Chapter two ends the material that is unique to Matthew. With the introduction of John the Baptist Matthew enters the stream of traditions shared with Mark, Luke and John.
Because this John was not one of the apostles, and was martyred before the death and resurrection of Jesus, Christians have a tendency to group him with Old Testament characters and minimize his importance to the work of our Lord Jesus. But this is a mistake. John was second only to Jesus in the importance of his ministry during the first three decades of the First Century. His career was noticed by non-Christian historians of that era. The famous Jewish historian Josephus, a contemporary of St. Paul, thought more highly of John than of Jesus.
Many of John's contemporaries misread him, seeing him as a prophet only in the sense of a moral reformer. But the real importance of John, as the New Testament makes clear, was as forerunner to the Messiah Jesus.
Matthew omits some of the things that Mark, Luke and John say about him. Mark tells us that he was sent by God (Jn 1:6). Luke tells us that the word of God came to John (Lk 3:2). Both Mark and Luke tells us that John’s baptism signifying repentance was for the forgiveness of sins (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3). Matthew omits these things, not because he didn’t believe them to be true, but because he wanted his readers not to miss the main thing about John, namely, that he was sent to prepare the Jewish world for the appearance of the Messiah and the inauguration of the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 3:2-3). Of the four gospels only John is as explicit about this as John’s main role: not just a preacher of repentance, but the “friend of the bridegroom,” who introduces the Bridegroom (the Messiah) to the bride (the believing remnant of Israel): see John 3:28-30.
3:1-2 The message of John prior to his introducing Jesus as God’s Messiah is expressed here quite simply: “Repent, because the kingdom of God is near.” Although some have claimed that this was completely good news to all who heard him, because that kingdom was greatly longed for and in no way feared, John’s words sound more like a warning. Because this kingdom is ready to burst on the scene, it is vital that you all repent now! In Jesus' day many Jews thought that the kingdom of God would be inaugurated by a judgment of the nations. But John's message was that judgment was to begin with the people of God themselves. In order to make sure that they would be admitted to that kingdom, it was important, even for Jews, to put all their sins behind them and through repentance and a purifying bath be acceptable to God the Judge.
It may be that John assumed that recipients of this baptism accompanied by repentance and general confession of sins would also make the sacrifices in the temple that were required by the law. But the fact that none of the four gospels mentions it may indicate that John said nothing about the role of the temple sacrifices. The only explicit reference he is recorded as making to the means by which sins would be atoned for is in John’s gospel, where he points to Jesus as the Lamb of God who carries away (Greek αἴρειν airein) the sins of the world (Jn 1:29, 36).
3:3 But this was only part of John’s message. With this he combined a dual meaning in the prophecy in Isaiah 40:3-5.
A voice of one calling: “In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. 5 And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” (Isaiah 40:3–5 NIV)
The words “Prepare the way of the LORD” could be understood as making straight the formerly crooked paths of one’s own life, i.e., by repenting. But it could also be taken more literally to mean get ready to meet the LORD who will appear as Savior as well as Judge. The thoughts about Isaiah 40 led John eventually to think about Isaiah 53, the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1). Admittedly, this aspect of the Baptist’s message is stressed more in the Gospel of John than by Matthew. But it is vital that we see this other side here as well.
3:4 John’s dress, behavior and preaching marked him as a prophet in the stamp of such Old Testament greats as Elijah. Like Elijah, he spent much time in the wilderness away from civilization. Like Elijah, his diet was simple and austere: locusts and wild honey. Like Elijah he was dressed in a rough garment made of camel’s hair tied with a leather belt. Old Testament prophets like Amos, Hosea (Hosea 1 and 3), Isaiah (Isa. 20:1-4), Jeremiah (Jer 28) and Ezekiel were told by God to do strange things as part of the "dramatization" of the message. John's message was more than words: it was inherent in everything about him. He was absolutely incorruptible and selfless, a man no one could accuse of being in league with moneyed or politically connected interests. He could and did speak with integrity and great power. He pulled no punches and made no compromises with the word of God. What you saw is what you got. When John spoke, people listened. Clearly he was a prophet, but his dress, his manner of life, and his message all point to a continuation of the role of Elijah the prophet. And for one whose message was going to focus entirely on repentance in order to endure God’s judgment, his dress, diet and lifestyle spoke eloquently of self-denial.
