Matthew 03.01
January 14, 2007 First Baptist Church, Comanche Series: Studies in Matthew
Matthew 3:1-12
“What Does God Expect?”
Introduction: Matthew’s Gospel, the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ, introduces us to the King, God’s Messiah: Presentation by Ancestry [1:1-17], Presentation by Advent [1:18-2:25], and now the Presentation by an Ambassador [3:1-12]. Next we’ll study the final section of this chapter to learn about the Presentation through Divine Approval [3:13-18].
The proclamation made is that 2007 be a year of repentance and righteousness for us, God’s people, First Baptist Church, Comanche. Memorize and meditate upon the “Beautiful Attitudes” found in Matthew 5:3-12.
Chapter 3
At the start of this chapter, concerning the baptism of John, begins the gospel (Mk. 1:1); what went before is but preface or introduction; this is "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.’’ And Peter observes the same date, Acts 1:22, beginning from the baptism of John, for then Christ began first to appear in him, and then to appear to him, and by him to the world. Here is:
I. The glorious rising of the morning-star—John the Baptist (v. 1)
1. The doctrine he preached (v. 2)
2. The fulfilling of the scripture in him (v. 3)
3. His manner of life (v. 4)
4. The resort of multitudes to him, and their submission to his baptism (v. 5, 6)
5. His sermon that he preached to the Pharisees and Sadducees, wherein he endeavours to bring them to repentance (v. 7–10), and so to bring them to Christ (v. 11, 12).
II. The more glorious shining forth of the Sun of righteousness, immediately after: where we have,
1. The honour done by him to the baptism of John (v. 13–15).
2. The honour done to him by the descent of the Spirit upon him, and a voice from heaven (v. 16, 17).
Verses 1-6
We have here an account of the preaching and baptism of John, which were the dawning of the gospel-day. Observe,
I. The time when he appeared. In those days (v. 1), or, after those days, long after what was recorded in the foregoing chapter, which left the child Jesus in his infancy. In those days, in the time appointed of the Father for the beginning of the gospel, when the fulness of time was come, which was often thus spoken of in the Old Testament, In those days. Now the last of Daniel’s weeks began, or rather, the latter half of the week, when the Messiah was to confirm the covenant with many, Daniel 9:27. Christ’s appearances are all in their season. Glorious things were spoken both of John and Jesus, at and before their births, which would have given occasion to expect some extraordinary appearances of a divine presence and power with them when they were very young; but it is quite otherwise. Except Christ’s disputing with the doctors at twelve years old, nothing appears remarkable concerning either of them, till they were about thirty years old. Nothing is recorded of their childhood and youth, but the greatest part of their life is tempus, adeµlon—wrapt up in darkness and obscurity: these children differ little in outward appearance from other children, as the heir, while he is under age, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all. And this was to show, 1. That even when God is acting as the God of Israel, the Saviour, yet verily he is a God that hideth himself (Isa. 45:15). The Lord is in this place and I knew it not, Gen. 28:16. Our beloved stands behind the wall long before he looks forth at the windows, Cant. 2:9. 2. That our faith must principally have an eye to Christ in his office and undertaking, for there is the display of his power; but in his person is the hiding of his power. All this while, Christ was god-man; yet we are not told what he said or did, till he appeared as a prophet; and then, Hear ye him. 3. That young men, though well qualified, should not be forward to put forth themselves in public service, but be humble, and modest, and self-diffident, swift to hear, and slow to speak.
Matthew says nothing of the conception and birth of John the Baptist, which is largely related by St. Luke, but finds him at full age, as if dropt from the clouds to preach in the wilderness. For above three hundred years the church had been without prophets; those lights had been long put out, that he might be the more desired, who was to be the great prophet. After Malachi there was no prophet, nor any pretender to prophecy, till John the Baptist, to whom therefore the prophet Malachi points more directly than any of the Old Testament prophets had done (Mal. 3:1); I send my messenger.
II. The place where he appeared first. In the wilderness of Judea. It was not an uninhabited desert, but a part of the country not so thickly peopled, nor so much enclosed into fields and vineyards, as other parts were; it was such a wilderness as had six cities and their villages in it, which are named, Jos. 15:61, 62. In these cities and villages John preached, for thereabouts he had hitherto lived, being born hard by, in Hebron; the scenes of his action began there, where he had long spent his time in contemplation; and even when he showed himself to Israel, he showed how well he loved retirement, as far as would consist with his business. The word of the Lord found John here in a wilderness. Note, No place is so remote as to shut us out from the visits of divine grace; nay, commonly the sweetest intercourse the saints have with Heaven, is when they are withdrawn furthest from the noise of this world. It was in this wilderness of Judah that David penned the 63rd Psalm, which speaks so much of the sweet communion he then had with God, Hos. 2:14. In a wilderness the law was given; and as the Old Testament, so the New Testament Israel was first found in the desert land, and there God led him about and instructed him, Deu. 32:10. John Baptist was a priest of the order of Aaron, yet we find him preaching in a wilderness, and never officiating in the temple; but Christ, who was not a son of Aaron, is yet often found in the temple, and sitting there as one having authority; so it was foretold, Mal. 3:1. The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple; not the messenger that was to prepare his way. This intimated that the priesthood of Christ was to thrust out that of Aaron, and drive it into a wilderness.
The beginning of the gospel in a wilderness, speaks comfort to the deserts of the Gentile world. Now must the prophecies be fulfilled, I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, Isa. 41:18, 19. The wilderness shall be a fruitful field, Isa. 32:15. And the desert shall rejoice, Isa. 35:1, 2. The Septuagint reads, the deserts of Jordan, the very wilderness in which John preached. In the Romish church there are those who call themselves hermits, and pretend to follow John; but when they say of Christ, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth, ch. 24:26. There was a seducer that led his followers into the wilderness, Acts 21:38.
III. His preaching. This he made his business. He came, not fighting, nor disputing, but preaching (v. 1); for by the foolishness of preaching, Christ’s kingdom must be set up.
1. The doctrine he preached was that of repentance (v. 2); Repent ye. He preached this in Judea, among those that were called Jews, and made a profession of religion; for even they needed repentance. He preached it, not in Jerusalem, but in the wilderness of Judea, among the plain country people; for even those who think themselves most out of the way of temptation, and furthest from the vanities and vices of the town, cannot wash their hands in innocency, but must do it in repentance. John Baptist’s business was to call men to repent of their sins; Metanoeite—Bethink yourselves; "Admit a second thought, to correct the errors of the first—an afterthought. Consider your ways, change your minds; you have thought amiss; think again, and think aright.’’ Note, True penitents have other thoughts of God and Christ, and sin and holiness, and this world and the other, than they have had, and stand otherwise affected toward them. The change of the mind produces a change of the way. Those who are truly sorry for what they have done amiss, will be careful to do so no more. This repentance is a necessary duty, in obedience to the command of God (Acts 17:30); and a necessary preparative and qualification for the comforts of the gospel of Christ. If the heart of man had continued upright and unstained, divine consolations might have been received without this painful operation preceding; but, being sinful, it must be first pained before it can be laid at ease, must labour before it can be at rest. The sore must be searched, or it cannot be cured. I wound and I heal.
2. The argument he used to enforce this call was, For the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The prophets of the Old Testament called people to repent, for the obtaining and securing of temporal national mercies, and for the preventing and removing of temporal national judgments: but now, though the duty pressed is the same, the reason is new, and purely evangelical. Men are now considered in their personal capacity, and not so much as then in a social and political one. Now repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; the gospel dispensation of the covenant of grace, the opening of the kingdom of heaven to all believers, by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a kingdom of which Christ is the Sovereign, and we must be the willing, loyal subjects of it. It is a kingdom of heaven, not of this world, a spiritual kingdom: its original from heaven, its tendency to heaven. John preached this as at hand; then it was at the door; to us it is come, by the pouring out of the Spirit, and the full exhibition of the riches of gospel-grace. Now, (1.) This is a great inducement to us to repent. There is nothing like the consideration of divine grace to break the heart, both for sin and from sin. That is evangelical repentance, that flows from a sight of Christ, from a sense of his love, and the hopes of pardon and forgiveness through him. Kindness is conquering; abused kindness, humbling and melting. What a wretch was I to sin against such grace, against the law and love of such a kingdom! (2.) It is a great encouragement to us to repent; "Repent, for your sins shall be pardoned upon your repentance. Return to God in a way of duty, and he will, through Christ, return to you in a way of mercy.’’ The proclamation of pardon discovers, and fetches in, the malefactor who before fled and absconded. Thus we are drawn to it with the cords of man, and the bands of love.
IV. The prophecy that was fulfilled in him, v. 3. This is he that was spoken of in the beginning of that part of the prophecy of Esaias, which is mostly evangelical, and which points at gospel-times and gospel-grace; see Isa. 40:3, 4. John is here spoken of,
1. As the voice of one crying in the wilderness. John owned it himself (Jn. 1:23); I am the voice, and that is all, God is the Speaker, who makes known his mind by John, as a man does by his voice. The word of God must be received as such (1 Th. 2:13); what else is Paul, and what is Apollos, but the voice! John is called the voice, phoµneµ booµntos—the voice of one crying aloud, which is startling and awakening. Christ is called the Word, which, being distinct and articulate, is more instructive. John as the voice, roused men, and then Christ, as the Word, taught them; as we find, Rev. 14:2. The voice of many waters, and of a great thunder, made way for the melodious voice of harpers and the new song, v. 3. Some observe that, as Samson’s mother must drink no strong drink, yet he was designed to be a strong man; so John Baptist’s father was struck dumb, and yet he was designed to be the voice of one crying. When the crier’s voice is begotten of a dumb father, it shows the excellency of the power to be of God, and not of man.
2. As one whose business it was to prepare the way of the Lord, and to make his paths straight; so it was said of him before he was born, that he should make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Lu. 1:17), as Christ’s harbinger and forerunner: he was such a one as intimated the nature of Christ’s kingdom, for he came not in the gaudy dress of a herald at arms, but in the homely one of a hermit. Officers were sent before great men to clear the way; so John prepares the way of the Lord. (1.) He himself did so among the men of that generation. In the Jewish church and nation, at that time, all was out of course; there was a great decay of piety, the vitals of religion were corrupted and eaten out by the traditions and injunctions of the elders. The Scribes and Pharisees, that is, the greatest hypocrites in the world, had the key of knowledge, and the key of government, at their girdle. The people were, generally, extremely proud of their privileges, confident of justification by their own righteousness, insensible of sin; and, though now under the most humbling providences, being lately made a province of the Roman Empire, yet they were unhumbled; they were much in the same temper as they were in Malachi’s time, insolent and haughty, and ready to contradict the word of God: now John was sent to level these mountains, to take down their high opinion of themselves, and to show them their sins, that the doctrine of Christ might be the more acceptable and effectual. (2.) His doctrine of repentance and humiliation is still as necessary as it was then to prepare the way of the Lord. Note, There is a great deal to be done, to make way for Christ into a soul, to bow the heart for the reception of the Son of David (2 Sa. 19:14); and nothing is more needful, in order to this, than the discovery of sin, and a conviction of the insufficiency of our own righteousness. That which lets will let, until it be taken out of the way; prejudices must be removed, high thoughts brought down, and captivated to the obedience of Christ. Gates of brass must be broken, and bars of iron cut asunder, ere the everlasting doors be opened for the King of glory to come in. The way of sin and Satan is a crooked way; to prepare a way for Christ, the paths must be made straight, Heb. 12:13.
V. The garb in which he appeared, the figure he made, and the manner of his life, v. 4. They, who expected the Messiah as a temporal prince, would think that his forerunner must come in great pomp and splendour, that his equipage should be very magnificent and gay; but it proves quite contrary; he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, but mean in the eyes of the world; and, as Christ himself, having no form or comeliness; to intimate betimes, that the glory of Christ’s kingdom was to be spiritual, and the subjects of it such as ordinarily were either found by it, or made by it, poor and despised, who derived their honours, pleasures, and riches, from another world.
1. His dress was plain. This same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; he did not go in long clothing, as the scribes, or soft clothing, as the courtiers, but in the clothing of a country husbandman; for he lived in a country place, and suited his habit to his habitation. Note, It is good for us to accommodate ourselves to the place and condition which God, in his providence, has put us in. John appeared in this dress, (1.) To show that, like Jacob, he was a plain man, and mortified to this world, and the delights and gaieties of it. Behold an Israelite indeed! Those that are lowly in heart should show it by a holy negligence and indifference in their attire; and not make the putting on of apparel their adorning, nor value others by their attire. (2.) To show that he was a prophet, for prophets wore rough garments, as mortified men (Zec. 13:4); and, especially, to show that he was the Elias promised; for particular notice is taken of Elias, that he was a hairy man (which, some think, is meant of the hairy garments he wore), and that he was girt with a girdle of leather about his loins, 2 Ki. 1:8. John Baptist appears no way inferior to him in mortification; this therefore is that Elias that was to come. (3.) To show that he was a man of resolution; his girdle was not fine, such as were then commonly worn, but it was strong, it was a leathern girdle; and blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he comes, finds with his loins girt, Lu. 12:35; 1 Pt. 1:13.
2. His diet was plain; his meat was locusts and wild honey; not as if he never ate any thing else; but these he frequently fed upon, and made many meals of them, when he retired into solitary places, and continued long there for contemplation. Locusts were a sort of flying insect, very good for food, and allowed as clean (Lev. 11:22); they required little dressing, and were light, and easy of digestion, whence it is reckoned among the infirmities of old age, that the grasshopper, or locust, is then a burden to the stomach, Eccl. 12:5. Wild honey was that which Canaan flowed with, 1 Sa. 14:26. Either it was gathered immediately, as it fell in the dew, or rather, as it was found in the hollows of trees and rocks, where bees built, that were not, like those in hives, under the care and inspection of men. This intimates that he ate sparingly, a little served his turn; a man would be long ere he filled his belly with locusts and wild honey: John Baptist came neither eating nor drinking (ch. 11:18)—not with the curiosity, formality, and familiarity that other people do. He was so entirely taken up with spiritual things, that he could seldom find time for a set meal. Now, (1.) This agreed with the doctrine he preached of repentance, and fruits meet for repentance. Note, Those whose business it is to call others to mourn for sin, and to mortify it, ought themselves to live a serious life, a life of self-denial, mortification, and contempt of the world. John Baptist thus showed the deep sense he had of the badness of the time and place he lived in, which made the preaching of repentance needful; every day was a fast-day with him. (2.) This agreed with his office as Christ’s forerunner; by this practice he showed that he knew what the kingdom of heaven was, and had experienced the powers of it. Note, Those that are acquainted with divine and spiritual pleasures, cannot but look upon all the delights and ornaments of sense with a holy indifference; they know better things. By giving others this example he made way for Christ. Note, A conviction of the vanity of the world, and everything in it, is the best preparative for the entertainment of the kingdom of heaven in the heart. Blessed are the poor in spirit.
VI. The people who attended upon him, and flocked after him (v. 5); Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea. Great multitudes came to him from the city, and from all parts of the country; some of all sorts, men and women, young and old, rich and poor, Pharisees and publicans; they went out to him, as soon as they heard his preaching the kingdom of heaven, that they might hear what they heard so much of. Now, 1. This was a great honour put upon John, that so many attended him, and with so much respect. Note, Frequently those have most real honour done them, who least court the shadow of it. Those who live a mortified life, who are humble and self-denying, and dead to the world, command respect; and men have a secret value and reverence for them, more than they would imagine. 2. This gave John a great opportunity of doing good, and was an evidence that God was with him. Now people began to crowd and press into the kingdom of heaven (Lu. 16:16); and a blessed sight it was, to see the dew of the youth dropping from the womb of the gospel-morning (Ps. 110:3), to see the net cast where there were so many fish. 3. This was an evidence, that it was now a time of great expectation; it was generally thought that the kingdom of God would presently appear (Lu. 19:11), and therefore, when John showed himself to Israel, lived and preached at this rate, so very different from the Scribes and Pharisees, they were ready to say of him, that he was the Christ (Lu. 3:15); and this occasioned such a confluence of people about him. 4. Those who would have the benefit of John’s ministry must go out to him in the wilderness, sharing in his reproach. Note, They who truly desire the sincere milk of the word, it if be not brought to them, will seek out for it: and they who would learn the doctrine of repentance must go out from the hurry of this world, and be still. 5. It appears by the issue, that of the many who came to John’s Baptism, there were but few that adhered to it; witness the cold reception Christ had in Judea, and about Jerusalem. Note, There may be a multitude of forward hearers, where there are but a few true believers. Curiosity, and affectation of novelty and variety, may bring many to attend upon good preaching, and to be affected with it for a while, who yet are never subject to the power of it, Eze. 33:31, 32.
VII. The rite, or ceremony, by which he admitted disciples, v. 6. Those who received his doctrine, and submitted to his discipline, were baptized of him in Jordan, thereby professing their repentance, and their belief that the kingdom of the Messiah was at hand. 1. They testified their repentance by confessing their sins; a general confession, it is probable, they made to John that they were sinners, that they were polluted by sin, and needed cleansing; but to God they made a confession of particular sins, for he is the party offended. The Jews had been taught to justify themselves; but John teaches them to accuse themselves, and not to rest, as they used to do, in the general confession of sin made for all Israel, once a year, upon the day of atonement; but to make a particular acknowledgment, every one, of the plague of his own heart. Note, A penitent confession of sin is required in order to peace and pardon; and those only are ready to receive Jesus Christ as their Righteousness, who are brought with sorrow and shame to their own guilt, 1 Jn. 1:9. 2. The benefits of the kingdom of heaven, now at hand, were thereupon sealed to them by baptism. He washed them with water, in token of this—that from all their iniquities God would cleanse them. It was usual with the Jews to baptize those whom they admitted proselytes to their religion, especially those who were only Proselytes of the gate, and were not circumcised, as the Proselytes of righteousness were. Some think it was likewise a custom for persons of eminent religion, who set up for leaders, by baptism to admit pupils and disciples. Christ’s question concerning John’s Baptism, Was it from heaven, or of men? implied, that there were baptisms of men, who pretended not to a divine mission; with this usage John complied, but his was from heaven, and was distinguished from all others by this character, It was the baptism of repentance, Acts 19:4. All Israel were baptized unto Moses, 1 Co. 10:2. The ceremonial law consisted in divers washings or baptisms (Heb. 9:10); but John’s baptism refers to the remedial law, the law of repentance and faith. He is said to baptize them in Jordan, that river which was famous for Israel’s passage through it, and Naaman’s cure; yet it is probable that John did not baptize in that river at first, but that afterward, when the people who came to his baptism were numerous, he removed Jordan. By baptism he obliged them to live a holy life, according to the profession they took upon themselves. Note, Confession of sin must always be accompanied with holy resolutions, in the strength of divine grace, not to return to it again.
Verses 7-12
The doctrine John preached was that of repentance, in consideration of the kingdom of heaven being at hand; now here we have the use of that doctrine. Application is the life of preaching, so it was of John’s preaching.
Observe, 1. To whom he applied it; to the Pharisees and Sadducees that came to his baptism, v. 7. To others he thought it enough to say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; but when he saw these Pharisees and Sadducees come about him, he found it necessary to explain himself, and deal more closely. These were two of the three noted sects among the Jews at that time, the third was that of the Essenes, whom we never read of in the gospels, for they affected retirement, and declined busying themselves in public affairs. The Pharisees were zealots for the ceremonies, for the power of the church, and the traditions of the elders; the Sadducees ran into the other extreme, and were little better than deists, denying the existence of spirits and a future state. It was strange that they came to John’s baptism, but their curiosity brought them to be hearers; and some of them, it is probable, submitted to be baptized, but it is certain that the generality of them did not; for Christ says (Lu. 7:29, 30), that when the publicans justified God, and were baptized of John, the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Note, Many come to ordinances, who come not under the power of them. Now to them John here addresses himself with all faithfulness, and what he said to them, he said to the multitude (Lu. 3:7), for they were all concerned in what he said. 2. What the application was. It is plain and home, and directed to their consciences; he speaks as one that came not to preach before them, but to preach to them. Though his education was private, he was not bashful when he appeared in public, nor did he fear the face of man, for he was full of the Holy Ghost, and of power.
I. Here is a word of conviction and awakening. He begins harshly, calls them not Rabbi, gives them not the titles, much less the applauses, they had been used to. 1. The title he gives them is, O generation of vipers. Christ gave them the same title; ch. 12:34; 23:33. They were as vipers; though specious, yet venomous and poisonous, and full of malice and enmity to every thing that was good; they were a viperous brood, the seed and offspring of such as had been of the same spirit; it was bred in the bone with them. They gloried in it, that they were the seed of Abraham; but John showed them that they were the serpent’s seed (compare Gen. 3:15); of their father the Devil, Jn. 8:44. They were a viperous gang, they were all alike; though enemies to one another, yet confederate in mischief. Note, A wicked generation is a generation of vipers, and they ought to be told so; it becomes the ministers of Christ to be bold in showing sinners their true character. 2. The alarm he gives them is, Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come? This intimates that they were in danger of the wrath to come; and that their case was so nearly desperate, and their hearts so hardened in sin (the Pharisees by their parade of religion, and the Sadducees by their arguments against religion), that it was next to a miracle to effect anything hopeful among them. "What brings you hither? Who thought of seeing you here? What fright have you been put into, that you enquire after the kingdom of heaven?’’ Note, (1.) There is a wrath to come; besides present wrath, the vials of which are poured out now, there is future wrath, the stores of which are treasured up for hereafter. (2.) It is the great concern of every one of us to flee from this wrath. (3.) It is wonderful mercy that we are fairly warned to flee from this wrath; think—Who has warned us? God has warned us, who delights not in our ruin; he warns by the written word, by ministers, by conscience. (4.) These warnings sometime startle those who seemed to have been very much hardened in their security and good opinion of themselves.
II. Here is a word of exhortation and direction (v. 8); "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. Therefore, because you are warned to flee from the wrath to come, let the terrors of the Lord persuade you to a holy life.’’ Or, "Therefore, because you profess repentance, and attend upon the doctrine and baptism of repentance, evidence that you are true penitents.’’ Repentance is seated in the heart. There it is as a root; but in vain do we pretend to have it there, if we do not bring forth the fruits of it in a universal reformation, forsaking all sin, and cleaving to that which is good; these are fruits, axious teµs metanoias—worthy of repentance. Note, Those are not worthy the name of penitents, or their privileges, who say they are sorry for their sins, and yet persist in them. They that profess repentance, as all that are baptized do, must be and act as becomes penitents, and never do any thing unbecoming a penitent sinner. It becomes penitents to be humble and low in their own eyes, to be thankful for the least mercy, patient under the greatest affliction, to be watchful against all appearances of sin, and approaches towards it, to abound in every duty, and to be charitable in judging others.
III. Here is a word of caution, not to trust to their external privileges, so as with them to shift off these calls to repentance (v. 9); Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father. Note, There is a great deal which carnal hearts are apt to say within themselves, to put by the convincing, commanding power of the word of God, which ministers should labour to meet with and anticipate; vain thoughts which lodge within those who are called to wash their hearts, Jer. 4:14. Meµ doxeµte—Pretend not, presume not, to say within yourselves; be not of the opinion that this will save you; harbour not such a conceit. "Please not yourselves with saying this’’ (so some read); "rock not yourselves asleep with this, nor flatter yourselves into a fool’s paradise.’’ Note, God takes notice of what we say within ourselves, which we dare not speak out, and is acquainted with all the false rests of the soul, and the fallacies with which it deludes itself, but which it will not discover, lest it should be undeceived. Many hide the lie that ruins them, in their right hand, and roll it under their tongue, because they are ashamed to own it; they keep in the Devil’s interest, by keeping the Devil’s counsel. Now John shows them,
1. What their pretense was; "We have Abraham to our father; we are not sinners of the Gentiles; it is fit indeed that they should be called to repent; but we are Jews, a holy nation, a peculiar people, what is this to us?’’ Note, The word does us no good, when we will not take it as it is spoken to us, and belonging to us. "Think not that because you are the seed of Abraham, therefore,’’ (1.) "You need not repent, you have nothing to repent of; your relation to Abraham, and your interest in the covenant made with him, denominate you so holy, that there is no occasion for you to change your mind or way.’’ (2.) "That therefore you shall fare well enough, though you do not repent. Think not that this will bring you off in the judgment, and secure you from the wrath to come; that God will connive at your impenitence, because you are Abraham’s seed.’’ Note, It is vain presumption to think that our having good relations will save us, though we be not good ourselves. What though we be descended from pious ancestors; have been blessed with a religious education; have our lot cast in families where the fear of God is uppermost; and have good friends to advise us, and pray for us; what will all this avail us, if we do not repent, and live a life of repentance? We have Abraham to our father, and therefore are entitled to the privileges of the covenant made with him; being his seed, we are sons of the church, the temple of the Lord, Jer. 7:4. Note, Multitudes, by resting in the honours and advantages of their visible church-membership, take up short of heaven.
2. How foolish and groundless this pretence was; they thought that being the seed of Abraham, they were the only people God had in the world, and therefore that, if they were cut off, he would be at a loss for a church; but John shows them the folly of this conceit; I say unto you (whatever you say within yourselves), that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. He was now baptizing in Jordan at Bethabara (Jn. 1:28), the house of passage, where the children of Israel passed over; and there were the twelve stones, one for each tribe, which Joshua set up for a memorial, Jos. 4:20. It is not unlikely that he pointed to those stones, which God could raise to be, more than in representation, the twelve tribes of Israel. Or perhaps he refers to Isa. 51:1, where Abraham is called the rock out of which they were hewn. That God who raised Isaac out of such a rock, can, if there be an occasion, do as much again, for with him nothing is impossible. Some think he pointed to those heathen soldiers that were present, telling the Jews that God would raise up a church for himself among the Gentiles, and entail the blessing of Abraham upon them. Thus when our first parents fell, God could have left them to perish, and out of stones have raised up another Adam and another Eve. Or, take it thus, "Stones themselves shall be owned as Abraham’s seed, rather than such hard, dry, barren sinners as you are.’’ Note, As it is lowering to the confidence of the sinners in Zion, so it is encouraging to the hopes of the sons of Zion, that, whatever comes of the present generation, God will never want a church in the world; if the Jews fall off, the Gentiles shall be grafted in, ch. 21:43; Rom. 11:12, etc.
IV. Here is a word of terror to the careless and secure Pharisees and Sadducees, and other Jews, that knew not the signs of the times, nor the day of their visitation, v. 10. "Now look about you, now that the kingdom of God is at hand, and be made sensible.’’
1. How strict and short your trial is; Now the axe is carried before you, now it is laid to the root of the tree, now you are upon your good behavior, and are to be so but a while; now you are marked for ruin, and cannot avoid it but by a speedy and sincere repentance. Now you must expect that God will make quicker work with you by his judgments than he did formerly, and that they will begin at the house of God: "where God allows more means, he allows less time.’’ Behold, I come quickly. Now they were put upon their last trial; now or never.
2. "How sore and severe your doom will be, if you do not improve this.’’ It is now declared with the axe at the root, to show that God is in earnest in the declaration, that every tree, however high in gifts and honours, however green in external professions and performances, if it bring not forth good fruit, the fruits meet for repentance, is hewn down, disowned as a tree in God’s vineyard, unworthy to have room there, and is cast into the fire of God’s wrath—the fittest place for barren trees: what else are they good for? If not fit for fruit, they are fit for fuel. Probably this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, which was not, as other judgments had been, like the lopping off of the branches, or cutting down of the body of the tree, leaving the root to bud again, but it would be the total, final, and irrecoverable extirpation of that people, in which all those should perish that continued impenitent. Now God would make a full end, wrath was coming on them to the utmost.
V. A word of instruction concerning Jesus Christ, in whom all John’s preaching centered. Christ’s ministers preach, not themselves, but him. Here is,
1. The dignity and pre-eminence of Christ above John. See how meanly he speaks of himself, that he might magnify Christ (v. 11); "I indeed baptize you with water, that is the utmost I can do.’’ Note, Sacraments derive not their efficacy from those who administer them; they can only apply the sign; it is Christ’s prerogative to give the thing signified, 1 Co. 3:6; 2 Ki. 4:31. But he that comes after me is mightier than I. Though John had much power, for he came in the spirit and power of Elias, Christ has more; though John was truly great, great in the sight of the Lord (not a greater was born of woman), yet he thinks himself unworthy to be in the meanest place of attendance upon Christ, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He sees, (1.) How mighty Christ is, in comparison with him. Note, It is a great comfort to the faithful ministers, to think that Jesus Christ is mightier than they, can do that for them, and that by them, which they cannot do; his strength is perfected in their weakness. (2.) How mean he is in comparison with Christ, not worthy to carry his shoes after him! Note, Those whom God puts honour upon, are thereby made very humble and low in their own eyes; willing to be abased, so that Christ may be magnified; to be any thing, to be nothing, so that Christ may be all.
2. The design and intention of Christ’s appearing, which they were now speedily to expect. When it was prophesied that John should be sent as Christ’s forerunner (Mal. 3:1, 2), it immediately follows, The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come, and shall sit as a refiner, v. 3. And after the coming of Elijah, the day comes that shall burn as an oven (Mal. 4:1), to which the Baptist seems here to refer. Christ will come to make a distinction,
(1.) By the powerful working of his grace; He shall baptize you, that is, some of you, with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Note, [1.] It is Christ’s prerogative to baptize with the Holy Ghost. This he did in the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit conferred upon the apostles, to which Christ himself applies these words of John, Acts 1:5. This he does in the graces and comforts of the Spirit given to them that ask him, Lu. 11:13; Jn. 7:38, 39; See Acts 11:16. [2.] They who are baptized with the Holy Ghost are baptized as with fire; the seven spirits of God appear as seven lamps of fire, Rev. 4:5. Is fire enlightening? So the Spirit is a Spirit of illumination. Is it warming? And do not their hearts burn within them? Is it consuming? And does not the Spirit of judgment, as a Spirit of burning, consume the dross of their corruptions? Does fire make all it seizes like itself? And does it move upwards? So does the Spirit make the soul holy like itself, and its tendency is heaven-ward. Christ says I am come to send fire, Lu. 12:49.
(2.) By the final determinations of his judgment (v. 12); Whose fan is in his hand. His ability to distinguish, as the eternal wisdom of the Father, who sees all by a true light, and his authority to distinguish, as the Person to whom all judgment is committed, is the fan that is in his hand, Jer. 15:7. Now he sits as a Refiner. Observe here [1.] The visible church is Christ’s floor; O my threshing, and the corn of my floor, Isa. 21:10. The temple, a type of church, was built upon a threshing-floor. [2.] In this floor there is a mixture of wheat and chaff. True believers are as wheat, substantial, useful, and valuable; hypocrites are as chaff, light, and empty, useless and worthless, and carried about with every wind; these are now mixed, good and bad, under the same external profession; and in the same visible communion. [3.] There is a day coming when the floor shall be purged, and the wheat and chaff shall be separated. Something of this kind is often done in this world, when God calls his people out of Babylon, Rev. 18:4. But it is the day of the last judgment that will be the great winnowing, distinguishing day, which will infallibly determine concerning doctrines and works (1 Co. 3:13), and concerning persons (ch. 25:32, 33), when saints and sinners shall be parted for ever. [4.] Heaven is the garner into which Jesus Christ will shortly gather all his wheat, and not a grain of it shall be lost: he will gather them as the ripe fruits were gathered in. Death’s scythe is made use of to gather them to their people. In heaven the saints are brought together, and no longer scattered; they are safe, and no longer exposed; separated from corrupt neighbours without, and corrupt affections within, and there is no chaff among them. They are not only gathered into the barn (ch. 13:30), but into the garner, where they are thoroughly purified. [5.] Hell is the unquenchable fire, which will burn up the chaff, which will certainly be the portion and punishment, and everlasting destruction, of hypocrites and unbelievers. So that here are life and death, good and evil, set before us; according as we now are in the field, we shall be then in the floor.[1]
MATHEW Chapter 3.
Matthew 3.1–12.
SECTION HEADING: “The Preaching of John the Baptist.” Many languages will not normally express the action of preaching with a noun, as English does. They may say “What John the Baptist preached” or “The message John the Baptist proclaimed.” Many translators will need to use a complete sentence such as “John the Baptist preaches (in the wilderness)” or “John the Baptist proclaims a message.” For “Baptist,” see comments on verse 1.
Matthew proceeds immediately from the birth narratives to the account of the preaching of John the Baptist (3.1–12) and the baptism of Jesus (3.13–17).
Verses 1–3 hint at the significance that the appearance and activity of John the Baptist held for the early Christian community. In particular, the use of the Greek historical present in these three verses underscores the continuing importance of John for the believing community to which Matthew addresses himself. John’s significance is further emphasized by the observation that his coming is described as the fulfillment of the prophetic message of Isaiah 40.3.
Verses 4–6 use words similar to those of (Mark 1.4–6) to describe the external appearance and the public activity of the Baptist. This section is introduced very abruptly in Greek, with the result that the immediate connection with the Isaiah quotation is almost obscured (compare Mark 1.2–3).
Finally, the content of John’s repentance preaching and Messianic preaching are summarized in verses 7–12.
Matthew 3.1.
Matthew introduces his account of John the Baptist with echoes of Old Testament language. Note the following examples: (1) In those days (TEV “At that time”) reflects the Septuagint text of Judges 18.1 and Daniel 10.2. Similar also is “in those many days” of Exodus 2.11. In the New Testament this phrase is found in at least the following passages: Matthew 24.19, 38; Mark 1.9; 8.1; 13.17, 24; Luke 2.1; 4.2; 5.35; 9.36; 23.7; 24.18; and Acts 1.15. (2) The Greek verb translated came (NEB “appeared”; NAB “made his appearance”; Phps “arrived”; Brc “appeared on the scene”) is found frequently in the Septuagint and in the Gospel of Luke. In Matthew it appears elsewhere only in 2.1 and 3.13. (3) Finally, the term wilderness falls also into this category of biblical language. The full expression (the wilderness of Judea) appears only twice in the Old Testament (Judges 1.16 and in the superscription of Psa 63). For Matthew the significance would be as much theological as geographical.
In those days does not refer to the time Joseph returned from Egypt, described at the end of chapter 2. Rather it is an expression of an indefinite time, referring to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, perhaps thirty years after the return. Translators may say “Some years later,” “Some time later,” or even “The time came when John the Baptist came ....”
In many languages, came can only be used if John the Baptist went to where the listeners or readers of the text actually were, so that “went” will be more appropriate. However, many translators will do something similar to the examples given above from NEB, NAB, or Brc, and say “appeared in the desert” or “arrived in the desert.” (Of course, if translators do use “appeared,” it must not seem as if John suddenly appeared like a vision, but rather that he began to make public appearances.)
The verb came is before the subject in RSV, but TEV has reversed this to a more normal English expression, “John the Baptist came....”
The title the Baptist is also used of John in 11.11–12; 14.2, 8; 16.14; 17.13; Mark 6.25; 8.28; Luke 7.20, 33; 9.19. In the parallel to the present passage, Mark 1.4, and in 6.14, Mark refers to him by the descriptive participle “the baptizing one.”
John the Baptist is introduced as though he were someone already known to the readers. This was true of Matthew’s original readers. But many modern readers of the Gospel will not know of him, and he has not been previously mentioned in the book. Therefore, very often it is helpful to say “the man named John the Baptist appeared ....”
Some translators have treated Baptist as a proper name, and simply written it as it would be pronounced in their language. Others have tried to translate it as “the one who baptizes” or “the one they called ‘the Baptizer.’ ” Such translations depend on how “baptize” itself is translated, and this can be a major problem. In many cultures baptism is completely unknown. Where it has been introduced by the churches, different denominations have often disagreed on method and theological implications, and have even introduced these differences into the terms they have used to translate; for example, “sprinkling,” or “immersing.” To avoid these problems, translators have either borrowed the Greek word “baptize” or used expressions like “putting on of water,” “putting on God’s water,” “washing,” or “God’s washing.” Translators should always consider this problem carefully, keeping in mind the terms used by the churches in their area and the practice of the ritual itself.
Preaching (a participle in Greek) is translated “announced” by GeCL and “started preaching” by TEV. Other languages say “announced (or, proclaimed) God’s word,” “proclaimed his message,” or “told the people this message.”
Wilderness or “desert” (TEV) has been difficult for translators who live in places where dry regions of sparse vegetation are simply not known. Some have said “sandy region,” but that may make readers think of a seashore or a sandy river bank. It is better in these situations to emphasize the fact that the “wilderness” is a remote area where no one lives, as in “that area (of Judea) where no one lives” or “the area (in Judea) far away from where people stayed.”
Some translations will put the phrase “in the wilderness” after “appeared” or “came,” and others after “preaching.” This does not matter as long as the sentence is structured in the most natural way in the language.
Matthew 3.2.
It may be necessary to start the verse with a phrase such as “This is what he was saying,” “He was telling the people,” or “He was preaching that....” What he was saying will be either in direct speech (as in TEV and RSV) or indirect, as in “He was preaching that people should repent.” It depends on what is more natural.
Repent. The root meaning of the Old Testament word for “repent” is “turn away from sin,” and so the basis for TEV “Turn away from your sins.” NAB translates “Reform your lives!” which is similar to the rendering of GeCL. When translating Repent, it is important to realize that it does not mean simply “to be sorry about” or “to regret,” but rather involves a change of both attitude (or heart) and of conduct. This is why translators have used expressions such as “Turn your back on your sinning,” “Change your way of living,” or “Turn away from your bad actions.”
Kingdom of heaven: most biblical scholars would agree with the statement in the new Oxford Annotated Bible: “The Kingdom of heaven is Matthew’s usual way of expressing the equivalent phrase, ‘the Kingdom of God,’ found in parallel accounts in the other Gospels.” Fortunately, as far as translation is concerned, it is not important to decide on which was the original term, so long as it can be agreed that the two terms are identical in meaning. A number of CLTs have already adopted the policy of rendering both phrases in the same way. NAB in a number of places translates “the Kingdom of Heaven” as “the Reign of God,” and here, at the first occurrence of the term in the New Testament, gives a note: “...literally, ‘the Kingdom of heaven.’ ‘Heaven’ is a conventional expression which avoids using the divine name. The term invokes God’s sovereign authority over the human race. It announces that a new intervention of God is beginning in history which invites Israel to accept the prophetic manifestation of his will through the baptizer.” Dutch common language translation (DuCL) sometimes translates “Kingdom of God” instead of “Kingdom of heaven,” while still other translations utilize a glossary to make the identity clear: FrCL InCL, and TEV.
It is also fairly well accepted among biblical scholars that the term “Kingdom of God,” both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, has as its primary meaning “God’s kingly rule.” That is, the basic emphasis is on the actual rule of God as an activity, rather than on the realm or territory over which he rules.
Although the central meaning of these two phrases is the kingly rule of God, the focus may be different in various contexts. For example, in the New Testament it is used in at least the following ways: (1) Focus on the activity of God in bringing about his rule in the world. An example of this is the present verse. Here the emphasis is on the fact that God will soon begin (or has already begun) his rule in this world. (2) Focus on the acceptance of God’s rule in one’s life. An illustration of this use is found in 19.23–26 (parallels Mark 10.23 and Luke 18.24), which RSV translates “it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” The meaning of this verse is “it will be hard for a rich man to submit himself to God’s rule.” (3) Focus on the enjoyment of the blessings or quality of life experienced under God’s rule. Matthew 5.3 falls under this category. (4) Focus on the consummation of God’s activity in bringing about his rule in this world. (5) Focus on the idea of the community of God’s people, as in “enter the kingdom.”
Too often, translators have chosen a way of translating kingdom which emphasizes the territory of a king. If a word can be found which means “rule,” “reign,” or “kingship,” it will be better. Many translators have found it best to use a verb; for example, “God rules.” In these cases the translation of “Kingdom of God (or, of heaven)” varies greatly as translators construct different sentences for the various contexts of the phrase. We will discuss these as we come to them throughout the Gospel.
In most areas it will not be readily seen that “heaven” represents “God” in this expression. Further, it seems odd to speak of “the rule (or, reign) of heaven” or to say “heaven rules.” Therefore most translators will use “kingdom of God” or “rule of God,” and so forth, as in Mark and Luke.
The kingdom of heaven is at hand may be discussed together with 4.17 (parallel Mark 1.15), since the passages are identical and so present the same exegetical and translational problems. Matthew 4.17 repeats Matthew 3.2 word for word, and Mark 1.15 is the same except that he has “kingdom of God” in place of “kingdom of heaven.” The basic exegetical problem in this statement relates to the interpretation of the Greek verb is at hand (literally “has approached”); that is, whether it indicates that the Kingdom of God has already arrived or that it is soon to arrive. Most modern translations and commentators seem to prefer the second of these two alternatives, and it is the recommended meaning to accept (NEB “is upon you”; NJB “is close at hand”; Mft “is near”; AT “is coming”; Brc “is almost here”). RSV and NAB are ambiguous (“is at hand”), but Phps follows the first exegesis (“has arrived”). GeCL evidently also accepts the exegesis that God’s rule is imminent, though not yet present, and restructures the verse entirely: “God will now accomplish his work and establish his rule.” Malay Common Language (MaCL) has “God will soon establish his rule.” In cultures where the concept of a rule connotes something evil or oppressive, one may want to translate “the time is near when God will come to save his people,” since salvation, as opposed to judgment, is primary in the meaning of God’s kingly rule.
Some languages can leave the sentence abstract, as in “God’s reign will begin soon” or “God’s rule will soon be established.” Others will make “God” an active agent, as in the examples above from GeCL and MaCL, “God will soon establish his reign (or, rule).” Other translations say “God will soon rule” or “The time is near when God will rule.”
In many languages, however, it is necessary to specify over who or what God will rule, as in “rule over the world,” “rule over us,” or “rule over people.”
The relationship between the two things John was saying is shown by the word for. John tells the people that the reason they should repent is that soon God’s rule will be established. Presumably, if they do not repent they will not be a part of that rule. Most translators will show this relation in a way similar to TEV or RSV, with “for” or “because.” Other languages, however, will more naturally say “God’s rule will soon be established. For that reason, you should repent.”
Matthew 3.3.
As may be gathered from the more literal rendering of RSV (For this is he who), John is not actually mentioned by name in the Greek text. TEV and GeCL mention the name explicitly for stylistic reasons. Actually, most translators will find that doing this will help their readers to follow the flow of the passage better. Another way may be “It was John that the prophet Isaiah was talking about.”
For does indicate that John’s ministry was a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah. TEV showed this relation with the expression “John was the man...,” without using the word “for.” Another way to do this may be “In fact, John was the person ....”
There are languages which more naturally start this verse with “Isaiah.” But translators must make sure that the focus is still on John: “Isaiah the prophet had spoken about someone and said, ‘Someone is shouting ... for him to travel.’ That person he spoke of was John.”
For comments on prophet, see 1.22.
The quotation of Isaiah 40.3, which Matthew has taken over from (Mark 1.2–3), differs from the quotations in chapters 2 and 3 in that the “to be fulfilled” is lacking. At this point Matthew clearly adopts the Septuagint, in which the phrase in the wilderness is connected with crying (TEV “shouting”) rather than with the imperative prepare, as in Hebrew.
There is, however, one important distinction between the Septuagint text and the quotation in Matthew and Mark: in place of make his (the Messiah’s) paths straight, the Septuagint follows the meaning of the Hebrew: “make a straight path for our God to travel.” In other words, both the Hebrew and the Septuagint consider “the Lord” to refer to God, while Matthew interprets “the Lord” as referring to the expected Messiah.
TEV has translated clearly the meaning of the ambiguous expression his paths by “path for him to travel.”
