Ii. Preliminaries To Jesus’ Ministry, 3:1–4:11
II. PRELIMINARIES TO JESUS’ MINISTRY, 3:1–4:11
A. John the Baptist, 3:1–17
1. John’s Preaching, 3:1–12
1Now in those days John the Baptist appears, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. 3For this is he who was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying,
‘A voice of someone crying out in the wilderness,
“Prepare the way of the Lord.
Make his paths straight.” ’ ”
4Now John had his clothing made of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5Then there went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the country by the Jordan, 6and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
7And when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You offspring of snakes, who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce therefore fruit worthy of repentance. 9And do not think to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as Father.’ For I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones! 10And already the axe is lying at the root of the trees; any tree therefore that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
11“I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he that comes after me is greater than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn; but he will burn up the chaff with fire that cannot be put out.”
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.
5. Then (see on 2:7) does not follow logically from the description of John’s clothing and food; it means “at that time,” signifying in a general fashion the time of John’s ministry, long past when these words were written. Jerusalem, of course, indicates here the inhabitants of that city, and we must understand all Judea and the region22 by the Jordan similarly. Matthew is saying that large numbers of people went out from the centers of population to John’s lonely area. Such a prophetic figure was a rarity, and people wanted to see and hear the man. So, though he was in the wilderness, John did not lack an audience.
6. John’s characteristic act was that of baptism, and it is this that gives him his title “the Baptist.” Since Christians are familiar with baptism only as a religious ceremony, we are apt to miss some of its meaning. But the verb means “dip, plunge” and in the passive “be drowned”; it is used of ships in the sense “sink” (LSJ; it notes Josephus’s use for the crowds who flocked into Jerusalem at the time of the siege: they “flooded” the city). We should not miss the significance of this violent imagery. Baptism signifies death to a whole way of life (cf. Rom. 6:3).23 The Jews employed baptism in admitting Gentiles as proselytes, but the sting in John’s practice was that he applied it to Jews! By him indicates that John actually administered the baptism and did not simply act as a witness while the penitents baptized themselves. What they did do was confess their sins (see on 1:21). Matthew depicts John’s whole ministry as a calling on people to repent of their sins in preparation for the coming of God’s Messiah (who would save them from their sins, 1:21). Confession is an integral part of that process. When people really repent they say so.
7. Matthew turns to John’s reaction to some of the people who came to be baptized.24 Saw may be used of various kinds of perception, but here it is clearly direct sight. Many is interesting; there were a great number more than the handful of people who might have been expected to be interested in a rough man of the deserts. Matthew singles out those of the Pharisees and Sadducees, where the one article indicates that they formed a single group (the two are linked also in 16:1, 6, 11, and 12). Outside Matthew they are linked in this way only in Acts 23:7; evidently for Matthew the expression stands for the groups of leading Jews who opposed the Christian movement. We should not reason from the use of the single article that he perceived the two as wholehearted allies; he knew that they were different parties with different teachings (22:34). He is saying no more than that from the Christian standpoint there was not much to choose between them. They were united in their opposition to John and then to Jesus, whatever differences they might have in other respects.
This Evangelist uses the term “Pharisee” more often than anyone else (29 times; Luke has 27). The Pharisees were a religious party who delighted to derive their name from a word meaning “separated”; they viewed themselves as God’s separated ones. They studied the law very carefully and made a determined attempt to put it into practice. In doing this they paid close attention to a multitude of rules (the tradition of the elders) meant to help people avoid breaking any command of God. There were so many of these that most people gave up the attempt to follow them. The result was that the Pharisees tended to see themselves as a cut above other people while at the same time they gave such attention to outward minutiae that they sometimes lost sight of weightier matters. Since Jesus was impatient of this approach, they tended to oppose him vigorously. There were some very fine Pharisees, but unfortunately too many of the other kind.
“Sadducee” (7 times in Matthew out of 14 in the New Testament) denoted a member of the high-priestly party. The name was probably derived from Zadok, the man made high priest by David at the time of Solomon’s accession to the throne (1 Kings 1:8; 2:35); the Sadducees thus regarded themselves as “Zadokites,” true descendants of the great priest. None of their writings survives, so we are left to deduce their positions from the writings of their opponents. It is often said that they accepted only the Pentateuch as sacred Scripture (as some of the early Christian fathers say), but it is difficult to find evidence for this and it seems most unlikely. The fact that the Septuagint was in existence indicates that the Jews widely accepted the canon of Scripture; there seems to be no reason why a prominent Jewish party should reject most of it. But the Sadducees did reject the oral tradition that the Pharisees valued so highly; Josephus tells us that they accepted only written Scripture (Ant. 13.297). The Sadducees tended to be aristocratic (they had “the confidence of the wealthy alone but no following among the populace,” Josephus, Ant. 13.298) and contemptuous of movements like that represented by John and Jesus. They cooperated with the Romans and thus had political power; they saw Jesus as something of a danger, for he might provoke a movement in opposition to Rome and bring a strong reaction from their overlords.
