THE BOOK OF MATTHEW
Lesson 7, Chapter 3 Continued
If we were to do a deep comparison between the 4 Gospel accounts that open
the New Testament, it would become evident that each Gospel writer approaches
the matter of the advent, life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah with his own
unique mindset and perspective, and that he has a specific purpose and
audience for his Gospel in mind. For instance Mark expresses zero interest in
Yeshua's background as a youth, and only speaks about Him starting with the
day Christ's ministry begins. He also outlines Christ's life and actions in an
orderly but rather abrupt way that in my opinion reads like a biography. Luke is
trying to please his customer and patron, Theophilos. We don't know who
Theophilos was, but his was a Roman gentile name. Luke doesn't seem to
expect Theophilos to know much about Jewish Tradition or history and so takes
the time to explain certain things Matthew wouldn't have because Matthew was a
Jew writing to other Jews and so most Jewish concepts needed no clarification.
John also expected his readers to be mostly Jewish and thus familiar with Jewish
Tradition and the Holy Scriptures. Therefore the opening sentence of his Gospel
speaks of the uniquely Hebrew concept of "The Word" without further
explanation. Most Jews would know what the term "The Word" was pointing to,
but the vast majority of gentile Believers would not. "The Word" was familiar
among Jews; it was the Hebrew notion of the Memra. The Memra represented a
mysterious manifestation of God that had to do with the power of speech (as in:
God "spoke" the Universe into existence). The term itself comes from the Hebrew
root word 'amar, which means "to say". The Hebrew Memra was translated to
the Greek Logos, which has to do with speech and speaking. But
while Memra had a spiritual connotation within the Jewish community, logos did
not have such a connotation with the Roman gentile community.
1 / 12

Matthew, like John, wrote in a way that had certain expectations of his readers
that included knowledge of Hebrew history and custom; but Matthew seems to
have expected even more of his readers than did John. Therefore, as we
discussed in the prior lesson, Matthew wrote with the ever present backdrop of
Yeshua being the second Moses; something Jews would have related with. More
specifically Yeshua was the "Prophet like me" that Moses said in the Torah would
eventually come. Matthew at times also made somewhat obscure connections
between words of the ancient Prophets and certain events within the life of
Jesus. Even a well educated gentile would have a rough time trying to
understand how Matthew could legitimately make some of these associations
such that Jesus (or an event associated with Jesus) became the prophetic
fulfillment of the Prophets' words. However a Jew of that era (probably a more
studied one) would understand that Matthew was using one of the four different
methods of Bible interpretation that the Scribes and Sages employed in order to
make his point. Again, such knowledge would have been outside the scope of
what gentiles (including Believers) could typically have understood.
Since we are 20 centuries distant from the writing of Matthew's Gospel and the
cultures that existed at that time, we are going to step through Matthew's Gospel
at a careful pace, and I'm going to do my best to help you climb into the mindset
of a 1st century Jew in order to understand where Matthew is coming from and
what he meant by what he said. We're going to discuss a number of terms, some
of which are rather standard in Christianity (such as Baptism and The Kingdom of
Heaven), because often we'll see that what that meant to 1st century Jews is not
exactly how the Church has come to define it.
As we began Matthew chapter 3 last week John the Baptist was introduced to us.
We'll re-read the entire chapter to have a good foundation for today's teaching.
Open your Bibles to Matthew chapter 3.
RE-READ MATTHEW CHAPTER 3 all
The first verse proclaims that John the Baptist began his ministry in the desert of
Judea. Since there are a few Johns in the New Testament, recognize that this is
not John the Apostle, an original disciple of Yeshua, who is also the writer of his
own Gospel and of 3 more letters...... 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. This is a very
unique John whose story begins in other Gospels, but not in Matthew's, when he
was still in his mother's womb. The desert of Judea is speaking of the southern
end of the Jordan River valley and extending all the way past the Dead Sea and
2 / 12

