You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘baptism’ tag.
Trinity Sunday is June 4, 2023.
Readings for Year A and additional resources for this important feast day can be found here.
The icon on the left was painted by St Andrei Rublev. It is a rare Eastern Orthodox depiction of the Holy Trinity, using three angels to symbolise the Triune God. St Andrei used ‘The Hospitality of Abraham’ as his theme.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
Matthew 28:16-20
28:16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.
28:17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
28:20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
Today’s reading is the Great Commission, recorded most fully in Matthew’s Gospel. These are the closing verses to his book. Some translations end it with the word ‘Amen’. Matthew’s objective was to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, and many Jewish people, having read it, have become Christians as a result.
A number of Christians believe that there should be no missionaries, because missionaries ‘force’ people to adopt Christianity and give up their own cultural norms. Objecting Christians believe that is wrong. Ironically, Africa is where the Church is strongest today: something for the objectors to ponder.
Today’s verses show that bringing fallen men and women to believe in Him is what Christ expects of all of us, no matter where we live.
John MacArthur elaborates on the Christian’s — and the Church’s — purpose:
Beloved, we have no different mission in the world than the incarnate Jesus Christ had: to fulfill the heart of God in winning the lost. That is our mission. To glorify God by bringing salvation to lost men and women.
… if fellowship was our purpose, God would have taken us to heaven. Teaching? If our purpose is that we may know doctrine and know knowledge, the best thing God could do is take us immediately to heaven, where we would know as we are known instantaneously, and all teaching ceases, because everybody knows everything they need to know. No. If the purpose of the church was teaching, we’d be gone. Well, what about praise? If God wanted perfect praise out of His church, He’d take them to heaven, too, because that’s where perfect praise occurs …
The point is this – and I want you to get it: there is only one reason we are here, and one reason alone, and that is that we may seek and save those who are lost. It is as the Father sent the Son that the Son sends us. If the Father wanted fellowship with the Son, He would have kept Him in heaven. If the Father wanted perfect knowledge with the Son, He would have kept Him in heaven. If the Father wanted the perfect praise that was His, He would have kept Him in heaven. He wouldn’t need to send Him to earth.
But if the Father wanted to redeem fallen men, He had to send Him to this earth. That’s the only reason we’re here. There is no other reason. Now, I hope that simplifies it for you. That’s it. So, when you evaluate your Christian commitment, and you evaluate how you’re using your life, ask yourself one question: am I involved in winning lost men and women to Jesus Christ? Is that where my time, and energy, and effort, and talent, and money is going, to do that? That’s the only reason you’re here.
So, unless you’re committed to the fact that we are here for the responsibility of winning a lost world to Jesus Christ, then you better reexamine why you are existing. Fellowship, teaching, praise, are not the mission of the church; they’re part of the preparation and the training for the mission. I mean, a great athlete does a lot of things in training, but the training is not to be confused with the competing and the winning. It is not to be confused with running the race. All the exercise and preparation you go through in your education is not to be confused with succeeding in your profession.
Furthermore, our heart must be in the right place, focussed on Christ — all the time:
The whole heart set on Christ; the whole affection set on Christ; the whole mind set on Christ. All the goals are set on Christ. He is all in all. He fills our thought and our intention, and we spend our days and our nights thinking not how can we make it better for ourselves, but how can we exalt His blessed name. Not how can we be more comfortable as Christians, but how can we win the lost no matter how discomforting it is to us. So, where’s your focus? Are you available? Are you a worshiper?
And by that I don’t mean stained glass windows and organ music and show up on Sunday. What I mean is that you focus your whole intent and purpose in life on Christ. I mean, it’s basic. It means being controlled by the Holy Spirit, who is the only one who can cause you to call Jesus Lord, 1 Corinthians 12:3 says. My life is controlled by the Spirit; all my assets, all my possessions, all my time, all my energy, all my talent, all my gifts. It not only means I’m controlled by the Spirit, but it means I’m centered on the Word, because the Word is where Christ is seen.
… The Christ-centered life, the worshiping life, is a life that is yielded to the Spirit of God, and it is centered on the Word of God, and consequently, it is cleansed from sin. “Search me, O God, and know me: try me, and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting,” says Psalm 139:23 and 24.
In this regard, MacArthur gives an example of how a pastor of his acquaintance answers requests for counselling. This was back in 1985, so feel free to substitute ‘credit card statement’ for ‘chequebook’ below:
Sam Erickson suggested to me that maybe the Lord hasn’t given us more money is because we’re such poor stewards of what He’s given us already.
I mean, where – where are we really setting the priorities? Sam was sharing with me that he has a technique that he always uses when people want counseling. He says people will call him and say, “Well, I have a spiritual problem, I have a burden; I want to talk to you” – he’s an elder in his church, chairman of the elders. And he says, “I always tell them the same thing. ‘I’ll be happy to talk with you. Bring your checkbook.’” And people will say, “My checkbook?” “Yes, your checkbook. I want to go over your checkbook with you first, before we talk about anything else.”
Well, the standard answer is, “Why do you want to do that?” And his answer is, “I want to see where your heart is, because Jesus said, ‘Where your treasure is, that’s where your heart is.’” I don’t think he does a lot of counseling. Where’s your heart? You want to know where your heart is? Look at your checkbook, look around your house. People think that they need to store up all their money for the future, they need to lay it all away, you know, build up all their assets, make all their investments, hoard all they possibly can, with the goal in mind of security in the future.
That is Satan’s lie to this generation of Christians. Now, I’m not saying you should be foolish. What I am saying is, there’s a world to be won for Christ, and who cares how comfortable it is for us? Misplaced priorities. Now, after you’re done checking through your checkbook, check through your calendar, and find out where you’re spending your time, and what occupies your mind. Well, we’re great at fellowship; fellowship stimulates us. We’re great at teaching; teaching sort of entertains us, and assists us in growth. And we’re great at praise that gives expression.
But we’re sure not so good at sacrificial living, or sacrificial giving to reach the lost. And, friends, I’m trying to say what Jesus said, and what the Scripture indicates, is that that’s the only reason we’re here; every other purpose could be better accomplished in heaven. Now, we’ve got to come to grips with this. The sad part is most Christians are content with the trivia of this life, to amass the junk of this life, to pad their own case, fill up their lives with all the accessories they can possibly enjoy, while the world is going to hell and we’re not there to reach them …
Now, what is necessary for effective evangelism? If we’re going to make disciples of all nations, if we’re going to reach the world, what is necessary? First, what I’ve given you in this introduction must be understood. But now, I want you to look at five explicit or implicit elements …
These are in the text of Matthew 28:16 to 20, and they are those things which are essential to effective fulfillment of the purpose for which the church exists: availability, worship, submission, obedience, and power …
The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had directed them (verse 16).
MacArthur continues on his theme:
… availability. This is implied in verse 16, in a very, very wonderful way. By the way, someone once said, “The greatest ability is availability.” I like that. It doesn’t matter how talented you are if you’re not available. The greatest ability is availability, and we see that here.
There’s going to be a great commissioning on this day, and there are going to be people sent out into all the world with the promise of the presence and the power of the living Christ. But if you weren’t there, you weren’t going to be a part of that. The ones who were available were the ones who received the privilege.
Matthew Henry’s commentary discusses the journey from Jerusalem, where the Apostles and our Lord’s female disciples had been, to Galilee. It was a lengthy journey to make:
This evangelist passes over several other appearances of Christ, recorded by Luke and John, and hastens to this, which was of all other the most solemn, as being promised and appointed again and again before his death, and after his resurrection. Observe,
I. How the disciples attended his appearance, according to the appointment (v. 16); They went into Galilee, a long journey to go for one sight of Christ, but it was worth while. They had seen him several times at Jerusalem, and yet they went into Galilee, to see him there.
1. Because he appointed them to do so. Though it seemed a needless thing to go into Galilee, to see him whom they might see at Jerusalem, especially when they must so soon come back again to Jerusalem, before his ascension, yet they had learned to obey Christ’s commands and not object against them. Note, Those who would maintain communion with Christ, must attend him there where he has appointed. Those who have met him in one ordinance, must attend him in another; those who have seen him at Jerusalem, must go to Galilee.
2. Because that was to be a public and general meeting. They had seen him themselves, and conversed with him in private, but that should not excuse their attendance in a solemn assembly, where many were to be gathered together to see him. Note, Our communion with God in secret must not supersede our attendance on public worship, as we have opportunity; for God loves the gates of Zion, and so must we. The place was a mountain in Galilee, probably the same mountain on which he was transfigured. There they met, for privacy, and perhaps to signify the exalted state into which he was entered, and his advances toward the upper world.
MacArthur runs through the timeline between the Last Supper and this journey to Galilee:
Back in chapter 26, verse 32, He said, “When I’m raised from the dead, I’ll go before you into Galilee.” After He was raised from the dead – notice verse 7 of chapter 28 – the angel said to the women, “He goes before you into Galilee: there you will see Him.” When Jesus appeared to those same women, later on in verse 10, Jesus said to them, “Go tell My brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see Me.”
In other words, before and after the resurrection, Jesus said He would meet with His disciples in Galilee. He was calling together a great conclave there, for the purpose of commissioning them to reach the world. They were told, then, before His death and after His resurrection, that they were to be there. And no doubt, the word spread beyond the disciples to all the others who believed in Jesus Christ, and they were all gathered, as we shall see, on that mountain on that appointed day.
Now, we have no specific knowledge as to how Jesus communicated to them the time and the place, what day and what mountain. We don’t know. It just says here that they went away into Galilee, into the mountain, the Greek text says, the specific mountain, which Jesus had Himself appointed; the verb form indicating there that it was by His own discretion and His own will that He appointed a certain mountain to meet them. We don’t know how that message was conveyed to them, but it was.
Now, when did this happen? Obviously, it was after His resurrection. Obviously, the day of His resurrection, He met the women, He went on the road to Emmaus, saw a couple of other disciples, saw the disciples that night in the upper room, saw them eight days later again in the upper room, so it would be at least after that eighth day. Then, after that eighth day when the disciples had seen Him, they would need a certain amount of time to journey north into Galilee, maybe a week. When they come into Galilee, in John 21, we see them fishing, and it seems that they’d actually gone back to their old profession.
They were in a boat that may well have been Peter’s own boat, as if he were taking up his old trade, not really knowing what to expect in the future from the Lord, even though he had been told to go to Galilee and wait for the Lord to come. So, the disciples had time to go back, to sort of reestablish their fishing enterprise. They were down there in the boat. You remember Jesus came. They couldn’t catch anything. Jesus showed them that He had control over the fish. Called them to the shore, asked Peter if he loved Him three times, then commissioned them to serve and feed His sheep.
So, the Lord has had all of these several meetings: the first eight days in Jerusalem, maybe a week to go north – that would put it, maybe, at 15 days. Maybe three or four days to sort of settle into the fishing – maybe it’s 20 days later, by the time this happens. Now, we know, in Acts 1:3, it says that Jesus showed Himself alive by many infallible proofs over a period of 40 days, so it’s somewhere between 20 days, maybe, and 40 days that this occurs. It wouldn’t be at the end of the 40, because the last appearance was at the Mount of Olives, where He ascended, and the Mount of Olives is outside Jerusalem.
They would have had to have another few days to get back there. So maybe somewhere between 20 and 35 days after His resurrection, but still with time to return to Galilee and to see Him ascend, Jesus then calls together this group of people for this very special commissioning. Now, you say, “What group of people is this, specifically?” I believe it is the group of people indicated in 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 6 and 7, where it says 500-plus brethren saw Him at one time.
Here is the gathering in Galilee with the 500 plus; that has been the consistent view of biblical teachers throughout the years, and I see that as being very accurate. Now, it only tells us in verse 16 that the eleven disciples were there, because, of course, they were central to the issue. They used to be called the twelve, but with the defection, apostasy, and death of Judas, who went to his own place, as Acts 1:25 says, they were now reduced to eleven, and they become known as the eleven.
But this sighting of Jesus here was not limited to them, because in chapter 28, verse 7, the angel said to the women, “He goes before you into Galilee: there shall you see Him. Lo, I have told you.” So, it was for the eleven, it was for the women, and presumably, it was for all the other believers and disciples in Galilee, who were to be commissioned for this responsibility of reaching the world. The 500 at one time who saw Him, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:6 and 7.
There’s no reason for Jesus to go all the way to Galilee to have a meeting with just the eleven disciples. He had met them twice in Jerusalem. If He wanted another meeting with them, He could have done it. The command here given, to go and make disciples of all nations, doesn’t know any hierarchy. That’s a command given to everybody, whether you’re an apostle or not. It fits all of those who love and follow Jesus Christ. And certainly, our Lord would have wanted to give this commission to the largest group possible.
And the largest group possible would be the 500 gathered in Galilee, because there were so many more believers in Galilee than in Jerusalem. You say, “How do you know that?” Because in Acts chapter 1, verse 15, when the believers in Jerusalem met to wait for the Holy Spirit, there were only 120 of them in the upper room. The number of disciples in Jerusalem was much smaller; the hostility was much greater, and the dominance of Christ’s ministry had occurred in Galilee, where the hearts were more open.
He came, in Matthew 4, as a light to the Gentiles, to the Galilean area known as Galilee of the Gentiles. He came to that region first of all to present His message, and so, the bulk of believers were there. Also, Galilee would be a fitting place, not only because of the number of believers, but because of the seclusion of it, away from the hostility of Jerusalem. And because there could be so easily found a place where they could have privacy, on the many hillsides around the sea. So, it provided the largest group of disciples, the greatest seclusion, the greatest safety.
And the right setting – because it was a place where many nations lived surrounding it – the right setting to tell people to go to reach all those nations with the gospel. And so, the eleven are there, and I believe the women were there, and I believe all the rest of the disciples of Jesus who believed in Him in the Galilee region were there, also. And they were in the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. We don’t know what mountain it was. It may have been the Mount of Transfiguration, it may have been that the mount of glory became the mount of resurrection, and the mount of commissioning.
It may have been the mount where He taught the Sermon on the Mount. It may have been the mountain where He fed the crowd, or the mountain that He went to so often to pray. Could have been any mountain. We really don’t know. But it becomes a sacred mountain because of what happens here, as over 500 of them, with all their weaknesses, and confusion, and doubts, and misgivings, and fears, and questions, and bewilderments, are gathered together. They’re not the greatest people in the world, they’re not the most capable, or the most brilliant; they’re not the most experienced; but they are there, and that is to be commended.
They are available. And that’s what I love about this verse. That means ready for service. Everything at this point focuses on the fact that they were there. Jesus said, “Be there,” and they were there. They’re reminiscent of the availability of Isaiah, who after the vision of God, in chapter 6, verses 1 to 7, says, “Here am I, Lord; send me. I may not be the best – I’m a man with a dirty mouth – but I don’t see anybody else volunteering I think Your choices are limited. Here am I, send me.”
When the assembled saw Him, they worshipped Him, but some doubted (verse 17).
Henry explains the doubt on the part of some:
Now was the time that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, 1 Cor 15 6. Some think that they saw him, at first, at some distance, above in the air, ephthe epano—He was seen above, of five hundred brethren (so they read it); which gave occasion to some to doubt, till he came nearer (v. 18), and then they were satisfied.
MacArthur has more on the worship and the doubt:
There’s a second principle that I just want to mention – it doesn’t need to be elucidated at great length – and that is the attitude of worship that we see in verse 17. The first prerequisite or element in fulfilling this commission to make disciples is to be available; the second is to worship. And this is a question of focus; it’s a question of focus. It says in verse 17 – and this is absolutely marvelous, the way this verse appears – “And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him: but some doubted.”
I love that. I think that’s so honest. “And when they saw Him” – He appeared, all of a sudden, in the supernatural way in which He could transfer Himself from one place to another. He appeared, and in an instant, everyone saw Him in that supernatural appearance, and it created an instantly overwhelming effect, and they worshiped Him – proskuneō, to prostrate oneself in adoring worship. The risen Christ commanded their worship. They weren’t worshiping Him as some human dignitary, they weren’t worshiping Him as some earthly king.
They were worshiping Him as God, for it had been affirmed that He was indeed God, the Son of God. Even in His death, did not the centurion say, “Truly, this was the Son of God?” Did not Thomas say, “My Lord and My God,” as recorded in the twentieth chapter of John? This is more than homage to an earthly king. This is honor for God Himself in human flesh. They fall in adoring worship. They had worshiped once earlier; it’s referred to one other time that the disciples actually worshiped Him.
Remember that the people in Galilee had not seen Jesus in His post-resurrection glorified body. Combine that with the distance that some were from Him when He appeared, and you would have doubt:
… He is risen from the dead. Not only is He a miracle worker, but He is the One who has conquered death, and they have seen Him, and touched Him. Chapter 28, verse 9, the women held His feet, and the disciples touched His body, and He was with them. He went out of the grave, right through the stone, He came in the room, right through the wall.
And yet He was able to be touched, and they knew they were dealing with a divine, glorious, supernatural person. And so, when He appeared, they worshiped Him. And then, I love this note: “But some doubted.” You say, “Matthew, you shouldn’t put that in there. We’re trying to make a case for the validity of the resurrection; why would you do that?” And that, again, is a reminder to us of the transparent honesty of the biblical writer, who is not trying to contrive a believable story by reporting it in a selective way.
He’s not collecting evidence that’s only going to make his case. The integrity of this is a great proof of the truthfulness of it. If men were trying to falsify and contrive a message about a resurrection, they wouldn’t throw in the very climactic point but some doubted unless it was true. And it was true, so it’s included; and that’s the integrity of Scripture. And we ask ourselves, first of all, “What kind of doubt was this?” Well, some suggest that the doubters were the eleven, because it says, “some doubted,” and the some must go back to verse 16, the eleven disciples who were there.
Well, it possibly could be that some doubted. It doesn’t say that some doubted that Jesus was alive, or that they doubted that He was raised from the dead. The indication is when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted that it was Him. It wasn’t so much necessarily a question of the resurrection issue, but the doubt was that this was really Him. That could have happened among the disciples. Some of them may not have been able to clearly see His face.
Some of them, because He was appearing now in resurrection glory, and maybe revealing Himself in a way different than they had seen Him in the upper room, were really unable to be certain, and some of them were a little bit more hesitant to affirm this until they had surer evidence. But on the other hand, if the women were there, and including – included a group of, say, 489 plus the eleven, it could have been any of them. And keep this in mind – apart from the women and the disciples, none of those other people had ever seen Him after His resurrection.
So, this is the first time for them. So, we’re not surprised that now they’re going to have an experience they’ve never had. There’s a group that’s so large, 500 people, that not everybody’s going to be in the front of the group. Christ appears to them. They’re not sure that it’s Him. Maybe some of the disciples are not quite sure yet.
And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’ (verse 18).
The first important word in addressing the doubt is ‘came’ or, in other translations, ‘came nearer’. Everyone could see Him.
MacArthur says:
You say, “Well, how could they not be sure if He was there in their presence?” The answer comes in a very wonderful way at the beginning of verse 18, and it says, “And Jesus” – aorist active participle – “came nearer,” or approaching.
Which indicates to us the probable cause for their doubt, that Jesus in His appearance appeared at a distance. And it wasn’t until He came near them and began to speak that those who doubted would have their doubt erased. So, the doubts possibly could have come from those who were disciples, but as yet could not be sure that this was Jesus, because He was afar off. Or it could have come from those who had never ever seen Him in resurrection glory, and it wasn’t for them either until He was near that they could identify Him as the one they knew to be Jesus Christ.
But it’s so lovely, and so beautiful, that the writer includes this, because it’s so natural, and it’s so true, and it’s so uncontrived, and it’s such a convincing indicator of the validity of the scene itself. So, at first they doubted, but as He came near, all doubt was dispelled. Doubting the Son of God and worshiping the Son of God is mentioned in the same breath on one other incident that I mentioned earlier, in Matthew 14, when Jesus walked on the water, and seen at a distance, they doubted. When He came near, they believed, and they worshiped.
Henry points out our Lord’s understanding of their doubt:
Though there were those that doubted, yet, he did not therefore reject them; for he will not break the bruised reed. He did not stand at a distance, but came near, and gave them such convincing proofs of his resurrection, as turned the wavering scale, and made their faith to triumph over their doubts. He came, and spoke familiarly to them, as one friend speaks to another, that they might be fully satisfied in the commission he was about to give them.
Looking at our Lord’s statement about His authority over everything in heaven and on earth, MacArthur brings in the third element of evangelism:
It is not only an available heart, it is a worshiping heart. And then thirdly – and this is where we come to our lesson today – the third element of fulfilling the great commission we see in the passage is submission; submission. In verse 18, our Lord, when He does come near, speaks, and says, “All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” And He makes a statement, frankly, that staggers my thoughts, and it reaches far beyond my ability to conceive or articulate. He is making a claim to consummate sovereign authority.
He has all authority. Now the word authority is the word exousia. It basically is a word that means privilege or right or power or authority. Essentially, you could define it as the freedom to do whatever you wish. It is freedom without limitation. Jesus Christ, with all authority, is free to do what He wants, when He wants, where He wants, with what He wants, to whomever He wants. It is absolute freedom of choice and action. That’s the essence of sovereign authority.
It is useful to think of this authority when we are asked to do something for our own church. Do we say ‘no’ for whatever reason and risk our Lord asking at His Second Coming why we refused? Or do we accept that lay ministry — whatever it is, even cleaning the church or the church kitchen — without reservation? That’s something to think about.
Henry elaborates on the source and power of Christ’s authority:
… here he tells us, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; a very great word, and which none but he could say. Hereby he asserts his universal dominion as Mediator, which is the great foundation of the Christian religion. He has all power. Observe, (1.) Whence he hath this power. He did not assume it, or usurp it, but it was given him, he was legally entitled to it, and invested in it, by a grant from him who is the Fountain of all being, and consequently of all power. God set him King (Ps 2 6), inaugurated and enthroned him, Luke 1 32. As God, equal with the Father, all power was originally and essentially his; but as Mediator, as God-man, all power was given him; partly in recompence of his work (because he humbled himself, therefore God thus exalted him), and partly in pursuance of his design; he had this power given him over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as were given him (John 17 2), for the more effectual carrying on and completing our salvation. This power he was now more signally invested in, upon his resurrection, Acts 13 3. He had power before, power to forgive sins (ch. 9 6); but now all power is given him. He is now going to receive for himself a kingdom (Luke 19 12), to sit down at the right hand, Ps 110 1. Having purchased it, nothing remains but to take possession; it is his own for ever. (2.) Where he has this power; in heaven and earth, comprehending the universe. Christ is the sole universal Monarch, he is Lord of all, Acts 10 36. He has all power in heaven. He has power of dominion over the angels, they are all his humble servants, Eph 1 20, 21. He has power of intercession with his Father, in the virtue of his satisfaction and atonement; he intercedes, not as a suppliant, but as a demandant; Father, I will. He has all power on earth too; having prevailed with God, by the sacrifice of atonement, he prevails with men, and deals with them as one having authority, by the ministry of reconciliation. He is indeed, in all causes and over all persons, supreme Moderator and Governor. By him kings reign. All souls are his, and to him every heart and knee must bow, and every tongue confess him to be the Lord. This our Lord Jesus tells them, not only to satisfy them of the authority he had to commission them, and to bring them out in the execution of their commission, but to take off the offence of the cross; they had no reason to be ashamed of Christ crucified, when they saw him thus glorified.
