The Text
Last Time on ‘The Story’
First of all, thank you for your grace in a few weeks off from this. I hope that your Christmas and New Year celebrations were faithful and restful.
Today we begin the story of Jesus proper. All of the gospel accounts start the public ministry of Jesus with his baptism by John. So, today, we begin the Journey with Jesus from Jordan to Jerusalem afresh.
Little is canonically known about Jesus’ early life. Luke’s gospel provides a story about his coming of age, but that is about it. The gospel of Timothy has all sorts of ideas about what may have happened in Jesus’s early life, but should be taken with a pillar of salt.
Overview of Matthew
A reminder of the overall shape of Matthew as we consider the context of today’s story.
Ch. 1-3 Overture
1:1-2:23 Nativity
3:1-17 John the Baptizer
3:1-6 Introduction of John as a prophet, with message “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near”
3:7-10 John experiences opposition from the religious elite
3:11-12 Promise of a future person
3:13-17 Jesus is baptized by John, Spirit of God, and voice from heaven
Ch. 4-7 Jesus’ early ministry, culminating in giving Torah (Sermon on the Mount)
4:1-11 Jesus’ Temptation
4:12-25 Jesus begins ministry in Galilee, gathers disciples, and ministers with the message “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.”
5:1-7:29 First set of Torah
Ch. 8-10 Enacting the Kingdom, culminating in Jesus’ instruction to his apostles (sent ones) as they go out.
Ch. 11-13 Responses to Jesus, culminating in Parables about the Kingdom
Ch. 14-20 Various Expectations of Messiah, culminating in Jesus preparing his disciples/apostles for his death
Ch. 21-25 Direct Confrontation with the Religious elites, culminating with a blistering critique of the Pharisees
Ch. 26-28 Crucifixion and Resurrection
Today’s Story
In the last breakdown, I included chapter 3 in Jesus’ early ministry, rather than the overture. In reviewing again, I believe this small story provides an important map for the coming gospel, so should be considered a part of the Overture. It is distinct; however, from the earlier Nativity narrative. That narrative is a backwards looking one, it sets Jesus in his historical context, establishes him as the new Moses, and as one whose very existence is a threat (both perceived and real) to imperial power. The ‘John the Baptizer’ section is more forward looking. It connects Jesus with the current reform movement within Judaism, and provides a roadmap for the story ahead
In Those Days: This phrase sounds a little funny in context. It immediately comes after a statement of Joseph’s return to Jodea, and settling in Nazareth, as a fulfillment of “the prophet’s” words that ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’ This is a stretch at most, and a bad pun at worst, but we will leave that alone for right now.
Broadly it is the beginning of a story, kind of like a ‘Once upon a time’ or ‘one time’ vibe. In what days we might ask? Well, the next information tells us, in the days of John the Baptizer.
John the Baptizer: John the Baptizer was a noted figure in the first century. While it is somewhat challenging to explicate John the Baptizer the man from the myth and gospel account’s use of him, there are some things that are sure.
The first thing is his moniker, the Baptizer (Baptizon) or Baptist (Baptistes). This stems from his use of water as a sign of ritual cleansing and repentance (more about this later). In this, he may have some ties to the Essenes, a sect of secretive Jewish mystics who also lived in the wilderness. They also sought repentance, but were decidedly more quiet about their beliefs, even going so far as to say that an Essene should not argue or share their theological teaching with others. Some have suggested that John could have been a student of the Essenes, but had since left their lifestyle behind.
As we know and will see, John is cast (and likely cast himself) in the image of a prophet, specifically a more rural prophet. His message of repentance bears a striking resemblance to several prophets found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
John also finds himself in the good company of those who would preach an anti-imperialist message. John seems to be coming from a much more religious standpoint, like the Essenes and other more rural religious leaders. However, as far as the political elite were concerned, could easily be lumped into much more violent revolutionary groups, such as the Zealots, or political leaders, such as ‘the Egyptian’ referenced in Acts. You can bet that his activities were under political as well as religious scritany.
