LUKE CHAPTER THREE
The Preparation for the Saviour
by Tom L. Bright
Study Outline
1. The Time of the Beginning of John's Preparatory Work (3:1-2).
11. John's Preparatory Work -- A Subject of Prophecy (3:3-6).
111. Specific Applications of His Message of Repentance (3:7-14).
IV. John Denies That He Is the Christ -- That the Christ Will Baptize With the Holy Spirit and With Fire (3:15-18).
V. John's Imprisonment by Herod (3:19-20).
VI. The Baptism of Jesus (3:21-22).
V1I. Genealogy of Jesus (3:23-38).
1. The Time of the Beginning of John's Preparatory Work (3:1-2)
Verse 1. Tiberius Caesar Luke meticulously gives the time of the beginning of the preparatory work of John the immerser as being in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. The father of Tiberius Caesar had been an officer under Julius Caesar, and later joined with Antony in opposing Octavian. Livia, the mother of Tiberius, was the third wife of Augustus Caesar. Tiberius therefore, wasa step-son of the first Roman emperor.
By decree of the Roman Senate, Tiberius reigned conjointly with his step-father for two of the fifteen years mentioned by Luke. Upon the death of his step-father in August, 14 A.D., Tiberius Caesar became the sole emperor of the Roman Empire. His official title was Tiberius Caesar Augustus.
Although he left the empire in a state of peace and prosperity, he was highly unpopular with the people. Historians hold conflicting views concerning the character of this man, but in the main it seems
that we can be sure of some things about him. Angus1 informs us that that he was stern, critical of himself, and highly suspicious of all. He rarely took counsel with anyone, felt contempt for the emptiness of court life, and was totally indifferent to public opinion.
Pontius Pilate He was the fifth governor, or procurator, of Judea. History informs us that Herod the Great left his kingdom to three sons. Judea was left to Archelaus who reigned nine years. However, according to Josephus (Ant., XVII, xiii, 2, 3), he was banished to Vienna because of his crimes. Judea then became an imperial province, under direct control of the emperor through governors appointed by the emperor.
Herod, tetrarch of Galilee This was Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. Althoughtetrarch properly denoted one who ruled over a fourth part of a country or province, it came to be a general title for one who ruled over any part of a country or province. This same man imprisoned John (Luke 3:19-20), and later ordered his death.
Philip, tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis This was another son of Herod the Great. He was at one time married to Herodias, his infamous niece, who left him and married his half-brother (and her uncle), the previously mentioned Herod Antipas.
Ituraea was on the east side of the Jordan. It was taken from the descendants of Jetur, who was one of the sons of Ishmael (Gen. 25:15), by the tribes of Rueben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh (1 Chron. 5:19).
Trachonitis was also on the east side of the Jordan river, extending northward to the district of Damascus and eastward to Arabia. It was bounded on the west by Gaulonitis and on the south by the city of Bostra.
Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene Very little is known of this man, except a brief mention by Josephus. Abilene was named from its chief city, Abila. It was adjacent to Galilee, lying north-west of Damascus and south-east of Mount Lebanon.
Verse 2. Annas and Caiaphas The law of Moses allowed for only one High Priest at a time, who was to serve in this capacity until death. However, Israel was under Roman rule at this time and the imperial authorities did not hesitate to manipulate the High Priesthood as it was politically expedient. It was this very thing which existed at the time Luke had under consideration. Thus, the reason Luke records that two men served as High Priests. Annas had served in this capacity for approximately twenty years, having been deposed by Valeirus Gratus in A.D. 15 or 16. He was followed in quick succession by four different men, the last of which was Caiaphas, his son-in-law.
Whatever position a deposed High Priest held in the Sanhedrin is not fully known. But that this man held a tremendous influence over the religious scene at that time is clearly seen in the arrest and subsequent trial of Jesus (John 18:12-13, 24).
We might add that archaeology has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the political situation existed exactly as Luke described. It is at this time that the "word of God" came unto John in the wilderness. Luke's last mention of John had left him in the deserts (Luke 1:80). Now the time had come for the "day of his shewing unto Israel" (Luke 1:80), and the great "way-preparer" enters into his mission with a zeal second to no mortal man.
