Herald of the King: The Mission of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-12)

By David J. MacLeod [1] [2]

Introduction

Four hundred years is a long time — the United States is not yet two hundred fifty years old, and Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin seem like figures from the very distant past. For four hundred years, since Malachi in the 5th century bc (ca. 400–450), the voice of the prophets had been silent. Malachi and prophets like him had brought direct revelation from God to the nation — they were His spokesmen, His mouthpieces, and His speakers (cf. Exod. 7:1–2; Deut. 18:18). Yet, since Malachi, there was no voice, nor any that answered. Many in Israel were indifferent, but there were those who were sadly conscious that the voice of the prophets spoke no more. [3]

The events in Matthew 3 took place by the Jordan River in the year ad 29. [4]

According to Luke’s parallel account (Luke 3:1–2), [5] it was during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and Pontius Pilate was governor of the province of Judea. Herod Antipas, Philip, and Lysanius ruled various provinces in the area, and it was the era of the high priesthoods of Annas and Caiaphas. [6] Luke’s introduction to the story reminds us of the fact that Romans occupied the land, and political intrigue was the order of the day. The mention of the high priesthood in the singular (ἀρχιερέως, archiereōs), [7] when it was actually occupied by Annas, then one of his sons, and then his son-in-law, suggests that it was corrupted by a serpentine nepotism and an evil concentration of power. [8]

In any case, as the old commentator, Bengel, observed, with this account of John the Baptist’s preaching, the curtain of the New Testament was drawn up, and the greatest chapter of biblical history commenced. [9] The scene is easy to imagine. A caravan of pilgrims was slowly climbing the mountain gorges threaded by the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. They halted for a moment in the intense heat, and they saw a rugged, sinewy, sun-darkened, and intense young man about thirty years of age walking briskly toward them. With a penetrating voice and a no-nonsense manner he called to them, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2).

It was as though someone had thrown a match on dry timber in a forest. The electrifying news spread with amazing speed that the silence of God had ended. A prophetic voice had again been heard, and people flocked from every direction to hear him. It was like California in 1849, or the Klondike, in the Yukon Territory of Canada in 1897–98, when news spread of the discovery of gold. The roads were crammed with hurrying crowds to hear the preacher who had heard the voice of God and had now come to deliver the message. [10]

The great question for Matthew, we have learned in an earlier study, is “Who will inherit the kingdom?” [11] Matthew’s answer is “Jesus.” It is He who will inherit the kingdom and rule over Israel. John the Baptist’s role is like that of a herald who runs before the chariot and cries, “The King is here! The King is here!” [12] The “big idea” of our passage may be summarized in this way: Warning the people of the imminence of judgment and the kingdom of heaven, John the Baptist calls them to turn to God and to live not for this world, but for the world to come.

The Arrival of the Herald, Matthew 3:1-6

John the Baptist Makes His Appearance, verse 1

Like the other three gospels, Matthew prefaces the ministry of Jesus with that of John the Baptist. That the four evangelists treat John with such respect is due, no doubt, to Jesus’ own estimate of the man. “Among those born of women,” He said, “there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). [13]

Matthew began with the general, “Now in those days.” As I was preparing this article, I received a call from an old friend in Denver. He and I had been involved in the early growth of a church there. He mentioned something that had happened back in “the old days,” i.e., the early 1970s. He and I both knew what he meant by “the old days.” He meant those important days when we were young and something very important was happening in that young church. Matthew’s readers would know what he meant by “in those days.” He meant “in that special time” when John and the Lord Jesus appeared. It was “in those crucial days,” “in that critical time.” [14]

“Now in those days John the Baptist comes preaching.” Matthew used the historical present (παραγίνεται, paraginetai) for vividness. We might translate it, “In those crucial days John the Baptist makes his appearance.” It is striking that Matthew says nothing of John’s unusual birth, his relationship to Jesus (they were cousins), or his long seclusion in the wilderness. As Maclaren says, “John leaps, as it were, into the arena full grown and full armed.” [15]

The area where he first ministered is vaguely defined as “the wilderness of Judea,” which would include the lower Jordan Valley north of the Dead Sea and the country just to the west of the Dead Sea. [16] It was a hot and arid area (but not a sandy or stony waste) [17] used for pasturage. [18] That Matthew mentioned the wilderness is significant. Judaism looked back to the time of the Exodus out of Egypt as a time of salvation. The wilderness experience was viewed as great and glorious. There arose a belief that the last and decisive age of salvation would begin in the wilderness, and the Messiah, i.e., the anointed king, would appear there. [19] Many Jews, therefore, believed that in the end-time there would be a return to the wilderness. [20] From the wilderness there would be a second entry into the land to enjoy the messianic kingdom. The wilderness, then, was an appropriate place for this preacher of judgment — especially if the submerged ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah were in the vicinity. [21]

While Mark used a term (ὁ βαπτίζων, ho baptizōn) which means, “the one who baptizes,” Matthew here used a term that apparently later became something of a nickname, “the baptist” (ὁ βαπτιστής, ho baptistēs). [22] Matthew is more interested in John’s preaching than in his baptizing. It should be noted that the public ministry of John and Jesus began with preaching. All too often, says Maclaren, contemporary people view preaching as long-winded, tedious, and toothless platitudes. It is, instead, the glorious work of proclaiming the person and work of Christ. [23]

The Greek verb used in verse 1 (κηρύσσω, kērussō) for “preaching” is the verb form of a noun (κῆρυξ, kērux) meaning, “herald.” The verb

does not mean the delivery of a learned and edifying or hortatory discourse [i.e., sermon] in well-chosen words and a pleasant voice. It is the declaration of an event. Its true sense is ‘to proclaim’…. John is a herald of the Messianic Age…. He does not come before the congregation as a teacher expounding the Scriptures in divine service. He shakes men from their slumbers and draws attention to what is to come like the prophets. Like a herald he cries aloud so that all who wish to hear may do so. [24]

Matthew did not expatiate upon the origin of the coming of the herald. He simply stated that he came “preaching in the wilderness of Judea.” The Apostle John gave the real source of his coming for he writes, “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John” (John 1:6). And everything about this rugged prophet confirms the truth of the statement. He preached with a conviction born of fellowship with the living God. As Richard Baxter somewhere said, “I preached as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men.” [25]

He Proclaims the Nearness of the Kingdom, verse 2

The very first recorded words of John are: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” These words, one has written, were “a trumpet blast…[and] the keynote of the New Testament message.” [26] John’s preaching had two elements. The first was a call to “repent” (μετανοεῖτε, metanoeite). Our English word repent is a bit misleading in that it is derived from a Latin word (paeniteo) which means, “to make sorry.” [27] The Greek word (μετανοέω, metanoeō), however, means a change of mind. The emphasis is not on the feelings, but on the thought, the will, the mind, and the purpose of the individual who repents. [28]

Most see a direct connection between John’s message and that of the OT prophets. They called upon Israel to turn to God from their backslidden condition, using the Hebrew word שׁוּב (sûḅ) [cf. Amos 4:6; Hos. 5:4; 6:1]). [29]

John, then, was calling upon the Israelites to change their minds regarding their sins and guilt, to see themselves as sinners under the judgment of the Lord for their rebellion against Him. The Jews of John’s day tended to view repentance in terms of legal observances — one changes his ways through prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. The view of John and Jesus is different. They called for radical conversion — a once-for-all turning [30] of one’s whole self to God for forgiveness. [31]

In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist’s message is described without the word repent. The Apostle says that John came “that all might believe through him” (John 1:7). The Apostle Paul later says, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after Him, that is, in Jesus” (Acts 19:4). This would suggest that the terms repent and believe are very close in meaning: The word repent stresses the negative side of the conversion process — people are to believe what God says about their sins and turn to Him. [32] The word believe stresses the positive side — people are to place their trust in Christ. [33]

The second element of John’s message contains the reason why his listeners are to repent: “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” The expression, “kingdom of heaven” (ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, hē basileia tōn ouranōn) [34] is one that is often misunderstood. [35] For some it is merely an alternate way of speaking of the salvation that is presently being enjoyed in the church. That is not the way John’s listeners would have understood the term.