Matthew makes it clear that many from the more important religious parties came to John. This would not have been anticipated, for they were the more “respectable” members of society and John would not have been expected to make much of an appeal to people like this. It is interesting that even people from groups like these should seek baptism.25 At the same time we should bear in mind that from the way he addressed them John evidently suspected that their “repentance” was not very deep.
John addressed26 this group of candidates27 for baptism in forthright terms, calling them offspring of snakes (serpents sprung from serpents).28 This is scarcely complimentary, and it is backed up with the question, who warned29 you to flee from the coming wrath? The implication is that they had no real repentance but only a desire to escape divine retribution. The word rendered coming indicates not only futurity but certainty.30 That God will act in opposition to sin is certain, as John sees things, the only question being when. This is Matthew’s only use of wrath,31 but it is an important New Testament concept. It stands for the settled opposition of God’s holy nature to everything that is evil. We are not to think that God is mildly displeased when people sin. He is totally and vigorously opposed to evil, and the Bible expresses this by speaking of his wrath. It is the consistent teaching of Scripture that this wrath will be manifested in all its vigor at the end of the age, when evil will finally be punished. John is linking this wrath with the coming of God’s kingdom and accusing the Pharisees and Sadducees of simply looking for a way of escaping the punishment that their deeds had deserved (cf. 23:33). They lacked a determination to abandon evil ways.
8. Produce, more literally “make,” is a word often used of plants when they “make” fruit32 and is thus a good word for producing the “fruit” of life. Therefore is perhaps not the connective we would have anticipated, but it may well be that it is here used in the sense “certainly, in fact, confirming something, freq. in contrast with something which is not confirmed … really” (LSJ). John wants to see not simply the words that express repentance but the fruit that befits it, fruit that is worthy33 of repentance. The singular is important.34 John is not inviting people to pile up good works; he is looking for a change in the orientation of the whole of life that will result in fruitful living. For the meaning and the distinctiveness of the Christian idea of repentance see the note on verse 2. John is making with some vigor the point that being present at a fashionable religious center is not enough. Lives must be changed. In view of the certainty of the wrath to come people must forsake evil ways and live rightly before God.
9. The demand is hammered in with a reference to Jewish pride in descent from Abraham. To many Jews it was unthinkable that the great patriarch’s descendants should ever be excluded from God’s blessing.35 Thus they thought that because they could say, We have Abraham (see on 1:1) as Father, they had eternal security. But John tells them not to think like that.36 No place of privilege counts in the face of the demands of an all-holy and all-powerful God. For John it was crystal clear that God looked for more from people than a complacent claim of kinship with Abraham (“God, he says, is not interested in family-trees which bear no fruit in changed lives,” Melinsky). To say within yourselves indicates personal conviction rather than public profession. John is speaking about the way this section of his hearers might justify their refusal to repent: that did not matter, they would reason, for their connection with their great forefather ensured their deliverance and his merits availed for them. This John strongly opposes. His For I tell you puts some emphasis on what follows: the words are important. Being children of Abraham is no great matter, for God can37 raise up children to Abraham from these stones.38 The Jews thought of themselves as being in a unique position: they were the descendants of Abraham in a way nobody else was. Therefore they had a wonderful privilege. But they underestimated the power of God. God did not need the children of Abraham in order to accomplish his purposes. John tells them that it is within God’s power to raise up privileged people at any time out of the most unpromising material. The reference to these stones probably means that stones were visible; the area where they were was a rugged place. But even out of stones God could raise up those who were effectively children of Abraham, true sons over against those who could claim no more than physical descent (cf. Gal. 3:7).
10. John proceeds to bring out the seriousness of the position of those who did not genuinely repent. Already points to what has occurred; John is not referring only to the remote future; for those who have eyes to see things were already happening. This is reinforced by the present tense in the three verbs of this verse. The axe (here and in Luke 3:9 only in the New Testament) was a symbol of destruction, and lying at the root of the trees39 paints a grim picture of impending doom (cf. Isa. 10:34; Jer. 46:22). It is not easy to understand why the axe is pictured as lying at “the root” of the trees; if one is using an axe a tree is generally cut down some little distance up from the ground. But the root is that from which the tree draws its sustenance; therefore, the picture suggests that not only will the tree be overthrown, but its source of nourishment will be taken away.40 There is no hope for such a tree. Any tree makes it universal—there are no exceptions.41 The sinner must not think that he can get away with his sin. Therefore links this up in logical sequence; John regards the destruction as inevitable. In verse 8 he has spoken of fruit befitting repentance; now it is simply good42 fruit. The tree that lacks such fruit will be totally destroyed—not only cut down but also thrown into the fire. “Does John seem too stern? Jesus spoke with similar sternness; no gospel is needed if there is no judgment” (Filson).