As we well know, John the Baptizer plays an important roll in the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. As such, there is likely much of John’s message which has been co-opted by the Jesus message, and simply lost to time. The gospel accounts present him as a precursor and spark to Jesus’ own ministry, but little more. There is some evidence that Jesus certainly was influenced by John’s teaching. However, there is also evidence that Jesus respected John, but broke from his teaching (later in Matthew 11:11, Jesus will say that John is the greatest to be born of women, yet least in the kingdom of heaven; John tells the story of disciples following Jesus rather than John, and has John himself say that Jesus must increase, John must decrease). Evidence also remains that John’s message and expectation of Messiah was very different than Jesus’ (winnowing fork, fire, etc).
Today, we might call John an activist, one who uses performative activity and rhetoric to affect systemic change.
The Wilderness: John appears in the wilderness, not a mistake. Since Genesis, ‘the wilderness’ has taken on significant meaning. After the first sin of humanity, they are sent from the Garden of Eden to the ‘wilderness’ of the east. There they are called to fulfill their purposes of multiplying and ruling, yet in challenging circumstances. Yet, God also goes with them and promises a future redemption in the ‘seed of the woman.’ Abram is called out of his home in Hebron to ‘a place I will show you’ in the wilderness of Canaan, and God reveals the plan to not only bless him and his family, but all of humanity.
The most significant ‘Wilderness’ is, of course, the forty years of wilderness journeying after the Exodus from Egypt. Here God gives the people Torah (instruction), and chooses to be with them (in the very center of the camp) despite their constant proof of unworthiness. This meta-narrative is echoed in the Exile where the people are once again sent to the East, and God remains with them and even restores them.
John’s prophetic message coming from the wilderness specifically brings up the prophets of the past, like Elijah, Elisha, Micah, and Amos for instance, whose message to the religious and political elite is lobbed from the rural voice of the people who experience the underside of the lack of righteousness in their land. John does not speak from the palace but from the desert. In Matthew’s telling, at least, he also sees himself aligning with Isaiah as a ‘voice in the wilderness.’
Repent: John’s message is summed up by Matthew as one of repentance. This is one of those words that has had a long history of interpretation, and we often hear it as primarily a moral call to ‘change your ways.’ It brings up a picture of a preacher on a literal soapbox telling everyone that they are going to hell. The word ‘Repent’ is Metanoia in Greek, literally to change one’s mind or shift one’s orientation. I believe for John it is deeply rooted in a prophetic call to worship YHWH your God, and serve God alone. It is a call away from the idols of violence, sex, and power that surrounded them, and to come back to their first love. John seems to be calling his people away from the lure of Roman imperialism, and the Western influence of Greek thought. He, like the prophets before him, seems to have been deeply critical of the religious and political elite of Jerusalem who have aligned themselves with the violent hegemony of the Roman Empire. To be sure, his teaching also had a moral side to it; his eventual death was due to his critique of Harod on the morality of his marriage. This message remains relevant today, we too are called to reorient our focus from the cultural gods of violence, sex, hegemony, money, celebrity, etc; and focus once again on the Living God. We too have been unduly influenced by the cultural allure of hegemony, and using the tools of empire even within the church. We have been formed by the cultural gods of violence, power, etc. and we are called to ‘change our minds’ about what power looks like, and who is in charge.
