Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 3:1 - 3:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
From the narrative of Luke we learn that John the Baptist was about half a year older than Jesus. The dates between the commencement of Christ’s ministry and that of His forerunner also correspond. It is not probable that either John or Jesus would have entered on their ministry before the completion of their thirtieth year. According to the law of Moses (Num_4:3; Num_4:47), the age of thirty was required for commencing the exercise of the priestly functions. The Levites ( Mat_8:24) could not enter on their duties before the age of twenty-five. Subsequently, however, this was reduced to the age of twenty (1Ch_23:24; 2Ch_31:17). Although there was no law confining the exercise of the prophetic office either to a particular age, or even to the male sex, it seems natural that persons who claimed public authority as prophets would wait till they had attained the canonical age for the priesthood. On the other hand, neither John nor Jesus could have been more than thirty when they entered on their ministry. According to this calculation, Jesus must have commenced His public career in the year 780 from the foundation of Rome (see Leben Jesu, vol. i. p. 161), and John a short time before. From Luk_3:1, we infer that John began his ministry in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. But Tiberius was associated in the empire two years before the death of Augustus, that is, about the year 765. Accordingly, it is understood that Luke reckoned the reign of Tiberius from that year. This makes John’s ministry commence in 779.
In the wilderness of Judah (Jdg_1:16; Jos_15:61).—It was also called Jeshimon, 1Sa_23:19; 1Sa_26:1; 1Sa_26:3. It consisted of a rocky district in the eastern portion of the territory of the tribe of Judah, toward the Dead Sea. In this district the town of Engedi, and other places mentioned in the Old Testament, were situated, Jos_15:62; Jdg_1:16. It terminated on the northwest in the wilderness of Thekoa; on the southeast in the wilderness of Engedi, the wilderness of Ziph, and the wilderness of Mara. See the corresponding art. in the Encycls. Tradition, however, attaches the designation of “the wilderness of John” not to the places where he exercised his ministry, but to the district where from early youth he lived in retirement (Luk_1:80). This wilderness was situated amid the mountains of Judæa, about two hours to the southwest of Bethlehem. The term “wilderness” ( îִãְáָּø , as distinguished from òֲøָáָä , a steppe) was given to a district which was not regularly cultivated and inhabited, but used for pasturage (from ãָּáַø , to drive), being generally without wood and defective in water, but not entirely destitute of vegetation.
John the Baptist.—The Hebr. name éåֹçָðָï , “the Lord graciously gave,” is akin to the Phœnician and Punic çַðִּéáַöַì . John, the son of Zacharias the priest, and of Elizabeth (Luke 1), a near kinsman of Jesus, and only six months older than He (Luk_1:36), was born, according to rabbinical tradition, at Hebron, but according to modern expositors, at Jutta, in the tribe of Judah. From earliest childhood he was of a thoughtful disposition, and lived in retirement in the wilderness (Luk_1:80) as a Nazarite ( Mat_3:15), agreeably to the Divine ordinance. There the spiritual gifts with which he had been enriched by the Holy Ghost, who had sanctified him from the womb, developed and took shape in conformity with his high and holy calling to prepare the way for the Messiah. In his own person he embodied, so to speak, the Old Testament dispensation in its legal bearing, just as the Virgin Mary embodied and represented the evangelical aspect of the Old Testament as set forth in Abraham and the prophets. John was the personification of Old Testament righteousness according to the law; Mary was the personification of Old Testament faith in the promise, and of deep and earnest waiting for the promised salvation. Hence John appeared in Israel as the preacher of repentance, and the baptist. He commenced his public ministry in the wilderness of Judæa in the fifteenth year of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, appearing in the garb, and following the manner of life, of a Nazarite. Summoning the people to repentance, he announced to them the near approach of the kingdom of heaven (the kingdom of the Messiah—Dan_2:44; Dan_7:13-14). On the desert bank of Jordan, in the solitary district near Jericho, 1. began what, from its special Divine appointment, and the prophetic authority with which it was administered, was really a new ordinance—the baptism unto repentance, and admission into the kingdom of heaven, with a view to the reception of the coming Messiah. His baptism implied that the whole people were unclean, and, in their present condition, unfit for the kingdom of heaven (according to Hag_2:14). So far as Israel was concerned, the rite originated in the Levitical lustration appointed for the unclean (Gen_35:2; Exo_19:10; Num_19:7; Jdt_12:7; Joseph, de bello Jud. ii. 8, 7; Wetstein in loc.; Nork, Mythologisches Wörterbuch, Wassertaufe, etc.). But it also bore analogy to the symbolical purifications, by water and otherwise, common among the various nations of the world, and to the baptism of Jewish proselytes, viewing these ceremonies in the light of the predictions of the prophets (Eze_36:25; Isa_44:3; Zec_13:1). This baptism was administered by immersion, and not merely by sprinkling. It denoted purification by, not only washing, but by submitting to sufferings akin to death. So far as is known, this rite was not accompanied by the usual sacrifices; but the deepest spiritual part of the sacrificial service—the confession of sins—preceded the immersion. This confession of sins, however, was not made over the head of an animal, as in the Levitical sin-offerings (Lev_16:21; Num_5:7), because the spiritual truth, that he who offered the sacrifice must himself be the sacrifice, or offer up himself, was nearing its grand realization. In one respect, however, the baptism of John resembled the sacrificial services of the priests, as John administered the rite of submersion himself; whereas, in ordinary lustrations, the person to be baptized sprinkled himself with the water of baptism. The immediate object of John’s baptism was to prepare the people for the Messiah and the kingdom of heaven (Mat_3:11); its final and highest object, the manifestation of the Messiah to His people (Joh_1:31; see Leben Jesu, ii. 452; iii. 49). The Lord’s manifestation to John, and the public witness of the Baptist to Jesus, as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world, completed the prophetic mission of John. This appears from the fact, that henceforth the rite of baptism and the most distinguished of John’s disciples became connected with Jesus Himself.
