Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 16:22
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
22. Be it far from thee, Lord ] Literally, (1) “ may God pity thee,” i. e. “ give thee a better fate,” or (2) “ pity thyself.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 22. Then Peter took him] – took him up – suddenly interrupted him, as it were calling him to order – see Wakefield. Some versions give the sense of calling him aside. The word signifies also to receive in a friendly manner – to embrace; but Mr. Wakefield’s translation agrees better with the scope of the place. A man like Peter, who is of an impetuous spirit, and decides without consideration upon every subject, must of necessity be often in the wrong.
Be it far from thee Lord] . Be merciful to thyself Lord: see the margin. Pity thyself So I think the original should be rendered. Peter knew that Christ had power sufficient to preserve himself from all the power and malice of the Jews; and wished him to exert that in his own behalf which he had often exorted in the behalf of others. Some critics of great note think the expression elliptical, and that the word , God, is necessarily understood, as if Peter had said, God be merciful to thee! but I think the marginal reading is the sense of the passage. The French, Italian, and Spanish, render it the same way. Blind and ignorant man is ever finding fault with the conduct of God. Human reason cannot comprehend the incarnation of the Almighty’s fellow, (Zec 13:7,) nor reconcile the belief of his divinity with his sufferings and death. How many Peters are there now in the world, who are in effect saying, This cannot be done unto thee – thou didst not give thy life for the sin of the world – it would be injustice to cause the innocent to suffer thus for the guilty. But what saith God? His soul shall be made an offering for sin-he shall taste death for every man-the iniquities of us all were laid upon him. Glorious truth! May the God who published it have eternal praises!
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Peter took our Lord aside, as we do our friend to whom we would speak something which we would not have all to hear,
and began to rebuke him; epitiman, to reprove him, as men often do their familiar friends, when they judge they have spoken something beneath them, or that might turn to their prejudice; saying,
Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. The words in the Greek want the verb, so leave us in doubt whether we should translate them, Be merciful to thyself, spare thyself, or, Let God, or God shall, be merciful unto thee. The last words expound them; this shall not be unto thee. God shall be merciful unto thee, and help thee, this shall not betide thee. These words were undoubtedly spoken by Peter out of a good intention, and with a singular affection to his Master; but,
1. They spake him as yet ignorant of the redemption of mankind by the death of Christ, of the doctrine of the cross, and of the will of the Father concerning Christ.
2. They spake great weakness in him, to contradict him whom he had but now acknowledged to be the Christ, the Son of God. Good intentions, and good affections, will not justify evil actions. Christ takes him up smartly.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
22. Then Peter took himaside,apart from the rest; presuming on the distinction just conferred onhim; showing how unexpected and distasteful to them allwas the announcement.
and began to rebukehimaffectionately, yet with a certain generous indignation, tochide Him.
saying, Be it far from thee:this shall not be unto theethat is, “If I can help it”:the same spirit that prompted him in the garden to draw the sword inHis behalf (Joh 18:10).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Peter took him,…. The Arabic version reads it, “called to him”: the Ethiopic, “answered him”; and the Syriac, “led him”; he took him aside, by himself; and as the Persic version, “privately said to him”, or he took him by the hand in a familiar way, to expostulate with him, and dissuade him from thinking and talking of any such things;
and began to rebuke him: reprove and chide him, forgetting himself and his distance; though he did it not out of passion and ill will, but out of tenderness and respect; looking upon what Christ had said, unworthy of him, and as what was scarce probable or possible should ever befall him, who was the Son of the living God, and overlooking his resurrection from the dead, and being ignorant at present of the end of Christ’s coming into the world, and redemption and salvation by his sufferings and death:
saying, far be it from thee, Lord, or “Lord, be propitious to thyself”, or “spare thyself”: the phrase answers to , often used by the Targumists u and stands in the Syriac version here. The Septuagint use it in a like sense, in Ge 43:23. Some think the word “God” is to be understood, and the words to be considered, either as a wish, “God be propitious to thee”: or “spare thee”, that no such thing may ever befall thee; or as an affirmation, “God is propitious to thee”, he is not angry and displeased with thee, as ever to suffer any such thing to be done to thee: but it may very well be rendered, by “God forbid”; or as we do, “far be it from thee”, as a note of aversion, and abhorrence of the thing spoken of:
this shall not be done unto thee: expressing his full assurance of it, and his resolution to do all that in him lay to hinder it: he could not see how such an innocent person could be so used by the chief men of the nation; and that the Messiah, from whom so much happiness was expected, could be treated in such a manner, and especially that the Son of the living God should be killed.
