It was common when Jesus lived for forerunners to precede important individuals to prepare the way for their arrival. For example, when a king would visit a town in his realm his emissaries would go before him to announce his visit. They would make sure the town was in good condition to receive him. Sometimes his servants even had to do minor road work to smooth the highway the king would take as he approached his destination.120John not only prepared the way for Jesus but also announced Him as an important person and implied His royalty. John preceded Jesus in His birth, in His public appearance, and in His death.
"As Jesus' forerunner, John foreshadows in his person and work the person and work of Jesus. Both John and Jesus are the agents of God sent by God (11:10; 10:40). Both belong to the time of fulfillment (3:3; 1:32). Both have the same message to proclaim (3:2; 4:17). Both enter into conflict with Israel: in the case of the crowds, a favorable reception ultimately gives way to repudiation; in the case of the leaders, the opposition is implacable from the outset (3:7-10; 9:3). Both John and Jesus are delivered up' to their enemies (4:12; 10:4). And both are made to die violently and shamefully (14:3-12; 27:37)."121
3:1-2 John appeared "in those days"(v. 1). This phrase is a general term that says little about specific time but identifies what follows as historical. It is a common transitional statement in Matthew's narrative.122John's ministry, as Matthew described it here, occurred just before the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, approximately 30 years after the events of chapter 2.
"John"became a popular name among the Jews following the heroic career of John Hyrcanus (died 106 B.C.). There are four or five Johns in the New Testament. This one received the surname "the Baptist"because of his practice of baptizing repentant Jews (v. 6).
John was a herald with a message to proclaim. "Preaching"is literally heralding (Gr. kerysso).
"In the New Testament the verb does not mean to give an informative or hortatory or edifying discourse expressed in beautifully arranged words with a melodious voice; it means to proclaim an event' . . ."123
The event John proclaimed was the imminent arrival of God's kingdom.
The scene of John's ministry was the wilderness of Judea. This loosely defined area lay mainly to the west and somewhat north of the Dead Sea. John evidently conducted his ministry there because of its rough conditions that were suitable to his appeal for repentance. In Israel's history the wilderness forever reminded the Jews of their 40-year sojourn under extreme conditions and God's giving them the Law of Moses. They associated it with a place of separation unto God and testing for refinement.
John called the people to repent (v. 2).
"Contrary to popular thinking, repent does not mean to be sorry. The Greek word metanoeomeans . . . to change one's mind or purpose . . .'124In the New Testament it . . . indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God.'125The primary meaning involves a turning to God which may indeed make a person sorry for his sins, but that sorrow is a by-product and not the repentance itself. . . . In a word, John's command to the people of Israel was for them to turn from their sins to God in anticipation of their Messiah."126
The Jews needed to change their thinking because most of them believed that they would enter the Messiah's kingdom simply because they were the children of Abraham (v. 9). John was attacking established religious concepts of his day and those who taught them. He demanded evidence of genuine repentance instead of mere complacency, hypocrisy, and superficiality (cf. v. 8).
John also announced that the kingdom of heaven (lit. the heavens) was at hand. What was this kingdom? Students of this question have offered five basic answers.
First, some say that Jesus simply continued the Old Testament prophets' ethical and social ideals, and He taught that people who followed these became a part of God's kingdom. This is the old liberal interpretation that emphasizes the ethical dimension of prophetic teaching to the exclusion of its eschatological content.
Second, some believe that Jesus adopted both the ethical and eschatological teachings of the Old Testament but changed His message later because the Jews rejected Him. They view God's kingdom as Jesus presented it as very different from the kingdom the Old Testament prophets predicted. This view is unacceptable because Jesus' teaching about the kingdom is consistent with Old Testament prophecy, though He added new revelation on the subject.
Third, some interpreters have concluded that Jesus appropriated certain spiritual elements in the Old Testament kingdom prophecies. However, they say, He either omitted or spiritualized the physical elements (e.g., an earthly kingdom in the land of Canaan), and He added some original ideas of His own. The problem with this view is its inconsistency. Many of the physical aspects of Old Testament kingdom prophecy happened literally as predicted (e.g., Jesus' birth in Bethlehem).
