A study of Matthew 3:1-12 (continued)
- Warning John pronounced (Matthew 3:7-12)
- To whom the warning is issued 3:7a
“But” (3:7a) brings us to an important contrast. While many were responding and repenting, there were those who were not. When the spiritual leadership came to the baptism, John shows his animosity toward the Pharisees and Sadducees. Who were these people?
The Pharisees are mentioned in Matthew more than any other Gospel (29 times). They were a religious party that was strongly conservative in the Law. Their name is derived from the Hebrew word that means “separatist,” although recently it has been suggested that the word may lie in the Hebrew word for “specifies,” since they were scrupulous for exactness in observance of God’s laws. They studied the law meticulously and paid close attention to a mass of rules that was meant to help people avoid breaking them. “Physical separation was of paramount importance. Functional holiness was considered evidence of personal piety” among this sect. They saw themselves as the true proponents of the true righteousness of the law. To help others not break the law, they devised a system of rules to “fence” people from coming close to breaking the law. These laws were known as the seyag (fence). [William L. Coleman, THE PHARISEES’ GUIDE TO TOTAL HOLINESS, 8] These fence laws accumulated into the hundreds, and over time elevated to the level of the Law itself. These consisted of things like do not pick grain to eat on the Sabbath to keep you safe from breaking the Sabbath.
Although they were a small sect (around 6,000 during the time of Christ), they achieved great success, power and position. Their “claims of scrupulous piety and the preservation of ancestral laws were accorded wider circulation and support than any slogans the Sadducees or Essences could devise.” [S. Westerholm, “Pharisees,” DICTIONARY OF JESUS AND THE GOSPELS, 610]. They were well liked by the common people. Coleman notes that this party had its good points. They were national heroes, who accepted the Scripture as God-given, and careful students of it, who emphasized education, kept the ceremonial laws, were sacrificial givers, evangelistic, and anticipated a coming Messiah. They also believed strongly in resurrection. However, because of all their pious and so-called righteousness to the law, they tended to think of themselves as being better than others. Their narrow view led them to be blinded to the intent of the Law, and they “fenced” themselves off from real righteousness. Their zealousness for the law drove them to externalism and legalism, forgetting the internal aspects of the Law, trading them for external public display. They were extremely self-righteous. Their philosophy by the time of Christ was, “Do we look right rather than are we right.” [Coleman, 29].
On the other hand were the Sadducees, who are mentioned only seven times by Matthew. The origin of the name has been lost in the halls of history. It is believed the name means the “righteous ones,” being from the same Hebrew word as the word righteous. [W.J. Moulder, “Sadducees,” ISBE, 4:278]. However, many scholars believe the name derived from Zadok, the high priest during the time of David. [Leon Morris, MATTHEW 57]. They regarded themselves as the true descendants of Zadok, thus seeing themselves as “Zadokites.” In contrast to the Pharisees, they rejected the oral tradition, and accepted only written Scripture as the voice of authority. Some say they accepted only the first 5 books of Moses as Scripture, but this is doubted by many. They were the liberal aristocratic party, enjoying the confidence of the wealthy, but not well accepted by the common person who saw them as heartless. They were the rationalists. They held the priestly power, while Pharisees (also Priests) held mostly the lower levels of the Priesthood. They held control of the high priesthood and the upper levels of the priesthood. Moulder says that the Sadducees “derived their power from their class, while Pharisees derived theirs from learning.” [Moulder, 4:279.]. They were the high society of the time, and worked hard at keeping the status quo, working in collaboration with the Romans, thus, having the real political power. They were power hungry and wheeled it to their best advantage. They gained wealth by their control of the temple businesses. They doctrinally differed from the Pharisees denying the resurrection, or existence after death, future rewards or punishments (Mark 12:18). They also rejected the belief in angels and spirits (Acts 2:38). They were strong on free will, and this-worldliness perspective, so that God could not be held responsible for evil.
