CHAPTER III

Outline of Chapter 3

Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do

3:1–12 The Ministry of John the Baptist

3:13–17 The Baptism of Jesus

3:1–12 The Ministry of John the Baptist

Cf. Mark 1:3–8; Luke 3:4–18; John 1:6–8, 15–28¹⁹⁸

3 1 Now in those days John the Baptist made his public appearance, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 “Be converted,¹⁹⁷ for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 3 It was of him that the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said,

“A voice of one crying in the wilderness:

Make ready the way of the Lord,

Make straight his paths.”

4 Now this John wore a garment made of camel’s hair, and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole Jordan neighborhood. 6 Confessing their sins they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism he said to them, “You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to escape from the approaching (outpouring of) wrath? 8 Bear fruit therefore in keeping with conversion; 9 and do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here. 10 Already the axe is laid at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 11 I on my part baptize you with water with a view to conversion; but he who is coming behind me is mightier than I—I am not fit to remove his sandals—he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor. He will gather his grain into the granary, but the chaff he will consume with unquenchable fire.”

In chapters 1 and 2 Matthew has revealed to us the greatness of the Christ, the true Son of David, the One to whom even wise men from the east rendered homage. It is proper that a king, especially such a king, have a herald to proclaim his approach. This herald was John the Baptist.

1. Now in those days John the Baptist made his public appearance, preaching in the wilderness of Judea. The expression “in those days” is very indefinite, probably meaning no more than “in the days of Christ’s earthly sojourn.” For a more precise chronological note see Luke 3:1, 2. If John, like Jesus (Luke 3:23), was about thirty years of age when he made his first public appearance, then, since the Baptist was about six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:26, 36), and since Jesus probably began his ministry in late a.d. 26 or early 27, ¹⁹⁹ it was likely during the summer of that same year that John had begun to address the multitudes.

Everything about John was startling: his sudden emergence, manner of dress, choice of food, preaching, and baptizing. The evangelist Luke first dwells in great detail (1:5–25, 41, 57–79) on the miraculous manner of John’s birth to the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth, the latter also of priestly descent. Then, in one brief note Luke covers the entire period between John’s birth and the beginning of his ministry: “And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the wilderness until the day when he made his public appearance before Israel” (1:80). On that day suddenly there he was, fullgrown, facing a large multitude, his startling debut reminding men of Elijah (I Kings 17:1).

He was preaching in “the wilderness of Judea,” a term indicating the rolling bad lands between the hill country of Judea to the west, and the Dead Sea and lower Jordan to the east, stretching northward to about the point where the Jabbok flows into the Jordan. It is indeed a desolation, a vast undulating expanse of barren chalky soil covered with pebbles, broken stones and rocks.²⁰⁰ Here and there a bit of brushwood appears, with snakes crawling underneath (see verse 7). It is clear, however, from Matt. 3:5 (cf. John 1:28) that the terrain of John’s activity extended even to the east bank of the Jordan. It included the entire region around—i.e., on both banks of this part of—the Jordan.²⁰¹

He preached, saying 2. Be converted.… His message was not prolix but pithy, not soothing but soul-searching, not flattering but frightening, at least to considerable degree. He was a preacher of imminent doom (see verses 7 and 10), a catastrophe that could be avoided only by a, radical turnabout of mind and heart. The gist of his message is given here in verse 2. However, the rendering found in many of our translations, namely, “Repent”—thus A.V., A.R.V., R.S.V., etc.—is probably not the best. It has been called a. “infelicitous” (W. D. Chamberlain), b. a rendering that “does not do justice to the original, since it gives undue prominence to the emotional element” (L. Berkhof), c. “a hopeless mistranslation” (A. T. Robertson), and even d. “the worst translation in the New Testament” (J. A. Broadus). I agree with a. and b., but I find c. and d. too harsh. It is not as bad as all that! The idea of repentance is definitely included in the Baptist’s terse admonition. Genuine sorrow for sin and an earnest resolution to break with the evil past is even emphasized (see especially 3:6 and Luke 3:13, 14). But repentance, though basic, is only one side of the picture. It might be called the negative aspect. The positive is fruit-bearing (Matt. 3:8, 10). The word used in the original²⁰² looks forward as well as backward. Therefore the rendering “be converted” is probably better than “repent.” Conversion, moreover, affects not only the emotions but also the mind and the will. In the original the word used by the Baptist indicates a radical change of mind and heart that leads to a complete turnabout of life.²⁰³ Cf. II Cor. 7:8–10; II Tim. 2:25. Does not this insistence on conversion remind one of Elijah (I Kings 18:18, 21, 37; Mal. 4:5, 6; Matt. 11:14; 17:12, 13; Mark 9:11–13; Luke 1:17)?

It should be stressed that although John attached considerable importance to baptism, baptized many, and was therefore called “the Baptist,” he did not consider this rite to have any saving significance apart from the fundamental change of life indicated by conversion. It is on the latter that he placed the greatest emphasis (see especially verses 7, 8).

To the words “Be converted” John adds, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. This “kingdom of heaven” concept will be discussed at greater length in connection with 4:23. For the present it should suffice to state that John meant that the dispensation in which, through the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies (see pp. 80, 81), heaven’s (i.e., God’s) reign in the hearts and lives of men would begin to assert itself far more powerfully than ever before, was about to begin; in a sense, had even now arrived. Great blessings were in store for all those who, by sovereign grace, would confess and forsake their sins and would begin to live to God’s glory. On the other hand, doom was about to overtake the impenitent. As sovereign Lord, God was about to assert himself most emphatically both for salvation and for damnation. The Baptist emphasized the latter (verses 7, 8, 10–12), though he certainly did not omit the former (verse 12). In order to escape punishment and obtain the blessing men should undergo the radical change already described.