down to that finger of the Red Sea known today as the Gulf of Aqaba, over which
Moses miraculously led the Israelites through parted waters as they fled Pharaoh
and his army.
There were several religious communities that lived in that desolate region in the
1st century, seeking peace and separation from both the Romans and the corrupt
Temple authorities. None was larger nor more famous than the sect of the
Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, the discovery of which in the mid-20th
century opened an entire new vista of understanding and study of the Old
Testament and of Jewish history. It is nearly impossible to imagine John not living
among one or more of those communities during his years of preparation in that
barren desert. So today there is much speculation about his possible involvement
with the Essenes of Qumran. Perhaps the greatest evidence of his involvement in
Qumran is that he uses very similar terms and phrases that are found among the
Dead Sea Scrolls in the section known as the Community Documents. My
opinion is that John the Baptist indeed spent significant time with the Essenes,
although he didn't become one of them. Still we're not going to spend any of our
time with this matter because it really doesn't advance our study of Matthew nor
is there any firm evidence either way to hang our hats on.
John's twofold message that he brought to the Jewish community was that
people needed to turn away from their sins and return to God, and this was in
preparation for the imminent coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. In verse 3
Matthew once again connects an ancient prophetic oracle with the events
surrounding the advent of Yeshua; this time it is about John the Baptist. He
quotes Isaiah 40:3.

CJB
Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries out: "Clear a road through the desert for
ADONAI! Level a highway in the 'Aravah for our God!
Different Bible versions will quote this passage differently, but they all amount to
the same thing: someone coming from the desert of Judea is going to announce
the arrival of God or someone God is sending. The differences among Bible
versions come mainly from taking Isaiah's quote either from the Hebrew Tanakh
or from the Greek Septuagint. Although it is agreed by Judaism and Christianity
that this passage is prophetic of the coming of a Messiah, in reality at the time it
was written the context was of the return of the Jews from their captivity in
Babylon. I've taught you before that it is the Jewish way (a way we find often in
the New Testament) to quote only a few words (or perhaps a couple of
3 / 12

sentences) from an Old Testament book, expecting the reader to know the
remainder. In other words, Jews knew the context of the brief quote..... but
gentile Christians usually didn't and still don't! It is worth our time to see the
context for ourselves so open your Bibles to Isaiah 39; we'll start at verse 5 and
continue through Isaiah 40 verse 11.
READ ISAIAH 39:5 - 40:11
We see that this passage, in context, is related to the Jews' return from Babylon.
Yet clearly from the way those verses are written, the fullest fulfillment of this
prophecy is much wider and more grand than only the Jews coming home from
Babylon. From a Jewish viewpoint Matthew would say that the remez of the
passage speaks of the Messiah, even though the p'shat is about returning from
Babylon (go review the previous lesson if you are not clear about the
terms remez and p'shat). It was also understood among Jews that the person
who is crying out, the one who is preparing the way for the Lord, is Elijah.
Speaking of John the Baptist, Matthew says in chapter 11:14:
CJB
Matthew 11:14 Indeed, if you are willing to accept it, he (John the
Baptist) is Eliyahu, whose coming was predicted.
Elijah's return was a prediction found in Malachi.

CJB
Malachi 3:23 Look, I will send to you Eliyahu the prophet before the
coming of the great and terrible Day of ADONAI.
Let me point out that depending on your Bible version, this verse could also
appear as Malachi 4:5 or 4:6.
It is here that we need to pause and take a couple of brief detours to explain
some terms. Because John is called the Baptist, or in terms more familiar to the
minds of Jews, "the immerser", I'd like to discuss the concept of baptism.
For Jews to be immersed (or baptizein in the language of the Greeks) was
meant in the same sense as one might dye a piece of cloth. That is, one dips a
cloth into a vat of colored dye and when removed that cloth has taken on the
characteristics (the color) of that dye. However for Jews, this dipping and
absorbing of characteristics was also meant in a religious context that revolved
around ritual purity. Before a Jew could present his offering at the Temple he first
4 / 12