u Targum Hieros. in Gen. xlix. 22. & Targum Onkelos in 1 Sam. xx. 9.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Peter took him ( ). Middle voice, “taking to himself,” aside and apart, “as if by a right of his own. He acted with greater familiarity after the token of acknowledgment had been given. Jesus, however, reduces him to his level” (Bengel). “Peter here appears in a new character; a minute ago speaking under inspiration from heaven, now under inspiration from the opposite quarter” (Bruce). Syriac Sinaitic for Mr 8:32 has it “as though pitying him.” But this exclamation and remonstrance of Peter was soon interrupted by Jesus.
God have mercy on thee (. Supply or ).
This shall never be ( ). Strongest kind of negation, as if Peter would not let it happen. Peter had perfect assurance.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Took [] . Not, took him by the hand, but took him apart to speak with him privately. Meyer renders, correctly, after he had taken him to himself. “As if,” says Bengel, “by a right of his own. He acted with greater familiarity after the token of acknowledgment had been given. Jesus, however, reduces him to his level.”
Began. For Jesus did not suffer him to continue.
Be it far from thee [ ] . Rev., in margin, God have mercy on thee. In classical usage, of the gods as propitious, gracious toward men, in consideration of their prayers and sacrifices. The meaning here is, may God be gracious to thee.
Shall not be [ ] . The double negative is very forcible : “Shall in no case be.” Rev. renders it by never.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
Mat 16:22
. And Peter, taking him aside, began to rebuke him. It is a proof of the excessive zeal of Peter, that he reproves his Master; though it would appear that the respect he entertained for him was his reason for taking him aside, because he did not venture to reprove him in presence of others. Still, it was highly presumptuous in Peter to advise our Lord to spare himself, as if he had been deficient in prudence or self-command. But so completely are men hurried on and driven headlong by inconsiderate zeal, that they do not hesitate to pass judgment on God himself, according to their own fancy. Peter views it as absurd, that the Son of God, who was to be the Redeemer of the nation, should be crucified by the elders, and that he who was the Author of life should be condemned to die. He therefore endeavors to restrain Christ from exposing himself to death. The reasoning is plausible; but we ought without hesitation to yield greater deference to the opinion of Christ than to the zeal of Peter, whatever excuse he may plead.
And here we learn what estimation in the sight of God belongs to what are called good intentions. So deeply is pride rooted in the hearts of men, that they think wrong is done them, and complain, if God does not comply with every thing that they consider to be right. With what obstinacy do we see the Papists boasting of their devotions! But while they applaud themselves in this daring manner, God not only rejects what they believe to be worthy of the highest praise, but even pronounces a severe censure on its folly and wickedness. Certainly, if the feeling and judgment of the flesh be admitted, Peter’s intention was pious, or at least it looked well. And yet Christ could not have conveyed his censure in harsher or more disdainful language. Tell me, what is the meaning of that stern reply? How comes it that he who so mildly on all occasions guarded against breaking even a bruised reed, (Isa 42:3,) thunders so dismally against a chosen disciple? The reason is obvious, that in the person of one man he intended to restrain all from gratifying their own passions. Though the lusts of the flesh, as they resemble wild beasts, are difficult to be restrained, yet there is no beast more furious than the wisdom of the flesh. It is on this account that Christ reproves it so sharply, and bruises it, as it were, with an iron hammer, to teach us that it is only from the word of God that we ought to be wise.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(22) Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.It is obvious that the mind of the disciple dwelt on the former, not the latter part of the prediction. The death was plain and terrible to him, for he failed to grasp the idea of the resurrection. The remonstrance would perhaps have been natural at any time, but the contrast between this prediction and the tone of confidence and triumph in the previous promise doubtless intensified its vehemence. Personal love for his Lord, his own desire to share in the glory which that promise had implied, were united in his refusal to accept this as the issue towards which they were tending.
