As we dive into another episode of our Matthew series I want to start you off with a trigger-question. It’s one of my favorite types of trigger questions, it contains both political and hardcore fundamentalist undertones. That question, dear friends, is this: is it a sin to take medication for your crippling anxiety? Why do I ask that? Well, today, we are going to cover Matthew 3:4-6 and I’ve bravely titled this “You’re not in control.” While, for the most part, things like this really should put us more at ease rather than send us into an anxiety-ridden rage. But I know from experience that people who cannot handle giving up control really do not like the idea of not being the one with the power. While that is probably not the vast majority of my Reformed and Calvinistic listeners, I’m sure there are one or two of you out there who can relate. I hope that through the exegesis provided my one or two anxiety stricken listeners can have some peace of mind. And, don’t be looking for it, I am not going to answer your question. That is something you should really seek counsel from your local church about.
As I said before, we are going through Matthew 3:4-6, so let’s dig into the text.
Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Matthew 3:4-6
This is the infallible and inerrant word of God. We hope and pray that the Spirit of God indwelling us as living stones and as a holy priesthood will enlighten us unto its truth and goodness.
As we have learned previously, Matthew wrote this account to other believers, specifically of a Jewish origin. It was most likely a solid attempt by the human author to explain how all the prophecies of our Lord and Messiah were fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ, something the Jews would have been concerned about figuring out. It may have even been an apologetic that would be useful for those Jews, or any other reader, that could be used to explain to other Jews how Jesus was the Christ and how He fit the requirements people would have been searching for. These things do matter and it is worth digging into on your part to think on for yourself. And, while the human author did have an intent and purpose in his original writing of the text, we, as Christians, should know and affirm that this work is also by the Holy Spirit, who, in using these men as mediums, or, pens, if you will, had an intent, Himself. And we must ask ourselves as we come to each different passage - what is the intent of the Holy Spirit on this specific passage of text? What is He telling us in these lines of Holy Writ; what could be the purpose of the inclusion of certain things?
This brings us back to the title of our little mini-sermon, here, and that is how we are not in control. Did Matthew believe he was in control when writing these words, or that they would be considered Scripture later down the road? Possibly. But he wasn’t in control of that. The Holy Spirit used the pen of a tax collector to inscribe the “genealogy of Jesus Christ,” as it says in verse one of the first chapter, and this could include a multitude of things. Some commentators even suggest that when Matthew stated that it was meant to, not just include His actual genealogy, but to also include the entire Gospel. For instance, when Mark starts his account off with “This is the Gospel…” that is what Matthew did, as well. 2,000 years after the event, the Holy Spirit is still using the words that the Evangelist put from pen to, possibly papyrus, to melt hearts, to fill the mouths of preachers and teachers, to encourage, rebuke, and exhort the children of God. 2,000 years later the providence of God still works in and through the administration of the Scriptures to empower the heralds of the good news to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.
Beyond a lack of control, we do not have the power, nor the spirit in-and-of ourselves to do what is required for a life that is an Imitatio Dei, or an imitation of God. We require the power of God, we require the Holy Spirit within us, for apart from the vine we can literally do nothing. This is what was taken away from us at the fall and had to be given back to us through the life and work of our Savior on the cross. Cut off from God we can see through the actions of unrighteous judges, evil kings, and conquering nations that our exile didn’t start in Israel - it started in the garden.
With that being said, let’s turn to Matthew and see what the Spirit of God has to say about this.
Verse 4 says “Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.” I know what you must be thinking, because I know what I was thinking when I first read this verse. How in the world does this point to God being in control? It literally points to John as him doing something.
Before I was a regenerate believer, by the grace of God, I used to look at people like this as “holier than thou” types. I don’t mean that I saw them as legalists, I honestly just thought they were more pious than I would ever be. They only listened to Christian music, they homeschooled their kids, they really just disconnected from everything around them. Most of them didn’t even want to get on the internet or have a TV in their home. Not to get off on another tangent, but there’s a school near where I used to live called Ambassador college. Their rules were extremely tight; for instance couples couldn’t hold hands, women wore skirts, there was a strict curfew, it was your typical independent fundamental baptist type of college. I only explain this because where I’m from we would call someone an “Ambassador kid” and people just knew what you were talking about. So, in like fashion, when we spoke of these pious people in our church we would refer to them as “Ambassador-type people.” People would know you were talking about someone who lived a pseudo-ascetic lifestyle. Our opinions of these people were that they were “Super-Christians;” the Christians everyone should probably be like.
So, when it is explained here that John went out of his way to live a, somewhat, naturalistic lifestyle out in the wilderness, relying purely on God, it is suggested by some commentators that this is why. The Jews who came out to see him would see his actions, see how he lived and what he wore, and make the same connection with his piety. They would see an almost ascetic lifestyle and think that he was simply a much holier person than they, someone who could be trusted to give explanations of things that involved religion, specifically, their own religion. People like Calvin go as far as to say that John could have done this in order to be thought of in high esteem by those who had popularity and influence. This would have affected those who had a superstitious view of holiness. We have verifiable evidences of people reading this text and doing this, themselves, so why would the same thing not have happened in the actual time of John.