Fourth, some believe there are two kingdoms. Advocates argue that at His first advent Jesus offered and established on earth a spiritual kingdom of which all believers have become partakers. At His second advent Jesus will establish on earth a physical earthly kingdom. The text, however, offers no support for this bifurcation of the kingdom. In the Old Testament it was always an earthly kingdom.
"Traditional dispensationalists sometimes contended that the term kingdom of Godreferred to the sphere of reality and kingdom of heavenonly to the sphere of profession, which encompassed both genuine believers and merely professing believers. In this view, also, the kingdom of God was cosmic and universal in its dimensions, having authority over all creation, while the kingdom of heaven was limited to the earth.127
"Most recent advocates of a distinction acknowledge that the two expressions are often used synonymously,' yet are to be distinguished in certain contexts.128Others who would generally be identified with dispensationalism agree with most non-dispensationalists that no distinction between these expressions is intended by the biblical writers.129Matthew's use of the kingdom of heaven' is to be explained as a Semitic idiom probably resulting from the Jewish reverence for the name of God and the tendency to use heaven' or heavens' as a substitute.130So, although some dispensationalists still distinguish the two terms in some passages, we agree with Ryrie that this issue is not a determinative feature of dispensationalism.131
Fifth, there is the one earthly kingdom view. Those of us who hold it believe that the kingdom that John, Jesus (4:17), and His disciples (10:7) announced and offered the Jews was exactly the same kingdom that the Old Testament prophets predicted. Because the Jews rejected their King and His kingdom, God postponed the kingdom until a future time when Israel will accept her Messiah, namely at His second advent (cf. Zech. 12:10-14). Similarly because the generation of Jews that left Egypt in the Exodus refused to trust and obey God at Kadesh Barnea, God postponed the nation's entrance into the Promised Land for 38 years. This view, I believe, best harmonizes the normal meaning of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies and Jesus' teachings.132
There is good evidence that the kingdom that John and Jesus spoke about was the earthly eschatological kingdom that the Old Testament prophets foretold. First, the fact that John, Jesus, and Jesus' disciples did not explain what it was but simply announced that it was near indicates that they referred to a kingdom known to their hearers.133Second, Jesus restricted the proclamation about the kingdom to Jews (10:5-6). If the kingdom was spiritual, why was this necessary? Moreover the inauguration of the kingdom predicted in the Old Testament depended on the Jews receiving it. Third, Jesus' disciples expected the beginning of an earthly kingdom (20:20-21; Acts 1:6). They did so after they had listened to Jesus' teaching about the kingdom for a long time. Fourth, this kingdom cannot be the church since God had not yet revealed the existence of the church let alone established it (16:18). It cannot be God's universal reign over the hearts of mankind since that had existed since creation.
". . . if the Kingdom, announced as at hand' by the Lord, had been exclusively a spiritual kingdom,' or as some have defined it, the rule of God in the heart,' such an announcement would have had no special significance whatever to Israel, for such a rule of God had always been recognized among the people of God [cf. Ps. 37:31; 103:19]."134
Therefore we conclude that when John spoke of the kingdom of heaven (v. 2) he meant the earthly kingdom over which Messiah would rule, which the Old Testament prophets predicted.