Matthew continues: 3. It was of him that the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said,

A voice of one crying in the wilderness:

Make ready the way of the Lord,

Make straight his paths.²⁰⁴

Isa. 40:3–5 symbolically pictures the approach of Jehovah for the purpose of leading the procession of Jews who will be returning joyfully to their homeland after long years of captivity. In the Syrian desert, between Babylonia and Palestine, the way must be prepared for the Lord’s coming. So, a herald cries out to the people,

In the wilderness make ready the way of the Lord,

Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

This figure of the herald is by Matthew applied to John, as Christ’s herald. The Baptist, by saying, “I am the voice, …” shows that he agrees with this interpretation (John 1:23). So does Jesus himself (Matt. 11:10). This shows that the deliverance granted to the Jews when, in the latter part of the sixth century b.c. and afterward, they returned to their own country was but a type of that far more glorious liberation in store for all who accept Christ as their Savior and Lord. In other words, Isaiah’s prophecy regarding the voice that cried out lacked total fulfilment until both Messiah’s forerunner and also the Lord himself had arrived on the scene.²⁰⁵

The appropriate character of the application of Isa. 40:3 to John the Baptist is evident from the following: a. John was preaching in the wilderness (verse 1); and b. the task assigned to him from the days of his infancy (Luke 1:76, 77), yes even earlier (Luke 1:17; Mal. 3:1), was exactly this, namely, to be Messiah’s herald or way-preparer. He was to be the Lord’s “voice” to the people, all of that but not more than (cf. John 3:22–30). As such he must not only announce Christ’s approach and presence but also urge the people to prepare the way of the Lord, that is, by God’s grace and power to effect a complete change of mind and heart (see verse 2). This implies that they must make straight his paths, meaning that they must provide the Lord with a ready access into their hearts and lives. They must make straight whatever was crooked, not in line with God’s holy will. They must clear away all the obstacles which they had thrown into his path; such obstructions as self-righteousness and smug complacency (“We have Abraham as our father,” verse 9), greed, cruelty, slander, etc. (Luke 3:13, 14).

It is evident that, both in Isaiah and in John’s preaching as recorded by Matthew, “the wilderness” through which a path must be made ready for the Lord is in the final analysis the people’s heart, inclined to all evil. Though the literal meaning is not absent, it is subsumed into the figurative. The root idea is indeed the actual desert. “But the very sight of the [literal] wilderness must have had a powerful effect on stupid and hardened men, leading them to perceive that they were in a state of death, and to accept the promise of salvation that had been held out to them” (John Calvin on Matt. 3:3).

The manner of life of John the Baptist is described as follows: 4. Now this John wore a garment made of camel’s hair, and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. John’s long, flowing garment, woven from camel’s hair, reminds us somewhat of Elijah’s mantle, though there is a difference in the description (cf. Matt. 3:4 with II Kings 1:8). Such rugged apparel may have been regarded as symbolic of the prophetic office. Zech. 13:4 (cf. I Sam. 28:14) seems to point in that direction. At any rate, such rough garb was fit for desert wear. It was durable and economical. Jesus makes special mention of the fact that John did not wear fine clothes (Matt. 11:8). He had not been raised as a Little Lord Fauntleroy, and never became a dandy. The Baptist’s rough robe matched his message. Imagine a man “clothed in soft raiment” (Matt. 11:8) being a “Bussprediger”!²⁰⁶ Coarse apparel befitted this stern preacher. The leather belt fastened at the waist not only kept the loose robe from blowing and tearing apart but also enabled it to be tucked up to facilitate walking. In this connection see also N.T.C. on Eph. 6:14.

John’s food was as simple as was his clothing. He subsisted on locusts and wild honey, evidently such fare as could be found in the wilderness. Honey, the kind that is found in the wild, presents no problem. It was not just a sweetener (sugar, as we now know it, being then rather rare) but an article of food. In the wilderness it could be found under rocks or in crevices under the rocks (Deut. 32:13). The role which wild honey played in the stories of Samson (Judg. 14:8, 9, 18) and of Jonathan (I Sam. 14:25, 26, 29) is too well-known to need elaboration.

But locusts! It is entirely possible that one shudders to think of actually eating them, their legs and wings having been discarded, their bodies roasted or baked, a little salt added. Nevertheless, it is clear from Lev. 11:22 that the Lord permitted—and by implication encouraged—the Israelites to eat four kinds of insects which we in North America would popularly call “locusts.” Even today certain Arabian tribes relish them. And why not? The Latin saying, “De gustibus non disputandum est” (“One should not argue about taste”) still holds. Those who enjoy shrimp, mussel, oyster, and frog-leg should not find fault with those who eat the locust. See also p. 218.

It is, however, not necessary to conclude that verse 4 gives us a complete summary of the Baptist’s diet. The main point is that by means of his simple mode of life, evident with respect to both food and clothing, he was a living protest against all selfishness and self-indulgence, hence also against that frivolousness, carelessness, and false security with which many people were rushing toward their doom, and were doing this with the judgment so near at hand (see verses 7, 10, 12; cf. Matt. 24:37–39; and Luke 17:27–29).

John’s energetic and courageous preaching was effective: 5. Then went out to him Jerusalem, all Judea, and the whole Jordan neighborhood. In very large numbers the Jerusalem population, the residents of Judea in general, and those living on either side of the Jordan (see on verse 1) went out to see and hear John. “Everybody” took him to be a prophet (Matt. 21:26). Continued: 6. Confessing their sins they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. Without confession of sins no baptism! For those who truthfully repented of their evil state and wicked conduct baptism, never an independently operating charisma, was a visible sign and seal of invisible grace (cf. Rom. 4:11), the grace of the forgiveness of sins and adoption into God’s own family.

Contrary to the opinion of some,²⁰⁷ who believe that there was no connection between proselyte baptism—i.e., the baptism of non-Jews converted to the Jewish religion—and the baptism of John, the opposite theory would seem to have the weight of evidence on its side. Rabbi Hillel may be confidently dated as having lived during the last half of the first century b.c. and the first quarter of the first century a.d. Rabbi Shammai was his contemporary. Their respective followers gave contradictory answers to the question, “Is it possible for a non-Jew who becomes a proselyte on the evening before the Passover to partake of the paschal meal?” The school of Shammai answered that such a convert “must take a bath” and may then take part. The school of Hillel denied this. Is it not reasonable to believe that these contradictory answers are traceable to the two opposing teachers? It would seem, therefore, that proselyte baptism preceded the baptism advocated and administered by John the Baptist. Also for another reason it is difficult to believe that John’s baptism and the immediately following Christian baptism,²⁰⁸ symbolizing in each case a once-for-all radical change of life, historically preceded proselyte baptism. Is it at all conceivable that the latter, as a Jewish ritual, would be copied by the Jews from something resembling it among the Christians, their bitter enemies? Conclusion: “Proselyte baptism must have preceded Christian baptism.”²⁰⁹

As already implied, proselyte baptism was not a constantly repeated ceremonial rite but a once-for-all legal act of reception into the religious fellowship of Judaism. Accordingly, when similarly John the Baptist urged upon the Jews that they be converted and be baptized they must have been aware of the fact that such a baptism, if properly received, would symbolize a definite and public renunciation of their former mode of life. What was new and startling for the Baptist’s audience was not the rite of baptism as such, as a symbol of radical change, but rather the fact that such a fundamental transformation and its sign and seal were required not only as in proselyte baptism, of Gentiles who adopted the Jewish religion, but even of the children of Abraham! They, too, were filthy! They, too, must acknowledge this openly! They, too, must undergo a basic turnabout in mind and heart!

