IN HIS FOOTSTEPS 2 ... John came baptising in the wilderness
A HARMONISING OF THE GOSPELS IN ONE CONTINUAL NARRATIVE
First published in March 1993 as 12 individual A5 booklets These are still available in the original form upon request.
In this second study, walking in the footsteps of `the Man Christ Jesus', we continue the task of harmonising the four Gospels into a single narrative whilst at the same time seeking to bring out the historical contextual setting in which the Man Christ Jesus outworked His ministry.
It is our belief that the Church has for too long appropriated to itself - almost to the point of excluding all others - the message contained in the Gospels. In effect, the Gospels have become a kind of Christian `Promise Box', and so the central message contained in them has been distorted. And whilst it is correct and proper to meditate on any of the verses in the Gospels for personal devotional purposes, allowing the Holy Spirit to speak and guide as He wills, it is nevertheless imperative that we fully understand them in the contextual setting of their time in order to understand the purposes of God within the timescale of our journey as aliens and strangers in the world, as we live in the sure and certain hope of the coming of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. In the first study of this series we set the scene, preparing the background leading up to the time when Jesus would begin His ministry in the nation of Israel. It would therefore seem right, in order to understand what unfolds, to introduce the main characters who will appear from time to time, filling in their background so as not to disturb the narrative as it unfolds within this series. We have briefly mentioned the Herodian house, or dynasty, in the first study, and as several of these Herods appear in the Gospels it would seem appropriate to begin with them, for knowing who they were and what areas they ruled over will greatly assist our understanding of the events to follow.
We begin with Herod 1st - he was also called Herod the Great or Herod the King. He covered the period from 37 BC to 4 BC, and in fact he was not a Jew at all but an Idumean of Edomite stock, a descendant of Esau. The Idumeans came into Israel during the conquest of Palestine in about 130 BC and quickly adopted the lifestyle of the Jews through observing the Mosaic Law - which would have included circumcision. But they were never fully accepted by the Jews and, as we shall see, when the family house of Herod came to power they ruled as despotic tyrants in their attempt to establish and maintain their dynasty. According to Josephus, the Jewish historian, Herod 1st was appointed Procurator of Galilee when he was only fifteen years old, but much of Josephus' work is suspect as he was the equivalent of the modern-day public relations man, serving whichever master paid him best. It is certainly recorded that Mark Anthony later gave Herod 1st a Tetrarchy and set about the task of persuading the Roman Senate to make him king over the whole of Palestine. However, it was not until he captured Jerusalem in 37 BC that this was accomplished. Much has been written of Herod's cruelty, which was extreme even by the standards of his time, but it must also be recorded that he was a builder of magnificent buildings and monuments. Whether this was an attempt to establish his dynasty or was a way of pacifying the Jews has given historians much fuel for argument. Certainly the restoration of the Temple at Jerusalem was a magnificent achievement! (We say `the restoration of the Temple', for it was never his intention to build a Temple. Even he would not have dared to upset the Jews in this way!) He took the Temple that Zerubbabel had built down to its foundations and rebuilt it into the magnificent temple that stood at the time of Jesus. In fact it was only completed in 64 AD, just six years before the Roman armies of Titus destroyed it!
In the first study of this series we wrote a little of his murderous inclinations; of how even the court favourites were not safe from his cruel, vengeful ways. In fact his favourite wife Mariamne and her two brothers , Aristobulous and Alexander, suffered death at his hands, and just five days before his own death he ordered his son Antipater to be killed. Paranoid as he was at the possibility of assassination, his favourites - whether they were wives or sons - did not last long at the court of Herod the Great, and it was to this king Herod that the Wise Men came enquiring after the place where the King of the Jews had been born! It was this background that led him to slaughter all the male children of two years and under in Bethlehem. But that awful day nearly two thousand years ago fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah, where he prophesied: (Jeremiah 31:15)
" Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted
because they are no more. "
Joseph, Mary and the child Jesus escaped into Egypt before that dreadful time, but later, when Joseph was commanded by God to return to Israel, it was discovered that although Herod the Great was dead, his son Herod Archaelus had succeeded his father, and so it is recorded that Joseph made his way to Nazareth in Galilee. Although Herod the Great provided in his will for Archaelus to succeed him as king over the whole of Palestine, Archaelus never actually inherited the throne, mainly due to the efforts of fifty Jews of great distinction who journied to Rome to protest at this successor, asking instead for the country to be ruled by a Roman Procurator. The Roman Emperor Augustus therefore refused to grant the right of succession to Archaelus but appointed to him an Ethnarch (meaning `one half') over a half of his father's kingdom - which would include Judea, Samaria and Idumea.
However, Augustus did promise Archaelus that if he governed his Ethnarchy wisely, in time he (Augustus) would acknowledge his right to succeed his father as king over these three territories. But once established as Ethnarch, the evil stain of his father's blood soon emerged and he began to assume the rights of a king with the same measure of vengeful cruelty as had his father, Herod the Great. (It is recorded that at one Feast of Passover in Jerusalem he was responsible for the deaths of three thousand Jews!) Obviously the Romans could not allow this to go on for long, and so his Ethnarchy lasted only from 4 BC to 6 AD, at which time he was deposed and banished to a town in Gaul where he died, whereupon the Ethnarchy of Judea, Samaria and Idumea became a Roman Province under a Roman Proconsul. During this time Joseph, Mary and the boy Jesus were living in Galilee, an area not under the authority of Herod Archaelus, and there `Jesus grew in wisdom and stature and in favour with God and men'. This act of turning the Ethnarchy of Herod Archaelus into a Roman Province in 6 AD, under the authority of the Procurator Coponius, led to the appointment of Pontius Pilate to this position during the time of the public ministry of Jesus, and we therefore need to remember that Pilate's authority as Procurator was limited to the boundaries of Herod Archaelus' old Ethnarchy of Judea, Samaria and Idumea.
Pilate was no worse than most of his contemporaries - although historical sources reveal that he certainly upset the Jews during his time in this position. The first occasion was when he was appointed to this position in 26 AD by the Emperor Tiberius and moved his headquarters from Caesarea on the coast of Samaria to Jerusalem. When his armies entered the City of Jerusalem with all their standards bearing the images of the Emperor, the sight of those idolatrous images so close to the Temple incited the Jews to riot. Also, apparently indifferent to the religious niceties of the Jews, on another occasion he hung up golden shields inscribed with the names of other gods in his palace on Mount Zion. Tension over this was so high that finally the Emperor himself became involved and he gave the order for their removal. On another occasion Pilate took certain revenues from the Temple funds in order to build an aqueduct, and of course Luke 13:1 records his killing of certain Galileans. So we see that while Pilate was no worse than many others of his kind, he certainly gave offense to the Jewish religious leaders - and at the appropriate time they demanded and extracted their revenge!
We now move on to another more familiar figure in the Gospel narratives in the person of Herod Antipas, covering the period of 4 BC to 39 AD. He was a younger brother of Herod Archaelus, and in his father's will he had been appointed the Tetrarchy (meaning `a quarter') of Galilee and Perea - the latter being an area to the south of Galilee, reaching down to the top half of an area east of the Dead Sea, touching the northern border of ancient Moab and part of the western border of ancient Ammon. Tiberias, on the west side of Lake Galilee, was its capital and the seat of its government. Herod Antipas has been described as sly, ambitious, cunning, and a man `utterly destitute of principle'. It is therefore little wonder that Jesus Himself, when warned that Herod Antipas wanted to kill Him, said, `Go tell that fox . . .' (Luke 13:32). Jesus knew the character of this Herod. He knew of his cunning and cruelty, but He continued, `In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day - for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem' (v33). We know of this Herod's sexual problem that led to the death of John the Baptist. He (Antipas) had been having an affair with Herodias - the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip 1st - in their house where Antipas was a guest, Finally Antipas and Herodias eloped together whilst they were both still married to others and, to make the sin even worse, Herodias was the grandaughter of Herod the Great and sister of Herod Agrippa 1st, as well as the wife and niece of Herod Philip 1st. It was into this foul mess that John the Baptist spoke, finally ending up in prison. The rest of the story is well known. Here it is enough to say that Herod Antipas flagrantly flouted and ignored the Jewish Law, and his outrageous promiscurity gave grave offense to all in his Tetrarchy. News of his continuous wickedness reached the Roman Caesar, and eventually the Emperor Caligula removed Herod Antipas from his Tetrarchy and banished him to Gaul, and finally to Spain, where he died.