"Only the premillennial interpretation of the concept of the kingdom allows a literal interpretation of both Old Testament and New Testament prophecies relating to the future kingdom"135
There is some disagreement among those who hold this view (i.e., premillenarians) concerning the terms "kingdom of heaven"and the more common "kingdom of God."Some believe they are synonymous, others hold that they refer to two different entities, and still others see a difference of emphasis but only one entity. Matthew preferred the term "kingdom of heaven,"and he used it except in 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; and 21:43.136
Here are the major arguments of those who see a distinction between the two terms and the responses of those who do not. First, usage suggests that "the kingdom of God"includes only genuine believers whereas "the kingdom of heaven"also includes merely professing believers.137This distinction is very difficult if not impossible to prove. For example, Jesus laid down rigorous requirements for entrance into the kingdom of heaven (5:20; 7:21; 18:3). Second, usage suggests that "the kingdom of God"refers to His internal rule over believers whereas "the kingdom of heaven"refers to Messiah's earthly reign.138However, John announced the nearness of the kingdom of heaven (3:2), and Jesus announced the nearness of the kingdom of God (12:28; Mark 1:14-15; cf. Luke 10:9). Evidently both terms refer to the earthly eschatological kingdom. Third, the fact that Matthew used both terms in his Gospel has convinced some interpreters that he intended some distinction between them. One explanation of this difference is that Matthew alone among the Gospel writers used the term "the kingdom of heaven"because of his Jewish audience and his general purpose. The term itself comes from Daniel 2:44; 4:26, 37; and 7:27. These references occur in the Aramaic portion of Daniel's prophecy. Most Palestinian Jews living in Jesus' day could not read Hebrew, but Aramaic was their vernacular. Consequently Matthew's original readers would have been familiar with this term, and he evidently used it to connect the kingdom now offered with the one Daniel had predicted.139
"Our Lord, Who spoke in Aramaic, would always use this phrase, and when writing in Greek, Matthew, in keeping with the special scope and character of his Gospel retained it, whereas, in the other Gospels the figure was translated as being what it also, although not exclusively, meant, the Kingdom of God."140
The Jews often substituted another word in the place of God's name because they wanted to avoid using God's name in vain.141By substituting the term "heaven"for "God,"Matthew accommodated himself to his readers' Jewish preference.142
Why then did Matthew use the term "kingdom of God"at all? Whenever he used the term "kingdom of God"he apparently did so to stress deliberately the character of the kingdom as involving the rule of God (e.g., 12:28). Whenever he used "kingdom of heaven"the emphasis is on the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy about the kingdom. The same kingdom is in view, but Matthew described it to suit his purpose.143
It is particularly important to distinguish the church from the kingdom. The kingdom, whether "of heaven"or "of God,"always refers to the earthly reign of Messiah as predicted in the Old Testament. The church will play a part in the kingdom, but they are separate entities.144Matthew maintains this distinction throughout his Gospel as do the other New Testament writers.
What did John mean when he announced that the kingdom was "at hand"(v. 2)? The Greek verb eggizomeans "to draw near,"not "to be here"(cf. 21:1). All that was necessary for the kingdom to be there was Israel's acceptance of her King (11:14). The kingdom was near because the King was near.
"If Israel had accepted its Messiah, the earthly kingdom would have been inaugurated by the King."145
This statement may seem to some to render Christ's work on the cross unnecessary, but this is incorrect. Had the Jews accepted their Messiah when He offered the kingdom to them He still would have died on the cross and experienced resurrection and ascension. He could not have been the Messiah without doing so in fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies (Ps. 22; Isa. 53; Dan. 9; Zech. 13). Then the prophecies concerning the seven years of Jacob's trouble would have materialized (Jer. 30:7; Dan. 12:1; 9:26-27). Next Messiah would have returned to set up His kingdom (Isa. 60:1-3; 66:18; Hab. 2:14; cf. Zech. 12:10; 13:6).
Since the Jews rejected Jesus' offer of the kingdom was His offer genuine? Had God not already determined that Israel would reject her Messiah? Jesus' offer of the kingdom was just as genuine as any gospel offer of salvation to someone who rejects it.