Meanwhile John pursued his ministry even beyond its goal, which had now been reached. His course was, in consequence, marked by some degree of hesitation, although his sole and earnest desire still was to prepare the way of the Lord, and to promote His cause (Joh_1:36; Joh_3:23; Mat_11:3). But the manifest contrast between the baptism of John and that of the disciples of Jesus,—between John’s disciples and those of the Lord—between the rigid asceticism of the former, and the social, genial deportment of the latter,—suggested comparisons which, from the legal notions of the Jews, led to conclusions derogatory to the teaching of Christ, and, in the end, even to the rejection of both teachers. Besides, this contrast between the Old Testament type of righteousness and that of the New, subsequently cave rise to odious dissensions, and at a later period induced some of the disciples of John to abandon Jesus, and form a sect, which still waited for the coming of the Messiah, or even acknowledged John as its Messiah (see Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte i. 69). This result, however, the Baptist had not anticipated, when continuing the exercise of his ministry. His sole and growing aim was to accelerate the triumph of Messiah’s kingdom. Hence his denunciations of wickedness became more and more vehement. His denunciation of the adulterous connection between Herod Antipas and his brother Philip’s wife led to his imprisonment. Like his prototype at Horeb, he could not understand or fall in with the Divine arrangement of events. In order to bring about an immediate and full manifestation of judgment and vengeance, the Baptist now despatched his embassy to Jesus (Matthew 11), to induce the Messiah at once to reveal His power. Such being his views and motives, the scene at Horeb was once more enacted (1 Kings 19). It was necessary that not only the contrast between the Old and the New Testament, but the spiritual superiority of Jesus, should be fully exhibited. It was not in his intellectual discernment, but through his feelings, that John erred in regard to Jesus: he was “offended” where, in analogous circumstances, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Mary, and Peter stumbled. With divine gentleness, Jesus corrected his mistake; and this correction served at the same time as his vindication before the people. John is the greatest among the prophets of the Old Covenant; but the least in the kingdom of heaven—in the New Covenant—is greater than he in all that is distinctive of the New Testament, especially in clearness of faith and patience of suffering. Those who imagine that there is an inconsistency between John’s testimony, Joh_1:36, and his message, Mat_11:3, apparently forget that this testimony was the utterance of his loftiest faith, while his subsequent embassy was that of his deepest temptation. Nor is there any ground for maintaining that the narrative of John and those of the synoptic Gospels differ in regard to the Baptist. That Christ considered the cause of John as identified with His own, and the Baptist himself as His forerunner and servant, appears from the fact, that He treated the iniquitous execution of John, which Antipas was induced to order, as an act of hostility against Himself and His kingdom (Mat_14:13). For historical details, comp. the article in the Encyclops. See Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 5, 1 (also a monograph by Rohden, “Johannes der Täufer,” Lubeck, 1838).
Mat_3:2. The kingdom of heaven (of the heavens, ôῶí ïὐñáíῶí ).—Viewing the kingdom of God in its entire historical extent and development, we mark in it two periods. In the first it appears in its typical form, as the Old Testament theocracy; in the second, as the kingdom of heaven, ἡ âáóéëåßá ôῶíïὐñáíùí . The contrast between the new manifestation, and the old form of the kingdom, had already been specified by Daniel ( Matthew 2 and Matthew 7). The use of the plural number in the original—the kingdom of the heavens, which also occurs in the Lord’s Prayer—may be explained by the conception of seven heavens (comp. 2Co_12:2 : “the third heaven”), but especially by the fact, that the kingdom of God extends, in its various spheres, throughout infinity. The kingdom of heaven, as appears from the prophecies of Daniel, is the kingdom of the Messiah; while the Lord’s Prayer teaches us that it is the kingdom of God’s Spirit, in which the will of man is made conformable to the will of God—a kingdom which comes from heaven, is heaven on earth, and ends in heaven. The expression is only found in Matthew (and in the rabbinical writings); but the same idea pervades the whole New Testament, where it frequently recurs under the designation of âáóéëåßá ôïῦ Èåïῦ , or âáóéë . ôïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ , or sometimes simply “the kingdom.” Matthew no doubt chose the expression “kingdom of heaven,” in order to distinguish the Christian kingdom of God more fully from the Jewish theocracy. (Monograph: Fleck, De Regno Divino, Lips. 1829.)
