Recieving the King Through Repentence - Matthew 3:1-12
Introduction:
Proposition:
Interrogative:
I. His Purpose - 3:1-3
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.
II. His Lifestyle - 3:4-6
In common with the other Evangelists Matthew tells us that Jesus’ ministry was preceded by that of John the Baptist. To bring out John’s significance he cites Isaiah 40:3, but in a shorter form than does Luke, and he does not precede it with words from Malachi 3:1 as Mark does. He has quite a different approach from that of John, who simply gives us the testimony the Baptist bore to Jesus. For Matthew the important thing is that the Baptist came prophesying the doom that awaited sinners and calling on his hearers to repent.1
1. Matthew’s in those days is a very general indication of time (and contrasts with Luke’s precise dating, with reference to the time of the emperor, the prefect, the tetrarchs, and the high priest). It is puzzling since it follows immediately on the infancy narratives, but those cannot refer to that time. It may be an example of the use of “that”2 to indicate without precision some time in the past (cf. 24:38; Luke 2:1, etc.), or perhaps better Matthew means” ‘in those crucial days’ or ‘in that critical time’ ” (Hill, who draws attention to Gen. 38:1; Exod. 2:11, etc.). Matthew calls John3 the Baptist, a usage he employs 7 times (Mark has it twice, and Luke 3 times). It puts some emphasis on John’s activity in baptizing people,4 whereas he might simply have been designated a preacher of repentance. John, he says, appears, where his present tense makes it somewhat vivid; John appeared on the scene with his preaching and his baptizing. Preaching is a characteristic Christian activity (though, of course, not confined to Christians). The word properly means something like “make known by a herald”5 and indicates a message given by authority to the proclaimer, not a free composition of his own.
Before giving the content of John’s message Matthew proceeds to locate him. He was in the wilderness of Judea, a term that is sometimes understood in the sense “desert” (GNB, NIV, etc.). But while the word can sometimes be used of a sandy or stony waste, it often denotes land that is less inhospitable (e.g., 15:33; Luke 15:4; etc.). Since John did so much baptizing he cannot have been in what we would call a desert. This particular wilderness is that of Judea, the country from the watershed in the Judean hills eastward to the river Jordan. Its rainfall is light and its slopes steep; thus it offers little scope for agriculture. John will have been located toward the south of the area, where there were fords and people could come out to meet him.6 At a later time Herod Antipas arrested John; since his dominion did not extend to the west of the Jordan at that time, however, John was working on the east side of the river.
2. Matthew strikes the note of John’s preaching with his first word: Repent (Mark and Luke speak of him as “preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,” but Matthew’s imperative is striking).7 This is the first word also in the preaching of Jesus (4:17), and when Jesus sent the disciples out they called on people to repent (Mark 6:12). Repentance is of fundamental importance in the Christian message; what is not always noticed is that it is distinctive. In Greek writings generally “repent” means “change one’s mind”—from a good purpose to a bad one just as much as from a bad one to a good one. Further, the idea that people should turn from a whole evil way of life to a new kind of living is not found.8 That is a new teaching, though, of course, in the Old Testament there are constant calls to repent and return to God. With this demand John places himself in the prophetic tradition.9
John gives a reason10 for his call to repentance: the kingdom of heaven11 has approached. In all three Synoptists “the kingdom” is the most important topic in Jesus’ teaching. In Matthew it is usually the kingdom of heaven (32 times), while “the kingdom of God,” which is the most usual expression in Mark and Luke, occurs but 5 times. Sometimes it is simply “the kingdom” (6 times), or that of the Son of man (3 times), or that of the Father (twice). It is generally agreed that the kingdom of heaven in this Gospel means much the same as “the kingdom of God” in the others, and that it is a Jewish expression with the word “God” avoided out of motives of reverence. Matthew may, however, mean by it that we should keep open the possibility that the kingdom extends beyond this earth, and further that the Son has part in it as well as the Father.12 It is also accepted that we should understand kingdom as meaning “rule” rather than “realm”;13 that is to say, the expression is dynamic: it points us to God as doing something, as actively ruling, rather than to an area or a group of people over whom he is sovereign. The kingdom is something that happens rather than something that exists. It was not a commonplace of Jewish teaching; in fact, the expression cannot be found prior to Jesus’ use of it (that God rules in the affairs of all people is, of course, frequent in the Old Testament, but the expression “the kingdom of God [heaven]” is not). The kingdom is closely connected with the person of Jesus, and this is what is in mind with John’s use of the expression. He is pointing to the truth that Jesus will shortly appear, and with him the kingdom. There is a sense in which the kingdom is future14 (cf. 25:31, 34; 26:29), and another sense in which it is present. It is this latter to which John points.
