Chapter Three

1–4. The appearance of John the Baptist to preach, his outward appearance and way of life in the wilderness. – 5–12. Baptism by John and rebukes of the Pharisees and Sadducees. – 13–17. The baptism of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 3:1. In those days John the Baptist comes preaching in the wilderness of Judea, (Compare Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3.) “In those days.” If we had only the Gospel of Matthew, then reading it, we might think that the expression “in those days” refers to the words of the evangelist about Joseph’s settling in Nazareth. And since this was during the childhood of the Savior, we would then relate the appearance of John to the people to the time of His childhood. True, this first impression, which one gets from reading the Gospel, would soon be corrected, because in connection with the people’s baptism by John it is said that Jesus Christ Himself was baptized (verse 13 and following), and about His subsequent temptation (Matt 4). In both these events Christ is presented as already a grown man. Why, then, in transitioning to the account of the events of John’s baptism, does the evangelist not begin this section differently? Why does he not say, for example, instead of “in those days,” “in those years”? Why does he not say directly: when Jesus reached or was reaching thirty years of age? To remove this difficulty, they compare the expression “in those days” with the Hebrew “beyamim hagahem,” which has the same meaning and is also used to denote an indefinite time. For example, Exod 2:11 (according to a literal translation): “and it was in those days, and Moses was great,” etc. (in the Russian translation—“after a long time,” etc.; see also Exod 2:23; Isa 38:1). In the evangelists Mark (Mark 1:9) and Luke (Luke 2:1), the expression is literally the same, with the only difference that, referring to recent events, it is placed with the article (ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις—Mark; ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις—Luke; cf. Blass, Gram., p. 145, 147). From this, in any case, one can conclude that if Matthew had wished to indicate here the time of the Savior’s childhood, he would have used the article before the word “days.” Therefore, Matthew’s expression is considered indefinite, general, used not so much for the precise designation of the time of the events as for the transition to the account of new events. Matthew often uses the word “then”—not to denote time, but simply for connection with the preceding narrative (Matt 3:13 and others). Most closely this corresponds to our Slavonic expressions “in those days” or “at that time.” In the word “those” (ἐκεῖνος, from ἐκεῖ—“there,” means literally “of that place,” or, in application to time—“of that time”) one can see a simple contrast of the time then—the time of the writer. On the basis of the supplements of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 3:1), one can determine the time of John’s appearance at the Jordan. This was, according to Luke, “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” Tiberius (counting the time of his joint rule with Augustus) ascended the throne, according to our reckoning, at the end of the 11th or beginning of the 12th year according to the calendar (year 765 from the founding of Rome). Augustus died in the 14th year (year 767 from the founding of Rome); the fifteenth year of Tiberius, from his joint rule with Augustus, falls, according to our reckoning, on the year 30 according to the calendar (year 780 from the founding of Rome). Since now almost all exegetes accept that Christ was born at the end of the year 749 from the founding of Rome, or 2–3 years before the beginning of our Christian era (Metropolitan Philaret. Biblical History. 1866. P. 393: “The true time of the Nativity of Christ should precede the era of Dionysius by one or more years, in which all Christian antiquity agrees”), then, it means, in the first year of our era Christ was about three years old, and in the 26th (30th of our era) about thirty, which is completely consistent with Luke’s testimony (Luke 3:23). If, further, one accepts that the ancient designation of Christ’s birth time as December 25 (year 749) is accurate, and that John was six months older than Christ (Luke 1:26), then one can approximately determine the time when the events reported in this chapter of Matthew’s Gospel occurred. Counting back from December 25 six months, we arrive at June 24—the time of the Baptist’s birth. When he began to preach, he was therefore already thirty years old, and his appearance to preach and the baptism of the people in the Jordan can be attributed to the interval from June 24 to December 25 of the year 779 from the founding of Rome, or the year 29 according to the calendar (according to our reckoning). This reasoning is supported by the fact that John was of the priestly line, and priests were required to begin their service not before thirty years of age (Num 4:3), although this term was later, apparently, shortened (1 Chr 23:24; 2 Chr 31:17). “John,” Hebrew Johanan, or Jehohanann,—God is merciful, as Jeroboam, Jehu, Joram, Jezebel, and others, where Yeh or Yo—a prefix meaning—God. “Baptist”—literally one who immerses. Matthew previously said nothing about the former life of the Baptist, nor about his father and mother, nor about his upbringing. John appears directly from the wilderness and preaches to the people. It can be supposed that he was already known to those readers for whom Matthew’s Gospel was written. Speaking of the Baptist, Josephus calls him John, called the Baptist (“Jewish Antiquities,” XVIII, 5, 2). “Preaches”—in Greek a participle “preaching.” The Greek word used here has a constant and definite meaning both in classical writers and in the Bible and New Testament—a solemn proclamation of something. Heralds (κήρυκες) performed the duties of heralds sent by the king or other important persons to announce royal decrees, assemblies, the beginning of war, and victories. The word is used in this sense in the Bible, for example: Cyrus “commanded to make proclamation” (κηρύξαι) “throughout his kingdom” (2 Chr 36:22). As a solemn proclamation, the word κηρύσσειν differs from the expressions “to bear good news” (ἀγγέλλειν, ἐπαγγέλλειν), “to teach” (διδάσκειν), and “to preach” (λέγειν, ὁμιλεῖν). By the word κηρύσσων is meant generally a solemn and brief announcement. This understanding of the word is fully consistent with the subsequent accounts of the evangelist concerning John’s preaching. “In the wilderness of Judea.” By the word “wilderness” here is not meant a completely barren desert lacking all vegetation and population, but such a place where there is little culture, population, and vegetation, but convenient for pasturing. The Wilderness of Judea is the largest by area in Palestine, bounded on the north by the Jericho wilderness, located almost in the middle of a line running from the northern edge of the Dead Sea to Jerusalem, on the east by the Dead Sea, on the west by the mountains of Judea, and on the south by the wildernesses of Sin and Edom, and consists of several smaller wildernesses: En-gedi, or En-gaddi, Maon, Ziph, and Tekoa. Although the Wilderness of Judea did have population, it was always harsh and dreadful. John preached in the wilderness by the Jordan. This should be understood not as the Tekoa wilderness, but as the Jericho wilderness, which is called the Wilderness of Judea only in a general sense (see Judg 1:16; Josh 15:62).