had to be immersed in one of the several Mikvehs that were located either in or
near the Temple grounds. This immersion was in obedience to several passages
in Leviticus, which prescribed this immersion and washing to remedy any of a
number of causes for the worshipper to have become ritually impure.
I think the most important thing to notice is less the exact method of immersion,
and more what the immersion is about. Historically for Jews, immersion was
about ritual cleansing from spiritual impurity. But John said (and would amplify on
this later) that this new immersion that he brought was NOT for cleansing from
ritual purity but rather it was a cleansing from sin. Let me impress upon you that
impurity and sin are two entirely different things and cause two entirely different
human conditions and outcomes. Impurity is not sin. Impurity could almost
always be set right with what I call a wash and a wait. That is, most of the
reasons for becoming ritually impure could be solved by the worshiper immersing
him or her self in living water and then waiting until a new day began (which was
at sunset). So the remedy for impurity was usually quick and painless, and
theoretically cost nothing (a few of the more serious reasons for impurity required
more extensive procedures and a longer wait time). But the remedy for sin
always involved an animal sacrifice upon the Temple altar, which ranged from
inexpensive animals like birds, all the way up to the hefty price tag of a mature
bull. Impurity was cured with water; sin was cured with the blood of an innocent
animal. Jews were acutely aware of this difference.
Let me be clear: it is NOT that (according to John) an immersion in water now
itself atoned for sin. Rather it is that when one trusted in the One that John was
preparing the way for, immersing in the water now was symbolic of taking on the
characteristics of the One who atoned for sins. We'll soon see that it was
symbolic of identifying with the Christ. This also did not mean that immersion in
water to remedy ritual impurity would end. Rather, it was that one would have to
declare what the immersion was for.
While many Pharisees and Scribes would argue from the position of Jewish
Tradition that there was indeed a kind of supernatural nature in the living water of
a river or lake or in a Mikveh that had an actual physical effect upon the human
body sufficient to remove the toxic impurity, others of the more learned and
enlightened Jews understood that the effect of immersion was symbolic on the
one hand, but also it was in obedience to the command of God on the other. So
whatever physical effect that ritual impurity there might be on the body or soul
was erased by God in response to righteous obedience to the Law of Moses; it
5 / 12

was not because water literally washed it away like dirt coming off the body when
taking a bath.
It is interesting that although the term baptizein (baptize) means "to immerse",
hundreds of years ago within the Church the practice of sprinkling began. How
sprinkling can be seen as the same as immersing I don't know except that my
suspicion is that as with nearly everything else in early gentile Christianity, goal
number one of the Bishops was to separate gentile Christians from Jewish
practices, including those that were biblically ordained. David Sterns notes that
in the 16th and 17th centuries some in the Church revolted against this rather
dubious substitution of sprinkling for immersion, and the first groups to break
away appropriately called themselves "Baptists".
As to the actual immersion process, so far as the ancient documents tell us, a
Jew was not "dunked" by another person. Rather it was a self-immersion. Even
today there is often a supervisor at a mikveh to make sure that a person is 100%
unclothed, or has no open wound on them, or that every last hair became
submerged, and they watch for a few other violations as well. We do read that
John is said to have baptized people, and this is usually taken to mean that he
physically immersed worshippers. But his role was probably that of a supervisor,
and to have the immersion candidate publicly declare what their immersion was
meant to accomplish.
While I advocate for self immersion with supervision (it is, after all, the way it was
done among the Jews who invented the process), I also don't take the position
that if a person is "dunked" by another that such baptism is inferior or invalid. But
as for sprinkling? I have a stronger position against that except in the case where
a person lives in a primitive place where water is so scarce that immersion is
simply not an option. Having a few drops of water flicked on you is not
immersion, and therefore it is not baptizing. Neither is the practice of baptizing
infants or small children efficacious because they have no choice of the will in the
matter. If you are one who was sprinkled or perhaps baptized as a child before
the age of accountability, my advice is to be properly baptized as soon as
possible.
As a somewhat shorter detour, I now want to briefly talk about the term "The
Kingdom of Heaven". This term has essentially the same meaning as, and is fully
interchangeable with, "The Kingdom of God". So I will alternate those two terms
throughout our study of Matthew. The reason that some Jews preferred the term
6 / 12