It is difficult in many languages to speak of a voice shouting. Instead translators may say “The voice of someone” or just “Someone.” Another possibility is to say “People hear the voice of someone shouting....”
Crying does not mean “weeping” here, but “shouting.”
The same word for wilderness is used here as in verse 1. Translators should use the same word in both verses so that the connection between them is clear.
Many languages must introduce what the voice said, with “He (or, that person) said” or “saying,” or even “He was saying.”
Prepare the way means “Get a road ready,” “Make a road,” or even “Cut a path.” Of course Isaiah is not speaking literally of a road but is actually speaking about providing the right circumstances so that the Lord can come. However, translators should keep the figure Isaiah used, if at all possible.
The way of the Lord is a road “for the Lord,” a road “on which the Lord can travel,” or “for him to travel on.”
The second command, to make his paths straight, has essentially the same meaning as the first one, as in “Make straight paths for him” or “Prepare straight paths for him (to travel on).”
Since it is understood that this path or road is for the Lord to travel on as he comes to us, some translators say something like “to travel on to us” or “to come to his people.”
Matthew 3.4.
The description of John in verse 4 is not part of the quotation from Isaiah. Readers in many languages can tell this by the use of the quotation marks. However, in many societies where people are not very accustomed to reading, it is still normal to have some word or phrase to indicate the end of the quotation; for example, “That is what he said.” In still others a transition word such as Now in RSV is used to show that the quotation is finished and something new has started. The important thing is that the transition be smooth and natural in the translation.
According to Malachi 4.5 the return of Elijah is to precede the coming of the Messiah. John is identified as Elijah in Matthew 17.10–13, but in the present passage the similarity between John and Elijah exists only in the allusion to John’s clothes: a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist (see 2 Kgs 1.8).
John wore habitually the clothes described: “John used to wear,” “was wearing,” or “wore all the time.”
In many areas camels are unknown, and likewise the rough cloth made from camel’s hair. Translators in such areas can say “John’s clothing was made from the hair of a domestic animal (or, hair of an animal called camel),” or possibly “John’s clothing was made of a rough cloth made from the hair of an animal called camel.”
For garment sometimes a general word like “clothing” or “clothes” is available, but in other languages a specific term has to be named. In these cases translators should use a word for a tunic, or shirt, or a wrap that a man might commonly wear.
The leather girdle can be translated as in TEV, “leather belt,” but also as “belt of dried animal skin” or “a strip of dried animal skin around his waist to hold his clothing.”
Food translates a noun which literally means “nourishment”; but here and elsewhere in Matthew the meaning is “food” (see 6.25; 10.10; 24.45). Just as the clothing referred to was his usual clothing, by food is meant his customary or habitual nourishment. “He used to eat” or “His usual food was” are ways to handle this.
The mention of locusts and wild honey does not belong to a part of the description of Elijah. Locusts were recognized as clean food by the Jews and are still eaten by Arabs of the Near or Middle East. There is no basis for the identification of this word as “carob,” or “cakes,” or “milk.”
It should be noticed that Matthew’s rearrangement of the Marcan order by placing the information of Mark 1.6 (Matt 3.4) before that of Mark 1.5 (Matt 3.5–6) achieves a much smoother transition. Matthew 3.4–6 and Mark 1.5–6 are without parallel in the Lukan account.
Wild honey is honey found in natural beehives, out in the fields or wilderness perhaps, as distinguished from honey from beehives kept by people. However, this distinction is simply unknown in areas where people do not keep bees, and translators can then say either “honey” or “honey found in the wilderness (or, in the forest).”
Matthew 3.5.
The verb went out is in the imperfect tense in Greek and suggests repeated action. In Greek the subject of the verb went out is Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan (that is, the region near where the Jordan River empties into the Dead Sea). What is meant, of course, is that the people of these regions went out. The use of all in both occurrences is a typical idiomatic expression in Hebrew; the meaning here is “many of the people from....”
The requirements of the receptor language will determine whether the form went out to him or “came to him” (TEV) is better. Translators in many languages will find it natural to retain the sense of repeated action that is carried by the imperfect tense of went. They might have “people in Jerusalem used to go out” or “were going out.” To him may be “to where he was.” Also it is sometimes necessary to say why they were going out, as in “to hear him” or “to listen to him.”
No translator wants to give the impression that it was the city of Jerusalem or the province of Judea that went to see him. It was the people from there. Whether to say “all the people,” “many of the people,” or just “people” will depend on what expression the language will normally have.
Since Jerusalem has already been mentioned several times in the Gospel, it may not be necessary to say “the city of Jerusalem,” but the province in which Jerusalem was located, Judea, will be sufficiently unfamiliar to many readers that translators will need to say “region (or, province) of Judea.”
Similarly, Jordan is a river, so translations often follow the example of TEV, with a phrase such as “people from all over the region near the Jordan River.”
Matthew 3.6.
TEV restructures this verse chronologically, placing the act of confession before that of baptism. In Greek baptized translates an imperfect tense (parallel to the imperfect of went out in verse 5), while confessing translates a participle (a present participle in Greek may refer to an action preceding that of the main verb). But these represent formal features of the Greek, and the translator must decide what form is most adequate for the needs of the receptor language. GeCL, among others, restructures in chronological sequence in TEV tradition. It should be noted that the gift of forgiveness came later from Jesus (see Matt 26.28); there is no connection between baptism and forgiveness as in Mark. Here the work of the Baptist relates solely to the matter of confession.
Some scholars believe that were baptized by him may rather have the meaning “were baptized under his supervision” or “baptized themselves under his supervision.” No translations go in this direction.
Some suggest that John took over his rite of baptism from Jewish proselyte baptism; one scholar, for example, affirms without hesitation that it was taken from the Qumran community (the Essenes), but given a “far more profound meaning.” For a summary discussion of the differences between the baptism of the Qumran community and that of John the Baptist, see the modern commentaries. Regardless of the source of John’s baptism, the meaning that he gave to it is clear in the context. For a discussion of baptized, see verse 3.1. Here “they had John baptize them” or “John baptized them.”
The word confessing is often translated as “They declared openly the wrong things they had done” or “They admitted in public (or, before God) their sins.”
Whichever action, confessing or baptizing, is given first, the important thing is that the relationship between them be clear. Chronologically, the confessing preceded their being baptized. It was the people who confessed and John who baptized them. It should not sound as if John was confessing. This can be expressed as “They declared before all the sins they had done, and John baptized them in the Jordan River” or “The people were baptized by John in the Jordan River after they confessed their sins.”
Matthew 3.7.
Verses 7–10 agree word for word with Luke 3.7–9, except for the introduction in verse 7 and a few minor changes (Matthew “fruit” for Luke “fruits” in verse 8, and Matthew “do not presume to say” for Luke “do not begin to say” of verse 9). Both Matthew and Luke reproduce in the same way what John the Baptist said, but they direct his message to two entirely different audiences. According to (Luke 3.7–9), God’s wrath is directed against all Israel, whereas Matthew makes a distinction within Israel: God’s wrath is directed against the Pharisees and Sadducees. The TEV word list provides a description of these two religious groups. For Matthew both are “representative of disbelief and opposition to Jesus.” And it is probably best to agree with those scholars who conclude that these two groups in Matthew’s Gospel represent the collective leadership of Israel in its opposition against Jesus.
The important thing in translating Pharisees is to indicate to readers that they were members of a group or sect. Too often the translation makes it seem they were people from some place called “Pharisee.” Thus translators can say “Many people from the group Pharisee” or “Many members of the religious group that is called Pharisee.” Where the Pharisees are mentioned several times in the passage, it should not be necessary to use such a complete translation in every place. After the first occurrence it may be sufficient to say “Pharisees” or “Pharisee people” in the rest of the passage.
Similarly with Sadducees, “members from the group Sadducee” or “people from the religious group Sadducee” are common translations.
For both Sadducees and Pharisees, it is important to have a fuller definition in a word list.
The Greek word construction for baptism means “in order to be baptized” or “in order to get themselves baptized.” It can be translated as “coming to him to be baptized,” “coming to him so he would baptize them,” or “coming to receive the baptism he was giving.” These phrases make it explicit that it was John’s baptism they were seeking.
You brood of vipers! John addresses his audience in words that are sharper than those of any Old Testament prophet. So sharp are his words that elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel (12.34; 23.33) only Jesus himself uses them. The employment of such a figure of speech is almost without parallel, although the group of pious Jews who withdrew to the desert did refer to the “dragon’s venom and viper’s poison” of unfaithful Israelites. According to the Old Testament and Israelite popular thought, the snake is the most cunning of all beasts, a demonic creature who leads people astray (Gen 3.1; Job 20.16; Psa 58.4; 140.3; Sirach 39.30).
Many translators try to translate brood of vipers literally as “family (or, group) of vipers.” If there are no vipers in their area, they substitute some other venomous snake. However, it is better to recognize that John is using a metaphor to call the Pharisees and Sadducees clever and wicked deceivers, hypocrites who lead people astray. It is more important in the translation to have something that is insulting and vivid than to have a literal translation of brood of vipers. It may be enough to say “You snakes” or “You deceiving snakes.” In some cases a simile can be used, as in “You are like a bunch of wicked (or, clever) snakes” or “You are as clever as snakes.”
Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? is rendered somewhat more dynamically by TEV: “Who told you that you could escape from the punishment God is about to send?” Both who and you are emphatic, and “the tone is one of ironical surprise,” so one commentator notes, and he translates “Can it actually be the case that you have been persuaded to believe that the divine judgment is near, and stirred to endeavor to escape from it?” The notion of “could escape” (TEV) or “endeavor to escape” is not explicitly marked out in the Greek text, but it is clearly implicit in the overall context.
It is important in translation to realize that Who warned you is a rhetorical question. It is not asking for information about who it was that actually warned the Pharisees and Sadducees, or how they came to learn of the impending judgment. Further, the literal expression in English can give the impression that someone told them that they should try to escape. Rather, as we pointed out above, the phrase is actually expressing ironical surprise: “Where did you get the idea God’s judgment is near? What roused you to escape it?”
Although the phrase the wrath to come does not mention God by name, the wrath refers to God’s wrath. All commentators agree that this is the meaning, and GeCL has made it explicit: “the imminent judgment of God.” It is important not to speak of the wrath of God and the emotion of anger as if they were the same thing. Although God is totally and constantly opposed to evil, what is indicated is not God’s anger, but rather the reaction of a holy and loving God toward sin which defiles and destroys his creation. This always results in judgment. Thus the sentence can be translated “Where did you get the idea you needed to escape the punishment God will bring soon?” “What? You, too, have decided you need a way to escape God’s judgment?” or “I’m surprised to see you have decided you need to escape the punishment God will carry out.”
Matthew 3.8.
Bear fruit that befits repentance: “fruit” as a metaphor is typical of the Bible. Fruit simply grows naturally out of a fundamental disposition of the heart; it is not something that can be done by human plan. The translations attempt a wide variety of dynamic equivalent renderings: Phps “Go and do something to show that your hearts are really changed”; Brc “prove the sincerity of your repentance by your life and conduct”; TNT “Show by your conduct that you have truly repented”; NAB “Give some evidence that you mean to reform”; GeCL “show first of all through your deeds that you really want to change!”
Whereas in verse 2 the verb “to repent” is used, here the noun repentance is used in the Greek construction “worthy of repentance.” Both RSV (befits repentance) and TEV (“that will show that you have turned from your sins”) make the shift to a verb phrase.
In addition to the examples cited above, other phrases translators may try include “Do what is required to show you have repented,” “Live the life that people who have repented should live,” or “Live in such a way people will know you have turned from your sins.”
For comments on repentance, see verse 2.
Matthew 3.9.
TEV has rather radically restructured this verse. First, on the basis of verse 7, do not presume to say has been given its full form: “don’t think you can escape punishment by saying.” Then the direct discourse of the Greek (We have Abraham as our father) appears as indirect discourse in TEV. Both of these translational techniques have been adopted by GeCL, though with a different result: “You imagine that nothing can happen to you because Abraham is your ancestor. Do not fool yourselves ....” Abraham is the famous ancestor of the Jews with whom God made his covenant, and it was evidently quite common for the Jews of John’s day to rest their hopes for salvation on the claim that Abraham was their ancestor. See John 8.33–41.
Translators will often find that following the example of TEV in this verse is very helpful. Other translators have “Do not give yourself false hopes by saying ...” or “Do not think it will save you to claim ....”
As we pointed out, father here means “ancestor.” For a discussion of this word, see comments on the section heading of 1.1. Some translators may also say “It is Abraham who is our ancestor” or “We are descendants even of Abraham.”
The word for indicates a relation between the two parts of the verse. John tells the Pharisees and Sadducees they should not expect salvation simply because they are descendants of Abraham, for, John says, that does not mean a thing in God’s sight. God could provide all the descendants of Abraham he needed, even making them from these stones if necessary. In some languages, to make this flow of ideas clear, translators say “Believe me” or “I tell you this because ....”
These stones (TEV “rocks”) is an evident allusion to the stones of the Judean desert. The general interpretation is that from these stones means that God will use them as the material for making descendants for Abraham, as seen in TEV.
In Hebrew there is a play on words between children (banim) and stones (abanim). In the context children has the extended meaning of “descendants” (TEV). In most languages it will be well to use “descendants” so no one will think it means actual children.
As witnessed by Deuteronomy 18.15, 18, the expression raise up is here equivalent to “cause to be born.” TEV translates raise up children to Abraham as “make descendants for Abraham.” Translators can say “produce descendants” or “cause descendants to be born.”
The phrase to Abraham is not natural English, and “for Abraham,” as in TEV, is certainly better in most languages. Other suggestions are “God can use these stones to make descendants of Abraham” and “God can make descendants of Abraham out of these stones.”
Matthew 3.10.
The theme of judgment binds together verses 10–12, and in each of these three verses the word “fire” is explicitly mentioned. Although Jeremiah 46.22 speaks of men who go into the forest to chop down trees, the figure of the axe that is laid to the root of the trees is best understood as drawn from the experience of either a gardener or a person who takes care of grapevines. The trees referred to here are useful trees or grapevines from which one could expect to gather good fruit. The background for the words of John the Baptist may be found in Ezekiel 15.1–8, where the prophet compares the people of Jerusalem to the wood of the grapevine. Once the vine has ceased bearing fruit it is useless, and there is nothing that can be done with its wood, except to burn it. John the Baptist does not speak of someone who comes to prune the vine with a knife, but of one who comes to “cut down the trees at the roots” (TEV), after which they will be thrown into the fire.
Even now can be “Already,” or the meaning can be included in a phrase such as “God is ready” or “The ax is ready.”
For the ax to be laid to the root of the trees does not make sense in many languages, and the idea that everything is prepared to cut down the trees needs to be made explicit. Further, in many languages one cannot say that the ax is ready. The person who is going to use the ax must be mentioned. Thus one can say “God has the ax ready to cut down the trees at the roots.” If “ax” is difficult to translate, one can even say “God is ready to cut down....”
Cut down and thrown is a passive construction, but it is God who does this. Translations can have “God will cut it down and throw it into the fire.”
Every tree may be “any tree that does not ...” or “If a tree does not ....”
To bear good fruit may be translated “bear fruit that is edible (or, sweet)” or “bear fruit like it should.” In some cases it will be enough to say “produce fruit.”
The fire is a symbol of hell, the place of punishment. It is not normally advisable to say “hell” in the translation, but many translations make “fire” definite (that is, “the fire”) and not indefinite (“a fire”).
Matthew 3.11.
Note that the present tense I baptize you does not mean “I am baptizing you at this moment” but rather “when (or, as) I baptize you people.”
For comments on baptize, see 3.1.
The phrase with water (so most translations) may also be rendered “in water” (AT, NAB, NJB). The problem is that one normally thinks of baptizing a person “in” something, but according to the last part of this verse the one who is coming will baptize people “in (or, with)” the Holy Spirit. Therefore in order to make the analogy carry through, it seems best to translate in both instances as “with.” Translators can say simply “with water,” or they may say “I use (or, take) water when I baptize you” or “When I baptize you, I do it with water.” It is important that the same construction be used for the baptism by John, with water, and for the baptism by the one to come, with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
TEV translates the Greek noun phrase for repentance as “to show that you have repented.” Phps and TNT have “as a sign of your repentance”; AT “in token of your repentance”; NAB “for the sake of reform”; Brc “to make you repent”; GeCL 1st edition “Because you want to change your life.” If translators accept the interpretation of TEV, then they can say “as proof (or, evidence) that you have repented” or “so people will see you have repented.” On the other hand, if they follow the interpretation of Brc, for example, they might say something like “so that you will repent” or “to bring about your repentance.” For comments on repentance, see 3.2.
Translators need to make sure that the ideas are correctly combined. A sentence such as “When I baptize you, I do it with water to show that you have repented” could give the impression that John could also use other materials to baptize with to show something other than repentance. In other words, it could appear that it is the water that shows the repentance. A better sentence would be “When I baptize you to show you have repented, I use water” or “The baptism I give you to show you have repented is a baptism with water.”
John speaks of he who is coming after me. This does not mean a disciple of John, nor someone chasing John, but rather “the man who will proclaim his message after I do” or “the man who will appear later.” Another way to structure it is to say “Someone will appear later on, and he ....”
This person who is coming later is mightier than John. This does not refer to physical strength. Rather “He has more authority than I have” or “He is more important than I am.”
The Jewish expectation of Jesus’ day looked for “the Coming One” to be both a mighty leader (see Isa 9.1–6) and the world judge (see Dan 7.13). John does not consider himself worthy enough even to be the slave of the one who follows after him: “I am not good enough even to carry his sandals” (TEV). (Mark 1.7) and (Luke 3.16) have “to untie” in place of “carry his sandals,” a variation which may reflect two translations of an Aramaic original. Sandals are soles, usually made of leather, fastened to the feet with strings, thongs, or straps, and used as shoes for walking.
For not worthy, translators can use “not important enough” or phrases such as “I don’t deserve” or “I don’t qualify even to be a person who can carry his sandals.”
TEV has somewhat radically restructured the remainder of this verse in order to make the sequence of events and the contrast clearer for the readers. This is accomplished by bringing together the contrast between the baptism with water and the baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire, which appears as the last clause in the Greek text of this verse (compare RSV). Some few scholars rather dogmatically affirm that the phrase with the Holy Spirit and with fire forms a hendiadys, meaning that the reference is not to two different objects (Holy Spirit ... fire), as the conjunction “and” might suggest, but rather one (Holy Spirit) which is modified by the other (fire). These scholars would then translate “with the fire of the Holy Spirit.” In support of this interpretation they appeal to the evidence of the Dead Sea literature. If this structure is to be understood as a hendiadys, then fire must be taken in a positive sense. See, for example, the NJB footnote: “In the Old Testament fire, a purifying element more refined and efficacious than water, was already a symbol of God’s supreme intervention in history and of his Spirit which comes to purify hearts.”
On the other hand, the translators of TOB indicate in their footnote that, although it is possible to translate the phrase as “the Holy Spirit which purifies as fire,” they prefer to see here the meaning of judgment, especially in light of verses 11–12 (see also verse 7). Fire is often used in Jewish apocalyptic literature to describe the final judgment, and in this context fire obviously refers to judgment in its other two occurrences (see verses 10, 12). It therefore is proper to conclude that judgment is primary in this passage. Note GeCL: “With the fire of judgment.”
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. As we mentioned earlier, the construction used here should be parallel to that used in speaking of the baptizing John did: “He will use (or, take) the Holy Spirit and fire when he baptizes you” or “When he baptizes, he will do it with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” For comments on Holy Spirit, see 1.18.
Translators will note that TEV has restructured the verse to mark clearly the comparison between the two kinds of baptisms in the verse. One can also follow the RSV order but break it up into several sentences: “When I baptize you to show you have repented, I do it using water. But there is someone coming later on, someone more important than I. I am not worthy even to carry his sandals. He will baptize you using the Holy Spirit and fire.” There are many ways it can be done, but translators should always look for the order that is most natural in their language.
Matthew 3.12.
In Greek this verse is one sentence consisting of four coordinate clauses. See RSV for a representation of the formal structure of the Greek. TEV divides the verse into two sentences and does some further restructuring as well.
The winnowing fork (TEV “winnowing shovel”) was used to throw grain into the air so that the wind could blow away the chaff, which is the loose covering from around the grain and is lighter than the grain itself. A winnowing fork or “shovel” is not known in many parts of the world. Translators can say “a tool for winnowing grain” or “a tool for separating grain from chaff.” To say he has the winnowing fork in his hand means he is ready to use it. Some translations say “He has his winnowing fork ready to use” or “He is ready to begin separating the grain from the chaff with his winnowing fork.”
To clear his threshing floor probably means to clear all the chaff from the area where he threshes the grain. Thus “He will clear all the chaff from the place where he threshes (or, where he beats the grain to separate it from the chaff).” Brc has “He will clear every speck of rubbish from his threshing floor.”
In areas that do not have wheat, “grain” can be used. Some languages do not have this generic word “grain,” and use “seed” or “fruit” even for crops that have grains and need threshing.
The word granary can be translated as “barn” or “store house.”
Whatever the interpretation given to fire in the previous verse, it is obvious that the fire referred to here is that of judgment: “but he will burn the chaff in a fire that never goes out” (TEV).
It is good to retain the metaphor of this passage, but for readers in some languages, similes are easier to comprehend since they make explicit the basis of the comparison of the metaphor. This verse is actually speaking about the judgment of God, where he will separate the good from the bad people. If necessary, then, translators can do something like this:
He is ready to judge and separate the good people from the bad, like the farmer who is ready to separate the grain from the chaff with his winnowing fork; he will keep safe the good, like the farmer puts wheat into his granary, and just as the farmer clears his threshing floor of the chaff and burns it in a fire, he will cause the bad people to burn in a fire that never goes out.[2]
The Preaching of John the Baptist
1 Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!’” 4 Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 “Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10 “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” [NASB]
Comment
1 Although the time reference ἐν δὲ ται̂ς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, “in those days,” is not specific, it does indicate a special time (cf. the language of the prophets when they speak of eschatological matters in such passages as Zeph 1:15; Amos 9:11; Zech 12:3–4; Isa 10:20; Jer 37:7 [LXX]). This little phrase in this context functions as a pointer to a special time of revelation (Strecker, Weg, 90–91). Matthew’s vivid historical present παραγίνεται, lit. “comes,” is used also to describe the appearance of Jesus in v 13. Although the title ὁ βαπτιστής, “the Baptist,” is used by Mark and Luke, it is used much more frequently by Matthew. Here it serves as a kind of nickname. The word is found only in Christian writings, except for one reference in Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2), and in all three Synoptics, and always in reference to John. Matthew says that John came κηρύσσων, “preaching.” The essential message of that preaching is given in the following verse. “The wilderness of Judea” (τῃ̂ ἐρήμῳ τη̂ς ʼΙουδαίας) includes the area just west of the Dead Sea and the banks of the lower Jordan; hence it is not far from where the Qumran community was located, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The reference to the desert deliberately picks up the language of Isa 40:3, which Matthew is about to quote. The desert has an eschatological connotation and was associated with messianic deliverance. (See Funk; Mauser; Kittel, TDNT 2:658–59.)
2 Only Matthew puts John’s message in direct discourse: μετανοει̂τε· ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τω̂ν οὐρανω̂ν, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” Mark and Luke summarize the message as concerning a βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιω̂ν (“a baptism of repentance with a view to the forgiveness of sins”), words lacking in Matthew. Matthew, on the other hand, is the only one to mention the nearness of the kingdom at this point. In preaching repentance, John takes up the message of the prophets. In anticipation of God’s activity, which involves judgment as well as redemption, there can be only one clarion call: to turn, to return to the God of Israel. In view is a basic change not unlike conversion. Only then will there be the required preparedness (for John as a preacher of righteousness, cf. Jos. Ant.18.5.2 §§116–19). This is a centrally significant Jewish theme from the time of the prophets onward. The Qumran community especially regarded itself as participants in a covenant of repentance (CD 19:16; 4:2; 6:5). John’s message is repeated by Jesus in the same words in 4:17 (cf. also the message that the disciples are sent to proclaim in 10:7). John and Jesus therefore stand in continuity, and the message of John to the Jews is equally a message to Matthew’s church. Although repentance here is not explicitly linked with the forgiveness of sins as in Mark and Luke, forgiveness of sins has been alluded to in 1:21, and Matthew mentions it again in 26:28, in connection with the blood of the covenant. The forgiveness of sins is furthermore presupposed by the reference in v 6 to the confessing of sins. cf. too the commission to baptize in 28:19.
The verb ἤγγικεν means literally to “draw near.” The fact that Jesus uses the same verb in referring to the kingdom in 4:17 (cf.Mark 1:15) but elsewhere (12:28) can use ἔφθασεν, “has come,” led Dodd (Parables) to argue that ἐγγίζω here means “is present.” The meaning of the verb, however, refers normally to that which is at the point of arriving (see K. W. Clark, “Realized Eschatology,” JBL 59 [1940] 367–83). The perfect tense here results in the nuance “having drawn near and remaining near.” ἡ βασιλεία τω̂ν οὐρανω̂ν, “the kingdom of heaven,” is a Jewish circumlocution for ἡ βασιλεία του̂ θεου̂, “the kingdom of God,” to avoid unnecessary use of the word “God” (cf. Mark 11:30–31; Luke 15:18, 21). Matthew favors the phrase (thirty-three occurrences), and it is used only by him in the NT (but he can on occasion also use “kingdom of God”; cf. 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43). There is no difference between the two expressions (cf., for example, 19:23–24). The phrase means “God’s reign,” i.e., his sovereign rule with the concomitant blessings now about to be experienced by humanity (see G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974]). That which God had promised from the earliest days, which reached its fullest expression in the prophets’ glowing description of a golden age of blessing, is now on the verge of being realized and experienced, at least to a degree, by those whose preparedness of mind and heart make them receptive to the message (see Davies-Allison’s excellent discussion, 1:389–92).
3 A fixed feature of the early Christian tradition, Isa 40:3 is quoted in all four Gospels (John lacks the last line) to describe the function of John the Baptist. All four Gospels identify the words as those of Isaiah the prophet. The use of the quotation by Matthew is consonant with his stress on fulfillment; although he does not here employ a characteristic fulfillment formula, he does make use of a pesher-type formula (“this is that”), which points to fulfillment (cf. Acts 2:16). Of the Synoptics, however, Matthew most emphatically calls attention to the identity of John as the one spoken of by Isaiah with οὑ̂τος γάρ ἐστιν, “this is the one.” The quotation itself follows the LXX verbatim except for the last pronoun, αὐτου̂, “his,” where the LXX reads του̂ θεου̂ ἡμω̂ν, “of our God.” The simple pronoun may have been regarded as more appropriate in referring to Jesus and has the advantage of avoiding the mention of God, in keeping with Jewish sympathies. At the same time, it is clear that the κυρίου, “Lord,” whose way is to be prepared, refers in the first instance to Yahweh. The words in Isaiah occur in a context of comfort and deliverance from the exile, but they also allude to messianic fulfillment. The preparation is for the fulfillment that is shortly to be experienced. This is indeed the announcement of good news (εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, “proclaim good tidings,” occurs twice in Isa 40:9; cf. 52:7; 60:6; 61:1). ἐν τῃ̂ ἐρήμῳ, “in the desert,” in the parallelism of the Hebrew text, is a part of the message of the voice; that is, the preparation is to be made in the wilderness. (This is a major reason the Qumranites chose to locate their community on the shore of the Dead Sea.) But by either understanding, John fulfills the passage. His was a voice crying in the wilderness, and it was in the wilderness that he offered the baptism of preparation (cf. v 1). John’s message of repentance and his call to righteousness correspond to preparing the way of the Promised One or, using Isaiah’s metaphor, “making his paths straight.”
4 The emphatic pronoun αὐτός, “himself” (BDF §277[3]), indicates that John’s manner of living was in accord with the prophecy of the forerunner. Indeed, more explicitly, John is deliberately presented as resembling Elijah in the reference to a garment of hair (cf. Zech 13:4) and “a leather belt around his waist” (cf. 2 Kgs 1:8, where the words just quoted are in nearly verbatim agreement with Matthew). The actual identification of John with Elijah is not made by Matthew until 11:14 (cf. also 17:12–13), but it is certainly also in view here. (This is more apparent in Mark because of the Malachi quotation in 1:2, which Matthew defers until chap. 11.) John’s unusual demeanor associates him with Elijah and gives to him the aura of a holy man (a Nāzɩ̂r, cf. Luke 1:15), and this in itself makes John the subject of special attention among his contemporaries. But more than that, John symbolizes the breaking of the centuries of prophetic silence recognized by the Jews themselves (cf. 1 Macc 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Here then is a new thing: a voice from God out of the silence, self-authenticating by its power and message, as well as by its unusual mediator. Prophecy appears again in the midst of Israel, the people of God.
5 Matthew does not say “all the Jerusalemites” came out to be baptized by John, as does Mark, perhaps because he recognizes Jerusalem as the center of opposition to Jesus’ later ministry, and perhaps also because of the opposition his own church is experiencing from the Jews. With Mark, however, he does say “all of Judea” (πα̂σα ἡ ʼΙουδαία) and adds “all the region surrounding the Jordan,” πα̂σα ἡ περίχωρος του̂ ʼΙορδάνου (possibly drawn from Q; cf. Luke 3:3), a natural fact that could be presumed. The result is the deliberate impression of a great response to John’s preaching. (Note the imperfect tense of ἐξεπορεύετο, “they were coming out,” describing a repeated process over some time.) The forerunner indeed appears to enjoy as much or even more success than will the one whom he precedes.
6 The imperfect tense of ἐβαπτίζοντο, “were being baptized,” matches ἐξεπορεύετο, “were coming out,” of the preceding verse and underlines the success of John’s mission. On the source of John’s baptism, see above Form/Structure/Setting §F. The confession of sins is the point of John’s baptism, being fundamental to repentance and the accompanying new orientation. It cannot be definitely concluded from the present participle in ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτω̂ν, “confessing their sins,” that this was done during the actual baptism (i.e., “while confessing their sins”). It was, however, clearly done in connection with the baptism (cf. Jos. Ant. 8.4.6). Remarkably, Jews came to submit themselves to a rite that for them had the association of the initiation of gentile proselytes into Judaism. But the announcement of the imminent end of the age no doubt seemed to justify confession of sins and the cleansing symbolism of the baptism.
7 Matthew’s πολλοὺς τω̂ν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων, “the multitudes of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” takes up the opportunity to identify the opponents who will be encountered later in the narrative. But this by no means makes Matthew’s account unhistorical. To be sure, the scholarly and priestly authorities were separated by some major differences, but nonetheless they come together toward the end of the Gospel narrative in their opposition to Jesus (cf.16:1, 11–12; 21:45–46) and rather remarkably are also mentioned together here at the beginning of the story. Their common interest in John hardly requires agreement between them, nor does it point to the evangelist’s ignorance of their differences. Their motives in coming were no doubt mixed. A few may have been sincere in believing John’s message; others probably came more out of curiosity (the lack of belief is pointed out in 21:25–27, 32); but many may have been so angered at John’s preaching that they did not submit to his baptism (see Luke 7:29–30). For this reason Matthew has simply ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, “coming to the baptism,” rather than Luke’s βαπτισθη̂ναι ὑπʼ αὐτου̂ (Luke 3:7), “to be baptized by him”(which suggests actual baptism; in Luke, however, the reference is to “the crowds”). The Pharisees, as proponents of a legal righteousness through the observance of oral tradition, are the main competitors of Jesus throughout the Gospel and are the subjects of repeated attacks culminating in chap. 23. (The Qumran community also attacked the Pharisees.) The Sadducees are of much less importance until the end of the Gospel when, through their control of the cultic hierarchy and the high priesthood, they play a major role in condemning Jesus to death. Thus Matthew calls attention in this reference to the Jewish leaders to the presence of the enemies of Jesus from the beginning of the narrative. The initially positive response to John’s message, even if partial, stands in sharp contrast to the final rejection of Jesus.
The expression γεννήματα ἐχιδνω̂ν, “offspring of vipers,” is used three times by Matthew (see also 12:34; 23:33), always in reference to the Pharisees. The only other occurrence in the Gospels is in the parallel passage in Luke (3:7, applied to “the crowds”). Parallels to this figurative use of “viper” can be found in classical Greek authors (see BAGD, 331b).
John’s apocalyptic message involves an imminent judgment of the unrighteous in τη̂ς μελλούσης ὀργη̂ς, “the coming wrath.” This eschatological wrath, associated with fulfillment, is further alluded to in vv 10–12. Abundant parallels indicate that this was a fixed component in the Jewish apocalyptic expectation (see esp. Dan 7:9–11; Isa 13:9; Zeph 1:15; 2:2–3; Mal 4:1). The construction (φυγει̂ν with ἀπό) is a Hebraism (BDF §149). What frightened John’s listeners was the insistence that the judgment was about to occur (μελλούσης). The fleeing (as from a burning field) is particularly appropriate to the figurative mention of vipers. (For the notion of coming wrath in the earl y Church, see 1 Thess 1:10; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6.)
8 In requiring καρπὸν ἄξιον τη̂ς μετανοίας, lit. “fruit worthy of repentance,” i.e., fruit befitting repentance, John asks for concrete evidence of repentance (cf. also Acts 26:20) from those who come to him, and he thus protects against mere outward participation in his baptism. Matthew’s singular καρπόν, “fruit,” is a collective singular, perhaps caused by the singular of v 10. Repentance and good works are very frequently associated in rabbinic thought (see Str-B 1:170–72).
9 μὴ δόξητε λέγειν ἐν ἑαυτοι̂ς, “do not consider saying among yourselves,” reflects an understanding of what would have been a typical objection to John’s baptism of Jews. (For the construction, see BDF §392.) In their appeal πατέρα ἔχομεν τὸν ʼΑβραάμ, “we have Abraham as father,” they made the mistake of thinking that physical descent from Abraham granted them an automatic immunity from God’s eschatological wrath. John, however, by no means allowed them to entertain such a presumption. (For the appeal to descent from Abraham, cf. John 8:33, 39.) The statement that ἐκ τω̂ν λίθων τούτων, “from these stones,” God was able to raise up τέκνα τῳ̂ ʼΑβραάμ, “children to Abraham,” is John’s way of underlining the fundamental insufficiency of Abrahamic descent in itself. While it is unlikely that John had in mind the mission to the Gentiles (though he could have had in mind the universalism of the prophets), we may safely assume that Matthew and his church did understand the words as pointing in that direction. God’s work cannot be limited by the disobedience of his people. For the prominence of this motif of a new people in Matthew, see esp.8:10–11; 21:43; 28:19. John here also anticipates the later arguments of Paul (Rom 2:28–29; 4:11; 9:6–8; Gal 3:7, 29). John’s statement appears to be a play on words, since in Aramaic (and Hebrew too) the word for “children” (בְּנַיָּא, bĕnayyā) is similar to that for “stones” (אַבְנַיָּא, ˒abnayyā).
10 The imminence of judgment is stressed not only by the initial adverb ἤδη, “already,” but also by the vivid present tenses of this verse. The metaphor of an unfruitful tree being cut down and thrown into the fire is not uncommon in Jewish literature (see Str-B). It is repeated verbatim in the words of Jesus in 7:19 (cf.13:40; John 15:6). The words καρπὸν καλόν, “good fruit” (the same concept is found in 7:17–20; 12:33; cf. 21:43), are analogous to καρπὸν ἄξιον τη̂ς μετανοίας, “fruit worthy of repentance,” in v 8. Judgment based on good works is also an important theme in the teaching of Jesus according to Matthew (cf. 7:21–23; 25:45–46).
11 Although Matthew, unlike Mark, does not directly conjoin the two parallel clauses ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμα̂ς βαπτίζω, “I baptize you,” and αὐτὸς ὑμα̂ς βαπτίσει, “he will baptize you,” inserting between them the parenthetical statement of John’s unworthiness compared with the mightier one who is to follow him, the contrast is still very apparent. John describes his own baptism as εἰς μετάνοιαν, by which is not meant that repentance is the goal or result of baptism (as “to repentance” might be taken), since the baptism itself presupposes the existence of repentance. Hence, εἰς μετάνοιαν is best understood as “with reference to,” “associated with,” or “in agreement with” (for this meaning of εἰς, see BAGD., s.v. εἰς, 5; p. 230a). This phrase, only in Matthew, heightens the contrast between John and Jesus. The stress on repentance reminds the reader of the preparatory function of John; although there is no counterpart to this phrase in the clause describing Jesus’ baptism, it is clear that his baptism is rather one of fulfillment having to do with the inauguration of the kingdom. ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, “the one coming after me,” is probably also an allusion to “the coming one,” i.e., pointing to a technical term for the Messiah (cf. 11:3; 21:9; 23:39; cf. Heb 10:37, and for OT background, Ps 118:26). No further identification is needed; the forerunner precedes the one who will bring the kingdom. (Cf. the exact parallel in John 1:27.) While the Baptist expects a triumphant Messiah, it is probably going too far to conclude that he regards the coming one as none other than Yahweh (as Hughes claims). The words that immediately follow are only appropriate to a human agent such as the Messiah. Common to the three Synoptics, the phrase ἰσχυρότερός μου, “stronger than me,” is probably to be associated with the powerful impact of the kingdom that the Messiah brings. The noun form of this same root is applied to the Messiah, the Son of David, in Pss. Sol. 17:37. While Mark, followed by Luke, has John express his unworthiness by referring to the loosening of the strap of the sandals, Matthew puts it in terms of τὰ ὑποδήματα βαστάσαι, “to bear his sandals” (MM and BAGD, however, state that βαστάσαι here means “to take off”; s.v.). This is possibly Matthew’s heightening of the contrast between John and Jesus, although both metaphors describe a slave-master relationship. In αὐτὸς ὑμα̂ς βαπτίσει, “he himself will baptize you,” the αὐτός is intensive and contrasting. John draws the contrast by describing the work of the one to come as also a baptism, though metaphorical rather than literal. There is thus continuity and discontinuity between John and Jesus.
Jesus will baptize ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί, “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” Were the words καὶ πυρί known to Mark and deliberately omitted (Mark lacks any reference to John’s message of the coming wrath), or are they a secondary addition in Q? Related to this question is the actual meaning of the words.
That is, are the words καὶ πυρί (1) further describing ἐν πνεύματι ἀγίῳ, and hence epexegetical, or (2) do they refer to a different aspect of the baptism altogether? (1) If πνεύματι and πυρί refer to the same thing, they may both describe either judgment or blessing. (a) The majority of scholars accept that John preached only a message of judgment and that therefore πνεύματι ἁγίῳ is to be understood as a destroying wind that works together with the fire. (C. K. Barrett [The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1970) 126] suggests that the wind that blows away the chaff is in view; cf. v 12.) Thus John’s message is regarded as consistently pessimistic and in full agreement with the urgency of his call to repentance. (b) Some (e.g., Lagrange) have followed Chrysostom, on the other hand, in seeing the statement as referring only to the blessing experienced in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. In this view, the words καὶ πυρί refer to the tongues of fire that symbolized the Holy Spirit in that event (cf. Acts 2:3). A major difficulty with this interpretation of the reference to fire is that in the following verse (cf. v 10) fire is so forcefully a metaphor of judgment (for its background, see Scobie, 68–69). (2) Many (e.g., Lohmeyer, Schmid, Filson, Luz) have therefore followed Origen in seeing this sentence as referring to a twofold baptism—that is, blessing for the righteous (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ) and judgment for the wicked (καὶ πυρί). What may be regarded as a proper refinement of this view (Beasley-Murray, Baptism; Hill; Dunn) insists that there is but one baptism (the two nouns are governed by one preposition, ἐν, and the ὑμα̂ς allows no distinctions), which is experienced either as judgment or blessing (cf. v 12). The blessing, on this interpretation, is more indirect, being experienced as a kind of refinement or purging (Davies-Allison; Carson); this process, however, is concomitant with the arrival of the kingdom and thus is positive in the final analysis. Beasley-Murray refers to Isa 4:2–5 as an analogous passage. Further OT passages may be mentioned (Isa 44:3; Ezek 36:25–27; 39:29; Joel 2:28), and Hill calls attention to a remarkable parallel in 1QS 4:20–21. There is no reason why John may not have contemplated the positive effects of the coming of the Promised One, as well as the negative effects that are so prominent in his urgent call to repentance. The latter, to be sure, seem to have dominated his thinking (according to Matthew and Luke, not Mark). But later in Matthew’s narrative, Jesus’ response to John’s question, asked through his disciples, suggests that John was expected also to have thought of the positive consequences of the arrival of fulfillment (11:4–5). Those who responded to his message in repentance and baptism were surely to experience the baptism of Jesus finally as blessing, and that mediated by the Spirit he was to bestow (cf. 10:20; 28:19). See the excursus in R. A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A (Dallas: Word, 1989) 27–28.
12 The second metaphor of judgment (cf. v 10) is drawn from a common scene in Palestine. The “winnowing fork” (πτύον), here found in the hand of the coming Messiah, is used to throw the mixed wheat and chaff into the air. This is usually done on high ground during a good wind, which separates the lighter chaff from the heavier wheat. The threshing floor is “cleaned” (διακαθαριει̂), the wheat is put into storage (cf. 13:30), and the chaff becomes fuel. The only other reference to “unquenchable” (ἄσβεστος) fire in the Synoptic tradition (besides the parallel to our passage in Luke 3:17) occurs in Mark 9:43, where it stands in apposition to Gehenna, the place of final punishment. Abundant parallels to this metaphor exist both in the OT (e.g., Isa 34:10; 66:24; Jer 7:20) and in the rabbinic literature (references in Str-B 4:1075–6).
Explanation
The story of the central figure of Matthew’s narrative, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of David, must begin with the divinely sent forerunner, John. In agreement with prophecy, the voice of John thundered forth in the wilderness. John knew well the role he had to perform. The fulfillment of the promises—the dawning of the kingdom of God—was at hand, for the Agent who would bring this to pass, the Promised One to come, was about to make his appearance. John was called to make urgent preparation for the judgment that would surely ensue. Only a radical repentance would suffice, and those who thought they could find shelter in their Abrahamic pedigree needed to be told that God’s purposes could not be restricted to them. So John preached and baptized, anticipating the preaching and “baptizing” activity of the one who would follow.
But this straightforward account does not do justice to the full significance that Matthew and his readers saw in all of this. For them the judgment of which John spoke—and Jesus, too, in the following narrative—lay in the future (though perhaps already anticipated in the destruction of Jerusalem). Still, the positive aspects of the kingdom had begun to be experienced in the ministry of Jesus and now, through the resurrected Christ, in the Church. They themselves had been taught to baptize disciples in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (28:19). But this was no longer a baptism of preparation, as was John’s, but rather an extension of that baptism “in the Holy Spirit,” which John had prophesied. In short, the church of Matthew now knows the reality of what John announced in its beginnings. It sees itself as bringing forth the proper response of “fruit in agreement with repentance” (v 8), and it sees its present adversaries as already typified in the Jewish leaders who came to John but were inclined to rest in their Abrahamic lineage. For them was reserved the unhappy prospect of the judgment to come.[3]
MacArthur’s Commentary
Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!’ ” Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather belt about his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. (3:1–6)
At a conference one time a young person asked me, “What makes a person great?” I could not think of a good answer right then, but I began thinking about it. In the world’s eyes, such things as being born into a famous, wealthy, or influential family bring a certain measure of greatness simply by heritage. Earning a great deal of money is another mark of the world’s greatness, as are academic degrees, expertise in some field, outstanding athletic ability, artistic talent, high political or military office, and other such things.