Then Jesus announced His Great Commission: to go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (verse 19).
The next time someone says there should be no missionaries, remind them of that verse. Christ calls all believers to be missionaries, in whatever way we can. We might not be the ones doing the baptising, but we can lead people to that great sacrament, which brings us into communion with the Holy Trinity, the Triune Godhead we honour this particular Sunday.
Henry explains the manner in which Christ gave that command:
Go ye therefore. This commission is given, (1.) To the apostles primarily, the chief ministers of state in Christ’s kingdom, the architects that laid the foundation of the church. Now those that had followed Christ in the regeneration, were set on thrones (Luke 22 30); Go ye. It is not only a word of command, like that, Son, go work, but a word of encouragement, Go, and fear not, have I not sent you? Go, and make a business of this work. They must not take state, and issue out summons to the nations to attend upon them; but they must go, and bring the gospel to their doors, Go ye. They had doted on Christ’s bodily presence, and hung upon that, and built all their joys and hopes upon that; but now Christ discharges them from further attendance on his person, and sends them abroad about other work. As an eagle stirs up her nest, flutters over her young, to excite them to fly (Deut 32 11), so Christ stirs up his disciples, to disperse themselves over all the world. (2.) It is given to their successors, the ministers of the gospel, whose business it is to transmit the gospel from age to age, to the end of the world in time, as it was theirs to transmit it from nation to nation, to the end of the world in place, and no less necessary.
MacArthur explains how we should receive the Great Commission:
His terms are He is Savior and Lord, and He calls for submission. His word and His commands are absolute. And that’s why in verse 19 it says, “Therefore.” Therefore – what do you mean, therefore? “Since I’m in charge, you are to do this. Make disciples of all nations.” Why? “Because I am in charge, and I say to do that.” There’s got to be a submissive spirit. And when you look for someone that you want to invest your life into, when I look for someone that I want to invest my life in, that I feel has spiritual potential, I look for someone with a submissive spirit.
Someone who is – to put it in another term – teachable. He is the sovereign Lord. This isn’t negotiable. The great commission, the mission of the church, then, is predicated on three attitudes: the attitude of availability, the attitude of worship, and the attitude of submission. Now, listen to me. Those three attitudes indicate a God-centered preoccupation of the heart. They indicate a Godward focus, that my heart is set toward God, that there is a willing, devoted heart. I love in the Old Testament, when it talks about a willing heart.
Exodus 25, Exodus 35, Judges 5, Judges 8, Nehemiah 11, Esther – or Ezra 1, Ezra 3 verse 5, other places. It talks about “the people had a willing heart, the people had a willing heart.” That’s the kind of heart you see here, a willing heart, available; a worshiping heart, a submissive heart, to do what He says. And that’s – that’s the antithesis of being caught up in the inane trivia of our modern world; of spending our lives, and our time, and our talent, and our energy, and our money, and our resources, on ourselves.
So, you look at your own life, and if you’re not desirous of fulfilling the great commission, it isn’t that you need a zap from God, and it isn’t that you need some direct place to go, it is that you need to look to the attitude of your heart, and ask, are you available? Am I really available? Am I really worshiping? Do I have a single focus in my life? Am I submissive, so that when I find a command of God, I eagerly obey it? Now, those are three foundational attitudes. He has all authority, and if He has all authority, that means He has authority that extends to everything …
And here, in verse 19, is where we have the command, “make disciples of all nations,” and it calls for obedience. How are you doing that? How are you doing that? How are you making disciples of the people around you? The people around the world? How are you doing it? Or are you doing it? It may seem to you unnatural or impossible, as it must have to them, but it was commanded.
… He tells you how to do it, right here in verse 19, with three participles. The main verb is “making disciples of all nations.” The three participles are going, baptizing, teaching. That’s how you do it. Going, baptizing, teaching; that’s how you make a disciple. It isn’t just that they should believe, it is that they should believe and be taught.
It isn’t just that they are taught, it also encompasses their act of faith, which is symbolized in baptism. And neither of those can take place until you go to those people. The commission of the church is not to wait until the world shows up. The commission of the church is to go to the world, to go to them. Now let’s talk about that first participle, going, poreuthentes. Actually, in the Greek, it could be translated better having gone; having gone. It isn’t a command, go ye; that’s not a command in the Greek.
In the Authorized, they put it in the imperative mode, but in the Greek, it’s an assumption, having gone. I mean, it’s basic that if you’re going to make disciples of all nations, you’ve got to have gone; having gone is assumed.
MacArthur discusses baptism:
The first essential element of making disciples, then, is to go …
The second element, the second participle that modifies the main verb, is baptizing – “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Baptizō, a familiar term, means to immerse in water, to dip in water, and our Lord is saying, “When you go, you are to be baptizing.” Now, what import does this have? Why does He stress this? Because baptism was the outward sign of an inward act of faith in Christ. Baptism was synonymous with salvation, though baptism in no way saved.
It was the outward visible symbol of what had been done in the heart. And it was an overt act of obedience, by which a person could demonstrate the reality of the miracle of salvation. There’s no way that you can see someone being saved. I have never seen a salvation, have you? I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t be able to see it; it’s a supernatural spiritual transaction. I have never seen a salvation. All I have ever seen is the fruit of one, true? All I have ever seen is the result of one. And if I don’t see the result, then I have to question whether there was a salvation.
And in the early church, it was essential that salvation be demonstrated by the fruit of obedience, and that initial fruit of obedience was baptism, by which an individual testified to their union in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so beautifully symbolized in immersion. Now, the baptism of John the Baptist was different; it was a baptism of repentance, of a people repenting of their sin, to purify themselves inwardly, and show it. They were – show it by their outward baptism, to ready themselves for Messiah.
Jesus also baptized. John, of course, his baptism described in Matthew 3, Jesus’ baptism described in John 4:1 and 2. Jesus baptized, and it was also an outward symbol of a desire for a purified heart. But here is a new kind of baptism. For the first time, since Jesus died and rose again by now, people can be baptized as a demonstration of their identity with Christ in His death and resurrection …
Baptism, then, was commanded as we see here, and that’s why it was done. Jesus said, “Baptize them.” Now, when you get into the book of Acts, and people are converted, and you see them being baptized, you know why. Because they were obedient to a command. Those who put their faith in Christ were to be baptized, but the command here is for those who preach the gospel to baptize, which means that in giving the gospel, beloved, we are to tell people that it is not just something you believe, and that’s it.
It is something you believe, and publicly confess in this act of baptism. And when you find someone who is reluctant to do that, you may have reason to question the genuineness of their faith, for Jesus said, “Him that confesses Me before men, him will I confess before My Father who is in heaven.” This is public confession. No one is saved by baptism itself. Water can’t save you. Any religious rite or act is impotent to save you. But this is an act of obedience. This is a symbol. And that is why the Scripture so repeatedly emphasizes baptism.
… When you come to Christ, confess Him as Lord and Savior, believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and demonstrate that in an act of obedient baptism, you are a disciple …
MacArthur then discusses the baptismal formula that Christ gave versus others in the New Testament and says that even the others are valid:
Now, would you notice that He says baptism is in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?
First of all, I need to say that that is not necessarily a formula for baptism; that’s a common way, and we often use that in our baptisms, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” And it’s a beautiful way to do that. There are, however, several occasions in the book of Acts where people are baptized in the name of the Lord, baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is no baptism in the book of Acts in which this formula is ever used. It only appears here.
Every baptism specifically where any formula is given, or any statement is made as to who the baptism is in or into, is the Lord, the Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ. Now, we conclude from that, then, really, that there’s no binding formula. People want to make a big case out of that, but there’s really no binding formula. To baptize someone in the name of Jesus Christ is simply to baptize them, sort of demonstrating and portraying and picturing their union with Jesus Christ, and that’s wonderful; and that says plenty.
Here, we just have the fullest statement possible. Baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, shows not only their union with Christ, but their unity with the whole Godhead. It’s a fuller, and richer, and more comprehensive statement. But, in no way should we construe that it is some kind of absolutely necessary formula, since there are other statements made in the book of Acts. The wonderful thing we do want to note, though, in the book of Acts, is that they were obedient to this, and everywhere the gospel was preached and everywhere people believed, people were being baptized.
Acts 2:41, Acts 8:38, Acts 9:18, the tenth chapter of Acts with Cornelius, verse 48, the sixteenth chapter of Acts, verse 33, the Philippian jailer and his family. You come into Acts 18:8, Acts 19:5, the followers of John the Baptist, over in Acts 22, I think around verse 10, baptisms, baptisms, baptisms, baptisms, always going on, always going on. And so, we’re not looking at some kind of ceremonial rite, in which conversion takes place by water, and there’s some special formula you have to say.
It’s just that our Lord has given us the richest possible statement of the comprehensive union that occurs when a saint comes to faith in Jesus Christ. We are one with the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; marvelous thought. That’s a great statement, also, because Christ puts Himself on a level with the other two members of the trinity, and those people who want to say that Jesus never claimed to be God have got some problems in that verse. He puts Himself on a level with the other two members of the trinity.
It’s a great verse, also, to prove the trinity. All three persons are there. And would you please notice this: it doesn’t say, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit,” nor does it say, “In the names of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” It is one name with three persons, the mystery of the trinity. The name means all that a person is and does, all that is bound up in that name. The name means all that God is as a trinity, all that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are.
We are baptized in. And the word eis could mean into, it could mean unto, it could mean in. It’s just the idea that when we are baptized, we come into a union with the trinity through Jesus Christ. And as I said before, it symbolizes His death and resurrection. We have a full union with Jesus Christ. What a wonderful, glorious thought. And not only with Him, but with the Father, and with the Son, as well. Now, the point is this: becoming a disciple happens at salvation, and involves a full union with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, which is a transforming reality demonstrated by the beautiful ceremony of baptism.
Jesus ended by saying that the people gathered with Him were to teach others to obey everything that He commanded them, adding (verse 20), ‘And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age’.
That applies to us also, as MacArthur explains:
What are we called to do, then? While we’re going, or already having gone, we are to be bringing men to the Savior, baptizing them as an outward testimony of this inward union. And then, would you notice verse 20: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” It’s not only a converting ministry that we’re called to, but it’s a teaching ministry. Now, we have to follow up that new convert, who is now desirous of being obedient, and therefore desirous of learning what it is he is or she is to obey, by teaching all things – the whole counsel of God, in terms of Acts 20:27.
Oh, that’s such a marvelous thing. We’re to teach them all things the Lord has commanded, lifelong; lifelong commitment to obedience. I love that. You see, being a disciple is a question of obeying commands. You can’t be a disciple of Christ without an obedient heart. You can’t be a disciple of Christ without a desire to follow Him as your Lord. That’s the whole point of the rich young ruler, when He said to him, you know, “Take all you have, sell it, and give the money to the poor, and follow Me,” and the guy went away, and said, “Forget it. You’re not in charge of my life.” He couldn’t be converted.
Coming to Christ is saying, “You are in charge of my life. I submit. I want to be obedient.” And so, He says to those people gathered there, “You teach them all the things whatsoever I have commanded you.” And He’d commanded them a lot. And some of them would write it down. John 14:26, He told them, “I’ll send you the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said.” And the Bible writers wrote it down. The Spirit of God gave it to all of us. We have the commands of Christ. We have the words of Christ. We have the teaching that He gave.
And that is what we are to teach other people. We are to teach them all of it; all of it. I love that. All things. There are not options. There – there’s just a great, grand host of teachings, to which we must submit. There’s no true discipleship apart from personal faith in Christ, and there’s no true discipleship apart from the desire for an obedient heart. That’s why the Bible talks about the obedience of faith. That’s why it says, in Hebrews 5:9, that the only people who really are people who have been redeemed – Hebrews 5:9 – the only ones whom Christ has really transformed – and I think this is so clear – it says, “are all them that obey Him.”
We find the specifics in the books following the Gospels. Some are difficult teachings to obey, especially in today’s world, which gets more bizarre by the day in distancing itself from biblical truth. Believers are called to be Christlike, to reject the world, to become dead to sin rather than dead in it. That comes from knowing Scripture, praying for more faith and grace and submitting to our Lord’s will for our lives.
May all reading this have a blessed Trinity Sunday.
The First Sunday after Epiphany, the Baptism of the Lord, is January 8, 2023.
Readings for Year A can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
Matthew 3:13-17
3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him.
3:14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
3:15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
3:16 And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.
3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
Today’s verses describe the beginning of our Lord’s ministry.
Matthew Henry’s commentary provides the context:
The fulness of time was come that Christ should enter upon his prophetical office; and he chooses to do it, not at Jerusalem (though it is probable that he went thither at the three yearly feasts, as others did), but there where John was baptizing; for to him resorted those who waited for the consolation of Israel, to whom alone he would be welcome. John the Baptist was six months older than our Saviour, and it is supposed that he began to preach and baptize about six months before Christ appeared; so long he was employed in preparing his way, in the region round about Jordan; and more was done towards it in these six months than had been done in several ages before.
Henry has a practical application for us:
Christ’s coming from Galilee to Jordan, to be baptized, teaches us not the shrink from pain and toil, that we may have an opportunity of drawing nigh to God in ordinance. We should be willing to go far, rather than come short of communion with God. Those who will find must seek.
John MacArthur says there is proof that Jesus was 30 years old at the time:
We know that Jesus began His ministry when He was 30. We know that because Luke 3:23 tells us that.
MacArthur reminds us that the intention of Matthew’s Gospel is to prove to the Jews, beginning with His lineage, that Jesus is the Messiah and the King of kings. This was another pivotal moment for the Apostle to record:
We come to the last paragraph in the 3rd chapter of Matthew … Matthew presents the Lord Jesus Christ as King. That’s Matthew’s particular approach. He wants the world to know that Christ is the promised King, the Anointed One, the Messiah, the King of kings, and Lord of lords … John’s major message is that Jesus is God; and in every paragraph almost in the entire gospel of John, John points up something of the deity of Christ.
Well, in almost every paragraph of Matthew, Matthew is dealing with the kingly nature of Christ, and no different as we come to the end of the third chapter, for here we find the commissioning of the King. Matthew doesn’t say it in those terms, but that is precisely what occurs. In the majesty of the moment, Matthew does manage to capture in all of its fullness. There’s something strikingly majestic about this text. All of the anticipation of the previous texts seems to come to fulfillment here, because, as we come to Matthew 3:13, we read the words, “Then cometh Jesus.” And really, for the first time, the Lord Jesus appears upon the stage. Up until this time it has been preparatory. Matthew has been commenting on various elements in the beginnings of Jesus: His birth, the things surrounding His birth, His forerunner, etc. But now, finally, Jesus steps onto the stage. Jesus takes the place of prominence.
The anticipation that has been building since the beginning of this record is now fulfilled. In chapter 1, verses 1 to 17, we saw the ancestry of the King. In chapter 1, verses 18 to 25, we saw the arrival of the King, His birth. In chapter 2, verses 1 to 12, we saw the adoration of the King, the worship given to Him by the magi. In chapter 2, verses 13 to 23, we saw the attestation to the King. That is, He is attested to be the King by the fulfillment of specific prophecy. And in chapter 3, verses 1 to 12, we saw the announcer of the King, John the Baptist. And now, finally, after all of that, we come in chapter 3, verses 13 to 17 the arrival of the King. If you wanna add another one, the anointing of the King.
This is, as it were, His coronation. This is His commissioning, the beginning of His ministry. It’s a rich and a blessed section of Scripture. The King comes out of 30 years of seclusion, 30 years of obscurity, 30 years of being hidden, as it were, finally to manifest Himself to the world. John the Baptist, the voice of one crying in the wilderness, has made ready the path. The way is prepared. The path is straight, and from the quiet seclusion of Nazareth, the Lord Jesus comes to inaugurate His work, to assume His office, and He is commissioned. He is crowned, as it were, in a very wonderful way right here …
Now, I want us to see three aspects to the commissioning of Jesus Christ. First, the baptism of the Son. Second, the anointing of the Spirit. Thirdly, the word of the Father, and you will notice that all the Trinity is involved – the baptism of the Son, the anointing of the Spirit, and the word of the Father. This is a very important passage for instruction on the Trinity, because all of them are here synonymously, all acting at the very same time; and if you’re looking for a passage in which to find the Trinity, this is as good as any.
Thirty years of peaceful preparation, thirty years of being in Nazareth, now comes to an end. That is all buried, and the King comes for the storm and the stress of the unique work that God has commissioned Him to do.
Matthew says that ‘then’ Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptised by him (verse 13).
MacArthur says there is no more detail on what ‘then’ denotes:
Now, you notice the verse begins with “then.” This is very vague. Doesn’t tell us much of anything. We don’t know when the “then” was other than the fact that the “then” hooks us up with the time of the ministry of John the Baptist.
Our Lord was among other people at this time. He did not request a private audience with his cousin:
… in Luke chapter 3 and verse 21, a parallel passage. The Word of God says, “Now when all the people were being baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized.” Now Luke then tells us that Jesus came when all the other people were coming. This was no private audience with John. This was no little, intimate tête-à-tête. This was no secret commissioning. Jesus just came along with everybody else, and we will see the absolute significance of that in a little while.
MacArthur also points out the verb ‘came’, which is ‘cometh’ in his translation:
You’ll notice that he uses the word “cometh.” Very interesting word, paraginomai. It is a word that has multiple meaning potential, but it is a word that is used specifically in many places to refer to making a public appearance. It was a word used sometimes to speak of the arrival of a teacher, somebody who was to take a public, a significant place in public vision or the public eye. In fact, it is the same verb used in verse 1, “In those days came John the Baptist.” It seems to be used, then, at least in some cases, for the initiation of a public ministry. And so, in that sense, this text is saying, “Then Jesus, initiating His public ministry, came from Galilee.” And, by the way, Mark 1:9 adds, “From Nazareth in Galilee” …
He came unto John, specifically, His cousin and His forerunner; and here it’s kind of a, like a relay race. John is about to pass the baton to Christ. This is the phasing out of the ministry of John and the beginning of the ministry of Jesus.
Jesus would have walked quite a distance:
We don’t really know exactly where on the Jordan River John was, but it could’ve been as much as a 60-mile walk for the Lord to get there; and, at this time, He’s coming alone. Just beginning His ministry. Nothing really has taken place at all. He steps out of the obscurity of Nazareth, walks maybe as much as 60 miles, makes His public appearance, initiating His ministry.
John ‘would have prevented’ — wanted to prevent — Him from doing so, saying that he was the one to be baptised by Him, not the other way around (verse 14).
MacArthur thinks it is possible that the two cousins would have met at some point when they were children:
Now, perhaps Jesus and John knew each other. I know they knew about each other. I know Jesus knew about John, the forerunner, ’cause He was omniscient. I know John knew about Jesus, because they were cousins. You say, “Well, how does that, how does that prove that John knew about Him?” Well, for many reasons. Perhaps when they were babies they may have played together. Perhaps when they were little children, they may have spent time together. Then John went his way into the wilderness, and Jesus remained in the seclusion of Nazareth. John staying for his lifetime in that wilderness area. Perhaps they never met again, but I’m quite confident that John knew that Jesus was the Messiah. There’s several things that help me to understand that. One is that Elizabeth called Jesus Lord; and if she, John the Baptist’s mother, believed He was Lord, there’s no question in my mind that she would’ve passed that on to her son. And the very fact that he is instantly recognizing Jesus here and recognizes Him for who He is is another indication that, indeed, he knew.
John rightly points out that he himself is human and therefore prone to sin. Therefore, the Lord should be baptising him.
John’s was a baptism of repentance, and he did not grant it to all who approached him.
MacArthur reminds us:
John’s treatment of Jesus is the very opposite of the way he treated the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Verse 7, they came to be baptized, and “When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come for baptism, he said to them, ‘O generation of vipers, who’s warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits befitting repentance.’“
Now, listen, he refused to baptize the Pharisees and the Sadducees because they weren’t repentant. You see that? He refused to baptize them because they were impenitent. They were sinful. Here, he refuses to baptize Jesus because He is sinless and has nothing to repent of. And so the whole idea makes no sense to him. He who towered above the Pharisees and the Sadducees – who thought they towered above everybody – finds himself bowed in deepest humility before Jesus.
Jesus answered John saying, ‘Let it be so now’, in order for righteousness to be properly fulfilled; then John consented (verse 15).
MacArthur explores the verse:
It was a baptism of sinners, and John was, in effect, saying, “If You do this, You’re just saying one thing, Lord, and I don’t know how You can possibly say it when You’re sinless.” John is saying, “If You enter my baptism, You enter it on these terms, and that’s it.” Well, what’s the answer?
Well, let Jesus give it Himself, in verse 15. By the way, these are the first recorded words of Jesus since He was 12 years old and spoke to His mother and told her He had to be about – What? – “His Father’s business.” This is the first time He’s said anything other than that in all of Holy Scripture since His incarnation, and they are words with royal dignity and humility. Verse 15, “And Jesus answering said unto him, ‘Permit it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented to him …
Now, Jesus does not deny that He is a superior and John is an inferior. He does not deny that John needs also to be baptized, because John is a sinner. He does not deny that John needs repentance. He does not deny that He doesn’t need it; but He says, “There’s a special reason, John, and permit it to be so now.” This is an idiom. “I know it’s unusual, but let it go this time. Allow it now. Yield to Me this time. It’s unusual, but it’s necessary.”
Why? “For thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” The phrase “thus it becometh us” means “it is proper for us to do this.” “This is okay, John. This is right to do, even though I have no sin, and even though you’re a sinner, even though it is a baptism of sinners, it is a baptism of repentance. We’ve gotta do it.” And notice the “us.” “For thus it becometh us.” “We both have a part. You must do this to Me, and I must have it done.” Why? “To fulfill all righteousness.”
