> ‎Chapter 4‎ > ‎Chapter 5‎ > ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎Chaper 7‎ > ‎Chapter 8‎ > ‎Chapter 9‎ > ‎Chapter 10‎ > ‎Chapter 11‎ > ‎Chapter 12‎ > ‎Chapter 13‎ > ‎Chapter 14‎ > ‎Chapter 15‎ > ‎Chapter 16‎ > ‎Chapter 17‎ > ‎Chapter 18‎ > ‎Chapter 19‎ > ‎Chapter 20‎ > ‎Chapter 21‎ > ‎Chapter 22‎ > ‎Chapter 23‎ > ‎Chapter 24‎ > ‎Chapter 25‎ > ‎Chapter 26-27:1-2‎ > ‎Chapter 27‎ > ‎Chapter 28‎ >    

 

 

3:1-6: John the Baptist: The "wilderness of Juda" was a vaguely defined place including the lower Jordan valley north of the Dead Sea, and also the land immediately west of the Dead Sea. It as arid, but not entirely without population. It was used for pasture (cf. Psalm 65:12). It was steppe or prairie land, with a short-lived crop of grass after the winter rains.

His clothing of camel's hair and a leather belt reminded one of Elijah (2 Kings 1:8). This was also the garb of the poor. Locusts which he ate were large grasshoppers - still eaten in the Near East, along with wild honey.

Matthew now cites Isaiah 40:3, and says that John is the one of whom Isaiah spoke. Isaiah had told of a voice crying in the wilderness, to prepare the way for the King, God Himself, to go through. Messengers in the ancient Near East did have the work of making sure the roads were passable for a royal journey. In Isaiah the thought seems to be that the way will be made clear for God to bring His people back from the Babylonian exile: nothing will be able to stop it.

Instead of using the usual formula "thus was fulfilled" etc. here Matthew says in equivalent words: "This is the one of whom the prophet spoke." So we may have here another case of multiple fulfillment, or at least, an indication that the complete fulfillment of Isaiah does not come until the coming of Christ.

In Isaiah the way is prepared for God Himself - so there is an implication here that Jesus is God. We find the same implication in the relation of Mt 11:3 (Lk 7:20) to Malachi 3:1. In the Hebrew that verse said: "Behold, I send my messenger and he will prepare the way before my face." In Malachi it mean God Himself would come, as even R. H. Fuller observes (Foundations of New Testament Christology, Scribner's, 1965, p. 48). Jesus in Mt 11:3 cites the line in the form current in His day: "Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare the way before you." That form came from a fusion of Malachi 3:1 with Ex 23:20. Jesus cited it to refer to John being His own forerunner - so even though Jesus used the then current wording, there was an implication, not hard to see, that Jesus was God Himself. Yet He did not make it entirely clear, in line with His policy of very gradual self-revelation.

Washings or baptisms were known even among the pagans. Sacred baths were found in Hellenistic mystery cults, and also in Egypt, Babylonia and India. These were thought to bring cleansing from moral and ritual impurities.

We distinguish ritual from moral cleansing. The OT prescribed washing for removing various kinds of ritual impurities, e.g., after being cured of leprosy (Lev 14:8 ff), after contracting personal uncleanness (15:1ff). It would be usually just a washing, not an immersion, for water was too scarce for many immersions. The Mosaic Law prescribed chiefly the washing of garments, the rabbis extended it to washing pots and pans etc. (Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38). But these washings removed only ritual impurity, not moral guilt.

Since John's Baptism called for repentance, it was aimed at moral cleanness. Confession of sin was part of the duty of a priest(Lev 5:5; 26:40; Num 5:6-7). The repentance, reflects Hebrew naham , sorrow for one's actions, and shub, turning to new actions. So Greek metanoia mans not only "change your mind" as one unfortunate commentator proposed, but a change of heart: see what I have done is wrong, regret it, propose to avoid it in the future.

