And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Jump to: Alford • Barnes • Bengel • Benson • BI • Calvin • Cambridge • Clarke • Darby • Ellicott • Expositor's • Exp Dct • Exp Grk • Gaebelein • GSB • Gill • Gray • Haydock • Hastings • Homiletics • ICC • JFB • Kelly • KJT • Lange • MacLaren • MHC • MHCW • Meyer • Parker • PNT • Poole • Pulpit • Sermon • SCO • TTB • VWS • WES • TSK
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)And he came into all the country . . .—The words paint the mission-work of John somewhat more vividly than those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, who represent the people flocking to Him from Jerusalem and Judæa. The two facts together complete the picture.
(3) Going upward from Zerubbabel and Salathiel, which are common to both genealogies, we come again across a different succession—St. Luke leading us to Nathan as the son of David, and St. Matthew to Solomon. Here again we have in St. Luke twenty-two generations from Salathiel to David, inclusive, while in St. Matthew we have but sixteen.
(3) There is, in the appearance in St. Matthew’s list of Jeconias (as in 1Chronicles 3:17), and in St. Luke’s of Neri, as the father of Salathiel, a problem to be solved; but an adequate, though necessarily conjectural, solution is not far to seek. To assume that the Salathiel of the one list is not identical with that in the other, is to cut the knot instead of disentangling it. But it may be noticed that in the earlier registers connected with the name of the historical Salathiel, father of the Zerubbabel who was the leader of the Jews on their return from Babylon, there is an obvious complication. In 1Chronicles 3:19, Zerubbabel is the son of Pedaiah, the brother of Salathiel. The language in Jeremiah 22:30 at least suggests the thought that Jeconiah died without an heir. What seems probable accordingly is that the royal line descended from Solomon, expired in Jeconiah, and that Salathiel, the son of Neri, the representative of the line of Nathan, took his place in the line of inheritance. It is not without significance that in the contemporary prophecy of Zechariah, the house of Nathan appears, for the first time in the history of Judah, as invested with a special pre-eminence (Zechariah 12:12). The difference in the number of the names admits of the same explanation as before.Luke 3:3-6. And he came into all the country about Jordan — He made his first public appearance in the wilderness of Judea, Matthew 3:1; that is, in the uncultivated and thinly-inhabited parts of the hill-country round Hebron, where his father dwelt; Luke 1:39-40; but after his fame was spread abroad, and many came to him, he left Judea and passed over Jordan, residing chiefly at Bethabara, for the conveniency of baptizing, John 1:28; John 10:40. He travelled, however, through all that country; preaching the baptism of repentance — That is, calling sinners of all descriptions to repentance, and admitting the penitent to the baptism of water as an outward or visible sign, or emblem of the free and full remission of all their sins. In other words, he enjoined the penitent to be baptized, as a testimony, on their part, of the sincerity of their repentance, and on the part of John, who administered this ordinance by the commandment of God, as a seal or token that their sins were remitted. As it is written in the book of Esaias, The voice of one crying, &c. — See the notes on Isaiah 40:3-5. The evangelist, by citing this prophecy, as accomplished in the Baptist’s preaching, shows us its true meaning. Isaiah, by expressions taken from the custom of kings, who commonly have the roads through which they pass prepared for them, signified that the Messiah’s forerunner was to prepare his way, by intimating that the institutions of Moses were to be relinquished as the means of salvation, and by exhorting the people to repentance and amendment of life. Matthew tells us, that John enforced his exhortations to repentance from the consideration that the Messiah’s kingdom was at hand; the kingdom of heaven, foretold by Daniel the prophet, the new dispensation of religion, wherein all ceremonial observances were to be abolished, and nothing but repentance, partly flowing from, and partly followed by, faith in the Messiah, and producing sincere obedience, would avail toward the pardon of sin, acceptance with God, and the enjoyment of eternal life. According to Luke, the argument whereby John enforced his exhortations to repentance was, that sinners would thereby obtain the remission of their sins. The two evangelists, therefore, being compared, show, that the great and distinguishing privilege of the new dispensation is, that therein pardon is promised to, and conferred on, penitents who believe in Jesus, and that the kingdom of God, including righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, (Romans 14:17,) is set up in their hearts and governs their lives. Every valley shall be filled, &c. — Of these metaphors, which are plainly taken from the making of roads, the meaning is, that the Messiah’s forerunner, by preaching the doctrine of repentance, and thereby affecting men’s minds with remorse and shame for their past conduct, and producing amendment of life, should be instrumental in effecting such a change in the hearts and lives of the Jews, that many of them should acknowledge, receive, and become subject to the Messiah, when he appeared. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God — After such a preparation of the way as is now described, mankind shall behold, not a splendid temporal monarch, accompanied with a magnificent retinue, but the author of that salvation which God has prepared before the face of all people. Luke 2:30-31; see notes on Matthew 3:3.Matthew 3.