By those criteria, however, even Jesus Christ was not great. Though He manifested surpassing wisdom and power. He was born into a quite ordinary family, His father being a simple carpenter. Even after He was grown, Jesus did not own a business, a herd of cattle or sheep, a house, or even a tent. He said, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (Matt. 8:20). He had little, if any, formal education, no political office, no artistic accomplishments-in short, almost no marks of what the world considers greatness.
John the Baptist had even fewer of the world’s marks of greatness than did Jesus. Yet Jesus called John the greatest man who had ever lived until that time: “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). John was greater than Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Joseph; greater than Moses, Elijah, David, or any of the other Old Testament men of God. He was greater than any of the kings, emperors, philosophers, or military leaders of history. Yet, like Jesus, he was born into a simple, obscure family. His father, Zacharias, was one of many priests who took turns ministering in the Temple when their course, or division, was scheduled to serve. His mother, Elizabeth, was also from the priestly tribe of Levi and a descendant of the first high priest, Aaron (Luke 1:5). But there were many such descendants, most of whom had no place of special dignity, or recognition.
That was John’s family heritage. When he was grown, probably starting in his teen years, John the Baptist went to live in the wilderness of Judea, existing much like a hermit and forsaking even what little social and economic status he had. Yet Luke recorded of him, “for he will be great in the sight of the Lord” (1:15).
Reasons for such superlative commendation can be seen in 3:1–6, where Matthew gives a brief picture of the life and work of John the Baptist and also shows that John’s ministry was yet another evidence of Jesus’ kingship.
In chapter 1 Jesus’ kingship is shown by his birth-by His descent from the royal line of David and by His miraculous conception. In chapter 2 His kingship is shown by the circumstances surrounding His birth-by the homage of the magi, the hatred of Herod, and God’s miraculous protection of the young Jesus. Now we are shown the evidence through the herald who announced the King’s arrival. The greatest man who had yet lived was primarily so because he was herald of the Messiah, the One who was greater still. His greatness was related to his calling.
In ancient times it was common for a herald to precede the arrival of the monarch, to announce his coming and to prepare for his safe and proper travel. With a coterie of servants, the herald would make sure that the roadway was as smooth and uncluttered as possible. Holes would be filled, rocks and debris would be removed, and unsightly litter would be burned or hidden. As the group traveled along and worked, the herald would proclaim the king’s coming to everyone he encountered. His twofold duty was to proclaim and to prepare. That is what John’s ministry did for God’s great King, Jesus Christ.
In presenting the herald of Christ, Matthew shows us the man, the message, the motive, the mission, the manner, and the ministry.
The Man
Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, (3:1)
Now in those days serves as a transition between chapters 2 and 3. It was a common literary phrase, indicating the general time in which the events being described occurred. Nearly thirty years had elapsed between Joseph’s taking the young Jesus and His mother to Nazareth and the beginning of John’s public ministry. Only Luke (2:39–52) tells us anything of Jesus’ life during the intervening years. Apart from that brief account, Scripture is silent.
John was a common Jewish name in New Testament times and is the Greek form of the Hebrew Johanan (see 2 Kings 25:23; Jer. 40:8; etc.), which means “Jehovah, or Yahweh, is gracious.” Baptist, or Baptizer (baptistēs; the Greek ending, tēs, signifies one who performs an act), was an epithet given him because baptizing was such an important and obvious part of his ministry.
John’s father and mother “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” But they had no children and, like Sarah before Isaac was conceived, Elizabeth was beyond normal childbearing years (Luke 1:6–7; cf.Gen. 17:17). One day as John’s father was performing his priestly function in the Temple, “an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense” (Luke 1:11). The angel proceeded to tell Zacharias that “Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord” (vv. 13–15). John was named by God Himself and set apart for greatness even before he was conceived!
John would “be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb. And he [would] turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God” (Luke 1:15–16). Most significantly of all, he would “go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah … so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (v. 17). John’s own father, himself “filled with the Holy Spirit,” declared that John “will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you [John] will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways” (vv. 67, 76). “And the child continued to grow, and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel” (v. 80).
That was John. His conception was miraculous, he was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born, he was great in the sight of God, and he was to be the herald of the Messiah, announcing and preparing the people for His coming. It is therefore not strange that Jesus said, “There has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). That great man was a sovereignly designed and chosen herald for the great King.
Came is from paraginomai, which often was used to indicate an official arrival, such as that of the magi (Matt. 2:1), or the public appearance of a leader or teacher (Matt. 3:13). For thirty years both John and Jesus had lived in relative obscurity. Now the coming of the herald signified the coming of the King. The beginning of John’s ministry signaled the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (see Acts 10:37–38).
Preaching is from kērussō, the primary meaning of which is “to herald.” It was used of the official whose duty it was to proclaim loudly and extensively the coming of the king. Matthew also uses this term with reference to Jesus and the apostles.
John knew his position and his task. He never sought or accepted honor for himself, but only for the One whose coming he proclaimed. As a child John no doubt had been told many times of the angel’s announcement of his birth and his purpose, a purpose from which he never wavered, compromised, or tried to gain personal recognition or advantage. When questioned by the priests and Levites who had been sent from Jerusalem to ask his identity, John replied, “I am not the Christ” (John 1:19–20). He also denied being Elijah and “the Prophet” (v.21; cf. Deut. 18:15). When they persisted in knowing who he was, he simply said, “I am a voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as Isaiah the prophet said” (v. 23).
The question about his being Elijah introduces some important truth. At every orthodox Passover ceremony even today a cup is reserved at the table for Elijah. At the circumcision of orthodox Jewish baby boys a chair is placed for Elijah. The anticipation is that, if Elijah would ever come and sit in the chair or drink from the cup, the Messiah’s arrival would be imminent. That belief is based on Malachi 4:5–6, in which the prophet predicts, “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”
Yet, as he himself testified, John the Baptist was not the literal, resurrected Elijah most Jews of his day were expecting, or that many Jews of our own day expect. But he was indeed the Elijah that the prophet Malachi predicted would come Luke 1:17 confirms that when it says that John “will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah.”
That the Elijah who was commonly expected by the Jews was not the Elijah of God’s plan was stated plainly by Jesus Himself after John the Baptist had been imprisoned and killed. “ ‘Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished.’ … Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist” (Matt. 17:11–13).
Because the Jews rejected John the Baptist as the true Elijah who was to come, they prevented the complete fulfillment of the prophecy as God had originally given it through Malachi. “If you care to accept it,” Jesus explained about John, “he himself is Elijah, who was to come” (Matt. 11:14). But John not only was not accepted, he was ridiculed, imprisoned, and beheaded. Because he was not received by the great body of God’s chosen people, he was not able to be the Elijah and there is therefore an Elijah yet to come. Some interpreters believe he will be one of the two witnesses of Revelation 11, but we cannot be certain. In any case, John the Baptist was rejected as the coming Elijah. And just as the herald was rejected, so was the King he heralded. John was beheaded, and Jesus was crucified. Israel therefore was set aside, and the kingdom was postponed.
Everything about John the Baptist was unique and amazing-his sudden public appearance, his life-style, his message, his baptizing, and his humility. He was born to a mother who was barren. He was a priest by heritage but became a prophet. He forsook his earthly father’s ministry for the sake of his heavenly Father’s. After spending most of his life in the desert, at the right moment God spoke to his heart, and he began to thunder out the message God had given him in that desert-to announce the coming of the King.
John’s primary place of ministry, like his primary place of training, was in the wilderness of Judea. By the world’s standards and procedures, the coming of a king, or of a great person of any sort, is proclaimed and prepared for with great expense, pomp, and fanfare. Even the announcer dresses in the best suits, stays in the best hotels, contacts only the best people, and makes preparations for the monarch to visit only the best places. But that was not God’s plan for the heralding of His Son. John the Baptist was born of obscure parents, dressed strangely even for his day, and carried on his ministry mostly in out-of-the-way and unattractive places.
All of that, however, was not incidental or circumstantial. It was symbolic of John’s ministry to call the people away from the corrupt and dead religious system of their day-away from ritualism, worldliness, hypocrisy, and superficiality. John called them away from Jerusalem and Jericho, away from the cities into the wilderness-where most people would not bother to go if they were not serious seekers. John brought them away, where they were freer to listen, think, and ponder, without the distractions and the misleading leaders they were so accustomed to following. In such a seemingly desolate place, they could begin to see the greatness of this man of God and the even greater greatness of the One whose coming he announced.
The Message
The message John proclaimed was simple, so simple it could easily be summarized in one word: repent (3:2a; cf. Acts 13:24; 19:4). The Greek word (metanoeō) behind repent means more than regret or sorrow (cf. Heb. 12:17); it means to turn around, to change direction, to change the mind and will. It does not denote just any change, but always a change from the wrong to the right, away from sin and to righteousness. In his outstanding commentary on Matthew, John A. Broadus observes that “wherever this Greek word is used in the New Testament the reference is to changing the mind and the purpose from sin to holiness.” Repentance involves sorrow for sin, but sorrow that leads to a change of thinking, desire, and conduct of life. “The sorrow that is according to the will of God,” Paul says, “produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10; cf.v. 9). John’s command to repent could therefore be rendered “be converted.”
John’s message: of preparation for the coming of the King was repentance, conversion, the demand for a completely different life. That must have been startling news for Jews who thought that, as God’s chosen people-the children of Abraham, the people of the covenant-they deserved and were unconditionally assured of the promised King. Knowing what they must have been thinking, John later told his listeners, “Do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (3:9). God was not interested in His people’s human heritage but in their spiritual life. “What the King wants from you,” John was saying, “is that you make a complete turnaround from the way you are, that you be totally converted, totally changed .” God calls for radical change and transformation that affects the mind, the will, and the emotions-the whole person. John’s point was simple: “You are in the same condition as the Gentiles. You have no right to the kingdom unless you repent and are converted from sin to righteousness.” He called for a true repentance that results in the fruit of a translated life (v. 8) and that includes baptism with water (v.11a). Failure to repent would result in severe judgment, as Matthew 11:20–24 and 12:38–41 demonstrate.
Repentance was exactly the same message with which Jesus began His preaching and the apostles began theirs. “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand,” Jesus proclaimed; “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15; cf. Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Luke 5:32). Mark 6:12 says of the twelve: “And they went out and preached that men should repent.” In his Pentecost sermon, Peter’s concluding words were, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38; cf. Acts 3:19; 20:21; 26:18).
The close connection between repentance and conversion is also indicated in texts that do not specifically use the word repentance, yet convey the same idea (see Matt. 18:3; Luke 14:33). The best summary statement may be that of Paul in Acts 26:20, where he states that the objective of his ministry was that men “should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance.”
The Motive
The motive John gave for repentance was: the kingdom of heaven is at hand (3:2b). The people should repent and be converted because the King was coming, and He deserves and requires no less. The unrepentant and unconverted cannot give the heavenly King the glory He deserves, do not belong to the heavenly King, and are unfit for His heavenly kingdom.
After four hundred years, the people of Israel again heard God’s prophetic word. Malachi’s prophecy was followed by four centuries of silence, with no new or direct word from the Lord. Now, when His word came to Israel again, proclaiming the coming of the King, it was not the expected word of joy and comfort and celebration but a message of warning and rebuke. The kingdom of heaven is at hand, waiting to be ushered in, but Israel was not ready for it.
Despite many similar warnings by the prophets, many of the people and most of the leaders were not prepared for John’s message What he said was shocking; it was unexpected and unacceptable. It was inconceivable to them that, as God’s people, they had anything to do to inherit God’s kingdom but simply wait for and accept it. The Messiah was their Messiah, the King was their King, the Savior was their Savior, the promise was their promise. Every Jew was destined for the kingdom, and every Gentile was excluded, except for a token handful of proselytes. That was the common Jewish thinking of the day, which John totally shattered.
But John’s message was God’s message, and he would not compromise it or clutter it with the popular misconceptions and delusions of his own day and his own people. He had no word but God’s word, and he proclaimed no kingdom but God’s kingdom and no preparation but God’s preparation. That preparation was repentance. God’s standard would not change, even if every Jew were excluded and every Gentile saved. God knew that some Jews would be saved, but none apart from personal repentance and conversion.
Although the precise phrase is not found there, the kingdom of heaven is basically an Old Testament concept. David declares that “the Lord is King forever and ever” (Ps. 10:16; cf. 29:10), that His kingdom is everlasting, and that His dominion “endures throughout all generations” (Ps. 145:13). Daniel speaks of “the God of heaven [who] will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed” (Dan. 2.:44; cf.Ezek. 37:25), a “kingdom [that] is an everlasting kingdom” (Dan. 4:3). The God of heaven is the King of heaven, and the heavenly kingdom is God’s kingdom.
Matthew uses the phrase kingdom of heaven thirty-two times, and is the only gospel writer who uses it at all. The other three use “the kingdom of God.” It is probable that Matthew used kingdom of heaven because it was more understandable to his primarily Jewish readers. Jews would not speak God’s name (Yahweh, or Jehovah), and would often substitute heaven when referring to Him-much as we do in such expressions as “heaven smiled on me today.”
There is no significant difference between “the kingdom of God” and the kingdom of heaven. The one phrase emphasizes the sovereign Ruler of the kingdom and the other emphasizes the kingdom itself, but they are the same kingdom. Matthew 19:23–24 confirms the equality of the phrases by using them in interchangeably.
The kingdom has two aspects, the outer and the inner, both of which are spoken of in the gospels. Those aspects are evident as one moves through Matthew. In the broadest sense, the kingdom includes everyone who professes to acknowledge God. Jesus’ parable of the sower represents the kingdom as including both genuine and superficial believers (Matt. 13:3–23), and in His following parable (vv. 24–30) as including both wheat (true believers) and tares (false believers). That is the outer kingdom, the one we can see but cannot accurately evaluate ourselves, because we cannot know people’s hearts.
The other kingdom is the inner, the kingdom that includes only true believers, only those who, as John the Baptist proclaimed, repent and are converted. God rules over both aspects of the kingdom, and He will one day finally separate the superficial from the real. Meanwhile He allows the pretenders to identify themselves outwardly with His kingdom.
God’s kingly rule over the hearts of men and over the world may be thought of as having a number of phases. The first is the prophesied kingdom, such as that foretold by Daniel. The second phase is the present kingdom, the one that existed at the time of John the Baptist and that he mentions. It is the kingdom that both John and Jesus spoke of as being at hand (cf. 4:17). The third phase may be referred to as the interim kingdom, the kingdom that resulted because of Israel’s rejection of her King. The King returned to heaven and His kingdom on earth now exists only in a mystery form. Christ is Lord of the earth in the sense of His being its Creator and its ultimate Ruler; but He does not presently exercise His full divine will over the earth. He is, so to speak, in a voluntary exile in heaven until it is time for Him to return again. He reigns only in the hearts of those who know Him as Savior and Lord. For those “the kingdom of God is … righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).
The fourth phase can be described as the manifest kingdom, in which Christ will rule, physically, directly, and fully on earth for a thousand years, the Millennium. In that kingdom He will rule both externally and internally-externally over all mankind, and internally in the hearts of those who belong to Him by faith. The fifth, and final, phase is the “eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” which “will be abundantly supplied” to all of His own (2 Pet. 1:11).
Had God’s people Israel accepted their King when He first came to them, there would be no interim kingdom. The kingdom at hand would have become the kingdom of a thousand years, which, in turn, would have ushered in the eternal kingdom. But because they killed the forerunner of the King and then the King Himself, the millennial kingdom, and consequently the eternal kingdom, were sovereignly postponed.
The Mission
For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet, saying, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight!’ ” (3:3)
The mission of John the Baptist had long before been described by Isaiah the prophet (see Isa. 40:3–4). Here Matthew again emphasizes fulfilled prophecy in the coming of Jesus Christ as divine King (cf. 1:22; 2:5, 15, 17). But as herald of the great King, John did not clear the roads and highways of obstacles, but sought to clear men’s hearts of the obstacles that kept them from the King. The way of the Lord is the way of repentance, of turning from sin to righteousness, of turning moral and spiritual paths that are crooked into ones that are straight, ones that are fit for the King. “Let every valley be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low,” Isaiah continues, “and let the rough ground become a plain, and the rugged terrain a broad valley; then the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh will see it together” (Isa. 40:4–5). The call of John’s voice that was crying [bōntos] in the wilderness of Judea was the shouting of urgency commanding people to repent, to confess sin and the need of a Savior. His paths (tribous) are well known, as the Greek term implies, because they are clearly revealed in Scripture.
The Manner
Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather belt about his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. (3:4)
John must have been a startling figure to those who saw him. He claimed to be God’s messenger, but he did not live, dress, or talk like other religious leaders. Those leaders were proper, well-dressed, well-fed, sophisticated, and worldly. John obviously cared for none of those things and even made a point of forsaking them. His garment of camel’s hair and his leather belt about his waist were as plain and drab as the wilderness in which he lived and preached. His clothes were practical and long-wearing, but far from being comfortable or fashionable. He was much like the first Elijah in that regard (2 Kings 1:8). His diet of locusts and wild honey was as spartan as his clothing. It was nourishing but little else.
John’s very dress, food, and life-style were in themselves a rebuke to the self-satisfied and self-indulgent religious leaders of Israel-the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and priests. It was also a rebuke to most of the people, who, though they may not have been able to indulge in the privileges of their leaders, nonetheless admired and longed for the same advantages.
John’s purpose was not to turn the people into hermits or ascetics. He called on no one, not even his disciples, to live and dress as he did. But his manner of living was a dramatic reminder of the many loves and pleasures that keep people from exchanging their own way for God’s.
The Ministry
Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. (3:5–6)
The immediate effect of John’s preaching was dramatic. People were coming from the great city of Jerusalem, which was a considerable distance away. They came, in fact, from all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan. In other words they were coming from all over southern Palestine, including both sides of the Jordan River. As Matthew reports later in his gospel, the people recognized John as a prophet (21:26).
That those Jews submitted to being baptized was more than a little significant, because that was not a traditional Jewish ceremony. It was completely different from the Levitical washings, which consisted of washing the hands, feet, and head. The Essenes, a group of Jewish ascetics who lived on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, practiced a type of ceremonial washing that more nearly resembled baptism. But both the Levitical and the Essene washings were repeated, those of the Essenes as much as several times a day or even hourly. They represented repeated purification for repeated sinning.
John’s washing, however, was one-time. The only one-time washing the Jews performed was for Gentiles, signifying their coming as outsiders into the true faith of Judaism. A Jew who submitted to such a rite demonstrated, in effect, that he was an outsider who sought entrance into the people of God-an amazing admission for a Jew. Members of God’s chosen race, descendants of Abraham, heirs of the covenant of Moses, came to John to be baptized like a Gentile!
That act symbolized before the world that they realized their national and racial descent, or even their calling as God’s chosen and covenant people, could not save them. They had to repent, forsake sin, and trust in the Lord for salvation. It is that of which the baptism was a public witness, as they confessed their sins. They had to come into the kingdom just like the Gentiles, through repentance and faith-which included a public admission of sins (cf. the same Greek term [exomologeō] in Phil. 2:11, where it refers to a verbal confession).
We know from subsequent accounts in the gospels that many of those acts of repentance must have been superficial and hypocritical, because John soon lost much of his following, just as Jesus would eventually lose most of His popularity. But the impact of John’s ministry on the Jewish people was profound and unforgettable. The way of the King had been announced to them, and they had no excuse for not being ready for His coming.
Six things demonstrate the true greatness of John. (1) He was filled with and controlled by the Spirit, even from “his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15b). (2) He was obedient to God’s Word. From childhood he followed God’s will, and from it he never wavered. (3) He was self-controlled, drinking neither “wine or liquor” (Luke 1:15a). In his food, dress, and life-style he was temperate and austere. (4) He was humble. His purpose was to announce the king, not to act kingly or take for himself any of the king’s prerogatives. Speaking of Jesus, John said, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals” (Mark 1:7), and on a later occasion, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). (5) He courageously and faithfully proclaimed God’s Word, thundering it across the wilderness as long as he was free to preach, to whomever would listen. (6) Finally, he was faithful in winning people to Christ, in turning “back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God” (Luke 1:16). He stands as a pattern for all who seek genuine greatness.
The Fruits of True Repentance
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (3:7–12)
Matthew records but this one sample of the preaching of John the Baptist. The parallel account in Luke (3:1–18) gives more details, but the message is the same: a call to repentance and baptism, an inner change of mind and heart, along with an outward act that symbolized that change-and, even more importantly, a manner of living that demonstrated the change. The “many other exhortations” that John preached (Luke 3:18) possibly consisted primarily of more examples of the fruit in keeping with repentance (v. 8) that he gave in addition to those mentioned in verses 11–14.
John’s preaching was simple and his message was limited to that which was most essential, but he faithfully fulfilled his singular calling as the herald of God’s coming great King. He performed his ministry with a boldness, courage, power, and single-minded devotion that caused that King to say of him, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11).
In the narrative of 3:7–12 Matthew focuses on four elements: the congregation, the confrontation, the condemnation, and the consolation.
The Congregation
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, (3:7a)
Among the great number of people who came out to see John in the wilderness (v.5) were many of the Pharisees and Sadducees, whom the Baptist singled out for special warning and rebuke.
By New Testament times three groups, or sects, had developed that were quite distinct from the rest of Judaism. Besides the two mentioned here (and frequently in the gospels and Acts), were the Essenes. Most of the Essenes were unmarried, but they often adopted children from other Jewish families. These secretive and ascetic Jews lived for the most part in isolated, exclusive, and austere communities such as the now-famous Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. They spent much of their time copying the Scriptures, and it is to them that we owe the valuable and helpful Dead Sea Scrolls-discovered by accident in 1947 by an Arab shepherd boy. But the Essenes had little contact with or influence on the society of their own day and are nowhere mentioned in the New Testament.
The Pharisees
The Pharisees, however, were a great contrast to the Essenes. They were equally, if not more, exclusive, but were found for the most part in the larger cities such as Jerusalem. They were an association very much in the mainstream of Jewish life and made a point of being noticed and admired. Jesus exposed them as doing “all their deeds to be noticed by men … and they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi” (Matt. 23:5–7; cf.6:2, 5).
We have no specific documentation as to exactly how or when the Pharisee sect began, but it is likely that it developed out of a former group called the Hasidim, whose name means “pious ones” or “saints.” The Hasidim came into being in the second century b.c., during the intertestamental period. Palestine had been under the Hellenistic (Greek) rule of the Seleucid Syrian kings for many years. Jewish patriots, under the leadership of Judas Maccabaeus, revolted when Antiochus Epiphanes tried to force his pagan culture and religion on the Jews. That despicable tyrant even profaned the Temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar and forcing the sacrificed meat down the throats of the priests-a double abomination to Jews, because the law of Moses forbade them to eat pork (Lev. 11:4–8; Deut. 14:7–8). The Hasidim were among the strongest supporters of the revolt, until its leaders began to become worldly and politicized.
Many scholars believe that the Pharisees, and likely the Essenes also, descended from the Hasidim. The word Pharisee means “separated ones,” and members of the sect diligently tried to live up to their name. Admission to the group was strictly controlled by periods of probation lasting up to one year, during which the applicant had to prove his ability to follow ritual law They separated themselves not only from Gentiles but from tax collectors and any others whom they considered to be base “sinners” (Luke 7:39). They even looked with disdain on the common Jewish people, whom a group of Pharisees in Jerusalem once referred to as “accursed” (John 7:49). After leaving the marketplace or any public gathering, they would as soon as possible perform ceremonial washings to purify themselves of possible contamination from touching some unclean person.
The Pharisees formed a self-righteous, “holy” community within the community; they were legalistic isolationists who had no regard or respect for those outside their sect. They believed strongly in God’s sovereignty and in divine destiny and that they alone were the true Israel. They considered themselves to be super-spiritual, but their “spirituality” was entirely external, consisting of the pursuit of meticulous observance of a multitude of religious rituals and taboos, most of which they and various other religious leaders had devised over the previous several centuries as supplements to the law of Moses. These were known collectively as “the tradition of the elders,” concerning which Jesus gave the Pharisees one of His strongest rebukes, charging them with “teaching as doctrines the precepts of men” (Matt. 15:2–9).
By the time of Christ, the Pharisees had lost most of whatever nationalism they may earlier have had. Another sect, the Zealots, had become the association for those whose primary concern was Jewish independence. The Pharisees’ single loyalty was to themselves, to their traditions and to their own influence and prestige. By their strict adherence to those traditions they expected to reap great reward in heaven. But they were the epitome of religious emptiness and hypocrisy, as Jesus often pointed out (Matt. 15:7; 22:18; 23:13, 23, 25; etc.). The Pharisees “outwardly [appeared] righteous to men, but inwardly [were] full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:28).
The Sadducees
The Sadducees were at the other end of the Jewish religious spectrum-the ultraliberals. The origin of their name is uncertain, but many modern scholars believe it is derived from Zadok (Sadok in the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament), the name of a man who was priest under David (2 Sam. 8:17) and chief priest under Solomon (1 Kings 1:32). This sect also arose during the intertestamental period, but from among the priestly aristocracy. They were compromisers, both religiously and politically. They cared little for Greek culture, with its emphasis on philosophy and intellectualism, but were greatly attracted to the pragmatic, practical Romans.
The Sadducees claimed to accept the law of Moses as the supreme and only religious authority, and they scorned the legalistic traditions of their antagonists, the Pharisees. In New Testament times they were still closely associated with the priestly class (see Acts 5:17), to the extent that the terms chief priest and Sadducee were used almost synonymously (as were the terms scribe and Pharisee). But they cared little for religion, especially doctrine, and denied the existence of angels, the resurrection, and most things supernatural (Acts 23:6–8). Consequently they lived only for the present, getting everything they could from whomever they could-Gentiles and fellow Jews alike. They believed in extreme human autonomy and in the unlimited freedom of the will. They considered themselves masters of their own destinies.
The Sadducees were much fewer in number than the Pharisees and were extremely wealthy. Among other things, under the leadership of Annas they ran the Temple franchises-the money exchanging and the sale of sacrificial animals-and charged exorbitantly for those services. It was therefore the Sadducees’ business that Jesus damaged when he drove the moneychangers and sacrifice sellers out of the Temple (Matt. 21:12–13).
Because of their great wealth, Temple racketeering, and affiliation with the Romans, the Sadducees were much less popular with their fellow Jews than were the Pharisees, who were strongly religious and had some measure of national loyalty.
Religiously, politically, and socially the Pharisees and Sadducees had almost nothing in common. The Pharisees were ritualistic; the Sadducees were rationalistic. The Pharisees were strict separatists; the Sadducees comprising collaborators. The Pharisees were commoners (most of them had a trade), while the Sadducees were aristocrats. Both groups had members among the scribes and were represented in the priesthood and in the Jewish high council, the Sanhedrin; yet they were in almost constant opposition to each other. During New Testament times about the only common ground they exhibited was opposition to Christ and His followers (Matt. 22:15–16, 23, 34–35; Acts 4:1; 23:6).
They had one other common religious and spiritual ground. The Pharisees expected their reward in heaven, while the Sadducees expected theirs in this life, but the trust of both groups was in personal works and self-effort. Both emphasized the superficial and nonessential, and had no concern for the genuine inner spiritual life or for the welfare of their fellow man. That was “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” the hypocritical, self-serving, dead externalism about which Jesus warned His disciples (Matt. 16:6).
Throughout most of its history the church has had its own brands of Pharisees and Sadducees, its ritualists and its rationalists. The one looks for salvation and blessing through prescribed ceremonies and legalistic practices; the other finds religious meaning and purpose in private, existential beliefs and standards. One is conservative and the other is liberal, but the hope and trust of both groups is in themselves, in what they can perform or accomplish by their own actions and wills.
It is probably because of that deeper spiritual commonness that Matthew speaks of them as one group, emphasized by the use of a single definite article (the) rather than two (“the Pharisees and the Sadducees”). It is clear from John’s response to them that he considered their basic problem and need to be exactly the same.
This group was coming for baptism, the Greek preposition epi (for) being used in a construction that clearly indicates purpose. In light of John’s unorthodox dress and style and his prophetic and authoritative exhortations, it is hard to imagine why the self-righteous and proud Pharisees and Sadducees would ask to be baptized by him. Some of them may simply have been curious. It seems more probable, however, that they suspected that John might indeed be a prophet, as many of the people believed (Matt. 14:5), and that they wanted to check him out as thoroughly as they could. If he were a genuine prophet perhaps they could gain his approval, parade the pretense of repentant spirituality, and capitalize on or even take over the movement-in the way religious opportunists still do today. Whatever their reasons were, they were wrong, wicked reasons. They were not seeking God’s truth or God’s working in their own lives. They were not repentant; they had not confessed their sins; they had not changed at all-as John well knew. They were not genuinely seeking the true righteousness that delivers from judgment. They were the same smug, self-righteous hypocrites they had been when they started out to find John.
The Confrontation
he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (3:7b)
John’s awareness of the insincerity and lack of repentance of the Pharisees and Sadducees is evident in those strong words. They intended to carry their hypocrisy even to the extent of submitting to John’s baptism, out of whatever corrupt motives they may have had. Gennēma (brood) may also be translated “offspring,” signifying descendants or children. Jesus used the same epithet (brood of vipers) to describe the Pharisees on several occasions (Matt. 12:34; 23:33). Vipers (echidna) were small but very poisonous desert snakes, which would have been quite familiar to John the Baptist. They were made even more dangerous by the fact that, when still, they looked like a dead branch and were often picked up unintentionally. That is exactly what Paul did on the island of Malta when he went to gather wood for a fire after the shipwreck. As indicated by the response of the natives who were befriending Paul and the others, the bite of the viper was often fatal, though Paul miraculously “suffered no harm” (Acts 28:3–5).
Calling the Pharisees and Sadducees a brood of vipers pointed up the danger of their religious hypocrisy-as well as the fact that their wicked work had been passed on to them by the original serpent (Gen. 3:1–13) through their spiritual forefathers, of whom they were the brood, or offspring. Like the desert viper, they often appeared to be harmless, but their brand of godliness (cf. 2 Tim. 3:5) was venomous and deadly. In His series of woes against the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus said, “You shut off the kingdom of heaven from men; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in” (Matt. 23:13). They were responsible for keeping countless Jews out of the kingdom, and therefore from salvation and spiritual life.
In Matthew 23:33 Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees “serpents” as well as a “brood of vipers,” suggesting even more directly that their true spiritual father was Satan-as He specifically charges in John 8:44 (cf. Rev. 12:9; 20:2). These religious hypocrites were Satan’s children doing Satan’s deceitful work.
The question Who warned you to flee continues the viper figure. A brush fire or a farmer’s burning the stalks in his field after the harvest would cause vipers and other creatures to flee before the flames in order to escape. It was a common sight in many of the Mediterranean and Arab regions, and one that John the Baptist doubtlessly had seen many times. The implication is that the Pharisees and Sadducees were expecting John’s baptism to be a kind of spiritual fire insurance, giving protection from the flames of the wrath to come. True repentance and conversion do protect from God’s wrath and judgment, but superficial and insincere professions or acts of faith tend only to harden a person against genuine belief, giving a false sense of security. John would not be party to such hypocrisy and sham. It was the deceitfulness of their true master, Satan, and not genuine fear of God’s judgment, that led them out to hear John and to seek his baptism as a pretentious formality.
John’s indictment must have deeply stung those false religious leaders, who considered themselves to be far above the common man in their relationship to God and His kingdom. John, and Jesus after him, characterized them as deceivers rather than leaders, perpetuators of spiritual darkness rather than spiritual light, children of the devil rather than sons of God.
The Condemnation
Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (3:8–10)
The marks of a truly repentant heart are fruit in keeping with repentance, or as Paul described them to King Agrippa, “deeds appropriate to repentance” (Acts 26:20). In his parallel account Luke mentions several examples of the kind of fruit John was talking about. To the general multitude he said, “Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none; and let him who has food do likewise” (Luke 3:11). To the tax-gatherers he said, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to” (v. 13), and to some soldiers he said, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages” (v.14).
As James points out, “Faith, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:17). John says in his first epistle, “The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous” (1 John 3:7); and that “if someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (4:20). Our actions toward our fellow men are indicators of our true attitude toward God.
Axios (in keeping with) has the root idea of having equal weight or worth, and therefore of being appropriate. True repentance not only should but will have correspondingly genuine works, demonstrated in both attitudes and actions. Right relationship to God brings right relationship to our fellow human beings, at least as far as our part is concerned (cf. Rom. 12:18). Those who claim to know Christ, who claim to be born again, will demonstrate a new way of living that corresponds to the new birth.
The Pharisees and Sadducees knew a great deal about repentance. That God fully and freely remits the sins of a penitent is a basic doctrine of Judaism. The ancient rabbis said, “Great is repentance, for it brings healing upon the world. Great is repentance, for it reaches to the throne of God,” and, “A man can shoot an arrow for a few furlongs, but repentance reaches to the throne of God.” Some rabbis maintained that the law was created two thousand years before the world, but that repentance was created even before the law The clear meaning of repentance in Judaism has always been a change in man’s attitude toward God that results in a moral and religious reformation of the individual’s conduct. The great medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides said of the traditional Jewish concept of repentance: “What is repentance? Repentance is that the sinner forsakes his sin, puts it out of his thoughts, and fully resolves in his mind that he will never do it again.”
Such understanding of repentance is basically consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament. Repentance always involves a changed life, a renouncing of sin and doing righteousness. The Lord declared through Ezekiel, “When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, then he shall die in it. But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and practices justice and righteousness, he will live by them” (Ezek. 33:18–19). Hosea pleaded, “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him, ‘Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously’ ” (Hosea 14:1–2). After Jonah’s reluctant but powerful warning to Nineveh, “God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, [and] then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10). Nineveh brought forth fruit in keeping with repentance.
The idea that repentance is evidenced by renunciation of sin and by righteous living did not originate with John the Baptist, but had long been an integral part of orthodox Judaism. Faithful rabbis had taught that one of the most important passages in Scripture was, “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, reprove the ruthless; defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (Isa. 1:16–17).
Theologian Erich Sauer, in The Triumph of the Crucified (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951, p. 67), speaks of repentance as “a threefold action. In the understanding it means knowledge of sin; in the feelings it means pain and grief; and in the will it means a change of mind.” True repentance first of all involves understanding and insight, intellectual awareness of the need for moral and spiritual cleansing and change. Second, it involves our emotions. We come to feel the need that our mind knows. Third, it involves appropriate actions that result from what our mind knows and our heart feels.
Recognition of personal sin is the important first step. But by itself it is useless, even dangerous, because it tends to make a person think that mere recognition is all that is necessary. A hardened pharaoh admitted his sin (Ex. 9:27), a double-minded Balaam admitted his (Num. 22:34), a greedy Achan acknowledged his (Josh. 7:20), and an insincere Saul confessed his (1 Sam. 15:24). The rich young ruler who asked Jesus how to have eternal life went away sorrowful but not repentant (Luke 18:23). Even Judas, despairing over his betrayal of Jesus, said to the chief priests and elders, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4). All of those men recognized their sin, yet none of them repented. They were experiencing what Paul called “the sorrow of the world” that “produces death” instead of the “godly sorrow” that “produces a repentance” (2 Cor. 7:10–11).
True repentance will include a deep feeling of wrongdoing and of sin against God. David begins his great penitential psalm by crying out, “Be gracious to me, O God, according to Thy lovingkindness; according to the greatness of Thy compassion blot out my transgressions” (Ps. 51:1). He not only clearly saw his sin but deeply felt his need to be rid of it. In another psalm he declared, “When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long” (Ps. 32:3).
The sorrow of true repentance is like David’s; it is sorrow for offense against a holy God, not simply regret over the personal consequences of our sin. Sorrow over being found out or over suffering hardship or discipline because of our sin is not godly sorrow, and has nothing to do with repentance. That sort of sorrow is but selfish regret, concern for self rather than for God. It merely adds to the original sin.
Even acknowledgement of sin and feeling of offense against God do not complete repentance. If it is genuine, it will result in a changed life that bears fruit in keeping with repentance. David, after confessing and expressing great remorse for his sin against God, determined that, with God’s help, he would forsake his sin and turn to righteousness. “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me, … Then I will teach transgressors Thy ways, and sinners will be converted to Thee” (Ps. 51:10, 13). Fruit is always seen in Scripture as manifested behavior (cf. Matt. 7:20).
The great Puritan Thomas Goodwin called for repentance with these striking words:
Fall down upon thy knees afore him, and with a heart broken to water, acknowledge, as Shimei, thy treason and rebellions against him who never did thee hurt; and acknowledge, with a rope ready fitted to thy neck by thy own hands, as they Benhadad’s servants wore; that is, confessing that if he will hang thee up, he may. … Tell Him that He may shew his justice on thee, if he will; and present thy naked breast, thy hateful soul, as a butt and mark for him, if He please, to shoot his arrows into and sheathe his sword in. Only desire him to remember that he sheathed his sword first in the bowels of his Son, Zech. 13:7, when he made his soul an offering for sin. (The Works of Thomas Goodwin [Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863], 7:231) **
Another Puritan, William Perkins, wrote, “Godly sorrow causeth grief for sin, because it is sin. It makes any man in whom it is to be of this disposition and mind, that if there were no conscience to accuse, no devil to terrify, no Judge to arraign and condemn, no hell to torment, yet he would be humbled and brought on his knees for his sins, because he hath offended a loving, merciful, and long-suffering God.”
Ultimately, of course, repentance like that is a gift of God. Speaking to the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish council, Peter and some of the other apostles said, “He [Jesus] is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). Some while later, after he himself had finally been persuaded by God that the Gentiles were eligible for the kingdom (10:1–35), Peter managed to convince skeptical Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who then “glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’ ” (11:18). Paul called Timothy to be a gentle bond-servant of the Lord in proclaiming the truth to the lost in the hope that “God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:25–26).
It was clearly not God-given repentance that the Pharisees and Sadducees professed before John Of all people they should have known the meaning of true repentance, but they did not. They were hypocrites and phonies, as John well knew. He had seen absolutely no evidence of true repentance, and he demanded to see such evidence before he would baptize them. As in the case of all baptisms since John, they are to be outward signs of inward transformation.
John’s words to those religious leaders was at once a rebuke and an invitation: Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance. “You have shown no evidence of it,” he was saying, “but now you have opportunity to truly repent if you mean it. Show me that you have turned from your wicked hypocrisy to genuine godliness, and I will be glad to baptize you.” The rabbis taught that the gates of repentance never close, that repentance is like the sea, because a person can bathe in it at any hour. Rabbi Eleezar said, “It is the way of the world, when a man has insulted his fellow in public, and after a time seeks to be reconciled to him, that the other says, ‘You insult me publicly, and now you would be reconciled to me between us two alone! Go bring the men in whose presence you insulted me, and I will be reconciled to you.’ But God is not so. A man may stand and rail and blaspheme in the market place and the Holy One says, ‘Repent between us two alone, and I will receive you.’ ” (cited in William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975], 1:56).
Some years ago a well-known man in public ministry openly and repeatedly ridiculed a fellow minister. After many months of criticism, the first man decided that he was wrong in what he had done and went to the other minister asking his forgiveness. It was reported that the one who had been criticized replied, “You attacked me publicly and you should apologize publicly. When you do I will forgive you.”
There is no reason to believe that John the Baptist intended to humiliate the Pharisees and Sadducees or demand some sort of public demonstration of their sincerity. But he insisted on seeing valid evidence of true repentance and would not be party to their using him to promote their own selfish and ungodly purposes.
Knowing what they were probably thinking, John continued, and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham for our father.” They believed that simply being Abraham’s descendants, members of God’s chosen race, made them spiritually secure. Not so, John said, for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Descent from Abraham was not a passport to heaven. It was a great advantage in knowing and understanding God’s will (Rom. 3:1–2; 9:4–5), but without faith in Him that advantage becomes a more severe condemnation. If Abraham himself was justified only by his personal faith (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:1–3), how could his descendants expect to be justified in any other way (Rom. 3:21–22)?
Many Jews of New Testament times believed, and many Orthodox Jews of our own day still believe, that simply their Jewishness assures them a place in God’s kingdom. The rabbis taught that “all Israelites have a portion in the world to come.” They spoke of the “delivering merits of the fathers,” who passed on spiritual merit to their descendants. Some even taught that Abraham stood guard at the gates of Gehenna, or hell, turning back any Israelite who happened that way. They claimed that it was Abraham’s merit that enabled Jewish ships to sail safely on the seas, that sent rain on their crops, that enabled Moses to receive the law and to enter heaven, and that caused David’s prayers to be heard.
That was the sort of presumption John the Baptist rebuked. No descent from Abraham, no matter how genetically pure, could make a person right with God. Jesus contradicted the similar claims of another group of Pharisees, except in even stronger terms than John’s. After they self-righteously asserted, “Abraham is our father,” Jesus said, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham. But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do” (John 8:39–40). Our Lord went on to say that their deeds proved their father was actually Satan. In Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus, it is overlooked that the rich man in hell addresses Abraham as “Father,” and Abraham, speaking from heaven, calls the rich man his “Child.” But the rich man was then told by Abraham, “Between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, in order that those who wish to come over from here to you may not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us” (Luke 16:25–26). A child of Abraham in hell was beyond their thinking.
The Jews generally considered Gentiles to be the occupants of hell, spiritually lifeless and hopeless, dead stones as far as a right relationship with God is concerned. It may be that John played on that figure in declaring that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham, that is, true children of Abraham who come to the Lord as Abraham did, by faith. When the Roman centurion asked Jesus to heal his servant simply by saying the word, Jesus replied, “Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom [i.e., Israelites] shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:10–12).
In John’s preaching, as in the Old Testament prophets, judgment was closely connected with salvation in the coming of the Messiah. Those men of God saw no gap between His coming to save and His coming to judge. Isaiah wrote of the “shoot” that would “spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots” who would “decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked” (Isa. 11:1, 4). Speaking again of the Messiah, Isaiah wrote, “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted; … to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:1–2; cf. Joel 3). In his blessing of the infant Jesus in the Temple, Simeon said of Him, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34).
Israel experienced a foretaste of God’s judgment in the ravaging of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70, only about forty years after John the Baptist preached. Every unbeliever likewise faces a certain judgment when he dies, and even before death people may suffer foretaste judgments from God because of sin and rebellion. As the book of Proverbs repeatedly reminds us (1:32–33; 2:3–22; 3:33–35; etc.), God makes certain that ultimately, and even to a great extent in this life, the good will reap goodness and the evil will reap evil (cf. Rom. 2:5–11).
John apparently believed that God’s ultimate judgment was imminent. Because the Messiah had arrived, the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
At the end of every harvest season the farmer would go through his vineyard or orchard looking for plants that had borne no good fruit. These would be cut down to make room for productive vines and trees and to keep them from taking nutrients from the soil that were needed by the good plants. A fruitless tree was a worthless and useless tree, fit only to be cut down and thrown into the fire. Jesus used a similar figure in describing false disciples. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” (John 15:6). Fruitless repentance is worthless and useless; it means absolutely nothing to God.
Fire is a frequent biblical symbol of the torment of divine punishment and judgment. Because of their exceptional wickedness, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (Gen. 19:24). After Korah, his men, and their households were swallowed up by the earth and “went down alive to Sheol … fire also came forth from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense” (Num. 16:32–33, 35). In His role as a righteous Judge, God is frequently called “a consuming fire” (Ex. 24:17; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; etc.). In the last chapter in the Old Testament, Malachi speaks of the coming day that will be “burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze” (Mal. 4:1). John’s preaching picked up where Malachi left off, and Jesus Himself often spoke of the fires of hell (Matt. 5:22, 29; Mark 9:43, 47; Luke 3:17; etc.).