Be it far from thee, Lord.The words are a paraphrase rather than a translation of the original. Literally, the words are an abbreviated prayer, (God be) merciful to Thee, the name of God, as in our colloquial Mercy on us! being omitted. The phrase is of frequent occurrence in the Greek version of the Old Testament, as, e.g., in Exo. 32:12; Num. 14:19; Deu. 21:8. It is almost idle to attempt to trace a distinctly formulated thought in the sudden utterance of sorrow and alarm, but so far as the words go they seem of the nature of a protest against what seemed to the disciple a causeless despondency, a dark view of the future, at variance alike with his own expectations and what seemed to him the meaning of his Masters previous words. The words that followed were, however, more than a prayer, This shall not be unto Thee, as though his power to bind and to loose extended even to the region of his Masters work and the means by which it was to be accomplished.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
22. Peter took him Took him perhaps aside from the apostles for expostulation. Officiously affectionate, he will set our Lord right, and banish this dismal conception of death instead of royalty.
Be it far from thee, Lord Be corrected, dear Lord. We were just talking of a kingdom, and now thou talkest of a cross.
‘And Peter took him aside, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it far from you, Lord, this will never happen to you.” ’
At Jesus’ words about rejection by the Jewish leaders resulting in His death Peter felt a need to intervene. He was probably still glowing at Jesus’ previous commendation of him. Now he felt that Jesus was becoming too pessimistic, and that that could only put disciples off. And he might also have found the idea too much to bear. So he ‘took Him aside’ and began to rebuke Him, telling Him that that could never happen to Him, that He was distorting the position. How much of this was due to self-opinionation and how much to an excess of sensitivity we do not know, but it produced an instant reaction from Jesus. The words He was hearing from a beloved disciple were not helping Him. And Peter had to learn to seek the mind of Heaven before he spoke. Jesus’ words were not just a rebuke to Peter. They were intended to pull him up short and make him think of the consequences of what he was saying before he spoke.
The rebuke, and the public nature of it, were very necessary. Peter had been held up as an example of one to whom God revealed things. It was therefore necessary that he and the disciples recognise that there was someone else who could reveal things to him as well.
Peter interferes:
v. 22. Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee.
v. 23. But He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art an offense unto Me; for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Peter, the impulsive, probably filled with a feeling of satisfaction on account of the high praise which the Lord had bestowed upon him, laid his hand upon Jesus, or seized Him from behind, as though he would shelter Him by main force. At the same time, he began most emphatically to chide Christ: Far be it from Thee; may God avert it by all means! It was a well-meant, but altogether meddlesome interference with the business of Christ. He did not get very far, for Jesus, having turned around, gave him such a sharp rebuke as no other disciple ever got. A Satan, an adversary, He called him; He accused him of tempting Him to do wrong. Peter’s thoughts were not in a line with God’s will and work, but were solely the product of his own mind and heart. He was still concerned with his own problems only; he had not acquired the wider vision necessary in the kingdom of God; his thoughts were yet of the earth, earthly. “This is the meaning of Christ, in this serious matter, but directed against a dear apostle: Ah, Peter, thou didst answer correctly when I asked thee and all disciples, that I am Christ, the Son of the living God; but now, since thou hearest that I shall be crucified, thou understandest not the wonderful counsel of God, and art bothered with thy flesh and carnal thoughts, and speakest without the revelation of the Father only thy own ideas, that is, foolish and carnal things. Therefore get thee behind Me; far be it from Me that I should prefer thy carnal wisdom to the will of the Father: much rather would I lose thee and all than that I, upon thy objection, should not obey My Father. Here thou art altogether a fool and dost not understand what is carried out through the Son of the living God, whom thou hast confessed.”