Others think that John had another reason for living this way. They believe that John lived in the wilderness without much sustenance, living on the land and on the things provided for him by God, in order to show his faith. It wouldn’t have been much of a show to the prophet, however, but to those who came to see him. Likewise, he disconnected himself from them, not as a form of asceticism, but as a way to express that he has no training or experience doing what he is doing, it is all by the grace and mercy of God. As in, it is the majesty of God shining through the weakness of the Baptizer.
While I think it is entirely possible that either one of these could be John’s reasoning for doing this, they both relate back to something mentioned by Paul. While Paul is talking about the context of the law for the sake of sharing the gospel, I believe that the same idea can be applied to what John was doing, here. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 says: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.” So, in the case of John, I could see this being “For the sake of the hearts I may win, for the sake of the gospel of God, I became as one appearing superstitiously pious.”
Despite this, however, as we mentioned before, it is our purpose to determine the purpose of the Holy Spirit, here, which brings us to our first point. God’s plan was fulfilled in John’s appearance and choice of food.”
For this I want to turn to Malachi 4:5-6, which says “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.” As we heard in a previous episode, we, and Calvin, related John the Baptist to be like the dawn, which is mentioned in the first part Malachi chapter 4. As we move on, however, we see the mention of this dawn - Elijah the prophet will come before the Lord.
Now, some of the Jews assumed from this passage that the prophet Elijah would truly come back, and even others made a more correct assumption that one would come back in the Spirit of Elijah who would pave the path of the Lord, just as Cyrus did in his employment of the Lord’s purpose in freeing the Exiles so many years ago. But as we know from the previous part of the chapter, Malachi is talking of John as the morning-star, the light before the day, so how does the Holy Spirit make this connection between John and Elijah? In 2 Kings 1 we are given an image of Elijah the Tishbite - this will help. In a conversation with King Ahaziah his servants we see this verse: “They answered him, ‘He wore a garment of hair, with a belt of leather about his waist.’ And he said, ‘It is Elijah the Tishbite.’” But, glory be to God, we in the 21st century do not have to make these wild connections and assumptions. Jesus says in Matthew 17:10-13 “And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.”
Jesus says it, and so it is. Was that John’s plan, all along? Does it matter? The Holy Spirit was in control of the situation - so if it was the plan of John then, simply put, the will of the Baptist and the Holy Spirit were in agreement. As it says in our great confession, our perfect and Holy God employs the use of means, naturally and supernaturally, to achieve His end. Either way - between the writing of 2 Kings, Malachi, and the actions of John, we have a clear picture of the hand of God. Elijah had come, and now is (for us, anyway), and he is doing as was always purposed for him to do since the beginning. John hadn’t been alive that long, we assumed from our last episode around thirty years, and thus couldn’t have been the author of said plan, so, as it stands, dear friends, point one is thus: God’s plan was fulfilled in John’s appearance and choice of food.
This brings us to verse 5: “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region around the Jordan were going out to him…”
You can often find when you’re discussing Scripture that some verses are more pregnant with theological principle and truth than others. And, while that may be the case in some instances, it is certainly not here. In a contemporary setting, it is nigh impossible to get the word out to literally everyone even if you advertise all over the roads, on Facebook, the news, etc. How much more impossible would it be to get the word out in the times of John. There were no social media websites, nor were there huge blinking signs that they might pass on their donkey as they came to town. The only thing they really had 2,000 years ago was word of mouth. And, as we will find out in the next verse, this message probably wasn’t all-together positive for the people in Jerusalem and Judea. So how did John manage to amass such a following to come hear the message of the coming kingdom of God?
The answer is simple: the sovereignty of God. God doesn’t simply work in the ends of things, as in salvation. It isn’t simply defined that this person be saved and the other not and the means just work themselves out. That would be silly to suggest and would give credence to the Arminian argument of God dragging unbelievers to heaven kicking and screaming. God also works in the means. And this brings us to our second point: God’s plan was fulfilled in the drawing of those who needed to hear the message.
First, let’s take a look at the concept of the phrasing. If we were to take this literally, then the entire region of Judea and that of around the Jordan went to hear John preach. Every single person, man, woman, and child, went to hear this message, and, as we will see later in the verse, all of them were also baptized in the river! Praise God, case-closed, the entire region of Judah was saved and repented of their sins in the steed of Christ Jesus coming to begin His ministry.
