Matthew 3

Matthew 3 “THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW”

Chapter Three Matthew skips ahead about thirty years to describe events that prepared Jesus for His public ministry. John the Baptist served as a forerunner with his own ministry of preaching in the wilderness of Judea and baptizing in the Jordan river (Matthew 3:1-12). From Galilee Jesus came to be baptized by John “to fulfill all righteousness”. As Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens opened, the Spirit descended on Him like a dove, and a voice from heaven declared, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:13-17).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The message and ministry of John the Baptist

• The purpose and meaning of Jesus’ baptism

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?

• The ministry of John the Baptist - Matthew 3:1-12- The baptism of Jesus Christ - Matthew 3:13-17

2. What was the theme of John’ s preaching? (Matthew 3:1-2)

• “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”

3. What was John’ s mission as foretold by Isaiah? (Matthew 3:3)

• To prepare the way of the Lord (Isaiah 40:3)

4. What unique clothing and diet did John have? (Matthew 3:4)

• Clothed in camel’ s hair and leather belt, food was locust and wild honey

5. What was John doing in the Jordan river? (Matthew 3:5-6)

• Baptizing people as they were confessing their sins

6. What did John say to the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to be baptized? (Matthew 3:8)

• “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance”

7. What did John say One who followed him would do? (Matthew 3:11-12)

• Baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire

8. Who came from Galilee to be baptized by John? Why? (Matthew 3:13-15)

• Jesus; to fulfill all righteousness

9. As Jesus came up from the water, what three things happened? (Matthew 3:16-17)

• The heavens were opened to Him
• The Spirit descended like a dove upon Him
• A voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

Matthew 3:1-17 Verse 1 II FOR HIS WORK; THE HERALD; BAPTISM; ; AND HIS PUBLIC BY JOHN THE BAPTISTMat_3:1-17; Matthew 4:1-11 Matthew 3:1-17 And in those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, saying Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. (Matthew 3:1-2)In those days … that is, some thirty years after the events recorded in the previous chapter. This is typical of Matthew’s slight attention to chronology. Jesus was about 30 years of age when he was baptized (Luke 3:23). The date of John’s ministry is also given by Luke as occurring in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1). John the Baptist … John is called “the baptist” because he baptized people. McGarvey identified John as the originator, under God, of the ordinance of baptism.[1] Dummelow commented on the immense popularity of John the Baptist, “The public appearance of the Baptist marked a new era. He came forward in the two-fold capacity of a prophet and forerunner of the Messiah. Since prophecy had been silent for 400 years, and all patriotic Jews were longing for the coming of the Messiah to deliver them from the Roman yoke, it is not surprising that he was welcomed with enthusiasm; and that those who ventured to doubt his mission found it expedient to dissemble (Matthew 21:26)."[2] Jesus had the highest opinion of John (Luke 7:28). The Jewish priests said he was possessed by a demon (Matthew 11:18), but this poor opinion of John was a reflection upon themselves and sprang out of the evil in which they were engrossed. The wilderness of Judaea … was a strip of waste land also called a desert (Luke 1:80), lying west of the Dead Sea near the mouth of the Jordan. This wilderness platform of John’s preaching served to identify him as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.” That John the Baptist was most certainly the person spoken of by the prophet, Isaiah, “is evident from the fact that he alone, of all the great preachers known to history, chose a wilderness as his place of preaching."[3] Repent ye … John’s message was one of repentance. Benjamin Franklin, pioneer Restoration preacher, proclaimed that God appointed three changes in conversion and three actions designed to effect those three changes. These are FAITH to change the heart (mind); to change the will; and BAPTISM to change the status. Repentance involving a change of the will is far more than mere sorrow for sin (2 Corinthians 7:10). Repentance is an instantaneous change of the will, induced by godly sorrow, and issuing forth in a reformation of life, and marked by restitution wherever possible. See under Matthew 18:3. The kingdom of heaven … This is the kingdom of Dan 2:44. John was the herald of this approaching king, Christ, in his kingdom. That this wonderful new kingdom was not to be a kingdom of this world in the ordinary and secular sense was a fact unknown to the Jews and only dimly appreciated by the Twelve themselves, especially at first. The kingdom of God and the church are one and the same institution, and this fact is more and more apparent. See under Matthew 16:13-19. Is at hand … With the ministry of John the Baptist, the kingdom was near but not yet established. Moffatt’s translation of this place is: “The reign of heaven is near.” In Mark 9:1, Christ emphatically declared that the kingdom of God would be established with power within the lifetime of the apostles, saying, “Verily, I say unto you, There are some here of them who stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.” Both Christ and Judas Iscariot were to taste of death before the kingdom began; and, therefore, the words “some of them” are most precisely accurate. [1] J. W. McGarvey, New Testament Commentary (Delight, Arkansas: Gospel Light Publishing Co.), p. 33. [2] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 629. [3] J. W. McGarvey, op. cit., p. 34.

Verse 3 For this is he that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight.The passage here quoted is Isaiah 40:3, but Isaiah is not the only prophet who prophesied of the mission of the great herald of the gospel age. Another equally significant prophecy is Malachi 4:5-6 in which the office and work of the herald are explicitly foretold. It is from Christ himself that one learns this passage’s application to John. Jesus had identified himself as the Messiah to his disciples, but the disciples had been troubled by the objection of the scribes that “Elijah must first come” (Matthew 17:9-13). Christ then identified John as the “Elijah” foretold by Malachi. The Pharisees should have known that truth already, because it was to one of the priestly group, Zacharias, that the angel announced the birth of John, using almost the identical words of Malachi’s great prophecy.

Compare Malachi 4:5-6 and Luke 1:15-17. Only willful blindness on the part of the Jewish leaders can account for their failure to recognize John as the “Elijah” who was to precede the Messiah.

Verse 4 Now John himself had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey.John had evidently been schooled in the knowledge that he was to be another Elijah, and he promptly adopted the type of dress that would identify him as “Elijah.” In 2 Kings 1:8, Elijah’s garb is mentioned, especially the leather girdle. This type of clothing was worn by the prophet for another reason, and that was as a protest against the luxury of the ruling classes in Jerusalem. His austere manner of dress and the wilderness residence pointed the way to the self-denial and repentance which would be the burden of John’s preaching. Locusts and wild honey … comprised the diet of the herald. The locusts were probably insects somewhat similar to large grasshoppers in the United States. Locusts are still considered edible in many parts of the world. Some believe the “locusts” refer to the pods of the carob tree, called “St. John’s bread” by the Jews, and still sold in New York City markets. The prodigal son is represented as eating the pods of the carob beans; and certainly John the Baptist could have eaten such carob pods; however, we are confronted with the simple statement that what he did eat was locusts and wild honey!