The Old Testament prophets looked forward to the time when the nation of Israel would be regathered and her enemies defeated (Isa. 14:1–4). An heir of King David would reign over the nation (2 Sam. 7:13–14; cf. Dan. 7:13–14), and a new transforming covenant would be inaugurated (Jer. 31:31–34). Jesus spoke of just such a kingdom in Matthew. That kingdom will be inaugurated when He comes in glory and judges the nations (Matt. 25:31–32). The disciples were later told to pray for its coming (6:10). It did not come during Jesus’ lifetime, but will be inaugurated after His death when He returns as Son of Man (16:21, 28). He said that it will come after a time of tribulation (24:29) and the fall of Jerusalem (24:15–16). It will be a time of “new birth” for the earth, and the Apostles will sit on twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel (19:28). [36]

When John preached, his listeners probably thought of just such a golden age — the Roman yoke would be shattered, there would be a time of peace and prosperity, and the anointed king, Messiah, would reign over Israel upon the earth. [37] That kingdom, said John, “is at hand” (ἤγγικεν, ēngiken). This did not mean that it had actually arrived. [38] Rather, it had drawn near or was imminent. Although it was on the verge of being realized, its actual arrival had not yet occurred. Because it is near, the people were to prepare for it by repenting. [39]

John’s mood was urgent. He believed that if his hearers then (and his hearers today!) did not turn around, they would be sorry. His view of life was serious. [40] We should also notice that his message was not just an individual thing; it was “a big world thing,” “a cosmic thing, not just a heart thing.” When Jesus establishes His kingdom it is going to be a “cataclysmic-cosmic explosion, [a] reshaping of the face of the earth. A kingdom is coming.” [41]

He Plays a Biblical Role as Messiah’s Forerunner, verse 3

The work of John the Baptist, Matthew asserted, was foretold in the Old Testament; the role he was to play as the herald of Messiah was a biblical one.

Malachi (4:5–6) told Israel that this herald or forerunner would be an Elijah-like figure. The people expected a “Next-to-Last-Man.” John is Malachi’s “Next-to-Last-Man.” [42]

In verse 3, however, Matthew did not quote Malachi; rather he quoted Isaiah 40:3. In the Old Testament context the prophet was comforting the exiles in Babylon by promising them their return to Israel. Even now the highway was being prepared for Yahweh who would soon return to the land with His people. The prophecy looked on beyond the exiles’ day to the Messiah and to John the Baptist who heralded His arrival.

In the Old Testament context it was the way of Yahweh (i.e., God) that was being made straight. In this verse it is the way of the Lord Jesus that is being prepared. This kind of identification of Jesus with Yahweh is rather common in the New Testament (compare Exod. 13:21 and 1 Cor. 10:4; Isa. 6:1 and John 12:41; Ps. 68:18 and Eph. 4:8; Ps. 102:25–27 and Heb. 1:10–12), and is a clear intimation of His deity. [43]

John’s message of repentance is his preparation of the way for Christ. The image is one of road building. The phrase, “make His paths straight,” may refer to straightening a road by eliminating either the bends or the bumps. In the ancient world the roads in the Middle East were bad. There was an eastern proverb that said, “There are three states of misery — sickness, fasting, and travel.” Before a traveler set out upon a journey he was advised “to pay all debts, provide for dependents, give parting gifts, return all articles under trust, take money and good-temper for the journey; then bid farewell to all.” [44]

The ordinary roads were no better than tracks. There were a few surfaced roads. On one occasion, according to Josephus, Solomon laid a causeway of black basalt stone along the roads that led to Jerusalem to make them easier for pilgrims, and “to manifest the grandeur of his riches and government.” Such roads were originally built by and for the king and were called, “the king’s highway.” [45]

Even in the late colonial era of the nineteenth century, travelers from Cairo to the pyramids on a good road would be told that it was built for the Prince of Wales, the Empress Eugenie, or Napoleon the Great. In short, such roads were built by or for a king (or queen). [46]

There is one further implication of John’s quotation that merits comment. One of the chief characteristics of John is “his utter subordination to Jesus.” It comes up here and in a number of passages (cf. 3:11–12, 14; 11:2–6).47 John really is an example to all biblical preachers. He pointed not at himself, but at Christ. His aim was not to focus men’s eyes on his own cleverness, but on the majesty of the coming King. “The true preacher,” said William Barclay, “is obliterated in his message.” [48]

His Austere Appearance and Habits Mark Him as an Elijah-Like Prophet, verse 4
After reporting John’s message and his biblical role, Matthew next told his readers about John’s physical appearance and habits. Matthew was not interested in satisfying simple curiosity; rather he wanted them to see that his austere appearance and habits marked John out as a prophet, particularly one like Elijah. [49]

The “garment of camel’s hair” is described in Zechariah (13:4), and the “leather belt about his waist” is an almost verbatim description from 2 Kings (1:8) of Elijah’s dress. Later in the Gospel of Matthew (17:10–13; cf. 11:14) we are told that John the Baptist would have fulfilled Malachi’s prophecy of Elijah if Israel had only accepted his message. John’s food was that of a poor desert dweller. He ate “locusts and wild honey.” Locusts are a larger variety of grasshoppers. “Wild honey” is honey taken directly from bees in the wild and not the kind marketed by beekeepers. [50] Even today Bedouin tribes and poorer inhabitants of Arabia, Africa, and Syria have been known to eat raw, roasted, or boiled locusts. [51] These peoples would probably find it strange that certain sophisticated people in America eat snails, oysters, and caviar!

John was an ascetic man who denied himself, and his asceticism was the expression of his stern, severe, no-nonsense spirit. He was a man who lived in detachment from the worldly delights of the senses. The old commentator, Bengel, says, “Even the food and dress of John preached.” [52] His point is this: John’s austere garb and diet confirmed his message and condemned the materialism and spiritual softness of his listeners. [53]

John was rough. He might appear to modern audiences to be a little too crude, too fundamentalistic, and too fanatical. He abstained from the softer stuff of civilization — the nicer clothes, food, drinks, and places of residence. He looked a little like Tarzan and shouted a little too loudly. Yet he was God’s instrument — God sometimes works through men like this, because the message they bear is an “in your face” confrontational one. [54]

John did not wear the high-priced suits, gold jewelry, and gaudy styles of the television preachers. Nor did he preach their false prosperity gospel. He preached the truth, and people were truly changed. Billy Sunday (1862–1935) left a career as a major league baseball player to preach the gospel. A powerful, old-fashioned evangelist, Sunday was invited to speak at Princeton, but the president of the University refused to allow him to use a building on campus. He preached, “travesties,” it was said. He was marked by “vulgarity” and “downright bad taste.” Some of the clergy were outraged by his comments about liberal theologians and unbelieving preachers. The newspaper was bitterly hostile. A local church, however, allowed him to use its building, and the seminary faculty invited him to their campus. Said the great Gresham Machen, “His methods are as different as could possibly be imagined from ours, but we support him to a man simply because, in an age of general defection, he is preaching the gospel.” [55]

Noted Bible teacher, S. Lewis Johnson, said:

This simple food does reflect the sincerity of the message he proclaimed, and it gave a touch of reality to his heralding of thunderous judgment upon his generation. His thoughts were directed toward the heavenlies, not the earthlies. Richard Baxter said, “If a hardened heart is to be broken, it is not stroking but striking that must do it.” And striking is more effective, if it is done by one whose motives cannot be questioned. [56] 

His Ministry Has a Great Impact, verse 5

A prophet had not been seen or heard by anyone at that time, so John’s ministry produced a kind of universal excitement and great results. The whole southern portion of the country seemed to empty itself into the wilderness to hear him. [57] This fiery soul did not mumble the tired old clichés — the worn-out formulas of the scribes. He did not engage in the tediousness of splitting theological hairs. Many a conscience was convicted, and many were pointed to the King. [58]

John’s far-flung impact is demonstrated by the fact that the noted Jewish historian, Josephus, discussed him. [59] His fame and influence are further confirmed by his eventual execution by beheading at the hands of Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:1–12). An insignificant preacher would not have gotten the death penalty, as did John. John was put to death because he had widespread influence.60

Many Confess Their Sins in Preparation for the Kingdom, verse 6

The people who came to John “were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.” The verb to baptize (βαπτίζω, baptizō) means “to dip, immerse, or submerge.” [61] In secular Greek there are instances where it means to cause to perish by drowning a man or sinking a ship. It does not mean, “to sprinkle.”