Yet, many confessed their sins and were baptized in the Jordan River. What percentage of them accepted baptism in good conscience, and what proportion did not do so with genuine sorrow of heart, we are of course unable to judge. That there was definite danger of hypocrisy is evident from verse 7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism²¹⁰ he said to them, You offspring of vipers!

Pharisees and Sadducees

Their Origin

The exact manner in which, and the exact date when, these parties rose is obscure. There is reason to believe, however, that the Pharisees were the successors of the ḥaṣidhim, i.e., the Pious or Saints. The latter were those Jews who, during and even prior to the Maccabean revolt (see pp. 127, 157), had opposed the adoption of Greek culture and customs. It is understandable that as long as the Maccabeans in their heroic struggle were chiefly motivated by religious principles they would have the full support of the ḥaṣidhim; but that when, especially during the days of John Hyrcanus and those who followed him, the emphasis of the Jewish rulers was shifted from the spiritual to the secular sphere, the ḥaṣidhim would either lose interest and withdraw themselves or else would actively oppose the descendants of the very people whom they had formerly supported. The Pharisees, meaning Separatists, may well have been, in their origin, the reformed or reorganized ḥaṣidhim, the ḥaṣidhim under another name. They separated themselves not only from the heathen, from publicans and from sinners, but even in general, from the indifferent Jewish mutltitudes, whom they derisively dubbed “the people who do not know the law” (John 7:49). They tried hard not to become contaminated or defiled by associating with anyone or anything that would render them ceremonially unclean.

The Sadducees were in many ways the very opposites of the Pharisees. They were the compromisers, the men who, though ostensibly still clinging to the law of God, were not really hostile to the spread of Hellenism. They were the sacerdotal party, the party to which the highpriests generally belonged. It is not surprising that it became popular to derive the name Sadducees from Zadok (LXX: Sadok), an etymology that may be correct. This Zadok was the man who during David’s reign shared the highpriestly office with Abiathar (II Sam. 8:17; 15:24; I Kings 1:35), and was made sole highpriest by Solomon (I Kings 2:35). Until the days of the Maccabees the descendants of Zadok had retained the highpriesthood.

Their Mutual Opposition

One important point on which the two parties clashed is clearly brought out in Acts 23:6–8:

“Paul, realizing that one section of the Sanhedrin were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, raised his voice and said to them, ‘Brothers, I am a Pharisee and the son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope of the resurrection of the dead that I am being examined.’ And when he had said this there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection or angel or spirit, but the Pharisees accept them all.” From Josephus we learn that the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul along with the resurrection of the body. They held that the soul perished when the body died.

Another point on which the two went in opposite directions had to do with the canon. The Pharisees recognized two criteria or standards for doctrine and discipline: the written Old Testament and the oral traditions. As to the latter, they believed that these additions to—but in reality often rather peculiar interpretations of—the written law had been given by Moses to the elders and had by the latter been transmitted orally down through the generations. They made so much of these traditions that often, by means of their emphasis upon them, they “made the word of God of no effect” (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:13). The Sadducees, on the contrary, accepted nothing but Scripture. They esteemed the Pentateuch above the prophets, etc.

Finally, if Josephus, who at the age of nineteen had publicly joined the Pharisees, can be trusted, there was still another sharp contrast: the Pharisees believed not only in man’s freedom and responsibility with respect to his own actions but also in the divine decree; the Sadducees rejected the decree (Josephus, Jewish War II.162–166; Antiquities XIII.171–173, 297, 298; XVIII.12–17).

Their Co-operation

Though they differed so strikingly, yet basically many of these Pharisees and Sadducees were in perfect agreement, for in the final analysis they both tried to attain security by their own efforts: whether this security consisted in earthly possessions on this side of the grave, as with the Sadducees, many of whom were rich landowners and/or beneficiaries of the trade carried on in the temple precincts; or, on the other side (at least also on the other side), as with the Pharisees, who were striving with all their might to work their way into heaven. Religion in both cases was outward conformity, through self-effort, to a certain standard.

It should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that when Jesus, with his emphasis on the religion of the heart and on God as the sole Author of salvation, appeared upon the scene of history he was rejected by both groups: by the Pharisees because he denounced them since they cleansed only the outside of the cup or platter (Matt. 23:25), and, while tithing mint, anise, and cummin, neglected the weightier matters of the law: “justice, and mercy, and fidelity” (23:23); and by the Sadducees because, by means of the temple-cleansing, he exposed their money-grabbing racket, and probably also because they considered his claims to pose a threat to the status quo of the nation and therefore to their own influential position. Besides, it is understandable that both Pharisees and Sadducees envied Jesus (Matt. 27:18).

So at last Pharisees and Sadducees co-operate to bring about his death (16:1, 6, 11; 22:15, 23; 26:3, 4, 59; 27:20). Even afterward they combine in their attempt to prevent belief in his resurrection (27:62). It is not strange, therefore, that Jesus would at times in one breath condemn both groups (16:6 ff).

Now according to our present passage (3:7) Pharisees and Sadducees are approaching John with a request that he baptize them. This may seem strange. Though not all commentators agree, yet in the light of all that has been said about the two groups, their behavior in the present instance can probably best be explained by their selfishness. They did not wish to lose their hold on the multitudes who were flocking to John to be baptized. If this was the place where the action was they wanted to be part of it, in order, if possible, to assume leadership. But did not submission to the rite of baptism imply confession of sin? Well, if necessary they were even willing to “stoop to conquer.” Of course, they were not sincere, not really penitent at all nor actually desirous to undergo a radical change of mind and heart. They were deceitful, hypocritical. Cf. Matt. 16:1; 22:15.

