Well, good afternoon. Today we're going to be looking at the third chapter of Matthew. Again, this is part of a series. We're going through the historic faith commentary on Matthew, which looks at how the early Christians understood the book of Matthew. Chapter 3 is when we get introduced to John the Baptist. And he was God's specially chosen herald.
He was chosen before he was even born that God consecrated him in the womb as a Nazarite, and he was chosen to be a prophet and the herald of Jesus Christ before he was ever born. Now, something I had never known, like I'm sure all of you we all know about his special birth from his elderly parents who his mom had been barren, and it was through a miracle that she was able to conceive. But it was his childhood.
The early Christians all talk about how John the Baptist grew up in the wilderness, that he lived apart from people and lived by himself in the wilderness. And I remember when I first came across that, I thought, " Okay, this particular writer is mistaken. " And then several of them you know say that. And I went back as like, " Okay, where does it say that? " And it doesn't say anything about it in Matthew. But in Luke, I'm going to just read it to you.
Luke 1:80, it says, " The child talking about John the Baptist grew and became strong in spirit and was in the wilderness until the day he appeared to Israel. " Now, some of our translations, when you read them, you wouldn't quite realize that the subject is the child. That there's not a change of subject in the Greek. It's all one thing. So it's saying the child was in the wilderness until the day he appeared to Israel.
So they understood that he had this miraculous upbringing that obviously no child can live by himself in the wilderness, that this would take God's miraculous care like an angel you know bringing him food and taking care of him. We don't know what age. He had maybe been weaned, probably was. But yeah, from that time forward, he lived by himself in the wilderness. So he was really a special person growing up apart from man. And he made quite an impression on the Jews of his day.
It said that crowds flocked to hear him preach. Now, he was in the wilderness, and I've never really thought very much about that. You read that. Okay. He was in the wilderness. One of the early Christians points out, Eusebius, he sees in that a symbol of the destruction of Jerusalem, that you might expect a prophet to be in Jerusalem. Many of them were. Not all of the Old Testament prophets, but many of them were. It was the capital.
But by having him out in the wilderness, he wasn't even particularly associated with any city. This was foretelling that thereafter, the center of God's work would not be in the temple there in Jerusalem. It was going to be totally apart from Jerusalem, totally apart from the physical temple. It would center on Jesus Christ. One of the interesting things about John the Baptist is that he is actually mentioned by Josephus.
This is what Josephus says is when he's talking about Herod, not Herod the Great, but the Herod the Tetrarch. And he says this, " Very justly, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a punishment for what he did to John who was called the Baptist. For Herod slew John who was a good man and who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and reverence towards God and therefore to come to baptism.
Now, I realize unbelievers will try to say, " Well, this was just stuck in by the Christians, " but there's no evidence for that whatsoever. They just say that because they don't want to believe basically anything. But when you read the New Testament, you see that the Jews all viewed John as a prophet. So it would make perfect sense that Josephus would make mention of him. And this Herod, um, one of his armies, he went on some kind of campaign and, and they lost. His army was destroyed.
And that's, that's what Josephus referring to. He says a lot of the Jews felt that this was God's punishment on Herod for what he had done to John the Baptist. So that, to me, is quite remarkable. Now, the message we read was it says, " John the Baptist appeared saying, " Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. " And this is one of the first clear indications of the kingdom of heaven. There's a little mention of it in the book of Daniel, but now we have a clear expression of it.
The kingdom of heaven is at hand. And we'll be reading about the kingdom of heaven from that point on all the way through the book of Matthew to the very end of it. Now, a lot of modern commentators and this just shows how, to me, utterly ridiculous, educated scholars can be. They say, " Well, John or rather Matthew, if you notice, that he always talks about the kingdom of heaven. " And Luke in the same passages in Mark, they talk about the kingdom of God.
And of course, the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, are the same thing. But they say Matthew uses the term kingdom of heaven because he was writing particularly for Jews, and he didn't want to offend them because Jews don't use the name God or the word God. Well, this is so absurd. If you just read the book of Matthew, you'll find that he uses the word God 57 times. So if he was trying not to offend the Jews, then he would never use it. He wouldn't use it 57 times throughout his book.