Verse 5 Then went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.All Judaea …; Matthew 3:5 is hyperbole in which there is an intentional exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. There are many figures of speech in the Holy Scriptures, and a proper understanding of them is necessary to a true understanding of God’s word. There are other figures which shall be noted in this chapter. Matthew 3:5 merely means that the great majority of the people of that time and place accepted the baptism of John the Baptist. It is specifically declared in the Scriptures that the Pharisees and lawyers did not accept it (Luke 7:30). In the river Jordan … John selected this river as the scene of his many baptisms for a reason, and the reason is given in John 3:23, “because there was much water there.” This makes it imperative that immersion be understood as the “form” of baptism practiced by John, since “much water” could not possibly have been required for any other “type” of baptism.

Verse 7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?Pharisees … were a very wealthy, zealous, and powerful sect among the Jews. They were proud, conceited, worldly, and vigilant enemies of our Lord; and yet they were the leaders among the ancient Jews and doubtless had many fine and commendable qualities which tend to be obscured by the fact that they opposed the work of Christ. Ledlow lists seven distinct classes of Pharisees, as follows: (1) The Shoulder Pharisee who wore all his good deeds on his shoulder and did his alms to be seen of men (Matthew 6:5); (2) The Wait-a-Little Pharisee who always suggested something else to do first. Of this type was the man who when asked to follow Christ said, “Suffer me first to go and bury my father” (Luke 9:59-60); (3) The Bruised Pharisee who was too pious to look upon a woman and who shut his eyes when one approached, which caused him to stumble into a wall and be bruised or cut; (4) The Pestle and Mortar Pharisee who walked with his head down in mock humility, also called the Hump-Backed Pharisee; (5) The Ever-Reckoning Pharisee who kept a ledger of good deeds and bad deeds in an effort to balance accounts with himself; (6) The God-Loving Pharisee, the noblest of the group; and (7) The Timid Pharisee who was the schizophrene of his day. It was probably to this latter class that Jesus addressed his warning that no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24).[4] Sadducees … constituted another powerful sect, though not as large as the Pharisees. They were the crass materialists of their day, denying the existence of angels or spirits and refusing to believe in the resurrection. They made fun of the idea of heaven as seen from the question propounded in Matthew 22:23 ff. Although they were mortal enemies of the Pharisees, they made common cause with them against Christ. Their difference with the Pharisees, however, was always close to the surface. See Acts 23:8. Ye offspring of vipers … The total corruption of the Jewish leaders of that day is seen in this passage. John’s vehement denunciation of these wicked men is exceeded only by the far greater condemnation heaped upon them by Christ. Their corruption was an open shame, known to all, denied by none, and justly deserving the words of condemnation uttered against them both by John and by the Christ. The wrath to come … could mean either of two things, or perhaps both. It might refer to the overflowing of God’s wrath against the Jewish nation because of their rejection of Christ and culminating in the overthrow of their temple and religious system in the year 70 A.D. by the conquering armies of Vespasian and Titus. It might also refer to the final overthrow of the wicked in hell. In this context, there is no reason why the passage should not refer to both, since both were “to come”! ENDNOTE:[4] W. F. Ledlow, Jesus and His Method (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House), pp. 200-202.

Verse 8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.Fruit worthy of repentance … suggests the true relationship between repentance and reformation of life. Reformation of life is not repentance but issues forth from repentance and is a direct result or “fruit” of repentance. That repentance cannot be reformation of life is seen in the words of Christ who allowed that it is possible to repent many times in one day (Luke 17:4), a thing that cannot be understood of reformation. Think not to say … Here Christ answered an alibi and destroyed a refuge of these ancient sinners. They supposed themselves safe because they were the seed of Abraham to whom the promises of old had been truly certified. However, in this place John blasts their complacency and opens the door for the “spiritual sons” of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29). Here in the preaching of John the Baptist was the beginning of that truth so fully expounded by Paul in which it appears that “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly ….” (Romans 2:28-29).

Verse 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, and cast into the fire.Axe … root of the trees This is a bold metaphor, here directed against the Jewish nation, but applicable with equal force against all sinful and rebellious people who reject God’s will. The “axe” is the army of destruction God would send against Jerusalem. “The root of the trees” refers to those great national institutions, the root and springs of Jewish culture, which would be destroyed when Titus razed the temple, prohibited the daily sacrifice, and destroyed the national polity of the Jewish people. “The fire” refers to the sorrows and tribulations through which the people would have to pass. The words “even now” suggest the near approach of the doom of Jerusalem, a theme which Christ himself more fully expounded later in his ministry.

Verse 11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.Seven baptisms are mentioned in the New Testament, three of which are mentioned in this verse. They are:

1. The baptism unto Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2).
2. The baptism of sufferings (Mark 10:38-39).
3. The baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29).
4. The baptism of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11, see above).
5. The baptism of fire (Matthew 3:11, see above).
6. The baptism of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3).
7. The baptism of the Great Commission (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-20). In spite of the fact that all these baptisms find mention in the New Testament, there is, nevertheless, but ONE baptism in force. See Ephesians 4:4. To determine which baptism is in force, or which one is IT, one only needs to observe these facts: No. 1, above, applied only to Jews. No. 2 is altogether figurative, being in no sense a ceremony. No. 3 was a practice of non-Christians as witnessed by the third person pronouns and was never connected in any way with the Christian religion. Nos. 4,5 are both promises of what God will do and cannot be obeyed in any sense. No. 6, John’s baptism, was clearly and categorically set aside by the baptism of him that is greater than John, even Christ. See Acts 19:3. Thus, the ONE baptism of Ephesians can be none other than the baptism of the Great Commission. In the Holy Spirit and in fire … is seen as a reference to two baptisms, rather than merely one, because John emphatically divided his hearers into two classes, reinforcing the point with a double metaphor, first of the unfruitful tree, and again of the threshing floor. Both at Pentecost and at the household of Cornelius was the baptism of the Spirit received (Acts 1:5; Acts 2:4; Acts 11:15-16). It is significant that both Jews and Gentiles are represented in these two groups and that there are no other examples of this baptism in the New Testament. It is also possible to construe “baptism in the Spirit” as a reference to the overwhelming guidance and direction of God’s people through the office of the Holy Comforter. In this sense, it applies to all believers. In fire … likely refers to the overwhelming of the wicked at last in hell. This is based on the fact that the term “fire” is the same as that used for the unfruitful tree and for the chaff in John’s great metaphors. McGarvey said, “It is clearly the wicked who are to be baptized in fire, and the fulfillment of the prediction will be realized when they are cast into the lake of fire” (Revelation 21:8).[5] ENDNOTE:[5] J. W .McGarvey, op. cit., p. 39.

