Глава 3

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. – 13–17. Baptism of Jesus Christ. Matthew 3:1. 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 (Matthew 4). In both of these events Christ appears as a grown 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, Exodus 2:11 (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 Exodus 2:23; Isaiah 38:1). The evangelists Mark (Mark 1:9) and Luke (Luke 2:1) literally have the same expression, with the only difference that, referring to recent events, it is placed with an article (ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις - Mark; ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις - Luke; cf. 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 (Matt. 3:13, 4:1, 9:14, 11:20, 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 (Luke 3:1), 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 it is now accepted by almost all exegetes 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 should precede the era of Dionysius by one or more years, in which the opinions of all Christian antiquity agree”), then, it means in the first year of our era Christ was about three years old, and in the 26th (30th AD) about thirty, which is quite consistent with the testimony of Luke (Luke 3:23). 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 (Luke 1:26), 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 went 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 (Numbers 4:3, 47), although later this period was apparently shortened (1 Chronicles 23:24; 2 Chronicles 31:17). "John", Heb. Jochanan, or Jehochanan, is a merciful God, like Jeroboam, Jehu, Joram, Jezebel, etc., where Ie or Io is a prefix meaning God. “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) served as heralds, sent by the king or other important persons to announce royal commands, meetings, the start of war and victories. The word is used in this meaning in the Bible, for example: Cyrus “ordered to declare” (κηρύξαι) “throughout his entire kingdom” (2 Chronicles 36:22). As a solemn announcement, the word κηρύσσειν is distinguished from the expressions “to give good news” (ἀγγέλλειν, 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, Ziph and Fekoi. 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 the general sense (see Judgment 1:16; Joshua 15:62). Matthew 3:2. 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, such an understanding of the words “Kingdom of Heaven” is only possible 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 was seen by few as the King of Heaven, but more as an earthly king, 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. Matthew 3:3. 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. (Cf. Mark 1:2–3; Luke 3:4–6.) 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, verse 3 was explained in connection with verse 2 approximately as follows: 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. In other words, the evangelist in verse 2 cites literally the original speech of John, and in verse 3 - also his speech, but only expressed in his own words (cf. John 1:23). 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 in order 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”. “About whom the prophet Isaiah spoke” - 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 (Isaiah 40:3) 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.” “The voice of one crying 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 the words were not separated from one another, which is why this text can be read in two ways: either “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” or “the voice of one crying: prepare 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 referred to as “crying,” apparently by analogy with κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (verse 1). The relevance 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 by “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 “the voice of one crying in the wilderness” mean. 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 preaching here is apparently complete. How to understand the expression itself: “the voice of one crying out”? Was John only the voice of another person crying in the wilderness, or was it his voice crying? By analogy with Luke 3:2, where it is said that “the word of God came to John,” it would seem that 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 Is. 40:3, 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 attribute 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.” In the Seventy Isaiah 40:3 - “Lord”, in Hebrew - Jehovah Elohim, and this shows that this is not an ordinary repair of roads and correction of the path during the journey of some ordinary king, because God has 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. Matthew 3:4. 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 eaten 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 spoken of as an inferior kind of food, looked at mostly with 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 the Nabateans “grow ... a lot of honey (μέλι), 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 is still the home food of the Bedouins, who squeeze it from 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 (Lev.11:22), and the consumption of wild bee honey is spoken of in the Bible (Deut.32:13; Judg.14:8; 1 Sam.14:25-27; Ps.80:17). Matthew 3:5. 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, the places near the Jordan were called the neighborhood of the Jordan from ancient times (Gen. 13:10–11; 1 Kings 7:46; 2 Chron. 4:17). Thus, by the environs of the Jordan, excluding Jerusalem and Judea, one should understand the parts of Perea, Samaria, Galilee and Gaulonitis adjacent to the Jordan. Matthew 3:6. 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 (Gen.35:2; Exod.19:10; Num.19:7; Jud.12:7). The Jews performed the baptism of proselytes, i.e. pagans who wanted to convert to Judaism. Based on the testimony 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” (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 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”... (John 4:1-2). 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 themselves. Matthew 3:7. 