1 In those days John the Baptist comes and preaches in the wilderness of Judea

2 and says: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

3 For he is the one of whom the prophet Isaiah said: the voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

4 John himself had a robe of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.

5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around Jordan came out to him

6 And they were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them, “You brood of vipers!” who inspired you to flee from future wrath?

John's sermon. Artist Pieter Bruegel the Elder 1566

8 Produce fruit worthy of repentance

9 And do not think to say within yourself, “We have Abraham as our father,” for I tell you that God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.

10 Even the ax lies at the root of the trees: every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I; I am not worthy to carry His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire;

The appearance of Christ to the people. Artist Alexander Andreevich Ivanov 1837-1857.

12 His fork is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor and gather His wheat into the barn, and He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.

13 Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him.

Baptism of Jesus Christ. Artist Y. Sh von KAROLSFELD

14 But John restrained Him and said: I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?

15 But Jesus answered and said to him, Leave it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then John admits Him.

Baptism. Artist Nicolas Poussin 1641-1642

16 And having been baptized, Jesus immediately came out of the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and descending on Him.

17 And behold, a voice from heaven said: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Baptism of Jesus. Artist G. Dore

1–4. John the Baptist's speech at the sermon, his appearance and way of life in the desert. – 5–12. Baptism by John and denunciation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. – 12–17. Baptism of Jesus Christ.

. In those days John the Baptist comes and preaches in the desert of Judea

"In those days" . If we had only one Gospel of Matthew, then, when reading it, we would think that the expression “in those days” refers to the words of the evangelist about the settlement of Joseph in Nazareth. And since this was during the Savior’s childhood, we would begin to attribute the appearance of John to the people to the time of His childhood. True, this first impression that one gets when reading the Gospel would soon be corrected, because in connection with the baptism of the people by John, the baptism of Jesus Christ Himself is spoken of (verse 13 et seq.) and His subsequent temptation (). In both of these events Christ appears as an adult man. Why, moving on to the presentation of the events of John's baptism, did the evangelist not begin this section in some other way? Why didn’t he say, for example, instead of “in those days” – in those years? Why didn't he say directly: when Jesus was or was turning thirty years old? To remove this difficulty, compare the expression "in those days" with the Hebrew "beyamim gagem", which has the same meaning and is also used to denote an indefinite time. For example, (according to the literal translation): “and it came to pass in those days that Moses was great,” etc. (in Russian translation – "after a long time" etc.; see also ; ). The evangelists Mark () and Luke () literally have the same expression, with the only difference being that, referring to recent events, it is placed with the article ( ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις – Mark; ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις – Luke; Wed Blass, Gram., S. 145, 147). From here, in any case, it can be concluded that if Matthew wanted to mean here the time of the Savior’s childhood, he would have used the article before the word “days.” Therefore, Matthew’s expression is considered vague, general, used not so much to indicate the exact time of events, but rather to transition to a story about new events. Matthew often uses the word “then” - not to indicate time, but simply to connect with the previous narrative (, 11, etc.). Most of all, our Slavic expressions “in the days of ona” or “during it” correspond to this. In the word “those” (ἐκεῖνος, from ἐκεῖ - “there”, meaning actually “there”, or, in application to time - “then”) one can see a simple opposition between the time of that time and the time of the writer.

Based on the additions to the Gospel of Luke (), it is possible to determine the time of John’s appearance at the Jordan. This was, according to Luke, "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar". Tiberius (counting the time of his joint reign with Augustus) ascended the throne, according to our reckoning, at the end of 11 or the beginning of 12 AD. (765 from the founding of Rome), Augustus died in 14 (767 from the founding of Rome); the fifteenth year of Tiberius, from his co-reign with Augustus, falls, according to our account, in the year 30 A.D. (780 from the founding of Rome). Since now almost all exegetes accept that Christ was born at the end of 749 from the founding of Rome, or 2-3 years earlier than the beginning of our Christian era (Metropolitan Philaret. Biblical history. 1866. P. 393: “The true time of the Nativity of Christ must precede era of Dionysius by one or more years, in which the opinions of all Christian antiquity agree"), then, in the first year of our era, Christ was about three years old, and in the 26th (30th of our era) about thirty, which is quite consistent with Luke's testimony ().

If we further accept that the ancient designation of the time of the birth of Christ on December 25 (749) is accurate, and that John was six months older than Christ (), then we can approximately determine the time when the events described in this chapter of the Gospel of Matthew took place. Counting back 6 months from December 25, we come to June 24 - the time of the birth of the Baptist. When he came out to preach, he was, therefore, already thirty years old, and his appearance to preach and baptize the people in the Jordan can be dated to the period from June 24 to December 25, 779 from the founding of Rome, or 29 AD . (according to our chronology). This consideration is reinforced by the fact that John was from a priestly family, and priests were supposed to begin their ministry no earlier than thirty years (), although this period was apparently reduced later (;).

"John", Heb. Jochanan, or Jehochanan, is a merciful God, like Jeroboam, Jehu, Joram, Jezebel, etc., where Ie or Io is a prefix meaning -.

“Baptist” is literally the one who immerses. Matthew had not previously said a word about the Baptist’s former life, nor about his father and mother, nor about his upbringing. John appears directly from the desert and preaches to the people. It can be assumed that he was already known to those readers for whom the Gospel of Matthew was written. Speaking about the Baptist, Josephus calls him John, called the Baptist (“Antiquities of the Jews,” XVIII, 5, 2).

“Preaches” – in Greek. communion "preaching". The Greek word used here has a constant and definite meaning both among the classical writers and in the Bible and the New Testament - a solemn announcement of something. Messengers (κήρυκες) performed the duties of heralds sent by the king or other important persons to announce royal commands, meetings, the start of war and victories. The word in the Bible is used in this meaning, for example: Cyrus "ordered to announce" (κηρύξαι ) "throughout all his kingdom"(). As a solemn announcement, the word κηρύσσειν differs from the expressions “to give good news” (ἀγγελλειν, ἐπαγέλλειν), “to teach” (διδάσκειν) and “to preach” (λέγειν , ὁμιλεῖν ). The word κηρύσσων generally means a solemn and brief notice. This understanding of the word is quite consistent with the subsequent testimony of the evangelist about John’s preaching.

"In the Desert of Judea". The word “desert” here does not mean a completely bare desert, devoid of all vegetation and population, but a place where there is little culture, population and vegetation, but convenient for pastures. The Judean Desert is the largest in Palestine in area, limited in the north by the Jericho Desert, located almost in the middle of a line running from the northern end of the Dead Sea to Jerusalem, in the east by the Dead Sea, in the west by the mountains of Judea, and in the south by the deserts of Sin and Edom , and consists of several smaller deserts: En-gedi, or En-gaddi, Maon, Zif and Tekoi. Although the Judean desert had a population, it was always harsh and terrible. John preached in the desert near the Jordan. By it we must understand not the desert of Tekoa, but the desert of Jericho, which is called the desert of Judea only in a general sense (see ;).

. and says: Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

By the Kingdom of Heaven, John understands the dominion of God as King, in contrast to the earthly dominion of worldly kings. The worldly kingdoms still existed, but among them a new Kingdom arose, which had nothing in common with them, because it was not of earthly, but of heavenly origin. However, this understanding of words "Kingdom of heaven" possible only for us, and even then not completely. The Jews to whom John spoke could understand them in the sense that the Kingdom would soon come, where the King would be the Messiah they were waiting for - a person who seemed to few to be the King of Heaven, and more the king of the earth, only with special powers given to him from God, predominantly of an earthly nature . He will be the fulfiller of heavenly or God's promises. The king was the personification of the Kingdom. Speaking about the approach of the Kingdom, John spoke about the approach or imminent coming of the King.

. For he is the one about whom the prophet Isaiah said: the voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

The connection between speech is not entirely clear. John preached repentance to the people, because the Kingdom of Heaven was approaching, for he, i.e. John, there is that one, etc. Due to some obscurity and vagueness of expression, the 3rd verse was explained in connection with the 2nd verse approximately like this: John the Baptist comes, saying: repent... for (it is understood that John was talking about himself) he is the one about whom Isaiah prophesied, etc. .d. In other words, the evangelist in verse 2 cites literally the authentic speech of John, and in verse 3 - also his speech, but only expressed in his own words (cf.). This explanation is rejected by the newer critics, who say that the words “he is that,” etc. belong not to John, but to the evangelist himself. As for the word γάρ (for, because), it was used to give more weight to the words spoken by John. The evangelist says something like this: if some simple person began to preach to the people and say “repent...”, then his words would have no meaning and no one would pay attention to them. These words are important because the one who spoke them was the person foretold by Isaiah. Thus, the word “for” indicates “the reason why John had to appear as he did in verses 1 and 2, because it was foretold” (Bengel). And the verb “is” (missed in the Russian translation: “for he” is “that”) is considered by interpreters to be equal to the verb “was”.

"Which the prophet Isaiah spoke about"- literally: “he is the one about whom it is said (in the Slavic translation - “spoken”) through (διά - according to a more likely reading) the prophet Isaiah speaking.” The words of the prophet Isaiah () are given almost literally according to the Seventy, with the only difference that instead of the last words “make the paths of Him (Him) right,” in the Seventy: “make the paths of our God right.” In the Hebrew text it is different: “a voice crying: make a way for the Lord in the wilderness, make a straight way for our Lord in the desert.”

"Voice in the wilderness"- these words are separated from further ones in our editions of the Bible, but in ancient times no punctuation marks were used and words were not separated from one another, which is why this text can be read in two ways: or "voice in the wilderness", or “a voice crying: make ready in the wilderness.” In the present case the question is not decided by the fact that in the Hebrew "in the wilderness" refers to "prepare" (as indicated by the further "in the desert"), because in the Greek there is no reason to separate the two expressions. Explaining the verse, interpreters hesitate. However, in the Gospel of Matthew, “in the wilderness” is usually attributed to the word “crying out,” apparently by analogy with κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (verse 1).

The relation of the words of the prophet Isaiah to the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity is considered doubtful. But what then does the prophet mean? "the voice of one crying"? In what sense did the prophet understand this expression? If we pay attention to the fact that chapters 40-66 of the book of the prophet Isaiah refer to the so-called Deutero-Isaiah, a prophet who lived during or after the captivity, and assume that this was known to the evangelist, then we will better understand what the words mean "voice in the wilderness". The prophet contemplates the return of Israel from captivity and with it, as it were, the return of the Lord, the King of Israel, to Jerusalem. The Lord sends messengers across the desert separating Babylon from Palestine to announce His arrival and together gives commands that the path be prepared for Him, that the road along which He will go be made straight. One of these messengers was φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ . The analogy with John’s sermon here is apparently complete.

How to understand the expression itself: "the voice of one crying"? Was John only the voice of another person crying in the wilderness, or was it his voice crying? By analogy with, where it is said that "God's word came to John" Apparently, one should assume that John himself was only the voice of God crying in the wilderness. But Luke does not use φωνή, ῥῆμα (word, saying). Further, Luke cites in the next verse the same words from, depicting the circumstances that took place after the word of God came to John. Finally, in the mouths of the evangelists the words would seem somewhat strange: “the voice of God crying in the wilderness, prepare the way for God.” Based on these considerations, we must classify both words "the voice of one crying" to John himself. He was both the voice and the person making that voice.

“In the desert” - both physically and morally. John preached in a physical desert, but the people approaching him were a moral desert. This double meaning of speech continues further, in the words: “Make His paths straight”. The Seventy have “Lord”, in Hebrew - Jehovah Elohim, and this shows that here, of course, there is no ordinary repair of roads and correction of the path during the journey of some ordinary king, because there is no need for anything like that. Therefore, it is correct to note that by paths and paths here we mean the souls of people. “The evangelist calls the path of the Lord and the paths of His soul, to which the word of the Gospel was to come” (Evfimy Zigavin). Only images are taken here from the ordinary correction of the path.

. John himself had clothes made of camel's hair and a leather belt around his loins, and his food was locusts and wild honey.

It is possible to assume that, pointing to the way of life of John, the evangelist here also wanted to point out an ancient prophecy about him in the way of life of the prophet Elijah.

"He had clothes made of camel's hair". Such clothes, characterized by roughness, according to travelers, are still worn in the East, mainly by dervishes.

“And his food was locusts and wild honey”. Akrids were the name given to locusts, which are still used as food in Najd and Hijaz. In locust shops it is sold by the measure. When preparing food, it is thrown alive into boiling water, which is well salted; After some time, the locusts are removed and dried in the sun. The Englishman Dr. Thomson, who lived in Palestine for many years and wrote a very good book about it, says: “No one eats locusts in Syria except the Bedouins on the extreme borders, and they are constantly talked about as an inferior kind of food, they are looked at mostly with disdain. disgust, since this food is tolerated only by the lower classes of the people. John the Baptist, however, belonged precisely to this class, whether by necessity or by choice. He also lived in the desert, where such food is still consumed; and therefore the Gospel sets forth a simple truth. The Baptist’s usual food was locusts, probably fried in oil and mixed with honey, as is the case now.”