It is in this light that we can understand the Baptist’s stern rebuke, “You offspring of vipers.” John was acquainted with these desert snakes. Though rather small in size they were very deceitful. At times it was easy to mistake them for dead branches. Suddenly, however, they would strike and cling (cf. Acts 28:3). The comparison was apt, therefore.²¹¹ Is not Satan, that deceiver (John 8:44), also called a serpent (Rev. 12:9; 20:2)? Are they not his tools?

John adds, Who warned you to escape from the approaching (outpouring of) wrath? In this connection the following ideas deserve attention:

First, this wrath or settled indignation, rests upon unregenerate man by nature (Eph. 2:3). It pertains even to the present (John 3:18, 36; Rom. 1:18).

Secondly, the final outpouring of this wrath is reserved for the future (Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; II Thess. 1:8, 9; Rev. 14:10).

Thirdly, this final manifestation of wrath (Zeph. 1:15; 2:2) is connected with the (second) coming of the Messiah (Mal. 3:2, 3; 4:1, 5).

Fourthly, without genuine conversion man cannot escape it: “Who warned you to escape.…?” This probably means, “Who deluded you into thinking that it is possible to evade God, and encouraged you to try it?” Cf. Ps. 139; Jonah 1:3.

Fifthly, for the true penitent there is indeed a way of escape: 8. Bear fruit therefore in keeping with conversion. As pointed out earlier (see on verse 2), repentance, if it is to be genuine, must be accompanied by fruit-bearing. A merely outward confession of sin will never do. A mere desire to be baptized, as if this rite were a wonder-working charm, has no positive value. There must be that inward change which expresses itself outwardly in God-glorifying conduct, fruit-bearing in keeping with conversion. According to Luke 3:10–14 this fruit-bearing must include such items as generosity, fairness, thoughtfulness, and contentment; according to Matt. 23:23, justice, mercy, and faith; and in view of the manner in which the Baptist descriptively addresses these Pharisees and Sadducees (“You offspring of vipers”), there must be uprightness. On fruit-bearing see also Matt. 5:20–23; 7:16–19; 12:33; 13:8, 23; 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23; Luke 13:6–9; John 15:1–16; Gal. 5:22, 23; Eph. 5:9; Phil. 1:22; 4:17; Col. 1:6; Heb. 12:11; 13:15; and James 3:18.

The deplorable lack of fruit-bearing on the part of the addressed is evident also from verse 9… and do not presume to say to yourselves, We have Abraham as our father, for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here. The reason why these Pharisees and Sadducees were headed for damnation was that for their eternal security they were relying on their descent from Abraham. Cf. Gal. 3:1–9 and see N.T.C. on those verses. John the Baptist was fully aware of the fact that physical descent from Abraham did not guarantee being a true son of Abraham. He also knew that entirely apart from such pedigree God could give sons to Abraham. The God who was able to create Adam out of the dust of the ground was also able to make true sons of Abraham out of the desert stones to which John probably pointed. Probable symbolical overtone: He can change hearts of stone into obedient hearts (Ezek. 36:26), entirely regardless of the nationality of these hearts of stone.

As far as salvation was concerned, the old distinctions were gradually disappearing. This does not mean that in the order in which this salvation was being proclaimed and in which the church was being gathered there was no distinction. The historical sequence, a reflection of God’s plan from eternity, certainly was “to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16; cf. Acts 13:46; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:1–5). This order is also clear from Matthew’s Gospel (10:6; 15:24). But the beginning of a new day, a day in which there would be “no distinction between Jew and Greek” was dawning. See Matt. 2:1–12; 8:11, 12; 22:1–14; 28:19, 20; Acts 10:34–48; Rom. 9:7, 8; 10:12, 13; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 3:7, 16, 17, 29; 4:21–31; 6:15, 16; Eph. 2:14–18; Phil. 3:2, 3; Col. 3:11; and Rev. 7:9, 14, 15.

As to the impenitent, in verse 10 John the Baptist continues: Already²¹² the axe is laid at the root of the trees. Judgment is at hand. The axe lies right in front of (πρός) or, as we would say, “at” the root, with sinister intent, ready to hew down one tree after another. Right now, therefore, is the proper moment to repent and to believe. In this connection see also Ps. 95:7, 8; Isa. 55:6; Luke 13:7, 9; 17:32; John 15:6; Rom. 13:11; II Cor. 6:2; I John 2:18; Rev. 1:3. Continued: … every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into fire. The question might be asked, “But was the day of the final manifestation of God’s wrath upon the wicked actually that close? Is it not true that many centuries have passed by since the Baptist spoke these words, and still the Lord has not returned for judgment?” The following facts should be borne in mind:

First, John reminds one of the Old Testament prophet who, in speaking about the last days or the Messianic age would at times look upon the future as a traveler does on a distant mountain range. He fancies that one mountain top rises up right behind the other, when in reality the two are miles apart. The two comings of Christ are viewed as if they were one. Thus we read “A shoot shall come forth out of the stock of Jesse … and he shall smite the earth” (Isa. 11:1–4). “Jehovah has anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek. He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and … the day of vengeance of our God” (Isa. 61:1, 2). “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.… The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of Jehovah arrives” (Joel 2:28–31). Cf. Mal. 3:1, 2. This has been called “prophetic foreshortening.”

Secondly, Jerusalem’s fall (a.d. 70) was drawing perilously near, and foreshadowed the final judgment.

Thirdly, impenitence has a tendency of hardening a person, so that often he is left in his present lost condition. Without genuine repentance death and the judgment are for him irrevocable and “at the door.”

Fourthly, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (II Peter 3:8).

Fifthly, as the references given above (p. 205, beginning with Ps. 95:7, 8) indicate, John was by no means the only one who emphasized the imminence of the judgment and/or the need of becoming converted right now. Therefore, if on this score we find fault with the Baptist we would also have to blame the psalmists, the prophets, the apostles, and even the Lord himself! Surely, no true believer is ready to do this.

Sixthly, all this does not necessarily mean that the Baptist himself always saw the present and the future in true perspective. See on 11:1–3. It only means that the Holy Spirit guided him so that in his actual preaching as here recorded he had a perfect right to say what he said.