Now, here’s the key. “To fulfill all righteousness.” Does it mean that Jesus wants to do everything that’s righteous? Yes. That Jesus wants to do all the righteous good deeds? Yes. That whatever good work there is, Jesus will do? Yes. Is baptism such a good work? Yes. Then perhaps Jesus is simply identifying with it as an act of righteousness. It was repentant sinners who came to that water. It was righteous men and women who came to that water; and is Jesus simply identifying with all the various acts of righteousness, all the various acts of godliness and holiness? Well, certainly, in His life He did that.
Henry says that Jesus followed all religious precepts, and baptism was no different. Furthermore, by being baptised, He set a divine ordinance that we should follow. Baptism is a sacrament in the Church:
Our Lord Jesus looked upon it as a thing well becoming him, to fulfil all righteousness, that is (as Dr. Whitby explains it), to own every divine institution, and to show his readiness to comply with all God’s righteous precepts. Thus it becomes him to justify God, and approve his wisdom, in sending John to prepare his way by the baptism of repentance. Thus it becomes us to countenance and encourage every thing that is good, by pattern as well as precept. Christ often mentioned John and his baptism with honour, which that he might do the better, he was himself baptized. Thus Jesus began first to do, and then to teach; and his ministers must take the same method. Thus Christ filled up the righteousness of the ceremonial law, which consisted in divers washings; thus he recommended the gospel-ordinance of baptism to his church, put honour upon it, and showed what virtue he designed to put into it. It became Christ to submit to John’s washing with water, because it was a divine appointment; but it became him to oppose the Pharisees’ washing with water, because it was a human invention and imposition; and he justified his disciples in refusing to comply with it.
As for John’s consent:
The same modesty which made him at first decline the honour Christ offered him, now made him do the service Christ enjoined him. Note, No pretence of humility must make us decline our duty.
When Jesus had been baptised, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens opened to Him and He saw the Spirit of God — the Holy Spirit — descending like a dove and alighting on Him (verse 16).
Henry explains our Lord’s baptism, which was short and at the water’s edge, because He was and is without sin:
Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water. Others that were baptized staid to confess their sins (v. 6); but Christ, having no sins to confess, went up immediately out of the water; so we read it, but not right: for it is apo tou hydatos—from the water; from the brink of the river, to which he went down to be washed with water, that is, to have his head or face washed (John 13 9); for here is no mention of the putting off, or putting on, of his clothes, which circumstance would not have omitted, if he had been baptized naked. He went up straightway, as one that entered upon his work with the utmost cheerfulness and resolution; he would lose no time. How was he straitened till it was accomplished!
MacArthur, on the other hand, thinks that Jesus had a full immersion baptism.
I agree with Henry. Jesus had no need of a full immerson baptism because of His sinless nature.
However, this is what MacArthur says:
Baptidzo – well, before we look at the word, the context helps us, and so does the concept. Now, listen, if John the Baptist had a baptism that symbolized conversion — the word “repent” means “conversion” — if it symbolized a transformation, if it symbolized a purification, a washing of sin, it would seem to me that immersion is the only proper picture. It isn’t just a little dribble on the top. It’s a cleansing. It’s a washing, so the very significance of the baptism of John points to immersion. Further, if Jesus was using this as a symbol of His death and resurrection, that also points to – What? – immersion. Trickling water on someone’s head does not fit the symbolism of dying, being buried, and rising again as immersion does. Further, it says, “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.” Whatever kind of baptism this was, He had to go into the river to get it. Certainly not necessary for sprinkling or pouring.
Now, I would add that verse 6 says, backing up, “They were baptized by him in the Jordan.” “In the Jordan.” Now John was baptizing in the Jordan River. The word en, e-n in the Greek, is translated “in,” is used often interchangeably with the word eis, which means “into,” and I won’t take the time to show you all the parallel passages. But the two words are used interchangeably, and when they are used interchangeably for the same incident, “into” is the stronger word. We take “in” to mean “into,” and in other accounts of the baptisms of John, we find the word “into.” And if the word “in” here is used and elsewhere “into” is used, we would take “into” as the strong word, and this word then would have the meaning of “into.” Now, maybe you’re “out of it” listening to that. Maybe that wasn’t too clear, but that’s the truth anyway.
And I’ll tell you something interesting. It says in John chapter 3, verse 23, “And John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there.” Now, there’s no reason to be concerned about where there’s the most water if you’re sprinkling. “There was much water there” – water that could be used for immersion. And in the 8th chapter of Acts, and verse 38, “And Philip and the eunuch went down into the water. Both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.”
So it seems to me that the references, and, by the way, there is no reference to sprinkling anywhere in the entire New Testament. The only word we ever have in reference to baptism is baptidzo. By the way, Old Testament proselyte baptism was always immersion. Read Leviticus 14, verses 8 and 9. So you have the Old Testament standard of immersion. You have the idea of “into” — the preposition used frequently in reference to it. You have the concept that much water was there. They went down into the river. They came out of the river. You have the picture of death and resurrection. You have the idea that this is a transformation that is symbolized. All of this seems to point to immersion.
Henry discusses the significance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, a bird much referenced in the Bible. ‘Canticles’ in the next paragraph refers to the Song of Solomon:
He descended on him like a dove; whether it was a real, living dove, or, as was usual in visions, the representation or similitude of a dove, is uncertain. If there must be a bodily shape (Luke 3 22), it must not be that of a man, for the being seen in fashion as a man was peculiar to the second person: none therefore was more fit than the shape of one of the fowls of heaven (heaven being now opened), and of all fowl none was so significant as the dove. [1.] The Spirit of Christ is a dove-like spirit; not like a silly dove, without heart (Hos 7 11), but like an innocent dove, without gall. The Spirit descended, not in the shape of an eagle, which is, though a royal bird, yet a bird of prey, but in the shape of a dove, than which no creature is more harmless and inoffensive. Such was the Spirit of Christ: He shall not strive, nor cry; such must Christians be, harmless as doves. The dove is remarkable for her eyes; we find that both the eyes of Christ (Cant 5 12), and the eyes of the church (Cant 1 15; 4 1), are compared to doves’ eyes, for they have the same spirit. The dove mourns much (Isa 38 14). Christ wept oft; and penitent souls are compared to doves of the valleys. [2.] The dove was the only fowl that was offered in sacrifice (Lev 1 14), and Christ by the Spirit, the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God. [3.] The tidings of the decrease of Noah’s flood were brought by a dove, with an olive-leaf in her mouth; fitly therefore are the glad tidings of peace with God brought by the Spirit as a dove. It speaks God’s good will towards men; that his thoughts towards us are thoughts of good, and not evil. By the voice of the turtle[dove] heard in our land (Cant 2 12), the Chaldee paraphrase understands, the voice of the Holy Spirit. That God is in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, is a joyful message, which comes to us upon the wing, the wings of a dove.
Henry looks at the purpose of the Holy Spirit in our Lord’s ministry:
He saw the Spirit of God descended, and lighted on him. In the beginning of the old world, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Gen 1 2), hovered as a bird upon the nest. So here, in the beginning of this new world, Christ, as God, needed not to receive the Holy Ghost, but it was foretold that the Spirit of the Lord should rest upon him (Isa 11 2; 61 1), and here he did so; for, [1.] He was to be a Prophet; and prophets always spoke by the Spirit of God, who came upon them. Christ was to execute the prophetic office, not by his divine nature (says Dr. Whitby), but by the … Holy Spirit. [2.] He was to be the Head of the church; and the Spirit descended upon him, by him to be derived to all believers, in his gifts, graces, and comforts. The ointment on the head ran down to the skirts; Christ received gifts for men, that he might give gifts to men.
A voice from heaven said, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased’ (verse 17).
Henry says that this was the sign that God was reconciling mankind unto Himself through His Son Jesus:
See here how God owns our Lord Jesus; This is my beloved Son. Observe, [1.] The relation he stood in to him; He is my Son. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, by eternal generation, as he was begotten of the Father before all the worlds (Col 1 15; Heb 1 3); and by supernatural conception; he was therefore called the Son of God, because he was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost (Luke 1 35); yet this is not all; he is the Son of God by special designation to the work and office of the world’s Redeemer. He was sanctified and sealed, and sent upon that errand, brought up with the Father for it (Prov 8 30), appointed to it; I will make him my First-born, Ps 89 27. [2.] The affection the Father had for him; He is my beloved Son; his dear Son, the Son of his love (Col 1 13); he has lain in his bosom from all eternity (John 1 18), had been always his delight (Prov 8 30), but particularly as Mediator, and in undertaking the work of man’s salvation, he was his beloved Son. He is my Elect, in whom my soul delights. See Isa 42 1. Because he consented to the covenant of redemption, and delighted to do that will of God, therefore the Father loved him. John 10 17; 3 35. Behold, then, behold, and wonder, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that he should deliver up him that was the Son of his love, to suffer and die for those that were the generation of his wrath; nay, and that he therefore loved him, because he laid down his life for the sheep! Now know we that he loved us, seeing he has not withheld his Son, his only Son, his Isaac whom he loved, but gave him to be a sacrifice for our sin.
Returning to Matthew’s theme of Christ’s Kingship, MacArthur says:
His divine nature needed no special gift. It needed no strengthening; but, you see, there were two parts that we need to understand here that were taking place in terms of His humanness. One, He was being anointed for service; and two, He was being granted strength in His humanness. The Spirit came to anoint Him for kingly service.
… Isaiah 61:1, listen to this: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek. He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” – etc. – “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. He has anointed me to preach.” The Spirit of God came upon Him in His humanness to empower Him to preach, to anoint Him as the Prophet of God. In Acts 10:38, the writer says, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit.”
You notice that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth.” That’s His human identification. So His humanness was anointed. He was inaugurated into His kingly office. He was empowered for ministry. His humanness needed to be strengthened. Do you know that? He grew weary. He grew thirsty. He grew tired. He grew hungry. His humanness needed strengthening, so the Spirit of God descended to announce, “This is the King. This is the Anointed,” and to strengthen Him in His humanness for His ministry …
And, finally, there was one other part to His commission – the word of the Father. Verse 17, “And lo, a voice from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'” Now, listen, there’s one thing about a sacrifice. Whenever a sacrifice is offered to God, it has to be the right one. True? Without spot, without blemish, and that is precisely what God is saying. “This One, who identifies with sinners, this One who is to be the dove of sacrifice. I say in Him I am well pleased. I accept Him as the sacrifice.” Great statement …
And so, beloved, what do we see in the commission here? He is chosen to be a king, but His, but His throne is gonna be a cross. He’s chosen to be a king, but He’s gonna die, a sin offering. And so He is commissioned. By baptism, He identifies with sinners and pictures His death. By being anointed with the Spirit, He is empowered to minister a ministry that ultimately will make Him a sacrifice. The dove of sacrifice. And by the Father’s word, He is said to be the worthy sacrifice. What an introduction. What a beginning. What a ministry was His.
May everyone reading this enjoy a blessed Sunday.
The Second Sunday of Advent is on December 4, 2022.
Readings for Year A can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
Matthew 3:1-12
3:1 In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming,
3:2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”
3:3 This is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke when he said, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’”
3:4 Now John wore clothing of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.
3:5 Then the people of Jerusalem and all Judea were going out to him, and all the region along the Jordan,
3:6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
3:7 But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
3:8 Bear fruit worthy of repentance.
3:9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.
3:10 Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
This is a long post, so grab yourself a cuppa and a snack.
To set the background for John the Baptist, it had been 400 years since God had sent the Jews a prophet.
Malachi was the last. This is Malachi 4, with which the Old Testament ends:
Judgment and Covenant Renewal
4 [a]“Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them. 2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves. 3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty.
4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.
5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. 6 He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”
John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea proclaiming (verse 1) repentance, for the kingdom of heaven was near (verse 2).
Matthew Henry’s commentary points out that both John the Baptist and his cousin Jesus were of humble families and led unremarkable childhoods, yet figured mightily in God’s plan:
Glorious things were spoken both of John and Jesus, at and before their births, which would have given occasion to expect some extraordinary appearances of a divine presence and power with them when they were very young; but it is quite otherwise. Except Christ’s disputing with the doctors at twelve years old, nothing appears remarkable concerning either of them, till they were about thirty years old. Nothing is recorded of their childhood and youth, but the greatest part of their life is tempos, adelon—wrapt up in darkness and obscurity: these children differ little in outward appearance from other children, as the heir, while he is under age, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all. And this was to show, 1. That even when God is acting as the God of Israel, the Saviour, yet verily he is a God that hideth himself (Isa 45 15). The Lord is in this place and I knew it not, Gen 28 16. Our beloved stands behind the wall long before he looks forth at the windows, Cant 2 9. 2. That our faith must principally have an eye to Christ in his office and undertaking, for there is the display of his power; but in his person is the hiding of his power. All this while, Christ was god-man; yet we are not told what he said or did, till he appeared as a prophet; and then, Hear ye him. 3. That young men, though well qualified, should not be forward to put forth themselves in public service, but be humble, and modest, and self-diffident, swift to hear, and slow to speak.
Matthew says nothing of the conception and birth of John the Baptist, which is largely related by St. Luke, but finds him at full age, as if dropt from the clouds to preach in the wilderness. For above three hundred years the church had been without prophets; those lights had been long put out, that he might be the more desired, who was to be the great prophet. After Malachi there was no prophet, nor any pretender to prophecy, till John the Baptist, to whom therefore the prophet Malachi points more directly than any of the Old Testament prophets had done (Mal 3 1); I send my messenger.
Henry describes this wilderness, sometimes called a desert, of Judea, which has biblical significance:
It was not an uninhabited desert, but a part of the country not so thickly peopled, nor so much enclosed into fields and vineyards, as other parts were; it was such a wilderness as had six cities and their villages in it, which are named, Josh 15 61, 62. In these cities and villages John preached, for thereabouts he had hitherto lived, being born hard by, in Hebron; the scenes of his action began there, where he had long spent his time in contemplation; and even when he showed himself to Israel, he showed how well he loved retirement, as far as would consist with his business. The word of the Lord found John here in a wilderness. Note, No place is so remote as to shut us out from the visits of divine grace; nay, commonly the sweetest intercourse the saints have with Heaven, is when they are withdrawn furthest from the noise of this world. It was in this wilderness of Judah that David penned the 63d Psalm, which speaks so much of the sweet communion he then had with God, Hos 2 14. In a wilderness the law was given; and as the Old Testament, so the New Testament Israel was first found in the desert land, and there God led him about and instructed him, Deut 32 10. John Baptist was a priest of the order of Aaron, yet we find him preaching in a wilderness, and never officiating in the temple; but Christ, who was not a son of Aaron, is yet often found in the temple, and sitting there as one having authority; so it was foretold, Mal 3 1. The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple; not the messenger that was to prepare his way. This intimated that the priesthood of Christ was to thrust out that of Aaron, and drive it into a wilderness.
The beginning of the gospel in a wilderness, speaks comfort to the deserts of the Gentile world. Now must the prophecies be fulfilled, I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, Isa 41 18, 19. The wilderness shall be a fruitful field, Isa 32 15. And the desert shall rejoice, Isa 35 1, 2. The Septuagint reads, the deserts of Jordan, the very wilderness in which John preached.
As the prophets did before him, John the Baptist exhorted his audiences to repent, to turn their lives away from sin:
Those who are truly sorry for what they have done amiss, will be careful to do so no more. This repentance is a necessary duty, in obedience to the command of God (Acts 17 30); and a necessary preparative and qualification for the comforts of the gospel of Christ. If the heart of man had continued upright and unstained, divine consolations might have been received without this painful operation preceding; but, being sinful, it must be first pained before it can be laid at ease, must labour before it can be at rest.
John MacArthur looks at the Greek word for ‘proclaim’, or ‘preach’:
It says in verse 1, “He came preaching,” and the Greek word there is “to herald,” “to announce,” “to proclaim,” kerusso … Also, it’s interesting that it says, “In those days came John,” and the verb “came” there is literally used in the Greek to speak of the arrival of an official. The arrival of an official. John was an official herald announcing the arrival of a king; and you know his message in verse 2? “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” And “at hand” means it’s imminent, it’s the next thing …
Kerusso, the noun form is krux or krux, and it means “a herald.” Literally, “one who with a loud voice announces the arrival of a king” – a herald. And so he was heralding. He was heralding, and what was he heralding? “Repent!” That was the message. “This kind of King demands that you repent.” In other words, He wants you to worship Him, but you can’t worship Him legitimately until you get sin out of the way. You can’t come to Jesus Christ and just worship Him first. First, you’ve gotta deal with your sin. That’s what he was saying.
He was saying to Israel, “Look, you just can’t accept the King and begin to worship the King. You’ve gotta get rid of your sin.” In fact, it’s the identical message that Jesus preached when He came. Matthew 4:17, “From that time Jesus began to preach.” And what did He say? “Repent.” Same sermon. Jesus and John preached the same sermon. The word “repent,” metanoeo, means more than just sorrow. We think of repentance, and we say, “Oh, he’s so repentant. He’s weepy, and he’s sorrowful.” That isn’t what the word means in the Greek. It means “to turn around.” It means “to be converted.” It means a change of opinion. A change of purpose. A change of direction. A change of mind. A change of will. A change from sin to holiness.
Broadus, who has written a classic commentary on Matthew, says, “Wherever this Greek word is used in the New Testament, the reference is to changing the mind and the purpose from sin to holiness. It implies sorrow for sin, but that’s not what it means. It means to turn around.” It is 2 Corinthians 7 that talks about godly repentance, godly sorrow, that turns you around, and that’s what John was saying. He wasn’t just saying, “I want you to feel sorry for your sin.” He was saying, “I want you to change from sin to holiness. You will never have the kingdom. You will never have the King until you turn around.” The message really could be better translated, “Get converted. Get converted.”
MacArthur discusses Matthew’s use of the words ‘the kingdom of heaven’:
The precise phrase, “the kingdom of heaven,” is not found in the Old Testament; but it is an Old Testament concept. This is why I say that. Nebuchadnezzar, for instance, in Daniel 4:37, refers to God as “the king of heaven.” Daniel 2:44 calls Him “the God of heaven”; and Daniel 4:25 says, “He will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed.” Now, the God of heaven, the King of heaven, God and heaven are then associated. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God then are associated terms.
Now, Matthew uses the term “kingdom of heaven” 32 times; and he is the only gospel writer that ever uses it. Mark doesn’t use it. Luke doesn’t use it. John doesn’t use it. They use “the kingdom of God,” and there may be a special reason for that. As I tried to point out from Daniel, and there are many other illustrations, heaven and God were thought of as synonymous. God was the King of heaven; and the reason Matthew may use it is because Matthew’s gospel is a characteristically Jewish gospel; and one thing about Jews that you learn historically as you study Judaism is that a Jew would never say the name of God; and in deference to that, they would substitute frequently the term “heaven.”
MacArthur explains what the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, is:
The kingdom of heaven has two aspects. Two aspects – the outer and the inner, and sometimes, in the gospels, the outer is in view, and sometimes the inner is in view. Let me show you what I mean. In the broadest sense, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, includes – watch this – everybody who professes to acknowledge God. Now, in Matthew 13 we’ll see that, that the kingdom of heaven’s got in it wheat and what? Tares, right? That the kingdom of heaven is like a great big bush with birds in it; and you’ve got the true and the false, the real and the non-real.
So in the outer sense, the kingdom of heaven is, is everybody that professes; but in the inner sense, it’s only the really regenerated, born-again, genuinely saved people; and in some passages, the inner is in view; and in some, the outer; and we’ll see that as we go through Matthew. The big circle of profession includes the true and the false. The little circle only those truly born again in Christ.
Now, tracing the kingdom will help us a little bit. Let me give you a quick little historical look at the kingdom. We’re gonna go flying by, so hang on. There are five distinct phases in the kingdom. Five phases. I, I tried to reduce a very difficult subject to simple terms so I could understand it and pass it on to you simply.
First of all, it’s talking about the rule of God. The rule of God over the hearts of men and over the world. Both are included. Now, the first phase of this thing is the prophesied kingdom, the prophesied kingdom. For example, Daniel said that God is gonna come and set up a kingdom, a kingdom that’ll never be destroyed; and Daniel foresaw that Christ would be the King of that kingdom. It was a prophesied kingdom.
The second thing, the second phase of this is what you could call the present kingdom or the at-hand kingdom; and that was the kingdom described by John the Baptist. He was saying, “The prophesied rule of God is now imminent. It’s now ready.” Jesus said it. The twelve said it. It’s at hand. It’s coming. It’s imminent. It’s near. The rule of God, the reign of Christ, both internally and externally – it’s here.
Then the third phase of the kingdom was what I call the interim phase. The prophesied, the imminent or at-hand, and the interim; and, there, the kingdom is described in this way. After the King was rejected by Israel, the King returned to heaven, and the kingdom now exists in a mystery form. Christ isn’t literally in the world, literally reigning, literally sitting in Jerusalem ruling the kingdom; but He reigns a kingdom in the hearts of all who acknowledge Him as Lord, right? So it’s an interim kingdom, the mystery form. So you have the prophesied, the at-hand, which would’ve been both earthly and internal, the whole thing; and when they wouldn’t accept the King, the kingdom went inside; and now in a mystery form is in the hearts of those who believe. And, as Paul says in Romans 14:17, “The kingdom of God is righteousness and joy and peace in the Holy Spirit.” It’s internal.
The fourth phase of the kingdom is what I call the manifest phase. You start with the prophesied, the at-hand, the interim, and then the manifest; and this is the literal, thousand-year millennium that is to come. It will involve an external rule where Christ literally rules, physically in the earth, and an internal where He rules the hearts of the believing people.
The book of Revelation talks about this. Jesus, in Matthew 16, gave people a glimpse of this in the transfiguration. So what do you have? You have the prophesied kingdom, the at-hand one, the interim one, the manifest one for a thousand years; and finally what I call the everlasting kingdom. Second Peter 1:11, Peter calls it, “The eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” The fifth and final phase.
Now, that’s generally the flow of the kingdom. The Old Testament prophesied a kingdom — a kingdom that would be external, where they would literally be in the earth; and the earth would be the place of the kingdom; and the earth would be ruled by the King; and it would also be internal, the hearts of the believing people would submit to that reign. And John and Jesus and the twelve said it’s at hand. But it was rejected, and so an interim, internal kingdom has taken form now that we call this mystery age. But one day the kingdom will be manifest internally and externally, and then that thousand-year kingdom will exist and, at the end of that, an everlasting kingdom.
This bit is particularly interesting:
So John was talking about the at-hand. Now listen to me – had they received John, and had they received Christ, there never would have been the interim – you understand that – there never would have been the mystery church age. They would have gone into the thousand-year manifest kingdom and from there right into the everlasting kingdom, and John would have been that Elijah and it would have all been fulfilled. But when they killed the forerunner and they killed the King, the whole thing was future postponed and in the meantime the mystery kingdom dwells in the hearts of believing people. And Christ may not be reigning in the world, but He’s reigning in my heart, right, and your heart. So John was calling the nation to turn its back on sin, to be converted, to get ready for the kingdom, because the kingdom was coming. The tragedy of it is that they didn’t hear his message. They didn’t listen. They never received the kingdom, and that whole generation died without the King, died without the kingdom, and went into hell. So the man, the message, and the motive.
