Bible Commentaries

Matthew 2:16 — enquiries, but given the savage order at once. Besides, there might have been a reason for not making enquiry, but rather taking the course he did, which was sure, as he thought, to answer the end, without divulging the purpose. The word λάθρα in Mat 2:7 seems to favour this view. Macrobius (Saturnalia, ii. 4) relates an anecdote of Augustus: ‘Cum audisset inter pueros quos in Syria Herodes rex Judæorum intra bimatum jussit interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum, ait, Melius est Herodis porcum

Matthew 5:23 — 23 f. οὖν ] an inference from the guilt and danger of all bitterness and hostility of mind towards another, declared in the preceding verse. Chrysostom remarks: καθάπερ σοφὸς ἰατρὸς οὐ μόνον τὰ προφυλακτικὰ τῶν νοσημάτων τίθησιν , ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ διορθωτικά

Matthew 6:2 — 2. μὴ σαλπίσῃς ] A proverbial expression, not implying any such custom of the hypocrites of that day, but the habit of self-laudation, and display of good works in general. οὐχ ὅτι σάλπιγγας εἶχον ἐκεῖνοι , ἀλλὰ τὴν πολλὴν αὐτῶν ἐπιδεῖξαι βούλεται μανίαν

Luke 9:49-50 — those who were thus sent, the ἀπόστολοι : and he relates what they had done, as a proof of his fully appreciating this exclusive dignity. The link to what has preceded, is in the words ἐπὶ τῷ ὀν . σου … see the rest in Mark. 51 CHAP. Luke 19:28 . ] INCIDENTS DURING THE LORD’S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. We now enter upon a long and most important portion of our Gospel, peculiar in this form , and most of it entirely peculiar, to Luke. At ch. Luk 18:15 he again joins the narrative

Acts 2:18 — 18. καί γε ] LXX- [20] [21] 3a b : καί , [22] [23] 1 . [20] The MS. referred to by this symbol is that commonly called the Alexandrine, or CODEX ALEXANDRINUS. It once belonged to Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Alexandria and then of Constantinople, who in the year 1628

Acts 2:25 — 25. ] εἰς αὐτόν , not ‘ of Him ,’ but in allusion to Him . The 16th Psalm was not by the Rabbis applied to the Messiah: but Peter here proves to them that, if it is to be true in its highest and proper meaning of any one, it must be of

Romans 1:4 — dropping the particles, and taking up separately the human and divine nature of Christ, keeping ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ as the great subject of both clauses, and thus making them, not contrasts to one another, but correlative parts of the same great whole. And (2) the Apostle, dwelling here on patent facts , the announcements of prophecy, the history of the Lord’s Humanity, does not deal with the essential subsistent Godhead of Christ , but with that manifestation of it which the great fact of the Resurrection

Hebrews 12:7 — correction to the rec.), Œc. ( ὑπομένετε , φησί , τὴν παιδείαν ). Of modern critical editors, Matthæi regards εἰς as the right reading, Griesbach puts it in his inner margin, Lachmann of course adopts it, and Tregelles: also Tischendorf edd. 7, 8, but in his 2nd edn. he retained the rec.: as do Bleek, Tholuck, and Lünem.: and among ourselves, Dr. Bloomfield, who tries to explain the ( angebliche ) correction into εἰς by saying that εἰ “ seldom begins a sentence .” In the N. T., where εἰ stands

Hebrews 2:10 — mentioned above, who refer the former clause to Christ, and by Erasm. (paraphr.), Estius, Justiniani, Schöttg., Bengel, Pyle, and several others; recently also by Ebrard. It is argued that as τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ ʼ ἀγγέλους ἠγαττωμένον , above, Hebrews 2:9 , was in apposition with Ἰησοῦν following, so is πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς σωτηρίαν ἀγαγόντα with τὸν ἀρχηγὸν κ . τ . λ . here. At first sight, it forms an objection to this view, that the art. is expressed with ἠλαττωμένον , and not with ἀγαγόντα . And this

Hebrews 3:16 — reason. ‘You need indeed to be careful against unbelief: for on account of this very unbelief all our fathers were excluded’) WHO, when they had heard (in immediate reference to ἐὰν ἀκούσητε above), provoked (scil. God: see reff. and Eze 20:13 A)? nay, was it not (this ἀλλά , in a question which itself answers a question, is elliptical, and may be explained in two ways: 1. ‘ was it not, not a few but’.… : 2. by regarding the ἀλλά as expressing a negation of the uncertainty