The “fire” into which the unfruitful trees are cast is evidently a symbol of the final outpouring of God’s wrath upon the wicked. See also Mal. 4:1; Matt. 13:40; John 15:6. Jesus spoke about “the Gehenna of fire” (Matt. 5:22, 29; 18:9; Mark 9:47). This fire is unquenchable (Matt. 3:12; 18:8; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17). The point is not merely that there is always a fire burning in Gehenna but that God burns the wicked with unquenchable fire, the fire that has been prepared for them as well as for the devil and his angels (Matt. 3:12; 25:41).²¹³

The question might be asked, “If, then, the Baptist was, to a considerable degree, a preacher of hell and damnation, how was it that by divine direction he was called “John” (Luke 1:13), that is, “Jehovah is gracious”? Answer: Warning people that doom is impending and will certainly overtake them unless they repent and believe, is not this a gracious act? Does it not indicate that God is not cruel, not eager to punish, but longsuffering? Did he not show this patience to the antediluvians (Gen. 6:3; I Peter 3:20); Lot (Gen. 19:12–22); David (II Sam. 23:5); the Israelites (Exod. 33:12–17; Isa. 5:1, 2; 63:9; Jer. 8:20; Ezek. 10:19—the lingering of the throne chariot—; 18:23; 33:11); and Simon Peter (John 21:15–17)? Is not that same divine attribute gloriously revealed in the parable of The Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:8, “Let it alone this year also”); in II Peter 3:9 (“God is longsuffering toward you”); in Rom. 9:22 (“God endured with much longsuffering”); in Rev. 2:21 (“I gave her time to repent”); and in Rev. 8:1 (“silence in heaven for about half an hour”)?

Turning now to the entire multitude, John continues: 11. I on my part baptize you with water with a view to conversion. But is not this phrase “with a view to conversion” a contradiction of the idea that a man must already have been converted before he can be baptized, a truth clearly implied in verses 6–10? Answer: Not at all, for, by means of baptism, true conversion is powerfully stimulated and increased. The person who in the proper manner—that is, with a pledge to God proceeding from a clear conscience (I Peter 3:21)—receives baptism, understanding the meaning of the outward sign and seal, will all the more heartily out of gratitude yield himself to God. Moreover, how could reflection on the adopting, pardoning, and cleansing grace of God, as symbolized by the sign and seal of baptism, have any different effect? For such a person the outward sign and seal applied to the body, and the inward grace applied to the heart, go together. Among Biblical passages that prove this point are: “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean … a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you” (Ezek. 36:25, 26); “Let us draw near with a true heart and fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22).

This twofold aspect of conversion, a. as already present before the actual baptism, and b. as augmented by means of it, is also beautifully expressed in several Forms for the Baptism of Adults, from one of which the following words are here quoted:

“It [Baptism] becomes an effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in it, or in him that doth administer it, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive it” (The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Philadelphia, 1941, p. 448).

However, in the final analysis this rich result is not brought about by the person who administers the rite of baptism, not even if that person’s name be John the Baptist. All John can do is urge upon his hearers the necessity of conversion. As to baptism, he can supply the sign, but it will take One mightier than John to supply the thing signified. Hence, after saying, “I on my part baptize you with water with a view to conversion,” he continues, but he who is coming behind me is mightier than I—I am not fit to remove his sandals—; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. It was necessary for John to draw this contrast, for the people were already beginning to wonder whether perhaps he might not himself be the Christ (Luke 3:15; cf. John 1:19, 20; 3:25–36). The Baptist, therefore, is saying that the contrast between himself and the One who was chronologically coming behind him was so great that he, John, was not even worthy to unfasten (this only in Mark 1:7 and Luke 3:16), remove and carry away²¹⁴ his Successor’s sandals; that is, that to One so great he was not even worthy to render the services of a slave. It was true that on life’s pathway, not only in his birth but also in beginning his public ministry, Jesus had come behind John (Luke 1:26, 36; 3:23). But between Christ and the Baptist there was a qualitative difference as between the Infinite and the finite, the eternal and the temporal, the original light of the sun and the reflected light of the moon (cf. John 1:15–17).

John baptizes with water; Jesus will baptize with the Spirit.²¹⁵ He will cause his Spirit and the latter’s gifts to come upon his followers (Acts 1:8), be poured out on them (Acts 2:17, 33), fall upon them (Acts 10:44; 11:15).

Now it is true that whenever a person is drawn out of the darkness into God’s marvelous light he is being baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Thus Calvin in his comments on Matt. 3:11 remarks that it was Christ who bestows the Spirit of regeneration, and that, like fire, this Spirit purifies us by removing our pollution. However, according to Christ’s own words (Acts 1:5, 8), remembered by Peter (Acts 11:16), in a special sense this prediction was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and the era which it introduced. It was then that, through the coming of the Spirit, the minds of Christ’s followers were enriched with unprecedented illumination (I John 2:20); their wills strengthened, like never before, with contagious animation (Acts 4:13, 19, 20, 33; 5:29); and their hearts flooded with warm affection to a degree previously unheard of (Acts 2:44–47; 3:6; 4:32).

The mention of fire (“He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire”) fits this application to Pentecost, when “there appeared to them divided tongues as of fire, resting on each one of them” (Acts 2:3). The flame illumines. Fire cleanses. The Spirit does both. Nevertheless, it would appear from the context (both before and after; see verses 10 and 12) and from Joel’s Pentecost prophecy (Joel 2:30; cf. Acts 2:19), considered in its context (see Joel 2:31), that the ultimate fulfilment of the Baptist’s words awaits Christ’s glorious return to cleanse the earth with fire (II Peter 3:7, 12; cf. Mal. 3:2; II Thess. 1:8).

Often in Scripture fire symbolizes wrath.²¹⁶ But fire is also indicative of the work of grace (Isa. 6:6, 7; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:3; I Peter 1:7). It is not strange, therefore, that this term can be used both in a favorable sense, to indicate the blessings of Pentecost and the new dispensation, and in an unfavorable sense, to indicate the terrors of the coming judgment day. It is Christ who both purifies the righteous and purges the earth of its dross, the wicked. Moreover, if the Old Testament prophets, as will be shown (p. 467), would often, by means of prophetic foreshortening, combine the events pertaining to Christ’s first coming (taken in its comprehensive sense, including even Pentecost) with those of the second, why cannot that same feature be ascribed also to the style of John the Baptist, who resembled these prophets in so many ways? It is clear, therefore, that the case for the interpretation according to which the word fire here in 3:11 refers both to Pentecost and to the final judgment is strong.²¹⁷

