2 Advent A: Matthew 3:1-12 Exegetical Notes

The 2nd and 3rd Sundays in Advent center on John the Baptist -- his
early preaching this week and his questioning Jesus from prison next
week (11:2-11). Perhaps if we want to properly prepare for the coming
of Jesus, rather than looking in the manger (or the pre-Christmas hype
and decorations and consumerism), we need to listen to John. While
only two gospels mention Jesus' birth, all four talk about John who
prepares the way for the coming of Jesus.

Some of Matthew's emphases can be seen by comparing literal
translation of Matthew and Mark -- an assumed source:

Matthew 3:1b-2a         Mark 1:4
he appeared             he came
John the Baptist        John, who was
proclaiming             baptizing
in the wilderness       in the wilderness
of Judea
and saying,             proclaiming
"Repent                 a baptism of repentance
                        for the forgiveness of sins.
for it has come
the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew has a slightly greater emphasis on John's words than his
action of baptizing. Only Matthew gives us a direct quote of John's
preaching: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near." These are
exactly the same words Jesus speaks in 4:17, and quite similar to the
words his disciples are to proclaim in 10:7. Matthew has a greater
emphasis on John (and Jesus and the disciples) as proclaimers.

Also, in Matthew, John never talks about forgiveness of sins! (More
about this later.)

JOHN'S PREACHING THEME 1: REPENTING

What is repenting? Literally the Greek (_metanoeo_) means, "to change
one's mind." However, given Matthew's emphasis on "bearing fruit," his
idea of "repentance" probably goes back to the Hebrew _shuv_ -- "to
change one's ways." It involves more than just *thinking* in a
different way.

Perhaps the best and simplest definition of "repentance" I've read
comes from Richard Jensen in _Touched by the Spirit_. He also relates
it to baptism. (I have shared this many times before.)

The daily baptismal experience has many names. It may be called
repentance. Unfortunately, repentance is often understood as an "I
can" experience. "I am sorry for my sins. I *can* do better. I *can*
please you, God." So often we interpret repentance as our way of
turning to God. That cannot be. Christianity is not about an
individual turning to God. Christianity is about God turning to us.

In repenting, therefore, we ask the God who has turned towards us,
buried us in baptism and raised us to new life, to continue his work
of putting us to death. Repentance is an "I can't" experience. To
repent is to volunteer for death. Repentance asks that the "death of
self" which God began to work in us in baptism continue to this day.
The repentant person comes before God saying, "*I can't* do it
myself, God. Kill me and give me new life. You buried me in baptism.
Bury me again today. Raise me to a new life." That is the language
of repentance. Repentance is a daily experience that renews our
baptism. [p. 49]

Note that the command, "Repent," is in the present tense, which
denotes continual or repeated actions: "Keep on repenting!"
"Continually be repentant!" It isn't like a door we pass through once
that gets us into the kingdom. Repentance is the ongoing lifestyle of
the people in the kingdom.

Warren Carter (_Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and
Religious Reading_) offers a slightly different understanding of
repentance:

By repenting, people *prepare the way of the Lord and make his paths
straight*. Both *way* and *path* are metaphors for God's will and
purposes (Deut 5:33; Jer 7:23; Matt 7:13-14; contrast with Roman
ways and roads). God's purposes, manifested in Jesus, will be
experienced either as salvation or as condemnation depending on
one's response to John's call to repent. To repent signifies, then,
not only specific changes in structures and ways of living, but a
basic receptivity to God's purposes. [p. 94]

However, Matthew doesn't seem to hold out much hope for repenting. The
verb is used in the preaching of John and Jesus (3:2, 4:17). It is
used of the people of Nineveh who repented at the preaching of Jonah
(12:41); but the indications are that the people in Jesus' day will
probably not repent (11:20, 21; also 12:41). The noun is only used
twice, both times in our text: 3:8, 11. So if our preaching seems to
fall on deaf ears, perhaps we can be consoled knowing that John's and
Jesus' call to repent often seemed to be unheard.