11. In this little paragraph there are parallels to Mark, and especially to Luke (both of whom have the words spoken to the people generally rather than to the Pharisees and Sadducees). Of Matthew’s 57 words Mark has 16 (not always in the same order) and Luke 43. There is very little that any of the Synoptists has that does not appear in one or both of the others. At this point John turns to his practice of baptism and relates it to another baptism that would follow. I indeed is emphatic; it sets John in contrast with the stronger one who is to come43 (there is also a less emphasized contrast with the immediately following you: John sets himself over against those whom he baptizes). His baptism is in water,44 to which Matthew adds (as the others do not) for45 repentance (see on v. 2). This term follows naturally on what John has just been saying about the importance of changed lives and the certainty of coming judgment.
John moves to his contrast with but. The verb “come” may be used in the sense “appear, make an appearance … esp. of the Messiah,” and here it is “come after of Christ in relation to his forerunner” (BAGD, I.1.a.η). John’s successor, then, would come on the scene as one greater than I. The word greater contains the idea of strength, of power; the Christ would be more powerful than his predecessor. Then John moves on to fitness. He sees himself as not worthy to perform the most menial service for the coming great one and selects the carrying46 of the sandals to bring this out. Mark and Luke have the loosing of the sandal thong, but since the sandals were then carried off this means no more than references to two stages of the same process. The important point is that dealing with the sandals was the menial task of a slave. Teachers in Palestine at that time were not paid, but it was usual for disciples to help their rabbi in whatever way they could. There is a rabbinic saying: “Every service which a slave performs for his master shall a disciple do for his teacher except the loosing of his sandal-thong.”47 It is a mark of John’s humility that he says he is not worthy of the service that no one but a slave would perform.
The great one, John says, will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.48 Jesus will do much more for those baptized than John could. John could demand that they repent, but Jesus would bring them the Holy Spirit. It is unlikely that John would think of the Third Person of the Trinity, but he would have in mind the outpouring of the Holy Spirit promised by Joel (Joel 2:28; in v. 30 there is a reference to fire). And Matthew would surely see a deeper meaning in John’s words. John at the very least is saying that Jesus’ baptism is no mere ritual affair, but one that involves the effective gift of the Spirit. We do well not to inquire too closely into the relationships between the Persons of the Trinity, but at least we can say that the coming Messiah will bring his followers into vital contact with the Holy Spirit and thus inject a new force into their lives. With this is linked fire; the connection is close, for there is no separate preposition. Baptizing with the Holy Spirit goes along with baptizing with fire, which here stands for purification. Some interpreters understand fire to refer to judgment (as it often does; Ridderbos, e.g., accepts this view here),49 but the link with the Holy Spirit makes it more likely that the same people are referred to and that they are purified as well as indwelt (fire was linked with the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2:3).
12. The thought of judgment is pursued and enlarged. John pictures the Messiah as having a winnowing fork in his hand. At harvesttime the grain was threshed, for example, by having oxen tread it out, a process that shook the grain free from the husks but left them in the same heap. It was then winnowed: the threshed grain was separated from the husks by throwing it into the air, at first with a fork and later with a shovel (cf. Isa. 30:24). The heavier grain would fall straight down, but the lighter husks would be blown further away. If the winnowing fork is already in hand, the process of separation is about to begin (REB has “his winnowing shovel,” which would indicate that the last stage in winnowing is about to begin). The picture is one of imminent activity; judgment will not be delayed. And it will be wholehearted, for he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor. The verb is unusual,50 but it clearly points to a complete cleaning out of the threshing floor. It is possible to understand this as meaning that the threshing floor will be cleaned by the removal of all the husks so that only the grain is left. But the further imagery of fire suggests that the cleansing will be by burning up the chaff. And51 he will gather his wheat signifies the preservation of those who are right with God, just as burn up the chaff the severe judgment of those who are in the wrong. Fire is often used in connection with the last judgment. That cannot be put out52 points to the impossibility of averting the punishment of evil. The putting of the wheat into the barn (Matthew has “his53 wheat” and Luke “his barn”) and the burning up of the chaff picture the satisfactory completion of the harvest.
2. Jesus’ Baptism, 3:13–17
13Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him. 14But John tried to stop him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?” 15But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” Then he allowed him. 16And when Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water straightaway; and, look, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. 17And look, a voice out of heaven, saying, “This is my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased.”
While there are resemblances between this passage and the corresponding sections in Mark and Luke, they are not nearly as many or as close as in the preceding passage. Indeed, the differences are so many that it is not easy to see Matthew as using the same source as either of the others; the changes are too many and too significant. There is no parallel to Matthew 13:14–15, with John’s attempt to dissuade Jesus from baptism, and there are significant differences in verse 16. The words of the voice from heaven are closer, but Matthew has “This is” where the others have “You are.” We should regard this section as independent of the parallel passages in the other Synoptists.
13. For Matthew’s characteristic Then see on 2:7. Here it denotes that which follows next in sequence. For comes we have the same verb and the same tense as that used of the Baptist in verse 1 (both Mark and Luke prefer the aorist in their equivalent expressions); the present gives it greater vividness, and we get the thought that Jesus makes his appearance on the scene. Matthew mentions both his starting point and his destination,54 but he says nothing about the journey. He further tells us that Jesus came specifically to John to be baptized by him. The construction55 indicates purpose; Jesus came to John in order to undergo the baptism John was administering.