The notion of the herald continues as Matthew tells is that Isaiah spoke of a man in the wilderness who would cry out, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’ (verse 3).
MacArthur explains:
Fourthly, the mission. Simply stated, and we’ve already seen it, he was called to be the herald of Christ, but the mission was laid out long before in the Old Testament prophets. Look at verse 3, “For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make His paths straight.'” He fulfilled Isaiah 40, verse 3, “He is the one of whom the prophets spoke.” He is the one who was to come and get things ready, and he was preparing a way. Not a road, not a dirt path, but a way into the hearts of believing people. He was “the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”
Oh, that’s such a great passage. Isaiah 40, you see, that tells us about the forerunner in 40, verse 3. But in the verses after it tells us why he was getting them ready. Listen to chapter 40 verse 1, “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people,” and you can’t know what an exciting thing that was in chapter 40 ’cause they had just had 39 chapters full of judgment; and, boy, here comes this comfort. “Speak ye tenderly to Jerusalem. Cry to her. Her warfare is accomplished. Her iniquity is pardoned. She’s received from the Lord hands, Lord’s hands double for her sins.” All that’s done, and now comes the voice of him that cries in the wilderness, “Prepare the way of the Lord. Make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”
Why?! Because the kingdom is coming, and he describes it this way: “Every valley shall be exalted. Every mountain and hill shall be made low. The crooked shall be made straight, and rough places plain. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” One of the, one of my favorite passages of the Messiah taken from that marvelous text.
You see, John was crying to prepare the people for the kingdom, and Isaiah described the kingdom in 4 and 5. He was fulfilling the prophetic word of Isaiah. “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make his paths straight. Prepare a road into your heart by turning from sin.” So his mission was preparation, deep conviction. He wanted to bring to bear on Israel such conviction that they confessed they were unfit, sinners, poor, damned, miserable – he was a judgment preacher. He was a judgment preacher designed by God from way back in the book of Isaiah to confront a wicked, evil nation and get ’em right for the arrival of the King. So he fulfilled prophecy.
Part of the herald’s job was to make sure that the road upon which the forthcoming king travelled was smooth and free of obstacles.
MacArthur says that the straight paths here were spiritual rather than literal:
So to John was given the role of being the herald of the King, announcing the King’s arrival and making sure the people made the preparations so that the path was smooth. This was a customary oriental thing, and John was called to do it. Only in his case, he was heralding the King of kings; and in his case, he wasn’t asking people to prepare a dirt road. He was asking them to prepare the road into their hearts, that the King might enter there. That was his purpose.
Henry has more on the corrupt religious system that the Jewish hierarchy imposed on the people, legalistic without holiness:
In the Jewish church and nation, at that time, all was out of course; there was a great decay of piety, the vitals of religion were corrupted and eaten out by the traditions and injunctions of the elders. The Scribes and Pharisees, that is, the greatest hypocrites in the world, had the key of knowledge, and the key of government, at their girdle. The people were, generally, extremely proud of their privileges, confident of justification by their own righteousness, insensible of sin; and, though now under the most humbling providences, being lately made a province of the Roman Empire, yet they were unhumbled; they were much in the same temper as they were in Malachi’s time, insolent and haughty, and ready to contradict the word of God: now John was sent to level these mountains, to take down their high opinion of themselves, and to show them their sins, that the doctrine of Christ might be the more acceptable and effectual. (2.) His doctrine of repentance and humiliation is still as necessary as it was then to prepare the way of the Lord. Note, There is a great deal to be done, to make way for Christ into a soul, to bow the heart for the reception of the Son of David (2 Sam 19 14); and nothing is more needful, in order to this, than the discovery of sin, and a conviction of the insufficiency of our own righteousness. That which lets will let, until it be taken out of the way; prejudices must be removed, high thoughts brought down, and captivated to the obedience of Christ. Gates of brass must be broken, and bars of iron cut asunder, ere the everlasting doors be opened for the King of glory to come in. The way of sin and Satan is a crooked way; to prepare a way for Christ, the paths must be made straight, Heb 12 13.
John wore simple clothes made from camel hair along with a leather belt; he ate locusts and wild honey (verse 4).
It is probable that he had taken a lifelong Nazirite vow, as Samson and Samuel did.
However, our commentators note that Old Testament prophets dressed similarly and lived simply without that particular vow.
Henry says that John might have purposely dressed like Elijah:
John appeared in this dress, (1.) To show that, like Jacob, he was a plain man, and mortified to this world, and the delights and gaieties of it. Behold an Israelite indeed! Those that are lowly in heart should show it by a holy negligence and indifference in their attire; and not make the putting on of apparel their adorning, nor value others by their attire. (2.) To show that he was a prophet, for prophets wore rough garments, as mortified men (Zech 13 4); and, especially, to show that he was the Elias promised; for particular notice is taken of Elias, that he was a hairy man (which, some think, is meant of the hairy garments he wore), and that he was girt with a girdle of leather about his loins, 2 Kings 1 8. John Baptist appears no way inferior to him in mortification; this therefore is that Elias that was to come. (3.) To show that he was a man of resolution; his girdle was not fine, such as were then commonly worn, but it was strong, it was a leathern girdle; and blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he comes, finds with his loins girt, Luke 12 35; 1 Pet 1 13.
As for his meagre diet from foraging, Henry posits that he probably had more normal meals, just not that often:
… his meat was locusts and wild honey; not as if he never ate any thing else; but these he frequently fed upon, and made many meals of them, when he retired into solitary places, and continued long there for contemplation. Locusts were a sort of flying insect, very good for food, and allowed as clean (Lev 11 22); they required little dressing, and were light, and easy of digestion, whence it is reckoned among the infirmities of old age, that the grasshopper, or locust, is then a burden to the stomach, Eccl 12 5. Wild honey was that which Canaan flowed with, 1 Sam 14 26. Either it was gathered immediately, as it fell in the dew, or rather, as it was found in the hollows of trees and rocks, where bees built, that were not, like those in hives, under the care and inspection of men. This intimates that he ate sparingly, a little served his turn; a man would be long ere he filled his belly with locusts and wild honey: John Baptist came neither eating nor drinking (ch. 11 18)—not with the curiosity, formality, and familiarity that other people do. He was so entirely taken up with spiritual things, that he could seldom find time for a set meal.
The people of Jerusalem and all of Judea as well as those who lived along the Jordan flocked to him (verse 5).
MacArthur says:
This man had an amazing impact. He called the society to attention. In Matthew 21:26, it says, “For all men hold John as a prophet.” It was common belief this was a prophet from God, and they went out.
John baptised people in the River Jordan and they confessed their sins (verse 6).
This was radical, because the Jews of that era had ritual ceremonial baths but not the type of baths that proselytes — converts — had. John the Baptist’s form of baptism was the kind that those converting to Judaism had.
MacArthur explains:
As much of a shock as it was, people came, and they were baptized, and they confessed their sin. Can you imagine it out there? One crowd after another, everywhere, even in Galilee they came.
The fact that they were baptized is shocking. I’ll tell you why. Listen to me. Never — I’ll say it again — never in all history had any Jew submitted to being baptized. Okay? This is something new. “Oh,” you say, “what about the Levitical washings?” Those were different. The Levitical washings of the hands and the feet and the head and all of that were frequent. There were certain ceremonial bathings among the Essenes, which was a community of the Jews living out in that area; but all of those – listen to this – purification ceremonies were repeated daily and even hourly if you sin. You understand that? These were just ceremonial washings, and every time you suspected another pollution, you did it again.
John’s baptism was a one-time, one-shot deal; and Jews never did that. You say, “Why?” Listen to this. Because single baptism was exactly what was required of a Gentile proselyte, who was entering into Judaism. And a Jew who would submit himself to that kind of baptism would be saying, in effect, “I am an outsider seeking entrance into the people of God,” and that’s quite an admission, isn’t it? They were literally indulging themselves in proselyte baptism.
So, they did this; it was really a step. A member of God’s chosen people, a son of Abraham, assured of God’s salvation, baptized like a common proselyte? And, yet, that’s exactly what John asked of them. He called Israel to realize that their nationality couldn’t save ’em. Their race couldn’t save ’em. They had to forsake sin. They had to be converted to righteousness. They had to get in the kingdom like everybody else did; and in the East, no act of religion, no act of crisis in religion was ever done in the heart without an external act to go with it. That was part of the culture, and baptism in the Jordan River was the sign of the public confession of sin that had occurred in the heart.
So John was calling for a fundamental transformation that even a Jew had to make. Now, some of these people were hypocritical. Some of them went through it, but they were phony … the fascinating confrontation with the snakes who were also known as Pharisees. But they came confessing their sins. The man had an incredible impact on the entire country.
When John saw the Pharisees — those who had devised the legalistic religious system — and the Sadducees — those who ran the temple system and did not believe in the divinely supernatural — he called them a brood of vipers and asked them who warned them to flee from the wrath to come (verse 7).
MacArthur says that the Pharisees inherited their beliefs from the predecessors, the Hasidim. (Today’s Hasidim are probably a mix of the original and of the Pharisees.) The Pharisees focused more on legalism than holiness:
… it all started out kind of okay with the Hasidim, but by the time it got to the reorganized Pharisees, they perverted everything. And there was no inward life left. There was no real devotion. There was no real consecration. There was no real piety. There was no real godliness. It was all an external, phony deal to set themselves above everybody else as the real super spiritual people. They were, literally, fanatics at self-righteousness. They withdrew themselves, Luke 7:39 says, from all sinners. And they tried to condemn Jesus for even going near sinners. You remember that? They blasted Him for hanging around drunkards, winebibbers and sinners, and any of those kinds of people. They tried to force Jesus into their same kind of fanatical self-righteousness.
The Sadducees got rich off the sacrificial system and courted the Greeks when they ruled, then the Romans:
They didn’t particularly care about the intrusion of Greek culture. They could have cared less about Greek customs. They were the ones who courted and kowtowed and hassled around and fiddled with Rome to get everything they could out of it. The high priests at the time of Jesus were Sadducees. They were compromisers. They didn’t believe in any resurrection, so they didn’t have to worry about how they lived ’cause there weren’t any consequences. They just, you know, made hay while the sun shined, that’s all. Everything was here-and-now, get it while you can get it, make it while you can.
And so they did everything they could politically to make sure they got out of Rome all they could get and they played the political game to get into the seats of power. They were few in number, extremely wealthy. They were a priestly party, and the chief priest, by the way, is almost a synonym when you see that in the Bible. The term chief priest, the New Testament, is almost a synonym for the Sadducees. Their big thing was to make money, and they ran the temple franchises. You say, “What?” Oh, yeah, they had big business in the temple. When certain feast time came – in fact, all year long, when people came there, pilgrims from other countries, to make sacrifices – the first thing they had to do was exchange their money, because they had to buy sacrificial animals. And in the temple they sold everything, the doves and the pigeons and the goats and the sheep. They sold it all there. They provided the whole bit, and when these pilgrims would come to the temple they would first of all have to exchange their money to trade in Jerusalem. And the place you exchanged your money was at the temple and, of course, they charged an exorbitant interest to change the money. And then it turned right around, when they went to buy the animals, they paid incredible prices for the animals and the Sadducees were gettin’ wealthier and wealthier and wealthier. And that’s why Jesus went in with a whip and cleaned them out. And when He cleaned the thing out, that’s when He alienated the Sadducees ’cause that was their business that He was messing with. And that’s why people like Annas and Caiphas hated Him for the rest of the time that He lived and ministered, until finally they got Him to the cross.
MacArthur analyses the verse and explains why the two groups were there:
In Matthew 3 we find a very interesting thing in the Greek. “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” What’s interesting to me about this, in the Greek there are two nouns but only one article. And it seems to me that John is kind of pointing to the fact that he saw them as one group. It’s sort of like he was saying, “and when he saw the Pharisees/Sadducees.” They’re just like one group, one class of religious phonies, one class of people all wrapped up in the religion of human achievement. In one case it was get it now, in one case it was earn it for later, in both cases it was the same thing.
You say, “Well, John, if they’re so bad off and they’ve got it all figured out with their human achievement, why are they coming to be baptized?” Good question. Why are they coming to be baptized? What do they want out of John? Well, you know something? The Bible doesn’t tell us why they came. But I’ll give you some reasons that I thought of. First of all, they may have come because they were curious. I mean, if the whole city of Jerusalem had come out there, you know that they’re gonna come out. And it’s amazing that they figured it was a threat to them, too – Right? – or they wouldn’t have banded together. Or at least we assume they were together because they appear together so frequently following this. I think maybe, too, that the Bible tells us, you know, that all men perceive that John the Baptist was a prophet, and I think they were intimidated by the population that thought this man was a prophet of God. And maybe they even had some real questions ’cause they’d had prophetic silence for 400 years. Maybe they figured that maybe the people are right. Maybe the guy’s a prophet. We certainly can’t stay in here and be ignorant while everybody in town’s running out to find out about it. We gotta find out about this guy. And so under the pressure of curiosity and the pressure of the people believing he was a prophet, they showed up. And I got another think, too. I think maybe they figured if they didn’t join the people, they might get left out and then the people would know something they didn’t know and they might lose their influence.
And I think, also, that they probably wanted to get in on the movement so they could move to the top and take it over. Listen, that’s an old one. We’ve got that in Christianity today. We’ve got all kinds of people running churches and running organizations in Christianity who aren’t Christians. Satan moves these people in. The apostle Paul told us that. “Beware, because when I leave grievous wolves shall come in not sparing the flock.” Watch out for false teachers. Watch out for false apostles. Watch out for the people who want to come in and take over the church – false leaders. They wanted to get in on it. This was a movement that was gonna make a difference. If this was a movement that was gonna capture the people, then they were willing to stoop to conquer. Now, you can see they were all the wrong reasons. There was no real repentance, no real repentance, no real confession of sin, no honest spirituality, no real search for God, no real heart-rending sorrow, no desire to get a heart that was sinful righteous, to get ready for the coming King and His kingdom. They were so smug and self-righteous. They believed that they would be the great exalted ones in the kingdom when it came, just as they were; so they didn’t repent. There wasn’t any conversion, no transformation. They were just deceitful hypocrites. And they just come walking out minding their own business and they run into John. And I don’t know what they figured about this guy, but I’m sure they didn’t figure what they got.
Henry says that John was warning these two groups about the wrath here and the wrath to come. Recall that the Romans destroyed the temple in AD 70:
Note, (1.) There is a wrath to come; besides present wrath, the vials of which are poured out now, there is future wrath, the stores of which are treasured up for hereafter. (2.) It is the great concern of every one of us to flee from this wrath. (3.) It is wonderful mercy that we are fairly warned to flee from this wrath; think—Who has warned us? God has warned us, who delights not in our ruin; he warns by the written word, by ministers, by conscience. (4.) These warnings sometime startle those who seemed to have been very much hardened in their security and good opinion of themselves.
MacArthur explains why John called them a brood — offspring — of vipers:
“O, offspring of snakes, who chased you out here?” The proud sons of Abraham, honored leaders of the nation, and he says, “You offspring of vipers.” You know, the Lord must have liked that title for them ’cause He used it a lot. It became rather common. Jesus said to them in Matthew 12:34, “O offspring of vipers.” And then over in Matthew 23:33, Jesus said again to them, “O offspring of vipers” Boy, I mean, that’s pretty strong stuff. What does he mean by that? Well, he exposes in one expression the great and fatal sin that marked them. He condemns them instantly as religious phonies. Let me tell you why. Viper, echidna, interesting little Greek word. It refers to a small, poisonous desert snake, very familiar to John the Baptist. And that snake was so deceitful. It looked like a dead branch or a little stick, and it would stay still and somebody gathering firewood, phe-ew! That’s exactly what happened on Melita in Acts 28, you remember, in verse 3, the firewood, and Paul was at the fire and that little thing that looked like a stick got Paul, Acts 28. That was the viper, deceitful. Suddenly it would strike and sink its teeth in and shoot its poison. Now, he doesn’t call them just vipers; he calls them offspring of vipers, for they were just the product of the people who preceded them. He really talked about the sin of their fathers. But they were deadly hypocrites. They were poisoning a whole nation with their fatal deception. They were passing themselves off as if they were harmless and they were venomous. And by the way, it was fitting that he called them vipers because their own originator and their own leader was nothing but a viper himself, and who was that? – Satan. Revelation, chapter 12, verse 9 and Revelation, chapter 20, verse 2, Satan is seen as a serpent. He is a serpent in the Garden. John 8, he is a deceiver. He is a liar. And so he calls them poisonous, deceitful vipers, snakes.
It is common to see vipers slither out of the way of danger:
… basically, in the desert, and if you were there today, you’d see that this is all there is – in places in the desert there was dry, short grass, and it’s just very dry and you see fields of it. Maybe it’s sometimes left over from a harvest, but just sometimes growing there. Perhaps the water of the Jordan allowing some growth and then as the heat of the summer comes and the Jordan becomes a little narrower, it dries out and is very parched. And then, now and then, around the desert, as John would well know, you would see these stunted little bushes, thorny bushes, very brittle for lack of water. And sometimes a desert fire would come. And when a desert fire would break out, it would sweep like a river of flame across that dry grass and those brittle little thorny bushes. And invariably, and this is still true, in front of that wall of fire would come scurrying these little snakes, these little vipers, and other little scorpions and desert creatures running for their lives. In fact, the same thing happened when a field was burned. Today in America we still burn fields after harvest. They did the same then. During the time when the grain was growing, the snakes would hide in the grain. They would live there. And then all of the sudden the harvest would come and they might endure the harvest. And then the field burning would come and if the field was being burned, you’d see the little snakes fleeing across the desert in front of the fire. And so John the Baptist faces the snakes and says, “What made you run to safety before the fires of judgment?” You see this picture? Graphic. He sees these people scurrying in front of the flame. It’s as if to say, “Who brought you snakes out of your holes?” … What brought you out of your holes? What fire got you moving? And, you know, in his own mind and in his own heart, he knew what that fire was. It was the fire of the judgment of God he’s about to talk about. But that wasn’t what really moved them. They weren’t moved by the fire of the judgment of God; they were chased out of their holes by Satan. The devil had pushed them out there to carry out their hypocrisy. And just like snakes scurrying before a fire, they were running out there as chased by Satan. They should have been running out there running from the wrath of God with real repentance.
John warned that repentance is evidenced by worthy fruit (verse 8), meaning that those who have truly turned away from sin will lead sincerely godly lives, not just on the surface — not through legalism — but in spontaneous and heartfelt good deeds.
MacArthur explains:
What he’s saying is there oughta be a change in your lifestyle. Stop doing what you used to do. Do righteous things, not unrighteous things. Be loving and sharing and kind. He says to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, if you got two coats, give one to somebody and if you’ve got food, give it to somebody who’s hungry. Let me see something in your life. That’s exactly what James says: “Faith without works is” – What? – “dead.” You’ll never prove true repentance unless the fruit of repentance and the work of repentance is visible. True repentance will manifest a changed life. And there’s a beautiful little word here. “Bring forth, therefore, fruits befitting repentance.” That Greek word means “of equal weight.” In other words, there ought to be works that are of equal weight with repentance so you can see it’s legitimate. And this wasn’t true of them, and he knew it, and they knew it, and everybody around knew it. And so he nails ’em with it. “If you’re coming here with genuine repentance, then let’s see it. Let’s see your life change.”
John had a special message for his fellow Jews: their Abrahamic lineage meant nothing. John said that, if He chose to do so, God could raise stones as children to Abraham (verse 9).
The Jews of that era were fond of saying they had nothing to worry about spiritually, because Abraham was their father. They did not need to repent. John was telling them otherwise, hence the exhortation to be baptised as if they were Gentile converts.
MacArthur elaborates:
“Think not to say within yourselves, ‘we have Abraham as our father,’ for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Big deal! “You have Abraham as your father. God can make a child of Abraham out of a rock. You’re not so hot.” Now, this he says, “Stop presuming on your descent from Abraham as a passport to heaven.” Boy, this was really a shock to them. Do you realize that orthodox Jews believed that they were saved by their Jewishness? I’m sure you know that. The rabbis said, quote, “All Israelites have a portion in the world to come.” They believed that. They talked about – listen to this – they talked about “the delivering merits of the fathers,” “the delivering merits of the fathers.” They had their own Jewish treasury of merits. Another thing the rabbis taught was that Abraham sat at the gates of Gehenna and hell to turn back any Israelite who happened by chance to come that way. They said that it was the merits of Abraham which enabled the ships to sail safely on the seas, that it was because of the merits of Abraham that the rain descended on the earth, that it was the merits of Abraham which enabled Moses to enter into heaven and receive the law, that it was because of the merits of Abraham that David’s prayer was heard, even for the wicked these merits sufficed. They said, “If thy children were mere dead bodies without blood vessels or bones, thy merits, O Abraham, would avail for them.” And it’s just that spirit that John is rebuking. A degenerate person cannot claim salvation on the basis of a heroic past. An evil son cannot plead the merits of a saintly father. They were tryin’ to hold onto their nationality. They were dead wrong …
And the Pharisees and the Sadducees that confronted John were headed for hell because they were relying for their eternal security on their descent from Abraham. They were Jews, and they were so smug. And he says to them, “God is able to take these stones and make children unto Abraham out of ’em.” What a statement. You see, it minimizes the importance of being a son of Abraham. But more than that – listen to this. It is a symbolic statement, I feel. If these Jews – now watch – if these Jews, by turning their hearts to stone in resisting God’s converting grace, if they wish to do that, if they wish to turn their hearts to stone, then God will take stones – lifeless, useless, dead things – and make them into his sons. And I believe those stones are symbols of the Gentiles. “If you want to turn into rocks, dead, lifeless and useless, then I’ll take the dead and lifeless and useless Gentiles and turn ’em into sons.” In chapter 8, verse 10, Jesus said the same thing. He met a centurion servant who was a Gentile, and he saw, and he listened and he marveled and he said, “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” I never met a son like this. And here’s a rock that I can turn into a son. “And I say unto you that many” [such Gentiles] “shall come from the east and west and sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom” – the Jews – “shall be cast out into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” If God finds a son who has become a rock; He’ll find a rock that He can make a son out of. And so John confronts them and condemns them.
There is a note of caution here for Christians, too. Some firmly believe that the denomination they belong to is the only one that brings salvation and that anyone who doesn’t belong to it is destined for hell. That sort of thinking is along the lines of the Jews invoking Abraham here.