3. John explains that what is happening is spoken of in prophecy. With an expression similar to Matthew’s normal formula for introducing prophecy (see on 1:22; this one, however, does not refer specifically to fulfilment) the Baptist quotes some words from Isaiah 40:3 (almost exactly as in LXX except for “his paths” where LXX has “the paths of our God”). But where Matthew’s formula has a reference to “that which was spoken,” on this occasion the masculine participle shows that it is the person spoken of who is in mind. Jesus is closely identified with the kingdom. The expression is used in all three Synoptists, but Matthew has it in the shortest form (Mark precedes Isaiah with some words from Mal. 3:1, and Luke carries the Isaiah passage further). The passage begins with a voice: the message is important, the messenger is not.15 This voice is crying out in the wilderness (crying out may point to loudness, as GNB, “shouting,” or solemnity, 27:46; for in the wilderness see also v. 1).16 This is not where we expect a voice to be sounding; we look for it in the great city, where there will be many to hear. But there is often sinfulness and vice in the city, and there are passages in Scripture where the Lord’s people are in the wilderness. It may be that the language here is not simply geographical but also theological: it is there, in the lonely wilderness, the place of openness to the message of God, that preparation is being made to receive the Lord.
Prepare may be used of making a thing ready or keeping it ready. Here the imagery is of a road that needs to be repaired so that it may be ready for the Lord to travel over it smoothly. Way17 may be used in the literal sense of a road; here the imagery is that of the road over which a king will approach. In antiquity when it was known that the sovereign was coming, every effort would be made to ensure that the road was as smooth as it could be. The great one must be able to travel easily and quickly. “The Lord”18 refers in Isaiah to Yahweh, but the Baptist is applying the passage to Jesus. When Matthew records this use of Scripture he is revealing something of his Christology. To ascribe to Jesus words that in Holy Scripture applied to God shows that for the writer Jesus occupies the highest of places. The use of the same prophecy in the other Synoptists indicates that this was an accepted practice among the Christians, not something peculiar to Matthew. Make his paths straight continues the metaphor, but it is not quite clear whether straightening the path means eliminating bends or removing bumps. It is perhaps more likely to be making the path19 level (cf. Moffatt, “level the paths”) than altering it to have fewer bends. All is to be made ready for the coming of God’s chosen one. John’s announcement of the coming of the kingdom and his call to repentance were ways of preparing the path for the coming of Jesus.
4. Attention is now directed to John’s20 clothing21 and diet, for these tell us something important about the man. His garments were made of camel’s hair, which would have been somewhat coarse and presumably cheap, and he wore a leather (or perhaps dried skin) belt. The impression we get is that there was nothing elaborate or attractive in the way John dressed. He was to do his work by preaching effectively, not by sartorial splendor. Moreover, such clothing had been worn by Elijah (2 Kings 1:8), so John was dressing in the prophetic tradition (cf. also Zech. 13:4). Locusts (permitted food in Lev. 11:22) are still eaten by the poor in many areas, and accompanied by wild honey (i.e., honey produced by bees in the wild, as against honey sold by beekeepers; cf. 1 Sam. 14:25–29) they point to a diet that could be obtained locally without difficulty. The picture we get is of a man who lived simply. His clothing was far from splendid or elaborate, and his food such as could be obtained in the wild.