"Kingdom of Heaven" is because they didn't want to use the word "God" due to a
taboo of saying His name that began around 300 B.C. I think it is fair to say that
the more strict Jews..... no doubt many of the Holy Land Jews as opposed to the
Diaspora Jews.... more carefully avoided using the term "God" in any context. It
is noteworthy that Matthew is the one Gospel writer who almost exclusively uses
the term "The Kingdom of Heaven" instead of "Kingdom of God" because as for
the other 3 Gospel writers, it is the reverse. It is all the more reason that I view
Matthew as not only the most "Jewish" of all the Gospels, but also that Matthew
himself was a learned and pious Holy Land Jew.
The term "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" is directly connected to the
concept of ultimate restoration of God's Creation. Christ is quoted as saying:
CJB
Luke 17:20-21
20
The P'rushim asked Yeshua when the Kingdom of God
would come. "The Kingdom of God," he answered, "does not come with
visible signs;
21
nor will people be able to say, 'Look! Here it is!' or, 'Over
there!' Because, you see, the Kingdom of God is among you."
The CJB along with the majority of Bible translations say that the Kingdom of
God is "among you". It implies that Christ Himself is the Kingdom of God, which
is not biblical. The word being translated is entos, which the various Greek
Lexicons says means "within" or "inside". It does not mean "in the midst" and
certainly not "among". In other words, The Kingdom of Heaven is not a place or a
time. Rather it is a state of being. It is a state of being whereby all has been
restored to the original perfection. All is new and the Universe is forever free from
sin and death. In the biblical context it also means that all living beings quite
naturally glorify God as the ruler over all things.
But what does John the Baptist mean by the Kingdom of Heaven is near? First, it
doesn't indicate proximity since the Kingdom of Heaven isn't a time or a place or
a creature. Rather it is that the arrival of the state of being called the Kingdom of
Heaven is a process that involves many stages. John the Baptist's presence and
ministry is its beginning because he is the one who will prepare the way and
announce the arrival of God's agent, Yeshua, who will eventually bring it about.
The Kingdom of Heaven will only be in a partial state of being until The Devil and
his minions are no more, and the new heavens and new earth arrive. Even the
Millennial Kingdom (the 1000 years reign of Messiah) will not be the fullest
fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heaven because we know that sin and death and
even rebellion against God will occur during that span of time and especially at its
7 / 12

end.
For now, in our day, by trusting in Our Savior Yeshua, we can have the Kingdom
of Heaven, such as it currently is, within us. That is, its ideals and goals, its
hopes and helps, will be present within us. We can choose to live holy lives that
reflect the perfection of the Kingdom of Heaven, in determined obedience to God,
as we wait for the Kingdom in all of its completeness to arrive universally. Let me
say this another way; for now only in Believers...... hopefully you..... does the
Kingdom of Heaven exist on earth.
Verse 4 says that John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around
his waist. In 2Kings 1:8, we read this about the Prophet Elijah.

CJB
2 Kings 1:8 "He was a hairy man," they answered him, "with a leather
belt around his waist." He said, "It was Eliyahu from Tishbe."
Interestingly other Bible versions say:
NAB
2 Kings 1:8 They replied, "He wore a hairy garment with a leather belt
around his waist." "It is Elijah the Tishbite!" he exclaimed.
I cannot prove which is the correct translation. However since Matthew seeks to
connect Elijah and John together, with John as essentially the new Elijah, it can
be no coincidence that John's appearance was described as hairy and with a
leather belt, just as was Elijah's.
Eating locusts and wild honey is not the Jews' regular diet, yet it was survival
food. But as the ascetic monk that John was, that this is what he was said to
have eaten fits his persona.
Certain kinds of locusts were considered kosher food for Jews (Leviticus 11
spells this out). It may not sound particularly appetizing to us, but the Hebrews
weren't, and aren't, the only culture that finds eating certain insects to be an
acceptable addition to their diet. What is the "wild honey" that John also lived off
of? Probably it is bee honey taken from colonies of bees that made hives in trees,
in carcasses of dead animals, etc.; in other words bee hives that were not
cultivated by humans. I say this because until the last couple of years it was
believed that man-made bee hives and bee husbandry was a relatively late
development. However about 3 years ago, in an archaeological dig in Rahov in
8 / 12