MacArthur says:
You know something very interesting to me? Do you know that the rich man in hell in the story that Jesus told about the rich man and Lazarus – You remember that? – the rich man went to hell; the rich man was a man who had Abraham for his father. That’s right. He had Abraham for his father. I’ll tell you something else. He even heard Abraham call him “son” and it didn’t do him any good. He recognized Abraham as a father. Abraham recognized him as a son racially; it didn’t do him any good. No religious attainment does.
Tying into that verse, John then goes into an agricultural analogy which everyone listening to him would have understood, even if they lived in Jerusalem. He said that the ax is lying at the root of the trees, and that every tree that does not bear good fruit will be thrown into the fire (verse 10). Farmers chop down trees that don’t bear fruit. Gardeners do, too. Those trees are wasting space that could be used for productive trees.
Henry says:
It is now declared with the axe at the root, to show that God is in earnest in the declaration, that every tree, however high in gifts and honours, however green in external professions and performances, if it bring not forth good fruit, the fruits meet for repentance, is hewn down, disowned as a tree in God’s vineyard, unworthy to have room there, and is cast into the fire of God’s wrath—the fittest place for barren trees: what else are they good for? If not fit for fruit, they are fit for fuel.
To understand this more fully, MacArthur explains true repentance as expressed in Psalm 51:
First of all is the intellectual. Repentance begins when there is a knowledge of sin, when there is a recognition of sin. So John, like any good preacher of repentance, confronted people with sinfulness. There had to be an understanding of sin involving a sense of personal guilt, a sense of personal defilement, a sense of personal helplessness. Now, all three of these are illustrated very aptly in Psalm 51 … first of all is the intellectual part in verse 3. “For I acknowledge my transgression and my sin is ever before me.” Verse 7, “Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.” Verse 11, “Cast me not away from thy presence. Take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Now, in all three of those verses is a recognition of sin. Verse 3 explicitly, “For I acknowledge my transgressions, my sin is ever before me.” Verse 7 and 11, implicit, the sense that he needs to be cleansed, the sense that he needs to be purged, that there is something wrong, that God may leave him, verse 11, the Holy Spirit may be removed from him. And so there is an acknowledging, an acknowledging of sin, a recognition of what we are before God. That is the beginning of repentance …
There must be, secondly, the emotional; and … this what we have in the feelings. We go from the mind to the feelings, and it becomes a recognition not only of sin, but that sin is hateful to a holy God, and then there is an overwhelming sense of guilt in the emotions. Psalm 51 again – in this psalm where David is facing his sin, we find this element in verse 1: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness, according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.” You see, here is a man crying for mercy and the only man who needs mercy is a man who is – What? – guilty. You see, innocent men don’t need mercy. Justice will do fine for them. It’s guilty men that need mercy, and David recognizes here that he is guilty and his emotions are stirred. In verse 10, “Create in me a clean heart” – he sees the evil in his heart – “O God, renew a right spirit in me.” Verse 14, “Deliver me from blood guiltiness.” And David even felt the anxiety and the pain in his physical body. He cries out to God in the midst of this sin, in terrible anguish in his heart … True repentance doesn’t think of consequences, it doesn’t think of other people’s opinion, and it doesn’t think of excuses; it does think of transgressing God, it does think of being personally guilty. So it is lupe kata theon, “sorrow toward God.” That’s the issue. And when there is genuine repentance, there will be this deep sense of sorrow directed toward a holy God who has been offended.
But no matter how convinced the mind is about sin, and no matter how pained the emotions become, even in the right way, true repentance will never happen without the third area, and that’s volitional – intellectual, emotional, and volitional. There’s got to be an act of the will. There’s got to be a turning around. With David he recognized it and he felt guilty for it and his guilt was directed toward God, but the thing that really made the repentance happen was the fact that he had an act of will in which he said “I will not do this anymore. I turn from this.” He changed his life pattern. Look at Psalm 51, verse 5. “Behold, I was shaped in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me.” He recognizes that this is the past, this is the way it was. But in 7 he says, “Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean. Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.” Turn it around. Turn this depravity around. Turn this sinfulness around. “Create,” verse 10, “in me a clean heart, O God. Renew a right spirit within me.” You see, his will wanted a dramatic change. That’s vital. That’s vital.
Guilt is of no use if we do nothing with it to change our lives with the help of divine grace.
Now on to MacArthur’s explanation of verse 10:
… John is saying this: “Look, you can pretend to be running from the wrath to come. You can pretend to be fleeing from the judgment of God, but if there’s not any fruit there, and if you’re depending upon your self-righteous smugness and your descent from Abraham to save you, you’re in a lot of trouble because the axe is already laid at the root of your tree because there’s no fruit. There’s an imminency here. He says – look at it – “the axe is laid unto the root of the trees” already. “Now,” he says, “it’s there. It’s there now. Judgment is now. It’s imminent.” Notice a most interesting thing that judgment, in John’s preaching and in all of the prophetic preaching of the Old Testament, was connected with the coming of the Messiah, just as much as salvation was.
As Henry said above, there is judgement here and judgement in the life to come. MacArthur agrees:
I can’t help but think back a few weeks ago in Matthew that as soon as that little baby arrived, as soon as that little baby arrived it wasn’t very long until other little babies were slaughtered, until there was chaos in Israel, until 70 A.D. came and the whole nation of Israel was drowned in a bloodbath and the city of Jerusalem literally obliterated from the map. When John preached this word, when John said the axe is laid at the root of the tree, do you realize the destruction of Jerusalem was only about 40 years away and it would be all over. And so there was imminent judgment. By the way, this is always true. There is always imminent judgment, because the moment you die, the moment any man dies, there is judgment. Oh, not the final great white throne judgment, but listen, when you die without Jesus Christ, at that moment you go out of the presence of God forever. That’s judgment. And, additionally, God brings about judgment and vengeance even in this life before we die. If you live a life in violation of God’s principles, you will suffer consequences here and now. Read the book of Proverbs. The bottom line in the book of Proverbs is this: It’s gonna be good for the good and bad for the bad, here and later. That’s the bottom line in the book of Proverbs. Good for the good, bad for the bad, now and later. The axe head is at the root of the tree. And, of course, ultimately, the great white throne judgment – terrible, fearful, fearful judgment. So, John had to say judgment is just as near as the kingdom is near. If the King comes, He comes not only to save, but He comes to judge and always the same. By what you do with Jesus Christ, you determine whether He’s the Savior or the Judge.
Then John spoke of Jesus. John said that he provided a baptism of repentance but that Jesus — unnamed here — was more powerful and coming after him; John said he was unworthy of carrying His sandals and that he would baptise the people with the Holy Spirit and fire (verse 11).
Henry says:
See how meanly he speaks of himself, that he might magnify Christ (v. 11); “I indeed baptize you with water, that is the utmost I can do.” Note, Sacraments derive not their efficacy from those who administer them; they can only apply the sign; it is Christ’s prerogative to give the thing signified, 1 Cor 3 6; 2 Kings 4 31. But he that comes after me is mightier than I. Though John had much power, for he came in the spirit and power of Elias, Christ has more; though John was truly great, great in the sight of the Lord (not a greater was born of woman), yet he thinks himself unworthy to be in the meanest place of attendance upon Christ, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He sees, (1.) How mighty Christ is, in comparison with him. Note, It is a great comfort to the faithful ministers, to think that Jesus Christ is mightier than they, can do that for them, and that by them, which they cannot do; his strength is perfected in their weakness. (2.) How mean he is in comparison with Christ, not worthy to carry his shoes after him! Note, Those whom God puts honour upon, are thereby made very humble and low in their own eyes; willing to be abased, so that Christ may be magnified; to be any thing, to be nothing, so that Christ may be all.
Of Christ’s forms of baptism, Henry tells us:
By the powerful working of his grace; He shall baptize you, that is, some of you, with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Note, [1.] It is Christ’s prerogative to baptize with the Holy Ghost. This he did in the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit conferred upon the apostles, to which Christ himself applies these words of John, Acts 1 5. This he does in the graces and comforts of the Spirit given to them that ask him, Luke 11 13; John 7 38, 39; See Acts 11 16. [2.] They who are baptized with the Holy Ghost are baptized as with fire; the seven spirits of God appear as seven lamps of fire, Rev 4 5. Is fire enlightening? So the Spirit is a Spirit of illumination. Is it warming? And do not their hearts burn within them? Is it consuming? And does not the Spirit of judgment, as a Spirit of burning, consume the dross of their corruptions? Does fire make all it seizes like itself? And does it move upwards? So does the Spirit make the soul holy like itself, and its tendency is heaven-ward. Christ says I am come to send fire, Luke 12 49.
John warned that Christ’s winnowing fork is in His hand and that he will clear the threshing floor, gathering His wheat — the saved — into His granary but burn the chaff with unquenchable fire (verse 12).
Henry explains:
By the final determinations of his judgment (v. 12); Whose fan is in his hand. His ability to distinguish, as the eternal wisdom of the Father, who sees all by a true light, and his authority to distinguish, as the Person to whom all judgment is committed, is the fan that is in his hand, Jer 15 7. Now he sits as a Refiner. Observe here [1.] The visible church is Christ’s floor; O my threshing, and the corn of my floor, Isa 21 10. The temple, a type of church, was built upon a threshing-floor. [2.] In this floor there is a mixture of wheat and chaff. True believers are as wheat, substantial, useful, and valuable; hypocrites are as chaff, light, and empty, useless and worthless, and carried about with every wind; these are now mixed, good and bad, under the same external profession; and in the same visible communion. [3.] There is a day coming when the floor shall be purged, and the wheat and chaff shall be separated. Something of this kind is often done in this world, when God calls his people out of Babylon, Rev 18 4. But it is the day of the last judgment that will be the great winnowing, distinguishing day, which will infallibly determine concerning doctrines and works (1 Cor 3 13), and concerning persons (ch. 25 32, 33), when saints and sinners shall be parted for ever. [4.] Heaven is the garner into which Jesus Christ will shortly gather all his wheat, and not a grain of it shall be lost: he will gather them as the ripe fruits were gathered in. Death’s scythe is made use of to gather them to their people. In heaven the saints are brought together, and no longer scattered; they are safe, and no longer exposed; separated from corrupt neighbours without, and corrupt affections within, and there is no chaff among them. They are not only gathered into the barn (ch. 13 30), but into the garner, where they are thoroughly purified. [5.] Hell is the unquenchable fire, which will burn up the chaff, which will certainly be the portion and punishment, and everlasting destruction, of hypocrites and unbelievers. So that here are life and death, good and evil, set before us; according as we now are in the field, we shall be then in the floor.
Before I forget, MacArthur has an English anecdote that needs correction. As he preached these sermons in 1978, he did not have the benefit of the Internet.
MacArthur’s sermon says:
The story goes that Lady Huntington was invited, or rather invited, I should say – the Duchess of Birmingham – to come to hear George Whitfield preach. The duchess responded in this manner, quote, “It is monstrous to be told that you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl on the earth. It is highly offensive and insulting,” end quote. Well, Lady Huntington was insulted when George Whitfield attempted to call her to the recognition of sin, and consequently she never entered into the act of repentance.
I do wonder about the veracity of that story, since Selina Hastings, Countess of Huntingdon (1707-1791), devoted her life to the Christian faith and to charity. George Whitefield became her personal chaplain and preached to invited guests in one of her homes in London. She had connections with Anglicanism, her first denomination, then Calvinism and, finally, Methodism, participating in the work of the Great Revival.
In closing, MacArthur tells us what made John the Baptist the greatest human that ever lived:
Number one, made him great, he was obedient to God’s Word. From the very beginning of his life, he obeyed. From the very start of his life, he obeyed. He never wavered from the calling that God had given to him. From the time that he was a little child, he obeyed God. That’s part of greatness.
Second, he was filled with the Spirit. Luke 1:15 says he “was filled with the Spirit from the time of his mother’s womb.” He was great because he was obedient. He was great because he was filled with the Spirit of God. He was controlled by the Holy Spirit.
Thirdly, he was great because he was self-controlled. Luke 1:15 says he, “drank neither wine nor strong drink.” Matthew 3 says that, “His clothes were only what was necessary, and his food the same.” The man had self-control. The man had brought his body into subjection. He didn’t overdo anything …
Fourth, he was great not only because of his obedience, because he was Spirit-controlled, because he was self-controlled, but because he was humble. He was humble. The greatest thing he ever said, I think, in this regard was when Jesus finally arrived on the scene, and the disciples who had so fallen in love with John the Baptist were gathered around John, and they said, “And, John, now what? This, this is the Messiah, and He’s come, but, but what about you?” And John said in John 3, in verse 30, “He must increase, and I must” – What? – “decrease.” “It’s over for me, guys. You go and give your love to Him. I’m not even worthy to unlatch His shoe.” Right? That’s what he said. Humble.
Fifth, he was great because he proclaimed God’s Word. “Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” You can hear him thundering it out, “He shall turn many of the people to righteousness.” That’s the sixth. He not only proclaimed God’s Word, he won people to Christ. He was obedient, filled with the Spirit, self-controlled, humble, proclaiming God’s Word, and winning people to Christ. “He shall turn many of the hearts of the people to righteousness.” And he did.
You say, “Oh, boy, but even if I did all that, I’d never be as great as John.” Hang onto your seat and listen to this. Matthew 11:11 says, “Verily I say to you, among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.” Now listen to this. “Nevertheless, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” You get that? Shock. Listen, we’re in the kingdom; and any of us, the least of us in the kingdom, surpasses the one who foretold its coming. We have all the resources he looked for. We have all the realities he searched for. We have all the blessings he anticipated. We’re not greater in terms of character. That isn’t what he’s saying. We’re greater in terms of privilege and opportunity.
It’s like Jesus said to His disciples, “Greater things than these shall” – What? – “ye do, because I go to My Father.” We can be great for God. The least of us, greater than the greatest who ever lived. That’s what it is to be in His kingdom. Are you grateful?
That is certainly something to ponder in the days ahead. So often, we take our spiritual blessings for granted, but they are the greatest gifts we can receive in this life, because the Lord gave them to us.
The ongoing preoccupation and concern about how Anglican parishes will survive, especially in rural England, might be resolved soon.
On June 26, 2022, The Sunday Telegraph reported that wealthier parishes could be allowed to give more to poorer ones. The plan will be debated at the upcoming General Synod meeting in July (emphases mine):
Wealthy church dioceses will be allowed to share funds with their poorer neighbours under plans to be voted on by the Church of England.
The proposals, which have been submitted before the General Synod, the Church of England’s legislative body, will mean that for the first time cash can be more evenly distributed.
The move would remove some barriers to dioceses sharing resources and comes amid concern about the viability of smaller, poorer and more rural parishes.
Why did that not happen sooner? It’s common sense. In Paul’s epistles, we read of his collection for the poor church in Jerusalem. The other churches he planted in Asia Minor and Macedonia gave generously, and he succeeded in presenting the donation to the struggling congregation in Jerusalem.
It will be left to the dioceses to decide if they wish to participate. Hmm. Based on previous diocesan splurging of money on rather useless ‘initiatives’, I do hope they will be generous towards their poorer congregations:
In papers published last week and submitted to the Synod for its conference in July, David White, deputy director of finance for National Church Institutions, said that his amendment would “in effect, enable a Diocesan Board of Finance to grant funds from its income account for use by other dioceses in the Church of England if it wished to do so” …
In May the archbishops admitted that they “got it wrong” by not prioritising rural parishes over city churches, as they announced funding worth £3.6 billion.
We shall see.
On June 23, Andrew Selous MP, the Second Church Estates Commissioner, answered a question from Labour MP Ben Bradshaw on putting more clergy into neglected parishes. I agree with the Revd Giles Fraser of St Anne, Kew, that Selous’s response was far from reassuring:
Churches are struggling to obtain curates, as obtaining more clergy is not in their direct control:
The Save the Parish network will be meeting before the Synod members get together. I wish them all the very best. They have two champions in the Revds Giles Fraser and Marcus Walker, rector of St Bartholomew the Great in London:
Giles Fraser is enjoying his new assignment at the Parish Church of St Anne in southwest London:
He is out and about meeting fellow residents:
On a serious note, Fraser warns of the Lords Spiritual — serving Church of England bishops in the House of Lords — becoming irrelevant if the parish system breaks down:
In his recent article in UnHerd, he says:
… the bishops draw their moral authority from the fact that the Church of England operates a universal service provision. We serve in all communities, from the richest to the poorest, from cities to rural areas. The bishops are in fact well suited to the Lords because they connect it to every parish in the country — well, in England at least. And if there is a current threat to bishops in the Lords it comes not from the fact that they sometimes irritate the government with moral pronouncements — ‘twas ever thus — but rather because the bishops are dismantling the source of their own authority. Armed with half-arsed MBAs, they want the Church to be run with increasingly centralised efficiency; inefficient parishes are being closed. As a result, the connection between the bishops and the parishes is being severed, and with it the source of their authority to sit in the legislature.
Fraser warns that this plays into secularists’ hands:
The role of the bishops is to represent the whole country spiritually. On the whole, other faiths are glad of this particular role held by the Church of England. The National Secular Society and other troublemakers are keen to sow division among people of faith in order to argue that no one church should have legislative priority over another. But this is simply a ruse to dislodge religion from the public sphere. The Church of England is not a special interest group, it exists for all. Even, heaven help us, for secularists.
On that note, the Revd Stephen Heard is concerned about the single-minded political leanings of C of E clergy, starting with the archbishops. Their constant political pronouncements could be alienating the laity — and potential converts:
He cites an article from The Critic, ‘The closing of the Episcopal mind’, which provides bishops’ opinions dating back to the 19th century, and concludes:
Given this deep uncertainty and debate as to the political implications of Christianity, total political consensus among its leadership makes me very uneasy. It alienates large swathes of lay Anglicans who, in perfectly good faith, come to conclusions that differ from the liberal-left consensus, and makes our mission as a broad national church harder. It belies a real lack of intellectual vibrancy and curiosity, and implies, by some curious happenstance, that the political spirit of a restless and secular age has magically aligned itself with the truths of the Christian religion … What providential perfection! And what an unlikely state of affairs all round.
Political causes have even entered into baptismal and confirmation vows in the Diocese of Oxford, which now requires a promise to uphold God’s creation.
Marcus Walker rightly points out that this places Christ, the Person to whom we pledge our faithful allegiance, in second position:
He wrote an article about it for The Telegraph:
In it, he says:
Baptism and Confirmation are two of the most important steps a human being can make. I say this, I concede, as a clergyman, but what happens at these sacraments is not just a significant religious service, but an event that transforms a person’s life, temporal and eternal.
This is why it’s really important that the Church avoids putting barriers up that would discourage people from encountering this grace. It is difficult enough for the Church to persuade people that the Christian message is true (we’ve all seen the stats). Pushing away those who don’t hold to the ideologies of the current bench of bishops is foolish in the extreme.
This week, the Bishop of Oxford has decided to add to the service of Baptism and Confirmation a new little exchange: “Will you strive to sustain the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth?” “With the help of God, I will.” It is important to note that this is not a change to the actual baptismal vows. It’s part of a rather naff “commissioning” that the new prayer book, Common Worship, allows at the end of these services. Nobody knows what happens if a candidate says “no”, mostly because none of the other questions are controversial so this issue has not come up before.
At this point you might be saying, “but there’s nothing controversial here either”, and, if speaking entirely for myself, I would agree. You might also say that this seems pretty consonant with long-standing mainstream Christian and Anglican theology and this would be true.
But the question of how we engage with environmental concerns has become a major political issue recently, one controversial enough to have even caused long standing conservatives to reconsider their loyalty to the Crown in anger at the way some members of the Royal Family proselytise about “The Environment”.
This is the only part of the service which engages directly with a live political discourse. We are not asked to pledge anything to do with poverty, international relations, race, or even loyalty to the Supreme Governor of the Church of England …
Walker acknowledges that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) requires confirmands to pledge loyalty to the monarch and says that it is no longer used in today’s confirmation ceremonies:
… to use it now would turn away any republican. It would cause those who don’t think this country should have a monarch to have second thoughts about finding God. High Tory though I am, I would not want to stand before the Throne of Judgment and have held against me the souls I had turned away because of my politics.
Which means my advice to the Bishop of Oxford is not to mess with this liturgy; to those cheerleading the move to ask yourself what if the boot were on the other foot and you were being forced to assent to a political position you dissent from as a condition of baptism; to the Church to be grateful for anyone willing to commit themselves to Christ and to welcome them with open arms.
In closing, this guidance on sermon writing from 2017 is worthwhile reading. It could apply to any essay. Parts of it remind me of the Expository Writing course I took at university many moons ago.
This is called ‘Good to Great: Turning a Decent Sermon into a Wonderful One’:
It’s excellent advice — and difficult to achieve, therefore, all the more worthwhile in the pursuit of ‘good to great’.
At the weekend, I ran across a lovely 45-second long video of dozens of young Catholic Iraqis making their First Holy Communion in April 2022:
Sachin Jose, who filmed this splendid procession, is a Catholic journalist.
I wish him and all the young communicants a very happy Christian walk.
It is always better for parents to initiate their children in the faith rather than wait until they are young adults and ‘give them the choice’, as so many parents aged 70 and younger say. We now have three generations of adults brought up this way. What a parlous state of affairs.
Psalm 127:3 reminds us that we all come from our Creator:
Children are a heritage from the Lord,
offspring a reward from him.
Therefore, let us honour Him by consecrating our children to Him from an early age.
Waiting or allowing them to make a choice makes a commitment to Christ much more difficult. Yesterday’s post featured an Anglican priest who baptises adults whose parents never brought them up in the faith. He says that the adult catechumens wonder what the fine print is, as if Baptism were the same as a mobile phone contract, rather than a spiritual journey of sanctification and salvation.
Children can easily learn from their parents that there is no finer promise of everlasting glory than faith in Jesus Christ. There is no reason to wait to teach them prayers and take them to church for regular worship or Sunday School.
The First Sunday after Epiphany, also called the Baptism of the Lord, is January 9, 2022.
The readings for Year C can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
Luke 3:15-17, 21-22
3:15 As the people were filled with expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Messiah,
3:16 John answered all of them by saying, “I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
3:17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,
3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
I wrote an exegesis on Luke 3 last year for the Third Sunday of Advent. That post covers verses 15 through 17.
Verse 18, also included in that post, reads:
So, with many other exhortations, he proclaimed the good news to the people.
Here are verses 19 and 20, which give the sad outcome for John the Baptist’s ministry. This is a parenthetical insert. Herod the tetrarch had invited him on a few occasions to talk to him privately:
19 But when John rebuked Herod the tetrarch because of his marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, and all the other evil things he had done, 20 Herod added this to them all: He locked John up in prison.