3:5-6 Part of how John understood Isaiah 40:3 was not only that God’s voice would cry out in the wilderness, but that God’s people would have to make their paths straight in that same wilderness. Therefore not only his preaching was done there, but also the rite of baptism which expressed outwardly the inner repentance and change of life intended in order to be ready for the kingdom’s inauguration. John is not recorded as commanding baptism, probably because Matthew doesn’t want to confuse the outer rite with what it was supposed to indicate. But clearly everyone who came to John and confessed their sins (3:6) as part of their repentance, also underwent baptism.
Baptism as John practiced it differed from other baptisms of his day—proselyte baptism and the baptism practiced at Qumran. John’s baptism was not self-administered like others. And John’s baptism was performed only once.
So the people “went out” to the wilderness. This seems to be a re-enactment of the experiences of the Israelites leaving Egypt at the time of the exodus. The doorway from Egyptian bondage into the discipleship experience of the wilderness was the experience at the Red Sea. There the Israelites received a “baptism” by passing through the Red Sea on dry ground. Paul refers to this as a “baptism” which did not save those who underwent it and failed to repent, for they later died in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:1-13). This was a warning to John’s visitors as well. Only true repentance at the time of the baptism would save them.
3:7-10 Among the crowds of sincere penitents John also saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism. At this point nothing in the narrative would suggest that they were insincere. So it comes as a shock to hear what John says to them: he calls them “offspring of poisonous snakes” (γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, v 7) and implies that their coming will not be accompanied by truly changed lives that prove repentance (v 8). His third warning and criticism might equally apply to many classes of Jews in that day, not just to Pharisees and Sadducees: that they were depending on the merits of their “father” Abraham to enable them to avoid unfavorable judgment when the Messiah comes. One rabbinic tradition that might go back to that early period argued that, since Abraham being long dead could not personally inherit the promises God made to him,
"To whom else could it go than to us his 'children'? If not to us, then to whom? To the stones and the trees?”
If this tradition was old enough to have been current already as the time of Jesus and John the Baptist, it would help to explain why John mentions stones and trees in his reply to the Pharisees. The promises to Abraham’s children don’t have to go to unrepentant Jews, just because they are Jews. It can indeed go to stones! And God will even make a distinction between righteous and unrighteous trees, chopping down those without the fruits of repentance.
By calling them “offspring (Greek γεννήματα) of vipers” John already rejected their claim to Abraham as their father. It may well be that Jesus alluded to this description of the hypocritical Jerusalem leaders when in John 8:34-47 he similarly rejected their claim to be Abraham’s children and accused them instead of being children of Satan the evil serpent.
3:8 To ensure that those sincerely coming for baptism knew what repentance involved, and in order to make clear what the “good fruit” was that God expected from the trees not to be chopped down, John both put questions to the people and answered their own, concerning how their lives needed to change. Luke records these questions and answers in Luke 3:10-14.2 Since we do not know if Matthew had knowledge of this aspect of John’s teaching, as Luke did, we can’t say that he deliberately omitted them in the interest of his own emphases. I would seriously doubt that, since Matthew everywhere highlights the ways in which John and Jesus taught alike, and Jesus certainly became very specific about ethical matters. Nevertheless, the recipients at this point were expressing an intention (Hebrew kavvānâ), and John made it clear to them that their forgiveness would hinge upon that intention being carried through. “Bring forth fruit appropriate to your repentance!” (Mt 3:8).