Matthew 3:2. and says, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. By the kingdom of heaven, John understands the dominion of God as King, in contrast to earthly dominion of worldly kings. Earthly kingdoms continued as before, but amid them appeared a new kingdom, which had nothing in common with them, because it had not earthly, but heavenly origin. However, such an understanding of the words “kingdom of heaven” is possible for us only in part, and not even fully. The Jews to whom John spoke could understand these words in the sense that soon a kingdom would come where the expected Messiah would be King—a person who by few was conceived as the King of Heaven, but by more as an earthly king, only with special powers given him by God, of a predominantly earthly character. He would be the executor of heavenly or divine promises. The King was the embodiment of the kingdom. In speaking of the drawing near of the kingdom, John spoke of the drawing near or imminent coming of the King.

Matthew 3:3. For he is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke, saying, “A voice of one crying in the wilderness: make ready the way of the Lord, straighten His paths. (Compare Mark 1:2-3; Luke 3:4-6.) The connection of the speech is not fully clear. John preaches repentance to the people because the kingdom of heaven has drawn near, for he, that is John, is the one and so forth. Because of a certain obscurity and indefiniteness of expressions, the 3rd verse in connection with the 2nd verse was explained approximately thus: John the Baptist comes, saying: repent... for (it is implied that John spoke of himself) he is the one of whom Isaiah prophesied, etc. In other words, in the 2nd verse the evangelist gives the literal actual speech of John, and in the 3rd—also his speech, but only expressed in his own words (cf. John 1:23). Such an explanation is rejected by modern critics, who say that the words “he is the one” and so forth belong not to John, but to the evangelist himself. As for the word γάρ (for, because), it is used in order to give more weight to the words spoken by John. The evangelist says, as it were: if some ordinary person began preaching to the people and saying “repent...” then his words would have no significance and no one would pay attention to them. These words are important because the one who spoke them was a person foretold by Isaiah. Thus, the word “for” points to “the reason why John should have appeared as is depicted in the 1st and 2nd verses, because so it was foretold” (Bengel). And the verb “is” (omitted in the Russian translation: “for he” is “the one”) interpreters consider equivalent to the verb “was.” “Concerning whom the prophet Isaiah spoke”—literally: “he is the one of whom it is said (in the Slavonic translation—‘spoken’) through (διά—according to the more probable reading) the prophet Isaiah, saying.” The words of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 40:3) are given almost literally according to the Septuagint, with the only difference that instead of the last words “straighten His paths to Him,” in the Septuagint: “straighten His paths for our God.” In the Hebrew text it is otherwise: “a voice crying: in the wilderness prepare a way for the Lord, make straight in the steppe a highway for our Lord.” “A voice of one crying in the wilderness”—these words are separated from the following ones in our editions of the Bible, but in antiquity no punctuation marks were used and words were not separated, so this text can be read in two ways: either “a voice of one crying in the wilderness,” or “a voice of one crying: in the wilderness prepare.” In this case, the question is not resolved by the fact that in the Hebrew “in the wilderness” refers to “prepare” (to which the following “in the steppe” points), because in the Greek there is no basis for separating both these expressions. Explaining the verse, interpreters hesitate. However, in Matthew’s Gospel, “in the wilderness” is usually referred to the word “crying,” apparently by analogy with κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (verse 1). The relation of the words of the prophet Isaiah to the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity is considered doubtful. But what then does “a voice of one crying” mean in the prophet? In what sense did the prophet understand this expression? If we note that chapters 40–66 of the book of the prophet Isaiah relate to the so-called Deutero-Isaiah, a prophet living during or after the captivity, and allow that this was known to the evangelist, then we will better understand what the words “a voice of one crying in the wilderness” mean. The prophet contemplates the return of Israel from captivity and at the same time, as it were, the return of the Lord, the King of Israel, to Jerusalem. The Lord sends through the wilderness, separating Babylon from