Of course, John's Baptism was not a sacrament, which by its inherent power given by Christ would produce its effect if the recipient placed no obstacle (ex opere operato). Yet surely God would take occasion of this repentance and baptism to really remit sins. In Ez 33:14-16 God says that if the wicked man turns from his wicked way, he will surely live. That condition was obviously verified in those who sincerely came to John's Baptism.

May we add a speculation as to the process involved: In Ezekiel God did not ask for perfect contrition, for sorrow because sin offends God who is good in Himself, but just for sincerely turning from the evil way. Now all God's attributes are identified with His nature, as we gather from 1 John 4:8,"God IS love." Similarly, He is righteousness, mercy, goodness. These are identified in Him. So if someone, seeing what he has done is contrary to what is right, what God wills, then He too regrets because it is against God who is righteous, who is good. Since at this time the Sacrament of Penance had not been instituted, the ritual of John would be the suitable occasion for such forgiveness, within good order (Cf. Summa I. 19. 5. c). But now that Christ has established that Sacrament, if someone were to say: I do not want to do it the way you planned it, to confess to the Apostles or their successors to whom you said, "Whose sins you forgive they are forgiven them." No, just forgive me without that process - It would be contrary what is right, to good order, which God loves, to forgive sins in a person who knows of that Sacrament of Penance.

In any event, clearly God's goodness is so immense, His desire for our salvation so great, that He would not pass by an opportunity to forgive such as was contained in the scene of John's baptism.

3:7-10: We specified this would happen in those who were sincere. Pharisees and Sadducees also came, either to look on or to go through the ritual as a matter of the hypocrisy for which Jesus later upbraided them. To them John spoke harshly, indicating he read their hearts, and did not see true repentance. He told them not to presume on the fact that Abraham was their ancestor. That is not enough, even though the Jews were inclined to think so, as echoed in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 10. 1: "All Israel has part in the world to come." But John called them a brood of vipers -language like that of Is 14:29, later to be used by Jesus Himself: Mt 12:3. We gather it is not wrong to use harsh language when it is called for. And John said that now the axe is at the root of the tree - to separate the really good from those of false appearance, or. to use the language Paul would later employ, there is a difference between the real sons of Abraham, those who imitate his faith, and those who have only carnal descent: cf. Rom 4:12.

Today many try to make the Jews look better, and say that the strictures of Jesus against the Pharisees were not really made by Him - it was later in the first century that Jews and Christians quarrelled, and then the Christians used such language. But that would mean the Gospel was not telling the truth. In this connection, recent discoveries in the Dead Sea Scrolls make clear that the later picture of the Pharisees in rabbinic literature holds also for the time of Christ, since the Damascus Document, once thought to be late, now is known to come from Qumram: Cf. Bible Review, June 1992, pp. 30-33, 54,"New Light on the Pharisees".

Supplement 1: kingdom of heaven

John said that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. The Hebrew malkut and Aramaic malkuta regularly meant reign. It was under that influence that the New American Bible in the first edition regularly used reign, instead of kingdom. But even R. E. Brown admits that was a mistake. In Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible (Paulist, 1990, p. 12), he said that the editor made some unfortunate changes in the original copies ,"Some bad choices were made e.g., to render 'the kingdom of God' by 'the reign of God." In The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (Paulist, 1984, pp. 51-52) he said that in some of the later parts of the NT, "The kingdom and the church have begun to be partially identified." Now we readily admit that most ancient words and phrases have a broad range of possible meaning, and "kingdom of God" is one of them. Yet it is not only in the later parts that we see this identification. It is clear in the Gospels, especially in Mt 21, 43: "The kingdom will be taken away from you and given to a nation that will yield a rich harvest." He was telling the Pharisees, after the parable of the dishonest tenants, that they would no longer be part of the People of God, the Church - the gentiles would yield better fruit. The same idea is evident in the parable of the net, the parable of the weeds in the wheat, and the parable of the mustard seed. In fact, right after saying this happened in the late part of the NT, Brown himself cites the parable of the weeds in the wheat! Actually "kingdom of heaven" sometimes means the Church in the next world, and not just in this world.

We can grant that the Apostles at first did not understand what the kingdom meant. Real confusion shows in the question recorded in Lk 17:20-21 (cf. 19:11). And just before the ascension one of them asked (Acts 1:6):"Lord are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel at this time?" So we are not required to think John the Baptist understood fully - really, we do not know how much he may have grasped. Deeply spiritual men almost by a sort of connaturality grasp spiritual truths deeply and early.

Actually, on a broader base, Jesus used a very gradual form of self-revelation. The use of the Son of Man title is one instance of this. Had He at the start said: "I and the Father are one," or:"Before Abraham was, I am," they would have stoned Him at once.

Supplement 2:

Why did John himself live a life of such austerity and penance? (special comments on 3:4)

There was a gradual clarification of thought on these matters.

In the Old Testament 1) Fasting and almsgiving help get requests granted that are made in prayer. Thus David in 2 Sam 12:16 ff fasted in the hope of saving his son's life. When that failed, he stopped fasting. Cf. Psalm 32:13 and 69:9-10, and Judges 20:26; 1 Sam 13:24; 1 Kings 21:9; Ezra 8:21-23;Jer 14:12 and 36:6 & 9. 2) Almsgiving can atone for sin: Tobit 12:8:"Prayer with fasting is good, but better than both is almsgiving along with righteousness.... For almsgiving saves from death, and cleanses away every sin." Sirach 3:30: "Water puts out a blazing fire; and almsgiving atones (exilasetai) for sin. : (Cf. ibid. 17;22; 29:12; 40: 17 & 24) .

3) The Holiness of God wants atonement, i. e, make-up for sin, even if the sin is committed unintentionally (sheggagah). All of Leviticus chapter 4 brings this out. Cf. Numbers 15:22-29.

4) The use of creatures makes it harder to see the true goods: Wisdom 4:12:"The witching spell of things that are little makes it hard to see the good things." Wisdom 9:15:"The corruptible body weighs down the soul."

In the New Testament: The same values are presented, but more clearly. Jesus calls on His disciples if they want to be perfect, to sell all they have and give it to the poor: Mt 19:21. But this is not only to affect possessions: they are to deny themselves and take up their cross: Mt 16:24. In Mt. 19:29 Jesus promises those who have left home, or brothers, or parents or lands for His name are to receive a hundredfold in this life, and eternal life later. Mark and Luke in the parallel passages make clear the hundredfold comes even in this life.

St. Paul considered all the things of this world as so much rubbish, to gain Christ: Phil 3:8-9. Even though he had great hardships in his work, he added fasting: 2 Cor 11:23-27. He treated his body harshly (hypopiazo) so it would not rebel and lead him into sin, and he might lose his eternal reward: 1 Cor 9:27. He urged all to practice detachment, to be as though not using this world: 1 Cor 7:31.

The intertestamental writers taught the same. Philo ( On Special Laws 2. 195) says that fasting helps control the tongue, the belly and the organs below the belly. The Psalms of Solomon (1 cent. B.C.) 3:7-8 says the righteous man atones for even unintentional sins. Fasting is greatly extolled in the History of the Rechabites (1-4 cent A.D.); in Apocalypses of Abraham (1-2 cent A.D.) 12:1-2; of Elijah (1-4 cent. A.D.) 1. 15-22; of Zephaniah (1 cent BC or AD) 7;6; in 2 Baruch) early 2d cent. AD) 20:5, and in the Testament of Isaac (2d cent AD) 4:1-2 and Testament of Jacob (prps. 2-3 cent. AD) 7:17-18.

Rabbinic writings are strong on the concept that sin is a debt, which must be paid for. There are numerous texts. For example, the Sifre on Dt, Piska 32 even says, "If a man is prosperous all his life, no sin of his can be forgiven." Semahoth III. 11. reports that R. Yehudah ben Ilai said the ancient pious men used to have to suffer intestinal illness for 10 to 20 days before death so they might be pure to enter into the world to come.

