Matthew 3
BolesMatthew 3:1-12
1 In those days cometh John the Baptist.—There is an interval of about twenty-nine years between the events recorded in the second chapter and those recorded in the third chapter; Jesus spent the time at Nazareth, and Matthew does not record anything that he said or did during these twenty-nine years. Matthew now begins his record of the public work of Jesus. There is a preparation before the public ministry of Jesus; John the Baptist is that prophet who prepares the way for Jesus.
“In those days” means at the close of Jesus’ retired life at Nazareth and the beginning of the preparation made by John the Baptist. This is the first mention that Matthew gives of “John the Baptist.” John was the son of an aged priest, Zacharias, and Elisabeth; some think that Elisabeth was the cousin of Mary the mother of Jesus; hence, John was the second cousin of Jesus. John was probably born 5 B.C. in an unnamed city in the hill country of Judea; probably he was born at Hebron. He was six months older than Jesus; he was a Nazarite, which means that he was to drink no wine nor strong drink and was to let his hair and beard grow untrimmed, as a sign of consecration to God. (Numbers 6.) He was filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth; his early life up to thirty years of age was passed in the solitudes of the wilderness of Judea, where he was prepared for his great mission as the forerunner of the Messiah. He preached for nearly two years; almost a year of his preaching was contemporary with the preaching of Jesus.
The prophets had foretold the coming of John the Baptist. The Old Testament closes with the prophecy of John. (Malachi 3:1; Malachi 4:4-6.) His father, Zacharias, was of the tribe of Levi and belonged to the eighth course of priests. (1 Chronicles 24:10; Luke 1:5.) His mother, Elisabeth, was also of the tribe of Levi and was a descendant of the family of high priests, as she was “of the daughters of Aaron.” (Luke 1:5.) He has been called John, Messenger, Elijah, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” and “John the Baptist.” He has been called “the Baptist” because he baptized. He is also called “John the Baptizer.” (Mark 6:14; Mark 6:24.) John was the first under the command of God to administer the ordinance of baptism, hence he is given the title of “Baptizer.” Some have doubted that John was first to administer baptism; they claim that Jewish proselytes were baptized; however, there is no record of anyone’s being directed by Jehovah to administer the ordinance of baptism before John the Baptist. It is true that the law of Moses required the washing of vessels and the bathing of the priests, but such was not called baptism in the sense that John baptized. It has been estimated that there are twenty distinct cases which are specified by the law that required bathing. The writer of the Hebrew letter refers to these as “divers washings.” (Hebrews 9:10.) The law of Moses did not require any proselyte to be washed or bathed or baptized.
Preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.—John’s special mission was to prepare the way for Jesus, hence no history of Jesus can be complete and omit the history of John, his great forerunner. Matthew introduces John as “preaching in the wilderness.” Matthew is definite in his record in telling what John was doing, where he preached, and what he preached. The mission of John was unique and definite; one thing he did, he preached. He has been described as a voice, for what there was of him as known to the people of his time was substantially a voice calling on men to do something. He began his work of preaching in the wild uncultivated region of Judea which skirts the western shore of the Dead Sea and is called “the wilderness of Judaea.” “The wilderness of Judaea” is for the most part a dreary waste; it stretches west of the Jordan from Jericho to the mountains of Edom; that part of it where John was brought up seems to have been west of the Dead Sea. (Luke 1:80; Luke 3:2.) The word “wilderness” or “desert” in the New Testament denotes merely an unenclosed, untilled, and thinly inhabited district. The scene of John’s first public appearance was in that part of “the wilderness of Judaea” which is the wild, desolate, district around the mouth of the Jordan. His sojourn was not confined to that locality
2 Saying, Repent ye.—John did not go to Jerusalem to begin his public work of preparing the way for Jesus, but he opened his ministry in the wilderness or in the least populous part of the country; he came “preaching”; his public work was begun by his preaching, proclaiming, announcing publicly; we are not to suppose that John made set speeches or discourses to audiences, but that he traveled the country and heralded his brief messages, first to individuals, families, and small companies wherever he found them, and afterward to crowds who flocked to hear him. John’s message was distinct and emphatic; he called upon the people to “repent.” The Greek word here is “metanoein,” which is a compound of two Greek words, a preposition, “meta,” which means after, with, and a Greek verb, “noeo,” which means to perceive or to think. The compound word means to “think differently after”; its primary meaning is an afterthought, different from the former thought; a change of mind which issues in regret and in change of conduct. “Repentance” has been rightly defined as “such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice.” “Sorrow” is not the primary meaning of the word; Paul distinguished between “sorrow” and “repentance” and put the one as the outcome of the other: “Godly sorrow worketh repentance.” (2 Corinthians 7:10.) Repentance signifies to change the thought and so change the opinion or purpose; this is the inward change and naturally leads to a changed outward life, which is usually designated as “a reformation of life.” Repentance as used in the New Testament has reference to changing the mind, purpose, from sin to holiness, and no one will do this who does not feel deep sorrow for the sin he has already committed; hence, godly sorrow produces repentance. Sometimes the word translated here as “repentance” is also translated “turn,” “be converted.”
Matthew briefly expresses the theme of John’s praching; it was repentance. This was no new subject; the prophets had called upon the people to “turn” from their wicked ways and serve God. (Joe 2:12-13; Isaiah 55:7; Ezekiel 33:11; Ezekiel 33:15; Zechariah 1:3-4.) The New Testament meaning of this term is more specific and strictly denotes the inward change, leaving the outward change to result as a consequence. In both the Old Testament and the New Testament exhortation to repent, the element of grief or sorrow for sin is left in the background; neither word directly expressing grief at all, but it is implied in the very nature of the change in mind resulting in a change in life. There is implied further in repentance a return to a former state; after a thing has been done and an error has been noticed, then undo the wrong that has been done.
[Repentance is the determination of the soul to turn away from sin, to cease sin, and, with the help of God, to sin no more. Reformation of life grows out of this repentance, yet it is distinct from it. Repentance is in the heart, the turning from the love of sin. Reformation is the correction of our evil ways. The first has a definite time and is a distinct act of the heart; the latter is a lifework as we from day to day or from year to year see the evil practices into which we have fallen and strive to turn from them and correct all wrongs.]