When I was a baby, my parents had me “baptized” by sprinkling. My mother was later converted to Christ and realized that much of what she had practiced was not biblical. She determined to be baptized (i.e., immersed in water) as a believer, but felt she should tell her old minister. He took a prayer book down from the shelf and opened it to a page where there was a picture of Jesus being baptized by John in the Jordan River. The water barely covered their feet, and John held a shell over Jesus’ head in order to baptize him by sprinkling or pouring. “You see,” said the minister, “there wasn’t enough water in the Jordan to immerse people.” [62] Mother later read John 3:23, “John…was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there.” [63]

The River Jordan is a fast flowing river, [64] so John probably stationed himself at one of the fords and baptized the people as they came to confess their sins. Baptism, or immersion in water, carries the symbolism of both a drowning and a cleansing all at once. It pictures cleansing (cf. Acts 22:16), and it also pictures death to one’s previous way of life. [65]

The baptism followed repentance. The understanding was that one was unclean until cleansed inwardly. Following this inward cleansing one would come to be immersed as a picture of the spiritual reality. [66] The verse suggests that before they were baptized the people made a public confession of their sins either to John or before the crowd. [67] The confession would imply that a personal repentance had already taken place.

There are three questions about this verse that have been raised by scholars: First, what is the origin of John’s baptism. Some have argued that he borrowed the practice either from Old Testament ablutions/washings, Jewish Proselyte (i.e., convert) baptism, or the washings of Qumran, the community of the Essenes near the Dead Sea. [68] However, John’s practice was different from them all. For one thing, he immersed the people himself, while Old Testament ablutions and proselyte baptisms were self-administered. Furthermore, he baptized anyone from the nation who wanted it, but the Essenes only baptized their own members. [69] Also, his baptism was for Jews only, while proselyte baptism was only for Gentiles. Finally, his baptism was administered once-for-all, but Old Testament ablutions were repeated. In short, John’s baptism was original and unique. It was a radically new thing. [70]

Second, what was the relation of John’s baptism to the forgiveness of sins? Some have contended that the rite conferred forgiveness of sins. [71] They point to Mark 1:4 which says that “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” [72] They link “for the forgiveness of sins” directly to the “baptism.” Such an interpretation does violence to the spirit of the Scriptures in which spiritual blessing is never linked to a physical act — whether it be circumcision in the Old Testament or the so-called Christian sacraments. Furthermore — and the second objection is the corollary of the first — this interpretation does violence to the spirit of the Scriptures in which repentance is the constant and normal condition of forgiveness (Isa. 1:16–18; Hos. 14; Amos 5:10–15; Jonah 3:4–10). Third, it does violence to other New Testament statements regarding John’s ministry which link forgiveness not to water baptism but to the tender mercy of God (cf. Luke 1:77–78). Fourth, in the expression that Mark uses the forgiveness is linked to the repentance, not to the baptism. It is repentance unto forgiveness of sins, not baptism unto remission of sins. The baptism was only the outward symbol of the inner reality of repentance. Baptism was the sinner’s way of expressing his repentance. [73] In short, “baptism presupposes and expresses repentance.” [74 Finally, John’s meaning is confirmed by the charge he makes to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matt. 3:8). He does not say, “Bring forth fruit in keeping with baptism.” [75]

Third, was John’s call for repentance a call to the nation as a nation, or did it also have to do with individual salvation? Some have argued that John’s message is a call to the nation to return to fellowship with Yahweh. It is not a call of individuals to salvation. [76] Surely, however, it had to do with both. There can be no real national repentance apart from the repentance of individuals in the nation.77

Of course, it should be remembered that the message that John proclaimed was, in a sense, an Old Covenant one. John did not live in the new age of the Messiah but stood on the threshold of that age. John’s followers did not know the relationships to our Lord introduced by the Spirit’s coming at Pentecost. This is evident from a consideration of Acts 19:1–7, which relates the experience of Paul with certain of John’s disciples. [78]

The major spiritual lesson to glean from verse 6 is that the remedy for sin is not denying its presence or explaining it away or defending it; it is admitting it. We are forgiven our sins only when we face them; we disown sin by owning up to it. The way to repent is admit our sins openly. Repentance is not a good work; it is freely admitting our bad work, our sins. God forgives only sinners. “He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will find compassion” (Prov. 28:13). [79]

The Message of the Herald, verses 7-12

A Warning of Imminent Wrath, verse 7

In the large crowd, John saw many “Pharisees and Sadducees,” i.e., representatives of the two largest Jewish sects at the time. [80] The Pharisees and Sadducees will play a large role in opposing Christ, and they now appear on Matthew’s stage for the first time. The word Pharisee is derived from פְּרוּשִׁם (pérûs̆îm), meaning “separatists.” They numbered over 6,000 [81] in Jesus’ day, and they prided themselves on their accurate interpretation and keeping of the Law — both the written Law and the oral Law. The Pharisees developed the oral Law, which became codified in the Mishnah (ca. ad 200). They were very concerned with purity laws, Sabbath observance, and agricultural taboos. They were learned men, and most teachers of the Law were Pharisees. They were “laymen” in the sense that official ordination was unknown in Jesus’ day, but they were “proto-rabbis,” forerunners of the later ordained rabbis. Bruner calls them the “serious and Dedicated” laymen of the day. [82]

The “Sadducees” were the priestly, aristocratic party who governed temple affairs, but they did not have the influence over the people enjoyed by the Pharisees. This sect began in the intertestamental period and lasted until shortly after the destruction of the temple in ad 70. The term Sadducee goes back to the proper name צָדוֹק (Ṣādôq, LXX has Σαδωκ, Sadōk). Zadok was one of the ruling priests during David’s time, and chief priest under Solomon (1 Kings 1:8; 2:35). The Sadducees probably saw themselves as “sons of Zadok” or Zadokites,” but the connection to Zadok is doubtful. [83] Their theology was this worldly or secular. Unlike the Pharisees, they denied a future resurrection, rejected every idea of an afterlife, disbelieved in angels and spirits, and rejected oral tradition. [84] One authority says that although they did not deny God’s existence, their teaching amounted to atheism in practice. Bruner says that if the Pharisees were “Laymen United for a Biblical Confession,” the Sadducees were “the Clergy United for a Relevant Ministry.” [85]

The Sanhedrin, or Jewish court in Jerusalem, was made up of a mixture of sadducean nobility (priestly and lay) and pharisaic scholars. [86] Although very different in theology these two groups become united in one area — a growing antagonism toward the message of the kingdom of heaven as proclaimed by John and by Jesus.

In any case John saw these representatives of the Sanhedrin in his audience. It is possible that they only came for the purpose of critical observation. [87] The Greek text literally reads, “coming to his baptism” (ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα αὐτοῦ, erchomenous epi to baptisma autou). [88] In light of John’s stinging rebuke, however, it is more likely that they came for baptism. That John singled them out in the crowd suggests, perhaps, that they came with the kind of pompous ostentation that characterized all their religious activities (cf. 6:2, 5, 16). [89]

Seeing “the Pharisees and Sadducees,” John forcefully addressed them, “You bunch of snakes.” [90] He then sarcastically asked, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” The word “wrath” (ὀργή, orgē) speaks of God’s indignation and anger against sin. [91] It is the settled opposition of His holy nature against everything that is evil. It is wrong to think of God as mildly displeased when people sin. He is totally and vigorously opposed to evil. [92]

The “coming wrath” is a fixed expression speaking of God’s anger against evil that will be unleashed when the great tribulation begins and culminates in the judgment of the nations (1 Thess. 1:10; cf. Isa. 13:9; Zeph. 1:15; 2:2; Ezek. 7:19; Col. 3:6; Eph. 5:6; Luke 21:23; Rev. 6:12–17; 16–17). [93] This wrath will be poured out on the earth just before the coming of Christ to establish His millennial kingdom. John described it as future and imminent, i.e., as soon to break out upon the world. He insists that it is about to occur.

John’s contempt for the Pharisees and Sadducees is seen in the expression, “brood of vipers” (γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, gennēmata echidnōn), lit. “offspring of serpents.” This suggests three things: First, it points to their evil and destructive character. They are poisonous. Second, it points to their nature (“offspring”). They are what they are by birth — their poison is in their blood. They are “bad to the bone.” Third, because Satan is identified in Scripture as a serpent (cf. Rev. 12:9; 20:2), John could be calling them, “children of Satan.”