"Those who cavil at the idea of an offer which is certain to be rejected betray an ignorance, not only of Biblical history (cf. Isa. 6:8-10 and Ezek. 2:3-7), but also of the important place of the legal proffer in the realm of jurisprudence."146
3:3 "This is the one OT citation of Matthew's own eleven direct OT quotations that is not introduced by a fulfillment formula . . . Instead he introduces it with a Pesher formula (e.g., Acts 2:16 . . .) that can only be understood as identifying the Baptist in an eschatological, prophecy-and-fulfillment framework with the one of whom Isaiah (40:3) spoke."147
In Isaiah 40:3 the voice exhorts the people to prepare for God's coming as He brings Israel back from her dispersion. The prophet then proceeded to describe the blessings that would follow her return. Matthew identified Yahweh in Isaiah 40:3 with Jesus in Matthew 3:3. This means the kingdom of God is the kingdom of Jesus. While this is not an implicit statement of Jesus' deity, it certainly presents Jesus as more than just Yahweh's representative.
3:4-6 In his dress and in his food, as well as in his habitat and in his message, John associated himself with the poor and the prophets, particularly Elijah (cf. 2 Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4; Mal. 4:5). Poor people ate locusts (Lev. 11:22). He called the people to get right with God because the appearing of their Messiah was imminent. Elijah had called the Israelites back to God at the time of their most serious apostasy. John called them back to God on the eve of their greatest opportunity. He was the first prophet from God in 400 years.
Many people responded to John because they perceived that he was a genuine prophet with a message from God (v. 5).
Baptism represented purification to the Jews. Ceremonial washings were part of the Mosaic system of worship (Exod. 19; Lev. 15; Num. 19). When a Gentile became a proselyte to Judaism, he or she underwent baptism. John's baptism carried these connotations of cleansing with it, but it was different. In the other types of ceremonial cleansing, the person washed himself or herself. John, on the other hand, baptized other people. He probably received the name "John the Baptist"or "Baptizer"for this reason.148
John's baptism did not make a person a member of the church, the body of Christ, since the church had not yet come into existence (16:18). It simply gave public testimony to that person's repentance and commitment to live a holy life. Lenski, a Lutheran commentator, tried to prove that John baptized by effusion (pouring) rather than by immersion.149It is impossible to identify the method of baptism John used from what the Gospels tell us. However extrabiblical sources indicate that Jewish proselyte baptism took place in large tanks (Heb. mikvah) in which the person undergoing baptism stood.150The issue boils down to whether one takes the word "baptism"in its primary sense of submersion or in its secondary sense of initiation.151Likewise it is unclear whether the confession involved public or private acts.
3:7-10 This verse contains Matthew's first reference to the Pharisees ("separate ones") and the Sadducees ("righteous ones"). Significantly, John was antagonistic toward them because they were hypocritical, a trait that marks them throughout the Gospels. Matthew lumped them together because they were Israel's leaders.
"Vipers"is a word Isaiah used to describe God's enemies (Isa. 14:29; 30:6). John's use of it associates him with the former prophets and reflects his prophetic authority.
"The first major appearance of the religious leaders in Matthew's story occurs in conjunction with the ministry of John the Baptist (3:7-10). The importance of their appearance here has to do with the fact that John is the forerunner of Jesus. As such, the attitude that John assumes toward the leaders is predictive of the attitude that Jesus will assume toward them."152
"Except for Jesus himself, they [the religious leaders] are the ones in Matthew's story who influence most the development of the plot."153
John's question (v. 7) amounted to, "Who suggested to you that you would escape the coming wrath?"154The behavior of the Pharisees and Sadducees should have demonstrated the genuineness of their professed repentance, but it did not. Fruit is what people produce that other people see that indicates their spiritual condition (13:21; cf. Mark 4:19; Luke 8:14; John 15:1-6). The fruits of repentance were absent in the case of these leaders. There was no external evidence that they desired to draw near to God in anticipation of Messiah's appearance.
Many of the Jews in the inter-testamental period believed that if one was a descendant of Abraham he would automatically enter Messiah's kingdom.155They counted on the patriarch's righteousness as sufficient for themselves. However, God had often pruned back the unrighteous in Israel and preserved a remnant in its history. As Matthew continued to point out in his Gospel, many of the Jews refused to humble themselves before God and instead trusted in their own righteousness. The Pharisees and Sadducees were doing that here.