Repentance should be distinguished, not only from godly sorrow, but also from a mere “quitting of sin”; it is to be distinguished also from sad, gloomy despair; it is also to be distinguished from “forgetting the sin.” John the Baptist preached repentance; he knew the difference between mere outward and real repentance, between the passing feeling and the deep change which manifested itself by bearing fruits of righteousness. Repentance according to John’s preaching implied an entire renunciation of sin. The repentance that John preached must spring from faith in the prediction regarding the coming Messiah; the repentance that John preached prepared the heart and life for the acceptance of the Messiah who was soon to appear.
For the kingdom of heaven is at hand.—John held out “the kingdom of heaven” as an inducement to people to repent; again “the kingdom of heaven” must be composed of those who have turned their back upon sin. “The kingdom of heaven” is a phrase peculiar to Matthew; the Greek word, “ouranon,” as used here for “heaven,” is plural; hence, the literal translation would be “the kingdom of the heavens.” It is a kingdom of heaven because its origin, its end, its king, its laws, and the character and destiny of its subjects are all heavenly or spiritual.
What is “the kingdom of heaven”? It is the same as “the kingdom of God,” “his kingdom,” or “kingdom of his dear Son.” That which is called by Matthew “his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28) is called “the kingdom of God” (Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27). The same kingdom mentioned in the phrase, “the Son of man coming in his kingdom,” is also mentioned in the phrase, “the kingdom of God,” for these are two reports of the same speech which Jesus made; the difference in phraseology is due to different writers. This is the same kingdom that is called “the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:23), “the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:25), “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15), and “the kingdom of heaven” as preached here by John. Again Matthew records Jesus as saying, “He that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11), while Luke records the same, “He that is but little in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (Luke 7:28). These are two records of the same thing, and the same kingdom is meant in both records.
“The kingdom of heaven” which John preached is the same thing as “the kingdom of God.” This refers to the same institution that Jesus referred to when he used the phrase, “my church” (Matthew 16:18), and “the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). On this occasion Jesus, speaking of the same institution, called it “my church” and “kingdom of heaven.” The “general assembly and church of the firstborn” and the “kingdom that cannot be shaken” refer to the same institution. (Hebrews 12:23; Hebrews 12:28.) It is the same institution that is called the “one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4);all who enter the “one body” are immersed or baptized into it, and all who enter the kingdom are “born anew” (John 3:3; John 3:5). The same institution is called “the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15.) This is the kingdom that John the Baptist preached as “at hand.” This kingdom had as yet not come; it was “at hand.” The nature of this kingdom was a spiritual institution; John puts this in contrast with the earthly or fleshly kingdom of Israel.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness.—Again Matthew quotes from the prophets; here he quotes from Isa. 11 3; this quotation, like the others, is not in the exact words of Isaiah. John is here spoken of by Isaiah as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” John is the only preacher of whom we read who is called “the voice” and that his work was “in the wilderness.” Others of God’s prophets went to the towns, villages, and cities, but John began his work in the wilderness. This quotation is made by Matthew and not by John the Baptist; this seems to be another fulfillment of a typical, not a verbal, prophecy. In its primary historical application the quotation contains a summons to prepare the way of Jehovah, who was about to bring back his people from exile. What Isaiah uttered as a typical prophecy became a distinct prediction in Malachi 3:1; Malachi regarded the mission of John the Baptist as corresponding to Elijah, hence he assigned to him the name of Elijah. (Malachi 4:5.) Why was John called “the voice”? John’s personality is put in the shadow behind Jesus; John was entrusted with a great spiritual mission of introducing Jesus to the Jewish people he needs to be represented as a mere “voice” crying aloud in the moral wilderness around him; soon he must decrease and Jesus must increase; John is to be removed from the platform and let Jesus occupy the central place; he must fade away, and let Jesus stand out emphatically before the public.
Make ye ready the way of the Lord.—Still quoting from the prophet Isaiah, Matthew uses the figure that Isaiah used with respect to John’s work. It was customary for eastern kings, when on an expedition, to send forerunners to prepare the way for the king; the hills were to be leveled, the valleys to be filled, and the road was to be straightened so that the king would have easy access in travel. John came on a similar mission; he was the forerunner of the great King; the preparation for this King was to be made in the hearts and lives of the people. This is another way of expressing “repentance.” The people were to prepare themselves for the coming of Jesus; Mark expresses it, “Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,” just as Matthew expresses it. (Mark 1:3.) John prepared the way for Christ by calling upon the people to repent; he prepared the way by removing prejudice and by producing a reformation on the part of the people so that Jesus would have a glad welcome. The law of Moses was to lead the people to Christ; “so that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ.” (Galatians 3:24.) If the Jews had been faithful to the law of Moses, they would have been ready for the coming of Jesus; they were unfaithful, hence the work of John the Baptist. He was “to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him.” (Luke 1:17.)
4 Now John himself had his raiment of camel’s hair.—Matthew gives a vivid description of John’s dress; it is becoming to the wilderness service that John rendered. “John himself had his raiment of camel’s hair”; it seems that John purposely chose such habits of life and such raiment; cloth made of “camel’s hair” was a kind of cloth made of the fine hair of the camel, which was coarse and rough; such cloth was manufactured from the long and shaggy hair of camels, which was shed by the animal every year. The raiment of camel’s hair was very similar to sackcloth of which we read so much about in the Bible. (Zechariah 13:4; Revelation 6:12.) Poor persons and prophets wore such garments in ancient time, and such cloth is still worn in the east by the poor. There is no evidence that the garments made of camel skin like those made of sheepskin and goatskin have been worn by prophets. (Hebrews 11:37.) There is a fine cloth made of camel’s hair, which is called camlets, but this is not the dress that John the Baptist wore. Elijah was clothed in a garment of this kind.
John wore in addition to his “raiment of camel’s hair” a “leathern girdle about his loins.” A girdle was necessary and almost a universal part of dress for people at that time. (Acts 21:11.) It was required to bind the long, loose robe in order to do active labor or rapid travel, and it was often a very costly part of the dress (Revelation 1:13), but John’s girdle was made of a cheap rude leather which corresponds to his dress of camel’s hair. It is likely that John’s girdle was similar to that of Elijah, which was made of undressed skin of animals.
