Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 3:14 - 3:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_3:14. According to Joh_1:33, it was revealed to the Baptist that He upon whom he should see the Spirit descending was the Messiah. It was accordingly not until this moment that the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah entered his mind; and therefore, in the Gospel of John, he says of the time which preceded this moment: κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν . The passage before us is not in contradiction with this, for the recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus does not yet lie at its foundation, but the prophetic anticipation of the same, which on the approach of Jesus, as that solemn decision was about to begin through the revelation of the σημεῖον , seized the soul of the Baptist involuntarily and miraculously, and yet psychologically, in keeping with the spiritual rapport prepared by revelation. Comp. Luther: “he scents the Spirit.” Accordingly, we are not to assume in our passage either a recognition only of higher excellence (Hess, Paulus, Hofmann), or a contradiction with John (Strauss, de Wette, Keim), or, after Lücke, Holtzmann, and Scholten, that the oldest and shortest tradition of Matthew contained merely Mat_3:16-17, while Mat_3:14-15 were a later addition of the complete Matthew,[383] which Hilgenfeld seeks to support from the silence of Justin regarding the refusal of the Baptist, whilst Keim gives, indeed, the preference to the statement of Matthew over that of John, but still allows it to be very problematical.
διεκώλυεν ] Stronger than the simple verb. The word (which does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. nor in the LXX., yet in Jdt_4:7; Jdt_12:7, and frequently in the classical writers) is selected, in keeping with the serious opposition of the astonished John. The imperfect is descriptive, and, indeed, so much so, that “vere incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu,” Schaefer, ad Eur. Phoen. 81. Kühner, II. 1, p. 123. John actually repelled Jesus, and did not baptize Him at once, but only when the latter had made representations to the contrary effect.
ἐγὼ χρείαν , κ . τ . λ .] Grotius: Si alter nostrum omnino baptizandus sit, ego potius abs te, ut dignissimo, baptismum petere debui. Thus spoke John in the truest feeling of his own lowliness and sinfulness, in the presence of the long-longed for One, the first recognition of whom suddenly thrilled him.
καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με ;] A question indicative of the astonishment with which the Baptist, although he had received the divine declaration, Joh_1:33, was yet seized, through the impression made on him by the presence of the Lord. Moreover, this discourse necessarily excludes the idea that he too connected the baptism of Jesus with the profession of a confession of His sins. Yet the apocryphal Praedicatio Pauli, according to Cyprian, Opp. p. 142, Rigalt (Credner, Beitr. I. p. 360 ff.), had already made Jesus deliver a confession of sin; in the Evangelium sec. Hebraeos, on the other hand, quoted by Jerome, c. Pel. iii. 1, Jesus answers the request of His mother and His brethren to let Himself be baptized along with them: “Quid peccavi, ut vadam et baptizer ab eo? nisi forte hoc ipsum quod dixi ignorantia est.”
[383] According to Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13, the Gospel according to the Hebrews contained the conversation, although with embellishments, but placed it after the baptism. The want of originality of this narrative in itself (in answer to Schneckenburger, Hilgenfeld) already shows its apocryphal and extravagant character. The correctness of its position has found favour, indeed, with Bleek (p. 179 f., and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 436), Usteri (in the same, 1829, p. 446), and Lücke, and Keim also, at the expense of our Gospel; but, after what has been said above, without any reason, as the want of agreement between Matthew and John is only apparent, and is not to be removed by changing the meaning of the simple and definite οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν . See on Joh_1:31. The Wolfenbüttel Fragmentist (vom Zwecke Jesu, p. 133 ff.) has notoriously misused Joh_1:31 to assert that Jesus and John had long been acquainted with each other, and had come to an understanding to work to each other’s hands, but to conceal this from the people.