Palestine, messengers to proclaim His coming, and at the same time gives commands that a way be prepared for Him, and that the road by which He will go be made straight. One of these messengers was φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. The analogy with John’s preaching appears to be complete. How should one understand the very expression: “a voice of one crying”? Was John only the voice of another person crying in the wilderness, or was the voice his, of one crying? By analogy with Luke 3:2, where it is said that “a word of the Lord came to John,” it would appear that John himself was only the voice of God crying in the wilderness. But in Luke a different word is used, not φωνή, ῥῆμα (word, utterance). Furthermore, Luke gives in the following verse the same words from Isa 40:3, depicting the circumstances that came about after the word of God came to John. Finally, in the mouths of the evangelists it would seem somewhat strange to say: “the voice of one crying in the wilderness of God, prepare the way for God.” On the basis of these considerations, we must attribute both words “a voice of one crying” to John himself. He was both the voice and the man uttering that voice. “In the wilderness”—both in a physical and a moral sense. John preached in a physical wilderness, but the people coming to him represented a moral wilderness. This twofold meaning of the speech extends further, in the words: “straighten His paths to Him.” In the Septuagint Isa 40:3—“the Lord,” in Hebrew—Jehovah God, and this shows that here is not meant an ordinary repair of roads and correction of the path during the journey of some ordinary king, for God has no need of anything like this. Therefore, the correct observation is that by paths and ways is meant here the souls of men. “The evangelist calls the way of the Lord and His paths the souls to which the Gospel word was about to come” (Euthymius Zigabenus). From the ordinary repair of a way, only the images are taken here.

Matthew 3:4. And John himself had clothing of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. (Compare Mark 1:6.) It is possible to suppose that in pointing to John’s way of life, the evangelist also wished to point here to the ancient prophecy about him in the image of the life of the prophet Elijah. “Had clothing of camel’s hair.” Such clothing, distinguished by its roughness, according to travelers, is still worn in the East, chiefly by dervishes. “And his food was locusts and wild honey.” Locusts were called grasshoppers, which are still eaten as food in Nejd and Hijaz. In shops selling locusts they are sold by measure. In preparing them for food, they are thrown alive into boiling water, which is heavily salted; after some time the locusts are removed and dried in the sun. The English doctor Thomson, who lived in Palestine for many years and wrote a very good book about it, says: “No one eats grasshoppers in Syria except Bedouins on the extreme borders, and they are constantly spoken of as the lowest grade of food, viewed mostly with revulsion, since this food is endured only by the lowest classes of people. John the Baptist, however, belonged precisely to this class, whether by necessity or by choice. He also lived in the wilderness, where such food is still used; and therefore in the Gospel is related a simple truth. The ordinary food of the Baptist was grasshoppers, probably fried in oil and mixed with honey, as is still done now.” By wild honey, some understand the juice from palm trees, fig trees, and other trees, or the so-called Persian manna. The basis for such opinion is found in the fact that honey in Greek is simply called μέλι, without the addition ἄγριον (wild). In support of this opinion, they refer to Pliny (“Natural History,” 15, 7) and Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, XIX, 94, 10), who says that among the Nabataeans “there grows... much honey (μέλι), called wild (ἄγριον), which they use as a drink mixed with water.” But others hold that “wild honey” is ordinary bee honey, which bees carry into the hollows of trees and crevices of rocks. According to Tristram (whose book on Palestine has been translated into Russian), there are many more wild bees in Palestine than hive bees, and the honey sold in southern localities comes from wild swarms. Indeed, says Tristram, there are few places as suitable for bees as Palestine. And in the Wilderness of Judea, bees are more numerous than in any other part of Palestine, and honey to this day serves as a home food for Bedouins, who extract it from the honeycomb and store it in skins. One cannot but agree that such an understanding of the words “wild honey” is more natural than the previous one. Locusts were permitted as food by Jewish law (Lev 11:22), and regarding the eating of wild bee honey, it is mentioned in the Bible (Deut 32:13; Judg 14:8; 1 Sam 14:25-27; Ps 80:17).