By wild honey, some understand the sap from palm trees, fig trees and other trees, or the so-called Persian manna. The basis for this opinion is found in the fact that honey in Greek is simply called μέλι, without the addition of ἄγριον (wild). In support of the same opinion, they refer to Pliny (Natural History, 15, 7) and Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, XIX, 94, 10), who says that among the Nabateans “ growing... a lot of honey (μελι), called wild (ἄγριον), which they use as a drink mixed with water.” But others accept that “wild honey” is ordinary bee honey, which bees bring into hollows of trees and holes in rocks. According to Tristram (whose book about Palestine has been translated into Russian), there are much more wild bees in Palestine than hive bees, and the honey sold in the southern regions comes from wild swarms. Indeed, says Tristram, there are few places that are so suitable for bees as Palestine. And in the desert of Judah bees are more numerous than in any other part of Palestine, and honey to this day serves as home food for the Bedouins, who squeeze it out of honeycombs and store it in furs. One cannot but agree that this understanding of the words “wild honey” is more natural than the previous one. Locusts were allowed as food by Jewish law (), and the consumption of wild bee honey is mentioned in the Bible (; ; ; ).

. Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around Jordan came out to him

The appearance of an extraordinary man in and out of the desert, with the appearance of a stern hermit, soon attracted the attention of the inhabitants of nearby places, and they began to flock to him. Even if John had been an ordinary person and had no divine mission, even then his personality would probably have become a subject of curiosity. It is absolutely clear that Jerusalem, Judea and the Jordanian environs are only figurative expressions, instead of “the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Judea, and the Jordanian environs.” In the Bible, places near the Jordan have been called the neighborhood of Jordan since ancient times (; ; ). Thus, the neighborhood of the Jordan, excluding Jerusalem and Judea, should be understood as the parts of Perea, Samaria, Galilee and Gaulonitis adjacent to the Jordan.

. and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.

The method of John's baptism is generally difficult to determine. The historical basis for baptism may have been the washing and cleansing established in the law (; ; ; ). The Jews performed the baptism of proselytes, i.e. pagans who wanted to convert to Judaism. Based on the evidence of the Babylonian gemara Yevamot 46, 2 and the fact that Philo, Joseph and the ancient Targumists are silent about the baptism of proselytes, it has been argued that it was introduced only after the destruction of Jerusalem, but this opinion cannot be considered correct. Some believe that John's baptism was similar in appearance to the baptism of proselytes. “When,” says Alford, “men were admitted as proselytes, three rites were performed: circumcision, baptism, and offering; when women, then two - baptism and offering. Baptism was performed during the day, through immersion of everything baptized, and while the proselyte stood in the water, he was taught some sections of the law. All families of proselytes were baptized, including children.” All this is true, but one can ask: was John himself ever a witness to the baptism of proselytes? Did you know about him? Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Christian baptism was like proselyte baptism. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the baptism of John, even if it was not, in the sense of external form, a completely new matter, then, however, was not in any connection with the previous purely Jewish rites. John's preaching was completely independent, independent of any historical conditions and circumstances; it was the result of a revelation received from above, from God. Why not assume that these were also the actions of John? He approached the Jordan, saw its waters in front of him, called the people to repentance, because the Kingdom of Heaven was approaching, and at the same time began to point the people to the waters of the Jordan when the people asked him what to do. Only men probably came to John, because in the Gospels there is no trace of the presence of women at the waters of the Jordan. At the word of John, the men immersed themselves in the water. This, undoubtedly, is the exact meaning of the Greek word used here, ἐβαπτίζοντο, which means “to immerse,” “to be immersed,” but not to sprinkle and wash, as some exegetes would like. And why did the people who arrived at the Jordan need to be sprinkled when there was no need for this given the abundance of Jordanian waters and when John himself hardly had any things needed for sprinkling? But another question is whether those who were baptized themselves were immersed at the invitation of John, or whether they, all without exception, were immersed by John?

This question is difficult and not easy to answer. The word “baptized” in this verse (Greek) is obviously used in the passive voice, as indicated by the further “from him” (ὑπ´ αὐτοῦ). Further, John everywhere attributes the act of baptism to himself: “I baptize” or “baptized” (; ; ; John 1, etc.), just as others attribute the act of baptism to John himself. Based on these considerations, it can be assumed that John himself personally immersed everyone in the water, laying his hand or hands on him. This assumption is not only not contradicted, but, on the contrary, confirmed by the words used in the Gospel of John: “When Jesus learned about the rumor that had reached the Pharisees, that He was making more disciples and baptizing than John, although Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples did.”... (). At least the Pharisees could think that Jesus Christ Himself performed baptism. In fact, this was not the case, and the evangelist here only repeats the opinion of the Pharisees, indicating exactly who exactly baptized. But from here, in any case, we can conclude that those who were baptized and those who baptized during the act of baptism were in such close proximity that it was impossible for outsiders to distinguish who exactly baptized and who did not baptize. In other words, baptism was not merely an admission, permission, invitation or exhortation to baptism, but an act characteristic of both the baptized and the baptized. This understanding, perhaps, is hindered only by the number of people who gathered to John, so that he could not immerse everyone. But at the same time, one must keep in mind the sufficient duration of John’s ministry. Baptism, therefore, was not a simple bathing in the Jordan, although we do not know exactly what external rites or symbols John used at the same time and whether they were even rites and symbols.

. When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to him to be baptized, he said to them: You brood of vipers! who inspired you to flee from future wrath?

“When John saw many Pharisees and Sadducees”. The Pharisees and Sadducees at that time were two parties (but not sects), hostile to each other, their historical origins are vague. The origin of the Pharisees dates back to the time of Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabee (161–143 BC). They were the successors of the Hasidim. The Hasidim (zealots of the law, pious) insisted on fulfilling the law and considered man's duty exclusively to obey the will of God, as it is revealed in the Bible. Since the Hasidim, for various reasons, kept themselves separate from the common people, they received the name Pharisees, or separated ones. The number of Pharisees around the time of Christ reached 6 thousand. Their hallmark was hypocrisy. Since they devoted all their energies to the study and observance of the law, they considered themselves the true leaders and teachers of the people. And the people agreed with this to a certain extent. Under Jonathan, the party took up arms against the fact that he was a high priest, although his mother had once been a slave. This aroused the anger of Jonathan, and he went over to the side of the Sadducees. This last name meant a party of practical people who connected themselves with the destinies of the House of Maccabees. They were committed to the law insofar as it was consistent with their plans to secure Israel's independence. It was the party of the priestly aristocracy. Some derive its name from Zadok, who was a priest under David and Solomon (); others are from Zadok, who lived much later and was a student of Antigonus Socho, a Jewish scribe, known only by almost one name. In Avot r. Nathan (ch. 5) says that “the Sadducees are called by the name of Zadok.” Both of these proceedings, however, are fraught with linguistic difficulties. Epiphanius (Adversus haereses, XIV, 2; ed. K. Holl, Band 1, Leipzig, 1915, p. 207, 14-16) says that the members of the party call themselves Sadducees because, of course, this name comes from the word "righteousness ", for σεδέκ means "righteousness." According to this explanation, the Pharisees considered themselves righteous and were called “tzaddikim.” The change in “tzaddukim” could have occurred as a result of popular witticism. The Sadducees were few in number at the time of Christ; the highest figures of the church hierarchy belonged to them; they were distinguished by their obsequiousness, hard-heartedness and cunning.

"Those coming to him to be baptized"- literally: “going to his baptism” (αὐτοῦ issued, however, in the Sinaiticus and Vatican Codes, in Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), i.e. John. The preposition to (ἐπί) means moving towards a place. That he indicates the purpose of the arrival of the Pharisees and Sadducees - to be baptized by John - is doubtful in view of the fact that "Pharisees and lawyers", – according to the Evangelist Luke (), – "rejected the will of God" and were not baptized by John. In all likelihood, the Sadducees did the same.

"Born of the Viper". Echidnas mean small snakes that live only in hot countries, very poisonous and dangerous. John calls the Pharisees and Sadducees not vipers, but broods of vipers. By this we can mean baby echidnas or the snake family in general. In both cases, the moral state of the Pharisees and Sadducees is pointed out, which made them resemble poisonous snakes or their young.

"Future Wrath". There is no doubt that John represented the coming Kingdom not only as the Kingdom of mercy, but also as the Kingdom of wrath, and, moreover, predominantly, as can be seen from his further words, where he compares the kingdom with a threshing floor, people with wheat and straw, says about the Messiah that He has a winnowing shovel in hand. He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. Such ideas did not fully correspond, of course, to the spirit of the new Kingdom and the activity of Christ, as we know from subsequent events, and were still Old Testament.

. produce fruit worthy of repentance

Literally: “therefore, create fruit worthy of repentance” (in the Slavic translation - “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance”). John calls the Pharisees and Sadducees not to repentance, but to deeds from which it would be clear that they want to bring repentance, or, what is the same, to change their previous way of thinking and behavior that is displeasing to God, otherwise their arrival to the Jordan will not bring them benefit will not help them avoid the coming wrath. What this fruit consisted of can be partially seen from what follows.

. and do not think to say within yourself, “We have Abraham as our father,” for I tell you that from these stones he is able to raise up children for Abraham.

Luke gives almost literally the same words as Matthew. Instead of “do not think,” Luke says “do not begin,” although in the Russian Bible both expressions are translated the same way. John does not express it simply: “do not speak to yourself,” but: “do not think.” The expression: thinking about saying something was "a Jerusalem phrase found throughout the Talmud." However, it should not be looked at only as Hebraism, because it is also characteristic of the Greek language.

"Talk to yourself"- talk to yourself (cf. Rev. 18, etc.). The Pharisees and Sadducees did not so much verbally declare their descent from Abraham as they were confident in it, and this confidence largely determined their behavior.

"Our father is Abraham"- literally: “we have Abraham as our father.” Abraham is called "father" instead of "forefather", "ancestor". The Pharisees and Sadducees transferred onto themselves, arrogated to themselves the merits, honor and dignity of Abraham, and thought that their main dignity was that they descended from Abraham. Proud of their origin, they completely forgot that the main thing before God is not origin, but a person’s morality.

“For I tell you that from these stones he is able to raise up children for Abraham.”, is a thought that refutes what the Pharisees thought to themselves. The Baptist does not say: from trees, animals, etc., but “from stones,” because the Pharisees and Sadducees were most like these stones. They were spiritually dead, cold, insensitive, lifeless. The comparison, therefore, was not chosen arbitrarily, but was very relevant and sharply characterized the spiritual state of the Pharisees and Sadducees. John's speech, despite its brevity, is distinguished by its extraordinary power. Expression:

“of these stones” (instead of simply “stones”) makes it clear that John was pointing to those stones that were visible at the Jordan. These were probably relatively small stones (λίθος), as opposed to large stones or rocks (πέτρα). The latter, if John had spoken about them, in relation to people could testify to their firmness. The Greek word translated "to raise up" (ἐγείρω) means to actually awaken from sleep. Since in Russian it is impossible to say: God can awaken from these stones or awaken from sleep the children of Abraham, then in the Russian translation the most appropriate word is used, “erect,” which, however, does not quite correspond to the Greek word. God can awaken these stones so that they become alive, begin to move, and become children of Abraham. From the New Testament it is clear that this was the case as a result of Christ’s preaching to people who were spiritually dead (cf. ;).

. Already the ax lies at the root of the trees: every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

One may ask: why is it not said - at the trees, but at their roots? To express thought and condemnation more strongly. The ax lies at the very root, i.e. on the surface of the earth near the root itself. A tree cut down to its roots loses all its vitality. An ax can be understood as any tool used to cut down trees. Now, instead of stones, the image is different: not a completely dry tree, but one that does not bear fruit, and no good one at that.

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”, - literally: “so, every... tree is cut down and thrown into the fire.”

. I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who comes after me is mightier than I; I am not worthy to carry His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire;

In Luke () the speech is supplemented by denunciations and admonitions spoken by John to other persons except the Pharisees and Sadducees. John has just spoken of the judgment of people, representing them as barren trees. This trial is already beginning, it is coming. But, says John, I am not the judge, the judgment belongs to another person. This is evident from the fact that John recognizes his baptism as inferior in comparison with the other baptism that will soon begin. I, says John, perform only lower, preliminary duties, so to speak, only menial work. The other, higher matter does not belong to me.

"I baptize you in water". In Luke () - “by water”. There is no difference between these expressions, because the preposition ἐν (“in”) indicates here, as in other cases, the material with which the action is performed, in the present case baptism. “To repentance” - Luke does not have these words. Some believe that this expression here means: in a state of repentance. Others: “I baptize, obliging you to repentance,” or: “for the purpose of repentance,” i.e. “baptism meant that those who accepted it repented of their sins and wanted to be cleansed of them.”

“But He who comes after me is mightier than I”. The present tense already indicates the beginning of the procession. In the proper sense, the future would be required: the One who will come. But the present is stronger and indicates the higher dignity and greater moral strength of the Coming One.

"I am not worthy to carry His sandals"- I don’t have enough strength, I’m incapable, I don’t consider myself fit. From Mark: “I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals.”(). There is no difference here, because both were the responsibility of slaves, and lower ones at that, who did not know how to do anything else. A sign of slavery, which made the slave the property of the master, was untying and tying his shoes and carrying the necessary accessories for him to the bathhouse. This expresses the deepest humility of the Baptist, which the world has not yet witnessed.

“He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”- literally: “He will baptize in the Holy Spirit and fire.” They rightly pointed out the importance of the word “He” here. He, and not anyone else, is the One who comes for John. The word “baptize” is used here in a figurative sense, which means actually immersing in the Holy Spirit and fire. The expression caused a lot of controversy and disagreement "By the Holy Spirit and Fire". According to some, the fire of Gehenna is not meant here. The Baptist adds the word "by fire" (which is not found in) to give a vivid picture of the powerful and cleansing work of the Holy Spirit. This interpretation was accepted by Chrysostom and many other, old and new, interpreters. One of them notes that here we mean a cleansing, enlightening, transforming fire, arousing sacred inspiration and jealousy, and lifting upward, like the fiery chariot on which Elijah was taken to heaven. Others think that this refers to the fire of Gehenna, based on the expression “unquenchable fire” in verse 12. In this last interpretation, obviously, a terrible element is introduced and, objecting to it, saying that it contradicts, which speaks of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the disciples in the form of tongues of fire. But the question is, could John have had this last event in mind? It seems to us that both of these interpretations are insufficient. In the first, it is overlooked that John’s speech is strictly accusatory, directed, if not exclusively, then primarily against the generation of vipers. Then it talks about the cleansing of the threshing floor and the burning of unusable grass with unquenchable fire. This shows that John's speech was not as gentle as people think.

The second interpretation explains the word “by fire” too literally, taking it to mean material fire or even even punishment and torment in general. The truth appears to lie between these two interpretations. John speaks about exactly the same thing that Elder Simeon spoke about during the meeting of the Savior: “Behold, this is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel and for the subject of controversy.”(). As the Gospel story shows, people either devoted to Him or those who hated Him always gathered around the Savior. The reason for this was mainly His speeches, which approved some and denounced others. Many who hated Him are covered with eternal shame. It is this future activity of Christ that John means when he says that He will baptize "By the Holy Spirit and Fire". This is not at all contradicted by “you,” because both the Pharisees and Sadducees were undoubtedly offered the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but they did not accept it. On the other hand, the fire of denunciation produced the fact that some of the Pharisees believed in Christ (). The same baptism and through the same means was offered to everyone, but some treated this baptism one way and others another.

. His shovel is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor and gather His wheat into the barn, and He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire.

The speech is full of images. The future one takes a shovel and is ready to clean the threshing floor, but has not yet begun the action itself, which refers to the future tense (clean - διακαθαριεῖ). If John had spoken only about ordinary straw, he would have stopped at the word “by fire” (πυρί), but since he spoke figuratively about people, he used “unquenchable.”

. Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John to be baptized by him.

When analyzing verse 1, we saw that the evangelist uses the expression “in those days” in an indefinite meaning. The word “then” is used in the same meaning now. Therefore, one cannot understand this expression more specifically - “at the time when John preached about the Messiah and baptized the people.” In general, it is not known exactly when the Lord’s baptism took place. The place of baptism was Bethany (ancient reading) beyond the Jordan (). The Evangelist does not indicate the purpose and reasons for Christ’s coming to baptism, with the exception of the words indicated in verse 15: "It behooves us"...

"Jesus Comes from Galilee" These words can be interpreted in two ways: either he comes from Galilee, or Jesus comes from Galilee. It is better to interpret in the first sense. As in the first verse, the present tense is used here.

. John restrained Him and said: I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?

“I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?”? Regarding these words, two assumptions can be made: either this sentence is interrogative or not. If there is no question, then you need to translate: “I need to be baptized by You, and You come to me.”

. But Jesus answered and said to him: Leave it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then John admits Him.

The words: , in the end, remain, apparently, the only ones in which we should look for the motive for the baptism of Christ. But what does the word “truth” (δικαιοσύνη) mean here? The word has such a broad meaning and such a varied meaning that it is extremely difficult to determine now what meaning it had in the mouth of Christ. In our opinion, here we should pay attention, first of all, to the fact that the word δικαιοσύνη was obviously correctly understood by John, who, after the words of Christ, did not prevent Him from being baptized and immediately baptized Him. And to the evangelist, who recorded the conversation between Christ and John at baptism, the expression, as one must assume, was quite understandable. What was this truth fulfilled by Christ at baptism? In the present case, it consisted, apparently, in nothing other than Christ taking upon Himself the image of a slave. This was the same deep and true gospel truth, which was expressed sharply in another case, during the washing of the disciples’ feet. Christ's words to John have an exact parallel in the story of John (). Christ came not to dominate, but to serve. Just recently, John said that the Person who comes after him is not worthy to carry (or untie) His sandals, i.e. represented Him as a lord or ruler, Who was immeasurably higher than him. But now John had to be convinced that his previous ideas about the coming Face were somewhat incorrect. Christ, who came to John for baptism, wanted to show him that if John is a slave, then He, Christ, wants to submit to this slave, wants to be a slave in relation to that person who considered himself lower than a slave. The entire context is consistent with this interpretation. Jesus Christ refutes John's previous opinions by saying that His "righteousness" is not what John assumes it to be. The expression of John becomes clear: “I did not know Him” (), i.e. did not know Him as He appeared at baptism. John's words: “behold the Lamb of God who takes away the world”(), receive new lighting. What Matthew tells us next also becomes more understandable. Words: “Thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness”- it is better to translate: “for it is fitting for us (i.e. Christ and John) to fulfill all righteousness.”

. And having been baptized, Jesus immediately came out of the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and John saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and descending on Him.

The act of humiliation of the Savior was all the more remarkable because it was hidden from prying eyes, except, perhaps, John. There is no reason to think that anyone other than John saw and understood the self-abasement of the Messiah at this time. Since only John saw this, the glory of the Messiah that accompanied the self-abasement was revealed only to the Baptist. Christ submitted to him as a Servant, and this Servant is immediately proclaimed Son.

“And behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and John saw the Spirit of God.”. One of the translation options: “and behold, the heavens were opened (the word “to Him” is omitted in some codes), and He saw the Spirit of God.” How this opening of heaven came about we cannot judge or imagine. The idea expressed here becomes understandable only under the assumption that the heavens here mean clouds (as St. John Chrysostom and others believe). “Saw” – who? The original does not say anything about this, but according to the meaning of the speech, this word should be attributed primarily to Jesus Christ. In Mark (), the word "John", inserted into the Russian translation, is underlined. Luke says nothing about the vision of a dove by John and Christ, and the event is presented objectively, regardless of the persons who observed it. In John () the vision is attributed to the Baptist alone, but this does not exclude the possibility that Christ also saw a dove.

The Spirit of God descended on Jesus Christ in the form of a dove. Literally - as if (ὠσεί, composed of ὠς and εἰ as if, as if, as if; before the numeral - about, almost). On this basis, some interpret the phenomenon in a spiritual sense, or at least think that the Holy Spirit only looked like a dove, was “as if” a dove, but was not really a visible dove. But such interpretations also contain their refutation. If the phenomenon was completely spiritual and the dove is only a verbal image, a figurative expression, then why was it introduced? One could say directly: the Holy Spirit descended on Christ; or: He was filled with the Holy Spirit. The concrete and material “dove” testifies to the reality of the phenomenon of the dove in a sensory form. The very appearance of the dove (but not the eagle) had a symbolic meaning here and indicated the nature of Christ’s activity. The appearance of the dove implies two facts: the dove's descent and its approach to Jesus Christ. The objection is that if we were talking about Jesus Christ, who saw the dove, then in the Greek text it would be used: “on Himself” (ἐφ´ ἑαυτόν “se” in the 16th and 17th verses indicates the novelty and unusualness of the phenomena .

“Voice from Heaven”, Greek. φωνή means “sound” itself. Heb. “kol” (cf. ; ), but hardly “bat-kol” - “daughter of the voice” voice, which is found in rabbinic writings, although the word “bat-kol” is equal in meaning to the word “kol” (“batkol” in Aramaic in language actually means “word.” – Note edit.).

“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. In Mark (), the expression “You” is replaced everywhere by the word “This” (οὖτος). From a comparison of the heavenly words spoken at baptism, one can conclude that the evangelists conveyed them inaccurately.

C. The Messiah-King is represented by His forerunner (3:1-12) (Mark 1:1-18; Luke 3:1-9,15-18; John 1:19-28)

Matt. 3:1-2. In his account, Matthew omits the 30 years following the birth of Jesus and resumes the story with a description of the ministry of John the Baptist, the “forerunner” of Jesus Christ. In the Holy Scriptures we see several people who bore the name "John", but only one of them had it supplemented with this distinctive feature - "Baptist".

The Jews knew the custom of “self-baptism” of pagans who converted to Judaism, but John’s baptism was unusual in their eyes, for John was the first to baptize others.

The ministry of John the Baptist took place in the Judean desert, a naked, gorged land that lay west of the Dead Sea. His preaching was decisive and had two aspects: 1) soteriological ("soteriology" - the doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ), i.e., a call to repentance and 2) eschatological - the announcement that the Kingdom of Heaven was approaching.

The doctrine of the coming kingdom was well known to the Jews from the Old Testament. But the idea that before entering it it was necessary to repent was new to them, and for many it became a “stumbling block.” After all, the Jews believed that they, as the children of Abraham, were automatically guaranteed access to the kingdom of the Messiah.

John preached that a change of thoughts and hearts (repentance) is the preliminary condition, without the fulfillment of which they are not fit for this Kingdom. Meanwhile, the Jews simply did not realize how far they had strayed from the law of God and the demands that God made of them through the prophets (for example, Mal. 3:7-12).

The eschatological aspect of John the Baptist's preaching poses considerable problems for modern Bible commentators. Not all theologians understand the meaning of this part of his sermon in the same way, and even among theologians of the conservative school there are disagreements on this matter. What did John preach? He proclaimed that “a kingdom is coming,” that is, a certain new “government.” This reign will be heavenly (Kingdom of Heaven). Does this mean that God will rule the heavenly realms? No, of course, - after all, He has always controlled them - from the moment of their creation.

John obviously meant that God's heavenly reign would extend to the earthly realms. In this sense, it “came closer” (to the earth); in a certain sense, the Kingdom of Heaven literally “approached” her, personified in the coming Messiah, through whom God’s rule would be carried out. The Baptist prepared the “way” for Him. It is no coincidence that none of those who listened to John asked him what he was talking about - after all, the teaching that the Messiah would rule the earthly kingdom runs like a red thread through the Old Testament prophecies. But in connection with this, the people were required to repent.

Matt. 3:3-10. John's preaching was the fulfillment of two prophecies - Isaiah (40:3) and Malachi (3:1). All four evangelists refer to Isaiah when speaking about John the Baptist (Mark 1:2-3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23). But Isaiah (40:3) addressed the “road workers” who were supposed to pave a road for the Lord in the desert, for His people were returning from Babylonian captivity (537 BC), and, therefore, He was returning too. The “similarity,” however, is clear: John the Baptist, while in the desert, prepared the way for the Lord and His Kingdom, calling the people to return to Him.

John was the voice of one crying in the wilderness; its purpose was to prepare the “remnant” of Israel to receive the Messiah. His preaching in the Judean wilderness (Matt. 3:1) indicates that he came to “separate” the people from the religious system of his day.

John dressed like Elijah (had clothes made of camel's hair and a leather belt around his loins; compare with 2 Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4). He ate locusts (locusts) and wild honey. Locusts have always been the food of the poor people (Lev. 11:21). Like Elijah, John was a "street orator" who spoke directly and frankly.

Many people from Jerusalem, all of Judea and the area around Jordan came to him to hear his preaching. Some agreed with her, confessed their sins and received water baptism, which became a sign of John's ministry. It is, however, not the same as the baptism received by Christians, for John performed a religious rite on people, symbolizing the confession of sins and the willingness to live a holy life in anticipation of the coming Messiah.