We now turn to Herod Philip 2nd, covering the period 4 BC to 34 AD. He also was a son of Herod the Great and later married the daughter of Herodias, the infamous Salome. Nevertheless, Herod Philip 2nd was probably the best of the Herodian dynasty, having been recorded as `a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government'. He was appointed Tetrarch (meaning `a quarter') on the death of his father Herod the Great in 4 BC, and remained so until his death in 34 AD. The Tetrarchy of Philip 2nd covered an area in the north of Palestine - areas with the names of Gaulonitus, Trachonitis and Batanea, reaching up to Paneas and touching the base of Mount Hermon and the northern borders of the Tetrarchy of Galilee. He followed in his father's footsteps in the building of monuments, and his greatest achievement was the building of Caesarea Philppi in the far north of his Tetrarchy. When he died in 34 AD his Tetrarchy was annexed to the Roman Province of Syria for his marriage to Salome had produced no heirs. And there we shall leave the Herodian dynasty: There were others, but they appeared on the stage of history at a time later than this Gospel narrative, and to introduce them would be of no real value. This potted history of the dynasty of the Herods during the time of Jesus is necessary in order that we might understand the narrative of the Gospels. It has not been written for the sake of mere interest but forms an integral part of the tapestry of intrigue which was the background to the life of `the Man Christ Jesus.
We shall now turn briefly to the other principal people of this Gospel narrative - the Pharisees, the Sadduces, the priests, the scribes, the Herodians and, finally, the Sanhedrin, of whom much has been recorded but perhaps little known. This is important if we are to fully understand the contextual setting of the Gospels. The name `Pharisee' comes from the Greek translation of an Aramaic word meaning `separated'. This perhaps tells us that in its initial form Pharisaism was not all bad, but the repeated use of this word in Sunday School and Bible study alike may well have left us with prejudiced views on this! It has been suggested that Pharisaism had its origins back in the times of Zerubbabel and Ezra, when the Israelites separated themselves from the Gentiles who had settled in the land of Israel during their captivity in Babylon. We read of this in Ezra 10:10-11 where Ezra says to the Israelites:
"You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt.Now make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers, and do His will. Separateyourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives. "
However it is more probable that this name came from the attitude of some men in distancing and separating themselves from fellow Jews on the question of a more strict observance of the Mosaic Law - which was in danger of falling into apostacy due to the spread of Greek thought and lifestyle. They, however, called themselves by the name of Haberim, an Amaraic name which means `an associate', with a wider meaning of `one who associates himself with a more strict compliance of the Mosaic Law'. They were mainly to be found within the ranks of the Teachers of the Law or the Scribes rather than the priests, and as such, with their knowledge, which came from their study of the Scriptures, they became known for their legalistic approach to the application of the Law.
As is common with any religious society, when apostacy sets in there will inevitably arise a movement of separation, which without the work of the Holy Spirit will quickly move into self-righteousness, a separation of well-meaning zealots! This is not limited to Judaism, or indeed to Christianity, but it can also be seen in the different sects amongst Moslems, Hindus, and many other religious groupings. However, in this study we are limiting our thoughts to the Pharisees in the days of the Gospel narrative. Their interpretation of the Mosaic Law extended beyond the written Torah, or indeed beyond the entire Tanarkh (the Old Testament Scriptures). To these Haberim, or Pharisees, Torah meant not only the written part of the Law but the oral part of the Law also, and in Rabbinical Judaism it was referred to as Torah, which `Moses received on Sinai and handed it on the Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets handed it to the men in the great assembly'. To the Pharisees, therefore, Torah meant not only the written Scriptures, as we know them, but also the oral Scriptures, as passed on `by Moses to Joshua . . .'. The interpretation of Torah became known as the Talmud, which was fully and finally developed long after the period covered by the Gospel narratives, and which would become as authoratitive as Torah - indeed, they are not separated in the thinking of the Jews. But for the sake of brevity we would merely say that the Talmud is a compilation of interpretations of Torah, consisting of the Mishna, the Gemara (itself a further commentary of the Mishna) and the Tosefta (which could well be called a supplement of the Mishna) - all of which have come down to modern times through what are known as the Palestinian and the Babylonian Talmud, completed around 400-500 AD. However, during the time of the Gospels the Pharisees would have concerned themselves with the interpretation of Torah (both written and oral), known as the Mishnah, which, as far as can be established, began to be compiled around 400 BC - or as the Jews prefer to call it, BCE - Before the Common Era. (The expression `AD' which we use is known to them as CE - Common Era.) This has given us a brief overview of what Pharisaism had become during the time of the Gospel narratives. The Teachers of the Law (Torah), which included all of what we have briefly described, with their detailed interpretations and knowledge had developed such a self-righteous zeal that they not only separated themselves from the Gentiles (lest they be defiled by association), but they also separated themselves from Amhaarez (that is, the Israelites who were not Pharisees). This was the root of the question to the disciples: `Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and `sinners'? ' (Matthew 9:11). This wasn't just a polite question. They were reasoning that if this Man Jesus was from God then why was He not like them, separated from the Amhaarez - which would include `defiled' Jews!.
