Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 3:7 - 3:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_3:7. The Pharisees (from ôÌÈøÇùÑ , separavit, the separated ones, διὰ τὴν ἐθελοπερισσοθρησκείαν , Epiphanius, Haer. i. 16) received, besides the law, also tradition; taught the doctrine of fate, without, however, denying the freedom of the will; of immortality, and that in the case of pious persons, in pure bodies; of good and evil angels, and were, in all the strictness of external righteousness, according to law and statute, the crafty, learned, patriotic, and powerful supporters of the degenerate orthodoxy. The Sadducees[381] recognised merely the written law, and that not only of the Pentateuch, but of the whole of the O. T., although according to the strict exposition of the letter, and to the exclusion of tradition; they denied the existence of higher spirits, of fate and personal immortality, and adhered to a strict code of morals; they had less authority with the people than the exclusive orthodox Pharisees, against whom they formed a decided party of opposition, but had much influence over men of rank and wealth. The strictly closed order of Essenes, in its separation from the world and the temple, as well as in its ascetic self-satisfaction and self-sanctification, the quiet separatistic holy ones of the land, connected together by community of goods, and under obligation, besides, daily to perform holy lustrations, kept themselves far away from the movement evoked by John.
Observe that the article is not repeated before Σαδδουκ ., because they are conceived as forming, along with the Pharisees, one unworthy category. “Nempe repetitur articulus, ubi distinctio logica aut emphatica ita postulat,” Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 574.
ἐπί ] not contra (Olearius), which would be quite opposed to the context, but telic, in order to be baptized; comp. Luk_23:48. Why should the Pharisees and Sadducees not also have come to baptism, since they shared with the people the hope of the Messiah, and must have felt also on their part the extraordinary impression made by the appearance of John, and the excitement awakened by it, and, in keeping with their moral conceit, would easily enough have compounded with the confession of sins? It is, however, already probable à priori, and certain, by means of Luk_7:30, that they, at least so far as the majority were concerned, did not allow themselves to be baptized, although they had come with this intention, but were repelled in terror by the preaching of repentance and punishment, Mat_3:8 ff.
There exists, therefore, no variation between this and Luk_7:30; the Pharisees and Sadducees are no addition by Matthew (Ewald, Holtzmann), and neither is Matthew to be blamed for committing a historical mistake, occasioned by Joh_1:24 (Schneckenburger, Bleek), nor is Luke to be charged with want of originality in this section (de Wette). But the former relates with more minuteness than Luke (Mat_3:7 : τοῖς … ὄχλοις ) in separating the persons in question from the mass along with whom they came.
γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν ] cunning, malignant men! Mat_12:34, Mat_23:33; Isa_14:29; Isa_59:5; Psa_58:5; Wetstein on the passage. Comp. Dem. 799. 4 : πικρὸν καὶ ἔχιν τὴν φύσιν ἄνδρωπον .
τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς ] is to be understood of the divine wrath which is revealed at the Messianic judgment (Rom_2:5; 1Th_1:10). The common belief of the Jews referred this to the heathen (Bertholdt, Christol. pp. 203 ff., 223 ff.). John, however, to the godless generally, who would not repent. The wrath of God, however, established as a unity in the holy nature of the divine love as its inseparable correlate, is not the punishment itself, but the holy emotion of absolute displeasure with him who opposes His gracious will, and from this the punishment proceeds as a necessary manifestation of righteousness. The revelation of the divine wrath is not limited to the last judgment (Rom_1:18; 1Th_2:16; Luk_21:23), but in it attains its consummation. Comp. Rom_1:18 and Eph_2:3, and so on, especially Ritschl, de ira Dei,[382] 1859; Bartholomaei in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1861, II. p. 256 ff.; Weber, vom Zorne Gottes, 1862.
φυγεῖν ἀπό ] is, like áÌÈøÇä îÄï (Isa_48:20; Isa_24:18), constructio praegnans: to flee away from, Mat_23:33; Mar_16:8; Joh_10:11; Hom. Od. xii. 120: φυγέειν κάρτιστον ἀπʼ αὐτῆς , Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 31; Plat. Phaed. p. 62 D. The infinitive aorist designates the activity as momentary, setting forth the point of time when the wrath breaks forth, in which the flight also is realized. Meaning of the question: Nobody can have instructed you, that you should escape. Comp. Mat_23:33 : πῶς φύγητε .
[381] Epiphanius, Haer. i. 14 : ἐπονομάζουσι ἑαυτοὺς Σαδδουκαίους δῆθεν ἀπὸ δικαιοσύνης τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ὁρμωμένης . The Jewish tradition derives it from the proper name Zadok. R. Nathan, ad Pirke Aboth, i. 3. The latter is to be preferred, with Ewald, Geiger, Hitzig, and others; see Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 275. Hausrath, Zeitgesch. I. p. 118. That name, however, is to be understood as that of an old and distinguished priestly family; 2Sa_7:17; 2Sa_15:24; Eze_48:11; 1Ma_7:14.
[382] Who determines the conception, p. 24, thus: “Certum argumentum justitiae divinae ab humana diversae, quatenus valet ad defendendum adversus homines contumaciter Deo fidem denegantes finem ejus summum et absolutum, per Christum cum genere humano communicatum.”