His food was locusts and wild honey.—John’s habits of life corresponded to his dress, and his diet corresponded to the simple life that he lived. Locusts were winged insects, closely resembling the grasshopper; they were “clean” and could be used for food among the Jews. (Leviticus 11:22.) They were roasted and sometimes boiled, or salted and preserved, and eaten by the poorer classes of people in all the eastern countries where they were found. Sometimes they were dried in the sun and put away to be used after the locust season had passed. The heads, legs, and wings were removed before they were prepared as food; they were eaten both fresh and dried. They are very different from what we call locusts. There is no evidence that John ate the fruit of the tree which we call locust; in fact, the original forbids such a construction. “Wild honey” may have been the gum which exuded from a tree, but more probably it was the honey of wild bees which had been deposited in trees or in rocks. It was abundant in Palestine; that country has been described as a land “flowing with milk and honey.” (Deuteronomy 32:13; Judges 14:8; 1 Samuel 14:25; 1 Samuel 26; Psalms 81:16.)
The object of this mode of living is clearly seen when we think of the austere work of John. It was natural and easy under the circumstances in which he lived; it required but little time from John’s work to dress and eat as he did; it was befitting to his austere preaching, which was a protest against the luxury of the time and the sins which were ruining the people; it gave John the appearance and the prestige of a pioneer prophet and made him resemble more closely the prophet Elijah, whom he came to represent. We may see in John’s dress and food testimony against the Jewish misconception of the Messiah’s kingdom; both the man and his message combine their influence to turn the thought of the people toward a spiritual reformation which they needed in order to be prepared for the coming kingdom of the Messiah. Surely no one could see and hear John and believe that he was the forerunner of an earthly king who would establish an earthly kingdom. John was not merely imitating his prototype, Elijah, but everything was in harmony with the work that John was to do and would thus direct the minds of the people to a spiritual renovation.
5 Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea.—It must be remembered that John did his work in the wilderness; he began his preaching in “the wilderness of Judaea”; he worked among the common people in that sparsely settled country. He began his work in a quiet way, but he attracted the public attention. “Then went out unto him” the people from the cities; John did not go to them, they came to him; his shrill and earnest cry, “repent ye,” was heard by many, and the public went forth to hear him. Not merely persons from Jerusalem and Judea, but such multitudes that it might be said that “all Judaea” was there; great roads from every part of the country passed near by “the wilderness of Judaea,” and this gave an accessible way to hear John. What drew these crowds? The wonderful influence which John exercised over them; John’s ministry was one of terror; he demanded that they repent or a fearful calamity would befall them. John spoke in earnest, and they could not resist the power which he exercised in preaching this near approach of “the kingdom of heaven,” and the Messiah who was to be King of this kingdom.
There was also a deepfelt need of repentance on the part of the people and a rekindling of the hope of salvation. Again there was a general expectation of the promised Messiah; the people felt that it was time for the promises of God to be fulfilled.
And all the region round about the Jordan.—John drew his audiences, not only from Jerusalem and other cities, but from “all the region round about the Jordan.” It is likely that the lower part of the river toward the Dead Sea is referred to here. “All” is to be understood as expressing the fact that very many people came forth; it is a hyperbolic expression which abounds in all languages. We learn from John that some came from Galilee, but perhaps at a later period, when John was baptizing higher up the river. (John 1:35-45; John 21:2.) People from Jerusalem, the country of Judea, and even Galilee were attracted by John’s preaching; Jerusalem is first mentioned because of its prominence, and not because it was the first to furnish John an audience; the probable order of places which furnished hearers for John is the district about Jordan, Judea, and Jerusalem.
John began his ministry A.D. 26, which was a Sabbatical year according to some authorities; the people were not occupied in the cultivation of the soil and in the gathering of the grain and gleaning the vineyards; they were in a large measure “resting” or unemployed, hence had sufficient time to listen to the new prophet. Those who strictly observed the law had more than ordinary leisure on this year; it had been centuries since a prophet had appeared. There had been about “four hundred years of silence,” which came between the close of the old Testament and the opening of the New Testament. The Jews had often longed for a prophet to guide them; they were sorely oppressed by the Roman authorities. The report spread far and wide, as quickly as the conditions of that country permitted, that at last a prophet had come, who in dress and place of abode resembled the great Elijah some began to wonder if this prophet was the Messiah. We need not be surprised at such multitudes going out to hear John; the nature of his announcement and the prevalent expectation of a Messiah were enough to produce the great effect and attract such great multitudes.
6 And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan.— John’s baptism was an open confession of repentance for sin; Mark calls it “the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4.) The Greek word “baptizo” which is used here was very common among Greek-speaking people; it is used in every period of Greek literature and was applied to a great variety of matters, including the most familiar acts of everyday life. Greek speakers and hearers understood the word at the time John was preaching; it had no doubtful meaning. It meant what we express by the Latin word “immerse” and kindred terms; no one could then have thought of attributing to it a different meaning, such as “sprinkle” or “pour.” “Bapto” means to dip and had the root “baph,” which was akin to “bath” in bathing; bapto is a root form of baptizo. The baptism of John has been erroneously by some regarded as a modified application of the Jewish baptism of proselytes; some deny that the proselyte baptism was in use at the time that John began his ministry; however, John’s baptism was not an imitation of any other rite or form; his baptism came from heaven. (Matthew 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 20:4.) There is no reason for supposing that John’s baptism was a modification of some existing rite, since Jesus distinctly intimated that the baptism of John was “from heaven.” John declared that God “sent” him “to baptize in water.” (John 1:33.) The baptism of John is significant and impressive in its simplicity and bears the distinct stamp of divine authority. It is to be understood that John immersed or dipped those who came to him and demanded baptism.
As John was preaching along the banks of the Jordan, his baptism was done “in the river Jordan.” This strengthens the proof that the action of baptizing was performed within the limits of the river Jordan. This is the simple meaning of the phrase “in the river Jordan.” Some have contended that the Greek preposition “en” means in, within, at, on, with, by, nigh to, according to the subject, and that in this instance it may mean within the outer bank of the river, which they claim has double banks, or that it was done nigh to the river Jordan. It is denied also that John “immersed” his disciples “in the river Jordan,” because there was too large a number for him to immerse; such objection is not only a denial of the plain truth as expressed by Matthew, but is absolutely contrary to the accepted meaning of the word “baptizo.” The word “Jordan,” always with the article in the Hebrew and the Greek, signifies “the descender” and was so named from its rapid descent in a long and deep valley or fissure; John evidently used one of the fords of the Jordan as a convenient place to baptize; it is not known the exact place of his baptizing.