Verse 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshingfloor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. Whose fan is in his hand, etc. … Note the following analogies in this remarkable metaphor: the fan is the judgment; the wheat refers to the just; the chaff stands for the wicked; the fire is the Gehenna in which the wicked shall perish; the threshingfloor is Palestine or the world; the one with the winnowing fan in his hand is the Lord, Judge of all the earth. Significantly, God classifies people in only two categories, good and bad, wheat and chaff, sheep and goats.

Verse 13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John to be baptized of him.Matthew Henry saw in the baptism of our Lord a mark of his wonderful humility. He said, “As soon as ever Christ began to preach, he preached humility, preached it by his example; designated for the highest honors; yet, in his first step, he thus abases himself."[6” translation=”">Matthew 3:17.">[6] With reference to WHY Christ was baptized, it should be noted that he was not baptized for the remission of sins (Hebrews 4:15), nor to set an example for people as to how they should “follow Christ in baptism” (Jesus was about 30 years of age). The reason assigned by the Lord was that it became him to “fulfill all righteousness.” , in the Scriptural view, refers to keeping God’s commandments or ordinances (Psalms 119:172 and Luke 1:8). Although Christ was sinless and needed not to be baptized for the usual reasons, yet he submitted to John’s baptism because God had commanded it. How worthy of emulation is that sublime attitude of Jesus; and how unlike that attitude is that of men who set aside even the baptism that is greater than John’s, making it a non-essential, an elective privilege, rather than receiving it for what it is, namely, a divinely-imposed condition of eternal salvation, which if spurned cannot fail to bring everlasting remorse. The very fact that the ordinance of baptism was to be brought over into the New Covenant by the Lord Jesus and elevated to an even higher status than the ordinance enjoyed under the preaching of John would lead the student of the Bible to seek in Christ’s baptism some traces or suggestions of that expanded significance that would accrue to baptism in the New Covenant. After Jesus was baptized, he began to pray publicly (Luke 3:21); the Holy Spirit descended upon him as he came forth up from the water (Matthew 3:16); and, immediately upon his baptism, God the Father publicly proclaimed Jesus as his Son. These facts certainly suggest that the Christian’s baptism marks the beginning of a significant new prayer life, the reception of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 4:6), and immediate enrollment in the Lamb’s book of life! ENDNOTE:[6” translation="">Matthew 3:17.">[6] Matthew Henry, Commentary (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell) on Matthew 3:17.

Verse 14 But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?This testimony of John the Baptist to the sinless nature of Christ is doubly effective because he was a cousin of our Lord. From the intimacy of the family circle, the testimony of Jesus’ perfect life was attested, no less than from his public deeds. John preached the “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”; and since Christ had no sins of which to repent, and as John did not know of our Lord’s other reason for being baptized, he would have prevented it.

Verse 15 But Jesus, answering, said unto him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.This was equivalent to saying, “Yes, I know I have no sins to be repented of and that I might claim an exemption from this duty proclaimed by the authority of God and binding upon all men; but, since this is God’s ordinance, I wish to honor it anyway and am delighted to do so by obeying the commandment now.”

Verse 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.Straightway from the water strongly suggests immersion as the action, that constitutes Scriptural baptism. Immersion is the only “kind” of baptism in which the person being baptized goes to the water before the act and leaves the water behind after the act! Who had the authority to change the action called baptism? It cannot be allowed that any man ever had such authority. The Holy Scriptures affirm that men are “buried” by baptism (Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:3-5). Spirit of God descending as a dove … This referred to the sign by which John was inspired to recognize the Messiah (John 1:32-34). Thus, it is clear the Holy Spirit adopted the shape of a dove on that occasion, otherwise John could not have seen and borne witness. As in all Scriptural symbolism, the dove was a creature most admirably suited to serve in that situation as a vehicle for suggesting the Holy Spirit. Note: (1) The dove was a “clean” creature under the ceremonial laws of the Jews; (2) it was used in their religious sacrifices, two, in fact, being offered upon the presentation of our Lord in the temple (Luke 2:24); (3) it is a monogamous creature! (4) it is a symbol of peace; (5) it is a marvel of gentleness, love, and affection; (6) it is a messenger (the homing pigeon is a dove); and (7) the dove has no gall, suggesting that there is no bitterness in the service of God. Brownville wrote, “It has been suggested that one reason for the gentleness of the dove is that the bird has no gall, the gall having been considered by naturalists of old as the source and fount of contention."[7] ENDNOTE:[7] C. Gordon Brownville, Symbols of the Holy Spirit (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1945), p. 19.

Verse 17 And lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.Three times, the Holy Scriptures represent God as speaking out of heaven in testimony for Jesus Christ: in this place, on the occasion of the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5), and in John 12:28-30. Voice out of heaven … This passage is a stronghold of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Discernible by man’s senses, all three persons of the Godhead appear in this passage. The Son is coming up from the waters of baptism, the Spirit of God in the form of a dove has alighted and remains upon Christ, and the Father himself speaks out of heaven! It should be remembered that the Trinity as a doctrine is not stated in the Bible, but Scriptures such as this verse and Matthew 28:18-20 strongly suggest it. It should not be considered strange that God is a Trinity, because man himself, in a certain sense, is a trinity also.