Kingdom of Heaven: The word for ‘Kingdom’ in Hebrew is Malkhuth which is a natural derivation from the word for ‘king’ or ruler, Melek. The concept of ‘Kingdom’ therefore in Hebrew thought is that of the power and authority of a ruler. The Greek word is Basileia, which carries the connotation of an area over which that royal rule extends (a meaning which is shared by other semitic languages). The concept of a kingdom (either rule or area) of God or heaven is deeply rooted in Hebrew Scriptures. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible defines the Kingdom of God/Heaven as having five distinct dimensions 1) time, 2) space, 3) purpose, 4) preferred medium of accomplishment, and 5) extent. “These five coordinates of God’s action as king, all closely related to one another, are most clearly represented in the book of Psalms, although they are represented elsewhere in the OT.” The Kingdom of heaven is “so near in time as to be present, and yet ultimate (eschatalogical)” as seen in Psalm 96. the kingdom is seen in space most often in the Temple, where God’s reign and supremacy is without question, but there is also a firm claim that one day all of creation will come to acknowledge this ultimate reality (Psalm 145). “The kingdom is an insistent force of justice that will ultimately prevail” Scriptures like Psalm 10 (as well as Hannah’s song in 1 Samuel 2, or Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1) claim this ultimate reality of God’s rule and dominion. Human entrance/allegiance/citizenship is contingent upon our ethical and cultic actions, as expressed in Psalm 24. and finally, the extent of God’s reign is centered in the children of Abraham and the geographical area of the Holy Land, centered in Zion/Jerusalem; however, the ultimate extent of this reign is unbound and God is “king of all the earth” (Psalm 47).
This kingdom of God/heaven is also deeply rooted in an ‘already and not yet’ quality. I think Matthew/John/Jesus is pulling on the conviction found in Isaiah (and other places) of the juxtaposition of the Jerusalem of the present (which is deeply corrupt) and the ‘New Jerusalem’ which adequately displays the reign of God. Part of any expression of a kingdom of God/heaven brings with it an implicit critique of human expressions of reign and dominion. Our minds are formed by the deeply flawed expressions of human power that we see throughout history and around us, yet we also yearn for a perfect reign. Democracy is no stranger to this critique, and even going back to it’s founding we see thinkers like Plato claiming that those best suited to lead are those who are least likely to seek that leadership. So whether are formed by monarchy, democracy, or empire (and/or a combination of them), we know deep in our bones that none of them live up to the ideal even deeper in our being. This is one reason that some have lifted up the English twist of “Kindom” rather than using ‘Kingdom’ with all of its beggage. This word also heightens the Hebrew connotation of relational reign, as well as the Christian claim that we have been adopted as Children of God.
In the first century, the phrase ‘Kingdom of God/Kingdom of heaven’ was well attested. The Quumran scrolls use it to refer to the circle of heavenly hosts which gathers to worship God. The Essenes had a similar transcendent view, but tied it to the practice of worship where they were able to join in with the angels of heaven. The Pharisees (as well as their rabbinic successors) used ‘kingdom’ as a “focus of obedience” (New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible), the recitation of the shema “Hear O Israel…” was to “take on the yoke of the kingdom.” “Their picture of royal power was connected to the conviction that God was to be known, and that the life of Israel was to be realized by means of of the Torah given to Moses and articulated by the rabbis themselves” (ibid). Similarly and yet distinct, the Targums, which record the customs of local Jewish synagogues and heard Scripture in Arameac, and where ‘kingdom’ is used to refer to God’s divine intervention on behalf of God’s people to bring about justice (Isaiah 40, etc). This last interpretation of ‘kingdom’ is helpful to understand Jesus’ use “his insistence that the kingdom is a dynamic, even violent intervention with human affairs” (Ibid).
So while ‘kingdom of heaven/God’ language is technically rare in Hebrew Scriptures, the concept used by Jesus and John are deeply rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures and thought. John is very much drawing on this language in his proclamation. NT use of kingdom language is also heightened in consideration of the geopolitical situation. Judea is at this time occupied by the Roman Empire. They have no national sovereignty, and have not had it since the Exile (outside of the brief reprieve of the Maccabean revolt). To claim a separate kingdom while under the very clear reign of Empire is an act of sedition, of rebellion. As such, John’s message (as well as Jesus’) would have been seen by those in authority, as well as those yearning to be made free, as a part of a wider movement. All of this, especially tied up with the Targumic interpretation of the rural synagogues, would be tied up in the Messianic hope of a future ‘anointed one’ king of Jerusalem who would lead in righteousness.
The assertion that this kingdom “has come near” is a statement on the eminence of this transcendent truth, and a call to action, to repent.