Not everyone, of course, believed John. The Pharisees and Sadducees, although they came to see what he was doing, rejected his call. Their feelings were briefly expressed by John himself in his address to them (Matt. 3:7-10). They believed that, being the sons of Abraham in the flesh, they automatically “entered” the kingdom of the Messiah, but John, who completely rejected Judaism in its Pharisaic form, told them that God, if necessary, could raise children for Abraham from these stones. In other words, God can call, if necessary, the pagans and find followers for Himself among them. This means that Judaism exposes itself to the danger of being rejected by God. If a tree does not bear good fruit (compare “fruit worthy of repentance” in verse 8), it is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Matt. 3:11-12. These verses clearly show the attitude of John the Baptist himself towards the coming Messiah. He considered himself unworthy to carry (or “untie”) His sandals. John was only a “forerunner” who “prepared” a “remnant” for the Messiah and baptized in water those who responded to his preaching. The one who comes after him will baptize... with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Those listening to John should have been reminded of two Old Testament prophecies recorded in Joel (2:28-29) and Malachi (3:2-5). Joel promised the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Israel. Such an “outpouring” actually occurred on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), but in fact Israel, as a people, did not enter the blessed sphere of this event. This will be fulfilled for him when he repents before the Lord at His second coming.

By “baptism by fire” is meant the judgment and purification of those who will nevertheless enter the Kingdom of the Messiah, as predicted by the prophet Malachi (Mal. 3rd chapter). John resorts to symbolism, saying: His fork is in His hand... and He will gather His wheat into the barn, and He will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. In other words: the Messiah, when He comes, will prepare the “remnant of Israel” (“wheat”) for His Kingdom, having first “refined and purified” it. And those who reject Him (“straw”) He will condemn to be burned in “unquenchable fire” (Mal. 4:1).

D. King receiving recognition from above (3:13 - 4:11)

1. IN BAPTISM (3:13-17) (MARK 1:9-11; LUK 3:21-22)

Matt. 3:13-14. After many years of quiet and modest life in Nazareth, Jesus appears among those who listened to the preaching of John the Baptist and expresses a desire to be baptized. Only Matthew notes the fact that John opposed this intention of the Lord: I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me? John was given to understand that Jesus had no need for his baptism - after all, it was performed as a sign of repentance for sins. But what would Jesus repent of?

He, who came to be baptized by John, from a formal point of view there was no need to do this, since He was sinless (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 John 3:5) . Some in this regard believe that Jesus, like Moses, Ezra and Daniel, wanted to confess all the previous sins of the people of Israel. However, a truer explanation is perhaps found in the next verse.

Matt. 3:15. Jesus answered John that He must be baptized by him in order to fulfill all righteousness, that is, to do this for the fulfillment of righteousness. But what did He mean? The Law given through Moses said nothing about baptism, and therefore Jesus could not have meant anything related to "Levitical righteousness." John called people to repentance, and those who brought him turned with hope to the coming Messiah, who would Himself be righteous and bring righteousness to the world.

This is where the explanation lies: if the Messiah was to make sinners righteous, He, the Righteous One, had to first identify Himself with them. And, therefore, this was God's will for Him, that He should be baptized by John - for the purpose of the mentioned "identification" (the true meaning of the word "baptism") with sinners.

Matt. 3:16-17. The most significant thing in the act of Jesus' baptism was the "certification" of him from above. When He came out of the water... the heavens were opened to Him, and the Spirit of God descended on Him in the form of a dove. And then the voice of God the Father came from heaven: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Eph. 1:6; Col. 1:13). These same words were repeated by God on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:5).

Thus, all three Persons of the Divine took part in the event of the baptism of Jesus Christ: the Father, who testified about the Son, the Son, who was baptized, and the Holy Spirit, who descended on the Son in the form of a dove. For John the Baptist, this served as evidence that Jesus was truly the Son of God (John 1:32-34). This was also consistent with Isaiah's prophecy that the Spirit of the Lord would rest on the Messiah (Isa. 11:2). The descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him gave the Son, the Messiah, the power to carry out His ministry among men.

You can learn more about God and the Bible on the website The Bible about God

2010-2019 website When copying materials from this site link to the source is required.

Comments on Chapter 3

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are usually called Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from two Greek words that mean see together. Therefore, the above-mentioned Gospels received this name because they describe the same events in the life of Jesus. In each of them, however, there are some additions, or something is omitted, but, in general, they are based on the same material, and this material is also arranged in the same way. Therefore, they can be written in parallel columns and compared with each other.

After this, it becomes very obvious that they are very close to each other. If, for example, we compare the story of the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew 14:12-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 5:17-26), then this is the same story, told in almost the same words.

Or take, for example, another story about the healing of a paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26). These three stories are so similar to each other that even the introductory words, “said to the paralytic,” appear in all three stories in the same form in the same place. The correspondence between all three Gospels is so close that one must either conclude that all three took material from the same source, or two were based on a third.

THE FIRST GOSPEL

Examining the matter more carefully, one can imagine that the Gospel of Mark was written first, and the other two - the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke - are based on it.

The Gospel of Mark can be divided into 105 passages, of which 93 are found in the Gospel of Matthew and 81 in the Gospel of Luke. Only four of the 105 passages in the Gospel of Mark are not found in either the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Luke. There are 661 verses in the Gospel of Mark, 1068 verses in the Gospel of Matthew, and 1149 in the Gospel of Luke. There are no less than 606 verses from Mark in the Gospel of Matthew, and 320 in the Gospel of Luke. Of the 55 verses in the Gospel of Mark, which not reproduced in Matthew, 31 yet reproduced in Luke; thus, only 24 verses from Mark are not reproduced in either Matthew or Luke.

But not only the meaning of the verses is conveyed: Matthew uses 51%, and Luke uses 53% of the words of the Gospel of Mark. Both Matthew and Luke follow, as a rule, the arrangement of material and events adopted in the Gospel of Mark. Sometimes Matthew or Luke have differences from the Gospel of Mark, but it is never the case that they both were different from him. One of them always follows the order that Mark follows.

REVISION OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

Due to the fact that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are much larger in volume than the Gospel of Mark, one might think that the Gospel of Mark is a brief transcription of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. But one fact indicates that the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of them all: so to speak, the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke improve the Gospel of Mark. Let's take a few examples.

Here are three descriptions of the same event:

Map. 1.34:"And He healed many, suffering from various diseases; expelled many demons."

Mat. 8.16:"He cast out the spirits with a word and healed everyone sick."

Onion. 4.40:"He, laying on everyone of them hands, healed

Or let's take another example:

Map. 3:10: “For He healed many.”

Mat. 12:15: “He healed them all.”

Onion. 6:19: "... power came from Him and healed everyone."

Approximately the same change is noted in the description of Jesus' visit to Nazareth. Let's compare this description in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:

Map. 6.5.6: “And he could not perform any miracle there... and he marveled at their unbelief.”

Mat. 13:58: “And he did not perform many miracles there because of their unbelief.”

The author of the Gospel of Matthew does not have the heart to say that Jesus could not perform miracles, and he changes the phrase. Sometimes the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke leave out little hints from the Gospel of Mark that may somehow detract from the greatness of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke omit three remarks found in the Gospel of Mark:

Map. 3.5:“And he looked upon them with anger, grieving because of the hardness of their hearts...”

Map. 3.21:“And when his neighbors heard, they went to take him, for they said that he had lost his temper.”

Map. 10.14:"Jesus was indignant..."

All this clearly shows that the Gospel of Mark was written earlier than the others. It gives a simple, lively and direct account, and the authors of Matthew and Luke were already beginning to be influenced by dogmatic and theological considerations, and therefore they chose their words more carefully.

TEACHINGS OF JESUS

We have already seen that the Gospel of Matthew has 1068 verses and the Gospel of Luke 1149 verses, and that 582 of these are repetitions of verses from the Gospel of Mark. This means that there is much more material in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke than in the Gospel of Mark. A study of this material shows that more than 200 verses from it are almost identical among the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; for example, passages such as Onion. 6.41.42 And Mat. 7.3.5; Onion. 10.21.22 And Mat. 11.25-27; Onion. 3.7-9 And Mat. 3, 7-10 almost exactly the same. But here's where we see the difference: the material that the authors of Matthew and Luke took from the Gospel of Mark deals almost exclusively with events in the life of Jesus, and these additional 200 verses shared by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke deal with something other than that. that Jesus did, but what He said. It is quite obvious that in this part the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke drew information from the same source - from the book of sayings of Jesus.

This book no longer exists, but theologians called it KB, what does Quelle mean in German - source. This book must have been extremely important in those days because it was the first textbook on the teachings of Jesus.

THE PLACE OF THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW IN THE GOSPEL TRADITION

Here we come to the problem of Matthew the Apostle. Theologians agree that the first Gospel is not the fruit of Matthew's hands. A person who was a witness to the life of Christ would not need to turn to the Gospel of Mark as a source of information about the life of Jesus, as the author of the Gospel of Matthew does. But one of the first church historians named Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, left us the following extremely important news: “Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew language.”

Thus, we can consider that it was Matthew who wrote the book from which all people should draw as a source who want to know what Jesus taught. It was because so much of this source book was included in the first Gospel that it was given the name Matthew. We should be eternally grateful to Matthew when we remember that we owe to him the Sermon on the Mount and almost everything we know about the teaching of Jesus. In other words, it is to the author of the Gospel of Mark that we owe our knowledge of life events Jesus, and Matthew - knowledge of the essence teachings Jesus.

MATTHEW THE TANKER

We know very little about Matthew himself. IN Mat. 9.9 we read about his calling. We know that he was a publican - a tax collector - and therefore everyone should have hated him terribly, because the Jews hated their fellow tribesmen who served the victors. Matthew must have been a traitor in their eyes.

But Matthew had one gift. Most of Jesus' disciples were fishermen and did not have the talent to put words on paper, but Matthew was supposed to be an expert in this matter. When Jesus called Matthew, who was sitting at the toll booth, he stood up and, leaving everything but his pen, followed Him. Matthew nobly used his literary talent and became the first person to describe the teachings of Jesus.

GOSPEL OF THE JEWS

Let us now look at the main features of the Gospel of Matthew, so that when reading it we will pay attention to this.

First, and above all, the Gospel of Matthew - this is the gospel written for the Jews. It was written by a Jew to convert the Jews.

One of the main purposes of Matthew's Gospel was to show that in Jesus all the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled and therefore He must be the Messiah. One phrase, a recurring theme, runs throughout the book: “It came to pass that God spoke by the prophet.” This phrase is repeated in the Gospel of Matthew no less than 16 times. The Birth of Jesus and His Name - Fulfillment of Prophecy (1, 21-23); as well as flight to Egypt (2,14.15); massacre of the innocents (2,16-18); Joseph's settlement in Nazareth and the raising of Jesus there (2,23); the very fact that Jesus spoke in parables (13,34.35); triumphal entry into Jerusalem (21,3-5); betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (27,9); and casting lots for Jesus' clothes as He hung on the Cross (27,35). The author of the Gospel of Matthew made it his main goal to show that the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus, that every detail of Jesus' life was foretold by the prophets, and thereby convince the Jews and force them to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

The interest of the author of the Gospel of Matthew is directed primarily to the Jews. Their appeal is closest and dearest to his heart. To the Canaanite woman who turned to Him for help, Jesus first answered: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (15,24). Sending the twelve apostles to proclaim the good news, Jesus told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles and do not enter the city of Samaritans, but go especially to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (10, 5.6). But one must not think that this Gospel excludes the pagans in every possible way. Many will come from the east and west and lie down with Abraham in the Kingdom of Heaven (8,11). "And the gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world" (24,14). And it is in the Gospel of Matthew that the order was given to the Church to set out on a campaign: “Go therefore and teach all nations.” (28,19). It is, of course, obvious that the author of Matthew's Gospel is primarily interested in the Jews, but he foresees the day when all nations will be gathered together.

The Jewish origin and Jewish orientation of the Gospel of Matthew is also evident in its attitude towards the law. Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Not even the smallest part of the law will pass. There is no need to teach people to break the law. The righteousness of a Christian must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (5, 17-20). The Gospel of Matthew was written by a man who knew and loved the law, and saw that it had a place in Christian teaching. In addition, we should note the obvious paradox in the attitude of the author of the Gospel of Matthew to the scribes and Pharisees. He recognizes their special powers: “The scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses; therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do.” (23,2.3). But in no other Gospel are they condemned as strictly and consistently as in Matthew.

