Mar 8:32, Joh 7:4, 13, 26, Act 2:29, 4:13, 29, 2Cor 3:12, 7:4 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 32. He spake that saying openly ; With boldness or confidence, or without parables or figures; so that there could be no possibility, of misunderstanding him.

Mark 8:32

Verse 32. He spake that saying openly; With boldness or confidence, or without parables or figures; so that there could be no possibility, of misunderstanding him.

John 7:4

Verses 4,5. For there is no man, &c. The brethren of Jesus supposed that he was influenced as others are. As it is a common thing among men to seek popularity, so they supposed that he would also seek it; and as a great multitude would be assembled at Jerusalem at this feast, they supposed it would be a favourable time to make himself known. What follows shows that this was said, probably, not in sincerity, but in derision; and to the other sufferings of our Lord was to be added, what is so common to Christians, derision from his relatives and friends on account of his pretensions. If our Saviour was derided, we also may expect to be by our relatives; and, having his example, we should be content to bear it.

If thou do, &c. It appears from this that they did not really believe that he wrought miracles; or, if they did believe it, they did not suppose that he was the Christ. Yet it seems hardly credible that they could suppose that his miracles were real, and yet not admit that he was the Messiah. Besides, there is no evidence that these relatives had been present at any of his miracles, and all that they knew of them might have been from report. Mk 3:21. On the word brethren in Jn 7:5, Mt 13:55 Gal 1:19.

John 7:13

Verse 13. Spake openly of him. The word translated openly, here, is commonly rendered boldly. This refers, doubtless, to those who really believed on him. His enemies were not silent; but his friends had not confidence to speak of him openly or boldly--that is, to speak what they really thought. Many supposed that he was the Messiah, yet even this they did not dare to profess. All that they could say in his favour was that he was a good man. There are always many such friends of Jesus in the world who are desirous of saying something good about him, but who, from fear or shame, refuse to make a full acknowledgement of him. Many will praise his morals, his precepts, and his holy life, while they are ashamed to speak of his divinity or his atonement, and still more to acknowledge that they are dependent on him for salvation.

John 7:26

Verse 26. Do the rulers know indeed, &c. It seems from this that they supposed that the rulers had been convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, but that from some cause they were not willing yet to make it known to the people. The reasons of this opinion were these:

1st. They knew that they had attempted to kill him.

2nd. They now saw him speaking boldly to the people without interruption from the rulers. They concluded, therefore, that some change had taken place in the sentiments of the rulers in regard to him, though they had not yet made it public.

The rulers. The members of the Sanhedrim, or great council of the nation, who had charge of religious affairs.

Indeed. Truly; certainly. Have they certain evidence, as would appear from their suffering him to speak without interruption?

The very Christ. Is truly or really the Messiah.

(u) "Do the rulers" Jn 7:48

Acts 2:29

Verse 29. Men and brethren. This passage of the Psalms Peter now proves could not relate to David, but must have reference to the Messiah. He begins his argument in a respectful manner, addressing them as his brethren, though they had just charged him and the others with intoxication. Christians should use the usual respectful forms of salutation, whatever contempt and reproaches they may meet with from opposers.

Let me freely speak. That is, "It is lawful or proper to speak with boldness, or openly, respecting David." Though he was eminently a pious man; though venerated by us all as a king; yet it is proper to say of him, that he is dead, and has returned to corruption. This was a delicate way of expressing high respect for the monarch whom they all honoured; and yet evincing boldness in examining a passage of Scripture which probably many supposed to have reference solely to him.

Of the patriarch David. The word patriarch properly means the head or ruler of a family; and then the founder of a family, or an illustrious ancestor. It was commonly applied to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, etc., by way of eminence; the illustrious founders of the Jewish nation, Heb 7:4, Acts 7:8,9. It was also applied to the heads of the families, or the chief men of the tribes of Israel, 1Chr 24:31; 2Chr 19:8, etc. It was thus a title of honour, denoting high respect. Applied to David, it means that he was the illustrious head or founder of the royal family, and implies Peter's intention not to say anything disrespectful of such a king; at the same time, that he freely canvassed a passage of Scripture which had been supposed to refer to him.

Dead and buried. The record of that fact they had in the Old Testament. There had been no pretence that he had risen, and therefore the Psalm could not apply to him.