Verses 21 and 22 follow on from verse 18. They are in a new section of Luke 3 entitled ‘The Baptism and Genealogy of Jesus’.
When all the people were being baptised, as the New International Version puts it, Jesus was also baptised and prayed, at which point Heaven opened up (verse 21).
Note that Jesus was the last to be baptised, waiting for the others.
Matthew Henry’s commentary says:
Christ would be baptized last, among the common people, and in the rear of them; thus he humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation, as one of the least, nay, as less than the least. He saw what multitudes were hereby prepared to receive him, and then he appeared.
Henry said that, when Jesus prayed after His baptism, it was not the same prayer that the people had made. They prayed for repentance and forgiveness of sin. He prayed that He would receive His Father’s favour:
He did not confess sin, as others did, for he had none to confess; but he prayed, as others did, for he would thus keep up communion with his Father. Note, The inward and spiritual grace of which sacraments are the outward and visible signs must be fetched in by prayer; and therefore prayer must always accompany them. We have reason to think that Christ now prayed for this manifestation of God’s favour to him which immediately followed; he prayed for the discovery of his Father’s favour to him, and the descent of the Spirit. What was promised to Christ, he must obtain by prayer: Ask of me and I will give thee, c. Thus he would put an honour upon prayer, would tie us to it, and encourage us in it.
Furthermore, Henry says that our Lord’s prayer at that time reopened Heaven for our benefit:
Thus was there opened to Christ, and by him to us, a new and living way into the holiest sin had shut up heaven, but Christ’s prayer opened it again. Prayer is an ordinance that opens heaven: Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
John MacArthur tells us that our Lord’s baptism was the only time that the lives of Jesus and John the Baptist, his cousin, actually intersected:
… there was a two- or three-day, probably three days, when Jesus…day one, was baptized by John; day two was marked out as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; and then on the third day, came to where John was. That would be the only time in their lives when they were actually together. John went on ministering six months longer before he was imprisoned and then was imprisoned up to a year. Jesus’ ministry, of course, went on as well. So for six months at least their ministries went along together, but they were in two different locations and they didn’t meet. So here you have just the one brief time when they met. And Jesus came for the purpose of being baptized.
Until Heaven opened, Jesus was just someone in the crowd awaiting his turn for baptism:
That was His objective and what was to happen there was critical. Putting Jesus into the water wouldn’t necessary signify anything. John was doing that with masses and masses of people. In fact, it tells us in verse 21, “It came about when all the people were baptized that Jesus also was baptized.” He was one among many just being baptized there. There was nothing to single Him out. Unless there was some divine intervention to identify Him, no one watching would know that this was any other than just another Jew coming down wanting to prepare himself for the Messiah by repenting of his sins and going through this baptism of repentance.
And so, when Jesus was baptized, all heaven broke loose because this was not just another baptism.
The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove; His Father’s voice came from Heaven saying, ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased’ (verse 22).
MacArthur explains the Greek text and the significance of our Lord’s baptism:
This was a singular event to launch the ministry of the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. What John [Luke?] is focusing on in verses 21 and 22 is the voice that comes out of heaven. When you study the Greek language, you learn its grammar, its construction. And what you have here in the Greek construction is a main clause at the end of verse 22, “A voice came out of heaven, ‘Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased.'” Here is God, out of heaven proclaiming Jesus as His Son, the Son of the Most High God, as Gabriel had said He was, Immanuel, God with us. And the Father is also proclaiming His perfection saying He is well pleased with everything about Him.
That is the main clause of these two verses and everything else is subordinate to that. What you have here are three infinitive clauses. In the Greek language, some of you who know Greek and even remember your English grammar will remember the words “infinitive” and “participle.” Infinitives and participles are verb forms that modify a main verb. They’re subordinate, and that’s what you have. The focus of what Luke writes is the last statement, the statement of the Father that this is My Son. Everything else subordinates that. It was a time when people were being baptized, that Jesus was baptized and He was praying and heaven opened and the Holy Spirit came down, and all of that culminated in the voice coming out of heaven which is the main emphasis. So it is the divine testimony of the Father to the Son that Luke is interested in.
And it’s interesting to me that Luke doesn’t give us any details about the baptism. He doesn’t give us anything in terms of meaning of the descent of the Holy Spirit. He just says the Holy Spirit descended in a form that was visible like a dove. But he does give us the very word of the Father which is the main issue.
So, thirty years of perfect, sinless growth and maturing are over with. Thirty years in which Jesus has increased in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man, as chapter 1 verse 52 says. All the preparation is past and now He is ready to begin His ministry. So He leaves Nazareth and takes the sixty-seventy-mile hike down from Nazareth to Judea and out to the Jordan river where John is because there He is to be baptized.
MacArthur says that we should not be too concerned about the brevity of Luke’s account:
The Holy Spirit inspired Luke only to say just a brief amount because Matthew wrote about this event, Mark wrote about this event, and so did John. So we have four gospels to deal with and we can weave the accounts together and get a full understanding.
MacArthur warns us about falling into the heresy of ‘oneness’, which denies the Trinity, the Triune God that appears in Luke’s account:
One footnote before we look actually at the text, just a big picture footnote. In these two verses we have the Trinity. We have the Son being baptized. We have the Holy Spirit descending. And we have the Father speaking out of heaven. All three are present. Here is one of the great trinitarian texts of the New Testament. There is the Father’s presence, the Spirit’s presence and the Son’s presence, and here is the key word, simultaneously. And that is very important because there is a heresy that’s been around for a long, long time. It’s ancient name is “Sebelianism.” It’s… Another name that was used… It was used to refer to it in the past is “Modalism.” It is the idea, it is the heresy that God is one God who sometimes appears as the Father, sometimes appears as the Son, and sometimes appears as the Spirit, that He has different modes, but He is not three in one simultaneously, He is not eternally three persons, He is eternally one person who puts on different masks at different times.
This… This ancient heresy has been dealt with through the years, time and time and time again, but has reached a point of popularity today because it is part of what is known as the “United Pentecostal Church,” which is a “oneness” church, which denies the eternal Trinity. Now if you do not have an eternal Trinity, you have the wrong God. If you have the wrong God, you have the wrong Jesus and the wrong gospel. This is a sweeping heresy because it is a fountainhead heresy that literally pollutes all the rest of theology. You cannot have Modalism in this event because you have the Son being baptized, the Spirit descending, and the Father speaking simultaneously. This is one of the many passages that hits the “oneness” view with a death blow.
In fact, a good way to look at the text is to just take it from the viewpoint of the three persons of the Trinity. Let’s begin with the Son. With the Son the baptism, with the Spirit the anointing, with the Father the testimony …
The Son, first of all, verse 21 ... “It came about when all the people were baptized that Jesus also was baptized and while He was praying heaven was opened.”
Now it came about, and then all the infinitive modifying statements, that the Father affirmed or confirmed the identity of Jesus as His Son, the Son of the Most High, the anointed Messiah, Savior of the world.
May all reading this have a blessed Sunday.
The Second Sunday of Advent is December 5, 2021.
Readings for Year C can be found here.
The Gospel reading is as follows (emphases mine):
Luke 3:1-6
3:1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene,
3:2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
3:3 He went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins,
3:4 as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
3:5 Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways made smooth;
3:6 and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.’”
Commentary comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
Luke sets out the historical background to the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry (verse 1), which began when he was 30 years old. His cousin Jesus would begin His ministry shortly afterwards. They were the same age, John being some months older.
This was a terrible time for the Jews, both politically and religiously.
Matthew Henry’s commentary summarises the political oppression they experienced:
(1.) It is dated by the reign of the Roman emperor; it was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Cæsar, the third of the twelve Cæsars, a very bad man, given to covetousness, drunkenness, and cruelty; such a man is mentioned first (saith Dr. Lightfoot), as it were, to teach us what to look for from that cruel and abominable city wherein Satan reigned in all ages and successions. The people of the Jews, after a long struggle, were of late made a province of the empire, and were under the dominion of this Tiberius; and that country which once had made so great a figure, and had many nations tributaries to it, in the reigns of David and Solomon, is now itself an inconsiderable despicable part of the Roman empire, and rather trampled upon than triumphed in …
The lawgiver was now departed from between Judah’s feet; and, as an evidence of that, their public acts are dated by the reign of the Roman emperor …
(2.) It is dated by the governments of the viceroys that ruled in the several parts of the Holy Land under the Roman emperor, which was another badge of their servitude, for they were all foreigners, which bespeaks a sad change with that people whose governors used to be of themselves (Jeremiah 30:21), and it was their glory. How is the gold become dim! [1.] Pilate is here said to be the governor, president, or procurator, of Judea. This character is given of him by some other writers, that he was a wicked man, and one that made no conscience of a lie. He reigned ill, and at last was displaced by Vitellius, president of Syria, and sent to Rome, to answer for his mal-administrations. [2.] The other three are called tetrarchs, some think from the countries which they had the command of, each of them being over a fourth part of that which had been entirely under the government of Herod the Great. Others think that they are so called from the post of honour they held in the government; they had the fourth place, or were fourth-rate governors: the emperor was the first, the pro-consul, who governed a province, the second, a king the third, and a tetrarch the fourth. So Dr. Lightfoot.
John MacArthur has more, too much to cite here, including the year of John’s ministry, which would have been AD26 because of calendrical conventions and calculations.
Tiberius was the son-in-law of Augustus Caesar, who wanted his grandsons to become Caesars. Normally the Roman Senate appointed Caesars; they did not follow a family blood line. However, Augustus broke with convention and persuaded the Senate to appoint Tiberius, whom he actually adopted to make his succession more amenable to the senators. The Romans believed that a man’s adoption of a son was more significant because he did it by choice.
Pontius Pilate we know about from Christ’s trial and crucifixion. He had run-ins with the Jews, who had reported him to Rome on more than one occasion. That is why he washed his hands of Jesus. The Jews had likely threatened him with a recall by Rome, which would have destroyed his career.
When Herod the Great died, his sons inherited separate parts of the land over which he had ruled. Herod Antipas, a wicked man and the one referred to in the first verse here, ruled Galilee. He was the one who had John the Baptist beheaded.
His brother Philip was the best of a bad lot and ruled the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis.
MacArthur says:
… Philip was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis. That’s northeast of the Sea of Galilee. And he ruled from 4 B.C. to 34 A.D., a long rule of 37 years. The capital of that region is a city way up at the headwaters of the Jordan River called Caesarea Philippi, another city named after Caesar.
Herod the Great’s third son was called Archelaus. He ruled over Judea, Samaria and Idumea initially, but he was deposed.
MacArthur describes what happened next:
They had to have somebody else to rule that area, Judea, Samaria and Idumea. They just combined it into one area, called it Judea and put in a series of prefects, the fifth of which was Pilate. So you had Archelaus ruling that area for ten years, and then you had a succession of four rulers and finally in 26, the same time John steps in, you have Pilate. So those dates coincide very well. It was at the time when Pontius Pilate had just stepped in to governing Judea because Judea was now the name for all three areas.
Abilene had two rulers named Lysanias. The one to whom Luke refers is the second one. Abilene is north of Galilee and west of Damascus.
MacArthur describes life for the Jews under Tiberius:
The reign of Tiberius Caesar is linked with a number of trials, linked with treasons, sedition. There were lots of Jews — when he was the emperor, when he was the Caesar — there were lots of Jews deported out of Israel and taken to Rome for trials and sedition and things like that. He was a typical Caesar with all of the bizarre machinations, all of the expressions of cruelty, all of the self-centeredness, all of the ego gone mad. The whole thing was all part of Tiberius. And in his latter years he descended into dementia, to one degree or another. His mental abilities were so severely hindered that the last part of his rule has been called “a reign of terror,” a combination of his wickedness unchecked because of his irrationality. He was in many ways the worse possible kind of ruler.
So, over the…the life of Israel hangs this great cloud, this dark ominous cloud by the name of Caesar Tiberius, and he is oppressive and he at any time can rain down all the evil of the Roman purpose on their heads. To be ruled by a Gentile, pagan, uncircumcised idolater is the worst possible scenario for the Jewish people.
MacArthur gives us facts about Pontius Pilate:
… it says, “Pontius Pilate was governor.” It’s not a noun here, it’s actually a participle. He was governing. It’s the same generic word from hgemoneu. He was ruling in the land of Israel, in the land of Palestine.
We know about him because in 1961 there was a plaque discovered, a dedicatory statement discovered in Caesarea. Caesarea was the center of Roman occupation. You can visit the ruins today and still see some of the original Roman ruins there. But in Caesarea, where the Romans had their main occupation center in the land of Palestine, apparently there is a building built there called the Tiberium, named for Tiberius. They did a lot of that. The city of Tiberius, which you can visit in Israel today, was named for Tiberius. It’s on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee. But in 1961 there was discovered there a dedicatory plaque on a building called the Tiberium and on that dedicatory plaque is the name “Pontius Pilate.” Pontius Pilate is a real person. He has the dedicatory plaque because he built the building in honor of Tiberius and called it Tiberium.
On that plaque he is called prefectus. Prefectus was the official title. He was a Roman prefect, a Roman prefect. Later on that word in verse…in I think 46 A.D. was changed to procurator. Sometimes you hear Pilate called a procurator, but that wouldn’t have been true until 46 A.D. and Pilate was through in 36, so he was never called a procurator. In 70 A.D. they changed it to a legate. He wouldn’t have been called that either. By then he was certainly dead. But he was a prefect.
Luke tells us that two high priests ruled, Annas and Caiaphas; it was during this time that the word of God came in the wilderness to John, the son of Zechariah (verse 2).
Looking at the religious corruption, Henry points out that there was supposed to only be one high priest at a time then gives us reasons as to why there might have been two:
God had appointed that there should be but one high priest at a time, but here were two, to serve some ill turn or other: one served one year and the other the other year; so some. One was the high priest, and the other the sagan, as the Jews called him, to officiate for him when he was disabled; or, as others say, one was high priest, and represented Aaron, and that was Caiaphas; Annas, the other, was nasi, or head of the sanhedrim, and represented Moses. But to us there is but one high priest, one Lord of all, to whom all judgment is committed.
However, MacArthur says that, during this time, Rome appointed the high priests, which would have been the reason for two of them — and they might not have even been priests:
… during Roman times the Levitical line was ignored. During Roman times the Romans appointed the priests, the high priests. They had to approve of and appoint the high priests. So what that meant was that you became high priest by somehow currying the favor of Rome.
We don’t know anything about the lineage of Annas. We don’t know anything about the lineage of…of Caiaphas, really. They were in the position they were in because they had somehow gotten the favor of Rome and been placed there. It is even said by some historians that the office of high priest was often bought with money, or granted as some kind of political favor.
So, Annas had garnered that favor from Rome and he was in that place because he served Rome’s purposes, not God’s. It wasn’t that he was a priest truly or that he was in the priestly line. We don’t know any of that background. But it was that he was there because he served the purposes of Rome well.
Between them, Annas and Caiaphas could be described as the Jerusalem mafia, with Annas as the Godfather:
Now in some ways Annas, who is mentioned first here, who is the older of the two, had a death grip on the high priesthood … The real power exerted over the people of Israel on a day-to-day basis was exerted by the most powerful man in their recognized structure, and that would be the high priest. He was the real power because he represented, theoretically, God. And what he brought to bear on them was not an intrusion into their life, but was reflective of what God had ordained, and that is that they be ruled by priests and a high priest. So he represented the leadership they could accept and had to accept by virtue of its ordination by God, even though in this case it had been terribly, terribly corrupted.
Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas, who:
was high priest from the year 7 to 14 A.D., 7 to 14 A.D. During the silent years, the private years of John and Jesus, during those thirty years when Jesus was living in Nazareth and John was out in the wilderness, 7 to 14 A.D., just a…not a long period of time, but he was succeeded in the priesthood by five sons and one son-in-law. That son-in-law is Caiaphas.
Even though Caiaphas carried out a lot of the day-to-day responsibilities, Annas had to know everything that went on:
That’s why he’s constantly identified as the high priest. When you go to John 18 and they go and arrest Jesus, they arrest Jesus and they say, “We’ve got to take Him to Annas first.” It says, “Caiaphas was the high priest that year, but they took Him to Annas first.” He was the real power behind the priesthood. And the priesthood was not just a position, not just a position of spiritual leadership, it was… It was a crime family is what it was. It was the Jerusalem mafia. That’s what it was. And the mafioso boss was Annas. He still had the power. He probably maintained the title all his life …
But the fact of the matter is it wasn’t just a titular designation. The fact is he ran everything and that’s indicative…that’s indicated, I should say, when they took Jesus first to Annas before they went to Caiaphas, who was the high priest, because they knew that Annas had the final say and if it didn’t get by him, no use going anywhere else.
Their biggest racket was the temple’s sacrificial system and money-changing operation, which made them wealthy. They were deeply unhappy when Jesus twice took a whip to the tables in the temple compound.
MacArthur describes their hatred of Jesus, who was disturbing their operation:
Annas and his sons and son-in-law — they managed to turn the high priesthood into an incredibly profitable business. And I… Just as a footnote, I’ve been studying this particularly in the last few weeks. I just finished writing a book called The Murder of Jesus [1999] … in which I just take you clear through the whole story of the crucifixion. And in doing so I got very involved in the life of Annas and Caiaphas, who play a major role, of course, in the execution of Jesus. In fact, if you want to lay the responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus at anybody’s feet, you can start with God because God sent Him to die for sinners, and then you can move to Annas and Caiaphas. They drove the plot. They were the ones who cornered Pontius Pilate and had him in a position where in blackmail he had to do what he did and that was authorize the execution of Jesus. But they were the ones that drove the plot. And the reason they hated Jesus had a little to do with His theology and mostly to do with the fact that Jesus interrupted temple business.
When Jesus first showed up on the scene, He went to the temple and He made a whip and he cleaned out the place. You remember that? And then at the end of His ministry, He did it again. This did not make them happy. If you want to carry the analogy a little bit, what happened at the cross was they finally found a hit man to execute the guy who was intruding into their operation. And Pilate was the hit man.
MacArthur says that there were 28 high priests during 100 years of Roman occupation. Caiaphas served for 20 years in that post, which was a remarkable tenure:
So twenty-eight high priests, you take seven, eight years of Annas and twenty years of Caiaphas and you’ve got this say thirty years, so you’ve got twenty-six left for a seventy-year period. So they ran through that office pretty fast. For a person to stay there twenty years was pretty remarkable. Caiaphas was there for twenty years.
MacArthur says that the two high priests were no doubt Sadduccees. Sadduccees didn’t pay much attention to Scripture, preferring to follow established tradition instead. They also did not believe in the supernatural, therefore, they had few qualms about installing a temple racket:
Now Caiaphas from his theological standpoint was a Sadducee and Sadducees were religious liberals. They didn’t believe in the supernatural, they didn’t believe in angels, they didn’t believe in the supernatural character of Scripture. It’s easy to remember them because somebody says they didn’t believe in angels, they didn’t believe in the resurrection, they didn’t believe in the supernatural character of Scripture, that’s why they were so sad, you see. So that’s how I remember them. It’s not bad. It’s not bad. They were materialists.
As I said, they were religious liberals. They… They were opportunists and because they were materialists and anti-supernaturalists, they were the kind of people who could run an enterprise li…enterprise like this in the temple and not worry that they were just going to be incinerated by God, turning His house of prayer into a den of thieves. They had a very, very low view of Scripture. Frankly, they were very much like modern Jews. They had a high view of tradition and a low view of Scripture. They were anti-supernaturalists. They were… They were really sort of traditionalists rather than scriptural in their commitment.
These two men were the real power over the people and they were as wretched as wretched could be. They weren’t any better than the pagans. So this is a very, very, very dark time in the land of Israel. They are apostates who blaspheme the God of Israel, really. They blaspheme the God of Israel right in God’s own temple. I can’t imagine those guys going into the Holy of Holies once a year, right? On the Day of Atonement and wondering whether they’d ever come out. They were the ones who drove the conspiracy to execute Jesus because He tampered with their business and they couldn’t agree with the Pharisees on anything except to kill Jesus. The Pharisees hated Jesus because He attacked their religious system. The Sadducees hated Jesus because He attacked their economic system. And they all got together and cornered Pilate and got Pilate to agree to execute Jesus with the threat that if he didn’t they’re going to complain again about Pilate to Tiberius Caesar. And Pilate was already on some serious thin ice because of things he had done in Israel.
Turning to John the Baptist, it is likely he took a lifetime Nazirite vow, as I explained several years ago. The only other two in the Bible to do so were Samson (e.g. long hair) and Samuel. John lived a very basic life, however, away from people. He foraged for his food. He wore animal skins rather than conventional clothes.
Most Jewish men, such as Paul, took short term Nazirite vows, but John lived his life as a Nazirite monk.
Henry tells us more about John’s receiving the word of God:
He received full commission and full instructions from God to do what he did. It is the same expression that is used concerning the Old-Testament prophets (Jeremiah 1:2); for John was a prophet, yea, more than a prophet, and in him prophecy revived, which had been long suspended. We are not told how the word of the Lord came to John, whether by an angel, as to his father, or by dream, or vision, or voice, but it was to his satisfaction, and ought to be to ours. John is here called the son of Zacharias, to refer us to what the angel said to his father, when he assured him that he should have this son. The word of the Lord came to him in the wilderness; for those whom God fits he will find out, wherever they are. As the word of the Lord is not bound in a prison, so it is not lost in a wilderness. The word of the Lord made its way to Ezekiel among the captives by the river of Chebar, and to John in the isle of Patmos. John was the son of a priest, now entering upon the thirtieth year of his age; and therefore, according to the custom of the temple, he was now to be admitted into the temple-service, where he should have attended as a candidate five years before. But God had called him to a more honourable ministry, and therefore the Holy Ghost enrols him here, since he was not enrolled in the archives of the temple: John the son of Zacharias began his ministration such a time.
Wilderness in this context means ‘desert’. MacArthur says:
Chapter 1 verse 80 [of Luke’s Gospel] tells us. That’s the last we’ve heard of John. “He grew and became strong in spirit,” talking about John. “He lived in the desert,” or wilderness, “till the day of his public appearance in Israel.” There he’s just the wilderness guy. He’s out there in the wilderness. That is the wilderness of Judea, it’s called, from the… I’ll give you a little geography on Israel. There’s a coastal plain, there’s a Mediterranean Sea, and there’s a coastal plain. There’s a coastal range of mountains. The Sharon…the Carmel range, it’s called. There’s the Plain of Sharon, which is a coastal…coastal lowland, a coastal valley, much like we have in California. And then you go inland a little bit and you have a range of mountains that was called Carmel. We talk about Mount Carmel. Carmel wasn’t one mountain it was kind of a range of mountains. And then you had a valley and then you had another set of mountains on the east and that was where Jerusalem was, the high point, the plateau range, and then that fell off into the wilderness of Judea. And that wilderness extended across the Jordan River. From the Dead Sea to the Sea of Galilee up the Jordan River was that wilderness area.