Maclaren wrote:

Honeyed words were not in his line. He had not lived in the desert for all these years, and held converse with God and his own heart, without having learned that his business was to smite on conscience with a strong hand, and to tear away the masks which hid men from themselves…. John was not scolding when he called his hearers ‘ye offspring of vipers,’ but charging them with moral corruption and creeping earthliness.” [94]

Yes, agrees another commentator, and John felt their reaction when he took up the love offering! [95]

John’s question is ironic and rhetorical. “Why are you coming to be baptized? You have never thought of yourselves as sinners in the wrong and needing forgiveness.” They may have believed John’s preaching about the coming of the kingdom. John suspected that in their self-righteousness and self-assurance they assumed that they would share in that kingdom. They would be baptized — but not because they felt any need for repentance. John wanted them to know that there will be no admission for them into the kingdom apart from genuine repentance. [96]

The picture of fleeing snakes has been understood in different ways. Some feel, in light of the following verses, that John is speaking of a desert fire sweeping across the dry grass and scrub. Scurrying before the river of flame would come the snakes, scorpions, and other creatures living there.97 Others, thinking of Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:30), see here the little creatures in a field of wheat about to be harvested — the snakes and other little creatures like mice, rabbits, and birds. As the reaper comes they are driven from their nests and shelters. [98]

Henry Morton Stanley (1841–1904), the noted explorer and journalist, says that he saw few snakes in the dark forest of Africa until his party stopped for a few weeks’ rest. They decided to clear the land to plant corn and soon found snakes everywhere — under logs, rocks, leaves, in the bushes, and under the ground. The land was cleared, the snakes killed, the corn planted, and in a few weeks they had fine roasting ears. The preaching of repentance brings evil out into the open where it can be dealt with. [99]

One of the missing themes in modern preaching is the wrath of God. The mainline Christian churches have skipped right over it. In many evangelical churches the message is, “God is love, and we are accepted just as we are.” What this has given people is a dull gospel with no urgency. What need is there for a gospel if lives are in no ultimate danger? Listening to the preaching of John the Baptist will restore the needed message of God’s judgment to our churches. [100]

The Imperative of Spiritual Reality, verse 8

The dim-witted man who took off the hands of his clock and brought them to the clockmaker to be regulated knew as little about clocks as the Pharisees and Sadducees did about repentance. They were like all religious people who think Christianity has to do with religious actions or rituals. It is a change on the inside that is needed. [101]

John, therefore, went on to warn his listeners that repentance must be genuine. They must not think that mere outward participation in his baptism is enough. He was calling for a genuine change of heart. The last judgment loomed on the horizon, and motivated by a fear of their own damnation, the people were called to turn from their sins and to God.

In the last judgment people shall stand open and naked before God, who will be able to look at their lives and determine if their repentance was real. “The call to produce fruit (the word is singular in the Greek text) is a call to produce the evidence of genuine repentance. A repentance that does not issue in good works of a Scriptural nature is not genuine repentance (cf. Rom 2:17–29; James 2:14–26). [102]

It is noteworthy that John used the singular “fruit” (καρπός, karpos) and not “fruits.” The stress was on the quality not the quantity. [103] John was stressing, perhaps, that the change he was demanding was an internal thing. Religious people can produce outward and visible “good works,” but only a truly repentant heart will produce genuine fruit. God is not interested in external, religious conformity. He is interested in a change in the inner man. [104] “Therefore” (οὖν, oun), [105] John says, “if you’re really serious about preparing for the coming kingdom, you must genuinely repent.”

The Futility of Inherited Religion, verse 9

John knew what their reaction would be. They would confidently reply, “We have Abraham for our father.” They believed that salvation was guaranteed by Abrahamic descent. [106] They held to a kind of “merit theology,” whereby the merits of the patriarchs would be enough for the salvation of their descendants. [107] Abraham had built up a treasury of merit that none of his descendants could exhaust. These Jews believed that simply because they were Jews they were assured a place in the world to come.

They said, “All Israel has a part in the world to come.” “The merits of the Fathers” is one of the commonest phrases in the mouths of the Rabbis. Abraham, they said, sat at the gate of Gehenna to deliver any Israelite who might by chance have been consigned to its terrors. They said it was the merits of Abraham that enabled the ships to sail safely on the seas; it was because of his merits that rain fell on the earth. For Abraham’s sake Moses had been enabled to enter heaven and receive the Law. Even if a Jew was wicked Abraham’s merits would suffice. “If your children were even [morally] dead bodies, without bloodvessels or bones, your merit would avail for them!” [108]

John confronted this mistaken view and bluntly told them that salvation would come only to those who made a radical, one-time repentance. Abrahamic descent guaranteed nothing. As will become clearer in later chapters of the New Testament, salvation is a gift to those who repent and believe the gospel. Racial descent or family religion will save no one from the coming wrath. Individual salvation is not based on human merit; it is the product of God’s transforming, sovereign grace. [109] And people must look to Him and not their families’ religion. John is saying that unrepentant Jews (or the children of Christians, for that matter) are heathen. [110] They will perish in the coming judgment unless they repent.

The background of John’s picture is found in Isaiah 51:1–2: “Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father.” From Abraham, a lifeless rock — an old and impotent man — God had caused Isaac and a numberless progeny to be born. John then looked at the stones by the shore. “God can do it again,” he says. “God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.” [111]

A Warning of Divine Judgment, verse 10

John commanded his hearers to repent and “bring forth fruit” (v. 8). He then spelled out the consequences of not bearing fruit. [112] He warned his listeners that the judgment was about to fall. He used the picture of a woodsman with an ax. The identity of the woodsman is clear — it is Almighty God. [113] He has stepped up to the tree, he has put his ax against the tree to take its measure for His swing. John uses the word “already” (ἤδη, ēdē) as well as the present tense (“is laid, “ κεῖται, keitai) to stress that the judgment is imminent. [114]

John was preaching here to his own people, the Jews, and those people had been unfruitful. The coming of the kingdom means there will be a messianic judgment of the descendants of Abraham. The warning applies, of course, to all people — Jews and non-Jews alike — to whom the gospel is preached. “Any tree” [115] that does not have fruit, i.e., any person who is not truly repentant and believing, will be “cut down and thrown into the fire.”

One of my students at Emmaus Bible College is from Montana where his father works for the U. S. Forest Service as a timber sale administrator. He helps oversee the marking of timber for sale to lumber companies. When a large area is to be sold for timber, employees of the forest service go through the woods and mark the trees. If most are to be cut, then a mark is placed on the trees they are to leave alone. If most are to be left, then a mark is placed on the trees to be cut. In either case there is a decision made to cut some and leave others alone. Such a decision will one day be made by God when the unrepentant will be marked for judgment.

The picture here is a drastic one. As a boy I walked through land after a timber cut. If axes or saws had been used there were stumps left in the ground. The cut was made several inches above the base of the tree. In John’s picture, however, the trees are to be cut at the very root — the source of nourishment. “Not even a stump will be left; judgment will be complete.” [116]

This has been called John’s “Fire Sermon.” Yet John was not being original. That God would use fire to punish people at the final judgment was the teaching of the Old Testament prophets (Isa. 66:24; Joel 2:30; Mal. 4:1). [117] It is almost axiomatic in churches today that “God is love and will not condemn anyone.” John the Baptist disagreed. We are in danger, in our time, of losing half the biblical message: the justice, holiness, and moral seriousness of God are being lost, and the gospel is in danger of sinking, and His love is turning insipid.

Some preachers will say that “God does not frighten us into heaven” or that hellfire is not a legitimate motive in true Christian preaching. Let us ask such preachers to study the sermons in Matthew and see if they can prove their thesis. The biblical God does frighten, does threaten, does talk straight, and we must accustom ourselves to hear Him talk in that way. The love of God is a tough love that does not wink at our sins. [118]

“Does John seem too stern [for our modern ears]? Jesus spoke with similar sternness [Matt. 25:41; Mark 9:42–48]; no gospel is needed if there is no judgment; and John promised to those who repented forgiveness and a place in the Kingdom soon to come.” [119]

How, it might be asked, could John preach that the messianic kingdom and the last judgment were imminent when we now know they did not take place at that time? Well, he did not foresee that Messiah would be rejected and crucified. Nor did he then know that God in His mercy would grant a period of respite. The time for cutting down the unfruitful trees has been postponed (cf. Matt. 23:38–39; 25:19; Mark 13:33–37; Luke 12:35–40; 13:6–9).

There is a tendency in the prophets to condense future events.120 They prophesy things that are depicted as close together in time but are actually separated by centuries (e.g., Isa. 61:1–2). This has sometimes been compared to two mountain peaks in the distance. They seem to be side by side. When one gets to the first peak, however, he discovers that the peak to the right is actually miles farther on.

