Word Pictures in the New Testament - Matthew
A. T. Robertson
near. How near he does not say, but he evidently means very near, so near that one could see the signs and the proof. The words “the kingdom of heaven” he does not explain. The other Gospels use “the kingdom of God” as Matthew does a few times, but he has “the kingdom of heaven” over thirty times. He means “the reign of God,” not the political or ecclesiastical organization which the Pharisees expected. His words would be understood differently by different groups as is always true of popular preachers. The current Jewish apocalypses had numerous eschatological ideas connected with the kingdom of heaven. It is not clear what sympathy John had with these eschatological features. He employs vivid language at times, but we do not have to confine John’s intellectual and theological horizon to that of the rabbis of his day. He has been an original student of the Old Testament in his wilderness environment without any necessary contact with the Essenes who dwelt there. His voice is a new one that strikes terror to the perfunctory theologians of the temple and of the synagogue. It is the fashion of some critics to deny to John any conception of the spiritual content of his words, a wholly gratuitous criticism. For this is he that was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet [houtos gar estin ho rh theis dia Esaiou tou proph tou]. This is Matthew’s way of interpreting the mission and message of the Baptist. He quotes Isa 40:3 where “the prophet refers to the return of Israel from the exile, accompanied by their God” (McNeile). He applies it to the work of John as “a voice crying in the wilderness” for the people to make ready the way of the Lord who is now near. He was only a voice, but what a voice he was. He can be heard yet across the centuries. 3:4 Now John himself [autos de ho I an s]. Matthew thus introduces the man himself and draws a vivid sketch of his dress (note [eichen], imperfect tense), his habit, and his food. Would such an uncouth figure be welcome today in any pulpit in our cities? In the wilderness it did not matter. It was probably a matter of necessity with him, not an affectation, though it was the garb of the original Elijah (2Ki 1:8), rough sackcloth woven from the hair of camels. Plummer holds that “John consciously took Elijah as a model.” 3:6 And they were baptized [kai ebaptizonto]. It is the imperfect tense to show the repetition of the act as the crowds from Judea and the surrounding country kept going out to him [exeporeueto], imperfect again, a regular stream of folks going forth. Moffatt takes it as causative middle, “got baptized,” which is possible. “The movement of course was gradual. It began on a small scale and steadily grew till it reached colossal proportions” (Bruce). It is a pity that baptism is now such a matter of controversy. Let Plummer, the great Church of England commentator on Matthew, speak here of John’s baptising these people who came in throngs: “It is his office to bind them to a new life, symbolized by immersion in water.” That is correct, symbolized, not caused or obtained. The word “river” is in the correct text, “river Jordan.” They came “confessing their sins” [exomologoumenoi], probably each one confessing just before he was baptized, “making open confession” (Weymouth). Note [ex]. It was a never to be forgotten scene here in the Jordan. John
17