Matthew 3:5. Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan went out to him, (Compare Mark 1:5.) The appearance of an extraordinary man in the wilderness and from the wilderness, looking like a severe recluse, soon attracted the attention of the inhabitants of nearby places, and they began to flock to him. Even if John were an ordinary man and had no divine mission, then even so his person would probably have become an object of curiosity. It is quite understandable that Jerusalem, Judea, and the region of the Jordan are figurative expressions, instead of “the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, the region of the Jordan.” In the Bible, places near the Jordan were called from ancient times the region of the Jordan (Gen 13:10-11; 1 Sam 7:46; 2 Chr 4:17). Thus, by the region of the Jordan, excluding Jerusalem and Judea, should be understood the areas bordering the Jordan in Perea, Samaria, Galilee, and Gaulanitis.

Matthew 3:6. and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. (Compare Mark 1:5.) The manner of performing baptism by John is generally difficult to determine. The historical basis for baptism may have been the ablutions and purifications established in the law (Gen 35:2; Exod 19:10; Num 19:7; Jdt 12:7). Among the Jews, the baptism of proselytes was practiced, that is, Gentiles wishing to adopt Judaism. On the basis of the testimony of the Babylonian Gemara Yevamot 46, 2, and the fact that Philo, Josephus, and ancient Targumists are silent about the baptism of proselytes, the opinion was held that it was introduced only after the destruction of Jerusalem, but this opinion cannot be considered correct. Some suppose that externally John’s baptism was similar to the baptism of proselytes. “When,” says Alford, “men were admitted as proselytes, three ceremonies were performed: circumcision, baptism, and offering; when women, two—baptism and offering. Baptism was performed during the day, by immersion of the entire person being baptized, and when the proselyte stood in the water, certain sections of the law were taught to him. The entire families of proselytes were baptized, including children.” All this is true, however, one can ask: was John ever a witness to the baptism of proselytes? Did he know about it? Nowhere in the New Testament is it said that Christian baptism resembled the baptism of proselytes. Thus, we conclude that John’s baptism, if it was not in terms of its external form something entirely new, nevertheless had no connection with any previous purely Jewish rites. John’s preaching was entirely self-directed, independent of any historical conditions and circumstances; it was a consequence of revelation received from on high, from God. Why not suppose that such were also John’s actions? He approached the Jordan, saw its waters before him, called the people to repentance, because the kingdom of heaven had drawn near, and in this called the people’s attention to the waters of the Jordan when the people asked him what they should do. Probably only men came to John, for there is no trace in the Gospels of the presence of women at the waters of the Jordan. At John’s word, men immersed themselves in the water. Such is undoubtedly the precise meaning of the Greek word used here—ἐβαπτίζοντο, which means “to immerse,” “to plunge,” but not to sprinkle and wash, as some exegetes would like. And why would people who came to the Jordan need to be sprinkled, when there was no need for this with the abundance of Jordan waters, and when John himself hardly had whatever objects would be needed for sprinkling? But another question: did those being baptized immerse themselves by John’s invitation, or did John himself immerse all of them without exception? This question is difficult and not easy to answer. The word “were baptized” in this verse (Greek) is apparently used in the passive voice, as indicated by the further “by him” (ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ). Furthermore, John everywhere refers the very act of baptism to himself: “I baptize” or “baptized” (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26 and others), as do others in attributing the act of baptism to John himself. On the basis of these considerations, one can suppose that John himself, personally immersed each person in the water, laying his hand or hands upon him. Such a supposition is not only not contradicted, but, on the contrary, confirmed by the words used in John’s Gospel: “When, therefore, Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John—although Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples” (John 4:1-2). At least the Pharisees could think that Christ Himself performed the baptism. In fact, this was not so, and the evangelist here only repeats the opinion of the Pharisees, precisely indicating who baptized. But from this, in any case, one can conclude that the baptized and the baptizer were in such close proximity during the act of baptism that it would be impossible for outsiders to distinguish who baptized and who did not. In other words, baptism was not merely a permission, allowance, invitation, or exhortation to baptism, but an act proper to both the one being baptized and the one baptizing. Perhaps only the quantity of people gathered to John presents a difficulty to this understanding, so that he could not immerse each one. But in this one must bear in mind the sufficient duration of John’s ministry. Baptism, therefore, was not simply bathing in the Jordan, although we do not know exactly what external rites or symbols John used in this, and whether they were even proper rites and symbols in the strict sense.