John was speaking specifically to the unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees, but his message of judgment was to every person, every tree … that does not bear good fruit, who refuses to turn to God for forgiveness and salvation and therefore has no evidence, no good fruit, of genuine repentance. Salvation is not verified by a past act, but by present fruitfulness.
The Consolation
As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (3:11–12)
With the message of judgment John also gives a measure of hope and consolation. Here he speaks specifically of the Messiah, who had come in order that no one need face God’s judgment.
First, John explains how his baptism differed from that of the Messiah: I baptize you with water for repentance. John’s baptism reflected a ritual the Jews often used when a Gentile accepted the God of Israel. The ceremony was the mark of an outsider’s becoming a part of the chosen people. In John’s ministry it marked the outward profession of inward repentance, which prepared a person for the coming of the King. As the apostle Paul explained many years later, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus” (Acts 19:4).
The second baptism mentioned here is by the Messiah, a baptism by the One John says is coming after me and who is mightier than I, whose sandals John was not fit to remove. One of the lowliest tasks of a slave in that day was removing the sandals of his master and any guests and then washing their feet. It was the symbol Jesus Himself used in teaching His disciples to be servants (John 13:5–15). The humility of John, one mark of his spiritual stature, is evident in this description of the One he heralded and is consistent with his expression in John 3:30 that “He must increase, but I must decrease.”
Among the ways in which the Messiah would be mightier than John would be in His baptism with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus to His disciples as “another Helper, that He may be: with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you” (John 14:16–17). At Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4) and during the initial formation of the church (Acts 8:5–17; 10:44–48; 19:1–7), the promised Holy Spirit did come upon the disciples, baptizing them and establishing them in the body of Christ. Though without such dramatic attending signs, every believer since that time is baptized into the church by Christ with God’s Spirit. “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free” (1 Cor. 12:13).
John’s word about the Holy Spirit must have been comforting and thrilling to the faithful Jews among his hearers, those who hoped for the day when God would “pour out [His] Spirit on all mankind” (Joel 2:28), when He would “sprinkle clean water on [them],” and “give [them] a new heart and put a new spirit within [them]” (Ezek. 36:25–26). In that day they would at last be baptized in the very power and person of God Himself.
The third baptism mentioned here is that of fire. Many interpreters take this to be a part of the Holy Spirit baptism, which began at Pentecost and which in that instance was accompanied by “tongues of fire” (Acts 2:3). But the Acts account says that those tongues “appeared to them” (that is, the waiting disciples) “as of fire.” They were not fire, but looked like licks of fire. In his last promise of the soon-coming baptism with the Holy Spirit, Jesus said nothing about actual fire being a part of the experience (Acts 1:5). And when, a short time later, Cornelius and his household were baptized with the Holy Spirit, no fire was present (Acts 10:44; 11:16; cf. 8:17; 19:6).
Other interpreters take the fire to represent a spiritual cleansing, as described in the quotation above from Ezekiel. But nothing in Ezekiel’s text, in the context of John’s message here, or in the Pentecost reference to the tongues “as of fire” relates to such cleansing.
Consequently, it seems best to consider fire as representing God’s coming judgment, which, as we have seen, is so frequently in Scripture symbolized by fire. In both the preceding and following verses (10, 12) John clearly uses fire to represent judgment and punishment. It is impossible that the middle reference to fire would concern an entirely different subject. Both of the adjoining verses contrast the fates of believers and unbelievers, those who bear good fruit and those who do not (v. 10) and the valuable wheat and the worthless chaff (v. 12). It therefore seems logical and natural to take verse 11 also as a contrast between believers (those baptized with the Holy Spirit) and unbelievers (those baptized with the fire of God’s judgment).
As in the preceding two verses, John again gives consolation to believers but warning to unbelievers: And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. The figure is changed to that of a farmer who has just harvested his grain crop.
In Palestine, as in many other parts of the ancient world, farmers made a threshing floor by picking out a slight depression in the ground, or digging one if necessary, usually on a hill where breezes could be caught. The soil would then be wetted and packed down until it was very hard. Around the perimeter of the floor, which was perhaps thirty or forty feet in diameter, rocks would be stacked to keep the grain in place. After the stalks of grain were placed onto the floor, an ox, or a team of oxen, would drag heavy pieces of wood around over the grain, separating the wheat kernels from the chaff, or straw. Then the farmer would take a winnowing fork and throw a pile of grain into the air. The wind would blow the chaff away, while the kernels, being heavier, would fall back to the floor. Eventually, nothing would be left but the good and useful wheat.
In a similar way the Messiah will separate out everyone who belongs to Him and, like a farmer, He will gather His wheat into the barn, where it will be forever safe and protected. Also in a similar way to the farmer’s, He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. The long-awaited Messiah would Himself perform both functions, though not in the time and sequence that John and the prophets before him may have thought. The final separation and the ultimate judgment will be only at Christ’s second coming, when the unsaved “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46). That scene is dramatically presented by our Lord in the parable of the tares (Matt. 13:36–43) and the parable of the dragnet (Matt. 13:47–50).
John’s introduction to the person and ministry of the Messiah prepared the people for the arrival of their King.[4]
Preparation for Public Ministry (3:1–4:25)
Matthew’s introduction to Jesus’ public ministry does not end with the stories of Jesus’ childhood. Ancient biographies could include other introductory qualifications, and Matthew is no exception: he reports the attestation of the prophet John, of the heavenly voice and of Jesus’ success in testing (3:1–4:11). Jesus’ public ministry begins in 4:17.
Warnings of a Wilderness Prophet (3:1–12) Just as God revealed his purposes in advance to his prophets in ancient Israel (Amos 3:7; compare Is 41:22–29; 42:9; 43:9, 19; 44:7–8, 24–26; 45:21; 46:10; 48:6), God sent John the Baptist to prepare Israel for his climactic revelation in history. John was a wilderness prophet proclaiming impending judgment; for him repentance (Mt 3:2, 6, 8) was the only appropriate response to the coming kingdom (3:2), its fiery judgment (3:7, 10–12) and its final judge, who would prove to be more than a merely political Messiah (3:11–12). Given the widespread view in early Judaism that prophecy in the formal sense had ceased (Keener 1991b:77–91), John’s appearance naturally drew crowds (3:5). (Modern proponents of the view that miraculous gifts have ceased have not been the first people in history surprised when God’s sovereign activity challenges their presuppositions; see Judges 6:13; Deere 1993.)
The warnings in this passage serve two functions for Matthew’s persecuted readers: judgment against persecutors both vindicates the righteous they oppress and warns the righteous not to become wicked (Ezek 18:21–24). Matthew’s tradition probably mentioned the “crowds” in general (compare Lk 3:7), but Matthew focuses in on a specific part of the crowds: Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt 3:7). Like a good pastor, Matthew thus applies the text to the needs of his own congregations: their Pharisaic opponents were spiritual Gentiles (3:6, 9). Yet later chapters in this Gospel warn Matthew’s audience that they can also become like these Pharisees if they are not careful (24:48–51; compare Amos 5:18–20).
John’s Lifestyle Summons Us to Heed God’s Call (3:1–4) John’s location, garb and diet suggest a radical servant of God whose lifestyle challenges the values of our society even more than it did his own, and may demand the attention of modern Western society even more than his preaching does.
First, John’s location suggests that the biblical prophets’ promise of a new exodus was about to take place in Jesus. So significant is the wilderness (3:1) to John’s mission that all four Gospels justify it from Scripture (3:3*; Mk 1:3; Lk 3:4; Jn 1:23; Is 40:3): Israel’s prophets had predicted a new exodus in the wilderness (Hos 2:14–15; Is 40:3). Thus Jewish people in John’s day acknowledged the wilderness as the appropriate place for prophets and messiahs (Mt 24:26; Acts 21:38; Jos. Ant. 20.189; War 2.259, 261–62).
Further and no less important to John’s mission, the wilderness was a natural place for fugitives from a hostile society (as in Heb 11:38; Rev 12:6; Ps. Sol. 17:17), including prophets like Elijah (1 Kings 17:2–6; 2 Kings 6:1–2). John could safely draw crowds (Mt 3:5) there as he could nowhere else (compare Jos. Ant. 18.118), and it provided him the best accommodations for public baptisms not sanctioned by establishment leaders (see Jos. Ant. 18.117). Thus John’s location symbolizes both the coming of a new exodus, the final time of salvation, and the price a true prophet of God must be willing to pay for his or her call: exclusion from all that society values—its comforts, status symbols and even basic necessities (compare 1 Kings 13:8–9, 22; 20:37; Is 20:2; Jer 15:15–18; 16:1–9; 1 Cor 4:8–13).
Although true prophets could function within society under Godly governments (as in 2 Sam 12:1–25; 24:11–12), in evil times it was mainly corrupt prophets who remained in royal courts (1 Kings 22:6–28; compare Mt 11:8) as God’s true messengers were forced into exile (1 Kings 17:3; 18:13). Most Jewish people in the first century practiced their religion seriously; but the religious establishment could not accommodate a prophet like John whose lifestyle dramatically challenged the status quo. A prophet with a message and values like John’s might not feel very welcome in many contemporary Western churches either. (Imagine, for example, a prophet overturning our Communion table, demanding how we can claim to partake of Christ’s body while attending a racially segregated church or ignoring the needs of the poor. In most churches we would throw him out on his ear.)
John’s garment (Mt 3:4) in general resembled the typical garb of the poor, as would befit a wilderness prophet cut off from all society’s comforts. But more important, his clothing specifically evokes that of the Israelite prophet Elijah (2 Kings 1:8 LXX). Malachi had promised Elijah’s return in the end time (Mal 4:5–6), a promise that subsequent Jewish tradition developed (for example, Sirach 48:10; compare 4 Ezra 6:26; t. ˓Eduyyot 3:4). Although Matthew did not regard John as Elijah literally (17:3; compare Lk 1:17), he believed that John had fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah’s mission (Mt 11:14–15; 17:11–13).
John’s Elijah-like garb thus tells Matthew’s readers two things: first, their Lord arrived exactly on schedule, following the promised end-time prophet; and second, John’s harsh mission required him to be a wilderness prophet like Elijah. Following God’s call in our lives may demand intense sacrifice.
John’s diet also sends a message to complacent Christians. Disgusted though we might be today by a diet of bugs with natural sweetener, some other poor people in antiquity also ate locusts (3:4), and honey was the usual sweetener in the Palestinian diet, regularly available even to the poor.* But locusts sweetened with honey constituted John’s entire diet. First-century readers would have placed him in the category of a highly committed holy man: the pietists who lived in the wilderness and dressed simply normally ate only the kinds of food that grew by themselves (2 Macc 5:27; Jos. Life 11). Matthew is telling us that John lived simply, with only the barest forms of necessary sustenance. Although God calls only some disciples to such a lifestyle (Mt 11:18–19), this lifestyle challenges all of us to adjust our own values. Others’ needs must come before our luxuries (Lk 3:11; 12:33; 14:33), and proclaiming the kingdom is worth any cost (Mt 8:20; 10:9–19).
For that matter, John’s lifestyle, like that of St. Anthony, St. Francis, John Wesley or Mother Teresa, may challenge affluent Western Christianity even more deeply than John’s message does. John’s lifestyle declares that he lived fully for the will of God, not valuing possessions, comfort or status. Blinded by our society’s values, we too often preach a Christianity that merely “meets our needs” rather than one that calls us to sacrifice our highest desires for the kingdom. Too many Western Christians live a religion that costs nothing, treats the kingdom cheaply and therefore does not demand saving faith. Saving faith includes believing God’s grace so sincerely that we live as if his message is true and stake our lives on it. May we have the courage to trust God as John did, to stake everything on the kingdom (13:46) and to relinquish our own popularity, when necessary, by summoning others to stake everything on the kingdom as well.
John Has an Uncomfortable Message for Israel (3:5–10) Although most Jewish traditions acknowledged that all people need some repentance (see 1 Kings 8:46; 1 Esdras 4:37–38; Sirach 8:5), John’s call to his people (Mt 3:5–6, 8–9) is more radical. John’s “repentance” refers not to a regular turning from sin after a specific act but to a once-for-all repentance, the kind of turning from an old way of life to a new that Judaism associated with Gentiles’ converting to Judaism. True repentance is costly: the kingdom “demands a response, a radical decision.… Nominalism is the curse of modern western Christianity” (Ladd 1978a:100). In various ways John warns his hearers against depending on the special privileges of their heritage.
First, John’s baptism confirms that he is calling for a once-for-all turning from the old way of life to the new, as when Gentiles convert to Judaism. Although Judaism practiced various kinds of regular ceremonial washings, only the baptism of Gentiles into Judaism paralleled the kind of radical, once-for-all change John was demanding. In other words, John was treating Jewish people as if they were Gentiles, calling them to turn to God on the same terms they believed God demanded of Gentiles. As F. F. Bruce puts it, “If John’s baptism was an extension of proselyte baptism* to the chosen people, then his baptism, like his preaching, meant that even the descendants of Abraham must … enter … by repentance and baptism just as Gentiles had to do” (1978:61).
Second, John’s hearers were not all good descendants of their ancestors anyway. “Viper” was certainly an insult, and brood of vipers (offspring of vipers) carries the insult further. In the ancient Mediterranean many people thought of vipers as mother killers.* In the fifth century b.c. Herodotus declared that newborn Arabian vipers chewed their way out of their mothers’ wombs, killing their mothers in the process. Herodotus believed that they did so to avenge their fathers, who were slain by the mothers during procreation (Herod. Hist. 3.109). Later writers applied his words to serpents everywhere (Aelian On Animals 1.24; Pliny N.H. 10.170; Plut. Divine Vengeance 32, Mor. 567F). Calling John’s hearers vipers would have been an insult, but calling them a brood of vipers accused them of killing their own mothers, indicating the utmost moral depravity. That Matthew applies this phrase to religious leaders may be unfortunately significant.
Third, employing the image of a tree’s fruit, both John and Jesus demand that one’s life match one’s profession (3:8; 7:16–17; 12:33; 13:22–23; 21:34, 43). In contrast to some forms of modern Christianity, Judaism also insisted that repentance be demonstrated practically (m. Yoma 8:8–9; Montefiore 1968:2:15). Thus no one could simply appeal to ethnic character or descent from Abraham (compare Deut 26:5). Biblical tradition had already applied the image of a tree being cut down (Ezek 31:12–18; Dan 4:23) or burned (Jer 11:16) to the judgment of a nation. Most small trees that could not bear fruit would have been useful, especially for firewood (N. Lewis 1983:139).
Fourth, John’s admonition that out of stones God could raise up children for Abraham (compare Gen 1:24; 2:9) warns his hearers not to take their status as God’s people for granted. Jewish people had long believed they were chosen in Abraham (Neh 9:7; Mic 7:20; E. Sanders 1977:87–101), but John responds that this ethnic chosenness is insufficient to guarantee salvation unless it is accompanied by righteousness (compare Amos 3:2; 9:7). Prophets were not above using witty wordplay at times (Amos 8:1–2; Mic 1:10–15; Jer 1:11–12), and children and stones probably represent a wordplay in Aramaic; the two words sound very similar (Manson 1979:40). (At any rate, John’s symbolism should not have been obscure: God had previously used stones to symbolize his people in Ex 24:4; 28:9–12; Josh 4:20–21.)
Salvation demands personal commitment, not merely being part of a religious or ethnic group. No one can take one’s spiritual status for granted simply because one is Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, evangelical or anything else. As the saying goes, God has no grandchildren; the piety of our upbringing cannot save us if we are not personally committed to Christ. Even depending on our past religious experience is precarious. Whereas historic Calvinism teaches that the elect will persevere to the end and Arminianism allows that apostate converts may be lost, neither supports the now-common view that those who pray the sinner’s prayer but return to a life of ignoring God will be saved. Yet at a popular level, vast numbers of people believe they are saved because they once prayed a prayer. If this modern popular misunderstanding of the once-saved-always-saved doctrine is false, it may be responsible for millions of people’s assuming they are saved when they are in fact lost. John’s message constituted a decisive challenge to false doctrines of his day that cost people their salvation; John’s successors in our day must be prepared to issue the same sort of unpopular challenges.
John Proclaims the Coming Judge and Judgment (3:10–12) In Matthew, John is mostly what narrative critics call a “reliable character”: we can trust the perspective of most of what he says (11:7–11). The only point at which Matthew needs to qualify John’s proclamation is John’s inability to distinguish works inaugurated at the first coming of Jesus (such as baptism in the Spirit) from those inaugurated at the second (such as baptism in fire); Jesus addresses this lack of nuance in 11:2–5 (see comment there).
Although Matthew and Luke retain Mark’s emphasis on the Spirit (the Spirit-baptizer himself becomes the model of the Spirit-empowered life—Mk 1:8–12; see Keener 1996: 29–30), they report more of John’s preaching of imminent judgment than Mark does. Matthew emphasizes the kingdom, the Coming One and the judgment he is bringing (Mt 3:2, 7–12).
First, John emphasizes that the kingdom is coming. In Matthew’s summary of their preaching, both John and Jesus announce the same message: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near (3:2; 4:17). Matthew intends us to see John’s and Jesus’ preaching about the kingdom as models for our preaching as well (10:7); the Lord is not looking the other way in a world of injustice but is coming to set matters straight. Therefore those who believe his warnings had better get their lives in order.
Most Jewish people in Palestine expected a time of impending judgment against the wicked and deliverance for the righteous. But most expected judgment on other peoples and on only the most wicked in Israel (compare m. Sanhedrin 10:1; E. Sanders 1985:96); Jewish people, after all, had certain privileges. Oppressed by surrounding nations, Israel had good reason to long for deliverance, but many people within the nation, including its political leaders, needed to look first to themselves. Amos sounded a clear warning, to his generation, to Jesus’ generation and to ours, when we prove more quick to judge others than ourselves: “Woe to you who long for the day of the Lord,” for it will be a day of reckoning (Amos 5:18). Sometimes skeptics appeal to evil in the world to deny God’s existence; instead they should be applauding his mercy in giving them time to repent, because when God decisively abolishes evil, he will have to abolish them (see 2 Pet 3:3–9).
Second, John warns that the wicked will be burned, just as farmers destroy useless products after the harvest. Harvest and the threshing floor (3:8, 10, 12) were natural images to use in agrarian, rural Palestine. Earlier biblical writers had used these images to symbolize judgment and the end time (as in Ps 1:4; Is 17:13; Hos 13:3; Joel 3:13); Jesus (Mt 9:38; 13:39; 21:34) and his contemporaries (4 Ezra 4:30–32; Jub. 36:10) also used the image. (Fire naturally symbolized future judgment, as in Is 66:15–16, 24; 1 Enoch 103:8.) Villagers carried grain to village threshing floors; large estates worked by tenants would have their own (N. Lewis 1983:123). When threshers tossed grain in the air, the wind separated out the lighter, inedible chaff.* The most prominent use of this chaff was for fuel (CPJ 1:199). But while chaff burned quickly, John depicts the wicked’s fire as unquenchable. Many of his contemporaries believed that hell was only temporary (for example, t. Sanhedrin 13:3, 4), but John specifically affirmed that it involved eternal torment, drawing on the most horrible image for hell available in his day.*
Many of us today are as uncomfortable as John’s contemporaries with the doctrine of eternal torment; yet genuinely considering and believing it would radically affect the way we live. That John directs his harshest preaching toward religious people (Mt 3:7) should also arouse some introspection on our part (see also Blomberg 1992:142–43). Even for the saved, the knowledge that all private thoughts will be brought to light (10:26) should inspire self-discipline when other humans are not watching. Our culture prefers a comforatble message of God’s blessing on whatever we choose to do with our lives; God reminds us that his word and not our culture remains the final arbiter of our destiny.
Finally, John warns of the coming judge, who is incomprarbly powerful. Judgment is coming, but the coming judge John announces is superhuman in rank (3:11–12). Only God could pour out the gift of the spirit (Is 44:3; 59:21; Ezek 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:29; Zech 12:10), and no mere mortal would baptize in fire (in the context, this clearly means judge the wicked—3:10, 12).
Further, whereas Isreal’s prophets had called themselves “servants of God” (as in 2 Kings 9:7, 36; Jer 7:25; Dan 9:6, 10; Amos 3:7), John declares himself unworthy even to be the coming judge’s slave! In ancient Mediterranean thought, a household servant’s basest tasks involved the master’s feet, such as washing his feet, carrying his sandals or unfastening the thongs of his sandlas (see, for example, Diog. Laert. 6.2.44; b. Baba Batra 53B). Although ancient teachers usually expected disciples to function as servants (as in Diog. Leart. 7.1.12; 7.5.170; t. Baba Meṣi˒a 2:30), later rabbis made one exception explicit: disciples did not tend to the teacher’s sandals (b. Ketubot 96a). John thus claims to be unworthy to even be the coming one’s slave. Indeed, the one whose way John prepares is none other than the Lord himself (Is 40:3; Mt 3:3). Matthew’s readers would not need to know Hebrew to realize that John was preparing the way for “God with us” (1:23). No wonder John is nervous about baptizing Jesus (3:14)![5]
Matthew 3
John the Baptist Prepares the Way for Jesus
Matthew 3:1-12 / 16
When John “came preaching” (3:1), the people were excited. They considered John to be a great prophet, and they were sure that the eagerly awaited age of the Messiah had come. Indeed, it had, and God was ushering in a brand-new covenant and a new era in his dealings with humanity. John spoke like the prophets of old, saying that the people must turn from their sin to avoid punishment and turn to God to experience his mercy and approval. This is a message for all times and places, but John spoke it with particular urgency—he was preparing the people for the coming Messiah and for his kingdom. Our calling is similar to John’s, for we, too, can prepare the way for others to come to Jesus. How much urgency do you feel for those who still need to hear the message?
Matthew 3:1
In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea. (nkjv) “In those days” is an Old Testament phrase that points to a critical period of time. It relates to 2:23, loosely referring to the days when Jesus lived in Nazareth. However, twenty-eight to thirty years have elapsed since Joseph returned with the young Jesus and Mary from Egypt back to Israel. He did not settle in Judea but moved north instead to Galilee and the city of Nazareth.
But in the wilderness of Judea (the rugged land west of the Dead Sea), a significant event began to occur: John the Baptist came preaching. In these five words, Matthew summed up the story that Luke would record in greater detail (see Luke 1:5-25, 39-45, 57-80). John was a miracle child, born to Elizabeth and Zacharias (Zechariah, in some Bible versions). Elizabeth was unable to have children, and advanced age rendered her and Zacharias certain to remain childless.
Zacharias was a priest. One day, while he was carrying out his duties in the temple, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and explained that Zacharias and Elizabeth would have a baby boy whom they should name John. Then he added: “He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:16-17 nrsv). There had not been a prophet in Israel for more than four hundred years. It was widely believed that when the Messiah came, prophecy would reappear (Joel 2:28-29; Malachi 3:1; 4:5). John was that prophet, preaching a message of repentance. The word translated “preaching” comes from the Greek word meaning “to be a herald, to proclaim.” Matthew described John as a herald proclaiming news of the coming King, the Messiah. The title “the Baptist” distinguished this John from many other men with the same name—baptism was an important part of his ministry (3:6).
John’s mother, Elizabeth, was a cousin to Jesus’ mother, Mary. Thus, Jesus and John the Baptist were distant cousins. It is likely that they knew of each other, but John probably did not know that Jesus was the Messiah until Jesus’ baptism by John (see 3:16-17).
To us also John the Baptist must come if we shall properly appreciate the Redeemer. We must expose ourselves to the fire, the ax, the winnowing-fan, that we may learn what we really are, and come, like Paul, to reckon our own righteousness as loss if only we may win Christ and be found in him.
—F. B. Meyer
Matthew 3:2
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (nrsv) John the Baptist’s preaching focused specifically on one message—preparing hearts for the coming Messiah. Preparation could only occur through repentance. John called the people to repent—to turn away from sins and turn toward God. To be truly repentant, people must do both. Without apology or hesitation, John preached that the people could not say they believed and then live any way they wanted (see 3:7-8). They had to understand that they were sinners, that sin is wrong, and that they needed to change both their attitude and their conduct. Repentance was a radical concept for Jews who considered themselves already “the people of God.” In the Old Testament, “repent” means the radical return to God of those who have broken the covenant with him. John used the word this way.
Why did they need this radical repentance? Because the kingdom of heaven had arrived. The kingdom of heaven began when God himself entered human history as a man. Passages referring to God’s kingdom appear 50 times in Matthew’s Gospel alone; the phrase “kingdom of heaven” occurs 33 times. Mark and Luke refer to it as the “kingdom of God.” This is a “kingdom” where God reigns. The phrase indicates a present reality and a future hope. Matthew’s use of “kingdom of heaven” relates to his Jewish audience and their reluctance to use the name of God. But there is no theological distinction implied between “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God.” Today Jesus Christ reigns in the hearts of believers, but the kingdom of heaven will not be fully realized until all evil in the world is judged and removed. Christ came to earth first as a suffering Servant; he will come again as King and Judge to rule victoriously over all the earth.
The phrase “has come near” portrays that God has interrupted history with a dramatic new revelation of his power. Discussion of the timing of the arrival of God’s kingdom fills many pages of scholarly work. The issues seem to fall into three main views:
1. Futurist—Since the Old Testament view of the kingdom of God refers to his rule over a geographical area and in a political reality, this rule must be in the future. Thus, Jesus was announcing that the rule was “near” or “at hand.” Most Jews held this view and would not accept the message of repentance.
2. Realized—This view sees God’s kingdom as announced and inaugurated with Jesus’ ministry on earth. The rule of Satan’s kingdom was broken as Jesus cast out demons. With Jesus’ initiation of God’s rule on earth, all humanity must carry out his will by living in love and peace on earth.
3. Two-pronged approach—This view recognizes the kingdom of God as both present and future. The rule of God transcends all time. God ruled before Christ came to earth, but in the ministry of Christ, new power was released through Christ, requiring people to encounter and decide to follow God. This looks forward both to the Resurrection and to Pentecost for further authentication and enabling. However, God’s geographical and political rule will be revealed at a future time when Christ returns.
Turn Around
John the Baptist’s theme was “Repent!” Repentance means doing an about-face—a 180-degree turn—from the kind of self-centeredness that leads to wrong actions such as lying, cheating, stealing, gossiping, taking revenge, abusing, and indulging in sexual immorality. A person who stops rebelling and begins following God’s way of living prescribed in his Word is a person who has repented. The first step in turning to God is to admit your sin, as John urged. Then God will receive you and help you live the way he wants. Remember that only God can remove sin. He doesn’t expect us to clean up our lives before we come to him.
This third view integrates the Scriptures and explains the teachings of Christ most satisfyingly. It enables us to see God’s kingdom as both present (Matthew 12:28; Luke 7:22-23; 17:20-21) and future (Matthew 6:10; Mark 9:47; Luke 13:28-29).
Matthew 3:3
For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight.’” (nkjv) The prophet quoted is Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3), one of the greatest prophets of the Old Testament and one of the most quoted in the New. Here Matthew quoted from the Septuagint (often abbreviated as lxx), the Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament. The second half of the book of Isaiah is devoted to the promise of salvation. Isaiah recorded God’s promise to bring the exiles home from Babylon. He also wrote about the coming of the Messiah and the person who would announce his coming, John the Baptist (Isaiah 40:3). Like Isaiah, John was a prophet who urged people to confess their sins and live for God. Both prophets taught that the message of repentance is good news to those who listen and seek the healing forgiveness of God’s love, but terrible news to those who refuse to listen and thus cut off their only hope.
Matthew understood that John the Baptist was, in fact, the voice that came crying out to the people of Israel. The Greek word for “crying” is boao, meaning “to cry out with great feeling.” John the Baptist’s message was full of emotion and came directly from God. John was merely God’s mouthpiece for the important message that God was sending to his people: Prepare the way of the Lord. How were they to do this?
The word “prepare” refers to making something ready; the word “way” could also be translated “road.” The picture could come from the ancient Middle Eastern custom of sending servants ahead of a king to level and clear the roads to make them passable for his journey. The people in Israel needed to prepare their minds to eagerly anticipate their King and Messiah. The verbs are in the imperative, meaning that John spoke them as a military general would speak commands—to be obeyed immediately and without hesitation. Those who accepted John’s status as a true prophet from God understood these words as God’s words to them, humbled themselves, repented, received baptism, and opened the “way” for their Messiah to take hold of their lives.
John’s call to make His paths straight meant much the same as preparing the way. The “paths” are the way to people’s hearts. For Jesus to be able to reach them, people needed to give up their selfish way of living, renounce their sins, seek God’s forgiveness, and establish a relationship with almighty God by believing and obeying his words (Isaiah 1:18-20; 57:15). Again, the verb is in the imperative; John was issuing an impassioned command to his fellow Israelites (see also Luke 7:24-28).
Why did this voice come from the wilderness? The word “wilderness,” also translated “desert,” refers to a lonely, uninhabited place. John preached in the Judean wilderness, the lower Jordan River valley. Isaiah’s use of the word “wilderness” alludes to the wilderness experience of the children of Israel on their exodus from Egypt to Canaan. The wilderness represents the place where God would once again act to rescue his people and bring them into fellowship with him.
John the Baptist’s powerful, to-the-point preaching and his wilderness living made him a curiosity, separated him from the false piety of many of the religious leaders, and gave him an unmistakable resemblance to the ancient prophets. We can only speculate on John’s motives for living in the wilderness. Perhaps he wanted (1) to get away from distractions so he could hear God’s instructions; (2) to capture the undivided attention of the people; (3) to symbolize a sharp break with the hypocrisy of the religious leaders who preferred their luxurious homes and positions of authority over doing God’s work; and (4) to fulfill Old Testament prophecies that said the Messiah’s forerunner would be preaching “in the wilderness.”
Straight Ways
John the Baptist “prepared” the way for Jesus. People who do not know Jesus need to be prepared to meet him. We can prepare them by explaining their need for forgiveness, demonstrating Christ’s teachings by our conduct, and telling them how Christ can give their lives meaning. We can “make straight paths for him” by correcting misconceptions that might be hindering people from approaching Christ. Someone you know may be open to a relationship with Christ. Can you be their “John the Baptist”? Are you ready to explain, to challenge, and to win others? Take the first step today.
Matthew 3:4
Now John wore clothing of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. (nrsv) John must have presented a strange image! He was outfitted for survival in the wilderness—like a desert monk. He dressed much like the prophet Elijah (2 Kings 1:8). Elijah too had been considered a messenger preparing the way for God (see Malachi 3:1; 4:5). John’s striking appearance reinforced his striking message, distinguishing him from the religious leaders, whose flowing robes reflected their great pride in their position (12:38-39). Having separated himself from the evil and hypocrisy of his day, John lived differently from other people to show that his message was new. John not only preached God’s law, he “lived” it. Many people came to hear this preacher who wore odd clothes and ate unusual food. John’s appearance and food fit the description of the Nazirite vow (see Luke 1:15; also Numbers 6:1-8). Some people probably came simply out of curiosity and ended up repenting of their sins as they listened to his powerful message. People may be curious about your Christian lifestyle and values. You can use their simple curiosity as an opener to share how Christ makes a difference in you.
His diet, locusts and wild honey, was common for survival in the desert regions. Locusts were often roasted and were considered “clean” food for the Jews (Leviticus 11:22); wild honey could be found in abundance, made by the wild bees who nested in the clefts of rocks and in the trees of the valley.
Being Weird
John’s appearance and lifestyle dramatically contrasted with the people of his day. He looked and lived as he did both out of necessity and to further demonstrate his message. Some people go to great extremes today to demonstrate their loyalty to sports teams: They buy jackets, license plates, ties, and collectibles.
Since the days of the early church, faithful Christians have shown loyalty in many ways. Some have adopted clothes and eating habits similar to John’s. Some have tried to imitate Peter or other early Christian leaders.
Today, with so much loyalty evident on any city block (just count the baseball caps), Christians need “caps” to show their commitment to Jesus. And the Bible suggests the most important emblems: attitudes like loving others, being hopeful under stress, and trusting in God for daily needs. Badges like these show others how faith in the living God makes a difference in your life. What loyalties does your life portray?
Matthew 3:5
People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. (niv) The verb form of “went out” is in the imperfect tense, indicating continuous action. From Jerusalem (the holy city of the Jews) and from the whole region of the Jordan, a stream of people constantly flowed into the wilderness to hear John the Baptist preach.
John attracted so many people because he was the first true prophet in four hundred years. His blasting of both Herod and the religious leaders was a daring act that fascinated common people. But John also had strong words for the others in his audience—they too were sinners and needed to repent. His message was powerful and true. The people were expecting a prophet like Elijah (Malachi 4:5; Luke 1:17), and John seemed to be the one!
Matthew 3:6
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. (niv) Many of the people who “went out” to hear John (3:5) came confessing their sins. Confession is more than simply acknowledging one’s own sinfulness; it is agreeing with God’s verdict on sin and expressing the desire to get rid of sin and live for God. Confessing means more than verbal response, affirmation, or praise; it means agreeing to change to a life of obedience and service.
Then they were baptized. When you wash dirty hands, the results are immediately visible. But repentance happens inside with a cleansing that isn’t seen right away. So John used a symbolic action that people could see: baptism. The Jews used baptism to initiate Gentile converts, so John’s audience was familiar with the rite. Here, John gives baptism a special meaning: It was used as a sign of repentance and forgiveness.
For baptism, John needed water, and he used the Jordan River, which is about seventy miles long, its main section stretching between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. Jerusalem lies about twenty miles west of the Jordan. Many significant events in the nation’s history took place by the Jordan River. It was here that the Israelites renewed their covenant with God before entering the Promised Land (Joshua 1–5). Here John the Baptist called them to renew their covenant with God, this time through baptism.
Baptism
Christians have long pondered the proper mode and timing for baptism and what it really means. Some churches have nearly abandoned baptism as a “ritual,” while others claim you can’t go to heaven without it.
Baptism is important for all who say to God, “I belong to you.” Baptism tells everybody where your loyalties really are, who you really depend on, and what direction your life is taking. Baptism says, “I follow Jesus.”
Churches practice different traditions, but all believe that baptism is the outward sign that separates people from the world and attaches them to Christ. God promises blessing to all who take this step.
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (nrsv) John gladly baptized the many repentant men and women who came to him, confessing their sins and desiring to live for God. But when John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he exploded in anger at their hypocrisy.
The Jewish religious leaders were divided into several groups. Two of the most prominent ones were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees separated themselves from anything non-Jewish and carefully followed both the Old Testament laws and the oral traditions handed down through the centuries. The Sadducees believed the Pentateuch alone (Genesis—Deuteronomy) to be God’s Word. They were descended mainly from priestly nobility, while the Pharisees came from all classes of people. While the two groups disliked each other greatly, they both opposed Jesus.
Most likely, these distinguished men had come to John not to be baptized but simply to find out what was going on. John spoke to them with harsh words. John had criticized the Pharisees for being legalistic and hypocritical, following the letter of the law while ignoring its true intent. He had criticized the Sadducees for using religion to advance their political position. He obviously doubted the genuineness of their desire for baptism and was suspicious of them for even showing up. John called them a brood of vipers (Jesus also used this term, see 12:34; 23:33). The term literally means “snakes.” It conveys how dangerous and cunning these religious leaders were and suggests that they were offspring of Satan (see Genesis 3; John 8:44). His question stung with sarcasm, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” In other words, “Who said you were going to escape God’s coming judgment?” The religious leaders applied the “day of the Lord” to judgment on the Gentiles; John applied it to the religious leaders. The reason for John’s harshness is revealed in his words that follow.
Righteous, and Proud of It!
The Pharisees and Sadducees were proud of their knowledge and position. Religious people must struggle with their pride over spiritual attainments. Who gets big egos? It can happen to wealthy donors, to popular preachers, and to normal, everyday Joe and Jane Sunday school—anyone who starts believing that he or she is much better than others.
John warned the most religious people in his region that their version of religion was keeping them from a relationship with God. How odd—people whose minds were packed with knowledge of the Scriptures were cut off from the truth because of their pride over spiritual achievements.
Stay close to friends who will be honest with you, who will check your bloated ego; keep your feet on the ground and your heart humble. Without friends like these, you could become as self-righteous as the esteemed Pharisees and Sadducees.
| Pharisees and Sadducees | ||
| The Pharisees and Sadducees were the two major religious groups in Israel at the time of Christ. The Pharisees were more religiously minded, while the Sadducees were more politically minded. Although the groups disliked and distrusted each other, they worked together to oppose Jesus. | ||
| Name | Positive Characteristics | Negative Characteristics |
| Pharisees | Were committed to obeying all of God's commands | Behaved as though their own religious rules were just as important as God's rules for living |
| Were admired by the common people for their apparent piety | Often forced others to try to live up to standards they themselves could not meet | |
| Believed in a bodily resurrection and eternal life | Believed that salvation came from perfect obedience to the law and was not based on forgiveness of sins | |
| Believed in angels and demons | Became so obsessed with obeying their legal interpretations in every detail that they completely ignored God's message of mercy and grace | |
| Were more concerned with appearing to be good than obeying God | ||
| Sadducees | Believed strongly in the Mosaic law and in Levitical purity | Relied on logic while placing little importance on faith |
| Were more practically minded than the Pharisees | Did not believe that all the Old Testament was God's Word | |
| Did not believe in a bodily resurrection or eternal life | ||
| Did not believe in angels or demons | ||
| Were often willing to compromise their values with the Romans and others in order to maintain their status and influential positions |
Matthew 3:8
“Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.” (niv) Those who refuse to repent will face judgment; those who repent will escape judgment; however, true repentance is seen by the fruit (actions and character) it produces. The Pharisees and Sadducees thought they had a corner on righteousness, but their fruit revealed their true character. Only if they could produce fruit in keeping with repentance—if they truly repented and lived for God—then and only then would they be able to “flee from the wrath to come” (3:7).
John the Baptist called people to more than words or ritual; he told them to change their behavior. If we are to produce fruit in keeping with repentance, our words and religious activities must back up what we say. God judges our words by the actions that accompany them. Do your actions match your words?
False Security
The religious leaders trusted in Abraham’s faith and in their own genetic and religious history. When your life takes a wicked bounce, you’re stressed to the max, and you need help fast, where do you turn? Some people hang charms on their wrist or emblems from a car’s rearview mirror. Some people repeat the names of early Christians. Wouldn’t John the Baptist be surprised to discover that his own name is used by some people to ward off trouble?
If you trust in knickknacks or depend on long-departed Christians to help you wiggle through a tight spot, give it up. Our faith should not be in objects or people, but in God alone. God is your help in trouble, and Jesus, your Lord forever. Trust in his truth.
Matthew 3:9
“And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.” (niv) The pious Pharisees and Sadducees may have sneered at John’s outrage. “After all,” they thought to themselves, “we are descendants of Abraham; therefore, we are guaranteed God’s blessings.” Somewhere over the years, the Jews erroneously decided that the promise given to the patriarchs was guaranteed to all their descendants, no matter how they acted or what they believed. John explained to them, however, that relying on Abraham as their ancestor would not qualify them for God’s kingdom. John probably pointed at stones in the riverbed and said out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. John may have used a play on the Aramaic words for “stone” and “children” in making his point that God can make a nation for himself from whomever he chooses. Only those who “produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (3:8) would qualify for God’s coming kingdom. The apostle Paul would later explain this to the Romans: “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children …. It is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring” (Romans 9:6-8 niv).
Matthew 3:10
“Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (nrsv) God’s message hasn’t changed since the Old Testament—people will be judged for their unproductive lives. Just as a fruit tree is expected to bear fruit, God’s people should produce a crop of good deeds (3:8). John compared people who claim that they believe God but don’t live for God to unproductive trees that will be cut down. “The kingdom of heaven is near” (3:2); judgment was at hand. The ax is lying at the root of the trees, poised and ready to do its work, cutting down those trees that do not bear good fruit. Not only will the trees be cut down, but they will be thrown into the fire, signifying complete destruction.
Jesus used the same illustration in 7:19, “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (nrsv). Jesus was describing how to recognize false teachers. He explained that we can know them by their fruits, their lives. In the same way, God has no use for people who call themselves Christians but do nothing about it. Like many people in John’s day who were God’s people in name only, we are of no value if we are Christians in name only. If others can’t see our faith in the way we treat them, we may not be God’s people at all.
So how are we to bear good fruit? God calls us to be “active” in our obedience. To be productive for God, we must obey his teachings, resist temptation, actively serve others, and share our faith.
Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (nrsv) Turning his attention away from the self-righteous religious leaders and back to the sincere seekers who came for baptism, John explained that his baptism with the water of the Jordan River demonstrated repentance—willingness to turn from sin. This was the beginning of the spiritual process. John baptized people as a sign that they had asked God to forgive their sins and had decided to live as he wanted them to live. Baptism was an “outward” sign of commitment. To be effective, it had to be accompanied by an “inward” change of attitude leading to a changed life. John’s baptism did not give salvation; it prepared a person to welcome the coming Messiah and receive his message and his baptism.
John’s statement He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire revealed the identity of the one who is more powerful coming after John as the promised Messiah. The coming of the Spirit had been prophesied as part of the Messiah’s arrival:
t “I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants” (Isaiah 44:3 niv).
t “The time is coming …. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people …. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:31-34 niv).
t “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws” (Ezekiel 36:26-27 niv).
t “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days” (Joel 2:28-29 niv).
The Old Testament promised a time when God would demonstrate his purifying power among people (Isaiah 32:15; Ezekiel 39:29). The prophets also looked forward to a purifying fire (Isaiah 4:4; Malachi 3:2). This looked ahead to Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Holy Spirit would be sent by Jesus in the form of tongues of fire, empowering his followers to preach the gospel. All believers, those who would later come to Jesus Christ for salvation, would receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the fire of purification (one article precedes these words, indicating that they were not two separate baptisms, but one and the same). The experience would not necessarily be like that recorded in Acts 2, but the outcome would be the same. This baptism would purify and refine each believer. When Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit, the entire person would be refined by the Spirit’s fire. So, for those who believe, “the fire” is positive, but for unbelievers, “the fire” brings awful judgment, as is described in the next verse.
John knew that the Messiah would be coming after him. Although John was the first genuine prophet in four hundred years, Jesus the Messiah would be infinitely greater than he. John was pointing out how insignificant he was compared to the one who would come. John pointed out three main differences between himself and the one coming after him: (1) Jesus’ baptism transcends John’s because it includes full redemption—John’s was limited to repentance; (2) Jesus would be “more powerful,” referring to eschatological power; (3) John was not even worthy of doing the most menial tasks for him, like carrying his sandals, an act considered so low that only slaves did it. (Not even disciples were required to carry their rabbi’s sandals because the dusty shoes symbolized the sins of life.)
John the Baptist said, “He must become greater; I must become less” (John 3:30 niv). What John began, Jesus finished. What John prepared, Jesus fulfilled.
Matthew 3:12
“His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” (niv) Threshing was the process of separating the grains of wheat from the useless outer shell called chaff. This was normally done in a large area called a threshing floor, often on a hill, where the wind could blow away the lighter chaff when the farmer tossed the beaten wheat into the air. A winnowing fork is a pitchfork used to toss wheat in the air in order to separate wheat from chaff. The wheat is the part of the plant that is useful; chaff is the worthless outer shell. Chaff is burned because it is useless; wheat, however, is gathered. “Winnowing” is often used in the Bible to picture God’s judgment. Jesus used the same analogy in a parable (13:24-30). John spoke of repentance, but he also spoke of judgment upon those who refused to repent. The message is always the same; there is no middle ground and no gray area. Repent, turn to Christ, and be saved; or refuse to repent, refuse to turn to Christ, and be destroyed.