northern Israel, a large cache of man-made beehives was discovered and dated
to about 900 B.C. (just after the time of King Solomon). These are by far the
oldest beehives ever discovered anywhere in the world. So it seems that the
current scholarly take that the biblical term "honey" meant a sweet extract taken
from dates is going to have to be revamped. And therefore there truly was
cultivated honey and there was also wild honey, both a product of honeybees,
just as we might find it today.
The point is this: John the Baptist lived a life not connected to regular Jewish
society, and he did it by choice and by divine inspiration. He wore the outfit of an
ancient prophet no doubt to identify himself with that profession, if not the actual
person of Elijah. In fact I think it is reasonable to ask ourselves what the
attraction was to John such that in verse 5 we read that people from Jerusalem
and all Judea went to him to be immersed. Their purpose, we're told, was to
confess their sins. This was in no way symbolic (at that moment) of a conscious
identity with Christ because Christ hadn't yet begun His ministry. It seems
probable to me that many people in the Holy Land region in and around
Jerusalem thought that John indeed was the prophesied return of Elijah. He
looked like it, dressed like it, and acted like it. What is it they say? If it walks like a
duck, quakes like a duck, and looks like a duck..... it's probably a duck.
It has long been known (and can be easily gleaned from the New Testament) that
common everyday Jews in that era felt so oppressed by Rome that they were
certain they had to be living in the prophesied End Times. And since the Prophet
Malachi said that Elijah would come before the Day of the Lord..... meaning that
Elijah would re-appear in the End Times..... then it makes sense that John would
be seen as Elijah, whether he confessed to it or not. In fact when directly
confronted about it as recorded in John 1:21 The Baptist famously said that he
was NOT Elijah. I suspect that in the same way Yeshua would be so elusive at
first about admitting whether or not He was the Messiah, so it was that John was
elusive enough about whether or not he was Elijah that even when he answered
"no", it didn't matter to many of the people. They were convinced that he was the
2nd coming of Elijah. That of course is only my opinion.
It is difficult to understand exactly why the people came to be immersed if it
wasn't to see Elijah. It doesn't help much to read the other Gospels on this matter
because they each give the meaning for folks wanting John's baptism as
something a little different. One says it was for forgiveness of sins, another says
it was for repenting, and Matthew says in one verse it was for confession and in
9 / 12

another for repenting. John the Baptist is also quoted as saying it was for
avoiding God's wrath. This is probably (at least partly) why the next verse has the
religious authorities from Jerusalem suddenly coming to investigate. If this was
indeed Elijah, or just another holy man who wanted to gain a following, they
needed to know.
In verse 7 we find representatives of the Pharisees and the Sadducees coming to
John to question him. John obviously did not welcome them, calling them vipers
to their faces. But he also sarcastically asked who had warned them about the
soon coming of God's wrath, implying that they didn't know about it or weren't
ready for it. There's so much to untangle here. First let's grasp that we have
representatives of both halves of the Jews' dual religious system of that era
showing up. The Pharisees represented the Synagogue system and the
Sadducees the Temple system. The Pharisees and Sadducees were uneasy
rivals, but they weren't enemies. They were certainly unified in the motive of
wanting to guard their religious territory and authority; so the growing flocks of
people seeking out John sent up a red flag. That John characterized the two
representatives' visit as trying ot avoid God's coming wrath once again plays right
into the Elijah and End Times scenario because Elijah was believed throughout
Judaism to appear shortly before the Day of the Lord when God would indeed
pour out His wrath.
So apparently the common folks coming to John believed they were living in the
End Times. Without doubt the Apostles Paul and Peter believed they were living
in the Last Days and taught it to anyone who'd listen. The people were fearful of
it and so possibly came to participate in a ritual immersion from this very strange
man (who many thought was Elijah) in order to perhaps avoid God's wrath in
some way that just isn't clear. Would any of us or our neighbors be much
different?
I have no doubt that when all Hell breaks loose and the arrival of the End of Days
becomes apparent to those who at least harbor some measure of religious
interest, people will want a speedy way to purchase some kind of personal
protection against God's wrath. You can bet they will be accommodated by
throngs of unscrupulous Pastors, Priests, and Rabbis all too happy to take their
money in return for a ritual, an amulet, a special prayer, a large donation,
anything that gives those frightened folks false comfort.
In no way am I suggesting that this is what John was doing; but I suspect that a
10 / 12