For example, there are three institutions that minister to man’s needs: (1) the asylum for the deranged, (2) the prison for the criminal, and (3) the hospital for the physically injured. Man, created in God’s image, and manifesting at least some characteristics of a trinity in His own nature, should not stumble at accepting the higher truth that God Himself is a Trinity of three Persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. On this difficult question, Dr. Dummelow said, “Although the definition of the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a long process of development which was not complete until the fifth century, the doctrine itself underlies the whole New Testament which everywhere attributes divinity to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and assigns to them distinct functions in the economy of redemption."Matthew 28:18-20, in which passage baptism is commanded in the “name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. This declaration out of heaven in broad open daylight in the presence of a multitude was actually God’s designation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The sonship of Christ is unique. He was the “only begotten” of the Father (John 3:18; 1 John 4:9). Many men may claim to be sons of God, and properly so; but only One could have been “the only begotten” Son of God. Surely, this was a true “sign from heaven,” given long before the Pharisees asked for such a sign. (See under Matthew 16:1.) ENDNOTE: J.W. McGarvey’s Commentary For Matthew Chapter ThreeJohn’s Ministry and the Baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3:1-17 John in the Wilderness, 1-6. (Mark 1:1-6; Luke 3:1-6)

1. In those days.—These words connect the events about to be related with those of the preceding chapter. But those events occurred during the infancy of Jesus, and these when he was about thirty years of age. (See Luke 3:23.) Consequently a period of more than twenty-eight years had intervened, and we see that Matthew uses the expression “in those days” very indefinitely. This accords with Matthew’s general inattention to chronology. the Baptist.—The title Baptist is given to John, because he was the originator under God of the ordinance of baptism. It is supposed by many that the ordinance did not originate with him, but that he copied it from the Jewish proselyte baptism. It is doubtful, however, whether proselyte baptism existed among the Jews previous to this time, as it is not mentioned in history until the third century of the Christian era. Moreover, it was a different rite in its form from John’s baptism; for, while John immersed others, in proselyte baptism the candidate immersed himself by going into the water to a convenient depth and dipping himself under. (See Kitto’s Cyclopedia and Smith’s Dictionary.) Such a baptism was by the law required of all persons who were unclean. When the sprinkling of blood or of the ashes of the red heifer was required, this bathing always followed; and it constituted a part of the process of purification in all other cases. (See Leviticus 14:9; Numbers 19:19 Numbers 7:1-89 Numbers 8:1-26; Leviticus 15:1-33. passim; 16:24-28; 17:15.) Some twenty distinct cases are specified in which the law required this bathing, and it is to these that Paul refers when he states that the law consisted in part of “divers baptisms.” (Hebrews 9:10.) But the law required nothing of this kind in the case of proselytes as a means of initiation; and when the practice of proselyte baptism was introduced it was a human appendage to the Jewish ritual, just as infant baptism was to the Christian ritual.
2. Repent ye—The theme of John’s preaching was repentance, and the chief motive by which he enforced the duty of repenting was the near approach of the kingdom of heaven. The latter event served as a motive to induce repentance because only by repentance could the people be prepared for it. A people totally indifferent to their violations of the law already given, would be ill-prepared to receive an additional revelation. John’s theme, therefore, was well adapted to his mission as the herald of the coming kingdom.
3. The voice.—That John was certainly the person spoken of by Isaiah as “the voice crying in the wilderness,” is evident from the fact that he alone, among all the great preachers known to history, chose a wilderness as his place of preaching. All others, not excepting Jesus and his apostles, went into the cities and villages where the people could be found: John alone began and ended in the wilderness, the people going out to him instead of his going to the people. Prepare ye the way.—The object of John’s mission was to prepare the people for Jesus and for the subsequent preaching of the apostles. (See Luke 1:17.) Here this preparation is figuratively represented by the physical preparation of a path by straightening it, and thus making the journey over it more rapid and less laborious. (Comp. Luke 3:4-5.)
4. his raiment.—John’s dress, a coarse fabric woven from camel’s hair, with a raw hide girdle attached to it; and his food, consisting of the Egyptian locust and wild honey, were so unusual that the Pharisees said he had a demon (11:18); but nothing could be more appropriate than that be whose mission it was to call men to repentance should himself set an example of austere self-denial.
5. went out to him.—Not-withstanding the unfavorable locality selected by John, he had no lack of an audience. The term all, however, is used here according to a Hebrew idiom by which it is put for the greater part. This appears from Matthew’s subsequent statement that the chief priests and elders of the people did not accept John’s baptism, and from Luke’s statement that the Pharisees and lawyers, as a class, rejected it. (21:23-25; Luke 7:30.)
6. confessing their sins.—We have seen (verse 2) that John’s chief theme was repentance, and here we learn that those baptized by him confessed their sins. Repentance and confession of sins, then, were the prerequisites to his baptism, and these imply faith in what he preached. The confession must have been of a very general character; for the brief duration of John’s ministry, and the vast numbers that he baptized forbid the supposition of a detailed confession of all the sins of each individual.

John’s Preaching and the Christ Announced, Matthew 3:7-12. (Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:7-18) 7. Pharisees.—The term Pharisee is derived from a Hebrew word which means separated. It represents a party among the Jews who were so called because of their extreme care to keep themselves separated from all persons and things which were legally unclean. The sect originated in the early part of the interval between the close of the Old Testament history and the birth of Jesus, but at what exact time is not now known. The fundamental peculiarity of their system was belief in the traditions of the elders, which they understood to consist in laws and regulations orally transmitted from Moses and the prophets. On account of the supposition that these traditions originated with inspired men, they were regarded as equal in authority with the written word. (See 15:1-9.) The Pharisees lived abstemiously, believed in the resurrection of the dead, and had almost unbounded influence with the masses of the people. For further details in reference to their history and doctrine, see Josephus, Ant. xii. 9:5; 10:5; xviii. 1:3, 4; Wars. ii. 8:14; Smith’s Dictionary; and the passages of the New Testament in which they are mentioned. Sadducees.—The Sadducees derived their name, according to Jewish tradition, from one Zadok, the founder of their sect. It is ingeniously argued, however, by a writer in Smith’s Dictionary, that this tradition is incorrect, and that the name was taken from that Zadok who was high priest under Solomon. His descendants were called “sons of Zadok” (Ezekiel 40:46 Ezekiel 48:11), from which expression the term Zadokites or Sadducees, as it comes to us through the Greek, might very readily be formed. They were diametrically opposed to the Pharisees, rejecting the authority of oral tradition, living a luxurious life, and denying the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels and spirits. (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8; Josephus, Ant. xviii. 1:4; Wars. ii. 8:14.) come to his baptism.—Many understand these words as meaning that the Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by John. His question, “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come,” naturally suggests this meaning. But we are expressly informed that the Pharisees rejected John’s baptism (Matthew 21:25-27; Luke 7:30), and the argument which John employs below (verse 9) implies that they were trusting in the fact of being Abraham’s children, and that, consequently, they denied a necessity for either the baptism or the repentance which John preached. Moreover, the question which he put to them is susceptible of an easy interpretation in harmony with these facts. Seeing that they affected to despise John and to utterly disregard his warnings, it was not expected that they would go near to his place of baptizing; but they came, and, by coming, indicated that they felt some of the alarm which had been generally awakened by his preaching. By demanding, “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” John taunts them with the fact that they were alarmed, and that his preaching had alarmed them. Luke’s report of this speech represents it as being addressed to “the multitude” (3:7), but Matthew’s more specific language points out the particular portion of the multitude for whom it was intended. generation of vipers.— More correctly rendered offspring or brood of vipers. This expression emphasizes the guile and malice of these men, and shows that they had no good motive in coming to the baptism.