The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. Jonathan Edwards [6]
The Herald of the King (Matthew 3:1-12)
‘In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3For this is He that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight. 4And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan, 6And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the flre, 11I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to clean he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12Whose fan is in His hand, and He will throughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.’—Matthew 3:1-12.
Matthew’s Gospel is emphatically the Gospel of the kingdom. The keynote sounded in the story of the Magi dominates the whole. We have stood by the cradle of the King, and seen the homage and the dread which surrounded it. We have seen the usurper’s hatred and the divine guardianship. Now we hear the voice of the herald of the King. This section may be conveniently treated as falling into two parts: the first, from verse 1 to verse 6, a general outline of the Baptist’s person and work; the second, from verse 7 to end, a more detailed account of his preaching.
I. We have an outline sketch of the herald and of his work.
The voice of prophecy had fallen silent for four hundred years. Now, when it is once more heard, it sounds in exactly the same key as when it ceased. Its last word had been the prediction of the day of the Lord, and of the coming of Elijah once more. John was Elijah over again. There were the same garb, the same isolation, the same fearlessness, the same grim, gaunt strength, the same fiery energy of rebuke which bearded kings in the full fury of their self-will. Elijah, Ahab, and Jezebel have their doubles in John, Herod, and Herodias. The closing words of Malachi, which Matthew, singularly enough, does not quote, are the best explication of the character and work of the Baptist. His portrait is flung on the canvas with the same startling abruptness with which Elijah is introduced. Matthew makes no allusion to his relationship to Jesus, has nothing to say about his birth or long seclusion in the desert. He gives no hint that his vague expression ‘in these days’ covers thirty years. John leaps, as it were, into the arena full grown and full armed. His work is described by one word—‘preaching’; out of which all modern associations, which have too often made it a synonym for long-winded tediousness and toothless platitudes, must be removed. It means proclaiming, or acting as a herald, and implies the uplifted voice and the brief, urgent message of one who runs before the chariot, and shouts, ‘The king! the king!’
His message is summed up in two sentences, two blasts of the trumpet: the call to repentance, and the rousing proclamation that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. In the former he but reproduces the tone of earlier prophecy, when he insists on a thorough change of disposition and a true sorrow for sin. But he advances far beyond his precursors in the latter, which is the reason for repentance. They had seen the vision of the kingdom and the King, ‘but not nigh.’ He has to peal into the drowsy ears of a generation which had almost forgotten the ancient hope, that it was at the very threshold. Like some solitary stern crag which catches the light of the sun yet unrisen but hastening upwards, long before the shadowed valleys, John flamed above his generation all aglow with the light, as the witness that in another moment it would spring above the eastern horizon. But he sees that this is no joyful message to them. Nothing is more remarkable in his preaching than the sombre hues with which his expectation of the day of the Lord is coloured. ‘To what purpose is the day of the Lord to you? It is darkness and not light’; it is to be judgment, therefore repentance is the preparation.
The gleam and purity of lofty spiritual ideas are soon darkened, as a film forms on quicksilver after short exposure. John’s contemporaries thought that the kingdom of heaven meant exclusive privileges, and their rule over the heathen. They had all but lost the thought that it meant first God’s rule over their wills, and their harmony with the glad obedience of heaven. They had to be rudely shaken out of their self-complacency and taught that the livery of the King was purity, and the preparation for His coming, penitence.
The next touch in this outline sketch is John’s fulfilment of prophecy. Matthew probably knew that wonderfully touching and lowly answer of his to the deputation from the ecclesiastical authorities, which at once claimed prophetic authority and disclaimed personal importance, ‘I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.’ The prophecy in its original application refers to the preparation of a path in the desert, for Jehovah coming to redeem His people from captivity. The use made of it by Matthew, and endorsed by all the evangelists, rests on the principle, without which we have no clue to the significance of the Old Testament, that the history of Israel is prophetic, and that the bondage and deliverance are types of the sorer captivity from which Christ redeems, and of the grander deliverance which He effects.
Our evangelist gives a vivid picture of the asceticism of John, which was one secret, as our Lord pointed out, of his hold on the people. The more luxuriously self-indulgent men are, the more are they fascinated by religious self-denial. A man ‘clothed in soft raiment’ would have drawn no crowds. A religious teacher must be clearly free from sensual appetites and love of ease, if he is to stir the multitude. John’s rough garb and coarse food were not assumed by him to create an impression. He was no mere imitator of the old prophets, though he wore a robe like Elijah’s. His asceticism was the expression of his severe, solitary spirit, detached from the delights of sense, and even from the softer play of loves, because the coming kingdom flamed ever before him, and the age seemed to him to be rotting and ready for the fire. There is no need to bring in irrelevant learning about Essenes to account for his mode of life. The thoughts which burned in him drove him into the wilderness. He who was possessed with them could not ‘come eating and drinking,’ and might well seem to sense-bound wonderers as if some demonic force, other than ordinary motives, tyrannised over him.
The last point in this brief résumé of John’s work is the universal excitement which it produced. He did not come out of the desert with his message. If men would hear it, they must go to him. And they went. All the southern portion of the country seemed to empty itself into the wilderness. Sleeping national hopes revived, the awe of the coming judgment seized all classes. It was so long since a fiery soul had scattered flaming words, and religious teachers had for so many centuries been mumbling the old well-worn formulas, and splitting hairs, that it was an apocalypse to hear once more the accent of conviction from a man who really believed every word he said, and himself thrilled with the solemn truths which he thundered. Wherever a religious teacher shows that he has John’s qualities, as our Lord in His eulogium analysed them—namely, unalterable resolution, like an iron pillar, and not like a reed shaken with the wind, conspicuous superiority to considerations of ease and comfort, a direct vision of the unseen, and a message from God, the crowds will go out to see him; and even if the enthusiasm be shallow and transient, some spasm of conviction will pass across many a conscience, and some will be pointed by him to the King.
II. The second portion of this section is a more detailed account of John’s preaching, which Matthew gives as addressed to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
We are not to suppose that at any time John had a congregation exclusively made up of such; nor that these words were addressed to them only. What is emphasised is the fact that among the crowds were many of both these parties, the religious aristocrats who represented two tendencies of mind bitterly antagonistic, and each unlikely to be drawn to the prophet. Self-righteous pedants who had turned religion into a jumble of petty precepts, and very superior persons who keenly appreciated the good things of this world, and were too enlightened to have much belief in anything, and too comfortable to be enthusiasts, were not hopeful material. If they were drawn into the current, it must have run strong indeed. These representatives of the highest and coldest classes of the nation had the very same red-hot words flung at them as the mob had. Luke tells us that the first words in this summary were spoken to the people. Both representations are true. All fared alike. So they should, and so they always will, if a real prophet has to talk to them. John’s salutation is excessively rough and rude. Honeyed words were not in his line; he had not lived in the desert for all these years, and held converse with God and his own heart, without having learned that his business was to smite on conscience with a strong hand, and to tear away the masks which hid men from themselves. The whole spirit of the old prophets was revived in his brusque, almost fierce, address to such very learned, religious, and distinguished personages. Isaiah in his day had called their predecessors ‘rulers of Sodom’; John was not scolding when he called his hearers ‘ye offspring of vipers’ but charging them with moral corruption and creeping earthliness.
The summary of his preaching is like a succession of lightning flashes. We can but note in a word or two each flash as it flames and strikes. The remarkable thing about his teaching is that, in his hands, the great hope of Israel became a message of terror, the proclamation of the impending kingdom passed into a denunciation of ‘the wrath to come,’ set forth with a tremendous wealth of imagery as the axe lying at the root of the trees, the fan winnowing the wheat from the chaff, the destroying fire. That wrath was inseparable from the coming of the King; for His righteous reign necessarily meant punishment of unrighteousness. So all the older prophets had said, and John was but carrying on their testimony. So Christ has said. No more terrible warnings of the certain judgment of evil which is involved in His merciful work, have ever been given, than fell from the lips into which grace was poured. We need today a clearer discernment of the truth which flamed before John’s eyes, that the full proclamation of the kingdom of heaven must include the plain teaching of ‘the wrath to come.’
Next comes the urgent demand for reformation of life as the sign of real repentance. John’s exhortation does not touch the deepest ground for repentance which is laid in the heart-softening love of God manifested in the sacrifice of His Son, but is based wholly on the certainty of judgment. So far, it is incomplete; but the demand for righteous living as the only test of religious emotion is fully Christian, and needed in this generation as much as it ever was. All preachers and others concerned in ‘revivals’ may well learn a lesson, and while they follow John in seeking to arouse torpid consciences by the terrors which are a part of the gospel, should not forget to demand, not merely an emotional repentance, but the solid fruits which alone guarantee the worth of the emotion.
The next flash strikes the lofty structure of confidence in their descent. John knows that every man in that listening crowd believes that his birth secured him joy and dominion when Messiah came. So he wrenches away this shield against which his sharpest arrows were blunted. What a murmur of angry denial must have met his contemptuous, audacious denial of their trusted privilege! The pebbles on the Jordan beach, or the loose rocks scattered so plentifully over the desert, could be made as good sons of Abraham as they. A glimpse of the transference of the kingdom to the despised Gentiles passed across his vision. And in these far-reaching words lay the anticipation, not only of the destruction of all Jewish exclusiveness, but of the miracles of quickening to be wrought on the stony hearts of those beyond its pale.
Once more with a new emblem the immediate beginning of the judgment is proclaimed, and its principles and issues are declared. The sharp axe lies at the roots of the tree, ready to be lifted and buried in its bark. The woodman’s eye is looking over the forest; he marks with the fatal red line the worthless trees, and at once the swinging blows come down, and the timber is carted away to be burned. The trees are men. The judgment is an individualising one, and all-embracing. Nothing but actual righteousness of life will endure. All else will be destroyed.
The coming of the kingdom implied the coming of the King. John knew that the King was a man, and that He was at the door. So his sermon reaches its climax in the ringing proclamation of His advent. The first noticeable feature in it is the utter humility of the dauntless prophet before the yet veiled Sovereign. All the fiery force, the righteous scorn and anger, the unflinching bravery, melt into meek submission. He knows the limits of his own power, and gladly recognises the infinite superiority of the coming One. He never moved from that lowly attitude. Even when his followers tried to stir up base jealousy in him at being distanced by the Christ, who, as they suggested, owed His first recognition to him, all that his immovable self-abnegation cared to answer was, ‘He must increase, but I must decrease.’ He was glad ‘to fade in the light of the Sun that he loved.’ What a wealth of suppressed emotion and lowly love there is in the words so pathetic from the lips of the lonely ascetic, whom no home joys had ever cheered: ‘He that hath the bride is the bridegroom … My joy is fulfilled’!
Note, too, the grand conception of the gifts of the King. John knew that his baptism was, like the water in which he immersed, cold, and incapable of giving life. It symbolised, but did not effect, cleansing, any more than his preaching righteousness could produce righteousness. But the King would come, bringing with Him the gift of a mighty Spirit, whose quick energy, transforming dead matter into its own likeness, burning out the foul stains from character, and melting cold hearts into radiant warmth, should do all that his poor, cold, outward baptism only shadowed. Form and substance of this great promise gather up many Old Testament utterances. From of old, fire had been the emblem of the divine nature, not only, nor chiefly, as destructive, but rather as life-giving, cleansing, gladdening, fructifying, transforming. From of old, the promise of a divine Spirit poured out on all flesh had been connected with the kingdom of Messiah; and John but reiterates the uniform voice of prophecy, even as he anticipates the crowning gift of the gospel, in this saying.
Note, further, the renewed prophecy of judgment. There is something very solemn in the stern refrain at the end of each of three consecutive verses,—‘with fire.’ The first and the third refer to the destructive fire; the second, to the cleansing Spirit. But the fire that destroys is not unconnected with that which purifies. And the very same divine flame, if welcomed and yielded to, works purity, and if repelled and scorned, consumes. The rustic simplicity of the figures of the husbandman with his winnowing-shovel, the threshing-floor exposed to every wind, the stored wheat, the rootless, lifeless, worthless chaff, and the fierce fire in some corner of the autumn field where it is utterly burned up—needs no comment. They add nothing but another vivid picture to the thoughts already dealt with. But the question arises as to the whole of the representation of judgment here: Does it look beyond the present world? I see no reason for supposing that John was speaking about anything but the sifting and destroying which would attend the coming of the looked-for kingdom on earth. The principles which he laid down are, no doubt, true for both worlds; but the application of them which his prophetic mission embraced, lies on this side of the grave.
Note, further, the limitations in John’s knowledge of the King. His prophecy unites, as contemporaneous, events which, in fact, are widely separate,—the coming of Christ, and the judgments which He executes, whether on Israel or in the final ‘great day of the Lord.’ There is no perspective in prophecy. The future is foreshortened, and great gulfs of centuries are passed over, as, standing on a plain, we see it as continuous, though it may really be cleft by deep ravines. He did not know ‘what manner of time’ the spirit which was in him did ‘signify.’ No doubt his expectations were correct, in so far as Christ’s coming really sifted and separated, and was the rising and the falling of many; but it was not attended by such tokens as John inferred. Hence we can understand his doubts when in prison, and learn that a prophet was often mistaken as to the meaning of his message.
Again, while we have here a clear prediction of the Spirit as bestowed by Christ, we find no hint of His work as the sacrifice for sin, through whom the guilt which no repentance and no outward baptism could touch was taken away. The Gospel of John gives us later utterances of the Baptist’s, by which we learn that he advanced beyond the point at which he stood here. ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,’ was his message after Christ’s baptism. It is the last, highest voice of prophecy. The proclamation of a kingdom of heaven, of a king mighty and righteous, whose coming kindled a fire of judgment, and a blessed fire of purifying, into one or other of which all men must be plunged, contained elements of terror, as well as of hope. It needed completion by that later word.
When John stretched out his forefinger, and with awe-struck voice bade his hearers look at Jesus coming to him, prophecy had done its work. The promise had been gradually concentrated on the nation, the tribe, the house, and now it falls on the person. The dove narrows its circling flight till it lights on His head. The goal has been reached, too, in the clear declaration of Messiah’s work. He is King, Giver of the Spirit, Judge, but He is before all else the Sacrifice for the world’s sins. Therefore he to whom it was given to utter that great saying was a prophet, and more than a prophet; and when he had spoken it, there was nothing more for him to do but to decrease. He was like the breeze before sunrise, which springs up, as crying ‘The dawn! the dawn!’ and dies away.[7]
IVP Bible Background Commentary
Matthew 3:1–12
Jesus’ Forerunner
See Mark 1:2–8 for more detailed comments. Isaiah 40:3, cited in Matthew 3:3, refers to a herald of the new exodus, when God would save his people again from the oppression they suffered.
3:1. “In those days” was a common Old Testament expression, especially in (but not limited to) prophecies concerning the future. Many people in Jesus’ day expected a great leader to bring deliverance to God’s people from the wilderness, in a new exodus. In times of severe national apostasy in the Old Testament, some prophets (like Elijah) found it necessary to live outside society’s boundaries.
3:2. The Jewish people recognized that God ruled the universe in one sense now, but prayed daily for the time when his kingdom, or rule, would be established over all peoples of the earth. (See further comment on Mk 1:14–15.)
3:3. Isaiah 40:3 is in the context of Isaiah’s prophecy of a new exodus, when God would again deliver his people and lead them back to Jerusalem from all the nations among which they were scattered. Highways required adjustment of terrain to make them straight and level, and ancient kings, especially the kings of the East, expected the roads to be well prepared before they would travel on them. Perhaps in the interest of technical accuracy, Matthew deletes Mark’s citation of Malachi here (but cf. Mt 11:10).
3:4. John’s diet is that of the very poor; although domestic beekeepers were common, John eats only wild honey. (Honey was normally procured by smoking the bees out and then breaking open the honeycomb; honey was the only sweetener for food and was considered the sweetest of tastes.) But Essenes and other pious Israelites (2 Macc 5:27) ate such diets to avoid unclean food.
John dressed like Elijah (2 Kings 1:8) and other people who lived outside society (some, like Cynics and Josephus’s Essene tutor Bannus, were more ascetic); the allusion to Elijah here suggests that the end is near (Mal 4:5–6).
3:5–6. Pagans wanting to convert to Judaism would repent and be baptized, but John here treats Jewish people on the same terms as pagans (see further comment on Mk 1:4–5.)
3:7. Ancients thought that some kinds of vipers ate their way out of their mothers (see, e.g., Herodotus, Plutarch). It was bad enough to be called a viper, but to be called a viper’s child was even worse—killing one’s mother or father was the most hideous crime conceivable in antiquity.
3:8. Repentance meant turning from sin. The Pharisees themselves are known to have questioned professions of repentance if the supposedly repentant person continued sinning. The Old Testament prophets had sometimes described the obedience one owed God, or God’s future blessing of his people, in terms of fruit (a natural image in an agricultural society; cf. Is 5:2; 27:6; Hos 10:1, 12–13; 14:7–8; Prov 11:30–31).
3:9. Jewish people commonly believed that they were saved as a people by virtue of their descent from Abraham. The idea of God raising up people from stones would have sounded to John the Baptist’s Jewish hearers more like pagan mythology (the Greeks had such a story) than reality, but these words emphasized that God did not need Israel to fulfill his purpose (as in Amos 9:7; cf. Gen 1:24; 2:9). Some scholars have also suggested a wordplay on “children” and “stones” in Aramaic.
3:10. Jewish literature sometimes used trees (like many other things) to symbolize Israel; at times the Old Testament used trees in parables of judgment against the nations (Is 10:33–34; Ezek 31:2–18; Amos 2:9) or Israel (Is 10:18–19; Jer 11:16; Ezek 15:6). The wood of a thick tree (like a cedar from Lebanon) would have been used for building, but much of the wood from Palestine’s many slender fruit trees (e.g., olive or fig trees) would be useful only for small items or, often as here, for fuel.
3:11. Slaves of high-status individuals often had higher status than free persons. A slave (unlike a disciple, who also served a master) carried the master’s sandals; John here claims that he is not worthy even to be Christ’s slave.
The prophets had predicted the outpouring of God’s Spirit on the righteous at the time when God established his kingdom for Israel (Is 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28). They also decreed fire upon the wicked (Is 26:11; 65:15; 66:24; Jer 4:4; 15:14; etc.). In Matthew 3:11, the wicked are baptized, or immersed, in fire (3:10, 12), the righteous in the Holy Spirit.
3:12. Because the same Greek word can mean both “spirit” and “wind,” the picture of wind and fire carries over from 3:11. Winnowing was familiar to all Palestinian Jews, especially to the farmers: they would throw harvested wheat into the air, and the wind would separate the heavier grain from the lighter chaff. The chaff was useless for consumption and was normally burned. Some other writers also described the day of judgment as a harvest (4 Ezra 4:30–32; cf. Jer 51:33; Joel 3:12–14) or the wicked as chaff (Is 17:13; Jer 13:24; 15:7; etc.). That the fire is “unquenchable” points beyond the momentary burning of chaff to something far more horrible (Is 66:24), in spite of the fact that Jewish tradition itself was far from unanimous concerning the duration of hell (see “Gehenna” in glossary).[8]
3:1. The forerunner of Christ was John the Baptist. He was the son of Zechariah and Elisabeth, and a cousin of the Lord (cf. Luke 1:5–80). His birth was accompanied by the promise: “He shall be great in the sight of the Lord … and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost” (Luke 1:15). Jesus said of him that there was none “greater than John” (Matt. 11:11) during the Old Testament dispensation. This would imply that John the Baptist was the epitome of the message of the Old Testament itself. ** Matthew’s reference to John the Baptist assumes that his readers were familiar with him. John is presented as the prophet sent in the spirit of Elijah “before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord” (Mal. 4:5). His appearance and dynamic preaching certainly depict him in the life-style of Israel’s ancient prophet. Jesus would later say of him, “I say unto you, That Elijah is come already” (Matt. 17:12).
3:2. Repent (Gr. metanoeō) means a change of mind that results in a change of conduct. Repentance is not merely sorrow. It involves a complete change of attitude regarding God, and [conviction leading to contrition of] sin and is often accompanied by a sense of sorrow and a corresponding change in conduct. ** Such repentance does not arise within man himself, but is the result of God’s mercy in leading man to it (cf. Acts 5:31; Rom. 2:4; 2 Tim. 2:25). Thus repentance involves the very process of conversion whereby men are born again. John’s message of repentance was necessary in order to prepare people for the kingdom of heaven which was at hand. The phrase kingdom of heaven is used only in the Gospel of Matthew and seems to be based on similar references in the Book of Daniel. The phrase kingdom of God is used more frequently by Mark and Luke. The change is perhaps due to Matthew’s Jewish emphasis. Since many Jews regarded it as blasphemous to refer to God by name, Matthew may have substituted the word heaven for that reason. Usually the two phrases are used interchangeably in the Gospels. ** ** **
3:3–7. Spoken of by the prophet Isaiah: All four Gospels relate this prophecy to a fulfillment in the life and ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:2; Luke 3:4; John 1:23). Make his paths straight refers to the straightening or preparing of one’s life in a right relationship with God in order to prepare for the coming of a King. John’s dress of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle was similar to Elijah’s clothing (2 Kings 1:8) and was the usual dress of prophets (Zech. 13:4). Locusts were an allowable food (cf. Lev. 11:22) and were eaten by the poorest of people. The reference in verse 5 to Jerusalem, and all Judea relates to the people of those places. John’s ministry was received with great enthusiasm in its early stages.
3:8–10. Fruits meet for repentance: John rebuked the Pharisees, asking them to give evidence of “fruits meet for repentance” (v. 8). There can be no doubt that the New Testament concept of repentance grows out of its usage in the Old Testament, where the term (Heb. shūb) means far more than an intellectual change of mind. Genuine repentance proves itself by the fruits of a changed life. John the Baptist further rebuked them for their belief in nationalistic salvation. Abraham to our father means that they were trusting in their physical descent for salvation, rather than in God, which would have constituted a spiritual relationship to Abraham the “father of the faithful.”
3:11, 12. I indeed baptize … with water: John’s baptism in water was not Christian baptism. The death and resurrection of Christ had not yet occurred in order to be depicted by this baptism. John’s baptism was similar to the Old Testament offerings (washings) that symbolized a cleansing of personal repentance on the part of a believer. Notice that Jesus submitted to this baptism to “fulfill all righteousness” (v. 15). He shall baptize … with the Holy Ghost refers to the spiritual rebirth of the regenerate who shall receive the baptism of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).
This experience began at Pentecost (Acts 1) and was repeated upon every new group of converts (Samaritans, Gentiles, John’s disciples) until it became normative for all Christian believers. The immediate context certainly indicates that to be baptized with fire is the result of judgment (notice the reference to purging and burning in the next verse). The threshing fan (v. 12) refers to a wooden shovel used for tossing grain into the wind in order to blow away the lighter chaff, leaving the good grain to settle in a pile. The chaff would then be swept up and burned; the unquenchable fire refers to the eternal punishment of hell or the lake of fire.[9]
3:1-12, The Ministry of John the Baptist.
As in the other Gospels, the ministry of Jesus is preceded by the ministry of John the Baptist. In this section Matthew follows Mark and Q but makes two important modifications to his sources. First, Matthew carefully avoids saying that John offers baptism for release from sins (cf. Mark 1:4). This is something reserved for Jesus through his sacrificial death (note the addition of “for the forgiveness of sins” in Matt. 26:28). Second, John’s preaching of repentance is addressed not to the crowds (as in Luke and probably in Q) but to the Pharisees and Sadducees (→ Pharisees; Sadducees). Thus, the Baptist’s preaching becomes a warning to the Judaism of Matthew’s day. The adherents of the synagogue have refused to flee from the wrath of God by responding to the gospel, and God has raised up children to Abraham in the shape of the Christian church. The Stronger One who was to come after John (11-12) had by Matthew’s time purged his granary in the fall of Jerusalem and is already gathering the wheat into his barn (cf. the seed parables in chap. 13) and preparing to burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.[10]
Pulpit Commentary
Matthew 3:1-12
Verses 1-12. - THE HERALD. (Parallel passages: Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18.) His public appearance and proclamation (vers. 1, 2), as foretold by Scripture (ver. 3). His Elijah-like dress (ver. 4). He is listened to by multitudes (vers. 5, 6). His faithful warning to typical Jews, and his pointing not to himself, but to the Coming One (vers. 7-12). The date at which he appeared is stated, in Luke 3:1, to have been "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar; i.e. between August, A.D. 28, and August, A.D. 29 " (Schurer, I. 2, p. 31).
Verse 1. - In those days; and in those days (Revised Version). Probably merely contrasting those past days of the beginning of the gospel with the present, when the evangelist wrote (cf. Matthew 24:19-22; where the days yet future are contrasted with those present). In Mark 1:9 the expression is used directly of the Lord's baptism. And (Revised Version); de/; Hebrew usage taking up the narrative (cf. Josh 1:1; Judg 1:1; Ruth 1:1; Est 1:1). Came; cometh (Revised Version); historic present (cf. Matt 2:19); paragi/netai, here equivalent to "come forward publicly," make one's public appearance (cf. especially Luke 12:51; Heb 9:11; also especially 1 Mace. 4:46; also infra, ver. 13 and Matt 2:1). John; Johanan. The name occurs first as that of a high priest in, apparently, the days of Rehoboam (1 Chronicles 6:9-10, Authorized Version). "The Lord is gracious" was a fitting title for one born by the special grace of God, and sent to be the herald of his grace to all men (Titus 2:11). The Baptist.
(1) The Jews were far from having attained the simplicity of our present system, by which each person has both a family and a Christian name, and is thus designated with sufficient exactness for all the ordinary purposes of life. Their custom of name-giving was, and still largely is, as follows:
(a) A Hebrew name is given to the child at circumcision. This is the holy name, and is used at all strictly religious ceremonies; e.g. when called to read the Law in the synagogue.
(b) Each person has a name whereby he is known among the Gentiles. This is, at the present time, the name used for business and social purposes, and may be either Hebrew or of some ether language. It is usually connected, either in sound or meaning, with the holy name. So Paul and Saul, Didymus and Thomas (for numerous examples, cf. Hamburger, 'Real-Encycl.,' vol. 2. pp. 831-836. Lowe, 'Memorbook of Nurnberg,' pp. 18-28: 1881).
(c) He may have, either as well as or instead of the last, a name which designates him more exactly (a) by mentioning his father or some other relation; e.g. Bartimaeus, Barsabbas (probably); (b) by mentioning some physical, mental, moral, or other peculiarity; e.g. James the Little, Simon the Zealot, Barnabas (the son of exhortation), and, from non-biblical authors, James the Just, Rabbi Judah the Holy, Samuel the Astronomer, John the Shoemaker.
The title "the Baptist" belongs, of course, to this last class, and must have been given him partly because of the number of persons whom he baptized, and still more because baptism was the visible and external aim and result of his preaching. **
(2) What was there new in John's baptism? In considering this it must be remembered that
(a) dipping in water had been commanded in the Law as a religious rite to priests (Exodus 30:20; 40:12; cf. Lev 8:6) on their first consecration to their office, and on each occasion that they fulfilled the holiest parts of their duties (cf. the sprinklings of the Levites on their consecration, Num 8:5-22); and to all Israelites in eases of ceremonial uncleanness (Lev 14:8; Num 19:13).
(b) It was very frequent among the Essenes (cf. especially the quotations from Josephus in Bishop Lightfoot, 'Colossians,' p. 171, edit. 1875).
(c) It was, we can hardly doubt, already customary at the admission of proselytes. There are, indeed, no certain allusions in Josephus, Philo, and the older Targumists (cf. Leyrer, in Cremer, s.v. bapti/zw) to the baptism of proselytes properly so called; but (a) it is distinctly mentioned in the Mishna, and in such a way as to imply that it was an ancient custom, for the schools of both Shammai and Hillel assume it as a matter of course ('Pes,' 8:8); (b) as with books, so with customs, acceptance in two bodies originally one, as the Jewish and Christian Churches were, throws back the book or custom before the date of the separation. In other words, it is most improbable that Jews would only have begun to practise baptism at the admission of proselytes after it had been practised by a body which had separated from them. Jews would not be likely to adopt the distinguishing rite of Christians.
(d) Thus already, before John's time, baptism was largely practised as a symbol of purification from sin and of entrance on a new and holier life. Wherein, then, lay the distinguishing feature of John's baptism? Apparently in its being extended to all Israelites, without their having any personal ceremonial hindrance, and more particularly in the special aim and purpose to which it now referred. It signified the entrance upon a new life of expectation of Messiah. As of old, the nation had accepted the offer of God's kingdom, and, having washed their garments (Ex 19:10,14), had been sprinkled with blood (Ex 24:8), so now, when this kingdom, was about to be more fully manifested, not the nation, indeed, considered as a whole, but (in harmony with the individualization of the gospel) those persons who responded to the invitation, came forward and publicly renounced their sins and professed their expectation of the kingdom (Edersheim, 'Life,' etc., 1:274). It is thus easy to account for the deep and widespread impression made by John the Baptist (cf. Acts 18:25; 19:3), and for the important position that he holds in summaries of the origins of Christianity. John's baptism was treated by our Lord himself as the first stage in his earthly ministry, which culminated in the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5), and naturally by the apostles as the historical introduction to the teaching and work of Messiah. Josephus's account of John the Baptist is well known, but too interesting to be omitted. "Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army [by Aretas] came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John that was called the Baptist. For Herod had had him put to death, though he was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for baptism would be acceptable to God, if they made use of it, not in order to expiate some sins, but for the purification of the body, provided that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, as many flocked to him, for they were greatly moved by hearing his words, Herod, fearing that the great influence John had over the people might lead to some rebellion (for the people seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it far best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of his leniency when it should he too late. Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, in consequence of Herod's suspicious temper, to Machaerus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. So the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and was a mark of God's displeasure against him" ('Ant,' 18:5. 2, Shilleto's Whiston). Observe that
(1) Josephus confirms the Gospel account of the extent of John's influence over his countrymen; but
(2) attributes his imprisonment and death to a political, not a moral, cause. It is quite possible, on the one hand, that political reasons were not altogether wanting; and, on the other, that Josephus was ignorant of the more personal and stronger motive of Herod's action. Preaching (
khru/sswn
). Unlike
eu)aggeli/zomai
this word refers, not to the matter, but to the manner, the openness, of the proclamation. In contrast to the esoteric methods alike of heathen philosophers and of Jewish teachers, whether Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes. The herald proclaims as a herald; cf. Isa 40:9 (the original context of our ver. 3); Gen 41:43 (LXX.). In the wilderness. By this term is not necessarily meant absolute desert, but "des lieux pen habites ou non cultives" (Neubauer, 'Geogr. du Talm.,' p. 52: 1868). The very place in which John preached was part of the symbolism of his whole life. The expectation of Messiah must lead to separation, but separation deeper than that of those who called themselves the "separated" (Pharisees). Of Judea. The exact expression comes elsewhere only in the title of Ps 63, and in Judg 1:16, where it is defined as "in the south of Arad." It seems that, while different parts of the rugged district from Jericho southwards (Josh 16:1), immediately on the west and north of the Dead Sea, had their distinctive titles - the wilderness of Siph (1 Sam 23:14,15), of Maon (1 Sam 23:24), of Engedi (1 Sam 24:1), of Jeruel (2 Chron 20:16), of Tekoa (2 Chron 20:20) - the whole district was, as belonging to the tribe and even more certainly to the kingdom and province of Judah, known by the name of "the wilderness of Judaea." According to tradition, John was now preaching near Jericho. We find him soon after this at Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1:28), and later still at tenon, near Salim, in, or on the borders of, Samaria (John 3:23)."
Matthew 3:2
Verse 2. - And (omitted by the Revised Version) saying. The parallel passages give the substance of John's preaching - the baptism of repentance. St. Matthew takes, as it seems, a sentence that actually fell from his lips, and presents it as the kernel of his message ("preaching... saying"). This is the more interesting as nowhere else are we told any words uttered by him in this the first stage of his ministry before crowds flocked to hear him. Repent ye... at hand; said word for word by our Lord (Matt 4:17, note). Repent ye (
metanoei=te
) . The word expresses the central thought of true repentance, in speaking, as it does, of a change of mind. Contrast
metame/lesqai
(Matt 27:3; 2 Cor 7:8-10). As such it goes deeper than the Old Testament summons "Turn ye" (wbw?), or the rabbinic hbw?t, for it points out in what part of man the alteration must be. (On your meaning more than the mere thinking power, and including also the willing faculty, cf. especially Delitzsch, 'Psych.,' p. 211, etc., Eng. trans., 1875.) It is noticeable that the LXX. never, as it seems, translate bw? by
metanoi=n
, but often <jn (of man only in Jer 8:6; 31:19; and possibly Joel 2:14; cf. 1 Sam 15:29), which refers to repentance as a matter of feeling. As Messiah was coming, it was only natural that John should urge repentance. Similarly, we find late Jewish writers expounding Gen 1:2, "'And the Spirit of God was moving [on the face of the waters].' This is the Spirit of King Messiah, like that which is said in Isa 11:2, 'And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him.' By what kind of merit does it draw near and come? It says, 'upon the face of the waters.' By the merit of repentance, which is compared to water, as it is written (Lain. 2:19), 'Pour out thy heart like water'" ('Bresh. R.,' § 2). But, unfortunately, they assign far too legal a meaning to the word, and their phrase, "do repentance" (hbw?t h?u), becomes almost identical with the "do penance" (poeni-tentiam agite, Vulgate) of the Roman Catholics (cf. Talm. Dab., 'Sanh.,' 97 b). For the kingdom of heaven (see Introduction, p. 22.).
Matthew 3:3
Verse 3. - For. The reason for John's appearance and proclamation lies in prophecy. This is he that was spoken of (
ou=to$ ga\r e)stin o( r(hqei/$
). In John 1:23 the following quotation is uttered by the Baptist himself, and some commentators have supposed this to be the case also here. But
(1) this is against the parallel passages in Mark and Luke.
(2) The form of the expression in John arises directly from the context.
(3) In the Baptist's mouth the neuter (
tou=to
...
to\ r(hqe/n
) rather than the masculine would have been more natural. The expression is doubtless that of the evangelist, suggested to him by John's own utterance, the "is" (
e)stin
) expressing John's permanent character. Contrast
ei+xen h+n
, (ver. 4) of his clothing and food. [He that was] spoken of. The expression means, not a mere reference found in Isaiah, but the absolute content of the prophet's words. The utterance of God by means of the prophet is - John the:Baptist. The Prophet Esaias; Isaiah the prophet (Revised Version); the commoner Greek order (but cf. Luke 4:17). The voice, etc. (except "his" for "our God," from the LXX. of Isa 40:8). The Hebrew probably joins "in the wilderness" with "prepare ye," but St. Matthew with "crying" (cf ver. 1, "preaching in the wilderness," as probably the LXX.) In Isaiah the original meaning of the passage was probably, "prepare for the return to Jerusalem." The figure is that of the common and necessary process in semi-civilized countries of repairing roads before a great personage comes along them. Zechariah had; years before, applied the similar expression in Mal 3:1 to his son (Luke 1:76; cf. Mark 1:2). (For a metaphor like in kind, but with contrasted meaning, cf. Gal 5:7,
e)ko/ptein
, breaking up a road to render it impassable.) Paths (
tri/bou$
). According to Philo, the word is equivalent to "a carriage-road" (
i(pph/lato$ kai\ a(mach/lato$
o(do/$
, vide in Wetstein). It is thus equivalent to the Hebrew (m' sillah, "a highway," "a made road"). Possibly the plural was employed by the LXX. rather than the singular of the original, from their interpreting the passage, not of the return of the Lord to Palestine, but his coming into many hearts.
Matthew 3:4
Verse 4. - With this verse we begin to meet with matter peculiar to Matthew and Mark. And the same John (
au)to\$ de\ o(
)Iwa/nh$
). (For the phrase, cf. Mark 6:17 Luke 3:23.)
(1) If the Revised Version "Now John himself," holds good, the phrase seems to mean that not only did Isaiah speak of him in terms that implied that he was the forerunner of Messiah, the true Elijah (Mark 1:2), but also he himself had his very food and dress consistent with his office.
(2) But it is safer, with Thayer's 'Grimm' (1:2, a), to take
au)to/$
as merely recalling the person before mentioned. "Now he, whom I spoke of, John" (cf. 2 Chron 32:30). Had; during all that time (
ei+xen
). His habitual dress, etc., was as follows. Of (
a)po/
) camel's hair. Not, as Dgr Old Lat. a in the parallel passage in Mark,
de/r)r(hn
, pellem, "a camel's hide," but coarse cloth made from the hair. So probably," hairy man" (2 Kings 1:8; el. Zech 13:4). And a leathern girdle. Probably of sheep or goatskin, worn over the garment. Mentioned because
(1) it formed another point of similarity to Elijah (2 Kings 1:8);
(2) girdles were frequently very costly (cf. Smith's 'Dict. of Bible,' 1:701). Every part of John the Baptist's dress was for use, not ornament. And his meat; food (Revised Version);
trofh/
, not
brw=ma
. He cared not what he ate, but what nourished and supported him. Was. The right order of the words (
h( de\ trofh\ h+n au)tou=
) lays slightly more stress on the continuance of this mode of life. Locusts. Used for food in the East from the remotest times until now. Four kinds are permitted in Lev 11:22. "The wings and legs are torn off, and the remainder is sprinkled with salt, and either boiled or eaten roasted" (Meyer). They are mentioned in Talm. Bab., 'Ab. Zar.,' 4:0 b, as being sold after preservation in wine. The word
a)kri/de$
forbids the identification of these locusts with the pods of the carob, or locust tree, such as the prodigal son would fain have eaten. It seems that Jewish Christians of Essene and therefore vegetarian tendencies read
e)gkri/de$
(cakes) here. Such at least is the most natural meaning, accepted by Epiphanius, of a quotation which he gives from the Ebionite Gospel according to the Hebrews (vide Tischendorf, in loc.) (On the theory that John the Baptist was an Essene, cf. Bishop Lightfoot, 'Colossians,' p, 161, edit. 1875.) And wild honey. This apparently simple phrase is, notwithstanding, of doubtful interpretation.
(1) Probably the honey of wild bees. This is still to be found in trees and rocks, and must have been much more common before the greater part of the timber was cut down (cf. Judg 14:8; 1 Sam 14:25; Ps 81:16). Bee-keeping was a favourite pursuit of the Essenes (Philo, 2. p. 633), and the Talmud has frequent notices of hives and the methods of taking bees, etc. (vide Hamburger, 'Real-Encyc,' 1. s.v. "Biene"). Hence the need for the addition of some such epithet as "wild," although there seems to be no independent parallel instance of the exact word used (
a&rgion
); cf. Pliny's "mel silvestre."
(2) Possibly "tree-honey" (so Weiss, 'Marc.,' p. 44; 'Life,' 1:308), a sweet vegetable juice obtained from dates (vide Josephus, infra) and grapes (as probably in Gem 43:11; Ezek 27:17), and perhaps directly from wild trees, such as the manna ash and the tamarisk. So distinctly Suidas (A.D. 1100). "The forerunner ate locusts and wild honey, which is gathered together from the trees, and is commonly called manna." Diodorus Siculus ( B.C. 8) seems to use the epithet "wild" (
a&grion
) to distinguish this vegetable honey from that commonly in use (cf. Nicholson, 'Gosp. Hebrews,' p. 35). Josephus ('Bell. Jud.,' 4:8. 3) states that in the plain watered by the fountain of Jericho, "there are many sorts of palm trees watered by it, different from each other in taste and name; the better sort of them, when they are pressed, yield an excellent kind of honey (
me/li dayilo\$ a)nia=sin
), not much inferior to other honey. This country withal produces honey from bees (
kai\ melittotro/fo$ de\ h( xw/ra
)." But the former interpretation seems the more probable.
Matthew 3:5
Verse 5. - Then. Not merely temporal, as probably in ver. 13, but almost consequential, "thereupon"; so also ver. 15; Matt 2:7,16. John's preaching and manner of life were not without effect. Went out;
e)ceporeu/eto
(similar in the parallels). Our Lord, when referring to this (Matt 11:7,8,9), uses the commoner
e)ch/lqate
, merely indicating the crowds leaving for a while their present surroundings. The synoptists here point rather to the trouble involved and the distance traversed (cf. Mark 6:11 with 12). The singular is used (as often in the Hebrew) because the writer's first thought was of Jerusalem; the other parts were added as an afterthought. All (cf. Matt 8:34); i.e. from all parts and in large numbers. Judaea. Strictly speaking, this would, of course, include part of the next expression, but the reference here is especially to the hill-country. And all the region round about Jordan; i.e. the inhabitants of the Ghor, the Jordan valley. They presumably came from either side of the river. "Strabo, concerning the plain bordering on Jordan, hath these words: It is a place of an hundred furlongs, all well watered, and full of dwellings" (John Lightfoot, 'Her. Heb.').
Matthew 3:6
Verse 6. - And (they, Revised Version) were baptized. The Revised Version probably desires to call attention to the change in the verb from singular to plural. In Jordan; in the river Jordan (Revised Version, with manuscripts). So also parallel passage in Mark (cf. Introduction, p. 5.). By him; i.e. their baptism was not self-imposed, but an act of submission to his teaching, and of acceptance of his message. The forerunner saw results, not merely in crowds of listeners, but in external actions. By him (contrast John 4:2). Confessing their sins; i.e. in at least some detail; cf. Josephus, 'Ant.,' 8:4. 6, "confessing their sins and their transgressions of the laws of their country (
e)comologoume/nwn ta\$ a(marti/a$ au)tw=n kai\ ta\$
tw=n patri/wn nomi/mwn paraba/sei$
);" also Acts 19:18, "confessing and declaring their deeds" (cf. James 5:16).
Matthew 3:7-12
Verses 7-12. - The faithful warning. (Parallel passage: Luke 3:7-9,16,17.) Observe that this is before the baptism of our Lord, while the witness in John 1:19-27 is after.