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? “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 (1 Kings 1:32–39); 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: “those coming to his baptism” (αὐτοῦ issued, however, in the Sinaiticus and Vatican Codes, by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), i.e. John. The preposition to (ἐπί) means movement towards a place. The fact 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 “the Pharisees and lawyers,” according to the Evangelist Luke (Luke 7:30), “rejected the will of God” and were not baptized by John. In all likelihood, the Sadducees did the same. "Born of the Vipers". 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 imagined 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, and says about the Messiah that He has a winnowing shovel in His hands. 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. Matthew 3:8. produce fruit worthy of repentance Literally: “therefore, create fruit worthy of repentance” (in the Slavic translation - “create 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, change their previous way of thinking and behavior that is displeasing to God, otherwise their arrival to the Jordan will not bring them any benefit, will not help them avoid the coming wrath. What this fruit consisted of can be partially seen from what follows. Matthew 3:9. and do not think of saying to yourself, “We have Abraham as our father,” for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones. 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. “Speak to yourself” - speak to yourself (cf. Ps. 13:1; Rev. 18:7, 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. “We have Abraham as our father” – 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 God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham,” 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. The expression: “from 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 or awaken from sleep the children of Abraham from these stones, 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. Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:29). Matthew 3:10. 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.” Matthew 3:11. 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; (Cf. Mark 1:7–8; Luke 3:16.) In Luke (Luke 3:10–15), the speech is supplemented by reproofs and admonitions spoken by John to others other than the Pharisees and Sadducees. John has just spoken of the judgment of the 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 (Luke 3:16) – “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 shoes” - I do not have enough strength, I am incapable, I do not consider myself fit. In Mark: “I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals” (Mark 1:7). 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 with 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 “By the Holy Spirit and fire” caused a lot of controversy and disagreement. According to some, the fire of Gehenna is not meant here. The Baptist adds the word "by fire" (which is not found in Mark 1:8) to give a vivid picture of the powerful and cleansing action 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. This latter interpretation obviously introduces a terrible element and, objecting to it, says that it contradicts Acts 2:2-17, 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 one is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel and for the subject of controversy” (Luke 2:34). 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 “with 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 conviction caused some of the Pharisees to believe in Christ (Acts 15:5). The same baptism and through the same means was offered to everyone, but some treated this baptism one way and others another. Matthew 3:12. 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 relates 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.” Matthew 3:13. 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 (John 1:28). 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: “so it becomes for 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. Matthew 3:14. 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.” Matthew 3:15. But Jesus answered him: Leave it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then John admits Him. The words: “so it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness,” 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 John's story (John 13:6–8). 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” (John 1:31), i.e. did not know Him as He appeared at baptism. The words of John: “behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), receive new illumination. What Matthew tells us next also becomes more understandable. The words: “so it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” is better translated: “for thus it is fitting for us (i.e., Christ and John) to fulfill all righteousness.” Matthew 3:16. 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. (Cf. Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21–22.) 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 thought 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 (Mark 1:10), 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 (John 1:32–34), 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 (ὡσεί, composed of ὡς 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 descent of the dove and its approach to Jesus Christ. The objection 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), has little meaning (cf. Heb. 9:7, where ἑαυτοῦ is put instead of αὐτοῦ). Matthew 3:17. And behold, a voice from heaven said: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Cf. Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22.) The use of “se” twice in verses 16 and 17 indicates the novelty and unusualness of the phenomena. “Voice from Heaven”, Greek. φωνή means “sound” itself. Heb. “kol” (cf. Ex. 9:28; Ps. 28:3), but hardly “bat-kol” - the “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 actually means “word.” - Ed.). “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” In Mark (Mark 1:11) and Luke (Luke 3:22), Matthew's expression: “This” (οὗτος this, he) is replaced by the words: “You are my beloved Son.” In a similar saying spoken during the transfiguration (Matthew 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35; 2 Peter 1:17), the expression “You” is replaced everywhere by the word “This” (οὗτος). From a comparison of the heavenly words spoken at baptism, one can conclude that the evangelists conveyed them inaccurately. You might be interested in: