성경 주석서

Matthew 3:3. οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν, etc.: the evangelist here speaks. He finds in John the man of prophecy who proclaims in the desert the near advent of Jehovah coming to deliver His people. He quotes Isaiah only. Mark (Mark 1:2) quotes Malachi also, identifying John, not only with the voice in the desert, but with Elijah. Isaiah’s herald is not merely a type of John in the view of the evangelist; the two are identical. The quotation follows the Sept[12], except that for τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν is substituted αὐτοῦ. Note where Matthew stops. Luke, the universalist, goes on to the end of the oracle. The mode of introducing the prophetic citation is peculiar. “This is he,” not “that it might be fulfilled”. Weiss (Meyer) thinks this an indication that the passage is taken from “the apostolic source”.

[12] Septuagint.

Matthew 3:4. αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Ἰ. The story returns to the historical person, John, and identifies him with the herald of prophecy. “This same John.” Then follows a description of his way of life—his clothing and his food, the details conveying a life-like picture of the manner of the man: his habits congruous to his vocation.—τὸ ἔνδυμα ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου: his characteristic (αὐταῦ) piece of clothing was a rough rude garment woven out of camel’s hair, not as some have thought, a camel’s skin. We read in Hebrews 11:37, of sheep skins and goat skins worn by some of God’s saints, but not of camel skins. Fritzsche takes the opposite view, and Grotius. Euthy., following Chrysostom, says: “Do not ask who wove his garment, or whence he got his girdle; for more wonderful is it that he should live from childhood to manhood in so inhospitable a climate”. John took his fashion in dress from Elijah, described (2 Kings 1:8) as “an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins”. It need not be doubted that the investment is historical, not a legendary creation, due to the opinion that John was Elijah redivivus. The imitation in dress does not imply a desire to pass for Elijah, but expresses similarity of mood.—ἡ δὲ τροφὴ: his diet as poor as his clothing was mean.—ἀκρίδες: the last of four kinds of edible locusts named in Leviticus 11:22 (Sept[13]), still it seems used by the poor in the east; legs and wings stripped off, and the remainder boiled or roasted. “The Beduins of Arabia and of East Jordan land eat many locusts, roasted, boiled or baked in cakes. In Arabia they are sold in the market. They taste not badly” (Benzinger, Hebraische Archäologie). Euthy. reports to the same effect as to his own time: many eat it in those parts τεταριχευμένον (pickled). Not pleasant food, palatable only to keen hunger. If we may trust Epiphanius, the Ebionites, in their aversion to animal food, grudged the Baptist even that poor diet, and restricted him to cakes made with honey (ἐγκρίδας ἐν μελίτι), or to honey alone. Vide Nicholson’s Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 34, and the notes there; also Suicer’s Thesaurus, sub. v. ἀκρίς.—μέλι ἄγριον: opinion is divided between bee honey and tree honey, i.e., honey made by wild bees in trees or holes in the rocks, or a liquid exuding from palms and fig trees. (On this also consult Nicholson, Gospel of Hebrews, p. 35.) Both were used as food, but our decision should incline to vegetable honey, on the simple ground that it was the poorer food. Bee honey was a delicacy, and is associated with milk in Scripture in descriptions of a fertile land. The vegetable product would suit best John’s taste and state. “Habitatori solitudinis congruum est, non delicias ciborum, sed necessitatem humanae carnis explere.” Jerome.

[13] Septuagint.