His parents — Elizabeth and Zechariah — lived on the edge of that wilderness:
Now John’s family lived in the hill country of Judea which would be the western border of that wilderness, which would go from the Dead…the top of the Dead Sea half way up to the Sea of Galilee to where the river Jabbok came in and it would go west of that and east of that. That is a very barren area.
Having received the word of God, John, the last of the Old Testament prophets and the first in 425 years, left the wilderness to go to the region around the Jordan River, proclaiming a baptism for the forgiveness of sins (verse 3).
The people went to him. MacArthur refers us to Matthew:
Back in Matthew chapter 3 and verse 5, it says, “Then Jerusalem was going out to him and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan, and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins.”
You know what happened? Everybody went to John. And again you have almost an illustration of the necessary disconnect from the system that is required when someone comes to the truth. And so the Lord leaves John out in that barren, barren place, apart from the establishment because like Isaiah, like Jeremiah, like Ezekiel and some other prophets, John is going to have to keep his distance, he’s going to have to be untouched, unpolluted.
He proclaimed the message from Isaiah from the wilderness, as prophesied: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight’ (verse 4), with no obstacles of valleys, mountains and hills or rough roads (verse 5).
All — Jew and Gentile — will see the salvation of God (verse 6).
MacArthur explains the importance of these verses:
… it is from Isaiah chapter 40 verses 3 through 5. That prophecy was given 700 years before John, 700 years before Jesus began His ministry. And it is a powerful, powerful prophecy. In fact, I confess to you as a human preacher, a very human preacher, I’m not sure I can bear the weight of it. Literally this prophecy overwhelms me and I…I confess to you that it places on me a huge burden to communicate because it has so much contained in it. The implications around this prophecy are…are vast. Even the explicit elements of this prophecy are powerful, but what surrounds this prophecy in the context of Isaiah has sweeping implications. And Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has picked the perfect prophecy from the Old Testament to identify John. It is a prophecy that has immense theological implications, immense historic implications, immense salvation implications. It is not just limited to John, the forerunner crying in the wilderness. It is the whole message of what he is saying that is coming to fulfillment at that moment with the arrival of Messiah. And all its implications for Israel and for all flesh, as verse 6 indicates, that is all people across the faith of the earth. This is a sweeping prophecy that literally covers all the ground of redemptive history.
This imagery suggests the way one would prepare for the arrival of a king, in this case, the Messiah — Jesus:
In ancient times when a monarch went on a tour of his domain and approached the various cities and towns along the route, there would be an advanced message “The king is coming and you need to make things ready. We don’t want the king going through deep ravines. We don’t want the king having to climb over great high rocks and mountains. We don’t want the king going on some circuitous pathway. We don’t want the king to have to come stumbling over rocks and boulders and great holes in the path. We want a highway for the king that suits his dignity and one that provides ease for the monarch. We want you to get a highway ready for the great king to come to your city.”
Now the people, knowing this, would set about to do this. It was the greatest of events to have the monarch come to their town, to have the king come to their home. And they would know of such an arrival. They hadn’t seen the king so it was an act of faith, but a forerunner came and said he’s coming, get everything ready so that he has easy access into your city. Start preparing a road. Start constructing a road, because in a matter of months or whatever the time might be, the king will be arriving.
So Isaiah said in his prophecy, the king will come someday, but before he comes, a voice will come in the wilderness and tell people to get the highway ready for the king. And here Luke quotes that because John is the fulfillment of that. He is the voice crying in the wilderness. He has come to the people and he is saying to the people of Israel, “Get the highway ready, the king is right behind me.” And truthfully, but six months later the King did begin His ministry.
So John is…is taking that prophecy of Isaiah and fulfilling it. And Luke makes note of that fulfillment. John was calling on the people to prepare a highway for the true King who was Messiah.
MacArthur says that, until this point, baptism was a cleansing ritual reserved for Gentiles who wished to convert to the Jewish faith. By proclaiming that all needed to be baptised, John was telling the Jews that they were spiritually no better than Gentiles. They needed to repent:
When John came he came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. They were religious people, they were lost. They needed the forgiveness of sin. The theology was they had a form of religion without the reality of it. They had a zeal for God but not according to a true knowledge of God, as Paul put it. And so John tells them their sins can be forgiven but only if they repent. And if they repent so deeply that they’re willing to be baptized in the same way that a Gentile was when a Gentile wanted to enter into Judaism. When a Gentile wanted to be a proselyte, they were baptized in a…in a special ceremony to show that they needed to be cleansed before they can engage themselves with the covenant people of God.
Well John, by baptizing Jews, is saying you have to repent to such a depth that you will confess you’re no better than a Gentile. So he preached a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sin. That was the theological perspective. The people were under the damning burden of guilt and they needed forgiveness which God always has given, always will give to those who repent, whose repentance is genuine and in this case evidenced by a willingness to say I am no better than a pagan.
Years ago, a Presbyterian pastor’s daughter told me that the Book of Isaiah was ‘depressing’. Unfortunately, she hadn’t read the whole book nor has she paid attention to readings used during Advent and Christmas. That’s a very sad state to be in, especially for a pastor’s daughter.
MacArthur says that the first 39 chapters of Isaiah are all about judgement, but chapters 40 to 66 are about redemption.
According to Isaiah, God will redeem Israel one day:
Chapter 40 then launches the rest of the book of Isaiah all the way to chapter 66 and the message changes from judgment to salvation, from warning to encouragement. The latter half of Isaiah’s prophecy is all about salvation and the Messiah and His kingdom and righteousness and joy and peace. And the simple message of the overall view of the book is the same God who has judged Israel for sins will someday save Israel. That is the great message of the book of Isaiah. The same God who promised terrible judgment on a sinning Israel promises salvation on a penitent Israel. That, folks, is at the heart of redemptive history. God is not finished with Israel. Whatever may lie ahead and the prophet Isaiah knows what’s going to lie ahead, he’s said it for thirty-nine chapters and the people know it, and it’s also been prophesied by many other prophets, but whatever may lie ahead for the people of Judah and Jerusalem, God’s ultimate purpose for them is not judgment, God’s ultimate purpose for them is salvation. God’s ultimate purpose for them is not destruction but redemption, not death but life. God’s ultimate purpose for them is not the abolition of His covenant, but the fulfillment of His covenant.
So you see here really in my mind a dramatic insight into the unfolding and eternal purposes of salvation that God has purposed for Israel. There is a future for Israel, for Jewish people who today reject their Messiah, but someday will be saved by the very Messiah they reject because they will look on Him and see Him for who He really is and turn to Him for salvation and Zacharias said, “A fountain of cleansing will be opened to the house of Israel.”
So these two verses have a warm, affectionate, and tender tone, something unfamiliar in the first thirty-nine chapters. God is saying there will come a time when sin has been paid for. There will come a time when suffering is over, warfare has ended. There will come a time of salvation so here’s the message, comfort, oh comfort My people …
So God looks and says, I promised to save you but there’s nobody that can do it but Me. And so God says I’ll come, I’ll come and save sinners. That’s what the incarnation was about. John is saying He’s here and He’s about to begin His work. Are you ready? “Ready” means repentant. You can’t save yourself but you can prepare your heart for the only one who can save you. Get ready, He’s coming. And for us, He’s already come, hasn’t He? Already died for sinners. And when you repent, you are forgiven. Someday Israel will do that. Until then, Jew and Gentile alike can do that and do as the Spirit works in their hearts.
May everyone reading this have a blessed Sunday.
In 2021, the First Sunday in Lent is February 21.
The readings for Year B in the three-year Lectionary are below:
Readings for the First Sunday in Lent — Year B
My focus today is on the Gospel reading from Mark, which concerns the baptism of Jesus (emphases mine):
Mark 1:9-15
1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
1:10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.
1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”
1:12 And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.
1:13 He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.
1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God,
1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”
Commentary for today’s exegesis comes from Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.
I have often written about the accounts of our Lord’s baptism as a sign of obedience to God the Father. There was no reason for Jesus to undergo immersion in the River Jordan for His sins as He had none. Yet, He partook in what would become a sacrament in order to obey the ordinances of his Father under the New Covenant and to share in our human experience.
However, there is a far greater reason why Jesus was baptised. This was His earthly coronation, as John MacArthur ably explains.
Those who have read Mark’s Gospel know that it skips parts of Jesus’s earthly life and early ministry. This is because Mark wrote it for the Gentiles in Rome. He wanted them to understand quickly and simply that Jesus is the Son of God and our Saviour.
Instead of beginning with the lineage or Jesus or the Nativity, Mark begins with John the Baptist’s ministry, but not before introducing his Gospel as follows (Mark 1:1):
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]
Christ’s baptism has many scriptural hallmarks of being His coronation, through baptism, a religious ceremony that is not part of the Jewish tradition in terms of repentance.
There are ritual baths, mostly for women, but those are for the purposes of ceremonial rather than spiritual cleansing.
MacArthur looks at both the coronation and the sacramental aspect of baptism.
First, the coronation, involving this meeting between Jesus and His cousin, John the Baptist, as adults:
This is the only one recorded in the New Testament. Though they contacted each other through their disciples, there is no other indication they had met. But this meeting is monumental. This meeting has significance that is sweeping and far-reaching because on this occasion of their meeting, there is the coronation of the new King. Remember I told you that in the gentile world, as well as the Jewish world, the word euaggelion, the word gospel had to do with the ascent of a king, the accession of a king to his throne. And Mark is writing about God’s great King, the new King who is coming, who will declare a new era for the world. This is His coronation.
From the Greek word euaggelion we derive the words ‘evangelist’ and ‘evangelical’. In French, the word évangile means ‘Gospel’.
From Matthew 3:14, we know that John was reluctant to baptise Jesus, because he knew who He was, so He gave this reason:
15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
Jesus obeyed the commands of His Father, and baptism was one of them (verse 9).
MacArthur explains:
If God said this is to be done, then I will do this. It is that perfect obedience of Christ that is imputed to you and to me when we put our trust in Him. It’s what’s called His active righteousness.
But, how could the King of the Jews come from Galilee, let alone a little-known place called Nazareth?
The Jews considered Galilee unclean. MacArthur lays out the reasons why:
I don’t know if you know the history of Galilee. It was originally, of course, part of the land conquered by Joshua around the eighth century, I think – it was about then – it was invaded by the Assyrians, yes. And when it was invaded by the Assyrians, obviously they deported the Jews and many Gentiles came to live there. In the second century, they tried to – they tried to circumcise those gentiles, that didn’t go over real big.
They tried to attach them all to Judaism, that didn’t go over real big, either. So by the time you get to the ministry of John the Baptist, there are just a lot of Gentiles in that area. That’s why it’s called Galilee of the Gentiles. In fact, it was hated or treated with scorn and disdain by the Jews. One of the things that was said concerning Peter in Mark 14:70 was, “Isn’t he a Galilean?” There was nothing but scorn for Galilee. In fact, the further you were from Jerusalem, the more disdain they had for you, and this was a long, long way from Jerusalem. It was out on the fringes where the unclean people lived.
Yet — and yet — Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would come from Galilee:
It would be unthinkable for the Messiah to come from Galilee, Galilee of the gentiles, that scorned place. And yet did they forget Isaiah 9, “There will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish. In earlier times he treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious by the way of the sea on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light, the light will shine on them.”
That’s the Messianic prophecy, that the Messiah would come from Galilee of the gentiles, Messiah would come from the land of Zebulun and Naphtali. This is Galilee, northern part of Israel.
Let us take a closer look at Nazareth. MacArthur says:
… the town is Nazareth, so obscure it has to be named and it has to be located into Galilee. If you said Jesus came from Nazareth, nobody would know where it was. Nazareth in Galilee because Nazareth is not known. There is no place in any existing Jewish literature, ancient Jewish literature, where Nazareth is ever mentioned. It’s not in Josephus, it’s not in the Talmud, it’s not in the Old Testament, most obscure no-place place.
Except that Nathanael knew about Nazareth (John 1:46; Readings for the Second Sunday after Epiphany, Year B). He asked of the newly-called Apostle Philip, rather bluntly:
1:46 Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
Historically, the Jews expected the Messiah to come from Jerusalem, but the prophets knew better. MacArthur tells us:
The assumption was Messiah would come from Jerusalem, the temple is there, but the head, you know, the core, Jerusalem was corrupt, apostate. So the prophets said the Messiah will come from the fringes. The Messiah will come from the outskirts. He’ll come far at the most remote place from the religious establishment that is apostate. This in itself is a commentary on the corruption of Judaism at the time. And so He came and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
MacArthur explains the River Jordan:
You may have idyllic visions of the Jordan River, this mighty river. No. Jordan River is 105 miles long if you just fly down the Jordan. If you float, it’s 200 miles like that. Ten feet deep. At the widest, 100 feet across. “River” is stretching the word.
But it was there, away again from Jerusalem, in the wilderness, away from civilization because the center was so polluted. But John was baptizing as he had been commanded by God and Jesus came to be baptized.
MacArthur discusses John’s baptism of Jesus and the origin of the Greek word for this sacrament:
Baptizō means to immerse into water, Jesus was immersed, the symbol of the washing away of the old and purification that leads to newness, He was baptized. And He was baptized because God had commanded everybody to be baptized, and He was a man, and He would fulfill all righteousness.
And He was baptized secondarily because it was symbolic, I think, of going through the river of death, bearing the sins of His people.
As Jesus emerged from the water, two dramatic things happened (verse 10).
First, the heavens were ‘torn apart’. Secondly, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove.
MacArthur interprets this for us via Luke’s version of events:
“Immediately coming up out of the water,” Luke adds, Luke 3:21, “while He was praying” – Jesus was in communion with the Father the whole time – “coming up out of the water,” which is an indication that He was immersed. It doesn’t mean He walked up on the riverbank, it means He came up out of the water. The scene, by the way, is trinitarian, right? Trinitarian, one of the great trinitarian texts in Scripture.
Our Heavenly Father had not rent the heavens apart for four centuries prior to this. During that era, He had also silenced prophesy. John the Baptist was the first prophet to emerge since that time.
Then God rent the heavens — tore them apart for that moment when His only begotten Son was baptised — and crowned. The Holy Spirit also appeared.
God also spoke (verse 11).
These three phenomena were open to public witness.
People were there to witness what Isaiah had prophesied centuries before, as MacArthur explains:
… as He comes up out of the water, the coronation takes place. Has two parts, a visual and an audible – a visual and an audible. First, the anointing by the Holy Spirit and secondly, the affirmation by the Father. Let’s look at the anointing by the Holy Spirit. “Immediately coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened.” This is not a vision, by the way, folks, this is not a vision. We know it’s not a vision because … John 1:32 and following where John says, “I saw it. I saw it. I saw the Spirit descend, I saw it.”
And there’s no reason to think that others didn’t see it as well. It’s not a vision, it’s a visible reality, in contrast, for example, to the vision of Ezekiel 1. He saw the heavens opening. This is a signal of God breaking into time and space. I mean, this is huge. Now, remember, God hasn’t spoken in four hundred years. Four hundred years of divine silence until an angel comes and talks to Zacharias and Elizabeth. And another angel comes and talks to Joseph and Mary, but none of that is public. The heavens have been closed for four hundred years. And now they split.
He saw the heavens opening, and Mark uses a verb that Matthew and Luke do not use, schizō which means to rip. It’s dramatic, the heavens rip open. It’s only used one other time in the New Testament, when the veil in the temple at the death of Christ was ripped from top to bottom. This is so significant because Isaiah has been talking about the coming of Messiah, the coming of Messiah through the 40 chapters and the 50 chapters, and when you come to chapter 64, here’s the cry of the people, here’s the cry of the prophet’s heart, “O, that” – this is Isaiah 64:1. “O, that you would rip the heavens and come down.”
They were waiting for that, that God would rip open the heavens and come down and make His name known. This is anticipation of Messiah. The day is going to come when the silent heavens are going to rip open and God is going to come. The text of Isaiah 64 is a cry for God to do just that, break into history. And the Jews saw that text as evidences that Messiah would come and heaven would split open and down would come God.
MacArthur continues detailing this holy mystery of the Triune God:
God is about to come down, and He does in the form of the Holy Spirit – I love this – “and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him.” Heaven rips open and you might think of something violent happening, something crashing down, but the Spirit like a dove descends upon Him.
Now, first of all, folks, this isn’t saying the Holy Spirit is a dove. I know there are doves all over Bible covers, and all over paraphernalia and holy hardware and all that, symbolizing the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is not a dove. The Holy Spirit is not a dove. That’s not what it’s saying. It simply says the Holy Spirit descended visibly – visibly. Luke says, think it’s chapter 3, maybe verse 21 or so, in bodily form, in some visible form, He descended like a dove. The question is not why is He a dove, the question is how does a dove descend. You understand the difference?
A dove doesn’t come crashing down. The dove is the gentlest, according to one text of Scripture, the gentlest of the birds. It comes down lightly, delicately, and rests in its place. That’s how the Holy Spirit came. That’s all it’s saying. It isn’t saying the Holy Spirit is a dove. The Holy Spirit is nowhere pictured as a dove. You don’t have to connect it with the dove that Noah sent out of the ark, like many commentators try to do, which is impossible. A dove is a very gentle, beautiful, delicate bird, and the Spirit came down in some visible form with the same kind of gentleness and beauty which is displayed when a little dove lands softly.
This is important because Isaiah made it very clear that when the Messiah comes, He will be empowered by the Holy Spirit. So this is confirmation that Jesus is the Messiah because here comes the Spirit. Listen to Isaiah 11:1, “A shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,” that’s the father of David, out of David’s line, “A branch from his roots will bear fruit.” That’s the Messiah coming through Jesse’s line through David. “The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him.” Messianic prophecy. Thirty-second chapter of Isaiah in the fifteenth verse, “Until the Spirit is poured out upon us from on high.” They knew that when the Messianic Kingdom comes, when Messianic glory arrives, it will be with the full power of the Holy Spirit.
Listen to 42:1, Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my Servant, whom I uphold, my Chosen One whom my soul delights, I have put my Spirit upon Him.” Those are prophecies. The Messiah would have the full presence power of the Holy Spirit. In John 3:34 it says this, that God gave Jesus the Spirit – this is the key phrase – without measure – without measure, without limit. That’s not true of everybody else. Everybody else has the Spirit in measure. Even the New Testament says that even those of us living in the age of the Holy Spirit receive a measure of the Spirit.
But He received the Spirit without measure, the full presence, the full power of the Holy Spirit came down and rested on Him. The infinite presence and power of the Spirit so that the whole life of Jesus was controlled by the Holy Spirit. His whole life was controlled by the Spirit. At the risk of over-simplifying something that is profoundly mysterious and beyond the grasp of all of us, let me see if I can give you a way to understand it. You have the Man Jesus here, you have the Son of God, eternal deity here, and that which is deity is conveyed to the man which is humanity through the means of the Holy Spirit.
As it says, He grew in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man, it was the Holy Spirit dispensing to the man, Jesus, the developing realities of truth that matured Him. That’s how you have to understand it. The Holy Spirit is the mediator between deity and humanity. John Owen makes the point that His divine nature did not directly communicate anything at all to the human Jesus. His divine nature did not communicate anything directly to the human Jesus, it all went through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, part of His self-emptying.
Through the Holy Spirit, divine power came, understanding came, enlightenment came, revelation came, so that His human nature was under the full control of the Holy Spirit, so that everything He did, He did in the power of the Spirit.
Then the Holy Spirit directed Jesus to the wilderness (verse 12).
Mark arrives at this part of the story without filling in intervening details that the other Gospels do because he wants to demonstrate the authority of Jesus.
MacArthur explains Mark’s reasoning:
He demonstrates the authority of Christ over three realms. One, over Satan and his realm. Two, over sin and its dominion. Three, over sinners. It is important for us to know that if the new King is going to take His throne, if the new King is going to reign, if the new King is going to overthrow the usurper, the temporary king, Satan himself, and if the King is going to conquer Satan and sin and sinners, He has to demonstrate the power to do that.
And so that’s where Mark establishes His authority. First in His temptation, His authority over Satan becomes clear … He can overpower and will overpower Satan. He can overpower and will overpower sin.
Mark tells us that Jesus was in the wilderness for 40 days — which is how we derived the period of our Lenten season — and, whilst there, the angels tended to Him (verse 13).
During this time, Jesus went without food, which is the root for Lenten fasting accompanied by prayer.
MacArthur continues, reminding us not only of scriptural precedent but also that Satan was ever present, tempting Him to worldly comforts:
Now, Mark doesn’t tell us what Matthew and Luke tell us, and that is this: that Jesus went without food for the entire forty days. Matthew 4:2, Luke 4:2, He didn’t eat for forty days. Forty-day fasts had happened before. According to Exodus chapter 34, Moses had a forty-day fast. According to 1 Kings 19, Elijah had a forty-day fast. That’s a long time, almost six weeks of eating nothing. Verse 13 says He was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. Forty days alone, forty days in isolation, forty days in a dangerous, devastating place. Forty days without anything to eat.
So you have no support system, no one to help Him, no one to comfort Him, no one to instruct Him, no one to encourage Him, and He is at His lowest possible physical condition. His strength would be gone long before the sixth week. It would begin to diminish seriously the second week. But if He is the King, He must be able, alone at His weakest, to conquer the enemy. And so the Holy Spirit throws Him into that conflict.
He is not only to be a King – and this is what you want to keep in mind. He is a King, and He is reigning over His people now, and He will reign over the earth and over all the new heaven and the new earth in eternity. He is a King, He will always reign, and He will ultimately and finally reign over everything. But He is also a suffering servant. And while as a King He is exalted, as a suffering servant, He is humiliated. The new King is also the suffering servant, it is a paradox, it is a paradox. The most exalted one is the one who suffers most.
Wandering in that place alone for nearly six weeks with nothing to eat in the wilderness, He is tempted the whole time by Satan. Some people assume that He was only tempted at the end of the forty days. Well, the temptations that came at the end of the forty days are given in Matthew 4 and Luke 4, but here we are told He was tempted the whole time. The whole time. And the interesting thing about the temptation Mark doesn’t describe, he leaves that to Matthew and to Luke, the interesting thing about the temptation was that the temptation was never a temptation for Him to give up His sovereignty.