The Fathers of the Church stress the value of celibacy for spiritual growth, in line with St. Paul in 1 Cor 7. The Eastern Fathers stress the need for detachment from all kinds of things, not just from sex, though that is specially stressed. St. Gregory of Nyssa, who seems to have been married, wrote, in On Virginity 20: "No more do our emotional powers have a nature that can at one and the same time follow after the pleasures of sense and cultivate the spiritual union, nor, furthermore, can both goals be attained by the same course of life. Continence, mortification of the passions, avoidance of fleshly needs are the means of the one union; but all that are the reverse of these are the agents of bodily cohabitation." This is true even though marriage is good, and Paul VI, in an address to the 13th Congress of the Italian Feminine Center (Feb. 12, 1966) taught: "Christian marriage and the Christian family... are not an easy way of Christian life, even though... the one which the majority of the children of God are called on to travel. Rather, it [marriage] is a long path toward sanctification." There is need for so much denial of self, once the early stage of emotional high has subsided, due to the great differences of male and female psychology, and the need of sacrifice for children.

We may attempt a theological fill-in with the help of Matthew 6:21: "Where your treasure is, there is your heart also." In the narrow sense the treasure would be a box of coins buried under the floor of a man's house for safe-keeping. If he had such a stash, of course he would like to think of it, it would be like a magnet pulling his thoughts and heart to itself. To that extent, it would be somewhat less easy for thoughts and heart to rise to the divine level.

But one can put his treasure in all sorts of things: in huge meals, in gourmet meals, in sex, in travel, in study, in the study of theology. - All these are lower than God Himself, some much lower than others. So here is one factor: how much lower than God is the attraction one feels. The second factor is this: how strongly does one let these things pull him? In some, they pull only as far as to lead to imperfection, which is less than venial sin - in others, to occasional venial sin - in others, to habitual venial sin - in still others, to occasional mortal sin -in still others, to habitual mortal sin.

So If one lets creatures pull him as far as habitual mortal sin, and the creatures to which he is pulled are low, then, it is all the harder for his thoughts and heart to rise to the divine level. Really, it may be impossible, as we shall see now.

We can supplement the above with a modern comparison, which means the same thing. We think of a galvanometer, which is just a compass needle on its pivot, with a coil of wire around it. We send a current into the coil - the needle swings the right direction and the right amount, measuring the current. Now it should read correctly if there is no competition from outside pulls, such as a 30, 000 volt power line, or a lot of magnetic steel. Then two forces hit the needle: the current in the coil, and the outside pulls. If the current in the coil is gentle and the outside pulls very strong, the current in the coil may make no impression at all: the outside pulls swamp it. Now this is a picture of my mind, my mental meter. The current in the coil is grace, which is gentle, in that it respects my freedom - while the outside pulls, if one gives himself much to them, take away freedom. When God sends an actual grace to lead and enable one to do a particular good thing here and now, the first thing the grace needs to do is to cause the meter to swing to the right position. It will do so if the outside pulls are not too strong. But if they swamp the current in the coil, then the man is blind or hardened. Grace cannot do the first thing needed, namely, to cause him to see what God asks of him. Without grace he is eternally lost. So unless some other soul does heroic work in prayer and penance for him, to get him an extraordinary grace, comparable to a miracle, he will be lost.

At the other end of the scale, if one cuts down on the pull of creatures so that they do not even lead to imperfection , then that person's spiritual sensitivity is high, it will register the slightest movement of grace. By much self-denial one reaches that point. John knew this, at least in a general way. So he abstained from creatures heroically. Even the pagan Socrates saw this, for he often, in various dialogues of Plato, said that the man who seeks the truth should have as little as possible to do with the things of the body! (For example, cf. Phaedo 66 and 82-83, Republic 485-86). It is obvious that these considerations mean much in regard to spiritual growth.