We don't know why he prefers to use kingdom of heaven and others kingdom of God. Obviously, Jesus used both expressions. Maybe it was to make it clear to his Jewish readers that this kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. It's the kingdom of heaven. It's not the kingdom of God that had once existed in the nation of Israel. That would be the most likely explanation I can think. But the other thing that's so absurd is that this practice, this superstitious practice of Jews not using the word God.
Like If you read a writing by an Orthodox Jew, it'll just say capital G, and then an underline, and then D. They won't write out the word God. But that's a superstition that began sometime in the Middle Ages or after that. It's not obviously something that exists in the Bible. I mean, you see the word God everywhere in the Bible. If he doesn't want to offend the Jews, well, you'd have to go through the whole Old Testament and take out God from everywhere else.
The other thing is we have the writings of Philo, a first-century Jew, and Josephus, a first-century Jew. And they both use the word God hundreds of times. So that is just total myth why Matthew uses Kingdom of Heaven instead of Kingdom of God. And actually, he does use Kingdom of God several times even there. But what was startling is John is telling them, " It's at hand. This thing you've been waiting for is now at hand.
" And that would have been a startling message and no doubt one reason why people flocked to him. Now, he told them, " Okay, what do they need to do? The kingdom of heaven is at hand. " If it had been an earthly kingdom, it might have been, " Okay, get your swords ready, " or something like that. But no, his message was, " Because the kingdom of heaven is at hand, you need to repent. " That's how you get ready for it, not with swords and spears and bows and arrows and that, but by repenting.
The Greek word for repentance is metanoia. And Tertullian, who wrote both Greek and Latin, understood them both. He writes this. He's writing to his Latin readers. He says, " In Greek, the root meaning of metanoia is not confession of sin. We might think repentance means confessing your sins, and it's associated with confessing your sins. " But he says, " The root means a change of mind.
" Now, what we, in modern times, sometimes called the heart, the early Christians would normally call the mind because, of course, it isn't the physical heart where you repent. It's in your mind that you do these things. And so they would refer to it that way much more accurately than how we use that expression today. So it means a change in mind. To repent means, yeah, you're going to change your way of thinking about things. You're going to do things different from the very root. Okay.
Some other points we want to mention. We said that John was a startling person who grew up in the wilderness, and his message was startling. Even the way he looked was startling, that he was clothed, it says, in camel's hair and a leather belt or sash was around his waist. Now, dressing in camel's hair would have been really strange. I don't know if you would have found anyone else in Israel who would have dressed that way. I mean, camel's hair is not normally used to weave cloth for a garment.
I assume this wasn't the skin of a camel because it says camel's hair, not a camel's hide. And so apparently, this was the hair from a camel that was made woven into a garment and would, of course, not been very comfortable. It would represent an austere, humble way of life. Certainly nothing fancy. Jesus said, " Who did you go out in the wilderness to see? Somebody in rich clothing? No, they dwell in king's palaces, those in soft clothing. His clothing would not have been soft.
It would have been more like sackcloth. A little uncomfortable having hair directly against your skin that way. And so his very clothing symbolized repentance, the thing he was calling the Jews towards. Um, his belt of leather now that, that never struck me as anything significant. I mean, you know, here today, all of us I have a leather belt on right now and, and, uh, uh, probably many of you listening to this have one on. So it's like, so what's the big thing?
Why does Matthew point out that John had on a leather belt? Well, back then, people didn't normally wear leather belts. The types of robes or tunics they wore, either both types of garments were just loose-fitting. And so they would tie a sash. But normally, the sash was made out of wool or linen. So the early Christians, they saw something significant that, again, this was an austere way to dress. And leather is not the best translation.
Usually, leather means a finished piece of there's a contrast between leather and rawhide. Leather would be the finished, perfected piece. Rawhide would be just you know the plain thing that you've removed the skin. In fact, the hair from it. In fact, the word there in Greek is dermatinos, which is the word for skin. So this just may have been a piece of animal skin that he tied around him, or at best, it would have been rawhide. It was not a finished leather belt.
So it was just a really basic, humble, austere way to dress. And then his diet was different. And all of this was, again, purposeful, not because John was eccentric, but to point out this was a prophet. Of course, Elijah is described as being a hairy man. So John's garment would have made them think of Elijah. And John, of course, came in the spirit and power of Elijah. In his diet of locusts and honey, again, you talk about simplicity and austerity to the extreme, a diet of repentance, you might say.