Matthew 3:7. But when John saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? (Compare Luke 3:7.) “And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” The Pharisees and Sadducees at that time were two parties (but not sects), hostile to one another; their historical origin is obscure. The origin of the Pharisees is attributed to the time of Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabee (161–143 years before Christ). They were successors of the Hasidim. The Hasidim (zealots of the law, the pious) insisted on the fulfillment of the law and considered the duty of man to be exclusively obedience to the will of God, as it was revealed in the Bible. Since the Hasidim for various reasons kept apart from the common people, they received the name Pharisees, or the Separated. The number of Pharisees around the time of Christ reached about 6,000. Their distinguishing characteristic was hypocrisy. Since they devoted all their strength to the study and observance of the law, they considered themselves the true leaders and teachers of the people. And the people to a certain extent agreed with this. Under Jonathan, the party armed itself against the fact that he was high priest, although his mother had once been a slave. This angered Jonathan, and he went over to the side of the Sadducees. Under the name Sadducees was understood a party of practical people who bound themselves to the fate of the Maccabee house. They were devoted to the law, insofar as this was consistent with their plans to secure Israel’s independence. This was the party of priestly aristocracy. Some derive the name from Zadok, who was a priest under David and Solomon (1 Sam 1:32-39); others—from Zadok, who lived much later and was a student of Antigonus Socho, a Jewish scribe known only by name. In Avot de Rabbi Nathan (ch. 5) it is said that “the Sadducees are called by the name of Zadok.” Both of these derivations, however, are beset with linguistic difficulties. Epiphanius (Adversus haereses, XIV, 2; ed. K. Holl, Band 1, Leipzig, 1915, p. 207, 14–16) says that members of the party call themselves Sadducees apparently because this name comes from the word “righteousness,” for σεδέκ means “righteousness.” According to this explanation, the Pharisees considered themselves righteous and were called “tsaddikim.” The change to “tsaddukim” could have occurred due to popular wit. The Sadducees were few in number during the time of Christ; they belonged to the highest persons of the church hierarchy, and were distinguished by obsequiousness, hard-heartedness, and cunning. “Coming to the baptism”—literally: “coming to his baptism” (αὐτοῦ is omitted, however, in the Sinai and Vatican codices, in Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort). That is, John’s baptism. The preposition to (ἐπί) denotes movement to a place. That it indicates the purpose of the coming of the Pharisees and Sadducees—to be baptized by John—is questionable in view of the fact that the “Pharisees and lawyers,” according to the evangelist Luke (Luke 7:30), “rejected the will of God” and were not baptized by John. Probably the Sadducees did the same. “You brood of vipers.” By vipers are meant small snakes, which live only in hot countries, very venomous and dangerous. John does not call the Pharisees and Sadducees vipers, but offspring of vipers. By this can be understood the offspring of vipers or the viper tribe in general. In both cases it points to the moral condition of the Pharisees and Sadducees, which caused them to resemble venomous snakes or their offspring. “Coming wrath.” Undoubtedly John represented the coming kingdom not only as a kingdom of mercy, but as a kingdom of wrath, and chiefly, which is evident from his further words, where he compares the kingdom to a threshing floor, men to wheat and chaff, speaks of the Messiah, that He has a winnowing fan in His hand. He will burn the chaff (straw) with unquenchable fire. Such representations did not fully correspond, of course, to the spirit of the new kingdom and the activity of Christ, as we know from subsequent events, and were still Old Testament in character.

Matthew 3:8. So bear fruit in keeping with repentance, (Compare Luke 3:8.) Literally: “therefore, bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” (in the Slavonic translation—“therefore bring forth fruit worthy of repentance”). John calls the Pharisees and Sadducees not to repentance, but to deeds from which it would be clear that they wish to bring about repentance, or, what is the same, to change their former way of thinking and conduct displeasing to God; otherwise their coming to the Jordan will not benefit them, will not help them avoid the coming wrath. What this fruit consisted of is partly evident from what follows.