Our analysis of Mt 6:21, plus the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor 7 on detachment should not lead one to trying to be without feeling. Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus. He took little children in His arms, seemingly enjoying their natural charm, which He, the Creator, had given them

St. Francis de Sales, in his Letter 217 wrote, to a married woman, that the forms devotion takes vary with state in life. So he said, "your husband will love it if he sees that as your devotion increases, you become more warm and affectionate toward him (p. 104 Classics of Western Spirituality ed.).

It is almost as if there were a competition or contrary pulls in what we have said. Really not, there is need of a fine balance. All things fit together well. We should avoid letting any feeling or love of creature pull us to the extent that it would lead us into even imperfection. But if this is done, then to use feelings to carry out things that are part of God's plan, especially if part of the duties of our state in life - that is not spiritually harmful. Rather, then one is using feelings to help do the will of God. In this it is important to do these things i.e., to be warm, not just for the pleasure of doing so - though it is not wrong to feel that pleasure -- but basically as a means of fulfilling that part of Our Father' s plan. Then what St. Francis said will be sanctifying.

It is true. St. Paul in 1 Cor 7 did speak of those who have wives being as though not having them. In 7:5 he spoke of voluntary abstention from sex in marriage but only for a time, by mutual consent, so you may be free for prayer. But he viewed the use of sex within marriage as normal: then go back together again he concluded after 7:5.

There is a second good reason (rebalance of the objective order), which was indicated more briefly above: God loves everything that is morally right and good. If a sinner takes what he has no right to have from the scales of the objective order, that scales is put out of balance. A helpful image comes from Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, writing about 170 AD, claiming to be quoting Rabbi Meir, from earlier in the same century (Tosefta, Kiddushin, 1. 14:"He [anyone] has committed a transgression. Woe to him! He has tipped the scales to the side of debt for himself and for the world." The concept that sin is a debt is found extensively in Old and New Testaments , in the Intertestamental literature of the Jews, in the Rabbis, and in the Fathers of the Church. Pope Paul VI expressed it strongly in the doctrinal introduction to his Constitution on Indulgences of January, 1967.

In other words, the sinner takes from one pan what he has no right to take: the scale is out of order. The Holiness that God is wants it rebalanced. If the sinner took property, be begins to rebalance by giving it back; if he stole a pleasure, he can begin to rebalance by giving up some pleasure of corresponding weight. These things only begin to rebalance, for even one mortal sin is an infinite imbalance: the Person offended is infinite. So if the Father wanted it - He was not required of course - the only way to achieve it was to send a Divine Person to become Man. He could generate an infinite value in the redemption. He did that, superabundantly, giving up more than all sinners had taken.

To return to John the Baptist: John of course knew the theme that sin is a debt. By penance, he was helping to begin to restore the balance. The fact that Christ was to do that work infinitely does not mean humans cannot or should not join with Him. No, St. Paul's great theme is this: we are saved and made holy if and to the extent that we are not only members of Christ, but like Him - which includes likeness in the work of rebalancing. Cf. especially Romans 8:17:"We are heirs of God, coheirs with Christ, provided that we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with Him."

Strongly spiritual souls perceive these thoughts, perhaps not in the clear formal way we have presented them, but deeply and substantially.

3:11-12: John says a more powerful one is coming, who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. So John does know who Jesus is. In John 1:29-34 John calls Him the "lamb of God', the victim for sacrifice, and says he recognized Him because he saw the Holy Spirit coming upon Him in the form of a dove.

Jesus was to baptize with fire, probably meaning a cleansing force. The two expressions form a unit: the purifying action of the Holy Spirit. The mention of the Holy Spirit by John need not refer to the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity. That phrase, Holy Spirit, already occurs a few times in the OT: Is 63:10; Ps 51. 11; Wisdom 9:17. It also appears at times in the literature of Qumran. Of course, since John was filled with the Holy Spirit even before his birth (Lk 1:41). So perhaps God interiorly made known to Him the truth of the Holy Spirit.