Moving on we will briefly look at the other group of religious leaders who feature in the Gospel narratives. Again they have been depicted as an apostate or, at least, a comprising group of religious leaders - which is far from the truth. In fact, using today's terminology, we would call them fundamentalists. Their basic religious beliefs came from a strict interpretation of the written Torah, refusing to accept the oral part of Torah as having any authority, and it is suggested that their name `Sadducee' springs from a Hebrew word with a meaning of `righteous'. The apostacy label has been given through a misunderstanding of the fact that they would not accept the existence of angels or believe in the resurrection of the dead or the Judgement to come. However, it must be stressed that this only came about through their strict interpretation and observance of the written part of Torah, which they said contained no such teaching. In fact it was recorded by Josephus the Jewish historian that the Sadducees were far more strict in applying the written Law than the Pharisees, who would rely more heavily upon the Mishnah with all its twistings and turnings over words and phrases. By and large the Sadducees were gathered from the ranks of the priests who had a daily, indeed yearly, round of ceremionial duties in the Temple. As such, they too became a separated group of self-righteous people, but seen from a social-tendency position (that of priests) rather than from a legal-tendency position (the predominant feature of the Pharisees).
By the time of Jesus, the Sadducees had separated themselves not just into the priestly party, but also into a party of more aristocratic priests who looked with disdain upon their fellow Jews. And this included the Pharisees, with their agonising and nit-picking over minor details of what were men's opinions rather than the authoratitive written Torah. We see this in such passages as Matthew 22:23 where `that same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him with a question. `Teacher', they said, `Moses told us . . .'. The essential difference between the two parties could perhaps be summed up this way: The Pharisees, with their minute delving into every aspect of the Law, and their opinionated interpretation of it, saw God involved in every aspect of life. But taking this understanding to the extreme led to legalism, bondage and self-righteousness for those who thought they had succeeded in keeping the Law. The Sadducees, however, who understood life to be an observance of the written Law, exactly as laid down in Torah, believed that man's will (or choice) was the overriding factor. Taking this to the extreme had led to a blind obedience to ceremonies and rituals which attracted the priestly element, particularly those who ministered in the Most Holy Place.
We shall now turn to the Scribes. These men would have been more than just mere letter-writers but would have been the keepers and registrars of public documents. Today we might possibly call them senior administrative civil servants, or perhaps Government or private secrataries, and as such they had developed into those `learned in the Law' or `Teachers of the Law'. We see them in Matthew 22:34-34:
"On hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
One of them, an expert in the Law, tested Him with this question . . . "
They had become Teachers of the Law, with the respectable title of `Master' (from the Hebrew word `Rabbi') given them, and so these men became the Rabbis of popular understanding. As such they were drawn from the ranks of the Pharisees, and in the course of time they would become the dominant, zealous guardians of the Law of Moses, having a dominant authority and control over the lives of the Jews. In doing so they would gather around themselves groups of disciples who would seek to learn as much as possible from these great and learned men so that in time they too would receive the title of Rabbi. Obviously in time this had led to some of them becoming extremely opinionated, but they commanded great respect as they taught the Law with all their detailed knowledge of the written and oral parts of Torah and the Mishnah. Then they further developed their position and began to pass sentence on criminals, for Israel, as a Theocratic nation, had its judicial system rooted in and controlled by the interpretation of Scripture, and so the Scribes, drawn from the sect of the Pharisees, held positions of great power and authority over the Jewish people.