Mat 16:22. Then Peter, &c. Then Peterbegan to expostulate with him, &c. Dr. Doddridge renders the original word , by taking him by the hand: Dr. Fuller supposes that phrase , should be rendered, may God have compassion upon thee: Heinsius, Grotius, and Le Clerc give the same interpretation; and the accurate Dr. Scott, who is followed by Dr. Heylin, renders it, Mercy on thee! which is most literal. The phrase,as used by the LXX, generally signifies God forbid! or, as we render it, be it far from thee. See 1Sa 14:45. 2Sa 20:20. 1Ki 21:3. 1Ch 11:19. Compare 1Ma 2:25 and see Doddridge, and Wetstein.
Mat 16:22 . .] after he had taken Him to himself , comp. Mat 17:1 , i.e. had taken Him aside to speak to Him privately. The very common interpretation: he took Him by the hand , imports what does not belong to the passage.
] for Jesus did not allow him to proceed further with his remonstrances, which had commenced with the words immediately following; see Mat 16:23 .
] sc . , a wish that God might graciously avert what he had just stated, a rendering of the Hebrew , 2Sa 20:20 ; 2Sa 23:17 ; 1Ch 11:19 , LXX. 1Ma 2:21 , and see Wetstein. Comp. our: God forbid!
purely future; expressive of full confidence. , , , Theophylact. Peter was startled; nothing, in fact, could have formed a more decided contrast to the Messianic conception on which his confession seemed to have been based, than the idea of a Messiah suffering and dying like a malefactor.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Ver. 22. Then Peter took him ] Took him by the hand, and led him apart, as we do those we are most intimate with, in great courtesy and secrecy, to impart to them things of greatest importance. Peter was strongly possessed with a fond conceit of an earthly kingdom; and as Joseph dreamed of his preferment, but not at all of his imprisomnent, so neither could Peter think or hear of Christ’s being killed, whom he had even now confessed to be the Christ, the Son of the living God. See here how easily we slide, by the deceitfulness of our hearts, from the mean to the extreme. Peter having made a notable profession of his faith, and being therefore much commended by Christ, presently takes occasion to fall from the true holiness of faith to the sauciness of presumption, in advising his Master to decline the cross.
And began to rebuke him, saying ] No, he did not rebuke him, saith Maldonatus the Jesuit, but friendly counselled him only, as if were not to chide and charge, as masters do their servants, even with threatenings and menaces. a But these patrons of Peter (as they pretend) will not abide that he should be blamed for anything. Baronius blusheth not to say (and so to put the lie upon the Holy Ghost himself) that Paul was wrong in reproving Peter,Gal 2:14Gal 2:14 , and that it had been better manners for him to have held his tongue. Others of them have blasphemously censured St Paul in their sermons as a hot-headed person, of whose assertions no great reckoning was to be made by the sober minded; and that he was not secure of his preaching, but by conference with St Peter, neither dared he publish his Epistles till St Peter had allowed them.
a Non tantum significat reprehendere et increpare, sed etiam interminari et interdicere. Gerh
22. ] The same Peter, who but just now had made so noble and spiritual a confession, and received so high a blessing, now shews the weak and carnal side of his character, becomes a stumbling-block in the way of his Lord, and earns the very rebuff with which the Tempter before him had been dismissed. Nor is there any thing improbable in this, as Schleiermacher would have us believe (Translation of the Essay on St. Luke, p. 153); the expression of spiritual faith may, and frequently does, precede the betraying of carnal weakness; and never is this more probable than when the mind has just been uplifted, as Peter’s was, by commendation and lofty promise.
. . ] by the dress or hand , or perhaps . Euthym [143]
[143] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
] Supply . with a dative is practically equivalent to the Hebrew , for which (see reff., especially 1Ch 11:19 compared with the Heb.) the LXX have sometimes used it.
] I cannot think with Winer ( 56. 3) that this means, ‘absit, ne accidat;’ it is an authoritative declaration, as it were, on Peter’s part, This shall not happen to Thee, implying that he knew better , and could ensure his Divine Master against such an event. It is this spirit of confident rejection of God’s revealed purpose which the Lord so sharply rebukes. On with the future, see note on ch. Mat 15:6 : and consult Winer, as above.