The reasonable character of the explanation, according to which the baptism with fire includes a reference to the final judgment, is also evident from verse 12, which likewise refers to that great day. His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will thoroughly clear his threshing floor. The underlying figure is that of a threshing floor where winnowing is taking place. Such a floor is either natural or artificial. If the former, it is the surface of a flat rock on top of a hill, exposed to the wind. If the latter, it is a similarly exposed area, about thirty to fifty feet in diameter, which has been prepared by clearing the soil of stones, wetting it down, and then packing it hard and smooth, causing it to slope slightly upward along the rim, and surrounding it with a border of stones to keep the grain inside. First, the sheaves of grain (barley or wheat) that have been spread out in this area are threshed by oxen, pulling a sled the bottom of which is studded with stones whereby the kernels of grain are separated from the stalks. The chaff (whatever remains of the kernels’ hard coat, dust, dirt, small pieces of straw) is, however, still clinging to the kernels. Now the winnowing, to which verse 12 refers, begins. Bunch by bunch the threshed grain is tossed into the air by means of a shovel equipped with two or more prongs, letting the afternoon breeze, generally sweeping in from the Mediterranean from May through September, blow away the chaff. The heavier grain kernels fall straight down upon the threshing floor. Thus grain and chaff are separated. The work of winnowing does not stop until the threshing floor has been thoroughly cleared.

Thus also Christ at his return will thoroughly clear the area where the judgment will take place. No one will escape detection. Even now he is fully equipped with all that is needed to perform the task of separating the good from the bad.²¹⁸

Continued: He will gather his grain into the granary, but the chaff he will consume with unquenchable fire. Returning now to the underlying figure, the threshed and winnowed grain is brought to the granary; literally, the place where things are put (or: stored) away.

It is stored away because it is regarded as being very valuable, very precious. From the underlying figure we proceed to the reality. Even the death of believers is described in Scripture in a very comforting manner. It is “precious in the sight of Jehovah” (Ps. 116:15); “a being carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22); “a going to Paradise” (Luke 23:43); “a blessed departure” (Phil. 1:23); “a being at home with the Lord” (II Cor. 5:8); “a gain” (Phil. 1:21); “better by far” (Phil. 1:23); and “a falling asleep in the Lord” (John 11:11; I Thess. 4:13). Then surely the final stage in the glorification of God’s children, both body and soul now participating in this bliss, will be most precious: a going to “the house with many mansions” (John 14:2), a being welcomed to the very presence of Christ (“I will come again and will take you to be face to face with me, in order that where I am you may be also,” John 14:3), a living forever in the new heaven and earth from which every stain of sin and every trace of the curse will have been removed; in which righteousness dwells (II Peter 3:13); in which “God will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and he himself shall be with them and be their God, wiping away every tear from their eyes, etc.” (Rev. 21:1–5); and in which the prophecy of Isa. 11:6–9 (“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, etc.”) and of Rev. 21:9–22:5 (the new Jerusalem) will reach its ultimate fulfilment.

Back to the underlying figure once more. From the grain we now turn to the chaff. This, having dropped down at a place, or places, away from the grain, is collected and burned. So also the wicked, having been separated from the good, will be cast into hell, the place of unquenchable fire. Their punishment is unending. The point is not merely that there is always a fire burning in Gehenna but that the wicked are burned with unquenchable fire, the fire that has been prepared for them as well as for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). Their worm never dies (Mark 9:48). Their shame is everlasting (Dan. 12:2). So are their bonds (Jude 6, 7). They will be tormented with fire and brimstone … and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, so that they have no rest day or night (Rev. 14:9–11; cf. 19:3; 20:10).

In which sense is this “fire” to be understood? Answer: though the idea of a fire which in some sense is physical need not be excluded, yet according to Scripture the literal sense does not exhaust the meaning. Everlasting fire has been prepared “for the devil and his angels.” Yet these are spirits and cannot be hurt by literal fire. Moreover, Scripture itself points the way to the symbolical meaning; i.e., to the divine wrath resting upon the impenitent, and consequently, to their anguish (Deut. 9:3; 32:22; Ps. 11:5, 6; 18:8; 21:9; 89:46; Isa. 5:24, 25; Jer. 4:4; Nah. 1:6; Mal. 3:2; Matt. 5:22; Heb. 10:27; 12:29; II Peter 3:7; Rev. 14:10, 11; 15:2).

The Baptist’s warning, dire and dreadful though it may seem, is filled with mercy, as has been explained (see p. 206).

3:13–17 The Baptism of Jesus

Cf. Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21, 22; John 1:32–34

13 Then Jesus made his public appearance, (coming) from Galilee to the Jordan, to be baptized by him. 14 But John was trying to prevent him, saying, “It is I who needs to be baptized by you, and you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Yield to me this time, for it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous requirement.” Then he yielded to him. 16 And immediately, when Jesus was baptized and stepped up out of the water, look, the heavens were opened and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And lo, a voice from heaven saying, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”

13. Then Jesus made his public appearance, (coming) from Galilee to the Jordan, to be baptized by him. As to both time and place Matthew records the circumstances of Christ’s baptism indefinitely: “then … the Jordan.” In harmony with the preceding context (verses 1–12) and with what is probably the true interpretation of Luke 3:21, the word “then” probably means, “at the height of John’s baptizing activity.” As to information gained from other passages with reference to the time here referred to see pp. 150, 196. On the basis of those other passages the conclusion seems warranted that it was probably during the latter part of a.d. 26 or in the early days of the year 27 that Jesus went to John to be baptized by him.²¹⁹

Jesus came “from Galilee” (thus Matthew). Mark is slightly more definite by saying “from Nazareth in Galilee.” John adds that at this time John was baptizing “in Bethany beyond the Jordan” (1:28), which was probably not located near the Dead Sea but farther north. See N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. 1, p. 93.

Jesus’ public ministry begins here, the verb “makes his public appearance” in 1:13, being the same as the one used in connection with the beginning of John’s labors (verse 1). He came to the Jordan with the definite purpose of being baptized by John. So he steps forward, by word and/or gesture requesting to be baptized.

Verse 14 records John’s reaction: But John was trying to prevent him.… John is shocked. His reasoning was probably somewhat along this line: “What! One so high and holy about to be baptized? But certainly not by me, a person so immeasurably lower in rank and sanctity. It must not, it cannot be! On the contrary, I should be baptized by him!” So John turns to Jesus, saying, It is I who needs²²⁰ to be baptized by you, and you come to me? John and Jesus were related (Luke 1:36). John’s mother, Elizabeth, was well-informed with respect to Mary’s first born son, to whom she had referred as “my Lord” (Luke 1:42, 43). It is hard to believe that she had not conveyed her knowledge to her son. The very fact that the Baptist surmises that the person who had now stepped forward to be baptized was the Messiah about whom he had already spoken (verses 11, 12) made him protest so strenuously.