III. His Message - 3:7-12
7 Many have raised the question of the probability of individuals from groups so mutually hostile as Pharisees and Sadducees (cf. Introduction, section 11. f) presenting themselves together (one article governs both nouns) for baptism. But the Greek text need not be taken to mean that they came to be baptized. It may only mean that they were “coming to where he was baptizing” (cf. Notes). If so, it might suggest that representatives of the Sanhedrin (composed of both parties with elders) came to examine what John was doing (cf. John 1:19, 24, which mentions not only priests and Levites [Sadducees] but also Pharisees). Or many Pharisees and Sadducees may have come for baptism with the ostentation that characterized their other religious activities (e.g., Mt 6:2, 5, 16)—i.e., they were showing the world how ready they were for Messiah, though they had not truly repented. Matthew lumps them together because they were leaders; elsewhere he distinguishes them (22:34). The question with which the Baptist confronted them has this sense: “Who suggested to you that you would escape the coming wrath?” Thus John’s rhetorical question takes on a sarcastic nuance: “Who warned you to flee the coming wrath and come for baptism—when in fact you show no signs of repentance?” Though the question is the same in Luke 3:7, there Luke relates it to the crowd, whereas Matthew relates it to the Jewish leaders.
John the Baptist stands squarely in the prophetic tradition—a tradition in which the Day of the Lord points much more to darkness than to light for those who think they have no sin (Amos 2:4–8; 6:1–7). “You brood of vipers!” also belongs to the prophetic tradition (cf. Isa 14:29; 30:6; cf. CD 19:22); in Matthew 12:34, Jesus uses these terms to excoriate the Pharisees.
8–9 The coming of God’s reign either demands repentance (v. 2) or brings judgment. Repentance must be genuine: if we wish to escape the coming wrath (v. 7), then our entire lifestyle must be in harmony with our oral repentance (v. 8). Mere descent from Abraham is not enough (v. 9). In the OT God repeatedly cut off many Israelites and saved a remnant. Yet in the intertestamental period the general use of descent from Abraham, in the context of a rising merit theology, supported the notion that Israel was chosen because it was choice and that the merits of the patriarchs would suffice for their descendants (cf. Carson, Divine Sovereignty, pp. 39ff.). But not only may God narrow Israel down to a remnant, he may also raise up authentic children of Israel from “these stones” (perhaps stones lying in the river bed—both Hebrew and Aramaic have a pun on “children” and “stones”). Ordinary stones will suffice; there is no need for the “rocks” of the patriarchs and their merits (cf. S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology [London: Black, 1903], p. 173; cf. also Rom 4). Matthew 3:9 not only rebukes the self-righteousness of the leaders but implies that participation in the kingdom results from grace and extends the borders of God’s people beyond racial frontiers (cf. 8:11).
10 The ax is “already” (emphatic) at the root of the trees (for the idiom, cf. Isa 10:33–34; Jer 46:22). “Not only is there a coming Messianic wrath, but already there is a beginning Messianic discrimination among the descendants of Abraham” (Broadus). Just as the kingdom is dawning already (Mt 3:2), so also is the judgment, the two are inseparable. To preach the kingdom is to preach repentance; any tree (not “every tree,” NIV; cf. Turner, Syntax, p. 199), regardless of its roots, that does not bring forth good fruit will be destroyed.
11 Compare vv. 11–12 with Luke 3:15–18 (Q?). Because only Matthew says, “I baptize you with water for repentance” (emphasis mine), Hill detects a conscious effort to subordinate John to Jesus. John baptizes as preparation “for repentance”, Jesus baptizes for fulfillment “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” But both Mark (Mk 1:4) and Luke (Lk 3:3) have spoken of John’s baptism as one of repentance. And when Jesus begins to preach, he too demands repentance (Mt 4:17). If there is an antithesis here between John and Jesus, it is in all three synoptic Gospels. Matthew may be stressing the difference between the baptisms of John and Jesus in order to make a point about eschatology (see below and on 11:7–13).