His sepulchre is with us. Is in the city of Jerusalem. Sepulchres were commonly situated without the walls of cities and the limits of villages. The custom of burying in towns was not commonly practised. This was true of other ancient nations as well as the Hebrews, and is still in eastern countries, except in the case of kings and very distinguished men, whose ashes are permitted to repose within the walls of a city. 1Sam 28:3, "Samuel was dead--and Israel buried him in Ramah, even in his own city." 2Kgs 21:18, "Manasseh was buried in the garden of his own house." 2Chr 16:14. Asa was buried in the city of David. 2Kgs 14:20. The sepulchres of the Hebrew kings were on Mount Zion, 2Chr 21:20, 24:25, 28:27, 32:33, 24:16, 2Kgs 14:20. David was buried in the city of David, (1Kgs 2:10,) with his fathers, that is, on mount Zion, where he built a city called after his name, 2Sam 5:7. Of what form the tombs of the kings were made is not certainly known. It is almost certain, however, that they would be constructed in a magnificent manner. The tombs were commonly excavations from rocks, or natural caves; and sepulchres cut out of the solid rock, of vast extent, are known to have existed. The following account of the tomb called "the sepulchre of the kings" is abridged from Maundrell: "The approach is through an entrance cut out of a solid rock, which admits you into an open court about forty paces square, cut down into the rock. On the south side is a portico nine paces long and four broad, hewn likewise out of the solid rock. At the end of the portico is the descent to the sepulchres. The descent is into a room about seven or eight yards square, cut out of the natural rock. From this room there are passages into six more, all of the same fabric with the first. In every one of these rooms, except the first, were coffins placed in niches in the sides of the chamber," etc. (Maundrell's Travels, p. 76.) If the tombs of the kings were of this form, it is clear that they were works of great labour and expense. Probably also there were, as there are now, costly and splendid monuments erected to the memory of the mighty dead.

Unto this day. That the sepulchre of David was well known and honoured, is clear from Josephus. Antiq., b. vii., c. xv., 3. "He (David) was buried by his son Solomon in Jerusalem with great magnificence, and with all the other funeral pomps with which kings used to be buried. Moreover, he had immense wealth buried with him: for a thousand and three hundred years afterwards, Hyrcanus, the high priest, when he was besieged by Antiochus, and was desirous of giving him money to raise the siege, opened one room of David's sepulchre, and took out three thousand talents. Herod, many years afterward, opened another room, and took away a great deal of money," etc. See also Antiq., b. xiii., c. viii., % 4. The tomb of a monarch like David would be well known and had in reverence. Peter might, then, confidently appeal to their own belief and knowledge, that David had not been raised from the dead. No Jew believed or supposed it. All, by their care of his sepulchre, and by the honour with which they regarded his grave, believed that he had returned to corruption. The Psalm, therefore, could not apply to him.

(1) "let me speak freely" or, "I may"

Acts 4:13

Verse 13. Boldness. This word properly denotes openness or confidence in speaking. It stands opposed to hesitancy, and to equivocation in declaring our sentiments. Here it means that, in spite of danger and opposition, they avowed their doctrines without any attempt to conceal or disguise them.

Peter and John. It was they only who had been concerned in the healing of the lame man, Acts 3:1.

And perceived. When they knew that they were unlearned. This might have been ascertained either by report or by the manner of their speaking.

Unlearned. This word properly denotes those who were not acquainted with letters, or who had not had the benefit of an education.

Ignorant men--ιδιωται--. This word properly denotes those who live in private, in contradistinction from those who are engaged in public life, or in office. As this class of persons is commonly also supposed to be less learned, talented, and refined than those in office, it comes to denote those who are rude and illiterate. The idea intended to be conveyed here is, that these men had not had opportunities of education, (comp. Mt 4:18-21,) and had not been accustomed to public speaking, and hence they were surprised at their boldness. This same character is uniformly attributed to the early preachers of Christianity. Comp. 1Cor 1:27, Mt 11:25. The Galileans were regarded by the Jews as particularly rude and uncultivated, Mt 26:73, Mk 14:70.

They marvelled. They wondered that men who had not been educated in the schools of the Rabbins, and accustomed to speak, should declare their sentiments with so much boldness.

And they took knowledge. This expression means simply that they knew, or that they obtained evidence, or proof, that they had been with Jesus. It is not said in what way they obtained this evidence; but the connexion leads us to suppose it was by the miracle which they had wrought; by their firm and bold declaration of the doctrines of Jesus; and perhaps by the irresistible conviction that none would be thus bold who had not been personally with him, and who had not the firmest conviction that he was the Messiah. They had not been trained in their schools, and their boldness could not be attributed to the arts of rhetoric, but was the native, ingenuous, and manly exhibition of deep conviction of the truth of what they spoke; and that conviction could have been obtained only by their having been with him, and having been satisfied that he was the Messiah. Such conviction is of far more value in preaching than all the mere teachings of the schools; and without such a conviction, all preaching will be frigid, hypocritical, and useless.

