所提出的某些迷信觀念的玷污;他表明在那日當作的是必要之事和憐憫之工,太 12:1-13。二、我們的主耶穌在行神蹟上所顯出的謹慎、謙卑和捨己,太 12:14-21。三、基督對文士和法利賽人褻瀆的詰難和毀謗的回答——他們把他趕鬼的事歸於他與鬼王結盟,太 12:22-37。四、基督對文士和法利賽人試探性要求的回應——他們要求他顯個從天上來的神蹟給他們看,太 12:38-45。五、基督對他的親屬和家人的判語,太 12:46-50。