James 5:7 — tollatur.” Schneckenb.) the coming of the Lord (i. e. here, beyond all reasonable question, of Christ. ὁ κύριος , it is true, usually in this Epistle is to be taken in the O. T. sense, as denoting the Father: but we have in ch. Jam 1:1 and Jam 2:1 examples of St. James using it of our Saviour, and it is therefore better to keep so well known a phrase to its ordinary meaning, than with Theile and De W. (but only wahrscheinlich ) to understand it, “Dei, qui Messia adventante invisibili

1 Peter 2:6 — Antt. xi. 4. 7, καθὼς ἐν αὐτῇ ( τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ) περιέχει . Hence περιοχή , the contents or argument of a book or portion of a book, in later Greek) in Scripture ( γραφῇ , in its technical sense, anarthrous: not so found in the Gospels, but Romans 1:2 ; Romans 16:26 ; 2Pe 1:20 ), Behold, I place in Zion a chief corner-stone, chosen, had in honour (the citation is a free one: τίθημι ἐν Σιών representing ἐμβάλλω εἰς τὰ θεμέλια Σιών , the epithet πολυτελῆ being omitted, and ἐκλεκτόν and ἀκρογωνιαῖον

1 Peter 3:20 — 20 .] which were once disobedient (this clause is a secondary and dependent one, descriptive of the spirits intended: that they were those of men who were formerly disobedient) when ( ὅτε marks distinctively the time intended by the ποτέ ) the longsuffering

2 Peter 2:20 — 20 .] For if, having escaped (it might seem at first sight as if the ἀποφεύγοντας of 2Pe 2:18 were meant: but on close inspection it is plain that this is not so, but that we are continuing the description of the δοῦλοι τῆς φθορᾶς , viz. the deceivers

1 John 5:2 — 2 .] And indeed so inseparable are the two, that as before, ch. 1 John 4:20 , our love to our brethren was made a sign and necessary condition of our love to God, so conversely, our love to God, ascertained by our keeping His commandments, is itself the

Jude 1:16 — connected with the preceding: “quia sibi in pravis cupiditatibus indulgent, simul difficiles sunt ac morosi, ut illis nunquam satisfiat: hinc fit ut semper obmurmurent ac querantur.” Calv.), and their mouth speaking great swelling things (see 2Pe 2:18 note), admiring (the nom. part. belongs not to εἰσίν above, but to αὐτῶν immediately preceding, being joined to it by a loose construction: see reff.) ( men’s ) persons (see reff.: holding mere outward appearances, dignities, of men

Revelation 11:15-19 — thanksgiving, the voice from the temple and the throne, saying, “It is done.” c) At each seventh member likewise we have it related in the form of a solemn conclusion, 1) ἐγένοντο βρονταὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ ἀστραπαὶ καὶ σεισμός , ch. Revelation 8:5 , 2) ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταὶ καὶ σεισμὸς καὶ χάλαζα μεγάλη , ch. Revelation 11:19 , 3) ἐγένοντο ἀστραπαὶ καὶ φωναὶ καὶ βρονταὶ , καὶ σεισμὸς ἐγένετο μέγας κ . τ . λ ., ch. Revelation 16:18 ff. d) At each seventh member we have plain indication

Revelation 14:6-13 — signification “with reference to,” “ towards .” Ch. Revelation 10:11 , which is referred to by Düsterd., is not to the point) those that sit (reff.) upon the earth, and to every nation and tribe and tongue and people (cf. Matthew 24:14 , κηρυχθήσεται τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ , εἰς μαρτυρίαν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν · καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος ), saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give Him glory (the message of repentance ever accompanies the hearing of

Revelation 17:7-18 — each of their details comes under my notice. If, as universally acknowledged, our prophecy be a taking up and continuation of that of Daniel, then we are dealing with larger matters and on a wider scale than such a limited interpretation would imply. 2) Nor again, after the meaning assigned above to the harlot and her title, will it be expected that I should agree with those who take her as, according to the letter of our Revelation 17:18 , strictly confined in meaning to the material city of Rome.

Revelation 2:10 — mentioned below. ἅ indicates manifold tribulation, as there): behold [ for certain ( δή gives the tone of present certainty and actuality: see reff. It is in fact originally no more than a shortened form of ἤδη : see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 245 ff.) ], the devil (Hengstb. after Züllig, would lay stress here on the import of the name of the great adversary, as connected with the βλασφημία above. But this again would be forced and unnatural, especially after the recent mention of σατανᾶ .