In view of all this, how must we explain John’s subsequent report: “I myself did not know him” (John 1:31)? Does it suffice to say that the Baptist, born and raised in Judea, and having spent these many years in its wilderness (Luke 1:80), may never before have met Jesus, who had been brought up in Galilee? Hardly, for though this may indeed enter into the picture, John 1:33 indicates that when the forerunner said, “I did not know him,” he was thinking primarily of something else, something higher than mere physical acquaintanceship. In all probability he meant that it had not as yet been divinely disclosed to him that this person was the very Christ. Nevertheless, a promise had been given him, namely, “He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining, he it is who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.”

In his attempt to ward off Jesus’ request, John, reasoning that the lesser must be blessed by the greater (cf. Heb. 7:7), not vice versa, gives expression to his consciousness of needing to be baptized by Jesus: “It is I who needs to be baptized by you.” Though he has already received the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15), he wishes to receive the latter’s indwelling and gifts in even greater measure. On the other hand, what is there that Jesus does not yet possess and that he could receive from the Baptist: “and you come to me?”

15. But Jesus answered him, Yield to me this time, for it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous requirement.²²¹ This passage shows how Jesus overcame John’s scruples. But why did he say, “Yield to me this time” and “to comply fully with every righteous requirement”? The answer has not been specifically revealed to us. In the light, however, of the entire context and also of certain other relevant passages, as will be indicated, could it not be that Jesus had in mind something on this order: “As a general rule what you say is true, but at this particular moment in your and my life, when I am about to begin my public ministry, it is proper that I by means of baptism reaffirm my resolution (cf. Ps. 40:6, 8; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 7:22; I Peter 1:20; Rev. 13:8) ‘to take away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29). Besides, the promise given to you (John 1:33) must be fulfilled, so that you will be able all the more persuasively and adequately to proclaim me to the people. For the reasons stated it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous requirement; the righteous requirement that I reaffirm, and the righteous requirement that you baptize and proclaim.” Could it not be that this was what the Lord had in mind?

The objection may be raised that the water of baptism symbolized the removal of filth, that is, sin; and that, since Jesus was sinless, he did not need to be, and could not properly be, baptized. The answer is that he did, after all, have sin, namely ours. This answer is given in such passages as Isa. 53:6 (“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all”); Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11; II Cor. 5:21; and I Peter 3:18. It must not be overlooked either that by means of what was implied in his own baptism (John 1:29) Jesus validated John’s baptisms, for the latter would have been meaningless apart from the former.

The Baptist was deeply impressed by the majesty of the Speaker. He had become convinced that Jesus was right. The objections had been surmounted. Hence, there follows, Then he yielded to him.

16. And immediately, when Jesus was baptized and stepped up out of the water, look, the heavens were opened.…!²²² The mode of baptism, whether, while Jesus was standing in the Jordan so that his feet were covered with water, the Baptist poured or sprinkled water on his head; or whether his entire body was immersed, is not indicated. It is natural to suppose that he had gone down the river’s bank and had at least stepped into the water. Verse 16 informs us that, having been baptized, Jesus stepped up out of the water again. That is all we know. It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us any specific details as to the mode of baptism practiced during the period covered by the New Testament.

What is important, so important that Matthew directs our special attention to it, by introducing it with “look,” is that the heavens were opened. This was not merely a subjective experience in the heart of Jesus. It was definitely a miracle, occurring in full view of all who were present there with John and Jesus. Did not Ezekiel also see the opened heavens (Ezek. 1:1)? Did not Stephen (Acts 7:56)? And the apostle John on Patmos (Rev. 4:1; 11:19; 19:11; cf. Isa. 64:1; II Cor. 12:1–4)? Continued: and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. Cf. Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32–34. Suddenly the heavens were “rent asunder,” and John saw the Holy Spirit! Of course, the Spirit himself has no body and cannot be seen with physical eyes. But we are distinctly told that it was under the symbolism of a dove that the third Person of the Trinity manifested himself to the Baptist. What was seen physically was a bodily form resembling a dove. It was seen descending on Jesus. It is not clear just why God chose the form of a dove to represent the Holy Spirit. Some commentators point to the purity and the gentleness or graciousness of the dove, which properties, in an infinite degree, characterize the Spirit, and therefore also Christ (cf. Ps. 68:14; Song of Sol. 2:14; 5:2; Matt. 10:16). Thus equipped and qualified, he was able to carry out the very difficult task which the Father had given him to do. To save us from sin he himself needed to be pure. To endure torment, to pardon our iniquities, and to exercise patience with our weaknesses, he needed gentleness, meekness, graciousness. This, too, he possessed in an abundant measure, and he told his followers that, by the grace and power of God, they should acquire and exercise these same gifts (Matt. 11:29, 30; 12:19; 21:4, 5; Luke 23:34; II Cor. 10:1; Phil. 2:5–8; I Peter 1:19; 2:21–25; and in the Old Testament: Isa. 40:11; 42:23; 53:7; and Zech. 9:9). The Baptist noticed that the form of a dove, symbolizing the Spirit, remained for a while on Jesus (John 1:32, 33). It did not immediately disappear. Did this happen in order to fix in the mind of John, and of the entire church throughout the ages, not only that this Jesus was indeed the Christ but also that the Spirit now rested upon him abidingly, fully qualifying him for his most difficult, yet also most glorious, task? It should be constantly borne in mind that, though Christ’s divine nature was not in need of, and was in fact incapable of, being strengthened, the same was not true with respect to his human nature. This could be, and needed to be, strengthened (Matt. 14:23; 17:1–5; 26:36–46; cf. Mark 14:36; John 12:27, 28; and especially Heb. 5:8).²²³ The fact that the anointing by the Holy Spirit (Ps. 45:7; Isa. 61:1–3; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 18–21) was here given to him, in no way conflicts with his earlier conception by the power of this same Spirit (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35). The two are in beautiful harmony.