Matthew 3:5-6. Effects of John’s preaching. Remarkable by his appearance, his message, and his moral intensity, John made a great impression. They took him for a prophet, and a prophet was a novelty in those days. His message appealed to the common Messianic hope, and proclaimed fulfilment to be at hand.—Τότε, then, general note of time, frequent in this Gospel. ἐξεπορεύετο imperfect, denoting continued action. The movement of course was gradual. It began on a small scale and steadily grew till it reached colossal dimensions. Each evangelist, in his own way, bears witness to this. Luke speaks of crowds (Matthew 3:7), Mark and Matthew give graphic particulars, similar, but in diverse order. “All Judaea and all the Jerusalemites,” says Mark. “Jerusalem, Judaea and the Jordan country,” Matthew. The historical order was probably the reverse of that in Matthew’s narrative. First came those from the surrounding country—people living near the Jordan, on either side, in what is now called El-Ghor. Then the movement extended in widening circles into Judaea. Finally it affected conservative, disdainful Jerusalem, slow to be touched by new popular influences.—Ἱεροσόλυμα: the Greek form here as in Matthew 2:3, and generally in this Gospel. It is not said all Jerusalem, as in Mark. The remarkable thing is that any came from that quarter. Standing first, and without the “all,” the reference means even Jerusalem. The πᾶσα in the other two clauses is of course an exaggeration. It implies, not that every human being went to the Jordan, but that the movement was general. The evangelist expresses himself just as we should do in a similar case. Πᾶς with the article means “the whole,” without, “every”.

Matthew 3:6. καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο: the imperfect again. They were baptised as they came.—ἐν τῷ Ἰορ. ποταμῷ. The word ποταμῷ, omitted in T. R., by all means to be retained. Dull prosaic scribes might deem it superfluous, as all men knew the Jordan was a river, but there is a touch of nature in it which helps us to call up the scene.—ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ, by him, the one man. John would not want occupation, baptising such a crowd, one by one.—ἐξομολογούμενοι: confession was involved in the act of submitting to baptism at the hands of one whose preaching had for its burden, Repent. But there was explicit confession, frank, full (ἐκ intensifies), on the part of guilt-burdened men and women glad to get relief so. General or special confession? Probably both: now one, now the other, according to idiosyncrasy and mood. Confession was not exacted as a conditio sine qua non of baptism, but voluntary. The participle means, while confessing; not, provided they confessed. This confession of sins by individuals was a new thing in Israel. There was a collective confession on the great day of atonement, and individual confession in certain specified cases (Numbers 5:7), but no great spontaneous self-unburdenment of penitent souls—every man apart. It must have been a stirring sight.

Matthew 3:7-10. Words of rebuke and warning to unwelcome vistors (Luke 3:7-9).

Matthew 3:7. Ἰδὼν δὲ, etc.: among those who visited the Jordan were some, not a few, many indeed (πολλοὺς) of the PHARISEES and SADDUCEES. The first mention of classes of whom the Gospels have much to say, the former being the legal precisians, virtuosi in religion, the latter the men of affairs and of the world, largely belonging to the sacerdotal class (consult Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer). Their presence at the scene of John’s ministry is credible. Drawn doubtless by mixed motives, as persons of their type generally are, moral simplicity not being in their line; partly curious, partly fascinated, partly come to spy; in an ambiguous state of mind, neither decidedly in sympathy nor pronouncedly hostile. In any case they cannot remain indifferent to a movement so deep and widespread. So here they are; coming to (ἐπὶ) John’s baptism, not to be baptised, nor coming against, as some (Olearius, e.g.) have thought, as if to put the movement down, but coming to witness the strange, novel phenomenon, and form their impressions. John did not make them welcome. His spirit was troubled by their presence. Simple, sensitive, moral natures instinctively shrink from the presence of insincerity, duplicity and craftiness.—ἰδὼν: how did they come under his observation? By their position in the crowd or on the outskirts of it, and by their aspect? How did he identify them as Pharisees and Sadducees? How did the hermit of the desert know there were such people? It was John’s business to know all the moral characteristics of his time. These were the matters in which he took supreme interest, and he doubtless had means of informing himself, and took pains to do so. It may be assumed that he knew well about the Essenes living in his neighbourhood, by the shores of the Dead Sea, somewhat after his own fashion, and about the other two classes, whose haunts were the great centres of population. There might be Essenes too in the crowd, though not singled out, the history otherwise having no occasion to mention them.—γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν: sudden, irrepressible outburst of intense moral aversion. Why vipers? The ancient and mediæval interpreters (Chrysos., Aug., Theophy., Euthy.) had recourse in explanation to the fable of the young viper eating its mother’s womb. The term ought rather to be connected with the following words about fleeing from the coming wrath. The serpents of all sorts lurking in the fields flee when the stubble is set on fire in harvest in preparation for the winter sowing. The Baptist likens the Pharisees and Sadducees to these serpents fleeing for their lives (Furrer in Zeitschrift für Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, 1890). Professor G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 495, suggests the fires among the dry scrub, in the higher stretches of the Jordan valley, chasing before them the scorpions and vipers, as the basis of the metaphor. There is grim humour as well as wrath in the similitude. The emphasis is not on vipers but on fleeing. But the felicity of the comparison lies in the fact that the epithet suits very well. It implies that the Pharisees and Sadducees are fleeing. They have caught slightly the infection of repentance; yet John does not believe in its depth or permanence.—τίς ὑπέδειξεν: there is surprise in the question. Can it be possible that even you have learned to fear the approaching crisis? Most unlikely scholars.—φυγεῖν ἀπὸ: pregnant for “flee and escape from” (De Wette). The aorist points to possibility, going with verbs of hoping and promising in this sense (Winer, § xliv. 7 c.). The implied thought is that it is not possible = who encouraged you to expect deliverance? The aorist further signifies a momentary act: now or never.—τῆς μελ. ὀργῆς, the day of wrath impending, preluding the advent of the Kingdom. The idea of wrath was prominent in John’s mind: the coming of the Kingdom an awful affair; Messiah’s work largely a work of judgment. But he rose above ordinary Jewish ideas in this: they conceived of the judgment as concerning the heathen peoples; he thought of it as concerning the godless in Israel