That would be what I would say if I was a universalist. But this is not the case. God employed the use of means to gather those who needed to hear the message of John and bring them to the place he was preaching. We can see from the text that those that were laymen, scribes, and Pharisees came to hear him preach, and we know that not all of those people were saved. Thus we can conclude that the statement doesn’t really mean that the entirety of the region came out and was baptized. It simply means that in the region, many came out to hear John preach, and out of those, many were baptized.
Now, the next thing I want to focus on is the use of the word “means.” Simply stated, when we use the word “means” we are talking about the use of influences or situations that would be used to reach the God ordained ends. For instance, when one of my kids has some extra spending money. I want them to get something educational that won’t clutter up the floor. In doing so, I will employ the use of means - in this case, it would be me telling them “No, you’re getting this and you’ll like it.” But, of course, I’ll dress it up to make it look and sound like it was their idea all along. And, before you ask, no, I’m not saying that God is a manipulative Father who demands you buy a book instead of a pack of Pokemon cards. Rather than trip over this anymore, however, I’ll just read to you what the 1689 London Baptist Confession has to say about this.
In paragraph 5.3 in the section on Providence, it reads “God in His ordinary providence makes use of means, yet is free to work outside, above and against them at His pleasure.” For instance in Acts 27 we have the historical account of the shipwreck of Paul. In this we see the use of Paul by God in the physical saving of those aboard the ship. To explain, as the ship was heaving, sailors were understandably looking to escape. Paul, however, tells the centurion in verse 31 that if the sailors leave the ship the centurion will not be saved. This being the case, the centurion stopped it from happening, and as the story continues, we see that all are saved, just as Paul promised. This was God using means to physically save those on the boat rather than simply plucking them supernaturally from the ship and placing them on dry land. And this is what God used in bringing the people to hear John preach.
And, finally, we come to our final verse for today’s message and, as a reminder, it is “... and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” I know what you’re thinking: I cannot wait to hear this Baptist tie this to being dunked. Well, for the sake of clarity, my final point, then, is that God’s plan was fulfilled in the shadow of the baptism that was to come.
And we will start this abridged explanation by adding some historical data. First, we must remember that Jews were called to be a Holy people. God gave the Jews the ceremonial law for the purposes of keeping them set apart. However, if you’ve read any of the Old Testament, you’ll notice that the Jews failed at keeping themselves holy and were sent into exile for their failure. In the midst of this history, however, the rites of baptism and circumcision were changed to allow for Gentile converts to enter into the covenant of Abraham. And, in order to do so, that would get circumcised and be cleaned in a full immersion baptism that would wash away the filth of their “Gentileness.” Some commentators, such as John MacArthur, relate this idea of ritual cleansing back to Leviticus 15:13 which talks about this total uncleanness and a requirement to be washed with fresh water. I would go out on a limb, then, with the knowledge of this in mind, and suggest that the phrase Paul uses in Romans (not all Israel is Israel) was understood to some degree in antiquity. If Gentiles can be brought into the covenant through a ritual washing and confession, it would only follow that their full inclusion would be allowed later.
So, keeping this historical data in mind, we can see that the Jews who were called to be baptized understood that John was telling them to admit they were living as Gentiles and to repent of doing so. They had to humble themselves, forget their pride, and confess that they, too, were sinners. This would have been a huge insult, which explains how this news would have spread so quickly as to cause a mass of people to come hear him preach in verse 5. I stand upon my second point, however, that no matter the pull or attraction that caused verse 5 to happen, the sovereignty of God worked to pull who needed to be there.
In church history, and even in some churches today, as it should still be continued, a lengthy interrogation would take place before baptism. This interrogation would include the confession of sins, the understanding of one’s beliefs, the proclamation of clear and correct doctrine, etc. The Apostle’s Creed was one such confession of faith that was often stated before baptism. Calvin states “Let it be observed, that we were here speaking of adults, who ought not, we are aware, to be admitted indiscriminately into the church, or introduced by Baptism into the body of Christ, till an examination has been previously made.” It must be noted that Christian baptism retains the symbol of repentance and purification, but it is performed in the name of the triune God, hence the creed, and signifies our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.
Another important thing to remember is that this is the baptism of John, which is not a sign of the New Covenant. However, as I’ve just said, Christian Baptism retains the symbol of repentance and purification - which would be tied to John’s baptism. A sign would be of us being completely unclean - it logically does not play out that we would stop immersion since that part of John’s baptism is included within Christian Baptism. We also have the added importance of relating to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, which includes all of the aspects of a baptism by immersion. And, finally, in a Christian Baptism, rather than simply for repentance, we are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as a sign of both our inclusion into the new covenant and the work of the entire Trinity in the covenant of redemption.
And, while it wasn’t actually covered in this verse, I must take this time to say… Don’t baptize your babies. Thank you.
As a final reiteration of our purpose, here, I want to make sure that it is clear. The totality of the plans of God are fulfilled through His sovereign control and providence; the ends and the means are under His control, and His alone. You, dear friends, are not in control.