The contrast between the common Jewish expectations of the Messiah’s kingdom (or the revelation of the Messiah with miraculous signs from heaven, resuscitation of the race of Abraham, war and victory over the Gentiles, subjugation of the Roman world to the Jews, a reign of a thousand years, etc.), and the kingdom of heaven in its true and spiritual manifestation, is already clearly indicated by the preaching of John. It has sometimes been said that the repentance inculcated by John was merely that of the Old, not that of the New, Testament. But, even granting this, we must remember that John cherished the spiritual views of repentance propounded by the prophets, and not the common legal notions of the Jews, and that he represented the Old Testament in its point of transition to the New. The Baptist evidently regarded repentance as a ìåôáíïåῖí —a change of mind. He was aware of the difference between mere outward and real repentance—between transient feelings and that deep change which manifests itself by corresponding fruits of righteousness. His idea of repentance exceeded the outward requirements of the Mosaic law as much as his rite of immersion that of sprinkling. In his view, repentance implied an entire renunciation of the world—dying to the old, and consecration to a new life. Besides, it is important to bear in mind that the Baptist seems to have already, in some measure, realized the rejection of the unworthy portion of the race of Abraham, and the calling of the Gentiles. But the great point of distinction lies in this, that the repentance which he enforced must have sprung from faith in the predictions regarding the coming Messiah. The circumstance, that Josephus, in his notice of the Baptist (Antiq. xviii. 5, 2), omitted any allusion to John’s testimony to the Messiah, is readily explained from his perfidious subserviency to Roman domination, which led him to renounce every hope dear to the Jewish heart and people.
Mat_3:3. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, Isa_40:3.—The quotation is made by the Evangelist, and not by the Baptist. In this case, also, we have the fulfilment of a typical, not a verbal prophecy. In its primary historical application, the passage (Isa_40:3, quoted from the Septuagint) contains a summons to prepare the way of Jehovah, who was about to bring back His people from exile. There is an allusion to the well-known Oriental custom of preparing the way for princes in their travels (Wetstein in loc.). The summoning voice is that of a herald. The application of the passage by the Evangelist shows that, in his mind, the advent of Christ was that of Jehovah Himself, and the true deliverance of God’s children from bondage; and that he regarded John as the real herald of the Lord. Many expositors of the original passage join the expression, ἐí ôῆ ἐñÞìῳ , with ἑôïéìÜóáôå ; but the Evangelist evidently connects it with âïῶíôïò , as John was actually in the wilderness. The sense would be the same in both cases, the object of the Evangelist being to give a symbolical import to the wilderness where the Baptist exercised his ministry.
What Isaiah uttered as a typical prophecy, became a distinct prediction in Malachi (Mat_3:1), who regarded the mission of the forerunner of the Lord as corresponding to that of Elijah, and hence assigned to him even the name of Elijah (Mat_4:5). It is not to be supposed that the prophet referred to two forerunners,—one heralding the Lord’s coming to deliver His people, and merely resembling Elijah; the other, Elijah himself, come to make preparation for the day when Messiah should return to judge the earth. The prophet evidently regarded the day of judgment and the day of deliverance as the same. Similarly, the angel Gabriel also referred to John’s ministry as a fulfilment of the prophecy regarding Elijah: “He shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Mal_4:6, comp. Luk_1:17). Lastly, Christ Himself blended the two predictions of Malachi, and applied them to the Baptist (Mat_11:10, comp. Mat_3:14 and Mat_17:11). Among Jewish theologians, different views obtained about the return of one of the old prophets preparatory to the coming of Messiah (Berthold, Christologie, p. 58).
Mat_3:4. The same John had his raiment, etc.—The expression implies that, as in the case of Elijah (2Ki_1:8), the austere, ascetic appearance of the Baptist corresponded with the character of his preaching, being an emblem of renunciation of the world, and of repentance. (1) His (peculiar and distinctive) dress was of camel’s hair. Not of camel’s skin, but of camel’s hair, from which a coarse kind of cloth, used for clothing and for the covering of tents, was manufactured (see Meyer, p. 83). (2) He had a leathern girdle. (3) His food consisted of locusts, ἀêñßäåò . “Several kinds of locusts were used for food, especially by the poorest of the people. Lev_11:22; comp. Plin. Hist. Natur. 6:35; 11:32, 35. This is still the case in the East, especially among the lower classes. After throwing away the wings and legs, they cover the body with salt, and eat it either boiled or fried. (Niobuhr, ‘Reise,’ i. p. 402, etc.) The older expositors, under the impression that locusts were unfit for eating, conjectured that the original reading must have been, not ἀêñßäåò , but ἐãêñßäåò , cakes, or êáñßäåò , shrimps, or something else. But these conjectures do not deserve further consideration.” See Meyer, p. 83. (4) Wild honey was also part of his food. The question has been started, whether this honey was derived from trees or from bees? The latter flowed in abundance from clefts of rocks in the wilderness; the former was a kind of honey which issued from fig-trees, palms, and other trees. Meyer adopts the view of Suidas, that it was honey from trees; but surely it is needless to discuss whether the Baptist used one or both kinds of honey.