Confessing their sins.—After hearing John preach repentance the people confessed “their sins”; this was not merely showing a contrite spirit, neither was it merely confessing themselves to be sinners; it was an individual and public confession of their sins. They did not make a private confession of their sins to John, but openly declared their sins and that they were penitent of them. Upon this confession John baptized them. ,Repentance and confession of sins were prerequisites of their baptism, hence John’s baptism was the baptism of repentance, and its object was the remission of sin. The confession would necessarily be brief and emphatic; the original word in the Greek means that the confession was made orally and openly. Their confession was connected with their baptism, and it was an individual confession and perhaps a specific confession of their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism.—These were the two principal parties among the Jews; they were opposed to each other and were opposed later to the work of Jesus. Both of these religious parties originated in the second century before Christ. The Pharisees were the strictest and most popular and most numerous sect of the Jews. They originated in the time of Jonathan the high priest, 159-144 B.C. Some authorities claim that they numbered about six thousand at the death of Herod the Great; they probably derived their name from the Hebrew “pharash,” which means “separated”; they separated themselves from other Jews under the pretense of a greater purity and a stricter observance of the law. Whatever they were at their origin, they appear to have been, with some exceptions (John 3:1; Acts 5:34), great hypocrites in the name of Jesus, (Matthew 5:20; Matthew 5:23; Mark 8:11-15; Luke 11:52; Luke 18:9-14). They were the most formidable enemies of Jesus before his crucifixion.
The Sadducees probably derived their name from the Hebrew “zedek,” which meant the just; some think that they originated with Zadok, who was president of the Sanhedrin about 260 B.C. They rejected tradition as given by the Pharisees , they denied a future state and the existence of angels and spirits; in this they were opposed to the Pharisees. The Sadducees were not so numerous , they were characterized by worldliness and unbelief, as the Pharisees were by superstition and hypocrisy. Though the Sadducees opposed the Pharisees, yet later they joined them in opposition to Jesus. (Matthew 22:23-34; Acts 4:1-2; Acts 23:6-8.) The Pharisees and Sadducees were the strongest religious parties that opposed John and Jesus.
John saw representative leaders of the Pharisees and Sadducees “coming to his baptism”; some translate this “coming for his baptism.” Why did these come to John? Many think that they came to be baptized of John, while others think that they came either to see or hear what was going on. It seems that they came to be baptized of John; they were interested in the coming Messiah; they would be drawn by the general excitement and interest, as many are now in times of a revival; there may have been a secret and conscious feeling of need of preparation before the advent of the King. If there was a new kingdom coming, and the old was to be destroyed, it would be well for them to escape from the wreck of the old one and be ready for the new kingdom; they did not want to be left out of it , they expected an earthly kingdom.
Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?—These two religious sects which were mutually hostile are found frequently in the gospels united ni opposition to our Lord; here they are found in opposition to John the Baptist. It seems that they came with others, and because others did come, without any worthy motive, and John discerned their motives and administered this severe rebuke. He called them an “offspring of vipers,” a generation of vipers, or brood of vipers. The viper was a venomous serpent; John characterizes them as both deceitful and malicious, and deadly poison to those whom they inoculated with their spirit. They were wicked sons of wicked fathers. John used this phrase of reproach describing these Pharisees and Sadducees as noxious and odious and insidious.
It does not appear that John meant to describe these as children of the devil, the old serpent; he meant to describe them as being cunning and deceitful. They have come to be baptized of John, but they were not penitent , they were ready for the new kingdom, as they thought, but they were not ready for a new life.
John, it seems was able to read the motives of them and hence he could address them as he did; the smooth, varnished hypocrisy of the Pharisee or Sadducee could not deceive him; his denunciation of them strikes swift and like lightning the deceptive lives of the Pharisees and Sadducees. “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” John asked why they came to him; why have your fears been aroused? Who made you see your danger? The wrath to come means the divine indignation, or the punishment that will come upon the guilty. (Malachi 3:2; Malachi 4:5.) The reference of John’s ministry to this prophecy concerning Elijah would naturally suggest to people the “wrath to come.” It was the general expectation of the Jews that perilous times would accompany the appearance of the Messiah. John is here speaking in the true character of a prophet, foretelling the wrath soon to be poured out on the Jewish nation. Though John could rebuke them, yet he was not the man to close against them the door of hope and mercy. John implied that if they expected to receive mercy from God that they, like all others, must be penitent; they must confess their sins and turn from them, before they are prepared for his baptism.
8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance.—If they were in earnest, then they would bring forth fruit worthy of their repentance;good fruit comes from good trees; they were to prove their sincerity by a life of righteousness. Their lives must be the exact opposite of what they had been; the good fruits are all forms of righteousness, love to God, mercy, self-control, brotherly love, humility, faith, and every good word and work. They were to bring forth, that is, make “fruit” (singular). As they professed repentance and wished to be baptized, therefore they should produce fruit worthy of their repentance and thus prove that they were sincere. We are not to understand that John refused to baptize them, nor that he asked them to go off and prove their repentance before he could baptize them; he only gave them this instruction. In their impenitent condition they could not escape the wrath of God they should exhibit that morality of conduct which is appropriate to the change of mind as its result; instead of their unrepentant condition he required genuine repentance. What John here required of the Sadducees and Pharisees he required of all people; this was especially appropriate to the leaders.
9 We have Abraham to our father.—John knew what was in the minds of the Pharisees and Sadducees; he knew the answer that they wanted to make; he knew that they would claim to be heirs of the blessings of God because they were the descendants of Abraham; hence, he warned them by saying, “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father.” “To say within yourselves” is a common expression in the scripture. (Psalms 10:6; Psalms 10:11; Psalms 14:1; Ecclesiastes 1:16; Ecclesiastes 2:15.) The Jew boasted of his relation to Abraham; he hoped to enjoy the blessings of the expected Messiah simply on the grounds that he was a descendant of Abraham, and a children unto Abraham. 10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, member of the Jewish race; all Jews claimed to be partakers of the promise given to Abraham; this was one of the mistakes of the Jews. (John 8:39 Romans 9:7.) As the Jews thought that the Messiah’s kingdom would be an earthly kingdom and that he would reign over the Jews as a nation, that they would receive the blessings of citizenship in that kingdom as descendants of Abraham they relied on their relation to Abraham for admittance into the kingdom. Nicodemus made the same mistake and Jesus told him that he must be born again or else he could not enter into the kingdom. (John 3:3; John 3:5.)