Camel’s Hair and Leather Belt: In his appearance, John is specifically calling up the prophet Elijah, this is heightened by his location by the Jordan River, where Elijah was taken up into heaven.
Locusts and Wild Honey: This is possibly Matthew’s signal that John took on the Nazarene Vow. This was a standard of living laid out in Numbers 6 where someone (man or woman) seeks to be ‘holy’ or ‘set apart’. Nazarites were not to drink wine or strong drink (not even grapes), and they were not to cut their hair, avoid corpses (even parents). This was a way that non-Levites might take on priestlike qualities. One notable Nazarene was Samuel, who functionally took over as High Priest for Israel when Eli died. The Nazarite vow is also an important part of the Sampson story, but he is perhaps not the best example. Luke’s account makes this connection clearly when the angel tells Zachariah that his miraculous child should not drink wine or strong drink. Matthew does not make the same assertion, but has John eating Locusts, the only insect that is listed as kosher.
This is perhaps ironic since Jesus is named in Matthew as being a Nasarene, due to his living in Nazareth (again, more like a pun than a pronouncement). Elsewhere in Matthew there is a contrast given between John who “came neither eating or drinking,” and was rejected for having a demon, and Jesus came “eating and drinking” and they called him a drunkard (Matthew 11:18-19).
The People of Jerusalem and all Judea: This is a clear sign of a popular movement, everyone is involved in this (obviously not literally).
Baptized in the River Jordan: Baptism and ritual cleansing is a widely used sign within judaism as well as other religious traditions. Torah instructs ritual washings at various times, and notably using a Mikvah for cleansing in conversion to Judaism. However, some suggest that the location of John’s baptisms is perhaps more important, linking back to the renewal of the Covenant found in Joshua 3-4, where the people first cross over the Jordan into the Promised Land at Gilgal, just after hearing the ‘second telling’ of Torah in Deuteronomy. These events are recalled and hyperlinked to in the renewal of the Covenant found in Joshua 24, which was a part of our Narrative Lectionary cycle this year. In this interpretation, John’s baptism is seen as a re-participation in the covenant with YHWH. This is also heightened with John’s later reference to ‘these stones’ becoming children of Abraham, perhaps alluding to the twelve stones at Gilgal and the stone of witness at Shechem. Jewish belief considers that all Jewish souls were present at the first covenant at Sinai, but reaffirmation from time to time is also necessary.
Pharisees and Sadducees Came to be Baptized: Here we have the beginning signs of conflict between the growing kingdom movement, in the story personified by John, and the religious elites of the day. This likely signals a conflict that existed between John and these leaders, continuing the rural prophetic role as discussed above. It also signals coming conflict between Jesus and these groups, as well as the early church. We may note that both the Pharisees and Sadducees are present here, and will be throughout Mattehew’s account. This may be due to Matthew himself as well as his intended audience being more rooted in the Jewish culture and faith. They are perhaps therefore more comfortable in the distinctions between these groups than other gospel writers who are themselves, or writing to less Jewish communities. However, this means that we (who tend not to be familiar with the divisions within first century Judaism) might need a little refresher.
I often will appeal to American Politics when describing the Pharisees and Sadducees. Like the perceived duopoly of the Republican and Democratic parties, the Pharisees and Sadducees were groups of like-minded people (let’s be real, they were all men) who had distinct ways of seeing the world, and therefore ways that they believed things should be done. They too shared power within the power structure of Jerusalem which was currently ruled by the Sanhedren, somewhat like the American (or Roman) Senate or British (or Britt-ish) Parliament.
