Bible Commentaries

Matthew 27:51 — 51. ] The ἰδού gives solemnity. This was the inner veil , screening off the holy of holies from the holy place, Exodus 26:33 ; Hebrews 9:2-3 . This circumstance has given rise to much incredulous comment, and that even from men like Schleiermacher. A right and deep view of the O.T. symbolism is required to furnish the key to it; and for this we look in vain among those

John 3:13 — recall that verse, especially as the further question is there asked, ‘Who hath gathered the wind in His fists?’ ( מִי אָסַף־רוּחַ בּחָפְנָיו ), and ‘What is His name, and what His Son’s name?’ See also Deuteronomy 30:12 , and the citation, Romans 10:6-8 . All attempts to explain away the plain sense of this verse are futile and ridiculous. The Son of Man, the Lord Jesus, the Word made Flesh, was in, came down from , heaven, and was in heaven (heaven about Him,

John 3:3 — 3. ] We are not to imagine that any thing is wanting to complete the sense or connexion. Our Lord replies, It is not learning , but life , that is wanted for the Messiah’s Kingdom; and life must begin by birth . Luther (Stier, iv. 17, edn. 2) says: “My teaching is not of doing and leaving undone , but of a change in the man ( nicht von Thun und Lassen, fondern von Werden ); so that it is, not new works done, but a new man to do them; not another life only, but another birth

Acts 10:36 — understand τὸ γεν . ῥῆμ . κ . τ . λ . as in apposition with it. “ The word which , &c., ye know, viz. the γεν . ῥ .” But this immediate connexion of λόγ . and οἴδ . is hardly consistent with the interruption of the sense by οὗτος … κύριος . (2) Meyer, and Winer, edn. 6, § 62. 3 end, adopt virtually the same construction, but understand ὑμ . οἴδ . to be a taking up of the sense which was broken by (in this case) the two parentheses εὐαγγ … χριστοῦ , and οὗτος … κύριος . This also is the rendering

Acts 12:1 — Aug. 6, A.D. 44). The visit of Barnabas and Saul must have taken place about the time of, or shortly after, Agrippa’s death. Ἡρώδης ὁ βασιλεύς ] HEROD AGRIPPA I., grandson of Herod the Great, son of Aristobulus and Berenice (Jos. Antt. xvii. 1.2; B. J. i. 28.1). Having gone to Rome, to accuse Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas), and fallen under the displeasure of Tiberius for paying open court to Caius Cæsar (Caligula), he was imprisoned and cruelly treated; but, on the accession of Caligula, released,

Acts 13:2 — 2. λειτουργούντων ] The general word for the priestly service among the Jews, to which now had succeeded that of προφῆται and διδάσκαλοι in the Christian church: ministering is therefore the only word adequate to render it, as E.V. after the Vulg.

Acts 24:2 — 2 .] ‘Inter præcepta rhetorica est, judicem laudando sibi benevolum reddere.’ (Grot.) Certainly Tertullus fulfils and overacts the precept, for his exordium is full of the basest flattery. Contrast with πολλῆς εἰρ . τυγχ ., Tac. Ann. xii.

Acts 3:26 — 26. ] πρῶτον , first ; implying the offer to the Gentiles (but as yet, in Peter’s mind, only by embracing Judaism ) afterwards: see ch. Acts 13:46 ; Romans 1:16 . It is strange how Olshausen can suppose that the Spirit in Peter overleapt the

Acts 8:27 — 27. εὐνοῦχος ] The very general use of eunuchs in the East for filling offices of confidence, and the fact that this man was minister to a female sovereign, makes it probable that he was literally an eunuch. If not so, the word would hardly have been

Acts 9:11 — sight of, nor to treat contemptuously a priori, a local belief. Ταρσέα ] The first place where he is so specified. TARSUS was the capital of the province of Cilicia, a large and populous city ( τῆς Κιλ . πόλιν μεγάλην κ . εὐδαίμονα , Xen. Anab. i. 2. 23) in a fruitful plain on the river Cydnus, which flowed through the midst of it (‘Cydnos, Tarsum liberam urbem procul a mari secans.’ Plin. Acts 9:27 . Strabo, xiv. 673. Q. Curt. iii. 5. 1), with a swift stream of remarkably cold water.