It was never a temptation to give up His royalty, if you will. It was never a temptation for Him to give up His rights and His privileges and His honor and His exaltation and His elevation. It was a temptation for Him to abandon His humiliation.
We do not know exactly how the angels ministered to Jesus. Perhaps they kept him away from dangerous beasts, which were in the wilderness. Perhaps they distracted Him in good ways to look at the natural beauty of his surroundings. Even a desert offers God-given flowers and stunning sunsets.
Matthew Henry says:
Note, The ministration of the good angels about us, is matter of great comfort in reference to the malicious designs of the evil angels against us but much more doth it befriend us, to have the indwelling of the spirit in our hearts, which they that have, are so born of God, that, as far as they are so, the evil one toucheth them not, much less shall be triumph over them.
MacArthur says that on the final day, the angels found food for Jesus:
How did the angels minister to Him? They fed Him. After forty days of fasting, they gave Him something to eat. But I think they ministered in another way as well. I think they brought by their very presence and the food the confirmation of the Father. This was God’s way of saying, “I am still well pleased.” The divine approval of His holy triumph over Satan and fierce temptation is signaled by God sending holy angels to minister to Him at the end in the exhaustion of His victory.
Then Herod had John the Baptist arrested, after which Jesus proclaimed the Good News in Galilee (verse 14).
In real time — according to the other three Gospels — this was probably over four months after the end of His time in the wilderness, according to MacArthur.
Note that Jesus preached in Galilee, the region where He grew up. MacArthur says:
Galilee was the northern part of the land of Israel, the hinterlands, the outskirts, far from the religious center in Jerusalem. The fact that Jesus really launched His ministry in full power there was a testimony to the apostasy of the core, the corruption of Jerusalem.
Jesus preached that the kingdom of God, as we still say today, was at hand (verse 15). When people say it now, we understand it to be that the end of the world is nigh.
However, when Jesus spoke of it, he did so proclaiming the era of the long-awaited Messiah. This is the best news the people of faith at that time could receive.
MacArthur explains the message of Jesus:
… this is the message. It is the good news, it is good news, it is the best news the world has ever heard. And what is it? Verse 15, it is this, “The time is fulfilled,” the kairos, not the chronos, not clock time, not calendar time, epochal time – the era, the fixed point in history for an event to happen. Or in the words of Galatians 4:4, “The fullness of time.” The administration of the fullness of time, it’s called in Ephesians 1:10. God’s sovereign moment. The significant hour in human history.
This is it for which the world has long waited, the most significant era in the world’s history, the arrival of the Savior who will pay the penalty for sin and thus provide salvation for all who have believed from the beginning of history to the end. The time is fulfilled. This is God’s great epochal moment. The promises of the Old Testament regarding Messiah, the promises regarding the Kingdom, the promises of salvation are about to be fulfilled. What is the message? That Christ has come not only to conquer Satan but to conquer sin – to conquer sin through the gospel.
The new King has arrived and with Him the Kingdom. The Kingdom is here because the King is here. Wherever the King is present, the Kingdom is. Jesus’ message, very simple, unmistakable: the Kingdom of God is at hand, here it is. I’m here, the Kingdom’s here.
When He was in Nazareth in Galilee, Luke 4, just after His temptation, right at this same time, goes in to the synagogue and He says, “Today this prophecy is fulfilled in your ears.” And He was talking about the Messianic prophecy from Isaiah 61. It is the message, the good news, God’s hour has come, the Kingdom is here because the King is here. How do you enter that Kingdom? Repent and believe in the gospel, writes Mark. Repent of your sin. Believe in the gospel, the good news concerning Jesus Christ.
Matthew Henry says that that people, by and large, forgot the ancient prophesies. Jesus reminded them:
Observe, (1.) The great truths Christ preached The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. This refers to the Old Testament, in which the kingdom of the Messiah was promised, and the time fixed for the introducing of it. They were not so well versed in those prophecies, nor did they so well observe the signs of the times, as to understand it themselves, and therefore Christ gives them notice of it “The time prefixed is now at hand glorious discoveries of divine light, life, and love, are now to be made a new dispensation far more spiritual and heavenly than that which you have hitherto been under, is now to commence.” Note, God keeps time when the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, for the vision is for an appointed time, which will be punctually observed, though it tarry past our time.
The baptism of Jesus signified His kingship as Christ our Lord forevermore.
Having posted most, though not all, of the readings for the three Lectionary years, it is now time to delve into the readings.
The readings for Sunday, December 6 — St Nicholas Day, incidentally — are in the following post:
Readings for the Second Sunday of Advent — Year B
You can read more about St Nicholas and his feast day below:
St Nicholas Day (much to learn about a man of great faith)
More on St Nicholas — feast day December 6
St Nicholas Day — December 6 (1970s celebrations in Germany)
Let us look at the Gospel reading for the Second Sunday of Advent in Year B (emphases mine):
Mark 1:1-8
1:1 The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
1:2 As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way;
1:3 the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”
1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
1:5 And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
1:6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.
1:7 He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals.
1:8 I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
John MacArthur preached an excellent sermon on these verses in 2009. Mark was the last book of the New Testament on which he preached.
Excerpts from ‘The Herald of the New King’ follow, emphases mine.
Unlike Matthew, who went into the full earthly genealogy of our Lord, Mark begins by stating ‘the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ (verse 1): no ifs, ands or buts.
That is because Matthew wrote for a Jewish audience and Mark wrote for the Gentiles, specifically, those in Rome:
He’s writing to Roman Christians – and, of course, Roman non-Christians – who will hear his history read. He is not concerned primarily about the Jews, so he doesn’t frontload his book with a lot of prophecies. He doesn’t make efforts to connect the arrival of Jesus with the Old Testament, say, by giving genealogies like Matthew and Luke are so careful to give. He doesn’t give specific prophesies about Jesus, such as the virgin birth, Bethlehem, called out of Egypt. And there are a number of prophesies that Matthew refers to and Luke refers to. None of those does Mark refer to in the beginning of his history. It is simply enough to say, “He is the Son of God.” He is the Son of God.
As Christians, we take for granted that Mark used the words ‘the good news’, but, interestingly, that phrase was also used of Roman emperors. Furthermore, the word in Greek is euaggelion, ‘of the gospel’:
This is an inscription from the Roman world. The date is 9 B.C. Okay? Before Christ. This is the inscription, “The Providence, which has ordered the whole of our life” – translated into English, obviously – “showing concern and zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving it to Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men and by sending in him, as it were, a savior for us and those who come after us, to make war to cease, to create order everywhere. The birthday of the god Augustus is the beginning for the world of the euaggelion” – of the gospel – “that has come to men through him.”
How interesting. They used the word euaggelion on that occasion, in that inscription, to describe the arrival of Caesar Augustus. Caesar Augustus is – “by the Providence,” it says – the one who will bring to us the work of a benefactor, the work of a savior, make war cease, create order everywhere. It is the arrival of a god. The good news, then, is that Augustus Caesar has arrived. That actual inscription was dedicated to him, apparently, on his birthday. Then, as a technical term again to refer to the ascendancy of the triumph of an emperor.
So, the Jews and the pagans would both see that word as signifying the arrival of a new monarch, and that would signify the arrival of a new era. And the new era would be an era of order and peace and salvation and blessing.
Mark intended for his story to describe a King that was not of this realm and to ensure it was understood as such:
This is the story of the new King who has arrived, who is about to inaugurate His kingdom and bring a new era of salvation, blessing, peace, and order to the world. One historical writer says, “The parallel between ‘evangel’” – or the gospel – “in the imperial cult and the Bible is Caesar and Christ, the emperor on the throne and the despised rabbi on the cross confront each other. Both are gospel to men. They have much in common, but they belong to two different worlds.”
So, Mark begins his historical account of the life of Jesus with language that would make his Roman readers know that the new and most glorious King has come, and He sets Himself against all other kings, including Caesar. He is the theme of this history. And this is only the beginning of His story. And what is His name? Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus identifies His human name, Yeshua or Yehoshua in Hebrew – basically, Joshua – meaning Yahweh is salvation. Yehoshua – Yahweh is salvation. That’s His name. “Call Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins,” Matthew 1:21. His title – His name is Jesus, His title is Christ. That is not a name; that is not His last name. That’s a title. Royal title. The Anointed One. That’s what Messiah means. Christ and Messiah are the same thing. It means Anointed One. It’s a royal title. His human name is Jesus. His royal title is Messiah, the Anointed One. Simply King. And his lineage? He is the Son of God. One in nature with God, coeternal and coequal.
And thus does Mark introduce us to the beginning of the history of King Jesus. The beginning of the history of King Jesus, the Son of God. Not the Son of some other earthly monarch.
The next two verses refer to passages from the Old Testament. Just as earthly kings had family history, Mark wanted his audience to know that our Lord had been prophesied in Scripture:
No king ever arrived and said, “Hey, I’m the king, and I’m here.” The king always had a forerunner. The king always had an entourage. The king always had some coming before him to prepare the way and make the people ready, and then was appropriately introduced by someone who bore authenticity and authority to make that introduction.
So, Mark, consistent with the Gentile approach to how kings were announced, goes to the Old Testament for the only time in the beginning of his Gospel, not to find a prophecy about Jesus, but to find a prophecy about His herald, to give authenticity to His herald.
But there was more. Mark wanted to include the story of John the Baptist, who preached of His imminent ministry:
With all the Old Testament texts that connect to Jesus Christ, Mark uses prophecy not about the new King at all, but about His forerunner, the one who is to proclaim His arrival. This would be in the kind of official structure of what people in the Gentile world will be used to.
MacArthur says that the Gentile believers in Rome would have known Isaiah’s prophecy:
So, there is coming a messenger. That’s identified in verse 2, “I send My messenger.” And he further identifies the messenger as someone who will be a voice crying in the wilderness. This is from the ancient prophets. He’s quoting from the ancient prophets, and he labels this from Isaiah the prophet. Certainly Isaiah was well-known to even Gentile Christians because of his vast book, much of which was centered on the arrival of Messiah, the servant of Jehovah, as Isaiah identifies Him. So, he draws prophecies out of Isaiah.
By the way, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all use – all use these prophecies to label John the Baptist as the fulfillment. John the Baptist is the fulfillment of these prophecies, and all four Gospel writers indicate that. “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet” – or preferably “as it has been written.” The new King is not a new plan; the new King is not an afterthought. This is the plan that God was working out in ancient times. The plan is one culminating in the arrival of the new King, Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
The Gentile readers need to know that the one who announced His arrival is the one prophesied by the ancient prophets, and by the notable prophet Isaiah from the Old Testament. He is an official, divinely commissioned herald for the new King. And so, he’s the one being described in these prophecies.
To be precise, verse 2 is from Malachi and verse 3 is from Isaiah:
Verse 2 is actually Malachi 3:1; and verse 3 is Isaiah chapter 40, verse 3. This is not an uncommon thing to do, to refer to only one of the Old Testament prophets, the more prominent one, the more notable one, and tuck in another prophecy by another prophet, since it was all the Word of God.
These prophecies go together so perfectly, and both refer to the same person, so they may have been frequently used together. Malachi is the introductory one; Isaiah is the more important one. But both are general references. If you go back, they’re – and this is something you need to know that New Testament writers do. Sometimes they quote exactly from the Hebrew; sometimes they quote from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament; sometimes they make sort of a general reference to a text, and sometimes it’s an interpretive reference. Because remember now, the New Testament writers are inspired by God. And so, when they interpret an Old Testament text, they interpret that in an inspired way.
So, they always give the true interpretation of the text. Sometimes you’d directly quote it; sometimes it’s an interpretive quote. Here you have some interpretive quotation, certainly in the case of Malachi 3:1.
Isaiah 40:3 is part of the First Reading for this particular Sunday:
A voice cries out: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
MacArthur discusses Malachi 3:1:
Malachi 3:1 records, “Behold, I send My messenger” – and Malachi says – “before Me.” Here you have an interpretation of that, “Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way.” Obviously, You and Your refers to the coming King. But before the King comes, ahead of Him comes the messenger. So, this is a prophecy that there will be one who comes before the King comes, whose job will be to prepare His way.
Like all prophets, this is a messenger. All prophets are proclaimers. He’s a preacher. He will make a strong call for people to prepare for the arrival of the new King. Malachi 3:1 is a direct reference to this messenger, this herald of the coming new King.
MacArthur then looks at Isaiah 40:3. Today’s First Reading is Isaiah 40:1-11:
… from Isaiah chapter 40, the opening, and then down in verses 9 and 10, Isaiah prophesied the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity. He prophesied they would come back to Israel; they would go through the wilderness, and God would lead them. And when they arrived, God would be with them, and He would ascend to His throne, and again He would rule over them.
And so, in the near intention of that prophecy, He was talking about the return from the Babylonian captivity and the ascendancy of God to His sovereign place over a reconstituted Israel. And that would require making ready the way of the Lord. God would lead them back from captivity, would make the path for them, make the road for them, and they would head back, and God would be with them. In the future sense, one would come who would make the road ready for the new King. Make the road ready for the new King. And this, of course, is here associated with the forerunner of Jesus, namely John the Baptist. There was to come one who would herald the new King’s arrival, call people to prepare for His glorious ascent to His throne and the establishment of his kingdom of salvation, and blessing, and peace.
In verse 4, Mark says that John the Baptist — ‘the Baptiser’ — was ‘in the wilderness’, proclaiming baptism as a form of repentance.
John the Baptist lived in the desert:
… he appears in the wilderness, in the desert. In fact, in John 3:23, it places Him about 25 to 30 miles south of the Sea of Galilee, along the Jordan River. And up and down that river he went for the duration of his ministry, preaching out in the desert, away from all the cities and all the towns and all the people. He was in that wilderness, basically, his whole life. According to Luke 1:80, he spent his life in the wilderness. He was a wilderness guy. He was a desert man.
When God’s people repented in the Old Testament they were in the wilderness. Many of us consider wilderness to mean a forest, but in Scripture, it means desert. The Jews of John’s time would have understood the significance:
William Lane writes – and I think it’s well stated – “The summons to be baptized in the Jordan means that Israel must once more come to the wilderness. As Israel long ago had been separated from Egypt by a pilgrimage through the waters of the Red Sea, the nation is exhorted again to exercise separation. The people are called to a second exodus in preparation for a new covenant with God.
“As the people heed John’s call and go out to him in the desert, far more is involved than contrition and confession. They return to a place of judgment, the wilderness, where the status of Israel as God’s beloved son must be reestablished in the exchange of pride for humility. The willingness to return to the wilderness signifies the acknowledgement of Israel’s history as one of disobedience and rebellion, and a desire to begin once more. Let’s go back to the wilderness, before we ever came into the land, and start all over again.”
With regard to baptism, the only time it featured in Jewish ceremonies was when a Gentile fully converted to that faith:
The Jews had ceremonial washings, no baptisms except for proselyte baptism.
Therefore, for John to call upon the Jews to be baptised was an unusual request, as that ceremony was only for Gentile converts. Gentiles were outside of the Covenant, so they had to be fully cleansed in order to be brought into it. The Jews considered Gentiles to be spiritually unclean. One can imagine the tension this must have caused Jews who listened to John’s message:
So, a Jew would be saying, by doing that kind of one-time symbolic baptism, “I’m no better than a Gentile. I am no better than a Gentile. I am no more ready to meet the new King, I am no more ready for God to ascend to His throne, I am no more ready for God to establish His kingdom and make me a part of it than a Gentile.” That is a huge admission, for the Jews had been trained pretty much to resent and hate the Gentiles and think of them as outside the covenant.
MacArthur discusses the importance of repentance, which involves a genuine turning away from sin:
He’s calling the Jews to declare themselves no better than Gentiles, to turn many of the hearts of the people toward righteousness, away from rebellion, as Luke 1 put it. And to mark that repentance, that deliberate metanoia which means a turning, a genuine turning. They would need to bring forth the fruit of repentance. Do you remember how John the Baptist said that? Matthew 3:8 records it; Luke 3:8 records it. Luke says, “Bring forth fruits fitting for repentance.” Prove it. The first step would be to be willing to undergo a proselyte baptism and view yourself as if you were no better than a Gentile. Radical, radical repentance. And this was the message that came from God to John, Luke 3:2, “The Word of the Lord came to him,” and this is what He said. This is not baptism in Jesus’ name. We know that because John the Baptist’s followers were later baptized by Paul in Jesus’ name, according to Acts 19.
John’s message worked. We might find that surprising, yet, as MacArthur explains, no one wanted to be left out of the Messiah’s kingdom to come, so they followed along (verse 5):
He was a judgment preacher – fierce judgment preacher. That’s what drove the people to want to deal with their sins. The fear that when the Messiah finally came, when the new King ascended to His throne and established His kingdom, they’d be on the outside looking in. And so, he was a judgment preacher. Judgment was coming. But while God was a God of judgment, He was also a God of grace, and He offered forgiveness of sins for those who repented.
Well, everybody practically wanted to be a part of the Messiah’s kingdom. They didn’t want to get left out. They knew their own heart’s sinfulness. So, according to verse 5, all the country of Judea was going out to him, all the people of Jerusalem. They were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. This looks like a national revival.
Verse 6 describes John’s primitive appearance and way of life. This would have been according to Nazirite vows that some men took. Paul took Nazirite vows, but for him and most Jewish men, those were only temporary. Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist took lifelong Nazirite vows. In John’s case, this was prophesied. Luke 1:5-17 has the story of John’s conception and the angel’s prophecy of how he would live.
This post of mine has more information about Nazirite vows:
Luke 1:5-17 – Zachary, Zechariah, John the Baptist, Nazirites, incense, Aaron’s lineage, priesthood
See what the angel said to Zechariah, John’s father, in Luke 1:13:17. Abstinence was part of the Nazirite vow:
13But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God, 17and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”
John knew that he was merely the messenger for the Messiah, Jesus Christ. He knew his role was to prepare people for His ministry among them.
He said that Jesus was ‘powerful’ and that he was unworthy of undoing his sandals (verse 7).
He also added that his baptism was of water but that the baptism that Christ would bring was one ‘of the Holy Spirit’ (verse 8).
MacArthur notes that John never pointed to himself, but to the Lord:
… he points to Christ; he points to Church; he points to Christ. Never points to himself. John 3:30, “I must decrease, He must increase.” This is a model for any preacher. Don’t identify with the people, identify with the prophets. Don’t look like the people; look like the prophets. Maintain the dignity of that office handed down. And don’t point to yourself; point to Christ.
“After me the One” – literally definite article – “After me the One is coming who is mightier than I.” How mighty is He? He’s the Lord; He’s Yahweh; He’s Kurios; He’s God the Son; He’s the King – King Jesus. How far above me is He? Huh.
Here’s the negative. “He is so much mightier than I, that I’m not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals.” You know what? That was the lowest possible job that any servant could have. That was it. That was the bottom. If you were the servant who untied your master’s sandals, you were the scum of the scum of the scum. Dirty feet.
Old quotes from Hebrew sources. “A Hebrew slave must not wash the feet of his master, nor put his shoes on him.” That’s beneath the dignity of a Hebrew slave. Another one, “All services which a slave does for his master, a pupil should do for his teacher, with the exception of undoing his shoes.”
John says, “I’m below the people who do that. I’m not even up to the level of those who would untie His shoes. That’s how low I am.”
Well, that’s the picture, but what’s the reality? Verse 8. Why am I so different? Why are we so infinitely separated? “Because I baptize you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
“All I can do is stick you in the water; He can transform you on the inside.” This refers to the soul-transforming work of salvation, being born of the water and the Spirit. This is not some Pentecostal second baptism; this is the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit of Titus 3. This is the new covenant: purification, cleansing, transformation, regeneration, new birth.
John says, “I can’t do that. Only God gives the Holy Spirit. So, the new King, He will give you the Holy Spirit.” With the Holy Spirit comes salvation, sanctification, service.
John MacArthur’s sermon adds more meaning to the Advent message of repentance and to John the Baptist’s ministry.
We are now in the season of Epiphany, which takes us to Lent at the beginning of March.
The following readings are for the First Sunday after Epiphany — also known as the Baptism of the Lord — in Year C of the three-year Lectionary.
Themes are jubilation and rejoicing in God the Father for sending His Son to save us and bring us to life everlasting.
Emphases mine below.
First reading
We recall how God historically delivered His holy people from captivity, despite their many sins.
Isaiah 43:1-7
43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.
43:2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you.
43:3 For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you.
43:4 Because you are precious in my sight, and honored, and I love you, I give people in return for you, nations in exchange for your life.
43:5 Do not fear, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you;
43:6 I will say to the north, “Give them up,” and to the south, “Do not withhold; bring my sons from far away and my daughters from the end of the earth—
43:7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”
Psalm
We rejoice in the Lord God, Creator of the universe and giver of life.
Psalm 29
29:1 Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
29:2 Ascribe to the LORD the glory of his name; worship the LORD in holy splendor.
29:3 The voice of the LORD is over the waters; the God of glory thunders, the LORD, over mighty waters.
29:4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty.
29:5 The voice of the LORD breaks the cedars; the LORD breaks the cedars of Lebanon.
29:6 He makes Lebanon skip like a calf, and Sirion like a young wild ox.
29:7 The voice of the LORD flashes forth flames of fire.
29:8 The voice of the LORD shakes the wilderness; the LORD shakes the wilderness of Kadesh.
29:9 The voice of the LORD causes the oaks to whirl, and strips the forest bare; and in his temple all say, “Glory!”
29:10 The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD sits enthroned as king forever.
29:11 May the LORD give strength to his people! May the LORD bless his people with peace!
Epistle
The Apostles ministered to the Samaritans, half-Jews, whom the Jews of the time despised. St Luke wrote the Book of Acts, by the way. His Gospel account of Jesus’s baptism follows.
Acts 8:14-17
8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.
8:15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit
8:16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).
8:17 Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Gospel
John the Baptist baptised Jesus. Heaven opened, bringing the dramatic confirmation that Jesus is the Messiah.
Luke 3:15-17, 21-22
3:15 As the people were filled with expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Messiah,
3:16 John answered all of them by saying, “I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
3:17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened,
3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”
Several years ago, I read a Bible commentary that said that we are under no obligation to be baptised. It seems the author did not know his New Testament very well, because there are many references to baptism therein.
If Jesus was baptised, should we not follow His holy example?
In closing, a warning about baptism follows. Child baptism is very important. I know a number of people who returned to the Church in their later years. They raised families while they were not attending church.
Those who did not have their children baptised deeply regretted it.
Those unbaptised children did not want to be christened in their adulthood.
Not one is a believer, either.
I’m not saying that baptism is salvific in and of itself, but it is an important first step in belonging to a church community and, more importantly, is one of the two universally agreed upon Sacraments.
Churchmouse Campanologist 