8. fruits meet for repentance.—In this expression men are represented as trees, and the change of conduct brought about by repentance as fruit which they should bring forth. It probably suggested to John the allegory of ver. 10, below.
9. We have Abraham.—It was thought by all of the Jews that the Messiah’s kingdom would be a kingdom over the Jews as a nation, and that all Jews would be citizens of it. They relied, therefore, for their admittance into the kingdom, on the mere fact that they were Abraham’s children. It was this thought which led Nicodemus, after hearing Jesus declare that “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God,” to exclaim, “How can these things be?” (John 3:9.) of these stones.—The point in this remark is to show that it is the mere creative power of God that makes men children of Abraham, and that, therefore, there is no spiritual virtue in the connection.
10. the axe is laid.—Returning now to the metaphor of fruit trees, which he had introduced before (verse 8), John employs a brief allegory in which his hearers are compared to trees in an orchard. An axe lies at the root of every tree which has not hitherto brought forth fruit, in readiness for the woodman to cut it down if fruit shall not soon appear. Thus he insists on the personal responsibility of every man, without regard to ancestry.
11. I indeed.—John advances from the warning contained in his allegory to the announcement of him who would inflict the punishment therein indicated. He presents the Coming One, first, as contrasted with himself in reference to the baptism he would administer; and, second, as a judge who would separate the righteous from the wicked as a husbandman separates his wheat from the chaff. with water.—The Greek preposition (ἔν) here translated with primarily means in, and should be so translated in all instances, except where the context or the nature of the case forbids. It must be admitted by all that there is nothing in this context to exclude its ordinary meaning, unless it be the use of the same preposition with the terms Holy Spirit and fire. But the apostles were certainly baptized in the Holy Spirit; and it is equally certain that the wicked will be baptized in fire. (See below.) The immediate context, then, instead of forbidding the ordinary sense of the preposition, requires it. The remoter context has the same force, for it had just been said that the people were baptized by John in the Jordan; and there it is impossible to render the preposition by with. Baptized “with the Jordan” would be absurd. unto repentance.—The rendering, “I baptize you unto repentance,” implies that the baptism brought them to repentance. But such is not the fact in the case, for John required repentance as a prerequisite to baptism, and it is rather true that repentance brought them to baptism. If we adopt the rendering, “into repentance,” which is more literal, we are involved in a worse difficulty; for, if baptism did not bring the baptized unto repentance, it certainly did not bring them into it. Again, if to avoid these two difficulties we suppose the term repentance to be used by metonymy for the state of one who has repented, we encounter another difficulty not less serious; for the state of one who has repented is entered, not by being baptized, but by repenting. Finally, to assume, as some have done, that the preposition has the sense of because of, is to seek escape from a difficulty by attaching to a word a meaning which it never bears. The preposition (ἔις) is never used to express the idea that one thing is done because of another having been done.

Neither, indeed, would it be true that John baptized persons because of their repentance; for, while it is true that repentance did precede the baptism, it was not because of this that they were baptized; but baptism had its own specific object, and because of this object it was administered. The phrase under consideration has another meaning which, though somewhat obscure as regards its connection with the facts, is very naturally expressed by the words themselves.

The preposition is often expressive of purpose, and the phrase may be properly rendered “in order to repentance.” The baptism was not in order to the repentance of the party baptized. To so understand it would be to encounter the difficulty first mentioned above. But a baptism which required repentance as a prerequisite would have a tendency to cause those yet unbaptized to repent, in order that they might receive the baptism and enjoy its blessings. Prizes in schools are given in order to good behavior and good recitations, although the good recitations and the good behavior must precede the reception of the prizes. Promotions in the army are in order to the encouragement of obedience and valor, although these qualities of the good soldier must appear before promotion can take place. In the same way was John’s baptism in order to repentance.

The inestimable blessing of remission of sins being attached to baptism (see Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3), the desire to obtain this blessing would prompt those yet unbaptized to repent, so that they might be baptized. The words declare simply that the general purpose of John’s baptism was to bring the people to repentance. with the Holy Spirit.—In the Holy Spirit. (See first note on this verse.) The prediction here made that the Coming One would baptize in the Holy Spirit, began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. (Comp. Acts 1:5 Acts 2:4.) But John speaks as if the baptism in the Holy Spirit was to be as general under Christ as baptism in water was under his own ministry. Some have inferred from this that all of the subjects of Christ’s kingdom were to be baptized in the Holy Spirit; and another reason for the same conclusion is the fact that the baptism in the Holy Spirit and that in fire seem to include all men; the latter, all the wicked; the former all the righteous. But a prediction is best understood in the light of its fulfillment; and it is a fact that the apostles on Pentecost, and the household of Cornelius, are the only persons said in the New Testament to have received this baptism. (See Acts 1:5 Acts 2:4 Acts 11:15-16.) True, others, by imposition of apostolic hands, received miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and we would be justifiable in regarding these as instances of baptism in the Spirit if they were precisely like the two so called. But between these two and all others there is at least this remarkable difference, that in these two the Spirit came directly from Christ without human intervention, while in all others it was imparted through human hands. While the baptism in the Spirit, then, was actually confined to these two groups of persons, the benefits resulting from it extended to all.

The benefit of this baptism in the house of Cornelius was the admission of all Gentile converts into the church on an equality with the Jews; and the benefit of that on Pentecost was to extend the blessed fruits of plenary inspiration to all disciples, both Jews and Gentiles. These considerations are sufficient to account for the general terms of John’s prediction.