For an impressive thought relative to the "word of God" coming to John, the reader is
encouraged to read the first few verses of the books penned by the Old Testament prophets,
noticing how many times this phrase, or similar terms, are found. Indeed, John was moved by the
Holy Spirit to begin his work of preparation for the coming Messiah, so that God's eternal
purpose in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:11) might be brought to its completion.
11. John's Preparatory Work -- A Subject of Prophecy (3:3-6).
Verse 3. Luke says that John "came into all the country about Jordan," (the wilderness of Judea, Matt. 3:1). His message was "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Inspiration reveals not only his message, but how the people responded to it, by submitting to "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Luke (1:3; Mark 1:4).
John's message of the coming kingdom of heaven did not fall on disinterested hearers. It stirred within the heart of every Jew a hope of the realization of that promise made to their fathers by the prophets of old concerning the reign of the Messiah. They understood that John was announcing the coming of that Messianic kingdom for which the Jews had looked with eager anticipation for generations. There is no doubt but that his message was joyfully and readily received by the people (cf. Luke 3:15).
The phrase "baptism of repentance" refers to that baptism (immersion) which grew out of their repentance, that is, baptism was that to which their repentance brought them. This baptism was preceded by their confession of sins (Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5).
The phrase for the remission of sins in this passage means exactly the same thing it does in Acts 2:38, and that is "in order to the remission of sins," regardless of what desperate denominationalism would tell us. In fact, the phrase under consideration can only be misunderstood with help.
In Acts 2:38, denominationalism argues that in the phrase "for the remission of sins," the word translated "for" really means because of. Without doubt, our English word "for" sometimes means "because of," but is that what Peter taught here? If so, the conclusion must necessarily follow that baptism is "because of" the remission of sins, that is, because one's sins have already been forgiven!
First of all, the ludicrous nature of this argument is seen in the fact that repentance andbaptism are inseparably linked together by the co-ordinatiing conjunction "and," the purpose of which is to link together words, phrases, and clauses of equal grammatical value. Therefore, whatever baptism is "for," repentance is "for" the very same thing. If Peter commanded baptism "because of" the remission of sins, then he likewise commanded repentance "because of" the remission of sins!!
Secondly, if "for the remission of sins" in Acts 2:38 means "because of" the remission of sins, why would it not mean the exact same thing in Luke 3:3 and Mark 1:4 where inspiration states that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins"? If this is true, then John commanded the people to be baptized "because of" the remission of sins, that is, because their sins were already remitted!!
Furthermore, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, Jesus said "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). We ask, "What does the phrase 'for the remission of sins' in this verse mean?" If this same phrase in Acts 2:38 means "because of the remission of sins," why does it not mean it here? Thus, we must conclude that Jesus taught that His blood would be shed "because of the remission of sins"!! If not, why not? The implications of this false theory borders on sacrilege!
But if the truth relative to the preposition translated "for" in these passages is accepted (prospective, looking forward), then there is complete harmony here. Beloved, the problem is not with the Bible, but with man doing all in his power to further his denominational error.
Verses 4-6. Inspiration clearly states here that John's mission and message was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Indeed, the "Messianic Prophet" not only foretold the coming Messiah, but also of the one who was to go before Him, preparing the way (Isa. 40:3-6).
The figure used here is one with which the people of that day and time were familiar. Boles wrote:
It was customary for eastern kings, when on an expedition, to send forerunners to prepare the way for the king; the hills were to be leveled, the valleys to be filled, and the road was to be straightened so that the king would have easy access in travel. John came on a similar mission; he was the forerunner of the great King; the preparation for this King was to be made in the hearts and lives of the people. This is another way of expressing "repentance."2
But this is not the only Old Testament prophecy fulfilled by John the baptizer. Jesus affirmed the fulfillment of Malachi 3:1 was seen in John the baptist. Hear Him:
But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he (Matt. 11:8-11).
And in the same breath, the Master pointed their attention to another inspired statement from the pen of Malachi as being fulfilled by John, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come" (Matt. 11:14), which was a direct allusion to Malachi 4:5-6. Certainly no mortal can say or write anything that would surpass this Divine estimation and affirmation of this great man of God.