Verse 7. - But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The typical Jews, considered as one class (
tw=n Farisai/wn kai\
Saddoukai/wn
), in contrast to the multitudes. Pharisees. Their characteristic is shown in their name, "Separatists;" i.e. from anything that would hinder exact obedience to the Mosaic Law. Hence they are the strict adherents of tradition. They ultimately gained the ascendancy, and, in consequence, the standard Jewish books represent the result of their teaching, They belonged almost entirely to the middle classes. Sadducees. They were chiefly of the noblest, especially the high-priestly, families. Hence their first thought was political quiet, and with this they not unnaturally combined the love of Greek culture. They set the plain meaning of the Law far above all tradition, even that of the Prophets and the Hagiographa. Come (Obtains, Revised Version) to his baptism;
e)rxome/nou$ e)pi\ to\
ba/ptisma
(omit
au)tou=
). They were apparently not merely coming to see what took place, but with the purpose of receiving his baptism (cf. Thayer,
e)pi/
c. 1:2, g.
g
aa.); cf. Matt 26:50 (
e)f d
); Luke 23:48. The marginal reading, however, proposed by the American Revisers "for baptism," does not do justice to the article. The Gospel according to the Hebrews (Resch, 'Agrapha.' p. 343) says that they were in fact baptized, but we can hardly suppose this to have been the case after John's words to them. Observe that the Pharisees, with their self-conscious sanctity, were hardly likely to come to confess their sins, or the Sadducees to even listen to so ascetic a teacher. He said unto them; i.e. to the Pharisees and Sadducees; Luke, less exactly, "to the multitudes that went out to be baptized of him." There is, indeed, nothing, save the opening sentence, which refers solely to the Pharisees and Sadducees; but this fact does not show (Bleek) that the words were really spoken to all, and that Matthew's expression is wrong. John doubtless addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees primarily; but as, after all, they only formed the apex of ordinary Jewish thought, what he said to them fitted also the majority of his listeners. O generation (ye offspring, Revised Version) of vipers! The simile not only expresses the thought that, behind their smooth exterior, the outward legal strictness of the Pharisees, and the worldly decorum of the Sadducees, lay hidden malice and venom, but also that this is due to their very nature. It may have directly implied that they belonged in a true sense to the seed of the serpent (Gen 3:15); cf. our Lord's words (Matt 12:34; 23:33). Who hath (omitted by the Revised Version) warned you? The verb (
u(pe/deicen
) has elsewhere in the New Testament (St. Luke's writings only) no thought of warning, nor of secrecy, but of teaching, of placing the matter under the eyes of others (cf. especially Acts 9:16; 20:35; Luke 6:47). John is making no inquiry for information, but only utters surprise at seeing them (cf. Matt 23:33,
pw=$ fu/ghte
). Whoever can have told you of your danger? He might have saved himself the trouble, you being what you are! Yet the very violence of his expression was such as to call their attention to the depth of their sinfulness, and after all to lead them perhaps to repentance. For this reason he adds, "Bring forth therefore." To flee; aorist, not exactly indicating "the activity as momentary, setting forth the point of time when the wrath breaks forth, in which the flight also is realized" (Meyer), but the flight as one single action, without any reference to the time of the breaking forth of the wrath. From. The wrath is pictured as coming on them from without. In 1 Thess 1:10 St. Paul says that Jesus delivers out of (
e)k
) it, implying that he himself and all men are naturally in and under it (but see Matt 6:13, note). The wrath to come. Perhaps connected in John's mind with the wrath of the Messianic age (Isa 63:3-6). If so, it would find its primary fulfilment in the destruction of Jerusalem, but its complete fulfilment only in the manifestation of the wrath at the last judgment - (Acts 24:25; cf. Rom 2:5; 5:9; Rev 6:16,17; 11:18). Wrath. Not merely punishment. The thought is of the feeling of anger against sin in him who punishes it (cf. Matt 18:34; 22:7; Mark 3:5).
Matthew 3:8
Verse 8. - Bring forth therefore (vide supra) fruits; fruit (Revised Version). The plural is due to a false reading taken from the parallel passage of Luke - it regards the various graces of a good life as so many different fruits (Matt 21:43); the singular, as one product from one source (Gal 5:22). The term used here (
poiei=n karpo/n
), and frequently, lays more stress on the effort involved than
dido/nai karpo/n
, simple "yielding" (Matt 8:8), or
fe/rein
, "bearing" in the course of nature (Matt 7:18; Mark 4:8; John 15:4,5,8,16). The preacher requires a repentance which produces results. Meet for (cf. Acts 26:20). Though strictly meaning "suitable to" ("answering to," Authorized Version margin; cf. Tyndale, 'be-longyng to"), the phrase might to-day be understood as "suitable to produce." John really means that true repentance has fruit which belongs to its proper nature, and which is alone "worthy of" it (Revised Version). Repentance (
th=$ metanoi/a$
). The article is either generic (Authorized Version and Revised Version; cf. Acts 11:18 and probably 26:20); or equivalent to "your" (Revised Version margin). If the latter, the following sentence shows that it is still said in good faith. (For repentance, cf. ver. 1, note.)
Matthew 3:9
Verse 9. - And. An additional warning against any false feeling of security based on natural privileges. As this feeling was common to all Jews, the reference to the larger audience (ver. 7, note) was probably begun here. Think not to say. Not do not think, consider, with a view to saying; but do not think it right to say, do not be of opinion you may say (Luke 3:8, "Begin not to say ). St. Luke deprecates the commencement of such an utterance in their heart; S t. Matthew denies its justice. Within yourselves; cf. Est 4:13 (Hebrew). We have Abraham to our father. As it was recognized on all hands that the promise of blessing was made to Abraham and his seed, it is no wonder that many Jews presumed upon their descent from him, "sup, posing,", as Justin Martyr says ('Trypho,' § 140.), that the everlasting kingdom will assuredly be given to those who are of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, although they be sinners and unbelieving and disobedient towards God." In later times, when the doctrine of merit was more fully established, God could be represented as saying to Abraham, "If thy children were like dead bodies without sinews or bones, thy merit would avail for them" ('Ber. Rabb.,' on Gen 10:5:11. § 44, middle). In John's words, on the contrary, we have the germ of the doctrine afterwards Brought out by St. Paul (e.g. Gal 3:9,29), that not natural descent, but spiritual relationship by faith, leads to inheriting the promises. The argument in John 8:39, etc., is closely akin to that presented here. In both passages the Jews lay stress on their origin from Abraham; in both the answer is that morally they are sprung from a very different source (supra, ver. 7, note). But in John 8. the Jews are thinking chiefly of their present state, of not being as sinful as Jesus makes them out to be, while here they are thinking more of the future, that they have no need to take trouble, because promises for the future belong to them. Hence, perhaps, the exact expression (contrast John 8:33), "We have Abraham as father," which brings out the protecting influence of Abraham as still available. For I say unto you (
le/gw ga\r u(mi=n
). The solemnity of the phrase (Matt 6:25,29; 8:11; 11:9) lies in the self-consciousness which it implies. The absence of the
e)gw/
shows that the speaker has no desire to bring out his own personality (contrast Matt 5:22, etc.), but the message only. That God. Not "the LORD," because
(1) the thought is of power rather than of covenant relationship;
(2) he is about to speak of others than members of the covenant nation. Is able of these stones. These; apodeictic (Matt 4:3). Some have thought that by these stones John directly means certain Gentiles who were standing near; but it is much mere likely that he points to the literal stones at his feet, and with strong hyperbole says that he who once raised up offspring as the stars for multitude from persons as good as dead (Rom 4:19), and who had originally made man of the dust of the earth, can (
du/natai
), with both physical power and moral right, raise out of the very rawest material a new Israel (cf. Rom 4:17; 1 Cor 1:28, "the things that are not"). Raise up. The verb employed (
e)gei/rw
) is, as it seems, not used in the LXX. with reference to natural generation, but
a)ni/sthmi
(cf. Gen 38:8,
e)cani/sthmi
; Gen 4:25; 19:32; cf. also Matt 22:24). It is, however, very suitable here, for while
a)ni/sthmi
regards future worth,
e)gei/rw
specially contrasts a later with an earlier state (e.g. sleep) - in this case the nature of children with the insensibility of stones. Children. The new Israel would possess, not merely Abraham's privileges, but his nature and character (
te/kna
), in which you to whom I now speak are so deficient.
Matthew 3:10
Verse 10. - And now also; Revised Version, and even now. "And" (
de\
), slightly adversative. In contrast to the delay supposed in ver. 9 a, preparations have already been made for your destruction. The axe is laid; Revised Version, is the axe laid; bringing out more emphatically its present position. The American Revisers propose, "the axe lieth at," avoiding the suggestion of an agent; but
kei=mai
often implies one, being used of vessels set ready for use; e.g. John 2:6; 19:29 (cf. Rev 4:2). Unto (
pro\$
); brought near to (Thayer, s.v., 1:2, a). Therefore. The axe is lying there, therefore every useless tree is sure to be cut down (cf. Winer, 40:2, a). Every tree, etc.; even the noblest (Weiss). However good the tree ought to be, from the character of its original stock (you claim to be Abraham's children, ver. 9), yet, if it does not bear good fruit, it is cut down (Matt 7:19, note). Into the fire (
ei)$
pu=r
). Not into a fire prepared with a definite purpose, nor into any one fire pictured as burning (Matt 17:15; cf.
to\ pu=r
, John 15:6), but into fire generally, which may be in many different places. Worthless trees are only for burning. (For thought, cf. Heb 6:8.)
Matthew 3:11
Verse 11. - (Cf, especially John 1:27; Acts 13:25; also 19:4.) After our ver. 10 St. Luke inserts details of the various kinds of fruit that repentance ought to produce, suggested by the questions of different portions of the Baptist's audience; and then, with an explanatory note that John's words were due to a misconception having arisen that he was himself the Messiah, he adds what we have in vers. 11, 12. But even if vers. 0-12 were, in fact, not said consecutively, yet their juxtaposition here may be defended by the real connexion between the statements. In ver. 10 John has spoken of the present danger of his audience; he therefore now urges repentance, and that in view of the coming of One who will sift them to the uttermost. With water; in, Revised Version margin (
e)n
), and so in the second part of the verse. The thought is not of the instrument by which the baptism is effected, but of the element in which it takes place. "In" suggests more complete submergence of the personality. But he that cometh after me. The expression would recall the thought of" the Coming One" - a common designation of Messiah (Matt 11:3; 21:9). Is mightier than I. Not in authority (the next clause), nor in honour (John 1:30), but in inherent strength and power. Whose shoes. Though shoes or boots were usual in the winter, at all events later, and probably also now (cf. Edersheim, 'Life,' 1:621), yet sandals are doubtless meant. "In the LXX. and Josephus
sanda/lion
(Mark 6:9; Acts 12:8) and
u(po/dhma
[here] are used indiscriminately" (Thayer). Worthy. In moral sufficiency (
i(kano/$
) , and so in the parallels, but (
a&cio$
) in moral desert in John 1:27. To bear; complementary to "loosen" in the parallel passages. The duty of slaves of the lowest rank. The distance of superiority here attributed by John to "him that cometh after me," must be reckoned even greater than it usually is; for most of the slaves then held by Jewish masters would not be Jews, but Gentiles. The thought is, "I am further removed from my successor than the meanest Gentile slave is from his Jewish master." Some have seen in this expression a reference to the practice of disciples carrying the shoes of their teachers (Edersheim, 'Life,' 1:272), but this can hardly have been general so early. He. The emphasis is made the more evident by the absence of any connecting particle. Shall baptize you. "The transference of the image of baptism to the impartment of the Holy Spirit was prepared by such passages as Joel 2:28 (Acts 2:17)" (Bishop Westcott, on John 1:33); camp. also Ezek 36:25-27, where the symbol of cleansing by water and the gift of the Holy Spirit are closely connected. With the Holy Ghost, and with fire (
e)n Pneu/matiu
(Agi/w| kai\ puri/
). To the visible John contrasts the invisible, to the symbol of water the reality of the Spirit; adding (here and in the parallel passage in Luke) to this, which forms the main point of the contrast (cf. Mark 1:8; John 1:33), the thought of Mal 3:2, purification as by fire; and, by not placing it under the government of another preposition (which would have necessitated the conception of it as a distinct element) implying that it is only another aspect of one and the same baptism. It has been questioned, indeed, whether "fire" here refers to the purification of the godly who truly accept the baptism of the Spirit, or to the destruction of the wicked, as in vers. 10, 12. But the thought is one. The Divine presence will in fact, as is recognized by Isaiah (Isa 33:14; 31:9), be twofold in its working, according as it is yielded to or the reverse. It burns away sin out of the godly, and it consumes the ungodly if they cleave to their sin.
Matthew 3:12
Verse 12. - Whose fan. The pronged winnowing-fork (see Pal. Expl. Fund Statem; Ap. 1891) which throws up the grain against the wind. The Coming One is to put an end to the present mixture of chaff and corn. He will thoroughly purge the threshing-floor of this world, gathering the good into one safe place, and destroying the evil. The figure of winnowing comes not unseldom in the Old Testament (e.g. Jer 15:7; 51:2), but generally with the sole idea of destruction of the ungodly, not with that of separating so as to also preserve the godly (yet cf. Ps 139:3, margin; Amos 9:9). Is in his hand. The figure is stronger than that in ver. 10, where the instrument was only lying ready to be taken up. But that was an instrument of destruction alone. And he will throughly purge; cleanse (Revised Version); permundo (Vulgate);
diakaqariei=
, the preposition is intensive, not local. His. Observe the threefold
au)tou=
, referring to hand, flour, corn - personal agency, sphere, ownership. In the Vatican and some other manuscripts it is found also after "garner;" but this is, perhaps, introduced from the parallel in Luke. Floor; threshing-floor (Revised Version). Not the barn that English-men think of, but an open and level space (for the figure, cf. especially Mic 4:12). Here the threshing-floor is equivalent to the scene of the Lord's operations, i.e. the world, or rather the universe (cf. Epbraem (? Tartan) in Resch, 'Agrapha,' p. 295). The present mixture of good and evil shall be brought to an end. And gather together, from different parts of the threshing-floor, or from intimate association with the chaff, into one heap. All true believers shall finally be brought to perfect unity (cf. Matt 13:30). His wheat. The term is adopted by Ignatius ('Ram.,' §4): "I am the wheat of God, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread [of Christ]." Into the garner. The final home of the saints, hidden away and safe from all marauders. Garners in the East are generally subterranean vaults or eaves (but cf. Luke 12:18). But will burn up. Utterly consuming it (contrast Ex 3:2), as the tares (Matt 13:30,40) and the books of magic (Acts 19:19). The chaff. For, as Jeremiah says (Jer 23:28) when comparing a mere dream with a message from the Lord," What is the chaff to the wheat?" The Targum even interprets Jeremiah's words of the wicked and the righteous. The chaff in Jeremiah includes the straw, for in the East everything except the actual grain is generally burnt, and is sometimes used for heating fireplaces (Mishna, 'Sabb.,' 3:1; 'Parah,' 4:3). With unquenchable fire. "Unquenchable" shows that John is here thinking not of the figure of chaff but of the persons figured by it. But what does the word mean? In itself it might mean that the fire cannot be overcome by the greatness or the nature of the mass that it has to consume; i.e., to drop the figure, by either the number or the character at' the wicked. But from its usage it seems rather to be equivalent to not being overcome by the lapse of time. It is used, e.g., of the perpetual fire of Vesta, of the fire of the Magi, of the fire upon the Jewish altar (vide references in Thayer). The whole expression in itself says nothing about the everlasting duration of the punishment; i.e. it does not decide for "everlasting punishment" or for "annihilation," but seems rather to exclude the possibility of amelioration under it (cf. Isa 1:31).[11]
B. Jesus’ Preparation for Ministry (3:1–4:16)
Matthew abruptly jumps from the events surrounding Jesus’ birth to the time of his adult life. Apart from the one episode of Jesus teaching in the temple at age twelve (Luke 2:41–52), none of the canonical Gospels describes anything about his intervening years. Apparently, they provided few clues to his true identity or coming mission. In striking contrast, the apocryphal gospels fill Jesus’ “hidden years” with all kinds of miraculous exploits, esoteric teaching, and exotic travels.
The events of chaps. 3–4 probably date from A.D. 27 and focus on God’s preparation for the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. These necessary preliminaries include the emergence of the Messiah’s prophetic forerunner (3:1–12), his baptism of Jesus (3:13–17), and the Messiah’s temptation (4:1–11). Matthew 4:12–16 brings this period of preparation to a close with a characteristically Matthean fulfillment quotation and ushers in the second main section and largest portion of Matthew’s Gospel (4:17–16:20). In fact, Matthew’s predilection for Scripture quotations continues throughout this part of his introduction (3:3, 17; 4:4, 6, 7, 10, 15–16), but only the first and last of these speak of fulfillment (3:3; 4:14). Matthew does not so focus the narrative in this second major portion of the first section of his Gospel to what is needed to show Jesus as the culmination of specific prophetic texts, as was the case in 1:18–2:23.
1. John the Baptist: The Prophetic Forerunner to Messiah (3:1–12)
Popular Jewish expectation anticipated a messianic forerunner. Deuteronomy 18:18, speaking of the prophet like Moses to whom all Israel should listen, became a seminal text in the development of this expectation. Some expected a literal Elijah to return from heaven, based on Mal 4:5. John comes fitting no one stereotype but fulfilling a variety of prophetic roles and themes. More about his ministry will appear in Matt 11:2–19 (in other Gospels, cf. Luke 1:11–17 and John 1:19–34; 3:22–36). Interesting extracanonical confirmation of the main contours of John’s message and ministry appears in Josephus as well (Ant.Ant. 18.5.2).44
1In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea 2and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” 3This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: “A voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’ ”
a. His Ministry (3:1–6).3:1–3 Matthew first introduces what John was about and shows how he fulfilled Scripture. “In those days” (v. 1) refers to the days of Christ’s life; otherwise there is approximately a thirty-year gap from the preceding chapter. The exact date depends on establishing the year of the crucifixion (probably A.D. 30, though A.D. 33 is also possible) and then subtracting the three to four years of Jesus’ ministry that preceded his death (cf. references to annual Passovers in John 2:13; [5:1?]; 6:4; 13:1). Jesus’ age at the start of his ministry (“about thirty years,” Luke 3:23) fits better with the earlier date for his death. That it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius’s reign (Luke 3:1) fits somewhat better with the later date, though without ruling out the earlier one. The forty-six years since the beginning of the rebuilding of the temple (John 2:20) might point very precisely to A.D. 28, in which case John’s preparation for Jesus’ ministry probably began in the preceding year.45
Matthew introduces John as he came to be known—as one who baptized people. He calls him a preacher or, more literally, one who speaks as a herald. John proclaimed God’s message as a prophetic spokesman in the desert of Judea, the wilderness area to the south of Jerusalem. Reminiscent perhaps of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness prior to their entry into the Promised Land, John too prepared the way for One who would reconstitute God’s people. Jesus himself would also have his time in the wilderness shortly (4:1–11).
John’s message called for repentance from sin. He thus anticipated the Messiah’s mission as described in 1:21. Repentance in Greek traditionally implied a change of mind or attitude, but under Old Testament influence it took on the sense of a change of action as well. This combination means that John was asking his hearers “to change their way of life as a result of a complete change of thought and attitude with regard to sin and righteousness.”46 So radical an appeal stemmed from the belief that a new epoch of world history was dawning. The verb translated “is near” (engizō) means more precisely to draw near. Much debate has centered around whether the kingdom is so near as to be actually present or simply imminent. Probably we are to see an overlapping of ages here,47 but the perfect tense suggests the meaning has drawn near and points to the present as the decisive moment of the kingdom’s arrival.
The “kingdom of heaven” is a circumlocution [1 an indirect way of expressing something. 2 an indirect expression[12]] for the kingdom of God, reflecting pious Jewish avoidance of the divine name. The expression appears only in Matthew, but it occurs thirty-three times and is largely interchangeable with “kingdom of God,” as 19:23–24 makes clear. “Kingdom of heaven” perhaps refers also to the fact that all power and authority in heaven are given to Jesus.48 Older dispensationalist attempts to drive a wedge between these two expressions have now been largely and rightly abandoned.49 John’s one-sentence command here in v. 2 will be repeated verbatim by Jesus in 4:17 as a summary of his message as well. **
A vast literature discusses the concept of the kingdom in the Gospels.50 New Testament occurrences of basileia, under the influence of the Hebrew malkuth, most commonly refer to God’s reign or kingly rule. Specifically, “the kingdom” depicts the irruption [1 to enter forcibly or suddenly. 2 (of a plant or animal population) to enter a region suddenly and in very large numbers. 3 (of a population) to increase suddenly and greatly. [C19: from Latin irrumpere to rush into, invade, from rumpere to break, burst] h h irÈruption n[13]] of God’s power into history in a new and dramatic way with the advent of Messiah Jesus. Much Jewish thought of the day, though highly diverse, equated the arrival of the kingdom with the completion of God’s plans for his people in a physically visible, materially prosperous, and powerful geopolitical entity. ** The kingdom continues to be so viewed by some who deny its presence with Jesus’ first advent. Such an approach often leads to the notion that because most of the Jews rejected Jesus’ call to repentance he withdrew his offer of the kingdom and postponed its arrival until his second coming.51 Others delete all future aspects, “de-apocalypticizing” the kingdom and turning it into a form of existence in human history which illustrates new possibilities of relationships among people.52
A large consensus and a vast array of scriptural data support a two-pronged focus in which the kingdom is both present and future (both in Jesus’ day and our own)—contrast, e.g., Matt 12:28; Luke 7:22–23; 17:20–21 with Matt 6:10; Luke 13:28–29; Mark 9:47.53 The kingdom is not currently a geographical entity, but it manifests itself in space and time in the community of those who accept the message John and Jesus proclaimed and who begin to work out God’s purposes on earth—personally, socially, and institutionally. Thus to declare that the kingdom is at hand “means that the decisive establishment or manifestation of the divine sovereignty has drawn so near to men that they are now confronted with the possibility and the ineluctable [(esp. of fate) incapable of being avoided; inescapable.[14]] necessity of repentance and conversion.”54 **
More comprehensively:
The kingdom sums up God’s plan to create a new human life by making possible a new kind of community among people, families, and groups. [It combines] the possibility of a personal relationship to Jesus with man’s responsibility to manage wisely the whole of nature; the expectation that real change is possible here and now; a realistic assessment of the strength of opposition to God’s intentions; the creation of new human relationships and the eventual liberation by God of the whole of nature from corruption.55
Verse 3 presents John the Baptist as the fulfillment of Isa 40:3. The quotation reproduces the LXX almost verbatim. In Isaiah the speaker remains unidentified. He could be viewed individually as a specific prophet or corporately as all of the people of Israel (so Qumran; cf. 1QS 8:14). The larger context of Isa 40–66 discloses that the prophecy depicts part of Israel’s end-time restoration. The messianic era, the millennial kingdom, and eventually the new heavens and the new earth often blend together in characteristic prophetic foreshortening. John is thus heralding the beginning of the full restoration and blessing of God’s people. Just as roads were often repaired in the ancient world in preparation for royalty traveling on them, so John calls his listeners to rebuild highways of holiness (cf. Isa 35:8), i.e., to return to moral living in preparation for God’s coming in Jesus.
4John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. 5People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. 6Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.
3:4–6 Matthew describes John’s dress as much like that of the prophet Elijah of old (2 Kings 1:8). His diet resembles that of desert dwellers of the day. Both clothing and food point to an austerity and asceticism appropriate to his stern calls for repentance. John is apparently a charismatic figure who attracts crowds from many nearby places. His welcome reception provides a striking contrast with 2:3, though hostilities will resume in v. 7, confirming that it is primarily the official Jewish leaders who reject God’s new revelation. The crowds who come and repent make public their change of heart by acknowledging their failure to meet God’s standards and by resolving to change their ways. They visibly demonstrate the seriousness of their pledge with the rite of water baptism. The Greek imperfect tense (literally, were being baptized) suggests that John’s ministry lasts for a significant period of time.
Jews seem regularly to have practiced water baptism by immersion for adult proselytes from pagan backgrounds as an initiation into Judaism. Qumran commanded ritual bathing daily to symbolize repeated cleansing from sin.56 But John’s call for a one-time-only baptism for those who had been born as Jews was unprecedented. John thus insisted that one’s ancestry was not adequate to ensure one’s relationship with God. As has often been put somewhat colloquially, “God has no grandchildren.” Our parents’ religious affiliations afford no substitute for our own personal commitment (cf. v. 9). Once people made that commitment, however, and solemnized it in baptism, there is no evidence that John permitted them to be rebaptized when they became followers of Jesus. John’s baptism foreshadowed Christian baptism.57 Christians ought therefore never to require people who have been immersed as believers to be rebaptized. On the other hand, they ought never to denounce fellow Christians who seek immersion as believers after having only undergone some ritual with water-sprinkling in their infancy. To call this practice “rebaptism” entirely ignores the point Baptists have historically made, namely, that the sprinkling of infants is not a true baptism, irrespective of what it may be called and the sincerity of those who practice it.
Baptizing in the river suggests that the people were either immersed or had water poured over them. The best historical evidence suggests immersion was more likely. The most common meaning of the verbs baptō and baptizō points in this direction as well, though there are instances in which the terms also refer to a more superficial dipping (e.g., Rev 19:13). In general the New Testament evidence concerning baptism strongly supports immersion for believers,58 even if the history of the church is littered with sad examples of individuals and movements that have proved overly divisive on this issue.59
b. His Message (3:7–12). Illustrations of the implications of repentance and of the nearness of the kingdom now follow.
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
3:7–10 Two new groups of Jewish leaders appear on the scene. The Pharisees and Sadducees represent two of the three main religious sects (along with the Essenes) described in some detail by Josephus (J.W. 2.8.2–14). Today we probably would consider them a cross between political parties and religious factions. Of the Sadducees we know little else than what Josephus tells us. Their name derives perhaps from David’s priest Zadok. They were political liberals and religious conservatives, a small aristocratic and priestly sect that had made its peace with the Roman government. They believed only in the written Scriptures as divinely inspired and would believe no doctrine that could not be derived from the five books of Moses. Hence, they rejected angels and the resurrection of the dead.
The Pharisees (the name perhaps coming from Heb. Perushim, meaning separatists) were a larger more popular group of teachers of the law. They tended toward political conservatism and religious liberalism. They had developed the oral law as a “fence around the Torah,” which included detailed interpretations, applications, and amplifications of the written Scriptures to enable people to obey them properly. They continued to view Rome as illegitimate in preventing Israel from enjoying its divinely ordained blessings of freedom and peace in the land. The Pharisees were generally liked and respected by the ordinary people. They were by no means uniformly hypocritical, as Christians have often wrongly assumed on the basis of the New Testament references to a small number of particularly notorious Pharisees. The Talmud, in fact, describes seven classes of Pharisees, though only one of these seven proves particularly exemplary (b. Sota 22b).
The Pharisees and Sadducees apparently began to organize themselves at approximately the same time in the second century B.C. Together they probably comprised no more than 5 percent of the populace. Here they are linked as representatives of the official leadership of Judaism. Most of the Jewish supreme court, the Sanhedrin, belonged to one of these two groups. Many commentators characterize Matthew’s failure to distinguish between them as a historical anachronism, but diverse factions will often unite against a common opponent.60
Here John perceives some kind of hypocrisy that leads him to unleash a verbal attack against these particular Pharisees and Sadducees. He follows his accusation (v. 7) with a command (v. 8). He then anticipates their objection (v. 9) and responds with a stern warning (v. 10). Their hypocrisy presumably involves their pretending to support his ministry. The NIV correctly translates “coming to where he was baptizing” (literally, coming to the baptism) rather than “coming for baptism” (NASB). “Brood” is more literally offspring. By calling them “vipers,” John refers to their shrewdness and to the danger they pose to others. Possibly an indirect allusion to the evil caused by the original serpent (Gen 3) appears as well. The last line of v. 7 therefore oozes with sarcasm. John knows full well that the Jewish leaders are not fleeing from the coming wrath. This wrath forms part of the full arrival of the kingdom, which will lead to judgment of God’s enemies as well as blessing for his followers. God’s wrath does not reflect “the emotion of anger but that part of his divine holiness that actively repudiates that which is unholy in his creatures.”61 **
Verse 8 provides the key to one of Matthew’s crucial themes—righteousness by good deeds [faithfulness, obedience, submission, and love]. But Matthew does not contradict Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith.62 Rather, true faith and repentance will produce a life-style and behavior that demonstrate the reality of a changed heart. In v. 9 John again reminds his listeners that they dare not trust in their ancestral credentials or believe that they alone are legitimate candidates for inclusion in the people of God. Matthew’s two-pronged emphasis, introduced in chaps. 1–2, thus continues: the messianic age brings new people into God’s kingdom and excludes others who thought themselves secure. The Messiah is the true Son of Abraham (1:1–2); apart from him there is no salvation. The reference to “these stones” probably reflects an original Aramaic wordplay between children (bĕenayyāa) and stones (˒abnayyā) and was no doubt inspired by the characteristically rocky ground that covers Israel.
As at the end of v. 7, v. 10 again predicts imminent judgment for those who reject John’s call to repentance. The fire, as v. 12 makes clear, stands for eternal punishment. One must not think of any lesser judgment as in view. A “fruitless” [and faithless] Christian is no Christian at all (cf. Jas 2:14–26). Christians in every age must heed John’s warning to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Too often in the history of the church, people have trusted in living in a “Christian” country, being raised in a Christian family, holding membership or even office in a local church, and even in verbal claims to have repented and to have trusted in Christ. Yet without the evidence of a changed life and perseverance in belief, all such grounds of trust prove futile. One cannot determine the number of truly saved people in any given church by simply counting those who have responded to altar calls, received baptism, or become church members.63 **
11“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Matthew 3:11–12 John now compares himself with Jesus. The coming one (v. 11) is probably a messianic title and may stem from texts like Pss 118:26 and 40:7.64 John views himself as of lower status than a slave, one of whose most menial tasks was to carry the usually dirty sandals of his master. If John’s audience should think him impressive, one far more powerful will soon appear. Both John and Jesus will preach repentance and use water baptism as the outward sign of an inward change (cf. John 4:1–2), but only Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. The phrase “after me” refers to one who follows after a leader. Jesus will come in the guise of a disciple of John, but his ministry will soon far outstrip that of the one who baptizes him.
The phrase “for repentance” could suggest that one must be baptized to be saved, but this interpretation founders on New Testament teaching elsewhere (e.g., Acts 3:19; Rom 3:23–24; Eph 2:8–9). Interestingly, even Josephus recognizes this (Ant. 18.5.2) when he writes that John taught that his followers “must not employ [baptism] to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed.” A venerable tradition of Baptist interpreters has seen the “for” (eis) as actually meaning because here,65 but more recent grammatical analysis makes this unlikely. Probably the term simply should be taken as in reference to.66 Baptism in reference to repentance thus distinguishes John’s baptism from other religions’ ritual washings which do not symbolize turning away from sin. **
The expression baptism “with/in the Holy Spirit” appears six other times in the New Testament. Five of these texts refer to this very saying of John (Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16). Acts 1–2 demonstrates that John’s prediction was fulfilled at Pentecost. The sixth reference appears in 1 Cor 12:13, where it is clear that all Christians receive Spirit-baptism. The phrase therefore refers to a ritual that depicts a believer’s initiation into the body of Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit, who never departs following true conversion and regeneration. ** Baptism of the Spirit must not be confused with the “filling of the Spirit,” which recurs repeatedly to empower believers to proclaim God’s word boldly (Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9).67 Here is further reason why one cannot be a Christian without having a changed life; the indwelling Spirit guarantees that the process of sanctification will begin (cf. Rom 6–8). **
If baptism with the Holy Spirit refers to the conversion of believers, baptism with fire would naturally be associated with the fiery judgment of unbelievers described in vv. 10 and 12. Yet the actual grammatical construction in Greek suggests that v. 11 refers to only one baptism, that which combines the Holy Spirit and fire.68 For believers this would most likely refer to the Holy Spirit’s purifying and refining activity, but the same convicting power when spurned by unbelievers leads ultimately to judgment.69 Verse 12 expands the judgment metaphor of v. 10. John uses the image of a farmer separating valuable wheat from worthless chaff by throwing the grain into the air and allowing the two constituent elements to separate in the wind. The wheat, like believers, is preserved and safeguarded; the chaff, like unbelievers, is destroyed.70
There exists a certain tension between the imagery of fire and the other major biblical (and Matthean) image for eternal punishment, namely, outer darkness. Fire and total darkness cannot literally coexist. But even as metaphors, each graphically depicts the pain and separation from God that characterizes damnation.71 The adjective “unquenchable” (literally, fireproof [Greek asbestos]) implies that fuel will always remain to keep the fire burning and speaks against the doctrine of annihilationism (the idea that unbelievers simply cease conscious existence upon death). Matthew’s main focus, however, remains not on the nature of hell but on the inevitable twofold division of all people based on their response to John’s and Jesus’ call to repentance (cf. 13:36–43).[15] **
CHAPTER 3
MATTHEW 3:1-12
THE HERALD OF THE KING
The King has been in concealment long enough, and it is time for his herald
to appear and proclaim his coming. This chapter tells us of the champion who came in advance of the King.
1. IN those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea
and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
While Jesus still remained at Nazareth, his kinsman, the Baptizer, made his appearance: the morning star is seen before the sun. John came not to the court, but to lone wildernesses: places left to sheep and a handful of rural folk. The mission of Christ Jesus is to the moral wastes and to the desolate places of the earth. To them the Lord’s harbinger makes his way, and there he fitly preaches the command, “Repent ye.” Give up your thorns and briars, O ye wildernesses; for your Lord is coming to you! See how John announces the coming kingdom, how he bids men make ready for it, and he v he urges them to be speedy in their preparation: “For the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Let me be ready for my Lord’s coming, and put away all that would grieve his Holy Spirit!
3. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the lord, make his paths straight.
Matthew keeps to his custom of quoting from the Old Testament. The prophets not only described the King, but his forerunner also. They mention the character of this harbinger: he was a “voice”; (Jesus is “the Word”); his tone, “crying”; his place, “in the wilderness”; and his message, which was one of announcement, in which he required preparation for the coming king: “Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” Men’s hearts were like a wilderness, wherein there is no way; but as loyal subjects throw up roads for the approach of beloved princes, so were men to welcome the Lord, with their hearts made right and ready to receive him.
O Lord, I would welcome thee if thou wouldst come to me. I have great need of thy royal presence, and therefore I would prepare a way for thee.
Into my heart my desires have made for thee a path most short and smooth. Come, Lord, and tarry not! Come into my wilderness nature and transform it into a garden of the Lord.
4. And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
He was rough and stern, like Elijah. His garments betokened his simplicity, his sternness, his self-denial. His food, the product of the desert where he dwelt, showed that he cared nothing for luxuries. His whole bearing was symbolical; but it was also fit, and suitable for his office. The plainest of food is best for body and mind and spirit, and, moreover, it fosters manliness. Lord, let not my meat, or drink, or garments, hinder me in thy work!
5, 6. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
The people were expecting a Messiah, and so they went en masse to John as soon as his shrill voice had startled the solitudes. Baptism, or the washing of the body in water, most fitly accompanied the cry, “Repent ye.” The “Confessing their sins “which went with baptism in Jordan gave it its meaning. Apart from the acknowledgment of guilt, it would have been a mere bathing of the person without spiritual significance; but the confession which went with it made it an instructive sign. John must have inwardly wondered to see the multitudes come; but his chief thought ran forward to his coming Lord. He thought more of him than of “all Judea.”
7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
It was strange to see the proud Separatists and the skeptical Moralists come to be baptized; and therefore, as a test, John addressed them with scorching words. He saw that they, were serpentine in their motives and viperish in their tempers, and so he calls them “Progeny of vipers”: thus would he see whether they were sincere or not. He asks who suggested to them to flee from that wrath of which he was the forerunner, according to the closing words of the Old Testament. This enquiry was not complimentary; but it is no business of the Lord’s servants to make themselves pleasing: they must be faithful, and especially so to the great and learned. Thus faithful was John the Baptist, and he was honored for it by him that sent him
8. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.
Act as a change of mind would lead you to do: above all, quit the pride in which you enwrap yourselves, and leave the serpent motives which now actuate you. Lord, save us from a fruitless repentance, which would be only an aggravation of our previous sins.
9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father:
for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham.
Do not imagine that God needs you in order to fulfill his promise to his servant Abraham; for he can make each stone in Jordan into an heir of grace. Do not presume upon your ancestry, and think that all the blessings of the coming kingdom must be yours because you are of the seed of the father of the faithful. God can as easily make sons of stones as of a generation of vipers. He will never be short of means for fulfilling his covenant, without bowing his gospel before the caprice of vainglorious men. He will find a people in the slums if his gospel is rejected by the respectable. Let none of us, because we are orthodox, or exceedingly Scriptural in our religious observances, dream that we must therefore be in the favor of God, and that we are under no necessity to repent. God can do without us; but we cannot do without repentance and the works which prove it true. What a blessing that he can transform hearts of stone into filial spirits! Wonders of grace to God belong!
10. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
He means, the King is come: the Cutter-down of every fruitless tree has arrived. The Great Woodman has thrown down his axe at “the root of the trees.” He lifts the axe; he strikes; the fruitless tree is felled; it is cast into the fire. The sketch is full of life. The Baptizer sees forests falling beneath the axe; for he whom he heralds will be the Judge of men, and the Executioner of righteousness. What an announcement he had to make! What a scene his believing eye beheld! Our vision is much the same: the axe is still at work. Lord, cut me not down for the fire. I know that the absence of good fruit is as fatal as the presence of corrupt fruit: Lord, let me not be a mere negative, lest I be “hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.
John could plunge the penitent into water; but a greater than he must baptize men into the Holy Ghost and into fire. Repentance is well attended by washing in water; but the true baptism of the believer by the Lord Jesus himself brings us into spiritual floods of holy fire. John considered himself to be nothing more than a household slave, unworthy of the office of removing his Master’s sandals; and his baptism in water was as much inferior to the Spirit-baptism as a slave to his lord. Jesus is the divine Lord who covers us with the fiery influences of the Holy Spirit. Do we know this baptism? What is water-baptism without it? What are all the Johns in the world, with their baptisms in water, when compared with Jesus and his baptism into fire!
12. Whose fan is in his hand and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
He sets forth his Lord under another figure; that of a Husbandman. This time he holds in his hand, not the axe, but the winnowing shovel. Pharisees, Sadducees, and all the rest, lie on his floor: it is with them he deals: “He will thoroughly purge his floor.” If they do not wish to be purified by him, they should not be there: but there they are, and he deals with them. His fan is in his hand: he throws up the heap to the breeze, that he may test and divide. His wheat he gathers; for this he seeks. The chafer is blown further off to the place where a fire is burning, and so it is consumed out of the way by what he tells us is unquenchable fire. Our Lord’s teaching would act like a great winnowing fan, leaving the true by themselves, and driving off the false and worthless to utter destruction. It was so in the life of our Lord; it is so every day where he is preached. He is the Great Divider. It is his Word which separates the sinners from the saints, and gathers out a people for himself. Thus the herald prepared the people for the King, who would be the Cleanser, the Hewer, the Winnower. My soul, behold thy Lord under these aspects, and reverence him![16]
IN THE FIFTEENTH YEAR OF TIBERIUS CAESAR AND UNDER THE PONTIFICATE OF ANNAS AND CAIAPHAS, A VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS
(St. Matthew 3:1-12; St. Mark 1:2-8; St. Luke 3:1-18.)
THERE is something grand, even awful, in the almost absolute silence which lies upon the thirty years between the Birth and the first Messianic Manifestation of Jesus. In a narrative like that of the Gospels, this must have been designed; and, if so, affords presumptive evidence of the authenticity of what follows, and is intended to teach, that what had preceded concerned only the inner History of Jesus, and the preparation of the Christ. At last that solemn silence was broken by an appearance, a proclamation, a rite, and a ministry as startling as that of Elijah had been. In many respects, indeed, the two messengers and their times bore singular likeness. It was to a society secure, prosperous, and luxurious, yet in imminent danger of perishing from hidden, festering disease; and to a religious community which presented the appearance of hopeless perversion, and yet contained the germs of a possible regeneration, that both Elijah and John the Baptist came. Both suddenly appeared to threaten terrible judgment, but also to open unthought-of possibilities of good. And, as if to deepen still more the impression of this contrast, both appeared in a manner unexpected, and even antithetic to the habits of their contemporaries. John came suddenly out of the wilderness of Judaea, as Elijah from the wilds of Gilead; John bore the same strange ascetic appearance as his predecessor; the message of John was the counterpart of that of Elijah; his baptism that of Elijah's novel rite on Mount Carmel. And, as if to make complete the parallelism, with all of memory and hope which it awakened, even the more minute details surrounding the life of Elijah found their counterpart in that of John. Yet history never repeats itself. It fulfils in its development that of which it gave indication at its commencement. Thus, the history of John the Baptist was the fulfilment of that of Elijah in 'the fulness of time.'
For, alike in the Roman world and in Palestine, the time had fully come; not, indeed, in the sense of any special expectancy, but of absolute need. The reign of Augustus marked, not only the climax, but the crisis, of Roman history. Whatever of good or of evil the ancient world contained, had become fully ripe. As regarded politics, philosophy, religion, and society, the utmost limits had been reached. [1 Instead of detailed quotations I would here generally refer to works on Roman history, especially to Friedlander's Sittengeschichte Roms, and to Dollinger's exhaustive work, Heidenthum and Judenthum.] Beyond them lay, as only alternatives, ruin or regeneration. It was felt that the boundaries of the Empire could be no further extended, and that henceforth the highest aim must be to preserve what had been conquered. The destines of Rome were in the hands of one man, who was at the same time general-in-chief of a standing army of about three hundred and forty thousand men, head of a Senate (now sunk into a mere court for registering the commands of Caesar), and High-Priest of a religion, of which the highest expression was the apotheosis [the elevation of a person to the rank of a god; deification. 2 glorification of a person or thing. 3 a glorified ideal[17] ] of the State in the person of the Emperor. Thus, all power within, without, and above lay in his hands. Within the city, which in one short reign was transformed from brick into marble, were, side by side, the most abject misery and almost boundless luxury. Of a population of about two millions, well-nigh one half were slaves; and, of the rest, the greater part either freedmen and their descendants, or foreigners. Each class contributed its share to the common decay. Slavery was not even what we know it, but a seething mass of cruelty and oppression on the one side, and of cunning and corruption on the other. More than any other cause, it contributed to the ruin of Roman society. The freedmen, who had very often acquired their liberty by the most disreputable courses, and had prospered in them, combined in shameless manner the vices of the free with the vileness of the slave. The foreigners, especially Greeks and Syrians, who crowded the city, poisoned the springs of its life by the corruption which they brought. The free citizens were idle, dissipated, sunken; their chief thoughts of the theatre and the arena; and they were mostly supported at the public cost. While, even in the time of Augustus, more than two hundred thousand persons were thus maintained by the State, what of the old Roman stock remained was rapidly decaying, partly from corruption, but chiefly from the increasing cessation of marriage, and the nameless abominations of what remained of family-life. **
The state of the provinces was in every respect more favourable. But it was the settled policy of the Empire, which only too surely succeeded, to destroy all separate nationalities, or rather to absorb and to Grecianise all. The only real resistance came from the Jews. Their tenacity was religious, and, even in its extreme of intolerant exclusiveness, served a most important Providential purpose. And so Rome became to all the centre of attraction, but also of fast-spreading destructive corruption. Yet this unity also, and the common bond of the Greek language, served another important Providential purpose. So did, in another direction, the conscious despair of any possible internal reformation. This, indeed, seemed the last word of all the institutions in the Roman world: It is not in me! Religion, philosophy, and society had passed through every stage, to that of despair. Without tracing the various phases of ancient thought, it may be generally said that, in Rome at least, the issue lay between Stoicism and Epicureanism. The one flattered its pride, the other gratified its sensuality; the one was in accordance with the original national character, the other with its later decay and corruption. Both ultimately led to atheism and despair, the one, by turning all higher aspirations self-ward, the other, by quenching them in the enjoyment of the moment; the one, by making the extinction of all feeling and self-deification, the other, the indulgence of every passion and the worship of matter, its ideal.
That, under such conditions, all real belief in a personal continuance after death must have ceased among the educated classes, needs not demonstration. If the older Stoics held that, after death, the soul would continue for some time a separate existence, in the case of sages till the general destruction of the world by fire, it was the doctrine of most of their successors that, immediately after death, the soul returned into 'the world-soul' of which it was part. But even this hope was beset by so many doubts and misgivings, as to make it practically without influence or comfort. Cicero was the only one who, following Plato, defended the immortality of the soul, while the Peripatetics denied the existence of a soul, and leading Stoics at least its continuance after death. But even Cicero writes as one overwhelmed by doubts. With his contemporaries this doubt deepened into absolute despair, the only comfort lying in present indulgence of the passions. Even among the Greeks, who were most tenacious of belief in the non-extinction of the individual, the practical upshot was the same. The only healthier tendency, however mixed with error, came from the Neo-Platonic School, which accordingly offered a point of contact between ancient philosophy and the new faith.