Mat_3:5. Then went out to him, etc.—That is to the banks of Jordan, äַéַּøְãֵּï (Gen_13:10-11. 1Ki_7:46; 2Ch_4:17), from éָøַã to run or flow (as the German Rhein from rinnen). For a description of the scene, see Winer and other Encyclops, and geographical works, especially Robinson; comp. also a beautiful sketch of the quiet around the scene, in the Travels of Pastor Schulz of Mühlheim. Note particularly, that Jerusalem herself, the holy city, goes into the wilderness as a penitent,—the wilderness being considered, according to Old Testament notions, as an unclean locality, the habitation of demons (Lev_16:21). A prelude this of Christ going forth to Golgotha, and of Christians going “beyond the camp,” Heb_13:13. Hence also Jerusalem is first mentioned, though in strict historical succession it would have been: the district about Jordan, Judæa, Jerusalem.
Mat_3:6. And were baptized, immersed, in the Jordan, confessing their sins.—Immersion was the usual mode of baptism and the symbol of repentance. According to Meyer, repentance was symbolized by immersion, because every part of the body was purified. But, in that case, the whole body might have been washed without immersion. We must keep in view the idea of a symbolical descent into the grave, or the death of sin, although this view, as explained in Rom. vi, could not yet have been fully realized at the time (comp. Leben Jesu 2:177. See also Ebrard, Wissensch. Kritik 257, who maintains that John fully understood the import of Christian baptism, and administered it accordingly). A full confession of sins accompanied the act of immersion. The compound ἐîïìïëïãïýìåíïé denotes public confession. Hence it may perhaps be inferred that the confession was definite and specific,—the more so, as we might otherwise infer that a Jew would on such an occasion confess his special sins rather than hid general sinfulness. The particular form of confession was, however, undoubtedly left to each individual.
Mat_3:7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees, etc.—Circumstances now arose of a character to perplex the Baptist about the propriety of his administering baptism. When the Pharisees and Sadducees presented themselves, he might refuse to administer the sacred rite, for which their impenitence rendered them unfit; while, on the other hand, a baptism of repentance seemed inapplicable in the case of the Lord Jesus.
The Pharisees, Talm. ôøåùéï ; according to Suidas, ἀöùñéóìÝíïé , separated, distinctively pious, from ôָּøַùׁ , to separate or divide,—not from the Particip. Act., “those who divide or make sharp distinctions” (teachers of the law), but from the passive or reflective form, in the sense of “separating themselves.” They did not, however, constitute a sect, but a school or party, actuated by the most intense sectarianism. They were the living expression of outward, traditional, and legalistic Judaism; and their strict separation was in reference to Gentiles, Samaritans, publicans, and sinners. They prided themselves on the most rigid observance of those legal prohibitions and lustrations, prescribed in their traditions, which detracted so grievously from the spirituality of the law, and perverted its object. On their history, doctrines, and religious and political importance, see Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5, 9; xiii. 10, 5, etc. Their true character can only be thoroughly gathered from the Gospels, from the narrative of our Lord’s sufferings, from the Acts of the Apostles, and the history of Ebionism. Compare the article on the subject in Winer [and other Encyclops.], and also the author’s Leben Jesu ii. 1, p. 15, the Gesch. des apostol. Zeitalters, i. p. 296, [and works on Jewish History].
The Sadducees, Óáääïõêáῖïé (derived, according to Epiphanius, Hœres. i. 14, ἀðὸ äéêáéïóýíçò , i. e. from öַãִּé÷ , but, according to Jewish tradition, from a person called Zadok).—They were the party opposed to the Pharisees. On negative, antitraditional, foreign, and philosophical grounds, they rejected not only traditionalism, but also the inspired writings, except the books of Moses; and denied, along with the authority of the prophets, all the deeper truths of revelation, such as the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection, and its higher manifestations, such as the apparitions of angels. On all these points comp. Winer [and other Encyclops.], and the passages of Josephus relating to the subject, etc.
The third school or religious party of the Jews at this period, the Essenes, constituted a regular and fully organized sect. Comp. regarding them, Joseph. De Bella Jud. ii. 8; Antiq. xiii. 5, 9; and Philo’s dissertation: Quod omnis probus liber. The Essenes (a name derived from ὅóéïò , or çָñִéã , or better from àְñָà , to heal—hence the healers, èåñáðåõôáß ) did not submit to John’s baptism. This is easily accounted for from the fact, that daily lustrations formed part of their ordinary religious observances. Hence they probably considered themselves as far beyond the baptism of John, which was only once administered, and, as a community, prepared to receive the Messiah. Lastly, from their blending of Alexandrian philosophy with Jewish notions of legal purifications, their views and expectations concerning the Messiah must have undergone considerable modification.