Already at the very beginning we see the merciless exposure of the Sadducees and Pharisees by John the Baptist, who called them "born of vipers" (3, 7-12). They complain that Jesus eats and drinks with publicans and sinners (9,11); they declared that Jesus casts out demons not by the power of God, but by the power of the prince of demons (12,24). They are plotting to destroy Him (12,14); Jesus warns the disciples to beware not of the leaven of bread, but of the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16,12); they are like plants that will be uprooted (15,13); they cannot discern the signs of the times (16,3); they are killers of prophets (21,41). There is no other chapter in the entire New Testament like Mat. 23, in which it is not what the scribes and Pharisees teach that is condemned, but their behavior and way of life. The author condemns them for the fact that they do not at all correspond to the teaching they preach, and do not at all achieve the ideal established by them and for them.

The author of Matthew's Gospel is also very interested in the Church. From all the Synoptic Gospels the word Church found only in the Gospel of Matthew. Only the Gospel of Matthew includes a passage about the Church after Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-23; cf. Mark 8:27-33; Luke 9:18-22). Only Matthew says that disputes should be resolved by the Church (18,17). By the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, the Church had become a large organization and truly a major factor in the lives of Christians.

The Gospel of Matthew especially reflects an interest in the apocalyptic; in other words, to what Jesus spoke about His Second Coming, the end of the world and the Day of Judgment. IN Mat. 24 provides a much more complete account of Jesus' apocalyptic reasoning than any other Gospel. Only in the Gospel of Matthew is there a parable of the talents. (25,14-30); about wise and foolish virgins (25, 1-13); about sheep and goats (25,31-46). Matthew had a special interest in the end times and the Day of Judgment.

But this is not the most important feature of the Gospel of Matthew. This is an eminently meaningful gospel.

We have already seen that it was the Apostle Matthew who gathered the first meeting and compiled an anthology of Jesus’ teaching. Matthew was a great systematizer. He collected in one place everything he knew about the teaching of Jesus on this or that issue, and therefore we find in the Gospel of Matthew five large complexes in which the teaching of Christ is collected and systematized. All these five complexes are associated with the Kingdom of God. Here they are:

a) Sermon on the Mount or Law of the Kingdom (5-7)

b) Duty of Kingdom Leaders (10)

c) Parables about the Kingdom (13)

d) Greatness and Forgiveness in the Kingdom (18)

e) The Coming of the King (24,25)

But Matthew not only collected and systematized. We must remember that he wrote in an era before printing, when books were few and far between because they had to be copied by hand. At such a time, comparatively few people had books, and so if they wanted to know and use the story of Jesus, they had to memorize it.

Therefore, Matthew always arranges the material in such a way that it is easy for the reader to remember it. He arranges the material in threes and sevens: three messages of Joseph, three denials of Peter, three questions of Pontius Pilate, seven parables about the Kingdom in chapter 13, sevenfold "woe to you" to the Pharisees and scribes in Chapter 23.

A good example of this is the genealogy of Jesus, with which the Gospel opens. The purpose of a genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the son of David. There are no numbers in Hebrew, they are symbolized by letters; In addition, Hebrew does not have signs (letters) for vowel sounds. David in Hebrew it will be accordingly DVD; if these are taken as numbers rather than letters, their sum would be 14, and the genealogy of Jesus consists of three groups of names, each containing fourteen names. Matthew does his best to arrange Jesus' teachings in a way that people can understand and remember.

Every teacher should be grateful to Matthew, because what he wrote is, first of all, the Gospel for teaching people.

The Gospel of Matthew has one more feature: the dominant thought in it is the thought of Jesus the King. The author writes this Gospel to show the kingship and royal origin of Jesus.

The genealogy must prove from the very beginning that Jesus is the son of King David (1,1-17). This title Son of David is used more often in the Gospel of Matthew than in any other Gospel. (15,22; 21,9.15). The Magi came to see the King of the Jews (2,2); Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem is a deliberately dramatized declaration by Jesus of His rights as King (21,1-11). Before Pontius Pilate, Jesus consciously accepts the title of king (27,11). Even on the Cross above His head stands, albeit mockingly, the royal title (27,37). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes the law and then refutes it with the royal words: “But I say to you...” (5,22. 28.34.39.44). Jesus declares: "All authority has been given to me" (28,18).

In the Gospel of Matthew we see Jesus the Man born to be King. Jesus walks through its pages as if dressed in royal purple and gold.

APPEARANCE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST (Matthew 3:1-6)

The appearance of John the Baptist was like the sudden sound of the voice of God. By this time the Jews were sadly aware that the voice of the prophets no longer spoke among them. They said that there had been no prophet for four hundred years. And in John the Baptist the prophetic voice sounded again. What was different about John's message?

1. He fearlessly condemned vice wherever he saw it. John rebuked Herod for his wicked and illegal marriage. John reproached the Sadducees and Pharisees - the leaders of the official religion of that time - for being mired in ritual and formalism.

Wherever John saw vice - whether in the state, in the Church or among the crowd - he fearlessly spoke about it. He was like a light that illuminated dark places.

2. John persistently called people to righteousness. He restored God's moral standards. He not only condemned people for what they did, but also called on them to do what they should have done. He not only condemned people for what they were, but he challenged them to become what they could become. John was a voice calling people to higher deeds and goals. He not only condemned vice and evil, he pointed people to goodness and virtue.

Perhaps the Church has spent too long telling people what not to do and pointing them too little to the high Christian ideal.

3. John came from God from the wilderness; he came to people only after receiving many years of individual training from God. As someone said: “John jumped out, as if into an arena, in the prime of his life and in full armor.” He came not with his own opinion, but with the message of God. Before he spoke to people, he spent a long time with God.

4. John showed the way forward and upward. He was not just a ray of light that illuminated vice, and a voice that condemned sin; he was a signpost on the path to God. John was preparing people for the coming of the Coming One.

The Jews believed that before the Messiah appeared, the prophet Elijah would come and be the messenger of the coming King. “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.” (Mal. 4.5). John wore clothes made of camel's hair and a leather belt, and this literally corresponds to the description of the clothes of the prophet Elijah (2 Kings 1:8).

Matthew connects John the Baptist with the prophecy from Is. 40.3. In ancient times, there were bad roads in the east. An Eastern proverb said: “There are three misfortunes - illness, an empty stomach and travel.” Before setting off on the road, the traveler had to “pay all debts, take care of dependents, prepare parting gifts, return all things accepted for safekeeping.” Most of the roads were simple country roads. They had no covering because the soil in Palestine is hard and can withstand the traffic of mules, donkeys, oxen and carts. Traveling along such a road was a real adventure, which should, if possible, be avoided.

There were several man-made paved roads. Josephus, for example, reports that King Solomon paved black basalt stone on the roads leading to Jerusalem to ease the journey for pilgrims and “to show the greatness and wealth of the government.” All artificial and paved roads were built by kings and for kings. They were called “royal roads” and were repaired only when the king needed them for travel. Before the king's arrival, an order was given to prepare roads for the king's journey.

John prepared the way for the King. The preacher, the teacher with the prophetic voice, points not to himself but to God. He strives to turn people's gaze not to his own mind, but to the greatness of God. A true preacher loses himself in his message.

People recognized John as a preacher because he had that irrefutable authority with which a man who came to people from the presence of God was invested.

JOHN'S MESSAGE IS A THREAT (Matthew 3:7-12)

John calls the Pharisees and Sadducees a generation of vipers and asks who inspired them with the desire to flee from future wrath. Saying this, John was probably remembering the desert, which he knew well.

In some places there was sparse, short, dry grass and sparse thorn bushes, fragile from lack of moisture. Sometimes a steppe fire broke out in the desert and then the flame, like a fiery stream, spread over the grass and bushes, because they were dry and fragile; and in front of the fiery stream, snakes, scorpions and other living creatures, hiding in the grass and bushes, ran and hurried. The fire drove them out of their holes and dens, and they ran ahead of him, saving their lives.

But perhaps John has a different picture in mind. There are many creatures in the field grains - field mice, rats, rabbits, birds. But when the reaper comes, he drives them from their places. They have to flee from the harvested and bare field, saving their lives.

John thinks in images of these pictures. If the Pharisees and Sadducees really come to be baptized, they are like the desert animals running for their lives before a wildfire or before the reaper's sickle during the harvest.

John warns them that it will not help them if they claim that Abraham is their father. In the minds of the Jew, this was an irrefutable argument. Among the Jews, Abraham occupied an exceptional place. His virtue and God's favor towards him are so exceptional that his merits and merits should suffice not only for himself, but for all his descendants. Abraham, in their opinion, created a treasury of virtues and merits that cannot be exhausted by any claims and needs of his descendants. And therefore they believed that a Jew, by his origin, even if he has no other merits, will definitely enter the world to come. They said that "all the Israelites have their portion in the world to come" from the "saving virtues of their fathers." They said that Abraham sits at the gates of hell and brings back every Israelite who was mistakenly condemned to the torments and horrors of hell. They said that it was the merits of Abraham that enabled ships to navigate the seas safely; that because of his merits the rains fall on the earth; that because of the merits of Abraham, Moses was able to ascend to heaven and receive the law; that for the merits of Abraham, King David was heard. These merits were enough even for the vicious, they believed. “If your children,” they said about Abraham, “were just dead bodies, without blood vessels and bones, your merits would help them!”

You cannot live on the spiritual capital of the past. A degenerate age cannot hope to be saved by a heroic past, and a wicked son cannot lay claim to the merits of a sinless father.

In his narrative, John once again returns to the picture of the harvest. At the end of each season, the winegrower and the owner of the plantation inspected the vines and trees and uprooted them, which did not bear fruit or benefit: after all, they only occupied the land. Uselessness always leads to death. A person who does not benefit God and his fellow men is in great danger and subject to condemnation.

JOHN'S MESSAGE - THE PROMISE (Matthew 3:7-12 (continued))

But behind John’s threat comes a promise, which also contains a warning. As we have already said, John pointed to the One coming after him. At that moment, John enjoyed wide fame and himself had a great influence on people. But he declared that he was not worthy to carry the shoes of the One who was coming after him, and to carry the shoes was the work of a slave. John humbled himself and placed himself on the lowest level. The coming one, said John, will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.

The Jews throughout their history have been waiting for the new Spirit to come. The prophet Ezekiel heard God say: “And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you... I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My commandments, and to keep My statutes and do them.” (Ezek. 36:26.27)."And I will put My Spirit in you, and you will live" (Ezek. 37:14).“And I will no longer hide My face from them, for I will pour out My spirit on the house of Israel, says the Lord GOD.” (Ezek. 39:29)."For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry land; I will pour out My spirit on your descendants and My blessing on your descendants." (Isa. 44:3).“And it shall come to pass after this that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh.” (Poil. 2.28).

What are the gifts of the Spirit and what are His accomplishments? This question must be answered in the light of the Jewish worldview. John was a Jew and he also addressed Jews; he did not think and speak in Hebrew terms spirit - This ruach, A ruach, like pneuma in Greek, it means not only spirit, but also breath. Breathing - This life, and therefore the promise of the Spirit is the promise of life. The Spirit of God breathes the life of God into man. When the Spirit of God enters a person, fatigue, dullness, and the constant consciousness of one’s inability to accomplish anything disappear, and a new uplift is felt in life.

2. But the word ruach means not only spirit And breath, but also wind, the mighty wind that the prophet Elijah once heard. Wind - This force. The wind carries ships in front of it and uproots trees. The wind has enormous power. Spirit of God - This Spirit of strength. When the Spirit of God comes into a man, his weakness is clothed with the power of God; he gains the ability to do the impossible, endure the unbearable and face the incredible. Failure is over, victory is coming.

3. The Spirit of God is connected with creativity. The Spirit of God hovered over the abyss and turned chaos into space, disorder into order. The Spirit of God can recreate and transform us. The Spirit of God, having entered into man, turns the disorder of human nature into the order of God; turns our scattered, disorderly lives into God's harmony.

4. The Jews attributed special functions to the Spirit. The Spirit brought God's truth to the people. Every new discovery in any field of knowledge is a gift of the Spirit. The Spirit enters human consciousness and turns human guesses into Divine certainty and human ignorance into Divine knowledge.

5. The Spirit of God enables people to know the truth when they encounter it. When the Spirit enters our hearts, the prejudices that blind us fall away from our eyes. Self-will is removed and the Spirit gives man the ability to see.

This is how John imagined the gifts of the Spirit that the Coming One would bring.

JOHN'S MESSAGE - PROMISE AND THREAT (Matthew 3:7-12 (continued))

One word in John's message unites promise And threat. John says that the one who comes after him will baptize fire. The thought of baptism by fire involves three ideas.

1. Idea enlightenment. The light of the flame casts light into the night and illuminates the darkest corners. The light of the lighthouse guides the sailor to the port, and the traveler to his goal. Fire is light and guidance. Jesus is the light of a beacon, leading people to the truth and to the house of God.

2. Idea warmth. It was said about one great and good man that he lit fires in cold rooms. When Jesus comes into a person's life, He ignites the heart with warm love for God and for fellow human beings. Christianity is a religion of a kindled heart.