We now know that Jesus will have two comings. He came first in humiliation to die for His people. He shall come again to inaugurate His earthly kingdom and to judge mankind. [121]

The Promise of Messianic Blessing, verse 11

In verses 1–10 Matthew has informed his readers about John the Baptist. Now John informs them about Jesus. [122] In verse 11 he is no longer speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Rather he speaks to those who have truly repented and been baptized. He tells them that his message is not the last word, and his baptism is not the ultimate baptism. [123] He is the forerunner; the One coming after Him is the Messiah. John speaks to the people of “He who is coming after me” (ὁ...ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, ho opisō mou erchomenos). This is a clear allusion to the expression, “the coming one,” a technical term for the coming Messiah or Christ (Ps. 118:26; Matt. 11:3; 21:9; 23:39). [124]

John did not yet know that his cousin Jesus was this “coming one.” In the Gospel of John (1:32–33), the Baptist says, “And I did not recognize Him [until]…I beheld the Spirit descending as a dove…upon Him,” i.e., at His baptism. The coming one is “mightier than I,” says John. [125] He is so mighty that John is unworthy to carry His sandals, [126] i.e., he is unworthy to even be His slave. [127]

John contrasted his baptism with that of the coming Messiah: he baptized in water in connection with repentance. [128] The Messiah, however, “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” John’s baptism was preparatory. [129] By receiving it the repentant believers at Jordan were preparing themselves to receive the coming one’s baptism. John no doubt believed that the Messiah’s baptism would initiate the kingdom and initiate people into it. [130]

John was not speaking to everyone standing by the river — he was only speaking to those whom he had baptized. [131] When he said that Messiah “will baptize you” he was not addressing the believers and unbelievers alike. He was not saying that the repentant would be baptized with the Holy Spirit, and the unrepentant would be baptized with fire. In short, he was not saying that Christ would bring two baptisms, one in the Holy Spirit for believers and one in fire for unbelievers. Messiah’s baptism will be with the Holy Spirit and fire. The Greek text makes it fairly clear that John has one baptism in mind. [132] And both elements of that one baptism — Spirit and fire — are for repentant believers.

John’s message brought his hearers a challenge to change. Christ’s baptism will bring “the change-agent in person, the Holy Spirit.” John’s preaching awakened a desire for righteousness. Christ’s baptism would make men righteous. [133] The Old Testament prophets promised that in the Messianic age the Holy Spirit would come upon all of God’s people and indwell them (cf. Ezek. 36:25–27; 39:29; Joel 2:28).

The expression “and fire” at the end of verse 11 is a crux interpretum, i.e., a notorious interpretive problem, for Bible students. [134] It is understood by the present writer to speak of the purifying and refining work of the Holy Spirit. In the two surrounding verses (10 and 12) fire is a destructive thing. Yet in some Old Testament passages fire can also be a good thing — it can purify, as well as destroy (cf. Isa. 1:25; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:2–3).

When does this mighty baptism take place? We learn later in the New Testament that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit took place at the formation of the church on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. [135] But what of the second element, “and fire?” In Matthew fire always seems to be linked to the endtime (5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42, 50; 18:8, 9; 25:41). [136] This is significant for in the prophets fire is spoken of in connection with the purifying of Israel before the millennial age.

In that day the Branch of the Lord [i.e., Messiah] will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth will be the pride and the adornment of the survivors of Israel. And it will come about that he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy — everyone who is recorded for life in Jerusalem. When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and purged the bloodshed of Jerusalem from her midst, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning, then the Lord will create over the whole area of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, even smoke, and the brightness of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory will be a canopy (Isaiah 4:2–5).

The Spirit of the Lord is here God’s agent in cleansing away the filth of the city of Jerusalem. In 1665 London was struck with a terrible bubonic plague (the “Black Plague” or “Great Plague”) that killed 15% of the city’s population. The city was infested with rats that transmitted the bacteria to people by way of fleas. Nothing could stop it. A year later the Great Fire broke out, and a “spirit of burning” possessed the plague-smitten city. London was baptized by fire, which sought out the most secret haunts of the disease-carrying vermin. Corruption gave way to health. Fire refined the city. [137]

“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the Lord of hosts. “But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ [i.e., laundrymen’s] soap. And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness…. “Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who…do not fear Me,” says the Lord of hosts. “For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed” (Malachi 3:1–6).

When I was a boy, I lived in Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada, at that time the home of a large steel plant. In the plant were huge blast furnaces, which could melt iron and turn it into steel. It is impossible to bend iron with a hammer and chisel. But put the iron in a huge coal-fueled furnace, and before long that iron is a glowing stream of pure and fluid metal which will take the shape of any mold into which you pour it. The Holy Spirit will come, John said, and He will melt and purify your hearts. [138] Messiah’s baptism in fire will be a powerful means of cleansing and renewal [139] for Israel in the future time of tribulation upon the earth (Jeremiah 30:4–11; Ezek. 20:33–44, esp. vv. 33–38; Daniel 12:1–3). [140]

Another Warning of Divine Judgment, verse 12

John’s sermon comes to a close in verse 12. He summarized his message using a new metaphor for judgment. He has used the metaphor of an ax in verse 10; now he uses that of a “winnowing fork.” With this figure of speech John makes four points: [141] First, the judgment is imminent. The “winnowing fork” is in the hand of the Messiah. Second, a separation is near at hand. “He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor.”

In biblical times harvested grain was spread out on a threshing floor, a hard surface in the open air — usually outside a village where the prevailing breezes would blow away the chaff. Oxen or horses would pull a heavy sledge (a board to the underside of which were attached stones or pieces of metal, e.g., Isa. 41:15). People would stand on the sledge as it was pulled over the grain to separate it from the husks. Another method used a cart with toothed rollers (Isa. 28:28). This was called “threshing.” [142] Then workmen would take wooden winnowing forks or shovels and throw the threshed mixture up into the air when the wind was blowing — usually in the late afternoon. The wind would blow the chaff away from the floor, and the grain, being heavier, would fall back down on the floor. [143]

Third, those who have repented will enter Messiah’s kingdom. Messiah, says John, “will gather His wheat into the barn.” Finally, those who have not repented of their sins — “the chaff” — will be punished. They will be burned “with unquenchable fire.” [144]

John’s sermon doesn’t end the way sermons are supposed to end. It doesn’t end on a joyful, triumphant note, but on a solemn fearful one. Rather than exulting in the kingdom of heaven, John warns of hell, and this is true of the other sermons in Matthew, as well (cf. 7:27; 13:50; 18:34–35; 25:46). [145]

Conclusion

John himself has summarized and concluded his message in verse 12. In concluding our study of John we will again focus on his primary theme — a theme packed with doctrinal and practical truths. Doctrinally, John’s message touches on four areas: (1) Eschatologically, he announced that the long-awaited earthly kingdom was imminent. (2) Christologically, he emphatically asserted that the coming kingdom would be inaugurated as a result of the work of the Messiah, who was to appear shortly. (3) Soteriologically, he declared that repentance and the forgiveness of sins are imperative if one is to enter the kingdom. (4) Pneumatologically, he proclaimed that Messiah would bring the promised Holy Spirit who would cleanse and refine God’s people.

Practically, John’s message called his hearers (both then and now) to make a decision for or against the coming Christ. All humanity may be divided into two groups — those who repent and confess their sins, and those who refuse. John tells us that a great division comes with the Messiah — there are those who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and those who will not. He further says, with great bluntness, that outward religion is not enough. Even those raised in believing homes and nurtured in biblical practices need to repent of their sins.