14. But sets John’s purpose over against that of Jesus. Jesus came with the purpose of being baptized, but John objected.56 A further contrast is brought out with the use of the emphatic pronouns for I and you. John sets himself over against Jesus and says that any baptism should be the other way around: he should be baptized by Jesus and not Jesus by him. He points to his need; it is not a question of what he wants (or what Jesus wants) but of need. This is a further illustration of John’s humility and of his recognition of his own sinfulness, for a baptism like John’s was for penitent sinners, not for people who needed no repentance.57 His and is in the sense “emphasizing a fact as surprising or unexpected or noteworthy: and yet, and in spite of that” (BAGD, χαί, I.2.g). John is surprised at finding Jesus among his baptizands. It does not seem right and therefore he does not want this baptism to proceed. The Fourth Evangelist tells us that the Baptist did not know Jesus until he saw the Spirit descend on him like a dove (John 1:33), which may mean that he did not know Jesus or that he did not know him to be the Messiah. But Matthew does not address himself to this question. He simply tells us that John recognized his inferior place without going into the question of how he came to know it or for that matter how he understood it. Since John does not speak of Jesus as Messiah, he may have meant only that he knew that Jesus had greater authority than he or was morally superior to him.
15. Another but carries on the contrast. Jesus answers58 not so much the question John asked as the problem that lay behind it for John. Let it be so now clearly means “Let us get on with the baptism at this point”; the words negate John’s request not to proceed to baptize Jesus (the word now leaves room for something different in the future and thus for some recognition of John’s lower place than that of Jesus). It is fitting also presents no great problem. Jesus is saying that it is seemly or proper that they should go ahead. What is not so clear is how we should understand the words for us to fulfil all righteousness.59 Suggestions such as taking the expression “in the sense of fulfilling the divine statutes” (BAGD, 2.a; Carr is similar with “the requirements of the law”) should be rejected; what divine statute was fulfilled when Jesus was baptized? The view that it is the righteousness of the whole life that is in mind is somewhat better, though it is not easy to understand how Jesus and John were fulfilling that in this baptism.60 The expression is undoubtedly difficult and has aroused a great deal of discussion. But in this Gospel “fulfil” is often used of the fulfilment of prophecy, and this is surely in mind here. We should probably understand righteousness as in Isaiah 53:11: “by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.”61 Matthew is not averse to referring to Isaiah (e.g., 1:23; 12:18–21; he cites this very chapter in 8:17), and a reference to the righteousness of the Servant would suit the present passage admirably. Jesus might well have been up there in front standing with John and calling on sinners to repent. Instead he was down there with the sinners, affirming his solidarity with them, making himself one with them in the process of the salvation that he would in due course accomplish.62 If there is a reference to Isaiah 53, it is relevant to note that in that chapter we read: he “was numbered with the transgressors” (Isa. 53:12). There may also be something of the Israel typology here. Jesus himself had no need of repentance, but Israel certainly did; in submitting to John’s baptism Jesus is pointing to the people’s need. Matthew pictures Jesus as dedicating himself to the task of making sinners righteous, an appropriate beginning of his public ministry. John understood enough of what Jesus was saying to play his part; despite his initial hesitation he baptized Jesus.
16. Matthew does not describe the baptism, but takes up his narrative from the time when it was completed. He says that Jesus immediately went up from the water,63 and he follows this with look, the heavens were opened. His characteristic look (see on 1:20) draws attention to what follows and makes it all more vivid. It is not easy to see what is meant by the opening of the heavens, but we should probably think that for a short time the barrier between this world and heaven was set aside so that there could be some form of intercourse between the two. But it is not easy to understand whether Matthew is referring to a vision Jesus had which was personal to himself, or whether he is saying that all present shared in the experience. The manuscripts do not agree; many have “to him”64 after were opened (so GNB), and if we accept this reading Matthew is writing about what Jesus alone experienced (which would accord with Mark’s “he saw the heavens opened,” Mark 1:10). But if we follow the MSS that do not include “to him,” Matthew is saying that others, too, saw the opened heavens. He goes on to say that Jesus saw the Spirit coming down on him, but he does not say whether this vision was shared by others (Mark agrees with Matthew, Luke does not say who saw it, while John does not record the opening of heaven). On the whole it appears that Matthew is putting his emphasis on the experience of Jesus. The sight of the opened heavens and the visible manifestation of the Spirit would have been an encouragement to Jesus, and this is the way Matthew records it. Whether other people shared in the experience or not was apparently not so important to him, and he leaves us to puzzle about it.