And the word there for locust is the word for the actual insect, not the pod from the locust tree, which I heard when I was a boy, that, " Oh, these were carob pods that are edible, not the insect. " But no, the Greek word there is talking about the insect, and all the early Christians understood it that way. Likewise, with the wild honey, when I was on a tour of Israel, our Israeli guide when we were at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in that area.
One of the businesses there of the monks there at Qumran, the Jewish monks who were probably Essenes, was making honey out of dates. I mean, a sticky, sweet substance that was sometimes referred to as date honey. And our Israeli guide, who was not a Christian, he said, " This was the honey that John the Baptist ate was this date honey. " Again, total fiction. I mean, none of the early Christians gave that understanding at all.
Wild honey meant it was not the honey from bees hives because they cultivated bees back in those days, just like they do today to produce domesticated honey. But this meant he got honey out of a tree in the wild. Okay. More important than his dress was his baptism, that people came to be baptized, which was a fairly new thing. Now, the Jews did practice baptism. In fact, when I was in Israel, I saw quite a number of they're called Mikvas by Jews. And these would be deep places you would go down.
They were specially made baths that you would walk downstairs into and immerse yourself in a pool of water and then come back up another flight of stairs. But this was for ritual purification. There's nothing about repentance associated with it. Whereas in John's baptism, it was a baptism of repentance, not of some kind of ritual purification, but to confess your sins and to demonstrate you were being exhibiting repentance for them.
And there was perhaps some forgiveness of sins associated with it, forgiveness based on repentance, not based yet on the blood of Christ. Now, John's baptism was different, though, than a Christian baptism because there was no imparting of the Holy Spirit, no cleansing of sin, no association with a new birth like you have with a Christian baptism. Now, when the Pharisees came, John told them to use his words, " Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.
" So repentance isn't merely a change of mind, which is the beginning point. It's not merely confessing your sins, but there has to be fruit worthy of it. Not necessarily before you are baptized, but certainly associated after you're baptized. If you're really repentant, then your life is going to be different. You're not going to go back and commit the same sins again. And this was true even with John's baptism. How much more so is this true with a Christian baptism? Now, John Toll describes him Pharisees.
He said, " Do not think to say to yourselves, we have Abraham for our Father, " which is something they did say, " For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. " I had mentioned the other day that, uh, Matthew, in some ways, is the gospel to the Gentiles, even though he was actually writing for believing Jews, not for unbelieving Jews, but for believing Jews. And yet, he brings out so much about the Gentiles that salvation was prefigured for them and tied in with them.
Because the believing Jews needed to understand this, that, " Hey, salvation isn't just for Jews anymore. It is for the Gentiles as well. And so he records John saying this. And of course, God gave John this message that he could raise up children to Abraham from very stones. And the early Christians would point out the hearts of the Gentiles were like stones. Also, they worshipped idols made of stones.
So perhaps John had both those terms in mind when he used that expression that God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. And of course, that's exactly what God did do. Okay. Just moving through the third chapter of Matthew, John talked about his baptism, but he said there's one after me who is mightier, who will baptize you. He said, " I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with Holy Spirit and fire. " And as we said, John's baptism, it had no connection with the Holy Spirit.
No one received the Holy Spirit after being baptized in John's baptism. In fact, we have that famous incident in Acts where Paul asked these new converts, " Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you were baptized? " And they said, " We don't even know if there is a Holy Spirit. We haven't heard anything about it. " And then he asked them, " Well, there must be something wrong with your baptism. What baptism did you receive? " They said, " John's baptism. " Ah, that's the problem. You got baptized wrong.
You need to be baptized in a Christian baptism, and then you receive the Holy Spirit, which when they were rebaptized, they did receive the Holy Spirit. But now, what is this baptism of fire? Most of the early Christians understood this to be a baptism of judgment. Either you're baptized in the Holy Spirit because you've repented of your sins, you've been converted, you submit to a Christian baptism, and you receive the Holy Spirit, or you're going to eventually be baptized in the fire of judgment on Judgment Day.
That's the majority understanding. Now, Origen, who would have also held to that understanding, he always likes to give more than one explanation. He will give an explanation, and then he would say, " Well, but it could also mean this. " And sometimes he'll even give a third one or something like that.