JOHN'S PREACHING THEME 2: THE COMING KINGDOM

"The kingdom of heaven" is uniquely Matthew's phrase. He often uses it
in place of Mark's "kingdom of God." Perhaps, if we assume a Jewish
background for Matthew, it is a way of avoiding saying the name of
God. Robert H. Gundry (_Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a
Mixed Church under Persecution_) suggests: "Matthew prefers heaven to
God so as to keep his readers from inferring that God the Father rules
to the exclusion of Jesus. Rather, Jesus rules as God, as God's Son,
and also as the son of man (see 13:41; 216; 28; 20:21; 25:31, all
unique to the first gospel)." [p. 43]

_basileia_ can refer to the *area* ruled by a king; or it can refer to
the *power* or *authority* to rule as king. We probably shouldn't
interpret the "kingdom of heaven" as a place -- such as the place we
go when we die; but as the ruling power that emanates from heaven. We
can understand the phrase to mean "heaven rules (through God and
through Jesus)."

The verb _eggizo_ is difficult to translate in this passage. It means,
"to come near". It can refer to space, as one person coming close to
another person; or to time, as "it's almost time". The difficulty is
with the perfect tense of the verb, which usually indicates a past
action with continuing effects in the present. For instance, these
expressions in the perfect tense: "He has died" or "He has been
raised" or "I have believed" can also be expressed with the present
tense: "He is dead" or "He is raised" or "I believe". When we say with
the perfect tense "The kingdom of heaven has come near," that implies
that the kingdom *is near* or even that it *arrived*. Its "time has
come" or "is now". Given the ambiguity of the perfect tense and the
translation in the preceding paragraph, we might say: "Heaven's rule
has arrived and is coming." There is both a present and future aspect
to its coming. Heaven's rule comes with Jesus, but we are still
waiting for it.

OUR RESPONSE

Ironically, in a chapter called "Worship," Mark Allan Powell in _God
With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew's Gospel_," states:

Still if worship is an appropriate response, it is not the ideal
one. For Matthew, the ideal response to divine activity is
repentance.... Indeed, Jesus never upbraids people for failing to
worship or give thanks in this gospel (compare Luke 17:17-18), but
he does upbraid those who have witnessed his mighty works and not
repented (11:20-24). We know from Jesus' teaching in Matthew that
people can worship God with their lips even when their deeds
demonstrate that their hearts are far from God (15:3-9). Thus, the
responsive worship of the crowds in 9:8 and 15:31 is commendable but
will be in vain if performed with unrepentant hearts. [pp. 41-42]

What should be our response to the coming of heaven's rule?
Surprisingly, it is not worship or praise, but repentance. Perhaps
this is the big problem with the coming of the Kingdom or the coming
of Jesus at Christmas or Palm Sunday -- we want to celebrate and
praise, rather than repent -- to let the coming one change our lives.

What is involved in heaven's rule arriving? From Matthew 10:7-8, it
means healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing those with
leprosy, driving out demons; and freely giving as we have received.
Jumping ahead a little in our text -- perhaps those are the good
fruits worthy of repentance in 3:8 & 10.

JOHN: LIKE OT PROPHETS

John comes in the way of the OT prophets. Isaiah 40:3 is quoted (sort
of). In Isaiah, "A voice cries out: 'In the wilderness prepare the way
of the Lord.'" John's connection with the OT prophets is also
indicated by his clothing which resembles the appearance of Elijah in
2 Kings 1:8: "A hairy man, with a leather belt around his waist." In
addition, John, like Elijah during the drought, was dependent upon God
for his food. Locusts and wild honey are not the products of human
labor.

Keener (_A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew_) after talking about
the wilderness, John's clothing and food, states:

Matthew is explaining that John lived simply -- with only the barest
forms of necessary sustenance. This was not the only lifestyle to
which God called his servants, but Matthew believed that God called
some disciples to it (Mt 11;18-19), and their lifestyle challenges
all disciples to consider whether they have staked everything on the
kingdom (13:46; cf. the emphasis in Lk 3:11; 12:33; 14:33; Acts
2:44-45; 4:32-35). [p. 119]

BAPTISM REQUIREMENTS

The requirement for John's baptism (which I don't believe is the same
rite as Christian baptism), is "confessing their sins" (v. 6). The
basic meaning of _exomologeomai_ is "to acknowledge a(n inward) fact
publicly." In our verse, it refers to acknowledging one's previous bad
behavior. Its only other use in Matthew refers to Jesus acknowledging
his thankfulness to God (12:25).

Keener notes that John's baptism is like that when Gentiles convert to
Judaism, but John is "treating his fellow Jews as if they were
spiritually Gentiles, calling them to turn to God on the same terms
they believed God demanded of Gentiles" [p. 121]. Should we be calling
our active church members to a repentance that we would expect of
converts?