Romans 1:9 — in E. V. ᾧ λατρ . ] The serving God in his spirit was a guarantee that his profession was sincere, and that the oath just taken was no mere form, but a solemn and earnest appeal of his spirit. See also Philippians 3:3 (present text), and John 4:24 . “The LXX use λατρεύω generally (not so, but only in a few places, e.g. Numbers 16:9 , Ezekiel 20:32 ; it is mostly rendered by λειτουργεῖν ; λατρεύειν for the most part rendering עָבַד ) for the Heb. שֵׁרֵת , which mostly implies the service

Romans 5:20 — 20 .] How the law (of Moses) came in, in the divine economy . But (i.e. the two things spoken of Rom 5:19 did not simply and immediately happen) the law (of Moses: not law , in the abstract, nor ‘ the law of nature ,’ as Dr. Peile,

Romans 6:14 — cannot be taken as a command or exhortation, which use of the future would if not always, yet certainly here, require the second person, and would hardly suit a personification like ἁμαρτία . The second part of the verse refers back to ch. Romans 5:20-21 , where the law is stated to be the multiplier of transgression, and accords with 1 Corinthians 15:56 , ἡ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας , ὁ νόμος . The stress is on κυριεύσει : q. d. ‘Your efforts to live a life of freedom from the tyranny of sin

Romans 7:3 — the persons in his example, and the persons in his application. The comparison might be thus made in terms common to both: (1) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between man and wife: therefore the wife is at liberty to be married to another : (2) Death has dissolved the legal obligation between the law and us: therefore we are at liberty to be married to another . So far the comparison is strict. Further it will not hold: for in the example , the liberated person is the survivor , in the

Romans 9:30-33 — Flatt, Olsh., al., that ὅτι κ . τ . λ . is to be regarded as a question: for, as Rückert has observed, (1) Paul could not put interrogatively, as a supposition in answer to τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν , a sentiment not intimated in nor following from the foregoing; (2) there would be no answer to the question thus asked, but the διὰ τί , Romans 9:32 , would ask another question, proceeding on the assumption of that which had been before by implication negatived; and (3) the answer, ὅτι κ . τ . λ . Romans 9:32 , would

1 Corinthians 10:16 — 16. ] The analogy of the Lord’s Supper , which, in both its parts, is a participation in Christ. The stress throughout to 1 Corinthians 10:20 , is on κοινωνία , and κοινωνοί . τὸ ποτήριον is the accus., by attr. corresponding to τὸν ἄρτον . τὸ π . τῆς εὐλ .] i.e. ὃ εὐλογοῦντες κατασκευάζομεν (Œc [44] ), as explained immediately by ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν , over which we speak a blessing

1 Corinthians 15:32 — 32 .] The stress of the first clause is on κατὰ ἄνθρωπον , and its meaning, merely as man , i.e. ‘ according to this world’s views ,’ ‘as one who has no hope beyond the grave;’see ref. If thus only he fought, &c., where

2 Corinthians 13:4 — in εἰ καί , to the fact presupposed: ‘ even if ,’ not ‘ if even ,’ or ‘ although .’ Examples of καὶ εἰ are Plato, Sympos. 185, καὶ ἐὰν τοῦτο ποιήσῃς ἅπαξ ἢ δίς , καὶ εἰ πάνυ ἰσχυρά ἐστι , παύσεται . Eur. Androm. 266, καὶ γὰρ εἰ πέριξ σ ʼ ἔχει τηκτὸς μόλυβδος , ἐξαναστήσω σ ʼ ἐγώ . Sappho, καὶ γὰρ αἰ φεύγει , ταχέως διώξει . See more in Hartung, l. c. For he was even crucified (that καὶ γάρ always means ‘ for … even ’ …, or ‘ for … also

2 Corinthians 6:9 — the digest. The principal correctors as distinguished by Tischendorf are: A, of the same age with the MS. itself, probably the corrector who revised the book, before it left the hands of the scribe, denoted therefore by us א -corr 1 ; B (cited as א 2 ), who in the first page of Matt. began inserting breathings, accents, &c., but did not carry out his design, and touched only a few later passages; C a (cited as א 3a ) has corrected very largely throughout the book. Wherever in our digest a reading

Galatians 5:12 — 12 .] The καί introduces a climax I would (reff.) that they who are unsettling you would even … As to ἀποκόψονται , (1) it cannot be passive, as E. V., ‘ were even cut off .’ (2) It can hardly mean ‘ would cut themselves off from