Matthew 3:9. And do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham. (Compare Luke 3:8.) In Luke almost exactly the same words are given as in Matthew. Instead of “do not presume” in Luke it is “do not begin,” although both expressions are translated the same way in the Russian Bible. John expresses himself not simply: “do not say to yourselves,” but: “do not presume.” The expression: to think about saying something, was “a Jerusalem phrase, which is found everywhere in the Talmud.” However, it should not be viewed only as a Hebraism, for it is also characteristic of the Greek language. “Presume to say to yourselves”—to say to oneself (cf. Ps 13:1; Rev 18:7 and others). The Pharisees and Sadducees did not so much declare in words about their origin from Abraham as they were convinced of it, and this conviction determined much of their behavior. “We have Abraham as our father”—literally: “we have Abraham as a father.” Abraham is called “father” instead of “forefather,” “ancestor.” The Pharisees and Sadducees transferred to themselves, appropriated to themselves the merits, honor, and dignity of Abraham, thought that their chief dignity consisted in the fact that they were descended from Abraham. Priding themselves on their descent, they completely forgot that what matters most before God is not descent, but a person’s morality. “For I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham,”—a thought that refutes what the Pharisees thought about themselves. The Baptist does not say: from trees, animals, and so forth, but “from stones,” because to these stones the Pharisees and Sadducees were more like anything. They were spiritually dead, cold, insensible, lifeless. The comparison is thus chosen not arbitrarily, but was very much to the point and sharply characterized the spiritual condition of the Pharisees and Sadducees. John’s speech, despite its brevity, is distinguished by extraordinary force. The expression: “from these stones” (instead of simply “stones”) gives the impression that John was pointing to those stones visible at the Jordan. These were probably relatively small stones (λίθος), in contrast to larger stones or rocks (πέτρα). The latter, if spoken of by John in relation to men, could testify to their firmness. The Greek word translated as “raise up” (ἐγείρω) literally means to awaken from sleep. Since in Russian one cannot say: God is able from these stones to awaken or arouse from sleep children to Abraham, in the Russian translation the most suitable word “raise up” is used, although it does not fully correspond to the Greek word. God can awaken these stones so that they become alive, begin to move, and become children of Abraham. From the New Testament it is evident that this is what happened as a result of Christ’s preaching to spiritually dead people (cf. Rom 4:16; Gal 3:29).

Matthew 3:10. And now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree, therefore, that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (Compare Luke 3:9.) One can ask: why is it not said—at the trees, but at the roots of them? To express the thought and condemnation more strongly. The ax is at the very root, that is, on the surface of the ground close to the very root. A tree cut off at the root loses all its viability. By the ax can be understood any implement used to fell trees. The image now, instead of stones, is different: not a completely dry tree, but one that does not bear fruit, and good fruit at that. “Every tree, therefore, that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire,”—literally: “therefore, every... tree is cut down and into fire is thrown.”