And so he points out it could represent the purging work of the Holy Spirit in us, that like a fire that burns out the dross and clears out the impurities from gold in a refiner's fire, that John could have been referring to that in talking about the baptism of fire. And another early Christian said, " It could be talking about the trials that Christians will receive after they are baptized. " They're baptized first in water. They receive the Holy Spirit. But after that, there's going to be trials.
And particularly in those early centuries, it was often a fiery trial. You would be facing martyrdom at some point. Well, then the surprising thing we read in Matthew 3 as we go further is that Jesus comes to be baptized. And John, who was a true prophet, looked at him and said, " You don't need to come to me to be baptized. I should be baptized by you, " showing the true humility in John and showing that he was a true prophet. We don't know that the two of them had ever met before.
And here he recognizes right away, this is somebody who does not need a baptism of repentance. But Jesus ' reply, I will read it, " Allow it to be so for now, for in this manner, it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. " Now, I never understood that expression to fulfill all righteousness. What does that mean? And I would you know maybe give different possibilities. And I don't know that anyone can precisely know what John meant or rather what Jesus meant when he said that to John.
Origen, I like his explanation. I tend to lean towards it now. This is his explanation. I'm just going to read it to you from his own words. He said, " Christ Himself is related to have been baptized by John, not with the baptism which is in Christ, but with the one which is in the law. " In other words, this was not a Christian baptism even though it was Jesus being baptized. It was a baptism under the law.
For this is what he himself says to John, " Let it be so, for in this way, it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. " I'm still reading from Origen. In those words, he is declaring that John's baptism was a fulfillment of the old, that is the old covenant, not a beginning of the new. So I think that's a good explanation. This is for the fulfillment of all righteousness. The old covenant is coming to a close.
With the baptism of Jesus, we now have the gospel era issued in or ushered in, I should say, that this is now the age of the kingdom with the baptism of Jesus. It begins with, in some ways, with the preaching of John, but certainly with the baptism of Jesus. The scriptures say, or Jesus himself said, " The law and the prophets were until John. " Since then, the kingdom of God is preached. So now we have the era of the kingdom of God, but he had to fulfill what was in the old.
And so he submitted to John's baptism, which was a baptism associated with the law of Moses with the Old Covenant. Now, the early Christians point out some other reasons why Jesus got baptized. One other explanation, these aren't instead of what Origen said, but as additional reasons for being baptized. Okay, another one, to represent the fallen human race. He himself, of course, was not fallen. But as a child of Mary, he was a fleshly descendant of Adam.
And so he is showing his identification with the fallen race of mankind who did need a baptism of repentance. Another thing they point out is by being baptized, he set an example for others, just like he washed the feet of his disciples to teach us that we should do that. He got baptized to show us that this is something that we need to do. I mean, how could any of us say, " Well, I don't need to be baptized if Jesus himself got baptized? " It also showed his approval of John's ministry.
And you know I don't think I would have ever thought about that, but just ponder for a moment. What if he had skipped baptism, which he would have had every right to since he had no sins to confess, no repentance to undergo. If he had just skipped it and then he starts his ministry, it would look like, " Oh, well, John was doing something that maybe God didn't send him out to do because Jesus doesn't have anything to do with what John was doing and his baptism. He starts off doing his own thing.
" But no, by submitting to John's baptism, he was showing I'm following in the message of John that John was sent out as a forerunner of myself and that I approve of his baptism. It was also an act of humility that here, our Creator, our Lord, the Son of God who is God Himself, who is divine, that He has the humility to submit to baptism, something associated with sinful man that he didn't have to do.
We've already mentioned that, but the aspect of just the humility that this demonstrates in Jesus that we see all throughout his ministry. And then finally, that by his getting baptized, it sanctified the waters of baptism, that he submits to this. And through that, he sanctifies all the water everywhere by which people are baptized. It doesn't have to be special holy water. It's been made holy or sanctified by Jesus Christ.
And anytime any of us are baptized, you know it is just possible that some of those molecules of water by which we are baptized are the same molecules in existence when Jesus was baptized because that water in the Jordan River, it would have been recycled and you know rains back down and gets recycled again. So those same molecules or at least same atoms might have been in the water that you and I got baptized, which is an exciting thought.
And then, of course, God showed his approval by having a voice from heaven, God speaking, " This is my son whom I I'm sorry. I'll read the exact words. This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. " So we'll close chapter 3 of Matthew with that note. Thank you for your attention.