Very broadly, the Pharisees were an ascetic non-levitical ‘party’ which believed that the Greaco-Roman influence was destructive. They prided themselves in strict observance of Torah, as well as the additional Mishna which expanded upon and interpreted the original writings. Looking at the history of the people of Israel believed that God would redeem them, and restore their national identity, but had not done so already because (like their ancestors) the Jewish people were ultimately unfaithful to the Law. In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees were very comfortable with the more mystical sides of Judaism, and took talk of angels etc. as literal. This debate is clearly seen in the Book of Acts where arguments over a physical resurrection will literally start riots in the Sanhedrin and elsewhere. Our Christian ideas of the Pharisees are colored by Jesus' (and others’) critique of the self-righteousness and elitism that this order certainly had. Because they held themselves to a higher standard of Torah observance, there was at least a perceived ‘better than you’ mentality. There was also the critique of hypocrisy, and that the outward signs that they showed were not, in fact, a sign of inner enlightenment. Some of them certainly had become accustomed to a level of power and authority, and while proclaiming a distrust of Imperial authority also benefited from the status quo which gave it to them. I don’t know about you, but I certainly cannot think of another group who claims to hold themselves to a high standard of moral or intellectual superiority and who simultaneously ‘lord it over’ others and/or fail (sometimes tragically) to live up to their own standards, and who fight to keep the status quo which gives them authority...
The Sadducees were more closely connected with the Lavitical priesthood. The name derives from the name “Zadok” who was high priest during the time of Josaiah’s reforms. By the first century, they had become more comfortable with specifically Greek thought, and may have been influenced by Philo of Alexandria, a Hebrew Philosopher in the Greek tradition who died in 50CE. This is one reason why they were less comfortable with more literal interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and took ideas of angels and a physical resurrection as more metaphorical. They were more outwardly comfortable with the idea of Roman rule, and more accepting of Roman culture.
It is interesting that both of these types of leaders are presented here, responding to the call to repentance. Luke-Acts is clear that many of the Pharisees as well as Levitical priests became a part of the Jesus movement. The most notable Pharisee convert was one Saul of Tarsus, later known as Paul the Apostle, who wrote the majority of our Christian Scriptures.
Brood of Vipers!: John’s response to these religious leaders, however, is not a welcoming one. He calls them a brood of vipers, which definitely count as fight’n words. At the time, vipers were believed to be gestated inside their mothers, rather than from laid eggs. Upon birth, the ‘brood of vipers’ would burst forth from their mother’s body, and consume her as their first meal. So John is not only calling them snakes, but mother-eating snakes. The allusion to Genesis 3 and the serpent (as well as subsequent references to snakes in the Hebrew Scriptures) is also clearly being made.
John’s rejection of these leaders may be rooted in the overall rejection of the political and religious elite. This is a movement of the people and by the people, it is a revolution of those who are have-nots, those out in the wilderness/country. John by his very nature is a rural prophet.
John’s rejection of the Pharisees and Sadducees may also have to do with a growing counter-cultural rejection of worldly power structures. This is also deeply rooted in Hebrew Scriptures and this kingdom assertion that God’s purpose is one of justice. God is the ultimate authority that tears down the haughty from their thrones, and that very much includes those who would collude with Rome (whether outwardly willing or not), especially for personal gain.
In Matthew, John’s critique of the Sadducees and Pharisees also serves as a foreshadowing of the conflict between Jesus and these groups (as well as others). Both parties, along with the Scribes and Priests, will provide clear foils to Jesus’ teaching. Matthew in their narrative is preparing the reader/listener for similar conflicts.
Every Tree That Does Not Bear Good Fruit: Here John is pulling from rural/pastoral images similar to those used by Isaiah and the prophet Malichi (which John has several more ties to). Again John’s message is much more aggressive and potentially violent than Jesus’ will be, but pulls from similar apocalyptic ideas of coming judgment. This image of good or bad fruit ties to Jesus’s later teaching in chapter 7 when he speaks makes a subtle critique of the religious elite and calls his disciples to judge them by the fruit that they produce. These words also allude to the later incident of Jesus cursing the fig tree, and its sign of the failure of Temple leadership (Matthew 21).
One Coming After Me: Here is the real work that John is doing in Matthew, as well as all of the gospels. He is the celebrity endorsement which gives rise to the start of Jesus’ public ministry. With it would come all of the growing thought and expectation of the Messiah. It also heightens Matthews already robust set of allusions to Moses, who also referred to ‘one who will come after me.’