In verse six we see a statement that is pregnant with the beauty, majesty, and love of God. There is so much that could be said relative to this sublime thought that it is with sadness that time and space allows only reference to various verses that should be noted by the studious reader: Genesis 3:15, 12:1-3, Isaiah 2:2-6, 11:9, John 10:16, Mark 16:15-16, Ephesians 2:11-3:21, to name just a few. Simply stated, through the grace of God, salvation is for all through Christ Jesus, revealed by the gospel of Christ, which must be appropriated by our humble obedience.
What About John's Baptism?
Within this context of the preparatory work of John the immerser, it is here apropos for us to look closely at a question often asked: "Did those who were baptized with John's baptism have to be re-baptized with the baptism which became effective on the day of Pentecost?"
I have long believed and taught that those baptized with the baptism of John did not have to be re-baptized. We have already noted that inspiration affirms that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins," and that this is the same phrase found in Acts 2:38. Was John's baptism "for the remission of sins" or not? If not, Mark and Luke lied! Since every believer in the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Scriptures knows that they did not lie, we conclude that the Bible clearly teaches that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins."
But this immediately raises another question. When did those baptized with John's baptism receive the "remission of sins"? If at the instant they were baptized with John's baptism, the remission of sins was without the blood of Christ. Therefore, it seems that the remission of sins would have had to be through the bloody sacrifies of the law of Moses. But Paul said that "...it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin" (Heb. 10:4). Therefore, what was it that cleansed them from their sins?
It is this very thing which points us to the preparatory work of John the immerser. As already noted, his mission was to prepare a people for the Lord, and certainly none could say that John failed in his divine mission. This is clearly seen in Acts 19:1-7.
Although the events of these verses are sometimes used to show that John's disciples had to be re-baptized, we suggest that a close study will show that such is not the case.
Upon his return to Ephesus, Paul found about twelve men referred to by Luke as "certain disciples." Upon asking them if they had received the Holy Spirit since they had been baptized, they replied "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" (Acts 19:2). This immediately brought forth the query from Paul, "Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism."
First of all, it is not without significance that in the last five verses of the previous chapter, Luke recorded the events surrounding the preaching of Apollos. Paul had not too long been gone from Ephesus when Apollos appeared on the scene. He was "...instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:24-25).
Please focus your attention on the last clause of verse twenty-five: "KNOWING ONLY THE BAPTISM OF JOHN." Since he knew only John's baptism, are we presumptuous in affirming that he taught only John's baptism? Indeed, this is why Luke informs us that upon hearing him, Aquila and Priscilla "...took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26).
Certainly it is no mere coincidence that Luke records Apollos preaching only John's baptism and then, in the same breath, tells ofPaul's encounter with those who had been baptized with John's baptism. It seems clear that the twelve men had heard Apollos preaching "...only the baptism of John" (Acts 18:25) and had obeyed it. Second, when we look at Paul's explanation of the purpose and plan which God had for John's baptism, we see that it was to point the people to the COMING Christ. Notice, "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus" (19:4).
Therefore, if they were baptized by Apollos, they were baptized with an invalid baptism, one that was no longer effectual. John's baptism, before the day of Pentecost, pointed the people to the COMING CHRIST, but after then, it could not point people to the coming Christ, because He had already come! Just as one could scripturally pray "Thy kingdom come" before the day of Pentecost, so one could be "baptized for the remission of sins" with John's baptism; but after that day, neither was acceptable in God's sight. Thus, we see the meaning of Luke's affirmation that Aquila and Priscilla "...expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26); they evidently explained that the One to whom his baptism pointed had already come, telling him of the "one baptism" (Eph. 4:5).
Third, those prepared by John did not have to be "re-prepared." To do so would be to totally nullify John's work and ignore the Master's words relative to his purpose. One can search the Scriptures from now unto the day he dies, but will never find an instant of John's disciples having to be re-baptized.
Clearly the event at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) is not an exception to this affirmation. These twelve men had evidently been baptized by Apollos, who knew only John's baptism. If this is true, then they were baptized with a baptism that had been invalidated when the baptism of Christ (great commission baptism) was brought into effect on the day of Pentecost (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38).
Fourth, inspiration reveals that those "...that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto hem about three thousand souls" Acts 2:41). Unto whom were the three thousand added? "To the apostles" some might say. Who re-baptized the apostles? Surely we do not believe that Holy Spirit baptism saves, as some pentecostals teach.
Why could the three thousand not have been added to that which John had prepared, those who did exactly what John told his disciples to do (Acts 19:4)? Every altar, every bloody sacrifice ever offered under Patriarchy or the law of Moses looked forward to the coming Christ, and it was not until His blood was shed that they had the remission of their sins (Heb. 9:15). Now, if this can be said of the law of Moses, why can it not be said of the baptism of John also? John's baptism was "for the remission of sins," but that could not be enjoyed until Jesus had died upon the cross and shed His blood, which is THE atonement for all sins for all times. John's baptism was prospective, pointing the people forward to the coming Christ. When the Christ came (Acts 2), the design, purpose, and mission of John's preparatory work and baptism had been realized.
We might look upon the building of Solomon's temple for a similar thought. The Bible
says, "...there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in
building" (1 Kings 8:7). David had made the necessary preparations so that Solomon could build
the great edifice. Likewise, John prepared the material for the spiritual temple, the New
Testament Church (1 Cor. 3:18; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). The Lord took the
prepared material, the people John prepared, and built the New Testament Church. They became
the Church on that notable day. When salvation was for the first time publicly proclaimed in
Christ Jesus, those who had been baptized for the remission of sins prior to this day, received the
remission of sins and became the New Testament Church.
111. Specific Applications of His Message of Repentance (3:7-14)
Verses 7-9. John said to the multitudes, "O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." It seems from Matthew 3:7 that this scathing accusation was directed more to the Pharisees and Sadducees, and to any of their devout followers that might be there, than to the general populace. The word translated generation simply means "the offspring, progeny, of men or of animals,"3 and vipers is a generic word for poisonous snakes; thus, John calls them the "offspring of vipers." When we consider Jesus' many criticisms of these two most popular sects of the Jews, it seems more in harmony with the overall picture to understand that John specifically had them under consideration.
Did "the wrath to come" apply only to that last great day when all nations shall be gathered before His majestic throne (Matt. 25:31-32), or did it have another application? In my estimation it looked, first of all, forward to the destruction of Jerusalem, to the end of the Jewish state when God forever showed who was His people. It was on this occasion that Israel as a nation ceased to be, never to be restored. Some will argue that there is a nation of Israel today, but there is one important ingredient missing -- there is not a single Jew alive today who can prove their Jewish heritage. The fact that the Romans destroyed all of their genealogical records prohibits any restoration of the Jewish system.
This was such a total and absolute destruction of those who had turned their backs upon the promised Messiah that it certainly prefigures the end of the world and the final judgment.
The statement "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance..." (v. 8) simply means that their repentance was to manifest itself in "fruits" whereby true repentance was clearly seen.Repentance is an act of mind which determines to cease serving sin and to begin serving God. True repentance will manifest itself in the reformed life that one begins to live, but repentance is not a reformed life.
John was preaching the approach of the kingdom of heaven. The Jews felt that they were entitled to all rights, privileges, and blessings of the coming kingdom of heaven simply because they were descendants of Abraham. But this was not the key, this was not what God had determined to be the way by which they would enter this coming kingdom.
This is why Nicodemus was troubled when Jesus told him that he would have to be born again (John 3:1-5). As all Jews, his only concept of covenant relationship with God was that which was established by right of physical birth, as a descendant of Abraham, But John vividly pointed out that such qualifications were the appointment of man, not of God.
In verse nine, John pictures the axe as being laid at the root of the trees. He uses here a figure that needed no explanation. They could picture an orchard containing two types of trees: fruit-bearing and non-bearing. The husbandman would eliminate the unproductive trees by cutting them down and burning them, while nourishing the ones bearing fruit. H. Leo Boles said it so well, "In this way John emphasizes personal responsibility without regard to fleshly ancestry.4 The God-approved production would be in the kingdom of heaven and of a spiritual nature, not in the kingdom of Israel and of a fleshly nature.
Verses 10-11. The clear and unmistakable words of the preacher were so different than what they had been taught all of their lives. Boles said that "It was a Jewish maxim that no circumcised person
could ever be lost, but John warned them of a 'wrath to come.' "5 Thus, the question must necessarily come, "What shall we do then?" (verse 10). John then makes specific application to situations that existed in that day and time.
The law of Moses certainly demanded care for widow, orphans and the poor. However, in many instances, the Jews gave no heed to these obligations. Two coats were sometimes worn, one for decoration or luxury. Certainly no faithful follower of Christ could have two coats when his brother was destitute and needed one! "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" (1 John 3:17).
John said, "He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise." Paul said, "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). This very principle is manifested by the early Christians in the first six chapters of Acts (cf. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; Acts 6:1-8). Pure and undefiled religion manifests the same principle (James 1:27).
Verses 12-13. The publicans under consideration here were actually the third "tier" of the Roman tax system. Lenski 6 tells us that Roman knights and the wealthy bought the taxes and custom of particular provinces for a fixed sum which was paid into the public treasury. Under these were the "chief publicans" in the various provinces, such as Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10). Next came the actual collectors of the taxes and customs, those that are called "publicans" in the New Testament.
The publicans were particularly odious to the common Jew. First of all, these publicans were Jews themselves, and were considered traitors because they aided the hated Roman oppressors.
Secondly, most of them were dishonest, being nothing less than extortionists, over-charging at their desire and keeping the money. Thus, with a bitterness and hatred next to none, the publicans were held in the highest scorn. To have a publican in the family was a disgrace. The Jews held that promises made to murderers, thieves, or publicans did not have to be honored. Their money was not accepted at the synagogue or temple, because it was considered as having been gained by plunder.
John did not tell them to quit their job, only to be honest in it (cf. Titus 2:10). That God recognizes civil government cannot be successfully denied; and that He likewise accepts the principle of taxation is clear (Luke 20:21-25). The requirement that God's people have is to show themselves as Christians at all times, under every circumstance.
Verse 14. Who these soldiers were, we are unable to tell. We do not know if they were Jews or proselytes. However, the word translated "violence" simply means, "to shake violently...including intimidation."7 It is probable that many of them, though in a time of relative peace, were prone to theft, plunder, and oppression. Added to this is John's prohibition of false accusation. Such false charges were not unusual and were engaged in to extort money from others.
IV. John Denies That He Is the Christ -- That the
Christ Will Baptize With the Holy Spirit and With Fire (3:15-18).
Verse 15. All the people needed was the word from John, and they would have immediately rose up and followed him as the promised Messiah. In their minds the Christ would lead them in throwing off the Roman yoke, and the boundaries of the kingdom of Israel would be extended to that which was once enjoyed by David and Solomon.
Their view of the kingdom was entirely different than that which God intended. He was going to establish a spiritual kingdom, they looked for a physical one; His victory was going to come by appealing to man's heart through the gospel, they looked for victory by force, power, and military might; He was going to persuade, they wanted to oppress; He desired to save, they desired to destroy.
Without doubt the Jews were ready to accept a Messiah. This is clearly seen in the people's attitude immediately following the miraculous feeding of the five thousand (Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:35-44;
Luke 9:12-17; John 6:5-14). John informs us of something at this occasion that the others did not mention. "Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone" (John 6:14-15).
Verses 16-17. But John was truly a prophet of God and would not be guilty of succumbing to the temptations of the devil. He understood his preparatory mission -- he was not the Christ, but was to prepare a people for the coming Christ.
John referred to his baptism, but pointed them immediately to the one that was "mightier" than he. The difference between this man that they would have readily accepted AS the Messiah, and the true Messiah was clearly illustrated by John, The "latchet" was the strap that held the "shoe" (sandal) on the foot. The sandals were removed and laid aside upon entering a house. The tying and the untying of the sandals was the work of the most menial of servants. How much greater then, must be this One for whom John was to prepare the way; greater in nature, office, power, wisdom, and aim.
This mighty One, in contrast to John's baptism in water, was to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Much can be said about John's statement here, but time and space will not allow us to go into any great depth.