3:11-12 In verses 11-12 Matthew reports John’s words about someone greater than he who will come after him and whose activities strongly resemble what one would expect from the Messiah. Both Luke and John, in their versions, make it clear that John said these words in response to a question whether he himself might be the Messiah. Neither Mark nor Matthew include that information. The saying about carrying (so Matthew) or untying this one’s sandals (so Mark, Luke and John) is just a picturesque way of describing someone’s servant. When you entered another person’s home, you removed your sandals. A lowly servant took them off for you and carried them off to put them away until you departed. John declares himself not worthy to be the Messiah’s servant.
Mark (1:4) and Luke (3:3) describe John’s baptism as a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew omits this, not because he would deny that repenting and following John’s advice to believe in the “more powerful one” who would follow him (3:11) would result in the forgiveness of sins, but because he wants to guard against the false impression that John’s baptism itself was enough for that forgiveness. Matthew makes it clear in several places (Mt 9:2-7; 26:28) that such forgiveness can only come through Jesus.
Mark and John have the shortest versions of John’s next saying. Although John baptizes with water, the Messiah will baptize with the Holy Spirit. Matthew and Luke add: “and with fire.” It is likely that John means the faithful will be baptized with the Spirit, while the unbelieving will be baptized with the fires of judgment.3 This interpretation gains support from Matthew’s and Luke’s addition about the Messiah separating the wheat from the chaff by winnowing. The wheat represents the faithful and repentant who are gathered into the barn of God’s kingdom, while the chaff are the unfaithful, the hypocrites, and the unrepentant who are like chaff that is burned in fire.4
This winnowing and separating is the figurative language for God’s judgment, which inaugurates his kingdom. Later in Jesus’ public ministry he will speak of the same process in other imagery: the wedding banquet at which some guests will be admitted, and others kept out,5 the shepherd’s separating his sheep from his goats,6 etc. Jesus makes it clear later in the gospels that the separation of the wheat from the chaff will not take place until the end of the age (Mt 13:36-43).
When Matthew uses both the warning about trees bearing fruit and about the Messiah winnowing the wheat from the chaff, he alludes to Psalm 1, where the righteous person is like a tree planted by streams and that brings forth fruit, while the unrighteous is like the chaff driven away by the wind in the winnowing process. Both of these images would have been well-known to John’s audience, as well as to Matthew’s Jewish Christian readers.
Movements requiring ethical reform and expressions of a desire to repent didn’t arouse opposition from the priests and Pharisee scribes, so long as they involved no claim of a real Messiah’s arrival. For the latter spelled possible trouble with the Romans and the disruption of the cooperation with Rome that had become so comfortable to these entrenched Jewish leaders. Therefore, just as in Jesus’ early Galilean ministry the great crowds that were attracted to him also included Pharisees, who approved of his healings and ethical teachings so long as he didn’t claim to be able to forgive sins or present himself as the King Messiah, so also here John’s ministry brought out “the people of Jerusalem and all Judea” (3:5), the children of the Jerusalemites who thirty years earlier had shared Herod the Great’s concern about the Magi and their report of a “born-king of the Jews.”
The baptism of Jesus, 3:13-17
3:13-15 In Mark’s version (Mk 1:9) Jesus merely comes to be baptized and nothing is said about John refusing him. This doesn’t mean Matthew made this up: he had sources additional to Mark’s gospel. His addition makes a nice contrast to what immediately precedes. There John sought to prevent persons coming for baptism who were insincere and unrepentant. For them, baptism would be a mere ceremony empty of reality. It would make a mockery of God and of his prophet John. Jesus was the exact opposite. John sought to prevent him for the opposite reason: he didn’t need to repent, since he was already a perfectly righteous man. In fact, John claims here that he needs to be baptized by Jesus! This also allows Matthew to show his readers the real reason for Jesus seeking baptism, a reason they would not get from reading Mark’s account alone: Jesus was here identifying himself with those among Israel who want to be ready for God’s kingdom. In order to provide forgiveness for them through his death and resurrection, he must first identify with them. In one sense, he has already identified with them by being born of a Jewish mother (Matthew 1), who herself was a distant descendant of King David. But he must now reinforce that identification by joining the righteous remnant seeking cleansing before the kingdom of God comes. It is this that Jesus refers to in his answer to John: “Let it be so now. For thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (v 15).