Toussaint notes, “It is significant that this first mention of the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospel marks them out as being hypocritical.” [Stanley Toussaint, BEHOLD THE KING, 68]. The Gospels do not present the two groups as hostile to one another probably because they are presented as united in their opposition to Christ. It is not uncommon to see different groups united against a common opponent. In Acts, we find the two groups disagreeing, especially around the issue of resurrection.
b. The description of those warned 3:7b
Matthew continues a low evaluation of the Pharisees and Sadducees throughout his Gospel. He calls them a “brood of vipers.” Here Matthew lumps them together, elsewhere he distinguishes them (22:34). Both are leaders, and John says they are a bunch of snakes. It is a term that was used by the prophets (Isa. 14:29; 30:6) to describe God‘s enemies, and will be used by Christ of the Pharisees (Matt. 12:34). It was an insult. A viper is a small poisonous snake, and points to these leaders’ deadly hypocrisy and fatal deceptions, which were poisoning the nation Israel. Keener points out that in the ancient Mediterranean it was a common thought to think of vipers as mother killers. [Keener, MATTHEW, IVP, 79-80]. It indicates moral depravity, and points out that by their hypocrisy they were killing their own motherland. A viper was not only deadly, but it was deceitful. He looked like a dead branch who suddenly would strike its victim (Acts 28:3). They were deadly and deceptive, like the serpent and the deceiver, Satan. Is it any wonder then that Christ calls their father the Devil (John 8:44).
Hypocrisy deifies the outward actions, and nullifies the Spirit within. These leaders loved themselves and their reputation, but not God. Coleman says they “were shackled to a routine of religious conformity, but their faith and sincerity were an empty hull.” [Coleman, 96]. Paul defines hypocrisy well when he declares that some have “a form of godliness but denying its power” (2 Tim. 3:5). Hypocrisy does two things. First, it pretends to be what it is not. Second, it conceals and blinds us to what we are. It is marked by outward ritual harshness and inward insincerity. These two together are deadly to the soul.
c. The call to repent (3:7-9)
To these he asked, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (3:7c). The question is ironical. In really, this question deals with their coming simply as an outward form or ritual to escape the wrath to come. The call to repentance implies God’s wrath and His judgment on those who do not repent. Who gave you the idea that you could escape simply by going through the motion or ritual of baptism to escape? Verse 8 clearly points out that they did not come in true repentance. Likewise, many today are trusting in they religious rituals, or good works, or church attendance to escape the wrath to come. It will not happen. The spirit of hypocrisy is alive and well. Superficial repentance and outward reformation never saved anyone. John warns them to repent. True repentance on their part entailed:
Ÿ “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (3:8). Fruit is what people exhibit to others. Let us note at the beginning that John is not telling them to work for their salvation. Salvation in any dispensation has been by faith and not by works. In the Old Testament times, works were an expression of faith, but it was their faith that saved them. Under old dispensations, God said to offer animal sacrifices, faith offered the sacrifices, as Abel did. On there other hand, not bringing an animal sacrifice, like Cain, displayed unbelief. Here in John’s ministry, it was repenting and being baptized with water that true faith displayed itself. John is still under the Old Testament times, thus he is looking for the signs or fruit of true repentance. The fruit that John was looking for is given in Luke 3:10-14. The imagery of bearing fruit is used by Jesus (7:16-20; 12:33-37; 13:8, 22-23) and Paul (Rom. 6:22, 7:6, Eph. 5:9, cf. Gal. 5:22) which springs out of faith. It is clear from the context that there was no repentance on their part and the fruits were absent. “There was not external evidence that they desired to draw near to God in anticipation of Messiah’s appearance.” [Thomas Constable, NOTES ON MATTHEW, 51]
Ÿ Do not rely on Nationality (3:9). Notice, he clearly says, “do not think” (3:9). The word indicates presumption on their part, and came to be translated, “Do not presume.” Many Jews of the time believed being a descendant of Abraham would automatically gain entrance into the Kingdom. God has no grandchildren (cf. Gal. 3:1-9). The necessarily of the new birth is without exception (cp. John 3). The physical birth can make one a member of the external nation, but not the kingdom of heaven. No bank of “merit of the fathers” exists. It was believed in rabbinic circles at the time that Abraham sat at the gate of hell (Gehenna), to deliver all Israelites from being assigned there, based on the merit of the fathers. They believed the merit of Abraham was enough to save them. (This same fallacy is seen today in the Church of Rome in the merit of the saints). Both the Gospels (here, John 8:39-40) and Paul (Rom. 9:6-8) make clear not all who were born of Abraham are his true children. The text makes clear physical descent did not grant them immunity from God’s wrath. Such presuming is wrong. Nationality is no impressive matter, for God is able to make stones into children. It is generally agreed that the reference to stones is a pun on the Hebrew or Aramaic words used (Hebrew: banim—children; ‘a banim—stones / Aramaic: benayya—abnayya). [France, MATTHEW, 111] Repentance is necessary for all without exception. It is required for acceptance into Messiah’s kingdom regardless of race, position or nationality.
No comments:
Post a Comment