There are, in my judgment, two separate and distinct baptisms under consideration here: (1) the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and (2) the baptism of fire. Some hold that the "fire" here refers to the "cloven tongues like as of fire" (Acts 2:3), thus making the whole of John's statement refer only to the baptism of the Spirit. Nor do I believe that this has reference to the new birth of John 3:1-5, In my judgment, the "baptism of fire" here denotes destruction and separation.
This is clearly seen when we consider John's words in verse seventeen. Here he alludes to the manner of threshing grain, a process most familiar to his hearers. The threshing was done by oxen treading out the straw, which was then raked away, leaving the grain and chaff lying mixed upon the threshing floor. The "fan" was a winnowing shovel or fan which was used to throw the mixture up in the air, allowing the wind to carry the chaff away. The wheat is then gathered into the granary, while the chaff is burned.
I suggest that John here uses a figure of speech that is called synecdoche, which simply means that the whole is mentioned when a part is meant or that a part is mentioned when the whole is intended. Thus, John is simply saying that some of the "you" would be baptized with the Spirit, and others with fire.
The "baptism of fire" is destructive in nature, referring to God's judgment upon the wicked. It points, first of all, to the destruction of the nation of Israel by the Romans some forty years later, which was undeniable proof that the Jews, as a nation, were no longer God's chosen people. This climactic event prefigured the coming of the Christ at the end of time to judge the world (2 Cor. 5:10).
Just before the Romans began the siege of the city of Jerusalem, we are told that the Christians who gave heed to the warnings of Jesus (Matt. 24) fled for their lives. There was certainly a separation that took place on this occasion -- but what was the criterion that separated the wheat from the chaff, the acceptable from the rejected on that occasion? The word of God! What will be the determining factor on that last great day? The word of the Lord. This brings us to the next consideration relative to the baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned by John.
The "baptism of the Holy Spirit" refers to the descent of the Spirit upon the twelve (and later on Paul) as recorded in Acts 2:1-4. But John's language encompasses more than the event of the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. By metonymy, it comprehended all that was to flow from the coming of the Spirit on that notable day, namely, all of the blessings and promises revealed in the gospel and substantiated by the miraculous manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic period.
John pictured the coming Messiah with the winnowing fan in his hand, the means to
separate the wheat from the chaff. The word of God is that which has always made separation and
will make the separation at the end of the world. As pertains to you and me, this certainly alludes
to the gospel of Christ as that which will ultimately separate the wheat from the chaff.
V. John's Imprisonment by Herod (3:19-20).
Verses 19-20. Herod Antipas, when on a trip to Rome, paid a visit to his half-brother Philip, who was married to their niece, Herodias. While there, Antipas fell in love with Herodias, and convinced her to leave Philip and marry him. She did so on the condition that he would divorce his wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia.
Long has this, and parallel passages, been used to show that when a person enters into an unscriptural marriage, the only thing they can do is terminate this unacceptable arrangement. In the last decade, with the rise of the unscriptural doctrine on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage denominated "Balesism" after its leading proponent, the argument is now being proposed that the only sin condemned here is that of incest; thus incest and not an unscriptural marriage was the reason for the need of separation.
In a study of this situation, there are many questions that arise. Although Herod professed to abide by the law of Moses, history clearly shows that his allegiance to the law went only as far as it was convenient and politically expedient. Thus, at best, one is on dubious ground in basing such serious matters as this on the theory that incest was the only sin here involved.
For a more detailed record of the events after the arrest of John, the reader is requested to read Matthew 14:11-12 and Mark 6:14-29. Worthy of notice is the fact that, with the use of the imperfect active tense in the phrase "and heard him gladly," Mark (Mark 6:20) presents the thought that John evidently had the opportunity to preach to Herod on more than one occasion. This probably explains why "Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy..."(Mark 6:20).
This one who came in the spirit and power of Elijah "reproved" Herod for this sin. Such a standard as John lived by brought him to prison, and ultimately cost him his life. As Jesus said, "Among them that are born of woman there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist...(Matt. 11:11).