3:16 What happened when Jesus was baptized was seen not only by Jesus, but also by others standing by. John himself says that he saw the dove descend upon Jesus and knew by this that he was the Messiah who would baptize with the Holy Spirit (John 1:32-33).
In Matthew's plot, the Spirit descends upon the son of David as it did upon David himself when he was anointed king by Samuel (1 Sam. 16:13).[i] That is, God has anointed and empowered Jesus as messianic king. Although Matthew's narrative does not say so, this would have been regarded as fulfilling conventional expectations about the close connection between the messiah and the Spirit (lsa. 11:2; Pss. Sol. 17.37; 4Q161 3.11-25; 1 En. 49.3; 62.2). Also part of conventional expectation would have been the recognition that there would be an interval between Jesus's anointing as messiah and the beginning of his reign (Matt. 28:18-20), as was the case with David (anointed in 1 Sam. 16; beginning to reign over Judah in 2 Sam. 2:4, 7 and over Israel in 2 Sam. 5:3-4). [Talbert, 57]
[i] “So
Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers,
and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon David.”
3:17 The verbal testimony of the voice from heaven fits nicely into the themes that Matthew has indicated he wishes to pursue about Jesus. One of these was that he was the true “son of David,” not just genealogically, but also morally and spiritually. In his promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 and again in Psalm 2:7, the Lord confers the status of “my son” upon David and his royal successors. And in one of his songs of praise to God, David wrote: “He brought me out into a broad place; he delivered me, because he delighted in me" (2 Samuel 22:20 NRSV). The term “delighted in” in the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) is the identical term used of Jesus here and translated “well-pleased with” (εὐδόκησεν ἐν). This same verb was also used in of God’s choice of David in 1 Chr 28:4. This expression often means choosing. Yahweh had chosen David, and now he shows that he has chosen Jesus.
If you compare the exact wording of this voice from heaven in Matthew with those in Mark and Luke, another small, but perhaps significant difference occurs. Mark and Luke read “you are my Son,” while Matthew records “This is my Son.” Matthew’s version addresses the words from heaven not to Jesus himself, but to those standing by and witnessing the scene, including (remotely) Matthew’s own readers!
It is possible to read these words as God’s testimony to the life Jesus had already lived to this point. But more likely the phrase “I am well-pleased with (him)” means “I have chosen (him),” in which case the statement looks forward to Jesus’ public ministry which would begin at this point.7 This interpretation is also supported by the fact that the term “beloved” also frequently has the sense of “the chosen one.”8 In the form in which Mark and Luke give the heavenly testimony, it is addressed to Jesus himself, affirming the Trinitarian decision that God the Son should now begin his public ministry. In the form that Matthew gives the words, they are addressed to the world in which Jesus will not begin to proclaim the arrival of the kingdom.
The entire opening verses of Isaiah 42 present a picture of Yahweh’s Servant, the personification of Israel herself, in terms that fit Matthew’s presentation quite well:
Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. 2 He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; 3 a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth righteousness. 4 He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established righteousness in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching. 5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it: 6 I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, 7 to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.. (Isaiah 42:1-7 NRSV adapted)
We need not worry ourselves over what seems like a contradiction or historical discrepancy in the reporting here, for words spoken from heaven can often be heard in different ways by members of a crowd. And the Holy Spirit, who inspired Mark, Luke and Matthew certainly has the right to report the words differently in the respective gospels, in order to bring out two different, but complementary truths of equal importance. To most of us Matthew’s version is more understanding, since we don’t think of Jesus as the all-knowing Son of God as needing to hear such a confession. Did he not know that this point in his life that he was God’s beloved Son? I think most of us would say, “He certainly did.” Then why the version of Mark and Luke, “You are my Son”? It is quite possible, although they do not quote it directly, that Mark and Luke have in mind the passage in Psalm 2, where God says to the Davidic king: “You are my son; this day I have begotten you.” And they wish to make that connection clear to their hearers by this wording.