This passage does not at all support charismatic and fundamentalist claims of a Baptism in the Spirit, especially since many charismatics assert that their phenomena are simply the actuation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which all persons in the state of grace have - and so they conclude all should become charismatics. The theology is completely flawed. There are two great categories of graces, sanctifying and charismatic. The Gifts belong to the sanctifying category, the phenomena to the charismatic - one category cannot be the actualization of the other, which is a very different category.

3:13-17: Baptism of Jesus: John of course objects to baptizing Jesus, for he knows Him, as we said. Yet Jesus insists, saying "we should fulfill all righteousness". The meaning here is much discussed. But if we recognize that the Holiness of God wants everything that morality and right order (cf. Summa I. 19. 5. c) call for to be done. Now Jesus of course, was in a completely different position from the sinners who came to John, for He was sinless. Yet in Phil 2:7 St. Paul says that He "emptied Himself". That did not of course mean giving up divinity, which is impossible. But it did mean He would not use His divine claims to exempt Himself from the ordinary human lot or from suffering, even from the lifelong anguish of knowing from the first instant of conception precisely all that He was to suffer. (Cf. Wm. Most, The Consciousness of Christ, Christendom Press, 1980).

So here it is a matter of suitability, in line with His self-emptying. It is also in accord with the shocking text of St. Paul in Galatians 3:13-14 (citing Dt 21:23): "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us, for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on the wood'", and the equally shocking 2 Cor 5:21 "Him who did not know sin, He [the Father] made to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Of course, He did not become sin, nor was He cursed. But He identified with us, and took on our condition, so as to overcome it, so we would overcome in Him, as 2 Cor 5:14 says: "Judging this, that one has died for all, therefore all have died." And Paul continues: "And He died for all, so that the living might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose."

Here we see the syn Christo theme, the Mystical Body framework. We are saved and made holy if and to the extent that we are not only members of His, but also like Him, in living to or for Him. We find the elements of this theme in Romans 6:3, 6, 8 (we died with Him are buried with Him in baptism); Col 3: 1, 4 (since we have been raised with Him, we should think of the things that are above); Eph 2:5-6 (we have even taken our seat in heavenly places with him).

These things are true as part of the Mystical Body theme: since one has died, all have died. But they also demand that we be like Him, in order to be saved. Luther argued:The merits of Christ are infinite. They are. Therefore, he said, we need do nothing, can even sin freely. Wrong. For we must be like Christ as the texts above show, especially the last part of 2 Cor 5:14, and Romans 8:17:"We are coheirs with Him, provided we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with Him" When the Galatians thought they could sin freely, Paul. in 5:19-26 said that if we do not follow the Spirit, but follow instead the flesh, we will not inherit the kingdom (5:21). The word inherit is significant. We inherit as children, without having earned a place in the mansions of our Father. But we could earn to be disinherited. It is about that that Paul warns in 5:21.

So since we are fellow heirs with Christ, provided that we suffer with Him, so we may also be glorified with Him (Rom 8:17), then, there is nothing but sin that is a loss for us (Rom 8:28),"For those who love God, all things work together for good." This is even true of those who suffer anxiety, for He did suffer it, knowing from the first moment of conception all He had to suffer. Confidence in God can help, can make things easier, but we should not accuse someone of lack of faith if he still worries when awaiting the report from the Doctor whether or not he has cancer. God did not promise no one would ever get cancer. He did promise that all things, even that, can work together for good for those who love God, who live for Christ, as His members who want to be like Him.

After Jesus was baptized, the Spirit came down in the form of a dove. Who saw it? The text is unclear. Surely Jesus, probably John. As to the others, we do not know. We compare the remarkable text of John 12:27-29 where, in anguish over His coming passion, He allowed Himself to break into a discourse to a crowd in Jerusalem saying: "Now my heart is troubled. What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour." Then a voice came from the sky saying: "I have glorified you, and will glorify you again." But the crowd did not understand the voice, they thought it was thunder.

Rationalists and too many who claim not to be such, dismiss this manifestation, or call it a theologoumenon - meaning it did not happen, the words are merely a way of making a different point.