God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.—John, standing on the bank of the Jordan, could refer to the pebbles as “these stones”; perhaps he may have pointed to the loose stones lying around. The fact is God could with such perfect ease raise up children to Abraham, and so was not dependent on these Pharisees and Sadducees for the continuation of Abraham’s posterity in a spiritual sense; this also suggested to them that they might readily be set aside from enjoying the blessings promised to Abraham’s descendants. This also implies that the Messianic blessings would not necessarily be enjoyed by all Jews as such (John 1:29); it may mean too that the Gentiles would form a part of God’s people in this coming kingdom which “was at hand.” Here John also expresses the omnipotence and independence of God; he can put the Gentiles into the place of the Jews. (Matthew 8:11-12; Romans 4:1-2.) John tells these that God is able, notwithstanding their descent from Abraham, to exclude them from the Messiah’s kingdom; and, on the other hand, to create and bring forth out of these stones, which lie here around on the bank of the Jordan, such persons as are true children of Abraham. This must have been a surprise to all who heard him.
10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees.— John says that the axe is now sharp and ready and is being applied to the tree. He uses the figure that he has introduced, trees; his hearers are compared to the trees in an orchard; an axe is ready to destroy every tree that has not heretofore brought forth good fruit; this tree is about to be cut down and destroyed. In this way John emphasizes personal responsibility without regard to fleshly ancestry. John has already said that the punishment of the unfaithful descendants of Abraham was possible; he now asserts that it was not only possible, but highly probable as the work had already begun. The axe was ready for its destructive work; many of the Jews were unfruitful trees, and even worse, they were bad trees; every tree that brings forth not good fruit is to be cut down. John refers to the unbelieving Jews as those who will be excluded from “the kingdom of heaven.” The axe has been brought to the tree and lies ready for use; it will surely be applied if they do not accept the Messiah.
Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down.—The axe is to be applied to “the root of the trees,” not to the branches to prune them, but at the root to destroy them. The fruit which the tree is to bring forth is the fruit that God rightly requires of it; the individual who does not bring forth the fruit of the spirit is to be destroyed. God had selected the Jewish race; he had given his law to it; he had sent his prophets to teach and to warn them; these prophets had foretold of the coming of the Messiah; John was his forerunner and came to make ready a people prepared for the Lord; the “kingdom of heaven” was “at hand”; if they failed in their preparation for the Messiah they would be destroyed, there was no salvation for them. There was nothing and no one else upon whom they could rely for salvation. Carrying the figure out, the unprofitable tree was to be cut down “and cast into the fire”; it was to be destroyed. The searching ordeal of moral fruitage was in process; the axe was close at the root of every tree; the barren must go under the axe and into the fire.pent; he demanded a complete reformation of life, a radical change in heart which was to result in a change of life.
They thought that this was a severe and drastic demand of them, as they were of Abraham’s seed; but John now puts in contrast what his preaching demanded of them and what the Messiah would demand of them when he came. John puts in contrast what he is authorized to do for them and what the expected Messiah would do for them. The preparation which John called upon the people to make in order to be ready for the coming kingdom is here put in contrast with the requirements of their entering into the kingdom. These contrasts are introduced by the emphatic word “indeed,” which shows the contrast between what he required of them and what the King would require of his subjects.
“Baptize you in water unto repentance.” Literally John baptized them in water; he baptized them “in the river Jordan.” Some contend that John baptized “with water” and that the act was that of “sprinkling” or “pouring” the water on them. It is claimed that John as well as Matthew uses the phrase “in water” (John 1:26; John 1:31; John 1:33), but that Luke in a parallel passage uses the phrase “with water” (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16), and that the phrase merely means an instrument by which the water is applied to the subject; it is argued from this that an instrument is always wielded and applied to the object affected by the action, and that “baptize with water” cannot mean immersion. This position is untenable; the water cannot mean an instrument, and the original shows that it is not to be used as an instrument. Luke uses the phrase “in the Holy Spirit” (Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5), which is a parallel expression for the phrase “in water,” and the Holy Spirit cannot be considered the instrument and applied to the subject by the hand of man.
John’s baptism was “unto repentance.” What is the meaning of “baptize you in water unto repentance”? Some have interpreted this to mean that the baptism of John brought them to repentance. This cannot be allowed, for John required repentance as a prerequisite to baptism. Others have contended that they were baptized “into repentance”; this is not correct, for, if John’s baptism did not bring the one baptined unto repentance, it could not bring them into it. Some have contended that the preposition “eis” should be understood in the sense “because of”; the preposition “eis” is never used to express the idea that one thing is done because of another having been done; hence we are not to understand that John baptized persons “because of” their repentance; it is true that repentance here preceded their baptism, yet it was not because they had repented that they were baptized. The blessing of remission of sins was attached to John’s baptism, for it is said by Mark that John “preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3.) The desire to receive the forgiveness of sin would prompt those who had not submitted to John’s baptism to repent so that they might be baptized and in so doing receive the remission of sins.
[The context of a scripture is the only safe guide in determining what that scripture means. John tells all Jerusalem and Judea who came out to him and were baptized of him, confessing their sins, that the Messiah and his kingdom would soon appear. He saw among the number many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism; he especially addressed them as a “generation of vipers”; not that these that came were possibly worse than others, but they were from an evil class. He calls them an offspring of vipers because they belonged to the class of evil ones, but they also were fleeing from the wrath to come. He warned them not to rely upon the Abrahamic family to save them;that every tree, or family, or individual, henceforth would be treated alike, and those who did not bear good fruit would be destroyed. Then, speaking to the same persons, he said: “I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance.” If he did what he says he did, he baptized them and all others unto repentance, or to doing work meet for repentance.