Yet John’s message, as recorded by Matthew was not complete. It was really a message of moral exhortation — he only showed his listeners their need. Like the Law of God, John accused, but he did not liberate his hearers. He stripped, condemned, and accused them, but John himself could not help them. He prepared them for Messiah, but it is the Messiah Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, who will save them (and us). [146]

In another passage, the first chapter of John, John the Baptist pointed to the ultimate solution to mankind’s sin problem. Seeing Jesus, he cried out, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). John at that point probably did not fully understand that Christ Himself would be a sacrifice for sin. Yet in these words we learn that even though John did not fully understand what “the Spirit of Christ within [him] was indicating” (cf. 1 Pet. 1:11), he did grasp that somehow through Christ sin would be taken away. Later revelation in the New Testament makes it clear that it is through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross that sin is forgiven. This is the last and highest plateau of John’s message. Christ is the King, the giver of the Spirit, the awe-inspiring Judge, but before all else the Passover Lamb. [147] Those who confess their sins to Him have the wonderful promise, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

Notes

1. This is the third in a series of occasional articles on the Life of Christ.
2. David MacLeod is a member of the faculty of Emmaus Bible College and the Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.
3. William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2 vols. (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 1:43.
4. Cf. Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 43–44.
5. Commenting on Luke 3:1–2, Brown wrote, “No such elaborate chronological precision is to be found elsewhere in the New Testament, and it comes fitly from him who claims it as the peculiar recommendation of his Gospel, that ‘he had traced down all things with precision from the very first’ (1:3).” Cf. David Brown, Matthew-John, in A Commentary Critical Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, 6 vols., eds. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 5:10.
6. Annas was high priest from ad 7–15. Following him in office were his son, Eleazar, and Simon, son of Camith, each of whom served for a year. Then came Annas’ son-in-law, Joseph Caiaphas, who held the office from ad 18–36. Annas continued to be a continuing presence and influence, and long after he lost the office he was still called “high priest.” A member of the Sadducean aristocracy, Annas was the virtual head of the priestly party in Jerusalem in the time of Christ. He and his family were proverbial for their rapacity and greed. Cf. D. M. Edwards, “Annas,” in ISBE, 1 (1979), 128; C. M. Kerr, “Caiaphas,” in ISBE 1:570–71.
7. Even though Caiaphas was officially high priest at this time, it was really a two-man affair, with Annas exercising great power behind the scenes. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 283–84.
8. R. Kent Hughes, Luke: That You May Know the Truth, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 1:108. Although five of his sons would eventually serve as high priest, Annas did not survive to see the office filled by his fifth son, Annas or Ananus II, who caused James the Lord’s brother to be stoned to death (ca. ad 62). Cf. Edwards, “Annas,” 128.
9. John Albert Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 2 vols., trans. Carlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent (Philadelphia: Perkinpine and Higgins, 1864; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971), 1:402–3.
10. Cf. F. B. Meyer, John the Baptist (New York: Revell, 1900), 58–59.
11. Cf. David J. MacLeod, “The Virginal Conception of Our Lord in Matthew 1:18–25, ” EmJ 8 (Summer 1999): 18, 28.
12. Cf. Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: St. Matthew 1–8 (Hartford: Scranton, n.d.), 39.
13. Scholarly treatments of John the Baptist are extensive. They include: Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Scribner’s, 1951); Charles H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964); Walter Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., vol. 2: Mentor, Message, and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 19–233; Joan E. Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); James D. G. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit, 2 vols., vol. 2: Pneumatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 93–129; John Pryke, “John the Baptist and the Qumran Community,” Revue de Qumran 4 (1963–64): 483-96; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “John the Baptist and Jesus: History and Hypotheses,” NTS 36 (1990): 359-74. More extensive bibliographical information will be found in these monographs and articles.
14. The phrase “in those days” (ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις) has been variously interpreted. There are four views: (1) It is to be closely connected to ch. 2 and refers to those days when Jesus and His family lived in Nazareth [e.g., Alford]. (2) It is a general phrase that reveals little chronologically [e.g., Carson]. (3) Like the expressions, “that day” or “those days”[cf. Matt. 7:22; 9:15; 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36; 24:19, 22, 29, 36, 42, 50; 25:13; 26:29], it refers to a time of eschatological fulfillment [e.g., Hagner]. (4) As in certain OT contexts [Gen. 38:1; Exod. 2:11; Dan. 10:2], it refers to a period of historic interest [e.g., Hill]. The fourth view is adopted here. Davies and Allison note passages where the phrase appears without pregnant meaning [e.g., Gen. 6:4; Exod. 2:11; Deut. 17:9; 19:17; 26:3] and warn against reading too much into it. They agree with Carson. Cf. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 vols., vol. 1: The Four Gospels (London: Rivingtons and G. Bell, 1856–61; reprint ed., Chicago: Moody, 1958), 18; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols., ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:99; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1993), 47; David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, NCB (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 89. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988–97), 1:288.
15. Maclaren, St. Matthew 1–8, 39.
16. This would be not far from where the Qumran community of the Essenes was located. Attempts to link John to the Essenes find no support in the NT.
17. Alan Hugh M’Neile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 24. The term ἔρημος can be used to refer to arid and semiarid territory as well as sandy desert, rocky plateaus, pasture lands, and desolate mountain terrain. That John was baptizing there suggests that it was not true desert. Cf. W. L. Reed, “Wilderness,” in IDB, 4:844.
18. Carson, “Matthew,” 99.
19. G. Kittel, “ἔρημος,” in TDNT, 2:658–59.
20. That Israel will have some connection with the wilderness in the era just prior to Christ’s second advent is confirmed by a futuristic reading of Revelation 12:13–17.
21. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:291.
22. Cf. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 47.
23. Maclaren, St. Matthew 1–8, 39.
24. G. Friedrich, “κῆρυξ, κηρύσσω,” in TDNT, 3:683, 703, 705–6.
25. Quoted in I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Puritan Quotations (Chicago: Moody, 1975), 223.
26. William Douglas Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1943; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 17.
27. Chamberlain called this translation “infelicitous.” Robertson said that μετανοέω is “hopelessly translated,” and quoted John Broadus to the effect that it is “the worst translation in the New Testament.” Cf. Chamberlain, The Meaning of Repentance, 29; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols., vol. 1: Matthew and Mark (Nashville: Broadman, 1930), 24.
28. Cf. J. Goetzmann, “Conversion,” in NIDNTT, 1:357–59.
29. In the LXX μετανοέω is used fourteen times to translate נִחַם (niḥam), which means “to be sorry about something.” “For the thought of turning around as preached by the prophets (Amos 4:6; Hos. 5:4; 6:1), the MT used שׁוּב (sûḅ), which was rendered in the LXX by the verb ἐπιστρέφω. The NT does not follow LXX usage, but employs μετανοέω to express the force of שׁוּב. The change in the choice of words—μετανοέω instead of ἐπιστρέφω—shows that the NT does not stress sorrow, remorse, or regret as much as it does a change in thought, will, and mind. Cf. Goetzmann, “Conversion,” 357; J. Behm, “μετανοέω/μετάνοια,” in TDNT, 4:989–91, 999–1006.
30. Μετανοεῒτε is a present imperative. I take the present to be iterative and distributive, i.e., each person repents once, but the action is repeated as various ones repent. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1996), 521. Lenski, on the other hand, takes the verb to be a customary present imperative, i.e., John calls his hearers to a state or condition-a life lived in repentance. Cf. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (1943; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 93. Μετανοέω occurs three times in the imperative mood in the Gospels. All three instances are in the present tense (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15). In all other NT uses of μετανοέω in the imperative, however, the aorist tense is used (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19).
31. William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 593–600 (esp. p. 600). On the Rabbinic doctrine of repentance, cf. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1:51–58; C. G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (1930; rev. ed., New York: KTAV, 1970), 390–422; George Foot Moore, Judaism, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard, 1958), 1:507–34.
32. Kelly wrote, “Repentance abides a necessity for every soul which looks out of its sins to the Savior. He has finished the work by which comes remission of sins to the believer; but it is not the faith of God’s elect where the soul overlooks its sinfulness, where the Holy Spirit does not produce self-judgment by the Word of God applied to the conscience. Faith, without such a recognition and self-loathing and confession of our sins and state, is only intellectual, and will leave us to lie down in sorrow when we most need solid ground and peace with God. Repentance, on the other hand is no preparation for faith, but the accompaniment of it, and is alone real where faith is of God.” Cf. William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, ed., E. E. Whitfield (London: Alfred Holness, 1914), 374.
33. In a comment on Acts 20:21, Wallace says, “For Luke, conversion is not a two-step process, but one step, faith—but the kind of faith that includes repentance.” Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 289.