This Evangelist alone says that it was the Spirit of God65 who came down (Mark and John have “the Spirit,” and Luke “the Holy Spirit”). Usually the Spirit is referred to as “the Holy Spirit,” but “God’s Spirit” is found in a number of places (e.g., 12:28), as are “my Spirit,” “his Spirit,” and “the Spirit of the Lord.” The Spirit descended on Jesus “like a dove.”66 There are two problems here. One is the precise nature of the bird. I have translated the word “dove,” but we must bear in mind that until comparatively recent times animals and birds seem not to have been named with great precision, apart from a few outstanding forms. Matthew’s word67 can refer to any one of a variety of pigeons and doves. It is impossible to attain certainty, but it is usually held that a dove is in mind and there is no reason to quarrel with this. The other problem is the meaning of the symbolism.68 In modern times it is often urged that the dove was an accepted symbol of the Holy Spirit, but this is not supported by the evidence. That the Spirit “was moving over the face of the waters” at the creation (Gen. 1:2) may be relevant, but there is no mention of “dove” in that passage. The dove was sometimes a symbol for Israel69 (cf. Hos. 7:11), and it is possible that this is in mind here. If so, Jesus is seen as the true, ideal Israelite when he receives the Spirit of God at the threshold of his public ministry. Morgan further points out that the dove “is the emblem of weakness,” so that “the Spirit of God in the form of a dove is an emblem of power in gentleness.” Matthew is the only one of the Evangelists who adds to the Spirit’s descent the fact that he “came” on Jesus. This apparently means that what looked like a dove alighted on Jesus and the Spirit of God now rested on him. It should not be overlooked that John linked the Holy Spirit and fire, whereas when the Spirit came on Jesus it was in the form of a harmless dove. Both pieces of symbolism, of course, point to truth and neither can be neglected.
17. Once again Matthew has his And look; he is fond of the expression and the emphasis it can give to what follows. All three Synoptists tell us of the voice out of heaven, which, of course, means the voice of God, “heaven” being a reverent periphrasis for the deity.70 Mark and Luke have the words addressed to Jesus, “You are my Son… ,” but Matthew’s This is my Son makes the words relevant to the bystanders; they are an open testimony to the Father’s approval of his Son (cf. 17:5 and see the note on 4:3), and we should view “Son” as a messianic title. The heavenly voice points to a relationship shared by no other. Beloved71 tells us of the strong affection the Father has for the Son; it is probably (as Allen thinks) “an independent title = ‘the Beloved’ = the Messiah” (see further the note on the same expression in 17:5). It is reinforced with in whom I am well pleased.72 The verb has the meaning “to think it good, give consent” and thence “to be well pleased, take pleasure in”; the latter is, of course, the meaning here. The divine voice gives approval to Jesus as he begins his public ministry. The words are reminiscent of Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1; they show us that right at the beginning of his ministry Jesus was identified with both the Messiah and the Suffering Servant,73 “and this strange combination exactly describes the nature of the Lord’s ministry soon to begin” (Melinsky). We should perhaps notice the mention of the three Persons of the Trinity in this passage; Matthew has a certain trinitarian interest (cf. 28:19).74
Matthew 4
B. Jesus’ Temptation, 4:1–11
After telling his readers about Jesus’ baptism Matthew goes on to let them know of the way their leader began his ministry. He tells us that Jesus was tempted by the devil and makes clear how he overcame the temptation. Then he goes on to some preliminary work in Galilee and relates the call of the first disciples.
1Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2And after fasting forty days and forty nights he was hungry. 3And the tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” 4But he replied, “It stands written, ‘Not on bread alone will man live, but on every word that goes out through God’s mouth.’ ”
5Then the devil takes him along into the holy city and stood him on the wing of the temple; 6and he says to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it stands written,
‘Because to his angels he will give command about you,
and they will hold you on their hands,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ ”
7Jesus said to him: “Again it stands written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”
8Again, the devil takes him to a very high mountain and shows him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor, 9and he said to him, “All these things I will give you if you fall down and worship me.” 10Then Jesus says to him, “Go away, Satan, for it stands written, ‘The Lord your God you will worship, and him only you will serve.’ ” 11Then the devil leaves him, and, look, angels drew near and took care of him.
There is a short temptation narrative in Mark 1:12–13 and significantly longer accounts in Matthew and Luke. These two are very similar, though the second and third temptations are in the reverse order, a fact that has never been explained satisfactorily. All the suggestions seem to give psychological reasons for the variation, and in the end these must remain subjective estimates. There are many slight linguistic differences, and if they are following a common source one of these writers (or perhaps both) has made significant alterations. The account must go back to Jesus himself: nobody else was present when the temptations took place.1
All three accounts speak of the Holy Spirit in the opening of the story, which means that there was a divine purpose in it all. Jesus has just had the wonderful experience at his baptism of seeing the heavens opened and hearing the voice of God greet him as Son and as the Beloved. Clearly he is marked out for special service. Some discussions of the temptation suggest that Jesus found it difficult to believe that he was the Son of God and that he was tempted accordingly to work a miracle to prove it.2 But this seems to be reading something into the narrative. There is no evidence that Jesus doubted the heavenly voice for one moment, and no probability. Even on a purely human level we may ask, What more is needed to bring conviction than having the heavens opened, the Spirit descending on one like a dove, and the voice of God coming from heaven? When the Father spoke to Jesus he accepted what was said. The temptations must be understood as the consequence of Jesus’ acceptance of his divine sonship, not of doubts about it.