The works meet for repentance to the different classes are set forth by Luke (Luke 3:10-11.) Let him that has two coats give one to him that needeth; publicans, or tax collectors, were warned not to collect more than was right. The soldiers were to do violence to no man in preserving order. Certainly they were not to wait to do all these things before they were baptized unto repentance. In Mark 1:8, John says: “I baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” There is nothing in the context that intimates that he sent them off to prove their worthiness before he baptized them, and it is contrary to the spirit of God’s dealings with man throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament. He did not divide those who came to him into two classes with different laws to each;all were baptized unto repentance and admonished to bear fruit worthy of this repentance.]
11 He that cometh after me is mightier than I.—Here John institutes a contrast between himself and Jesus. Literally, “he that cometh after me” means “the one coming behind me”; this implies that they had heard of the coming of the Messiah. John means the Messiah of whom he was the forerunner; he here states that he is the forerunner of the Messiah. John describes his personal relationship to the Messiah and draws a sharp contrast between himself and the Messiah. John does not take to himself any honor, but bestows honor upon him whom he came to introduce to the world. He declared that the Messiah who should come after him “is mightier” than he; that is, the Messiah would have power to accomplish that which he could not accomplish; the Messiah would not only BE uperior in position, but more powerful and able to accomplish that which John could not accomplish. How much “mightier” than John the Messiah would be is immediately pointed out by John.
In contrast the position of John and that of the Messiah and the work of John and that of the Messiah are expressed by John when he says “whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.” In his humility John says that he is not worthy to carry the shoes of the Messiah. The word rendered “shoes” signifies what is bound under and denotes the sole of leather, rawhide, or wood which they wore under the foot, and which fastened to the foot by a thong or strap which was run between the toes and bound around the ankle to fasten the sandal to the foot. As stockings were not worn, the feet became soiled, and on entering the house the sandals were taken off and laid away by the lowest servant in the house so that the feet might be washed. The loosing, tying, or carrying the sandal became proverbial to express the humblest service. John means here that he that cometh after him is so much greater in authority and power, and so distinguished, that he was unworthy to do him the humblest service. Mark records this humility of John by saying, “The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose” (Mark 1:7); Luke expresses it, “The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose” (Luke 3:16). Matthew records another point of superiority of the Messiah.
He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.—What a baptism! John’s baptism was “in water,” but the Messiah would baptize “in the Holy Spirit and in fire.” The Messiah would entirely immerse the penitent ones “in the Holy Spirit,” and those who were impenitent, he would overwhelm with the fire of judgment, and at last in final perdition. This prophecy of John was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) and at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44; Acts 11:15-18) with respect to the baptism “in the Holy Spirit.” John does not here state that every subject of the coming kingdom would be immersed in the Holy Spirit. His prediction should be understood in the light of its fulfillment; we have only two records of the fulfillment of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In the baptism of the Holy Spirit on these two occasions, the Holy Spirit came direct from heaven without any intervention of human agency. The baptism in the Spirit of these two groups of persons has brought blessings to all mankind; the one on Pentecost brought blessings directly to the Jews, and the one at the house of Cornelius brought blessings to the Gentiles; hence the baptism in the Holy Spirit has resulted in blessings to the entire human family.
12 Whose fan is in his hand.—John represents the Messiah as coming with his winnowing fan; “fan” as used here meant a large wooden fork, by which the mass of mingled wheat and chaff is thrown up against the wind, which blows away the chaff, while the heavier grain falls upon the floor. This figure is of the judgment and is a more striking figure than the preceding one of the fruitful trees. In that figure the husbandman removes from his garden all the unfruitful trees as they only cumber the ground; but here at harvesttime there is a separation on the threshing floor of the wheat from the chaff. The fan is in his hand, or the instrument for the separating or purging is with the Messiah. The Jews were familiar with such a figure as John used here. (Psalms 1:4; Daniel 2:35; Hosea 13:3.) The fan or winnowing shovel was “in his hand,” which means that already the process of sifting had begun or was ready to begin with the coming of the Messiah.
He will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor.–The “threshing floor” was a circular space of beaten earth which had been cleansed so that the grain could be kept clean; the grain was trodden out by oxen; the straw was thrown away with a fork and the mass of grain and chaff was thrown up by the shovel and the grain was left to fall on the clean threshing floor while the chaff was blown away by the wind.
The threshing floor was usually an open hard-trodden space in the middle of the field where the grain could be assembled with the straw. John makes good use of this ancient figure and emphasizes the work that the Messiah would do. After the grain has been separated from the chaff, the threshing floor is cleansed and made ready for another process, or is put in a state of cultivation.
He will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.—The purpose of the threshing floor was to afford a convenient place for the separation for the wheat and chaff. In verse ten the two classes are represented by the two classes of trees; here the two classes are represented by “his wheat” and “the chaff.” The threshing floor is to be thoroughly cleansed and the final separation of the two classes is to be made. The whole figure represents the Messiah as separating the evil from the good, according to the tests of his kingdom and his gospel; the worthy are to be received into his kingdom and given a rich reward, while the unworthy are to be destroyed. There is a sharp contrast not only between the wheat and the chaff, but the destiny of the two classes; the one is to be gathered “into the garner,” while “the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire.” By using the term “unquenchable fire” John extends the meaning of his figure to the eternal destiny.
[The baptism of fire was the destruction that was to come upon the children of disobedience, beginning in this world, ending in the final destruction in everlasting ruin. The destruction of Jerusalem was a type of the everlasting destruction. The baptism by fire was an overwhelming deluge of divine wrath; it ends only with the everlasting destruction of the wicked; there are steps and degrees in this work of destruction on earth, ending in the final ruin forever.
He will gather his wheat into the garner, and will burn the chaff with fire unquenchable. He will bring the good into his kingdom; he will cast the evil into outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. The salvation of the righteous in his kingdom is typified by the baptism of the Holy Spirit; the destruction of the wicked, by the baptism of fire.
The baptism of the Spirit is the overwhelming of the Spirit so that the spirit of man is brought completely under the influence and control of the Spirit of God. This in the beginning was done miraculously and at once by the pouring out of the Spirit upon the apostles and others who were plenarily inspired. The same end, the bringing of the spirit of man completely under the control and influence of the Spirit of God, is brought about since the days of inspiration through the laws of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. This work is gradually accomplished through receiving the law given by the Spirit, and in which he dwells, into the heart and a gradual obedience with its requirements.