VI. The Baptism of Jesus (3:21-22).
Verses 21-22. Concerning the baptism of Jesus, Matthew's account (Matt. 3:13-17) gives something that is not mentioned by the others, namely, the conversation that transpired between Jesus and John. When John stated "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" (Matt. 3:14), I do not think that John was affirming that Jesus was the Messiah nor intimating that he was aware of the Deity of Christ. This is confirmed in John 1:32-34:
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Matthew clearly states that Jesus came to John to be baptized by him. Much has been said and written about this event. When we begin to seek the reason for Jesus coming to John to be baptized of him, the normal answers are "to obey God" or "for an example." That Jesus did everything that was essential to obey God and that His life is a classic example of continual obedience, I would be the first to affirm. However, I do not believe that such gives sufficient answer relative to the reason for the baptism of Jesus at the hands of John.
If "for an example," an example of what? for whom? Jesus certainly did not meet the qualifications necessary to John's baptism. John's baptism was a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). If it is true that Jesus was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15), and if it is true that He "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth" (1 Pet. 2:22), then it is true that He had no sins of which He needed to repent, no sins that He had to confess (Mark 1:5), nor would baptism for the remission of sins be applicable to Him, Therefore, although Jesus was baptized by John, He was not baptized with "John's baptism."
Jesus gave the reason, "...for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15). The word thus means "in the manner spoken of; in the way described; in the way it was done; in this manner; in such a manner."8 The word becometh means "to be becoming, seemly, fit,"9 and is the same word found in 1 Timothy 2:10 and Titus 2:1. Thus, Jesus states that John was to allow His baptism, "for in this manner it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness."
Furthermore, must we assume that "all righteousness" was fulfilled the instant Jesus was baptized? It is evident that the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17) were not fulfilled the instant Jesus uttered those words. Now, as Matthew 5:17 looked forward until Jesus completed His mission, can we not understand Matthew 3:15 to likewise look forward?
Let us look closely at the significance of this event. First of all, I would suggest that this unique event was that single act which was the inauguration of the final scene of God's mystery of the ages, the fulfillment of the eternal purpose of in Christ (Eph. 3:11). Notice that it is only after He was baptized that Jesus began to preach the coming kingdom of heaven.
Interestingly enough, it was after He was baptized that the authoritative voice of God declared, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Undoubtedly, the "well pleased" here means more than the fact that God was simply pleased with Jesus' life up to that point. I suggest that the voice from heaven is the finger of the Sovereign Ruler of time and eternity pointing directly at Him who is the only begotten Son of God and saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, the one who is the seed of Abraham, through whom all nations of the world are to be blessed; this is my beloved Son is whom I am pleased to bring to light that long kept mystery of the ages, to fulfill all that I have promised through the prophets of old." Indeed, Jesus was the "heir of all things" (Heb. 1:2) spoken by the Old Testament prophets.
Relative to 'fulfil all righteousness," if one would take the time to look at all of the Old Testament prophecies relative to the coming Christ and the idea of "righteousness" found therein, Jesus' meaning would become much clearer.
Let us notice some of them. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord ourrighteousness (Jer. 33:14-16; emp. added, tlb). The same thought is clearly expressed in Jeremiah 23:5-6 also.
Isaiah, the great "Messisanic" prophet adds to this thought, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him...But with righteousness shall he judge the poor...And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins..." (Isa. 11:1-5; emp. added, tlb). Again, "...by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify man; for he shall bear their iniquities" (Isa. 53:11). We all recognize that when one is justified, he is declared righteous and this can only come through the gospel.
Thus, would we be too far from the truth to state that Jesus's baptism by John was more,
much more, than "example" or "to obey God," but it was the occasion by which the Divine finger
was pointed directly at the One in whom was God's pleasure to fulfill His eternal purpose that was
promised from the foundation of the world? We think not.
ENDNOTES
1. S. Angus, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Ed. James Orr, Vol. V, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1939), p. 2979.
2. H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on The Gospel According to Luke (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co., 1969), p. 70
3. Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (McLean, Va: MacDonald Publishing Co., n.d.), p. 113.
4. H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on The Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate Co., 1969), p. 80.
5. Boles, Luke, p. 79
6. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Pub. House, 1961), p. 194.
7. W. E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (McLean, VA: MacDonald Publishing Co., n. d.), p. 3377.
8. Thayer, p. 468.
9. Thayer, p. 535.
10. J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (U.S.A., Harper & Brothers, 1930), p. 204.