Matthew 3:11. I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is stronger than I; I am not worthy to carry His sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire; (Compare Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16.) In Luke (Luke 3:10-15) the speech is supplemented with rebukes and exhortations spoken by John to other persons besides the Pharisees and Sadducees. John has only just spoken about judgment on men, presenting them as unfruitful trees. This judgment is already beginning, is approaching. But, says John, the judge is not I; judgment belongs to another person. This is evident from the fact that John recognizes his baptism as lower compared to another baptism, which will soon begin. I, says John, only perform lower, preliminary duties, so to speak, only rough work. Another, higher, deed belongs not to me. “I baptize you with water.” In Luke (Luke 3:16)—“with water.” There is no difference between these expressions, because the preposition ἐν (“in”) indicates here, as in other cases, the material by means of which the action is performed, in the present case—baptism. “For repentance”—in Luke these words are not present. Some suppose that here this expression means: in a state of repentance. Others: “I baptize, requiring you to repent,” or: “for the purpose of repentance,” that is, “baptism meant that those who received it were repenting of their sins and wished to be cleansed from them.” “But He who is coming after me is stronger than I.” The present tense indicates the beginning of the coming. Strictly speaking, the future would be required: He who will come. But the present is stronger and indicates the higher dignity and greater moral power of the One Coming. “I am not worthy to carry His sandals”—I do not have sufficient strength, I am not able, I do not consider myself capable. In Mark: “I am not worthy, bending down, to untie the strap of His sandal” (Mark 1:7). There is no difference here, because both lay on the duty of slaves, and moreover the lowest, who knew how to do nothing else. Loosening and tying sandals and carrying the necessary items for him to the bath were signs of slavery, which made the slave the property of the master. Here is expressed the deepest humility of the Baptist, which the world has not witnessed until then. “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”—literally: “He will baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire.” Correctly, they have pointed out the important significance of the word “He” here. He, and no one else, the One Coming after John. The word “baptize” is used here in a figurative sense, meaning properly to immerse in the Holy Spirit and fire. Many disputes and disagreements have been provoked by the expression “the Holy Spirit and fire.” According to some, hellfire is not implied here. The Baptist adds the word “fire” (which is not in Mark 1:8) to give a vivid picture of the powerful and purifying action of the Holy Spirit. Such an interpretation is accepted by Chrysostom and many others, old and new, interpreters. One of them remarks that here is meant fire that purifies, enlightens, transforms, awakens sacred inspiration and zeal, and raises upward, like the fiery chariot on which Elijah was taken to heaven. Others think that hellfire is meant here, based on the expression “unquenchable fire” in verse 12. In this latter interpretation an obviously dreadful element is introduced, and objecting to it, they say that it contradicts Acts 2:2-17, where it is said of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples in the form of fiery tongues. But one may ask: could John have had in mind this latter event? We think not. The second interpretation takes the word “fire” too literally, taking it for actual fire or even punishment and torment in general. The truth, apparently, is between these two interpretations. John speaks of exactly what the elder Simeon spoke about during the meeting of the Savior: “Behold, this Child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed”. As evangelical history shows, around the Savior there were always gathered people either devoted to Him or hating Him. The cause of this was chiefly His speeches, some approving of them, others condemning them. Many who hated Him are covered with eternal shame. This is precisely the future activity of Christ that John has in mind when saying that He will baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” This is in no way contradicted by “you,” because undoubtedly baptism with the Holy Spirit was offered to the Pharisees and Sadducees as well, but they did not accept it. On the other hand, the fire of rebuke caused some of the Pharisees to believe in Christ. The same baptism and by means of the same means was offered to all, but some responded to this baptism in one way and others in another. The second interpretation explains the word “fire” too literally, taking it as material fire or even as punishment and torment altogether. The truth, it seems, lies between these two interpretations. John speaks of precisely what the elder Simeon spoke of at the time of the Savior’s presentation: “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed” (Luke 2:34). As the gospel history shows, people always gathered around the Savior—either devoted to Him or hating Him. The reason for this was chiefly His words, some approving them and others condemning them. Many who hated Him are covered with eternal shame. It is this future activity of Christ that John has in mind when he says He will baptize “with the Holy Spirit and fire.” The word “you” does not contradict this at all, since the Pharisees and Sadducees were undoubtedly offered baptism with the Holy Spirit, but they did not accept it. On the other hand, the fire of convictions brought about such a result that even some of the Pharisees believed in Christ (Acts 15:5). The same baptism by the same means was offered to all, but some received it one way and others in another way.

Matthew 3:12. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor and gather His wheat into the barn, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire. The speech is full of images. The Coming One takes up the winnowing fork and is ready to clear the threshing floor, but has not yet begun the very action, which refers to future time (to clear—διακαθαριεῖ). If John had spoken only of ordinary straw, he would have stopped at the word “fire” (πυρί), but since he was speaking figuratively of people, he used “unquenchable.”

Matthew 3:13. Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him. (Cf. Mark 1:9.) In discussing verse 1, we saw that the evangelist uses the expression “in those days” in an indefinite sense. In the same sense the word “then” is now used. Therefore, this expression cannot be understood more specifically—“then, when John preached about the Messiah and baptized the people.” It is not exactly known when the Lord’s baptism took place. The place of baptism was Bethany (an ancient reading) beyond the Jordan (John 1:28). The evangelist does not indicate the purpose or occasion of Christ’s coming to baptism, except for the words indicated in verse 15: “for thus it is fitting for us”... “Jesus comes from Galilee.” These words can be interpreted in two ways: either He comes from Galilee, or Jesus is from Galilee. It is better to interpret them in the first sense. Both here and in the first verse, the present tense is used.

Matthew 3:14. But John was hindering Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and You come to me? “I need to be baptized by You, and You come to me?” With respect to these words, two assumptions can be made: either this is a question or it is not. If there is no question, then it should be translated: “I need to be baptized by You, and You come to me.”