A man is baptized when overwhelmed, regardless of the manner in which the overwhelming is accomplished. When the soul of man is completely overwhelmed by the Spirit of God, he is baptized by the Spirit regardless of whether it was done by direct and miraculous outpouring of the Spirit, or by the gradual bringing of the man’s spirit under the influence of God’s Spirit. The apostles were baptized by the Holy Spirit miraculously on the day of Pentecost, created full-grown men on that day of the descent of the Holy Spirit. Others are begotten of the Spirit, or born as babes into the spiritual kingdom of God, and grow up to manhood in Christ Jesus through the laws for the development of life in Christ Jesus. Whenever these persons are brought fully under the influence of the Spirit, when their spirits are overwhelmed by the Spirit of God, so it rules supremely, they become thus full-grown men in Christ Jesus, and might be said then to be baptized by the Spirit of God. This is not often in the scriptures called a baptism of the Spirit, since it is a gradual growth, and it cannot be said the baptism took place at any certain time.
John the Baptist called the development of the spirit to a full-grown man a baptism of the Spirit. He said of Jesus to the multitudes who came to him: “He [ Jesus] shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.” The context shows plainly that the baptism of fire embraces the punishment of the wicked ending in their final and eternal ruin. The baptism of the Holy Spirit here is promised to the other class and must embrace all the influences of the Spirit, fitting and qualifying them for the blessings of God here and the final salvation in heaven. The spirit of man is fitted for these things only when it is completely under the influence of the Holy Spirit, or when it is baptized by the Spirit of God. This was done miraculously, in a moment of time, on Pentecost; it requires a lifetime to accomplish it under the laws of the Spirit. When it was done miraculously, miracle-working power was present to attest its divine origin; this is not to be expected under the workings of the law of the Spirit.]
Matthew 3:13-17
- THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.—John had been busy in his ministry for several months; some think that he was just now in the height of his ministry; others think that Jesus came to John near the close of John’s ministry. Jesus was now “about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23). Some have inferred from Luke 3:21 that Jesus was the last person that John baptized, that his mission ended with the baptism of Jesus; however, this is not a correct inference. Jesus came “from Galilee to the Jordan” to be baptized. He came from Nazareth in Galilee, where he had spent about thirty years of his life. We do not know the exact place in the Jordan where Jesus was baptized; he came to John who was baptizing in the Jordan.
It is generally conceded that Jesus walked from Nazareth to where John the baptizing, which was a distance of sixty-five to eighty miles. Not knowing the exact place where John was baptizing, we cannot determine with accuracy the distance that Jesus walked. Some think that John was baptizing at Bethabara (John 1:28); it is a tradition that this was the place where the Israelites crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan. This was the beginning of Jesus’ public career.
He came to John “to be baptized of him.” Why should Jesus, the sinless one, come to John to be baptized? Matthew expresses clearly the purpose of Jesus in coming to John; it was “to be baptized of him”; we know that Jesus did not come to be baptized from a feeling of personal sinfulness, neither because of his personal connection with an impure people, nor for the purpose of showing that there was no incompatibility between his life and the life of others, nor merely to elicit the divine declaration that he was the Son of God, nor to confirm the faith of others in him, neither was it to sanction the baptism of John as having been authorized of God. It was the will of God for him to be baptized, and he came to do the will of God. (Hebrews 10:7.)
14 But John would have hindered him.—John at first was opposed to baptizing Jesus; he did not forbid Jesus, but had it in mind to prevent him; the original means that he was for hindering him, or that he “would have hindered him.” John was moved to strenuous protest against baptizing Jesus. John felt that it was not in order for him to baptize Jesus; he recognized the superiority of Jesus and his own inferiority, hence he could not understand why the inferior or the less should administer baptism to his superior or the greater. John was conscientious; he was strenuous in his opposition to baptizing Jesus. John knew the purpose of his baptism; he knew that all who had been baptized of him needed to be baptized, but he did not recognize in Jesus anything that would lead him to believe that Jesus needed to be baptized of him.
I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? —John, in substance, says that he has far greater need of unto him, Suffer ‘it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up being baptized of Jesus than Jesus does of being baptized of him. This implies that John had some definite knowledge of the character of Jesus. How did John recognize Jesus as so holy? Their mothers were possibly related; John could not have been brought up in ignorance of some of the circumstances of Jesus’ birth; the song of the angels, the visit of the wise men, the song of Mary, and the prophecy of Simeon, all could have been known by John; he may also have had some acquaintance with the pure and sinless life of Jesus at Nazareth; again upon this occasion the Holy Spirit with which John was filled would aid him in recognizing the purity and sinlessness of Jesus. It was on this occasion, after the baptism of Jesus, that John knew with certainty that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. (John 1:33.) John was looking for the appearing of Jesus and taught others to look forward to his appearing; hence the prophetic anticipation of John, for the appearing of the Messiah helped him to recognize the superiority of Jesus.
15 But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it now.—Literally this means permit it now; never mind the contrast between John and Jesus; Jesus asks that John let him take the place of the less or the inferior for the present. The baptism of Jesus was a duty, not only of Jesus, but it was also the duty of John to baptize Jesus; since it was the duty of John to baptize Jesus, Jesus is ready to help John do his duty; there is an implied truth in the objection that John made, but John is to do his duty nevertheless. There are two aspects of baptism; first, it was an act in connection with the remission of sin, and an act of obedience to a positive command of God. Jesus had no sin to be forgiven, but he must obey the command of God; “though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8); Jesus here began to learn obedience to God’s will.of God. John had a part in the preparation of the people for the coming of Jesus, and also a part in announcing and pointing out Jesus as the Messiah. John thought it would be presumption on his part to baptize Jesus and an unworthy condescension on the part of Jesus to submit to his baptism; but Jesus declares to John that it is befitting in both John and Jesus to perform this act.