Many interpreters consider Psalm 2 a kind of enthronement psalm, which celebrates the day on which the new king ascends the throne and becomes Yahweh’s son: I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have begotten you. (Psalms 2:7 NRSV)
This explains what is meant by the words “today I have begotten you”: the new king only became Yahweh’s “son” when he assumed the throne, not previously while he was the crown prince. Theologians could have saved themselves much tortuous reasoning and bad theology, if they had understood this, instead of trying to attribute this literally to Jesus and figure out how the eternal Son of God could ever have been "eternally begotten"!
It is difficult for any Christian to think of Jesus as being in any sense a “disciple” of another human being. For that reason, suggestions by scholars that Jesus may have begun as a disciple of John’s and then, encouraged by both his teacher’s words and by this word from heaven at his baptism, branched out on his own. Yet one can hardly doubt that there was a very strong continuity between what John the Baptist began and what Jesus continued in his own public ministry.
Some of Jesus’ first disciples, members of his innermost circle of the Twelve, came to him after being John’s disciples. And repeatedly in the course of Jesus’ public ministry he built upon the message and practices of John. The Gospel of John even informs us that, although Jesus himself didn’t baptize followers, his disciples—acting for him—did so (John 14:1-2).9 And the striking similarity between the two was not missed by Herod Antipas, who, when Jesus’ miracles were reported to him, expressed the opinion that Jesus might be John the Baptist risen from the dead (Mt 14:1-2)! R. T. France summarizes the situation well:
References to John the Baptist occur quite frequently in the Synoptic accounts of Jesus’ ministry, and in each case the inference is suggested that the two men stand in the same prophetic line. In Luke 11:1-4 Jesus teaches his disciples to pray just as John had done. In Matt 11:1-15 Jesus presents himself as the one John was expecting to succeed him, and endorses John's ministry as "more than a prophet," the one in whom the period of preparation has come to an end and the period of fulfillment has dawned.
Notes
1 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44 NRSV).
2 And the crowds asked him, “What then should we do?” 11 In reply he said to them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” 12 Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what should we do?” 13 He said to them, “Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.” 14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what should we do?” He said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.” (Luke 3:10-14 NRSV)
3 See G. E. Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, 33.
4 The imagery here is adapted to the horrific fate of the wicked in eternal fire, for in ancient Palestinian life neither chaff nor the wood of unfruitful trees would be wasted by burning (see Ladd, Theology, 34-35 n. 12).
5 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ 8 Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, 12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. 10 And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut. (Matthew 22:2-4, 8-12; 25:10 NRSV).
6 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ (Matthew 25:31-36 NRSV).
7 It is also possible, since as Dalman pointed out long ago God’s being well-pleased occurs with the Isaiah Servant in Isa. 42:1-2 [Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου, ντιλήμψομαι αὐτοῦ· Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου, προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου· (Isaiah 42:1 LXX1)], that the utterance here and in the Transfiguration scene (Mt 17:5) point forward to Jesus’ death as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53.
8 In Luke 9:35 (Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen. Listen to him!”), Luke’s version of the event recorded in Mark 9:7 and Matthew 17:5, where a similar acclamation of Jesus comes in a voice from heaven, Luke replaces Mark’s and Matthew’s “beloved” with the synonym “chosen” (ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος). The key to understanding all of this is the fact that in Old Testament Hebrew the verb אהב 'ahav “to love” has as one of its root ideas “to prefer (one person or thing to another)”, and the verb “to hate” means “not to prefer” (Malachi 1:1-3). We see this idea even in the New Testament, where Jesus warns that it is impossible to serve two masters, because one will always love one and hate the other. This doesn’t mean literally that one will hate the other; merely that one will be preferred to the other. So the “beloved” son is the one preferred and chosen over all others.
9 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” 2 —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized— 3 he left Judea and started back to Galilee. (John 4:1-3 NRSV). 10 At that time Herod the ruler heard reports about Jesus; and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him (Matthew 14:1-2 NRSV).
No comments:
Post a Comment