These three parties represented the three great deviations from the spirit and tendency of genuine Judaism. The Pharisees, like the Roman Catholics, exalted tradition into revelation, and superstitiously based their whole system on the principle of a righteousness procured by external observances. The Sadducees limited revelation to the law of Moses, and degraded the Mosaic faith into a rationalistic morality, a mere obedience of the law. The Essenes combined their Oriental and Alexandrian theosophy with revelation, excluded the idea of typical sacrifices, introduced dualistic doctrines, and based on it an esoteric righteousness peculiar to the members of their religious order. The Essenes formed a distinct sect; and, although the closest approximation in the syragogue to a deeper and more spiritual view of Judaism, and in some measure even anticipating the idea of a universal priesthood (as Ritschl has shown), they also adopted a greater admixture of views entirely heathen than any other school. Hence the idea of any connection between them and Christ, or even John, cannot for a moment be entertained (a statement, however, which does not apply to the later followers of John). By their lifeless orthodoxy, the Pharisees perverted Judaism itself into a sect; while the Sadducees formed an accommodating, negative, and sectarian party, who considered themselves, and acted chiefly as, a philosophic school.
The authority of John as a prophet, which, according to this passage, seems at first to have been recognised by a large portion of the dominant parties, and which probably occasioned the embassy, or at least private deputation, from the Sanhedrim, received a serious blow when John commenced his de nunciations. The dislike thus engendered became strengthened and rooted when the scribes saw Him whom John announced as the Messiah of Israel,—one so entirely different from what they had expected; and lastly, when the Baptist promulgated views wholly opposed to those of the Pharisees on the question of divorce, and, consequently, fell a victim to the resentment of Herod and his wife. Accordingly, when afterwards challenged to give an opinion on the divine authority of John’s baptism, the Pharisees declined to do so. Luke (Luk_7:30) refers to this subsequent attitude of the Pharisees and scribes in reference to the baptism of John.
It deserves notice, that Matthew does not repeat the article before Óáääïõê .; “he includes them and the Pharisees in one and the same unworthy category.”
Mat_3:7. When he saw them come ἐðὶ ôὸ âÜðôéóìá .—The meaning is not, against the baptism, as Olearius and some others would interpret the passage. The contrary is to be inferred from what follows: who has warned you? The expression does not, however, denote simply their coming for the purpose of being baptized. The Baptist regards them as unfit and improper candidates who presented themselves for baptism only to strengthen their self-righteous conceit. The suggestion of Meyer (p. 86), that, immediately on their arrival, they were deterred by John’s denunciations from submitting to baptism, is equally unfounded. Such conduct would have placed them in open conflict with the Baptist; a course which even prudence forbade. But the effect of these denunciations was to diminish, and ultimately to stop, the crowds, belonging to their party, which had flocked to the scene of John’s ministrations This explanation removes the imaginary contradiction, which some have pretended to discover, between the narrative of Matthew and that of Luke, Sehneckenburger in favor of Luke, de Wette in favor of Matthew.
According to Luk_3:7, these denunciations were addressed to the multitude ( ôïῖò ὄ÷ëïéò ); according to Matthew, to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Their interest in and sanction of the movement, no doubt, attracted crowds to the place of baptism. The presence of a multitude thronging to submit to what, after all, was to them only an outward rite, ill accorded with the real aim of John, who was anxious not for a general profession, but for individual conversions.
O generation (brood) of vipers.— ÃåííÞìáôá ἐ÷éäíῶí denotes persons at once deceitful and malicious. Isa_14:29; Isa_59:5; Psa_58:5. The expression would convey to an Israelite the idea of representatives of pernicious doctrines and principles,—instruments of the kingdom of darkness. Such were preëminently doomed to punishment. Genesis 3; Mat_13:41; 2 Thessalonians 2, etc.—Who hath warned you?—An indication of his distrust of the sincerity of their ostensible motives. It could only have been by a special miracle that you would have been directed hither by the Spirit of God.—To flee.—To flee, and thus to escape from, áָּøַç îִï . The infin. Aorist denotes their being already ostensibly in the act of fleeing.—From the wrath to come, ἀðὸ ôῆò ìåëëïýóçò ὀñãῆò .—The wrath, or the holy penal justice of God, is here identified with punishment it self. Rom_1:18; Eph_2:3.
Mat_3:8. Bring forth, therefore.— Ïὖí , a conclusion relating partly to the charge brought against them, and partly to their profession of repentance. Fruits.—Proper, suitable fruits. Comp. Mat_7:17 ff, also with special reference to the Pharisees. Such good fruit as could not be produced without an entire change in the fruit-tree itself.