Nothing must be left undone that would honor God and assist Jesus in beginning and carrying on his ministry. As John’s baptism was not “from men” but “from heaven” (Matthew 21:25; John 1:33), it became Jesus to receive the baptism of John, and John to administer it. It was fitting that Jesus should fill up the full measure of righteousness in all its forms by accepting the baptism of John. John saw the force of Jesus’ words and baptized him. Some think since John baptized Jesus at Jesus’ command that Jesus was really the active person in the baptism.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water.—“Straightway” means immediately; Mark says “straightway coming up out of the water.” (Mark 1:10.) Some think that no other person was baptized at the
time Jesus was baptized; others think that there were others who were baptized, but that John detained them in the water until they could make confession of their sins. There is nothing in the text to justify any assumption or speculation on this point; Matthew simply records the fact that Jesus was baptized and “went up straightway from the water.” This helps to emphasize the fact that John’s baptism was by immersion , Jesus departed “from” the water after he had come out of it.
And lo, the heavens were opened unto him.—Luke says, “Jesus also having been baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened” (Luke 3:21); hence while Jesus was praying, “the heavens were opened unto him.” Some think that the heavens were opened in answer to his prayer, but the record only states that they were “opened” during his prayer; there was an apparent separation or division of the visible expanse, am well pleased. See . 12:1 as if to afford passage to the form and voice which are mentioned in the next clause. We have similar expressions in the Bible. (Isaiah 64:1; Ezekiel 1:1; John 1:51; Acts 7:56.) This signified that Jesus could see into the heavens and hence could communicate with God. The essential idea suggested is that of the removal of every visible thing between him and the father and that the extraordinary gift from heaven could be received by Jesus.
And he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.—Jesus saw the Holy Spirit coming upon him; it seems from the text that the vision was to Jesus alone, but John was also a witness to it (John 1:32); this was to John the sign by which the Messiah should be recognized. Very likely the multitude did not see this vision, but that it was visible only to Jesus and John; still others think that it was visible to the multitude as Luke affirms that it came “in a bodily form” (Luke 3:22) like a dove. The form of a dove, and not in the manner of the dove, swiftly and gently as a dove, affirm some. The dove was an ancient symbol of purity and innocence, and was so adopted by Jesus on one occasion. (Matthew 10:16.) Scholars are divided as to whether the comparison is with the “form” of the dove, or with the “manner of the dove” in descending. Luke says, “descended in a bodily form,” which seems to settle the question.
It came upon Jesus; it abode or remained upon him for some time. Some think that this symbolized the great fact that Jesus was henceforth to be permanently in union with the Father and under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Immediately after this we find that Jesus was “led up of the Spirit into the wilderness.” (Matthew 4:1.) The purpose of the visible form or manifestation was to point Jesus out to John; John must bear witness of Jesus; that he is the Messiah; he must have divine authority for this; he receives that authority at this time.
17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens.—This “voice” was the voice of God; it came from the rented heavens; it could have come without the heavens being separated, but the rent in the heavens was the physical manifestation of the supernatural, and this was accompanied with “a voice out of the heavens.” This is similar to other expressions. (Comp. Luke 9:35-36; Acts 7:31; Acts 9:4; Acts 11 :; Revelation 1:10; Revelation 4:1; Revelation 6:6.) We have here the three persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the term “Son” is applied to the Messiah (Psalms 2:7; Isaiah 42:1) , not merely in reference to his official character, but more especially to his divine nature.
Saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. —The voice from heaven said two things, first, that Jesus was the Son of God; second, that God was well pleased with him. This is the first public acknowledgment that God made of Jesus; it was made at his baptism. The words spoken here are the same that were uttered on the Mount of Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:5; 2 Peter 1:17.) The Greek is emphatic “This is my Son, the beloved”; the two terms are to a certain extent equivalent; God’s Son was his beloved. This voice was specially designed as a revelation to John; it was given him for the purpose of his mission which was to introduce Jesus as the Messiah to the people. ‘However in Mark and Luke there is a more particular reference to Jesus himself as the source of the vision, while John lays special stress upon the part which John the Baptist sustained in the vision. We have recorded three heavenly voices which were heard during Jesus’ ministry: (1) at his baptism; (2) at his transfiguration (Mark 9:7); (3) in the courts of the temple during the last week of Jesus on earth (John 12:28). The Son is consecrated by the Holy Spirit, and proclaimed by the Father at the baptism of Jesus. This announcement from heaven by the Father at this time was the formal divine authentication of the Messiah’s mission; he is now commissioned by the Father and anointed by the Holy Spirit to begin his public ministry for the redemption of man.
[ John baptized all who came to him, the vilest wrongdoers as well as others less guilty of sin, until Jesus came to him. He condemned each for his own sins and directed each to repent of his special sins. John, from the universality of the sinfulness, seems to have caught the idea that baptism was only for the remission of sins until Jesus came. When he came John forbade him saying: “I have need to be baptized of thee.” Here the question was before Jesus and John whether baptism is always for, or into, or unto, the remission of sins; and the first revelation he makes from God to man is to baptize and be baptized to fulfill the righteous will of God. All should respect and honor that will by obeying and honoring it. Jesus Christ in this revelation places obeying the will of God as the highest, holiest, best motive that can lead man in the service of God.
When this motive leads to obedience, it includes all other motives and blessings and renders the obedience acceptable to God; it embraces and swallows up all other smaller or secondary motives and pleases God best of all. It is the motive that moved Jesus to leave heaven and come to earth to lead man to do what he does because it pleases God. John baptized all who came to him, from Jesus down, to bring them into the fellowship and brotherhood of Christ Jesus, who would bless and save.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John make reference to the conception, birth, and childhood of Jesus; these four writers do not give all the points which are recorded of the early life of Jesus; Mark tells all that he gives of the prophecy, descent, and birth of Jesus in nine verses until he comes to his baptism, and then God recognized him as his Son. No account of Jesus being called the Son of God is given by Luke until we come to Luke 3:21 which records his baptism and voice from heaven owning him as God’s Son. John begins his gospel by telling us who and where Jesus as the Word was before the world was made. He tells us that he was made flesh, was born of the virgin Mary, of John’s baptizing him, and in John 1:29 he tells of the baptism of Jesus and that God owned him as his Son; no intimation is given that God acknowledged Jesus to be his Son until he was baptized. John the Baptist said “that he should be made manifest to Israel, for this cause came I baptizing in water” (John 1:31);that is, God had determined to own him as his Son in his baptism. Therefore, John came baptizing, that in the baptism God might declare him his Son. This was an example and assurance he owns those who trust him.]