In such circumstances, anything like real religion was manifestly impossible. Rome tolerated, and, indeed, incorporated, all national rites. But among the populace religion had degenerated into abject superstition. In the East, much of it consisted of the vilest rites; while, among the philosophers, all religions were considered equally false or equally true, the outcome of ignorance, or else the unconscious modifications of some one fundamental thought. The only religion on which the State insisted was the defication and worship of the Emperor. [1 The only thorough resistance to this worship came from hated Judaea, and, we may add, from Britain (Dollinger, p. 611).] These apotheoses attained almost incredible development. Soon not only the Emperors, but their wives, paramours, children, and the creatures of their vilest lusts, were deified; nay, any private person might attain that distinction, if the survivors possessed sufficient means. [2 From the time of Caesar to that of Diocletian, fifty-three such apotheoses took place, including those of fifteen women belonging to the Imperial families.] Mingled with all this was an increasing amount of superstition, by which term some understood the worship of foreign gods, the most part the existence of fear in religion. The ancient Roman religion had long given place to foreign rites, the more mysterious and untelligible the more enticing. It was thus that Judaism made its converts in Rome; its chief recommendation with many being its contrast to the old, and the unknown possibilities which its seemingly incredible doctrines opened. Among the most repulsive symptoms of the general religious decay may be reckoned prayers for the death of a rich relative, or even for the satisfaction of unnatural lusts, along with horrible blasphemies when such prayers remained unanswered. We may here contrast the spirit of the Old and New Testaments with such sentiments as this, on the tomb of a child: 'To the unjust gods who robbed me of life;' or on that of a girl of twenty: 'I lift my hands against the god who took me away, innocent as I am.'
It would be unsavoury to describe how far the worship of in decency was carried; how public morals were corrupted by the mimic representations of everything that was vile, and even by the pandering of a corrupt art. The personation of gods, oracles, divination, dreams, astrology, magic, necromancy, and theurgy (the intervention of a divine or supernatural agency in the affairs of man[18]) [3 One of the most painful, and to the Christian almost incredible, manifestations of religious decay was the unblushing manner in which the priests practised imposture [pretense, masquerade] upon the people. Numerous and terrible instances of this could be given. The evidence of this is not only derived from the Fathers, but a work has been preserved in which formal instructions are given, how temples and altars are to be constructed in order to produce false miracles, and by what means impostures of this kind may be successfully practised. (Comp. 'The Pneumatics of Hero,' translated by B. Woodcroft.) The worst was, that this kind of imposture on the ignorant populace was openly approved by the educated. (Dollinger, p. 647.).] Mingled with all this was an increasing amount of superstition, by which term some understood the worship of foreign gods, the most part the existence of fear in religion. The ancient Roman religion had long given place to foreign rites, the more mysterious and unintelligible the more enticing. It was thus that Judaism made its converts in Rome; its chief recommendation with many being its contrast to the old, and the unknown possibilities which its seemingly incredible doctrines opened. Among the most repulsive symptoms of the general religious decay may be reckoned prayers for the death of a rich relative, or even for the satisfaction of unnatural lusts, along with horrible blasphemies when such prayers remained unanswered. We may here contrast the spirit of the Old and New Testaments with such sentiments as this, on the tomb of a child: 'To the unjust gods who robbed me of life;' or on that of a girl of twenty: 'I lift my hands against the god who took me away, innocent as I am.'
It would be unsavoury to describe how far the worship of in decency was carried; how public morals were corrupted by the mimic representations of everything that was vile, and even by the pandering of a corrupt art. The personation of gods, oracles, divination, dreams, astrology, magic, necromancy, and theurgy, [3 One of the most painful, and to the Christian almost incredible, manifestations of religious decay was the unblushing manner in which the priests practised imposture upon the people. Numerous and terrible instances of this could be given. The evidence of this is not only derived from the Fathers, but a work has been preserved in which formal instructions are given, how temples and altars are to be constructed in order to produce false miracles, and by what means impostures of this kind may be successfully practised. (Comp. 'The Pneumatics of Hero, 'translated by B. Woodcroft.) The worst was, that this kind of imposture on the ignorant populace was openly approved by the educated. (Dollinger, p. 647.).] all contributed to the general decay. It has been rightly said, that the idea of conscience, as we understand it, was unknown to heathenism. Absolute right did not exist. Might was right. The social relations exhibited, if possible, even deeper corruption. The sanctity of marriage had ceased. Female dissipation and the general dissoluteness led at last to an almost entire cessation of marriage. Abortion, and the exposure and murder of newly-born children, were common and tolerated; unnatural vices, which even the greatest philosophers practised, if not advocated, attained proportions which defy description.
But among these sad signs of the times three must be specially mentioned: the treatment of slaves; the bearing towards the poor; and public amusements. The slave was entirely unprotected; males and females were exposed to nameless cruelties, compared to which death by being thrown to the wild beasts, or fighting in the arena, might seem absolute relief. Sick or old slaves were cast out to perish from want. But what the influence of the slaves must have been on the free population, and especially upon the young, whose tutors they generally were, may readily be imagined. The heartlessness towards the poor who crowded the city is another well-known feature of ancient Roman society. Of course, there was neither hospitals, nor provision for the poor; charity and brotherly love in their every manifestation are purely Old and New Testament ideas. But even bestowal of the smallest alms on the needy was regarded as very questionable; best, not to afford them the means of protracting a useless existence. Lastly, the account which Seneca has to give of what occupied and amused the idle multitude, for all manual labour, except agriculture, was looked upon with utmost contempt horrified even himself. And so the only escape which remained for the philosopher, the satiated, or the miserable, seemed the power of self-destruction! What is worse, the noblest spirits of the time of self-destruction! What is worse, the noblest spirits of the time felt, that the state of things was utterly hopeless. Society could not reform itself; philosophy and religion had nothing to offer: they had been tried and found wanting. Seneca longed for some hand from without to lift up from the mire of despair; Cicero pictured the enthusiasm which would greet the embodiment of true virtue, should it ever appear on earth; Tacitus declared human life one great farce, and expressed his conviction that the Roman world lay under some terrible curse. All around, despair, conscious need, and unconscious longing. Can greater contrast be imagined, than the proclamation of a coming Kingdom of God amid such a world; or clearer evidence be afforded of the reality of this Divine message, than that it came to seek and to save that which was thus lost? One synchronism, as remarkable as that of the Star in the East and the Birth of the Messiah, here claims the reverent attention of the student of history. On the 19th of December A.D. 69, the Roman Capitol, with its ancient sanctuaries, was set on fire. Eight months later, on the 9th of Ab A. D. 70, the Temple of Jerusalem was given to the flames. It is not a coincidence but a conjunction, for upon the ruins of heathenism and of apostate Judaism was the Church of Christ to be reared.
A silence, even more complete than that concerning the early life of Jesus, rests on the thirty years and more, which intervened between the birth and the open forthshowing [1 This seems the full meaning of the word, St. Luke 1:80. Comp. Acts 1:24 Forerunner of the Messiah. Only his outward and inward development, and his being 'in the deserts,' [2 The plural indicates that St. John was not always in the same 'wilderness.' The plural form in regard to the 'wilderness which are in the land of Israel,' is common in Rabbinic writings (comp. Baba K. 7:7 and the Gemaras on the passage). On the fulfilment by the Baptist of Isa. 40:3, see the discussion of that passage in Appendix XI.] [a St. Luke 1:80.] The latter, assuredly, not in order to learn from the Essenes, [3 Godet has, in a few forcible sentences, traced what may be called not merely the difference, but the contrast between the teaching and aims of the Essenes and those of John.] but to attain really, in lonely fellowship with God, what they sought externally. It is characteristic that, while Jesus could go straight from the home and workshop of Nazareth to the Baptism of Jordan, His Forerunner required so long and peculiar preparation: characteristic of the difference of their Persons and Mission, characteristic also of the greatness of the work to be inaugurated. St. Luke furnishes precise notices of the time of the Baptist's public appearance, not merely to fix the exact chronology, which would not have required so many details, but for a higher purpose. For, they indicate, more so many details, but for a higher purpose. For, they indicate, more so many details, but for a higher purpose. For, they indicate, more clearly than the most elaborate discussion, the fitness of the moment for the Advent of 'the Kingdom of Heaven.' For the first time since the Babylonish Captivity, the foreigner, the Chief of the hated Roman Empire, according to the Rabbis, the fourth beast of Daniel's vision [b Ab.Zar.2b.] was absolute and undisputed master of Judaea; and the chief religious office divided between two, equally unworthy of its functions. And it deserves, at least, notice, that of the Rulers mentioned by St. Luke, Pilate entered on his office [a Probably about Easter, 26A.D.] only shortly before the public appearance of John, and that they all continued till after the Crucifixion of Christ. There was thus, so to speak, a continuity of these powers during the whole Messianic period.
As regards Palestine, the ancient kingdom of Herod was now divided into four parts, Judaea being under the direct administration of Rome, two other tetrarchies under the rule of Herod's sons (Herod of Rome, two other tetrarchies under the rule of Herod's sons (Herod Antipas and Philip), while the small principality of Abilene was governed by Lysanias. [1 Till quite lately, those who impugn the veracity of the Gospels, Strauss, and even Keim, have pointed to this notice of Lysanias as an instance of the unhistorical character of St. Luke's Gospel. But it is now admitted on all hands that the notice of St. Luke is strictly correct; and that, besides the other Lysanias, one of the same name had reigned over Abilene at the time of Christ. Comp. Wieseler, Beitr. pp. 196-204, and Schurer in Riehm's Handworterb, p. 931.] Of the latter no details can be furnished, nor are they necessary in this history. It is otherwise as regards the sons of Herod, and especially the character of the Roman government at that time.
Herod Antipas, whose rule extended over forty-three years, reigned over Galilee and Peraea, the districts which were respectively the principal sphere of the Ministry of Jesus and of John the Baptist. Like his brother Archelaus, Herod Antipas possessed in an even aggravated form most of the vices, without any of the greater qualities, of his father. Of deeper religious feelings or convictions he was entirely destitute, though his conscience occasionally misgrave, if it did not restrain, him. The inherent weakness of his character left him in the absolute control of his wife, to the final ruin of his fortunes. He was covetous, avaricious, luxurious, and utterly dissipated suspicious, and with a good deal of that fox-cunning which, especially in the East, often forms the sum total of state-craft. Like his father, he indulged a taste for building, always taking care to propitiate Rome by dedicating all to the Emperor. The most extensive of his undertakings was the building, in 22 A.D., of the city of Tiberias, at the upper end of the Lake of Galilee. The site was under the disadvantage of having formerly been a burying-place, which, as implying Levitical uncleanness, for some time deterred pious Jews from settling there. Nevertheless, it rose in great magnificence from among the reeds which had but lately covered the neighbourhood (the ensigns armorial of the city were 'reeds'). Herod Antipas made it his residence, and built there a strong castle and a palace of unrivalled splendour. The city, which was peopled chiefly by adventurers, was mainly Grecian, and adorned with an amphitheatre, of which the ruins can still be traced.
A happier account can be given of Philip, the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. He was undoubtedly the best of Herod's sons. He showed, indeed, the same abject submission as the rest of his family to the Roman Emperor, after whom he named the city of Caesarea Philippi, which he built at the sources of the Jordan; just as he changed the name of Bethsaida, a village of which he made an opulent city, into Julias, after the daughter of Augustus. But he was a moderate and just ruler, and his reign of thirty-seven years contrasted favourably with that of his kinsmen. The land was quiet and prosperous, and the people contented and happy.
As regards the Roman rule, matters had greatly changed for the worse since the mild sway of Augustus, under which, in the language of Philo, no one throughout the Empire dared to molest the Jews. [a Philo, ed. Frcf., Leg. 1015.] The only innovations to which Israel had then to submit were, the daily sacrifices for the Emperor and the Roman people, offerings on festive days, prayers for them in the Synagogues, and such participation in national joy or sorrow as their religion allowed. [b u. s. 1031, 1041.]
It was far other when Tiberius succeeded to the Empire, and Judaea was a province. Merciless harshness characterised the administration of Palestine; while the Emperor himself was bitterly hostile to Judaism and the Jews, and that although, personally, openly careless of all religion. [c Suet. Tiber. 69.] Under his reign the persecution of the Roman Jews occurred, and Palestine suffered almost to the verge of endurance. The first Procurator whom Tiberius appointed over Judaea, changed the occupancy of the High-Priesthood four times, till he found in Caiaphas a sufficiently submissive instrument of Roman tyranny. The exactions, and the reckless disregard of all Jewish feelings and interests, might have been characterised as reaching the extreme limit, if worse had not followed when Pontius Pilate succeeded to the procuratorship. Venality, violence, robbery, persecutions, wanton malicious insults, judicial murders without even the formality of a legal process, and cruelty, such are the charges brought against his administration. [d Philo, u.s. 1034.] If former governors had, to some extent, respected the religious scruples of the Jews, Pilate set them purposely at defiance; and this not only once, but again and again, in Jerusalem, [e Jos. Ant. 18:3. 1, 2.] in Galilee, [f St. Luke 13:1.] and even in Samaria, [g Ant. 18:4. 1, 2.] until the Emperor himself interposed. [h Philo, Leg. 1033.]
Such, then, was the political condition of the land, when John appeared to preach the near Advent of a Kingdom with which Israel associated all that was happy and glorious, even beyond the dreams of the religious enthusiast. And equally loud was the call for help in reference to those who held chief spiritual rule over the people. St. Luke significantly joins together, as the highest religious authority in the land, the names of Annas and Caiaphas. [1 The Procurators were Imperial financial officers, with absolute power of government in smaller territories. The office was generally in the hands of the Roman knights, which chiefly consisted of financial men, bankers, chief publicans, &c. The order of knighthood had sunk to a low state, and the exactions of such a rule, especially in Judea, can better be imagined than described. Comp. on the whole subject, Friedlander, Sittengesch. Rom, vol. 1. p. 268 &c.] The former had been appointed by Quirinius. After holding the Pontificate for nine years, he was deposed, and succeeded by others, of whom the fourth was his son-in-law Caiaphas. The character of the High-Priests during the whole of that period is described in the Talmud [a Pes. 57 a.] in terrible language. And although there is no evidence that 'the house of Annas' [2 Annas, either Chanan ( ), or else Chana or Channa, a common name. Professor Delitzsch has rightly shown that the Hebrew equivalent for Caiaphas is not Keypha ( ) = Peter, but Kayapha ( ), or perhaps rather, according to the reading, Kaipha, , or Kaiphah. The name occurs in the Mishnah as Kayaph [so, and not Kuph, correctly] (Parah 3:5). Professor Delitzsch does not venture to explain its meaning. Would it be too bold to suggest a derivation from , and the meaning to be: He who is 'at the top'?] was guilty of the same gross self-indulgence, violence, [b Jos. Ant. 20:8. 8.] luxury, and even public indecency, [c Yoma 35 b.] as some of their successors, they are included in the woes pronounced on the corrupt leaders of the priesthood, whom the Sanctuary is represented as bidding depart from the sacred precincts, which their presence defiled. [d Pes. U.S.] It deserves notice, that the special sin with which the house of Annas is charged is that of 'whispering', or hissing like vipers, which seems to refer [3 If we may take a statement in the Talmud, where the same word occurs, as a commentary.] to private influence on the judges in their administration of justice, whereby 'morals were corrupted, judgment perverted and the Shekhinah withdrawn from Israel.'[e Tos. Set. 14.] In illustration of this, we recall the terrorism which prevented Sanhedrists from taking the part of Jesus, [f St. John 7:50-52.] and especially the violence which seems to have determined the final action of the Sanhedrin, [g St. John 11:47-50.] against which not only such men as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, but even a Gamaliel, would feel themselves powerless. But although the expression 'High-Priest' appears sometimes to have been used in a general sense, as designating the sons of the High-Priests, and even the principal members of their families, [h Jos. Jewish War 6:2.2.] there could, of course, be only one actual High-Priest. The conjunction of the two names of Annas and Caiaphas [1 This only in St. Luke.] probably indicates that, although Annas was deprived of the Pontificate, he still continued to preside over the Sanhedrin, a conclusion not only borne out by Acts 4:6, where Annas appears as the actual President, and by the terms in which Caiaphas is spoken of, as merely 'one of them,' [a St. John 11:49.] but by the part which Annas took in the final condemnation of Jesus. [b St. John 18:13.]
Such a combination of political and religious distress, surely, constituted the time of Israel's utmost need. As yet, no attempt had been made by the people to right themselves by armed force. In these circumstances, the cry that the Kingdom of Heaven was near at hand, and the call to preparation for it, must have awakened echoes throughout the land, and startled the most careless and unbelieving. It was, according to St. Luke's exact statement, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, reckoning, as provincials would do, [2 Wieseler has, I think, satisfactorily established this. Comp. Beitr. pp. 191-194.] from his co-regency with Augustus (which commenced two years before his sole reign), in the year 26 A.D. [c 779 A.U.C.] According to our former computation, Jesus would then be in His thirtieth year. [3 St. Luke speaks of Christ being 'about thirty years old' at the time of His baptism. If John began His public ministry in the autumn, and some months elapsed before Jesus was baptized, our Lord would have just passed His thirtieth year when He appeared at Bethabara. We have positive evidence that the expression 'about' before a numeral meant either a little more or a little less than that exact number. See Midr. on Ruth 1:4 ed. Warsh. p. 39 b.] The scene of John's first public appearance was in 'the wilderness of Judaea,' that is, the wild, desolate district around the mouth of the Jordan. We know not whether John baptized in this place, [4 Here tradition, though evidently falsely, locates the Baptism of Jesus.] nor yet how long he continued there; but we are expressly told, that his stay was not confined to that locality. [d St. Luke 3:3.] Soon afterwards we find him at Bethabara, [e St. John 1:28.] which is farther up the stream. The outward appearance and the his Mission. Neither his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes; [5 In reference not only to this point, but in general, I would refer to Bishop Lightfoot's masterly essay on the Essenes in his Appendix to his Commentary on Colossians (especially here, pp. 388, 400). It is a remarkable confirmation of the fact that, if John had been an Essene, his food could not have been 'locusts' that the Gospel of the Ebionites, who, like the Essenes, abstained from animal food, omits the mention of the 'locusts,' of St. Matt. 3:4. (see Mr. Nicholson's 'The Gospel of the Hebrews,' pp. 34, 35). But proof positive is derived from jer. Nedar. 40 b, where, in case of a vow of abstinence from flesh, fish and locusts are interdicted.] and the former, at least, like that of Elijah, [f 2Kings 1] whose mission he was now to 'fulfil.' This was evinced alike by what he preached, and by the new symbolic rite, from which he derived the name of 'Baptist.' The grand burden of his message was: the announcement of the approach of 'the Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation of his hearers for that Kingdom. The latter he sought, positively, by admonition, and negatively, by warnings, while he directed all to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so to speak, individualised. Thus, from the first, it was 'the good news of the Kingdom,' to which all else in John's preaching was but subsidiary.
Concerning this 'Kingdom of Heaven,' which was the great message of John, and the great work of Christ Himself, [1 Keim beautifully designates it: Das Lieblingswort Jesu.] we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realised. The idea of it did not lie hidden in the Old, to be opened up in the New Testament, as did the mystery of its realisation. [a Rom. 16:25, 26; Eph. 1:9; Col. 1:26, 27.] But this rule of heaven and Kingship of Jehovah was the very substance of the Old Testament; the object of the calling and mission of Israel; the meaning of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious; [2 If, indeed, in the preliminary dispensation these two can be well separated.] the underlying idea of all its institutions. [3 I confess myself utterly unable to understand, how anyone writing a History of the Jewish Church can apparently eliminate from it what even Keim designates as the 'treibenden Gedanken des Alten Testaments', those of the Kingdom and the King. A Kingdom of God without a King; a Theocracy without the rule of God; a perpetual Davidic Kingdom without a 'Son of David', these are antinomies (to borrow the term of Kant) of which neither the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigraphic writings, nor Rabbinism were guility.] It explained alike the history of the people, the dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. Without it the Old Testament could not be understood; it gave perpetuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations. This constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, and Israel's real title to distinction. Thus the whole Old Testament was the preparatory presentation of the rule of heaven and of the Kingship of its Lord.
But preparatory not only in the sense of typical, but also in that of inchoative. Even the twofold hindrance, internal and external, which 'the Kingdom' encountered, indicated this. The former arose from the resistance of Israel to their King; the latter from the opposition of the surrounding kingdoms of this world. All the more intense became the longing through thousands of years, that these hindrances might be swept away by the Advent of the promised Messiah, Who would permanently establish (by His spirit) the right relationship between the King and His Kingdom, by bringing in an everlasting righteousness, and also cast down existing barriers, by calling the kingdoms of this world to be the Kingdom of our God. This would, indeed, be the Advent of the Kingdom of God, such as had been the glowing hope held out by Zechariah, [a 14:9.] the glorious vision beheld by Daniel. [b 7:13, 14.] Three ideas especially did this Kingdoof God imply: universality, heavenliness, and permanency. Wide as God's domain would be His Dominion; holy, as heaven in contrast to earth, and God to man, would be his character; and triumphantly lasting its continuance. Such was the teaching of the Old Testament, and the great hope of Israel. It scarcely needs mental compass, only moral and spiritual capacity, to see its matchless grandeur, in contrast with even the highest aspirations of heathenism, and the blanched ideas of modern culture.
How imperfectly Israel understood this Kingdom, our previous investigations have shown. In truth, the men of that period possessed only the term, as it were, the form. What explained its meaning, filled, and fulfilled it, came once more from heaven. Rabbinism and Alexandrianism kept alive the thought of it; and in their own way filled the soul with its longing, just as the distress in church and State carried the need of it to every heart with the keenness of anguish. As throughout this history, the form was of that time; the substance and the spirit were of Him Whose coming was the Advent of that Kingdom. Perhaps the nearest approach to it lay in the higher aspirations of the Nationalist party, only that it sought their realisation, not spiritually, but outwardly. Taking the sword, it perished by the sword. It was probably to this that both Pilate and Jesus referred in that memorable question: 'Art Thou then a King?' to which our Lord, unfolding the deepest meaning of His mission, replied: 'My Kingdom is not of this world: if My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight.' [c St. John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 1:28.] which is farther up the stream. The outward appearance and the his Mission. Neither his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes; [5 In reference not only to this point, but in general, I would refer to Bishop Lightfoot's masterly essay on the Essenes in his Appendix to his Commentary on Colossians (especially here, pp. 388, 400). It is a remarkable confirmation of the fact that, if John had been an Essene, his food could not have been 'locusts' that the Gospel of the Ebionites, who, like the Essenes, abstained from animal food, omits the mention of the 'locusts,' of St. Matt. 3:4. (see Mr. Nicholson's 'The Gospel of the Hebrews,' pp. 34, 35). But proof positive is derived from jer. Nedar. 40 b, where, in case of a vow of abstinence from flesh, fish and locusts are interdicted.] and the former, at least, like that of Elijah, [f 2Kings 1] whose mission he was now to 'fulfil.' This was evinced alike by what he preached, and by the new symbolic rite, from which he derived the name of 'Baptist.' The grand burden of his message was: the announcement of the approach of 'the Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation of his hearers for that Kingdom. The latter he sought, positively, by admonition, and negatively, by warnings, while he directed all to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so to speak, individualised. Thus, from the first, it was 'the good news of the Kingdom,' to which all else in John's preaching was but subsidiary.
Concerning this 'Kingdom of Heaven,' which was the great message of John, and the great work of Christ Himself, [1 Keim beautifully designates it: Das Lieblingswort Jesu.] we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realised. The idea of it did not lie hidden in the Old, to be opened up in the New Testament, as did the mystery of its realisation. [a Rom. 16:25, 26; Eph. 1:9; Col. 1:26, 27.] But this rule of heaven and Kingship of Jehovah was the very substance of the Old Testament; the object of the calling and mission of Israel; the meaning of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious; [2 If, indeed, in the preliminary dispensation these two can be well separated.] the underlying idea of all its institutions. [3 I confess myself utterly unable to understand, how anyone writing a History of the Jewish Church can apparently eliminate from it what even Keim designates as the 'treibenden Gedanken des Alten Testaments', those of the Kingdom and the King. A Kingdom of God without a King; a Theocracy without the rule of God; a perpetual Davidic Kingdom without a 'Son of David', these are antinomies (to borrow the term of Kant) of which neither the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigraphic writings, nor Rabbinism were guility.] It explained alike the history of the people, the dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. Without it the Old Testament could not be understood; it gave perpetuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations. This constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, and Israel's real title to distinction. Thus the whole Old Testament was the preparatory presentation of the rule of heaven and of the Kingship of its Lord.
But preparatory not only in the sense of typical, but also in that of inchoative. Even the twofold hindrance, internal and external, which 'the Kingdom' encountered, indicated this. The former arose from the resistance of Israel to their King; the latter from the opposition of the surrounding kingdoms of this world. All the more intense became the longing through thousands of years, that these hindrances might be swept away by the Advent of the promised Messiah, Who would permanently establish (by His spirit) the right relationship between the King and His Kingdom, by bringing in an everlasting righteousness, and also cast down existing barriers, by calling the kingdoms of this world to be the Kingdom of our God. This would, indeed, be the Advent of the Kingdom of God, such as had been the glowing hope held out by Zechariah, [a 14:9.] the glorious vision beheld by Daniel. [b 7:13, 14.] Three ideas especially did this Kingdoof God imply: universality, heavenliness, and permanency. Wide as God's domain would be His Dominion; holy, as heaven in contrast to earth, and God to man, would be his character; and triumphantly lasting its continuance. Such was the teaching of the Old Testament, and the great hope of Israel. It scarcely needs mental compass, only moral and spiritual capacity, to see its matchless grandeur, in contrast with even the highest aspirations of heathenism, and the blanched ideas of modern culture.
How imperfectly Israel understood this Kingdom, our previous investigations have shown. In truth, the men of that period possessed only the term, as it were, the form. What explained its meaning, filled, and fulfilled it, came once more from heaven. Rabbinism and Alexandrianism kept alive the thought of it; and in their own way filled the soul with its longing, just as the distress in church and State carried the need of it to every heart with the keenness of anguish. As throughout this history, the form was of that time; the substance and the spirit were of Him Whose coming was the Advent of that Kingdom. Perhaps the nearest approach to it lay in the higher aspirations of the Nationalist party, only that it sought their realisation, not spiritually, but outwardly. Taking the sword, it perished by the sword. It was probably to this that both Pilate and Jesus referred in that memorable question: 'Art Thou then a King?' to which our Lord, unfolding the deepest meaning of His mission, replied: 'My Kingdom is not of this world: if My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight.' [c St. John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 18:13.]
Such a combination of political and religious distress, surely, constituted the time of Israel's utmost need. As yet, no attempt had been made by the people to right themselves by armed force. In these circumstances, the cry that the Kingdom of Heaven was near at hand, and the call to preparation for it, must have awakened echoes throughout the land, and startled the most careless and unbelieving. It was, according to St. Luke's exact statement, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, reckoning, as provincials would do, [2 Wieseler has, I think, satisfactorily established this. Comp. Beitr. pp. 191-194.] from his co-regency with Augustus (which commenced two years before his sole reign), in the year 26 A.D. [c 779 A.U.C.] According to our former computation, Jesus would then be in His thirtieth year. [3 St. Luke speaks of Christ being 'about thirty years old' at the time of His baptism. If John began His public ministry in the autumn, and some months elapsed before Jesus was baptized, our Lord would have just passed His thirtieth year when He appeared at Bethabara. We have positive evidence that the expression 'about' before a numeral meant either a little more or a little less than that exact number. See Midr. on Ruth 1:4 ed. Warsh. p. 39 b.] The scene of John's first public appearance was in 'the wilderness of Judaea,' that is, the wild, desolate district around the mouth of the Jordan. We know not whether John baptized in this place, [4 Here tradition, though evidently falsely, locates the Baptism of Jesus.] nor yet how long he continued there; but we are expressly told, that his stay was not confined to that locality. [d St. Luke 3:3.] Soon afterwards we find him at Bethabara, [e St. John 1:28.] which is farther up the stream. The outward appearance and the his Mission. Neither his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes; [5 In reference not only to this point, but in general, I would refer to Bishop Lightfoot's masterly essay on the Essenes in his Appendix to his Commentary on Colossians (especially here, pp. 388, 400). It is a remarkable confirmation of the fact that, if John had been an Essene, his food could not have been 'locusts' that the Gospel of the Ebionites, who, like the Essenes, abstained from animal food, omits the mention of the 'locusts,' of St. Matt. 3:4. (see Mr. Nicholson's 'The Gospel of the Hebrews,' pp. 34, 35). But proof positive is derived from jer. Nedar. 40 b, where, in case of a vow of abstinence from flesh, fish and locusts are interdicted.] and the former, at least, like that of Elijah, [f 2Kings 1] whose mission he was now to 'fulfil.' This was evinced alike by what he preached, and by the new symbolic rite, from which he derived the name of 'Baptist.' The grand burden of his message was: the announcement of the approach of 'the Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation of his hearers for that Kingdom. The latter he sought, positively, by admonition, and negatively, by warnings, while he directed all to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so to speak, individualised. Thus, from the first, it was 'the good news of the Kingdom,' to which all else in John's preaching was but subsidiary.
Concerning this 'Kingdom of Heaven,' which was the great message of John, and the great work of Christ Himself, [1 Keim beautifully designates it: Das Lieblingswort Jesu.] we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realised. The idea of it did not lie hidden in the Old, to be opened up in the New Testament, as did the mystery of its realisation. [a Rom. 16:25, 26; Eph. 1:9; Col. 1:26, 27.] But this rule of heaven and Kingship of Jehovah was the very substance of the Old Testament; the object of the calling and mission of Israel; the meaning of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious; [2 If, indeed, in the preliminary dispensation these two can be well separated.] the underlying idea of all its institutions. [3 I confess myself utterly unable to understand, how anyone writing a History of the Jewish Church can apparently eliminate from it what even Keim designates as the 'treibenden Gedanken des Alten Testaments', those of the Kingdom and the King. A Kingdom of God without a King; a Theocracy without the rule of God; a perpetual Davidic Kingdom without a 'Son of David', these are antinomies (to borrow the term of Kant) of which neither the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigraphic writings, nor Rabbinism were guility.] It explained alike the history of the people, the dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. Without it the Old Testament could not be understood; it gave perpetuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations. This constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, and Israel's real title to distinction. Thus the whole Old Testament was the preparatory presentation of the rule of heaven and of the Kingship of its Lord.
But preparatory not only in the sense of typical, but also in that of inchoative. Even the twofold hindrance, internal and external, which 'the Kingdom' encountered, indicated this. The former arose from the resistance of Israel to their King; the latter from the opposition of the surrounding kingdoms of this world. All the more intense became the longing through thousands of years, that these hindrances might be swept away by the Advent of the promised Messiah, Who would permanently establish (by His spirit) the right relationship between the King and His Kingdom, by bringing in an everlasting righteousness, and also cast down existing barriers, by calling the kingdoms of this world to be the Kingdom of our God. This would, indeed, be the Advent of the Kingdom of God, such as had been the glowing hope held out by Zechariah, [a 14:9.] the glorious vision beheld by Daniel. [b 7:13, 14.] Three ideas especially did this Kingdoof God imply: universality, heavenliness, and permanency. Wide as God's domain would be His Dominion; holy, as heaven in contrast to earth, and God to man, would be his character; and triumphantly lasting its continuance. Such was the teaching of the Old Testament, and the great hope of Israel. It scarcely needs mental compass, only moral and spiritual capacity, to see its matchless grandeur, in contrast with even the highest aspirations of heathenism, and the blanched ideas of modern culture.
How imperfectly Israel understood this Kingdom, our previous investigations have shown. In truth, the men of that period possessed only the term, as it were, the form. What explained its meaning, filled, and fulfilled it, came once more from heaven. Rabbinism and Alexandrianism kept alive the thought of it; and in their own way filled the soul with its longing, just as the distress in church and State carried the need of it to every heart with the keenness of anguish. As throughout this history, the form was of that time; the substance and the spirit were of Him Whose coming was the Advent of that Kingdom. Perhaps the nearest approach to it lay in the higher aspirations of the Nationalist party, only that it sought their realisation, not spiritually, but outwardly. Taking the sword, it perished by the sword. It was probably to this that both Pilate and Jesus referred in that memorable question: 'Art Thou then a King?' to which our Lord, unfolding the deepest meaning of His mission, replied: 'My Kingdom is not of this world: if My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight.' [c St. John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 1:28.] which is farther up the stream. The outward appearance and the his Mission. Neither his dress nor his food was that of the Essenes; [5 In reference not only to this point, but in general, I would refer to Bishop Lightfoot's masterly essay on the Essenes in his Appendix to his Commentary on Colossians (especially here, pp. 388, 400). It is a remarkable confirmation of the fact that, if John had been an Essene, his food could not have been 'locusts' that the Gospel of the Ebionites, who, like the Essenes, abstained from animal food, omits the mention of the 'locusts,' of St. Matt. 3:4. (see Mr. Nicholson's 'The Gospel of the Hebrews,' pp. 34, 35). But proof positive is derived from jer. Nedar. 40 b, where, in case of a vow of abstinence from flesh, fish and locusts are interdicted.] and the former, at least, like that of Elijah, [f 2Kings 1] whose mission he was now to 'fulfil.' This was evinced alike by what he preached, and by the new symbolic rite, from which he derived the name of 'Baptist.' The grand burden of his message was: the announcement of the approach of 'the Kingdom of Heaven,' and the needed preparation of his hearers for that Kingdom. The latter he sought, positively, by admonition, and negatively, by warnings, while he directed all to the Coming One, in Whom that Kingdom would become, so to speak, individualised. Thus, from the first, it was 'the good news of the Kingdom,' to which all else in John's preaching was but subsidiary.
Concerning this 'Kingdom of Heaven,' which was the great message of John, and the great work of Christ Himself, [1 Keim beautifully designates it: Das Lieblingswort Jesu.] we may here say, that it is the whole Old Testament sublimated, and the whole New Testament realised. The idea of it did not lie hidden in the Old, to be opened up in the New Testament, as did the mystery of its realisation. [a Rom. 16:25, 26; Eph. 1:9; Col. 1:26, 27.] But this rule of heaven and Kingship of Jehovah was the very substance of the Old Testament; the object of the calling and mission of Israel; the meaning of all its ordinances, whether civil or religious; [2 If, indeed, in the preliminary dispensation these two can be well separated.] the underlying idea of all its institutions. [3 I confess myself utterly unable to understand, how anyone writing a History of the Jewish Church can apparently eliminate from it what even Keim designates as the 'treibenden Gedanken des Alten Testaments', those of the Kingdom and the King. A Kingdom of God without a King; a Theocracy without the rule of God; a perpetual Davidic Kingdom without a 'Son of David', these are antinomies (to borrow the term of Kant) of which neither the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigraphic writings, nor Rabbinism were guility.] It explained alike the history of the people, the dealings of God with them, and the prospects opened up by the prophets. Without it the Old Testament could not be understood; it gave perpetuity to its teaching, and dignity to its representations. This constituted alike the real contrast between Israel and the nations of antiquity, and Israel's real title to distinction. Thus the whole Old Testament was the preparatory presentation of the rule of heaven and of the Kingship of its Lord.
But preparatory not only in the sense of typical, but also in that of inchoative. Even the twofold hindrance, internal and external, which 'the Kingdom' encountered, indicated this. The former arose from the resistance of Israel to their King; the latter from the opposition of the surrounding kingdoms of this world. All the more intense became the longing through thousands of years, that these hindrances might be swept away by the Advent of the promised Messiah, Who would permanently establish (by His spirit) the right relationship between the King and His Kingdom, by bringing in an everlasting righteousness, and also cast down existing barriers, by calling the kingdoms of this world to be the Kingdom of our God. This would, indeed, be the Advent of the Kingdom of God, such as had been the glowing hope held out by Zechariah, [a 14:9.] the glorious vision beheld by Daniel. [b 7:13, 14.] Three ideas especially did this Kingdoof God imply: universality, heavenliness, and permanency. Wide as God's domain would be His Dominion; holy, as heaven in contrast to earth, and God to man, would be his character; and triumphantly lasting its continuance. Such was the teaching of the Old Testament, and the great hope of Israel. It scarcely needs mental compass, only moral and spiritual capacity, to see its matchless grandeur, in contrast with even the highest aspirations of heathenism, and the blanched ideas of modern culture.
How imperfectly Israel understood this Kingdom, our previous investigations have shown. In truth, the men of that period possessed only the term, as it were, the form. What explained its meaning, filled, and fulfilled it, came once more from heaven. Rabbinism and Alexandrianism kept alive the thought of it; and in their own way filled the soul with its longing, just as the distress in church and State carried the need of it to every heart with the keenness of anguish. As throughout this history, the form was of that time; the substance and the spirit were of Him Whose coming was the Advent of that Kingdom. Perhaps the nearest approach to it lay in the higher aspirations of the Nationalist party, only that it sought their realisation, not spiritually, but outwardly. Taking the sword, it perished by the sword. It was probably to this that both Pilate and Jesus referred in that memorable question: 'Art Thou then a King?' to which our Lord, unfolding the deepest meaning of His mission, replied: 'My Kingdom is not of this world: if My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight.' [c St. John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 17:33-37.]
According to the Rabbinic views of the time, the terms 'Kingdom,' 'Kingdom of heaven,' [3 Occasionally we find, instead of Malkhuth Shamayim ('Kingdom of Heaven'), Malkhutha direqiya ('Kingdom of the firmament'), as in Ber. 58 a, Shebhu. 35 b. But in the former passage, at least, it seems to apply rather to God's Providential government than to His moral reign.] and 'Kingdom of God' (in the Targum on Micah 4:7 'Kingdom of Jehovah'), were equivalent. In fact, the word 'heaven' was very often used instead of 'God,' so as to avoid unduly familiarising the ear with the Sacred Name. [1 The Talmud (Shebhu. 35 b) analyses the various passages of Scripture in which it is used in a sacred and in the common sense.] This, probably, accounts for the exclusive use of the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' in the Gospel by St. Matthew. [2 In St. Matthew the expression occursthirty-two times; six times that of 'the Kingdom;' five times that of 'Kingdom of God.'] And the term did imply a contrast to earth, as the expression 'the Kingdom of God' did to this world. The consciousness of its contrast to earth or the world was distinctly expressed in Rabbinic writings. [a As in Shebhu 35 b; Ber. R. 9, ed Warsh, pp. 19 b, 20 a.]
This 'Kingdom of Heaven,' or 'of God,' must, however, be distinguished from such terms as 'the Kingdom of the Messiah' (Malkhutha dimeshicha [b As in the Targum on Ps. 14:7, and on Isa. 53:10.]), 'the future age (world) of the Messiah' (Alma deathey dimeshicha [c As in Targum on 1Kings 4:33 (v. 13).]), 'the days of the Messiah,' 'the age to come' (soeculum futurum, the Athid labho [3 The distinction between the Vlam habba (the world to come), and the Athid labho (the age to come), is important. It will be more fully referred to by-and-by. In the meantime, suffice it, that the Athid labho is the more specific designation of Messianic times. The two terms are expressly distinguished, for example, in Mechilta (ed. Weiss), p. 74 a, lines 2, 3.], both this and the previous expression [d For example, in Ber. R. 88, ed. Warsh. p. 157 a.]), 'the end of days,' [e Targ. PseudoJon. on Ex. 40:9, 11.] and 'the end of the extremity of days' Soph Eqebh Yomaya [f Jer. Targ. on Gen. 3:15; Jer. and PseudoJon. Targ on Num. 24:14.]). This is the more important, since the 'Kingdom of Heaven' has so often been confounded with the period of its triumphant manifestation in 'the days,' or in 'the Kingdom, of the Messiah.' Between the Advent and the final manifestation of 'the Kingdom,' Jewish expectancy placed a temporary obscuration of the Messiah. [4 This will be more fully explained and shown in the sequel. For the present we refer only to Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 75 d, and the Midr. on Ruth 2:14.] Not His first appearance, but His triumphant manifestation, was to be preceded by the so-called 'sorrows of the Messiah' (the Chebhley shel Mashiach), 'the tribulations of the latter days.' [5 The whole subject is fully treated in Book 5; ch. 6]
A review of many passages on the subject shows that, in the Jewish mind the expression 'Kingdom of Heaven' referred, not so much to any particular period, as in general to the Rule of God, as acknowledged, manifested, and eventually perfected. Very often it is the equivalent for personal acknowledgment of God: the taking upon oneself of the 'yoke' of 'the Kingdom,' or of the commandments, the former preceding and conditioning the latter. [g So expressly in Mechilta, p. 75 a; Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 14 a, last line.] Accordingly, the Mishnah [a Ber. 2:2.] gives this as the reason why, in the collection of Scripture passages which forms the prayer called 'Shema,' [1 The Shema, whichwas repeated twice every day, was regarded as distinctive of Jewish profession (Ber. 3:3).] the confession, Deut. 6:4 &c., precedes the admonition, Deut. 11:13 &c., because a man takes upon himself first the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and afterwards that of the commandments. And in this sense, the repetition of this Shema, as the personal acknowledgment of the Rule of Jehovah, is itself often designated as 'taking upon oneself the Kingdom of Heaven.' [b For example, Ber. 13 b, 14 b; Ber. 2:5; and the touching story of Rabbi Akiba thus taking upon himself the yoke of the Law in the hour of his martyrdom, Ber. 61 b.] Similarly, the putting on of phylacteries, and the washing of hands, are also described as taking upon oneself the yoke of the Kingdom of God. [2 In Ber. 14 b, last line, and 15 a, first line, there is a shocking definition of what constitutes the Kingdom of Heaven in its completeness. For the sake of those who would derive Christianity from Rabbinism. I would have quoted it, but am restrained by its profanity.] To give other instances: Israel is said to have taken up the yoke of the Kingdom of God at Mount Sinai; [c So often Comp. Siphre p. 142 b, 143 b.] the children of Jacob at their last interview with their father; [d Ber. R. 98.] and Isaiah on his call to the prophetic office, [e Yalkut, vol. 2; p. 43 a.] where it is also noted that this must be done willingly and gladly. On the other hand, the sons of Eli and the sons of Ahab are said to have cast off the Kingdom of Heaven. [f Midr. on 1Sam. 8:12; Midr. on Eccl. 1:18.] While thus the acknowledgment of the Rule of God, both in profession and practice, was considered to constitute the Kingdom of God, its full manifestation was expected only in the time of the Advent of Messiah. Thus in the Targum on Isaiah 40:9, the words 'Behold your God!' are paraphrased: 'The Kingdom of your God is revealed.' Similarly, [g In Yalkut 2; p. 178 a.] we read: 'When the time approaches that the Kingdom of Heaven shall be manifested, then shall be fulfilled that "the Lord shall be King over all the earth."' [h Zech. 14:9.] [3 The same passage is similarly referred to in the Midr. on Song. 2:12, where the words 'the time of the singing has come,' are paraphrased; 'the time of the Kingdom of Heaven that it shall be manifested, hath come' (in R. Martini Pugio Fidei, p. 782).] On the other hand, the unbelief of Israel would appear in that they would reject these three things: the Kingdom of Heaven, the Kingdom of the House of David, and the building of the Temple, according to the prediction in Hos. 3:5. [i Midr. on 1Sam. 8:7. Comp. also generally Midr. on Ps. 147:1.] It follows that, after the period of unbelief, the Messianic deliverances and blessings of the 'Athid Labho,' or future age, were expected. But the final completion of all still remained for the 'Olam Habba,' or world to come. And that there is a distinction between the time of the Messiah and this 'world to come' is frequently indicated in Rabbinic writings. [4 As in Shabb. 63 a, where at least three differences between them are mentioned. For, while all prophecy pointed to the days of the Messiah, concerning the world to come we are told (Isa. 64:4) that 'eye hath not seen, &c.'; in the days of the Messiah weapons would be borne, but not in the world to come; and while Isa. 24:21 applied to the days of the Messiah, the seemingly contradictory passage, Isa. 30:26, referred to the world to come. In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Exod. 17:16, we read of three generations: that of this world, that of the Messiah, and that of the world to come (Aram: Alma deathey=olam habba). Comp. Ar. 13 b, and Midr. on Ps. 81:2 (3 in A.V.), ed. Warsh. p. 63 a, where the harp of the Sanctuary is described as of seven strings (according to Ps. 119:164); in the days of the Messiah as of eight strings (according to the inscription of Psa. 12); and in the world to come (here Athid labho) as of ten strings (according to Psa. 92:3). The references of Gfrorer (Jahrh. d. Heils, vol. 2; p. 213) contain, as not unfrequently, mistakes. I may here say that Rhenferdius carries the argument about the Olam habba, as distinguished from the days of the Messiah, beyond what I believe to be established. See his Dissertation in Meuschen, Nov. Test. pp. 1116 &c.]