3. Idea cleansing. In this sense, purification means the destruction of everything unclean, for the purifying fire burns everything false and leaves behind the true. The flame hardens and strengthens the metal. When Christ enters a person's heart, the ungodly refuse is burned up. Sometimes this involves painful experiences, but if a person spends his entire life believing that God is leading all things to the ultimate good, he will emerge from these experiences with a purified character, and will eventually be so pure in heart that he can see God.

Thus, in the word fire contains the enlightenment, warmth and purification that a person gains when Jesus Christ enters his heart.

There is another picture in John's message that contains both promise and threat - the picture of a threshing floor. This is how they winnowed grain: they took it from the ground with a shovel and threw it into the air. Heavy grain fell to the ground, and the chaff was carried away by the wind. After this, the grain was collected in the granary, barn, and the remaining straw and chaff were used for fuel.

With the coming of Christ, a division occurs: people either accept Him or reject Him. Having met Him face to face, they must make a choice - for or against. And this choice determines the fate of a person. People are divided by their attitude towards Jesus Christ.

Christianity leaves no way to avoid this choice. In the silence of the countryside, the English writer John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress, heard a voice that suddenly stopped him and forced him to look into eternity: “Will you leave your sins and go up to heaven, or will you stay with them and go to hell?” Ultimately, each person must make this choice.

In John's sermon there is a fundamental demand: "Repent!" (Matthew 3:2). This was also the main call of Jesus, because Jesus came with the words: “Repent and believe in the Gospel.” (Map. 1.15). It would be good for us to understand what it is repentance.

It should be noted that Jesus and John use this word without explaining its meaning in any way. They used it, confident that their listeners understood.

Let us consider the Jewish teaching on repentance. Among the Jews, repentance was central to religious faith and relationship with God. "Repentance is the only but indispensable condition of God's forgiveness and restoration of His favor; and heavenly pardon and favor will never be denied to those who truly repent," said J.F. Moore. "The central element of Judaism is the doctrine that God completely and freely forgives the sins of the repentant sinner." The rabbis said: “Great is repentance, for it brings healing to the earth. Great is repentance, for it reaches the throne of glory.” “Repentance is the great mediator between God and man,” said K.J. Montefiore.

The rabbis taught that the law was created two thousand years before the creation of the world, and repentance was among the things that were created even before the law; these include: repentance, heaven, hell, the glorious throne of God, the heavenly temple and the name of the Messiah. “A man,” the rabbis said, “can shoot an arrow several hundred meters, and repentance reaches even the throne of God.”

There is a famous rabbinical phrase that puts repentance first: “Who, like God, teaches sinners to repent?” To the question of the rabbis: “What should be the punishment of sinners?”, wisdom answered: “Sinners are pursued by evil.” (Prov. 13.21); and the prophecy: “The soul that sins, let him die.” (Ezek. 18:4); and the law answered: “Let him offer a sacrifice.” (Lev. 1:4). God answered this question like this: “Let him repent and receive cleansing. My children, what do I ask of you? Seek Me and live." Thus, in the minds of the Jews, only one gate leads to God - the gate of repentance. The word itself is interesting Teshuba, which the Jews usually used to mean repentance. Repentance is a turning away from evil and vice and a turn towards God. J.F. Moore wrote: “The primary meaning of repentance in Judaism always comes down to a change in a person’s attitude towards God, a change in behavior in life, a religious and moral transformation in a people or in a person.” K.J. Montefiore wrote: “The rabbis understood by repentance such a radical change in a person’s outlook that it manifests itself in a change in lifestyle and behavior.” The great medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides defines repentance this way: “What is repentance? Repentance is when a sinner renounces his sin, banishes it from his thoughts and makes a final decision - not to do it anymore; as it is written: “Let the wicked forsake his way, the wicked is his own thoughts."

J.F. Moore rightly points out that the definition of repentance in the Westminster Creed, with the exception of two words taken in brackets, would be perfectly acceptable to a Jew: "Repentance in life is a saving grace by which the sinner, from a sincere sense of sin and an understanding of the mercy of God ( in Christ), hating his sin and regretting it, will turn to God, with full intention and desire for new obedience." The Bible repeatedly talks about disgust from sin and turning to God. The prophet Ezekiel said: “As I live, says the Lord God, I do not want the death of the sinner, but that the sinner should turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways; why should you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11). And from the prophet Jeremiah: “Convert me, and I will be converted, for You are the Lord my God.” (Trans. 31:18). And from the prophet Hosea: “Turn, O Israel, to the Lord your God... Take with you the words of prayer and turn to the Lord.” (Hos. 14,2.3).

This clearly shows that in Judaism, repentance and repentance include an ethical element: it is turning to God and at the same time changing one’s behavior. John fully adheres to the traditions of his people when he demands from his listeners to produce the fruits of repentance. There is such a beautiful prayer that was sung in the synagogues: “Turn us, Father, to Your law; bring us, O King, closer to Your service; turn us in perfect repentance into Your presence. Blessed are You, O Lord, Who delights in repentance." But this repentance must manifest itself in real life.

In a comment to And he. 3.10 one rabbi wrote: “My brothers, it is not said about the inhabitants of Nineveh that God saw their sackcloth and their fasting, but God saw them affairs, that they have forsaken their wicked ways." One rabbi said: "Do not be like fools who, having sinned, make a sacrifice, but do not repent. If a person says, "I will sin and repent. I will sin and repent," he has no right to repent." He names five examples of unforgivable sinners, including "those who sin in order to repent and those who repent a lot , and then sins again." The rabbis also said: "If a person has a dirty thing in his hands, he can wash them in all the seas of the world, but he will never be clean; and if he throws away this dirty thing, then a little water will suffice." Jewish teachers spoke of the "nine patterns of repentance," the nine essential components of true repentance. They found them in the commandments in Is. 1.16:"Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean, put away your evil deeds from before My eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do good; seek righteousness; save the oppressed; defend the orphan; plead for the widow." Jesus, the son of Sirach writes in the Book of Wisdom: “Do not say: “I sinned, and what happened to me?”, for the Lord is long-suffering. When thinking about propitiation, do not be fearless, so as to add sin to sins; and do not say: “His mercy is great.” “He will forgive the multitude of my sins,” for mercy and wrath are with Him, and His wrath abides on sinners. Do not hesitate to turn to the Lord and do not delay from day to day.” (Sir. 1.4-8). And further: “When someone washes himself from the defilement of the dead and touches him again, what is the benefit of his washing? So a person who fasts for his sins, and again goes and does the same thing: who hears his prayer? and what benefit will he receive? because you’ve resigned yourself?” (Sir. 37,25.26).

The Jews believed that sincere repentance did not manifest itself in short-term regret, but in a genuine change in lifestyle - and Christians also believe this. The Jews experienced sacred awe and horror at the thought that they could speculate on the mercy of God - and Christians too. The Jews believed that genuine repentance produced fruits that proved the reality of repentance - and so did Christians.

But the Jews had much more to say about repentance, and let us consider them.

JOHN'S MESSAGE - DEMAND (Matthew 3:7-12 (continued))

“Repentance,” the Jews said, “is like the sea—a person can swim in it at any time.” Sometimes even the gates of prayer may be closed to a person, but the gates of repentance are never closed.

Repentance is absolutely necessary. There is a legend about a dispute that Abraham had with God. Abraham said to God: “You cannot hold both ends of a stretched rope at once. If You demand strict justice, then the world cannot stand it; if You want to maintain peace, then strict justice cannot stand it.” The world cannot continue to exist without the mercy of God and without the door of repentance. If there is only God's justice, it will mean the end for all people and for all things. Repentance and contrition play such an important role that, in order to make them possible, God exchanges His own requirements: “Love repentance before God, for for its sake He nullifies His own words.” The threat to destroy the sinner is replaced by acceptance of the sinner’s repentance.

While life lasts, you can repent. "The hand of God is stretched out from under the wings of the heavenly chariot to snatch the penitent from the clutches of justice." Rabbi Simeon ben Yochai said: “A person who has been righteous all his life, and at the end of his life rebels, destroys everything, for it is said: “The righteousness of the righteous will not save on the day of his transgression.” (Ezek. 33:12). If a person has been wicked all his life, but repents in the last days, God will accept him, for it is said: “The wicked for his iniquity will not fall on the day of his turning from his iniquity.” (Ezek. 33:12).“Many,” it was said, “can go into the world and return only after many years, while others acquire it in one hour.”

God's mercy is so great that He will accept even hidden repentance. Rabbi Elezar said: “It’s usually like this in the world: if one person insults another, and then after a while wants to make peace with him, the other responds: “You insulted me in public, but you want to make peace with me in private!” Go, bring those in whose presence you insulted me and I will make peace with you." But God is not like that. A person can stand blaspheming and cursing in the market square, and the All-Holy God says: “Repent alone with Me and I will accept you.”

God does not forget because He is God; but such is the mercy of God that He not only forgives, no matter how implausible it may sound, He even forgets the sin of the repentant. “Who is God like You, who forgives iniquity and does not impute transgression to the remnant of Your inheritance?” (Mic. 7:18)."You... have forgiven the iniquity of your people; you have covered all their sins" (Ps. 84:3).

The most beautiful thing is that God goes to meet the repentant halfway and even further: “Turn to Me as far as you can, and I will turn to you the rest of the way.” In their best illuminations, the rabbis saw the Father, who in His love ran to meet his lost son.

And yet, remembering all His mercy, we must also remember that in order to truly repent, we need to prepare for it. The rabbis said: “Injustice must be corrected, forgiveness must be sought and asked for. A truly repentant person is one who, having the opportunity to commit the same sin in the same circumstances, but does not do so.” The rabbis repeatedly emphasized the importance of human relationships and the need to restore them.

There is an interesting rabbinic saying. (Tzadik - This righteous)."Whoever is good towards heaven and towards his fellow men is good tzaddik; He who is good in relation to heaven, but not in relation to his fellow men, is bad tzaddik; whoever is wicked toward heaven and wicked toward his fellow men is a worse sinner; He who is wicked toward heaven, but not wicked toward his fellow men, is not a worse sinner.”

True repentance requires not only correction, but equally, confession of sin. We meet this requirement repeatedly in the Bible itself. “If a man or woman commits any sin against a person...then let them confess the sin that they have committed.” (Num. 5,6.7).“He who conceals his crimes will not succeed; but he who confesses and forsakes them will be pardoned.” (Proverbs 28:13).“But I revealed my sin to You and did not hide my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” and You took away from me the guilt of my sin.” (Ps. 32:5). It is the one who claims to be innocent and refuses to admit that he has sinned who will be condemned. (Jer. 2:35). Maimonides, a twelfth-century Jewish philosopher, has a formula showing how a person can repent of his sin: “O God, I have sinned, I have committed iniquity, I have sinned against You and have committed sin. I regret it and am ashamed of my deeds and will never I won't do this anymore." Genuine repentance is necessarily associated with the humble recognition and confession of one's sins.

There is no act that cannot be repented of, and every person has the opportunity to repent. The Jewish rabbis taught: “Let no one say: “I have sinned and can no longer correct anything”; let him believe in God and repent, and God will accept him.” A classic example of moral healing that seemed impossible at first glance was Manasseh. He worshiped Baal and installed foreign gods in Jerusalem. He even sacrificed children to Molech in the Valley of Hinnom. After all this, he was taken to Babylon in the chains of a captive, and there, in chains and in his darkness, he began to beg God, and God heard his prayer and brought him back to Jerusalem. "And Manasseh knew that the Lord is God" (2 Chron. 33:13). Sometimes this requires God's threats and His punishment, but God can do everything to bring a person back.

Another Jewish belief is associated with repentance, which, apparently, was what John the Baptist was thinking about at that time. Some of the Jewish teachers said that if Israel could, even for one day, completely repent and repent, the Messiah would come. According to them, it is only because of the extreme callousness of human hearts that the coming of God's Deliverer into the world is delayed.

Contrition and repentance were the essence of the faith of the Jews; they are also the essence of the Christian faith, because repentance is turning away from sin and turning to God and the life He wants us to live.

JESUS ​​AND HIS BAPTISM (Matthew 3:13-17)

When Jesus came to him to be baptized, John was amazed and did not want to baptize Him. John believed that it was not Jesus who needed to be baptized, but that he himself needed what Jesus could give.

It has always been difficult for people, ever since they began to reflect on the Gospel narrative, to understand the story of the baptism of Jesus. In John's baptism there was a call to repentance; he offered people a path to forgiveness of sins. But, if Jesus is who we think He is, then He did not need any repentance and no forgiveness. John's baptism was intended for sinners who realized their sin, and therefore it seems to people that Christ did not need such a baptism at all.