The phrase “for repentance” (eis metanoian) is difficult: eis plus the accusative frequently suggests purpose (“I baptize you in order that you will repent”). Contextually (v. 6) this is unlikely, even in the peculiar telic sense suggested by Broadus: “I baptize you with a view to continued repentance.” But causal eis, or something very close to it, is not unknown in the NT (cf. Turner, Syntax, pp. 266–67): “I baptize you because of your repentance.” The force may, however, be weaker—i.e., “I baptize you with reference to or in connection with repentance.” In any case John wants to contrast his baptism with that of the one who comes after him (any allusion here to the messianic title “the one who comes” is doubtful; cf. Arens, pp. 288–90). That one is “more powerful” than John: the same term (ischyros) is applied to God in the OT (LXX Jer 32:18; Dan 9:4; cf. also Isa 40:10) and the cognate noun to the Messiah in Psalms of Solomon 17. This is not the normal order: usually the one who follows is the disciple, the lesser one (cf. Matt 16:24; John 13:16; 15:20). But because John’s particular ministry is to announce the eschatological figure, he cannot do other than precede him.
Though John was the most sought-after preacher in Israel for centuries, he protested that he was not fit to “carry” (Mark and Luke have “untie”) the sandals of the Coming One. Many scholars have argued that this saying must be a late invention of Christians determined to keep the Baptist in his place and exalt Jesus. In fact, such humility as John’s is in Christian ethics a virtue, not a weakness. Moreover if he saw his role as that of forerunner to the Messiah, John could not well have set himself on a par with the one to whom he pointed (cf. also John 3:28–31). No doubt the church readily used John’s self-depreciation in later conflicts with his followers. But there is no evidence they invented it.
It follows that just as John’s purpose was to prepare a way for the Lord by calling people to repentance, so his baptism pointed to the one who would bring the eschatological baptism in spirit and fire. John’s baptism was “essentially preparatory” (cf. J.D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit [London: SCM, 1970], pp. 14–17; Bonnard; F. Lang, “Erwagungen zur eschatologischen Verkundigung Johannes des Taufers,” in Strecker, Jesus Christus, pp. 459–73); Jesus’ baptism inaugurated the Messianic Age.
“Baptism in the Holy Spirit” is not a specialized term in the NT. Its OT background includes Ezekiel 36:25–27; 39:29; Joel 2:28. We need not think that John the Baptist could not have mentioned the Holy Spirit, not least because of somewhat similar references in the literature at Qumran (1QS 3:7–9; 4:21; 1QH 16:12; cf. Dunn, Baptism, pp. 8–10). But Matthew and Luke add “and fire.” Many see this as a double baptism, one in the Holy Spirit for the righteous and one in fire for the unrepentant (cf: the wheat and chaff in Mt 3:12). Fire (Mal 4:1) destroys and consumes.
There are good reasons, however, for taking “fire” as a purifying agent along with the Holy Spirit. The people John is addressing are being baptized by him; presumably they have repented. More important the preposition en (“with”) is not repeated before fire: the one preposition governs both “Holy Spirit” and “fire,” and this normally suggests a unified concept, Spirit-fire or the like (cf: M.J. Harris, DNTT, 3:1178; Dunn, Baptism, pp. 10–13). Fire often has a purifying, not destructive, connotation in the OT (e.g., Isa 1:25; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2–3). John’s water baptism relates to repentance; but the one whose way he is preparing will administer a Spirit-fire baptism that will purify and refine. In a time when many Jews felt the Holy Spirit had been withdrawn till the Messianic Age, this announcement could only have been greeted with excited anticipation.
12 Messiah’s coming will separate grain from chaff. A winnowing fork tossed both into the air. The wind blew the chaff away, and the heavier grain fell to be gathered up from the ground. The scattered chaff was swept up and burned and the threshing floor cleared (cf. Ps 1:4; Isa 5:24; Dan 2:35; Hos 13:3). The “unquenchable fire” signifies eschatological judgment (cf. Isa 34:10; 66:24; Jer 7:20), hell (cf. 5:29). “Unquenchable fire” is not just metaphor: fearful reality underlies Messiah’s separation of grain from chaff. The “nearness” of the kingdom therefore calls for repentance (Mt 3:2).