However, Matthew also is including part of John’s expectation for this messiah (assuming that it is a correct interpretation of John’s message). His interpretation of Messiah is one who will bring about the judgment and destruction that he warned the religious elites of. Here he shifts metaphors to the harvest of grain (again a pastoral metaphor, and one which he shares with Malichi). In this apocalyptic vision there is a gathering in of the ‘wheat’ into God’s divine grainary, but the real emphasis is on the eternal fire which has been prepared for the chaff (maybe he really was a Baptist).
Baptism of Jesus: Finally, we come to the event itself. Jesus comes from Galilee to be baptized by John. Unlike the rejection of the religious elites for their hypocrisy, John rejects Jesus because of his own humility. “I need to be baptized by you.” Matthew seems to be using this similarly to the way that John uses the switching of allegiance by disciples. John has been established historically, in the public consciousness, and in Matthew’s account as a prophet, but then clearly defurs to Jesus and considers him a superior. Jesus, for his part displays humility, and assures that “it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” In this way, Matthew deftly negotiates the transfer of authority for John stans, as well as clearly establishes Jesus’s superiority (a test completely failed by the chief priests and elders in Matthew 21).
Spirit of God: When Jesus comes out of the water, the Spirit of God descends on him “like a dove.” For Christian believers (especially those of us who have spent time in evangelical, pentecostal, holiness, and other such traditions) we are used to such language. The Holy Spirit descends on him, just as it does on all of us. For a Hebrew listener (Like Matthew’s), however, this would be a more remarkable event. The first connection that might be made is to David at his anointing. There, “the Spirit of YHWH came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Samuel 16:13). While the Spirit is the same, the mode is markedly different. In David’s case, the Spirit comes mightily upon him (the word here is the same as is used for an army rushing into battle), while it descends gently like a dove on Jesus. Certainly a foreshadowing of the non-violent nature of this anointed one. The Hebrew prophets were also said to receive the Spirit upon them.
This is My Son, the Beloved, With Whom I Am Well Pleased: This is a clear Christological statement. Depending on your view of scripture and the events of the gospel, this may be attributed far more to the time in which Matthew is writing this gospel rather than a direct reflection of events at the time of Jesus’ life. We also notice that Matthew is far less interested in the ‘messianic secret’ than Luke. In Luke’s account, the first section is summed up in the question, “who is this?” answered in the Transfiguration and a similar pronouncement from heaven. Here, Matthew clearly lets us know exactly who this is (actually, they already told us in the first sentence that he was the messiah).
The title of Son of God was not one that was unique to Jesus in the first century. By this time, Caesar Augustus was declared as the son of god, and at his death in 14CE declared an actual god. This would then make Tiberius, his adopted son and current Caesar, also the son of god. This declaration then to Roman ears would put Jesus on the same level as the Ceasar (high praise indeed) so the question would be, who had final authority, and/or who would benefit the worshiper more.
Pop Culture References
As I consider the revolutionary side of John’s message, I can’t help but think to Andor, the recent Star Wars series that follows the radicalization of Cassian Andor, who appeared in Rogue One: a Star Wars Story. In the series, which I highly recommend, even if Star Wars is not your thing, another character, named Maarva, gives a speech which ends up beginning the Rebellion on her planet.
Baptism also gets me thinking about a fascinating (and pre-pandemic) video about an all virtual reality church, and their participation in baptism. Fascinating.
Symbolic Baptism is a trope of media, where a character goes through a experience with water that changes them.
Hymn Suggestions
Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing
Baptized in Water
Wild and Lone the Prophet’s Voice
Child of Blessing
Links
Homebrew Christianity Online Class “The Christmas Stories”
Prayer of the Day
I didn't write one for this week, but this one from the Book of Common Worship fits nicely.
Eternal God, at the baptism of Jesus in the river Jordan you proclaimed him your beloved Son, and anointed him with the Holy Spirit. Grant that all who are baptized into his name may keep the covenant they have made, and boldly confess him as Lord and Savior; for he lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.