34. Matthew generally uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven,” while Mark (1:15) and Luke (4:43) use the phrase “kingdom of God.” I say “generally,” because Matthew does on occasion use “kingdom of God” (12:28; 19:24; 21:34, 43). Davies and Allison (The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:392) are probably correct in their conclusion that “kingdom of heaven” is nothing more than a stylistic variation of “kingdom of God.”
35. The kingdom has been understood in a number of ways throughout church history. For a helpful summary of various models of the kingdom, cf. Stephen M. Stookey, “Models of the Kingdom of God in Church History,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 40 (Spring 1998), 38–52.
36. Cf. Willoughby C. Allen, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, ICC (3d. ed., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), lxvii-lxxi. For a contemporary defense of the view that the kingdom in Matthew is to be understood in its full eschatological sense, cf. Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 81–110. Dale C. Allison, Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 152–69 and passim. Johnson wrote, “Here the term ‘kingdom of heaven’ must refer to the millennial kingdom, for the eternal invisible kingdom was always present, and the [present] form of the kingdom had not yet been revealed” [Matt. 13:34, 35, 41–43]. Cf. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Message of John the Baptist,” BS 113 (Jan. 1956): 35.
37. “The ‘kingdom of heaven’…means the establishment on earth (not in the heavens) of the sovereign rule and authority of God.” Cf. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 90. Why then, if the kingdom is to be established on earth, is it called, “the kingdom of heaven?” The reason is obvious. Heaven is the source of this kingdom. “God’s kingdom breaks in from heaven. It sets heaven itself in motion.” Cf. H. Traub, “οὐρανός,” in TDNT, 5:522.
38. Contra C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1936), 44–45.
39. There is no suggestion in John’s appeal that repentance is a human work that merits the forgiveness of God. “John’s ministry was entirely due to the work of the Holy Spirit [cf. Luke 1:15] as he preached in the Spirit’s power to God’s covenant people. The Holy Spirit convicted them, and the Holy Spirit gave them the grace to believe John’s message and repent” (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:24–26; cf. Hughes, Luke: That You May Know the Truth, 1:109).
40. Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: A Commentary, 2 vols., vol. 1: The Christbook (Waco: Word: 1987), 70.
41. Bruner, The Christbook, 71. There is a tendency in much modern scholarship to treat the kingdom as simply a dynamic force, God’s rule over His people. This is a flawed view. The kingdom also involves a territory over which the king shall rule. Cf. Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “βασιλεία,” TDNT, 1:579–90 (esp. p. 579).
42. Bruner, The Christbook, 72.
43. Carson, “Matthew,” 102.
44. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1:45.
45. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1:45.
46. F. N. Peloubet, Suggestive Illustrations on the Gospel according to Matthew (New York: E. R. Herrick, 1897), 32.
47. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:289.
48. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1:45.
49. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:295.
50. Taylor suggests that John may have taken a Nazarite vow (Num. 6). “We can imagine him, then, with his hair long and matted; a slim figure with sun-hardened skin, an old camel’s hair sackcloth tied around his waist with a strip of leather.” Cf. The Immerser: John the Baptist, 317.
51. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:296.
52. Bengel, New Testament Word Studies, 1:86.
53. Carson, “Matthew,” 102.
54. Bruner, The Christbook, 72.
55. Noting the opposition of the Unitarians, Machen quipped, “I like Billy Sunday for the enemies he has.” Sunday preached at Princeton Seminary on Monday, March 8, 1915. Cf. David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, 2 vols., vol. 2: The Majestic Testimony 1869–1929 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1996), 298–300.
56. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “The Herald of the King (Matt. 3:1–12),” BBB (Jan. 11, 1976): 3.
57. Matthew’s portrayal of the glad acceptance by these Jews of John’s baptism is a potent argument against the frequent charge that the evangelists were anti-semitic.
58. Maclaren, St. Matthew 1–8, 41–42.
59. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.116-20, in Josephus, 10 vols., trans. Louis H. Feldman et al (Cambridge: Harvard, 1965), 9:80–85.
60. Josephus attributed John’s death to Herod’s fear of the Baptist’s influence and not to his indictment of the king’s adultery. Cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.118-20 (pp. 82-85).
61. Cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” in NIDNTT, 1:144–150.
62. For an illuminating example of the power of dogma to subvert exegesis, see Lenski’s attempts to avoid the clear evidence that βαπτίζω means “to immerse” and that John, in fact, immersed people. Cf. The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 100–101.
63. Neither Aenon nor Salim can now be identified with certainty. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, NICNT (rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 210.
64. The reason for John’s baptizing in the Jordan had as much to do with its symbolic significance in Jewish history as with its adequate water supply. The Jordan was the boundary and entry point into the land promised to Israel by Yahweh. John could not help but be aware of this. It has been suggested that he was calling for a morally purified Israel that was fit to dwell in the Holy Land. In imitation of the original entry depicted in the Book of Joshua, John may have been calling Israel to the wilderness so that they might return across the Jordan as a consecrated people awaiting the Messianic king. Cf. Colin Brown, “What Was John the Baptist Doing?” BBR 7 (1997): 37-50.
65. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 55–56.
66. Taylor (The Immerser: John the Baptist, 318, cf. pp. 49-100) understands the immersion in water to be for purification of the body from ritual uncleanness.
67. The relationsip of the Greek present participle “as they confessed” (ἐξομολογούμενοι) to the imperfect verb “were being baptized” (ἐβαπτιζοντο) is somewhat ambiguous. It does not make clear whether the confession was simultaneous with the baptism or before it. The present participle is normally contemporaneous in time to the action of the main verb. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 625. All we can safely say is that the confession was done in connection with the baptism. Cf. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 49.
68. For a thoroughly documented discussion of the possible antecedents to John’s baptism as well as Christian baptism, cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (1962; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 1–44.
69. “No evidence suggests that [John] was an Essene or that he had any contact with the (possibly Essene) sectarians responsible for the collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist, 317, cf. pp. 15-48).
70. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:299; Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 51, n. 4.
71. E.g., Lenski, The Interpretaion of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 101–2.
72. Cf. the discussions in R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (1946; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 30–33; C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark, CGTC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966), 46.
73. The descriptive genitive “of repentance” (μετανοία”, Mark 1:4) here denotes the significance of the rite, the inward act of which baptism is the outward sign and pledge. The baptism symbolizes or expresses the repentance. Cf. Ezra P. Gould, The Gospel according to St. Mark, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), 6–7. On the descriptive genitive, cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 80.
74. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:312. Cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 34–35.
75. Johnson, “The Herald of the King,” 3–4.
76. Cf. David R. Anderson, “The National Repentance of Israel,” JGES 11 (Autumn 1998): 13-37.
77. “It is wrong to say John did not preach a personal salvation. He did. It is also wrong to say that John did not announce the coming of the millennial kingdom. He did. Thus, both a personal and a national salvation were proclaimed by him. The amillennial system of interpretation, with its attempt to make this an either/or matter, fails to do justice to the text of John’s message.” Cf. Johnson, “The Message of John the Baptist,” 35–36.
78. Johnson, “The Herald of the King,” 4.
79. I am here following Bruner, The Christbook, 73.
80. On the Pharisees and Sadducees, cf. Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, eds. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Matthew Black, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973–87), 2:381–414; H. F. Weiss, “Φαρισαῒος,” in TDNT, 9:11–48; R. Meyer, “Σαδδουκαῒος,” in TDNT, 7:35–54. For a succinct introduction to some of the contemporary issues, cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 32–36.
81. Cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, 17.42 (pp. 392-93).
82. Bruner, The Christbook, 74.
83. Meyer, “Σαδδουκαῒος,” 41.
84. The Church Fathers believed that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative, but modern scholars find this doubtful. For documentation on the Fathers, cf. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 2:408, n. 24.
85. Bruner, The Christbook, 74.
86. On the Sanhedrin, cf. W. J. Moulder, “Sanhedrin,” in ISBE, 4 (1988), 331–34; E. Lohse, “συνέδριον,” in TDNT, 7:860–71. Originally the word meant “the place of those who sit together,” and it came to mean “council.” Made up of seventy members (cf. Num. 11:6), it wielded both religious and political powers. The president was the high priest. Next in rank were the chief priests, whose presence in the Sanhedrin was due to their office in the temple. The chief priests were uniformly members of the sadducean aristocracy. Next in rank were the elders. The term elders was used in a broad sense of all Sanhedrin members, but in a later more narrow sense it came to be used of the lay members who were Sadducees. During the reign of Queen Alexandria (76–67 bc), Pharisaic scribes were given a place on the Sanhedrin, and under King Herod (73–4 bc) their influence grew.
87. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:304; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution (2d. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 46.
88. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 106.
89. Carson, “Matthew,” 103.
90. Bruner, The Christbook, 74.
91. BAGD, s.v. “ὀργή,” 578; G. Stählin, “ὀργή,” in TDNT, 5:436–37.
92. Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, 58.
93. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:304.
94. Maclaren, Matthew 1–8, 43.
95. Johnson, “The Herald of the King,” 5.
96. Cf. H. N. Ridderbos, Matthew, BSC, trans. Ray Togtman (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 51.
97. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:304.
98. Cf. Alan Hugh M|Neile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1915), 27.
99. Peloubet, Suggestive Illustrations on the Gospel according to Matthew, 29.
100. Bruner, The Christbook, 75.
101. Peloubet, Suggestive Illustrapftions on the Gospel according to Matthew, 28.
102. Johnson, “The Herald of the King,” 5.
103. Ridderbos (Matthew, 51) notes that “fruit” is singular and lacks the article.
104. Alexander Balmain Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 6 vols., ed., W. Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 1:83.
105. The οὖν is illative or inferential. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:305.
106. This all-pervasive view of first century Judaism is generally called “covenantal nomism.” One’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant. The Jew is in the covenant by birth and maintains his place by obedience to the commandments and by employing the means of atonement provided by the covenant, especially daily repentance. Cf. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 75, 236 and passim.
107. Carson, “Matthew,” 103.
108. Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 1:47. For documentation of these views, cf. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2 vols. (3d ed., London: Longmans, Green, 1886; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1:271–72.
109. Ridderbos, Matthew, 52.
110. Bruner, The Christbook, 76.
111. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. Matthew 11.3, in NPNF, 1st Series, 10:69; Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:308.
112. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:310.
113. “God is implicitly the agent of the passive: ‘is laid (by God).’” Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:309.
114. The other two major verbs of the sentence (“cut down” [ἐκκόπτεται], “thrown” [βάλλεται]) are also in the present tense.
115. The Greek text reads πᾶν οὖν δένδρον. The English translations generally (AV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV) have “every tree.” As Turner notes, however, πᾶς before an anarthrous noun means every in the sense of any. Cf. James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 4 vols., vol. 3: Syntax, by Nigel Turner (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 199.
116. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, 112.
117. Maurer argues that Matt. 3:10 is to be read against the background of Mal. 4:1. Cf. C. Maurer, “ῥίζα,” in TDNT, 6:988. On the figure of fire in this passage, cf. F. Lang, “πῦρ,” in TDNT, 6:942–45.
118. Bruner, The Christbook, 75, 78.
119. Floyd V. Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, HNTC (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 65.
120. Johnson (“The Herald of the King,” 6) wrote, “That John does not see the interval between the first coming and the second coming, presenting them both in the same context, is not surprising. In the great prophetic passages of the Old Testament there is no perspective, the first coming and the second coming of the Messiah being described in the same contexts.”
121. Cf. the discussion in Ridderbos, Matthew, 53.
122. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:311.
123. Cf. Bruner, The Christbook, 78.
124. Scholars have differed widely as to the identity of the coming one. Cf. Davies and Allison (The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:312–14) for an informative and well-documented discussion of six different theories: (1) The coming one is God. (2) He is the Son of Man. (3) He is a disciple of John. (4) John is deliberately vague. (5) The coming one is Elijah. (6) He is the Messiah. The view accepted here is the sixth one. The first view is defended in an oft-cited article by John H. Hughes, “John the Baptist: The Forerunner of God Himself,” NovT 14 (1972), 191–218. Hughes’ thesis has been generally rejected because the words that follow are only appropriate for a human agent such as Messiah and not of God. It is unlikely that John would have described God using the relative “mightier” or that he would have said he was unworthy to carry God’s sandals. In addition to Davies and Allison, cf. Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 51.
125. As Davies and Allison (The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:314–15) note, although “the Stronger One” may not have been a Messianic title, strength was associated with the Messiah. According to Isaiah 11:1–2, the Spirit endowed Him with strength, and in Isaiah 53:12 He shares the booty of the strong. In Matthew 12:29 He binds the strong man and plunders his house.
126. Mark (1:7), Luke (3:16), John (1:27), and Acts (13:25) all say that John is unworthy to untie or remove (λύω) Jesus’ sandals. Matthew uses a verb (βαστάζω) which means “to carry.”
127. Many scholars (e.g., Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:289) have argued that John’s subordination to Jesus is a theme invented by later Christians due to their conflicts with non-Christian followers of John. John’s self-deprecation was designed to keep him in his place. Four observations are in order: (1) Humility is a virtue to Christians, not a weakness. (2) Since John saw himself as Messiah’s forerunner it is unlikely that he would have set himself on a par with Him. (3) There is no evidence that Christians invented John’s subordination. (4) There is no polemic against John in Matthew-or in the other Gospels, for that matter. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 104.
128. The phrase εἰς μετάνοιαν can be translated in three ways: (1) “for repentance,” i.e., “in order that you will repent,” understanding εἰς + accus. to indicate purpose. The context suggests, however, that baptism followed or expressed repentance. (2) “because of your repentance,” taking εἰς in a causal sense-which is possible. (3) “with reference to repentance” or “in agreement with repentance,” taking εἰς in a weaker sense. The third view is to be preferred because John’s baptism presupposed repentance. Cf. Carson, “Matthew,” 104; Hagner, Matthew 1–13, 51.
129. “The two baptisms (John’s and the Coming One’s) are to be administered to the same people-ὑμᾶς [“you”]. That is to say, Spirit-and-fire baptism is not offered as an alternative to John’s water-baptism, nor does one accept John’s baptism in order to escape the messianic baptism. Rather one undergoes John’s water-baptism with a view to and in preparation for this messianic Spirit-and-fire baptism.” Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, Studies in Biblical Theology, 2d Series, No. 15 (London: SCM, 1970), 11.
130. Cf. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 14.
131. Carson, “Matthew,” 105. Contra Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 11, n. 10. Dunn argues that both repentant and unrepentant would experience the baptism of fire, the former as a blessing, the latter as destruction.
132. That the future baptism is a single baptism is suggested by the single preposition ἐν (“in” or “with”) governing both elements, viz., the Holy Spirit and fire. Cf. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 11.
133. Bruner, The Christbook, 79. Cf. Allen, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 25.
134. On the history of the exegesis of this phrase, cf. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 10–14; idem., Pneumatology, 93–102. Most views are variations on explanations offered long ago by Chrysostom and Origen. The former took the fire to be a purely gracious outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The latter took fire to be God’s punishment of the wicked. In modern times Bruce has famously suggested that πνεύματι be translated “wind” and not “Spirit.” Wind and fire are seen to be both instruments of judgment in the endtime. The wind will sweep through the threshing floor to carry away the chaff, which will then be burned. Cf. A. B. Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels,” 84; also: C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (2d ed., London: SPCK, 1966), 126.
135. Hui denies that John’s prophecy has any reference to Jesus’ bestowal of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Rather John’s prophecy will not be fulfilled until the endtime when the Son of Man cleanses and purifies Israel with the power of a fiery Spirit. Cf. Archie W. D. Hui, “John the Baptist and Spirit-Baptism,” EvQ 71 (1999): 99-115 (esp. 114–15). Hui seems to assume that John did not envisage a twofold fulfillment of his prophecy (Pentecost and Second Advent). That may well be the case, but, like other prophets, he may not have fully understood his own prophecy. It is clear from Acts 1:5 that the risen Christ linked (indirectly, to be sure) the baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost to the prophetic ministry of John. See also Acts 11:15–16 where Peter links John’s prophecy to Cornelius and Pentecost.
136. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:317–18.
137. James Hastings, ed., The Great Texts of the Bible, 20 vols., vol. 8: Matthew (New York: Scribner’s, 1914), 40.
138. Cf. Hastings, Matthew, 41.
139. On fire as a refining agent, cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, 37–38.
140. William Kelly also saw the fire of v. 11 as eschatological. In agreement with many commentators, however, he sees the baptism of fire as God’s judgment upon the impenitent and not, as in the present essay, His refining work in the nation of Israel in the endtime. Cf. William Kelly, Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew (2d ed., London: G. Morrish, 1896; reprint ed., Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, 1971), 66–67.
141. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:318–19.
142. L. G. Herr, “Thresh; Threshing,” in ISBE, 4 (1988), 844.
143. L. G. Herr, “Winnowing,” in ISBE, 4 (1988), 1073.
144. On the burning of chaff, cf. Exod. 15:7; Isa. 5:24; 47:14; Obad. 18; Mal. 4:1. Cf. Davies and Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 1:319.
145. Bruner, The Christbook, 81.
146. Bruner, The Christbook, 77, 79.
147. Johnson, “The Herald of the King,” 6.