word of God came unto John—Such formulas, of course, are never used when speaking of Jesus, because the divine nature manifested itself in Him not at certain isolated moments of His life. He was the one everlasting manifestation of the Godhead—The Word [Olshausen].Matthew 3:1-17, or in Mark 1:1-45, or in the John 1:1-51 3:1-36. From them all it appeareth, that the sum of his doctrine was, the necessity of repentance, and faith in Christ, in order to the remission of sins. His pressing faith in Christ is most clearly declared by the evangelist John. Matthew, Mark, and Luke insist more upon his preaching the doctrine of repentance for the remission of sins, and baptism as an evidence of it. Which doctrine or repentance he pressed both from evangelical motives, The kingdom of heaven is at hand, and from legal motives, or arguments of terror, The axe is now laid unto the root of the trees: in this setting an example to all ministers of the gospel, showing them what should be the main subjects of their discourses, for we shall find that our Saviour preached the same doctrine, and in the same method. What is here said we before opened:
See Poole on "Matthew 3:2". See Poole on "Mark 1:4". John did not preach that baptism was repentance, or that remission of sins was infallibly annexed to it, but that the way to obtain remission of sins was by repentance, and that baptism was an external sign and symbol of it. Matthew 3:5.
Preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins: this was the work and office of John, as signified by Elias, in Malachi 4:5 the Jews say (n),
"the Israelites will not repent, till Elias comes; as it is said, Malachi 4:5 in the land of Israel repentance delights.''
John came into this land, preaching this doctrine; See Gill on Mark 1:4.And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)Luke 3:3. See on Matthew 3:1 f.; Mark 1:4.
περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδ.] Matthew and Mark have ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. There is no discrepancy; for the apparent discrepancy vanishes with ἦλθε in Luke, compared with the narrative of the baptism in Matthew and Mark.Luke 3:3-6. John’s ministry.3. he came] St Luke alone mentions the mission journeys of John the Baptist; the other Evangelists, whose narratives (Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:1-8; John 1:15; John 1:28) should be carefully compared with that of St Luke, describe how the multitudes “came streaming forth” to him.
all the country about Jordan] The Arabah is some 150 miles in extent; the actual river-valley, specified in the O. T. by the curious words Kikkar and Geliloth (see Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 284), is not so extensive.
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins] Comp. Acts 2:38; Acts 3:15; Acts 5:31; Acts 22:16; where the two expressions are also united. The baptism of John was “a baptism of repentance,” not yet “a laver of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). It was intended first as a symbol of purification—“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean,” Ezekiel 36:25; (comp. Isaiah 1:16; Zechariah 13:1); and then as an initiation into the kingdom which was at hand. The Jews had been familiar with the symbolism of baptism from the earliest days, as a consecration (Exodus 29:4), and a purification (Leviticus 14:8). It was one of the forms by which proselytes were admitted into Judaism. John’s adoption of this rite proved (i) his authority (John 1:25); and (ii) his opinion that even Jews needed to be thus washed from sins.Luke 3:3. Ἰορδάνου, Jordan) a river suited for baptizing in. The kingdom of God in its onward course adapts itself to the place and the time.Verse 3. - And he came into all the country about Jordan. The reputation of John probably preceded the Divine summons. His family - the son of a well-known priestly family - the marvellous circumstances attendant on his birth, his ascetic manner of life from the beginning, - all this had contributed to make him a marked personage; so, when he left his solitude, we read in the other evangelists how multitudes came forth to hear the strange burning words, the Divine eloquence of one long looked upon by the people as set apart for a great work. He seems to have principally preached and taught in the Jordan valley - no doubt for the convenience of his candidates for baptism. But he evidently did not confine his preaching to one spot or even to one neighborhood. The district here alluded to was about a hundred and fifty miles in length. The expectation of Messiah for centuries had been the root of all true life in Israel; gradually, as the clouds of evil fortune gathered thick over the people, the figure of the coming Messiah assumed a different aspect. At first a holier Monarch than their loved David, a