It should probably be a little disturbing to us grace-centered
Lutherans that John the "B", in Matthew, never talks about
forgiveness! There is confession and repentance, but not forgiveness,
(cf. Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3). As I mentioned above, he emphasizes the new life
of proper fruit-bearing more than the forgiveness of sins.

However, only Matthew has Jesus declaring the forgiveness of sins at
the Last Supper: "for this is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many *for the forgiveness of sins*" (26:28, cf. Mk
14:24; Lk 22:20; 1C 11:25). Perhaps this is another indication of: (1)
Jesus is more powerful than John; and (2) how Jesus makes heaven's
rule come near -- something John declared, but didn't do.

Smith (_Matthew_) suggests a possible reason for this emphasis on
bearing fruit language:

Members of Matthew's community may have been finding their security
before God in the ceremony of baptism and in spiritual endowments.
They may have somehow disconnected baptism from any thought of the
deadly power of sin, from the solemn call to repentance, and from
the summons to the new life of righteousness.... Matthew's report
concerning John the Baptist amounts to pleas to his own community to
rethink and reorder their lives. [p. 46-47]

John called God's own people to repent. He summons not outsiders but
insiders to radical reorientation, calling religious people in
particular to stop insisting that they know best and to cease
resisting God, God's judgment, God's sovereignty. [p. 49]

Perhaps we need to proclaim to our people what life after baptism
should mean. How do we proclaim "fruit-bearing," without it appearing
to be "works-righteousness"? The difficulty is that those who are
sitting in the pews are probably the ones who already know the truth
of fruit-bearing. Their presence at worship, their desire to receive
Christ and his forgiveness in the Word and sacrament, are indications
that heaven's rule is bearing fruit in their lives. The bigger
question: How do we get the word out to those "not so active" members?

"PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES"

In Luke, we hear about "crowds" who come to be baptized by John, who
are called "children of vipers" (Lk 3:7). In Matthew, it is the
"Pharisees and Sadducees" (v. 7). However, there is a very significant
translation/interpretation issue. The little Greek word epi carries a
variety of meanings. The NRSV translates the phrase "coming *for*
baptism." [Note: they ignore "his" (_autou_) in the verse.] This
suggests that they were coming to be baptized, but _epi_ is not
usually used to denote purpose. Also, it seems unlikely that Matthew
with his negative portrayal of them would have Pharisees and Sadducees
showing repentance by undergoing John's baptism.

The NIV has "coming *to where* he was baptizing," using _epi_ in its
more common meaning to denote a place "on" or "upon". Thus they came
to the place of his baptisms, but not to be baptized. More likely they
came for critical observation.

The ESV has "coming to his baptism," which leaves the purpose of their
coming vague.

Carter (_Matthew and the Margins_) goes a step further and notes that
_epi_ can mean "against". Thus the Pharisees and Sadducees are coming
*against* his baptism. Thus Matthew already sets these religious
authorities against God's purposes.

This opposition continued from John's time to Matthew's day. J. Andrew
Overman (_Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism: The Social World of
the Matthean Community_) suggests that Matthew's (Jewish) Christian
community was developing along side of and in conflict with developing
Jewish communities -- the strongest being Pharisaic Judaism which grew
into rabbinical Judaism. The Sadducees were another Jewish group at
the time who faded from the scene.

Each of these Jewish groups as well as the Jewish Christians of
Matthew's community were forming their own identities and allegiance
among the people. One of the characteristics of competing groups is
portraying the others with polemical language as "the enemy". (Of
course differing Christian denominations would never do that <g>.)
Throughout Matthew, Pharisees and Sadducees are pictured as "the
enemy" who taught and believed and lived in ways in conflict with the
Christians' teaching, beliefs, and lifestyles. As I read this book,
the thought struck me, which will probably come up often during the
year in these notes, about how the Christian community today needs to
establish its own identity and allegiance in contrast to the competing
groups within our society and culture. As we will see, for Matthew, a
large part of the difference is centered on "bearing fruit" -- what
comes out of one's mouth and how one lives in obedience to God.

Smith (_Matthew_) presents a different view:

I think of Matthew as a Christian sage disturbed primarily by
developments inside the Christian community. He recalls harsh words
of Jesus against Pharisees and other leaders, not because he is
locked in combat with the Pharisaic leaders of Jamnia, but because
he is probing the mind of Jesus regarding issues of authority and
leadership. At the same time he addresses issues of discipleship and
followership. [p. 20]

Rather than directly attacking the leaders of his community, Smith
suggests that Matthew lets them overhear Jesus talking to and
criticizing religious leaders concerning their authority and
leadership. Hopefully, they might see themselves in these
conversations.