Some have supposed that the baptism in the Spirit is not confined to those who received miraculous gifts, but is enjoyed by all who receive the Holy Spirit at all. This hypothesis, which I am not prepared to adopt, would very satisfactorily explain John’s language.

with fire.—A few eminent commentators refer the expression in fire to the cloven tongues which sat upon the apostles when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit. Alford affirms, “This was literally fulfilled on the day of Pentecost;” and, in opposition to the more usual interpretation which refers it to the final punishment of the wicked, he says: “To separate ’the Holy Spirit’ as referring to one set of persons and ‘fire’ as belonging to another, when both are united in ‘you,’ is in the last degree harsh, besides introducing confusion into the whole.” As to the literal fulfillment on Pentecost, the learned author seems to have forgotten that it was not literal fire which sat on the apostles, but “cloven tongues like as of fire” (Acts 2:2); and that, even if these tongues had been actual fire, their sitting on the heads of the apostles could not have constituted a baptism of the apostles in fire. As regards the separation of the persons addressed into two parties, we see no difficulty, for such a division is clearly indicated in the context. In the preceding verse John uses the fruitful trees for good men and the unfruitful for bad men; and in the following verse he uses the wheat and the chaff in the same way. It is not at all harsh, then, to understand him as keeping up the distinction in the intermediate verse, and as using the term you to comprehend both classes. The term you, indeed, must be understood indefinitely, because the parties he was addressing had not been baptized, and he could not say to them in the strict sense of the pronoun, “I baptize you.” The term is used indefinitely for the people at large.

Finally, in both of the connected sentences, the term fire is connected with the fate of the wicked, and used as the symbol of punishment. The unfruitful trees are to be burned with fire, and the chaff is to be burned with “unquenchable fire;” it is, then, “in the last degree harsh” to understand it differently in this sentence. It is clearly the wicked who are to be baptized in fire, and the fulfillment of the prediction will be realized when they are cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15.) 12. whose fan.—The term rendered fan (πτύον) means a winnowing shovel, and is rendered fan because the modern implement for separating the grain from the chaff is so called. The ancients, after the grain was trodden out on the threshing-floor by oxen, winnowed it by tossing it repeatedly into the air with a large wooden shovel until the wind blew away all the chaff. This was called cleaning the floor; that is, the threshing-floor. The world is here represented by a threshing-floor; its mingled population of saints and sinners, by the chaff and grain covering the floor; the work of Christ, by that of a farmer who cleans up the floor with his winnowing shovel; the salvation of the righteous, by gathering the wheat into the garner; and the punishment of the wicked, by burning up the chaff.

Jesus Baptized, Matthew 3:13-17. (Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22) 13. from Galilee.—The departure of Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan for the purpose of being baptized by John, is the first voluntary act of his life recorded by Matthew. It was the beginning of his public career. 14. John forbade him.—John’s objection to baptizing Jesus shows clearly that he believed him to be the Coming One whom he had predicted, although he had not witnessed the final proof of this fact, which was the descent of the Holy Spirit on him after his baptism. (John 1:33-34.) The baptism which he needed from Jesus was evidently that in the Holy Spirit. 15. thus it becometh us.— In his reply Jesus acknowledges some force in John’s objection. By the term now, “suffer it to be so now,” he intimates that the appearance of inferiority to John was to be but temporary. The specific reason for which he submitted to baptism is then given. Baptism had two aspects: it was an act in connection with which remission of sins took place, and it was an act of obedience to a positive command of God. In its latter aspect it was incumbent on Jesus as a Jew, though he needed not the promised remission of sins. If he had neglected it he would have fallen thus far short of perfect righteousness, and this defect would have clung to him to the end of life. What is true of Jesus in this particular is certainly true of other men; so that even if we could in our thoughts divest baptism of its connection with remission of sins, it would still be an act of obedience the neglect of which would be a sin. 16. out of the water.—The preposition here rendered out of (ἀπὸ) means from. It is frequently used where the motion is out of, e. g., Matthew 2:1 Matthew 3:13 Matthew 7:4 Matthew 12:43 Matthew 13:1 Matthew 14:13 Matthew 14:29; but in such cases it is from the circumstances and not from the preposition alone that this fact is ascertained. It here designates the departure from the water after he had come out of it, and should be rendered from. In Mark, according to the corrected Greek text, we have ἔκ, and the parallel there is correctly rendered “coming up out of the water.” (Mark 1:10.) he saw the Spirit.—The statement that he saw the Spirit descending, which is also the language of Mark (1:10), has been taken by some as implying that the Spirit was invisible to the multitude. But we know from John’s narrative that it was also seen by John the Baptist (John 1:33-34): and if it was visible to him and to Jesus, and if it descended, as Luke affirms, in a bodily shape like a dove (Luke 3:22), it would have required a miracle to hide it from the multitude. Moreover, the object of the Spirit’s visible appearance was to point Jesus out, not to himself, but to others; and to point him out as the person concerning whom the voice from heaven was uttered. No doubt, then, the Spirit was visible and the voice audible to all who were present. 17. a voice from heaven.—The voice from heaven gave expression to two distinct thoughts: First, That Jesus was God’s beloved Son; Second, That in him— that is, in him as entering now on the work of human redemption— God was well pleased. It gave a pledge that the mediatorial work of Christ would be accepted on the part of God. Argument of Section 4 In this section Matthew presents two more proofs of the claims of Jesus. He shows, first, that he was attested by John, himself a prophet, as the one mightier than himself, who should baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire— which was equivalent to declaring him the Messiah. Second, he shows that Jesus was declared both by the Father and by the Holy Spirit to be the Son of God— the Father uttering the words, and the Holy Spirit pointing out the person. Thus again, in a single section of his narrative, our author exhibits both the Messiahship and the Sonship of Jesus. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 31. What great man is introduced? 2. He came doing what? 3. Where did he operate? 4. What did he tell the people to do? 5. State the reason he gave. 6. Who had prophesied of this? 7. Where was the voice to cry? 8. What was to be prepared? 9. How make the paths? 10. Of what was the preacher’ s raiment? 11. How was he girded? 12. Tell the articles of food. 13. From where did people go out to him? 14. Were these places all cities? 15. How was the first related to the second? 16. What did John do for them? 17. This was upon what confession? 18. Why was it done in Jordan? 19. What class of attendants did John notice 20. Had he specially urged them to come ? 21. What was John’ s baptism “ for” ? 22. In coming to it what was their pretention 23. Did they mislead John? 24. What did he call them? 25. And state the question he asked them. 26. What fruits did he demand? 27. On what did they count so much? 28. Did such relationship really exist ? 29. Through what line could it have come? 30. State the line John said was possible. 31. What is at the root of the trees? 32. If at such place what is indicated ? 33. Who will use the ax? 34. What is done with the tree after falling? 35. State what fire this is.. . 36. In what element did John baptize? 37. Unto what? 38. Compare John and his successor. 39. Of what did John say he was unworthy? 40. Name the elements he was to baptize with. 41. What was to be in his hand? 42. Tell the use of this instrument. 43. What does the wheat represent? 44. And the chaff? 45. What is meant by gamer ? 46. State the fate of the chaff. 47. To what place does this refer ? 48. What person came to John? 49. From what place did he come? 50. For what purpose did he come ? 51. Why did John hesitate? 52. Jesus wished to fulfill what? 53. After baptism out of what did Jesus come? 54. What opened up to him ? 55. Did a dove light on him? . 56. Tell what else came from heaven. 57. Repeat its words.