As we pass from the Jewish ideas of the time to the teaching of the New Testament, we feel that while there is complete change of spirit, the form in which the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven is presented is substantially similar. Accordingly, we must dismiss the notion that the expression refers to the Church, whether visible (according to the Roman Catholic view) or invisible (according to certain Protestant writers). [1 It is difficult to conceive, how the idea of the identity of the Kingdom of God with the Church could have originated. Such parables as those about the Sower, and about the Net (St. Matt. 13:3-9, 47, 48), and such admonitions as those of Christ to His disciples in St. Matt. 19:12; Matt. 6:33; and Matt. 6:10, are utterly inconsistent with it.] 'The Kingdom of God,' or Kingly Rule of God, is an objective fact. The visible Church can only be the subjective attempt at its outward realisation, of which the invisible Church is the true counterpart. When Christ says, [a St. John 3:3.] that 'except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God,' He teaches, in opposition to the Rabbinic representation of how 'the Kingdom' was taken up, that a man cannot even comprehend that glorious idea of the Reign of God, and of becoming, by conscious self-surrender, one of His subjects, except he be first born from above. Similarly, the meaning of Christ's further teaching on this subject [b in ver. 5.] seems to be that, except a man be born of water (profession, with baptism [2 The passage which seems to me most fully to explain the import of baptism, in its subjective bearing, is 1Peter, 3:21, which I would thus render: 'which (water) also, as the antitype, now saves you, even baptism; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the inquiry (the searching, perhaps the entreaty), for a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Christ.' It is in this sense that baptism is designated in Tit. 3:5, as the 'washing,' or 'bath of regeneration,' the baptized person stepping out of the waters of baptism with this openly spoken new search after a good conscience towards God; and in this sense also that baptism, not the act of baptizing, nor yet that of being baptized, saves us, but this through the Resurrection of Christ. And this leads us up to the objective aspect of baptism. This consists in the promise and the gift on the part of the Risen Saviour, Who, by and with His Holy Spirit, is ever present with his Church. These remarks leave, of course, aside the question of Infant-Baptism, which rests on another and, in my view most solid basis.] as its symbol) and the Spirit, he cannot really enter into the fellowship of that Kingdom.
In fact, an analysis of 119 passages in the New Testament where the expression 'Kingdom' occurs, shows that it means the rule of God; [1 In this view the expression occurs thirty-four times, viz: St. Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:28; Matt. 13:38; Matt. 19:24; Matt. 21:31; St. Mark 1:14; Mark 10:15, 23, 24, 25; Mark 12:34; St. Luke 1:33; Luke 4:43; Luke 9:11; Luke 10:9, 11; Luke 11:20; Luke 12:31; Luke 17:20, 21; Luke 18:17, 24, 25, 29; St. John 3:3; Acts 1:3; Acts 8:12; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31; Rom. 14:17; 1Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 1Thess. 2:12; Rev. 1:9.] which was manifested in and through Christ; [2 As in the following seventeen passages, viz.: St. Matt. 3:2; Matt. 4:17, 23; Matt. 5:3, 10; Matt. 9:35; Matt. 10:7; St. Mark 1:15; Mark 11:10; St. Luke 8:1; Luke 9:2; Luke 16:16; Luke 19:12, 15; Acts 1:3; Acts 28:23; Rev. 1:9.] is apparent in 'the Church; [3 As in the following eleven passages: St. Matt. 11:11; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:19; Matt. 18:1; Matt. 21:43; Matt. 23:13; St. Luke 7:28; St. John 3:5; Acts 1:3; Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:9.] gradually develops amidst hindrances; [4 As in the following twenty-four passages: St. Matt. 11:12; Matt. 13:11, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; Matt. 18:23; Matt. 20:1; Matt. 22:2; Matt. 25:1, 14; St. Mark 4:11, 26, 30; St. Luke 8:10; Luke 9:62; Luke 13:18, 20; Acts 1:3; Rev. 1:9.] is triumphant at the second coming of Christ [5 As in the following twelve passages: St. Mark 16:28; St. Mark 9:1; Mark 15:43; St. Luke 9:27; Luke 19:11; Luke 21:31; Luke 22:16, 18; Acts 1:3; 2Tim. 4:1; Heb. 12:28; Rev. 1:9.] ('the end'); and, finally, perfected in the world to come. [6 As in the following thirty-one passages: St. Matt. 5:19, 20; Matt. 7:21; Matt. 8:11; Matt. 13:43; Matt. 18:3; Matt. 25:34; Matt. 26:29; St. Mark 9:47; Mark 10:14; Mark 14:25; St. Luke 6:20; Luke 12:32; Luke 13:28, 29; Luke 14:15; Luke 18:16; Luke 22:29; Acts 1:3; Acts 14:22; 1Cor. 6:9, 10; 1Cor. 15:24, 50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 2Thess. 1:5; St. James 2:5; 2Peter 1:11; Rev. 1:9; Rev. 12:10.] Thus viewed, the announcement of John of the near Advent of this Kingdom had deepest meaning, although, as so often in the case of prophetism, the stages intervening between the Advent of the Christ and the triumph of that Kingdom seem to have been hidden from the preacher. He came to call Israel to submit to the Reign of God, about to be manifested in Christ. Hence, on the one hand, he called them to repentance, a 'change of mind', with all that this implied; and, on the other, pointed them to the Christ, in the exaltation of His Person and Office. Or rather, the two combined might be summed up in the call: 'Change your mind', repent, which implies, not only a turning from the past, but a turning to the Christ in newness of mind. [7 The term 'repentance' includes faith in Christ, as in St. Luke 24:47; Acts 5:31.] And thus the symbolic action by which this preaching was accompanied might be designated 'the baptism of repentance.'
The account given by St. Luke bears, on the face of it, that it was a summary, not only of the first, but of all John's preaching. [a 3:18.] The very presence of his hearers at this call to, and baptism of, repentance, gave point to his words. Did they who, notwithstanding their sins, [1 I cannot, with Schottgen and others, regard the expression 'generation of vipers' as an allusion to the filthy legend about the children of Eve and the serpent, but believe that it refers to such passages as Ps. 58:4.] lived in such security of carelessness and self-righteousness, really understand and fear the final consequences of resistance to the coming 'Kingdom'? If so, theirs must be a repentance not only in profession, but of heart and mind, such as would yield fruit, both good and visible. Or else did they imagine that, according to the common notion of the time, the vials of wrath were to be poured out only on the Gentiles, [2 In proof that such was the common view, I shall here refer to only a few passages, and these exclusively from the Targumum: Jer. Targ. on Gen. 49:11; Targ. on Isa. 11:4; Targ. on Amos 9:11; Targ. on Nah. 1:6; on Zech. 10:3, 4. See also Ab. Z. 2 b, Yalkut 1; p. 64 a; also 56 b (where it is shown how plagues exactly corresponding to those of Egypt were to come upon Rome).] while they, as Abraham's children, were sure of escape, in the words of the Talmud, that 'the night' (Isa. 21:12) was 'only to the nations of the world, but the morning to Israel'? [a Jer. Taan. 64 a.]
For, no principle was more fully established in the popular conviction, than that all Israel had part in the world to come (Sanh. 10:1), and this, specifically, because of their connection with Abraham. This appears not only from the New Testament, [b St. John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]John 8:33, 39, 53.] from Philo, and Josephus, but from many Rabbinic passages. 'The merits of the Fathers,' is one of the commonest phrases in the mouth of the Rabbis. [3 'Everything comes to Israel on account of the merits of the fathers' (Siphre on Deut. p. 108 b). In the same category we place the extraordinary attempts to show that the sins of Biblical personages were not sins at all, as in Shabb. 55 b, and the idea of Israel's merits as works of supererogation (as in Baba B. 10 a).] Abraham was represented as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, to deliver any Israelite [4 I will not mention the profane device by which apostate and wicked Jews are at that time to be converted into non-Jews.] who otherwise might have been consigned to its terrors. [c Ber. R. 48; comp. Midr. on Ps. 6:1; Pirke d. R. Elies. c. 29; Shem. R. 19 Yalkut 1; p. 23 b.] In fact, by their descent from Abraham, all the children of Israel were nobles, [d Baba Mez. 7:1; Baba K. 91 a.] infinitely higher than any proselytes. 'What,' exclaims the Talmud, 'shall the born Israelite stand upon the earth, and the proselyte be in heaven?' [e Jer. Chag. 76 a.] In fact, the ships on the sea werepreserved through the merit of Abraham; the rain descended on account of it. [f Ber. R. 39.] For his sake alone had Moses been allowed to ascend into heaven, and to receive the Law; for his sake the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven; [g Shem R. 44.] his righteousness had on many occasions been the support of Israel's cause; [h Vayyikra R. 36.] Daniel had been heard for the sake of Abraham; [i Ber. 7 b.] nay, his merit availed even for the wicked. [k Shabb. 55 a; comp Beer, Leben Abr. p. 88.] [5 Professor Wunsche quotes an inapt passage from Shabb. 89 b, but ignores, or is ignorant of the evidence above given.] In its extravagance the Midrash thus apostrophises Abraham: 'If thy children were even (morally) dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, thy merit would avail for them!' [a Ber. R. ed. Warsh. p. 80 b, par. 44.]
But if such had been the inner thoughts of his bearers, John warned them, that God was able of those stones that strewed the river-bank to raise up children unto Abraham; [b Perhaps with reference to Isa. 2:1, 2.] [1 Lightfoot aptly points out a play on the words 'children', banim, and 'stones', abhanim. Both words are derived from bana, to build, which is also used by the Rabbis in a moral sense like our own 'upbuilding,' and in that of the gift of adoption of children. It is not necessary, indeed almost detracts from the general impression, to see in the stones an allusion to the Gentiles.] or, reverting to his former illustration of 'fruits meet for repentance,' that the proclamation of the Kingdom was, at the same time, the laying of the axe to the root of every tree that bore not fruit. Then making application of it, in answer to the specific inquiry of various classes, the preacher gave them such practical advice as applied to the well-known sins of their past; [2 Thus the view that charity delivered from Gehenna was very commonly entertained (see, for example, Baba B. 10 a). Similarly, it was the main charge against the publicans that they exacted more than their due (see, for example, Baba K. 113 a). The Greek, or wage of the soldiers, has its Rabbinic equivalent of Afsanya (a similar word also in the Syriac).] yet in this also not going beyond the merely negative, or preparatory element of 'repentance.' The positive, and all-important aspect of it, was to be presented by the Christ. It was only natural that the hearers wondered whether John himself was the Christ, since he thus urged repentance. For this was so closely connected in their thoughts with the Advent of the Messiah, that it was said, 'If Israel repented but one day, the Son of David would immediately come.' [c For ex. Jer. Taan. 64 a.] But here John pointed them to the differencebetween himself and his work, and the Person and Mission of the Christ. In deepest reverence he declared himself not worthy to do Him the service of a slave or of a disciple. [3 Volkmar is mistaken in regarding this as the duty of the house-porter towards arriving guests. It is expressly mentioned as one of the characteristic duties of slaves in Pes. 4 a; Jer Kidd. 1:3; Kidd. 22 b. In Kethub. 96 a it is described as also the duty of a disciple towards his teacher. In Mechilta on Ex. 21:2 (ed. Weiss, p. 82 a) it is qualified as only lawful for a teacher so to employ his disciple, while, lastly, in Pesiqta 10; it is described as the common practice.] His Baptism would not be of preparatory repentance and with water, but the Divine Baptism in [4 Godet aptly calls attention to the use of the preposition in here, while as regards the baptism of water no preposition is used, as denoting merely an instrumentality.] the Holy Spirit and fire [5 The same writer points out that the want of the preposition before 'fire' shows that it cannot refer to the fire of judgment, but must be a further enlargement of the word 'Spirit.' Probably it denotes the negative or purgative effect of this baptism, as the word 'holy' indicates its positive and sanctifying effect.], in the Spirit Who sanctified, and the Divine Light which purified, [6 The expression 'baptism of fire' was certainly not unknown to the Jews. In Sanh. 39 a (last lines) we read of an immersion of God in fire, based on Isa. 66:15. An immersion or baptism of fire is proved from Num. 31:23. More apt, perhaps, as illustration is the statement, Jer. Sot. 22 d, that the Torah (the Law) its parchment was white fire, the writing black fire, itself fire mixed with fire, hewn out of fire, and given by fire, according to Deut. 33:2.] and so effectively qualified for the 'Kingdom.' And there was still another contrast. John's was but preparing work, the Christ's that of final decision; after it came the harvest. His was the harvest, and His the garner; His also the fan, with which He would sift the wheat from the straw and chaff, the one to be garnered, the other burned with fire unextinguished and inextinguishable. [1 This is the meaning of . The word occurs only in St. Matt. 3:12; St. Luke 3:17; St. Mark 9:43, 45 (?), but frequently in the classics. The question of 'eternal punishment' will be discussed in another place. The simile of the fan and the garner is derived from the Eastern practice of threshing out the corn in the open by means of oxen, after which, what of the straw had been trampled under foot (not merely the chaff, as in the A.V.) was burned. This use of the straw for fire is referred to in the Mishnah, as in Shabb. 3:1; Par. 4:3. But in that case the Hebrew equivalent for it is (Qash), as in the above passages, and not Tebhen (Meyer), nor even as Professor Delitzsch renders it in his Hebrew N.T.: Mots. The three terms are, however, combined in a curiously illustrative parable (Ber. R. 83), referring to the destruction of Rome and the preservation of Israel, when the grain refers the straw, stubble, and chaff, in their dispute for whose sake the field existed, to the time when the owner would gather the corn into his barn, but burn the straw, stubble, and chaff.] Thus early in the history of the Kingdom of God was it indicated, that alike that which would prove useless straw and the good corn were inseparably connected in God's harvest-field till the reaping time; that both belonged to Him; and that the final separation would only come at the last, and by His own Hand.
What John preached, that he also symbolised by a rite which, though not in itself, yet in its application, was wholly new. Hitherto the Law had it, that those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed that such Gentiles as became 'proselytes of righteousness,' or 'proselytes of the Covenant' (Gerey hatstsedeq or Gerey habberith), were to be admitted to full participation in the privileges of Israel by the threefold rites of circumcision, baptism, [2 For a full discussion of the question of the baptism of proselytes, see Appendix XII.] and sacrifice, the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgment and symbolic removal of moral defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. But never before had it been proposed that Israel should undergo a 'baptism of repentance,' although there are indications of a deeper insight into the meaning of Levitical baptisms. [3 The following very significant passage may here be quoted: 'A man who is guilty of sin, and makes confession, and does not turn from it, to whom is he like? To a man who has in his hand a defiling reptile, who, even if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his baptism avails him nothing; but let him cast it from his hand, and if he immerses in only forty seah of water, immediately his baptism avails him.' On the same page of the Talmud there are some very apt and beautiful remarks on the subject of repentance (Taan. 16 a, towards the end).] Was it intended, that the hearers of John should give this as evidence of their repentance, that, like persons defiled, they sought purification, and, like strangers, they sought admission among the people who took on themselves the Rule of God? These two ideas would, indeed, have made it truly a 'baptism of repentance.' But it seems difficult to suppose, that the people would have been prepared for such admissions; or, at least, that there should have been no record of the mode in which a change so deeply spiritual was brought about. May it not rather have been that as, when the first Covenant was made, Moses was directed to prepare Israel by symbolic baptism of their persons [a Comp. Gen. 35.] and their garments, [b Ex. 19:10, 14.] so the initiation of the new Covenant, by which the people were to enter into the Kingdom of God, was preceded by another general symbolic baptism of those who would be the true Israel, and receive, or take on themselves, the Law from God? [1 It is remarkable, that Maimonides traces even the practice of baptizing proselytes to Ex. 19:10, 14 (Hilc Issurey Biah 13:3; Yad haCh. vol. 2; p. 142 b). He also gives reasons for the 'baptism' of Israel before entering into covenant with God. In Kerith, 9 a 'the baptism' of Israel is proved from Ex. 24:5, since every sprinkling of blood was supposed to be preceded by immersion. In Siphre on Num. (ed. Weiss, p. 30 b) we are also distinctly told of 'baptism' as one of the three things by which Israel was admitted into the Covenant.] In that case the rite would have acquired not only a new significance, but be deeply and truly the answer to John's call. In such case also, no special explanation would have been needed on the part of the Baptist, nor yet such spiritual insight on that of the people as we can scarcely suppose them to have possessed at that stage. Lastly, in that case nothing could have been more suitable, nor more solemn, than Israel in waiting for the Messiah and the Rule of God, preparing as their fathers had done at the foot of Mount Sinai. [2 This may help us, even at this stage, to understand why our Lord, in the fulfilment of all righteousness, submitted to baptism. It seems also to explain why, after the coming of Christ, the baptism of John was alike unavailing and even meaningless (Acts 19:3-5). Lastly, it also shows how he that is least in the Kingdom of God is really greater than John himself (St. Luke 7:28).] [19]
January 14, 2007 First Baptist Church, Comanche Series: Studies in Matthew
Matthew 3:1-12
“What Does God Expect?”
Introduction: Matthew’s Gospel, the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ, introduces us to the King, God’s Messiah: Presentation by Ancestry [1:1-17], Presentation by Advent [1:18-2:25], and now the Presentation by an Ambassador [3:1-12]. Next we’ll study the final section of this chapter to learn about the Presentation through Divine Approval [3:13-18].
The proclamation made is that 2007 be a year of repentance and righteousness for us, God’s people, First Baptist Church, Comanche. Memorize and meditate upon the “Beautiful Attitudes” found in Matthew 5:3-12.
1. FACTS OF THE SITUATION [vv. 1-6]
1 Now in those days John the Baptist came*, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said, "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT!'"
4 Now John himself had a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan;
6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.
A. The Man of Righteousness
1) Peculiar in His Ways
2) Preaching in the Wilderness
B. The Message of Repentance
1) Repentance
2) Righteousness
C. The Masses
1) Jerusalem [peace and righteousness]
2) Judea
3) Jordan River Region
@ Who we are [our positions], what we have [our possessions], and what we have done [our productivity] are inconsequential compared to Whose we [person] and what He makes us to be [purpose].
2. FOCUS OF THE SINNER [vv. 7-9]
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 "Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance;
9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.
A. Religious
@ “What’s your religion?” is not the right question. “What’s your relationship with almighty God through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ?” is the right one.
B. Results
1. Disciples made
2. Disciplines maintained
3. Developed maturity
C. Relatives
@ Is your hope in being religious by your standards, or righteous before God?
3. FATE OF THE SCOFFER [vv. 10-12]
10 "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 "His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
- Bring
@ “No, Lord”
B. Baptize
1. Event
2. Experience
C. Burn
1. Cleanse
2. Consume
3. Continual
4. Certain
Conclusion and Application: Upon what does eternity depend?
a) You turned to God from idols
1 Thessalonians 1:9a
The verb translated ‘turn’ (*epistrepho— ἐπιστρέφω [epistrepho /ep·ee·stref·o/] v. From 1909 and 4762; TDNT 7:722; TDNTA 1093; GK 2188; 39 occurrences; AV translates as “turn” 16 times, “be converted” six times, “return” six times, “turn about” four times, “turn again” three times, and translated miscellaneously four times. 1 transitively. 1a to turn to. 1a1 to the worship of the true God. 1b to cause to return, to bring back. 1b1 to the love and obedience of God. 1b2 to the love for the children. 1b3 to love wisdom and righteousness. 2 intransitively. 2a to turn to one’s self. 2b to turn one’s self about, turn back. 2c to return, turn back, come back[20]) became an almost technical term for conversion, which is a turn from sin to Christ, from darkness to light (Acts 26:18; Col.1:13; 1 Pet.2:9), and from idols to God. Luke in particular uses it repeatedly in Acts (Acts 3:19; 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 26:18, 20; 28:27).
It would be difficult to exaggerate how radical is the change of allegiance which is implied by the turn from idols to *the living and true God* (cf. Je.10:10). For idols are dead; God is living. Idols are false; God is true. Idols are many; God is one. Idols are visible and tangible; God is invisible and intangible, beyond the reach of sight and touch. Idols are creatures, the work of human hands; God is the creator of the universe and of all humankind. Besides, Paul knew what he was talking about. Not only had he inveighed [to speak with violent or invective language; rail. [C15: from Latin invehī, literally: to be carried in, hence, assail physically or verbally[21]] against idolatry when addressing the pagans of Lystra (Acts 14) and the philosophers of Athens (Acts 17), but the Thessalonians could themselves see Mount Olympus, about fifty miles south of their city, where the Greek Gods were supposed to live.
Modern missionaries, especially in areas of ‘animism’, which is now usually termed ‘traditional religion’, know all about the power of idols, and of the spirits which are believed to lurk behind them. A tribe’s traditional idols have a tremendous hold over the people’s minds, hearts and lives. For centuries they have lived in superstitious dread of them and in obsequious [1 obedient or attentive in an ingratiating or servile manner. 2 Now rare. submissive or compliant. [C15: from Latin obsequiōsus compliant, from obsequium compliance, from obsequi to follow, from ob- to + sequi to follow][22]] submission to them. The very thought of breaking away from them fills them with alarm, as they fear the spirits’ revenge.
And the more sophisticated idols (that is, God-substitutes) of modern secular cities are equally powerful. Some people are eaten up with a selfish ambition for money, power or fame. Others are obsessed with their work, or with sport or television, or are infatuated with a person, or addicted to food, alcohol, hard drugs or sex. Both immorality and greed are later pronounced by Paul to be forms of idolatry (Eph.5:5), because they demand an allegiance which is due to God alone. So every idolater is a prisoner, held in humiliating bondage.
Then, through the gospel and the grace of God, in many cases suddenly and completely, the prisoner turns to God from the idols (whether superstitious or sophisticated) which have so far controlled his or her life. The experts call it a ‘power encounter’, for it is a personal encounter with Jesus Christ in which the spell of the idol is broken and the superior power of the living and true God is demonstrated. People are amazed and filled with awe, and they spread the good news.
The history of Christian missions contains many examples of such power encounters. In each case a deliberate Christian challenge is thrown down to the false gods which previously held sway in the community. Sometimes the challenge is conversion itself, as people are rescued by Christ from an evil power which can no longer hold them. At other times the challenge is made by new converts who dare to defy their former gods. Then, when no harm follows, the supremacy of Christ is acknowledged and more conversions take place.
As example of the first I would like to quote from the letter of a young Burmese national, who a few years ago went with some friends to evangelize a village inhabited by animists:
We explained to them the pure simple gospel and Christ’s lordship over the devil and all evil foes, after which they were counselled to confess and forsake their evil deeds and to receive Christ Jesus as their Saviour and Lord. With brokenness and tears and guilt they responded. Then we burned up the charms and amulets, took a wood-cutting knife, and broke down a spirit’s house made of bamboo and wood, claiming the lordship of Jesus Christ, and singing Christ’s victory songs, and putting all of ourselves under the blood of the Lamb of God and the rule of the Holy Spirit, and claiming God’s protection.
Examples of the second kind of power encounter, which took place in Oceania at the beginning of last century, have been documented by the distinguished Australian missionary and anthropologist, Dr. Alan R. Tippett. He tells how Pomare II, the Christian chief of Tahiti, baked and ate a sacred turtle without first observing the customary rituals; how Taufa’ahau, chief of Tonga, struck the priestess of his old god with a soft banana club, saying, ‘I will strike the devil-god with this’; and how Malietoa, paramount chief of Samoa taking no precautions, ate a sacred mullet, which was forbidden food. These were deliberately daring and provocative acts. They were performed in public, with relatives and friends watching in silent apprehension of the god’s revenge. They were also symbolic, each being ‘a public rejection of a power which had bound them all for ages’. And when no fatal consequences followed, the people were convinced, conversions took place and the church grew. The Southern Polynesians knew, writes Dr. Tippett, that ‘the only real and effective way of proving the power of their new faith was to demonstrate that the old religion had lost its power and fear’. As a missionary leader commented at the time, ‘idolatry bows and expires at Jesus’ name’.
Truly, now that the strong man (the devil) has been overpowered by one stronger than he (Jesus Christ), his palace can be raided and his prisoners set free (Luke11:21-22). Luke 11:21-22
b)....to serve the living and true God
1 Thessalonians 1:9b
The claim to have turned to God from idols is manifestly bogus if it does not result in serving the God to whom we have turned. We must not think of conversion only in negative terms as a turning away from the old life, but also positively as the beginning of a new life of service. We could say that it is the exchange of one slavery for another, so long as we add that the new slavery is the real freedom. In this way authentic conversion involves a double liberation, both *from* the thraldom of the idols whose slaves we were and *into* the service of God whose children we become.
c)....and to wait for his Son from heaven
1 Thessalonians 1:10
2 Peter 3:13
It is immediately noteworthy that ‘serving’ and ‘waiting’ go together in the experience of converted people. Indeed, this is at first sight surprising, since ‘serving’ is active, while ‘waiting’ is passive. In Christian terms ‘serving’ is getting busy for Christ on earth, while ‘waiting’ is looking for Christ to come from heaven. Yet these two are not incompatible. On the contrary, each balances the other. On the one hand, however hard we work and serve, there are limits to what we can accomplish. We can only improve society; we cannot perfect it. We shall never build a utopia on earth. For that we have to wait for Christ to come. Only then will he secure the final triumph of God’s reign of justice and peace (2 Peter 3:13). On the other hand, although we must look expectantly for the coming of Christ, we have no liberty to wait in idleness, with arms folded and eyes closed, indifferent to the needs of the world around us. Instead, we must work even while we wait, for we are called to serve the living and true God.
Thus working and waiting belong together. In combination they will deliver us both from the presumption which thinks we can do everything and from the pessimism which thinks we can do nothing.
In this first reference of the letter to the Parousia (which is hereafter mentioned in every chapter of both letters), Paul tells us two truths about him for Whom we are waiting.
First, Jesus is the one, *whom he {God} raised from the dead*. The Resurrection not only publicly declared Jesus to be the Son of God (Rom.1:4) but was also the beginning of God’s new creation, the pledge that He will complete what He has begun. The resurrection from the dead assures us of the return from heaven.
Secondly, *Jesus* is the one *who rescues us from the coming wrath*. This statement is surely a play on the name ‘Jesus’, which means ‘Saviour’ (Matt 1:21). Already He has delivered us from the condemnation of our sins and the power of our idols. But when He comes, He will accomplish the final stage of our salvation: He will rescue us from the outpouring of the wrath of God. God’s wrath is neither an impersonal process of cause and effect (as some scholars have tried to argue), nor a passionate, arbitrary or vindictive outburst of temper, but His holy and uncompromising antagonism to evil, with which He refuses to negotiate. One day His judgment will fall (cf. Rom 2:5, 16). It is from this terrible event that Jesus is our deliverer.
It is evident that Paul has a lofty view of the Person for whose coming we wait. In verse 10 he calls him both ‘Jesus’ (His human name) and ‘God’s Son’ (His divine dignity), adding that He is the Saviour Who rescues us, and the Christ (1, 3) Whom the Scriptures foretold. Putting these four epithets together, we have ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God and Saviour’ or (in the Greek acrostic ICHTHUS, the word for fish which the early Christians chose as their secret symbol.
We are now in a position to summarize the report about the Thessalonians which was being widely disseminated, and so the essentials of Christian conversion, namely the turning from idols, the serving of God and the waiting for Christ. Some students have detected a correspondence between these and the triad of faith, hope and love. For the turning to God is certainly faith, and the serving of God could be seen as the fruit of love, while the waiting for Christ is the essence of hope.
Be that as it may, Paul has shown us in the Thessalonians a model of conversion which is invariable. There will, of course, be different idols from which people need to turn, and different forms in which they will express their service of God, but always the break with the past will be decisive (‘you turned from idols’), the experience of the present will be liberating (‘to serve the living and true God’) and the look to the future will be expectant (‘to wait for his Son from heaven’). And without this turning, serving and waiting one can scarcely claim to have been converted.[23]
----
[1] Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and unabridged in one volume (Mt 3:1). Peabody: Hendrickson.
TEV Today’s English Version
NEB New English Bible
NAB New American Bible
Phps Phillips
Brc Barclay
RSV Revised Standard Version
GeCL German common language version
CLT common language translation
DuCL Dutch common language version
FrCL French common language version
InCL Indonesian common language version
NJB New Jerusalem Bible
Mft Moffatt
AT American Translation
MaCL Malay common language version
TNT Translator’s New Testament
TOB Traduction oecuménique de la Bible
[2] Newman, B. M., & Stine, P. C. (1992). A handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. Originally published: A translator's handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, c1988. UBS helps for translators; UBS handbook series (55). New York: United Bible Societies.
cf. confer, compare
LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT
lit. literally
Ant. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., tr. G. W. Bromiley Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ET (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76)
CD Cairo (Genizah text of the) Damascus (Document)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
NT New Testament
i.e. id est, that is
BDF F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament (University of Chicago/University of Cambridge, 1961)
Q “Qumran”, “Qere” Qere (To be “read.” Masoretic suggested pronunciation for vocalized Hebrew text of the OT), or Quelle (“Sayings” source for the Gospels)
BAGD W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ET, ed. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich; 2d ed. rev. F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker (University of Chicago, 1979)
esp. especially
Str-B H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4 vols. (Munich: Beck’sche, 1926–28)
s.v. sub verbo, under the word
OT Old Testament
Pss. Psalms of Solomon
MM J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder, 1930)
SPCK Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge
e.g. exempli gratia, for example
1QS Serek hayyahad (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline)
WBC Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word)
[3] Hagner, D. A. (1998). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary (47). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
cf. confer (Lat.), compare
v. verse
b.c. Before Christ
p. page
a.d. Anno Domini (Lat.), Year of the Lord
[4] MacArthur, J. (1989). Matthew (49). Chicago: Moody Press.
* 3:3 The Qumran community applied the same Isaiah text to their own mission in the wilderness (1QS 8.13–16). If John was aware how others used the text, however, he undoubtedly felt that it applied better to himself; rather than separating himself totally from Israel as the Qumran sectarians did (1QS 8.13–14; 9.19–20; F. Bruce 1956:177), he preached directly to the crowds that came to him there (3:5).
Jos. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews
War Josephus The Jewish War
Ps. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
t. Tosefta
* 3:4 Honey was the regular Palestinian sweetener (e.g., Ex 3:8; Prov 24:13; Jub. 1:7; Sirach 11:3; 24:20) and was available to the poor (e.g., Judg 14:8; 1 Sam 14:25; Is 7:22). Domestic beekeepers produced honey (m. Baba Batra 5:3), but John may have acquired wild honey by smoking bees out and breaking the honeycomb (see m. ˓Uqṣin 3:11). Because the Gospels provide no further explanation, bee honey rather than the less-known vegetable “honey” (Jos. War 4.468–69) is probably in view. In the wilderness, both refugees (Eccl. Rab. 10:8, §1) and pietists with special kosher requirements (CD 12.14; 11QTemple 48.1–5; compare S. Davies 1983) might subsist on locusts.
* 3:6 Jewish “proselyte baptism” appears in relatively early sources (e.g., m. Pesaḥim 8:8; t. ˓Aboda Zara 3:11; Pusey 1984), was known outside Palestine in the first century (Epict. Disc. 2.9.20; perhaps Juv. Sat. 14.104; Sib. Or. 4.162–65), is demanded by Jewish purification customs in view of the uncleanness of Gentiles, and, most significantly, was surely not borrowed from Christian baptism, with which it is analogous. See further documentation in Keener 1997.
* 3:7 Ancient Mediterranean peoples considered parent murder one of the most hideous crimes conceivable (Plutarch Romulus 22.4; Apul. Metam. 10.8; 1 Tim 1:9). Most people believed that even children who justly avenged their fathers did evil if they personally carried out vengeance against their mothers, and thus the Furies would torment them (e.g., Euripides Electra 1238–91; Orestes 531–32, 549–63).
Herod. Herodotus History
Pliny Pliny Natural History
Mor. Plutarch Moralia
m. Mishnah
Jub. Jubilees
* 3:11 Some think John’s original proclamation addressed only the threshing-floor image of wind blowing chaff so it could be separated from the wheat and burned. In this case John would have thought not of the Holy Spirit but of a “purifying wind,” which would be translated much the same way (A. Bruce 1979:84; Flowers 1953). But four reasons militate against taking John’s original words as merely “wind and fire”: Jewish people usually understood “holy spirit” as a reference to God’s Spirit (occasionally to a purified human spirit); wind, like fire, can represent God’s purifying Spirit in the Old Testament; many—especially John’s contemporaries in the wilderness—associated the Spirit with purification (see Keener 1991b:65–69); and all extant traditions apply the saying to God’s Spirit (see F. Bruce 1966:50; Aune 1983:132).
CPJ Corpus Papyrorum Iudaicarum
* 3:12 Many of John’s contemporaries believed hell was eternal for at least the worst sinners (4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanhedrin 13:5). In the most common Jewish view, however, most sinners endure hell only temporarily and are then destroyed (compare 1QS 4.13–14; t. Sanhedrin 13:3–4) or released (Num. Rab. 18:20; other texts are unclear, e.g., Sirach 7:16; Sipre Num. 40.1.9). John is not simply accommodating the views of his culture.
Diog. Laert. Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Philosophers
b. Babylonian (Talmud)
[5] Keener, C. S. (1997). Vol. 1: Matthew. The IVP New Testament commentary series (Mt 3:1). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
[6] Life Application Bible Commentary
[7] MacLaren, Alexander, Expositions of the Holy Scripture: Gospels and Acts
Kingdom *Kingdom. This term means “rule,” “reign” or “authority” (not a king’s people or land, as connotations of the English term could imply). Jewish people recognized that God rules the universe now, but they prayed for the day when he would rule the world unchallenged by idolatry and disobedience. The coming of this future aspect of God’s reign was generally associated with the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead. Because Jesus came and will come again, Christians believe that the kingdom has been inaugurated but awaits consummation or completion. “Kingdom of heaven” is another way (Matthew’s usual way) of saying “kingdom of God.” “Heaven” was a standard Jewish way of saying “God” (as in Lk 15:21).
Essenes *Essenes. A strict group of pietists, some of whom withdrew into the wilderness as monastics. The Dead Sea Scrolls are probably from one group of Essenes.
Cynics Cynic. One type of antiworldly philosopher who expressed independence from social needs by begging. Cynics owned only the barest necessities (e.g., cloak, staff, begging purse) and often greeted passersby with harsh, antisocial words.
Josephus’s *Josephus. A first-century Jewish historian who lived through the war of a.d. 66–70; his works (The Jewish War, Antiquities of the Jews and Against Apion, and his autobiography, the Life) are useful sources of information concerning first-century Palestine. Intended for a Diaspora audience, his writings are quite Hellenized.
Ascetic Ascetic. Austere and self-denying; some ancient religious and philosophical groups required this discipline as a matter of policy (often to show one’s lack of attachment to mortal, bodily pleasures and pains). Asceticism grew in popularity in late antiquity, influencing the shape of later Christian monasticism.
Repent Repentance. In the New Testament, this term does not merely mean “change of mind” (as some have gathered from the Greek term); it reflects the Old Testament and Jewish concept of “turning around” or “turning away” from sin. Jewish people were to repent whenever they sinned; the New Testament uses the term especially for the once-for-all turning a Gentile would undergo when converting to Judaism or any sinner would undergo when becoming a follower of Jesus.
Baptized *Baptism. The Old Testament and the ancient world emphasized ceremonial washings to remove various kinds of impurity; Judaism had developed these washings more fully by the time of Jesus, and some sects (particularly the community that authored the Dead Sea Scrolls) were especially scrupulous. One once-for-all ritual designed to purify Gentiles of pagan impurity when they converted to Judaism (attested in the rabbis, in Epictetus, and elsewhere) provided the most significant model for Christian baptism: it indicated an act of conversion, of turning from the old life to the new.
Plutarch Plutarch. A Greek biographer and moralist whose writings illustrate many of the views prevalent in the first and second centuries a.d.
Pharisees *Pharisees. A movement of several thousand pious Jewish men who sought to interpret the law carefully and according to the traditions of previous generations of the pious. They had no political power in Jesus’ day but were highly respected and thus influential among the larger population. They emphasized their own version of purity rules and looked forward to the resurrection of the dead.
Aramaic *Aramaic. A language related to Hebrew that was the standard international language of the ancient Near East before Alexander the Great’s conquests made Greek the standard; it was still widely spoken in different forms in Syria-Palestine and farther east in Jesus’ day. Most Jewish people in first-century Palestine probably spoke both Greek and Aramaic.
disciple *Disciples. Students of rabbis or philosophers, normally committed to memorizing and living according to their master’s teachings.
Spirit Spirit. When capitalized in this commentary, it refers to the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit.
Holy Spirit *Holy Spirit. Although used only twice in the Old Testament (Ps 51, Is 63), this term became a standard title for the Spirit of God in New Testament times. Many people believed that the Spirit had been quenched since the completion of the Old Testament and that prophecy continued only in muted form; but the Old Testament had promised an outpouring of the Spirit in the end, when the Messiah would come. Jewish people especially associated the Spirit with prophecy and divine illumination or insight, and many also (especially the Essenes) associated it with God purifying his people in the end time. The New Testament includes both uses, although it also speaks of the Spirit as a person like the Father and Son (especially in John), which Judaism did not do.
[8] Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Mt 2:23). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
[9] King James Version study Bible . 1997, c1988. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Q Qumran
chap. chapter
[10] Mays, J. L., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1996, c1988). Harper's Bible commentary (Mt 3:1). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
[11] The Pulpit Commentary
Ant. Antiquities
44 For detailed study of all of the John the Baptist traditions, see R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer 2(Sheffield: JSOT, 1991). On Matthew’s distinctive emphases concerning John, see J. P. Meier, “John the Baptist in Matthew’s Gospel,” JBL 99 (1980): 383–405.
45 For more details supporting the earlier dates for Jesus’ ministry, see G. B. Caird, “The Chronology of the New Testament,” IDB 1:599–603. The best defense of the later dates is H. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977).
46 J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, 2 (New York: UBS, 1988), 510.
47 See G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 72–73.
[12]Collins English Dictionary. 2000 (electronic ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
48 E. Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 47.
49 See S. D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1980), 65–68.
50 See I. H. Marshall, “The Hope of a New Age: The Kingdom of God in the New Testament,” Themelios 11 (1985): 5–15. For a brief survey and the most up-to-date history of modern interpretation of the kingdom, see W. Willis, ed., 3(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987). For an anthology of some of the most significant modern treatments of this subject, see B. D. Chilton, ed., The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
[13]Collins English Dictionary. 2000 (electronic ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
51 As in the standard dispensationalist interpretation; see, e.g., J. F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody, 1974), passim. From a very different perspective, cf. also the conclusions of C. Sullivan, Rethinking Realized Eschatology (Macon: Mercer, 1988).
52 Cf., e.g., J. D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 27; M. J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (New York: Edwin Mellen, 1984), 248–63.
53 See esp. Beasley-Murray, Jesus; G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).
[14]Collins English Dictionary. 2000 (electronic ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
54 D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1972), 90.
55 A. Kirk, The Good News of the Kingdom Coming (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983), 47.
LXX Septuagint
56 K. Pusey, “Jewish Proselyte Baptism,” ExpTim 95 (1984): 141–45; W. S. La Sor, “Discovering What Jewish Miqva’ot Can Tell Us about Christian Baptism,” BARev 13.1 (1987): 52–59.
57 W. B. Badke, “Was Jesus a Disciple of John?” EvQ 62 (1990): 195–204; U. Luz, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary, EKK (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 169.
58 See esp. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1962).
59 To be commended for its suggestions concerning Christians who disagree on the doctrine of baptism is D. Bridge and D. Phypers, The Water That Divides (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1977). G. W. Bromiley (Children of Promise [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979]) offers one of the stronger cases for infant baptism, but P. K. Jewett (Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978]) provides an excellent defense of believers’ baptism from within the same Reformed tradition from which Bromiley writes.
J.W. Jewish War
60 See esp. D. A. Carson, “The Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Reappraisal,” JETS 25 (1982): 161–74. The most recent detailed treatment of these Jewish leaders, reflecting a newer sociological approach, is A. J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Wilmington: Glazier, 1988). Also cf. J. Polhill, Acts, NAC (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 470.
61 R. H. Mounce, Matthew, GNC (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 22.
62 The fullest, though sometimes one-sided treatment of the relationship between the ethics of the two authors is R. Mohrlang, Matthew and Paul (Cambridge: University Press, 1984).
63 Cf. G. T. Montague, 2 (New York: Paulist, 1989), 36: “The greatest obstacle to genuine repentance is found in those who somewhere got just enough religion to be inoculated against its further demands.”
64 Allison and Davies, Matthew, 1:313–14.
65 See esp. H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1927), 104.
66 M. J. Harris, “Appendix,” in DNTT 3:1208.
67 See especially J. D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970). The response by H. M. Ervin (2 [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1984]) points out a few problems and ambiguities in Dunn’s arguments but otherwise fails to overturn his general thesis. See R. B. Gardner (Matthew, BCBC [Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1991], 66–69) for a good discussion of the meaning of baptism in this context. Also cf. D. S. Dockery, “Baptism,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. S. McKnight et al. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992).
68 The Greek employs one preposition to govern two nouns functioning as a compound object (ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί)—with the Holy Spirit and fire (contra NIV’s repetition of “with”)—most naturally suggesting one baptism with two aspects to it.
69 Cf. J. L. Nolland, Luke 1–9:20, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1989), 153: “In both Spirit and fire [appear] the means of eschatological purgation experienced by the penitent as purifica-tion in the refiner’s fire and by the godless as destruction by wind and fire.”
70 R. L. Webb (“The Activity of John the Baptist’s Expected Figure at the Threshing Floor [Matthew 3.12 = Luke 3.17],” JSNT 43 [1991]: 103–11) believes the winnowing has already occurred in the Spirit-filled ministry of John, so that “wind” here should rather be translated “Spirit.”
71 Cf. G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 196.
[15] Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (71). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[16] Spurgeon, Charles H., Commentary on Matthew
[17]Collins English Dictionary. 2000 (electronic ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
[18]Collins English Dictionary. 2000 (electronic ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
[19] Edersheim, Alfred Life And Times of Jesus the Messiah
v v: verb
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TDNTA Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume
GK Goodrick-Kohlenberger
AV Authorized Version
[20]Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the text of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurrence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G1994). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.
[21]Collins English Dictionary. 2000 (electronic ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
[22]Collins English Dictionary. 2000 (electronic ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.
[23] Stott, John R. W., Expository Studies in the Book of 1 Thessalonians