So far we have heard about the Son’s request to be baptized, and his actual baptism, thereby reaffirming his entire willingness to take upon himself and carry away “the sin of the world” (John 1:29); also about the Spirit’s descent upon him, qualifying him for a task so tremendous and sublime. It is altogether fitting that the voice of the Father’s wholehearted approval and delight be added, so that it may become clear that in the work of saving sinners, as in every divine work, the three are one. Hence, there follows verse 17. And lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.

The three are always one; for example, the Son dies for “those whom” (literally, according to the better text, for “that which”) the Father has given him (John 10:29); and these are the very ones whom the Spirit brings to glory (John 14:16, 17; 16:14; Rom. 8:26–30). So also here: the three are one. The heavens must be opened, so that Jesus himself may hear the voice, as is the representation in Mark 1:11 and Luke 3:22 (“Thou art my Son, the Beloved”), but also so that the Baptist may hear it (hence, “This is.…”), making him a better witness of the things which he saw and heard (cf. John 1:33, 34). As has already been indicated, in connection with the Son’s voluntary reaffirmation of his wholehearted commitment to the task of carrying a burden so infinitely heavy, this voice of delighted approval was altogether in place.

Whose voice was it? The Speaker is not named.²²⁴ Neither is this necessary, for the very phraseology (“my Son, the Beloved”) identifies the Speaker as being, of course, the Father. Moreover, not only in his official Messianic capacity but also as Son by eternal generation, the One who fully shares the divine essence together with the Father and the Spirit, is he the Father’s Beloved (John 1:14; 3:16; 10:17; 17:23). No higher love is possible than the love which the Father cherishes toward his Son. According to the verbal adjective (agapetos: beloved) here used, this love is deep-seated, thorough-going, as great as is the heart of God itself. It is also as intelligent and purposeful as is the mind of God. It is tender, vast, infinite!²²⁵

Not only that, but this love is also eternal; that is, it is timeless, raised far above all temporal boundaries. Though some disagree, the rendering “in whom I am well pleased” must be considered correct.²²⁶ In the quiet recess of eternity the Son was the object of the Father’s inexhaustible delight (cf. Prov. 8:30). The former’s re-affirmation, by means of baptism, of his purpose to shed his blood for a world lost in sin did nothing to diminish that love. That is what the Father is telling his Son. That is what he is also telling John … and all of us.

How filled with comfort this paragraph, comfort not only for the Son and for John, but for every child of God, for it indicates that not only the Son loves his followers enough to suffer the pangs of hell in their stead, but that also the Spirit fully co-operates by strengthening him for this very task, and that the Father, instead of frowning upon the One who undertakes it, is so very pleased with him that he must needs rend asunder the very heavens, that his voice of delightful approval may be heard on earth!²²⁷ All three are equally interested in our salvation, and the three are One.

Summary of Chapter 3

Verses 1–12 record the sudden emergence, in fulfilment of the prophecy of Isa. 40:3, of Christ’s herald or way-preparer. John is pictured as preaching and baptizing in the wilderness of Judea. From Judea and the surrounding country enormous crowds flock to see and hear him. The Baptist’s abrupt appearance, ascetic manner of life, and message of impending doom, escapable only by means of basic favorable change of mind and heart (“Be converted.…”), evoke a response from many who, confessing their sins, are baptized in the Jordan.

Among those who present themselves for baptism are also many Pharisees (oblique and ostentatious legalists) and Sadducees (wealthy and worldly priests and land-owners). “You offspring of vipers!” John exclaims. The rest of his speech may be paraphrased as follows: “Who deluded you into thinking that without a genuine turnabout of mind and heart you can evade God’s judgment? Bear fruit, therefore, in harmony with real conversion. Do not rely on your physical descent from Abraham, as if that could save you. If God wants sons of Abraham worthy of the name, he does not need you. He can raise up children for Abraham out of these stones here.”

The Baptist emphasizes that the axe is even now lying at the root of the tree; that is, doom is impending. The divine action of bringing about a final separation between precious grain and worthless chaff (the penitent and the impenitent) is imminent. The grain is headed for the granary; the chaff, for the flame.

For the truly converted “the kingdom of heaven” with its numerous blessings is at hand. Meaning: God’s rule operating in hearts and lives and in whatever is influenced by them, and affecting even man’s physical existence, is about to assert itself more powerfully and gloriously then ever before. However, it must be understood that neither weal nor woe are at John’s own personal disposal. On the contrary, all that he is able to do (besides preaching) is to baptize with water. One far more worthy is about to appear upon the scene; in a sense, has arrived already. It is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, a prediction that includes Pentecost and the final judgment in one wide sweep.

Verses 13–17 relate that at the height of the Baptist’s activity Jesus makes his public appearance, requesting John to baptize him. When the herald objects, deeming himself unworthy and suggesting that he be baptized by the One for whose coming he has been preparing the way, Jesus overcomes his scruples by saying, “Yield to me this time, for it is proper for us in this way to comply fully with every righteous requirement.” It was right that he who had promised to offer himself as a ransom for many ratify this promise by means of submitting to baptism, thereby reaffirming his desire and decision to take upon himself and to carry away the sin of the world. The water of baptism signifies and seals the washing away of sin, and Jesus by means of this sacrament reveals himself as the Sin-bearer. Accordingly, it was also right that John, who was fulfilling his task in obedience to God and in fulfilment of prophecy, should baptize Jesus.

For the performance of his infinitely arduous task the Mediator needed to be anointed by the Holy Spirit, for it must be borne in mind that the Son of God was also the Son of man. The second person of the Trinity, being truly divine, has two natures: the divine and the human. The divine does not need strengthening, but the human nature does. All the necessary qualifications are therefore imparted to the Mediator when at his baptism the Holy Spirit, symbolized by the form of a dove, descends upon him in full measure.

The Son’s present reaffirmation of his desire to take upon himself a task so agonizing elicits an immediate response of love from the heart of the Father, so that the heavens are opened and a voice is heard, saying, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” A more glorious sign and seal of approval is unthinkable.

Thus Father, Son, and Holy Spirit co-operate in bringing about man’s salvation.

An additional note on 3:4, “And his food was locusts.…” Aversion to eating insects, rich in protein, may be just cultural. In other countries insects are part of the diet. Roasted and salted grasshoppers can be bought in Mexico City. Edible insects keep Australian aborigines from starving. And even in the United States of America there are gourmet food stores that carry chocolate-coated bees and ants. Is it not possible that the Baptist was a little ahead of us, that is, that locusts and other insects may fill a future need?