Matthew 3:1

3:1 Verse 1. In those days is indefinite and it is at least a quarter of a century after the close or the preceding chapter. In that chapter (Matthew 2:21) Jesus was but a “young child” while now he is about 30 years old (Luke 3:23) . Baptist Is from the Greek word which Thayer defines, “a baptizer; one who administers the rite of baptism,” hence the name John the Baptist. It Is sometimes asked why a man would come to baptize in a wilderness where there are no people to baptize nor any water available tor such a purpose. Both assumptions are wrong, for while the territory was not settled or inhabited, there was nothing to prevent the people of the settlements going out to him, wbich they did (verse 5).

Also the word does not mean a place where there would be no water. Wilderness is trom EREMOS which Thayer defines. “an uncultivated reglon .fit for pasturage,” There would not likely be much pasturage where there was no water. Besides, Judea was not so large a region but that the river of Jordan could be reached for the purpose of baptizing.

Matthew 3:2

3:2 Verse 2. Repent. from and Thayer defines It here as follows: “To change one’s mind tor the better I heartily to amend with abhorrence tor one’s past sins.” To amend means more than a mere state of the mind; It requires that one do something about It. Is the only word in the Greek New Testament for “king dom.” It has several phases of meaning and hence I consider it well to give a pretty extensive quotation from the lexicons as to their definitions: “1. royal power. kingship, dominion. rule. 2. a kingdom i.e. the territory subject to the rule of a king. 3. property the kingdom over which God rules … the kingdom of tbe Messiah . . . the rule of God, the theocricy of God’s rule, the divine administration."-Thayer. I have quoted only such words in Thayer’s lexicon as are In italics, which denotes the direct detlnition. omitting for the sake of space his many remarks on the word. The same rule will be followed in quoting from the other lexicons: “1. dominion, reign, rule. 2. a kingdom, dominion, realm”’-Roblnson. “A king- dom; royalty, dignity, power, reign, rule. sovereignty, dominlon."-Groves. “A kingdom, realm, i.e. the region or country governed by a king; kingly power. authority, dominion, relgn.”- Greenfield. This paragraph may not be quoted again in full. hence the reader is urged to study It carefully to discover its shades of meaning, also to make a note of Its locatlon for ready reference. At hand is from EOGIZO and means “Is near,” which denotes that it was not yet In actual existence in the days of John the Baptlst.

Matthew 3:3

3:3 Verse 3. The prophecy cited Is in Isaiah 40 : where the prophet passes from a favorable turn in the affairs of ancient Israel to the time when preparation. were to be made tor Christ’s entry upon the new dispensation. Make his path straight has the idea. of preparing a path for another to use afterward. By taking down the high and rough places and taking out the sharp curves, the other party could make better progress in his travels. Of course this Is all figurative and refers to the work of John in bringing about a reformation among the Jews. Such a work would get a group of people in better frame of mInd and character to receive the more advanced work of Christ.

Matthew 3:4

3:4 Verse 4. In Zechariah 13:4 a false prophet Is described as wearing a rough garment to deceive the public. indicating that such a garment was an article of clothing peculiar to a prophet. It was appropriate that John the Baptist, who was a true prophet, wear such a piece made from the hair of eamels. The girdle served as a belt to hold the loose garment close to the body. Leviticus 11:22 included the locust among clean foods that the Jews were permitted to eat. Wild honey is so called because it was made by wild bees and deposited in hollow trees or crevices of rocks. Honey Is one of the purest ot foods in the vegetable class, and locusts could be classed with the animal kind. John the Baptist, therefore, had a somewhat balanced though simple diet.

Matthew 3:5

3:5 Verse 5. The text does not say that every individual in these dIstricts was baptized. but that great throngs from all of them came out to be baptized.

Matthew 3:6

3:6 Verse 6. Baptized. is from BAPTIZO which Thayer deflnes first, “Properly to dip repeatedly, to Immerge, submerge. 2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water.” Strong defines It. “To make whelmed (i.e. fully wet).” From this meaning of the word we can understand why John was baptizing In Jordan., not at or nearby. Confessing their sin is the simple phrase used here, but In Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 it is worded “baptism of repentance.” The meaning of the passage is that the people professed to have repented of their sins and were baptized on that declaration.

Matthew 3:7

3:7 Verse 7.. The Pharisees and Saducees. were two leading sects of the Jews In the tlme of Christ. They had some radical differences which wtll be described. in another place. There were some principles. however, which they both had In common and one of them was hypocrisy. and both made great claims of excellence which they did not possess. This, too, will be described elsewhere. Generation of vipers is a figure of speech meaning a class of vile and poisonous characters, They came to the baptismal services of John for the outward appearance it made.

In his preaching John exhorted the people to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. in order to escape the wrath of God. He had not specified any classes, so the response of these sects was an outward admission of their being sinners thougb their attitude was one of self-righteousness.

Matthew 3:8

3:8 Verse 8. Meet for repentance means for them to prove by their works that they have really repented. A mere sorrow or regret for sin does not constitute repentance in the sight of the Lord, but the guilty one is expected to reform his life by ceasing to do the things that were wrong.