Had been with Jesus. Had been his followers, and had attended personally on his ministry. They gave evidence that they had seen him, been with him, heard him, and were convinced that he was the Messiah. We may learn here,

(1.) that if men wish to be successful in preaching, it must be based on deep and thorough conviction of the truth of that which they deliver.

(2.) They who preach should give evidence that they are acquainted with the Lord Jesus Christ; that they have imbibed his Spirit, pondered his instructions, studied the evidences of his Divine mission, and are thoroughly convinced that he was from God.

(3.) Boldness and success in the ministry, as well as in everything else, will depend far more on honest, genuine, thorough conviction of the truth, than on all the endowments of talent and learning, and all the arts and skill of eloquence. No man should attempt to preach without such a thorough conviction of truth; and no man who has it will preach in vain.

(4.) God often employs the ignorant and unlearned to confound the wise, 1Cor 1:27,28. But it is not by their ignorance. It was not the ignorance of Peter and John that convinced the sanhedrim. It was done in spite of their ignorance. It was their boldness, and their honest conviction of truth. Besides, though not learned in the schools of the Jews, they had been under a far more important training, under the personal direction of Christ himself for three years; and now they were directly endowed by the Holy Ghost with the power of speaking with tongues. Though not taught in the schools, yet there was an important sense in which they were not unlearned and ignorant men. Their example should not, therefore, be pleaded in favour of an unlearned ministry. Christ himself expressed his opposition to an unlearned ministry, by teaching them himself, and then by bestowing on them miraculous endowments which no learning at present can furnish. It may be remarked, further, that in the single selection which he made of an apostle after his ascension to heaven, when he came to choose one who had not been under his personal teaching, he chose a learned man, the apostle Paul, and thus evinced his purpose that there should be training or education, in those who are invested with the sacred office.

(5.) Yet in the case before us there is a striking proof of the truth and power of religion. These men had not acquired their boldness in the schools; they were not trained for argument among the Jews; they did not meet them by cunning sophistry; but they came with the honest conviction that what they were saying was true. Were they deceived? Were they not competent to bear witness? Had they any motive to attempt to palm a falsehood on men? Infidelity must answer many such questions as these before the apostles can be convicted of imposture.

(a) "unlearned" Mt 11:25, 1co 1:27 (*) "ignorant" or, "obscure"

Acts 4:29

Verse 29. Behold their threatenings. So look upon them as to grant us deliverance. They did not purpose to abandon their undertaking; they resolved to persevere; and they expected that this purpose would involve them in danger. With this purpose they implored the protection of God; they asked that he would not suffer them to be deterred from speaking boldly; and they sought that constant additional proof might be granted of the presence and power of God to confirm the truth of their message.

And grant, etc. This is an instance of heroic boldness, and a determination to persevere in doing their duty to God. When we are assailed by those ill power, when we are persecuted and in danger, we should commit our way unto God, and seek his aid, that we may not be deterred from the path of duty.

(a) "boldness" Acts 4:13,21, 14:3, 28:31, Eph 6:19

2 Corinthians 3:12

Verse 12. Seeing then that we have such hope. Hope properly is a compound emotion, made up of a desire for an object, and an expectation of obtaining it. If there is no desire for it, or if the object is not pleasant and agreeable, there is no hope, though there may be expectation -as in the expectation of the pestilence, of famine, or sickness, or death. If there is no expectation of it, but a strong desire, there is no hope, as in eases where there is a strong desire of wealth, or fame, or pleasure; or where a man is condemned for murder, and has a strong desire, but no prospect of pardon; or where a man is shipwrecked, and has a strong desire, but no expectation of again seeing his family and friends. In such cases, despondency or despair is the result. It is the union of the two feelings in proper proportions which constitutes hope. There has been considerable variety of views among expositors in regard to the proper meaning of the word in this place. Mr. Locke supposes that Paul here means the honourable employment of an apostle and minister of the gospel, or the glory belonging to the ministry in the gospel; and that his calling it "hope" instead of "glory," which the connexion would seem to demand, is the language of modesty. Rosenmuller understands it of the hope of the perpetual continuance of the gospel dispensation. Macknight renders it "persuasion" and explains it as meaning the full persuasion or assurance that the gospel excels the law in the manner of its introduction; its permanency, etc. A few remarks may, perhaps, make it clear.