A brief mention must be made here of the small party called the Herodians, and we see them recorded in Matthew 22:15-16:
"Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap Him (Jesus) in His words.
They sent their disciples to Him along with the Herodians . . . "
Little information is given concerning them, but it has been suggested that they formed into a party at the time of Herod the Great - probably receiving benefits of patronage and privilege by doing some homage to King Herod because they could not obtain power by way of the Law or the priesthood. They obviously did have power, and were probably more than just a political party, but they were not accepted as a religious sect until they finally joined forces with the Pharisees and the Sadducees in their opposition to Jesus.
To close this overview of the principal players or institutions on the `stage' at the time of the Gospel narratives, we would look briefly at the Sanhedrin. This is an Aramaic word meaning `a council or assembly' and came into a recognisable form during the time of the Greek Empire. At one time its authority extended over all Israel, but by 57 BC the Jewish territory had been divided by the Romans into five areas, or Councils, so that the Council in Jerusalem no longer exercised authority over the whole land. (For a brief time in 47 BC it did have authority over Galilee, but by the time of the Ethnarchy of Herod Archaelus its civil authority had shrunk to the areas of Judea, Samaria and Idumea, and more likely its active authority was really limited to the region of Judea.) Certainly after the removal of Herod Archaelus and his Province being placed under the Roman Procurator, the civil administration of the area was left in the hands of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and was seen as the the Jewish Supreme Court of Judea. We can see this in Matthew 5:22 in the words of Jesus. `Again anyone who says to his brother `Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin'. At the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin was headed by the High Priest and composed of those who had been High Priests in the past; members of leading families from which the High Priests had been appointed, elders (that is, tribal family heads); and the Scribes (all drawn from the Pharisees and the Sadducees). Strangely, it was the Mishnah, which the Sadducees objected to very strongly, which determined that the number of the Sanhedrin would be seventy, with the acting High Priest called the President of the Council of the Assembly. We can see this in Matthew 26:3:
"Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the
palace of the High Priest, whose name was Caiaphas. "
Although the moral influence of the Sanhedrin reached into most, if not all, of the Jewish communities, it must be borne in mind that its judicial authority was limited to the area of Judea, and therefore it had no authority over Jesus whilst He remained in Galilee - an important point to remember when we move into the Gospel narratives of the ministry of Jesus! But the authority of the Sanhedrin was more than just religious or spiritual, for it was the Supreme Court of the population of Judea, allowed and tolerated by the Roman Proconsul to the limits laid down by him. He dealt with all matters which could not be dealt with competently by the local courts, and also matters which he decided should be dealt with directly by himself. To a degree, therefore, the Sanhedrin was constantly `pushing against' Roman authority in order to extend its own authority, and in the event of an indifferent Procurator its authority could increase to the measure of his indifference. The procedure of the Council was very clearly laid down by the Mishnah, as might be expected, and it is said that the members of the Council sat in a semi-circle so that they could all see each other. In front of them would sit two clerks, one to the left and the other to the right, in order to count and record the votes correctly. In addition there would also be learned men, disciples of the seventy members, no doubt longing for the day when they would be elevated! The prisoner was expected to appear in a humble attitude, dressed as for mourning, and the hearings would follow an exact and correct procedure of arguments for and against the prisoner - a fact that needs to be borne in mind when we come to look at the scene of the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin!
We shall end this second study of `walking in the footsteps of the Man Christ Jesus' by turning at last to the Gospel narrative. (We make no apology, however, for this brief review of `the players on the stage', for it is necessary in order to see the stage on which the drama is to unfold.) We pick up the narrative in the Gospel of Luke, where he records, `In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias Caesar - when Pontius Pilate was Governor of Judea, Herod (Antipas) Tetrarch of Galilee, his brother (Herod) Philip (2nd) Tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias (not of the house of Herod) Tetrarch of Abilene (to the north of Mount Hermon and outside the boundaries of Israel) - during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert' (3:1-2). As we would expect, we find Luke setting the historical scene by placing the actual historical people in their actual geographical areas over which their authority held sway.
