Matthew 3:1-2

Matthew 3:1-2

[1] In  those  days  came  John  the Baptist,  preaching  in  the wilderness  of Judaea,  [2] And  saying,  Repent ye:  for  the kingdom  of heaven  is at hand. 

What does Matthew 3:1-2 Mean?

Contextual Meaning

John appeared "in those days" ( Matthew 3:1). This phrase is a general term that says little about specific time but identifies what follows as historical. It is a common transitional statement in Matthew"s narrative. [1] John"s ministry, as Matthew described it here, occurred just before the beginning of Jesus" public ministry, approximately30 years after the events of chapter2.
"John" became a popular name among the Jews following the heroic career of John Hyrcanus (died106 B.C.). There are four or five Johns in the New Testament. This one received the surname "the Baptist" because of his practice of baptizing repentant Jews ( Matthew 3:6).
John was a herald with a message to proclaim. He appears on the scene suddenly and mysteriously, much like Elijah, whose ministry John mirrored (cf. 1 Kings 17:1). [2] "Preaching" is literally heralding (Gr. kerysso).
"In the New Testament the verb does not mean "to give an informative or hortatory or edifying discourse expressed in beautifully arranged words with a melodious voice; it means to proclaim an event" ..." [3]
The event John proclaimed was the imminent arrival of God"s kingdom.
The scene of John"s ministry was the wilderness of Judea. This loosely defined area lay mainly to the west and somewhat north of the Dead Sea. John evidently conducted his ministry there because of its rough conditions that were suitable to his appeal for repentance. In Israel"s history the wilderness forever reminded the Jews of their40-year sojourn under extreme conditions and God giving them the Law of Moses. They associated it with a place of separation unto God, testing for refinement, and new beginnings. In John"s day the wilderness spawned many movements that challenged Israel"s leadership. [4] This may explain why John chose to minister there.
John called the people to repent ( Matthew 3:2).
"Contrary to popular thinking, repent does not mean to be sorry. The Greek word metanoeo means "... to change one"s mind or purpose ..." [5] In the New Testament it "... indicates a complete change of attitude, spiritual and moral, towards God." [5] The primary meaning involves a turning to God which may indeed make a person sorry for his sins, but that sorrow is a by-product and not the repentance itself. ... In a word, John"s command to the people of Israel was for them to turn from their sins to God in anticipation of their Messiah." [4]
The Jews needed to change their thinking because most of them believed that they would enter the Messiah"s kingdom simply because they were the children of Abraham ( Matthew 3:9). John was attacking established religious concepts of his day and those who taught them. He demanded evidence of genuine repentance instead of mere complacency, hypocrisy, and superficiality (cf. Matthew 3:8).
John also announced that the kingdom of heaven (lit. the heavens) was at hand. What was this kingdom? Students of this question have offered three basic answers.
First, some believe that the kingdom began with Jesus" ministry and will continue until His second coming, which will mean the end of the world, in their view. They view the kingdom as spiritual, namely, as God"s rule over the hearts and lives of believers in Jesus. This kingdom is spiritual in contrast to physical and earthly. Advocates do not believe Jesus will return to earth to set up an earthly, physical kingdom that will resume the Davidic kingdom of the Old Testament. They believe that the promises in the Old Testament of Israel"s restoration under Messiah are being fulfilled in a spiritual sense in the experience of Christians. For example, promises of Israel"s return to her land will find fulfillment in the church"s entrance into heaven. Most advocates of this view believe that the church has replaced Israel and that God has no special future for Israel as Israel. The kingdom that Jesus inaugurated, they believe, is already present. This is the typical amillennial (no millennium) understanding of the kingdom.
Second, some believe that the kingdom that Jesus preached will be entirely earthly. They hold that it is the resumption of the Davidic kingdom, which ended with the Babylonian exile and will resume when Jesus returns to earth at His second coming. Then He will establish this kingdom, which will continue for1 ,000 years (the millennium). The present inter-advent age is not the kingdom, nor is the kingdom the church age. There is no present form of this kingdom, according to this view. The kingdom Jesus preached is not yet from our perspective in history. This is the view of some premillennialists, mainly some dispensationalists.
Many who hold this second view acknowledge that though the kingdom Jesus announced will be an earthly kingdom, there is another kingdom that has existed throughout history. It is God"s sovereign rule over all. Since He has ruled, is ruling, and will forever reign over all, we can speak of this universal rule as His kingdom. However, it is not the restored Davidic kingdom that Jesus announced as being at hand.
Third, some interpreters have concluded that the kingdom Jesus announced was both already present in one form and not yet present in another form. They believe there is a present spiritual form of the kingdom now (as in view one above) and a future physical form of the kingdom (as in view two above). Some advocates of this view believe that God has a future for Israel as Israel (the physical descendants of Jacob). The church has not replaced Israel in God"s plans. This is the view of "progressive dispensationalists." Other advocates of this view believe that the church does replace Israel. God"s promises to Israel will find fulfillment in the church. These are mainly "historic premillennialists." This group believes in a physical, earthly kingdom but for the church, not Israel.
Many dispensationalists are uncomfortable with the idea that the kingdom is already and not yet, in view of how they interpret kingdom passages. Specifically, they are uncomfortable with the idea that the church is the "already" stage of the kingdom. They prefer to view the church as an entity distinct from the kingdom, an intercalation or something inserted in the divine timeline between the Old Testament kingdom of David and the messianic kingdom. They make much of the terminology used to distinguish the church and the kingdom. Most in this group of interpreters see some form of God"s kingdom in existence now, however, whether the universal rule of God or a mystery form of the coming kingdom.