John's reference to "stones"(v. 9) was a play on words with "children"in both the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. If stones could become God's children, certainly Gentiles could.
Verse 10 gives the reason the Jews needed to repent. Divine judgment would precede the establishment of Messiah's kingdom (cf. Isa. 1:27; 4:4; 5:16; 13:6-19; 42:1; Jer. 33:14-16; Dan. 7:26-27). The Jews connected the concepts of repentance and the messianic age closely in their thinking.156John announced that this judgment was imminent (vv. 10-12). Any tree (better than every tree) that does not bear good fruit, regardless of its roots, will suffer destruction. Probably John had individuals and the nation of Israel in mind.
The reference to fire in verse 10 pictures the judgment and destruction of those who fail to repent (cf. "wrath,"v. 7, and "winnowing fork,"v. 13). For individuals this judgment would involve eternal destruction (v. 12) assuming there was no later repentance. For the nation it would involve the postponement of the kingdom and its attendant blessings.
3:11-12 John baptized in water "in connection with"repentance.157However the One coming after him, the King, would baptize with the Holy Spirit (cf. Joel 2:28-29) and fire (cf. Mal. 3:2-5). The Malachi prophecy speaks of fire as a refining or purifying agent, not as an instrument of destruction. Both prophecies involve the nation of Israel as a whole primarily.
Are these two different baptisms or one? This is a very difficult question to answer because the arguments on both sides are strong.158In both interpretations baptism connotes both immersion, in the metaphorical sense of placing into something, and initiation.
The construction of the statement in the Greek text favors one baptism. Usually one entity is in view when one article precedes two nouns joined by a conjunction.159This would mean that the one baptism Jesus would perform would be with the Holy Spirit and fire together. This apparently happened on the day of Pentecost initially (Acts 2:3-4).
The fire in Malachi's prophecy probably refers to purification and judgment. The purification emphasis is in harmony with Malachi's use. This has led many scholars to conclude that the fire baptism that John predicted is not the one at Pentecost.160They believe that the time when Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire to fulfill these prophecies concerning Israel is yet future from our viewpoint in history. It will happen at His second advent. It would have happened at His first advent if Israel had accepted Him. Jesus' baptism of His disciples on the day of Pentecost was a similar baptism, they say. However, it was not the fulfillment of these prophecies since they involved Israel and "the day of the Lord"specifically (cf. John 14:17; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 12:13).161
The context, which speaks of blessing for the repentant but judgment for the unrepentant, tends to favor two baptisms (vv. 8-10, 12; cf. Acts 1:5; 11:16). In this case the fire would refer primarily if not exclusively to judgment.162The baptism with the Holy Spirit would refer to Spirit baptism that will happen when Israel accepts her Messiah (Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:28-32). A foretaste of that baptism occurred on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The baptism with fire would refer to Jesus' judgment of unrepentant Israel (cf. v. 12). After Israel's rejection of Jesus, it became clear that this national judgment will happen primarily at His second coming. This fiery judgment might also refer to unrepentant individuals when they reach the end of their lives.
All things considered it seems likely that John was referring to one baptism that took place initially on the day of Pentecost but which will find complete fulfillment at Jesus' second coming.
Verse 12 metaphorically describes God separating the true and the false, the repentant and the unrepentant, in a future judgment. This thorough judgment will result in the preservation of the believing Israelites and the destruction of the unbelieving (cf. 25:31-46). The barn probably refers to the kingdom and the "unquenchable fire"to the endless duration and the agonizing nature of this punishment.
"Unquenchable fire' is not just metaphor: fearful reality underlies Messiah's separation of grain from chaff. The nearness' of the kingdom therefore calls for repentance (v. 2)."163
What then was the essential message of Messiah's forerunner?
"John preached botha personal salvation, involving the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), anda national salvation, involving the establishment of the millennial kingdom with Israel delivered out of the hand of their enemies (Matt. 3:2; Luke 1:71-75)."164