The temptations proceed from the fact that he is the Son of God, and that accordingly he must live as the Son of God. The temptation narratives picture Jesus asking what that means. Is he to be a wonder-worker, using his powers to meet his own needs (and possibly those of others, too)? Is he to do spectacular but pointless miracles? Is he to establish a mighty empire ruling over the whole world? Matthew tells us that right at the beginning of his ministry Jesus looked at each of these and rejected them all as the temptations of the devil. It is significant that Jesus rejected each of the temptations by quoting Scripture: anything that goes against what is written there must be resisted. Each temptation was defeated by citing a passage of Scripture that had reference to the temptations that confronted Israel in the wilderness. Again we have the thought that Jesus fulfilled Israel’s vocation. Where Israel failed in the wilderness Jesus succeeded in the wilderness.3
1. Then (see on 2:7) is sometimes used rather loosely in Matthew, but on this occasion it surely places what follows as next in time: after the baptism came the temptation. Jesus was led up, where up is probably very much to the point: the Jordan where Jesus was baptized is well below sea level, but the wilderness (see on 3:1) seems to mean the high country. The term covers a wide area, but the meaning here is surely not that Jesus remained in that part of the wilderness which adjoins the Jordan but that he went up into the lonely mountainous area to the west. All three Synoptists speak of the activity of the Spirit, though they put it in different ways. Luke says simply that Jesus was “full of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:1), but Mark says that the Spirit “drives” him into the wilderness.4 We must surely see that the temptation had its place in God’s plan for his Son. The Spirit had just come on Jesus at the baptism when Jesus was assured of his divine sonship, and that same Spirit now leads him into the place where some important truths about the nature of that sonship would become clear through the process of resisting temptation. At the baptism it was made clear that Jesus would be serving God in a special way, with a special mission. But what did that mean? How would he go about that mission? The temptation was apparently the process that cleared that up.
Jesus then went to the wilderness to be tempted, where the construction seems to signify purpose: this took place in the plan of God.5 This does not mean that God initiated the temptation, for God tempts no one (Jas. 1:13). It means rather that God can use the efforts of evil people and even of Satan himself to set forward his purposes. The verb means “to test” and may be used in a good sense, a test applied with the intention that people will pass the test (e.g., Heb. 11:17). But much more often it is used where the intention is that the person will fail the test, and thus it comes to mean “to tempt”; indeed, in the New Testament that is its characteristic meaning, and the participle of the verb has the meaning “tempter” (so in v. 3).6 Matthew is telling us that immediately after the experience in which Jesus, so to speak, was commissioned for his work as Messiah Satan tried to deflect him from doing the will of God.7 On this occasion the evil one is called the devil,8 the one who opposes God and tries to lead the people of God, and here the Son of God, away from the right path. Jesus has been called into the service of God. The devil will then try to seduce him into the service of evil.
2. None of the Evangelists indicates why Jesus fasted,9 but fasting was a natural accompaniment of serious thinking and prayer. It was a common practice among the Jews of those days and a suitable accompaniment of reflection on the new life that was opening out before Jesus. Matthew goes on to spell out the length of the fast as forty days and forty nights (the same period that Moses fasted at the time of the giving of the Law, Exod. 34:28; cf. also Elijah, 1 Kings 19:8). Mark and Luke speak of the same length of time (though they do not mention the nights), but refer to it as the time of temptation, not the length of a fast (though after speaking of the temptation Luke adds that Jesus ate nothing in those days). Matthew speaks of the fast first, then goes on to the temptation. At the end of the abstention from food he says that Jesus was hungry, the natural result of the long fast (JB has “he was very hungry,” and REB “he was famished,” but such translations are the result of reflecting on the length of the fast rather than a strict rendering of the Greek).
3. The evil one is seen in his capacity as the tempter (see on v. 1): he came10 to tempt Jesus to do what was wrong. He begins with If you are the Son of God. There is a certain subtlety here, for the first-class conditional11 seems to assume the reality of the case: “If you are the Son of God (as you are) …” while yet the “if” suggests a little doubt: it might be well to bring some proof of this. Jesus’ special position is implied in the Son of God;12 that Son should be able to do a small thing like make stones into bread (and was he not very hungry?). And has not the Son of God the right to meet his basic needs by the use of his powers? These stones, that is, stones in the very area, indicates rocky surroundings. It was a desolate place, and food would not have been obtainable by ordinary means. The stones may well have been small ones, resembling in size and general appearance the small loaves that were often used. We could translate the word “loaves of bread” (as NRSV, Knox), though this would present a problem when the same word occurs in the singular in the next verse and we could scarcely say “loaf” there. It is better to retain the kinship between the two verses. The important thing in any case is not the precise terminology, but the temptation for a hungry man, who knew he could do it, to turn13 stones into food, food that would satisfy his hunger then and there14 (and, of course, repeated on a larger scale, would provide many hungry people with food). At a later time, it is true, Jesus did use his powers to provide food for multitudes (14:15–21; 15:32–38), but these were special and exceptional occasions. There was no use of his powers for his own gratification or as a means of impressing people. His multiplication of loaves on those occasions was consistent with his God-ordained mission, just as was his refusal to do it here. He had come to take a lowly place and in the end die on a cross to save others; to use his powers to satisfy personal needs would be to deny all this. Many draw attention to the contrast with Adam. Cf. Glover, “With ‘every tree of the garden’ for food, Adam fell; with desert stones mocking His hunger, the second Adam conquered.” It is perhaps worth noting that Luke seems to bring out the contrast with Adam; between the baptism and the temptation he has his genealogy, which ends with Jesus’ relationship to Adam.