Mat_3:9. And think not—do not imagine you might say within yourselves,—i. e., think; àִîé áְּìִáּåֹ , to say in one’s heart: Psa_4:4; Psa_10:6; Psa_14:1; Mat_9:21; Luk_3:8; Luk_7:49.—We have Abraham for our father;—i. e., we shall be saved, because, as descendants of Abraham, we are members of the theocracy, and partakers of the promise given to our father. This view is clearly propounded in later rabbinical writings. See Meyer, p. 87. Compare Joh_8:39; Romans 9 As to the genuine children of Abraham, see Romans 4.—God is able.—God’s almighty power and liberty are not limited by hereditary right. He may reject them as spurious children of Abraham; and, on the other hand, He is able to create out of the stones in the wilderness genuine children of Abraham by faith, i. e., to transform uncultivated portions of the human race,—undoubtedly a reference to the calling of the Gentiles.
Mat_3:10. And now also the axe is laid, etc.—The preceding sentence only implied that the punishment of the spurious descendants of Abraham was possible; that now under consideration asserts that it was not only possible, but near,—nay, that it had already begun. Hence the use of the present tense. Now already the axe lies at the root of the tree, ready for its work of destruction. The statement implies that they are unfruitful trees, or trees of a bad kind ( Mat_7:19). The punishment will equally descend on all; every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, etc. This evidently refers to the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews from the kingdom of Messiah.
Mat_3:11. I indeed baptize you in ( ἐí ) water (immersing you in the element of water) unto repentance.—The Baptist thus declares that he is not the judge, and, at the same time, that by his baptism of water he does not secure their salvation, but merely calls them to repentance. Lastly, he teaches them that his was merely a symbolical and temporary mission as the forerunner, to prepare for the higher mission of the Messiah. He that cometh after me (immediately following me), = the Messiah. The Baptist here describes his personal relation to the Messiah: I am not worthy to bear His sandals, to carry them and to take them away—in Mark and Luke, to tie on and to unloose. Among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, this was the function of the meanest slaves. (See Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Jahn.)—He proceeds to point out the relation of his baptism to that of Christ. He shall baptize, or immerse, you in the Holy Ghost and in fire.—He will either entirely immerse you in the Holy Ghost as penitents, or, if impenitent, He will overwhelm you with the fire of judgment (and at last with hell-fire). This interpretation of the expression “fire” has been propounded by many of the Fathers (some of whom, however, referred it to the fire of purgatory); and among modern expositors, by Kuinoel, Schott, Neander [de Wette, Meyer]. But some commentators—among them Erasmus [Chrys., Calv., Beng., Olshaus., Ebrard, Ewald, Alford, Wordsworth]—apply the expression to the kindling, sanctifying fire of the Holy Ghost. The warning tone of the passage, and the expression unquenchable fire, in Mat_3:12, are against this interpretation. In some Codd. the words êáὶðõñß are omitted, probably from the erroneous supposition that they were equivalent to Holy Ghost.
Mat_3:12. Whose fan.—Here we have another figure of judgment, showing, even in a more striking manner than the preceding, the necessity and propriety of such judgment. The theocracy is the husbandry of God. But if the wise husbandman removes from his garden all such trees as merely encumber the ground, much more will he in harvest-time separate on the threshing-floor the wheat from the chaff, and deal with each according to the rules of husbandry. But the theocracy, or the kingdom of God, is with great propriety represented as God’s special field, of which both the sowing and the harvest are His (Mat_13:3). The fan in His hand, or the instrument for the separating or purging, is the word, or the preaching of the Gospel.—Threshing-floor ἅëùí , âֹּøֶï —a circular space, beaten down or paved, on the farm. The corn was either trodden by oxen [or horses], or crushed by means of a threshing, sledge drawn by oxen [or horses]. Robinson, ii. 306. The threshing-floor denotes Messiah’s sphere of action (Ewald),—the holy land in an ideal rather than a material and literal sense (Meyer); not mankind (Baumgarten-Crusius), or the Jewish people (de Wette). The extent of this threshing-floor necessarily increases from century to century. The starting-point was the land of Judæa; the farthest verge is the earth’s remotest boundary,—being then ground beaten for threshing, and no longer a field which requires to be sowed. The purging of the threshing-floor is effected by separating the wheat and the chaff of the sheaves collected on it. He will äéáêáèáñßæåéí , i. e., thoroughly purge.—The Wheat.—True and penitent believers, the precious, pure produce of God’s husbandry.—The garner, ἀðïèÞêç , the granary; usually dry, subterranean vaults. An emblem, first, of the kingdom of heaven on earth: and, secondly, of the heavenly inheritance.—The chaff.—In the widest sense, whatever is crushed, cut small. Here it means the whole refuse of God’s husbandry: First, the agencies applied to bring out the wheat; and, secondly, the persons whose hearts have clung to these agencies alone, and who, by their vain, formal services, have themselves become chaff. Whatever is to be assigned to the fire, the judgment-fire (Mal_4:1), hell-fire (Mat_25:41), is chaff. Chaff was used for fuel.—The expression, unquenchable fire (see Isa_66:24), points beyond the figure to the reality, although it denotes, in the first place, the violent, uncontrollable blaze of a straw fire. When the fiery judgment begins, it continues without interruption, till the unquenchable fire of Gehenna is kindled.