Among dispensationalists, some hold that there were two kingdoms that Jesus preached: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. [8] The former term, they say, refers to a smaller kingdom that includes only genuine believers and is cosmic and universal in scope. The latter term, they say, refers to a larger kingdom that includes all who profess to be believers and is limited to the earth. This distinction has been shown to be invalid. One cannot make this distinction on the basis of how the New Testament writers used these terms.
"Most recent advocates of a distinction acknowledge that the two expressions are "often used synonymously," yet are to be distinguished in certain contexts. [9] Others who would generally be identified with dispensationalism agree with most non-dispensationalists that no distinction between these expressions is intended by the biblical writers. [10] Matthew"s use of "the kingdom of heaven" is to be explained as a Semitic idiom probably resulting from the Jewish reverence for the name of God and the tendency to use "heaven" or "heavens" as a substitute. [11] Song of Solomon , although some dispensationalists still distinguish the two terms in some passages, we agree with Ryrie that this issue is not a determinative feature of dispensationalism. [12]
Dispensationalists who are not "progressives" believe that the kingdom that John , Jesus ( Matthew 4:17), and His disciples ( Matthew 10:7) announced and offered the Jews was exactly the same kingdom that the Old Testament prophets predicted. Because the Jews rejected their King and His kingdom, God "postponed" the kingdom until a future time when Israel will accept her Messiah, namely, at His second advent (cf. Zechariah 12:10-14). The word "postponed" does not imply that Jewish rejection of the Messiah took God by surprise. It views the coming of the kingdom from man"s perspective. This view, I believe, best harmonizes the normal meaning of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies and Jesus" teachings. [13] Similarly because the generation of Jews that left Egypt in the Exodus refused to trust and obey God at Kadesh Barnea, God postponed the nation"s entrance into the Promised Land for38 years. As God postponed Israel"s entrance into the Promised Land because of Jewish unbelief, so He postponed Israel"s entrance into the messianic kingdom because of Jewish unbelief.
There is good evidence that the kingdom that John and Jesus spoke about was the earthly eschatological kingdom that the Old Testament prophets foretold. First, the fact that John , Jesus, and Jesus" disciples did not explain what it was but simply announced that it was near indicates that they referred to a kingdom known to their hearers. [14] Second, Jesus restricted the proclamation about the kingdom to Jews ( Matthew 10:5-6). If the kingdom was spiritual, why was this necessary? Moreover the inauguration of the kingdom predicted in the Old Testament depended on the Jews receiving it ( Zechariah 12:1-14; Zechariah 13:7-9; Malachi 4:5-6). Third, Jesus" disciples expected the beginning of an earthly kingdom ( Matthew 20:20-21; Acts 1:6). They did so after they had listened to Jesus" teaching about the kingdom for a long time. Fourth, this kingdom cannot be the church since God had not yet revealed the existence of the church let alone established it ( Matthew 16:18). It cannot be God"s universal reign over the hearts of mankind since that had existed since creation.
"... if the Kingdom, announced as "at hand" by the Lord, had been exclusively a "spiritual kingdom," or as some have defined it, "the rule of God in the heart," such an announcement would have had no special significance whatever to Israel, for such a rule of God had always been recognized among the people of God [15]." [16]
Therefore we conclude that when John spoke of the kingdom of heaven ( Matthew 3:2) he meant the earthly kingdom over which Messiah would rule, which the Old Testament prophets predicted.
"Only the premillennial interpretation of the concept of the kingdom allows a literal interpretation of both Old Testament and New Testament prophecies relating to the future kingdom" [17]
It is particularly important to distinguish the church from the kingdom. The kingdom, whether described as "of heaven" or "of God," always refers to the earthly reign of Messiah as predicted in the Old Testament. The church will play a part in the kingdom, but they are separate entities. Progressive dispensationalists argue that the church is the first phase of the messianic kingdom, the "already" phase, in contrast to the eschatological, "not yet," phase. Matthew maintained the distinction between the kingdom and the church throughout his Gospel, as did the other New Testament writers.
What did John mean when he announced that the kingdom was "at hand" ( Matthew 3:2)? The Greek verb eggizo means "to draw near," not "to be here" (cf. Matthew 21:1). [18] All that was necessary for the kingdom to be there was Israel"s acceptance of her King ( Matthew 11:14). The kingdom was near because the King was present. Amillennialists, historic premillennialists, and progressive dispensationalists believe John meant that the kingdom was about to begin, which, they say, it did when Jesus began to minister.
"If Israel had accepted its Messiah, the earthly kingdom would have been inaugurated by the King." [19]
This statement may seem to some to render Christ"s work on the cross unnecessary, but this is incorrect. Had the Jews accepted their Messiah when He offered the kingdom to them He still would have died on the cross and experienced resurrection and ascension. He could not have been the Messiah without doing so in fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies ( Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; Daniel 9; Zechariah 13). Then the prophecies concerning the seven years of Jacob"s trouble would have been fulfilled ( Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 12:1; Daniel 9:26-27). Next Messiah would have returned to set up His kingdom ( Isaiah 60:1-3; Isaiah 66:18; Habakkuk 2:14; cf. Zechariah 12:10; Zechariah 13:6).
Since the Jews rejected Jesus" offer of the kingdom was His offer genuine? Had God not already determined that Israel would reject her Messiah? Jesus" offer of the kingdom was just as genuine as any gospel offer of salvation to someone who rejects it.
"Those who cavil at the idea of an offer which is certain to be rejected betray an ignorance, not only of Biblical history (cf. Isaiah 6:8-10 and Ezekiel 2:3-7), but also of the important place of the legal proffer in the realm of jurisprudence." [20]
|