Matthew 3:8. ποιήσατε οὖν, etc. “If, then, ye are in earnest about escape, produce fruit worthy of repentance; repentance means more than confession and being baptised.” That remark might be applied to all that came, but it contained an innuendo in reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees that they were insincere even now. Honest repentance carries amendment along with it. Amendment is not expected in this case because the repentance is disbelieved in.—καρπὸν, collective, as in Galatians 5:22, fruit; the reading in T. R. is probably borrowed from Luke 3:8. The singular is intrinsically the better word in addressing Pharisees who did good actions, but were not good. Yet John seems to have inculcated reformation in detail (Luke 3:10-14). It was Jesus who proclaimed the inwardness of true morality. Fruit: the figure suggests that conduct is the outcome of essential character. Any one can do (ποιήσατε, vide Genesis 1:11) acts externally good, but only a good man can grow a crop of right acts and habits.

Matthew 3:9-10. Protest and warning. καὶ μὴ δόξητε … τ. Ἀβραάμ: the meaning is plain = do not imagine that having Abraham for father will do instead of repentance—that all children of Abraham are safe whatever betide. But the expression is peculiar: do not think to say within yourselves. One would have expected either: do not think within yourselves, or, do not say, etc. Wetstein renders: “ne animum inducite sic apud vosmet cogitare,” with whom Fritzsche substantially agrees = do not presume to say, cf. Php 3:4.—πατέρα, father, in the emphatic position=we have as father, Abraham; it is enough to be his children: the secret thought of all unspiritual Jews, Abraham’s children only in the flesh. It is probable that these words (Matthew 3:9-10) were spoken at a different time, and to a different audience, not merely to Pharisees and Sadducees, but to the people generally. Matthew 3:7-12 are a very condensed summary of a preaching ministry in which many weighty words were spoken (Luke 3:18), these being selected as most representative and most relevant to the purpose of the evangelist. Matthew 3:7-8 contain a word for the leaders of the people; Matthew 3:9-10 for the people at large; Matthew 3:11-12 a word to inquirers about the Baptist’s own relation to the Messiah.

Matthew 3:10. ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη … κεῖται: judgment is at hand. The axe has been placed (κεῖμαι = perfect passive of τίθημι) at the root of the tree to lay it low as hopelessly barren. This is the doom of every non-productive fruit tree.—ἐκκόπτεται: the present tense, expressive not so much of the usual practice (Fritzsche) as of the near inevitable event.—μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν, in case it produce not (μὴ conditional) good fruit, not merely fruit of some kind. degenerate, unpalatable.—εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται: useless for any other purpose except to be firewood, as the wood of many fruit trees is.