2. The Old Testament contains the most varied references to the New, by its promises, its law, its types, and its prophecies. Its most striking reference, however, is that with which it closed, presenting as it did, in the person of the Baptist, the most faithful embodiment of the old dispensation. Thus the relation of the Baptist to Christ was that of the Old Testament itself to the Saviour. The grand mission of John was the baptism unto repentance. Its elements and commencement existed in the Old Testament; but the ordinance itself can only be understood if viewed as a new act of Divine revelation, a Divine mission, a prophetic creation. Its real import appears from the declaration that the whole people of Israel were utterly unclean. Once of old they walked over the dried bed of Jordan: now they must be immersed in the current of Jordan in their old state, in order to come out of it thoroughly renewed. But this declaration of the Baptist implied also the idea, that mere legal lustrations were incapable of purifying the people,—a truth which was also conveyed to their minds by the solemnities of the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16). Lastly, all this indicated that the baptism unto repentance was itself only a symbol, being an outward expression of the fact, that legal institutions were incapable of delivering the Jewish nation from sin. Accordingly, the baptism of John was at the same time a baptism unto repentance and in preparation for the coming of the Messiah, and its last and highest aim was to point the people to the person of the Messiah.
3. That John appeared in the wilderness as a preacher of repentance, and there administered his rite of purification, is another evidence of the great change which the views of Israel were about to undergo. According to Old Testament ideas, the camp would be considered clean, and the wilderness unclean (Leviticus 16). This, however, is now reversed; and Jerusalem must go forth to the wilderness, there to seek her purification. Typically, this contrast points forward to Golgotha, to the accursed place without the city, and to the Church of Christ disowned and excommunicated by the synagogue. But it also points backward to the voice of him who cried in the wilderness. Isa_40:3 (comp. Joh_1:23). Again, the wilderness is a symbol of the nation itself, or at least of the state of the Jews at the time. In that wilderness the prophet can find no path for the advent of the Lord. Hence a way has now to be prepared for Him by repentance; and this forms the burden of his message. Such was the grand mission of John: his work and commission was mainly, if not exclusively, to call to repentance. Besides the symbolic character attaching from its nature to a wilderness, the sojourn of John in the desert pointed to those deeper experiences, resulting from contemplation, retirement, and constant prayer, which marked the spiritual development of genuine Judaism even at an earlier period (Moses, Elijah, John, Christ, the Anchorites).
4. The expression, “Repent ye,” is not equivalent with “Do penance.” The original means, Change your minds, your mode of thinking and of viewing things,—not in order that the kingdom of heaven may come, but because it is coming or approaching (for the kingdom of heaven is at hand). This change of mind could only spring from a sense of the free mercy of God in manifesting the kingdom of heaven, and from the revelation of Christ in His grace and truth. Nor can it ever be otherwise; for without repentance, change of mind, conversion, regeneration (John 3), it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven.
5. We have already indicated the peculiar meaning attaching to the expression, kingdom of God, as distinguished from the kingdom of heaven. The former is the general conception and includes the entire kingdom of God, in every sense and bearing. Thus the theocracy was the kingdom of God in its typical and Old Testament form; while the kingdom of Christ is the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God in its reality, or the real theocracy. Viewed as a whole, the kingdom of God is the higher manifestation of the universal supremacy and rule of God in nature and in history, and the preparation for the kingdom of glory (kingdom of power, kingdom of grace, kingdom of glory). In direct contrast to the kingdom of grace is that of darkness. It appears along with the kingdom of grace, and keeps pace with it; and, though appearing to conquer, ultimately is always conquered. At last, when the kingdom of God shall have been perfected, it will also have reached its full and final development, and be ripe for the self-annihilation which awaits it. Then shall it also appear that all along it had been entirely subject to the kingdom of omnipotence, and subservient to the advancement of the kingdom of glory. In New Testament times, the Christian Church and the Christian State may be regarded as the twofold manifestation of the kingdom of God; which, however, must not be confounded with the essence of the kingdom of God. Lastly, the kingdom of God is the kingdom of heaven, both in respect of its origin and its goal, its essence and its manifestation, its King and its people, its law and its citizenship—the royal dominion of God in the souls of believers, through Christ and his Holy Spirit.
6. We may view the asceticism and austerity of John under a twofold aspect. On the one hand, it marks him out as a perfect Nazarite. The institution of Nazarites, with its various prohibitions, was from the first intended as something similar to, nay, as a higher completion of, the legal priesthood (Leben Jesu, i. 63; Apost. Zeitalter, ii. 303 and 398). Hence the circumstance, that both John and the Apostle James were Nazarites, may be regarded as forming an appropriate transition from the Old Testament priesthood to that of the Spirit under the New Testament, just as the synagogue was a transition from the temple to the church. In other words, the Nazarites were the connecting link between the Old and New Testament priests, just as the synagogue was between the temple and the church, and the washing with water, between circumcision and baptism, and the breaking of bread and the cup of thanksgiving, between the passover and the Lord’s Supper. It was necessary that John should occupy the position of a Nazarite in order to pronounce sentence of impurity, not only upon the Jewish people, but upon their priesthood. Nor was his profession merely symbolical, implying a symbolical renunciation of the world. He actually renounced the pomp, the luxury, and the pursuits of his age and nation, and appeared before his cotemporaries free to utter his solemn denunciations against Pharisees and Sadducees, against the rulers of the synagogue and the rulers of the people.
