Bible Commentaries

Matthew 1:11 — rests on hardly any foundation, and would make fifteen generations in the second tesseradecade. The solution of the difficulty by supposing the name to apply to both Eliakim and his son, and to mean the former in Mat 1:11 and the latter in Matthew 1:12 , is unsupported by example, and contrary to the usage of the genealogy. When we notice that the ἀδελφοί of Jechonias are his uncles , and find this way of speaking sanctioned by 2 Chronicles 36:10 , where Zedekiah, one of these, is called his brother,

Matthew 12:39 — different view? And yet on ground like this it is (De Wette, vol. i. p. 147) that rationalistic systems are built. τί οὖν ; οὐκ ἐποίησεν ἔκτοτε σημεῖον ; ἐποίησεν , ἀλλ ʼ οὐ δι ʼ αὐτούς , πεπωρωμένοι γὰρ ἦσαν , ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων ὠφέλειαν . Euthym [125] in loc. Notice ἐπιζητεῖ ; not merely quærit, but requirit; misses, and demands as a sine quâ non. See Palm and Rost’s Lex. sub voce. [125] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 The sign of Jonas is the most remarkable foreshadowing in the O.T. of

Matthew 23:8-10 — prohibition is against loving, and in any religious matter, using such titles, signifying dominion over the faith of others. It must be understood in the spirit and not in the letter. Paul calls Timotheus his ‘ son ’ in the faith, 1 Timothy 1:2 , and exhorts the Corinthians ( 1Co 11:1 ) to be followers of him as he of Christ. To understand and follow such commands in the slavery of the letter, is to fall into the very Pharisaism against which our Lord is uttering the caution. See (e.g.) Barnes’s

Mark 2:26 — 26. ἐπὶ Ἀβ . ἀρχ .] during the high-priesthood of Abiathar. But in 1 Samuel 21:0 , from which this account is taken, Ahimelech, not Abiathar , is the high-priest. There is however considerable confusion in the names about this part of the history:

John 8:4 — 4. ] The λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτόν savours much more of the synoptic Gospels than of John: see Matthew 16:1 ; Matthew 19:3 ; Matthew 22:18 ; Matthew 22:35 ; Mark 8:11 ; Mark 10:2 ; Mark 12:15 , &c. Obviously our ch. Joh 6:6 is no example to the contrary. (So Luthardt.) The difficulty is even greater than the last, to say, in what sense this was a temptation, to lead to His accusation

Romans 3:20 — 20. ] The solemn and important conclusion of all the foregoing argument . But not only the conclusion from it : it is also the great truth, which when arrived at, is seen to have necessitated the subordinate conclusion of Romans 3:19 , the stopping

Romans 4:13 — sentences answers to καί in affirm., see Mat 5:17 ) to his seed, viz. that he should be heir of the world, but by the righteousness of faith . This specification of the promise has perplexed most of the Commentators. The actual promise, Gen. ( Gen 12:2-3 ) Genesis 13:14 ; Genesis 15:18 ; Genesis 17:8 , was the possession of the land of Canaan . But the Rabbis already had seen, and Paul, who had been brought up in their learning, held fast the truth, that much more was intended in the words which

Romans 9:17 — τούτου ) did I raise thee up (LXX διετηρήθης , ‘ thou wert preserved to this day :’ Heb. הֶֽעֱמַדְתִּיךָ from עָמַד , stetit , in Hiph. stare fecit ; hence taken to signify (1) ‘ constituit, muneri præfecit ,’ as 1 Kings 12:32 ; Isaiah 21:6 (LXX σεαυτῷ στῆσον σκόπον ); Esther 4:5 , (2) ‘ confirmavit ,’ as 1Ki 15:4 al., and (3) ‘ prodire fecit, excitavit ,’ Daniel 11:11 ; Nehemiah 6:7 ; the meaning ‘ incolumem prœstitit ,’ given in

Romans 9:25-26 — 25, 26 .] It is difficult to ascertain in what sense the Apostle cites these two passages from Hosea as applicable to the Gentiles being called to be the people of God. That he does so , is manifest from the words themselves, and from the transition

1 Corinthians 1:12 — 12. ] λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι , not, ‘ I say this because ,’ but (see reff.) I mean this, that … ἕκαστ . ὑμ . λέγ .] The meaning is clear, but the form of expression not strictly accurate, the ἕκαστος being a different person in each