good portion of the crowd was coming in belief that they were going to get to see
Elijah and they didn't want to miss an opportunity to be made right with God in
those perilous times. There were plenty of charlatans seeking profit in John's
day, playing upon the fears and vulnerability of the Jewish people, even though
he wasn't one of them. But there is sufficient historical proof that these folks of
the 1st century were not unlike Westerners of the 21st century that will go and
seek out any number of religious sounding people who claim they have the
antidote to fix their finances, to cure illnesses, to predict the future, and to protect
from eternal damnation.
Verse 8 is one that needs to connect deeply within our souls especially in these
turbulent times we live in. It has John saying to the Pharisee and Sadducee
representatives that if they are sincerely coming to confess or repent then they
need to bear fruit to prove it. This concept of fruit, meaning works and deeds, as
the necessary proof of one's faith in the God of Israel is stated several times in
various of the New Testament books. But the one statement that is perhaps the
most well known is found in James.
CJB
James 2:15-18
15
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and
daily food,
16
and someone says to him, "Shalom! Keep warm and eat
hearty!" without giving him what he needs, what good does it do?
17
Thus,
faith by itself, unaccompanied by actions, is dead.
18
But someone will say
that you have faith and I have actions. Show me this faith of yours without
the actions, and I will show you my faith by my actions!
Felling sorry for people in need is not the same thing as taking action to help
people in need. Good fruit is not our nice thoughts and well wishes; it is physical,
tangible deeds that we do to alleviate people's sufferings. While James uses this
good fruit as proof of our faith, John uses it as proof of our sincerity. John then
takes it one step farther by telling these religious authorities that simply being a
Hebrew descended from Abraham (the Father of all Hebrews) is not good
enough to be in good stead with God. That is, being a Jew doesn't negate the
need for personal forgiveness of sins, restoration and redemption..... or for
performing good deeds. The take away is that sincere trust in God can only be
proven by one's outward deeds and actions, which obviously begins with
obedience to God. One's affiliation to a group or one's family heritage does not
include or exclude anyone from having peace with God. However, if there is no
obedience, and there are no good deeds and works to go along with a professed
faith..... actions and fruit as prescribed by the Holy Scriptures.... then one's faith
11 / 12

is to be legitimately doubted. This doesn't just concern a doubt of your true faith
by the people in your social circle. The lack of good fruit ought to first and
foremost be an alarm signal to one's self that perhaps we've been deceiving
ourselves all along.
As our Messiah so soberly warned us:
CJB
Matthew 7:19-23
19
Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut
down and thrown in the fire!
20
So you will recognize them by their
fruit.
21
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the Kingdom
of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants.
22
On that
Day, many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord! Didn't we prophesy in your name?
Didn't we expel demons in your name? Didn't we perform many miracles in
your name?'
23
Then I will tell them to their faces, 'I never knew you! Get
away from me, you workers of lawlessness!'
We'll continue in Matthew chapter 3 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
12 / 12