John's phrase, "offspring of vipers," is used in two other places by
Jesus in Matthew. In 12:34 it is in relationship to bearing good
fruit. In 23:33 it is directed against scribes and Pharisees, those
hypocrites! I wonder if this phrase might be comparable to our
derogatory title "SOB". It's probably not something I would wonder out
loud in the pulpit, though. Malina and Rohrbaught (_Social-Science
Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels_) write about this phrase: "'Brood
of vipers' (literally, 'offspring of snakes,' 'snake bastards') would
be as insulting a label as one could imagine in a society in which
social standing and the honor bound up with it are fundamentally a
function of birth. ... Such an insult places them at the lowest levels
of illegitimacy in Israel, covering the full range of the term:
physically, socially, and morally." [p. 38]

Keener (_A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew_) goes even further
with this phrase. After noting that the term "viper" was an insult, he
goes on:

More likely, Matthew may allude to a fairly widespread ancient view
that vipers were mother killers. In the fifth century B.C. Herodotus
declared that new-born Arabian vipers chewed their way out of their
mothers' wombs, killing their mothers in the process. Herodotus
believed that they did so to avenge their fathers, who were slain by
the mothers during procreation; later writers applied his words to
serpents everywhere. Perhaps in line with such thought a widely
influential Greek drama had included the insult "mother-killing
dragon"; more distantly but still relevant to the image of familial
strife, a stepmother hostile to the children of the former wife is a
"viper" to them. Calling his hearers vipers may have been an insult,
but calling them "offspring of vipers" accused them of killing their
own mothers, indicating the utmost moral depravity. The image of
vipers fleeing wrath may derive from serpents fleeing the stubble
set on fire to ready the fields for winter sowing or a tree-serpent
fleeing those who will destroy the forest. One may guess that
opponents of the Matthean community would bristle at the depiction
of their predecessors in such terms. [pp. 122-3]

Overman (_Church and Community in Crisis: The Gospel According to
Matthew_) writes about Matthew's use of "Pharisees and Sadducees":

Here is an early indication of something that becomes painfully
evident throughout the course of the Gospel. That is, Matthew's
primary issue is with local leaders who claim to speak for the God
of Israel but, Matthew believers, do not. They are false guides and
teachers, they are not _dikaios_, and they do not "bear fruit." [p.
55]

It may be that we, who are leaders in Christian communities, need to
read Matthew with ourselves in mind, letting it critique our lives. I
think that we will discover that Matthew is much more critical of
one's life than one's beliefs -- or, perhaps better stated: the life
(or "fruit") that flows out of one's beliefs.

MORE THAN ANCESTORS

Is baptism the way to flee from the coming wrath (baptism as "fire
insurance)? Not according to John. What is necessary is repentance and
fruit-bearing worthy of the repentance. Neither can one rely on one's
ancestors -- perhaps a sideways attack on the other Jewish groups who
claimed Abraham as their father. Douglas Hare (Matthew) suggests: "The
Christian equivalent of 'We have Abraham as our father' is 'We have
Christ as our Savior.' While trust in Christ's salvation is a first
requirement, it is not the last." [p. 20]

John's reference to children from stones has at least a couple of
ironies connected with it. First of all, if he were speaking Hebrew or
Aramaic, John is making a pun. The words for "son" and "stone" are
nearly identical. In Hebrew son is "ben" and stone is "eben".
Secondly, if God can produce "fruit" from a rock, then certainly God
should be able to produce the proper fruit in those whom "heaven
rules". I would think that God should be able to do more with us
humans than with dumb, inanimate rocks -- but there are times when I
have doubts about that. Sometimes rocks are preferable over some
people <g>.