7. It is most important to note the contrast between the grounds on which John was unwilling to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees, and those on which he shrunk from baptizing the Lord. In his judgment, the former did not come up to the law of the Old Testament, while Jesus went far beyond the Old Testament. The Pharisees were unfit for baptism; baptism was unfit for the Lord Jesus. The rulers of his people appear in the presence of the Baptist as “children,” or rather as a race degenerate, and alien to true Judaism; while before Christ the Baptist lowly bends as the humblest servant in presence of the most glorious Lord. How different, then, the picture here presented of the spirit of the Old Testament from that drawn by some, who would identify the religion of the Old Covenant with Pharisaical Judaism!
8. The circumstance, that the Baptist is here introduced as denouncing sinners, sufficiently accounts for the difference between his delineation of the advent of Christ as the Judge, in the passage before us, and his description of Christ as the suffering Saviour in His address to His disciples, John 1 Besides, throughout the Old Testament, and indeed throughout Scripture, judgment and salvation are closely connected; and it has been too much the practice of scholastic theologians to sever and disjoin these two ideas. Further, the picture presented to the mind of the Baptist was evidently that of the advent of Christ, in all its phases to its final manifestation, commencing with the first, and including the second appearance of the Saviour. The judgment of separation, which was to be completed at His second advent, commenced at the first. The “fruits meet unto repentance,” which the Baptist required, were evidence of a genuine religious and moral renovation and regeneration, which implied the opposite of mere externalism and feigned repentance.
9. The baptism of water, and the baptism of fire,—the one administered by John, the other by Christ; the one bearing reference to the advent of the Messiah, the other, to the Messiah Himself, who had already appeared; the one, unto repentance in the sense of renouncing and dying unto the world, the other, unto repentance in the sense of the death and resurrection of Christ; the one, with water, which can only purify externally (legally and symbolically), the other, with the Holy Ghost, whose fire purifies internally, and purges away all dross; the one, to a forgiveness of sins which as yet was only matter of hope, and was to be really obtained in the baptism of the Spirit; the other, as the seal of actual forgiveness of sins. The baptism of John contained only the germ of a sacrament in the peace of hope which it conveyed, and the conditional assurance of a future baptism of the Spirit or reception into the kingdom of the Messiah; while Christ’s baptism of the Spirit finds its appropriate expression in the sacrament of Christian Baptism as the sign and seal of the inward baptism of the Spirit. It is indeed true that the baptism of the Saviour by John constitutes both the origin and the basis of Christian baptism; but it were to detract from the full meaning of that sacrament to assimilate it with the baptism of John, instead of viewing the latter as gradually advancing from the baptism of disciples to the baptism of Christ. Christian baptism, on the other hand, in the same proportion in which it degenerates in the church, relapses into the baptism of John, i. e., it approaches to the character of mere water-baptism. But whatever way we regard it, this great difference remains, that while the disciples of John still waited for the formation of the Church, we behold it in all its beauty, and with all its blessings of forgiveness and of peace. In other words, in the one case, the full idea of baptism, in its objective import as a sacrament, is realized,—the only requirement being, that he who receives the ordinance receive it in spirit and in faith; while, in the other, the objective aspect of baptism—or the Church—was still awanting. Hence the baptism of John might be repeated; not so Christian baptism. The baptism of John was not complete: in it the full idea of the rite was not exhausted; while we, who are baptized into the death of Christ, can fully enter into its meaning.
10. The transcendent majesty of the Lord appears, as He stands side by side with the Baptist, the greatest among them born of women under the Old Covenant. But the greatness of John consisted mainly in his almost unexampled humility, which from the first led him to designate his work which shook Israel to its centre as merely preparatory, and to subordinate himself at once to Him who was far greater than he.
11. The baptism of fire—in the sense of its purifying efficacy—had been already predicted by Malachi (Mat_3:3). Hence we conclude that the baptism of John must have conveyed at least some of the effects of this purifying fire. In another respect, also, there is a close connection between John and Malachi, as the denunciations of the Baptist were only a further development and application of the great truths propounded by the prophet about the insufficiency of the old theocracy; and just as Malachi pointed to the Baptist, so the Baptist points to Christ. Although the awakening produced by John, as every legal awakening, was not of a lasting character, its effects were permanent in the hearts of the elect, and more especially among his own disciples. This was sufficient—the Lord found a soil ready and prepared.
12. The most marvellous evidence of the spiritual power wielded by John was, that he induced the self-righteous and hypocritical professors of his age to submit to a baptism unto repentance, and that in such numbers, that it became a kind of agreeable fashion to go into the wilderness to be baptized (Joh_5:35).