(1.) It refers primarily to Paul, and the other ministers of the gospel. It is not properly the Christian hope, as such, to which he refers, but it is that which the ministers of the gospel had.

(2.) It refers to all that he had said before about the superiority of the gospel to the law; and is designed to express the result of all that on his mind, and on the minds of his fellow-labourers.

(3.) It refers to the prospect, confidence, persuasion, anticipation which he had as the effect of what he had just said, It is the prospect of eternal life; the clear expectation of acceptance, and the anticipation of heaven, based on the fact that this was a ministry of the Spirit, (2Cor 3:8;) that it was a ministry showing the way of justification, (2Cor 3:9;) and that it was never to be done away, but to abide for ever, 2Cor 3:11. On all these this strong hope was founded; and in view of these, Paul expressed himself clearly, not enigmatically; and not in types and figures, as Moses did. Everything about the gospel was clear and plain; and this led to the confident expectation and assurance of heaven. The word hope therefore, in this place, will express the effect on the mind of Paul in regard to the work of the ministry, produced by the group of considerations which he had suggested, showing that the gospel was superior to the law; and that it was the ground of more clear and certain confidence and hope than anything which the law could furnish.

We use. We employ; we are accustomed to. He refers to the manner in which he preached the gospel.

Great plainness of speech. Marg., boldness. We use the word "plainness," as applied to speech, chiefly in two senses:

(1.) to denote boldness, faithfulness, candour, in opposition to trimming, timidity, and unfaithfulness; and,

(2.) to denote clearness, intelligibleness, and simplicity, in opposition to obscurity, mist, and highly-wrought and laboured forms of expression. The connexion here shows that the latter is the sense in which the phrase here is to be understood. See 2Cor 3:13. It denotes openness, simplicity, freedom from the obscurity which arises from enigmatical, and parabolical, and typical modes of speaking. This stands in opposition to figure, metaphor and allegory--to an affected and laboured concealment of the idea in the manner which was common among the Jewish doctors and heathen philosophers, where their meaning was carefully concealed from the vulgar, and from all except the initiated. It stands opposed also to the necessary obscurity arising from typical institutions like those of Moses. And the doctrine of the passage is, that such is the clearness and fulness of the Christian revelation, arising from the fact that it is the last economy, and that it does not look to the future, that its ministers may and should use clear and intelligible language. They should not use language abounding in metaphor and allegory. They should not use unusual terms. They should not draw their words and illustrations from science. They should not use mere technical language. They should not attempt to vail or cloak their meaning. They should not seek a refined and overwrought style. They should use expressions which other men use; and express themselves as far as possible in the language of common life. What is preaching worth that is not understood? Why should a man talk at all, unless he is intelligible? Who was ever more plain and simple in his words and illustrations than the Lord Jesus?

(1) "plainness of speech" "boldness"

2 Corinthians 7:4

Verse 4. Great is my boldness of speech toward you. This verse seems designed to soften the apparent harshness of what he had said, (2Cor 6:12,) when he intimated that there was a want of love in them towards him, (Bloomfield,) as well as to refer to the plainness which he had used all along in his letters to them. He says, therefore, that he speaks freely; he speaks as a friend; he speaks with the utmost openness and frankness; he conceals nothing from them. tie speaks freely of their faults, and he speaks freely of his love to them; and he as frankly commends them and praises them. It is the open, undisguised language of a friend, when he throws open his whole soul and conceals nothing.

Great is my glorying of you. I have great occasion to commend and praise you, and I do it freely. He refers here to the fact that he had boasted of their liberality in regard to the proposed collection for the poor saints of Judea, 2Cor 9:4; that he had formerly boasted much of them to Titus, and of their readiness to obey his commands, 2Cor 7:14; and that now he had had abundant evidence, by what he had heard from Titus, (2Cor 7:5, seq.,) that they were disposed to yield to his commands, and obey his injunctions. He had probably often had occasion to boast of their favourable regard for him.

I am filled with comfort. That is, by the evidence which I have received of your readiness to obey me.

I am exceeding joyful. I am overjoyed. The word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in Rom 5:20. It is not found in the classic writers; and is a word which Paul evidently compounded, (from υπερ and περισσευω,) and means to superabound over, to superabound greatly or exceedingly. It is a word which would be used only when the heart was full, and when it would be difficult to find words to express its conceptions. Paul's heart was full of joy; and he pours forth his feelings in the most fervid and glowing language. I have joy which cannot be expressed.

In all our tribulation. 2Cor 1:4.