An early writer suggested that Jesus came to be baptized to please His mother and His brothers, and that He was almost forced to do so by their persistent requests in the "Gospel of the Jews" - one of those gospels that were not included in the New The covenant is such a place: “And behold, the Mother of the Lord and His brothers said to Him: “John the Baptist baptizes for the correction of sins. Let us go to him to be baptized." And he said to them: "What sin have I committed that I should be baptized by him? Am I saying this out of ignorance?

Since ancient times, thinkers have been amazed that Jesus subjected Himself to the rite of baptism, but there were good reasons for this.

1. Jesus lived in Nazareth for thirty years, faithfully performing his duties at home and in his workshop. All this time He knew that the world was waiting for Him; He became increasingly aware of the task that awaited Him. The success of any business depends to a great extent on how wisely the moment of its beginning is chosen. Jesus was apparently waiting for His hour to come, for the time to come and the call to come. And when John appeared, Jesus knew that His time had come.

2. Why did everything have to happen this way? The fact is that throughout history not a single Jew agreed to be baptized. The Jews knew baptism, but only for proselytes who converted to Judaism from some other faith. It seemed quite natural that a sin-stained and corrupt proselyte should be baptized, but no Jew could ever imagine that he, a representative of God's chosen people, the son and descendant of Abraham, to whom salvation was assured, would ever need to be baptized. Baptism was for sinners, and not a single Jew could ever think of himself as a sinner who was denied access to God, and now, for the first time in the history of their people, the Jews realized their own sinfulness, realized their own sinfulness, realized that they I really, really need God. Never before had the Jews had such a single universal impulse of repentance and search for God.

And this was the moment Jesus was waiting for. People realized their sinfulness and, more than ever, felt their need for God. Jesus saw this as an opportunity, and in the act of baptism, at the moment when people again felt their sinfulness and sought God, He identified himself with those whom he came to save.

The voice heard by Jesus at the moment of baptism is extremely significant: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” This sentence consists of two quotes: “This is My Son” - a quote from Ps. 2,7 (“You are My Son...”). Every Jew saw in this psalm a reference to the Messiah, the coming mighty King of God. "In whom I am well pleased" - quote from Is. 42.1("in whom my soul delighteth"). This is the description of the Suffering Slave, which is completed in Is. 53.

Thus, in the act of baptism, Jesus gained double confidence: that He was truly the Chosen One of God and that the path that lay before Him was the way of the cross, at that moment Jesus knew that He had been chosen to become King, but He also knew that His throne there will be a Cross; He said that He must be the Victor, but that for this victory He has only one weapon - compassionate love. At this moment Jesus was given a task and there is only one way to accomplish it.

TEST TIME

Matthew unfolds the story of Jesus step by step before us. He begins with how Jesus was born into this world, then shows us that Jesus had to earnestly fulfill His duties towards family and home before He began to fulfill His task towards the world; that He had to prove Himself in small things before God entrusted Him with the greatest gift in the world.

Matthew shows us further how, with the coming of John the Baptist, Jesus' hour had come, and that the time had come to begin His mission. At that moment, Jesus realized that He was truly God's Chosen One, but that His path to victory was through the Crucifixion.

And this same task faced Jesus. He came into the world to lead people to God. How to do this? Which method should I use? Should we resort to the methods of a powerful conqueror or to the methods of patient, sacrificial love? And this is what Jesus faced in His temptations. He is given a task: what method should he choose to accomplish the task God has given Him?

Commentary (introduction) to the entire book of Matthew

Comments on Chapter 3

In the grandeur of the concept and the force with which the mass of material is subordinated to great ideas, no Scripture of the New or Old Testaments dealing with historical subjects can be compared with the Gospel of Matthew.

Theodore Zahn

Introduction

I. SPECIAL POSITION IN THE CANON

The Gospel of Matthew is an excellent bridge between the Old and New Testaments. From the very first words we return to the forefather of the Old Testament people of God Abraham and to the first great King David of Israel. Due to its emotionality, strong Jewish flavor, many quotations from the Jewish Scriptures and position at the head of all books of the New Testament. Matthew represents the logical place from which the Christian message to the world begins its journey.

That Matthew the Publican, also called Levi, wrote the first Gospel, is ancient and universal opinion.

Since he was not a regular member of the apostolic group, it would seem strange if the first Gospel was attributed to him when he had nothing to do with it.

Except for the ancient document known as the Didache ("Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras the Athenian regard the Gospel as reliable. Eusebius, the church historian, quotes Papias, who stated that "Matthew wrote "Logic" in the Hebrew language, and each one interprets it as he can." Irenaeus, Pantaine and Origen generally agree on this. It is widely believed that "Hebrew" is a dialect of Aramaic used by the Jews in the time of our Lord, as this word occurs in the NT. But what is "logic"? Usually this Greek word means "revelations", because in the OT there are revelations God's. In Papias's statement it cannot have such a meaning. There are three main points of view on his statement: (1) it refers to Gospel from Matthew as such. That is, Matthew wrote the Aramaic version of his Gospel specifically in order to win Jews to Christ and instruct Jewish Christians, and only later did the Greek version appear; (2) it only applies to statements Jesus, which were later transferred to his Gospel; (3) it refers to "testimony", i.e. quotes from Old Testament Scriptures to show that Jesus is the Messiah. The first and second opinions are more likely.

Matthew's Greek does not read as an explicit translation; but such a widespread tradition (in the absence of early disagreements) must have a factual basis. Tradition says that Matthew preached in Palestine for fifteen years, and then went to evangelize foreign countries. It is possible that around 45 AD. he left to the Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah the first draft of his Gospel (or simply lectures about Christ) in Aramaic, and later did Greek final version for universal use. Joseph, a contemporary of Matthew, did the same. This Jewish historian made the first draft of his "Jewish War" in Aramaic , and then finalized the book in Greek.

Internal evidence The first Gospels are very suitable for a pious Jew who loved the OT and was a gifted writer and editor. As a civil servant of Rome, Matthew had to be fluent in both languages: his people (Aramaic) and those in power. (The Romans used Greek, not Latin, in the East.) The details of numbers, parables involving money, financial terms, and an expressive, regular style were all perfectly suited to his profession as a tax collector. The highly educated, non-conservative scholar accepts Matthew as the author of this Gospel in part and under the influence of his compelling internal evidence.

Despite such universal external and corresponding internal evidence, most scientists reject The traditional opinion is that this book was written by the publican Matthew. They justify this for two reasons.

First: if count, that Ev. Mark was the first written Gospel (referred to in many circles today as "gospel truth"), why would the apostle and eyewitness use so much of Mark's material? (93% of Mark's Gospels are also in the other Gospels.) In answer to this question, first of all we will say: not proven that Ev. Mark was written first. Ancient evidence says that the first was Ev. from Matthew, and since the first Christians were almost all Jews, this makes a lot of sense. But even if we agree with the so-called “Markian Majority” (and many conservatives do), Matthew might concede that much of Mark’s work was influenced by the energetic Simon Peter, Matthew’s co-apostle, as early church traditions claim (see “Introduction”) "to Ev. from Mark).

The second argument against the book being written by Matthew (or another eyewitness) is the lack of vivid details. Mark, whom no one considers to be a witness to the ministry of Christ, has colorful details from which it can be assumed that he himself was present at this. How could an eyewitness write so dryly? Probably, the very characteristics of the publican’s character explain this very well. To give more space to our Lord's speeches, Levi had to give less space to unnecessary details. The same would have happened with Mark if he had written first, and Matthew had seen the traits inherent directly in Peter.

III. WRITING TIME

If the widespread belief that Matthew first wrote the Aramaic version of the Gospel (or at least the sayings of Jesus) is correct, then the date of writing is 45 AD. e., fifteen years after the ascension, completely coincides with ancient legends. He probably completed his more complete, canonical Gospel in Greek in 50-55, and perhaps later.

The view that the Gospel there must be written after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD), is based, rather, on disbelief in the ability of Christ to predict future events in detail and other rationalistic theories that ignore or reject inspiration.

IV. PURPOSE OF WRITING AND TOPIC

Matthew was a young man when Jesus called him. A Jew by birth and a publican by profession, he left everything in order to follow Christ. One of his many rewards was that he was one of the twelve apostles. Another is his election to be the author of the work that we know as the first Gospel. It is usually believed that Matthew and Levi are one person (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27).

In his Gospel, Matthew sets out to show that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah of Israel, the only legitimate contender for the throne of David.

The book does not purport to be a complete account of the life of Christ. It begins with His genealogy and childhood, then moves on to the beginning of His public ministry, when He was about thirty years of age. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Matthew selects those aspects of the Savior's life and ministry that testify to Him as Anointed God (which is what the word “Messiah” or “Christ” means). The book takes us to the culmination of events: the suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus.

And in this culmination, of course, lies the basis for human salvation.

That is why the book is called "The Gospel" - not so much because it paves the way for sinners to receive salvation, but because it describes the sacrificial ministry of Christ, thanks to which this salvation was made possible.

Bible Commentaries for Christians does not aim to be exhaustive or technical, but rather to inspire personal reflection and study of the Word. And most of all, they are aimed at creating in the reader’s heart a strong desire for the return of the King.

"And even I, with my heart burning more and more,
And even I, nourishing sweet hope,
I sigh heavily, my Christ,
About the hour when you return,
Losing courage at the sight
Burning steps of Your coming."

F. W. G. Mayer ("St. Paul")

Plan

GENEALOGY AND BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH-KING (CHAPTER 1)

THE EARLY YEARS OF THE MESSIAH KING (CHAPTER 2)

PREPARATION FOR THE MESSIANIC MINISTRY AND ITS BEGINNING (CHAP. 3-4)

ORDER OF THE KINGDOM (CHAP. 5-7)

MIRACLES OF GRACE AND POWERS CREATED BY THE MESSIAH AND DIFFERENT REACTIONS TO THEM (8.1 - 9.34)

GROWING OPPOSITION AND REJECTION OF THE MESSIAH (CHAP. 11-12)

THE KING REJECTED BY ISRAEL DECLARES A NEW, INTERMEDIATE FORM OF THE KINGDOM (CHAPTER 13)

THE MESSIAH'S TIRESLESS GRACE MEETS INCREASING HOSTILITY (14:1 - 16:12)

THE KING PREPARES HIS DISCIPLES (16.13 - 17.27)

THE KING GIVES INSTRUCTION TO HIS DISCIPLES (CHAP. 18-20)

INTRODUCTION AND REJECTION OF THE KING (CHAP. 21-23)

THE KING'S SPEECH ON THE MOUNT OF OLIVES (CHAP. 24-25)

SUFFERING AND DEATH OF THE KING (CHAP. 26-27)

TRIUMPH OF THE KING (CHAPTER 28)

III. PREPARATION FOR THE MESSIANIC MINISTRY AND ITS BEGINNING (Ch. 3 - 4)

A. John the Baptist prepares the way (3:1-12)

Between chapters 2 and 3 there is an interval of twenty-eight or twenty-nine years, which Matthew does not mention. During this time, Jesus was in Nazareth preparing for his upcoming ministry. These were the years in which He did not perform miracles, but still gained favor with God (Matt. 3:17). In this chapter we come to the starting point of His public ministry.

3,1-2 John the Baptist was six months older than his cousin Jesus (see Luke 1:26, 36). He entered the arena of history as the forerunner of the King of Israel. His unusual church parish was Judean Desert- a barren area stretching from Jerusalem to the Jordan. John preached: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” A King must appear soon, but He cannot and will not reign over people who hold on to their sins. They must change the direction of their ways, confess their sins and renounce them. God called them from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Heaven.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

In verse 2 we first encounter the expression “Kingdom of Heaven,” which is mentioned thirty-two times in this Gospel. Since man cannot correctly understand Ev. Matthew, without understanding this concept, we will provide a definition and description of this term here.

The Kingdom of Heaven is the realm in which God's rule is recognized.

The word "sky" is used to refer to God. This is clear from Dan. 4:22, where Daniel says that "the Most High rules over the kingdom of men." In the next verse he says that "heaven" has authority. Where people submit to God's dominion is the Kingdom of Heaven.

This Kingdom has two aspects. In its broadest sense, it includes all who acknowledge God as the Supreme Sovereign. In a narrower sense, it consists of those who are sincerely converted.

We can demonstrate this with two concentric circles.

The great circle is the area of ​​religion; it includes all who are sincere subjects of the King, as well as those who only acknowledge their loyalty to Him. This is clear from the parables of the sower (Matt. 13:3-9), the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32) and the leaven (Matt. 13:33). The small circle includes only those who have been born again through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Kingdom of Heaven in its internal form is accessible only to the regenerate.