4. But15 sets Jesus in contrast: over against the tempter’s suggestion comes this reply. It stands written (see on 2:5) points to the reliability and unchangeability of Scripture. For Jesus, to have found a passage in the Bible that bears on the current problem is to end all discussion. He proceeds to quote Deuteronomy 8:3 in a form that agrees exactly with LXX (Luke stops at “will man live”). Not on16 bread alone does not deny the importance of bread (in Palestine it was almost synonymous with “food”), but it does deny its exclusive importance. A life sustained by food only is a very poor life.17 So Jesus goes on to a but that employs the strong adversative,18 and makes a sharp contrast with the preceding. Every word is comprehensive: Jesus is not suggesting that parts of Scripture may safely be neglected, but affirming that it is profitable in its entirety. The reason is apparent in the words that goes out through God’s mouth. Jesus views God as the author of Scripture, and because of this it must be heeded carefully. Through is unusual in such a connection; it perhaps hints that what has been spoken is more than a casual utterance. It does not originate on the lips, so to speak, but comes from the inner being. We should not overlook the fact that, while Jesus was tempted to do something quite beyond our ability, he does not cite a text that applies to the Messiah alone; what he quotes is valid for the whole race. Jesus overcame temptation with resources open to each of his followers. Obedience was important for him, and it is important for them.
5. The second temptation is the third in Luke, and there are considerable differences. In this opening up to and says to him Matthew has seventeen words of which only nine are in Luke, who has twelve words. Thus Matthew has most of what is in Luke, together with matter of his own. For then see on 2:7; it brings us to the next in Matthew’s sequence. Jesus had rejected the first temptation because he trusted God to supply his need; now he is tempted through that very assurance. Matthew reverts to the devil as his name for the evil one and says that he now takes (the present tense gives greater vividness) Jesus along into the holy city (i.e., Jerusalem; this term occurs again in 27:53 and 4 times in Revelation only in the New Testament). Neither Matthew nor Luke makes it clear whether this is a physical removal of Jesus from the wilderness or whether it means a vivid suggestion to the mind such that he saw himself in the position mentioned. But in any case we should remember that the essence of temptation is inward: it does not depend on the physical location of the person tempted. The devil stood19 him on the wing of the temple. The word translated wing20 seems to have been used for the extremity of anything; it is used of the fins of a fish, the tail flaps of a lobster, and the tip of a rudder (LSJ). It seems that here it means the peak, the point of a roof, or, as some think, a battlement or turret (“parapet,” JB, REB). But there is a problem in that we do not know what roof. The definite article shows that it was a well-known place, but we can scarcely do more than say that it was obviously something at a great height, so that a leap from it would be spectacular.
6. As in the first temptation, the devil begins with If you are the Son of God, and this time follows it with throw yourself down; he implies that Jesus can do this quite safely. It does not need to be said that this would be a spectacular miracle; the evil one simply suggests the leap. In the first temptation he had been repelled by the quotation of Scripture, but this time he does some quoting of his own, appealing to Psalm 91:11–12 with the strong formula of quotation it stands written accompanied by for, which gives the reason: Jesus should do this, Satan suggests, because the angels are there to help him.21 For the most part Matthew records the quotation as in LXX. The words in the Psalm, “to guard you in all your ways,” are omitted, but we should not see something sinister in that. It may well have been done to concentrate attention on the bearing up in the hands of the angels: it is safe descent from a height that is in mind, not angelic protection through the varied vicissitudes of every day. For angel see on 1:20. None less than the angels have received a command from the Father; the implication is that a command emanating from such a quarter and addressed to such agents will surely be carried out. Holding him on their hands means that he will be given close protection and that in the case of a fall from a height he will come to no harm. This will be done, the Psalm says, lest22 you strike your foot against a stone. Satan is suggesting that the care of the angels will be such that the smallest mishap is quite impossible. There would not even be a stubbed toe!