grander Sovereign and a mightier than the Solomon of whom they were so proud, a King whose dominions should be broader far than even the wide realm ruled over by the son of Jesse and his greater son, was the ideal dreamed of by the Hebrew. In the long period of misfortune which succeeded the golden days of the monarchy, the people at first longed for a deliverer, and then - as never a ray of sunlight pierced the clouds which surrounded them - an avenger took the place of a deliverer. The Messiah of the future must be One who should restore his people certainly, but in the restoration must exact a sharp and severe reckoning from those who had so long oppressed his Israel. They had no conception of their true state, - their hypocrisy, their formalism, their total ignorance of all true spiritual religion. Their higher and cultured classes were selfish, grasping, impure, untrue. The mass of the people were ignorant and degraded, cruel fanatics, excited and untutored, zealots. From this mistaken notion of Messiah and his work it was necessary that a prophet, eminent and gifted like those mighty men who had wrought great things in times past among the people, should arise among them, and with strong, powerful, inspired words convince them of their fatal error - one who, in the language of the greatest of the order, should prepare the way of the Lord. How imperatively necessary, for the work of the Redeemer, this work of the pioneer was, is seen from the extreme difficulty which Jesus Christ himself found in persuading even his own little faithful band to realize anything of the nature of his work; in good truth they never, not even the noblest spirits among them, really grasped the secret of their Master's mission till the cross and the Passion belonged to history, and the Crucified had become the Risen, and the Risen the ascended God. The baptism of repentance. What, first, did John mean by repentance? The word translates the Greek μετάοεῖτε, which signifies "change of mind." In the Gospel of St. Matthew, where John's work is told in slightly different language, he is represented as saying, "Repent ye" (μετανοεῖτε). There his words might be paraphrased, "Turn ye from your old thoughts, from your state of self-content, self-satisfaction; mend your ways; reform." Here, then, the baptism (what that signified we shall discuss presently) which he preached and summoned men to, must be accompanied with a change of mind; the baptized must be no longer content with their present state or conduct; they must change their ways and reform their lives. Let them, those who were convinced that he was indeed a man of God, that his words were right and true - let them come to him, determined to change their conduct in life, and receive from his hands a baptism, a washing - the symbol of the means of purification; for John's baptism was nothing more. Now, baptism, it is clear, was not at this time practiced among the Jews. It was not, as far as we can trace, even used in the case of pagan proselytes to Judaism. This apparently only became a national custom after the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, forty years later. His very title, "the Baptist," in some way shows us that he practiced an unusual, if not a novel, rite in the course of his preaching and teaching. John's baptism (to use Dr. Morrison's vivid expressions, Commentary on Matthew 3:6) was just the embodiment, in significant optical symbolism, of the significant audible symbolism of the Old Testament prophets, when they cried aloud and said, "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes" (Isaiah 1:16); "In float day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:l); "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you. and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you" (Ezekiel 36:25, 26). This view of John's baptism, viz. that it was a symbol, and nothing more, was suggested by Josephus writing for the Jews. "John," he says, "enjoined upon the Jews first to cultivate virtue and to put in practice righteousness toward one another, and piety toward God, and then to come to his baptism, for thus only would the baptism be acceptable to God" ('Ant.,' 18:05, 2).
Which both Matthew and Mark call the wilderness. See on Matthew 3:1.
Baptism of repentance
Better as Rev., unto, denoting the destination of the rite.
See on James 5:15. The word occurs in Luke more frequently than in all the other New Testament writers combined. Used in medical language of the relaxation of disease. Both Luke and John use the kindred verb ἀφίημι, in the same sense. Luke 4:39; John 4:52.
LinksLuke 3:3 Interlinear
Luke 3:3 Parallel Texts
Luke 3:3 NIV
Luke 3:3 NLT
Luke 3:3 ESV
Luke 3:3 NASB
Luke 3:3 KJV
Luke 3:3 Bible Apps
Luke 3:3 Parallel
Luke 3:3 Biblia Paralela
Luke 3:3 Chinese Bible
Luke 3:3 French Bible
Luke 3:3 German Bible