Matthew 3:15. But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John permits Him. The words “for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” ultimately remain, it seems, the only ones in which we should seek the motive for Christ’s baptism. But what does the word “righteousness” (δικαιοσύνη) mean here? The word has such a broad meaning and such varied sense that it is now extremely difficult to determine what sense it had in the mouth of Christ. In our opinion, attention should first be drawn to the fact that the word δικαιοσύνη was evidently rightly understood by John, who after Christ’s words did not hinder Him from being baptized and immediately baptized Him. And the evangelist who recorded the conversation of Christ with John at the baptism, this expression also, as we should suppose, was perfectly clear. In what did this righteousness consist that was fulfilled by Christ at baptism? It consisted, apparently, in nothing else than in Christ’s taking upon Himself the form of a servant. It was such a deep and true evangelical righteousness as was expressed sharply in yet another case, at the time of the washing of the disciples’ feet. Christ’s words to John have an exact parallel in John’s account (John 13:6-8). Christ came not to rule, but to serve. Only recently John said that he was not worthy to carry (or to loosen) the shoes of the One who comes after him, that is, he represented Him as a lord or a master who was immeasurably above him. But now John should have been convinced that his former conceptions of the Coming One were somewhat wrong. Christ, who came to John for baptism, wished to show him that if John is a servant, then Christ wishes to submit to this servant, wishes to be a servant in relation to that man who himself considered himself lower than a servant. With this interpretation the entire context agrees. Jesus Christ refutes John’s former views, saying that His “righteousness” does not consist in what John supposes. The expression of John becomes clear: “I did not know Him” (John 1:31), that is, did not know Him as He appeared at baptism. John’s words: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) receive new light. The account further told by Matthew becomes also more clear. The words “for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” are better translated: “for thus it is fitting for us (that is, for Christ and John) to fulfill all righteousness.”

Matthew 3:16. And when Jesus was baptized, He straightway came up out of the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon Him. (Cf. Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21-22.) The act of the Savior’s humiliation was all the more remarkable in that it was hidden from the eyes of outsiders, except perhaps John. There is no reason to suppose that anyone except John saw and understood at that time the humiliation of the Messiah. Since only John saw this, the glory of the Messiah that accompanied this humiliation was revealed only to the Baptist. Christ submitted to him as a Servant, and this Servant is immediately proclaimed as a Son. “And behold, the heavens were opened, and John saw the Spirit of God.” One variant of translation: “and behold, the heavens were opened (the word ‘to Him’ is omitted in some manuscripts) and He saw the Spirit of God.” How this opening of the heavens came about, we cannot judge or imagine. The thought expressed here becomes clear only on the supposition that by “heavens” here are understood clouds (as St. John Chrysostom and others think). “Saw”—who? The original text says nothing about this, but by the sense of the speech this word should first refer to Jesus Christ. In Mark (Mark 1:10) the word “John” inserted into the Russian translation is stressed. In Luke nothing is said about John and Christ seeing the dove, and the event is related objectively, independent of those observing it. In John (John 1:32-34) the vision is attributed to the Baptist alone, but this does not exclude the probability that Christ also saw the dove. The Spirit of God descended upon Jesus Christ in the form of a dove. Literally—as if (ὡσεί, compounded of ὡς and εἰ as if, as, as though; before numerals—about, almost). On this basis some interpret the manifestation in a spiritual sense or at least think that the Holy Spirit only resembled a dove, was “as if” a dove, but was not actually a visible dove. But such interpretations contain their own refutation. If the manifestation were wholly spiritual and the dove is only a verbal image, a figurative expression, why introduce it at all? It would have been possible to say directly: the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ; or: He was filled with the Holy Spirit. The concrete and material “dove” testifies to the reality of the dove’s manifestation in a sensible form. The very appearance of a dove (and not an eagle) had here a symbolic significance and pointed to the character of Christ’s activity. In the appearance of the dove two facts are implied: the descent of the dove downward and its approach to Jesus Christ. The objection that if the text referred to Jesus Christ who saw the dove, then in the Greek text “upon Himself” (ἐφ’ ἑαυτόν) would have been used, has little weight (cf. Heb 9:7, where ἑαυτοῦ is placed instead of αὐτοῦ).

Matthew 3:17. And behold, a voice from heaven saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Cf. Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22.) The use of “behold” twice in verses 16 and 17 points to the novelty and extraordinary nature of the manifestations. “A voice from heaven”—Greek φωνή means properly “sound.” Hebrew “qol” (cf. Exod 9:28; Ps 28:3), but hardly “bat-qol”—“daughter of the voice,” which is found in rabbinic writings, although the word “bat-qol” in meaning equals the word “qol” (“bat-qol” in Aramaic actually means “word.”—Editor’s note). “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” In Mark (Mark 1:11) and Luke (Luke 3:22), Matthew’s expression “This” (οὗτος—this, he) is replaced by the words: “You are My beloved Son.” In a similar utterance said at the time of the transfiguration (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35; 2 Pet 1:17), the expression “You” is replaced everywhere by the word “This” (οὗτος). From a comparison of the heavenly words spoken at baptism, one can conclude about the imprecise transmission of them by the evangelists.