Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 3:7

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" — Matthew 3:7 (ASV)

Pharisees and Sadducees — It is desirable to give a sufficient account of these two sects to explain their relation to each other and to the teaching of our Lord.

1. THE PHARISEES. Interestingly, the name appears for the first time in the Gospel history. Josephus, who tells us most about them, presumably wrote later than the materials from which the Gospels are derived, if not later than the Gospels in their present form. Therefore, we cannot say when the name first came into use. The Jewish historian first mentions them as opposing the government of the priest-ruler of the Hasmonean house, John Hyrcanus (Josephus, Antiquities 13.5). The meaning of the name is clear enough: The Pharisees were the “separated” ones, and this meaning may help us trace their history.

   The attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes (as related in the two Books of Maccabees) to blot out the distinctness of Jewish life by introducing Greek worship and customs was met with heroic resistance by priests and people. The question of “mingling” or “not mingling” with the Gentiles in marriage or social life became a test of religious character (2 Maccabees 14:3, 38). The faithful became known as Assideans—that is, Chasidim or “saints” (7:13, 17)—and looked to Judas Maccabeus as their leader. Later, as remaining separate from the Gentiles became more and more characteristic of them, they took the name of Pharisees. Under John Hyrcanus, they became a powerful and organized body, forming a kind of guild or fraternity as well as a party, uniting some features of the Puritans with some of the Society of the Jesuits.

   Like most sects and parties, they had their bright and dark sides. They maintained the ethical side of the Law in contrast to the sacrificial. They insisted on alms, fasting, and prayer as the three great elements of the religious life, and on the Sabbath as its great safeguard. They did much to promote education and synagogue building. In gathering the traditions of older Rabbis, they considered themselves to be “setting a fence round the Law” to maintain its sacredness. They were eager in the mission work of Judaism and compassed sea and land to make one proselyte (Matthew 23:15). They also maintained or revived the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and of the rewards and punishments that were to follow.

   On the other side, their “separation” developed almost into the exclusiveness of a caste. Their casuistry inverted the proper relationship between moral and ceremonial duties. They despised the majority of their own countrymen as the “brute people of the earth.” Within the sect there were two schools, represented at this time by the followers of Shammai and of Hillel. The former was more like the Puritan model—rigid in its Sabbatarianism, hard and bitter in its spirit. The latter was more like the Jesuit type—with wider culture, a gentler temper, and an easier casuistry with broader moral precepts. It must be remembered that both schools were emphatically lay religionists, unconnected with the priesthood and often in opposition to it.

2. THE SADDUCEES. Etymologically, the name, though connected with the Hebrew word for “righteous,” must be derived from the proper name “Zadok,” found in the Old Testament as belonging to the high priest in the time of Solomon. A tradition of uncertain authority and date states that the founder of the sect was a certain Zadok, the disciple of Antigonus, who, in turn, had sat at the feet of Simon the Just. Antigonus taught, it was said, that “men should not be servants who do their Master’s will for a reward,” and his student developed this doctrine into a denial of the resurrection, which was seen as the reward.

   Whether this account is true or not, the features of the Sadducees in the New Testament stand out with sufficient clearness. They are, for the most part, from the higher priestly order, in contrast with the lay scribes of the Pharisees. They admit the authority of the written Law but not of traditions. They deny the existence of angels and spirits, as well as the resurrection and the immortality of the soul. They made up for the absence of the fears of the future with greater rigor in earthly punishments. They courted the favor of their Roman rulers and, to some extent, even of the Herods.

It is not easy to understand the motives that led either sect to come to John’s baptism. It may be that they were carried away for a time by the people's enthusiasm, or that they sought to guide the movement by controlling it, or to enlist the new teacher on their side. In any case, there was no repentance and no confession, and so the Baptist met them with a stern reproof.

O generation of vipers — This is better translated as brood or offspring of vipers. Our Lord uses the same term, applying it to them at the close of His ministry (Matthew 23:33).

Who has warned — This is better translated as, "Who taught you?" Who had shown them a way to escape that did not require repentance? John had given them no such guidance, so they must have gotten that idea from some other teacher.

The wrath to come — This is spoken of as something definite and known. The thought probably rests on the descriptions of the great day of the Lord in Malachi 3:4.