Mat 16:22 . Peter here appears in a new character; a minute ago speaking under inspiration from heaven, now under inspiration from the opposite quarter. , began to chide or admonish. He did not get far. As soon as his meaning became apparent he encountered prompt, abrupt, peremptory contradiction. : Elsner renders sis bono placidoque animo , but most (Erasmus, Grotius, Kypke, Fritzsche, etc.) take it = absit! God avert it! Vehement utterance of a man confounded and horrified. Perfectly honest and in one sense thoroughly creditable, but suggesting the question: Did Peter after all call Jesus Christ in the true sense? The answer must be: Yes, ethically . He understood what kind of man was fit to be a Christ. But he did not yet understand what kind of treatment such a man might expect from the world. A noble, benignant, really righteous man Messiah must be, said Peter; but why a man of sorrow he had yet to learn. , future of perfect assurance: it will not, cannot be.
took Him = took Him aside.
Be it far from Thee = “[God] be merciful to Thee”. A pure Hebraism. See 1Ch 11:19. not = by no means.
22.] The same Peter, who but just now had made so noble and spiritual a confession, and received so high a blessing, now shews the weak and carnal side of his character, becomes a stumbling-block in the way of his Lord, and earns the very rebuff with which the Tempter before him had been dismissed. Nor is there any thing improbable in this, as Schleiermacher would have us believe (Translation of the Essay on St. Luke, p. 153); the expression of spiritual faith may, and frequently does, precede the betraying of carnal weakness; and never is this more probable than when the mind has just been uplifted, as Peters was, by commendation and lofty promise.
. .] by the dress or hand, or perhaps . Euthym[143]
[143] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
] Supply . with a dative is practically equivalent to the Hebrew , for which (see reff., especially 1Ch 11:19 compared with the Heb.) the LXX have sometimes used it.
] I cannot think with Winer ( 56. 3) that this means, absit, ne accidat; it is an authoritative declaration, as it were, on Peters part, This shall not happen to Thee, implying that he knew better, and could ensure his Divine Master against such an event. It is this spirit of confident rejection of Gods revealed purpose which the Lord so sharply rebukes. On with the future, see note on ch. Mat 15:6 : and consult Winer, as above.
Mat 16:22. , taking hold of) as if he had a right to do so. He acted with greater familiarity after his declaration of acknowledgment. Jesus however reduces him to his proper level; cf. Luk 9:28; Luk 9:48-49; Luk 9:54-55.- , Peter) The same mentioned in Mat 16:16.[759] Reason endures more easily the general proposition concerning the person of Christ, than the word of the Cross. Sudden changes occur in Peter, in Mat 16:16; Mat 16:22, and ch. Mat 17:4. Thence he bears witness from experience to the truth, that we are preserved by the power of God (1Pe 1:5), not our own.-, he began) He had received the other doctrines without making any objection.- , propitious unto Thee) sc. May God be. An abbreviated formulary. Thus in 1Ma 2:21, we meet with , God forbid that we should forsake the law. And thus the LXX. sometimes express the Hebrew .[760]
[759] There being thus afforded a remarkable specimen of how easy it is for one to stumble [to be offended with the humbling truths as to Christ] the more grievously [in proportion as one had the more boldly avowed the truth before].-V. g.
[760] As in 2Sa 20:20.-(I. B.)
began: Mat 16:16, Mat 16:17, Mat 26:51-53, Mar 8:32, Joh 13:6-8
Be it far from thee: Gr. Pity thyself, 1Ki 22:13, Act 21:11-13
Reciprocal: Mat 19:13 – and the Mar 6:36 – General Mar 9:10 – what Luk 9:23 – If Luk 9:45 – General Luk 10:40 – dost Joh 13:8 – Thou shalt Joh 20:9 – they Act 10:14 – Not
6:22
The idea that Peter had in this impulsive speech was that something certainly would be done to prevent the thing Jesus had predicted. His own action recorded in Joh 18:10 indicated that he was willing to help prevent the tragedy.