Carter (_Matthew and the Margins_):

The link between stones and Abraham derives from Isa 51:1-2; those
who pursue righteousness and seek God are instructed, "Look to the
rock from which you were hewn ... Look to Abraham your father and to
Sarah who bore you, for he was but one what I called him, but I
blessed him and made him many." The passage emphasizes God's action
in calling, blessing, and multiplying Abraham. The rock is lifeless
and cannot of itself produce offspring, just as it seemed the aged
Abraham and Sarah were too old to bear a child, but God ensured it
would happen (Gen 16:2; 17:17; 21:6). God's actions in human lives
(Jew and Gentile) determines Abraham's children, not physical
descent (so Jesus, 1:1, 18:25). Descent from Abraham by itself is
not what ultimately matters, but God's action in the lives of those
who live faithfully to God's gift and demand. [p. 98]

The "ax lying at the root of the trees" conjures up a number of
different images. "Root" is used of ancestors. With its close
proximity to father Abraham, could John be "cutting off" that
ancestral root of faith and actions so that Christians might be
grafted onto a new root? (see Romans 11:16-18). "Root" also has the
meaning of "source, cause, or reason." Throughout Matthew, motives for
one's actions are important. Bearing good fruit is not just doing good
things, but also doing them for the right reasons. More literally,
"root" means the "underground part of a plant." Or, we might say, the
hidden part of its life. Part of "confession" as mentioned above, is
making public what might be hidden. This use of the ax is not the
pruning we read about in John 15. This ax gets right to the hidden
source of one's life and kills it.

In addition, the ax was a symbol of Roman authority and a means of
Roman execution. John puts the coming "Kingdom of heaven" against the
kingdom of Rome. [Carter, pp. 98-99]

Only in Matthew does John use the "repentance" when he starts talking
about the stronger one -- again emphasizing that this is the proper
preparation for the coming -- and proper repentance results in
fruit-bearing for Matthew.

Only in Matthew does John talk about "carrying" the sandals. Mark
(1:7) and Luke (3:16) have him unworthy to "untie" them. Matthew may
be making another pun between "carry" and baptize." The words are
_bastazo_ and _baptizo_. The same word is used later in Matthew when
he quotes Isaiah 53:4 about Jesus: "He took our infirmities and *bore*
our diseases" (8:17b). Jesus bears our diseases. John can't even bear
Jesus' sandals. That's how much greater Jesus is than John.

_BAPTIZO_

The word _baptizo_ literally means "to dip," and secondly, "to wash,
(often by dipping into the water)". I think that it can paint a new
picture if we translate the word with "wash" or "cleanse" -- "I wash
or cleanse you with water for repentance" and "He will wash or cleanse
you with Holy Spirit and fire." The difference being that washing with
water cleanses only the outside. Being immersed in the Holy Breath
also cleanses the inside -- or one's entire life -- like oxygen in the
air and in our breathing rejuvenating our blood and every part of our
bodies.

What about the "wind and fire"? Are they both terms of purifying -- 
cleansing and refining God's people? Elsewhere, Matthew always uses
"fire" in the sense of destruction (3:10, 12; 5:22; 7:19; 13:40, 42,
50; 17:15; 18:8, 9; 25:41). So, it is more likely that the "Holy
Breath" refers to an inner cleansing, while "fire" refers to judgment.

Although Gundry (_Matthew_) rightly states: "Jesus will administer
only one baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, but its effect will
differ according to good fruit or bad (cf. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50;
25:31-46, all peculiar to Matthew; and Isa 41:15-16)" [p. 49].

While we often picture Satan in a red suit with a pitchfork, perhaps
we also need to picture Jesus with a fork (winnowing-type) in his
hand. This utensil was used to throw the wheat plant into the air. The
*wind* (= spirit!?) would blow the lighter chaff away and the heavier
kernels would fall to the ground. Related to the earlier fruit bearing
emphasis: the kernel -- the useful part or "fruit" of the plant is
what is kept. The unfruitful chaff is destroyed. Like in the parable
of weeds and wheat (13:24-30) -- the only other place "wheat" is used
in Matthew -- the good and the bad grow up and mature together. It's
not until the "harvest" that the separation occurs -- or is it?

There is a sense in Matthew that the kingdom community that lives by
Jesus' teaching and bears the proper fruit is separated from the rest
of society even in the present; but even in the kingdom community, the
good and bad exist side by side. Even within our own lives as "_simul
iustus et peccator_" ("simultaneously justified and sinful") people,
we are wheat and chaff. Our cleansing means more than just "being
dipped" (_baptizo_) but also, perhaps, being thrown into the air to
let the "Holy Wind" blow away the worthless stuff. Heaven's rule has
come -- and we are still waiting for its arrival. We have been
baptized/cleansed -- and we are still waiting for our cleansing -- the
removal of all the chaff/sin in our lives.

Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Ave., Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com



------------------------------------------------------------