7. Jesus’ reply23 begins with Again,24 and once more it features it stands written. Jesus had defeated the first temptation by citing Scripture, and he uses the same method this time. He raises no objection to Satan’s quoting from the Psalm, but simply goes on to another passage that shows that the application the evil one has made of the Scripture he cites is faulty. Jesus draws attention to Deuteronomy 6:16 (Matthew has it exactly as LXX), “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” In Deuteronomy the words refer to the incident at Massah, where the Israelites were short of water and complained about Moses. That patriarch asked the grumblers, “Why do you put the LORD to the proof?” (Exod. 17:2), which is further explained in the question they had asked, “Is the LORD among us or not?” (Exod. 17:7). On that occasion God ordered Moses to strike the rock with his rod. When he did so, water came out and the people’s need was fully met. But the way the incident is reported makes it clear that a demand for the miraculous, such as the one the Israelites made, is not acceptable. The servants of God cannot demand that God should keep on intervening with miraculous provision for their needs.25 To jump from a height and then look to God to avert the natural consequences of such an act is just such an offense. Furthermore, it is worse than what happened at Massah, for at least the people there were in real need of water. What Satan is suggesting is that Jesus should needlessly thrust himself into danger; he would be creating a hazard where none previously existed. And for what? To compel God to save him miraculously. It is a temptation to manipulate God, to create a situation not of God’s choosing in which God would be required to act as Jesus dictated. Jesus rejects the suggestion with decision. He prefers the way of quiet trust in the heavenly Father, a trust that needs no test, and a ready acceptance of his will. He refuses to demand a miracle even if from the perspective of someone on earth that might seem desirable, even compelling.
8. Again together with the following verb repeats an expression from verse 5: once more Satan takes Jesus along, but this time to a very high mountain.26 There are frequent references to mountains in the Gospels (as also in the Apocalypses). This one was very high.27 From this standpoint the devil shows28 Jesus all earth’s kingdoms. The word means territory ruled over by a king, but here the emphasis is on the territory rather than the method of government. The world makes the expression as extensive as it can possibly be, and splendor brings out the attractiveness of those kingdoms at their best. The fact that there is no mountain from which all the world may be seen literally favors the view that the tempter brings all this before the mind of Jesus. Satan holds out before him the prospect of a mighty empire, one that would embrace the whole world. When we contemplate the evils that flourish in even the best states we know and the wickedness that abounds in high places, we can see that to establish a worldwide empire that would be ruled with perfect justice was a real temptation, not a sham parade. Nor should we dismiss the whole episode as something that happened to Jesus but has no relevance to anyone else. Many who profess to follow the Christ have purchased their own “empires” at the cost of the acceptance of evil.
9. But the price for all these things was a very high one. To obtain such an empire29 Jesus would be required to fall down and worship30 the evil one (Goodspeed translates “fall on your knees and do homage to me,” but this sounds too much like the honor that may be accorded humans in high position; Matthew is thinking of the honor that is to be given only to God). Filson explains it this way: “Serve the devil and rule the world. In modern terms, be practical, realistic, ready to compromise; ‘the end justifies the means’. To help people you must get position and power.” The expression signifies not a passing gesture but a real acceptance of Satan’s ways; it means yielding the chief place to Satan. It meant that if Jesus was to obtain these kingdoms he would have to accord to the evil one the place that belongs to God alone. Jesus would obtain the mighty empire only by doing what Satan wanted.
10. Jesus rejects this temptation with decision and, as he rejected the earlier temptations, by citing a passage of Scripture. Matthew begins this part of his account with his habitual then (see on 2:7) and again uses the present tense, which gives greater vividness. Go away31 is a decisive rejection of the proposition Satan has made; Jesus will have nothing to do with it nor with him who suggested it. Satan is used here for the first time in this Gospel (Matthew has it 4 times in all). The word has the meaning “adversary” and is used for the being who is strongly opposed to God and to the best interests of the people God has made. For it stands written see the note on 2:5. Jesus proceeds to quote from Deuteronomy again, this time from 6:13. 32 In this passage the Lord your God stands first with emphasis; not Satan but God is to be the object of worship, and the prefix the Lord points to something of his majesty. You will worship is a future with the force of an imperative; the passage gives instruction on the object of worship. Divine honors are for God alone. With worship the passage links serve,33 another word that points to service offered to God. Worship and this kind of service are not to be offered to humans, nor to angelic beings, however high. The terms refer to what is proper for God alone. Only is an important word. It is worth reflecting that, while Satan offered Jesus sovereignty over all the earth if he would but worship him, Jesus worshipped God only and all power in heaven and on earth was given him (28:18).
11. Then (see on 2:7) denotes what is next in sequence. Satan was defeated and he left Jesus. Matthew says no more than that the evil one went away, leaving us to infer that the temptation was over, at any rate for the time being. Bruce comments, “Nothing was to be made of one who would not do evil that good might come.” Luke says that the evil one left Jesus “until a suitable time” (Luke 4:13), for which Matthew has no equivalent.34 This does not mean, of course, that Matthew thought that his Lord was never tempted again; there was a notable occasion when Jesus addressed Peter as “Satan,” clearly recognizing the evil one behind the words Peter had been speaking (16:23). Matthew rounds off this narrative with the information that angels (see on 1:20) came and took care of Jesus. He does not elaborate, and the verb took care is quite general and could denote any one of a wide variety of services.35 The imperfect tense denotes a sustained action.