1 Corinthians 14:2 — 2. ] For he that speaks in a tongue, speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him (so ἀκούω in reff. and Athen [62] ix. p. 382, ἔλεγεν ῥήματα ἃ οὐδὲ εἷς ἤκουσεν ἄν , i.e. as a general rule , the assembly do not understand him; some, who

1 Corinthians 16:6 — 6. παραμενῶ ] This, of which he speaks uncertainly, was accomplished; he spent ( Act 20:3 ) three months, and those (ib. Act 20:6 ) the three winter months, in Greece (at Corinth). ὑμεῖς , Meyer justly remarks, is emphatic, and conveys an affectionate preference, in his present plan, for them. οὗ , with a verb of motion. The account

2 Corinthians 10:3 — shews that this verse is not the refutation of the charge κατὰ σάρκα περιπατεῖν , but a reason rendered for the δέομαι above; and ἐν σαρκί and κατὰ σάρκα allude only to the charge just mentioned. This indeed is shewn by the use, and enlargement in 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 , of στρατευόμεθα , instead of περιπατοῦμεν : they who accuse us of walking after the flesh, shall find that we do not war after the flesh: therefore compel us not to use our weapons. ἐν σαρ . γ . περιπ .] Although we walk

2 Corinthians 11:16 — 16. ] πάλιν referring to 2 Corinthians 11:1 , not repeating what he had there said, but again taking up the subject , and expanding that request. The ἀνέχομαι of 2Co 11:1 in fact implies both requests of this verse: the not regarding him as a fool for boasting, or even if

2 Corinthians 11:3 — 3. ] But he fears their being seduced from their fidelity to Christ . ὁ ὄφις ] He takes for granted that the Corinthians recognized the agency of Satan in the (well-known) serpent: see 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 , where his μετασχηματισμός for the sake of deceit is alluded to. ἐν τῇ παν . αὐτοῦ ] in (i.e. by means of , as the element in which the deed was done) his versatility (or subtlety), so ( οὕτω has been a gloss from the

Galatians 2:8 — no force to pass on: cf. ref. Prov. ἐνήργ . applies to the ἀπακολουθοῦντα σημεῖα with which the Lord accompanied His word spoken by them, and to the power with which they spoke that word. The agent in ἐνεργ . is GOD, the Father: see 1 Corinthians 12:6 ; Philippians 2:13 ; Romans 15:15-16 . εἰς ἀποστ . ] towards , with a view to, the Apostleship , reff. εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ] The fuller construction would be, εἰς ἀποστολὴν τ . ἐθνῶν : so τάων οὔτις ὁμοῖα νοήματα Πηνελοπείῃ | ᾔδη , Od. β . 120: and

Ephesians 3:1-13 — ἐπισπάσασθαι . διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐγὼ δέδεμαι , φησίν . This supplying of εἰμί after ὁ δέσμιος , and making the latter the predicate, is the rendering of Syr., and adopted by very many. It has against it, 1) that thus τούτου χάριν and ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν become tautological: 2) that thus Eph 3:2 and the following are unconnected with the preceding, serving for no explanation of it (‘legationis, non vinculorum rationem explicat,’ Castalio in Harl.): 3) that the article ὁ with the predicate δέσμιος gives it undue

Philippians 1:30 — 30 .] having (the nominative instead of the dative, the subjective ὑμεῖς being before the Apostle’s mind: so Ephesians 4:2 , Thuc. iii. 36, ἔδοξεν αὐτοῖς … ἐπικαλοῦντες : ib. vi. 24, καὶ ἔρως ἐνέπεσε πᾶσιν … εὐέλπιδες ὄντες : Sallust, Jug. 112, ‘ populo Romano melius visum … rati :’ see other examples in Kühner, ii. p. 377. This is far better than with Lachm.,

Colossians 1:2 — 2 .] On COLOSSÆ, or COLASSÆ, see Prolegg. § ii. 1. ἁγίοις should be taken (Mey.) as a substantive, not (De W.) with ἀδελφοῖς , in which case πιστοῖς , being already (as Mey.) presupposed in ἁγίοις , would be tame and superfluous: and καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς

Colossians 4:9 — 9 . σὺν Ὀνησ . ] There can hardly be a doubt (compare Col 4:17 with Philemon 1:2 ; Philemon 1:10 ff.) that this is the Onesimus of the Epistle to Philemon. When Calv. wrote “vix est credibile hunc esse servum illum Philemonis, quia furis et fugitivi nomen dedecori subjectum fuisset,” he forgot that this very term, ἀδελφὸς