The time had come in the purpose of God for the herald to come with the Good News of the Kingdom of God. Mark records it in this way:
"The beginning of the Gospel about Jesus Christ,
the Son of God. It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
I will send My messenger ahead of You,
who will prepare Your way -
a voice of one calling in the desert,
` Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for Him'. "
Matthew sets the geographical location: `In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, `Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near' (3:1-2). Luke takes this a little further and tells us that he was `preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins' (3:3). The sole ministry of John the Baptist was to announce the coming of the King and His Kingdom of Heaven, calling upon those who listened to be baptised for repentance and forgiveness of sins. Baptism wasn't new to the religious ceremonies of the Jews. What was new was the announcement of the long-awaited Messianic Kingdom and the Messiah who would rule over that Kingdom. His message was clear. It was a Messianic call, a call for those who heard it to identify themselves with this coming Messiah by being baptised for repentance and forgiveness of sins This passage is not to be taken as Scriptural authority for water baptism for believing Christians today, but it certainly was a clear message for the Jewish nation to repent and prepare for the long-awaited and promised Messiah and His everlasting Kingdom! Mark recalls their response: `The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptised by him in the Jordan River' (1:5).
Over the years many had come claiming to be the long-awaited Messiah, but the Sanhedrin had prepared for such a contingency and in Matthew's Gospel we see this plan moving into place. Whenever such a person appeared the Sanhedrin followed a well-prepared course of action. First, they would send out observers who would report back to the Sanhedrin, and after some consideration they would return to investigate and ask questions. Finally, they would come with all the authority and backing of the Sanhedrin to interogate those involved. We shall see all these stages in the course of the unfolding drama recorded in the various Gospels, and here in Matthew we see the first stage: `But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptising, he said to them, `You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance' (3:7-8). The words of John were not as undeserved as it would first seem, for he knew very well the system laid down for investigating a reported Messianic movement. Here he was baptising the multitudes in preparation for the coming Messiah - and the Pharisees and Sadducees came only to observe! `You brood of vipers' was John's reponse, `bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance (as have those whom you are observing)'.
The multitudes who came to John didn't come to observe. Luke records their words, `What shall we do then?' (3:10) and in answer John told them what was expected of them in the coming Kingdom. The Tax Collectors, he said, were called to act justly; the wealthy must show mercy; the soldiers were not to be violent. Luke goes on to tell us that `the people were waiting expectantly and were wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Messiah' (3:15). Matthew records John's quick response to their wondering - and with that response we have the clear revelation of the outcome of the ministry of the King who was soon to appear! John said, `I baptise you with water for repentance but after me will come One who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will clear His threshing floor, gathering wheat into His barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire' (3:11-12).
Keep clear in your understanding that this was a message of the herald to the people of Israel at that time to prepare themselves for the coming Messiah. All of those in the land of Israel who heard the message would be baptised one way or another. Those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah would be baptised with the Holy Spirit - born from above into the spiritual Kingdom of God. But those who would not believe in Him as Messiah would be baptised with fire and judgement in the Lake of Fire! The message was clear: The coming Messiah would `clear His threshing floor, gathering wheat (the believing Jews) into His barn and burning up the chaff (the unbelieving Jews) with unquenchable fire' (3:12). Following the death and resurrection of Jesus and His ascension into heaven, the way would be opened up for all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, to be born from above into the spiritual Kingdom of God through belief in Jesus as Messiah and Christ. But here in these passages of Scripture the Gospel writers are referring to the Jews in the land of Israel at the time of the preaching of the Good News by the faithful herald. John . . his very name meaning `grace' . . announced a new Kingdom of Grace and Truth for all who would believe in the coming Messiah. The new Covenant of Grace and Truth was indeed close at hand!
We close this second study of following in the footsteps of `the Man Christ Jesus' with the words of Luke: (Luke 3:18)
" And with many other words John exhorted the
people and preached the Good News to them. "