First, this Kingdom was prophesied in the OT. Daniel predicted that God would establish a Kingdom that would never be destroyed or given to another nation (Dan. 2:44). He also saw the coming of Christ to establish eternal dominion over the world (Dan. 7:13-14, see also Jer. 23:5-6).

Secondly, this Kingdom was described by John the Baptist, Jesus and the twelve disciples as coming or existing (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7). In Matt. 12:28 Jesus said: “If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” In Luke 17:21 He said: “For behold, the kingdom of God is within you,” that is, among you. This Kingdom was present in the Person of the King. As we will show later, the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” are used interchangeably. Thirdly, this Kingdom is described in its intermediate form. Rejected by the people of Israel, the King returned to heaven. But, although the King is absent, the Kingdom exists today in the hearts of all who recognize His royal power; and the ethical and moral principles of the Kingdom, including the Sermon on the Mount, still apply to us today.

This temporary phase of the Kingdom is described in the parables of Hebrews 13. from Matthew.

The fourth phase of this Kingdom can be called its manifest presence.

This is the Millennial reign of Christ on earth, revealed in the transfiguration of Christ, when He was seen in the glory of the coming reign (Matthew 17:1-8).

Jesus referred to this phase in Matt. 8:11, when he said: "...many will come and lie with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven."

The fifth and final form will be the eternal Kingdom. It is described in 2 Pet. 1:11 as "the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

The phrase “Kingdom of Heaven” is found only in Ev. from Matthew, and the “Kingdom of God” is in all four Gospels. There is practically no difference between them: the same thing is said about both Kingdoms. For example, in Matt. 19:23 Jesus said that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Both Mark (10:23) and Luke (18:24) record that Jesus said this about the Kingdom of God (see Matt. 19:24, where the same the very aphorism is used with the “Kingdom of God”).

We mentioned above that the Kingdom of Heaven has external and internal aspects. That the same can be said of the Kingdom of God further confirms that both terms refer to the same thing. In the Kingdom of God there is also both truth and falsehood.

This is clear from the parables of the sower (Luke 8:4-10), the mustard seed (13:18-19) and the leaven (Luke 13:20-21). As for the internal, true content, only those born again can enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5).

And lastly: the Kingdom of God is not the same as the Church. This Kingdom began when Christ entered into His public ministry; The beginning of the Church is the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). This Kingdom will remain on earth until it is destroyed; The Church will be on earth until the rapture (the taking, or relocation, from the earth, when Christ descends from heaven and takes all believers with Him - 1 Thess. 4:13-18). The church will return with Christ at His second coming to reign with Him as His Bride. At present, people who truly belong to this Kingdom are also in the Church.

3,3 Returning to the explanation of the 3rd chapter of Ev. from Matthew, we note that the preparatory ministry of John was predicted by the prophet Isaiah for more than 700 years: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert the paths of our God” (40:3). John was voice. The people of Israel were spiritually desert- dry and barren. John called the people prepare the way of the LORD, having repented, forsaking sins and making His paths straight, those. removing from your life everything that could interfere with His absolute sovereignty.

3,4 The Baptist's clothing was camel hair- not from the soft, luxurious modern camel fabric, but from a rough one, intended for a person who is constantly in the open air. He also wore a leather belt. It was the same item of clothing as that of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8); perhaps he served to draw the attention of Jewish believers to the fact that John's mission is similar to the mission of Elijah (Mal. 4:5; Luke 1:7; Matt. 11:14; 17:10-12). John ate locusts and wild honey - the starvation rations of a man who is so absorbed in his mission that he neglects the ordinary comforts and pleasures of life. Probably, meeting with John, a man who was alien to everything for which people usually live, the people experienced a burning sense of guilt. His absorption in spiritual realities made others aware of their own depravity. His selflessness served as a caustic reproach to his compatriots, so attached to earthly things.

3,5-6 From Jerusalem, all Judea and the Jordanian surroundings, crowds of people came to listen to John. Some responded to his call and were baptized by him in the Jordan, thereby confirming that they are ready to faithfully and devotedly serve the coming King.

3,7 It was different with Pharisees and Sadducees. Seeing how they came to listen to him, John knew that they were not doing this from a pure heart. He saw their true nature: Pharisees They professed to be zealous observants of the law, but in reality they were corrupt, hypocritical, self-righteous, and sectarian. Sadducees by social status they were classified as aristocrats; they were religious skeptics who rejected such basic doctrines as the resurrection of the body, the existence of angels, the immortality of the soul, and eternal punishment. Therefore John condemned both sects, calling them spawn of vipers, pretending to avoid future wrath but showed no signs of true repentance.

3,8 He demanded that they prove their sincerity by bringing fruits worthy of repentance. True repentance, as D.R. wrote. Müller, "is reduced to nothing if it brings with it a few tears, a rush of repentance and a slight fear. We must leave our sins, which we repent of, and walk in the pure paths of holiness."

3,9 Jews must stop abusing their origins from Abraham like a pass to heaven. The grace of salvation is not transmitted through natural birth. God could turn stones on the banks of the Jordan as children to Abraham, using less effort than to convert the Pharisees and Sadducees.

3,10 Claiming that the ax lies at the root of the tree, John meant that Divine judgment would soon begin. The coming of Christ and His presence on earth will test all people. Anyone who is found barren will be destroyed, like a barren tree that cut down and thrown into the fire.

3,11-12 In verses 7-10 John spoke to the Pharisees and Sadducees (see v. 7), and now he seems to be speaking to everyone present, including both truthful people and deceivers. He explains to them that there is a significant difference between his ministry and the ministry of the Messiah who will soon appear. John baptized in water for repentance: water was an attribute of the ritual and had no cleansing power; repentance, although true, it did not lead a person to complete salvation. John viewed his mission as preparatory and incomplete. The Messiah will completely eclipse John. He will stronger, He will be more worthy, His work will extend further, because He will baptize... with the Holy Spirit and fire. Baptism Holy Spirit different from baptism fire. The first is a baptism of blessing, the second is a baptism of condemnation. The first baptism took place on the day of Pentecost, the last is a matter of the future. The former is the property of all true believers in the Lord Jesus, the latter will be the fate of all unbelievers. The first was intended for those Israelites for whom baptism was an outward manifestation of inward repentance; the latter - to the Pharisees, Sadducees and all those who did not have signs of true repentance. Some teach that the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of fire are the same event, that is, could the baptism of fire be related to the flames that appeared when the Holy Spirit descended on the day of Pentecost? In light of verse 12, which equates fire with punishment, probably not.

Immediately after mentioning baptism by fire, John talks about punishment. The Lord is depicted with a winnowing fan, winnowing threshed grain in the wind. Wheat(true believers) falls straight to the ground and then gets taken away to the granary. Straw(non-believers) is carried by the wind a short distance, and then it is collected and burn with unquenchable fire. Fire in verse 12 signifies punishment, and since this verse reinforces verse 11, it is reasonable to think that baptism by fire is a baptism of punishment.

B. John baptizes Jesus (3:13-17)

3,13 Jesus walked approximately 96 km from Galilee to the bottom Jordan, to be baptized by John. This shows that Jesus placed special importance on this rite, and should indicate how important baptism is to His followers today.

3,14-15 Realizing that Jesus has nothing to repent of, John refuses to baptize Him. The right instinct prompted him to suggest that it would be more correct for him to be baptized by Jesus. Jesus did not reject this. He simply repeated His request to be baptized as proper way fulfill all righteousness. He felt that it would be right, that through baptism He would equate Himself with those God-fearing Israelites who came to be baptized into repentance.

But there was a deeper meaning here.

For Jesus, baptism was a rite symbolizing the way in which He would fulfill all the just demands that God makes regarding human sin. His immersion was a type of baptism in the waters of God's punishment at Calvary. Coming out of the water symbolized His resurrection.

By death, burial, and resurrection He would satisfy the demands of Divine justice and provide a foundation of righteousness by which sinners could be justified.

3,16-17 As soon as Jesus left of water, He saw Saint the Spirit of God, which descended from the sky in the form a dove and descended on Him. Just as in the OT people and objects were sanctified for sacred purposes by holy anointing (Ex. 30:25-30), so He was the Messiah, anointed with the Holy Spirit.

At this holy moment all three Persons of the Trinity were revealed. There was beloved Son. Spirit The saint was there in the form pigeon Voice The Father pronouncing a blessing on Jesus was heard from the sky. It was a memorable event because the voice of God sounded from heaven repeating the Scripture: "This is my beloved Son(from Ps. 2.7), in whom I am well pleased"(from Isaiah 42:1). This is one of three times when the Father spoke from heaven, solemnly acknowledging His only Son (the others being Matthew 17:5 and John 12:28).

At that time, Herod the tetrarch heard a rumor about Jesus and said to those serving with him: this is John the Baptist; he rose from the dead, and therefore miracles are done by him.

For Herod, having taken John, bound him and put him in prison for Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because John said to him: you must not have her.

And he wanted to kill him, but he was afraid of the people, because they revered him as a prophet.

During the celebration of Herod's birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced in front of the assembly and pleased Herod, so he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked.

She, at the instigation of her mother, said: give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.

And the king was saddened, but, for the sake of the oath and those reclining with him, he ordered it to be given to her, and sent to cut off John’s head in prison.

And they brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and she took it to her mother.

His disciples came and took his body and buried it; and they went and told Jesus.

And when Jesus heard, he departed from there in a boat to a desert place alone; and the people, having heard about this, followed Him from the cities on foot.

Matthew 14:1-13

Interpretation of the Gospel of the Blessed
Theophylact of Bulgaria

Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria

Matthew 14:1. At that time Herod the tetrarch heard a rumor about Jesus
Matthew 14:2. and he said to those who served with him: This is John the Baptist; he rose from the dead, and therefore miracles are done by him.

This Herod was the son of Herod, who killed the infants in Bethlehem. Hence understand the pride of despotic life. That’s how long it took Herod to hear about Jesus’ activities! Powerful persons will not soon find out about this, since they do not pay attention to those shining with virtue. He apparently feared the Baptist; Therefore, I decided to speak not with anyone else, but with the youths, that is, with the slaves. Since John did not perform miracles during his lifetime, Herod thought that after his resurrection he received from God this gift as well - the gift of performing miracles.

Matthew 14:3. For Herod, having taken John, bound him and put him in prison for Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip,
Matthew 14:4. because John said to him: You must not have it.
Matthew 14:5. And he wanted to kill him, but he was afraid of the people, because they considered him a prophet.

In the previous accounts of the life of John, Matthew did not mention this because his purpose was to describe only those things pertaining to Christ. Even now he would not have mentioned it if it did not refer to Christ. John exposed Herod as having illegally married his brother. The law commanded a brother to take his brother's wife if he died childless. Here Philip did not die childless, for he had a daughter who danced. Some say that Herod took away both his wife and the tetrarchy while Philip was still alive. But one way or another, what he did was illegal. Herod, not fearing God, was afraid of the people, and therefore refrained from killing, but the devil presented him with an opportunity.

Matthew 14:6. During the celebration of Herod's birthday, the daughter of Herodias danced before the assembly and pleased Herod,
Matthew 14:7. Therefore, he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked.
Matthew 14:8. She, at the instigation of her mother, said: give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.

Look, what shamelessness! The princess is dancing! And the better she dances, the worse it is, for it is a shame for the princess to do anything obscene with cunning. Look at Herod's other folly. He vowed to give the princess whatever she asked if she danced well. But if I asked for your head, would you give it? “Give me John’s head here on a platter.” Why did you add “here”? She was afraid that Herod, having come to his senses, would not repent later. Therefore, he hurries Herod, saying: “Give it to me here.”

Matthew 14:9. And the king was saddened, but, for the sake of the oath and those reclining with him, he commanded to give her,
Matthew 14:10. and sent to cut off John's head in prison.
Matthew 14:11. And they brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and she took it to her mother.
Matthew 14:12. His disciples came and took his body and buried it;

He was saddened because of virtue, for the enemy is surprised at virtue. However, by virtue of his oath, he gives an inhuman gift. Let us learn from this that it is better to break an oath than to do something wicked because of an oath. The body of the Baptist was buried in Sebastia of Caesarea, and his venerable head was first laid in Emes.
and they went and told Jesus.

What did they tell Jesus? Not that John died, for the story about John spread everywhere, but that Herod considers him to be John.

Matthew 14:13. And when Jesus heard it, he departed from there in a boat to a deserted place alone; and the people, having heard about it, followed Him out of the cities on foot.

Jesus leaves because of the murder of Herod, teaching us not to be exposed to danger; He also leaves so that they do not think that He was incarnated ghostly. For if Herod had taken possession of Him, he would have made an attempt to destroy Him, and if Jesus in this case had snatched Himself from the midst of danger, because the time of death had not come, then they would have considered Him to be a ghost. So that's why He leaves. “He goes into a deserted place” to perform a miracle over the loaves.

In contact with