Matthew 3:9

3:9 Verse 9. John was an inspired man and could read the thoughts of these boastful pretenders. But aside from this truth, the language at these Jews indicated thelr pride of ancestry. (See John 8:33.) John did not intend to belittle the importance ot Abraham, but he meant that having descended through the line of that great patriach did not entitle them to any special favors in their wrong doing. It was God’s will that Abraham’s lineal descendants become the special race for His purposes, but that was not because no other plan would have been possible. As far as power or ability was concerned, He could have caused the stones to .become impregnated with the divine germ of life so that they could give birth to children to be enrolled in the register of Abraham’s seed. Such a possibility as described above existed though the Lord never intended to do such a thing. There was another feat. however. that was as wonderful as that, which was to convert Gentile heathen into descendants of Abraham by faith. (See Romans 4:11.) .

Matthew 3:10

3:10 Verse 10. This verse is figurative and general and denotes the judgments of God against sin. An ax lying at the root of a tree suggests a probable attack upon it. The instrument is near but inactive, yet ready to be used if and when a decision is made against the tree. The tact on which the decision will be made is that the tree does not produce good fruit. I do not believe this verse applies to the Jewtsh nation as a whole for there was only one “tree” at the Lord tha.t could be considered.

The words every tree indicate that John was speaking of indlviduals all of whom were exhorted. to repent and thus escape tbe wrath of God. The condemnation to such wrath was starting through the preaching of John. but the final result of rejecting that preaching would not come until the great judgment day. Being an inspired man John the Baptist was able to predict the future lot at all classes of men who were in his hearing, even to the punishment of fire awaiting the unsaved at the time of the final judgment. ThIs prepares us to understand the following two verses.

Matthew 3:11

3:11 Verse 11. There are three baptisms referred to in this verse, one administered by John and two by the Lord; the two were in the future when John spoke. The three baptisms were in different elements, namely. water, Holy Ghost and fire. and the three were for that many different kinds of subjects. The water baptism administered by John was performed upon penitent Jews and it was for the remission of their sins. The Holy Ghost baptism administered by the Lord was performed upon the apostles and it was to “guide them into all truth” (John 16:13). The baptism with fire to be administered by the Lord (at the judgment day) upon the unsaved and it is for the purpose of punishment.

The simple pronoun you Is used by John because he knew that in his audience were men who would become apostles and hence would receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He knew also that some of his hearers would live and die in their sins because they would be too stubborn to repent, and these would receive the baptism of fire. But he spoke to the multitude as a whole and intended the two baptisms to be applied to the ones deserving . them. This explains Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16 where the baptism of the Holy Ghost only is mentioned because the apostles were the only ones being considered. Shoes not worthy to bear is an allusion to the customs of that time. Loose sandals were worn in foot travel and upon entering a home they were removed and taken charge of by a servant.

By way of illustration John regarded himself as unworthy even to bear the shoes of the one who was soon to come after him in the work of further reformation.

Matthew 3:12

3:12 Verse 12. The figures’ now change and are drawn from a different source. In verse 10 they were based upon the work of horticulture, while in this they are upon that of agriculture. Fan is from PTUON and is defined “a winnowing-shovel” in Thayer’s lexicon. Grain was piled down on a smooth place called the threshing floor and trampled out by oxen or beaten with a large club called a flail. Then an instrument like a broad shovel was used to scoop up the shattered grain and toss it up into the wind so the chaff could be blown to one side.

The grain was stored in the garner (granary) and the chaff was burned. The process is used to illustrate the separation of the wicked from the good at the day of judgment. The good will be taken to the garner which is heaven, and the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire. The terms ordinarily used to describe the threshing process do not cover all of the phases of the work as it pertains to humanity, hence John qualified the fire by the word unquenchable which comes from the Greek word and Thayer’s definition is, “unquenchable.” There will be only one judgment day and hence no continual gathering of chaff to cast into the fire. There is but one explanation, therefore, for using unquenchable fire, and that is that the wicked will not be put out of existence as literal chaff is, but will continue to exist and burn endlessly, and that will require a fire that cannot be put out.

Matthew 3:13

3:13 Jesus had spent his life through childhood and early manhood with his parents at Nazareth which was in Galilee. The time came when he was to enter upon his life’s work and he had reason for starting it with being baptized. There was only one man baptizing people then and that was John the Baptist, hence Jesus left his home and came into Judea where John was baptizing in the Jordan.

Matthew 3:14

3:14 John did not know the divine identity of Jesus until the baptism had taken place (John 1:33), therefore his remarks were not prompted by that subject. They were cousins according to the flesh and about the same age. It is reasonable to conclude that John knew Jesus as a near relative and humbly placed himself in a lower rank of excellence. All that John knew as to the purpose of water baptism was that it was for the remission of sins. Someone had to start the great work of reform without being baptized himself, and of the two John considered Jesus to be the more worthy of the honor.

Matthew 3:15

3:15 Had the remission of sins been the only result to be accomplished by baptism, Jesus would not have come to John at all for it because he had no sins to be remitted. Hence it was necessary for John to be informed of the reason why Jesus made the request. Fulfill is from PLEROO and Thayer’s definition at this passage is, “to perform, execute.” Righteousness is from and Thayer defines it as follows: “b. integrity, virtue, purity of life, uprightness, correctness in thinking, feeling, and acting. Matthew 3:15; Matthew 5:6; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 5:20; Matthew 6:33.” Note that nothing in the definition requires any act in the nature of repentance or confession, hence Jesus who had no sins to confess could adopt the definition in his reason for requiring baptism. But while he had no sins to confess he did have a duty to “perform,” and by so doing he could maintain his “integrity.” When this explanation was made to John lie promptly performed the baptism and thus cooperated in the act that Jesus said would be fitting or becoming.

Matthew 3:16

3:16 If Jesus went up out of the water it was necessary that lie go down into it, and that would agree with the definition of “baptize” as given at verse 6. The heavens were opened unto hint and he saw the Spirit in the form of a dove. This together with John 1:32-34 indicates that Jesus and John were the only witnesses of this remarkable event. It was fitting that John be permitted to see it since that was the sign the Lord had given him by which he was to recognize the One for whom all this preparatory work was being done.

Matthew 3:17

3:17 If only the eyes of John and Jesus saw the heavens open and the bodily shape of the dove, it would be reasonable to conclude that their ears only heard these words. It also indicates one reason why the words “hear ye him” were not added as they were at chapter 17:5. The Father here acknowledged Jesus as his Son after he had fulfilled his righteous duty of being baptized. But his life’s work was only beginning and hence it was not time to give the command to hear him.