Mat 16:22. Then Peter took him.Either laid hold on Him to interrupt Him, or took Him aside. The explanation, took by the hand, for friendly entreaty, is unwarranted.
And began to rebuke him. He did not proceed far in this chiding.
Be it far from thee, Lord, lit, propitious to thee, equivalent either to, God be favorable to thee, or spare thyself.
This shall never be to thee.An over-confident declaration, betraying pride as well as opposition to the purpose of God (must go, Mat 16:21) revealed by our Lord. Peter was bold as confessor and as opposer, was impulsive, perhaps vain and ambitious. Moreover Satan is most busy in seducing us when we have been most highly exalted and favored by Christ.
No doubt Peter spake all this out of a sincere intention, and with a singular affection towards our Saviour; but pious intentions and good affections will not justify unwarrantable actions.
From this counsel of St. Peter to Christ we learn,
1. How ready flesh and blood is to oppose all that tends to suffering; Master, spare thyself.
2. What need we have to be fortified against the temptations of friends as well as of enemies! for Satan can make good men his instruments to do his work, when they little think of it,. Peter little suspected that Satan set him on work to hinder the redemption of mankind, by dissuading Christ from dying. But observe in the next verse with what indignation Christ rejects Peter’s advice.
Mat 16:22. Then Peter took him . What the evangelist meant precisely by this expression, commentators are not agreed. Dr. Doddridge renders it, taking him by the hand; Mr. Wesley, taking hold of him: others again render it, embracing him; and others, interrupting him. Dr. Campbell renders it, taking him aside, a translation which, he observes, evidently suits the meaning of the verb in other places, and is necessary in Act 18:26, which cannot be interpreted otherwise. And began to rebuke [or reprove] him So the expression, , properly signifies. Some interpreters, indeed, to put the best face on Peters conduct on this occasion, render the words thus, Began to expostulate with him. But when the verb, , relates to any thing past, it always implies a declaration of censure or blame; and if it be thought that this would infer great presumption in Peter, it may be asked, Does not the rebuke which he drew on himself, Mat 16:23, from so mild a Master, evidently infer as much? When we consider the prejudices of the disciples in regard to the nature of the Messiahs kingdom, we cannot be much surprised that a declaration, such as that in Mat 16:21, totally subversive of all their hopes, should produce, in a warm temper, a great impropriety of behaviour, such as (admitting the ordinary interpretation of the word) Peter was then chargeable with. Be it far from thee, Lord Or, seems to be more accurately rendered in the margin, Pity thyself or be merciful to, or favour, thyself The advice of the world, the flesh, and the devil, says Mr. Wesley, to every one of our Lords followers. The common use of this phrase, however, in the LXX., would lead one to understand it as signifying, absit, God forbid. In this sense, also, it is used in the Apocrypha, thus, 1Ma 2:21, , God forbid that we should forsake the law. Peter, to whom the power of the keys, or place of high-steward, in the kingdom, as he would understand it, was promised, could not help being very much displeased to hear his Master talk of dying at Jerusalem, immediately after he had been saluted Messiah, and had accepted the title. Therefore he rebuked, or reproved him, as has been just observed.
16:22 Then Peter {q} took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
(q) Took him by the hand and led him aside, as they used to do, which meant to talk familiarly with one.
Peter obviously understood that Jesus was predicting His death. He began to rebuke Jesus privately for thinking such a thing, but Jesus cut him off (Mat 16:23). Apparently Peter’s understanding of Messiah did not include a Suffering Servant, which almost everyone in Israel rejected as well.
"Like many modern readers of the Bible, Peter did not want to accept what did not agree with his hopes and ambitions." [Note: Walvoord, Matthew: . . ., p. 125.]
Peter used a very strong negative expression meaning "Never, Lord!" The Greek expression is ou me, and it is comparatively rare in the New Testament. Peter followed up his great confession (Mat 16:16) with a great contradiction.
"Peter’s strong will and warm heart linked to his ignorance produce a shocking bit of arrogance. He confesses that Jesus is the Messiah and then speaks in a way implying that he knows more of God’s will than the Messiah himself." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 377.]
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)